Solo

hmmm...let me think about that one !.........................

........................nope, an expert graphologist comparing Smith's notes in Greek to the text of the Mar Saba exhibit would do the trick.

Jiri

Chris Weimer

Er, not quite. It would be much easier to compare Smith's handwriting with the manuscript at Mar Saba, don't you think?

Yuri Kuchinsky

Which should have made your job three times easier!

Yuri.

jgibson000

I'm sure that Larry Hurtado, Adella Collins, John Collins, Bart Ehrman, and Hans-Joseph Klauck would be surprised and amused to hear you say this, since they in fact do the very thing you say no one does.

Jeffrey Gibson

Solo

A plea for moderation in this debate. I think we all have to admit that there is simply is not enough evidence to support our separate conclusions.
The fundamental and necessary evidence for the authenticity of a document is the document itself. Without the document, whether it is a copy of Clement's letter to Theodore or the Talmud Jmmanuel, it is very difficult to sustain that the document is genuine. If you want to claim Clement's letter is genuine: SHOW ME THE MANUSCRIPT! (apologies to Cuba Gooding, Jr.)
As for the issue of whether Secret Mark is a modern forgery or even that Smith was the forger, it is premature to argue such because, as I said earlier, there is no document. Without a showing of an inauthentic document, the question of forgery is largely moot. However, Smith is one of the few people in the world to have the means and opportunity, if not the motive, to do so.
My final point is on the argument that Smith cannot be the forger because he lacks the competence to technically pull it off. If I were a highly respected scholar in the field, I would rather be slandered by an accusation of forgery than by an accusation of incompetence.

Stephen Carlson (in 1998)

Jiri

S.C.Carlson

Thanks for the memories. Two years after I wrote that, Charlie Hedrick came back from Jerusalem (2000) with new (to scholars), color photographs, independently taken by someone other than Smith. Further eyewitness evidence of the manuscript was published in 2003 by Guy Stroumsa. These established beyond reasonable doubt the existence of the manuscript from 1958 through 1973 precisely where Smith said he left it.

Stephen

Solo

I see.

And these photographs of presumably the same pages, being as you stress, in color, and witnesses saying they saw the manuscript, you then consider as good evidence as the document itself. Is that what you are saying now ?

Also, I am unclear how the locale of the manuscript between 1958 and 1973 is established 'beyond reasonable doubt' if the evidence you cite comes from witnesses seeing them or their facsimile in years 2000 and 2003. Could you shed light on that ?

Jiri

S.C.Carlson

Prof. Guy Stroumsa was part of a group of Western scholars who not only found the MS at Mar Saba in the 1976 (not 1973 as I mistyped) right where Smith said he left it, but who also transferred the MS to Jerusalem, where it was later photographed independently of both Smith and Strousma.

Though Stroumsa didn't publish his information until 2003, he had personal, eyewitness knowledge of the document's transfer from Mar Saba to Jerusalem. (The others in the group of scholars are unfortunately dead.)

So Stroumsa corroborates Smith's statement that the MS was at Mar Saba when he left, and the photographs published in 2000 (but taken in the late 1970s) confirm Stroumsa's corroboration. There is no remaining reasonable doubt about the MS's presence at Mar Saba from 1958 to 1976.

I suppose it might conceivable as physically possible that someone could have broken into Mar Saba and temporarily stolen the MS between 1958 and 1976, but there is absolute no evidence to suggest this, which is why I talk about reasonable doubt.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

Also back in 1998, I was still thinking that Secret Mark was probably unsolvable due to lack of evidence. I was wrong.

Solo

No, I think you were right then and wrote the book (the way you wrote it) against your better judgment. You have no case-breaking evidence that I can see. It looks like you yielded to the temptation of having the sentence first.

The physical specimen of the manuscript is absolutely vital as it undoubtedly holds the most crucial forensic evidence in the verdict of genuineness/forgery, evidence which will instantly vaporize any plausible speculation on either side of the issue. As there is certain, still quite high, probability the document in question will show up, you are gambling with your reputation, as your book would become instantly libellous if Smith were cleared of forgery. I will not contemplate here the possibility of the pot calling the kettle black, i.e. your knowing that the document was in fact destroyed, and withholding that information from your audience.

I read The Gospel Hoax, and found it quite interesting and informative. You obviously have keen, long-standing interest in the matter and are well-read on it. You also have taken certain position on the issue, which is fine by me as long as you are fair and reasonable. As I have indicated, my problem with the book is not that you believe Morton perpetrated forgery or speculating on it but making unjustified claims of having evidentiary proof and thereby smearing Morton Smith's reputation, even if perhaps only prematurely.

I don't believe you have the goods, much less delivered them, to go around and broadcast that Smith had a secret wish to be exposed as a "swindler". I am actually shocked that you, a budding lawyer, would decide to take such a route. Do you not know justice Brian’s 1477 rule, declaring the thought of man is not triable, for the devil himself knoweth not the heart of man ? The charge that you laid on Smith is heavy and frankly I do not care for the self-serving distinction between hoax and fraud, which seems to me simply a way you justify to yourself going at him full throttle. Bottom line, you are alleging an act of moral turpitude.

It’s not that I am Morton Smith’s admirer. Unlike Yuri, I believe he behaved irresponsibly, in not securing a timely access to the manuscript, in not pushing for the forensics on it, and in not requesting written opinions on the expert dating of the hand. These omissions I consider inexcusable for a scholar. Therefore, discounting the Secret Gospel, as one simply too “secret” to be taken seriously would be a correct and fair posture for the academic community to take. And there are, of course, other issues that strain credulity. Given the omissions cited, for Smith to dedicate one of the two books he published on it to an unknown knower, is being too coy for my liking. He knew full well that the book would create controversy. Then of course there is his desire to have his personal papers destroyed on his passing which again raises questions. In that light, Andrew Criddle’s discovery of a hyper-Clementine lingo in the letter is interesting (whetever it means). Your linking Mar Saba to a scene of a fictional scholarly fraud and singling out the Voss’ volume as the only non-Venice publication, are indeed curious coincidences and relevant evidence. Bart Ehrman’s caustic comments on the irony of where in the Voss’ volume the ms appears are entirely apropos. Together, such issues create weight on which Secret Mark will be ultimately judged if we are denied more substantial input. But much of the other “evidence” in which you seem to place such confidence, looks unreal to me. Let me briefly address the issues as I see them:

The Manuscript: You state (p.25) that there are three reasons which make it improbable the ms originates where Smith said his experts placed it: the 18th. century. In order they would be: 1) something that you perceive as the “forger’s tremor” and “anomalies in shape of the letters”, 2) the absence of evidence for the ms at Mar Saba before 1958, and 3) the linking of Smith via ‘M.Madiotes’ to the handwriting of the manuscript.
Scott Brown (“Reply to Stephen Carlson” Expository Times, vol 117. 2006) keenly observed there really is only one issue with the manuscript, the third one. Your whole hoax theory crumbles if you cannot connect Smith to Madiotes and the handwriting of ms #22 to that of ms#65. And he takes a position of strong dissent from your opinion. Though his points to you are technical, and therefore not always accessible to me (not having any experience in Greek manuscript evaluation), his summary casts doubt on your standards generally, and there the issues are plain. Whether or not I accept his view that it is “an unlikely conclusion” the two hands are identical, I definitely can see his point as it crops elsewhere in your writing: The fact that Carlson drew such an unlikely conclusion without couching it in probabilities or acknowledging any disconfirming evidence underscores the wisdom of leaving forensic document examination to disinterested and highly qualified professionals.

The absence of evidence for the ms at Mar Saba before Smith’s arrival is a point for you when read against the “exception” in the Voss’ publishing provenance. I am granting you that on the understanding that the old cliché of no evidence of absence still applies.

Which leaves us with the shaky hands. “What they do to a man, those shaky hands” John Entwhistle used to sing in The Who’s version of the Marian minicult. It never ceases to amaze me how the silliest jargon seems to intimidate otherwise very bright people. There is a famous anecdote in which Jung scared Freud to death when he announced to him that the loud report he just heard issuing from the mahogany bookcase in the room, was an example of “catalytic exteriorization” of a ghost. Similarly, some bright people here consider the “forger’s tremor” a strong argument.

I guess they did not notice how the idea is introduced in the writing. The notion that such a thing is present enters after some gratuitous links have been made between Secret Mark and known literary forgeries in the past. The explanation for the term is not offered immediately, or after an exposition and deliberation of what behaviors may be considered for the observed phenomena and under what conditions. The impression on the reader’s mind is to be made first by a dismissive label.

The passages dealing with the tremor fall into a style of argument in which you suggest that this or that aspect of Secret Mark fits into a known pattern of forger’s behaviour, then followed by a sleight of hand in which you present often dubious interpretation of facts as indisputable facts themselves. Pfaff’s forgery was traced by Harnack into anachronism of a dispute between Pietists and Lutherans in Pfaff’s time. The Theodore’s treatment of salt and Secret Mark’s homosexuality are declared anachronistic, ergo the Mar Saba ms is a forgery. The planting of jokes and clues is endemic in hoaxes. A would-be Sophocles planted an acrostic saying in which he identified himself by the slur on his opponent, ergo a salt company name which just happens to coincide with Smith’s first name must be a plant by Smith, even though there is no clue here other than that Clement uses a salt metaphor which you were unwilling or unable to puzzle out. Similarly, some unnamed person forged the checks of one Hellen Huellen, leaving signs of hesitation, uneven pressure and varied speed of writing, identified by an handwriting expert as artifact known as “forger’s tremor”. You then immediately assert, without the aid of the expert, that some of the signs of hesitation, uneven pressure, and varied speed of writing that appear in the manuscript are in fact evidence of forger’s tremor and allied conditions in Smith’s discovery.

But even on a cursory examination this assertion does not hold water. In the case of Helen Huellen, her signature on cheques was being forged, i.e. the context and intent of forgery was known and the issue was prosecuted (or litigated). The harm was explicit and the caution in “painting” the name then plausibly pointed to as an exhibit of mens rea. By contrast, you yourself champion the theory that Morton Smith did the hoax for fun, to assert his superiority. It is not then at all clear why his hand should have been shaking. Was it at the thought he did not have enough time to practice his 18th century Greek hand imitation ?

Your speculation will fare even worse if one contemplates it against other real possibilities for whatever handwriting anomalies you observe. You grudgingly admit that the tremor might be a sign of old age only to dismiss right away as inconsistent with the other signs. But for all we really know, the inconsistent writing could have in reality any number of explanations, singly or in combinations: the copying monk could have had poor eyesight, could have been distracted when writing, or tired, or cold, or drunk, or suffering from ticks, fighting off the devil or struggling with Menier’s syndrome, or disbelieving the outrage he saw on paper, or unsure of the orthography he was looking at. There could be any number of ways explaining the scrawl other than insisting it is a proof of forgery. One cannot read Smith’s intent into the handwriting if the intent itself is not corroborated by some substantial finding, in this case, at minimum, in being able to positively identify him as the writer of the manuscript. Brown has it right.

Salt. You state with confidence (p.61), that the technological anachronism in the salt-making implied in Theodore is no less damning to its authenticity that the Prussian Blue was to Archaic Mark. But is there any real technological anachronism in Clement’s salt metaphor or is just that the eye of the beholder in this case has a beam in it ? The argument you present has a distinct air of unreality. The idea that Morton Smith wished to identify himself as a forger by mutilating a Clementine idiom on faith it would become eventually apparent to a wise Clementine scholar who is also familiar with the inventions of certain salt company whose name, behold, is Morton Something-or-other, is nothing if not bizzare. Paranoia, they say, is total awareness !

Of course, I am a Clementine scholar to the extent that I know her father was a miner and a forty-niner, but that is beside the point. Here, I note that you were eagerly nodding to Andrew Criddle’s mathematically provoked suspicions of hyper-Clementine style, but when a certain innocent-looking variance in his idiom occurs, you are quickly on a different horse. And even though, not being a Clementine scholar, I cannot tell whether he, believing that some in the flock are not salty enough to begin with, contradicts himself when he says some true things when mixed with untruths are false, as even salt loses its flavour. In terms of logic, I do not see a contradiction. To me, the two statements address two different problems: the Stromateis’ saying targets those in the flock who just don’t get it; Theodore’s lowers the boom on the apostates. Surely the corresponding salt metaphors would look different.

On the issue whether the “mixing” idiom assumes some technological process and specifically adulteration of salt, I would say, no, it does not. To begin with, the Mt 5:13/Lk14:34 saying is a hyperbole as there is plenty of evidence that the ancients prized the stable property of salt, nowhere better illustrated than in the salarium of the Roman legions. The saying suggests the loss of salt’s savor as equal to the loss of faith; for neither there is a substitute. The letter to Theodore applies this saying against admixture of elements foreign to Christian belief; he likens it the salt losing its savor if mixed with elements which are not salt. There is no need to postulate a technological process of adulterating salt, or texture of salt which facilitates such process. The metaphor works with any “impure” form of salt regardless whether it is found in the wild or is produced intentionally/carelessly by men.

The most common form of salt extraction around the globe has been brine evaporation. The salt produced that way in the past varied in quality because of changing quantities of residual elements and compounds to halite. Two most common issues, taste-wise, with sea salt would be the concentrations of calcium sulphate and magnesium chloride. Both affect the taste of salt if not properly separated. The former is a dessicant and tasteless – naturally makes salt lose some of its “saltiness”-, the latter adds a distinctly bitter flavour.

Homosexuality – the TLG negative result on the μενω-συν-νυκτα query is significant and objective but it is a far cry from establishing any sort of ‘Secret Mark’s seal of authorship’ for Morton Smith. In a libel trial, the best such evidence would give you with a lenient judge, is a right to pursue this line of questioning. My guess though is that it would not get you too far with a smart counterpart because you appear clueless about homosexuality and its history.

Your view of homosex in the 1950’s suffers from characteristic stereotyping. You say it was an “oppressive period for homosexual men in America”. I say it was not nearly as oppressive as the two recent gay histories you cite would have you believe. For starters, the word “gay” did not have much usage in the US then; it was still slang confined to the UK and used as it was since the early 1700, to denote easy street-wise living of prostitution, petty crime, and being “turned on on both ends”. The hyper-sexed “queer” culture operated in the US mostly around bars and private houses, and had no sustained desire to dominate public places as it aggressively clamored fifteen-twenty years later. Its members would feel oppressed the same way the “poor queers” (I use the term as Gore Vidal does) today feel when they are not allowed to march in drag around obscene floats on St.Patrick Day parades. The archaic anti-sodomy laws were used sporadically and usually in retaliation for some public outrage. I do not deny that some homosexuals then (more than now) were individually molested, or discriminated against in a variety of ways, without provocation. Unfortunately, this is the way humans behave against all minorities. More germane, here is the finding that until the appearance of the beatniks, the group had near-zero group-consciousness, and the process of identifying itself as a “community” of shared interests was in its infancy. The beat dads (Kerouac, Burroughs, Ginsberg) was a very small, tightly knit group of anarchist leftists which which had in the early going very little to do with sexual politics other than that they practiced same-sex themselves ( an interview with Alan Ginsberg shortly before his death, reveals the group’s hot buttons in politics and its cosmology. There is some backdating through the “gay” lens but mostly it’s a historical account ).
By contrast, the homosexuals in intellectual and professional elites of the era were classically self-aware and ambivalent about their orientation. There is non known link of them to the “queer” counter-culture, but plenty of evidence they disliked it. Ginsberg, in the interview above, pokes fun at J.Edgar Hoover, in private a known transvestite, for his view that the sexuality of the beatniks was politically subversive. Gore Vidal, on the opposite end of the political spectrum, also remained basically hostile. On one hand, the elite homosexuals had a sense of superiority to everyone (including the S/M scene of the gay bars), on the other hand, self-loathing which had in my (minority) opinion has not much to do with any real or imagined homophobia. (For a brilliant self-analysis of self-esteem in a person with bull-catamite conversions see works by Jean Genet). Most were complexed and many struggled; some were quite well-adjusted. Some were powerful and influential: J. Edgar Hoover, Senator Joe McCarthy, his wunderkind lawyer Roy Cohen, Cardinal Spellman. When the New York press threatened the cardinal to expose his wild yacht orgies on the Hudson (which broke the unspoken 1950’s rules of discretion), he sent one of his blond boys to tell them : ‘you can print whatever you want. Who do you think will believe it ?’. Well, certainly not Catholics. No, some strata of homosexuals then were definitely not as oppressed or vilified as they are today.

As for homosex in antiquity, again, the impression you give is of a babe in the woods, if you think age would have been barrier to physical contact between two men attracted to each other. Your stereotype of Athenian “pedagogical pederasty” has by now been all but discarded in academia (http://www.sydneyline.com/Higher%20Sodomy.htm) besides the relevant historical questions here are the sexual mores of the Jewish hinterland from which Jesus repaired and where he preached, the practices of Carpocratians and the views of Clement. As far as I can see his catechism on the subject is impeccably Pauline. As for the boy’s attire and naked body, the fragment does not invent Mark’s 14:51-52; it only (possibly) ties Jesus one-on-one to that obscure figure, suggesting something only to those who are suggestible. What Jesus and the boy did all night, may be an interesting question to some, but the whole early movement being founded and chronicled by insomniacs, it may be left unanswered in this case as in that of Paul’s preoccupations in the all-night discussion that ensued after his resuscitation of the boy Eutychus in Acts 20.

So, to assume some general ‘gay solidarity’ and lashing back by Smith at the establishment for being denied something on account of being a homosexuial or pandering to a counter-culture that was still at least a decade away, is anachronistic and naïve about the social milieu in the U.S. at the time of the Secret Mark appearance. It is quite possible that he did have some motive to forge an ancient text which related to his putative sexuality. But you are not showing anything that would withstand a rational scrutiny. A bare-assed innuendo that his ‘signature’ was in that he was wink-wink-nudge-nudge-you-know-what-I-mean just won’t cut it. Nothing denies that charge better than Smith’s academic focus which except for a minor glee over the possibility that the human incarnation of God himself liked boys, had no visible axe to grind. If you want to see this as a part of a grand strategy of distraction I can only offer you the words of the devil himself, aptly defending himself against a zealous Inquisitor:
Quesnell claims he did these unlikely things because he knew they were things a forger would not do (p. 56, n. 16). With such a theory you can’t lose. The things that fit your thesis fit; the things that don’t, also fit. Compare the fundamentalist explanation of fossils: they were created by the Supreme Mystifier to test our faith in the story of creation. When a theory must be defended by such hypotheses it is indefensible.
http://dreamwater.org/bccox/CBQ_38-2_MSreply.html

So, as far as I am concerned , Morton is still a step ahead of you. You have overcommitted and went after a dead man recklessly attacking his character with patently inconclusive evidence. Frankly, I am not impressed.

Best regards,

Jiri