stephan huller

This is not much of a post but I spent most of this week pestering Bonnie Mullen of BAR with phone calls to find out if they were going to publish Agamemnon Tselikas already late report on the Mar Saba document in this month's issue. Mullen's response, surprisingly, was that they still haven't received a report so the article will not be in this months issue.

Just some background for people who aren't aware of what is going on here.

Hershel Shanks had contracted two experts to examine the surviving photos of Morton Smith's discovery at the Mar Saba monastery half a century ago. BAR published the first of the two reports last month. a Greek hand writing expert Venetia Anastasopoulou, "a prominent handwriting expert... who has frequently testified in Greek courts" compared the handwriting in Clement's letter to Theodore with numerous examples of Morton Smith's own handwriting, including the complete transcription of Theod. from 1958, and Appendix A (Palaeographic Peculiarities) from Smith's Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark (1973) illustrating the various ligatures and abbreviations found in the questioned text. The sample material was decided to be "sufficient in quality and quantity to be able to reach a conclusion" by her.

Anastasopoulou begins by noting that the handwriting in Theod. "looks like an artistic design of good quality... the text is written spontaneously with an excellent rhythm". Turning to the samples of Smith's writing, her tone is quite different:

"Conclusion: There is an obvious difference in his mother tongue writing and in his Greek writing. His writing in English language is fluent with letter connections between the words, with personal abbreviations and characteristics, whereas the Greek words are written letter-letter as copy book at a lower speed, without ease and the range of variations is very limited. His writing is like that of a school student."

Based on these three observations - that the writing in Theod. is written with "freedom, spontaneity and artistic flair" , that the English writing by Smith is also "spontaneous and unconstrained, with a very good rhythm", whereas in Smith's Greek writing "the movement is constrained" and the overall impression is that of a "school student" - Anastasopoulou concludes that "it is highly probable that Morton Smith could not have simulated the document of “Secret Mark”". She further qualifies her expert opinion reminding that it is "based solely on the documents listed as having been examined... This opinion is subject to amendment if additional examinations are performed using additional exemplars which may exhibit evidence not observable in the documents upon which this opinion was based". (this summary was taken from Timo Paananen's excellent site http://salainenevankelista.blogspot....riting_14.html)

Given the importance of the first report, everyone interested in the Secret Mark debate was looking to the second report by Tselikas which Shanks notes in the last issue, was about to take a very different point of view:

Agamemnon Tselikas... has concluded that Morton Smith forged the letter containing Secret Mark.

Based on our conversations, this is the basis for Dr. Tselikas’s conclusion: He has examined other manuscripts from Mar Saba and concluded that the Secret Mark letter was not written by a monk there. He has located another document at another monastery that he believes was written by the monk whose handwriting Smith was attempting to imitate. He has also learned that Smith was at this other monastery examining manuscripts. (Source: BAR May / June 2010)

I know the author through a mutual friend and his explanation of what Tselikas was going to say was a little different. Apparently Tselikas was originally going to argue that Smith went two different monasteries and planted two texts with matching handwriting.

Whatever the case Tselikas seems to have found a handwriting match for the Mar Saba document BUT can't develop a plausible argument for the forgery hypothesis (which was his opinion on the text going into writing the report and moreover the general opinion of the monks living and working in the Jerusalem Patriarchy - i.e. that it was a fake). I have asked him to forward me the matching handwriting sample and WHEN AND IF I get it I will have send a copy to two friends on differing side of the debate - Birger Pearson and Charles Hedrick in order to see if they can come to some consensus about the matching text.

I will post the results at my blog in a few months time.

Here are the details of my phone conversation with Mullen. Will keep everyone posted.

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...y-we-will.html

DCHindley

It seems to me that just about everyone who had read up on this matter has come to the conclusion that the Letter to Theodore containing the Secret Mark is peculiar, and may not originate from Mar Saba. I base such a conclusion on the fact that the book by Voss (establishing the authentic Ignatian letters from the inauthentic, into which the letter fragment is copied), is out of place - published in Venice, featuring analysis in ecclesiastical Latin - suggesting it was once the possession of a Roman Catholic or Protestant Christian from the west.

However, this Madiotes (or whatever it is really spelled like) whose hand most closely resembles that of the Letter to Theodore, has a fluent Greek hand of a type that is common to Eastern Orthodox monks. That doesn't mean, though, that he was from Mar Saba. Finding mss with this same hand at another monastery only demonstrates that whoever he was, he had been resident for a while at both places.

So I do not understand how the leap is made that because Smith had been at the other Monastery as well as Mar Saba, that he is the lead suspect in its creation (i.e., that he is Madiotes). What kind of document is this at the other monastery. A copied manuscript, a commentary, a private letter, bookkeeping, etc?

Interestingly, the book Travels in Three Continents, by J M Buckley (published 1894), which is freely available online, says in Chapter XLVIII (48) "The library is famous, but the key is kept by the [Russian Orthodox] patriarch, in Jerusalem, and the monks do not have access to it." (pg 404) Now 50-60 years transpired between then and Smith's visits, and the famous library was moved to Jerusalem in the early 19th century, but it suggests that before then, no common monk was allowed to use it. It was visited by higher ranking visitors from the church hierarchy or those with their express permission (meaning academics). This Voss book was probably not included in the move of mss, and sure, it may have got into the remnants of the collection after then.

But as long as speculation reigns, consider that Buckley was there to visit, and he also visited Venice. Why not suggest him as the mystery person who brought the mss hence? Of course, I am not being serious, but with the atmosphere is so thick with conspiracy theories, I am suggesting that folks are clutching at any straws to "explain away" the Letter to Theodore as a modern fake. There were plenty of ancient fakes (Christian pseudepigrapha is full of examples of various kinds of gospels and acts and revelations, etc), any of which may have served as the basis of this monk's copy of the Letter of Theodore. The monk may have found it in a manuscript letter, but he can also be mistaken as to who wrote it. Misattribution of writings was also fairly common in antiquity.

DCH

mountainman

Biblical archaeology is representative of the proverbial empty set when applied to the new testament. And Clement is just another romantic religious forgery anyway, so why worry about Morton Smith's romantic religious forgery of Clement?

The Mar Saba Letter is an epistle attributed to Clement of Alexandria and discovered by Morton Smith in 1958.

Clement is just another non historical Eusebian romantic religious forgery -- The Clementine literature (also called Clementina, Pseudo-Clementine Writings, Kerygmata Petrou, Clementine Romance etc.) is the name given to the religious romance which purports to contain a record made by one Clement (whom the narrative identifies as both Pope Clement I, and Domitian's cousin Titus Flavius Clemens) of discourses involving the apostle Peter, together with an account of the circumstances under which Clement came to be Peter's travelling companion, and of other details of Clement's family history

stephan huller

I think I am noticing a pattern at this site. I never knew that there was a mythicist position on the Church Fathers before. You learn something new every week.

Well, believe it or not I basically agree that there is something fishy about so many people Christians throughout the first two centuries of the religion who happen to have the name a second cousin to Roman Emperors to Titus and Domitian who was eventually executed, allegedly for converting to Judiasm.

This identity 'Titus Flavius Clemens' seems to be dumped on any number of people. You mention the two most notable cases however I am not inclined to believe that the writings associated with Clement of Alexandria were written by space aliens. They really are early Alexandrian writings. That he often seems to cite the same scripture with many different readings suggests to me at least that there was a lot of mistakes in the transcription, an intentional later 'correction' of his writings or both.

I just think we should be careful though when we start referencing things as 'forgeries' and 'fictions.' I quicker think that whoever was behind the persona of 'Clement of Alexandria' he had a bad enough reputation that Origen didn't want to associate himself with his writings.

The writings of Clement of Alexandria represent the work of a real individual who undoubtedly lived at the end of the second, beginning of the third century. I have always toyed with the idea that Clement's real name was Theodotus and that is why the Excerpta were just 'thrown into the suitcase' as it were of Clementine writings.

The Liber Pontificalis identifies the Alexandrian bishop at the time of Victor as TheoPHILUS. There are also TWO quasi heretics known to the author of the Philosophumena named Theodotus.

I can't however prove that Titus Flavius Clemens of Alexandria was ever named Theodotus or any other name other than the EXACT same appellation as the Roman senator and one of the first supposed Popes of Rome. It's just a hunch. But I also think that the Letter to Theodore was written long before Morton Smith discovered it.

What other REAL possibilities are there that 'the guy called Clement of Alexandria by the Church Fathers' was the original author of the material?

Toto

I don't think that there is a such a position.

The only pattern at this site is that we allow free speech. You happened to have found two outliers who represent only themselves.

mountainman

Its a real pity that you do not seem to appreciate that an outlier position clearly exists (apparently outside your comprehension) and that such a position has been listed --- for a long time --- by R.G. Price in his "spectrum of mythicism" as item numero eight:

mythicist position on the Church Fathers

It is an absolute fact if you care to go and check it that the Church Fathers throughout the 4th century and until the time of Cyril of Alexandria were continually associated with The Three Hundred and Eighteen Nicaean Agreement State Religion type of "Church Fathers".. The authority of the 318 was the going thing from Nicaea until Cyril, who as the first to start the practice of making the retrojecting of the term to apply to the "Church Fathers" referred to in the Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius. But not too many people mention this disturbing fact.

Early reference to the (ahem) "Clementine Literature" and the Ebionite Connection

The WIKI page provides the following about the Earliest References to the (ahem) "Clementine Literature" which, when read with an open mind, could be taken as another introduction to the "Testimonium Flavianum". You'll note that the Ebionites somehow get associated here (also see Baur's comments following).

stephan huller

Sometimes I don't even know what I am arguing about at this place. What do the purported writings of Clement of Rome (the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions) have to do with the Mar Saba letter? Just curious.

vid

mountainman just likes to turn every topic into "Eusebius forged church fathers" topic.

Anyway, there is one rather lame question I couldn't find answer for. If I understand correctly, the leaves containing that letter were torn out from the book and are held by someone from monastery where it was found. So, what is his problem with submitting one page for physical / chemical testing?

avi

For example, NMR spectroscopy?

How about this: Post testing, what shall we conclude:
a. the document dates from third century;
b. the document dates from third century and was written then, too.
c. the document dates from third century, but spectroscopic analysis of the chemical composition of the ink suggests a more modern date for the composition.

and about a hundred other possibilities....

no magic bullets.....

If one has OLD ink, or the ability to fabricate "old" ink, and "old" papyrus, can one not write, in modern times, an "ancient" manuscript, with a bit of patience, and a modest amount of good luck?

I don't think that physical-chemical testing will satisfy anyone.

avi

avi

And then, some of us simply lie, and one or two of us, also lie outside the borders of "out", so we are beyond the outer extremity, well past the "outliers". Just think of Pluto, no longer a planet....

avi