Haran

I actually found some time to visit the library today and found the periodical in which he published the Sophocles find: Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies Vol. 3, 1960, p. 40ff.

According to Smith, the Sophocles MS was discovered at Mar Saba in the binding of a book published in 1746. The article has pictures of the MS and some technical notes about the MS.

I find it interesting that this article was published in 1960, two brief years after the MS finds, and the technical information mentions specific paleographical observations about the 15th century hand.

In other words, I think Smith was most likely quite knowledgeable in Greek paleography when he "discovered" his MSS. How else would he have been able to read them and know what they were?

If he already knew the paleography of this period (which I find highly likely from what I have read of his frequent studies of this particular time period - the 17th & 18th centuries keep popping up in his works) and could read the MSS, then he also could have forged them. He had access to the books and was allowed to take them back to his room.

1958 was his (at least) second visit to the monastery. He was already knowledgeable on his first journey to the monastery. I believe he also wrote his Tanaitic Parallels to the Gospels, which contains ideas eerily similar to what is contained in "Secret Mark" between this first visit and his second. It would have been easy to use his knowledge at this point to construct the text and then write it into the back covers of a book just like he had witnessed the ancient scribes doing.

If we only had the MS and Voss book, we could test the ink and other things. If only...

Doctor X

Haran:

Indeed. That is the problem I have . . . "show me the damn document" and let it get tested rather than speculate. No disrespect to Yuri, but nothing is more definitive than testing a document.

--J.D.

Haran

Oddly enough, I found this in Morton Smith's own words today in his popular Secret Gospel:

"It was going to be a big job [i.e. working on the MS]. I sat in the library of the American School in Athens and doodled on my notes as I looked ahead at years of work to come. Circles within circles within circles...and what lines of connection could be drawn between them? But no, I certainly was not going to suppress it. It might turn out to be a fake, but even that result would be significant. And fake or not, the puzzle was going to be fun."

Another thing I have always found interesting was Smith's fascination with how scholars react to finds by bending them to fit their own theories:

"I have related these two interviews because they show two great scholars, with diametrically different attitudes and intellectual qualifications, confronted with important new evidence in the field of their special competence, and reaching immediately the conclusions compatible with their previous positions. Consistency is a frightening virtue. If scholars of the caliber of Goodenough and Nock could react in this way, how far can I trust myself? Not far, I fear, but at least I'm aware of the problem. That is why I look forward to the scholarly discussion that will follow the publication of the text. What will others see in it? And what evidence will they be able to find to support their insights? For the scholars, at least, the matter will come down, in the end, to the question of evidence."

*eh..hem...* Where is the evidence??

If one reads the above keeping in mind the possibility that Smith forged the document, it seems to take on the cast of a scholarly prank to see how other scholars will mold and graft the contents of the MS into their own theories. This is not the only place where he states such interests in how scholars react to new discoveries.

Looking at it as forgery, the dedications of his books take on a new light. One to A.D. Nock (who was one of the two scholars mentioned in the quote above and did not accept Morton's theories and this fascinated Smith judging by his comments) and the other book to "The One Who Knows". Perhaps "The One Who Knows" is the one who sees through the veil of an intricate forgery?

These are only a few of the things that lead me toward a conclusion of forgery. The rest have been stated by Ehrman and many others.

Without a MS to test and with the mysterious circumstances and very strange coincidences, it seems time to recognize this "discovery" for what it more than likely is...a modern forgery.

Vorkosigan

Good work, Haran. I've enjoyed this thread immensely. I love a good fraud, unless it is perpetrated on me.

Haran

Tell me about it...

Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, all,

I've read replies by Haran, Vork and others and all I see is just more of the same... All you guys have are speculations only, a big bunch of wouldas and couldas. You certainly do demonstrate your highly suspicious frame of mind, but that's about the only hard evidence of anything that I see in your replies...

Of course, I could have answered whatever "arguments" you have there point by point, but why bother? Just about all of them have already been answered before, by various people.

For example, "the MS is currently unavailable". Yes, but how can this ever serve as any sort of a basis for condemning Smith? It seems quite obvious that these conservative Christian monks are playing hide-and-seek with the MS, and the best way to explain this, of course, is that they feel that the text might be "heretical" and damaging to the Christian faith. So why blame Smith then? Smith was not a monk!

Also, try to use your logic a bit... If the monks had _any evidence_ at all that the MS was a forgery -- perpetrated by Smith in order to damage the Holy Mother Church -- IMHO they would have already been screaming about it from their monastery's rooftops long ago! But instead, they mostly look and act rather embarrassed... The best way to explain their embarrassment, in my view, is that they have _no evidence of forgery_!

In any case, it does seem rather cute how the radicals and the conservatives on this forum have finally found a way to bond around this issue, in accusing another radical (Smith) of fraud in order to damage the Holy Christian Faith... I really find this one quite remarkable...

But, anyways, all that is kid's play -- just joking around. Meanwhile, I now have solid textual evidence that the MS could not have been a forgery, but nobody seems interested in that, for some reason... Hmm...

Yours,

Yuri.

Doctor X

Yuri:

Or they suspect it is a forgery.

This is like those Ethiopian monks who have the Ark of the Covenant hidden . . . but no so well hidden a popular fiction writer can find it!

We need the damn document. Otherwises, frankly, it is speculation against speculation. Show the thing and the writing is earlier than Smith and you exonerate Smith. It may still be a "forgery" but that depends on the definition of forgery--a bit like a PseudoPauline letter which is a "forgery" with respect to Paul, but preserves a theology some guys held important enough to retroject back to Paul.

--J.D.

Haran

Exactly. I'm not sure Yuri sees how subjective and speculative his own opinions about the authenticity of Secret Mark are without a physical MS.

I'd love to address your "findings" in Secret Mark, Yuri, but I'm afraid I cannot find the necessary time (at least not enough for an entire critique). As for others here, they would also have to have the necessary time, knowledge, and desire in order to challenge the lengthy article you've written. It's not really surprising to me that no one has taken on the challenge.

Unfortunately, since I would probably be using modern scholarship to address your findings, you probably would not accept my conclusions anyway. As I said before, most of what you have found are one or two word phrases in English (rather than addressing the actual Aramaic/Greek correlation which would be much more informative). I just don't see these short "parallels" as making a good case for what you are speculating about Secret Mark.

By the way, Morton Smith played mostly by the same game book as the other modern scholars you denounce. Why do you defend him and yet speculate about Bruce Metzger's integrity (and apparently every other modern textual critic)? I see great contradictions here... Do you not?

Roger Pearse

Ah, but it is a relevant factor because, as we read in Goodspeed, Beskow and the others who have written on modern forged gospels, Jesus in India, and the like, the absence of the ms is one of the signs of forgery.

That said, I think the independent testimony of ... (whatsisface) ... indicates that the Ms *does* exist.

I'm afraid this is all anti-clerical or anti-Christian prejudice. Most people in the world don't give a toss about manuscripts, including nearly all clery. Many of those who hold mss regard them as a nuisance or a possible source of profit. Finally people in the Near East are not very organised, which is why they are all poor. These seem much more relevant than a conspiracy theory against... well, whoever has it.

If I may give an example which is currently annoying me, I am trying to get some photos online of a 1494 Locatellus edition of Tertullian. Lambeth Palace Library have one, but will not allow me to photograph it, and will not photograph it themselves unless I pay them $1300, plus an annual fee (unspecified) if the pix appear online. That is not because the works of Tertullian are 'dangerous to the faith' -- as if clergy like Gene Robinson care -- but a combination of carelessness and greed. That is in the UK. Heaven knows what would happen if this were Mar Saba.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Haran

I'm glad you highlighted a couple of Yuri's statments, Roger, because I'd like to address them too.

As Roger mentioned (although I'm not sure who "whatsisface" is ), I also think the MS probably exists.

However, the physical MS has not been studied. As to how this can "ever serve as any sort of a basis for condemning Smith"? Well, if the ink is modern or some other anomaly is found on the MS or Voss book, then the case against Secret Mark and Smith is that much stronger.

Once again, I have to agree with Roger...this seems like anti-Christian prejudice.

Besides, since the MS was last seen and photographed while Morton Smith was still alive, it seems at least as likely that Smith and/or an (inside?) accomplice could have ensured the MS's destruction or disappearance, especially if the ink was modern and they did not want it subjected to scientific testing.

I think the scholarly world should continue to treat Secret Mark as a sideline issue and even as a possible forgery unless the original MS shows up for testing. I'm sure this doesn't sit well with some of the more liberal scholars who seem mostly associated with the Jesus seminar, but I think is a positive thing that more scholars are mostly standing up to a possible forgery.

By the way, you condemn Ehrman, Yuri, but he has every reason to want Secret Mark to be authentic. It would be yet another building block for his current theories of textual development and early Christianity. Yet, unlike other scholars with similar theories, he seems to be rejecting Secret Mark (Ehrman states this much better in the set of JECS article that you mentioned and I have now read). Why would he seemingly reject a "discovery" that would bolster his case if he didn't honestly feel it was a forgery, Yuri?