Peter Kirby

On suggestion, I am splitting off the Secret Mark discussion to this thread.

Hi Bede,

Its providence is too poor? You mean, like, Morton Smith wasn't guided by God in finding it? I assume you mean provenance. But I still don't get your point: if we knew it was Clementine, what is it about the "provenance" that means scholars shouldn't use it for talking about Clement, second century Christianity, and other matters? The only claim that I've seen so far about provenance is that it is not Clementine because Smith forged it, and we know this because Smith deliberately kept it from being physically examined by others. Is that the point you are making with that comment?

A while ago you mentioned in e-mail that you disclaim the idea of forgery by Smith and accept that Clement was the likely author of the letter, but that the alleged version of Mark can't be assumed to be older than Clement of Alexandria. What new evidence do you have? Quesnell?

You say that there is a "million to one shot it is really Clementine." That's a pretty high confidence level. Can you point to one fact that is inconsistent with authorship by Clement of Alexandria?

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Haran's Reply - copied from other thread

Bede may respond, but I would imagine that he is referring to Morton Smith probably being the only (or at least one of the very few) to ever see the original. Then, he left it at the monastery, showed pictures to some scholars, then much much later published a book. He found it, what, in the late fifties, published on it, what, in the seventies, I think, and the manuscript is still missing today though people have gone searching for it. The manuscript was scrawled in 18th century greek miniscule in the back of an old book. This all kind of leads up to poor provenance to me.

As to forgery by Morton Smith, read his doctoral thesis and then his later works, noting in particular his own rhetoric. You might might find that something is rotten in the state of Denmark, or whatever....

Bede

Hi Peter,

Actually, this whole ossuary thing and Quesnell changed my mind.

The inscription on the ossuary is 'historically' correct. The palaeography may be dodgy and the patina certainly is, but simply being told an inscribed ossuary has turned up with 'James son of Joseph brother of Jesus' on it means we have nothing to test.

Now on SGM, Smith made sure we lack both the physical item and the ancient palaeography (the manuscript was in an eighteenth century style hand which isn't hard to do) so we have nothing whatsoever to judge authenticity by except the words. Quesnell showed how these would be well within the ability of a scholar with access to the already available Clementine concordance.

So we have, for forgery:

- motive;
- opportunity;
- ability;
- suspicious disappearance of evidence;
- content that is consistent with Smith's previous work;
- style rejected by some scholars (the Altman school);

For authenticity:

- style accepted by some scholars (the Lemaire school);
- some consistancy with prior knowledge (as we had with the ossuary);
- lots of scholars who'll look dumb if its declared fake (seems familiar too).

What Vork on the ossuary has convinced me off is that ONLY the physical document can provide actual evidence of authenticity. Everything else is just moonshine. And for Smith, who had the most to gain, not to make sure the document was proved authentic (he's was a clever chap after all) means he knew it wasn't.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Haran

Since I did not choose the title of the thread, I'd like to qualify my position by stating that there is probably no way to know for sure whether Morton Smith forged Secret Mark. However, I feel that the probability of it is quite high.

Yuri Kuchinsky

This is incorrect.

Quote:

and the ancient palaeography (the manuscript was in an eighteenth century style hand which isn't hard to do)

This is incorrect.

Quote:

so we have nothing whatsoever to judge authenticity by except the words.

This is incorrect.

Quote:

Quesnell showed how these would be well within the ability of a scholar with access to the already available Clementine concordance.

This is incorrect.

Quote:

So we have, for forgery: - motive;

Not really.

Quote:

- opportunity;

Not really.

Quote:

- ability;

This is incorrect.

Quote:

- suspicious disappearance of evidence;

Not really.

Quote:

- content that is consistent with Smith's previous work;

This is incorrect.

Quote:

- style rejected by some scholars (the Altman school);

Not really.

Quote:

For authenticity: - style accepted by some scholars (the Lemaire school); - some consistancy with prior knowledge (as we had with the ossuary); - lots of scholars who'll look dumb if its declared fake (seems familiar too).

Not really.

Quote:

What Vork on the ossuary has convinced me off is that ONLY the physical document can provide actual evidence of authenticity.

But these two cases are sufficiently different for this item to be really significant.

Quote:

Everything else is just moonshine. And for Smith, who had the most to gain, not to make sure the document was proved authentic (he's was a clever chap after all) means he knew it wasn't.

These are false accusations against a respected scholar.

So now, to sum up this case briefly, today, there exists not a single item of evidence to indicate that Clement's letter fragment in question is a modern forgery. (Although it's not impossible that this was some sort of an ancient or medieval forgery.)

For those interested, please read my old article on the subject, available here,
http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/8secmk.htm

Yours

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Not really.

Quote:

However, I feel that the probability of it is quite high.

And I think it's impossible that Smith could have been a forger. Or at least this is highly unlikely.

Please read my article that I've already referenced, and then we can talk.

Yuri.

Vinnie

I've also been lead to the conclusion that forgery by Smith is very unlikely.

Vinnie

Bede

Hmm, Yuri. You talk about the 'genius scribe'. Remind me who it was that said if the James Ossuary was a forgery it was a work of genius. Jack Kilmon I think, on Crosstalk who does know his stuff. And he was very, very wrong indeed.

To put it SGM together you need the Clementine concordance, someone familar with 18th century Greek writing, some tracing paper and ink. And plenty of time.

Unless or until we have an original document to test, the circumstantial evidence damns SGM as a fake. But as Smith was so very clever, I doubt he left any incriminating evidence behind.

I accept it might just be real, but no scholar could possibly rely on such a thing without at least some solid evidence. All we have are other scholars and we now know they are two a penny.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

PS: Vinnie, what convinced you?

Toto

Yuri - your essay that you linked to assumes that the original manuscript has been located, but the Secret Mark homepage indicates that it was never actually located, although Hedrick was confident that he could find it. Are there any updates to this story?

Peter Kirby

I will ask again. You say that there is a "million to one shot it is really Clementine." That's a pretty high confidence level. Can you point to one fact that is inconsistent with authorship by Clement of Alexandria?

Recall that I was not persuaded that the James inscription was fake until the IAA analysis.

best,
Peter Kirby