Clutch

Well, yeah. Cripes, he reminds me of all those biblical scholars with their foo-faw about the guy who died and came back and then flew away!

Roger Pearse

<Lots of feeling>
<sfx: gnash gnash> Because the people who run manuscript archives are [deleted]s!!!! It must be something in the selection process...

It's true of every [deleted] archive in the [deleted] world!!! <rage>

And then there are the ones which are *trying* to be difficult. I've spent two years trying to get permission to photograph a 1494 book, so far with zilch in the way of results. The [deleted]'s don't care about the book -- they just don't care enough to make sure *anyone* photographs it.
</Lots of feeling>

<sfx: chewing bricks>

The Laurentian library in Florence have done a good one. They microfilmed every Ms in their collection (good idea in principle), which has been available to scholars since the days of Lorenzo the Magnificent. Then they locked all the books away and said no-one could look at them, unless they could *prove* need. Otherwise, they say, you can use the monochrome microfilms. Surely that's good enough? Pure genius! For the first time in 500 years, *no-one* can see the books. Grrrr.

Persons of undocumented parentage...

If you ever wonder why the humanists (the real ones, in the renaissance) sometimes had to resort to theft, now you know.

So there is nothing sinister per se in the custodians being difficult. However, the non-availability of the Ms. *is* suspicious. It's a classic sign of faking (yes, I know it need not be in principle, but in practice it's one of the signs).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Obscurantism is indeed the logical conclusion of this approach.

But in reality all this is unnecessary nonsense. The NT text has been transmitted perfectly adequately for any reasonable purpose, just like those of most ancient texts, and loss of the entire basis of the modern world is too high a price to pay to rubbish the Christians. There are other ways, you know.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Doctor X

I think some of the motivation for holding back information is the jealousy of, "even though I do not have the time or talent to make anything about this NO ONE else can either!"

--J.D.

Ted Hoffman

Yuri,

Thanks for the evolutionary view...link

Why I smell something fishy:

* The ms was hidden/destroyed by someone. This someone obviously had something to hide.

* There is NO ONE alive who has ever come forward and admitted having seen the ms. Except Smith himself.

* Smith allegedly photographed the ms and was quiet about his alleged "finding" for quite a while.

* The ms describes scenes that have (homo)sexual connotations evocative of the acts sex cults are known to engage in.

* Smith is known to have been linked with a sex-cult that justified their sexual orgies using Smiths SGM - and Smith endorsed their practices by allowing them to republish his book and he wrote a postscript for the republished copy for personal effect.

* Its likely that the one who hid the ms was avoiding exposing the ms to tests/studies that could be done to verify its authenticity and dating.

* The only available photos were of poor quality and with questionable marks.

* If Smiths claims were accepted, the sexual orgies of the sex cult that Smith was linked to could have got theological backing. This would have been a great moral boost to the members and sympathizers (and Smith was either one or both)

* Smith used unconventional methods of "promoting" the ms and did not allow scholars an opportunity to study it.

* Christ Logos did not exist as a physical person so the contents of the ms are obviously fictitious.

* The author of the ms is unknown, so is the date it was written, so is its existence and location.

Lets just say Smith carried the secret to his grave. But what we have casts a huge doubt on the events surrounding the alleged discovery and disappearance of SGM. There is no evidence that its authentic.

Easy there boy. We dont post here for a living you know. When we have the time, we do respond.

Geoff Hudson

Yuri,

I read this last night. It has set me thinking that much of the teaching attributed to Jesus, for example some of that in Matthew but not in Mark, could have been based on the teaching of early disciples in Rome - a city not "set on A hill" but seven hills.

Geoff

Roger Pearse

On the subject of some other modern literary forgeries, have a look at E.J. Goodspeed's book Strange New Gospels . He revised it as 'Modern Apocrypha' in the 50's, but of course that's in copyright. There was also an interesting book of the same sort done in the 80's by Per Beskow, 'Strange Tales about Jesus'. This includes a 'test for the reader' to evaluate a 'new discovery', and to sharpen your scepticism. It's out of print, but I couldn't locate the chap to ask permission to scan it.

None of these works are particularly scholarly -- they are essays, really -- and are not really all that well researched or documented. But they are interesting. I have an intermittent interest in one of them, the 'Archko volume' and have verified some of the statements made myself.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Haran

Thanks for the post, Roger. I didn't know Goodspeed's book was online. I'll have to read it when I find the time.

For those who care and don't know or missed it, Strange New Gospels was mentioned in Quesnell's article.

chimaira

In spite of the deciphering of the old writings, the bible currently sold and that you did transmit to human is exact, complete and integral? And if they is false, why certain human do not reveal the whole of your law of life?

Doctor X

Apologies, I am not making fun of your ability to write in English--I can barely speak my native tongue and, in French, can only challenge someone to a duel, so I have enormous respect for anyone who corresponds in a foreign language--however, I kind of lost you with your final point.

Can you clarify?

--J.D.