Yuri Kuchinsky

But it still remains an open question if this can be used validly in order to accuse Smith. I've already suggested an alternative explanation for why the monks may be interested in hiding the MS.

Quote:

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

This information is false. Is your memory so poor that you've already forgotten about what Hedrick said on the subject more recently?

Quote:

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

Again, this information is false. The correct info has already been supplied recently.

Quote:

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

Incorrect. Again, for some strange reason, you neglect the new info and photos as supplied by Hedrick.

Are you sure that there's only one Jacob Aliet on the other end there? Is your kid brother now posting instead of you, by any chance?

Quote:

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

This info is blatantly false (that Smith didn't "allow" scholars an opportunity to study the MS).

I realise of course, by now, that you apparently take some sort of a special pride in attacking those who can no longer reply back to you. But still and all, this by no means would absolve you from the responsibility -- that all of us on this forum share -- not to post information that is clearly false and misleading.

Yours,

Yuri.

Ted Hoffman

I haven't accused Smith. Your monastic cover up theory and the monks playing yard to get sounded frivolous.

Who did Hendrick tell? AFAIK - it was a rumour. What proves that Hendrick was actually told?
The information is correct. The photographs were of poor quality and weren't even coloured photographs.
For some strange reason, you neglect the photos taken by Smith.

Prove it.

Haran

Color photographs of SGM (which looked like technicolor to me at the time) were shown a few years ago. However, the pictures were not "new" as the rhetoric of a few has suggested. They were supposedly taken, I believe, in the 70's. The Jesus Seminar had the pictures on their website for a while and I'm pretty sure they can be found in one of their past journals.

Issue 13:5 of Westar Institute/Jesus Seminar's The Fourth R journal.

Yuri Kuchinsky

OK, that's fine then. So maybe this whole discussion was based on a misunderstanding.

Yours,

Yuri.

Peter Kirby

Haran, were you going to put together some quotes from Morton Smith's early work? That would be helpful to my own study of the issues.

best,
Peter Kirby

Haran

Almost got to the library this past weekend, but it fell through. Sorry, I've got a lot going on right now. It may be another weekend before I'll be able to find the time. This is unfortunately why I said "don't count on it"...

Haran

This was just posted to the TC list this morning...

3 articles on SGM - Journal of Early Christian Studies

Haven't had a chance to read them yet. Sounds like they might be in favor of SGM's authenticity.

Should be an interesting read!

[Note: Yeah...I know, I just tried the link too. Drat! Add one more thing to my library list. ]

Ted Hoffman

Needless to say, I can't access it and I am not affiliated with any of the institutions. Bloody Hell

Peter Kirby

I have access to the journal through CSU Fullerton. But I don't think that they will want it put on the 'net so soon after publishing, if someone were to ask.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

Peter - without violating the copyright laws, could you let us know if the article breaks new ground or is worth tracking down? Thanks.