Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, Toto,

AFAIK, what happened there is that Hedrick has located the chief librarian of this monastic order, who confirmed to him that he saw the MS himself, and handled it repeatedly. Further, the librarian provided Hedrick with a new set of colour photographs of the MS.

According to the librarian, the pages on which the text was written were separated from the book, and then sent to Istanbul/Constantinople, where the headquarters of the order is located. Then, they got "mislaid" somewhere. They are still "trying" to track them down further.

By all appearances, it looks to me like the good monks were somewhat embarrassed that they had such a potentially controversial MS in their possession, and are now playing hard to get. In other words, it seems like some sort of a monastic cover up in progress.

Those folks who kept insisting that Smith should somehow have the responsibility to produce the MS for inspection are really full of beans. Are they suggesting that Smith should have STOLEN it from the monastery?

How can he produce something that belongs to someone else???

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings,

I see that some people here still keep making all sorts of uninformed claims about Smith and the MS. I've already corrected a whole bunch of false claims that had already been made, so it's now becoming a bit repetitive.

I would just like to suggest that people stop and think before making false accusations against a respected scholar whose only "fault" seems to have been that he discovered something unusual, and studied the thing in detail.

It's one thing to make an _informed_ accusation of wrongdoing, having had the benefit of informing oneself on the subject. But if the accuser is operating from the position of ignorance, I'm afraid it just sounds malicious.

This is what struck me originally, when I was first researching this subject and discussing it in Crosstalk and elsewhere, years ago. It's the pure viciousness of some of the accusers. They knew nothing on the subject, and yet they were very quick to malign someone who could no longer answer back.

Smith already passed away by then, so human decency alone should have tempered the rancour of some of those rumour mongers. Speak well about the dead, it's an old adage. But no, in the world of biblical studies, nobody apparently knew or cared about any such scruples. And, at the time, nobody, or almost nobody tried to speak in defence of Smith!

So that was why I wrote that article back in 1998. There just seemed to be a dire lack of common human decency in the air -- not to monger false rumours against someone who died... (And the curious thing in this particular discussion is that often it's the self-proclaimed _Christians_ who seem to show themselves as the most ethically-challenged.)

But of course, now, after many more additional experiences with professional biblical scholars, those old feelings that I had no longer appear all that anomalous. The way I see it now, this whole field of study is deeply corrupt. So I guess those experiences were just the first harbingers of the sorts of disappointments that were still in store for me.

Now, I'm no longer surprised by _anything_ coming from the professional biblical scholars. Now I know, academic biblical studies is a snake pit.

So, dear critics, please, please get informed. Read this item by Eyer, it's quite informative.

THE STRANGE CASE OF THE SECRET GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK, by Shawn Eyer
http://www.globaltown.com/shawn/secmark.html

One needs to have researched the subject in some detail, in order for your accusations to be credible.

For example, it's being said that now mainstream scholars all "reject" Smith's discovery as a "cheap fake", that nobody takes it seriously. False. The letter of Clement in question has already been included in the standard editions of Clement's writings without reservation. In this case, the academic mainstream has no real doubts about its authenticity. This is important.

So why would one keep repeating this cheap and malicious false rumour -- the rumour that is very easy to show as false?

Please, people. If you have no knowledge, fine, but at least you can have some decency.

Please, stop and think.

The epigraphy alone is strong evidence of authenticity. Handwriting is very hard to fake, and one doesn't absolutely need the original in order to examine the handwriting. Photo is just as good, and will be accepted in court without any problem. This is a highly specialised, very fluent scribal hand of the 18th century. One look, and it's obvious that whoever wrote that piece was a professional scribe who had been doing it for years.

Regards,

Yuri.

Bede

I believe the letter is flagged as suspicious in the standard Clementine collection although I'm unsure. Who's the editor as you seem to know what it says? Also, Smith's death does not exempt him from criticism any more than AMark's exempts him.

Yuri, you are a rhetorical master but I have seen no evidence that we should take SGM seriously. I'm not too bothered - I only brought it up as the parallels with the ossuary were so clear.

As for Kilmon saying the shroud is genuine, unless you can produce some evidence, its simply a slander. No way I am going to write to him and ask that and certainly not on your advice!

Unless and until the manuscript turns up SGM is dead and no one with a sceptical hair on their head should believe otherwise.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Haran

When this big discussion was taking place a couple/few years ago, I remember something about these pictures not really being "new" but taken years ago (like in the seventies sometime). I think there was something on the Jesus Seminar webpage about it and I think that article and the color pictures are in one of there journal volumes.

Why were they separated from the book?? This is not good thinking, IMHO. I think the book should be part of the testing. If the MSS are found wherever they happen to be today, then I think the Voss edition should also be studied.

What's the point in hiding it now after it has already been addressed by many scholars? I don't understand. Even so, this just proves Quesnell's point that Smith should have made immediate arrangements to secure the MS if it was so important.

It seems to me that if he thought the MS was so important, that he could have arranged something with the patriarchate. I find it irresposible, as does Quesnell, to just leave the thing for years in an unsecure library without checking on it and attempting to make arrangements to have it physically studied (from the rhetoric he displayed in his books, he should have known that this would be a controversial MS whose authenticity would probably be questioned). It very much opens him up to suspicion.

Vinnie

This type of skepticism overthrows a significant portion of early Christian research IMO. We have no proof that most of the NT or other early Christian writings have been preserved faithfully. Until some older and better manuscripts are found of the Gospels and epistles of the NT are pretty much dead. Real scholars concede that the entire NT textual tradition was very unstable for virtually every text in its first 100 years or so.

I can point to so many instances of early redaction, massive reshaping and fluid textual development its ridiculous. Developments occured very early and Gospel composition was a very fluid process itself. Not to mention form criticism (see conflicting sayings on divorce in NT, instances where one text seems to preserve the earliest wording and so forth) tells us that all the material underwent large amounts of development before it ever found itself writen down.

I must conclude that the canonicals are hardly on a better footing for historical research than SGM. The whole NT is built on a foundation of sand since the textual tradition is very unstable. Further, I challenge everyone who thinks otherwise to demonstrate that it was not. I have no problem demonstrating that it was. Just look at Q and Canononical Mark for starters along with beginners books on the Gospels.

And if the NT is better attested than other works of antiquity, throw away those other works as well and forget ancient history as its an unfruitful endeavour. Its not going to feed starving children, cure cancer or stop the next war. Why waste so many millions and millions of dollars and man-hours on unstable texts or useless conversations like those about secret Mark? Working hypothesis? Whats the payoff when we will only be left with uncertainty regardless of how objective the scholar may seem to be.

Vinnie

Bede

Vinnie, as we know your opinion on the canonicals, I don't understand why you privilege SGM. That's the question that was asked. If you expect me to start claiming the NT is somehow perfect and unaltered you are setting up a strawman. You must admit the provinence of the NT is miles ahead of SGM. I mean. I've seen the Codex Alexandricus and Sinaitaicus with my own eyes. No one alive has studied the actual SGM manuscript!

I agree we should be equally sceptical about all alleged ancient documents and also modern ones purporting to be ancient.

So, why are you convinced by SGM?

Yours

Bede

PS: Yuri, you are comparing an individual signature to a generic script. Your rhetorical skills are so good I almost missed it but your entire argument on the need for a genius scribe turns out to be a non sequitor.

Haran

Yuri, there is a whole bunch of this rhetoric in your post. I don't know about others, but I have read Smith's works, I have read Eyer's article, I have read Quesnell's articles and Smith's response, I have read your article, I have read other scholars opinions on SGM, I followed the discussions as they took place a couple/few years back, and I have read the 18th century Greek hand (w/ the help of Metzger - most anyone could - and could probably reproduce the script, too...). Anyway, to say that people are making uninformed claims and that they know nothing is only rhetoric to seemingly put yourself on a pedastal above us. You mentioned Jack's lack of credentials and asked why anyone should believe him, but what are yours?

It is one thing to say that you think that it would have been too hard to forge. You have every right to believe that. However, I do not think it would have been too hard and I also think that Smith had motive he made all-to-obvious with his own rhetoric.

It is not all about putting down something that is controversial (although I still don't completely understand why it is so controversial since CoA attributes SGM to the Carpocrations anyway), but about keeping scholars from wasting any more time on a possible fraud that could be screwing up our views of true history.

So, if a person does something that affects the rest of us after they pass on, we are to just ignore the fact that it affects us just because the person died? Come on, Yuri. I think this is extreme rhetoric to shame people into dropping the issue. The fact is, if it was a fraud, and if Smith did it, then he is still guilty, even if he is dead. Again, if SGM is a fraud that he committed while alive, it is still affecting us today after his death and I do not think that the subject should just be dropped because he died. If Golan forged the James ossuary and had only left us the pictures we had all seen and then died, should we have just let the ossuary ride on into history because we shouldn't speak poorly of the dead??

I think this is far from the truth in many mainstream corners. True, SGM is included in many works these days, but it seems that there is always a word of caution surround it. And though many scholars may not say so publically, I think many of them have doubts as to its authenticity.

It has not been shown to be false because it cannot be. It can be either more or less likely. You believe unlikely, I believe likely.

Rhetoric... Some of us have knowledge and decency, but at the same time are realistic.

Ok, Yuri. This is something I noticed in your essay, but I haven't said anything until now.

Since you keep accusing us of not having knowledge, I'd just like to point out that "epigraphy" is writing on stone. "Paleography" is the study of ancient writing. "Epigraphy" plays no role that I am aware of in this discussion.

What are your qualifications to make such a judgement, especially when you call it "epigraphy"? What scholar other than Smith, himself, has made such a claim?

Paleography is not an exact science and there is just no real way to tell (obviously from the James ossuary issue) whether something is authentic by merely looking at photographs. At the very least, it would be very desirous to have the MS and the book in order to perform physical tests on them both. As it seems, this may never happen and we will be left to wonder, quite legitimately in light of things I might add.

Vorkosigan

Bede:

You can read Kilmon's fruitcake claims on the Shroud on his very own website!

Yet another reason not to respect the low critical thinking ability of Jack Kilmon

Vorkosigan

Haran

Man, you use some strong words.

Since he does seem to be a legitimate scientist, I don't doubt that he may believe the facts say the shroud is real. I don't agree, but I definitely don't have the expertise he does in the area to refute him.

Also, I thought Yuri said he was Jewish. What reasons would he have for supporting the Shroud of Turin if he didn't really think it is what is claimed?

Just curious... I didn't think the Shroud was really an open and shut case, but then I don't really know all that much about it to be honest.

Haran

Besides Kilmon was brought up because of supposedly saying that if the ossuary inscription was forged, it must have been done by a genius. I don't know if he really said this or not, but I do know that probably the leading semitic paleographer, FM Cross did because this is the quote that Shanks plastered all over his articles that made me think Cross supported the authenticity of the ossuary.