Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, everyone,

So here's my promised article where I outline all this new evidence that I've discovered about the Secret Mark. The article is rather long, so I broke it down into 4 parts. Here's Part 1.

Hope you enjoy it!

Yuri.
_________________________


MORTON SMITH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A FORGER OF SECRET MARK: THE PROOF

It does seem like this document goes back to ancient times after all.

by Yuri Kuchinsky

This article will prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt that the letter of Clement, as published by Morton Smith, cannot be a modern forgery. In other words, Smith could not have been a forger of this letter.

The key to my argument is that the Secret Mark fragments, as quoted in Clement's letter, happen to belong to the Western text type (what I prefer to describe as the Peripheral text type).

The fact that the Secret Mark belongs to Western/Peripheral text is extremely significant. In his CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Harvard, 1973, Smith already noted this feature of the Secret Mark fragments, and cited 5 readings (passages) where Secret Mark shows unique parallels to Western/Peripheral text (2 of them rather weak by Smith's own estimate). All of them were parallels to the Gospel of Mark only.

But, as I will show further, Smith didn't really understand the full significance of these parallels between Secret Mark and the Western/Peripheral text -- and he certainly didn't make any sort of a big deal of this particular feature in his very extensive study of the Secret Mark fragments.

In this article, I will show that Smith made some big mistakes in this area, and that he failed to see some other, and even better parallels between Secret Mark and the Western/Peripheral text, 5 in number.

These 5 new parallels that I've now identified are all to the Johannine material, and they are all _direct_ parallels to the Raising of Lazarus story; only 1 of Smith's previously identified parallels was such a direct parallel (but to the Markan material). Now, since Smith failed to see any of these 5 Johannine parallels that had been there all the time -- since he was completely unaware of them, as was obviously the case -- that means that he couldn't have put them in there. Hence, he wasn't the forger.

Generally speaking, in his CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Smith shows no great familiarity with the Western/Peripheral text, or any real interest in it. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case; he repeatedly dismisses it as late and derivative. All in all, he seems to be rather embarrassed by these Western/Peripheral text parallels being there at all in Secret Mark. He even tries to argue that Secret Mark had been a source of the Western/Peripheral text (!), a rather odd theory that, to my knowledge, hasn't garnered so far any other supporters... (Normally, when 2 otherwise unrelated texts show some unusual similarities, it is assumed that they both ultimately depend on some sort of a common source.)

In actual fact, Smith had always been a supporter of the mainstream Alexandrian text type -- the Greek text of the gospels that, for the last 100 years or so, formed the basis of all "modern" English-language New Testaments. And moreover, in his book, he sounds rather dogmatic about this; he never seems to entertain any doubts that the Alexandrian text may not be the best thing today under the sun. (Personally, I can't disagree more with this view.) So this is the general perspective from which his CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA was written. So then why would he spike "his" Secret Mark with _any_ Western/Peripheral text elements at all, let alone with those that he didn't even know were there? Thus, in addition to all the other improbabilities involved in Smith being a forger of Secret Mark, this one seems like a decisive one, making a forgery by Smith completely impossible.

He didn't care for Western/Peripheral text, he (along with everybody else up to now) didn't even know to what extent Secret Mark is really a Western/Peripheral text, so, naturally, he could never have produced such a text.


SOME LATE FEATURES IN SECRET MARK

I would like to make it clear from the outset that I'm certainly not a defender of Smith's theories in regard to early Christianity in general, or in regard to the Secret Mark in particular. I certainly don't think that the material that is now found in the Secret Mark really goes back directly to the Historical Jesus, as Smith, himself, obviously wanted to see it. In my view, this is definitely a secondary Markan material -- the stuff that was added later. (In this, I'm in basic agreement with H. Koester, whose views on the subject have been known for a long time.)

When I look at these Secret Mark (SMk) fragments, I see quite a lot of late stuff in them, the stuff that, in my view, post-dates the canonical gospels. For example, in the SMk, Jesus' disciples are seen in a rather negative light; after they "rebuke" the woman, Jesus' anger seems to be directed against them... This part is not found in the canonical John, and I see this as a rather late feature of SMk. Also, according to the SMk, the tomb seems rather too big and impressive -- it's large enough for Jesus to walk into! -- again, something that is not found in the standard canonical text.

So, no, I certainly don't think that these SMk fragments represent "the pure and original Mark". And yet, they do have some seemingly early features in them, as well, and, as I see it, this is what these new Western/Peripheral text parallels that I've identified are really pointing to. After all, it is my view that, overall, Western/Peripheral text is the earliest of them all...

Generally speaking, myself, I treat SMk just like I treat any other Western/Peripheral text that I'm investigating; it has some relatively early stuff in it, but some relatively late stuff as well -- and it should be possible to differentiate among all these features through careful comparison and analysis.


WHAT IS WESTERN/PERIPHERAL TEXT?

Thus, the key to my proof that Smith could not have been a forger of Secret Mark is all this new textual evidence that I've now identified -- these 5 new parallels between the SMk, and the Western/Peripheral (WP) texts of the gospels. Below, I will provide all the particulars for these new SMk/WP parallels. But in order to appreciate the full force of these arguments that I'm now making, some more background is necessary about what Western/Peripheral texts really are, and what is the current mainstream attitude towards them.

So here's some more info on these issues,

Western Text is the earliest!
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/wp-text.htm

Griesbach had it right! (NT Textual Criticism)
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/griesb.htm

It is very important for my argument that hardly anybody today knows anything about Western/Peripheral text, and this certainly included Smith, whose general attitude to Textual Criticism was entirely mainstream. The fact that he knew so little about Western/Peripheral text is the key to seeing just how unlikely it would have been for him to have forged such a text.


THE GENERAL SITUATION IN THE FIELD

In my first long article on the subject of Smith's curious discovery, the one that I wrote back in 1998,

the Secret Gospel of Mark
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/8secmk.htm

I mostly argued that Smith could not have been a forger of SMk, and left any further analysis of SMk for later. I based that old argument of mine mostly on the circumstantial evidence surrounding the discovery of this manuscript.

Indeed, I simply could not see how Smith could have accomplished such a sophisticated forgery -- a forgery sophisticated enough to fool all those Clementine scholars, as well as all those palaeographic experts, who almost universally pronounced this letter of Clement to be an authentic 18th century manuscript... I simply could not see how Smith could have done all that with an investment of anything less than a few years of very hard work, at least...

Three forgeries in one? Just imagine the huge investment of time and energy in trying to produce something like this...

(Also, some recent developments in this area should be mentioned here, especially the info that has recently been presented in THE JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES, in the article by Guy G. Stroumsa [June 2003]. It now turns out that, contrary to what has previously been believed, 4 reputable biblical scholars actually _did_ examine the MS way back in 1976, and didn't find anything wrong with it. And also, add to this a new set of colour photographs of the MS that Charles W. Hedrick had obtained from the monks about 5 years ago... So all this contributes still further to verifying the authenticity of the MS.)

So, as I saw it at the time, all the potential risks as associated with such a monumental venture would have clearly outweighed any possible personal benefits to Smith, himself, that he could have gained from such a forgery... I just couldn't see a conspiracy there -- the idea that Smith would have worked very hard for many years _in total secrecy_ in order to lay the foundations for this forgery, that he may have gathered some possible accomplices along the way -- all this just seemed a bit too outlandish.

But, in any case, I'm now coming back to this subject after much additional research in the area of early Christian gospels, and my approach in this article will be entirely different. Now I will deal with the text of SMk, itself. And it just so happens that this new textual evidence that I've discovered does tend to confirm my previous analysis that Smith wasn't a forger.

So, yes, after much additional research in this area -- after writing a thick book on the subject, in fact -- my basic views about early Christian gospels are now much changed, compared to what they had been then. I find that my views have now evolved to the point where I have rejected not only the priority of the canonical Mark (something about which I already had my doubts back then), but the Alexandrian text priority also.

And yet, these two items, the priority of Mark, and the priority of the Alexandrian text -- taken together -- can perhaps be described as the _basic foundation_ on which the overwhelming majority of modern NT criticism rests. True, there are some dissenters as well -- there are still some scholars who object to these twin foundations of our mainstream NT scholarship. There are some scholars who support the Matthean priority, for example. And there are a few scholars who still support the Byzantine text priority (or even the Western text priority). These are just a few isolated stragglers, though, and it's very rare to see any of their writings in mainstream NT journals.

(Yet it's very interesting that, as it happens, these two groups of dissenters almost never intersect with each other. For example, I'm not aware of even one prominent Matthean prioritist who would also challenge the Alexandrian text. Or of any Byzantine text supporters who would also challenge Markan priority.)

Well, I have now challenged both of these crucial items, and provided plenty of backing for my views (see my webpage). As for Smith, he accepted both of them without any reservation whatsoever... In fact, he was remarkably dogmatic about both these items in his writings, which makes it very difficult, for me, personally, to read his books at this time.

Indeed, the phrases such as "Matthew changed this Markan verse", or "Luke corrected Mark here" are repeated over and over again in Smith's books (including in his JESUS THE MAGICIAN). It's as if Smith keeps repeating some sort of a mantra... (and he's far from being alone in this, of course). And, likewise, based on his CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, it seems like Smith never had any doubts about Alexandrian text priority, either...

Well, at this time, I find myself firmly in the Western/Peripheral text camp. (While in today's English language scholarship Western/Peripheral text has hardly any supporters, in France, on the other hand, this is actually seen as quite a respectable position.) I have no doubt at all that Western/Peripheral text was the original text of the gospels -- the evidence is really quite overwhelming in this respect, although hardly any of today's English-speaking biblical scholars are really aware of any of it at all.

And likewise for the Markan priority idea; there are many hard empirical arguments that go against it,

THE "SYNOPTIC PROBLEM"
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/synprob.htm

but our academic mainstream really couldn't care less about any of this.

So when I'm reading Smith, and come across a statement from him that "Luke corrected Mark in such and such passage", my immediate reaction is that he probably didn't. So then, in order to clarify this, I'll need to dig out again my old and trusty Synopsis of the gospels, to compare the Greek texts and their translations, and then also to look up some Western/Peripheral parallels. More often than not, I end up with the confirmation that, no, most likely Luke didn't correct Mark in that particular passage...

And then, the whole process will again need to be repeated a few paragraphs down, when Smith makes yet another such dogmatic statement as before... You must agree that reading Smith does end up as a very slow and laborious process for me nowadays...

So, no, it is definitely not my purpose here to defend Smith's theories about the Historical Jesus. In fact, I would even say that it was probably Smith's rather peculiar theories about the Historical Jesus, primarily, that have been standing in the way of this Mar Saba manuscript being accepted more fully by the New Testament academic mainstream...

Could it really be that Smith, himself, didn't quite understand what his discovery was all about? Yes, I guess so... And all this new textual evidence that I will present below certainly does tend to point in this direction.

[end of Part 1]

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

[Here's Part 2 of my article.]

THE NEW TEXTUAL EVIDENCE

So now, let us examine the text of the main SMk fragment, according to the Mar Saba manuscript. As I say, I have now identified 5 new textual parallels there with various little-known texts of Western/Peripheral type. In addition, Smith's previously identified Western/Peripheral (WP) parallels will also be considered later on.


SECRET MARK (passages parallel to John, or close)

"And they came to Bethany. And there was a woman there, whose brother was dead. And she came and fell down before Jesus and says to him: Son of David, have mercy on me. But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was; and immediately a loud voice was heard from the tomb; and Jesus went forward and rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And immediately he went in where the young man was, stretched out his hand and raised him up, grasping him by the hand. And when they had gone out from the tomb... And from there he went away and returned to the other bank of the Jordan."


THE CONNECTIONS WITH ANCIENT ARAMAIC JOHN

To begin with, here's a list of 3 agreements between the Secret Mark and the Old Syriac Aramaic John, as preserved for us in the ancient Sinaitic manuscript. All of them are also supported by various other Western/Peripheral manuscripts (MSS) of John, which certainly makes them quite significant.

I'm the first to point out these agreements; nobody knew about them before. Although Smith had done many years of research on the subject of Secret Mark, still, he remained unaware of these 3 agreements...

And yet, the first two of these 3 unusual variants in various Western/Peripheral manuscripts of John _have_ already been studied by eminent Textual scholars before me, so I'm now relying on their work in the following.

(For the Secret Mark passages, I'll be using Morton's Smith's own English translation here. For the OS John, I'll be using the classic English translation by Dr. F. C. Burkitt, as supplied in his 1904 Cambridge edition of the Old Syriac Aramaic gospels.)


********************
CASE #1
_the door_ of the tomb

All canonical texts of John lack the word "door" in this passage, and yet, besides the Old Syriac John, this feature is also present in numerous other WP manuscripts featuring this episode.

(JOHN 11:38 canonical RSV) Then Jesus ... came to the tomb; it was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.

(OS JOHN 11:38) Now, Jesus ... came to the tomb; and that tomb was a hollow like a cave, and _its door_ hidden by a stone.
(OLD SYRIAC) w'makhpy _tarah_ b'kepa,

(SECRET MARK) kai proselqwn o ihsouv apekulise ton liqon apo _thv qurav_ tou mnhmeiou
(And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from _the door_ of the tomb.)

And also, this same feature is found at Jn 11:38 according to the Peshitta, as well as in the Arabic Diatessaron, which indicates that this particular variant was very ancient indeed.

All three of these WP witnesses happen to be listed by Dr. Daniel Plooij, in his magisterial Textual Commentary on the Dutch Diatessaron (of course he didn't know about the Secret Mark as yet). For example,

(ARABIC DT) And the place of burial was a cave, and a stone was placed at _its door_.

And in addition to all that, I now also add the Persian Diatessaron to Plooij's previous list of three supporting witnesses, because it also features the word "door". (Plooij didn't as yet have access to the Persian Diatessaron either, in his time.)

And furthermore, in his Commentary, Plooij also supplies some other interesting similarities to this phrase in the ancient Coptic versions of John.

This Case #1 is perhaps the clearest parallel of all between the SMk and WP manuscripts of John.


********************
CASE #2
The word "immediately" is used twice in the SMk.

(JOHN 11:44 canonical RSV) The dead man came out...

(OS JOHN 11:44) _And in the same hour_ came forth that dead man...
(OLD SYRIAC: _wbah b'shata_ napaq huw miyta)

(SMk GREEK) _kai euqus_ hkousqh ek tou mnhmeiou fwnh megalh
(and _straightway_ a great cry was heard from the tomb)
(SMk GREEK) kai eiselqwn _euqus_ opou hn o neaniskov
(And _straightway_, going in where the youth was...)

And so, this expression (euqus = immediately, in the same hour, etc.) is used twice in SMk, and once in the OS John.

There's actually a _triple_ Western/Peripheral attestation for this SMk expression at Jn 11:44, i.e. it is found in the Old Syriac, Old Latin, and the Greek Bezae manuscripts of John... (Such a triple attestation in all these ancient WP manuscripts makes this parallel particularly solid.) It's found in some Diatessaronic witnesses, as well, including the Magdalene Gospel. And it's even found in the Latin Vulgate.

This reading happens to be listed in the standard SYNOPSIS QUATTUOR EVANGELIORUM by Kurt Aland. Also, it's listed in Merk's edition of the NT, and by Plooij, of course. These editions also list various other ancient witnesses for this reading.

This word /euqus/ has been discussed by Smith in his CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA volume, since it is repeated twice in the SMk, although Smith considered it as not belonging specifically to Western text (CA, p. 122). He completely missed all these direct parallels there in Western versions of John...

This seems to me like one of the earlier textual features in SMk.


********************
CASE #3
... and, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus, _and says_ to him

(JOHN 11:32, canonical RSV) Mary, therefore, when she came where Jesus was ... fell at his feet, _saying_ to him...
(JOHN 11:32 Greek) h oun mariam ws hlqen opou hn ihsous ... epesen autou pros tous podas _legousa_ autw...

(SMk Greek) kai elqousa prosekunhse ton ihsoun _kai legei_ autw
(... and, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus, _and says_ to him)

(OS JOHN 11:32) Mary, when she arrived by Jesus, fell at his feet, _and saith_ to him
(OLD SYRIAC) Maryam, kad matyt lwatahu d'Yeshua, naplat al reglawhy, _w'amra_ lah...

In this case, the Old Syriac text uses a simpler grammar, as compared to the canonical Greek versions -- and this use of simpler grammar happens to be quite typical for the Old Syriac, as well as for all other WP manuscripts. There's also additional support here for this OS reading in the Old Latin texts, and in various Diatessarons.

In general, WP texts prefer to avoid the more complicated participle constructions, that one so often finds in the canonical Greek. Wherever the Greek uses the present participle (legousa = saying), very often Western/Peripheral texts feature a simple verb preceded by a conjunction (kai legei = and he said). So this is certainly not just an isolated example, but rather part of a general trend in usage.

There are also additional parallels here in the Magdalene Gospel, as well as in the Persian, Arabic, Venetian, and Tuscan Diatessarons. For example,

ARABIC DT: And Mary, when she came to where Jesus was, and saw him, fell at his feet, _and said_ unto him...

Besides the Old Latin versions of John, such simpler grammar is even found in the Latin Vulgate, which reads /et dicet ei/ in this passage.

I'm the first one to point out this particular variant in the Old Syriac, and in other WP texts of the Raising of Lazarus, which connects them with Secret Mark's parallel account. But as I say, this variant is only one of great many such cases where, rather than the Greek participle construction, a simple verb is employed by WP manuscripts.


SOME ADDITIONAL EARLY TEXTUAL FEATURES IN SECRET MK: THE TWO AGREEMENTS WITH THE MAGDALENE GOSPEL

These three textual agreements, as given above, between the Secret Mark and the Old Syriac Aramaic John are very conventional agreements, really. They are all well supported by a wide variety of other Western/Peripheral manuscripts, that have all been well studied over the years. One of these readings (for Jn 11:44) is even listed in some mainstream editions of the New Testament... And yet, still and all, Smith remained unaware of any of these... So this just goes to show how little is the Western/Peripheral text known even to the best of NT scholars today -- and I certainly do consider Smith as having been one of the best of them. And later on, we will see even more evidence of some other big contemporary NT scholars -- such as Helmut Koester and Dominic Crossan -- showing their own dire ignorance in this area as well...

So if such great authorities haven't even read the Old Syriac John yet, what chance is there of them to have read the versions of this narrative as preserved in some quite obscure medieval Diatessarons? Not much, I'd say -- or, rather, none! Thus, it will be no surprise at all that yours truly is the first to discover the following two quite interesting parallels between the Secret Mark and the Magdalene Gospel -- one of these parallels being almost completely unique, while the other one also finding wide support in various other Diatessarons.

So here we see the Magdalene Gospel -- this unique document that has already demonstrated _hundreds of parallels_, in its own right, with various valuable Western/Peripheral texts such as the ancient Aramaic and Old Latin gospels -- now providing some additional textual attestation for the Secret Gospel of Mark. Thus -- surprising as it may seem -- it is the Magdalene Gospel that is now helping to support the authenticity of the Mar Saba manuscript!


********************
CASE #4
_Son of David, have mercy on me_

So this one is a unique (or almost unique) agreement between the Secret Mark and the Magdalene Gospel. In both documents, after Mary pays obeisance to Jesus, she makes a specific entreaty for his help. In the canonical John, on the other hand, Mary only pays obeisance, but there's no entreaty.

(SMk Greek) kai legei autw, _uie dabid elehson me_
(and [she] says to him, _Son of David, have mercy on me_)

(MAGDALENE GOSPEL 80:24) And when Mary came to Jesus, right away she fell down at his feet, _weeping, and crying for his mercy_...

(THE MIDDLE ENGLISH TEXT OF MS PEPYS 2498) wepeande and cryeande hym mercy...

To my knowledge, other than these two out-of-the-way and extremely far-flung MSS, no other extant version of the Raising of Lazarus story features this specific detail.

(In general, it's quite common for the MG to employ third person narrative in those places where the canonical gospels use direct speech -- there are many examples of this. And so, taking this into consideration, this parallel between SMk and MG appears to be almost exact.)

Now, in order to put this case into some additional perspective, it needs to be noted that there are also some other unusual features elsewhere in this same Magdalene narrative that seem quite relevant here. Because, in the Magdalene Gospel,

1. Jesus is being given more respect more generally, and,
2. he's being specifically asked for help not only this once, but twice!

So this special request by Mary, that is in parallel with the SMk, is certainly not just an isolated feature in this MG narrative.

Indeed, one thing that may seem quite striking when reading the standard versions of this episode is that, in the canonical John, nobody asks Jesus to do anything... Jesus keeps being reproached (albeit gently) for not being there in time, and for not healing Lazarus when he was still alive, but no explicit request to help Lazarus is ever expressed by anyone... Jesus is paid obeisance by Mary, but only once.

But, in the MG, when Martha first comes to meet Jesus (i.e. before her sister does), she _also_ prostrates herself before him -- a feature that is completely absent from the canonical John.

(JOHN 11:20, canonical RSV) When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him ... (21) Martha said to Jesus, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died."

(MAGDALENE GOSPEL 80:14) And she [Martha] came, _and fell at his feet_, and said, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have been dead."

And also, in the Magdalene Gospel, there's actually yet another instance where _both sisters_ explicitly beg Jesus for help. And here, very importantly, the Dutch Liege Diatessaron also supports this MG variant to some extent.

Indeed, at the opening of this narrative, when the sisters had first sent to Jesus the news of Lazarus' illness, we learn from MG 80:2, that they,

"... begged that he would come and comfort his friend".

In the canonical version, on the other hand, no such explicit request is expressed, of course. And yet, in the Dutch Diatessaron, we do find something that's quite similar! Because, according to the Dutch DT (p. 540 in Plooij),

"These [the sisters] sent to Jesus and _summoned him_ thus, 'Lord, thy friend Lazarus is sick.'"

And, of course, it also needs to be noted here that, in general, unique parallels between the Dutch DT and the Magdalene Gospel are very common indeed... In fact, one can find them in just about every paragraph of these respective texts -- wherever they have passages in common, or, in other words, just about everywhere (as Plooij's Commentary will readily demonstrate).

So far, I haven't been able to find any other parallel anywhere for such a special request on the part of Lazarus' sisters.

Thus, altogether in this story, we find that,

-- according to the MG, there are 2 acts of obeisance to Jesus, and 2 entreaties for his help.
-- In the SMk, we find 1 act of obeisance, and 1 entreaty.
-- In the canonical Jn, there's 1 act of obeisance only, and no entreaties.

And so, this additional respect for Jesus now emerges clearly as a sort of a distinguishing pattern in the Magdalene Gospel -- a very unusual pattern that happens to be in parallel with the Secret Mark! Could these two Peripheral MSS be preserving here for us an element of an earlier version of this story? I think that this is quite likely.

[end of Part 2]

Parts 3 and 4 will be coming up in a couple of days or so... They include,

PART 3:

-- SIMILARLY TO THE SMK, IN MG THERE'S ALSO A CLOSER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JESUS AND LAZARUS.

-- ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR THIS SAME FEATURE IN OTHER WESTERN/PERIPHERAL MSS

PART 4:

-- ONE MORE CLEAR CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SECRET MARK, AND THE WESTERN/PERIPHERAL TEXT OF MARK (that Smith was aware of)

-- KOESTER AND CROSSAN FALL FLAT

-- OTHER LINKS BETWEEN SECRET MARK AND WESTERN/PERIPHERAL TEXTS, THAT
SMITH WAS AWARE OF

-- FURTHER CONCLUSIONS THAT CAN BE DRAWN FROM THIS EVIDENCE

Are there any comments so far?

All the best,

Yuri.

Volker.Doormann

Hi Yuri,

I like to read your article immediately with respect to your investigations on this letter of Clement as deep as I can. In this moment I have no comment yet. I have had some discussion with biased German Theologians in the usenet board de.sci.theologie on this letter in the past, and assume, that some critical thinkers in Germany would like to read your articel (in German?). I think, for example Dr. Wieland Willker is interested, but many more. Is there a URL to visit, to read your articel next to IIDB? If you like I can submit the URL to adequate German news groups.

Best

Volker

anti-X

The "Secret Book of Mark", which has only two additional verses than the "Gospel of Mark" was mentioned by Polycarp and Eusebius. I don't remember about Ireanus.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, Volker,

I'll be uploading Part 3 here maybe tomorrow. I'm still putting some final touches on it.

Quote:

In this moment I have no comment yet. I have had some discussion with biased German Theologians in the usenet board de.sci.theologie on this letter in the past, and assume, that some critical thinkers in Germany would like to read your articel (in German?).

Sure, a German translation sounds like a good idea. Are you offering to help with it? Myself, I read German, but not very fluently, I need a dictionary most of the time...

Quote:

I think, for example Dr. Wieland Willker is interested, but many more. Is there a URL to visit, to read your articel next to IIDB? If you like I can submit the URL to adequate German news groups.

Wieland has been quite a critic of mine in the last few years... He's been on my case a lot... Oh, well. I don't think that he's ever been in doubt about the Alexandrian text! But I know he's been interested in the Secret Mark.

In a little while I'll be uploading this whole article to my webpage, so there will be a link. Right now I'm just trying to finish the whole thing.

Please send the info to anyone who might be interested.

All the best,

Yuri.

Volker.Doormann

Hi Yuri,

it would be a pleasure to me to assist you and helping you in preparing a German translation of your article. I have not really knowledge in other ancient language's (Greek, etc.), I hope, that is not an obstacle (?). I need an English dictionary all the time writing here on IIDB. As you may know, I examine the ancient text's from it's symbolic content's, and for me it was a light up to find the very same symbols of God Osiris = La_zarus in that Secret Mark again, as it is found in John and as it is dramatized in the Golgatha 'Big Finish'. Thank you Yuri. I will go on then, studying your article. I come back.

Best

Volker

Haran

References please...

Haran

Thanks for your in-depth analysis Yuri. I'm not sure I'll have the time to analyze the evidence like I'd like, but you've done a pretty good job of presenting it.

You were right about Aland having "kai euthus" as an equivalent for the syriac phrase, but I'm still not sure why considering the uses I was able to find for the same phrase. I'd like to ask some scholars what they think if I can find the right forum.

Anyways, your information is interesting. Hopefully I can analyze it further at some point.

Volker.Doormann

Hello Yuri,

Your short cite out of the letter of Clement seems to me not corresponding to that, what I have in file as a translation which might be done by Smith, and which takes not much more place in text.

"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

Any comments on this?

Volker

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, Volker,

Actually this was a bit of an oversight on my part. That was my own working translation (that was originally all marked up with various MS Word highlights). I should have replaced it with Smith's translation before posting the article here.

In any case, within the body of my article I always cited Smith's own translation. So just disregard that separate working translation of mine.

All the best,

Yuri.