Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear friends,

I have now read those 3 articles in the latest issue of THE JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES about the Secret Gospel of Mark (two fragments of which had been discovered by Morton Smith in the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958).

They are generally quite interesting, but only Stroumsa's article has any important new info.

The articles are as follows,

"The Secret Gospel of Mark: Stalemate in the Academy", by Charles W. Hedrick

COMMENTS ON CHARLES HEDRICK'S ARTICLE:

"A Testimony", by Guy G. Stroumsa

"Response to Charles Hedrick's Stalemate", by Bart D. Ehrman

Of course that Stroumsa, as well as three other biblical scholars actually saw the MS with their own eyes back in 1976 would be quite important for those who still think that the whole story might be somehow fishy.

Stroumsa describes his visit to the monastery in the company of the late David Flusser, Professor of New Testament, the late Shlomo Pines, Professor of Medieval Arabic and Jewish philosophy, both at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Archimandrite Meliton, from the Greek Patriarchate in Jerusalem (at the time a research student at the Hebrew University).

Upon the arrival there, they asked the monks where the MS was, and if they could see it, but the monks didn't know where it was. So Stroumsa describes how they all went together to the monastery library, and started to search for the MS. The library looked dusty and disorganised and, for a long time, nothing could be found... Just as when they were about to give up hope, according to Stroumsa, one of the monks finally found that old book where Clement's letter was written down on some blank pages in the back!

(So this tells me that, at the time, the monks at the monastery simply couldn't care less about this MS. I guess they had no idea that it could have been sold for a lot of money! Maybe they could have built a whole new library with that money, assuming of course that the ink was properly authenticated as 18th century ink? Or maybe they could have helped feed the hungry? What a thought! )

So, in any case, then they all examined the MS, and it looked exactly like it looked on Smith's photos...

Interestingly enough, up to now, this info about these scholars seeing the MS back in 1976 has never been made public!

So now, about the other 2 JECS articles.

The article by Hedrick is quite general, and just summarises things as they are now known. Hedrick, as well as Stroumsa go on record as supporting the authenticity of the MS.

Ehrman's article is a bit different. He claims to be still undecided if the MS is genuine or not. But, of course, he doesn't really give any serious reason why the MS cannot be genuine, just vague suspicions and speculations. He also tries to pick up a few holes in what Hedrick and Stroumsa said in their respective articles -- just a few minor nit-picks here and there, really.

Thus, to sum up, 2 scholars out of 3 think it's authentic, with 1 undecided. Not bad, considering everything...

And here comes some really new evidence!

I know it's new, because I've discovered it myself just in the last few days...

To make the long story short, now I can prove beyond the 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).

I have now identified 5 solid readings (passages) where Secret Mark shows unique parallels to Western/Peripheral text. 4 of them are completely new, and even Smith didn't know that they are there (as his very detailed CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA book clearly demonstrates).

Although Smith, himself, _was_ aware of the existence of the fifth Western/Peripheral reading that I'm now dealing with (parallel to Mk 10:46), he never made any sort of a big deal out of it. Also, it's quite interesting that, to my knowledge, nobody else has ever picked up on the true importance of this Mk 10:46 reading in Western/Peripheral text, that's mentioned in Smith's book. I'm saying this with some confidence because right here I have Koester's ANCIENT CHRISTIAN GOSPELS, 1990, and Crossan's FOUR OTHER GOSPELS, 1985, that both talk about this Secret Mark passage specifically, on p. 300, and p. 109, respectively, of their books, but only in the context of the mainstream Alexandrian text. Neither of them were aware of the very important Western/Peripheral variant there!

So it looks like these two _supporters of Smith_ haven't really read Smith's own book carefully enough to get informed that a Western/Peripheral version of this passage does exist! Of course this just demonstrates further to what extent Western/Peripheral text is now unknown even to the most competent NT scholars today. They are all completely ignorant about it, even the best of them like Koester and Crossan...

But now, I can prove that all 5 of these Western/Peripheral readings in the Secret Mark, including the 4 new ones that I've now identified, can be seen as the best evidence ever of this MS being authentic. As his book shows, Smith, himself, was basically ignorant about Western/Peripheral text, and about its true importance, and that's why he couldn't have forged a MS with these 5 Western/Peripheral readings in it, 4 of which he didn't even know were there...

So how did I, myself, find these 4 new Western/Peripheral readings? Very simply, 3 of them are right there in the Old Syriac Aramaic John, that no professional biblical scholar today seems to have read yet. This is what I call the Aramaic Cover-up!

And the fifth one, that Smith knew about, but never paid any real attention to, is also there in the Aramaic John!

Thus, the Secret Mark shows some unusual parallels with Aramaic John, and nobody, including Smith, himself, have been aware of this yet! Wow. What a bunch of incompetent goofs -- and I'm now talking about the whole NT profession! It's their bigotry that's to blame for everything -- the bigotry in the profession against Jewish-Christianity, which led to this near universal dire ignorance of the Semitic textual tradition of the gospels.

And the fourth of these 4 new parallels is a very interesting one with the Magdalene Gospel... Of course none of them would know about that one, it's only to be assumed. More details to follow about all that.

All the best,

Yuri.

Peter Kirby

Fascinating, Yuri... can you list these five parallels?

best,
Peter Kirby

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Peter,

To begin with, here's a list of 3 agreements between the Secret Mark and the Old Syriac John. (I'll be using Burkitt's English translation of OS John here.)

I'm the first to point out these agreements; nobody knew about them before.


CASE #1

(JOHN 11:32, canonical) Mary, therefore, when she came where Jesus was ... fell at his feet, _saying to him_...
(JOHN 11:32 GREEK) h oun mariam wV hlqen opou hn ihsouV ... epesen autou pros touV podaV _legousa autw_...

(SecMk) 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

There's also additional support here in the Old Latin texts and the Diatessarons. Such a difference in grammar between the Western/Peripheral texts and the canonical Greek is quite typical. (In other words, this is not just an isolated example, but rather part of a general trend in usage.)


CASE #2

(SecMk) 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.)

(OS JOHN 11:38) and that tomb was a hollow like a cave, and _its door_ hidden by a stone

There's also additional support here in some other Western/Peripheral texts. All canonical texts of John lack the word "door" in this passage.

This is perhaps the clearest parallel of all.


CASE #3

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

(OS JOHN 11:44) And _in the same hour_ came forth that dead man...

This expression (euquv = immediately, in the same hour, etc.) is used twice in SM, and once in the OS John. There's lots of additional support here in other Western/Peripheral texts.


CASE #4

And this is an agreement between the Secret Mark and the Old Syriac Mark. Smith was aware of it, but he didn't make any big deal out of it. Koester and Crossan were both ignorant about it.

(SecMk) kai _ercetai_ eiv iericw
(and _he comes_ to Jericho)

(Canonical Mk 10:46) kai _ercontai_ eiv iericw
(and _they come_ to Jericho)

(OS MARK 10:46) And _he came_ to Jericho

Also, there's lots of additional support here in other Western/Peripheral texts.


CASE #5

(SecMk) kai legei autw, _uie dabid elehson me_
(and says to him, _Son of David, have mercy on me_)

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

A unique agreement between the Secret Mark and the Magdalene Gospel. This similarity is supported still further by some other features in this same Chapter 80 of the Magdalene Gospel.

Regards,

Yuri.

Haran

Yuri, you should really include a transliteration of the Syriac too, or all we have to go on is someone's translation of it. Admittedly I haven't had the time to look at these in detail, but at first glance, I'm not seeing much similarity in wording.

In case #3, the word ευθυς (or "euquV" for the unicode impaired, i.e. "immediately" - I'm assuming the letter on the end is a final sigma and not a nu - in the SGM MS it is a final sigma) is not unique to the OS (actually, ευθυς is not in the Old Syriac anyway because it is Greek. What is the Syriac equivalent and is it normally used to translate this Greek word?). It is one of Mark's most recognizable and frequently used words... I even mentioned this in our earlier discussion of SGM as an easy way for a forger to mimic Marcan style (especially with the και / "kai" before it).

By the way, I believe the article said that all but one of the people mentioned to have seen the SGM MS are dead. Is that right?

Thanks for the extra info.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Can you read Aramaic, Haran?

And BTW, this "someone" is Dr. FC Burkitt, one of the greatest Aramaicists of modern times...

Quote:

Admittedly I haven't had the time to look at these in detail, but at first glance, I'm not seeing much similarity in wording. In case #3, the word ευθυς (or "euquV" for the unicode impaired, i.e. "immediately" - I'm assuming the letter on the end is a final sigma

Yes.

Quote:

and not a nu - in the SGM MS it is a final sigma) is not unique to the OS (actually, ευθυς is not in the Old Syriac anyway because it is Greek. What is the Syriac equivalent

bah b'shata = at the same time

Quote:

and is it normally used to translate this Greek word?).

I assume so.

Quote:

It is one of Mark's most recognizable and frequently used words...

I know this.

Quote:

I even mentioned this in our earlier discussion of SGM as an easy way for a forger to mimic Marcan style (especially with the και / "kai" before it).

The fact remains that this is what Western/Peripheral versions of John feature in this particular scene. Alexandrian/Byzantine versions of John OTOH don't have this expression.

These 3 new parallels between the Secret Mark and the Western/Peripheral versions of John are quite solid. It's not really the question of how exact the parallels in Aramaic are -- these parallels are _also_ supported by other Western/Peripheral versions of John. And this is what makes them solid.

So far, I've only provided a bare outline of my case (in reply to Peter's request), and haven't yet provided all other supporting material that I already have. It's coming soon...

Quote:

By the way, I believe the article said that all but one of the people mentioned to have seen the SGM MS are dead. Is that right?

Well, IMHO all that other stuff is now basically made irrelevant in light of my new findings...

Quote:

Thanks for the extra info.

You're welcome,

Yuri.

Ted Hoffman

This is a very good update Yuri. Thank you.

However...

I've got 10 things to say:

First, as much as you say its irrelevant to the new approach you have taken now, I think it would have been best to state that the names you are parading so merrily are of dead people.

Secondly, even if you can argue that Smith himself lacked the necessary skills to forge the ms, it would not mean he had no hand in it. And more importantly, it would not mean that the ms is authentic.

Third, the dramatic finding after a seemingly fruitless search as described sounds very much like a denouement in a movie script. Its stated: "one of the monks finally found that old book where Clement's letter was written down on some blank pages in the back!" Which book was this? What kind of monastery library is this that lacks a catalogue? What do the monks do during their free time (which is "all the time")?

Fourth, who exactly is NOW making public the info about these scholars seeing the MS back in 1976? Stroumsa's Journal of Early Christian Studies? Why now?

Fifth, you say Ehrman doesnt give any serious reason for doubting the ms authenticity, just vague suspicions and speculations. What, to you, would constitute a "serious reason" given the ms is not available?

Sixth, do parallel readings with Aramaic John prove the authenticity of the ms? What is this MA?

Seventh, who exactly was Mark? the supposed "interpter" of Peter per Papias? How do you explain the contradictions that that idea has encountered?

Eighth, given the inexactness of the parallels you cite (Haran and others can work on this), isnt it possible that the authors got their stories from oral sources?
Can't one also obtain from Luke and Matthew "parallels" with the ms?
If so, what exactly is the probative value of these parallels as far as the authenticity of the inexistent ms is concerned?

I don't see Case#2 as being exact. SecMk talks of rolling away the stone (according to your quotation) while JOHN 11:38 doesn't. The latter does not match what secMk says. And I quote from KJV:
1. SecMk implies the tomb was open and Jesus "straightaway"
While John states that Jesus had to wait for them to open the tomb.

2. Some translations of SecMk like this one dont mention anything about rolling away the stone. This one does : (and the first one is consistent with Morton Smiths translation on Kirby's site).

So which one are you using and which translation is the correct one?
Provide a link to the reliable one that you are using and it would help to cite in full.

Ninth, whats the beef with these western/peripheral texts? Whats your bigger objective?

Tenth (concerning your repeated acceptance by Clementine scholars), questions have been raised about the content/substance of the Clementine letter besides linguistic conformity (which speak of authenticity). There are differences in substance compared to the rest of Clements writing:
Some of the differences as listed by
are:
Source

And as to "Clements" credibility:
So, why should we rely on Clement even if it were him?

Haran

Not very well. I am trying to work my way through Rosenthal's classic Aramaic grammar.

I realize that Burkitt is/was an excellent scholar, but that doesn't mean I'd rather look at supposed parallels in English translation. Comparing the original Greek to an English translation of the Syriac just doesn't work for me. I'm sure you understand.

Now, see, this is interesting. This is why I wanted the original language.

This phrase "in the same hour" is found in Daniel 5:5:

בה שעתה

"bah-shaatah"

However, the Greek LXX of Daniel 5:5 uses the seemingly literal translation:

εν αυτη τη ωρα εκεινη

"en auth th wra ekeinh"

It does not use ευθυς as you seemed to assume. It would be interesting to see more cases, but this seems to be a problem for case #3.

Anyway, these comparisons seem to be mostly one or two word possible matches. This is not much to build a case on, IMHO.

You are assuming that the scene in SGM is the same as the raising of Lazarus. Can you prove they are the same circumstance?

Besides, the western tradition seems split in at least case #3. The Syriac is split in its reading. Codex W does not have your reading....

Wish I had the time to delve into this more deeply, but so far, I'm afraid these look like rather tenuous comparisons.

Yuri Kuchinsky

I've already given you the original Greek and Smith's translation.

The original Greek of SecMk used to be available at Wieland Willker's website,

http://www.ns-zwangsarbeiterlohn.de/...ark-greek.html

But now he's taken that down. You can still try

the Google cache here.

Quote:

Ninth, whats the beef with these western/peripheral texts? Whats your bigger objective?

I'm saying that western/peripheral texts are much closer to the originals than the standard Alexandrian text.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, Haran, your argument is now with Dr. Kurt Aland, himself, because in his SQE he lists,

D lat sys sa(ms)

as adding kai euthus in Jn 11:44.

Quote:

You are assuming that the scene in SGM is the same as the raising of Lazarus. Can you prove they are the same circumstance?

Most everyone assumes that the scene in SGM is pretty darn close to, if not the same as the raising of Lazarus.

Best,

Yuri.

Ted Hoffman

Yuri,

Thanks for your response (incomplete as it is) - I think however that at the most, four people read Greek on this forum (Kirby, Haran, You [I am not so sure] and one more person).

So, why not post the links to the English translation - unless you simlpy want to shut out 99.9% of posters from this discussion?

Whats your response concerning my take on your case#2?