Agamemnon Tselikas’ Handwriting Analysis Report Did Morton Smith Forge "Secret Mark"?

[StephenGoranson]

Adela Yarbro Collins--not Duke-related--author of
Mark: a commentary
Series: Hermeneia--a critical and historical commentary on the Bible
Minneapolis, MN : Fortress Press, c2007.

Charles Murgia.

Johannes Munck, denied the Letter was by Clement.

This one I have in memory, so I might be mistaken (my apology if so):
Gregory L. Doudna, (maybe, I think; someone surely) called it as phony as a three-dollar bill.

In any case, the Atlantic article, titled
"THE ‘SECRET’ GOSPEL AND A SCANDALOUS NEW EPISODE IN THE LIFE OF JESUS
A Columbia historian said he’d discovered a sacred text with clues to Jesus’s sexuality. Was it real?"

can be read by anyone
and any reader can make up his or her own mind.

[Secret Alias]

I am unclear. I am saying that Duke was the epicenter of the anti-gay anti-Morton Smith conspiracy where (a) a particular reading of the text ("naked man and naked man") is (b) linked with a particular view of Morton Smith (that he was an enraged homosexual seeking revenge on Christianity) which injects these ideas into the mainstream discourse of the document. I don't see the relevance of any of the things you mentioned. The idea that Smith might have been gay or that his alleged homosexual MIGHT have been his motive for forging the document was undoubtedly discussed in private. In the Smith College archives Quesnell and Flusser have such a discussion. Something like if Smith was engaged to a woman and then she broke off the marriage he might become gay and do this or that including the forging of a text (it was something like this that Flusser suggested, from memory of course). But the difference with regards to the Duke conspiracy theory is that it takes for granted as "facts" (a) and (b). No one else acted or put in print these crazy ideas. Duke took things one step further to the point that when an article like Sabar's comes out it is taken to "confirm" "what we have known all along" - i.e. that Smith was gay, the letter makes reference to Jesus being gay or the Carpocratians being gay and so on. My point was, what is so different about Duke? And my tentative conclusion (and I separated you from this part of it) Goodacre has a private war against Q and always supporting any attempt to lambast Smith for being a pervert is "fair game" as part of that effort. I do think that Goodacre is the reason that Duke's relationship with Secret Mark is so markedly different than other institutions. Can't prove it. But it seems a likely possibility to me.

[StephenGoranson]

Q and the "Letter to Theodore" are not closely related subjects.
Criticising an Englishman for having an English accent is bizarre.

Without attempting an exhaustive list, people who think M. Smith got it wrong include, but are not limited to, some associated with:
Harvard, Cambridge (UK), Yale, Brown, Emory, U. of Arizona, U.C. Berkeley, UNC-Chapel Hill, Columbia, Smith, Hebrew U. in Jerusalem, Catholic U. in Australia, U. of Melbourne, Aarhus, Princeton,Tampa, Notre Dame, Cornell, Copenhagen, Chicago, etc......though I haven't yet noticed anyone from Timbuktu.

[Secret Alias]

It's not "criticizing" an Englishman for having an English reaction. I am Canadian originally. Canadians are more mannerly than Americans because of the British influence. But as I always say to people being polite isn't the same thing as being nice.

You're not getting the point about singling out Duke. Everyone can have a theory. Tselikas thinks that it's a forgery. He's not from Duke. But there is this almost cabal-like "agreement" among people associated with Duke about the situation with the document which is unique.

Duke is an academic institution. Presumably the people there have been trained to separate facts from opinion. Duke people take it for granted that (a) the document references homosexuality and (b) Morton Smith was a homosexual. These are taken as facts even after it is demonstrated that the world's only (I use "world's only" because he towers over everyone else) expert on manuscripts makes clear there is no homosexuality referenced in the document. After Sabar's exhaustive research (he was contacting me while he investigation was well underway). I have evidence he was digging dirt on Smith as early as 2020. At least four years of muck stirring and still no actual evidence of a homosexual act or a homosexual relationship.

It would not be surprising if a group of Americans couldn't distinguish between facts and opinion. But a "click" as they say in this forsaken country, at Duke University? This is interesting. What about Duke University should cause otherwise intelligent people to promote wholly unsubstantiated gossip and inuendo as "brilliant" scholarship? I think it comes down to Goodacre. Like they say everyone's entitled to their opinion but not their own set of facts. The letter is not likely about homosexuality, Morton Smith is not likely ever to have had a homosexual relationship. I couldn't find evidence of it. Sabar couldn't find evidence. Nevertheless you'd think that Sabar split the atom by Goodacre's reaction. How should any of what Sabar cobbles together tilt the scales either way in an academic debate about Secret Mark?

Goodacre is for the discrediting by whatever means necessary of an individual who discovered a text which broadens the possibilities of sources (= Quellen) for the canonical gospels. This is all this about. Using the tactics of the National Enquirer to fight against Q. I am not saying that Goodacre "had a hand" in Sabar's article. Do I think he was a consultant? I certainly do. If Sabar contacted me he likely contacted people at Duke. I have no proof. But he is a very good writer and an excellent researcher.

[StephenGoranson]

By "click" do you mean "clique"?
As for proposed gospel sources, extra L for Luke and extra M for Matthew are sometimes taken as written sources.
Do you think Sabar was worried about hypothetical Q?
A reality check may not be something I can give that you consider. Can anyone?

[Secret Alias]

By "click" do you mean "clique"?

As a Canadian by birth I always draw attention to the difficulty Americans have with French words (no "foyer" does not rhyme with "lawyer").

As for proposed gospel sources, extra L for Luke and extra M for Matthew are sometimes taken as written sources.
Do you think Sabar was worried about hypothetical Q?
A reality check may not be something I can give that you consider. Can anyone?

I think that that what bothers Goodacre about Q is that it opens up Pandora's Box. Rather than being anti-Q he's pro-canon. Secret Mark casts a shadow of doubt on canonical Mark. That's the problem. As the Philosophumena notes the Marcionites had a copy of Mark which had the mystical doctrines of Empedocles added to it - or at least that's the explanation of the author. Marcion is similarly said to have "added" to a gospel in other sources. The question was always and is always is the canonical set the limit of acceptable texts regarding the gospel. Irenaeus and Mark Goodacre say yes and at least in the case of Irenaeus are willing to slander anyone who says something different. Goodacre doesn't do any slandering. He just claps whenever others do it for him.

[Secret Alias]

In antiquity there was a divide between "pro-canon" and "anti-canon" with respect to the documents Irenaeus collected as authoritative in the Church. Until the discovery of the Letter to Theodore there were only whispers of alternatives to the canon. Now with the letter there is a clear alternative. Mark himself wrote the alternative. Not easy to get around the testimony of Clement in the manner Irenaeus disposed of Marcion. You can't slander your way out of an alternative Markan gospel. But you can shoot the messenger, you can make an all out assault on the reputation of the discoverer of the document. If the Letter to Theodore is right, all of Goodacre's efforts are in vain. Hence the cheering on and open signs of elation whenever anyone says "Morton Smith sucks." Do I think that human beings are capable of this sort of malice? Yes I do. I still have a hard time believing that scholars do.

[StephenGoranson]

"....Until the discovery of the Letter to Theodore there were only whispers of alternatives to the canon....."

Are you not paying attention to the ga-zillion Marcion posts?
Your obliviousness...

[Secret Alias]

I consider Marcion one of my only areas of expertise. I don't go along with the rest of the Marcionophiles. I don't think we have a clue what the text of Marcion looked like and I have argued with the proponents of "Marcion studies" here at the forum with just as much vigor as with this topic. I actually side with KK and others often times. The Marcionite gospel is lost and no one knows what it looked like. No point citing Tertullian's citation of a gospel as proof of what the Marcionite gospel looked like. Things are much more complicated than that. But back to this topic.

Is it possible that the Letter is a forgery? Of course there is. Do I think that Mark Goodacre would forge a text to prove Q didn't exist? No I would never believe that. I would attack anyone who suggested such a proposition with almost the same vigor I have defended Morton Smith. Is it possible that Morton Smith forged the document? In theory yes. But where is the evidence for his guilt? That's the real issue.

I tell you what I believe. No one who thinks that knowledge of the ancient world is sacred would do something like this. Smith hanged himself because he would function as a scholar because of his cancer. Research meant that much to him. It was who he was. I think good scholarship and being a good scholar meant as much to Morton Smith as it does to Mark Goodacre. That's why I would always hold them as irreproachable with respect to the manufacture of forgeries.

[Peter Kirby]

Do I think that Mark Goodacre would forge a text to prove Q didn't exist? No I would never believe that.

I think good scholarship and being a good scholar meant as much to Morton Smith as it does to Mark Goodacre. That's why I would always hold them as irreproachable with respect to the manufacture of forgeries.

I can't agree with you here. If somehow Mark Goodacre was in some monastery library and produced a copy of part of a supposedly ancient letter somehow showing that Luke directly used Matthew, the question would appear in my mind instantly.

How well do we really know anyone? How many people can we say that of?