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

[Secret Alias]

And on my suggestion that Tselikas had the original MS. There is no proof for it. If anything Tselikas has consistently told me he can't find it. Nevertheless I don't think it is beyond the realm of possibilities, as he found the book and as he has consistently stated that he is "sure it is somewhere" that there is a 20% or less that he knows where it is but has been told it's dead to the public. What do I base this on? Dragas's testimony regarding the attitude of the Patriarchate toward the stead stream of "foreigners" who were interested in this text. We see it in another report where the requester was told the text was being fumigated. These are not serious responses. I think the document is with the Archbishop of Gerash (= Meliton's suggestion) in his office a few doors down from Tselikas's office. We will never see this text again unless (and this is the reason for consistent rejection of the "gay" theory) the Patriarchate is convinced this is not about "gay Jesus." As long as the Patriarchate thinks that this text will encourage people to refer to the Lord in a blasphemous way, we will never see the text or test the text.

I know doesn't sound like a professional argument. And in a regular library it would be insane to suggest that there is some conspiracy to hide the text from the outside world. But look at the story so far. First the MS was taken from the Mar Saba as a "hostile takeover." The monks at Mar Saba considered the text to be their rightful property (which is strange for a book and a text that was planted by a foreigner). Then when it gets to Patriarchate they prevent outsiders from seeing it. In 1983 the only reason QQ probably got access was because he went through Catholic intermediaries. He was a priest and so wasn't a gay militant or something. Every time I have talked to the current librarian or many times it always comes down to "do you believe in the Holy Trinity" and stuff from the Apostles creed i.e. an interrogation about the sincerity of my faith.

I don't think it's crazy that everyone knows where the text is and the one other thing they know is not to mention it to any outsiders. The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club. The best course of action is to test the scribbles on p 11 of the book which were seen since 1983.

[andrewcriddle]

This thread has caused me to reread Tselikas' report. Everything that follows is IMVHO.

The report does seem to establish that although the handwriting is in one sense an 18th century Greek cursive, the scribe is not writing cursive because this is how they learnt to write rapidly and legibly. Instead the scribe is carefully and deliberately writing in a script that does not come naturally.

Formally speaking an 18th century writer who did not normally write this type of cursive could have deliberately chosen to do so and produced this effect. However it is hard to imagine a motive for an 18th century writer to do so. Whereas a later writer wishing to give the impression that the script was from the 18th century would be almost forced to do so. I.E. although an 18th century date for the writing is possible a much later date is considerably more plausible.

Andrew Criddle

[StephenGoranson]

I agree with Andrew (Fri Mar 22, 2024 5:58 am).

And I would add that, though most of Smith's correspondence was destroyed, I suggest it is a safe bet that when Columbia Professor Smith asked others for paleographic date estimates he told them that he "found" the writing at Mar Saba, helping to establish its "authenticity."
This, of course, was before authenticity questions were raised.
Also a safe bet he did not ask them if it was fake.
And, further, when he sent them a sample, he may very well have left out the most controversial text portions.
After all, Smith was interested in "magic," and misdirection.

[Peter Kirby]

And, further, when he sent them a sample, he may very well have left out the most controversial text portions.

On matters of fact, like this one, I don't see the point of writing in hypotheticals.

[StephenGoranson]

Well, I can say that some scholars, once they had additional information, changed their minds, from probable authenticity to probable non-authenticity.

[andrewcriddle]

From the specific comments on particular passages made by named scholars quoted in CA and a SGM it seems clear that Morton Smith did show the whole text of the Mar Saba letter to other scholars for comment as part of his preparation for writing his book on Secret Mark.

Morton Smith made a formal public announcement of his discovery in 1960 and then published CA and a SGM in 1973. Some scholars who tentatively thought in 1960 on the basis of the preliminary announcement that the new text was probably authentic may well have changed their minds on reading CA and a SGM, but AFAIK none of the scholars who had provided detailed feedback for Morton Smith changed their views on reading his finished work. (Some of then said from the beginning that it was not by Clement but that is another matter.)

Andrew Criddle

[StephenGoranson]

I may need to recheck the two 1973 books, not at hand, to see if there is evidence that Smith showed* the whole text to all those scholars.
But I can say that Smith, in his HTR "The Score" article, misrepresented at least one scholar, Edward C. Hobbs, by listing him among scholars who supported the authenticity of the Letter as Clement's. Edward C. Hobbs denied that.
And an example of a scholar who changed his mind (to non-authentic) about Secret Mark was Birger Pearson.

*added:
and when he showed the text. For example, when he showed (to whom?) for paleography and when he showed (to whom?) for interpretation, by 1973, may not be the same date ranges.

[StephenGoranson]

In other words, did Morton Smith show the whole text or only part of the text to different people for different purposes at different times?

[andrewcriddle]

I may need to recheck the two 1973 books, not at hand, to see if there is evidence that Smith showed* the whole text to all those scholars.
But I can say that Smith, in his HTR "The Score" article, misrepresented at least one scholar, Edward C. Hobbs, by listing him among scholars who supported the authenticity of the Letter as Clement's. Edward C. Hobbs denied that.
And an example of a scholar who changed his mind (to non-authentic) about Secret Mark was Birger Pearson.

*added:
and when he showed the text. For example, when he showed (to whom?) for paleography and when he showed (to whom?) for interpretation, by 1973, may not be the same date ranges.

I agree that Morton Smith exaggerated in "The Score" article. However I don't think Edward C. Hobbs or Birger Pearson were shown the material before 1973.

According to CA and a SGM p.1 Paleographical opinions were obtained from A. Angelou, C. Dimaras, A Delatte, G. Kournoutos, M. Manousakas, AD Nock, M. Richard, V Scouvaras, G. Soulis and P. Topping. Apparently the estimated date for the handwriting varied between 1650 and 1850 with a preference for the middle of the range.

At least Nock and Richard clearly had access to the whole text. Richard regarded the letter as Clementine, while Nock regarded it as non-Clementine on "instinct". The great majority of the others who were asked about authenticity regarded the letter as Clementine. J. Munck rejected authenticity presenting various arguments that it was post-Clementine and probably post-Eusebian. W. Volker rejected authenticity finding unbelievable the institutional esotericism that the letter describes. (See CA and a SGM p. 67.)

Andrew Criddle

[StephenGoranson]

NOTE: this is a CORRECTED post. My earlier version included at least one mistake. Sorry. My main point remains, that Morton Smith controlled information, and, as some people learned more, they relied on his account and interpretation less.
~~~~~~~
Thanks, Andrew; we agree that Morton Smith exaggerated in his "The Score" HTR 75/4 (1982) article.
That article listed, though misreported, the opinion of Edward C. Hobbs on the material, on page 450 with note 2. Hobbs wrote a long memoir on bGreek
"....I didn't believe it, but I didn't want to take on THAT issue
as well. Smith later cited me, in Harvard Theological Review, as one
who "accepted the authenticity of the work!"
From: Edward Hobbs <~~~@wellesley.edu>
Date: Sun, 14 May 1995 18:46:01 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Lengthy account of Secret Mark
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/ ... 01038.html
b-greek-digest V1 #708

The paleographic estimates may or may not have been based on all three pages.
Smith's account of his "discovery" is not, imo, something that can be safely assumed to be fully reliable.