Equal Opportunity Offender: The Authenticity Side Misrepresentation

[Secret Alias]

My phone says that it says "... Clement Stromateus to the addressee Theodoros ..."

[Secret Alias]

at the end χειρόγραφον του αγίου Σάββα = the manuscript of Saint Sabbas

Συλλογή χειρογράφων του αγίου Σάββα = collection of the manuscripts of Mar Saba.

[Secret Alias]

Something doesn't add up with this translation. As I said I am not a partisan. I want the truth.

[Secret Alias]

Why would Smith and Landau have buried the certificate if it said there were no doubts about the authenticity?

Why would Kallistos Dourvas have had "no doubts about its authenticity" in 1976 but in 1983 he thought the manuscript was written in the 18th century but that it was a pseudepigraphon?

The only possibility is that Kallistos changed his opinion because, as Peter notes, he read something in Nea Sion or some Greek journal or another text which references something about the manuscript or the situation in the monastery. Then we could explain Smith and Landau burying the reference on p 133 with the idea that it contradicted their pseudepigraphon thesis. But surely the fact that Kallistos "changed" his position between 1976 and 1983 could be explained by his introduction to new material which caused the change of mind. It would still make more sense to put the certificate front and center - i.e. on page one - and then work to explain Kallistos's change of mind to their position rather than dealing with all the forgery stuff written in the West. Something doesn't make sense.

[Secret Alias]

My guess is that Kallistos had the same opinion about the document in 1976 and 1983, that is the same opinion as Smith and Landau. People rarely change their mind. Especially old people. Look at certain people at our forum. Something doesn't add up with this reference.

[Secret Alias]

And why would Tselikas have volunteered a document which contradicted his position? I have a low estimation of people and scholars.

[RandyHelzerman]

by knowing the existence of this letter and knowing what it says you know a key truth in this whole controversy that 99% of "real scholars" don't even know.

It is an altogether extraordinary document. To say the least. I've read many books, listened to many podcasts and youtube videos. I've been interested in Secret Mark ever since I first found out about it from an obscure but erudite web page about early christian writings.

Nothing about this document. Radio silence. And complete lack of visibility into what the librarians in whose custody it was thought about it. I know its hard to take those guys wearing dresses seriously--what with their big fuzzy beards and all--but I have to think that you don't get to be the Librarian of either Mar Saba or the Jerusalem Patriarchate without *some* ability to know an authentic old book and old handwriting when they see it.

What gives? Aren't there enough secrets hovering over this letter, that scholars have to keep adding yet more layers of secrecy? Secret trips to view the document, written in a secret diary, secret meetings, squelching the paper trails...

[Secret Alias]

Starting to have my doubts that Smith and Landau translated it correctly.

[RandyHelzerman]

Starting to have my doubts that Smith and Landau translated it correctly.

I'm shocked, shocked!!!

[Secret Alias]

The longer it takes for them to get back to me the more I become suspicious.