Having It Both Ways With Secret Mark

[StephenGoranson]

Right Isayre.
A supposed Mar Saba monk who supposedly copied that world add a note such as "Dear reader, can you believe it ended there!
(Also, I wrote that no *Mar Saba* monk/librarian is known to have given the ms a seal of approval as ancient, as genuine Clement, much less genuine Mark.)

[Secret Alias]

If the letter describes some sort of homoeroticism (as many claim) is such a break off unexpected? When my wife and I were kids we used to close our eyes during kissing scenes in movies. If the text is "gay enough" to warrant outlandish conspiracy theories how could the full text have survived. I also remind the reader that LARGE PORTIONS OF CLEMENT'S SURVIVING WRITINGS ARE LEFT UNTRANSLATED BUT NOT DESTROYED because he makes homosexual remarks and strange sexual commentary. But again an outlandish conspiracy theory is a much better explanation...

Europeans often associated hyenas with sexual "perversion," especially homosexuality. In his book Paedogogus, Clement of Alexandria complained that the hyena and the hare are "quite obsessed with sexual intercourse." Like many Europeans, he thought that male hyenas had sex with each other.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... HO0tfQD4o0

The situation with to Theodore exposes the dangers of allowing the mob "voting rights" in the sciences. Sheer nonsense served up daily in these discussions. Clement liked to reference homosexuality from time to time. Later Christian authorities not so much and they deliberately prevented people from learning what Clement had to say about the gay world around him.

Why don't you guys go back to burning books? At least it would be a more efficient use of everyone's time.

[Secret Alias]

Here is the other way our Christian gatekeepers dealt with Clement's homosexual interest:

Well, I also agree that the consummately wise Moses confessedly indicates by the prohibition before us, that we must not resemble these animals; but I do not assent to the explanation of what has been symbolically spoken. For nature never can be forced to change. What once has been impressed on it, may not be transformed into the opposite by passion. For passion is not nature, and passion is wont to deface the form, not to cast it into a new shape. Though many birds are said to change with the seasons, both in color and voice, as the blackbird (κόσσυφος), which becomes yellow from black, and a chatterer from a singing-bird. Similarly also the nightingale changes by turns both its color and note. But they do not alter their nature itself, so as in the transformation to become female from male. But the new crop of feathers, like new clothes, produces a kind of coloring of the feathers, and a little after it evaporates in the rigour of winter, as a flower when its color fades. And in like manner the voice itself, injured by the cold, is enfeebled. For, in consequence of the outer skin being thickened by the surrounding air, the arteries about the neck being compressed and filled, press hard on the breath; which being very much confined, emits a stifled sound. When, again, the breath is assimilated to the surrounding air and relaxed in spring, it is freed from its confined condition, and is carried through the dilated, though till then obstructed arteries, it warbles no longer a dying melody, but now gives forth a shrill note; and the yoice flows wide, and spring now becomes the song of the voice of birds.

Nequaquam ergo credendum est, hyænam unquam mutare naturam: idem enim animal non habet simul ambo pudenda maris et feminæ, sicut nonnulli existimarunt, qui prodigiose hermaphroditos finxerunt, et inter marem et feminam, hanc masculo-feminam naturam innovarunt. Valde autem falluntur, ut qui non animadverterint, quam sit filiorum amans omnium mater et genetrix Natura: quoniam enim hoc animal, hyæna inquam, est salacissimum, sub cauda ante excrementi meatum, adnatum est ei quoddam carneum tuberculum, feminino pudendo figura persimile. Nullum autem meatum habet hæc figura carnis, qui in utilem aliquam desinat partem, vel in matricem inquam, vel in rectum intestinum: tantum habet magnam concavitatem, quæ inanem excipiat libidinem, quando aversi fuerint meatus, qui in concipiendo fetu occupati sunt. Hoc ipsum autem et masculo et feminæ hyænæ adnatum est, quod sit insigniter pathica: masculus enim vicissim et agit, et patitur: unde etiam rarissime inveniri potest hyæna femina: non enim frequenter concipit hoc animal, cum in eis largiter redundet ea, quæ præter naturam est, satio. Hac etiam ratione mihi videtur Plato in Phœdro, amorem puerorum repellens, eum appellate bestiam, quod frenum mordentes, qui se voluptatibus dedunt, libidinosi, quadrupedum cœunt more, et filios seminare conantur. Impios autem tradidit Deus, ut air Apostolus, Romans 1:26-27 in perturbationes ignominiæ: nam et feminæeorum mutaverunt naturalem usum in eum, qui est procter naturam: similiter autem et masculi eorum, relicto usu naturali, exarserunt in desiderio sui inter se invicem, masculi in masculos turpitudinem operantes, et mercedem, quam oportuit, erroris sui in se recipientes. At vero ne libidinosissimis quidem animantibus concessit natura in excrementi meatum semen immittere: urina enim in vesicam excernitur, humefactum alimentum in ventrum, lacryma vero in oculum, sanguis in venas, sordes in aures, mucus in hares defertur: fini autem recti intestini, sedes cohæret, per quam excrementa exponuntur. Sola ergo varia in hyænis natura, superfluo coitui superfluam hanc partem excogitavit, et ideo est etiam aliquantisper concavum, ut prurientibus partibus inserviat, exinde autem excæcatur concavitas: non fuit emm res fabricata ad generationem. Hinc nobis manifestum atque adeo in confesso est, vitandos esse cum masculis concubitus, et infrugiferas sationes, et Venerem præposteram, et quæ natura coalescere non possunt, androgynorum conjunctiones, ipsam naturam sequentibus, quæ id per partium prohibet constitutionem, ut quæ masculum non ad semen suscipiendum, sed ad id effundendum fecerit. Jeremias autem, hoc est, per ipsum loquens Spiritus, quando dicit: Spelunca hyænæ facta est domus mea, id quod ex mortuis constabat corporibus detestans alimentum, sapienti allegoria reprehendit cultum simulacrorum: vere enim oportet ab idolis esse puram domum Dei viventis. Rursus Moyses lepore quoque vesci prohibet. Omni enim tempore coit lepus, et salit, assidente femina, earn a tergo aggrediens: est enim ex iis, quæ retro insiliunt. Concipit autem singulis mensibus, et superfetat; init autem, et parit; postquam autem peperit, statim a quovis initur lepore (neque enim uno contenta est matrimonio) et rursus concipit, adhuc lactans: habet enim matricem, cui sunt duo sinus, et non unus solus matricis vacuus sinus, est ei sufficiens sedes ad receptaculure coitus (quidquid enim est vacuum, desiderat repleri); verum accidit, ut cure uterum gerunt, altera pars matricis desiderio teneatur et libidine furiat; quocirca fiunt eis superfetationes. A vehementibus ergo appetitionibus, mutuisque congressionibus, et cure prægnantibus feminis conjunctionibus, alternisque initibus, puerorumque stupris, adulteriis et libidine abstinere, hujus nos ænigmatis adhortata est prohibitio. Idcirco aperte, et non per renigmata Moyses prohibuit, Non fornicaberis; non mœchaberis; pueris stuprum non inferes, Exodus 20:14 inquiens. Logi itaque præscriptum totis viribus observandum, neque quidquam contra leges ullo modo faciendum est, neque mandata sunt infirmanda. Malæenim. cupiditati nomen est ὕβρις, petulantia; et equum cupiditatis, petulantem vocavit Plato, cure legissit, Facti estis mihi equi furentes in feminas. Jeremiah 5:8 Libidines autem supplicium notum nobis facient illi, qui Sodomam accesserunt, angeli. Li eos, qui probro illos afficere voluerunt, una cum ipsa civitate combusserunt, evidenti hoc indicio ignem, qui est fructus libidinis, describentes. Quæenim veteribus acciderunt, sicut ante diximus, ad nos admonendos scripta sunt, ne eisdem teneamur vitiis, et caveamus, ne in pœnas similes incidamus. Oportet autem filios existimare, pueros; uxores autem alienas intueri tanquam proprias filias: voluptates quippe continere, ventrique et iis quæ sunt infra ventrem, dominari, est maximi imperii. Si enim ne digitum quidem temere movere permittit sapienti ratio, ut confitentur Stoici, quomodo non multo magis iis, qui sapientiam persequuntur, in eam, qua coitur, particulam dominatus est obtinendus? Atque hac quidem de causa videtur esse nominatum pudendum, quod hac corporis parte magis, quam qualibet alia, cum pudore utendum sit; natura enim sicut alimentis, ita etiam legitimis nuptiis, quantum convenit, utile est, et decet, nobis uti permisit: permisit autem appetere liberorum procreationem. Quicumque autem, quod modum excedit, persequuntur, labuntur in eo quod est secundum naturam, per congressus, qui sunt præter leges, seipsos lædentes. Ante omnia enim recte habet, ut nunquam cure adolescentibus perinde ac cum feminis, Veneris utamur consuetudine. Et ideo non esse in petris et lapidibus seminandum dicit, qui a Moyse factus est philosophus, quoniam nunquam actis radicibus genitalem sit semen naturam suscepturum. Logos itaque per Moysen appertissime præcepit: Et cure masculo non dormies feminino concubitu: est enim abominatio. Leviticus 18:22 Accedit his, quod ab omni quoque arvo feminino esse abstinendum præterquam a proprio, ex divinis Scripturis colligens præclarus Plato consuluit lege illinc accepta: Et uxori proximi tui non dabis concubitum seminis, ut polluaris apud ipsam. Leviticus 18:20 Irrita autem sunt et adulterina concubinarum semina. Ne semina, ubi non vis tibi nasci quod seminatum est. Neque ullam omnino tange mulierem, præterquam tuam ipsius uxorem, ex qua sola tibi licet carnis voluptates percipere ad suscipiendam legitimam successionem. Hæc enim Logo sola sunt legitima. Eis quidem certe, qui divini muneris in producendo opificio sunt participes, semen non est abjiciendum, neque injuria afficiendum, neque tanquam si cornibus semen mandes seminandum est. Hic ipse ergo Moyses cum ipsis quoque prohibet uxoribus congredi, si forte eas detineant purgationes menstruæ. Non enim purgamento corporis genitale semen, et quod mox homo futurum est, polluere est æquum, nec sordido materiæ profluvio, et, quæ expurgantur, inquinamentis inundare ac obruere; semen autem generationis degenerat, ineptumque redditur, simatricis sulcis privetur. Neque vero ullum unquam induxit veterum Hebræorum cœuntem cum sua uxore prægnante. Sola enim voluptas, si quis ea etiam utatur in conjugio, est præter leges, et injusta, eta ratione aliena. Rursus autem Moyses abducit viros a prægnantibus, quousque pepererint. Revera enim matrix sub vesica quidem collocata, super intestinum autem, quod rectum appellatur, posita, extendit collum inter humeros in vesica; et os colli, in quod venit semen, impletum occluditur, illa autem rursus inanis redditur, cum partu purgata fuerit: fructu autem deposito, deinde semen suscipit. Neque vero nobis turpe est ad auditorum utilitatem nominare partes, in quibus fit fetus conceptio, quæ quidem Deum fabricari non puduit. Matrix itaque sitiens filiorum procreationem, semen suscipit, probrosumque et vituperandum negat coitum, post sationem ore clauso omnino jam libidinem excludens. Ejus autem appetitiones, quæ prius in amicis versabantur complexibus, intro conversæ, in procreatione sobolis occupatæ, operantur una cum Opifice. Nefas est ergo operantem jam naturam adhuc molestia afficere, superflue ad petulantem prorumpendo libidinem. Petulantia autem, quæ multa quidem habet nomina, et multas species, cure ad hanc veneream intemperantiam deflexerit, λαγνεία, id est lascivia, dicitur; quo nomine significatur libidinosa, publica, et incesta in coitum propensio: quæ cum aucta fuerit, magna simul morborum convenit multitudo, obsoniorum desiderium, vinolentia et amor in mulieres; luxus quoque, et simul universarum voluptatum studium; in quæ omnia tyrannidem obtinet cupidity. His autem cognatæ innumerabiles augentur affectiones, ex quibus mores intemperantes ad summum provehuntur. Dicit autem Scriptura: Parantur intemperantibus flagella, et supplicia humeris insipientium: Proverbs 19:29 vires intemperantiæ, ejusque constantem tolerantiam, vocans humeros insipientium. Quocirca, Amove a servis tuis spes inanes, et indecoras, inquit, cupiditates averte a me. Ventris appetitio et coitus ne me apprehendant.

Longe ergo sunt arcenda multifaria insidiatorum maleficia; non ad solam enim Cratetis Peram, sed etiam ad nostram civitatem non navigat stultus parasitus, nec scortator libidinosus, qui posteriori delectatur parte: non dolosa meretrix, nec ulla ejusmodi alia voluptatis bellua. Multa ergo nobis per totam vitam seminetur, quæ bona sit et honesta, occupatio. In summa ergo, vel jungi matrimonio, vel omnino a matrimonio purum esse oportet; in quæ stione enim id versatur, et hoc nobis declaratum est in libro De continentia. Quod si hoc ipsum, an ducenda sit uxor. veniat in considerationem: quomodo libere permittetur, quemadmodum nutrimento, ita etiam coitu semper uti, tanquam re necessaria? Ex eo ergo videri possunt nervi tanquam stamina distrahi, et in vehementi congressus intensione disrumpi. Jam vero offundit etiam caliginem sensibus, et vires enervat. Patet hoc et in animantibus rationis expertibus, et in iis, quæ in exercitatione versantur, corporibus; quorum hi quidem, qui abstinent, in certaminibus superant adversarios; illa vero a coitu abducta circumaguntur, et tantum non trahuntur, omnibus viribus et omni impetu tandem quasi enervata. Parvam epilepsiam dicebat coitum sophista Abderites morbum immedicabilem existimans. Annon enim consequuntur resolutiones, quæ exinanitionis ejusque, quod abscedit, magnitudini ascribuntur? homo enim ex homine nascitur et evellitur. Vide damni magnitudinem: totus homo per exinanitionem coitus abstrahitur. Dicit enim: Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro ex came mea. Genesis 2:23 Homo ergo tantum exinanitur semine, quantus videtur corpore; est enim generationis initium id, quod recedit: quin etiam conturbat ebullitio materiæ et compagem corporis labefactat et commovet. Lepide ergo ille, qui interroganti, Quomodo adhuc se haberet ad res venereas, respondit: Bona verba, quæ so: ego vero lubentissime isthinc, tanquam ab agresti et insano domino, profugi. Verum concedatur quidem et admittatur matrimonium: vult enim Dominus humanum genus repleri; seal non dicit, Estote libidinosi: nec vos, tanquam ad coitum natos, voluit esse deditos voluptati. Pudore autem nos afficiat Pædagogus, clamans per Ezechielem: Circumcidamini fornicationem vestram. Aliquod tempus ad seminandum opportunum habent quoque rationis expertia animantia. Aliter autem coire, quam ad liberorum procreationem, est facere injuriam naturæ; qua quidem oportetmagistra, quas prudenter introducit temporis commoditates, diligenter observare, senectutem, inquam, et puerilem ætatem. His enim nondum concessit, illos autem non vult amplius uxores ducere. Seal non vult homines semper dare operam matrimonio. Matrimonium autem est filiorum procreationis appetitio, non inordinata seminis excretio, quæ est et præter leges eta ratione aliena. Secundum naturam autem nobis vita universa processerit, si et ab initio cupiditates contineamus, et hominum genus, quod ex divina providentia nascitur, improbis et malitiosis non tollamus artibus: eæenim, ut fornicatiohem celent, exitialia medicamenta adhibentes, quæ prorsus in perniciem ducunt, simul cum fetu omnem humanitatem perdunt. Cæterum, quibus uxores ducere concessum est, iis Pædagogo opus fuerit, ut non interdiu mystica naturæ celebrentur orgia, nec ut aliquis ex ecclesia, verbi gratia, aut ex foro mane rediens, galli more cœat, quando orationis, et lectionis, et eorum quæ interdiu facere convenit, operum tempus est. Vespere autem oportet post convivium quiescere, et post gratiarum actionem, quæ fit Deo pro bonis quæ percepimus. Non semper autem concedit tempus natura, ut peragatur congressus matrimonii; est enim eo desiderabilior conjunctio, quo diuturnior. Neque vero noctu, tanquam in tenebris, immodeste sese ac imtemperanter gerere oportet, sed verecundia, ut quæ sit lux rationis, in animo est includenda. Nihil enim a Penelope telam texente differemus, si interdiu quidem texamus dogmata temperantiæ; noctu autem ea resolvamus, cum in cubile venerimus. Si enim honestatem exercere oportet, multo magis tuæ uxori honestas est ostendenda, inhonestas vitando conjunctiones: et quod caste cum proximis verseris, fide dignum e domo adsit testimonium. Non enim potest aliquid honestum ab ea existimari, apud quam honestas in acribus illis non probatur certo quasi testimonio voluptatibus. Benevolentia autem quæ præceps fertur ad congressionem, exiguo tempore floret, et cum corpore consenescit; nonnunquam autem etiam præ senescit, flaccescente jam libidine, quando matrimonialem temperantiam meretriciæ vitiaverint libidines. Amantium enim corda sunt volucria, amorisque irritamenta exstinguuntur sæpe pœnitentia; amorque sæpe vertitur in odium, quando reprehensionera senserit satietas. Impudicorum vero verborum, et turpium figurarum, meretriciorumque osculomm, et hujusmodi lasciviarum nomina ne sunt quidem memoranda, beatum sequentibus Apostolum, qui aperte dicit: Fornicatio autem et omnis immunditia, vel plura habendi cupiditas, ne nominetur quidem in vobis, sicut decet saneros. Ephesians 5:3 Recte ergo videtur dixisse quispiam: Nulli quidem profuit coitus, recte autem cum eo agitur, quem non læserit. Nam et qui legitimus, est periculosus, nisi quatenus in liberorum procreatione versatur. De eo autem, qui est præter leges, dicit Scriptura: Mulier meretrix apro similis reputabitur. Quæautem viro subjecta est, turris est mortis iis, qui ea utuntur. Capro, vel apro, meretricis comparavit affectionem. Mortem autem dixit quæ sitam, adulterium, quod committitur in meretrice, quæ custoditur. Domum autem, et urbem, in qua suam exercent intemperantiam. Quin etiam quæ est apud vos pœtica, quodammodo ea exprobrans, scribit:—

Tecum et adulterium est, tecum coitusque nefandus,
Fœdus, femineusque, urbs pessima, plane impura.

Econtra autem pudicos admiratur:—

Quos desiderium tenuit nec turpe cubilis
Alterius, nec tetra invisaque stupra tulerunt
Ulla unquam maribus.

For many think such things to be pleasures only which are against nature, such as these sins of theirs. And those who are better than they, know them to be sins, but are overcome by pleasures, and darkness is the veil of their vicious practices. For he violates his marriage adulterously who uses it in a meretricious way, and hears not the voice of the Instructor, crying, The man who ascends his bed, who says in his soul, Who sees me? Darkness is around me, and the walls are my covering, and no one sees my sins. Why do I fear lest the Highest will remember? Sirach 23:18-19 Most wretched is such a man, dreading men's eyes alone, and thinking that he will escape the observation of God. For he knows not, says the Scripture, that brighter ten thousand times than the sun are the eyes of the Most High, which look on all the ways of men, and cast their glance into hidden parts. Thus again the Instructor threatens them, speaking by Isaiah: Woe be to those who take counsel in secret, and say, Who sees us? Isaiah 29:15 For one may escape the light of sense, but that of the mind it is impossible to escape. For how, says Heraclitus, can one escape the notice of that which never sets? Let us by no means, then, veil our selves with the darkness; for the light dwells in us. For the darkness, it is said, comprehends it not. John 1:5 And the very night itself is illuminated by temperate reason. The thoughts of good men Scripture has named sleepless lamps; although for one to attempt even to practice concealment, with reference to what he does, is confessedly to sin. And every one who sins, directly wrongs not so much his neighbour if he commits adultery, as himself, because he has committed adultery, besides making himself worse and less thought of. For he who sins, in the degree in which he sins, becomes worse and is of less estimation than before; and he who has been overcome by base pleasures, has now licentiousness wholly attached to him. Wherefore he who commits fornication is wholly dead to God, and is abandoned by the Word as a dead body by the spirit. For what is holy, as is right, abhors to be polluted. But it is always lawful for the pure to touch the pure. Do not, I pray, put off modesty at the same time that you put off your clothes; because it is never right for the just man to divest himself of continence. For, lo, this mortal shall put on immortality; when the insatiableness of desire, which rushes into licentiousness, being trained to self-restraint, and made free from the love of corruption, shall consign the man to everlasting chastity. For in this world they marry and and are given in marriage. Matthew 22:30 But having done with the works of the flesh, and having been clothed with immortality, the flesh itself being pure, we pursue after that which is according to the measure of the angels.

I don't know that this explains what happened to the rest of to Theodore. No one knows. But I know that it is a better explanation than the alternative. Why do I know this? Because the alternative is batshit crazy.

[StephenGoranson]

Speaking of “Sheer nonsense served up,” Mr. Alias, am I supposed to plead that my work in a uni library does not include burning books?

Or when you, Alias, again, offer a false either/or--your way or the “batshit crazy” way--you neglect to mention two additional alternatives offered by, what’s his name, Morton Smith, page 3, on his imagined scribe scenario: “It may be that lack of time forced him to break off, as he did, in the midst of a page and of a sentence; on the other hand, the text he was copying may itself have been a fragment and have broken off at this point.” Neither persuasive, imo, but if you continue to embarrass Smith’s memory, at least try to get your facts straight.

[Secret Alias]

Mr. Alias, am I supposed to plead that my work in a uni library does not include burning books?

You suppose that a great scholar forged a text which would utterly taint the field he built his life's achievements. I think the case for you having some animus against Morton Smith is stronger than the case for Morton Smith 'hating' Christianity, the cornerstone of your outlandish theories. If it is 'reasonable' for Morton Smith to have forged to Theodore, it is reasonable to suppose a librarian could destroy and deface a book or books. After all, Quesnell reports that the manuscript was eventually ripped from the original book. Surely Father Aristarchos the librarian is not above suspicion in this case.

[Secret Alias]

“batshit crazy”

If Morton Smith did all the things Carlson said he did and you acknowledge as a reasonable hypothesis Morton Smith would be - in common parlance - nuts. No one should spend all the time you guys on a forgery for so little in return. It would be batshit crazy to put references to Morton Salt, baldness and the rest in a book in a library, to map out a plan according to a third rate pulp fiction novel, to have a girlfriend in the lead up to and during his stay at Mar Saba but be driven by 'closeted homosexuality' for a massive hoax for such a tepid endorsement of ass fucking and expect to have the 'mystery solved' by a crack team of scholars the way you believe it was so long after his death. Yes either Morton Smith is batshit crazy or those promulgating this ridiculous theory.

[billd89]

Speaking of “Sheer nonsense served up,” Mr. Alias, am I supposed to plead that my work in a uni library does not include burning books?

There may not be a kindled furnace or chanting mobs, but public libraries definitely destroy/throw out books. I have seen this with mine own eyes; it's not uncommon practice. Recent example? They must have their reasons, but I happen to know for a fact MIT University Libraries threw away several hundred $$s of legitimate drug recovery literature. What's up with that? That campus is crawling w/ Adderall/Ritalin abusers (i.e. addicts). You would think that a small collection of brand new books on addiction might fit their student health & community mandate? (THEY STILL SHELVE the "A.A." stuff.)

Discretionary authority is sometimes Censorship by a different name. Books are being moved out of libraries, "annexed" and made less accessible. And let's not pretend that ever-diminishing GoogleBooks (a duplicitous privatization scam) is any substitute!

Book-burning happens in different, subtle ways now.

God Bless Inter-library Loan. For how much longer, tho?

[Secret Alias]

If Morton Smith was capable of writing in Greek which such vivid resemblance to Clement of Alexandria and he wanted Clement to become the mouthpiece to the Godless LGBTQ world we now live in, why not reference the homosexuality in more explicit terms? Why not have Jesus performing fellatio on the youth? Why not go all out and explicitly destroy the foundations of western Christianity? Burn the whole building down to the ground. Why didn't his hatred of Christianity overtake his forgery and instead of cutting off the letter where things are getting interesting, continue to embellish blasphemy after blasphemy in order to hasten the destruction of sacredness in his lifetime? Why just 'hint' at what you say was his obvious purpose?

Another question. If Smith had really wanted to use the manuscript to further his own career or some sort of agenda why did it take him so long to publish Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark? If he wanted to 'make something of himself' you'd have expected an immediate publication of something substantive. Moreover, if he had wanted to turn this into 'HIS discovery of the MOST IMPORTANT TEXT EVER' he could have offered the librarian a couple hundred and the book would have been his. The leaving the book on the shelf is what we - in the 21st century - all want from manuscript discoveries. It is acknowledged to be the 'ethical' way to make discoveries (cf. Roberta Mazza another prominent Christianity hater). It has become the clear lesson from the First Century Mark debacle (a scandal much worse than this one but one that is 'less sexy'). I remind the readership that many of the assholes involved in First Century Mark were also openly critical of Morton Smith's discovery. I wonder why they preferred the implications of their unethical discovery to Morton Smith's immoral one? Could it be they had an agenda? ...

Of course you will respond that Smith needed the book to be in the library to fool the world regarding its antiquity. But if it really was so easy for Smith to get the book past the librarian in the first place and if Smith knew that the book wasn't listed in catalogs from previous eras, how much of an advantage would Smith have felt having the book on the shelf versus a stamp of authenticity from the monastery (a signature, an affidavit, a photo with the librarian and the book)? Money always solves problems and Smith had money. As it was he must have been aware that he couldn't prove that the book was there before he found it. If the book was being used to further some 'agenda' it would have been better served by having it in his hands when he returned to Columbia rather than ignored on a book shelf in the middle of the desert where it could be misplaced, stolen or destroyed.

There are two scenarios - one that is batshit crazy and the other which is boring and unimaginative - i.e. the manuscript is exactly what it appears to be. Boring and unimaginative is the more reasonable choice.

[StephenGoranson]

Why didn’t Smith do x, y, and z? Why, for example, did the poet and expert text critic A. E. Housman devote so many years to editing the crappy poet Marcus Manilius? Why did D. Obbink and K. King do silly and/or criminal things? Can we get back to what Smith actually did do? Otherwise, the endless obscurantism resembles Putinesque whataboutism deflections.
(PS I don’t know this, but mention the possibility that the L. Michael White symposium presentations—two, by G. Smith & B. Landau, relevant here--might could be eventually made into a printed Festschrift.)

[Secret Alias]

But don't you agree that these Mar Saba forgery propositions are a little like Jesus mythicism? The detractors of a living Jesus and a living document just have as their methodology the raising of endless questions. What about this? What about that? The defenders of common sense are forced to respond. The responses are scrutinized for weakness. Then more questions - and specifically leading questions raised for the sole purpose of completing the end game. This goes on and on until the very existence of a 'debate' leads the hoax side to declare victory - 'there must be something here because there's a debate/a controversy.' No there's just people with a lot of time and a megaphone raising questions. It is apparently a very old tactict:

Certain men, rejecting the truth, are introducing among us false stories ... which serve rather to elicit controversies, as the apostle said, than to God’s work of building up in the faith. By their craftily constructed rhetoric they lead astray the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, corrupting the oracles of the Lord. They are evil expounders of what was first well spoken. For they upset many, leading them away by the pretense of knowledge from him who constituted and ordered the universe, as if they had something higher and greater to show them than the God who made the heaven and the earth and all that is in them. By clever language they artfully attract the simpleminded into their kind of inquiry and then crudely destroy them by developing their blasphemous and impious view[s]