A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

And most of the hoax conspiracy theorist's arguments have the same shitty appeal to common points of reference for idiots. You know. The scholar who discovered the document was named Morton. The DaVinci Code was popular when Carlson wrote his book. So why not say that Smith left clues to get himself caught including one to the well known Morton Salt Company. The letter mentions seven veils. What's the best most widely known example of this? Salome and the dance of the seven veils. The idea that someone might have gotten the idea to go to Mar Saba based on a shitty paperback 'makes sense' to idiots. They certainly wouldn't know about Mar Saba. But really Morton Smith needed to read a shitty book to get the idea for forging the letter from a Christian paperback? Come on. But these arguments are mostly developed by American scholars with an American mindset. There is a kind of 'common sense' approach to conspiracy theories. Instead of asking what would an ancient person think about nakedness, the whole discussion is front loaded with American everyday 'common sense.' The only American who ever got away with 'naked man and naked man' was Matthew McConaughey https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/a ... edirect=on http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/c ... cconaughey He was arrested for 'naked man with naked man' and got away with it - arguing essentially that 'naked with naked' doesn't always mean something sexual - https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/0 ... mer-arrest
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by rakovsky »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:35 am
The results reported seem broadly as I would have expected with one striking exception.
Puck's song in Midsummer Night's Dream has apparently only one word otherwise not found in Shakespeare and four words found only once. (For a total number of five I would have expected three words otherwise not found in Shakespeare and two words found only once.) The result for Puck's song prima-facie suggests an imitation of Shakespeare rather than an original piece by Shakespeare. Obviously the poem was written by Shakespeare but there may be some special issue here e.g. possibly the song is largely repeated somewhere else in Shakespeare's work. However the numbers are so small in total that the anomaly may be pure chance.

The paper does find that the ratio of new words to words previously used once only is not useful in discriminating between authentic and inauthentic works. Since none of the works involved is a deliberate imitation of Shakespeare I would have expected this.

Andrew Criddle
FWIW,
There is a theory that Shakespeare didn't actually write all of his works. I don't think it's very reliable therefore to use Shakespeare as the only case study to disprove the theory of the vocabulary as a way to find authenticity.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
Roger Viklund
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2016 1:03 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by Roger Viklund »

rakovsky wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:01 pm FWIW,
There is a theory that Shakespeare didn't actually write all of his works. I don't think it's very reliable therefore to use Shakespeare as the only case study to disprove the theory of the vocabulary as a way to find authenticity.
Among those seven works there were four undisputed works (i.e. works considered to have been written by the same person). And among those four undisputed works two were deemed as authentic (i.e., written by the same person), and two as inauthentic (i.e. written by another person[s]).

But why do you never deal with the problems for real? You, like so many other forgery proponents, seldom deal with the refutations presented. You pick and choose among arguments more or less speculative and as soon as someone shows them to be wrong or irrelevant you just jump to another speculative argument without admitting that you were wrong. It’s as if the letter must be a forgery no matter what, it’s just a question of finding the correct clue or motive. And even after all far-fetched theories have been refuted or marginalized (the handwriting, Madiotes, the Salt anachronism, Hunter's novel, Smith’s previous knowledge, the nakedness, and so on) you (and others) keep presenting new wild theories without even acknowledging that the reasons for why you previously thought it was a forgery has been “proven” wrong. You just act as if that never happened, and now here’s a new argument!

Two days ago I made a post (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4843&start=90#p95772 ) where I showed that if Criddle’s conclusion in his study is correct, then the letter was created in the period from 1936 to 1958. That gives us two possible scenarios; both whom are utterly improbable. Why don’t you deal with that? Because either you have to suppose that some master forger in the 40’s or 50’s, or a group of skilled scholars, forged the text and planted it in the library of Mar Saba and just prayed that someone eventually would find it, or Smith forged it and managed to copy the 18th-century handwriting, although experts and those who knew him well and worked with him, attest that he certainly didn’t know Greek well enough to have been able to compose the letter, and Anastasopoulou, who judged it to be highly unlikely that Smith could have written the script. Why don’t you in such case develop the theory of the co-collaborators Smith must have had; how many they were, who they were (because they must have been the foremost scholars), why they decided to help Smith to carry out his deed, and so on?

Because if neither Smith, nor someone else in the period 1936 to 1958, could have forged the Clement letter, it’s irrelevant for the issue of forgery whether or not Shakespeare wrote the works which he is said to have written.
Last edited by Roger Viklund on Sun Jan 27, 2019 3:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by StephenGoranson »

First let me remind that I do not assume that Smith (who wrote some fine scholarly contributions) had read the novel about Mar Saba; maybe he did or maybe he did not. I do not know. For another example, some of the observations based on the JTS archives by Alan Pantuck are worth considering. Some observations from Smith College archives in the Vigiliae Christianae Aug. 2017 article by Stephan Hüller and Daniel N. Gullotta, pages: 353–378 are worth taking into account—including, say, the views of David Flusser, who knew a thing or two.

That was a small note in an effort to move from reductive hardline whataboutisms, two exceedingly entrenched views.
Roger Viklund, your offered two options are not the only forgery options. For example, some argue for a forgery before 1936. I am not currently one of them. I doubt the pre-1936 option, and consider it unlikely, but I would not declare it “utterly improbable,” the collocation you use.

You cite Anastasopoulou but again do not cite Tselikas, who (to repeat) has quite extensive experience in older hands.

(Similarly, Scott Brown in “Mar Saba 65: Twelve Enduring Misconceptions,” pp. 303-330 in Splendide Mendax: Rethinking Fakes and Forgeries in Classical, Late Antique, and Early Christian Literature (ed. by E. P. Cueva and J. Martinez, 2016). He does dismiss some—maybe not twelve—misconceptions, but does not establish genuineness. I will mention only two problems with his one-sided analysis.
First, Brown leans heavily on the handwriting report of Venetia Anastasopoulou (2009, 2010), without mentioning even once the expert paleographer Agamemnon Tselikas, whose knowledge of old Greek may be greater and who gave detailed reasons for reaching a different conclusion. Brown’s essay includes references through 2013, years after the 2009 Tselikas report, the latter including, e.g., test marks on page 11 of the Voss book. Unfair. Would that Brown had followed the advice of Scott G. Brown, A Guide to Writing Academic Essays in Religious Studies (2008) page 90, on discounting or failing to mention contrary evidence as “special pleading.” Online, one could search for “Agamemnon Tselikas’ Handwriting Analysis Report.”)

Again you seem to ignore the option (as an option, even if maybe it did not happen thus) that Smith could have learned paleography from some better informed without making them co-conspirators.

It may (optionally) have been easier to import a book into Mar Saba’s reportedly messy library than to take one away.

By the way, other texts are disputed. Dead Sea Scrolls and Zeitlin and company. The Moses Shapira Deut. And, iicc, Zeitlin saying, more or less, you can't justify Shapira by DSS because DSS aren't ancient. Or, say, Dunhuang Manuscript Forgeries (also a book title, ed. S. Whitfield, British Library, 2002).

Again you state that (some of) those who knew him well considered him incapable of such Greek composition, again ignoring that some who knew him well considered him indeed capable of such Greek composition. Some speak privately. Statistically, this forum may or may not present a random sample.

Prof. Smith was the main advisor of relatively few doctoral dissertators, but some of those students were/are excellent scholars.
Roger Viklund
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2016 1:03 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by Roger Viklund »

StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Jan 27, 2019 3:08 am First let me remind that I do not assume that Smith (who wrote some fine scholarly contributions) had read the novel about Mar Saba; maybe he did or maybe he did not. I do not know. For another example, some of the observations based on the JTS archives by Alan Pantuck are worth considering. Some observations from Smith College archives in the Vigiliae Christianae Aug. 2017 article by Stephan Hüller and Daniel N. Gullotta, pages: 353–378 are worth taking into account—including, say, the views of David Flusser, who knew a thing or two.

That was a small note in an effort to move from reductive hardline whataboutisms, two exceedingly entrenched views.
Roger Viklund, your offered two options are not the only forgery options. For example, some argue for a forgery before 1936. I am not currently one of them. I doubt the pre-1936 option, and consider it unlikely, but I would not declare it “utterly improbable,” the collocation you use.
A “pre-1936 option” is of course possible (although, as you say, quite unlikely). However, then Criddle’s theory falls, which was my point, as it presupposes that the forgery was made from Stählin’s concordance.
StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Jan 27, 2019 3:08 am You cite Anastasopoulou but again do not cite Tselikas, who (to repeat) has quite extensive experience in older hands.
(Similarly, Scott Brown in “Mar Saba 65: Twelve Enduring Misconceptions,” pp. 303-330 in Splendide Mendax: Rethinking Fakes and Forgeries in Classical, Late Antique, and Early Christian Literature (ed. by E. P. Cueva and J. Martinez, 2016). He does dismiss some—maybe not twelve—misconceptions, but does not establish genuineness. I will mention only two problems with his one-sided analysis.
First, Brown leans heavily on the handwriting report of Venetia Anastasopoulou (2009, 2010), without mentioning even once the expert paleographer Agamemnon Tselikas, whose knowledge of old Greek may be greater and who gave detailed reasons for reaching a different conclusion. Brown’s essay includes references through 2013, years after the 2009 Tselikas report, the latter including, e.g., test marks on page 11 of the Voss book. Unfair. Would that Brown had followed the advice of Scott G. Brown, A Guide to Writing Academic Essays in Religious Studies (2008) page 90, on discounting or failing to mention contrary evidence as “special pleading.” Online, one could search for “Agamemnon Tselikas’ Handwriting Analysis Report.”)
The reason is not that Tselikas wouldn’t be competent. On the contrary, he is a well-qualified Greek palaeographer (which I’m definitively not). To Timo Paananen and me he writes that he is “not a handwriting analyst, but a paleographer with extensive experience in Greek script”. That is however part of the problem with his analysis and especially his efforts to connect the writing of the letter to Smith. Palaeographers’ work is generally dedicated to the decipherment of writing in manuscripts and where there is seldom reason to suspect forgery. A forensic document examiner focuses generally on line quality and pen pressure, whereas paleographers direct their attention mostly towards what is conspicuous in the letterforms. As I and Timo Paananen show in the article we have co-written (“An Eighteenth-Century Manuscript: Control of the Scribal Hand in 'Clement’s Letter to Theodore'” HERE https://www.brepolsonline.net/doi/abs/1 ... ode=apocra and the available final pre-press version HERE: https://www.academia.edu/23949772/An_Ei ... o_Theodore ) “Tselikas’s study has a number of problems due to the unsuitability of applying standard palaeographic practices to a case of suspected deception”. Many seems to be unaware of the fact that forensic document analysis and palaeography are different areas of expertise, and “Tselikas has made a number of “’common-sense’ inferences regarding the signs of forgery, especially where he argues for Smith being the forger, that are simply wrong in light of forensic considerations.” In many instances Tselikas’s conclusions “does not follow from the phenomenon he scrutinizes”. In my opinion, only Anastasopoulou has made a sustainable analysis where she claims (with all the necessarily cautions) that Smith could not have imitated the difficult eighteenth-century script.
StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Jan 27, 2019 3:08 am Again you seem to ignore the option (as an option, even if maybe it did not happen thus) that Smith could have learned paleography from some better informed without making them co-conspirators.
This is no additional argument since it’s refuted in Anastasopoulou’s report. Nothing in Smith's known Greek writing from both before and long after 1958 shows him to be capable of imitating the handwriting of the letter. It is very, very difficult to hide your special peculiarities when forming letters and glyphs. These almost always show up even when you try to imitate someone else’s way of writing, even when using another script. This is especially difficult when it comes to a long letter written with the same style from beginning to end – which happens to be the case with the Clement letter.
StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Jan 27, 2019 3:08 am It may (optionally) have been easier to import a book into Mar Saba’s reportedly messy library than to take one away.
You’re probably right. Forging the letter in the cell at Mar Saba would possibly be even more difficult.
StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Jan 27, 2019 3:08 am By the way, other texts are disputed. Dead Sea Scrolls and Zeitlin and company. The Moses Shapira Deut. And, iicc, Zeitlin saying, more or less, you can't justify Shapira by DSS because DSS aren't ancient. Or, say, Dunhuang Manuscript Forgeries (also a book title, ed. S. Whitfield, British Library, 2002).
Sure, but even if they are forgeries, that has absolutely no impact on the issue of the authenticity of the Clement letter – apart from the obvious, that forgeries do occur.
StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Jan 27, 2019 3:08 am Again you state that (some of) those who knew him well considered him incapable of such Greek composition, again ignoring that some who knew him well considered him indeed capable of such Greek composition. Some speak privately. Statistically, this forum may or may not present a random sample.

Prof. Smith was the main advisor of relatively few doctoral dissertators, but some of those students were/are excellent scholars.
Well, since he couldn’t formulate a flawless letter in Hebrew, which he had studied intensively for seven years under supervision of teachers and had lived among Hebrew speaker for four years, are we supposed to think he would be capable of composing a letter in flawless ancient Greek? A language which he had learned himself, was self-taught in, and when someone like Roy Kotansky who worked with him on translations, noticed that Smith’s Greek, “though very good, was not that of a true papyrologist (or philologist)”; that he misread “rather obvious readings” and probably didn’t “read these kinds of Greek texts very well.” So, I’m sure Smith’s knowledge of Greek was good, However, the issue at stake here is if it was good enough for him to be able to compose the grammatical text of the letter. There’s a huge difference between reading ancient Greek well, even translating it into English, and to compose in ancient Greek imitating the style of a famous writer.
Last edited by Roger Viklund on Sun Jan 27, 2019 6:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by StephenGoranson »

There is much I do not agree with above, but, for now, I'll just quote one sentence from the article you linked and comment.
"Much of palaeographers’ work is dedicated to the decipherment of writing in manuscripts and where there is seldom reason to suspect
forgery."
Oh?
Way back when, in fact, detecting forgery was one impetus for the development of paleography.
And more recently:
If paleographers don't deal with forgeries, F. M. Cross didn't get the memo, as he, to take one example (there are others), in IEJ showed the "Joash Tablet" to be a forgery
Christopher Rollston hasn't dealt with forgeries?! (Are you not aware of his publications and web site?)
Paleographers were not involved with revealing some post-2002-sold "Dead Sea Scroll" fragments to be forgeries!?
Do those examples suffice?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

I think the issue with Memos's contribution is that he doesn't exhibit a critical apparatus for his arguments. He is an expert. I don't this his thesis makes sense - i.e that Smith took bits and pieces of various handwriting and made it his own. And when is Goranson going to deal with the fact that he and his ilk don't seem to begin with the assumption the text is a forgery and look for evidence later. I bet if I did a Google search I could find him holding up Carlson's core argument as the smoking gun. Fine. But now that this claim has been disproved as at best an overzealous 'mistake' on the part of a young scholar (I won't mention the alternative explanation) it's funny how the hoax theory doesn't miss a beat. There is no change in the certainty that these people have. The arguments for forgery are like costume changes in a magic act. They come on and off without missing beat. Yet the certainty is always there. The rational justification comes later. It's almost like these people have a religious mindset or something where 'faith' in something supersedes any rational thought processes. So how can this ever end? We literally have to wait for the death of a certain religious mindset to end this nonsense.

I'd like to turn around and ask Goranson a question which is part of my justification for accepting the authenticity of the document.

1. do you admit that the Gospel of the Egyptians was likely Clement's Alexandrian community's preferred gospel?
2. do think that the mention of Salome likely points to the Gospel of the Egyptians close relationship with Mark?
3. isn't it at least possible that To Theodore's description of the gospel as one associated which was actually associated with Mark but never so identified (i.e. never 'according to Mark') which Mark "left to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initated into the great mysteries" fits the title Clement uses for the gospel - i.e. 'the Gospel of the Egyptians'

Sure Smith knew these details. I knew these details. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the two descriptions complement one another. That has to be acknowledged. There is a context for the existence of a 'Secret Gospel of Mark.' The question of Smith forging a text based on his knowledge of Clement is another issue entirely. But it is wrong to argue that 'Secret Mark' doesn't make sense, has no historical context or justification. It fits EXACTLY what we would expect from Clement's other writings.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

And if Secret Mark = the Gospel of the Alexandrian/Egyptians the number of attested witnesses:

1. Julius Cassianus
2. the Naasenes
3. Clement of Alexandria
4. Origen
5. the Sabellians

and of course all the witnesses of the witnesses - Hippolytus, Epiphanius etc.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

"It is possible, however, that the so-called Gospel of the Egyptians was a corruption of Mark, though the fragments we of it are not sufficient to enable us to form a certain opinion on this point." [Ohlshausen Bible Commentary p liii]

The only one who seems to acknowledge the connection.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

On the Gospel according to the Egyptians = the Alexandrian gospel. "With regard to Egyptians as a whole, Josephus tells us perceptively (though in rhetorical form) that Egyptians (he means Alexandrians as well) were the only people not permitted
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply