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

[StephenGoranson]

The text, in my current opinion, is probably not one that Clement would or did write. To repeat, about the text, C. Murgia, for example, had imo relevant observations about text anomalies. I also recently mentioned here an article by Jonathan Klawans in the latest JQR that also raises questions about the text. And I explicitly wrote here that whether Smith read the novel you mentioned is unknown; that was an attempt to illustrate that I do not in fact accept all such arguments.

[Secret Alias]

So let me update. Evidence for forgery:

1.

Oh. I forget. There's nothing. Let's start with failed attempts to illustrate forgery:

a. forger's tremor
b. too Clementine for Clement nonsense
c. manuscript doesn't exist
d. Smith stole the manuscript from the monastery
e.

I can't even remember this nonsense any more. It's all filed under N for nonsense or non-existent somewhere in the back of my mind. Why don't we leave it up to you guys to come up with some evidence and until then allow the rest of us to consider the text as tentatively authentic?

[Secret Alias]

Charles E. Murgia, “Secret Mark: Real or Fake?” in Longer Mark: Forgery, Interpolation, or Old Tradition? ed. Wilhelm H. Wuellner (Berkeley: Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, 1976), pp. 35–40.

That was before the high resolution color photographs that Quesnell took (and didn't reveal to the world) were finally released because of Hedrick's effort. Come on. You're not embarrassed by the paucity of actually evidence of forgery? You're a cool, smart guy. I am a stupid, annoying guy. Why do I see there is a lack of argument here and you don't? It's some sort of derangement that took hold of a whole generation of scholars .

[rakovsky]

. And I explicitly wrote here that whether Smith read the novel you mentioned is unknown; that was an attempt to illustrate that I do not in fact accept all such arguments.

He probably at least saw the novel. It was a bestseller after it came out in 1940, although I don't know if it was only a bestseller in the UK.

[Roger Viklund]

. And I explicitly wrote here that whether Smith read the novel you mentioned is unknown; that was an attempt to illustrate that I do not in fact accept all such arguments.

He probably at least saw the novel. It was a bestseller in the UK after it came out in 1940. I think M. Smith was in the UK about that time.

Well, you should try to read it, if you haven't. It's really a poor, boring Christian spy novel - exactly the kind of book one could envision that Smith would spend time on reading. Especially since he writes that he had plans for using 18 hours a day learning languages.

[Secret Alias]

You mean NOT envision Smith reading

[rakovsky]

IIRC, Robert Price proposed that this was the kind of leisure reading that might appeal to Smith.

[Secret Alias]

Yeah. I am sure one of winner arguments again. Based on nothing.

[Roger Viklund]

You mean NOT envision Smith reading

I was trying to be ironic.

[Secret Alias]

This is the most humorless subject in scholarship because you have to keep a straight face while your opponents implore you to seriously consider the shittiest arguments in the history of scholarship. 'Oh yes, the fact that a scholar never married is a proof of forgery.' Really? 'He was gay the text was a gay gospel, what more do you need to know - end of story.' But ... 'His interest in Jewish mysticism - as a scholar of Judaism - is itself a grounds for suspicion with respect to his discovery of Secret Mark.' Huh? But what about actual proof that the text is a forgery. 'We don't need to have that.' Why don't you need that? 'Because Morton Smith is an inherently suspicious character.' It's like they want to make him 'inherently suspicious' to overcome the lack of evidence for forgery. Like he's Simonides redivivus. And by standing around each other and congratulating and nodding their head as each one of them mouth these shitty arguments they help get each other over the guilt for what they are doing - the Trumpification of scholarship. 'People are saying that Morton Smith was a pedophile' - that's coming next. 'You know he had a stash of child porn in his office. That's what I hear.'

Remember this classic. 'He burned all his notes because he wanted to destroy evidence of his forgery activity.' Oh really how do you know that. 'It makes sense.' It makes sense - who does it makes to? 'It makes sense to me.' Well I guess that's that.

I think I continue to discuss this document because it confirms my low opinion of humanity - that and watching the President of the United States and his cabinet in action. It's fair to have suspicions. But they should stop pretending that 'forgery' is obvious and already proved. And they should be suspicious that the highest concentration of forgery scholarship is produced in the stupidest country in the world. If there was a Stupid Olympics the US would likely take first place in almost every event.