How Could Quesnell in 1983 Have Not Immediately Recognized to Theodore was a Recent Forgery if it Really Was?

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

How Could Quesnell in 1983 Have Not Immediately Recognized to Theodore was a Recent Forgery if it Really Was?

Post by Secret Alias »

It's such a basic point but it was so pointed and obvious I couldn't say it explicitly in my paper. But having gone through my parents things from the 1970 and 80s I find it patently obvious that a 25 year old MS would have been obvious to spot. To be honest, if it was up to me I would have written this one line in the place of the article I published in VC:
It is impossible to believe that a 25 year old manuscript could pretend to be ancient especially to a hostile, unsympathetic witness like Quesnell.
I have documents from 25 years ago. I have handwriting samples from my grandparents, great grandparents. I've held manuscripts from libraries that date centuries ago. There is no way that a manuscript from 25 years ago would be mistaken from something written in the 17th or 18th centuries.
“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: How Could Quesnell in 1983 Have Not Immediately Recognized to Theodore was a Recent Forgery if it Really Was?

Post by Secret Alias »

He would have simply came back to the US and A and said "I saw the MS and it was obviously written 25 years ago." Similarly, the library and the librarian would have recognized a recently manufactured handwriting rather than arguing for its authenticity. It's so stupid. I can't believe that scholars (who are supposed to be so smart) can even attempt to argue with what was discovered in Quesnell's notes. It's the end of the forgery argument.
“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
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: How Could Quesnell in 1983 Have Not Immediately Recognized to Theodore was a Recent Forgery if it Really Was?

Post by andrewcriddle »

IMHO we have to distinguish between the age of the paper used (often approximately obvious on inspection) the type of ink used (often an indicator of true age) and the time when the ink was used on the paper.

An attempt to google tests for age of ink seems to indicate that it is difficult to distinguish between age of inks once the age is well over five years.

An old type of ink used more than five years ago on old paper is apparently difficult to date. Compare the story of the Gospel of Jesus' wife where the genuinely ancient nature of the papyrus used, disguised the recent age of the writing.

Andrew Criddle
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: How Could Quesnell in 1983 Have Not Immediately Recognized to Theodore was a Recent Forgery if it Really Was?

Post by Stuart »

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Apr 19, 2020 7:17 am He would have simply came back to the US and A and said "I saw the MS and it was obviously written 25 years ago." Similarly, the library and the librarian would have recognized a recently manufactured handwriting rather than arguing for its authenticity. It's so stupid. I can't believe that scholars (who are supposed to be so smart) can even attempt to argue with what was discovered in Quesnell's notes. It's the end of the forgery argument.
Until the manuscript is found again and available for testing it wont die.

But even if it proved to be genuinely from before the 20th century, say from the 15th or 16th century, it still doesn't tell us where this came from. It could well be from the late medieval ages, part of a collection of patristic letters trying to get published in the early printing presses. Or it could be 5th to 8th century written to attack a specific heretical group.

The binary choice of legitimate Clement writing or alternately a recent fraud (either from Smith himself or perhaps, and maybe more likely by some unknown antiquities fraudster from the early 20th century unrelated to Smith except he was the patsy who found it -- maybe some monk decided to destroy it when no big sums of money appeared for it, as they were afraid they'd get caught if it was found again and examined forensically). But there are other possibilities that it could be something else, something medieval.

Two non destructive tests, DNA (see https://getpocket.com/explore/item/samp ... manuscript) and light spectrum of the ink (can determine the elements that make up the ink) will tell us when the manuscript was written, and solve the fraud issue, at least for Smith.

But it's not there, so it comes down to whether you believe Smith and think it's been a witch hunt to discredit him, or you think him somebody desperate to get his career launched, and found a way, then walked away from it as it was no longer needed and dangerous to his reputation. That is where we sit, possibly for eternity. Or at least until somebody figures out how to to a light spectrum analysis on ink in photographs.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Could Quesnell in 1983 Have Not Immediately Recognized to Theodore was a Recent Forgery if it Really Was?

Post by Secret Alias »

Andrew

Give me a break. I heard they let the ink be tested. I didn't hear anything about an examination of the appearance of the physical MS that it was agreed that it appeared ancient. I know Quesnell said in a phone conversation he did not see those alleged 'forger's tremors.' But what I am saying is that he was a hostile witness holding up a text he was convinced was a forgery and he doesn't walk away saying 'I saw it, it looked fake, it looked modern.' I know that objective eyewitnesses might have a difficult time proving it was ancient. But ...
“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: How Could Quesnell in 1983 Have Not Immediately Recognized to Theodore was a Recent Forgery if it Really Was?

Post by Secret Alias »

Your friend wrote this:
“Physical examinations alone can make certain we are not dealing with a contemporary.”1 Quesnell pointed out that the absence of a thorough, physical examination of the sole manuscript of Secret Mark raises the possibility of a contemporary hoax because the same tools that Smith used to authenticate the text on internal grounds can be used by a hoaxer to fabricate the text.2 Quesnell’s caution over the authenticity of Secret Mark, however, was not based on specific positive evidence such as errors in the manuscript or its text that Secret Mark was a recent fake.3 Despite the passage of nearly thirty years since Quesnell first raised his objections to the manuscript’s unavailability, and more than forty-five years since Smith visited Mar Saba, a physical examination of the Secret Mark manuscript has yet to be performed, and the removal and loss of its pages makes any such examination unlikely in the near future.4 As a result, continuing to insist on a physical examination of the two and-a-half page manuscript can at best only prolong the stalemate and at worst call into question the academy’s competence to authenticate works known only from modern era copies and photographs.5 There is a way out of Quesnell’s predicament. Quesnell properly insisted that the need for a physical examination is most acute in order to guard against a contemporary deception [Gospel Hoax p. 14]
Hmmm. Aside from Quesnell having actually performed this proper and 'needed' examination, it sounds to me like your friend assumed that things would be settled once the examination occurred. Clearly BEFORE it was known that Quesnell DID indeed perform the 'needed' examination of the document it was thought this would settle authenticity. Now that it occurred it's like 'oh, but everyone knows you can't tell a fake from more than five years.' So what's this doing in this 'masterwork' - the 'final word' on Secret Mark. You guys ...
Last edited by Secret Alias on Mon Apr 20, 2020 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
“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: How Could Quesnell in 1983 Have Not Immediately Recognized to Theodore was a Recent Forgery if it Really Was?

Post by Secret Alias »

And if the counterargument is - yes, Quesnell did perform the examination but he wasn't looking for the right things - come on. This is getting ridiculous. It reminds me of the Republican voter fraud arguments. You know, yes, there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, yes studies say that but I know better, it's there we just haven't found it yet. Quesnell, the guy, Carlson cites approvingly ACTUALLY performed the 'needed' examination Carlson wanted, he just didn't tell anyone because the document essentially passed the examination. So we're down to admitting that the rules for testing the document are only true when they come back with the results which reinforce the right presuppositions.
“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
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: How Could Quesnell in 1983 Have Not Immediately Recognized to Theodore was a Recent Forgery if it Really Was?

Post by andrewcriddle »

Looking into this a bit more; there can be suspicious evidence when writing on old paper. What is known as feathering of ink due to deterioration of the paper.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=01M ... nk&f=false



However, in this case the writing was in any case done on old paper.

I'm not clear that there would be an obvious difference between writing on paper a hundred years old and paper three hundred years old.

Andrew Criddle
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Could Quesnell in 1983 Have Not Immediately Recognized to Theodore was a Recent Forgery if it Really Was?

Post by Secret Alias »

I like you. I don't want to appear unkind. You know this is BS. The whole claims of "problems" with the MS. It is what it is. Even the "gay thing." Have you read this?

https://secretmarkblog.blogspot.com/202 ... k.html?m=1

I think this closes the book on Secret Mark. Best thing ever written on the subject.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Wed Apr 22, 2020 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“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