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

[Secret Alias]

What does this one guy have to do with the idea that Secret Mark has to be left outside the door of scholarship without any actual proof its a forgery? This is the methodology. There was a pulp fiction novel about the discovery of a text at Mar Saba. Keep Secret Mark outside. Smith never read that book. What about the forger's tremors - that's why we should keep Secret Mark outside. There are no forger's tremors Carlson used a shitty image and blamed the anomalies on forgery. Morton Smith was gay, Secret Mark deals with homosexuality - that's why we should keep Secret Mark outside. There's no evidence he was gay. And so on and so one. It's just a string of half-baked reasons which serve as justification for a conclusion that existed before the evidence was ever presented.

As I said, if you want to stick to the canonical gospels - that's cool. But there is no evidence for thinking that Secret Mark is a forgery which justifies treating it in a way different from other MSS. Quesnell, Carlson, Tselikas simply come up with arguments that amount to preaching to the faithful. Sure this is the way that the belief in God works - 'I don't know why it is true but I just know it's true in my heart.' But come on. There has to be a justification for ignoring a document which was left on a shelf on a library shelf for 25 years.

There are arguably bad arguments on both sides. I've made many of them. But by saying that Secret Mark should be ignored there has to be a reason for that. What's your reason for concluding it's a forgery? What's the smoking gun? The forger's tremor is dead and gone. We've now established that Quesnell saw the MS and couldn't come up with any arguments for why it was a forgery beyond the tried and true 'because I know in my heart it's a forgery.' So please explain why scientific research into the origins of Christianity should NOT incorporate To Theodore into the mix of documents used to understand what Papias says Mark did when he wrote his gospel?

[Secret Alias]

I know already what the answers are inevitably going to be. You, Ken Olson, know in your heart it's a forgery. I've heard it all before. It's not one argument in Carlson's book but the totality. Very scientific. Or some version of 'I like Stephen Carlson' 'he's a great scholar' or 'he mentions me in his book.' All very good reasons but still you should be able to provide us with a fact, an argument why scientific research should ignore a 17th or 18th century Byzantine MS which purports to be the remains of a letter from Clement of Alexandria from a monastery where it is known that a collection of letters of Clement once existed. Sure it is possible that Morton Smith scoured every Patristic witness he could find, ascertained that a collection of Clement of Alexandria's letters once existed at Mar Saba after reading Hunter's pulp fiction novel on the naked back of homosexual lover, bought a copy of Voss, invented his own handwriting style to mimic a 17th or 18th hand and then composed from scratch not only a patische gospel of Mark within another wholly invented fiction - a new letter of Clement - smuggled the book into the library and left it where it could expose his dasterdly plan to get revenge on the world for not allowing him to be gay or an open devotee of Aleister Crowley or simply because he was clinically insane or whatever nonsense some bored academic needing a paper for a conference comes up with. But in spite of all this creativity no evidence exists to make any reasonable person conclude it should be used to gain insight into the origins of the gospel.

[Ken Olson]

Secret Alias wrote:

I know already what the answers are inevitably going to be. You, Ken Olson, know in your heart it's a forgery.

Do you read the things you write?

Best,

Ken

[Secret Alias]

But you don't answer the question. You assume that the text is a fake and then point at marginalia to justify what you consider to be the consensus within your club of friends. You're effectively banning a text without any justification. Neusner, Quesnell, Carlson and the rest made it about Smith the man. He's gay, he's weird, nobody liked him. Now you make it about me. But what is your justification for effectively banning a text? It's an incredible state of affairs. It's not even called a forgery but a "hoax" or a prank. It's all innuendo but no actual evidence, no substantive arguments other than you're a friend of Carlson's and are listed as an intimate in the Gospel Hoax. I guess if you get enough friends to agree on something a burden of proof is no longer required. Scholarship as a popularity contest.

When you're ready to bring forward some evidence I'll be here. Going back to Hands Up ...

[Secret Alias]

[andrewcriddle]

On the question of possible parallels between the Dionysiaca and Secret Mark we should remember that Nonnus also composed a verse paraphrase of John's Gospel. Possibly at least some of the alleged parallels are actually parallels between the account of Staphylus in the Dionysiaca and the account of Lazarus in John.

Andrew Criddle

[Ken Olson]

Secret Alias:

I can't read minds. Anything I say would be a subjective opinion pretty much.

Yes.

If you want me to play psychologist

No; I would like you to stop playing psychologist.

Best,

Ken

[Secret Alias]

But no evidence again. That's three times. So without going back to my original major (psychology the Glendon psych department actually got together and took me into a room and told me to pick another major) your reasons for believing Secret Mark is a fake (as far as I can gather from what you've said) is:

1. you had a sense something about Morton Smith's discovery story, the manuscript whatever is fishy, not kosher, doesn't pass the smell test (or some other term to express a 'gut feeling' you have)
2. you like Stephen Carlson as a friend
3. you liked the Gospel Hoax as a book
4. all arguments to the contrary can't make you shake (1), (2) or (3)

So it's enough to pick out annoying traits about individuals like me or Morton Smith to maintain your conviction. Fair enough. We'll just leave it at that.

[Peter Kirby]

P.S. Happy birthday to forum owner Peter Kirby!

Thank you!

[Secret Alias]

Hopefully you didn't have one of those parties where you stood on your lawn waving at all your friends driving by. Best wishes.