On the Possible Connection Between Jerusalem and Amsterdam

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: On the Possible Connection Between Jerusalem and Amsterdam

Post by StephenGoranson »

To be clear, I assumed the “rogue” of the title was Morton Smith. I was suggesting that Voss just happened to be an *additive* rogue and scholar and someone MS might have admired. In other words, I may (?) be more interested in the Voss choice than GS/BL are. Voss may not have been a random choice.
Interesting that GS/BL—apparently—both call MS a rogue and simultaneously defend him. As I mentioned before, I doubt they have found, as they claimed, a plausible scenario, which is in both a post-Eusebius and also a pre-Smith time slot (and, of course, also pre Voss 1646 and, as MS mentioned on Clement page 1 he allowed about 15 or 20 years before the binding might have been added).
So, I *did* like G. Smith’s presentation, but—for reasons some of which I have already given—his presentation may eventually, unintendedly, actually put more arrows pointing to M. Smith. But, of course, inshallah, I’ll read the book.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: On the Possible Connection Between Jerusalem and Amsterdam

Post by Secret Alias »

I am just curious. I mentioned to him how much I enjoy speaking with you because I like to consider the other side. It always seems to me with you that your arguments begin with a predictable formula:

1. Smith did it
2. investigate some feature of the document
3. find a way to connect it to Morton Smith

Why for you is it we have to always begin with (1)? Why not Simonides? Why not an 17th or 18th century forgery? Why not an ancient forger? What about this document, even after I've shown that a rare nomen sacrum is used, even after I've demonstrated that the hand is typical of the 17th century, why the certainty about (1)? I've never understood this from you. It does remind me of the Trump election argument. There is this single minded fixation on the document as a modern forgery. I don't see the evidence supporting this. It seems to be driven by personal animus against Morton Smith on your part and the part of many from your generation. I don't think that any fair minded individual can say that the evidence identifies Smith as the forger with the degree of certainty that you show in your postings here.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: On the Possible Connection Between Jerusalem and Amsterdam

Post by StephenGoranson »

Not true. Again.
Of course, the starting facts include but are not limited to: the (dated) book page and (estimated era) binding sheet, the ink, hand, language, text, internal claims (e.g., the false claim that it was composed by Clement of Alexandria, as shown by multiple methods by multiple scholars), absence from library catalogues, etc..
The repeated resort to Trumpian insult is not only false and tiresome, but disgusting.
Of course I have considered alternatives. Say, *if* it was bound in Venice, and *if* the handwriting is western Greek….
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: On the Possible Connection Between Jerusalem and Amsterdam

Post by Secret Alias »

It's Trumpian because there is an obsession with Smith merely because he found the document. The document cannot be proven to be a forgery. Is it a forgery? It's possible. There is no proof that it isn't a forgery. But how we get from maybe it's a forgery, maybe its not a forgery to ONLY SMITH CAN BE THE FORGERY is what is Trumpian. You jump from maybe it's a forgery (a reasonable suspicion) to Smith was the forger with IMHO reckless abandon taking whatever nonsense you can find along the way. The only thing you have going for your argument is YOU - i.e. you're an erudite individual. So the fact that a smart guy would make these reckless leaps of logic causes people to take a step back. But again I don't know how you go from:

1. maybe it's a forgery

to

2. it's not an ancient forgery
3. it's not a seventeenth or eighteenth century forgery
4. it's not Simonides
5. it's not a modern forgery

to

6. it's Smith.

It baffles my mind. I'm not very smart. I admit it. But perhaps owing to the poverty of my intellect, I don't understand the logic to go from (1) to (6) with the certainty you have. It seems to me to be based on personal animus. You don't like Smith. Again I only think this because I am not as smart as you and am left grappling for how you go with absolute certainty from a suspicion of forgery to 'it's Smith.' I go to 'person reasons' as my answer. I apologize. Either you didn't like Smith or you're a lonely guy and like the company of a group of white men attacking a defenseless individual like dead Morton Smith.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Fri Jan 08, 2021 7:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: On the Possible Connection Between Jerusalem and Amsterdam

Post by andrewcriddle »

I have suggested before that a modern (post-Medieval) composition of the Mar Saba letter is unlikely before the rediscovery of Hippolytus Against All Heresies in 1842.
IF I am right this limits the possible time frame for modern composition.

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

Re: On the Possible Connection Between Jerusalem and Amsterdam

Post by Secret Alias »

I am the first to suggest a link between the Philosophumena's mention of a mystical text of Mark in the hands of Marcion and Secret Mark. The argument works the other way then too - as an argument for authenticity.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: On the Possible Connection Between Jerusalem and Amsterdam

Post by Secret Alias »

As such if there is a link between the two references and no compelling evidence for forgery and in fact arguments for authenticity (I have two Greek philologists this week who say it bears all the signs of authenticity) it's more likely than not authentic.

On the κου in to Theodore = Κυρίου and an early Greek MS of the Life of Abraham the Hermit now in a library in Paris:

https://books.google.com/books?id=7lh_v ... ta&f=false
Regeln einführten , nach denen diese in den heiligen Büchern geschrieben wurden . Sie beschränkten außerdem den Kreis derjenigen Namen und Wörter , die der Kürzung unterliegen sollten , auf die fast allgemein innegehaltene Zahl von  15 : θεός , κύριος , Ιησούς , Χριστός , υιός , πατήρ , σωτήρ , μήτηρ , πνεύμα , σταυρός άνθρωπος , ουρανός , Λαουείδ , Ισραήλ , * I £ govoasńu , für die sie meist die folgenden Kürzungsformen anwandten : OC , KC , IC , XC , YC , TTHP , CHP , MHP , ITNA , CTC , ANOC , OYNOC , AAA , IHA , TAHM.  An nicht selten vorkommenden Ausnahmen von diesen Schreibweisen fehlt es freilich nicht ; vgl . für ' Inooũs : IHC ( diese Schreibart scheint in ältester Zeit sehr verbreitet gewesen zu  da aus ihr die lateinische Kürzung IHS hervorgegangen ist ) Χριστός: XPC, πατήρ: ΠΡ, ΠΑΡ, σωτήρ: CP, CώP, μήτηρ: MP, πνεύμα: ΠΜΑ , σταυρός: CTPC, άνθρλδΙς: AN ANποε Δσος: ANΛπίC: , ΙCΗΛ, Ιερουσαλήμ: 1EM, EΛHM.  Auch ist es selbstverständlich , daß das eine oder andere der in diesen Kreis von „ Nomina sacra " ( nach der Bezeichnung von Traube ) entfallenden Wörter von unachtsamen Schreibern bisweilen seinem ganzen Umfange nach ausgeschrieben wurde . Die Deklinationsformen jener Wörter wurden tunlichst in Anlehnung an die Schreibweise der Nominativform geschrieben  z . B .: OY , OW , ON , OE == ( 80 ) , ( ) , 8 ( 86 ) v , 8 ( E ) É ; KY , KW , KN , KE = > ( voio ) v , % ( voi ) w , r ( úgio ) v , < ( oo ) . 

Wenn wir noch einige Besonderheiten in der Kürzungsweise von θεός und κύριος , sowie von Ιησούς und Χριστός ins Auge fassen , bei denen nach der in den  ins Auge fassen , bei denen nach der in den ersten christlichen Jahrhunderten üblichen Weise ( vgl . S. 115 ff . ) die volle Kasusendung statt des letzten Buchstabens derselben geschrieben wurde , so findet sich die Nominativform oC ( ohne  Kürzungsstrich ) in einem Zitat aus den Sibyllinen im Bologneser Lactanz ( saec . VI / VII ; 1 OOY schreibt eine Lactanz ( saec . VI / VII ; 1 OOY schreibt eine spätere Hand in der Genesis Cottoniana . 57 ; saec . V / VI ) . Analog der Kürzung OOY statt Oy , findet sich statt KY hie und da KOY “ ( Traube , S. 192 , der Beispiele nicht mitteilt ) . So nach Wessely , Wiener Studien 11 , 1889 , 179 im Leben des heil . Eremiten Abraham , Pap . Par . 7404 ( saec . VI ) : TOY ] KOY MOY IY XY . KYW ( ot ) findet sich in einem Gebet , welches im 10. Jahrh . in Oberägypten geschrieben wurde ( Traube , S. 92 ) . Neben der in Ägypten vorherrschenden Schreibweise IC ' I ( nooő ) s finden sich die Kürzungen finden sich die Kürzungen IHC , IHN , die auch den koptischen Handschriften vertraut sind . https://books.google.com/books?id=JmFQA ... AHegQICBAC  
I still go back to the strange nomina sacra. Does anyone really believe that Morton Smith was either (a) so ignorant of nomina sacra that he managed to brilliantly forge a 17th century hand but wrote κου three times instead of κυ or (b) knew that this obscure nomina sacra existed in an 11lth century MS in the Vatican, a 6th century MS in Paris and scraps in a garbage dump in Egypt and put it in there knowing that a loser like me would be the first to realize its significance in the 21st century? Come on. It's more likely than not an authentic anomaly.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: On the Possible Connection Between Jerusalem and Amsterdam

Post by Secret Alias »

Notice Tselikas doesn't use κου as an argument for forgery. He just says it's unexpected - this with it being the standard way of writing κυρίου in modern Greek. Any other Greek says "it's not modern Greek." The handwriting is too old. Well then what is it? It's proof that it's ancient.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Fri Jan 08, 2021 7:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: On the Possible Connection Between Jerusalem and Amsterdam

Post by andrewcriddle »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Jan 08, 2021 7:09 am I am the first to suggest a link between the Philosophumena's mention of a mystical text of Mark in the hands of Marcion and Secret Mark. The argument works the other way then too - as an argument for authenticity.
From a long-ago post by me
The connection between the Mar Saba letter and the Nassenes according to Hippolytus is compatible either with a modern work after the rediscovery of the text or with an ancient work before the text was lost.
It is not compatible with 17th or 18th century composition.

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

Re: On the Possible Connection Between Jerusalem and Amsterdam

Post by Secret Alias »

Well arguments are arguments. You say tomato I say tomahto. The κου can't be Morton Smith. Bottom line. It's ancient.
Post Reply