|
< Back to Did Morton Smith Forge “Secret Mark”? Did Morton Smith Forge “Secret Mark”?Agamemnon Tselikas: Response to Allan J. Pantuck Talkback Add Your Comment
 Click to view larger image and caption. Dear Mr. Hershel,
I wish you to be in good health.
I read the article you sent me about the criticism made by Dr. Alan
Pantuck of my report on the manuscript of Clement. I have only one remark: that Dr. Pantuck restricts his criticism only to one section, while not taking into account either the textological observations or the facts on the presence of the Ignatius edition in the library of Mar Saba. I respect the opinion of anybody, but I do not proceed to such personal criticism. Anyone who has a critical ability must have his opinion itself without any influence. I’ve written previously to you that without any bias I did my research on this topic. I spent much of my precious time for many days and many dozen of hours, here in Athens and in Jerusalem, to contribute my scientific experience and means in order to enlighten the issue. The resulting comments and opinion I exposed in my report. Of course some agree or disagree. But most certainly I have no interest in the opinion of those who, without scientific basis and method, write several non-existent and fantastic things in their blogs. To me these are parasites of real and true science.
With deep respect to you,
Agamemnon Tselikas 
"With deep respect"Tselikas says: "I do not proceed to such personal criticism...To me these are parasites of real and true science." I see nothing in the way of personal attacks in Pantuck's response, especially on the order of "parasite". • • • • • • • allegedly forged but secret Mark bookthis "secret mark" need not be glorified! the four books on the gospel of the LORD Jesus Christ do synchronize well. whatever secret scenario this "secret intruder smith-clement tie up" is being played up, let's leave that to their name. do we want our hands messed up with smith-clement "SECRET MOTIVES?" let's just be aware that there are more 'false christs' littering around than genuine apostles of GOD'S Son. only Seth made it. only 8 made it. only 11 plus Paul, to them ONLY we listen • • • • • • • Re: Agamemnon Tselikas’ Handwriting Analysis ReportI have to admit that I am no expert in Greek handwriting nor any biblical study. I took considerably time to read Tselikas' reports. At the end it seems to me less of a scientific study and rather a speculation. • • • • • • • Secret MarkI don't know what all the shouting is about. Where is your faith? Jesus was the Christ and helped and loved everyone..It didn't matter about color or wheather he was "Gay" or not, Christ loves us equally. • • • • • • • Ancient or Modern: Still a ForgeryAny way you cut it the document Morton Smith published about is almost certainly a forgery. Even if Smith didn't forge it the person claiming to be Clement in the letter probably wasn't him. And who ever wrote the original "secret Mark" certainly wasn't the real Mark or even the person who actually wrote Mark which was actually written anonymously. • • • • • • • Prurient InterpretationsA man dressed in a linen cloth can mean many things besides homosexuality. Initiation rites of all sorts require initiates to be dressed this way. Washing and anointing (to be made clean from the sins of the world), prior to instruction and initiation into the deeper mysteries, has a lot of precedent and does not have anything to do with homosexuality. The young man as novice and Christ as High Priest certainly hints at a secret Gospel intended solely for the inner circle of initiated disciples. • • • • • • • secret markIt is wonderful to see a real expert who has the right to make pronouncements on whether the text is a forgery taking the opportunity to do so. Everything that has been written so far on the subject is utter nonsense. It is time now for everyone to start over again and assess the merits of Tselikas's analysis. It is obvious that he has spent a lot of time on this exhaustive study. The battle is far from over. In fact I'd argue it's just beginning. Here's to the pursuit of the truth! • • • • • • • Find the manuscriptThere are only two things that can prove anything: Either one finds a genuine Smith letter in which he admits the forgery, or, one finds the actual manuscript and can analyze it. Until then the case remains open, how ever many articles and books are written. So, find the manuscript! • • • • • • • novelsOn cannot argue that EITHER Smith was inspired by the Hunter novel OR he really discovered something. He could also have had a similar idea on his own without knowing the novel. Original ideas can occur simultaneously to people of the same historical period simply because they fit the tenor of the time: Leibniz and Newton developed calculus; Huxley and Darwin discovered evolution. "What if I discovered the definitive disproof of Christianity?" was the dream of many people in the 20th century. • • • • • • • Morton Smith and Secret MarkI'm surprised nobody mentioned Peter Jeffery's exhaustive study, "The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled," (Yale University Press, 2007). Jeffery's painstaking analysis shows quite convincingly that Smith DID forge Secret Mark, a forgery "steeped in anachronisms." Jeffery writes: "[Smith's tragedy is not] that he wasn't a good Christian, but that he wasn't even a very good Gnostic. Despite his [qualifications] and access to world-famous libraries, he wrote what he did not know." • • • • • • • Secret Mark LetterI have yet to ascertain what Morton Smith had to gain by forging a letter from Clement. The letter is a repudiation of the verses of the so called Secret Mark. So if Smith was trying to manufacture evidence, to what end? If he was trying to denounce some attribution of homosexuality of Jesus, who in his time was making such a claim that he would need to fight it? There is plenty of canonical defense against that. Did ancient gnostics push a homosexual Jesus. That would seem very likely. • • • • • • • Naked in the night"A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind." Mark 14:51-52 I see no problem with the basic premise of the purported Secret Mark, It was not Jesus' first time being in the company of scantily clad men. • • • • • • • THE SECRET IS OUT...Reading some of the naysayers comments is quite amusing. They seem to forget, the PATRIARCHATE has NEVER once DENIED the physical EXISTENCE of the SGM, and the letter appears prominently in the official writings of Clement of Alexandria today as a legitimate Clementine document, having been thoroughly studied by the top experts in the field. Once again, the Greek Orthodox Church has merely maintained that they’ve allegedly 'misplaced' the lost manuscript; they do not refute it actually existed • • • • • • • Secret MarkIt would be nice to know if these passages were forged or if they are authentic. If they are authentic, then the more important question would be whether the passages were inspired or not. I think that the passages are authentic but it is obvious that the Holy Spirit did not guide the pen that wrote them. • • • • • • • Secret Mark analysisThe handwriting analysis of Morton Smith and the document purported to be a letter by Clement of Alexandria made for fascinating reading. The differences between the two samples are certainly significant. Someone may have been a forger but it doesn't look like Smith was! • • • • • • • handwriting analysis of Secret MarkNo one could be happier hearing about BAR's handwriting expert vindicating Morton Smith. However, it has been suggested to me that a "second" expert commissioned by Hershel Shanks drew a different conclusion. If true, his/her analysis should be made public. Also, I can't help but wonder "WHY?" • • • • • • • Smith ForgeryI wondered why both sides couldn't be right? The letter is a "forgery", and Smith did not do it. Why couldn't it be the case that a monastic brother created the letter in the 18th century or earlier, just as many pseudo-apostolic and other extrabiblical texts have been done over the centuries? It is both "inauthentic" in that Clement didn't actually write it, but the document is legitimately from the period so stated. • • • • • • • date of examination opinionI am surprised that here appears to be no date on the examiner's opinion. Yet, she warns that her opinion could be changed by subsequent information/evidence. Other than interest, I have no stake in this debate. • • • • • • • handwriting analysisThose who had made the claim that Smith was a forger have done a perilously sloppy job of analysis. To my knowledge Carlson has no credentials in document verification or paleography, nor (unlike Smith) did he consult experts on Greek handwriting before publishing a disastrously flawed argument against the authenticity of the Clement letter. Ehrman's facile claim that Smith could have forged the handwriting does him no credit either now that samples of Smith's Greek handwriting have appeared. • • • • • • • Handwriting Expert ReportI sincerely wish to thank BAR for getting the first professional handwriting analysis done on Clement's letter to Theodore. Of interest may be the new online article by Scott G. Brown and Allan J. Pantuck (http://salainenevankelista.blogspot.com/2010/04/stephen-carlsons-questionable.html) that discloses many of the weaknesses of the first handwriting analysis by Stephen C. Carlson, in which an opposite conclusion was reached. • • • • • • • Secret MarkThere is one idea that seems to be missing from these musing. That Christ himself spoke in parable, and the bible (all chapters) is written in such a way that multiple interpretations can exist. After all, without this, the bible would have been outdated centuries ago. Therefore, just because this is read as homosexuality, does not mean that was the meaning. Perhaps this is symbolic of inocence, or mental openness, or a naked purity much like children have, etc. Teaching's not a narrow concept • • • • • • • Mark my words...I could see where Morton Smith might have thought this was real, but since the copied article in the book has since been removed from the library and the ink cannot be authenticated as dating to a certain time period, it would seem to me to be copied from a gnostic text, not the real Mark of Jesus' time. God condemned homosexuality and stated that no one who took part in it would enter heaven.Jesus said he did not come to change the words of his father but to uphold them. Jesus vs. Smith- choose • • • • • • • secret markHi I just read your review and I wanted to alert you that a scholar has PROVEN that Carlson's methodology was fundamentally flawed to 'prove' the forgery hypothesis. http://salainenevankelista.blogspot.com/2009/12/tremors-or-just-optical-illusion.html As David Trobisch notes, "I read it right away but somehow forgot to let you know what I think. His arguments are absolutely clear and convincing. The "forgery" accusations only works with the low resolution photos.' • • • • • • • secret gospelIt is an interesting idea. But I believe that I have heard speakers at BAS seminars explain why and how this "secret gospel" was truly a forgery. Morton Smith, if truly guilty of this, toyed with other people's religiosity. This is neither scholarly nor humane. But the article serves as a good reminder that not everything that passes for "gospel" should be believed. • • • • • • • An attempt to give Franke an answer.In the 8th century, John of Damascus had access to at least 21 letters of Clement at Mar Saba. Some of these could have survived. If a letter for some reason were almost destroyed, either of age, fire, or if it was ordered to be destroyed because of its alleged controversial content, some conscientious monk maybe realized its immense value and decided to copy it before it was destroyed. And if no other paper was available (which seems to be the case), one could use the blank pages inside a book. • • • • • • • The "new" gospel of MarkThis does not sound like the writings of Mark or any other writing in the New Testament. I believe it is a fraud...... • • • • • • • Taking one step further backWhether Morton forged this document or not, I'll leave to experts. However, I do wish someone would take one step back and ask the question of how a copy of a second century document ended up in the 17th century book. Who could have originally copied it and where is the original? This seems to be a question that those who believe in its authenticity need to answer. • • • • • • • Secret MarkThank you Dr. Craig Evans. Quite frankly I am surprised to see so many articles in BAR written by scholars bent on discrediting the Faith and with little balance from the other side of the fence. Let scholarship be unbiased and balanced not one with obvious pre-conceived bent. Frankly, only a fool can ever think that Secret Mark is the genuine stuff. It is obvious and that's why it did not stood the test of time as so many others. • • • • • • • RowleySuch obvious promotion of homosexuality makes the document spurious. It also does nothing to add respect to the dubious proposition that Peter was ever in Rome. • • • • • • • Fraud?If "Secret Mark" had been demonstrated to be a fraud by Craig Evans then there wouldn't be any discussion. But unless Morton Smith left a signed confession vetted by witnesses there's no "proof", only suspicions. I think the correspondence between Smith and Gershon Scholem indicates that fraud is excessively unlikely. • • • • • • • Secret Mark and Craig A: EvansIn commenting on Richard Ball, who believes that we should Google Dr. Craig Evans in order to learn that Secret Mark has been exposed as a fraud, I would like to point out that Craig A. Evans is embarrassing ignorant on matters regarding Secret Mark. This I have shown in my article “One Thousand and One Untruths: How Reliable Is the Account of Secret Mark by Lee Strobel and Craig Evans?” http://www.jesusgranskad.se/strobel2.htm • • • • • • • Secret MarkDavid Landry, in Word And World (Luther Seminary: Journal, St. Paul Mn.)believes Carlson's "refutation" of the gospel, partly based on salt. Neither of them seem to recognize the quote from Matthew's Gospel, attributed to Jesus!:"if the salt has lost its savor..." I enjoyed your latest BAR essays on the subject. Joe O'Steen • • • • • • • Secret Mark is a FraudSecret Mark has been exposed as a fraud perpetrated by Morton himself -- Google Dr. Craig Evans. • • • • • • • Secret Gospel of MarkIt's possible this mystery-religion baptismal initiation involved the ritual purification from coming into contact with a dead body mentioned in Numbers 19, particularly verse 4 where the sprinkling of the blood 7 times toward the sanctuary corresponds to the "the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by 7 veils." Also at the fortress of Kuntillet 'Ajrud there is a depiction on an 8th century b.c. storage jar of a bizarre ritual enacted by 2 figures wearing cow masks. Egyptian Hathor? • • • • • • • THEThank you for this wonderful piece of our saint's writings. I loved reading it. Please do not stop - keep bringing us the facts of the past. One very happy Catholic. God bless you and all who read this. Bob Lapointe. • • • • • • • |
 The Biblical Archaeology Society is an educational non-profit 501c(3) organization. Make a tax-deductable gift today. BRAND NEWTel Aviv University Scholars Discuss Jewelry Discovery at Megiddo May 23, 2012 Jerusalem Cabinet Invests in Biblical Sites in Jerusalem May 21, 2012 Oil Pipeline Threatens Ancient Babylon and World Cultural Heritage May 18, 2012 Babylonian Talmud Translated into Arabic May 17, 2012 4,000 Year Old Texts Survive the Attacks of Time and 9/11 May 16, 2012 MOST POPULARA New Dead Sea Scroll in Stone? Why Is the Newest Bible Translation in Modern Hebrew? What Jews (and Christians too) Should Know About the New Testament FREE BIBLE AND ARCHAEOLOGY ARTICLESAncient Inscription Refers to Birth of Israelite Monarchy FIRST PERSON: Relics vs. “Real” Archaeology BIBLICAL VIEWS: Spirited Discourse About God Language in the New Testament ARCHAEOLOGICAL VIEWS: An Anthropologist’s View of Early Israel THE BIBLE IN THE NEWS: Self-Help for Doctors and Others SCHOLAR’S STUDYA Minimalist Disputes His Demise February 19, 2012 Allan J. Pantuck: Response to Tselikas Handwriting Analysis August 19, 2011 Agamemnon Tselikas: Response to Allan J. Pantuck August 19, 2011 Oded Golan’s Commentary on the Expert Witnesses of the Case March 2011
 FREE Downloadable E-BooksTen Top Biblical Archaeology Discoveries |
INFORMATION |
PUBLICATIONS |
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY SOCIETY NETWORK LINKS |
