naked or nakeds in the "Letter to Theodore"

[StephenGoranson]

I suggest that naked, singular, was more likely intended than nakeds, plural, given the text context.

[Secret Alias]

In order for that to be true all these things would have to be true.

1. the scribe's habit of writing terminal νος with a special ligature was abandoned. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/wp- ... ions-1.pdf
2. the scribe made an error in accenting the sigma rather than the omicron.
3. the sigma was written incorrectly.

All three things have to have occurred for this to be true. You would have to argue that the οὶ which requires no special pleading is wrong or less probable. Why in this instance is special pleading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_p ... 0exception. preferable to the plain reading of the manuscript? Why would the weaker argument here be preferable to the stronger argument?

[Secret Alias]

The issue is probability. Why would a case where three exceptions to the normal behavior of the scribe have to be accepted (the habit of writing νος in a special way, the accenting of a consonant and the broken sigma) and be deemed more probable than the another situation which requires no special pleading? It's madness. We all know why this three special exceptions are invoked. It has nothing to do with probability but the preservation of an outdated case of Morton Smith as the forger.

[Secret Alias]

Again. Could the scribe have stopped writing νος with a special ligature? Sure. Could the scribe have mis-accented a consonant? Sure. Could the scribe have clumsily written a sigma to make it look like an iota? Sure. But all three things occurring in one instance which is at the heart of the argument for Morton Smith the homosexual forger? The plain reading which requires no special pleading let alone three special pleadings is obviously the more probable.

[Secret Alias]

If you want the gospel to be about homosexuality then yes put your finger on the scale and make it "more probable" that what is plainly written as "naked people" is "naked man." By all means. That's your business. But Morton Smith's photograph of the third page has an obvious iota. How did he read this as "naked man with naked man." The terminal letter with the accent doesn't look like a sigma.

[Secret Alias]

The fact that Morton Smith transcribed the phrase as "naked man with naked man" is only one of many errors. Morton Smith read these as four examples of Κ[υρί]ου. The second example is clearly Κ[υρίο]υ. The terminal ligature is not what he claims. He made errors in his transcription of the manuscript. Carlson got this one right.

Line 16



Line 24



Line 46:

[StephenGoranson]

Singular or plural?
Here is Smith's translation from Secret Gospel (1973) page 17:
"....But "naked [man] with naked [man]" and the other things about which you wrote are not found."
In the Clement book (1973) page 447:
"...But "naked man with naked man," ..."
Whoever wrote this, which is more plausible, in context:
naked man with naked man
or naked men with naked man?

[andrewcriddle]

Singular or plural?
Here is Smith's translation from Secret Gospel (1973) page 17:
"....But "naked [man] with naked [man]" and the other things about which you wrote are not found."
In the Clement book (1973) page 447:
"...But "naked man with naked man," ..."
Whoever wrote this, which is more plausible, in context:
naked man with naked man
or naked men with naked man?

I think it is clear that the singular is more likely in context than the plural. See viewtopic.php?p=168367#p168367 However I think this should be kept separate from the question whether the letter looks more like an iota or a sigma. It leads to confusion if we end up saying, maybe it does look more like a sigma but it is really an iota because that makes more sense.

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add
I should have said It leads to confusion if we end up saying, maybe it does look more like an iota but it is really a sigma because that makes more sense. Sorry

[StephenGoranson]

Thank you, Andrew. We agree that "the singular is more likely in context than the plural."

As for interpreting "the question whether the letter looks more like an iota or a sigma,"
I can add one thing. It may or may not be relevant. But, I think, it has not yet been mentioned here.

In his 1958 handwritten transcription (and Preface and translation), the title of that section is
"Transcription of the MS, with minor corrections."
Smith transcribed sigma.
Was that, in some sense, "a minor correction"?

In any case, I hope those more expert than I am will examine his unpublished handwritten transcription.
And other relevant unpublished material at JTS. Including "The Letter of Clement and Secret Mark: Evidence and Arguments," with handwritten revisions.

And, again, Carpocrates/Carpocratians and Secret Gospel appear close together, even in the same sentence.
That he knew about the former and not the latter when he met with Scholem in 1958 beggars belief.

[RandyHelzerman]

Whoever wrote this, which is more plausible, in context:
naked man with naked man
or naked men with naked man?

How can I have reliable intuitions about the text.....before I even know what the text says???

My intuitions, such as they are, is that once you see γυμνοί γυμνώ in those images, it's really hard to unsee. So my intuition is that's what it says.

And presumably, Theodore has asked Clement whether X is in Secret Mark because the Carpocratians said it was. So when Clement is saying that X isn't in Secret Mark, X probably is something which supports Carpocration faith and practice.

What?? You weren't convinced by what I thought was more likely? Of course you weren't--and nether should you have been! Who gives a flying finagle about what my intuitions are? I'm not even convinced by them