rakovsky wrote:
What are the three strongest arguments for and against the legitimacy of Clement's document mentioning "Secret Mark"?
The strongest arguments, IMO, is a number of combined arguments.
1) Smith’s skills in patristic Greek and in writing 18th century Greek was not nearly as good as it should have been in order for him to forge the text.
Ehrman is saying that it was in Ehrman's book I linked to.
I could write more responses, but I thank you for presenting what you find to be the four strongest arguments, which are not persuasive for me. It seems to me that Ehrman was right that Smith was really an amazing scholar, capable of doing a good forgery.
My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
I am not so sure Ehrman is "certain" that Smith is a forger. It's important to be nuanced. From what I hear he's more open to consider both sides of the 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
Secret Alias wrote:you have Jesus and a disciple and some hints at ritual nudity which is paralleled by the Alexandrian baptism of the catechumen in the fragment. So the Alexandrian Christians are all gay now? Smith is gay, the Alexandrian Church is gay, Jesus and the disciple are gay - all to make an argument for forgery?
Yes, it's one of the better arguments against validity to me it seems.
What became of that scholar(?) who claimed some years back that he’d found an ancient source suggesting Lazarus had a sexual relationship with Jesus?
Bart Ehrman January 27, 2014
It wasn’t Lazarus, it was an unnamed man in the Secret Gospel of Mark. The scholar was Morton Smith, and amazingly erudite fellow.
Ehrman notes that Smith's book is dedicated to "Those who know", and Ehrman asks: Who does this allude to?, and Know What?
Ehrman add in his book Lost Christianities:
Donald Akenson.... sees the whole business.... as nothing but a 'nice ironic gay joke at the expense of all of the self-important scholars who not only miss the irony but believe that this alleged piece of gospel comes to us in the first known letter of the great Clement of Alexandria'.
My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
rakovsky wrote:
Ehrman is saying that it was in Ehrman's book I linked to.
I could write more responses, but I thank you for presenting what you find to be the four strongest arguments, which are not persuasive for me. It seems to me that Ehrman was right that Smith was really an amazing scholar, capable of doing a good forgery.
Well I think Ehrman is wrong on that point and I am not even sure that he still holds that position. I think Pantuck has convincingly shown the level of Smith’s Greek to be inadequate. Tony Burke makes a good summary and writes the following:
“Allan J. Pantuck, A question of ability: what did he know and when did he know it?, discusses Morton Smith’s abilities in an interesting and well - argued way. Did Smith actually possess the necessary skills to compose “Secret Mark”, he asks? … One item in the argument, however, is of first-rate value. This is the testimony of Roy Kotansky, who worked with Smith, and critiqued his translations for Betz’s The Greek magical papyri in translation. This was nearly thirty years later, but Kotansky testifies that Smith at that time did not apparently possess the Greek skills to compose the text.”
And then of course Anastasopoulou has evaluated Smith’s capacity to write Greek and stated that it’s highly unlikely that he could have written the letter, a conclusion Timo and I have strengthened with our own investigation.
Did you watch the Top Gun dissertation? Is Tarantino right? Was Top Gun about a young man's struggle with his homosexual urges?
Last edited by Secret Alias on Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:03 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
Roger Viklund wrote:
And then of course Anastasopoulou has evaluated Smith’s capacity to write Greek and stated that it’s highly unlikely that he could have written the letter, a conclusion Timo and I have strengthened with our own investigation.
Ehrman also talked in his book about how there was an infamous 17th-18th very skilled and very prolific forger of ancient Christian Greek documents. So it could still be another forger. Ehrman also talked about signs it was a forgery that aren't specific to Morton Smith's possible role.
My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
Was Tarantino right? Was Top Gun about a young man's struggle with his homosexual urges?
“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 wrote:Did you watch the Top Gun dissertation? Is Tarantino right? Was Top Gun about a young man's struggle with his homosexual urges?
I would want to learn more about the screenwriter and producer and watch the movie to be sure.
If Tarantino thinks this, then it could be good evidence.
The movie's screenwriter claims he didn't intend it as gay, but:
He also suggests director Tony Scott had something to do with it.
“Tony has a certain look that he was using stylistically and you look at that look and it’s a very gay look in terms of the haircuts and the styles and the male beefcake,” he says. “I don’t think it was intentional, but I don’t think you can avoid [it].”
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:Could anyone give a summary of the "new" arguments or a link to the "recently published works".
I did co-write another article with Timo Paananen on Secret Mark, dealing with the IMO “only” remaining strong argument for Secret Mark being a modern forgery, namely Tselikas’ linguistic argument:
Paananen, Timo S.; Viklund, Roger, “An Eighteenth-Century Manuscript: Control of the Scribal Hand in Clement’s Letter to Theodore”, in F. Amsler, Apocrypha: Revue internationale des littératures apocryphes. International Journal of Apocryphal Literatures. (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2015). pp. 261–297.
The article has received little or no attention, but for those interested the pre-press version can be read here (since I seem to be not allowed to post url's, I have removed the www): academia.edu/23949772/An_Eighteenth-Century_Manuscript_Control_of_the_Scribal_Hand_in_Clements_Letter_to_Theodore
Thanks. There were some interesting informations I didn't know.
