a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

[rakovsky]

The author next notes:

With the rest of section 7 I will not meddle for the present. In 8 Clement introduces a new problem, περὶ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων, and continues on this for several pages. Numerous quotations are made from the Apostle Paul, and the discussion is conducted on the principles which Paul lays down to the Corinthians and the Romans; but all this argument seems to be concerned in Clement's mind with the question of eating the flesh of animals; and there are not a few traces of a Stoic or Pythagorean writer strangely mixed in with the Scripture, and not well adjusted thereto in every respect. The first glimpse of this author is 218, 21-23, where occurs the implied suggestion that those who love the bloody feasts are like the ghosts of Homer's Odyssey gathering to drink the blood.

It is utterly incredible for anyone to accept this treatise as 'authentically' Clementine but doubt the discovery from 1958. Just notice how the Stoic treatise is obviously broken up by Christian interpolation (i.e. 'circle of flowers' and 'crown' in the first break):

Couldn't Clement have reasonably taken and added to Stoic writings, mixing things that he (Clement himself) got from some different sources?

The difference with the 1958 letter is that the 1958 letter is first known publicly in the 20th century, whereas the Stromateis has been known for many centuries, so there is more doubt about the recently discovered letter. There is also the issue of provenance - We know that M. Smith claimed to have randomly found the Clement Letter on his own in the library. But with the Stromateis, this would or could have been something passed down directly from the 2nd or 3rd century consistently identified as Clement's.

[rakovsky]

Ummm someone who wasn't Clement. I can't explain why anyone would corrupt their own writings. The pattern in Patristics suggests it was someone who lived after Clement. Just like Tertullian abused the authors who preceded him, this just happened all the time. I haven't been able to make sense of why in this case Christian material was added to Musonius other than to point out it happens over and over again within Christian literature.

What do you mean corrupt their own writings? In that era, it could be seen as more permissible than today for a writer (eg. Clement) to plagiarize other writers (eg. Musonius). If you say that Tertullian did it to writers who preceded him, it would logically follow that Clement reasonably might have too.

[rakovsky]

I try to avoid insulting religious traditions but it is mind boggling sometimes that people can pretend there is "santicty" in a canon built around three forgeries (Mark, Matthew, Luke).

One of the hypotheses is that M.Smith got disillusioned with Christianity after being an Anglican priest, concluded that Jesus was a "magician", and so he decided to make his own forgery and pull the wool over the eyes of other Christian scholars. In that scenario, maybe Morton Smith felt similarly about the "sanctity" of Christianity, and this better explains his decision-making when he decided to draft and plant the Letter.

But to address your point, first I guess that some people who see it as having sanctity don't consider it a forgery, and think that people by those names really did draft the documents. And as for others, well consider the book of Psalms. Suppose that they were not all written by David or whomever the titles say authored them. They could still be seen as "sacred" or inspirational or inspired by people who find them appealing. I have heard some interesting arguments about whether Shakespeare himself directly wrote all the works under his name, but certainly it wouldn't keep them from being good literature otherwise. I can see of course that forgery certainly can take away the appeal of some literature though (like if Mark was authored by someone who didn't know Mark and yet presented it as if Mark was the real writer).

[Roger Viklund]

But to address your point, first I guess that some people who see it as having sanctity don't consider it a forgery, and think that people by those names really did draft the documents. And as for others, well consider the book of Psalms. Suppose that they were not all written by David or whomever the titles say authored them. They could still be seen as "sacred" or inspirational or inspired by people who find them appealing. I have heard some interesting arguments about whether Shakespeare himself directly wrote all the works under his name, but certainly it wouldn't keep them from being good literature otherwise. I can see of course that forgery certainly can take away the appeal of some literature though (like if Mark was authored by someone who didn't know Mark and yet presented it as if Mark was the real writer).

The problem with all this theorizing over Smith’s possible motives for making a forgery and his insidious plan to smuggle the book into the library at Mar Saba, is that he couldn’t have made the forgery even if he had wanted – unless he co-operated with someone or some people with more skills than he had. I think Venetia Anastasopoulou has convincingly shown that Smith could not have written the difficult 18th-century handwriting of the letter ("Experts Report Handwriting Examination" (2010), Biblical Archaeology Review, pp. 1–39 https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/wp- ... alysis.pdf ). I also think Allan Pantuck has convincingly shown that Smith could not have composed the Greek text of the letter as his Greek was not anywhere near as good as would be needed ("A Question of Ability: What Did He Know and When Did He Know It? Further Excavations from the Morton Smith Archives", in Burke, Tony, Ancient Gospel or Modern Forgery? The Secret Gospel of Mark in Debate. Proceedings from the 2011 York University Christian Apocrypha Symposium, Eugene, Or.: Cascade Books, (2013), pp. 184–211). As Roy Kotansky says, few are “up to this sort of task”. So, if someone would suggest that the letter is forgery they would need to come up with another forger than Smith, as he neither could have composed nor written the letter.

[StephenGoranson]

One can mention a handwriting analyst, with modern courtroom experience, IIRC, who says one thing or mention another analyst, with extensive experience in historical hands, who says quite another thing. Or wonder if Smith had an assistant--or a scribal teacher.
One can recall that some think Smith was not good enough at Greek and others who thought that (given time to compose) actually he was.
One can interpret the letters that Smith wrote to Scholem (the first person Smith mentions showing the text) and say they suggest Smith genuinely found the text, and others can interpret the same letters as showing Smith was working on Clement and on Mark (on a book on Mark even) and that, in effect, Smith compared Jesus and Sabbatai Sevi—something Scholem did not accept.
Or, to cite something recent, the following includes interpretation that Smith conspicuously did not write some things in those letters, which may be worth consideration.
Jonathan Klawans, ‘Deceptive Intentions: Forgeries, Falsehoods and the Study of Ancient Judaism,” Jewish Quarterly Review 108.4 (Fall 2018) 489-501.
Abstract and keywords:
This essay probes and problematizes purported distinctions between religious pseudepigraphy and literary deceit. When we attend to what ancient religious pseudepigraphs say about lying, we may be more inclined to recognize the intention to deceive. Apologies for ancient religious pseudepigraphs sometimes resemble defenses for alleged modern forgeries, raising the possibility that academics may not be sufficiently alert to the extent of dishonesty lurking in our source material. In this respect, grappling with ancient lies may also help us recognize modern ones. In any event, the current moment—marked by crises of forgery and falsehood—call for a greater awareness, and increased suspicion.
Deception, Forgery, Gershom Scholem, Hazon Gabriel, Morton Smith, Pseudepigraphy, Secret Marky [sic, Mark]

[rakovsky]

Abstract and keywords:
This essay probes and problematizes purported distinctions between religious pseudepigraphy and literary deceit. When we attend to what ancient religious pseudepigraphs say about lying, we may be more inclined to recognize the intention to deceive. Apologies for ancient religious pseudepigraphs sometimes resemble defenses for alleged modern forgeries, raising the possibility that academics may not be sufficiently alert to the extent of dishonesty lurking in our source material. In this respect, grappling with ancient lies may also help us recognize modern ones. In any event, the current moment—marked by crises of forgery and falsehood—call for a greater awareness, and increased suspicion.

I think an interesting analogy is the treatment of the Testamonium Flavium and the acceptance of its modern revision in academia. Origen said that Josephus was Jewish and not a Christian, and a medieval Arab writer has presented a non-Christian version of the Testamonium. so many scholars believe that Josephus' passage on Jesus in our extant Greek texts was a pious fraud interpolation. Some of the scholars have created or accepted a modern version of the Testamonium that resembles the Arabic version and removes the Christian theological parts. Some of those scholars now treat their modern revised version as the authentic, standard version of the Testamonium even though it's a modern creation. Effectively, it's what one might call a self-admitted modern "pious fraud" - for the "piety" of a wing of modern academia.

If we came across a handwritten notarized admission by M. Smith that he forged the letter and text of Secret Mark, I suspect that there would still be a core of people who would believe that M. Smith correctly guessed that an original version of Mark had a raising story in Mark 10:34-35 where he put Secret Mark. This acceptance would reflect how much some scholars are open to accepting forgeries as legitimate.

[rakovsky]

he couldn’t have made the forgery even if he had wanted – unless he co-operated with someone or some people with more skills than he had.

I don't have much problem thinking that M.Smith cooperated with someone who shared his views in creating the forgery. The more people who knew it was a fraud, the more likely that it would be admitted by some of them and the fraud revealed. Thus, the number of people "in the know" would most likely be small. M. Smith dedicated one of his books on the Mar Saba Letter to "The One Who Knows", which some have though might relate to the person who was in on the alleged forgery.

[Roger Viklund]

I don't have much problem thinking that M.Smith cooperated with someone who shared his views in creating the forgery. The more people who knew it was a fraud, the more likely that it would be admitted by some of them and the fraud revealed. Thus, the number of people "in the know" would most likely be small. M. Smith dedicated one of his books on the Mar Saba Letter to "The One Who Knows", which some have though might relate to the person who was in on the alleged forgery.

So, like Tselikas, you're suggesting a conspiracy with more than one person involved? It would then require more people willing to make a fraud without seemingly gaining anything from it since this complot was never revealed. And it would require that none of them by mistake ever revealed what they had done.

[rakovsky]

So, like Tselikas, you're suggesting a conspiracy with more than one person involved? It would then require more people willing to make a fraud without seemingly gaining anything from it since this complot was never revealed.

I think that it's reasonable.

It would require at least someone else willing to make a fraud, possibly gaining from it emotionally or ideologically (even financially if M. Smith promised to reimburse them), the likelihood of them gaining from it being increased from this complot being never revealed. It would require that none of them by mistake ever revealed what they had done, and if revealed then lucky or able to keep their admission becoming public. Some scholars who claimed that Smith made up the Letter had their publishers threatened or sued by M. Smith. Since it would be hard for individual witnesses to prove that Smith or others told the witnesses privately that they had forged it, the possible threat of suits could contribute to their silence. It's noteworthy for me that supposedly both M. Smith's professor Arthur Darby Nock, and Jacob Neusner his closely associated student (I think that they cowrote a book) both believed that M. Smith wrote it.

I think that the topic of trustworthiness, motive, and fraud is trickier than many people (but not Morton Smith who labeled Jesus a "magician") suspect when it comes to religion and writings on religion. It's commonly thought that the apostles certainly wouldn't have misportrayed or made up their claims to have seen the risen Jesus, nor would the evangelists have deliberately made up significant parts of their narratives. They faced persecution for their teachings, some were killed, and what would they gain? The apostles and gospel writers would have to keep the truth of their fakery to themselves, and this silence could be harder to achieve than one or two modern scholars keeping silent that they forged a document and pretended to "discover" it in an ancient monastery.

[Roger Viklund]

I think that it's reasonable.

It would require at least someone else willing to make a fraud, possibly gaining from it emotionally or ideologically (even financially if M. Smith promised to reimburse them), the likelihood of them gaining from it being increased from this complot being never revealed. It would require that none of them by mistake ever revealed what they had done, and if revealed then lucky or able to keep their admission becoming public. Some scholars who claimed that Smith made up the Letter had their publishers threatened or sued by M. Smith. Since it would be hard for individual witnesses to prove that Smith or others told the witnesses privately that they had forged it, the possible threat of suits could contribute to their silence. It's noteworthy for me that supposedly both M. Smith's professor Arthur Darby Nock, and Jacob Neusner his closely associated student (I think that they cowrote a book) both believed that M. Smith wrote it.

I think that the topic of trustworthiness, motive, and fraud is trickier than many people (but not Morton Smith who labeled Jesus a "magician") suspect when it comes to religion and writings on religion. It's commonly thought that the apostles certainly wouldn't have misportrayed or made up their claims to have seen the risen Jesus, nor would the evangelists have deliberately made up significant parts of their narratives. They faced persecution for their teachings, some were killed, and what would they gain? The apostles and gospel writers would have to keep the truth of their fakery to themselves, and this silence could be harder to achieve than one or two modern scholars keeping silent that they forged a document and pretended to "discover" it in an ancient monastery.

If we leave out all the apologetics about the apostles who would never have misportrayed Jesus or made up that Jesus rose from the dead or that the evangelists would never have made up their narratives due to the persecutions, you actually think it’s reasonable to imagine that Morton Smith was part of a conspiracy complot together with at least one more (unknown) scholar who helped him to produce the fraud and possessed skills that surpassed those of Smith. To make such an unlikely assumption, you reasonably must feel very certain that the letter is a forgery – otherwise, you (one) wouldn’t make such a far-fetched assumption.

Personally, I find nothing suspicious at all with the letter. It fits perfectly well with what we know about Alexandrian Christianity, what we know about Clement, what we know about ancient letter writing, what we know about the style of the Gospel of Mark, and so on. I find nothing sexual at all in the scene with the risen youth, as I previously never had imagined anything sexual in the scene with the naked fleeing youth in Mark 14. Accordingly, in order for me to regard this a forgery (and of course, it could be), I would need something substantial apart from just possibilities, motives, Smith’s presumed character (from those who never knew him) and general content. I would need something much more solid than just suspicion. And since I don’t think Morton Smith was capable of making a fraud like this one, and since apart from Smith, I don’t see how anyone from Medieval time and onwards could have made such a forgery, I regard the letter as probably genuine.

I put no weight at all on Neusner's outbursts and attacks on Smith, as it is such an obvious vengeance on Smith for the humiliation that Smith had previously exposed him to. Neusner presents no arguments at all for Smith having forged the text apart from his view that Smith was mean. And I never heard that A. D. Nock thought that Morton Smith forged the letter. He suspected that it was a forgery due to his “intuition”, but he never gave any reasons apart from intuition and to my knowledge, he never said that he suspected Smith. Likewise with Charles Murgia, who obviously thought it was an 18th-century forgery. He explicitly ruled out the possibility that Smith could have forged it. According to Murgia, Smith’s knowledge of Greek was insufficient and nothing in his book indicated that the letter was a fraud.