Stephan Huller article on Q. Quesnell and "Secret Mark"

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Stephan Huller article on Q. Quesnell and "Secret Mark"

Post by rakovsky »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:10 am Now that gay marriage is pretty much a bit of 'settled law' the manuscript isn't as controversial and we can take a second look. But the question of authenticity was rooted very much in the question of 'tradition' and 'traditional values' not so much with regards to actual difficulties arising from the manuscript.

A Columbia professor finds a manuscript, takes photographs, leaves the manuscript where he found it and publishes a brief paper when he returns home and eventually publishes a more comprehensive study on the manuscript later. Who can really find fault with that? If a 'culture war' hadn't been brewing in his home country in the ensuing years after the discovery none of this could have been deemed controversial because it wasn't and isn't controversial.
One could find fault with it if the professor is promoting his own forgery. I think that the question of authenticity and controversies is rooted in a series of unlikely coincidences about the discovery, not just the issue of traditional values.

The discovery can be still controversial for someone for whom the sexual issues aren't as upsetting as for a conservative "traditionalist" because of the chain of coincidences (eg. the similarities with the two books: Mystery of Mar Saba, and Anglo-Saxon Attitudes)

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Stephan Huller article on Q. Quesnell and "Secret Mark"

Post by rakovsky »

Secret Alias,

You ask:
Secret Alias wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:23 am
"But to move freely in the library and use the edition of Ignatius to copy the Clement’s letter I find it impossible."
There was no freedom for outsiders in the library. ... So Tselikas goes on to write
Most convincing is that the edition of Ignatius with the letter already written by Morton Smith or by someone else was placed in the library by Morton Smith himself
How does this statement reconcile itself with the lack of freedom.
My guess is the same as Tselikas' speculation. IE. that Morton Smith came with the 17th century book, which had not been found in previous lists of Mar Saba's books, already prepared and inscribed with the alleged Letter, and then placed it in the library. It seems less likely to me that Morton Smith sat around in the library for a few hours carefully forging the Letter into the back of one of the Library's pre-existing books.

The two statements reconcile themselves in that M. Smith could have secretly slipped or dropped a book in, since he was allowed to carry materials back to his own cell after all, according to his own claims. He was not under a surveillance camera in 1958. But, as I read A. Tselikas as saying, he was not freely moving in the library and copying the letter there in the library. That kind of copying would take too long and be noticed, since there was a person overseeing his work in general. I agree with Tselikas, that this kind of copying in the library would be very unlikely, although I guess if somehow he got the monk librarian to agree, it wouldn't be "impossible".

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
Post Reply