Agamemnon Tselikas’ Handwriting Analysis Report Did Morton Smith Forge "Secret Mark"?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2962
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Agamemnon Tselikas’ Handwriting Analysis Report Did Morton Smith Forge "Secret Mark"?

Post by maryhelena »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2024 7:08 am

Here is some more embarrassing personal information. I wrote a moronic book. Like one of the stupidest book ever written. I confess my sins here https://www.youtube.com/live/8K74fv03Ho ... UaaLH-I0mc. The stupidest part of the book is where I argue for like twenty pages that Josephus was wrong about there being two Marcus Agrippas. I will keep adding to this list of stupid things that I have said about the Bible but they voluminous. When I first started pontificating about Marcion in my twenties I knew nothing about Greek. My Hebrew and Aramaic is rather limited and whenever I don't something I go to my notes from my professor Rory Boid and basically copy what he says.

Yep, and I put up a thread on that tv interview. here

I'm not interested in going over what was said on that thread. However, with all this talk about Secret Mark - I've been wondering if somehow, or another, Marcus Julius Agrippa II (since now you have ditched your only one Agrippa theory) is not at the root of your interest in this naked young man. As far as I'm aware you still hold to the theory that the gospel writer (known as Mark) was probably Marcus Julius Agrippa II - and seemingly this historical figure was not married and had no children.

Just a wild idea - that maybe you are looking for a connection between the gospel young man and Marcus Julius Agrippa II. If so - maybe put your cards on the table so commentators can keep in mind your Marcus Agrippa II theory.

Do I think it is still possible that St Mark is Marcus Agrippa. Yes I would love to find more evidence supporting this proposition.

Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Agamemnon Tselikas’ Handwriting Analysis Report Did Morton Smith Forge "Secret Mark"?

Post by Secret Alias »

Honestly. It's like whether or not I think I am attractive. I know as an old man I am not attractive. But there will always be a part of me that can be seduced by flattery.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Agamemnon Tselikas’ Handwriting Analysis Report Did Morton Smith Forge "Secret Mark"?

Post by Secret Alias »

I found a new reference to Agamemnon Tselikas's unfettered access to all the archives at the Jerusalem Patriarchate. Here is description of your mere "Greek paleographer" Agamemnon Tselikas:
Despite its long administrative tradition, the Greek Orthodox patriarchate created a distinct archival service only in the early twentieth century and placed it under the authority of the archigrammateas.12 Today, most of the material is hosted in a two-story building within the patriarchal complex and contains documents from the tenth to the late twentieth centuries. The pilgrimage series and the real estate series make up the initial nucleus of the records. The former contains mainly caliphal decrees and sultanic firmans referring to the privileges and rights of the patriarchate over the sacred shrines, which were classified twice or three times through the centuries, according to the marks on their back pages. These documents ended up in seven separate subseries with specific numbering and are now part of the VII.B series of the archives’ current inventory. The second series consists of property titles of monasteries, churches, rural areas and buildings, and is classified in the series from IV.A. to IV.Γ in the current inventory. It is evident why these two series were the most sensitive and valuable documents, and one can understand why the patriarchate was urged to establish an archival service to protect them.

When the archives were created in the early twentieth century, these two series were placed in the first chamber of the first floor. Responsible for this work was Dimitrios Ninos, a member of the local Greek Orthodox community who was fluent both in Arabic and Ottoman, assisted by a monk named Gorgias. In 1928, another monk named Andreas became the official registrar of the patriarchate and he mainly dealt with the establishment of the Great Estate Cadaster and with improving the organization of the two aforementioned series. At the same time, the patriarchate requested from its representative in Istanbul, Vladimiros Mirmiroglou, a person with a deep knowledge of the Ottoman language, the creation of an inventory containing the sultan’s orders, which were kept in the archive of the Hexarchy of the Holy Sepulchre in Istanbul and were at that time transferred to Jerusalem. In a report that Monk Andreas wrote in 1945, he informed the Holy Synod that he had created an index (kleida) of the real estate series and finally suggested the creation of a historical archive, the realization of which proved to be difficult at the time due to the lack of translators for the Arab and Turkish documents. The content of the archives was continually expanded through the post-World War II period. Initially, the incoming and outgoing patriarchal correspondence, kept in bound volumes along with a series of files of the administrative archive, were added and placed in two rooms of the upper story. A third chamber of the first floor was filled with files, cases, and registers from the economic and the real estate commissions. The existence of the Real Estate and the Pilgrimage series was gradually undermined because documents utilized in judicial cases were rarely returned to their original place. Archimandrite Kallistos, a former librarian of the patriarchate, tried in the early 1980s to reorganize these two basic series, without success. Later on, in 1983, the Center for Byzantine Studies of the Greek National Foundation for Research (EIE) organized a mission, headed by Chrysa Maltezou and Kritonas Chrysochoidis, to accommodate the economic series archives, but the task was not accomplished.

In response to these failures, the Historical and Paleographic Archive (IPA) of the National Bank of Greece Cultural Foundation intervened. The IPA was established in 1974 to create a microfilm (and later a digitized) database of Greek-language manuscripts and historical archives that are kept in major libraries and archives in Greece and elsewhere. It also aims to provide consultation and information about the study of Greek manuscripts in collaboration with archivists, philologists, and historians. Since the foundation of the IPA, more than 200 missions have been completed, during which almost 9,500 manuscripts have been digitized, as well as 20 full archival fonds (including the archives of the Catholic bishops of the Cycladic islands, the Greek Orthodox patriarchates of Alexandria and Jerusalem, the archdiocese of Cyprus, several monasteries of Mount Athos and Chalki Theological School), 150 codices and dozens of books from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In parallel to the above missions, the IPA maintains a specialized library. It is currently completing an index of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Greek codices, and has organized weekly seminars on paleography since the 1990s. These seminars, well-known among Greek academic circles, have been widely attended by philologists, historians, and other students, and have trained generations of paleographers in Greece. The IPA publishes a monthly bulletin presenting news about their collection of digitized documents and archives.

The Agamemnon Tselikas Missions and Inventory, 1988–92

The director of the IPA, Agamemnon Tselikas, and his team, whether working alone or collectively, carried out nine missions over the course of 170 days from July 1988 to November 1991. The objective of these missions was to create an inventory of the patriarchal archives. This was an ambitious and demanding project, full of methodological and linguistic challenges that nonetheless resulted in an inventory published in Greek in 1992.13 One might imagine that the classification of the patriarchate archival material would come after the list of services and offices of the institution. However, the distribution of power and duties among commissions within the patriarchate was often fluid and at times very much centralized around the patriarch. Therefore, the classification according to bureaucratic procedure was not always respected and this is reflected to a large degree in the organization of the documents. Tselikas’ team tried to maintain the original classification of the material and add new categories whenever possible. Even though inconsistencies in the previous classifications were occasionally detected, these were left untouched in order to preserve the history of the archive itself. At times, there are gaps between registers or files, which are due either to the loss of material or to the fact that even when this work was underway, the patriarchal services had not yet organized the material. The team also tried to keep the original writing on the boxes, even though words were sometimes spelled incorrectly. This preserves an idea of what the bureaucratic mindset could have been at different times. The matching of labels with content was always checked and, whenever there was an inconsistency, this was mentioned. Many documents are dated according to the Muslim calendar and a few older documents according to the Byzantine calendar. Dates of both systems were maintained but the archivists also provided the date in the current Gregorian calendar. The two basic criteria for classification were the content and the form of the material. Concerning the content, Tselikas structured the material around five major themes: economy, real estate, pilgrimage, administration, and correspondence. As for the form, two different kinds of records were distinguished: the registers and the codices on the one hand, and the nonbound (or flyleaf) documents on the other. Thus, he created nine separate series and numerous subseries, which are indicated with codes combining Latin and Greek numerals.

The financial series (registers and codices) consists of twelve subseries whose codes range from I.A to I.IB. The first (I.A) contains 392 registers of an elongated shape, classified during the 1983 mission of the EIE. The majority dates from the mid-seventeenth to the mid-nineteenth centuries. They are mostly economic and income registers, diaries and volumes regarding the patriarchate’s budget, expenses, and different sources of income. The following seven subseries (I.B to I.H) created during the IPA missions contain registers of income and accounting books of the patriarchate’s different services and especially of the economic commission and the Holy Sepulchre from the 1830s to 1920s. The eighty-seven items in the ninth subseries (I.Θ) refer to the auxiliary services of the patriarchate’s branches and several monasteries in Palestine, while the items starting in 1843 and ending in 1898 of the tenth (I.Ι) subseries refer to institutions outside Palestine. The eleventh series (I.IA) contains 243 boxes of receipts of the economic commission starting in 1882 and ending in 1909. Finally, the twelfth series (I.IB.), “Duplicates of Food Management,” consists of small duplicated sheets from 1890 to 1910, with the following inscriptions: “Usage of olive oil, soap, pulses, coffee, sugar, cod, octopus, potatoes, petrol and cheese, along with meat for the hospital, meat for the patriarchate, bread for the oil press of the Holy Cross and the harvesting of grapes.

12 Most information regarding the patriarchal archives comes from the introduction to Agamemnon Tselikas’ inventory: Agamemnon Tselikas, Katagrafi tou archeiou tou Patriarcheiou Ierosolymon [Register of the Jerusalem patriarchate archives] (Athens: Deltio tou Istorikou kai Paleografikou Archeiou tou Morfotikou Idrymatos tis Ethnikis Trapezas tis Ellados, 1992), 17–32. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/20. ... 0-1940.pdf
Tselikas himself admits to a Greek audience that a graphologist has exclusive domain over the determination of authenticity with documents. I understood that he also told that to the BAR team. But in terms of transcription I would certainly expect him to a lower rate of errors than a novice.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Agamemnon Tselikas’ Handwriting Analysis Report Did Morton Smith Forge "Secret Mark"?

Post by Secret Alias »

The Director of the Center of History and Palaeography (IPA, MIET), Agamemnon Tselikas, and his team maintain some figures regarding manuscripts that we encounter in monastic, ecclesiastic and public libraries in Greece. While constantly being revised, these numbers provide an overview of the totality of Greek manuscripts18. There are a total of 220 libraries in Greece with manuscript collections, including monastic (especially on Mount Athos), ecclesiastical, public, municipal and private libraries. In total, there are 24,437 manuscripts.

Table 1: Libraries with Manuscripts in Greece Type of library with manuscripts Libraries MSS
Monastic Libraries with Collections of Manuscripts 81 4,778
Monastic Libraries of Mount Athos 29 13,248
Ecclesiastical Libraries 47 395
Private, Municipal and Public Libraries 63 6,016
Total 220 24,437 https://www.academia.edu/72163767/Manus ... _Libraries
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Agamemnon Tselikas’ Handwriting Analysis Report Did Morton Smith Forge "Secret Mark"?

Post by Secret Alias »

My friendship/acquaintance or whatever you want to call it, my admiration of Agamemnon Tselikas dates to sometime before my son was born. It can be demonstrated that I arranged for Hedrick's interview with Tselikas in 2010. Burke referencing this is interesting because I was badgering him and Landau to allow for Tselikas to speak at the "Secret Mark" conference around that time. I was willing to pay for Tselikas's airfares, hotel etc despite him holding a different opinion about the document. https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2010 ... rence.html. I arranged for Tselikas's interview with Meliton in 2015, Tselikas's attempts to find Dourvas in 2016 - 18 etc. https://www.apocryphicity.ca/2010/12/ Tselikas published his paper declaring the Letter to Theodore to be a forgery in 2008. I am consistent with respect to my admiration for his authority (within the bounds of reason).
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Agamemnon Tselikas’ Handwriting Analysis Report Did Morton Smith Forge "Secret Mark"?

Post by Ken Olson »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2024 7:08 am And if the only way you can proceed in this debate is by making reference to my "inconsistency" go ahead.
The inconsistency that I brought up in this thread is that you suggested I was being dishonest in questioning whether Tselikas' opinion that the reading γυμνοὶ was whether the reading γυμνὸs preferred by Smith-Adam-Paananen-Vikliund ought to be preferred because Tselikas' expertise in Greek paleography is unrivaled, while at the same time you dismiss Tselikas opinion that the Letter to Theodore is not an authentic 18th century text but an imitation of one. It seems that you consider Tselikas's opinion cannot honestly be questioned when it suits your purposes, but ought to be questioned (and rejected) when it does not. You do not follow the rules you set for others.

I realize that you reject the expertise of Smith, Adam, Pannanen and Viklund and think Tselikas' expertise is greater in transcription than in distinguishing an authentic from an inauthentic 18th century hand. But I consider that judgment to lie outside of your expertise. We have the published opinion of Tselikas on both.

But the reason I avoid interacting with you on this forum in general is not your inconsistency. A lot of forum members are inconsistent. Everyone is at times. It's your toxicity.

The debate about whether γυμνὸs or γυμνοὶ is the correct reading can proceed on the Academic Forum, whether you choose to participate there or not.
It's about the arguments
It's not about the arguments for you. It wasn't about the arguments when you posted the now-deleted long thread attacking Ben Smith with which you drove him out of the forum and it wasn't about the arguments when you posted your ad hominem about Mark Goodacre's face and voice.

viewtopic.php?p=128036#p128036

It is about the arguments for me, which is why I started a thread on the Academic Forum, which has rules of conduct that might constrain your toxicity.
What other sins can I confess?
I am not interested in your sins, nor in your polemics, nor in your autobiographical anecdotes about your wife and son, nor in your general reflections on life or the state of humankind which you regularly post to this forum. It's about the arguments, or should be.
Call me cynical, but I think you want to change topics from Tselikas to me. Just like you guys always wanted to make it about Morton Smith rather than the document.
I started a thread on whether Tselikas reading of γυμνοὶ or Morton Smith's reading of γυμνὸς in the document is more likely to be correct in the Academic Forum particularly because I wanted to discuss Tselikas' reading and not discuss you.

I thought perhaps you might not participate in the discussion on the Academic Forum because the rules might constrain your abuse of those who disagree with you, and you either really like being abusive or thought you might not be able to restrain yourself from being abusive, and that might get you sanctioned and maybe not have a forum on which to abuse people anymore.

I suspect the rest of the participants of this forum do not really want to read another long Stephan-Ken exchange, so I will go back to ignoring you now.
gdoudna
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2023 4:42 pm

Re: Agamemnon Tselikas’ Handwriting Analysis Report Did Morton Smith Forge "Secret Mark"?

Post by gdoudna »

In the last week of August 1991 I newly arrived to Cornell in Ithaca, New York to begin a graduate program in Near Eastern Studies. By total coincidence I met and talked with a one year contract term visiting professor in the department, Seth Schwartz, about a day or two before he left Ithaca after finishing his one-year 1990-1991 teaching appointment.

In talking to Dr. Schwartz, he told me he had been a student of Morton Smith, who had just died. It happened that Morton Smith died on July 11, 1991.

In that conversation Schwartz, who cared for his old teacher and had only good to say about him, told me Smith was gay. Not as speculation but as fact. Schwartz spoke sadly of Morton Smith dying alone, some words of commiseration along that line.

I separately came to believe Smith’s Secret Mark Clement letter was forged, for reasons along lines of Quesnell, and, whether rightly or wrongly, read Secret Mark as sounding like a forger writing in such a way as to allude to a gay encounter of Jesus. I speculated that that might have played a role in the way the forgery was written, of which Smith was the leading suspect as to the identity of the forger.

In a scholarly forum I publicly questioned the authenticity of Secret Mark (on other grounds), and somewhere in an old Hershel Shanks book I am named in a footnote as questioning the authenticity of Secret Mark in that discussion, maybe on the old ioudaios, I don’t remember where.

But because I did not see that Morton Smith had been publicly outed, I did not believe it would be ethical for me to do so in airing what I had been told by one who knew Smith well, and I did not. Nor was that the reason I believed Secret Mark was a forgery, and it did not enter into the evidential issues pro or con on that contested point.

But there never was any doubt to me that the information I had been told was credible.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Agamemnon Tselikas’ Handwriting Analysis Report Did Morton Smith Forge "Secret Mark"?

Post by Secret Alias »

But why is there this consistent switch from Tselikas to me? How I do I factor in the debate? Ultimately it should be about the text right? We're supposed to at least pretend this is about the truth and the text. BAR commissioned Tselikas to do a number of things including, perhaps most importantly, the first authoritative transcription of the manuscript. Whether or not everything Tselikas ever makes mistakes is a silly objection. Tselikas is an acknowledged authority. He can be wrong. He could even be wrong here. But surely his case is somewhere between persuasive and very persuasive. I won't deny that I am encouraged by the fact that this translation comes from someone who isn't trying to defend the authenticity of the document. He says the document is fake and it doesn't have a homosexual reference. I don't know what relevance my current opinions or previous opinions have to this question. I tend to think it is a tactical decision on your part to move the conversation away from an acknowledged experts testimony to someone who expresses all sorts of views on the subject.

Since we're never going to agree on what text says we should at least acknowledge that the only expert on documents from this period to weigh on the subject transcribes a letter with no reference to homosexuality. When this is taken with Ariel Sabar's four year muckraking effort against Morton Smith failing to come up any examples of homosexual behavior or partners on the part of Morton Smith, the idea that the Mar Saba document was the produce of an angry homosexual seeking to get revenge on Christianity for this or that resentment is untenable. Whether or not the document is authentic or a forgery lays outside this obvious recognition of fact.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Agamemnon Tselikas’ Handwriting Analysis Report Did Morton Smith Forge "Secret Mark"?

Post by Secret Alias »

In that conversation Schwartz, who cared for his old teacher and had only good to say about him, told me Smith was gay.
And I have heard similar gossip and inferences and rumor. But still we speak about people being gay all the time. Tom Cruise and Ewan McGregor had to hire intimacy coordinators for on screen sex scenes with their real live wives https://kiss951.com/2024/03/20/ewan-mcg ... ordinator/ As a result of these reports stories about Tom Cruise and Ewan McGregor being gay emerge. There are a thousand combinations and permutations of what is gay, how it is defined but one of the most common is being a perpetual unmarried bachelor. For this reason I think Ariel Sabar was actively looking for proof that Morton Smith had a homosexual relationship. This would have proved that Morton Smith was a homosexual. I have never heard anyone knowing who Morton Smith's lover was, gay bars he frequented etc etc. If Seth Schwartz has evidence I would have expected Ariel Sabar in his 4 year muckraking effort to uncovered these facts. But in the end, the text does not reference homosexuality so it is a less important fact than before Tselikas's authoritative translation of the letter.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Agamemnon Tselikas’ Handwriting Analysis Report Did Morton Smith Forge "Secret Mark"?

Post by Secret Alias »

The facts still remain that at least I did better than Ariel Sabar in terms of coming up with two girlfriends for Morton Smith. Miriam Chesterman at the time he was visiting Mar Saba as attested by Miriam's daughter Ethne https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituar ... tes_button and Lotte Gaster the wife of his colleague and friend Theodore Gaster (who I think was gay later in life FWIW).
“I simply couldn’t believe what was written in this book,” says Ethne Chesterman as she clutches a copy of Lost Christianities, perennial best selling author and professor Bart Ehrman's 2003 work on the early Church. “This was not the Morton Smith that I knew in 1958.” Ms Chesterman is referring of course to the avalanche of books that were published at the turn of the millennium which offered up various theories explaining away the gay references in the Mar Saba document by attributing them to its discoverer, the Columbia University professor Morton Smith.

It was an opinion echoed by Corinna Gaster daughter of Professor Theodore Gaster, an authority in comparative religion specializing in the Hebrew language. "I used to call him Uncle Morty he was over at the house so much," muses Gaster. "My parents went through some rough patches and eventually they split up. Morton Smith and my mother Lotte Gaster were having an affair all through the time my father was teaching at Barnard," she confides.

In some ways the stories of the two women complement one another as they relate to Barnard College, established in 1889 as the all-women alternative to Columbia which was at the time Ethne Chesterman had graduated from high school, exclusively all male. Indeed there once was a time when all Ivy League schools separated the sexes. Yet over the course of time Harvard, Princeton, Yale relented. Columbia only became coed in 1982 but Barnard remains to this day an all-women’s college.

Ethne was starting her first year of school in 1957 and she takes great efforts to emphasize that going to Barnard wasn't like entering a convent. “Barnard students were allowed attend classes at Columbia,” Ethne notes. “This is how I came into contact with Morton Smith in 1957.” She clears her throat and a noticeable smile comes over her face. "There was something special about that man. He used to come into class all excited," she remembers.

"There was a lectern on top of table where he used to instruct us from. He used to start the class with a karate chop to a chain that hung from the lectern. It was really cute." Morton Smith had just started his full time job at Columbia and with his new position came a lot of adjustments – including getting used to the idea of daylight savings time.

"Then November came and everyone came to class. We were all staring at the chain hanging from the lectern. No Professor Smith. Everyone waited about twenty minutes then we all streamed out of the classroom but it was pouring rain outside. So we all went to the library." "At about ten minutes after ten. Guess who comes strolling into the library? Professor Smith. His bald head was all slick with rain. He looked all frazzled. He didn't know anything about daylight savings time."

Many of the student's in the library started to chuckle at the befuddled Dr Smith. Yet Ethne grew upset with the chorus of laughter and told her friends to stop making fun of their absent minded professor. Some of her friends wondered why it was that she was so protective of him; little did they know that Ethne and Professor Smith had a little secret. It all started about a month earlier during Barnard College’s traditional Open House. “The school had long tradition of encouraging mothers to meet with the staff and even attend classes with their young girls,” Ethne remembers.

Her father had just passed away in April and her mother was just getting over the loss. “I introduced my beautiful mother Miriam who looked every bit the spitting image of Lana Turner. “You have to understand this was the 1950s,” she adds. “Young ladies were going off to university and the institution extended an opportunity to their parents to sit in with them at their classes. Barnard had a special relationship with Columbia which meant that I was taking a 9:00 am with a new professor of ancient history named Morton Smith at Columbia. Mother and I shared an interest in ancient history, so we went together to my class.”

After class Ethne and Miriam approached Morton Smith. "I said, 'this is my mother' and he acted like any man who laid eyes on her. His eyebrows raised a little and he took a quick double take before clearing his throat," remembers Ethne. We started talking about the course load for the year and the usual small talk. Yet Professor Smtih seemed especially chatty. He seemed like any other man interested in my mother.”

“My mother had a British background so she was very good at appearing unmoved and disinterested. As mother and I walked away from our lengthy chat I remember telling her something to the effect, 'I think Dr. Smith would like to see you again.' I talked her into coming into class the next week. She needed the distraction."

"They started talking and after a long while she told him that they would meet again without me. I think she said something like "We'll meet beside the statue of Athena at Lowe library and that's exactly where he met her a day or two later," recalls Ethne. "I don't know why I was playing Cupid. I thought I was doing my mother some good. She needed to get out."

Ethne also recalls how Smith and her mother had to go to great lengths to keep their relationship secret. "They saw each other whenever Smith's schedule allowed him to get away. My mother never told me about her private affairs. She never married again after the death of my father. No matter how old I got she never told me anything about what went on with her boyfriends. She was very British that way."

"She and Smith continued to date all the way to the time Smith left for his summer trip. He spoke about it a lot but never mentioned anything about going to the Mar Saba monastery. He was going to Jerusalem to meet friends. I knew that. My mother knew he was brilliant. She found him funny and charming and loved to be in his company."

"Of course I kept their relationship secret. We could all have gotten in a lot of trouble potentially - especially Smith. I remember we all went to dinner after he came back from Mar Saba. He was very excited about his discovery. He went on forever about how he came across this letter of the Church Father Clement. Yet at the same time he couldn't stop complaining about the monastery. He was very sick. He never got any sleep. The monks were singing all the time. It drove him crazy. He swore he would never go back."

"He talked about how bad the food was and we all kept eating. It was quite funny in a way. Mentioning soup with the octopus at the monastery and then we were in New York having a wonderful meal at a wonderful restaurant with great service."

"The bad news for my mother was that once Smith came back with this big discovery that became the focus of his whole life. He was consulting with this professor and that. My mother and he just drifted apart. Maybe it was too soon after my father died. I don't know. I think there was some real compatibility between her and Smith. My father wasn't Jewish. He was Episcopalian so marriage wouldn't have been an issue. If he hadn't have found the manuscript, who knows."

All of this would have remained a private anecdote if it weren’t for a chance reading over a generation later. "I remember picking this book,” again clutching her copy of Bart Ehrman’s book. “When I read what he insinuated about Smith. I hit the ceiling. Morton Smith was one of the most honest, sincere, straight forward man I had ever met. Then I started reading more about the wild accusations that were being thrown around by his associates. Smith was gay? I thought to myself, why are they doing this now after he was dead? If my mother was alive she would have vouched for him too. There was a real attraction."

For Ethne Chesterman the attacks against her mother’s former boyfriend were personal. She said that anyone who met them couldn’t help but notice the attraction between the two. “The whole thing didn’t make sense to me,” she noted. “Why would someone in his position risk everything to be with my mother?” Ethne pauses for a moment and flips through the pages of Lost Christianities before landing on a certain page and quickly glancing over a few words.

“What kind of crazy conspiracy theorist would imply that Smith was gay then?” Ethne shrugs her shoulders in disbelief. “What would they say about my mother? He used her to cover up his homosexual tendencies? But they weren’t supposed to be together. Having a relationship with my mother would get him into more trouble than having being gay at that time.”

As we have already noted the Morton Smith 'gay rumor' can be traced back to insinuations of his one time protege Jacob Neusner some time after their break in 1982. While the first people to pick up on the claims were Neusner associates, the notion that 'the gay gospel' was a modern gay creation really took off with Ehrman's 2003 book. Many people right off much of what Ehrman publishes as well crafted sensationalism disguised as informative reading. Yet Lost Christianities can be credited with opening the floodgate of accusations that the discoverer of the Letter to Theodore was a homosexual forger.
If Theodor Gaster was gay then it is possible that Morton Smith later in life also went gay. I don't know. I only know that at the time he was at Mar Saba he had a girlfriend and later on he was in a romantic relationship with Lotte Gaster according to her daughter. It sounds like Morton and Miriam were in love. Whatever the case the text doesn't reference homosexuality. So what's the difference? And in case you think I am making Miriam Chesterman up (as I am sure you will) https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org ... ments-203/
Post Reply