How to Detect a Forgery: The Secret Gospel of Mark

[@johnday6097]

Would not Smith have been noticed (or at least had some trepidation about being caught and thrown out) by any of the monks at Mar Saba while sitting in their library, laboring away with quill and ink, scribbling in the back of one of their rare books? Composing the text alone, to match the epistolary style and vocabulary of the supposed authentic author, while also endeavoring to match an 18th century penmanship authentically and consistently throughout the entire length of a forged document would require not only great intellectual acumen, but also a highly developed artistic hand, and a preexisting familiarity on the part of the forger with 18th century handwriting style. Surely such a feat would have taken a great deal of noticeable scribal effort, when he had limited time to accomplish the cataloging of the library's contents, and a fear of being caught out by the monks? If so, did he devise his witty conceit, and accomplish it as a coup de foudre? Surely it could not have been a preconceived act of fraudulence- he had no idea the book was in the library. Was he left entirely alone during all that time?

[@erichodge567]

Bart can come off sometimes as (delightfully) goofy, but hearing him burrow down deep into some obscure bit of scholarship, as he does here, gives me to understand that he just knows a TON of stuff about New Testament history. He's really amazing.

[@myoneblackfriend3151]

The chemistry here is so good. This show often feels like a father and daughter collaboration to me.

[@poppamichael2197]

Thank you, Bart for another outstanding podcast. My first exposure to your work was through your recorded courses, which I purchased from the Great Courses Company, starting about 20 years ago. I then learned even more from your occasional KZbin presentations. Now, with your Misquoting Jesus podcasts, I am astounded by your depth of knowledge in your selected field, and am continuing to learn so much more. All of your subscribers are enriched by what you bring to us. Another positive aspect of your podcasts is your partnering with Megan. She helps to frame the questions and emphasize the key points of the podcast. You guys work well together. One of the happiest aspects of human life is that we can keep learning throughout life. One of the saddest, however, is that much (by no means all) of the knowledge we personally accumulate dies with us. But you, Bart, like many great scholars, should gain great satisfaction in knowing that you are doing the most you can to pass on, to your many thousands of subscribers, the wisdom you have gained in a lifetime of study and personal enlightment. Thank you again.

[@karekarenohay4432]

31:41 However, it feels somewhat "natural" for me that a XVIII century reader of the Mar Saba's book finished it reading just in the last page about forgeries of ancient texts, and he (she) thought: "By the way! I know this letter of Clemens of Alexandria about this same matter! Let's copy it right here!". And he did it.

[@Mac_an_Mheiriceanaigh]

Exactly.

[@stuartdryer1352]

One of the most interesting episodes to date.

[@SpaveFrostKing]

Smith died in 1991. I agree with Bart that 1991 was about 15 years ago.

[@alanpennie8013]

Who knows where the time goes?

[@pre-debutera6941]

I agree!

[@ArgentavisMagnificens]

I mean, he was only six years off

[@jeffburns4219]

@@ArgentavisMagnificens Correct. Actually Smith died nine years ago.

[@jeffburns4219]

@@alanpennie8013 Sandy Denny did.

[@andreasvox8068]

If the book ended with a chapter on how to interpolate/forge ancient text, wouldn't it be possible that some reader just wanted to try out those theories for himself as an exercise?

[@jeffburns4219]

Something like that seems to be what Ehrman is implying. He doesn’t quite spell it out.

[@dennythedavinchi3832]

Those chapters and sections categorized in madieval era.

[@while_coyote]

I think it's interesting how the one person who would best be able to forge it is also the guy who discovered it. It's also strange how the monk cut out the pages. I wonder if maybe there was some kind of deal made to help hide the pages in exchange for the notoriety the monastery would get as being the location of the mystery (which might go away if the forgery is revealed).

[@marquitaarmstrong399]

The cutting out pages reminds me of Joseph Fielding Smith.

[@andrewsuryali8540]

OK. Think of the most conservative Orthodox monk you can think of and multiply that by ten billion. You'll then have the most progressive liberal Orthodox monk in Israel. From his point of view this letter would have sounded like the most blasphemous heresy imaginable and should be condemned to the literal fires of hell. That's what I think happened to the original manuscript. It's a much simpler explanation than imagining Smith made a deal with the PATRIARCHAL library in Jerusalem (where the mamuscript was lost, not in Mar Saba).

[@andrewsuryali8540]

​@@marquitaarmstrong399Nah, more like Martin Harris' wife and the lost 116 pages.

[@Abjiba]

@@andrewsuryali8540well said

[@kjrstenhenriksen6837]

My preferred translation of arsinokoite is men who sleep in or take naps in the daytime.

[@rdklkje13]

@@kjrstenhenriksen6837 That sure makes a lot of sense too, back when everyone had to chip in for real, even kings and queens much of the time.

[@DneilB007]

Then I’m in trouble!

[@mojoman2001]

Does sleeping late and taking naps make one gay?

[@jessicamilare178]

​@@mojoman2001does arsenokoite have anything to do with being gay?

[@edelgyn2699]

@@mojoman2001 Try it and tell us what you experience! 🙃

[@diogenesoliveira6473]

This thing about a text having too many Clement characteristics reminds of some causes of fraud in Physics where it got caught basically because even the fitting error was just too well adjusted to the model, like someone had generated the data from the equation and not the other way around. Or ChatGPT overdoing it with the enthusiasm and rigid text structure

[@alanpennie8013]

There's a general quality of *too good to be true* about The Secret Gospel which ought to make people suspicious.

[@andrewroberts8959]

Yeah, I instantly thought of ChatGPT overdoing it when trying to mimic something

[@suferick778]

This reminds me of a case in the world Bridge championship, where two players were accused of making illegal signals to each other during bidding. They later admitted they had made the signals, without making use of the information signalled, just to show that it could be done

[@sebgur4401]

The same thing has been done in the Physics world. Some physicists published a fake paper with BS in it, to highlight how certain journals are not careful enough in their peer reviewing process.

[@brianelza9807]

These podcasts have made Tuesday my favorite day of the week!

[@MrDalisclock]

I get data over Dogma Monday and Misquoting Jesus on Tuesday so that helps make the beginning of the week a lot easier

[@MagicofAramis]

You may be interested in John Hamer's lectures... look up Centre Place, John Hamer. Topic last week was "Persecuting the Waldensian Heresy". Very well researched and interesting. In my opinion just as interesting as Bart and Megan.

[@patrickirwin3662]

I have followed Bart for decades and feel like I often know what he'll say, but this was, uh, awesome. What I took away is the importance of cocktail parties in academia. More cocktail party stories!

[@CSGreenwald]

What a great story and a great interview by Megan.

[@Altobrun]

Haven't started it yet but does Bart discuss the conclusion found in The Secret Gospel of Mark: A Controversial Scholar, a Scandalous Gospel of Jesus, and the Fierce Debate over Its Authenticity (Geoffrey Smith and Brent Landau). I think they had the most likely conclusion as to the authenticity of the secret gospel, and certainly provided an interesting reason for its initial creation/forgery. I'd be curious to see what Bart thinks of the book if he's read it.

[@NSBarnett]

Assuming it was Smith, how would his view of Clement's hostility to the Carpocratians have influenced him? Given all the insertions, amendments, corrections, censorings and mistakes there seem to have been, copying important religious texts, I don't see what possible objection people could have to "Clement" 's passages being part of the book of Mark . . . unless you consider that there is "really" only one version of the book of Mark. Note: You didn't mention that Stroumsa et al. also took photographs of the pages in the 70s -- still not the item itself, of course, but these were colour, not mono.

[@jwilly_t]

this is an underrated point of view. I suppose one could make an argument for "anything thats different from our earliest manuscript", but we know even then its hghly unlike there weren't later interpolations in the "earliest" versions

[@infinite_array]

That's an insane story regarding finding the manuscript and then losing it again!

[@jeffburns4219]

It’s my impression that historical manuscripts are discovered then lost again all the time. It is known, for example, that Beethoven wrote four pieces for mandolin and piano (technically fortepiano). None of these were published during Beethoven’s life. Three of them were published subsequently, and I’ve performed these three (on mandolin with an accompanist) quasi-publicly. The fourth was lost during World War I, and as far as I’ve been able to determine, no easily available copy currently exists. When historical manuscripts are discovered, it seems to me, they are often discovered in libraries, which suggests to me that the basic problem is that there are just too many historical manuscripts. Haydn’s popular C major concerto (which I studied with a cello teacher once) wasn’t discovered until 1961, in a library in Prague. So how did it get placed in the library in the first place if its existence wasn’t known? It must have been known to SOMEbody at SOME point.

[@John.Flower.Productions]

The origin of the fraudulent Secret Gospel of Mark "discovery" is widely known: The Mystery of Mar Saba (1940) written by: James Hunter {Morton Smith began perpetrating his lies in 1958.}

[@marksolum1794]

You could get overtones from the Lazarus story in John, is this really anything new?

[@digitaurus]

Yes, this Secret Mark passage is basically another version of the Lazarus story from John. Ehrman doesn't mention it here, but the passage is set in Bethany, as was the Lazarus story, and it sits between Mark 11:11 and Mark 11:12 in "Normal Mark". It explains a puzzling feature of "Normal Mark", namely that 11:11 has Jesus arriving in Bethany and 11:12 has him leaving the next day - but nothing happens in between. King James version: "(11) And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve. (12) And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry". The homoerotic initiation rite of Secret Mark also arguably provides an explanation for the mysterious naked man at the arrest - Mark 14:51-52 "And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked." In short, Secret Mark explains certain odd features of Mark's gospel and ties the story closer to John's gospel, giving a much stronger homoerotic spin to the subtlest of undertones that very arguably exist in both gospels.

[@marksolum1794]

@@digitaurus The young man is probably Mark (John Mark) himself since the last supper was probably at his mother's house and Mark is at least a partial witness to Jesus and knew the Apostles unlike what Papias says.

[@digitaurus]

@@marksolum1794 Yes, it’s a curious detail, and not the only one in Mark, that points to a witness other Peter. The question is - what was he doing?

[@jakobbergen7574]

Those Outsmart Bart questions do not show anyone outsmarting him. They just find a random passage and ask him the next one. I could do that

[@serversurfer6169]

"Recite the Bible! Ha, some scholar you are!!" 🤦‍♂

[@NathanDFoust-john146]

I do find that some of those questions are unfair. But it is all about fun.Dr. Ehrman is a very well studied and smart man.

[@widescreennavel]

Much love for Dr. Ehrman and his family!

[@bluesoulsearcher5424]

I loved this one. The twists! The layers! Man it was such a pleasant experience.

[@theactualwhitehouse]

the most vibrant glasses to date!

[@alanhilder1883]

The other day, I was watching a different channel with Megan's other half was "jokingly" complaining how everyone knows him so I thought I would include a " Hi Dr Josh " here.

[@brandon654]

I have been GRIPPED by these conversations on the secret Mark! Thank you!

[@randallbessinger1309]

Fascinating episode!

[@mwheelonh]

That 15 year delay between discovery and publishing...feels less like it took 15 years of scholarship (among other pursuits), and more like a 15-year internal debate on whether or not to go through with it.

[@alanpennie8013]

@@mwheelonh An argument between the angel in his conscience and the devil on his shoulder.

[@rdklkje13]

@@mwheelonh That’s what I thought too! So tempting for a guy like that, in need of a new challenge, but he probably still cared about his academic reputation. Ah, the inner struggle.

[@mwheelonh]

Honestly, it's the content that's the biggest giveaway. Paraphrased, the letter says "No, those heretics took this secret gospel and made it gay. In the original, yes, a young naked man spends a week and one very memorable night naked with Jesus, but it never actually uses the exact phrase, 'naked man on naked man', so nope, nothing gay there!" Very much the kind of joke a closeted man in the 20th century would make, not a serious scholarly argument from an early Christian thinker.

[@alanpennie8013]

@@mwheelonh An amusingly deadpan swipe at the heterosexual dictatorship, which was more of a thing 50 years ago than now.

[@areuaware6842]

Took them two centuries years after Jesus was executed to create the Bible.

[@johndodd6843]

I reflect on the fact that the controversy is due to authenticity and content. If Morton Smith had presented the Mar Saba letter as a 6th century pseudepigraphical text, it might have a certain limited notoriety but would be largely forgotten. OTOH, had he discovered a letter about a secret gospel but it told the story of the woman at the well in Mark, not one single scholar would have doubted the authenticity of it. Dr Ehrman would be confidently saying "we know the original version of Mark underwent redaction to its final form. We know that the church in Alexandria had a copy, now lost, of that longer version into the early third century" The reason why there is the belief that Smith forged it is because certain people don't like its content. That's why Carlson and (especially) Jeffrey wrote their books. That's why Dr Ehrman is where he's at. He doesn't like the content. My proof? Well, whether people assumed Smith was gay is absolutely irrelevant to whether the text is genuine or not. If it were genuine, Smith's sexuality wouldn't change that fact. The assumption of Smith's homosexuality cannot be primary evidence of forgery. If you can otherwise prove it a modern forgery, then it goes to motive. But motive is irrelevant if there is no crime. It would have been nice for Dr Ehrman to point that out. And just because people assume something about someone's sexuality (when that person never says) doesn't make it a fact. It's entirely possible that Smith was asexual. I'll not go into the fact that his mentor Bruce Metzger was a virulent homophobe or how the mistranslation of 1 Cor 6:9 as "homosexual" in the RSV or as "sodomite" in the NRSV -largely at the hand of Metzger- has caused tremendous (and continues to cause) harm. Properly understood, the Mar Saba letter is a masterpiece of queer literature. Maybe somebody will write that book.

[@peterkerj7357]

If you're gonna double space (and I'd strongly urge you not to if I thought you'd care) at least do it consistently.

[@BurtonBW3]

It seems like Smith arguably had at least motive, means and opportunity, and with the dubious tale of provenance for the manuscript, a forgery by him is not surprising. Even if it is not a forgery (by Smith or otherwise), there just doesn't seem to be enough text or context to send scholarship on a tangent...unless it wants to go on a tangent, which these days may not be that uncommon :).

[@alanpennie8013]

@@BurtonBW3 It's surprising that The Secret Gospel has been so widely accepted as authentic. I think there's a combination of respect for Smith as a scholar and a willingness to be beguiled by the way it fills in lacunae and resolves mysteries in Mark.

[@alanpennie8013]

It's definitely more interesting if The SG is authentic, which is probably a reason to be sceptical.

[@SiqueScarface]

In an innocent interpretation, a monk, reading Isaac Vossius, would copy the Clementine letter into the empty pages because he just got reminded of it, as it refers the same ideas.

[@rdklkje13]

@@SiqueScarface Good point. I wonder, though, what the chances might’ve been of such a monk focusing on potentially (Greek) homoerotic content rather than, say, some other top secret aspect of spirituality.

[@jeffburns4219]

@@rdklkje13 Why couldn’t monks be just as sensationalist as the rest of us?

[@godminnette2]

This is precisely what I was thinking!

[@Mac_an_Mheiriceanaigh]

This is the obvious answer. Bart's suggestion that this is 'suspicious' is not persuasive.

[@gary7196]

Thanks Dr. Ehrman. Good presentation and clarification.

[@jscire__872]

Oh man, I love these glasses 🤩 Always a good reason to watch the podcast via YT

[@FatherVampire]

Dr. Ehrman, have you read, "Decoding Mark" by John Dart and his fascinating examination of the Gospel of Mark using what is called the "chiastic literary structure"? This poetic literary structure common to the Ancient World employed chiasms in its composition that created a beautiful literary symmetry within the written work. And, based on this well-evidenced pattern found employed also by Mark's Gospel, the "Secret" part of it contains and continues that pattern... such that when the "Secret" section is removed, there is a glaring absence clearly visible in Mark evidencing for its obvious removal; you can clearly tell Mark's chiastic pattern is disrupted. Only when the "Secret" segment is placed back in is this perfect chiastic pattern and its literary flow restored. The point being that the "Secret" segment must have formed part of the original Gospel of Mark. And John Dart rightly disputes the homoerotic connotations assumed by readers of the Secret Gospel of Mark, contending that the scene in question suggests a long-lost ritual quest for oneness that was part of Yeshua's ("Jesus'") never-explained "Mystery of the Kingdom of God" on Earth... which is exactly what is going on here. And no... there was no "physical union" between Yeshua and the man. However, yes, there is a divine principle involving a superhuman level of sexual capacity that absolutely is involved here that absolutely is key to the real "Mystery of the Kingdom of God" Yeshua stated in the Synoptics was explained only to His true disciples. And, no, I'm not going to attempt explaining it in a KZbin comment. Perhaps someday, once my own three KZbin series are complete, I will create an episode explaining it. Oh... and for any wishing to view the very photo Dr. Ehrman mentions showing BOTH pages (the final Voss page and the first page of the Clement letter), simply go to the Wikipedia article on the subject and it's there for all to see, read and examine. And the Voss text is in both Latin and Greek.

[@moafro6524]

Considering Dr. Ehrman's extensive work on the historical-critical analysis of religious texts, particularly with the Secret Gospel of Mark and other ancient manuscripts, how does he view the way these texts are used to justify social hierarchies, such as one tribe or group being superior to others? Does his current agnostic stance affect his interpretation of these doctrines, or does he still find value in the teachings of Ethnic stratification/Caste system despite his departure from the tradition?

[@jwilly_t]

i cant speak for bart, but based on the things ive read and listened to him say. I imagine he would see them in the light of the author(s) bias, and the potential audience. He has talked plenty about separating historical/critical/textual analysis of ancient material from theological/ spiritual beliefs/doctrine.

[@moafro6524]

​@@jwilly_t Dr. Ehrman already frustrates the evangelical community he once belonged to with his critiques of the texts they hold sacred. I wonder if him suggesting that sending 500 planes of aid abroad to support a blatant massacre while people are starving at home would push them over the edge completely-or is he already getting away with enough as it is?

[@jwilly_t]

@@moafro6524 not sure what you’re referring to with the 500 planes and supporting massacre. But you seem to have come prepared with an axe to grind and your mind made up

[@moafro6524]

@@jwilly_t Thanks for your response! I'm not here to grind any axes honestly, that phrase can sometimes be a bit of a dog whistle. My goal is just to chat about the ideas in the video and how they might connect to other issues. In the video, there’s a lot of talk about forrgery and manipulation of texts, Dr. Smith thought the Carpocratians may have changed the Gospel of Mark to push their own beliefs. It made me think about whether some of the reasons given for the tensions in the Middle East, which are often based on religious or historical claims, could also be influenced by forged or manipulated stories. If ancient texts could be altered for an agenda, how sure are we that the narratives driving today’s conflicts aren’t influenced by something similar?

[@jwilly_t]

@@moafro6524 gotcha sorry for jumping to conclusions about said axe! I agree completely it's likely that both past narratives and current are altered and influenced by those with the power to do so. Which underscores the power of (good) journalism, and scholarship i suppose

[@michaelparks5669]

G Great episode. Well worth watching. I wish Bart would dive into the secret traditions and secret books of Christianity.

[@Hoxle-87]

Bart and Megan should switch eye glasses 😂

[@jakobbergen7574]

Haha. An idea whose time has come。

[@justinholoviak5357]

it is a distraction to overcome

[@Hoxle-87]

@@justinholoviak5357 right, I usually listen to the videos. This time I watched it

[@martinpappaterra1738]

Great double episode

[@g7924]

teaching first graders virtually is adorable, but similarly challenging as well!

[@annestephens9631]

Thank you 🌈

[@stephen_pfrimmer]

Thank you both.

[@rickm.rogersphd9673]

What do you make of the arguments opposed to your opinion in James Tabor's 2019 blog?

[@Heather0]

This would make a great film!

[@RosaLuxembae]

We probably won't have a final resolution to the question... Unless a copy of the secret gospel of Mark turns up in the desert in Egypt one day

[@alanpennie8013]

All we can hope is that this unscrupulous fraud will be increasingly disregarded.

[@OldDunc]

Alexandria isn't in the desert. It's a city.

[@RosaLuxembae]

@@OldDunc No but a copy could turn up in the desert (where papyrus is much more likely to survive than the humid climate of Alexandria). Also it was just a joke about how we never know what new discoveries will be made.

[@KravMagoo]

Funny...my son gave me a copy of Lost Christianities just this morning. He found it at a Goodwill.

[@KravMagoo]

Just as Bart starts talking about forgers forging, Google tells me to turn on Forge Creek Road.

[@BunnyWatson-k1w]

Of all the podcasts, this is my favorite eye glass frames Meagan has worn.

[@dvklaveren]

I pulled off something like Smith did once, but in an MMO server. I was playing a character role and I had orchestrated an elaborate conspiracy where I'd have someone assassinated and saved at the last moment by my character's allies, in order to convince everyone involved I was on their side. Me and my character didn't do it for a specific reason-I did it because I knew I could do it and never be found out unless I confessed. I confessed to this conspiracy out of character not long after. No one believed I was capable of that kind of duplicity either out or in character. They just didn't understand what kind of sick joy you get from that kind of ruse.

[@deckarde4919]

Morton Smith is one of the most interesting subjects in this field to me.

[@gustavderkits8433]

After listening to this session I went looking for other opinions. From what I found I was persuaded of the high probability that Smith forged the letter. Among other issues was the fact that the fictional book, “The Mystery of Mar Saba”, about a similar forgery found in the same library was published in 1941 and available to Smith when he stayed there during the war. For me the oddest fact about the history of the text was that Smith, a prodigious scholar, could not read the text straight off to see that it purported to be by Clement, and had an excerpt from an unknown section of Mark. Upon seeing it, Smith should have known immediately that it was scholarly gold, and applied for a grant based on the photos. The additional facts mentioned by Bart and the other authors of books against its authenticity (Carlson, Jeffrey,…) put this “discovery “ in the category of the Piltdown man. took

[@NIFBexposed]

According to Quentin Quesnell's diary, Kallistos Dourvas, told him in 1983 that "he remembers someone noting in some publication that someone did report seeing this in the 16th or 17th century". The Mar Saba librarian told Quesnell that he was confident that the manuscript had been at Mar Saba before Morton Smith discovered it. Why Ehrman fails to mention this is either gross irresponsibility, pride, or something more sinister.

[@jfppp1]

He did know immediately that it was scholarly gold. See p. 18 of his book.

[@MichaelMendis]

The problem with Ehrman's position that Smith committed the forgery as a "joke" to show his colleagues up as "fools" taken in so easily by the hoax is that Smith did not ever cash in on that intention. If he wanted to show his fellow scholars up as fools, he would have had to admit, eventually, that he had forged the letter. That admission is something he never provided, even though he had ample opportunity to do so, having lived for several decades after the book was first published. The fact is that scholars are still divided on whether the letter is authentic or not, and no one has been shown up to be a "fool"-if that was indeed Smith's intention. So, Ehrman's leaning towards pinning the forgery on Smith is not based on sound reasoning. The fact the Smith went to his death without ever admitting to committing a forgery makes it almost certain that he did not commit the forgery, if the letter is indeed a forgery. It is interesting to see that in our current climate of conspiracism people leap so readily to a conspiracist interpretation of just about anything. On a different issue, the claim in the Clementine letter that there was a longer version of Mark, and Smith's suggestion that this longer version was the original version, would explain why the Gospel of Mark as we have it today ends so abruptly. Expurgation and truncation of a longer gospel is well within the realms of possibility, given the text of Mark as it exists today. The truncated ending lends credence to the idea that the original was longer and was edited quite early on. The Gospel of Mark, what is left of it anyway, is peppered with indications of Jesus imparting "secret" knowledge to his followers. There is, of course, the statement he made to his disciples regarding parables: “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables" (Mark 4:11). Elsewhere in the gospel, Jesus is reported to have warned his followers to keep his acts and words "secret" and not to broadcast his claims to Messiahship. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus comes across very much like a leader of a modern-day cult, with emphasis on secrecy and specialised knowldege reserved for insiders. So, the passages purportedly from the original Mark that are quoted in the Clementine letter are not entirely far-fetched. It is easy to see how certain elements in the gosel would have been suppressed in the context of a wider audience. The current text of Mark all but declares explicitly that this was to be done at Jesus' command.

[@frankoppizzi3990]

Quick question, what about the allegations that Morton Smith was actually writing in his previous publications about what he supposedly discovered in this lost gospel letter?

[@jwilly_t]

Note to the editor, it would be way easier on ears for a little less treble in the eq, sharp in its current state

[@therealzilch]

Another brilliant detective story. The language analysis reminds me of that done recently on the Voynich Manuscript. It's of course a completely different case and different tools were used, but also basically statistical. Voynich has too little entropy (flexibility of which letters appear where) to be a natural language. It's almost certainly a hoax- an old and good one. cheers from sunny Vienna, Scott

[@AndMakrid]

This is awesome!

[@RosaLuxembae]

I do think it's pretty clear that "manbeds" is meant as a slur for MSM (probably specifically tops and "softies" for bottoms). The points that it's a very marginal feature of his writings and the hypocrisy of people ignoring other things that Paul regards as sinful (even in the same passages) but that doesn't change that he held views we would consider homophobic today.

[@Dave01Rhodes]

If it was actually written down in the 1700s, then shouldn’t the monastery still have the original copy? Wouldn’t they want to preserve something like that?

[@andrewcharlton6080]

I think there would be just as many people who would want to see something like that destroyed as preserved. Private collectors or dealers would also be very keen on getting their hands on this very unique letter.

[@EdwardM-t8p]

Anything that they think or they think that other people think would make Jesus look bad they would destroy it if they can. But they can't with Mark 14:51-52 (a nearly naked youth wearing nothing but a strip of cloth over his nakedness was caught accompanying Jesus; he loosens and loses the cloth and escapes).

[@Dave01Rhodes]

Yeah that’s true. I may be underestimating how long the “destroy all heresies” era lasted.

[@OldDunc]

The copy Smith found (or "found" if you prefer only disappeared some years later, in the 1990s I think. Some other scholars saw it in the monastery in 1976.

[@Mac_an_Mheiriceanaigh]

I doubt it. The original (if there is one) probably disintegrated more than a thousand years ago. This would have been a copy of another copy of another copy sort of thing.

[@highenergy8281]

Great show.

[@RadicalCaveman]

🎶 My old letter, my old letter, you appear so Clementine! 🎶

[@johnthekeane]

Especially interesting, I'm sure you will have plenty of comment discussions.

[@nolongerthere]

I've got the ticket right here in my pock- oh wait, in my other pocket. Huh, that's weird...oh well, must have misplaced it. Dang... (Like the monastery librarian really cut out the key pages and the dog ate them!) Great episode!

[@jennifferjude3156]

Didnt you say before that clement said in the letter that the words of this missing gospel were corrupted by the sect of Christianity which kept them?

[@jennifferjude3156]

So the Letter seems authentic and the quotes within the letter? But the manuscripts authentication has NOT been verified?

[@jennifferjude3156]

I guess it's authenticity depends on where the Manuscript was found. And how. And then you need to date it. Then you need to still understand that it was changed by the sect of Christianity that kept it and even though it's old and may very well be authentic to the sect. It might still not be the original. That's the problem really I think.

[@FreemanPresson]

I am afraid that that monk who "misplaced" the page of Clement did so in a fire.

[@MTL_at_Islandgrove]

Where is the source of Morton Smith's book/manuscript now?

[@Altobrun]

It's in the Orthodox Church's Library in Jerusalem, as confirmed by the head librarian, Patriarch of Jerusalem, and local new testament scholars (source: The Secret Gospel of Mark by Brent Landau and Geoffrey S. Smith)

[@TheDanEdwards]

No one knows. However, we have Smiths' photographs, and then later some other people made their own photographs before the book disappeared. Go watch the recent History Valley video on this subject.

[@EdwardM-t8p]

No one knows but I suspect it's been destroyed.

[@jfppp1]

I read a review of this book when it first came out. I do not remember that review mentioning anything about homosexuality. Instead, the topics were drugs and magic; the claim was that Jesus was a magician. They even quoted a friendly colleague as saying, “The guy you don’t believe in is a magician, while the guy you do is a miracle worker.” I got around to reading the book several years later, and I thought that the review had it right: there was almost nothing in it about homosexuality. But now people who look back on this book think that it is all about homosexuality. I really doubt this. Later, Smith wrote a follow-up book, and what is it called? Jesus the Homosexual? No, Jesus the Magician.

[@danielgibson8799]

43:12-43:17 Jokes on you, i’ve seen The Shawshank Redemption like 20 times! I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.

[@noeldown1952]

That's the level of troll I aspire to.

[@MusicalRaichu]

If all we had were photos, then it'd be possible Smith created a fake letter. But since there was another eyewitness to the original, it'd mean Smith would've had to damage a historical artifact to create it. Would a reputable scholar risk his reputation to do so?

[@spandrel1858]

I have GOT to get some glasses like Megan's.

[@marquitaarmstrong399]

I ❤ them too!!!!!

[@michaelwright2986]

Normally the sexual orientation of a scholar is irrelevant, but since the implication of homoeroticism in the text seems to be a matter of interpretation, I was beginning to wonder if Morton Smith were gay. Also, if he did do the forgery, he would have done it as a graduate student; it might have been out of character for the scholar that colleagues knew, but young men do wild things they wouldn't do later. Also, he might have been coming to terms with his sexuality, in the face of the repression and sometimes persecution of male homosexuality that was characteristic of the 1950s, and that could have been a motivation to doing something that might count as revenge. All very hypothetical, but people saying that "So and so would never have done that" is even more hypothetical. I'm not an attribution scholar, but I used to have one as a colleague, and in his Festchrift one chapter was by a _bona fide_ rocket scientist, discussing the use of statistics in attribution studies--sophisticated statistics. Most of the arguments pro and con this being genuine Clement are on surface features that would have been obvious to a forger, too: the discovery that it is more like Clement than Clement looks like a more sophisticated argument. And, of course, the real interest for most readers is an alleged alternative version of Mark: the Clement might be genuine Clement, but that doesn't mean that Secret Mark has to be authentic--though it is of course evidence.

[@OldDunc]

I keep wondering if anyone is in a position to know that Smith was gay. All I've seen has been a lot of smirking innuendo by people who think it discredits him. That's more understandable during Smith's lifetime, especially in a field dominated by religious nuts, but it startles me to see the same attitude so common now. I remember seeing some hysterical posts on Usenet by a gay Christian who was sure Smith forged this document to make Christianity look bad - as if Christianity didn't already look bad, for a multitude of reasons. I'm not persuaded that the Secret Gospel material *is* obviously homoerotic, but if it is, so is Mark14:52-3. Those who jump to assume that Secret Mark is 'gay' are telling us about themselves, not about the text or Smith.

[@michaelwright2986]

@@OldDunc Hi, I take your points. What I gathered from the discussion was that it was Morton Smith himself who put forward the homoerotic interpretation of the Secret Gospel. If that is the case, then I think it really does tend towards the conclusion that Smith's orientation was homosexual (though, of course, it doesn't tell us anything about his actions -- and feeling attracted to members of one's own sex is a fact of nature, not a sin, in any halfway rational version of Christianity). If I'm mistaken about what Professor Ehrman said, then indeed Morton Smith might well have been aro ace, or intensely private.

[@chriseliothernandez]

How about an episode on Schweitzer's "Mysticism of Paul"

[@kenhilker2507]

Is the secret, expanded gospel of Mark considered a possible source for the long ending of Mark?

[@tookie36]

If it were it wouldn’t be the longer endings we know of. Personally I think the ending at 16:8 makes the most sense.

[@whydama]

Can you talk about Historical Christian Universalism?

[@brianelza9807]

I believe I heard a similar story a few years ago. But, in that case the person who had forged the document simply left it in a library to be found by someone else. Thus, removing any personal connection to the document. I wonder if that's why Smith may have left the book where he found it; because if he were carrying it around, it would give the impression that he had written it.

[@alanpennie8013]

He was very sneaky. Waiting 15 years to publish also shows superhuman patience.

[@OldDunc]

​@alanpennie8013 The delay was Harvard UP's doing. Smith delivered to the book to them by the mid-60s. That's about normal for scholarly books. Do you know how long it took for the Dead Sea Scrolls to be published?

[@jfppp1]

@@OldDunc Thanks. I was going to point out the same thing. A lot of people here haven't actually read Smith's book.

[@jfppp1]

He left it where it was because he didn't own it.

[@Shibanobi]

I’m still in shock from like two weeks ago when Megan casually dropped that she and Josh have a high school senior

[@diogenesoliveira6473]

Wow! I hope I age as gracefully as those two. Though I'm 31 already, and it's not going that well so far...

[@Shibanobi]

@@diogenesoliveira6473 I’m saying!! I’m 29 and right there with you

[@dianadeejarvis7074]

I think she started having kids in her early twenties.

[@rdklkje13]

I’m pretty sure the oldest one(s) are from Josh’s first marriage, something Megan has mentioned here in the past. As for having kids in her early twenties, I don’t think so. She was a graduate student when they met and had changed programme twice early on.

[@BrentKrohn]

It's a miracle

[@brianeibisch6025]

Wow! Wow! Wow! Check out those specs!!! Cheers

[@AJ-tn3uu]

I'm getting addicted to this stuff.

[@karl1225]

A monk with some sense of humour - it reminds to a situation when I googled the name of the producer of an expensive bottle of Brunello just to learn that it happened to be the acronym of the agency supervising the authenticity of DOCG wine

[@JR-yo1fu]

distinguishing between forgery and real gospels is as hard as distinguishing between butterflies and real glasses.

[@RosaLuxembae]

Could a monk have chosen that book to copy the letter into because it was thematically similar?

[@pondermatic]

Point of order - covid is still during. Restrictions have been ditched, yes, and the vaccines have generally reduced the severity of the acute symptoms, however it can and does cause more damage than may seem apparent. It may resemble a cold if you’re lucky but it most certainly is not. Reduce your chances of catching it.

[@RaymondEden-y5u]

Maria Tunnel

[@JillMorgan-b7y]

Groovy glasses

[@rdklkje13]

This is a new pair, right?

[@justjudy4]

@@rdklkje13 I think they distract, rather than enhance, her natural beauty. It's like an ornamental flower pot that takes the eye away from the plant and puts it on the pot. Great for attracting attention, but not for showcasing the natural beauty Meagan clearly has. Then again, what do I know?

[@rpoorbaugh]

22:36

[@bradquinn2859]

Did you ever interact with John Shelby Spong?

[@jakobbergen7574]

There’s a name I haven’t heard for years

[@trentlytle7289]

Jesus taught in parables whose themes are about fertility and matrimony. The sexual rites of the Valentinians and Borborites are more likely than Bart will admit, and they could trace back to Jesus as they rely on his parables as the basis for them. Smith inspired me to understand how magic worked, and Jesus using sexual magic to repel demons is plausible. In Mark, when he spits on a blind man to heal him, the magic works because the demon exits the body in the way that the spit exits the mouth. Like cures like. Another kind of emission, one more powerful and forceful, would be an even better vehicle at driving them out.

[@thoughtsuponatime847]

If the current consensus is that it is authentic. I will believe that for now.

[@claromagallanes2877]

Clement of Alexandria quoted by this self-acclaimed bible scholar was born when the original Greek NT manuscripts were translated to Latin in AD 155. The Old Latin Bible revised by Jerome in early 5th century the Latin Vulgate to become the bible in Europe for more than 1000 years was the bridge to restore the original Greek NT manuscripts as a result of the work of Desiderius Erasmus.

[@OldDunc]

Thanks for the authentic Internet gibberish.

[@alanpennie8013]

​@@OldDunc It might be possible to work out what it means, but it wouldn't be easy.

[@rpoorbaugh]

30:17

[@jcbnyc2009]

Just look for the document in the library.

[@OldDunc]

It has mysteriously vanished. But three scholars found it there and published color photos of the mss. before then.

[@jcbnyc2009]

@@OldDunc did they do the necessary analysis?

[@therealzilch]

Wow.

[@johndodd6843]

I think Dr Ehrman was right to give short shrift to the people making "ad hominem" attacks. Two in particular - Steven Carlson and Peter Jeffrey - ought to be called out, though. Carlson "insight" about Morton Salt is just plain silly. Jeffrey's about Salome and the Dance of the 7 veils is equally bad. It betrays an almost basic ignorance of canonical Mark. Jeffrey might be a "very fine scholar" in his chosen field (music history) but Secret Mark Unveiled is a badly written and shoddy piece of scholarship, not helped by Jeffrey being a homophobic bigot.

[@StephenBradley2317]

To whoever decided to make the ad with Megan's voice in my left ear and the music in my right ear: No! In Jesus name don't do that again! 😅

[@thomasdequincey5811]

It's pretty obvious it's a forgery, but this was still a very interesting tale to listen to.

[@alanpennie8013]

It really isn't that obvious. Scholars of Early Christianity are still very divided about whether it's authentic.

[@rdklkje13]

I think that if Morton Smith had been alive when Bart wrote that book, he’d have sent Bart a one word letter: “Finally!” in Greek, handwritten in 18th century style 😅

[@alanpennie8013]

@@rdklkje13 The whole thing does look like an elaborate prank...

[@jessepelaez874]

@@alanpennie8013Morton Smith has the motive and the means to pull it off. That’s said as Bart said some think it could have been another troubled gay monk out to rock the Christian world. It’s obvious cuz that sort of discovery never happens. It’s like winning the lottery. Probably even more rare than that

[@rdklkje13]

@@alanpennie8013 Indeed! So well done it isn’t obvious at all, although I wonder about the over-doing it a little bit with the vocabulary. But maybe that’s on purpose, like yet another hint. Who knows, but if this guy was as smart as Bart says, he’d have lots of reasons to try something like this 🙃

[@UnimatrixOne]

The monk just burned them and we all know why...

[@OldDunc]

Making up a conspiracy theory is easy, isn't it?

[@UnimatrixOne]

@@OldDunc 😁

[@Plethorality]

My brain: frogery.

[@GOST-v3w]

Bart Ehrman, what is your opinion of the apologists who attack you over your videos regarding the unknown authorship of the Gospels, contradictions, errors, and other issues?

[@mclukas44lol25]

Searching for problems that arent even there

[@zacharyleonard9413]

"Morton Smith has been dead for 15 years" He actually died in '91, 33 years ago.

[@timothyharmon9472]

New Glasses!!

[@AnonymousAlcoholic772]

Jesus was a nice jewish boy who went into his father’s business.

[@SleepyPotterFan]

Maybe he forged it to prove that academia will move heaven and earth to avoid discussing queer history and often needs an arbitrary list of frequently nonexistent and ahistorical markers before ever acknowledging a historical person’s homosexuality, but an occasional mention of kissing Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi Library had started speculation that Jesus was married and a father. If Smith was gay then, like me, he may have been utterly disgusted at the systemic and inherent biases and homophobia in the discipline. It also might have been seen as satisfying to have left the largest oppressor of human rights in history questioning whether they had done it all in the name of a queer Christ. If nothing else, a Christian’s meltdown over their savior being gay would start a very painful conversation for anyone who has confronted him: (I.e. “Why does it matter since HE never spoke a word of condemnation?”) since he would certainly have known how to substantiate any possible counter argument since he wasn’t just some random forger, but was one of the experts.

[@jfppp1]

Nice comment, but the book has been misrepresented here. The main takeaway from the book is not that Jesus was a homosexual, but that he was a magician. In fact, Smith's follow-up book was called Jesus the Magician and not Jesus the Homosexual. There is one sentence in the book suggesting Jesus might have been a homosexual, but I think I missed it the first time I read it. All the furor about homosexuality is people jumping to conclusions.

[@SleepyPotterFan]

@ Your comment has nothing to do with mine. It didn’t discuss my comment, it didn’t add to it. It didn’t subtract from it. I’m very confused

[@jfppp1]

@@SleepyPotterFan I liked your comment, but I just wanted you to know that all this talk from others about how he must have forged it because he was gay and he wanted to prove that Jesus was gay misses the point that his book was really about other topics entirely. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that because he was gay, he must have forged it.