Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - Re: [GMark] Re: [GTh] Secret Mark-Thomas

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon AT historian.net>
  • To: "Kata Markon" <gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [GMark] Re: [GTh] Secret Mark-Thomas
  • Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 17:56:06 -0600

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 AT comcast.net>
To: "Kata Markon" <gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: [GMark] Re: [GTh] Secret Mark-Thomas




Jack Kilmon wrote:

I think we see not only a connection between Secret Mark and Thomas, in
support of my position, but the "mystery" of the nakedness explained. Being
naked and as little children was a central Yeshuine theme and little
children are not ashamed. When an adult is also unashamed, the KoH is
available to them. I am convinced this theme goes back to the historical
Jesus and was in the autograph Mark.


Correct me if I'm wrong, Jack, but you are assuming, aren't you, that Secret
Mark is not a hoax?

I am positive it is not a hoax.


If it is -- and I have it on good authority that we are going to be hearing
more about this in the coming months -- what does that do to your claim?

As ever,

Jeffrey

It will not impact my position that GoT is originally Markan but it is going to take a lot of real evidence to convince me Morton Smith was a forger...or anyone else who could forge a forgery within a forgery within a forgery.

I can only speak from the palaeographic standpoint that the copy of SM was written in the mid 18th century hurriedly in the flyleaves of the Voss text. There is a constellation of reasons why, IMO, this is not a forgery. I am interested in what thie "good authority" is (Ehrman?) and will keep an open mind...but it better be good.

Moderator
Wonder why my post was not immediately accepted....I am a member. Was I bounced for some reason?

Jack




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page