Kata Markon

["Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon AT historian.net>]

----- 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