الشيخ  حسنين محمد مخلوف (16 رمضان 1307 هـ / 6 مايو 1890م- 19 رمضان 1410 هـ / 15 أبريل 1990م)، واحد من كبار علماء الأزهر، نزح إلى القاهرة من بلدته بني عدي بصعيد مصر مركز منفلوط بمحافظة أسيوط. التحق بالأزهر، يحدوه الأمل في أن ينال ما ناله أبناء بلدته الذين تعلموا بالأزهر، وتخرجوا فيه حاملين لواء إرشاد الناس وتوجيههم، مثل الشيخ: علي بن أحمد العدوي الذي جاور بالأزهر، وتفقه على مذهب المالكية، وجلس للتدريس بالأزهر، وكان قوي الشكيمة، يصدع بالحق، ويأمر بالمعروف وينهى عن المنكر، ويُذكر عنه أنه أول من ألّف الحواشي على شروح كتب الفقه المالكي. نبغ أيضًا من أبناء هذه البلدة الكريمة: أبو البركات الدردير العالم الزاهد والفقيه النابه، وصاحب المؤلفات العظيمة في الفقه والتوحيد والتصوف، والعالم اللغوي محمد قطة العدوي الذي قام بجهد مشكور في إخراج أمهات كتب التراث التي كانت تطبعها مطبعة بولاق.

في الأزهر سمت به همته إلى طلب العلم ومصاحبة العلماء وثابر على القراءة والتحصيل حتى استوى عالمًا يشار إليه، ومصلحًا يُعهد إليه بجلائل الأعمال، فتولى إنشاء المكتبة الأزهرية، وجمع لها الكتب المبعثرة في المساجد، وصنفها وفهرسها، وكان أول مفتش للعلوم بالأزهر والمعاهد الدينية، وأصغر الأعضاء في المجلس الأعلى للأزهر الذي يشرف على أعمال الأزهر ويتولى توجيهه ووضع سياساته، واختير وكيلاً للجامع الأزهر.

مولده ونشأته
ولد في حي باب الفتوح بالقاهرة في 16 رمضان 1307 هـ 6 مايو 1890م، وتعهده أبوه بالتربية والتعليم، فما إن بلغ السادسة حتى دفع به إلى من يحفّظه القرآن الكريم، وأتمه وهو في العاشرة على يد الشيخ محمد علي خلف الحسيني شيخ المقارئ المصرية، وهيأه أبوه للالتحاق بالأزهر فحفّظه متون التجويد والقراءات والنحو، ثم التحق بالأزهر وهو في الحادية عشرة من عمره، وتلقى العلم على كبار شيوخ الأزهر، من أمثال الشيخ عبد الله دراز، ويوسف الدجوي، ومحمد بخيت المطيعي، وعلي إدريس، والبيجرمي، فضلاً عن والده الشيخ محمد حسنين مخلوف. لما فتحت مدرسة القضاء الشرعي أبوابها لطلاب الأزهر، تقدم للالتحاق بها، وكانت تصطفي النابغين من المتقدمين بعد امتحان عسير لا يجتازه إلا الأكفاء المتقنون.

تخرج بعد أربع سنوات حائزًا على عالمية مدرسة القضاء سنة 1332 هـ / 1914م، وبعد أن خاض امتحانًا قاسيًا أمام لجنة كان من بينها الشيخ سليم البشري شيخ الجامع الأزهر، والشيخ بكري الصفدي مفتي الديار المصرية. كان الاختبار الشفوي النهائي يحضره شيخ الأزهر مع أربعة من كبار العلماء، وقد يمتد إلى ست ساعات للطالب الواحد، وقد تُرفع الجلسة بعد عناء لتستكمل عملها في الغد، ومن ثم كان لا يجتاز هذا الاختبار إلا الأذكياء من الطلبة القادرين على إقناع هذه اللجنة العظيمة بسعة تحصيلهم وغزارة علمهم في فنون مختلفة من العلم.

كان السكرتير الشخصي للرئيس أنور السادات فوزي عبد الحافظ متزوجاً من السيدة كوثر مخلوف أخت الشيخ حسنين مخلوف، وفي ذات الوقت يعد والد الشيخ مخلوف خال السيد فوزي عبد الحافظ، كما أن السيدة كوثر مخلوف تعتبر خالة الدكتور كمال أبو المجد.

التحاقه بالأزهر
التحق بالأزهر طالباً وهو في الحادية عشرة من عمره، وتلقى دروسه في مختلف العلوم على كبار الشيوخ، وكان منهم والده الشيخ محمد حسنين مخلوف العدوي ومحمد الطوخي ويوسف الدجوي ومحمد بخيت المطيعي وغيرهم، ثم حصل على شهادة العالمية بتفوق في يونيه سنة 1914م ولم يجاوز الرابعة والعشرين من عمره.

مناصبه
بعد تخرجه أخذ يلقي دروسه في الأزهر متبرعاً إلى أن عُين قاضياً بالمحاكم الشرعية سنة 1916م، ثم انتدب للتدريس في قسم التخصص بمدرسة القضاء الشرعي لمدة ثلاث سنوات، ثم عُين نائباً للمحكمة العليا الشرعية، وعُين عضواً بجماعة كبار العلماء بالأزهر سنة 1948م.

توليه الإفتاء
عمل مفتياً للديار المصرية في الفترة من 3 ربيع الأول سنة 1365 هـ الموافق 5 يناير سنة 1946م وحتى 20 رجب سنة 1369 هـ الموافق 7 مايو سنة 1950م، ومنذ انتهت خدمته القانونية لم يركن إلى الدعة والراحة، بل أخذ يلقي دروسه بالمشهد الحسيني يوميا، ويصدر الفتاوي والبحوث المهمة، إلى أن أعيد مفتياً للديار مرة ثانية في مارس سنة 1952م وحتى ديسمبر سنة 1954م

رئاسة لجنة الفتوى بالأزهر
بعد خروجه من منصب الإفتاء عمل رئيساً للجنة الفتوى بالأزهر الشريف مدة طويلة.

مؤلفاته
شغلت الشيخ أعماله في القضاء والدرس عن التأليف والتصنيف، واستهلكت فتاواه حياته، وهي ثروة فقهية ضخمة أحلته مكانة فقهية رفيعة، وقد جُمعت فتاواه التي أصدرها في أثناء توليه منصب الإفتاء، وما نشر في الصحف السيارة في مجلدين كبيرين. غير أن للشيخ كتبًا وهي على وجازتها نافعة جدًا، لأنه وضعها حلاً لقضية أو بيانًا لمشكلة اجتماعية، فهي كتب عملية تأخذ بيد الناس وتبين لهم مبادئ دينهم في سماحة ويسر.

فحين رأى كثرة السائلين في أثناء دروسه عن بعض معاني الآيات القرآنية، وجد من اللازم أن يخص كتاب الله عز وجل بمؤلفين، أحدهما يختص ببيان معاني الكلمات القرآنية، وأطلق عليه «كلمات القرآن تفسير وبيان» وقد رزق الكتاب حظوة بالغة وتعددت طباعته، أما الآخر فهو أكثر اتساعًا وبيانًا لمعاني القرآن، وسمّاه «صفوة البيان لمعاني القرآن».

ولما رأى احتفاء الناس بذكرى الأربعين لوفاة الميت، كتب رسالة أوضح فيها أن هذا العمل بدعة مذمومة، لا أصل لها في الدين، وقد نُشرت هذه الرسالة بعنوان: «حكم الشريعة في مأتم ليلة الأربعين» تضمن ما يجب عمله شرعًا من أجل الموتى. وهكذا جاءت معظم مؤلفاته التي وضعها خدمة للدين، وتبصيرًا للناس به، وإحياء للسنة، ومحاربة للبدع التي انتشرت في أوساط المسلمين. ويحسن أن تستعرض أسماء بعض هذه المؤلفات، فمنها:
 أسماء الله الحسنى والآيات القرآنية الواردة فيها.
 أضواء من القرآن الكريم في فضل الطاعات وثمراتها وخطر المعاصي وعقوباتها.
 آداب تلاوة القرآن وسماعه.
 المواريث في الشريعة الإسلامية.
 شرح البيقونية في مصطلح الحديث.
وللشيخ جهود في تحقيق بعض الكتب، مثل:
 الحديقة الأنيقة في شرح العروة الوثقى في علم الشريعة والطريقة والحقيقة لمحمد بن عمر الحريري.
 شرح الشفا في شمائل صاحب الاصطفاء للملا علي القاري.
 هداية الراغب بشرح عمدة الطالب لعثمان بن أحمد النجدي.

تكريم الشيخ
كان الشيخ محل تقدير واحترام لسعة علمه وشدته في الحق، وعلى الرغم مما ألمّ به في مصر من بعض التضييق، فإن الدولة قبل الثورة وبعدها نظرت إليه بعين التقدير لجلائل أعماله في الدعوة والقضاء والإفتاء، فمُنح كسوة التشريفة العلمية مرتين: الأولى وهو رئيس لمحكمة طنطا، والأخرى وهو في منصب الإفتاء، كما نال جائزة الدولة التقديرية في العلوم الاجتماعية سنة 1402 هـ / 1982م، ووسام العلوم والفنون من الطبقة الأولى، وامتد تكريمه إلى خارج البلاد، فنال جائزة الملك فيصل العالمية لخدمة الإسلام سنة (1403هـ = 1983م.

وفاة الشيخ
طالت الحياة بالشيخ حتى تجاوز المائة عام، قضاها في خدمة دينه داخل مصر وخارجها، حيث امتدت رحلاته إلى كثير من البلاد العربية ليؤدي رسالة العلم، ويلقي دروسه، أو يفتي في مسائل دقيقة تُعرض عليه، أو يناقش بعض الأطروحات العلمية في الجامعات، وظل على هذا النحو حتى لقي ربه في 19 رمضان 1410 هـ = 15 إبريل 1990م.

المصادر

موقع إسلام أون لاين

وصلات خارجية
 الشيخ حسنين مخلوف.. مسيرة من العلم - المصري اليوم
 مكتبة الشيخ حسنين مخلوف مفتي الديار الأسبق بأسيوط محط أنظار طلاب العلوم - اليوم السابع

أشاعرة
أشخاص من أسيوط
حائزون على جائزة الملك فيصل العالمية في خدمة الإسلام
خريجو جامعة الأزهر
مصريون حازوا جائزة الملك فيصل العالمية
مفتو الديار المصرية
مواليد 1307 هـ
مواليد 1890
وفيات 1410 هـ
وفيات 1990
مئويون حسب التقويم الهجري

حسنين محمد مخلوف


An Dendrobium simplex in uska species han Liliopsida nga ginhulagway ni Johannes Jacobus Smith. An Dendrobium simplex in nahilalakip ha genus nga Dendrobium, ngan familia nga Orchidaceae. Waray hini subspecies nga nakalista.

Mga kasarigan

Dendrobium

Dendrobium simplex


Stop Mother Fucker er en film instrueret af Angel Aguirregomozcorta, Esben Wulff Modvig, Jan Rybka, Thomas Bo Huusmann, Tonni Kristensen.

Handling
I denne post-apocalyptiske Heavy Metal film bliver du suget ind i et hav af flammer, olie og beskidte monster walkers, hvor bikeren Oatmeal og gentlemanden Orson Wheels kæmper i et sindssygt kapløb tværs over Mars.

Referencer

Eksterne henvisninger

Danske film fra 2010

Animationsfilm fra Danmark

Stop Mother Fucker


සිරායා () යනුවෙන් හැඳින්වෙන්නේ තායිවාන ස්වදේශික ජනයා  වේ.සිරායා ජනයා තායිවාන දිවයිනේ දකුණු බටහිර පෙදෙස් සමතලා වෙරළාශ්‍රිත තැනිතලා පෙදෙස්වල හා ඊට සමාන පෙදෙස් වන නැගෙනහිර වෙරළාශ්‍රිත පෙදෙසේ ජීවත්විය. එම ප්‍රෙද්ශය අදවන විට තායිනාන් නගරය සහ තායිටුං දේශය ලෙස හඳුනාගෙන ඇත. අවසානයේදී මෙම ජනවර්ගය කාණ්ඩ හතරකින් සෑදී ඇත. ඒවා නම්: මත්තාව්,  සෝලන්ඝ්,  බක්ක්ලොන්ඝ්, සහ සින්ක්කාන්  ලෙස වේ. පළමු කණ්ඩායම් හතර ව්‍යාප්තව ඇත්තේ අද වන විට මාදෝ, ජිආලි, ෂැන්හුආආ, සහ  ක්ෂින්ෂි  යන පෙදෙස් වල වෙන් වෙන් වශයෙනි.

සිරායා යනු තායිවාන ආදිවාසීන් (පින්ග්පු) වන අතර  ඔවුන් කදුකර  පෙදෙස් වලට වඩා සමතල වෙරළාශ්‍රිත පෙදෙස් වලට ප්‍රිය කළහ. අනෙකුත් තායිවාන ස්වදේශික ජනයා මෙන් මොවුන්ද ජනවාර්ගිකත්වයෙන්  සහ භාෂාවෙන්  ඔස්ට්‍රොනීසියානුවෝ වූහ. "තායිවාන්" යන නාමය (ඓතිහාසිකව තායියෝවාන්ග් ,  සහ වෙනත් වර්ග) සිරායා භාෂාව මඟින් හටගැනුණකි. සිරායාවරුන්ට අයත් වන ඔස්ට්‍රෝනීසියානු භාෂාව බටහිර පැසිෆික්, පොලිනීසියානු ඇතුළත්ව, ඉන්දුනිසියානු, පිලිපීන සහ මැලේසියානු භාෂා අයත්වන කාණ්ඩයට නෑකම් කියයි.

තායිවාන සහ මකාටෝ ලෙස  සිතා මතා සිරායා සමූහ දෙකක් වර්ග කළහ. නමුත් නූතන වර්ගීකරණය රඳා පැවතුනේ බුද්ධිමත් ජනතාවගෙනි. මේ සඳහා මූලික වූයේ නව්‍ය  භාෂණ සොයාගැනීම්, සංස්කෘතික මුහුණුවර, සහ බුද්ධිමත් ජනයාගේ ස්වයං හඳුනාගැනීම් ය.

නූතන ඉතිහාසය
සිරායා පෙදෙස් වල ව්‍යාප්තියෙන් පසුව 1683 චීනයේ ක්විං රාජවංශය විසින් තායිවාන ඈඳාගැනීම හේතුවෙන් සිදුවූ සංස්කෘතික සමායෝගය නිසා කෙමෙන් කෙමෙන් සිරායා භාෂාව භාවිතයෙන් ඉවත් විය. එහි අවසන් වාර්තාගත විධිමත් යොදාගැනීම 1908 දී, තායිවානය ජපන් පාලනයට නතුව පැවති කාලයේදී වාර්තා වේ. පසුව බොහෝ සිරායා පවුල් වල මව් භාෂාව ලෙස හොක්කියෙන් චීන භාෂාව  යොදා ගැනිනි. පොදු භාෂාලෙස  ජපන් සහ චීන මැන්ඩරීන් භාෂාවෙන් බලපත්‍ර ලාභී රජයේ පාසල් වල ඉගැන්වීම සිදුවිය.

සිරායා සමන්විත වන  මොවුන්ගේ සංස්කෘතියේ විවිධ අංගයන් පැවත ඒම පහත පරිදි වේ. පවුල් ගණනාවක් වන ත්සො-චෙන්, කෝ-පෙයි සහ ෂින්හුවා නියම් ගමෙහි චියු-චෙන්-ලින් යන පවුල්  සිරායා ස්වදේශිකයන් ලෙස තවමත් සිය සංස්කෘතික අනන්‍යතාවය හඳුනා ගැනීම සිදුකරති. පාරම්පරික නාමයක් වන  වෑන් (萬) යන නාමය ඇතැම් ප්‍රදේශයන් වල හමුවේ. චීන අක්ෂර පරිවර්තන වලින් හෙළිවන පරිදි  තලාවෑන් යනුවෙන් සිරායා මුල් නාමයක් තිබී ඇත.  සිරායා සංස්කෘතික සංගමය (台南縣平埔族西拉雅文化協會) 1999 වර්ෂයේදී ආරම්භ විය. 2002 වර්ෂය වන විට යළි ගොඩනගන ලද සිරායා භාෂාව (පහතින් දැක්වේ) ඉගැන්වීම ආරම්භ වූ අතර එය නව සාහිත්‍යයට ද යොදා ගැණිනි. 2005 වසරේදී, තායිනාන් ප්‍රාන්ත‍යේදී (වර්තමානයේදී තායිනාන් නගරයේ කොටසකි.) රජය විසින් සිරායා ආදිවාසී තොරතුරු සංගමයක් (台南縣西拉雅原住民族事務委員會)  පිහිටුවූ අතර  සිරාය වචන 4,000 ක් පමණ අන්තර්ගත වන අතිරේක වාග්මාලාවක් 2008 වසරේදී නිකුත් කරන ලදි.

සිරායා සහ සම්බන්ධිත තැනිතලාවන්හි ආදිවාසී ජනයාට තායිවාන ජාතික රජය වෙතින් නිල පිළිගැනීම ලබාගැනීම සඳහා වන ප්‍රයත්නයන් තවමත් දැකගත හැකි ය. 2010දී සිරායා ජනයා එක්සත් ජාතීන්ගේ ආධාර වැඩපිළිවෙල යටතට ඇතුළ්ත කෙරිණි. සිරායා සහ තායිවාන රජයේ නියෝජිතයින් භාෂාවේ නීතියෙහි කිසියම් දෝෂ සහගත බවක් ඇති බැව් නිරීක්ෂණය කොට ඇත: ස්වදේශික ජනයා සඳහා යෙදෙන චීන වදනෙහි සාහිත්‍යමය අර්ථය වන්නේ "කඳුකර ජනයා" යන්නයි. නීතියෙහි සාහිත්‍යමය අර්ථ දැක්වීම මගින්, වෙරළාසන්න ජන කණ්ඩායම් වෙත පිළිගැනීම ගිලිහෙන්නේ ඉබේම ය. සියලු ස්වදේශික ජන කණ්ඩායම් ඇතුළත් කොට නිවරද්‍ය පිළිගැනීමක් ලබාදීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් රජයේ නිලධාරීන් සිය අවධානය යොමුකොට තිබේ.

මේවාත් බලන්න
ඩැනියෙල් ග්‍රේවියස් - සිරායා භාෂා විද්වතෙකි.
අන්තරායට පත් භාෂා සඳහා පදනම

ආශ්‍රේයයන්

වැඩිදුර කියවීමට

බාහිර සබැඳි
සිරායා සංස්කෘතික සංවිධානය (台南縣平埔族西拉雅文化協會)  (චීන)
තායිනාන් සංස්කෘතික සබඳතා දෙපාර්තමේන්තුව (台南縣政府文化局)  (චීන)
සිරායා ජාතික දර්ශනිය කලාපය (西拉雅國家風景區) (චීන, ඉංග්‍රීසි)
ප්‍රාග්ඉතිහාසය පිළිබඳ ජාතික කෞතුකාගාරය, තායිවානය (國立臺灣史前文化博物館) (චීන, ඉංග්‍රීසි)
සිරායා ආදිවාසී සබඳතා කමිටුව (台南縣西拉雅原住民事務委員會)   (චීන)

තායිවානයේ ජන වර්ග
තායිවාන ආදිවාසීන්

සිරායා ජනයා


Jesper Koch kan være flere personer:

 Jesper Koch (kok)
 Jesper Koch (komponist)

Jesper Koch


An Epipactis ulugurica in uska species han Liliopsida nga ginhulagway ni Rudolf Mansfeld. An Epipactis ulugurica in nahilalakip ha genus nga Epipactis, ngan familia nga Orchidaceae. Waray hini subspecies nga nakalista.

Mga kasarigan

Epipactis

Epipactis ulugurica


Zaïeltsovskaïa (en  et en ) est une station de la ligne Leninskaïa du métro de Novossibirsk.

Mise en service en 1992, elle est desservie par les rames de la ligne Leninskaïa.

Situation sur le réseau
Établie en souterrain, la station Zaïeltsovskaïa, est une station terminus de la Ligne Leninskaïa du métro de Novossibirsk. Elle est située entre la station Gagarinskaïa, en direction du terminus sud, Plochtchad Marksa.

Elle dispose d'un quai central encadré par les deux voies de la ligne.

Histoire
La station Zaïeltsovskaïa est mise en service le . La station est due aux architectes S. Mojanov.

Services aux voyageurs

Accès et accueil

Desserte
Zaïeltsovskaïa est desservie par les rames de la ligne Leninskaïa.

Intermodalité

Notes et références

Voir aussi

Articles connexes
 Transcription du russe en français
 Métro de Novossibirsk

Liens externes

 .

Station de métro mise en service en 1992
Station du métro de Novossibirsk
Terminus d'une ligne de métro en Russie

Zaïeltsovskaïa (métro de Novossibirsk)


Les Olisthodiscophyceae sont une classe d'algues de l'embranchement des Ochrophyta.

Liste des ordres
Selon  :
 Olisthodiscales Cavalier-Smith

Notes et références

Références taxinomiques

Classe d'algues (nom scientifique)
Ochrophyta

Olisthodiscophyceae


Berlins Statsmuseer () er en gruppe af kulturelle institutioner i Berlin, Tyskland, der omfatter 17 museer i fem klynger, flere forskningsinstitutioner, biblioteker og understøttende faciliteter. Berlins Statsmuseer er en del af Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz og finansieres af Tysklands forbundsregering i samarbejde med de tyske delstater.

Museumskomplekset på Museumsøen blev i 1999 føjet til UNESCOs Verdensarvsliste. Berlins Statsmuseer voksede sig til det største kompleks af museer i Europa i 2007.

Generaldirektøren for Statsmuseerne er Michael Eissenhauer.

Referencer

Museer i Berlin

Berlins Statsmuseer


Hrvoje Ištuk (Bugojno, 8. studenoga 1935. – Sarajevo, 22. veljače 2002.), bio je hrvatski i bosanskohercegovački političar iz Bosne i Hercegovine.

Životopis
Rođen je u Bugojnu. U Sarajevu studirao na Filozofskom fakultetu na Odsjeku za jezik i književnost. Obnašao je visoke političke dužnosti. Bio je glavni direktor RTV Sarajevo.

Suosnivač Instituta za nacionalne odnose u Sarajevu. Predsjedavao je Savjetom Enciklopedije Jugoslavije za Bosnu i Hercegovinu.

Obnašao je dužnost sekretara Predsjedništva Centralnog Komiteta Bosne i Hercegovine u dva mandata. Bio je jedan od najbližih suradnika Branka Mikulića. Zalagao se za jačanje političke pozicije Bosne i Hercegovine u SFRJ.
Dobitnik je nagrade ZAVNOBIH-a  (Zemaljsko antifašističko vijeće narodnog oslobođenja Bosne i Hercegovine) 1982. godine. Priznanje se dodjeljivalo za "izuzetan stvaralački doprinos razvitku Socijalističke Republike Bosne i Hercegovine".

Zaslugom Branka Mikulića, Hrvoja Ištuka i ponajviše bivšeg bugojanskog gradonačelnika Stjepana Domaćinovića Kokana, napravljena je nova velika Titova vila u lovištu "Koprivnica" pokraj Bugojna. Preko tih veza napravili su velike tvornice i zaposlili mnogo ljudi. Krajem 60- tih godina bio je direktor gimnazije u Bugojnu.

Radio na čuvanju i predstavljanju baštine Hrvata u Bosni i Hercegovini. Osobito je to bilo na području postignuća bosanskih franjevaca.
Borio se je za ravnopravnost hrvatskog jezika u Bosni i Hercegovini. Svjedoci govore da se o tome počelo voditi više račune u vrijeme Branka Mikulića, premda je sam svoje izvorno hrvatstvo svjesno ukomponirao u "bosanstvo" i "jugoslavenstvo", ne vidjevši uopće alternative tomu. Mnogi su zaslužni za to da je i pored ovakvog političara uslijedilo veće davanje pozornosti hrvatskom jeziku u Bosni i Hercegovini, ali za pravo govora i pisanja hrvatskim jezikom u Bosni i Hercegovini u to doba nitko među bh. političarima - Hrvatima nije bio zaslužan kao Hrvoje Ištuk. Neki Hrvati su za tu činjenicu zahvaljivali i Ištuku i Mikuliću. Unitaristi to su doživljavali kao drskost i s teškoćama su suzbijali bijes, ali nisu poduzimali akcije, barem ne u onoj mjeri koje su snašle Hrvatsku nakon sječe hrvatskog proljeća.

Član je Olimpijskog komiteta za organizaciju 14. Zimskih olimpijskih igara u Sarajevu 1984. godine. Bile su to najbolje organizirane i najposjećenije olimpijske igre do tada.
Član je CK SKJ na 13. kongresu održanom od 25. do 28. lipnja 1986. godine u Beogradu.

Velikosrpske i jugounitarističke snage zatirale su svaku emancipaciju hrvatstva, osobito onog u BiH i nisu trpile takvu osobu na visokom položaju. Usponom tih snaga tijekom 1980-ih na udar je došao Hrvoje Ištuk. Prvo je izbačen iz vrha Partije, a potim i iz same stranke: krajem 1988. je isključen iz Centralnog Komiteta Saveza Komunista Jugoslavije (CK SKJ), a politički izgon s položaja nastavljen je dalje, te je za godinu dana je isključen iz Saveza Komunista Jugoslavije i smijenjen sa svih dužnosti. Neki izvori spominju da je Ištuk uvijek galamio protiv nacionalizma, pogotovo hrvatskog.

Početkom 90-tih godina istakao je potrebu ubrzanja transformacije triju vladajućih nacionalnih stranaka "sve dotle dok se njihovi programi i praktični čini ne nađu u točki ne samo lojalnosti prema suverenitetu Bosne i Hercegovine, već i prema zaštiti i obrani tog suvereniteta. U njihovoj okrenutosti građanima Bosne i Hercegovine, interesima tih građana-ne amnestirajući, naravno i opozicione stranke leži njihova i konkretna i povijesna odgovornost za sudbinu države Bosne i Hercegovine". Dalje je naglašavao, u slučaju da se političkim razgovorima ne može postići dogovor o pozicije Bosne i Hercegovine koja će biti istovjetna drugim republikama, Ištuk predlaže referendum, te smatra kako bi u svakom slučaju trebalo započeti stvaranje bosanskohercegovačke oružane sile, jer kako navodi "bez nje, objektivno nema suverenosti i nema poštivanja elementarnih normi pravne države".

Travnja 1993. godine u Sarajevu je osnovana Hrvatska seljačka stranka BiH. Statut HSS-a Bosne i Hercegovine napisali su Hrvoje Ištuk, zatim visoki dužnosnik SDB-a BiH Jozo Jozić i pripadnik vojne sigurnosti Armije BiH Stanko Slišković.

Tijekom kolovoza 1993. godine u Sarajevu se pristupilo osnivanju koordinacijskog tijela hrvatskih stranaka, Crkve i Napredka. Cilj je bio suzbijanje sukoba HVO i Armije BiH i rješavanje otvorenih pitanja. Tako je 10. rujna 1993. godine ustrojen Hrvatski koordinacijski odbor (HKO). Hrvoje Ištuk je izabran za tajnika HKO.
Sudjelovao je i na Saboru Hrvata u veljači 1994. godine u Sarajevu.
Na prvom zasjedanju Sabora Hrvata u veljači 1994. utemeljeno je Hrvatsko narodno vijeće Bosne i Hercegovine kao njegovo izvršno tijelo. Na temelju Deklaracije, prihvaćene na zasjedanju Sabora Hrvata 06.02.1994. godine, postignut je Washingtonski sporazum i zaustavljen rat između Bošnjaka i Hrvata.
1995. je bio član Suda časti Bosanskohercegovačke paneuropske unije osnovane 27. studenoga 1995. u Sarajevu.
Bio je dugogodišnji član HKD "Napredak".

Nakon usvajanja Odluke o uspostavi Hrvatske zajednice Herceg Bosne i Statuta, na sjednici Glavnog vijeća od 5. studenoga 1997. godine formirani su odjeli kao tijela Glavnog vijeća, a Ištuk je imenovan u Odjel za ustavna i politička pitanja Hrvatske zajednice Herceg-Bosne.

Umro je 22. veljače 2002. u Sarajevu. Pokopan je 24. veljače na gradskom groblju Sultanovićima u Bugojnu.

Djela
Napisao mnogo rasprava i članaka. Objavio ih je u časopisima i novinama (Oslobođenje, BH Dani, i dr.). Pisao je o jezičnoj politici, obrazovanju i izdavaštvu.

Izvori

Vanjske poveznice
 WorldCat
 Hrvoje Ištuk o smrti Branka Mikulića: Odlazak velikog Bosanca, BH Dani, 5. travnja 2002.

Hrvatski političari u Bosni i Hercegovini
Hrvatski komunisti u drugoj Jugoslaviji

Hrvoje Ištuk


An Cyperus canus in uska species han Liliopsida nga ginhulagway ni Jan Svatopluk Presl ngan Karel Presl. An Cyperus canus in nahilalakip ha genus nga Cyperus, ngan familia nga Cyperaceae. Waray hini subspecies nga nakalista.

Mga kasarigan

Cyperus

Cyperus canus


La Carretera de Nebraska 9 (en inglés: Nebraska Highway 9) y abreviada NE 9, con una longitud de , es una carretera estatal de sentido sur-norte ubicada en el estado estadounidense de Nebraska. La Carretera de Nebraska 9 se inicia en su extremo sur justo al norte de West Point en una intersección con U.S. Route 275.  Su término norte está en una intersección con Carretera de Nebraska 12, al sur de Ponca.

Cruces
Los principales cruces de la Carretera de Nebraska 9 son las siguientes:

Véase también

Referencias

Enlaces externos
 Lista de Autopistas por estado
 The Nebraska Highways Page: Carreteras de Nebraska del 1 al 30
 Carreteras de Nebraska: NE 1-10

Carreteras estatales de Nebraska
Condado de Cuming
Condado de Dixon
Condado de Thurston (Nebraska)

Carretera de Nebraska 9


إبيداوروس (Επίδαυρος) هي مدينة في أرغوليس في مقاطعة كينتريكي إلادا في اليونان. يبلغ عدد سكانها حوالي 1769 نسمة. موقع عدة آثار قديمة بما فيها مسرح خارجي شهير. تم بناء هذا المسرح في القرن الثالث قبل الميلاد. وهو أكثر مسرح مُصان من بين المسارح اليونانية الأخرى، ويتسع لأكثر من 12,000 شخص، ويتمتع بسمعة وشهرة، ويزوره في الصيف العديد من السياح لمشاهدة مسرحيات إغريقية قديمة تؤدَّى باللغة اليونانية الحديثة. ويوجد قرب هذا المسرح آثار معبد قديم يخلد أسكليبيوس ـ إله الشفاء المزعوم عند الإغريق ـ وقد بني هذا المعبد في القرن الرابع قبل الميلاد.

كان يحضر إلى هذا المعبد العديد من المرضى على أمل أن يقوم أسكليبيوس بشفائهم أثناء نومهم في نُزل مجاور. وتقع الآثار على الشاطئ الشرقي لبيلوبونيز، وهي شبه جزيرة في جنوب اليونان، قرب قرية للصيد تُسمى أبيداوروس على بعد 64كم جنوب غرب أثينا.

معرض صور

مراجع

إبيداوروس
أرغوليذا
أسقليبيوس
أماكن مأهولة سابقا في اليونان
أماكن مأهولة في أرغوليذا
السياحة في اليونان
بلديات بيلوبونيز (إقليم)
عمارة إغريقية
مدن اليونان
مدن إغريقية
مسرح إغريقي قديم
مواقع التراث العالمي في اليونان
مواقع جذب سياحي في بيلوبونيز (إقليم)

إبيداوروس


Actinokentia, nekadašnji manji rod palmi s Nove Kaledonije. Postoje dvije vrste koje rastu po vlažnim šumama na južnom dijelu otoka.

Danas se vodi kao sinonim za Chambeyronia Vieill.

Vrste
 Actinokentia divaricata (Brongn.) Dammer = Chambeyronia divaricata (Brongn.) Hodel & C.F.Barrett
 Actinokentia huerlimannii H.E.Moore = Chambeyronia huerlimannii (H.E.Moore) Hodel & C.F.Barrett

Izvori

Areceae

Actinokentia


Attilaea  es un género monotípico de plantas de la familia de las anacardiáceas. Su única especie: Attilaea abalak E.Martínez & Ramos, es originaria de México.

Taxonomía
Attilaea abalak fue descrita por E.Martínez y publicado en Acta Botanica Hungarica 49(3–4): 354–356, f. 1, en el año 2007.

Referencias

Anacardiaceae
Flora de México
Plantas descritas en 2007
Plantas descritas por E.Martínez
Plantas descritas por Ramos

Attilaea abalak


A nomarch (,  Great Chief) was a provincial governor in ancient Egypt; the country was divided into 42 provinces, called nomes (singular , plural ). A nomarch was the government official responsible for a nome.

Etymology
The term nome is derived from  nomós "province, district". Nomarch is derived from  nomárkhēs: "province" +  "ruler".

Egyptian history
The division of the Egyptian kingdom into nomes can be documented as far back as the reign of Djoser of the 3rd Dynasty in the early Old Kingdom, c. 2670 BCE, and potentially dates even further back to the Predynastic kingdoms of the Nile valley. The earliest topographical lists of the nomes of Upper and Lower Egypt date back to the reign of Nyuserre Ini, of the mid 5th Dynasty, from which time the nomarchs no longer lived at royal capital but stayed in their nomes.

The power of the nomarchs grew with the reforms of Nyuserre's second successor, Djedkare Isesi, which effectively decentralized the Egyptian state. The post of nomarch then quickly became hereditary, thereby creating a virtual feudal system where local allegiances slowly superseded obedience to the pharaoh. Less than 200 years after Djedkare's reign, the nomarchs had become the all-powerful heads of the provinces. At the dawn of the First Intermediate Period, the power of the Pharaohs of the 8th Dynasty had diminished to the extent that they owed their position to the most powerful nomarchs, upon whom they could only bestow titles and honours.

The power of the nomarchs remained important during the later royal revival under the impulse of the 11th Dynasty, originally a family of Theban nomarchs. Their power diminished during the subsequent 12th Dynasty, setting the stage for the apex of royal power during the Middle Kingdom.

Later re-use of the term
The title nomarch continued to be used into the Roman period.

The title is also in use in modern Greece for the heads of the prefectures of Greece, which were also titled nomos (pl. νομοί, nomoi; νομαρχία, nomarchia also being used to refer to the area within a nomarch's purview).

See also
Haty-a
Pepi II Neferkare

References

External links

Ancient Egyptian titles

Ancient Greek titles
Gubernatorial titles
Government of the Ptolemaic Kingdom

Nomarch


Osilatör (salıngaç), elektronik devrelerde, sinüs, kare, testere ve üçgen elektrik sinyallerini veren elektronik düzenektir.

Düşük frekans osilatörleri (LFO) 0.1 Hz ile 10 Hz arasında dalgalar üretirler.

Doğru akımdan, herhangi bir devreyi veya cihazı beslemek için yüksek güçte bir alternatif akım oluşturan osilatörlere invertör adı verilir.

Salıngaç çeşitleri
Harmonik ve gevşemeli osilatörler olarak iki çeşittir.

Salıngaçların çalışma prensibi ve kullanım alanları

Osilatörler belli frekanslarda kare, sinüs, üçgen veya testere dişi biçiminde sinyal üretmeye yarayan, geri beslemeli amplifikatör (yükseltici) lerdir. Diğer bir deyişle kendi kendine sinyal üretebilen elektronik bir elemandır.

Bir osilatör çıkış sinyalinden aldığı sinyali kendi sinyali yapan bir yükselticidir. Osilatör ilk çalıştırıldığında frekans belirleyici devredeki bir akım dalgası istenilen osilasyon frekansında devre karşısında bir gerilim indükler (elektrik akımı oluşturur). Bu gerilimin bir kısmı devre uçlarına tekrar uygulanır ve devrenin karşısında görülecek şekilde yükseltilir. Aynı işlem defalarca yapılarak istenilen seviyeye ulaşılmış olunur.

Osilatörler televizyon, radyo, telsiz, AM alıcı ve vericiler, FM alıcı ve vericiler gibi sistemlerde; genel olarak elektronik haberleşme sistemlerinde ve otomasyon sistemlerinde yaygın biçimde kullanılmaktadır. Kullanım amacı üzerinde durmak gerekirse; komplike sistemlerde elemanlar görevlerini yerine getirebilmek için değişik tipte sinyallere ihtiyaç duyarlar, örneğin bir mikrodenetleyicinin yazılmış olan programı yürütebilmesi için bir kare dalga (clock darbesi) sinyal ile tetiklenmesi gerekmektedir. Yani en genel ifadeyle osilatörde amaç istenilen yerde istenilen miktarda ve istenilen türden sinyalin üretilmesini sağlamak ve elemanların ihtiyaçlarını gidermektir.

Harmonik salıngaç

Harmonik osilatör, sinüzoid dalgalar üretir.

Harmonik osilatörleri oluşturmanın çeşitli şekilleri vardır. Bunlar;

 Armstrong osilatörü
 Hartley osilatörü
 Colpitts osilatörü
 Clapp osilatörü
 Gecikmeli hat osilatörü
 Pierce osilatörü (kristal)
 Faz kaymali osilatör
 RC osilatör (Viyana köprüsü ve "İkiz-T")
 Çapraz bağlı LC osilatörü
 Vačkář osilatörü
 Optoelektronik osilatör

Gevşeme osilatörü
Genelde kare veya testere dişi gibi, sinüs olmayan dalga şekilleri üretmek için kullanılır. Bu tip osilatörler, bir kapasitörü periyodik olarak deşarj eden transistor gibi doğrusal olmayan bir eleman kullanir.

Bu tip osilatörler mikroişlemci ve benzeri lojik sistemlerde saat sinyali üretmede kullanılır.

Osilatör


La réserve naturelle de Starovichnevetskiï (en ) est un parc national près de Synelnykove en Ukraine.

Elle est créée en 1985 ayant pour but principal la protection des chênes centenaires et de la tulipe de chêne.

La superficie totale de la réserve est de , la réserve est sur un terrain sableux.

En images

Notes et références

Aire protégée créée en 1985
Réserve de biosphère en Ukraine
Oblast de Dnipropetrovsk
Patrimoine classé d'Ukraine

Réserve naturelle de Starovichnevetskiï


දීඝායු යනු ප්‍රාදේශිය පාලකයෙකි. මොහු පණ්ඩුකාභය රජතුමාගේ මුත්තණුවන් ය.

මූලාශ්‍ර

දීඝායු


Amil alkol, genel formülü C5H11OH olan ve sekiz izomeri bilinen organik bir bileşik. Bilinen sekiz izomeri içinde en önemlisi izoamil alkoldür (K.N. 131 °C). Genellikle patates ve tahılların fermentasyonundan elde edilirler. Fuzel yağı içinde de amil alkol mevcuttur. Çeşitli işlemlerle (ekstraksiyon, destilasyon ve kurutma gibi) fuzel yağından alınır. Ayrıca kimyasal metodlarla sentezleri yapılabilir.

Alkoller

Amil alkol


The Secret Gospel of Mark or the Mystic Gospel of Mark (), also the Longer Gospel of Mark, is a putative longer and secret or mystic version of the Gospel of Mark. The gospel is mentioned exclusively in the Mar Saba letter, a document of disputed authenticity, which is said to have been written by Clement of Alexandria (). This letter, in turn, is preserved only in photographs of a Greek handwritten copy seemingly transcribed in the 18th century into the endpapers of a 17th-century printed edition of the works of Ignatius of Antioch. Some scholars suggest that the letter implies that Jesus was involved in homosexual activity, although this interpretation is contested.

In 1958, Morton Smith, a professor of ancient history at Columbia University, found a previously unknown letter of Clement of Alexandria in the monastery of Mar Saba situated  south-east of Jerusalem. He made a formal announcement of the discovery in 1960 and published his study of the text in 1973. The original manuscript was subsequently transferred to the library of the Greek Orthodox Church in Jerusalem, and sometime after 1990, it was lost. Further research has relied upon photographs and copies, including those made by Smith himself.

In the letter, addressed to one otherwise unknown Theodore (Theodoros), Clement says that "when Peter died a martyr, Mark [i.e. Mark the Evangelist] came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book [i.e. the Gospel of Mark] the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge." He further says that Mark left this extended version, known today as the Secret Gospel of Mark, "to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries." Clement quotes two passages from this Secret Gospel of Mark, where Jesus in the longer passage is said to have raised a rich young man from the dead in Bethany, a story which shares many similarities with the story of the raising of Lazarus in the Gospel of John.

The revelation of the letter caused a sensation at the time but was soon met with accusations of forgery and misrepresentation. Although most patristic Clement scholars have accepted the letter as genuine, there is no consensus on the authenticity among biblical scholars, and the opinion is split. As the text is made up of two texts, a handful of possibilities exist: both may be authentic or inauthentic, or one may be authentic and the other inauthentic. Those who think the letter is a forgery mostly think it is a modern forgery, with Smith being denounced the most often as the perpetrator. If the letter is a modern forgery, the excerpts from the Secret Gospel of Mark would also be forgeries. Some accept the letter as genuine but do not believe in Clement's account, and instead argue that the gospel is a 2nd-century Gnostic pastiche. Others think Clement's information is accurate and that the secret gospel is a second edition of the Gospel of Mark expanded by Mark himself. Still others see the Secret Gospel of Mark as the original gospel which predates the canonical Gospel of Mark, and where canonical Mark is the result of the Secret Mark passages quoted by Clement and other passages being removed, either by Mark himself or by someone else at a later stage.

There is an ongoing controversy surrounding the authenticity of the Mar Saba letter. The scholarly community is divided as to the authenticity, and the debate on Secret Mark therefore in a state of stalemate, although the debate continues.

Discovery

Smith's discovery of the Mar Saba letter

During a trip to Jordan, Israel, Turkey, and Greece in the summer of 1958 "hunting for collections of manuscripts", Morton Smith also visited the Greek Orthodox monastery of Mar Saba situated between Jerusalem and the Dead Sea. He had been granted permission by the Patriarch Benedict I of Jerusalem to stay there for three weeks and study its manuscripts. It was while cataloguing documents in the tower library of Mar Saba, he later reported, that he discovered a previously unknown letter written by Clement of Alexandria in which Clement quoted two passages from a likewise previously unknown longer version of the Gospel of Mark, which Smith later named the "Secret Gospel of Mark". The text of the letter was handwritten into the endpapers of Isaac Vossius' 1646 printed edition of the works of Ignatius of Antioch. This letter is referred to by many names, including the Mar Saba letter, the Clement letter, the Letter to Theodore and Clement's letter to Theodore.

As the book was "the property of the Greek Patriarchate", Smith just took some black-and-white photographs of the letter and left the book where he had found it, in the tower library. Smith realized, that if he were to authenticate the letter, he needed to share its contents with other scholars. In December 1958, to ensure that no one would reveal its content prematurely, he submitted a transcription of the letter with a preliminary translation to the Library of Congress.

After having spent two years comparing the style, vocabulary, and ideas of Clement's letter to Theodore with the undisputed writings of Clement of Alexandria and having consulted a number of paleographic experts who dated the handwriting to the eighteenth century, Smith felt confident enough about its authenticity and so announced his discovery at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in December 1960. In the following years, he made a thorough study of Mark, Clement and the letter's background and relationship to early Christianity, during which time he consulted many experts in the relevant fields. In 1966 he had basically completed his study, but the result in the form of the scholarly book Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark was not published until 1973 due to seven years of delay "in the production stage". In the book, Smith published a set of black-and-white photographs of the text. Earlier the same year he also published a second book for the popular audience.

Subsequent history of the manuscript

For many years it was thought that only Smith had seen the manuscript. However, in 2003 Guy Stroumsa reported that he and a group of other scholars saw it in 1976. Stroumsa, along with the late Hebrew University professors David Flusser and Shlomo Pines and Greek Orthodox Archimandrite Meliton, went to Mar Saba to look for the book. With the help of a Mar Saba monk, they relocated it where Smith presumably had left it 18 years earlier, and with "Clement's letter written on the blank pages at the end of the book". Stroumsa, Meliton, and company determined that the manuscript might be safer in Jerusalem than in Mar Saba. They took the book back with them, and Meliton subsequently brought it to the Patriarchate library. The group looked into having the ink tested but the only entity in the area with such technology was the Jerusalem police. Meliton did not want to leave the manuscript with the police, so no test was taken. Stroumsa published his account upon learning that he was the "last [known] living Western scholar" to have seen the letter.

Subsequent research has uncovered more about the manuscript. Around 1977, librarian Father Kallistos Dourvas removed the two pages containing the text from the book for the purpose of photographing and re-cataloguing them. However, the re-cataloguing obviously never happened. Dourvas later told Charles W. Hedrick and Nikolaos Olympiou that the pages were then kept separately alongside the book at least until his retirement in 1990. Sometime after that, however, the pages went missing, and various attempts to locate them since that time have been unsuccessful. Olympiou suggests that individuals at the Patriarchate Library may be withholding the pages due to Morton Smith's homoerotic interpretation of the text, or the pages could have been destroyed or misplaced. Kallistos Dourvas gave color photographs of the manuscript to Olympiou, and Hedrick and Olympiou published them in The Fourth R in 2000.

These color photographs were made in 1983 by Dourvas at a photo studio. But this was arranged and paid for by Quentin Quesnell. In June 1983, Quesnell was given permission to study the manuscript at the library for several days during a three-week period under the supervision of Dourvas. Quesnell was "the first scholar to make a formal case that the Mar Saba document might be a forgery" and he was "extremely critical" of Smith, especially for not making the document available to his peers and for providing such low-quality photographs. Yet, Quesnell did not tell his peers that he had also examined the manuscript and did not reveal that he already had these high-quality color photographs of the letter at home in 1983. Hedrick and Olympiou were not aware of this when they published, in 2000, copies of the same photographs that Dourvas had kept himself. The scholarly community was unaware of Quesnell's visit until 2007 when Adela Yarbro Collins briefly mentioned that he was allowed to look at the manuscript in the early 1980s. A couple of years after Quesnell's death in 2012, scholars were given access to the notes from his trip to Jerusalem. They show that Quesnell at first was confident that he would be able to establish that the document was a forgery. However, when he found something he thought was suspicious, Dourvas (who was confident that it was authentic 18th-century handwriting) would present other 18th-century handwriting with similar characteristics. Quesnell admitted that since "they're not all forgeries" it would not be as easy to prove that the text is a forgery as he had expected. Eventually, he gave up his attempts and wrote that experts had to be consulted.

, the manuscript's whereabouts are unknown, and it is documented only in the two sets of photographs: Smith's black-and-white set from 1958 and the color set from 1983. The ink and fiber were never subjected to examination.

Content according to Clement's letter

The Mar Saba letter is addressed to one Theodore (), who seems to have asked if there is a gospel of Mark in which the words "naked man with naked man" () and "other things" are present. Clement confirms that Mark wrote a second, longer, mystic and more spiritual version of his gospel, and that this gospel was "very securely kept" in the Alexandrian church, but that it contained no such words. Clement accuses the heterodox teacher Carpocrates for having obtained a copy by deceit and then polluted it with "utterly shameless lies". To refute the teachings of the gnostic sect of Carpocratians, known for their sexual libertinism, and to show that these words were absent in the true Secret Gospel of Mark, Clement quoted two passages from it.

There were accordingly three versions of Mark known to Clement, Original Mark, Secret Mark, and Carpocratian Mark. The Secret Gospel of Mark is described as a second "more spiritual" version of the Gospel of Mark composed by the evangelist himself. The name derives from Smith's translation of the phrase "mystikon euangelion". However, Clement simply refers to the gospel as written by Mark. To distinguish between the longer and shorter versions of Mark's gospel, he twice refers to the non-canonical gospel as a  (either a secret gospel whose existence was concealed or a mystic gospel "pertaining to the mysteries" with concealed meanings), in the same way as he refers to it as "a more spiritual gospel". "To Clement, both versions were the Gospel of Mark". The purpose of the gospel was supposedly to encourage knowledge (gnosis) among more advanced Christians, and it is said to have been in use in liturgies in Alexandria.

The quotes from Secret Mark
The letter includes two excerpts from the Secret Gospel. The first passage, Clement says, was inserted between Mark 10:34 and 35; after the paragraph where Jesus on his journey to Jerusalem with the disciples makes the third prediction of his death, and before Mark 10:35–45 where the disciples James and John ask Jesus to grant them honor and glory. It shows many similarities with the story in the Gospel of John 11:1–44 where Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead. According to Clement, the passage reads word for word ():

And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, "Son of David, have mercy on me." But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.

The second excerpt is very brief and was inserted in Mark 10:46. Clement says that "after the words, 'And he comes into Jericho' [and before 'and as he went out of Jericho'] the secret Gospel adds only":

And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them.

Clement continues: "But the many other things about which you wrote both seem to be and are falsifications." Just as Clement is about to give the true explanation of the passages, the letter breaks off.

These two excerpts comprise the entirety of the Secret Gospel material. No separate text of the secret gospel is known to survive, and it is not referred to in any other ancient source. Some scholars have found it suspicious that an authentic ancient Christian text would be preserved only in a single, late manuscript. However, this is not unprecedented.

Debate on authenticity and authorship

1970s and 1980s

Reception and Smith's analysis

Among scholars, there is no consensus opinion on the authenticity of the letter, not least because the manuscript's ink has never been tested. At the beginning, the authenticity of the letter was not in doubt, and early reviewers of Smith's books generally agreed that the letter was genuine. However, soon suspicion arose and the letter achieved notoriety, mainly "because it was intertwined" with Smith's own interpretations. Through detailed linguistic investigations, Smith argued that it could likely be a genuine letter of Clement. He indicated that the two quotations go back to an original Aramaic version of Mark, which served as a source for both the canonical Mark and the Gospel of John. Smith argued that the Christian movement began as a mystery religion with baptismal initiation rites, and that the historical Jesus was a magus possessed by the Spirit. Most disturbing to Smith's reviewers was his passing suggestion that the baptismal initiation rite administered by Jesus to his disciples may have gone as far as a physical union.

Authenticity and authorship

In the first phase, the letter was thought to be genuine, while Secret Mark often was regarded as a typical apocryphal second-century gospel sprung from the canonical traditions. This pastiche theory was promoted by F. F. Bruce (1974), who saw the story of the young man of Bethany clumsily based on the raising of Lazarus in the Gospel of John. Thus, he saw the Secret Mark narrative as derivative and denied that it could be either the source of the story of Lazarus or an independent parallel. Raymond E. Brown (1974) came to the conclusion that the author of Secret Mark "may well have drawn upon" the Gospel of John, "at least from memory". Patrick W. Skehan (1974) supported this view, calling the reliance on John "unmistakable". Robert M. Grant (1974) thought that Smith definitely had proved that the letter was written by Clement, but found in Secret Mark elements from each of the four canonical gospels, and arrived at the conclusion that it was written after the first century. Helmut Merkel (1974) also concluded that Secret Mark is dependent on the four canonical gospels after analyzing the key Greek phrases, and that even if the letter is genuine it tells of nothing more than that an expanded version of Mark was in existence in Alexandria in AD 170. Frans Neirynck (1979) argued that Secret Mark was virtually "composed with the assistance of a concordance" of the canonical gospels and wholly dependent on them. N. T. Wright wrote in 1996 that most scholars who accept the text as genuine see in the Secret Gospel of Mark "a considerably later adaptation of Mark in a decidedly gnostic direction."

However, approximately the same number of scholars (at least 25 versus at least 32) did not consider Secret Mark to be "a worthless patchwork fabrication" but saw instead a healing story quite like other miracle stories in the Synoptic Gospels; a story that progressed smoothly without any obvious rough connections and inconsistencies as is found in the corresponding story of the raising of Lazarus in the Gospel of John. Like Smith, they mostly thought that the story was based on oral tradition, although they generally rejected his idea of an Aramaic proto-gospel.

Quentin Quesnell and Charles Murgia

The first scholar to publicly question the letter's authenticity was Quentin Quesnell (1927–2012) in 1975. Quesnell's principal argument was that the actual manuscript had to be examined before it could be deemed authentic, and he suggested that it might be a modern hoax. He said that the publication of Otto Stählin's concordance of Clement in 1936, would make it possible to imitate Clement's style, which means that if it is a forgery, it would necessarily have been forged after 1936. On his last day of stay at the monastery, Smith found a catalogue from 1910 in which 191 books were listed, but not the Vossius book. Quesnell and others have argued that this fact supports the supposition that the book never was part of the Mar Saba library, but was brought there from outside, by for example Smith, with the text already inscribed. However, this has been contested. Smith found almost 500 books at his stay, so the list was far from complete and the silence from incomplete catalogues cannot be used as arguments against the existence of a book at the time the catalogue was made, Smith argued.

Although Quesnell did not accuse Smith of having forged the letter, his "hypothetical forger matched Smith's apparent ability, opportunity, and motivation," and readers of the article, as well as Smith himself, saw it as an accusation that Smith was the culprit. Since at the time, no one but Smith had seen the manuscript, some scholars suggested that there might not even be a manuscript.

Charles E. Murgia followed Quesnell's allegations of forgery with further arguments, such as calling attention to the fact that the manuscript has no serious scribal errors, as one would expect of an ancient text copied many times, and by suggesting that the text of Clement had been designed as a sphragis, a "seal of authenticity", to answer questions from the readers why Secret Mark was never heard of before. Murgia found Clement's exhortation to Theodore, that he should not concede to the Carpocratians "that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath", to be ludicrous, since there is no point in "urging someone to commit perjury to preserve the secrecy of something which you are in the process of disclosing". Later Jonathan Klawans, who thinks the letter is suspect but possibly authentic, bolstered Murgia's argument by saying that if Clement would have urged Theodore to lie to the Carpocratians, it would have been easier for him to follow "his own advice" and lie to Theodore instead. Scott Brown, however, finds this argument to be flawed since there is no point in denying the existence of a gospel that the Carpocratians have in their possession. Brown advocates that Theodore instead is told to assure that the adulterated or forged Carpocratian gospel was not written by Mark, which, according to Brown, would be at least a half-truth and also something Clement could have said for the benefit of the church.

Smith gave some thought to Murgia's arguments but later dismissed them as being based on a misreading, and he thought Murgia "fell into a few factual errors". Although forgers use the technique of "explaining the appearance and vouching for the authenticity", the same form is also often used to present material hitherto unheard of. Even though none of Clement's other letters have survived, there also seems to have been a collection of at least 21 of his letters at Mar Saba in the 8th century when John of Damascus, who worked there for more than 30 years (), quoted from that collection. In the early 18th century, a great fire at Mar Saba also burned out a cave in which many of the oldest manuscripts were stored. Smith speculated that a letter of Clement could partly have survived the fire, and a monk could have copied it into the endpapers of the monastery's edition of the letters of Ignatius in order to preserve it. Smith argued that the simplest explanation would be that the text was "copied from a manuscript that had lain for a millennium or more in Mar Saba and had never been heard of because it had never been outside the monastery."

Murgia anyway ruled out the possibility that Smith could have forged the letter as, according to him, Smith's knowledge of Greek was insufficient and nothing in his book indicated a fraud. Murgia seemingly thought the letter was created in the 18th century.

Morton Smith objected to insinuations that he would have forged the letter by, for example, calling Quesnell's 1975 article an attack. And when the Swedish historian Per Beskow in Strange Tales about Jesus from 1983, the first English edition of his 1979 Swedish book, wrote that there were reasons to be skeptical about the genuineness of the letter, Smith got upset and responded by threatening to sue the English language publisher, Fortress Press of Philadelphia, for $1million dollars. This caused Fortress to withdraw the book from circulation, and a new edition was released in 1985 in which passages that Smith had objected to were removed, and with Beskow emphasizing that he did not accuse Smith of forging it. Although Beskow had doubts about the letter's authenticity, he preferred "to regard this as an open question".

Secret Markan priority

Morton Smith summarized the situation in a 1982 article. He argued that "most scholars would attribute the letter to Clement" and that no strong argument against it had been presented. The attribution of the gospel to Mark was though "universally rejected", with the most common opinion being that the gospel is "a pastiche composed from the canonical gospels" in the second century.

After Smith's summary of the situation, other scholars did support Secret Markan priority. Ron Cameron (1982) and Helmut Koester (1990) argued that Secret Mark preceded canonical Mark, which in fact would be an abbreviation of Secret Mark. With a few modifications, Hans-Martin Schenke supported Koester's theory, and also John Dominic Crossan has presented a to some extent similar "working hypothesis" to that of Koester: "I consider that canonical Mark is a very deliberate revision of Secret Mark." Marvin Meyer included Secret Mark in his reconstruction of the origin of the Gospel of Mark.

1991 (Smith's death) to 2005

Intensified accusations against Smith
The allegations against Smith for having forged the Mar Saba manuscript became even more pronounced after his death in 1991. Jacob Neusner, a specialist in ancient Judaism, was Morton Smith's student and admirer but later, in 1984, there was a public falling out between them after Smith publicly denounced his former student's academic competence. Neusner subsequently described Secret Mark as "the forgery of the century". Yet Neusner never wrote any detailed analysis of Secret Mark or an explanation of why he thought it was a forgery.

The language and style of the Clement letter
Most scholars who have studied the letter and written about it assume the letter was written by Clement. Most patristic scholars think the language is typical of Clement and that in manner and matter the letter seems to have been written by him. In "the first epistolary analysis of Clement's letter to Theodore", Jeff Jay demonstrates that the letter "comports in form, content, and function with other ancient letters that addressed similar circumstances", and "is plausible in light of letter writing in the late second or early third century". He claims that it would require a forger with a breadth of knowledge that is "superhuman" to have forged the letter. In the main, the Clementine scholars have accepted the authenticity of the letter, and in 1980 it was also included in the concordance of the acknowledged genuine writings of Clement, although the inclusion is said by the editor Ursula Treu to be provisional.

In 1995, Andrew H. Criddle made a statistical study of Clement's letter to Theodore with the help of Otto Stählin's concordance of the writings of Clement. According to Criddle, the letter had too many hapax legomena, words used only once before by Clement, in comparison to words never before used by Clement, and Criddle argued that this indicates that a forger had "brought together more rare words and phrases" found in the authentic writings of Clement than Clement would have used. The study has been criticized for, among other things, focusing on "Clement's least favourite words" and for the methodology itself, which turns out to be "unreliable in determining authorship". When tested on Shakespeare's writings only three out of seven poems were correctly identified.

The Mystery of Mar Saba
In 2001, Philip Jenkins drew attention to a novel by James H. Hunter entitled The Mystery of Mar Saba, which first appeared in 1940 and was popular at the time. Jenkins saw unusual parallels to Clement's letter to Theodore and Smith's description of his discovery in 1958, but did not explicitly state that the novel inspired Smith to forge the text. Later Robert M. Price, Francis Watson and Craig A. Evans developed the theory that Morton Smith would have been inspired by this novel to forge the letter. This assumption has been contested by, among others, Scott G. Brown, who writes that apart from "a scholar discovering a previously unknown ancient Christian manuscript at Mar Saba, there are few parallels" – and in a rebuttal to Evans, he and Allan J. Pantuck find the alleged parallel between the Scotland Yard detective Lord Moreton's last name and Morton Smith's first name puzzling, since Morton Smith got his name long before the novel was written. Francis Watson finds the parallels so convincing that "the question of dependence is unavoidable", while Allan J. Pantuck thinks they are too generic or too artful to be persuasive. Javier Martínez, who thinks the question of forgery is open to debate, regards the suggestion that Hunter's novel would have inspired Smith to forge the text to be outlandish. He wonders why it took more than four decades after the story of Smith's discovery made the front page of the New York Times before anyone realized that this so popular novel was Smith's source. Martínez finds Watson's methods, by which he reaches the conclusion that "[t]here is no alternative but to conclude that Smith is dependent on" The Mystery of Mar Saba, to be "surreal as a work of scholarship". Timo Paananen asserts that neither Evans nor Watson clarifies what criteria they use to establish that these particular parallels are so "amazing, both in substance and in language", and that they reduce the rigor of their criteria compared to how they dismiss "literary dependencies in other context".

Chiasms in Mark
In 2003, John Dart proposed a complex theory of 'chiasms' (or 'chiasmus') running through the Gospel of Mark – a type of literary device he finds in the text. Dart "[recovered] a formal structure to original Mark containing five major chiastic spans framed by a prologue and a conclusion." According to Dart, his analysis supports the authenticity of Secret Mark. His theory has been criticized, as it presupposes hypothetical changes in the text of Mark in order to work.

Stalemate in the academy

The fact that, for many years, no other scholars besides Smith were known to have seen the manuscript contributed to the suspicions of forgery. This dissipated with the publication of color photographs in 2000, and the revelation in 2003 that Guy Stroumsa and several others viewed the manuscript in 1976. In response to the idea that Smith had kept other scholars from inspecting the manuscript, Scott G. Brown noted that he was in no position to do so. The manuscript was still where Smith had left it when Stroumsa and company found it 18 years later, and it did not disappear until many years after its relocation to Jerusalem and its separation from the book. Charles Hedrick says that if anyone is to be blamed for the loss of the manuscript, it is the "[o]fficials of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem", as it was lost while it was in their custody.

In 2003 Charles Hedrick expressed frustration over the stalemate in the academy over the text's authenticity, even though the Clementine scholars in the main had accepted the authenticity of the letter. The same year, Bart Ehrman also stated that the situation still was the same as it was when Smith summarized it in 1982, namely that a majority of scholars considered the letter to be authentic, "and probably a somewhat smaller majority agreed that the quotations of Secret Mark actually derived from a version of Mark."

The two camps could be illustrated, on the one hand by Larry Hurtado, who thinks it is "inadvisable to rest too much on Secret Mark" as the letter "that quotes it might be a forgery" and even if it is genuine, Secret Mark "may be at most an ancient but secondary edition of Mark produced in the second century by some group seeking to promote its own esoteric interests", and by Francis Watson, who hopes and expects that Secret Mark will be increasingly ignored by scholars to avoid "that their work will be corrupted by association with it". On the other hand, by Marvin Meyer, who assumes the letter to be authentic and in several articles, beginning in 1983, used Secret Mark in his reconstructions, especially regarding the young man () "as a model of discipleship", and by Eckhard Rau, who argues that as long as a physical examination of the manuscript is not possible and no new arguments against authenticity can be put forward, it is, although not without risk, judicious to interpret the text as originating from the circle of Clement of Alexandria.

Other authors, like an Origenist monk in the early 5th century, have also been proposed for the letter. Michael Zeddies suggested in 2017 that the letter was actually written by Origen of Alexandria (–). The author of the letter is identified only in the title and many ancient writings were misattributed. According to Zeddies, the language of the letter, its concept and style, as well as its setting, "are at least as Origenian as they are Clementine". Origen was also influenced by Clement and "shared his background in the Alexandrian church". Furthermore, Origen actually had a pupil named Theodore.

2005 to present
The debate intensified with the publication of three new books. Scott G. Brown's revised doctoral dissertation Mark's Other Gospel from 2005, was the first monograph that dealt only with Secret Mark since Smith's books in 1973. Brown argued that both the letter and Secret Mark were authentic. The same year Stephen C. Carlson published The Gospel Hoax in which he spells out his case that Morton Smith, himself, was both the author and the scribe of the Mar Saba manuscript. And in 2007, musicologist Peter Jeffery published The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled, in which he accuses Morton Smith of having forged the letter.

Mark's Other Gospel

In Mark's Other Gospel (2005), Scott G. Brown challenged "all previous statements and arguments made against the letter's authenticity" and he criticized those scholars saying that the letter was forged for not offering proof for their claims, and for not making a distinction between the letter and Smith's own interpretation of it. Brown claimed that Smith could not have forged the letter since he did not comprehend it "well enough to have composed it." Brown also criticized the pastiche theory, according to which Secret Mark would be created from a patchwork of phrases from especially the Synoptic Gospels, for being speculative, uncontrollable and "unrealistically complicated". Most parallels between Secret Mark and Matthew and Luke are, according to Brown, "vague, trivial, or formulaic". The only close parallels are to canonical Mark, but a characteristic of Mark is "repetition of exact phrases", and Brown finds nothing suspicious in the fact that a longer version of the Gospel of Mark contains "Markan phrases and story elements". He also explored several Markan literary characteristics in Secret Mark, such as verbal echoes, intercalations and framing stories, and came to the conclusion that the author of the Secret Gospel of Mark "wrote so much like Mark that he could very well be Mark himself", that is, whoever "wrote the canonical gospel."

The Gospel Hoax
In The Gospel Hoax (2005), Stephen C. Carlson argued that Clement's letter to Theodore is a forgery and only Morton Smith could have forged it, as he had the "means, motive, and opportunity" to do so. Carlson claimed to have identified concealed jokes left by Smith in the letter which according to him showed that Smith created the letter as a hoax. He especially identified two: the first, a reference to salt that "loses its savor", according to Carlson by being mixed with an adulterant, and that presupposes free-flowing salt which in turn is produced with the help of an anti-caking agent, "a modern invention" by an employee of the  Salt Company – a clue left by  Smith pointing to himself; and the second, that Smith would have identified the handwriting of the Clement letter as done by himself in the 20th century "by forging the same eighteenth-century handwriting in another book and falsely attributing that writing to a pseudonymous twentieth-century individual named M. Madiotes [], whose name is a cipher pointing to Smith himself." The 'M' would stand for Morton, and 'Madiotes' would be derived from the Greek verb  meaning both 'to lose hair' and figuratively 'to swindle' – with the bald swindler being the balding Morton Smith. When Carlson examined the printed reproductions of the letter found in Smith's scholarly book, he said he noted a "forger's tremor." Thus, according to Carlson the letters had not actually been written at all, but drawn with shaky pen lines and with lifts of the pen in the middle of strokes. Many scholars became convinced by Carlson's book that the letter was a modern forgery and some who previously defended Smith changed their position. Craig A. Evans, for instance, came to think that "the Clementine letter and the quotations of Secret Mark embedded within it constitute a modern hoax, and Morton Smith almost certainly is the hoaxer."

However, these theories by Carlson have, in their own turn, been challenged by subsequent scholarly research, especially by Scott G. Brown in numerous articles. Brown writes that Carlson's Morton Salt Company clue "is one long sequence of mistakes" and that "the letter nowhere refers to salt being mixed with anything" – only "the true things" are mixed. He also says that salt can be mixed without being free-flowing with the help of mortar and pestle, an objection that gets support from Kyle Smith, who shows that according to ancient sources salt both could be and was "mixed and adulterated". Having gained access to the original uncropped photograph, Allan Pantuck and Scott Brown also demonstrated that the script Carlson thought was written by M. Madiotes actually was written by someone else and was an 18th-century hand unrelated to Clement's letter to Theodore; that Smith did not attribute that handwriting to a contemporary named M. Madiotes (), and that he afterwards corrected the name Madiotes to Madeotas () which may, in fact, be Modestos (), a common name at Mar Saba.

In particular, on the subject of the handwriting, Roger Viklund in collaboration with Timo S. Paananen has demonstrated that "all the signs of forgery Carlson unearthed in his analysis of the handwriting", such as a "forger's tremor", are only visible in the images Carlson used for his handwriting analysis. Carlson chose "to use the halftone reproductions found in [Smith's book] Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark" where the images were printed with a line screen made of dots. If the "images are magnified to the degree necessary for forensic document examination" the dot matrix will be visible and the letters "will not appear smooth". Once the printed images Carlson used were replaced with the original photographs, the signs of tremors also disappeared.

On the first York Christian Apocrypha Symposium on the Secret Gospel of Mark held in Canada in 2011, very little of Carlson's evidence was discussed. Even Pierluigi Piovanelli – who thinks Smith committed a sophisticated forgery – writes that the fact that "the majority of Carlson's claims" have been convincingly dismissed by Brown and Pantuck and that no "clearly identifiable 'joke'" is embedded within the letter, "tend to militate against Carlson's overly simplistic hypothesis of a hoax."

The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled
In The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled (2007), Peter Jeffery argued that "the letter reflected practices and theories of the twentieth century, not the second", and that Smith wrote Clement's letter to Theodore with the purpose of creating "the impression that Jesus practiced homosexuality". Jeffery reads the Secret Mark story as an extended double entendre that tells "a tale of 'sexual preference' that could only have been told by a twentieth-century Western author" who inhabited "a homoerotic subculture in English universities". Jeffery's thesis has been contested by, for example, Scott G. Brown and William V. Harris. Jeffery's two main arguments, those concerning liturgy and homoeroticism, are according to Harris unproductive and he writes that Jeffery "confuses the question of the authenticity of the text and the validity of Smith's interpretations" by attacking Smith and his interpretation and not Secret Mark. The homoerotic argument, according to which Smith would have written the document to portray Jesus as practicing homosexuality, does not work either. In his two books on Secret Mark, Smith "gives barely six lines to the subject". Jeffery's conclusion that the document is a forgery "because no young Judaean man" would approach "an older man for sex" is according to Harris also invalid, since there is "no such statement" in Secret Mark.

Smith's correspondence

In 2008, extensive correspondence between Smith and his teacher and lifelong friend Gershom Scholem was published, where they for decades discuss Clement's letter to Theodore and Secret Mark. The book's editor, Guy Stroumsa, argues that the "correspondence should provide sufficient evidence of his [i.e., Smith's] intellectual honesty to anyone armed with common sense and lacking malice." He thinks it shows "Smith's honesty", and that Smith could not have forged the Clement letter, for, in the words of Anthony Grafton, the "letters show him discussing the material with Scholem, over time, in ways that clearly reflect a process of discovery and reflection." Pierluigi Piovanelli has however contested Stroumsa's interpretation. He believes that the correspondence shows that Smith created an "extremely sophisticated forgery" to promote ideas he already held about Jesus as a magician. Jonathan Klawans does not find the letters to be sufficiently revealing, and on methodological grounds, he thinks that letters written by Smith cannot give a definite answer to the question of authenticity.

Smith's beforehand knowledge
A number of scholars have argued that the salient elements of Secret Mark were themes of interest to Smith which he had studied before the discovery of the letter in 1958. In other words, Smith would have forged a letter that supported ideas he already embraced. Pierluigi Piovanelli is suspicious about the letter's authenticity as he thinks it is "the wrong document, at the wrong place, discovered by the wrong person, who was, moreover, in need of exactly that kind of new evidence to promote new, unconventional ideas". Craig Evans argues that Smith before the discovery had published three studies, in 1951, 1955 and 1958, in which he discussed and linked "(1) "the mystery of the kingdom of God" in Mark 4:11, (2) secrecy and initiation, (3) forbidden sexual, including homosexual, relationships and (4) Clement of Alexandria".

This hypothesis has been contested mainly by Brown and Pantuck. First, they reject the idea that something sexual is even said to take place between Jesus and the young man in Secret Mark, and if that is the case, then there are no forbidden sexual relations in the Secret Mark story. Second, they challenge the idea that Smith made the links Evans and others claim he did. They argue that Smith, in his doctoral dissertation from 1951, did not link more than two of the elements – the mystery of the kingdom of God to secret teachings. Forbidden sexual relations, such as "incest, intercourse during menstruation, adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality", is just one subject among several others in the scriptures that the Tannaim deemed should be discussed in secret. Further, they claim that Smith in his 1955 article also only linked the mystery of the kingdom of God to secret teachings. In the third example, an article Smith wrote in 1958, he only "mentioned Clement and his Stromateis as examples of secret teaching". Brown and Pantuck consider it to be common knowledge among scholars of Christianity and Judaism that Clement and Mark 4:11 deal with secret teaching.

Handwriting experts and Smith's ability

The November/December 2009 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR 35:06) features a selection of articles dedicated to the Secret Gospel of Mark. Charles W. Hedrick wrote an introduction to the subject, and both Hershel Shanks and Helmut Koester wrote articles in support of the letter's authenticity. Since the three pro-forgery scholars who were contacted declined to participate, Shanks had to make the argument for forgery himself. Helmut Koester writes that Morton Smith "was not a good form-critical scholar" and that it "would have been completely beyond his ability to forge a text that, in terms of form-criticism, is a perfect older form of the same story as appears in John 11 as the raising of Lazarus." In 1963 Koester and Smith met several hours a day for a week to discuss Secret Mark. Koester then realized that Smith really struggled to understand the text and to decipher the handwriting. Koester writes: "Obviously, a forger would not have had the problems that Morton was struggling with. Or Morton Smith was an accomplished actor and I a complete fool."

In late 2009, Biblical Archaeology Review commissioned two Greek handwriting experts to evaluate "whether the handwriting of the Clement letter is in an authentic 18th-century Greek script" and whether Morton Smith could have written it. They had at their disposal high-resolution scans of the photographs of the Clement letter and known samples of Morton Smith's English and Greek handwriting from 1951 to 1984.

Venetia Anastasopoulou, a questioned document examiner and expert witness with experience in many Greek court cases, noticed three very different writings. Clement's letter, in her opinion, was written skillfully with "freedom, spontaneity and artistic flair" by a trained scribe who could effectively express his thoughts. Likewise, Smith's English writing was "spontaneous and unconstrained, with a very good rhythm." Smith's Greek writing, though, was "like that of a school student" who is unfamiliarized in Greek writing and unable "to use it freely" with ease. Anastasopoulou concluded that in her professional opinion, Morton Smith, with high probability, could not have produced the handwriting of the Clement letter. She further explained, contrary to Carlson's assertion, that the letter did not have any of the typical signs of forgery, such as "lack of natural variations" appearing to be drawn or having "poor line quality", and that when a large document, such as this letter by Clement, is consistent throughout, "we have a first indication of genuineness".

However, Agamemnon Tselikas, a distinguished Greek paleographer and thus a specialist in deciding when a particular text was written and in what school this way of writing was taught, thought the letter was a forgery. He noticed some letters with "completely foreign or strange and irregular forms". Contrary to Anastasopoulou's judgment, he thought some lines were non-continuous and that the hand of the scribe was not moving spontaneously. He stated that the handwriting of the letter is an imitation of 18th-century Greek script and that the most likely forger was either Smith or someone in Smith's employ. Tselikas suggests that Smith, as a model for the handwriting, could have used four 18th-century manuscripts from the Thematon monastery he visited in 1951. Allan Pantuck could, though, demonstrate that Smith never took any photographs of these manuscripts and could consequently not have used them as models. Since, according to Anastasopoulou's conclusion, the letter is written by a trained scribe with a skill that surpasses Smith's ability, in the words of Michael Kok, "the conspiracy theory must grow to include an accomplice with training in eighteenth-century Greek paleography".

Having surveyed the archives of Smith's papers and correspondence, Pantuck comes to the conclusion that Smith was not capable of forging the letter; that his Greek was not good enough to compose a letter in Clement's thought and style and that he lacked the skills needed to imitate a difficult Greek 18th-century handwriting. Roy Kotansky, who worked with Smith on translating Greek, says that although Smith's Greek was very good, it "was not that of a true papyrologist (or philologist)". According to Kotansky, Smith "certainly could not have produced either the Greek cursive script of the Mar Saba manuscript, nor its grammatical text" and writes that few are "up to this sort of task"; which, if the letter is forged, would be "one of the greatest works of scholarship of the twentieth century", according to Bart Ehrman.

Scott G. Brown and Eckhard Rau argue that Smith's interpretation of the longer passage from Secret Mark cannot be reconciled with its content, and Rau thinks that if Smith really would have forged the letter, he should have been able to make it more suitable for his own theories. Michael Kok thinks that the "Achilles' heel of the forgery hypothesis" is that Smith seemingly did not have the necessary skills to forge the letter.

The Secret Gospel of Mark
In The Secret Gospel of Mark, historians Geoffrey Smith and Brent Landau propose an interpretation that goes against both major camps in the dispute. They do not believe that the Mar Saba letter was forged by Smith; based on existing handwriting analysis plus further analysis from experts they sought out themselves, they assert that the version of the letter found by Smith was most likely transcribed during the 18th or early 19th centuries, and agree with those who feel Smith did not have the skills necessary to either compose the letter's contents or simulate handwriting from those dates.

However, they also, based on internal evidence, reject the possibility that the document was genuinely written by Clement of Alexandria. The most important piece of evidence is that the letter writer takes for granted that Mark the Evangelist was the first bishop of Alexandria. Before the publication of the Mar Saba letter, the oldest evidence for this belief in Christian circles came from the 4th century Ecclesiastical History written by Eusebius; beyond the contents of Secret Mark itself, one of the features of the Mar Saba letter of most interest to historians is that it would be very early evidence of belief that Mark had been bishop of Alexandria. However, Smith and Landau point out that Clement never identifies Mark as one of his predecessors in the see in any of his confirmed writings, even ones in which he discusses Mark the Evangelist's career, and so they reject the idea that Clement held this belief. Other material in the letter is similarly anachronistic, and appears to have been written by someone working from Eusebius, who wrote nearly a century after Clement's death. In particular, they believe the material in about the Carpocratians is much more similar Eusebius's account of the group than it is to writings about them in Clement's confirmed works.

Smith and Landau believe the letter to be a pseudepigraphal composition from late antiquity. They note that Morton Smith shared the letter with his mentor Arthur Nock before publication, and Nock came to that conclusion upon reading it. Geoffrey Smith and Landau believe the letter was composed in the context of a late antique controversy raging in Palestinian monasteries like Mar Saba over adelphopoiesis, or "brother-making," a ceremony which recognized an intense emotional and spiritual relationship (not necessarily erotic, though sometimes viewed as such by contemporaries and modern observers) between two monks. The authors believe the letter is an attempt to defend the practice by connecting it to Jesus's ministry, drawing from canonical biblical episodes such as Jesus's resurrection of Lazarus and the mysterious naked fugitive fleeing the scene of Jesus's arrest.

Interpretation

Smith's theories about the historical Jesus
Smith thought that the scene in which Jesus taught the young man "the mystery of the kingdom of God" at night, depicted an initiation rite of baptism which Jesus offered his closest disciples. In this baptismal rite "the initiate united with Jesus' spirit" in a hallucinatory experience, and then they "ascended mystically to the heavens." The disciple would be set free from the Mosaic Law and they would both become libertines. The libertinism of Jesus was then later suppressed by James, the brother of Jesus, and Paul. The idea that "Jesus was a libertine who performed a hypnotic rite of" illusory ascent to the heavens, not only seemed far-fetched but also upset many scholars, who could not envision that Jesus would be portrayed in such a way in a trustworthy ancient text. Scott Brown argues though that Smith's usage of the term libertine did not mean sexual libertinism, but freethinking in matters of religion, and that it refers to Jews and Christians who chose not to keep the Mosaic Law. In each of his books on Secret Mark, Smith made one passing suggestion that Jesus and the disciples might have united also physically in this rite, but he thought that the essential thing was that the disciples were possessed by Jesus' spirit". Smith acknowledged that there is no way to know if this libertinism can be traced as far back as Jesus.

In his later work, Morton Smith increasingly came to see the historical Jesus as practicing some type of magical rituals and hypnotism, thus explaining various healings of demoniacs in the gospels. Smith carefully explored for any traces of a "libertine tradition" in early Christianity and in the New Testament. Yet there's very little in the Mar Saba manuscript to give backing to any of this. This is illustrated by the fact that in his later book, Jesus the Magician, Smith devoted only 12 lines to the Mar Saba manuscript, and never suggested "that Jesus engaged in sexual libertinism".

Lacunae and continuity
The two excerpts from Secret Mark suggest resolutions to some puzzling passages in the canonical Mark.

The young man in the linen cloth

In Mark 14:51–52, a young man (Greek: νεανίσκος, neaniskos) in a linen cloth (Greek: σινδόνα, sindona) is seized during Jesus' arrest, but he escapes at the cost of his clothing. This passage seems to have little to do with the rest of the narrative, and it has given cause to various interpretations. Sometimes it is suggested that the young man is Mark himself. However, the same Greek words (neaniskos and sindona) are also used in Secret Mark. Several scholars, such as Robert Grant and Robert Gundry, suggest that Secret Mark was created based on Mark 14:51, 16:5 and other passages and that this would explain the similarities. Other scholars, such as Helmut Koester and J. D. Crossan, argue that the canonical Mark is a revision of Secret Mark. Koester thinks that an original Proto-Mark was expanded with, among other things, the raising of the youth in Secret Mark and the fleeing naked youth during Jesus' arrest in Mark 14:51–52, and that this gospel version later was abridged to form the canonical Mark. According to Crossan, Secret Mark was the original gospel. In the creation of canonical Mark, the two Secret Mark passages quoted by Clement were removed and then dismembered and scattered throughout canonical Mark to form the neaniskos-passages. Miles Fowler and others argue that Secret Mark originally told a coherent story, including that of a young man. From this gospel, some passages were removed (by the original author or by someone else) to form canonical Mark. In this process, some remnants were left, such as that of the fleeing naked young man, while other passages may have been completely lost.

Marvin Meyer sees the young man in Secret Mark as a paradigmatic disciple that "functions as a literary rather than a historical figure." The young man (neaniskos) wears only "a linen cloth" (sindona) "over his naked body". This is reminiscent of Mark 14:51–52, where, in the garden of Gethsemane, an unnamed young man (neaniskos) who is wearing nothing but a linen cloth (sindona) about his body is said to follow Jesus, and as they seize him, he runs away naked, leaving his linen cloth behind. The word sindōn is also found in Mark 15:46 where it refers to Jesus' burial wrapping. And in Mark 16:5 a neaniskos (young man) in a white robe, who in Mark does not seem to function as an angel, is sitting in the empty tomb when the women arrive to anoint Jesus' body.

Miles Fowler suggests that the naked fleeing youth in Mark 14:51–52, the youth in the tomb of Jesus in Mark 16:5 and the youth Jesus raises from the dead in Secret Mark are the same youth; but that he also appears as the rich (and in the parallel account in Matthew 19:20, "young") man in Mark 10:17–22, whom Jesus loves and urges to give all his possessions to the poor and join him. This young man is furthermore by some scholars identified as both Lazarus (due to the similarities between Secret Mark 1 and John 11) and the beloved disciple (due to the fact that Jesus in Secret Mark 2 is said to have loved the youth, and that in the gospels he is said to have loved only the three siblings Martha, Mary and Lazarus (John 11:5), the rich man (Mark 10:22) and the beloved disciple). Hans-Martin Schenke interprets the scene of the fleeing youth in Gethsemane (Mark 14:51–52) as a symbolic story in which the youth is not human but rather a shadow, a symbol, an ideal disciple. He sees the reappearing youth as a spiritual double of Jesus and the stripping of the body as a symbol of the soul being naked.

Marvin Meyer finds a subplot, or scenes or vignettes, "in Secret Mark that is present in only a truncated form in canonical Mark", about a young man as a symbol of discipleship who follows Jesus throughout the gospel story. The first trace of this young man is found in the story of the rich man in Mark 10:17–22 whom Jesus loves and "who is a candidate for discipleship"; the second is the story of the young man in the first Secret Mark passage (after Mark 10:34) whom Jesus raises from the dead and teaches the mystery of the kingdom of God and who loves Jesus; the third is found in the second Secret Mark passage (at Mark 10:46) in which Jesus rejects Salome and the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother; the fourth is in the story of the escaping naked young man in Gethsemane (Mark 14:51–52); and the fifth is found in the story of the young man in a white robe inside the empty tomb, a youth who informs Salome and the other women that Jesus has risen (Mark 16:1–8). In this scenario, a once-coherent story in Secret Mark would, after much of the elements had been removed, form an incoherent story in canonical Mark with only embedded echoes of the story present.

Lacuna in the trip to Jericho
The second excerpt from Secret Mark fills in an apparent lacuna in Mark 10:46: "They came to Jericho. As he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho, Bartimaeus son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the roadside." Morton Smith notes that "one of Mark's favorite formulas" is to say that Jesus comes to a certain place, but "in all of these except Mark 3:20 and 10:46 it is followed by an account of some event which occurred in the place entered" before he leaves the place. Due to this apparent gap in the story, there has been speculation that the information about what happened in Jericho has been omitted. According to Robert Gundry, the fact that Jesus cures the blind Bartimaeus on the way from Jericho justifies that Mark said that Jesus came to Jericho without saying that he did anything there. As a parallel, Gundry refers to Mark 7:31 where Jesus "returned from the region of Tyre, and went by way of Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee". However, here Jesus is never said to have entered Sidon, and it is possible that this is an amalgamation of several introductory notices.

With the addition from Secret Mark, the gap in the story would be solved: "They came to Jericho, and the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them. As he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho ..." The fact that the text becomes more comprehensible with the addition from Secret Mark, plus the fact that Salome is mentioned (and since she was "popular in heretical circles", the sentence could have been abbreviated for that reason), indicates that Secret Mark has preserved a reading that was deleted in the canonical Gospel of Mark. Crossan thinks this shows that "Mark 10:46 is a condensed and dependent version of" the Secret Mark sentence. Others argue that it would be expected that someone later would want to fill in the obvious gaps that occur in the Gospel of Mark.

Relation to the Gospel of John

The raising of Lazarus in John and the young man in Secret Mark
The resurrection of the young man by Jesus in Secret Mark bears such clear similarities to the raising of Lazarus in the Gospel of John (11:1–44) that it can be seen as another version of that story. But although there are striking parallels between these two stories, there are also "numerous, often pointless, contradictions." If the two verses in Mark preceding Secret Mark are included, both stories tell us that the disciples are apprehensive as they fear Jesus' arrest. In each story it is the sister whose brother just died who approaches Jesus on the road and asks his help; she shows Jesus the tomb, which is in Bethany; the stone is removed, and Jesus raises the dead man who then comes out of the tomb. In each story, the emphasis is upon the love between Jesus and this man, and eventually, Jesus follows him to his home. Each story occurs "at the same period in Jesus' career", as he has left Galilee and gone into Judea and then to Transjordan.

Jesus' route in Mark
With the quoted Secret Mark passages added to the Gospel of Mark, a story emerges in which Jesus on his way to Jerusalem leaves Galilee and walks into northern
Judea, then crosses the Jordan River east into Peraea and walks south through Peraea on the eastern side of the Jordan, meets the rich man whom he urges to give all his possessions to the poor and follow him (Mark 10:17–22), comes to Bethany, still on the other side of Jordan, and raises the young man from the dead (Secret Mark 1). He then crosses the river Jordan again and continues west while rejecting James' and John's request (Mark 10:35–45). He arrives at Jericho where he does not receive the three women (Mark 10:46 + Secret Mark 2) and then leaves Jericho to meet the blind Bartimaeus and give him back his sight.

Two Bethanys
In each story, the raising of the dead man takes place in Bethany. In the Gospel of John (10:40) Jesus is at "the place where John had been baptizing", which in John 1:28 is said to be a place named "Bethany beyond the Jordan" when Mary arrives and tells him that Lazarus is sick (John 11:1–3). Jesus follows her to another village called Bethany just outside of Jerusalem (John 11:17–18). In Secret Mark, the woman meets him at the same place, but he never travels to Bethany near Jerusalem. Instead, he just follows her to the young man since he already is in Bethany (beyond the Jordan). In Secret Mark, the young man (Lazarus?) and his sister (Mary?) are not named, and their sister Martha does not even appear.

Relations between the gospels
A number of scholars argue that the story in Secret Mark is based on the Gospel of John. Other scholars argue that the authors of Secret Mark and the Gospel of John independently used a common source or built on a common tradition. The fact that Secret Mark refers to another Bethany than the one in the Gospel of John as the place for the miracle and omits the names of the protagonists, and since there are no traces in Secret Mark of the rather extensive Johannine redaction, or of other Johannine characteristics, including its language, militate against Secret Mark being based on the Gospel of John. Michael Kok thinks that this also militates against the thesis that the Gospel of John depends on Secret Mark and that it indicates that they both are based either on "oral variants of the same underlying tradition", or on older written collections of miracle stories. Koester thinks Secret Mark represents an earlier stage of development of the story. Morton Smith tried to demonstrate that the resurrection story in Secret Mark does not contain any of the secondary traits found in the parallel story in John 11 and that the story in John 11 is more theologically developed. He concluded that the Secret Mark version of the story contains an older, independent, and more reliable witness to the oral tradition.

Baptismal significance
Morton Smith saw the longer Secret Mark passage as a story of baptism. According to Smith "the mystery of the kingdom of God" that Jesus taught the young man, was, in fact, a magical rite that "involved a purificatory baptism". That this story depicts a baptism was in turn accepted by most scholars, also those otherwise critical to Smith's reconstructions. And with the idea of the linen sheet as a baptismal garment followed the idea of nakedness and sex.

But there has been some debate about this matter. For example, Scott G. Brown (while defending the authenticity of Secret Mark) disagrees with Smith that the scene is a reference to baptism. He thinks this is to profoundly misinterpret the text, and he argues that if the story really had been about baptism, it would not have mentioned only teaching, but also water or disrobing and immersion. He adds that "the young man's linen sheet has baptismal connotations, but the text discourages every attempt to perceive Jesus literally baptizing him." Stephen Carlson agrees that Brown's reading is more plausible than Smith's. The idea that Jesus practiced baptism is absent from the Synoptic Gospels, though it is introduced in the Gospel of John.

Brown argues that Clement, with the expression "the mystery of the kingdom of God," primarily meant "advanced theological instruction." On the other three occasions when Clement refers to "initiation in the great mysteries", he always refers to the "highest stage of Christian theological education, two stages beyond baptism" – a philosophical, intellectual and spiritual experience "beyond the material realm". Brown thinks the story of the young man is best understood symbolically, and the young man is best seen as an abstract symbol of "discipleship as a process of following Jesus in the way to life through death".
These matters also have a bearing on the debates about the authenticity of Secret Mark, because Brown implies that Smith, himself, did not quite understand his own discovery and it would be illogical to forge a text that you do not understand, to prove a theory it does not support.

See also
List of Gospels

Notes and references

Notes

References

Sources

  Available online

  (2nd edition 1985)

  Available online (PDF file)

  Available online (PDF file)

  Available online
  Available online
  Available online

  Available online
  (Available on-line.)

  PhD diss. Available online (PDF file)

  Available online
  Available online (PDF file)

  Available online

 . Originally published in Second Century 4:2 (1984), pp. 65–82.
  Available online (PDF file)

  Available online (PDF file)

  Online (PDF)

External links
 Translations of Clement's Letter to Theodore into English by:
 Morton Smith at The Gnostic Society Library, Wieland Willker's site, Early Christian Writings and Cygnus' Study.
 A. K. M. Adam at Academia
 Sam Gibson at Early Christian Writings
 Andrew Bernhard at The Scriptorium and gospels.net
 Bart D. Ehrman Lost Scriptures (2003) pp. 88–89 (only the quotations that relate to Secret Mark) at Issuu
 Transcriptions of the Greek text by:
 Morton Smith – reproduced at Early Christian Writings
 Agamemnon Tselikas at Biblical Archaeology Review
 A. K. M. Adam, based on those of Smith and Tselikas with comments in Paananen & Viklund, at Academia
 "Biblical Archaeology Society", Did Morton Smith Forge "Secret Mark"?, with articles by:
 Venetia Anastasopoulou, "Experts Report Handwriting Examination" & "Can a Document in Itself Reveal a Forgery?"
 Peter Jeffery, "Response to Handwriting Analysis" & "Additional Response to Handwriting Analysis"
 Scott G. Brown, "My Thoughts on the Reports by Venetia Anastasopoulou"
 Allan J. Pantuck, "Solving the Mysterion of Morton Smith and the Secret Gospel of Mark" & "Response to Agamemnon Tselikas on Morton Smith and the Manuscripts from Cephalonia"
 Francis Watson, "Beyond Reasonable Doubt: A Response to Allan J. Pantuck"
 Agamemnon Tselikas, "Agamemnon Tselikas' Handwriting Analysis Report" & "Response to Allan J. Pantuck"

1958 archaeological discoveries
Synoptic problem
Christian mysticism
Lost apocrypha
Gnostic Gospels
Gospel of Mark

Secret Gospel of Mark


Circuitul integrat NE556 este un controler extrem de stabil, capabil să producă întârzieri sau oscilații precise în timp. În modul de întârziere în funcționare, timpul este controlat cu precizie de un rezistor extern și de condensator. Pentru o funcționare stabilă ca oscilator, frecvența corectă de funcționare și ciclul de funcționare sunt ambele controlate cu două rezistențe externe și un condensator.

Circuitul poate fi declanșat, resetat la căderea formelor de undă și poate suporta un curent maxim de 200 mA.

NE556 este echivalentul a două circuite integrate NE555.

Vezi și

 Amplificator operațional
 Componentă electronică
 Computer
 Circuit integrat analogic
 Circuit integrat hibrid
 Circuit logic CMOS
 Diodă
 Electronică
 EPROM
 EEPROM
 EEPROM Serial
 FPGA
 Memorie ROM
 NVRAM
 Pastilă (semiconductor)
Circuitul integrat NE555
 LM386
 Televiziunea analogică terestră în România
 Tranzistor
 Tranzistor bipolar
 Tranzistor IGBT
 Tranzistor MOSFET
 Tranzistor unipolar
 Uzinele Electronica

Legături externe

Circuite integrate

Circuitul integrat NE556


Dağ muşmulası,  gülgiller (Rosaceae) familyasından Cotoneaster cinsini oluşturan bitkilerin ortak adı.

Çoğunluğu kışın yaprağını döken, bazıları her dem yeşil ender olarak da ağaççık halini alan bitkilerdir. Çiçeklerin çoğu bir arada veya teker teker bulunur. Renkleri beyaz ve pembemsidir. Olgun meyveler parlak kırmızı, portakal renginde veya sarıdır.

Kuzey yarımkürenin ılıman kuşağında çok sayıda türü vardır. Bütün kış süresince üzerinde kalan kırmızı meyveleri ve çiçeklerinden dolayı park ve bahçelerde süs bitkisi olarak yetiştirilir.

Dağ muşmulası


Beč je administrativno podijeljen na 23 kotara (njem. Wiener Stadtbezirke). Po nepisanom pravilu, Bečki kotari se nazivaju po njihovom broju, a rijetko kad imenom. Na primjer "17. Bezirk", (hrv. 17. kotar), ili također "Der Siebzehnte" (hrv. "sedamnaesti"). Brojevi kotara se nalaze na svakom znaku s imenom ulice, ispred imena ulice, npr."17., Pezzlgasse". Nekada su kotari bili nazivani "Hieb-om".

Gradski kotari Beča nemaju isti status kao državni kotari (njem. Landbezirke), nego se smatraju gradskim četvrtima.

Povijest
Do 1850. godine, grad Beč se sastojao samo iz prvog kotara, (Srednji grad), koji je bio okružen s gradskim zidinama.
Od 15. stoljeća uslijedilo je nešto intenzivnije naseljavanje stanovništva ispred gradskog zida. Oblasti između gradskih zidina i linijskog nasipa iz 1707. godine koji se pružao usporedo s današnjim "pojasom", nazvane su predgrađa. Radi pojednostavljivanja upravljanja i administracije, 1849. godine je došlo do odluke, da se ova mjesta pripoje gradu. To je i izvršeno 1850. godine. Ova predgrađa su podijeljena od 1. – 8. kotara, a dodatnom podjelom nastali su kotari 9 i 10.

Popis gradskih kotara

Vidi još
 Austrijski kotari
 Beč

Izvori

Beč

Gradski kotari Beča


Kuklov este o comună slovacă, aflată în districtul Senica din regiunea Trnava. Localitatea se află la , se întinde pe o suprafață de  și în 2017 număra 782 de locuitori.

Istoric
Localitatea Kuklov este atestată documentar din 1394.

Note

Legături externe

Localități din Slovacia
Eponime ale asteroizilor

Kuklov


Terrel Harris (* 10. August 1987 in Dallas, Texas) ist ein US-amerikanischer Basketballspieler, der derzeit bei den Miami Heat in der NBA unter Vertrag steht.

Karriere

College
Als Collegespieler spielte er für die Oklahoma State University - Stillwater und als er das College verließ, konnte er in seiner Collegekarriere durchschnittlich 9,8 Punkte, 4 Rebounds, 1,5 Assists, 1,29 Steals und 26,4 Minuten pro Spiel aufweisen.

Professionelle Karriere
Da er im NBA-Draft 2009 nicht von einem Team gewählt wurde, wechselte er nach Frankreich zu Strasbourg IG und kurz darauf in die D-League zu den Maine Red Claws. Anschließend war er insgesamt gut ein Jahr für die Rio Grande Valley Vipers aktiv und bestritt zwischenzeitlich sechs Spiele für EnBW Ludwigsburg in der Basketball-Bundesliga. Zum Start der NBA-Saison 2011/12, am 12. Dezember 2011, wurde er von den Miami Heat in ihr Trainingslager berufen. Am 24. Dezember wurde dann bekannt gegeben, dass er bei den Heat bleiben würde. Mit Miami gewann er die Meisterschaft 2012, spielte dabei in den Playoffs aber nur wenige Minuten.

Weblinks

 Bundesliga-Statistiken
 Terrel Harris' Profil auf der offiziellen Website der Miami Heat

Einzelnachweise

Basketballspieler (Vereinigte Staaten)
NBA-Meister
US-Amerikaner
Geboren 1987
Mann
Basketballspieler (MHP Riesen Ludwigsburg)
Basketballspieler (SIG Strasbourg)
Basketballspieler (Maccabi Aschdod)

Terrel Harris