id
stringlengths 19
24
| title
stringlengths 1
110
| content
stringlengths 1
1k
| contents
stringlengths 7
1.11k
| wiki_id
stringlengths 2
8
|
---|---|---|---|---|
wiki20220301en020_103627 | Dawes Plan | To protect the growing German steel industry, German coal producers—whose directors also sat on the boards of the German state railways and German steel companies—began to increase shipping rates on coal exports to France. In early 1923, Germany defaulted on its reparations and German coal producers refused to ship any more coal across the border. French and Belgian troops conducted the Occupation of the Ruhr to compel the German government to resume shipments of coal and coke. Germany characterized the demands as onerous under its post war condition (60 per cent of what Germany had been shipping into the same area before the war began). This occupation of the Ruhr, the centre of the German coal and steel industries, outraged many German people. There was passive resistance to the occupation and the economy suffered, contributing further to the German hyperinflation. Dawes committee | Dawes Plan. To protect the growing German steel industry, German coal producers—whose directors also sat on the boards of the German state railways and German steel companies—began to increase shipping rates on coal exports to France. In early 1923, Germany defaulted on its reparations and German coal producers refused to ship any more coal across the border. French and Belgian troops conducted the Occupation of the Ruhr to compel the German government to resume shipments of coal and coke. Germany characterized the demands as onerous under its post war condition (60 per cent of what Germany had been shipping into the same area before the war began). This occupation of the Ruhr, the centre of the German coal and steel industries, outraged many German people. There was passive resistance to the occupation and the economy suffered, contributing further to the German hyperinflation. Dawes committee | 524119 |
wiki20220301en020_103628 | Dawes Plan | Dawes committee To simultaneously defuse this situation and increase the chances of Germany resuming reparation payments, the Allied Reparations Commission asked Dawes to find a solution fast. The Dawes committee, which urged into action by Britain and the United States, consisted of ten informal expert representatives, two each from Belgium (Baron Maurice Houtart, Emile Francqui), France (Jean Parmentier, Edgard Allix), Britain (Sir Josiah C. Stamp, Sir Robert M. Kindersley), Italy (Alberto Pirelli, Federico Flora), and the United States (Dawes and Owen D. Young, who were appointed by Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover). It was entrusted with finding a solution for the collection of the German reparations debt, which was determined to be 132 billion gold marks, as well as declaring that America would provide loans to the Germans, in order that they could make reparations payments to the United States, Britain and France. | Dawes Plan. Dawes committee To simultaneously defuse this situation and increase the chances of Germany resuming reparation payments, the Allied Reparations Commission asked Dawes to find a solution fast. The Dawes committee, which urged into action by Britain and the United States, consisted of ten informal expert representatives, two each from Belgium (Baron Maurice Houtart, Emile Francqui), France (Jean Parmentier, Edgard Allix), Britain (Sir Josiah C. Stamp, Sir Robert M. Kindersley), Italy (Alberto Pirelli, Federico Flora), and the United States (Dawes and Owen D. Young, who were appointed by Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover). It was entrusted with finding a solution for the collection of the German reparations debt, which was determined to be 132 billion gold marks, as well as declaring that America would provide loans to the Germans, in order that they could make reparations payments to the United States, Britain and France. | 524119 |
wiki20220301en020_103629 | Dawes Plan | Main points of the Dawes Plan In an agreement of August 1924, the main points of The Dawes Plan were: The Ruhr area was to be evacuated by foreign troops Reparation payments would begin at one billion marks the first year, increasing annually to two and a half billion marks after five years The Reichsbank would be re-organized under Allied supervision The sources for the reparation money would include transportation, excise, and customs taxes Germany would be loaned about $200 million, primarily through Wall Street bond issues in the United States The bond issues were overseen by a consortium of American investment banks, led by J.P. Morgan & Co. under the supervision of the US State Department. Germany benefitted enormously from the influx of foreign capital. The Dawes Plan went into effect in September 1924. Dawes and Sir Austen Chamberlain shared the Nobel Peace Prize. | Dawes Plan. Main points of the Dawes Plan In an agreement of August 1924, the main points of The Dawes Plan were: The Ruhr area was to be evacuated by foreign troops Reparation payments would begin at one billion marks the first year, increasing annually to two and a half billion marks after five years The Reichsbank would be re-organized under Allied supervision The sources for the reparation money would include transportation, excise, and customs taxes Germany would be loaned about $200 million, primarily through Wall Street bond issues in the United States The bond issues were overseen by a consortium of American investment banks, led by J.P. Morgan & Co. under the supervision of the US State Department. Germany benefitted enormously from the influx of foreign capital. The Dawes Plan went into effect in September 1924. Dawes and Sir Austen Chamberlain shared the Nobel Peace Prize. | 524119 |
wiki20220301en020_103630 | Dawes Plan | The economy of Germany began to rebound during the mid-1920s and the country continued with the payment of reparations—now funded by the large scale influx of American capital. However, the Dawes Plan was considered by the Germans as a temporary measure and they expected a revised solution in the future. In 1928, German Foreign Minister Gustav Stresemann called for a final plan to be established, and the Young Plan was enacted in 1929. Results of the Dawes Plan The Dawes Plan resulted in French troops leaving the Ruhr Valley. It provided a large capital influx to German industry, which continued to rebuild and expand. The capital now available to German industry functionally transferred the burdens of Germany's war reparations from German government and industry to American bond investors. The Dawes Plan was also the beginning of the ties between German industry and American investment banks. | Dawes Plan. The economy of Germany began to rebound during the mid-1920s and the country continued with the payment of reparations—now funded by the large scale influx of American capital. However, the Dawes Plan was considered by the Germans as a temporary measure and they expected a revised solution in the future. In 1928, German Foreign Minister Gustav Stresemann called for a final plan to be established, and the Young Plan was enacted in 1929. Results of the Dawes Plan The Dawes Plan resulted in French troops leaving the Ruhr Valley. It provided a large capital influx to German industry, which continued to rebuild and expand. The capital now available to German industry functionally transferred the burdens of Germany's war reparations from German government and industry to American bond investors. The Dawes Plan was also the beginning of the ties between German industry and American investment banks. | 524119 |
wiki20220301en020_103631 | Dawes Plan | The Ruhr occupation resulted in a victory for the German steel industry and the German re-armament program. By reducing the supplies of coal to France, which was dependent on German coal, German industrialists managed to hobble France's steel industry, while getting their own rebuilt. By 1926, the German steel industry was dominant in Europe and this dominance only increased in the years leading to WWII. See also World War I Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles Historiography of the causes of World War I Triple Entente War guilt question World War II Industrial plans for Germany Morgenthau Plan, 1945–47 Marshall Plan, 1948–51 Agreement on German External Debts, debt agreement, 1953 References Further reading External links The Dawes Plan detailed at The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition State Department, Office of the Historian | Dawes Plan. The Ruhr occupation resulted in a victory for the German steel industry and the German re-armament program. By reducing the supplies of coal to France, which was dependent on German coal, German industrialists managed to hobble France's steel industry, while getting their own rebuilt. By 1926, the German steel industry was dominant in Europe and this dominance only increased in the years leading to WWII. See also World War I Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles Historiography of the causes of World War I Triple Entente War guilt question World War II Industrial plans for Germany Morgenthau Plan, 1945–47 Marshall Plan, 1948–51 Agreement on German External Debts, debt agreement, 1953 References Further reading External links The Dawes Plan detailed at The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition State Department, Office of the Historian | 524119 |
wiki20220301en020_103632 | Dawes Plan | References Further reading External links The Dawes Plan detailed at The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition State Department, Office of the Historian Aftermath of World War I in Germany Economic history of France Economic history of Belgium French Third Republic 1924 in Belgium History of the foreign relations of the United States 1924 in the United States Reparations 1924 in economics 1924 in Germany | Dawes Plan. References Further reading External links The Dawes Plan detailed at The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition State Department, Office of the Historian Aftermath of World War I in Germany Economic history of France Economic history of Belgium French Third Republic 1924 in Belgium History of the foreign relations of the United States 1924 in the United States Reparations 1924 in economics 1924 in Germany | 524119 |
wiki20220301en020_103633 | Targ | Targ or TARG may refer to: Targ (video game), a 1980 arcade game Targ (Star Trek), a fictional animal from Star Trek In Scientology, targs are an older word for Body Thetan Targe, a type of shield Târg, a medieval Romanian periodic fair or a market town TARG or telescoped ammunition revolver gun, manufactured by ARES Incorporated See also House of Targ, a music venue, arcade and restaurant in Ottawa, Canada .20 VarTarg, a rifle cartridge | Targ. Targ or TARG may refer to: Targ (video game), a 1980 arcade game Targ (Star Trek), a fictional animal from Star Trek In Scientology, targs are an older word for Body Thetan Targe, a type of shield Târg, a medieval Romanian periodic fair or a market town TARG or telescoped ammunition revolver gun, manufactured by ARES Incorporated See also House of Targ, a music venue, arcade and restaurant in Ottawa, Canada .20 VarTarg, a rifle cartridge | 524121 |
wiki20220301en020_103634 | Metre–tonne–second system of units | The metre–tonne–second or MTS system of units is a system of physical units. It was invented in France, hence the unit names sthène and pièze, and became its legal system between 1919 and 1961 ("décret" 5 May 1961, "Journal Officiel"). It was adopted by the Soviet Union in 1933 and abolished there in 1955. It was a metric and coherent system of units, much as SI and the centimetre–gram–second system (CGS), but with larger units for industrial use, whereas the CGS system was regarded as suitable for laboratory use only. Units The base units of the MTS system are: Length: metre Mass: tonne, 1 t = 103 kg = 1 Mg Time: second Some common derived units: Volume: cubic metre or stere 1 m3 ≡ 1 st Force: sthène, 1 sn = 1 t⋅m/s2 = 103 N = 1 kN Energy: sthène-metre = kilojoule, 1 sn⋅m = 1 t⋅m2/s2 = 103 J = 1 kJ Power: sthène-metre per second = kilowatt, 1 sn⋅m/s = 1 t⋅m2/s3 = 103 W = 1 kW Pressure: pièze, 1 pz = 1 t/m⋅s2 = 103 Pa = 1 kPa = 1 centibar (cbar) | Metre–tonne–second system of units. The metre–tonne–second or MTS system of units is a system of physical units. It was invented in France, hence the unit names sthène and pièze, and became its legal system between 1919 and 1961 ("décret" 5 May 1961, "Journal Officiel"). It was adopted by the Soviet Union in 1933 and abolished there in 1955. It was a metric and coherent system of units, much as SI and the centimetre–gram–second system (CGS), but with larger units for industrial use, whereas the CGS system was regarded as suitable for laboratory use only. Units The base units of the MTS system are: Length: metre Mass: tonne, 1 t = 103 kg = 1 Mg Time: second Some common derived units: Volume: cubic metre or stere 1 m3 ≡ 1 st Force: sthène, 1 sn = 1 t⋅m/s2 = 103 N = 1 kN Energy: sthène-metre = kilojoule, 1 sn⋅m = 1 t⋅m2/s2 = 103 J = 1 kJ Power: sthène-metre per second = kilowatt, 1 sn⋅m/s = 1 t⋅m2/s3 = 103 W = 1 kW Pressure: pièze, 1 pz = 1 t/m⋅s2 = 103 Pa = 1 kPa = 1 centibar (cbar) | 524122 |
wiki20220301en020_103635 | Metre–tonne–second system of units | See also Metre–kilogram–second system of units (MKS) Foot–pound–second system of units (FPS) References Systems of units Metric system | Metre–tonne–second system of units. See also Metre–kilogram–second system of units (MKS) Foot–pound–second system of units (FPS) References Systems of units Metric system | 524122 |
wiki20220301en020_103636 | Young Plan | The Young Plan was a program for settling Germany's World War I reparations. It was written in August 1929 and formally adopted in 1930. It was presented by the committee headed (1929–30) by American industrialist Owen D. Young, founder and former chairman of Radio Corporation of America (RCA), who, at the time, was a member of the board of trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation. Young also had been one of the representatives involved in a previous war-reparations restructuring arrangement—the Dawes Plan of 1924. The Inter-Allied Reparations Commission established the German reparation sum at a theoretical total of 132 billion, but a practical total of 50 billion gold marks. After the Dawes Plan was put into operation in 1924, it became apparent that Germany would not willingly meet the annual payments over an indefinite period. The Young Plan reduced further payments by about 20 percent. Although the theoretical total was 112 billion Gold Marks, equivalent to US ca. $27 billion in | Young Plan. The Young Plan was a program for settling Germany's World War I reparations. It was written in August 1929 and formally adopted in 1930. It was presented by the committee headed (1929–30) by American industrialist Owen D. Young, founder and former chairman of Radio Corporation of America (RCA), who, at the time, was a member of the board of trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation. Young also had been one of the representatives involved in a previous war-reparations restructuring arrangement—the Dawes Plan of 1924. The Inter-Allied Reparations Commission established the German reparation sum at a theoretical total of 132 billion, but a practical total of 50 billion gold marks. After the Dawes Plan was put into operation in 1924, it became apparent that Germany would not willingly meet the annual payments over an indefinite period. The Young Plan reduced further payments by about 20 percent. Although the theoretical total was 112 billion Gold Marks, equivalent to US ca. $27 billion in | 524123 |
wiki20220301en020_103637 | Young Plan | annual payments over an indefinite period. The Young Plan reduced further payments by about 20 percent. Although the theoretical total was 112 billion Gold Marks, equivalent to US ca. $27 billion in 1929 (US$ billion in ) over a period of 58 years, which would end in 1988, few expected the plan to last for much more than a decade. In addition, the Young Plan divided the annual payment, set at two billion Gold Marks, US$473 million, into two components: one unconditional part, equal to one third of the sum, and a postponable part, equal to the remaining two-thirds, which would incur interest and be financed by a consortium of American investment banks coordinated by J.P. Morgan & Co. | Young Plan. annual payments over an indefinite period. The Young Plan reduced further payments by about 20 percent. Although the theoretical total was 112 billion Gold Marks, equivalent to US ca. $27 billion in 1929 (US$ billion in ) over a period of 58 years, which would end in 1988, few expected the plan to last for much more than a decade. In addition, the Young Plan divided the annual payment, set at two billion Gold Marks, US$473 million, into two components: one unconditional part, equal to one third of the sum, and a postponable part, equal to the remaining two-thirds, which would incur interest and be financed by a consortium of American investment banks coordinated by J.P. Morgan & Co. | 524123 |
wiki20220301en020_103638 | Young Plan | The Plan The committee, which had been appointed by the Allied Reparations Committee, met in the first half of 1929, and submitted its first report on June 7 of that year. In addition to Young, the United States was represented by J. P. Morgan, Jr., the prominent banker, and his partner, Thomas W. Lamont. The report met with great objections from the United Kingdom but, after a first Conference in The Hague, a plan was finalised on August 31. The plan was formally adopted at a second Hague Conference, in January 1930. Amongst other provisions, the plan called for an international bank of settlements to handle the reparations transfers. The resulting Bank for International Settlements was duly established at the Hague Conference in January. Subsequent events | Young Plan. The Plan The committee, which had been appointed by the Allied Reparations Committee, met in the first half of 1929, and submitted its first report on June 7 of that year. In addition to Young, the United States was represented by J. P. Morgan, Jr., the prominent banker, and his partner, Thomas W. Lamont. The report met with great objections from the United Kingdom but, after a first Conference in The Hague, a plan was finalised on August 31. The plan was formally adopted at a second Hague Conference, in January 1930. Amongst other provisions, the plan called for an international bank of settlements to handle the reparations transfers. The resulting Bank for International Settlements was duly established at the Hague Conference in January. Subsequent events | 524123 |
wiki20220301en020_103639 | Young Plan | Between agreement and adoption of the plan came the Wall Street Crash of October 1929, of which the main consequences were twofold. The American banking system had to recall money from Europe, and cancel the credits that made the Young Plan possible. Moreover, the downfall of imports and exports affected the rest of the world. By 1933, almost two-thirds of world trade had vanished. A new trade policy was set with the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act. The latter was influenced by nationalism and the adopted economic policy. Unemployment soared to 33.7% in 1931 in Germany, and 40% in 1932. Under such circumstances, U.S. President Herbert Hoover issued a public statement that proposed a one-year moratorium on the payments. He managed to assemble support for the moratorium from 15 nations by July 1931. But the adoption of the moratorium did little to slow economic decline in Europe. Germany was gripped by a major banking crisis. A final effort was made at the Lausanne Conference of 1932. Here, | Young Plan. Between agreement and adoption of the plan came the Wall Street Crash of October 1929, of which the main consequences were twofold. The American banking system had to recall money from Europe, and cancel the credits that made the Young Plan possible. Moreover, the downfall of imports and exports affected the rest of the world. By 1933, almost two-thirds of world trade had vanished. A new trade policy was set with the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act. The latter was influenced by nationalism and the adopted economic policy. Unemployment soared to 33.7% in 1931 in Germany, and 40% in 1932. Under such circumstances, U.S. President Herbert Hoover issued a public statement that proposed a one-year moratorium on the payments. He managed to assemble support for the moratorium from 15 nations by July 1931. But the adoption of the moratorium did little to slow economic decline in Europe. Germany was gripped by a major banking crisis. A final effort was made at the Lausanne Conference of 1932. Here, | 524123 |
wiki20220301en020_103640 | Young Plan | But the adoption of the moratorium did little to slow economic decline in Europe. Germany was gripped by a major banking crisis. A final effort was made at the Lausanne Conference of 1932. Here, representatives from Great Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, Germany and Japan gathered to come to an agreement. By that time it was clear that the deepening depression had made it impossible for Germany to resume its reparations payments. They agreed: | Young Plan. But the adoption of the moratorium did little to slow economic decline in Europe. Germany was gripped by a major banking crisis. A final effort was made at the Lausanne Conference of 1932. Here, representatives from Great Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, Germany and Japan gathered to come to an agreement. By that time it was clear that the deepening depression had made it impossible for Germany to resume its reparations payments. They agreed: | 524123 |
wiki20220301en020_103641 | Young Plan | Not to press Germany for immediate payments. To reduce indebtedness by nearly 90% and require Germany to prepare for the issuance of bonds. This provision was close to cancellation, reducing the German obligation from the original $32.3 billion to $713 million. It was also informally agreed among the delegates that these provisions would be ineffective unless the US government agreed to the cancellation of war debts owed by the Allied governments. | Young Plan. Not to press Germany for immediate payments. To reduce indebtedness by nearly 90% and require Germany to prepare for the issuance of bonds. This provision was close to cancellation, reducing the German obligation from the original $32.3 billion to $713 million. It was also informally agreed among the delegates that these provisions would be ineffective unless the US government agreed to the cancellation of war debts owed by the Allied governments. | 524123 |
wiki20220301en020_103642 | Young Plan | Hoover made the obligatory public statement about the lack of any connection between reparations and war debts, however in December 1932, the U.S. Congress rejected the Allied war debt reduction plan, which technically meant that the war reparations and debt reverted to the debt reduction previously granted Germany by the 1929 Young Plan. However, the system had collapsed, and Germany did not resume payments. Once the National Socialist government consolidated power, the debt was repudiated and Germany made no further payments. By 1933, Germany had made World War I reparations of only one eighth of the sum required under the Treaty of Versailles, and owing to the repudiated American loans the United States in effect paid "reparations" to Germany. The plan ultimately failed, not because of the U.S. Congress' refusal to go along, but because it became irrelevant upon Hitler's rise to power. | Young Plan. Hoover made the obligatory public statement about the lack of any connection between reparations and war debts, however in December 1932, the U.S. Congress rejected the Allied war debt reduction plan, which technically meant that the war reparations and debt reverted to the debt reduction previously granted Germany by the 1929 Young Plan. However, the system had collapsed, and Germany did not resume payments. Once the National Socialist government consolidated power, the debt was repudiated and Germany made no further payments. By 1933, Germany had made World War I reparations of only one eighth of the sum required under the Treaty of Versailles, and owing to the repudiated American loans the United States in effect paid "reparations" to Germany. The plan ultimately failed, not because of the U.S. Congress' refusal to go along, but because it became irrelevant upon Hitler's rise to power. | 524123 |
wiki20220301en020_103643 | Young Plan | After Germany's defeat in World War II, an international conference (London Agreement on German External Debts, 1953) decided that Germany would pay the remaining debt only after the country was reunified. Nonetheless, West Germany paid off the principal by 1980; then in 1995, after reunification, the new German government announced it would resume payments of the interest. Germany was due to pay off the interest to the United States in 2010, and to other countries in 2020. In 2010, Time reported that Germany made "final reparations-related payment for the Great War on Oct. 3, nearly 92 years after the country's defeat by the Allies." This agreement had been preceded by bitter diplomatic struggles, and its acceptance aroused nationalist passions and resentment. It also weakened, rather than helped, the advocates of a policy of international understanding. Opposition to war reparations: the "Liberty Law" | Young Plan. After Germany's defeat in World War II, an international conference (London Agreement on German External Debts, 1953) decided that Germany would pay the remaining debt only after the country was reunified. Nonetheless, West Germany paid off the principal by 1980; then in 1995, after reunification, the new German government announced it would resume payments of the interest. Germany was due to pay off the interest to the United States in 2010, and to other countries in 2020. In 2010, Time reported that Germany made "final reparations-related payment for the Great War on Oct. 3, nearly 92 years after the country's defeat by the Allies." This agreement had been preceded by bitter diplomatic struggles, and its acceptance aroused nationalist passions and resentment. It also weakened, rather than helped, the advocates of a policy of international understanding. Opposition to war reparations: the "Liberty Law" | 524123 |
wiki20220301en020_103644 | Young Plan | Opposition to war reparations: the "Liberty Law" Although the Young plan had effectively reduced Germany's obligations, it was opposed by parts of the political spectrum in Germany. Socialist groups had been most outspoken in opposition to reparations and seized on opposition to the Young Plan as an issue. A coalition was formed of various nationalist groups under the leadership of Alfred Hugenberg, the head of the German National People's Party. One of the groups that joined this coalition was Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party. The coalition's goal was the enactment of the Freiheitsgesetz ("Liberty Law"). This law would renounce all reparations and make it a criminal offense for any German official to cooperate in their collection. It would also renounce the German acknowledgement of "war guilt" and the occupation of German territory which were also terms of the Treaty of Versailles. | Young Plan. Opposition to war reparations: the "Liberty Law" Although the Young plan had effectively reduced Germany's obligations, it was opposed by parts of the political spectrum in Germany. Socialist groups had been most outspoken in opposition to reparations and seized on opposition to the Young Plan as an issue. A coalition was formed of various nationalist groups under the leadership of Alfred Hugenberg, the head of the German National People's Party. One of the groups that joined this coalition was Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party. The coalition's goal was the enactment of the Freiheitsgesetz ("Liberty Law"). This law would renounce all reparations and make it a criminal offense for any German official to cooperate in their collection. It would also renounce the German acknowledgement of "war guilt" and the occupation of German territory which were also terms of the Treaty of Versailles. | 524123 |
wiki20220301en020_103645 | Young Plan | Under the terms of the German constitution, if ten percent of the eligible voters in the country signed a petition in favor of a proposed law, the Reichstag had to put the matter to a vote. If the Reichstag voted against the law, the proposal would automatically be put to a national referendum. If fifty percent of the people voted in favor of it, it would become a law. The Liberty Law proposal was officially put forth on October 16, 1929. The National Socialists and other groups held large public rallies to collect signatures. The government opposed the Liberty Law and staged demonstrations against it. However, the coalition succeeded in collecting enough names to put the proposal before the Reichstag. The Reichstag voted the bill down by a 318-82 margin. In the subsequent popular vote on December 22, the Liberty Law referendum, voter turnout was only 14.9%, although 94.5% of the votes cast (13.8% of registered voters) were in favor of the proposed law. | Young Plan. Under the terms of the German constitution, if ten percent of the eligible voters in the country signed a petition in favor of a proposed law, the Reichstag had to put the matter to a vote. If the Reichstag voted against the law, the proposal would automatically be put to a national referendum. If fifty percent of the people voted in favor of it, it would become a law. The Liberty Law proposal was officially put forth on October 16, 1929. The National Socialists and other groups held large public rallies to collect signatures. The government opposed the Liberty Law and staged demonstrations against it. However, the coalition succeeded in collecting enough names to put the proposal before the Reichstag. The Reichstag voted the bill down by a 318-82 margin. In the subsequent popular vote on December 22, the Liberty Law referendum, voter turnout was only 14.9%, although 94.5% of the votes cast (13.8% of registered voters) were in favor of the proposed law. | 524123 |
wiki20220301en020_103646 | Young Plan | While the Liberty Law was not enacted in 1929, the campaign for it was a major factor in bringing Hitler and the National Socialists into the political mainstream. Following the defeat, Hitler denounced Hugenberg and said the loss was a result of his poor leadership. Hugenberg and many other nationalists soon found themselves being eclipsed by the National Socialists. Hitler would later enact by decree most of the proposals of the Liberty Law after achieving power. References Sources Further reading Wall Street and FDR, by Antony C. Sutton (1975) Anglo-American Relations in the 1920s: The Struggle for Supremacy, by B. J. C. McKercher (1991) The End of the European Era: 1890 to the Present, by Gilbert & Large (2002) 1929, The Year of the Great Crash, by William K. Klingaman (1989) | Young Plan. While the Liberty Law was not enacted in 1929, the campaign for it was a major factor in bringing Hitler and the National Socialists into the political mainstream. Following the defeat, Hitler denounced Hugenberg and said the loss was a result of his poor leadership. Hugenberg and many other nationalists soon found themselves being eclipsed by the National Socialists. Hitler would later enact by decree most of the proposals of the Liberty Law after achieving power. References Sources Further reading Wall Street and FDR, by Antony C. Sutton (1975) Anglo-American Relations in the 1920s: The Struggle for Supremacy, by B. J. C. McKercher (1991) The End of the European Era: 1890 to the Present, by Gilbert & Large (2002) 1929, The Year of the Great Crash, by William K. Klingaman (1989) | 524123 |
wiki20220301en020_103647 | Young Plan | French Third Republic Aftermath of World War I in Germany Economic history of France History of the foreign relations of the United States Aftermath of World War I in the United States 1930 in the United States 1930 in international relations Reparations 1930 in economics 1930 in Germany | Young Plan. French Third Republic Aftermath of World War I in Germany Economic history of France History of the foreign relations of the United States Aftermath of World War I in the United States 1930 in the United States 1930 in international relations Reparations 1930 in economics 1930 in Germany | 524123 |
wiki20220301en020_103648 | Hypercharge | In particle physics, the hypercharge (a portmanteau of hyperonic and charge) Y of a particle is a quantum number conserved under the strong interaction. The concept of hypercharge provides a single charge operator that accounts for properties of isospin, electric charge, and flavour. The hypercharge is useful to classify hadrons; the similarly named weak hypercharge has an analogous role in the electroweak interaction. Definition Hypercharge is one of two quantum numbers of the SU(3) model of hadrons, alongside isospin . The isospin alone was sufficient for two quark flavours — namely and — whereas presently 6 flavours of quarks are known. SU(3) weight diagrams (see below) are 2 dimensional, with the coordinates referring to two quantum numbers: (also known as ), which is the component of isospin, and , which is the hypercharge (the sum of strangeness , charm , bottomness , topness , and baryon number ). Mathematically, hypercharge is | Hypercharge. In particle physics, the hypercharge (a portmanteau of hyperonic and charge) Y of a particle is a quantum number conserved under the strong interaction. The concept of hypercharge provides a single charge operator that accounts for properties of isospin, electric charge, and flavour. The hypercharge is useful to classify hadrons; the similarly named weak hypercharge has an analogous role in the electroweak interaction. Definition Hypercharge is one of two quantum numbers of the SU(3) model of hadrons, alongside isospin . The isospin alone was sufficient for two quark flavours — namely and — whereas presently 6 flavours of quarks are known. SU(3) weight diagrams (see below) are 2 dimensional, with the coordinates referring to two quantum numbers: (also known as ), which is the component of isospin, and , which is the hypercharge (the sum of strangeness , charm , bottomness , topness , and baryon number ). Mathematically, hypercharge is | 524124 |
wiki20220301en020_103649 | Hypercharge | Strong interactions conserve hypercharge (and weak hypercharge), but weak interactions do not. Relation with electric charge and isospin The Gell-Mann–Nishijima formula relates isospin and electric charge where I3 is the third component of isospin and Q is the particle's charge. Isospin creates multiplets of particles whose average charge is related to the hypercharge by: since the hypercharge is the same for all members of a multiplet, and the average of the I3 values is 0. SU(3) model in relation to hypercharge The SU(2) model has multiplets characterized by a quantum number J, which is the total angular momentum. Each multiplet consists of substates with equally-spaced values of Jz, forming a symmetric arrangement seen in atomic spectra and isospin. This formalizes the observation that certain strong baryon decays were not observed, leading to the prediction of the mass, strangeness and charge of the baryon. | Hypercharge. Strong interactions conserve hypercharge (and weak hypercharge), but weak interactions do not. Relation with electric charge and isospin The Gell-Mann–Nishijima formula relates isospin and electric charge where I3 is the third component of isospin and Q is the particle's charge. Isospin creates multiplets of particles whose average charge is related to the hypercharge by: since the hypercharge is the same for all members of a multiplet, and the average of the I3 values is 0. SU(3) model in relation to hypercharge The SU(2) model has multiplets characterized by a quantum number J, which is the total angular momentum. Each multiplet consists of substates with equally-spaced values of Jz, forming a symmetric arrangement seen in atomic spectra and isospin. This formalizes the observation that certain strong baryon decays were not observed, leading to the prediction of the mass, strangeness and charge of the baryon. | 524124 |
wiki20220301en020_103650 | Hypercharge | The SU(3) has supermultiplets containing SU(2) multiplets. SU(3) now needs two numbers to specify all its sub-states which are denoted by λ1 and λ2. specifies the number of points in the topmost side of the hexagon while specifies the number of points on the bottom side. | Hypercharge. The SU(3) has supermultiplets containing SU(2) multiplets. SU(3) now needs two numbers to specify all its sub-states which are denoted by λ1 and λ2. specifies the number of points in the topmost side of the hexagon while specifies the number of points on the bottom side. | 524124 |
wiki20220301en020_103651 | Hypercharge | specifies the number of points in the topmost side of the hexagon while specifies the number of points on the bottom side. Examples The nucleon group (protons with and neutrons with ) have an average charge of , so they both have hypercharge (since baryon number and ). From the Gell-Mann–Nishijima formula we know that proton has isospin while neutron has This also works for quarks: For the up quark, with a charge of , and an of , we deduce a hypercharge of , due to its baryon number (since three quarks make a baryon, each quark has a baryon number of ). For a strange quark, with electric charge , a baryon number of , and strangeness −1, we get a hypercharge so we deduce that That means that a strange quark makes an isospin singlet of its own (the same happens with charm, bottom and top quarks), while up and down constitute an isospin doublet. | Hypercharge. specifies the number of points in the topmost side of the hexagon while specifies the number of points on the bottom side. Examples The nucleon group (protons with and neutrons with ) have an average charge of , so they both have hypercharge (since baryon number and ). From the Gell-Mann–Nishijima formula we know that proton has isospin while neutron has This also works for quarks: For the up quark, with a charge of , and an of , we deduce a hypercharge of , due to its baryon number (since three quarks make a baryon, each quark has a baryon number of ). For a strange quark, with electric charge , a baryon number of , and strangeness −1, we get a hypercharge so we deduce that That means that a strange quark makes an isospin singlet of its own (the same happens with charm, bottom and top quarks), while up and down constitute an isospin doublet. | 524124 |
wiki20220301en020_103652 | Hypercharge | Practical obsolescence Hypercharge was a concept developed in the 1960s, to organize groups of particles in the "particle zoo" and to develop ad hoc conservation laws based on their observed transformations. With the advent of the quark model, it is now obvious that strong hypercharge, , is the following combination of the numbers of up (), down (), strange (), charm (), top () and bottom (): In modern descriptions of hadron interaction, it has become more obvious to draw Feynman diagrams that trace through the individual constituent quarks (which are conserved) composing the interacting baryons and mesons, rather than bothering to count strong hypercharge quantum numbers. Weak hypercharge, however, remains an essential part of understanding the electroweak interaction. References Particle physics Nuclear physics Quarks Standard Model Electroweak theory he:היפרמטען | Hypercharge. Practical obsolescence Hypercharge was a concept developed in the 1960s, to organize groups of particles in the "particle zoo" and to develop ad hoc conservation laws based on their observed transformations. With the advent of the quark model, it is now obvious that strong hypercharge, , is the following combination of the numbers of up (), down (), strange (), charm (), top () and bottom (): In modern descriptions of hadron interaction, it has become more obvious to draw Feynman diagrams that trace through the individual constituent quarks (which are conserved) composing the interacting baryons and mesons, rather than bothering to count strong hypercharge quantum numbers. Weak hypercharge, however, remains an essential part of understanding the electroweak interaction. References Particle physics Nuclear physics Quarks Standard Model Electroweak theory he:היפרמטען | 524124 |
wiki20220301en020_103653 | YTHT | Yi Ta Hu Tu (; YTHT BBS) is a bulletin board system which was created on September 17, 1999, by student Lepton in Peking University, Beijing, China. Prior to blocking by the government, it was one of the largest BBS communities in China. In Chinese, Yi Ta Hu Tu means 'extremely messy' literally. However, the name itself is a pun; Ta, Hu, and Tu also mean "tower" "lake" "picture" respectively, and they are used to refer to three famous sites inside Peking University: Porter Tower, Weiming ("nameless") Lake, and the Peking University Library (the Chinese word for "library" is 图书馆 tu-shu-guan, with "tu" as its first character). Yi means "one". | YTHT. Yi Ta Hu Tu (; YTHT BBS) is a bulletin board system which was created on September 17, 1999, by student Lepton in Peking University, Beijing, China. Prior to blocking by the government, it was one of the largest BBS communities in China. In Chinese, Yi Ta Hu Tu means 'extremely messy' literally. However, the name itself is a pun; Ta, Hu, and Tu also mean "tower" "lake" "picture" respectively, and they are used to refer to three famous sites inside Peking University: Porter Tower, Weiming ("nameless") Lake, and the Peking University Library (the Chinese word for "library" is 图书馆 tu-shu-guan, with "tu" as its first character). Yi means "one". | 524127 |
wiki20220301en020_103654 | YTHT | YTHT was originally set up by Lepton, a graduate student at the physics department in Peking University (PKU), on September 17, 1999, serving mainly as a communication platform for the students of PKU. Since the former PKU bulletin board system, the Unknown Space, was forced to be closed as required by the censorship of the Chinese government, PKU has not been able to hold a BBS of its own for a long term. When YTHT was born, it soon attracted the attentions of many PKU native students. Despite the fact that PKU launched its official BBS later on, Wei Ming station, YTHT still managed to burgeon into one of the best and biggest BBS systems in the education network in China with more than 300,000 users, mainly students and well-educated professionals. This figure compares to some of the largest Internet forums in the United States. | YTHT. YTHT was originally set up by Lepton, a graduate student at the physics department in Peking University (PKU), on September 17, 1999, serving mainly as a communication platform for the students of PKU. Since the former PKU bulletin board system, the Unknown Space, was forced to be closed as required by the censorship of the Chinese government, PKU has not been able to hold a BBS of its own for a long term. When YTHT was born, it soon attracted the attentions of many PKU native students. Despite the fact that PKU launched its official BBS later on, Wei Ming station, YTHT still managed to burgeon into one of the best and biggest BBS systems in the education network in China with more than 300,000 users, mainly students and well-educated professionals. This figure compares to some of the largest Internet forums in the United States. | 524127 |
wiki20220301en020_103655 | YTHT | On September 20, 1999, the login screen was changed to the one with a tower, a lake and the famous library of PKU. The three Chinese names combined forms a harmonym of YTHT. On March 24, 2000, the URL changed to ytht.net. On May 3, 2000, the first YTHT Committee was democratically elected by YTHT members, for the first time in China's history. In the history of the development of YTHT, the spirit of freedom and democracy was a priority, although its popularity resulted in huge political pressure and YTHT was banned a few times. On August 19, 2004, YTHT was required by the government to be in a status of emergency. Several boards on political topics were shut down. | YTHT. On September 20, 1999, the login screen was changed to the one with a tower, a lake and the famous library of PKU. The three Chinese names combined forms a harmonym of YTHT. On March 24, 2000, the URL changed to ytht.net. On May 3, 2000, the first YTHT Committee was democratically elected by YTHT members, for the first time in China's history. In the history of the development of YTHT, the spirit of freedom and democracy was a priority, although its popularity resulted in huge political pressure and YTHT was banned a few times. On August 19, 2004, YTHT was required by the government to be in a status of emergency. Several boards on political topics were shut down. | 524127 |
wiki20220301en020_103656 | YTHT | On August 19, 2004, YTHT was required by the government to be in a status of emergency. Several boards on political topics were shut down. Finally, on September 13, 2004, the Beijing Communication Administration shut down YTHT. At the same time, all the Internet forums in China were required by law to remove all discussion about YTHT. The words "ytht", "一塌糊涂", and "糊涂" are now blocked from Chinese ISPs. One of the major Chinese search engines also blocks these words. It was reopened in April 2007. As of May 2007, the BBS is still in working order. However, since the Chinese education network is segregated from the overseas backbone, the mainland students have difficulties in connecting to the BBS, which actually hurts its popularity. See also SMTH BBS Internet in the People's Republic of China Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China External links YTHT BBS Homepage (; closed by PRC government) Bulletin board systems Internet in China | YTHT. On August 19, 2004, YTHT was required by the government to be in a status of emergency. Several boards on political topics were shut down. Finally, on September 13, 2004, the Beijing Communication Administration shut down YTHT. At the same time, all the Internet forums in China were required by law to remove all discussion about YTHT. The words "ytht", "一塌糊涂", and "糊涂" are now blocked from Chinese ISPs. One of the major Chinese search engines also blocks these words. It was reopened in April 2007. As of May 2007, the BBS is still in working order. However, since the Chinese education network is segregated from the overseas backbone, the mainland students have difficulties in connecting to the BBS, which actually hurts its popularity. See also SMTH BBS Internet in the People's Republic of China Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China External links YTHT BBS Homepage (; closed by PRC government) Bulletin board systems Internet in China | 524127 |
wiki20220301en020_103657 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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 (c. AD 150–215). This letter, in turn, is preserved only in photographs of a Greek handwritten copy seemingly transcribed in the eighteenth century into the endpapers of a seventeenth-century printed edition of the works of Ignatius of Antioch. | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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 (c. AD 150–215). This letter, in turn, is preserved only in photographs of a Greek handwritten copy seemingly transcribed in the eighteenth century into the endpapers of a seventeenth-century printed edition of the works of Ignatius of Antioch. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103658 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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 20 kilometers 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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 20 kilometers 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103659 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103660 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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, both may be inauthentic or both may be authentic, or maybe one is authentic and the other inauthentic. Those who think the letter is a forgery mostly think it is a modern forgery, with its discoverer, Morton Smith, being the most often denounced 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 second 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 | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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, both may be inauthentic or both may be authentic, or maybe one is authentic and the other inauthentic. Those who think the letter is a forgery mostly think it is a modern forgery, with its discoverer, Morton Smith, being the most often denounced 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 second 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 | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103661 | Secret Gospel of Mark | the gospel is a second 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. the gospel is a second 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103662 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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 Morton Smith and the discovery of the Mar Saba letter | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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 Morton Smith and the discovery of the Mar Saba letter | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103663 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103664 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103665 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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 | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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 | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103666 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103667 | Secret Gospel of Mark | Subsequent history of the manuscript | Secret Gospel of Mark. Subsequent history of the manuscript | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103668 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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 | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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 | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103669 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103670 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103671 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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 also he had examined the manuscript and did not reveal that he had these high-quality color photographs of the letter at home already in 1983. When Hedrick and Olympiou published these same photographs in 2000 due to Dourvas having kept copies for himself, they were not aware of this. The scholarly community was unaware of Quesnell's visit until 2007 when Adela Yarbro Collins briefly mentioned that he was | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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 also he had examined the manuscript and did not reveal that he had these high-quality color photographs of the letter at home already in 1983. When Hedrick and Olympiou published these same photographs in 2000 due to Dourvas having kept copies for himself, they were not aware of this. The scholarly community was unaware of Quesnell's visit until 2007 when Adela Yarbro Collins briefly mentioned that he was | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103672 | Secret Gospel of Mark | due to Dourvas having kept copies for himself, they were not aware of this. 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. But when he found something he thought was suspicious, Dourvas (who was confident that it was authentic eighteenth-century handwriting) would present other eighteenth-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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. due to Dourvas having kept copies for himself, they were not aware of this. 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. But when he found something he thought was suspicious, Dourvas (who was confident that it was authentic eighteenth-century handwriting) would present other eighteenth-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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103673 | Secret Gospel of Mark | As of 2019, 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 | Secret Gospel of Mark. As of 2019, 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 | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103674 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103675 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103676 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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 10:35ff 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 (): | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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 10:35ff 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 (): | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103677 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103678 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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 Morton Smith's analysis | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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 Morton Smith's analysis | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103679 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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. But 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 | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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. But 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 | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103680 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103681 | Secret Gospel of Mark | Authenticity and authorship | Secret Gospel of Mark. Authenticity and authorship | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103682 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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 | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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 | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103683 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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 us 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." | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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 us 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." | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103684 | Secret Gospel of Mark | However, approximately the same number of scholars (at least 25) 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 | Secret Gospel of Mark. However, approximately the same number of scholars (at least 25) 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 | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103685 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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 | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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 | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103686 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103687 | Secret Gospel of Mark | Although Quesnell did not accuse Morton 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. Although Quesnell did not accuse Morton 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103688 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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 | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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 | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103689 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103690 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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. And even though none of Clement's other letters have survived, there seems to have been a collection of at least twenty-one of his letters at Mar Saba in the eighth century when John of Damascus, who worked there for more than 30 years (c. 716–749), quoted from that collection. And in the early eighteenth century, a great fire at Mar Saba 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 | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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. And even though none of Clement's other letters have survived, there seems to have been a collection of at least twenty-one of his letters at Mar Saba in the eighth century when John of Damascus, who worked there for more than 30 years (c. 716–749), quoted from that collection. And in the early eighteenth century, a great fire at Mar Saba 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 | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103691 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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." | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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." | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103692 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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 eighteenth century. | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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 eighteenth century. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103693 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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 a million 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 | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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 a million 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 | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103694 | Secret Gospel of Mark | Secret Markan priority Morton Smith summarized the situation in a 1982 article. He meant 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. Secret Markan priority Morton Smith summarized the situation in a 1982 article. He meant 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103695 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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 (after Smith's death) to 2005 | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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 (after Smith's death) to 2005 | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103696 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 1991 (after 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. 1991 (after 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103697 | Secret Gospel of Mark | The language and style of the Clement letter Most scholars who have "studied the letter and written on the subject" 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. The language and style of the Clement letter Most scholars who have "studied the letter and written on the subject" 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103698 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103699 | Secret Gospel of Mark | The Mystery of Mar Saba | Secret Gospel of Mark. The Mystery of Mar Saba | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103700 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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 | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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 | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103701 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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 | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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 | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103702 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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". | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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". | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103703 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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. "He recovers 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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. "He recovers 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103704 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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 eighteen 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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 eighteen 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103705 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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. And the same year Bart Ehrman 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." | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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. And the same year Bart Ehrman 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." | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103706 | Secret Gospel 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 (neaniskos) "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 | Secret Gospel 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 (neaniskos) "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 | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103707 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103708 | Secret Gospel of Mark | Other authors, like an Origenist monk in the early fifth century, have also been proposed for the letter. Michael Zeddies has recently suggested that the letter was actually written by Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–c. 254). 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. Other authors, like an Origenist monk in the early fifth century, have also been proposed for the letter. Michael Zeddies has recently suggested that the letter was actually written by Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–c. 254). 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103709 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 2005 to the 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 | Secret Gospel of Mark. 2005 to the 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 | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103710 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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 | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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 | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103711 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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." | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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." | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103712 | Secret Gospel of Mark | The Gospel Hoax | Secret Gospel of Mark. The Gospel Hoax | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103713 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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: 1) 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 Morton Salt Company – a clue left by Morton Smith pointing to himself; and 2) that Smith would have identified the handwriting of the Clement letter as done by himself in the twentieth 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 [Μ. | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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: 1) 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 Morton Salt Company – a clue left by Morton Smith pointing to himself; and 2) that Smith would have identified the handwriting of the Clement letter as done by himself in the twentieth 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 [Μ. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103714 | Secret Gospel of Mark | in the twentieth 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 [Μ. Μαδιότης], whose name is a cipher pointing to Smith himself." The M would stand for Morton, and Madiotes would be derived from the Greek verb μαδώ (madō) meaning both "to lose hair" and figuratively "to swindle" – and the bald swindler would be 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 | Secret Gospel of Mark. in the twentieth 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 [Μ. Μαδιότης], whose name is a cipher pointing to Smith himself." The M would stand for Morton, and Madiotes would be derived from the Greek verb μαδώ (madō) meaning both "to lose hair" and figuratively "to swindle" – and the bald swindler would be 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 | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103715 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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." | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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." | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103716 | Secret Gospel of Mark | Yet 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 got access to the uncropped original 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 eighteenth-century hand unrelated to Clement's letter to Theodore; that Smith did not attribute that handwriting to a contemporary named M. Madiotes (M. Μαδιότης), and that he afterwards | Secret Gospel of Mark. Yet 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 got access to the uncropped original 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 eighteenth-century hand unrelated to Clement's letter to Theodore; that Smith did not attribute that handwriting to a contemporary named M. Madiotes (M. Μαδιότης), and that he afterwards | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103717 | Secret Gospel of Mark | and was an eighteenth-century hand unrelated to Clement's letter to Theodore; that Smith did not attribute that handwriting to a contemporary named M. Madiotes (M. Μαδιότης), and that he afterwards corrected the name Madiotes to Madeotas (Μαδεότας) which may, in fact, be Modestos (Μοδέστος), a common name at Mar Saba. | Secret Gospel of Mark. and was an eighteenth-century hand unrelated to Clement's letter to Theodore; that Smith did not attribute that handwriting to a contemporary named M. Madiotes (M. Μαδιότης), and that he afterwards corrected the name Madiotes to Madeotas (Μαδεότας) which may, in fact, be Modestos (Μοδέστος), a common name at Mar Saba. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103718 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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 are replaced with the original photographs, also the signs of tremors disappear. | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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 are replaced with the original photographs, also the signs of tremors disappear. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103719 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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." | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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." | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103720 | Secret Gospel of Mark | The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled | Secret Gospel of Mark. The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103721 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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 | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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 | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103722 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103723 | Secret Gospel of Mark | Smith's correspondence | Secret Gospel of Mark. Smith's correspondence | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103724 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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 | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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 | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103725 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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. | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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. | 524129 |
wiki20220301en020_103726 | Secret Gospel of Mark | 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". | Secret Gospel of Mark. 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". | 524129 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.