I am quite busy today with my 'real job' but I can't wait to write my next post which has a perfect parallel to my argument regarding Secret Mark. I have stressed that IF the Letter is proved to be authentic (or conversely if it is agreed that there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of Morton Smith's claims to have found an ancient letter) we can't continue to perpetuate the old notion of what 'the gospel of Mark' is. Something necessarily 'changes' when you have 500 lines or so of additional text 'missing' from existing canonical gospels from - what must have been - its lost (and ultimately 'secret') Alexandrian original.I found a perfect parallel to help demonstrate what I mean.
There existed an Alexandrian version of the Book of Esther which completely transforms our inherited notions about 'what the Book of Esther' is. Not surprisingly scholars continue to assume that the surviving Hebrew text of the Book of Esther HAS TO BE the original because it is the familiar version of the text.
However I am not so sure.
I am going to make the case that the Greek additions to Esther transform the Book of Esther in the same way that 'all those additions' to Mark necessarily SHOULD change our perceptions of what Mark is.
Indeed to help bolster my case I am going to cite from my good friend Rory Boid's work on Joshua-Judges - a published article in a major journal no less - which argues that the Samaritan version of Joshua EVEN THOUGH IT SURVIVES ONLY IN ARABIC is actually closer to the original of the Book of Joshua than the familiar Jewish text.
The point is that sometimes - I'd say 'almost ALL the time' - scholars mistake what is useful, what is convenient and what is habitual with what is true. This is especially true with regards to Secret Mark and I submit that the error is made by BOTH SIDES of the debate.
More to come ...
