A Second Look at Scott Brown's Article for BAR

I have no great love for Scott Brown, the author of Mark's Other Gospel, as many of my readers might already know. I don't think that he presents a plausible understanding for the production of the Letter to Theodore and the so-called 'secret gospel' of Mark of the Alexandrian Church. Nevertheless I have to admit that after reading his recent article published 'My Thoughts on the Reports by Venetia Anastasopoulou' those of us who accept the likely authenticity of the Mar Saba document owe him a great debt of gratitude.

While a number of bloggers including myself have offered their take on Venetia Anastasopoulou's handwriting analysis, Brown's recent article demonstrates what distinguishes real scholarship from what is developed in the blogosphere. I just read the article a second time just now and have to admit that I am left utterly breathless.

I had the misfortune of reading Peter Head's comments at Evangelical Textual Criticism immediately after the original publication of Venetia Anastasopoulou's report for BAR. Handwriting analysis is not a 'real science' according to Head. Anyone can get a certificate just by mailing in a check and filling out a home study package he claimed. Now after reading Brown's analysis of Anastasopoulou's study and his careful explanation of the basic principles of forensic document analysis, I walk away agreeing whole-heartedly with his conclusion - "we now have an
assessment of the handwriting in Mar Saba 65 by someone whose business it is to differentiate between natural and forged Greek handwriting ... [and now] we can rule out Smith, not only as the scribe of this letter, but also as its author."

It is of course a terribly unfortunate turn of events that the Mar Saba document should require an 'advocate' to argue in favor of its authenticity. While in some ways, this can be argued to be the by product of a bizarre set of circumstances - viz. the Greek Orthodox Church removing and then ultimately misplacing the original MS - it is also necessarily also the result of the current cynical academic climate.

It would be great if we could all hold hands, 'open our hearts' and attempt to come to terms with Morton Smith's remarkable find. But given that we live in an age where scholarship as a collective body has allowed itself to ignore a remarkably important discovery based for the most part on inuendo, half-truths and thinly disguised conspiracy theories, Scott Brown is a necessary - and ultimately an invaluable - ally.

This really is an amazing piece of scholarship. If you haven't read his report for BAR, stop reading my blog and click on this link to the original PDF (unless of course you're unfortunate enough to be reading this on an iPad).

Indeed if you need one more reason to take this seriously there is the bloated opinion of the world's greatest blogger Jim West in a post yesterday - "as far as I’m concerned Stephen Carlson settled the matter years back. Protestations to the contrary notwithstanding." My God! He hasn't even read the article and he already knows the answer. We see this everyday with American religious people. They talk about 'faith' but it is really vanity which won't let them reconsider their enshrined presuppositons.

Yet isn't this the bottom line with the Letter to Theodore? A group of 'experts' who have written so much garbage about the origins of the gospels and Christianity as a whole that they don't want some new discovery to upset the apple cart. Don't fall victim to this kind of ignorance. There's nothing wrong from getting your information from a blog but I implore you - read Scott Brown's new article and see for yourself what real scholarship looks like.