Unraveling the Mystery of the Handwriting in the Secret Gospel of Mark

The debate over the authenticity of the Letter to Theodore and the Secret Gospel of Mark is often clouded by conspiratorial thinking. In Chapter Seven of Brett Landau and Geoffrey Smith's book, the focus shifts to a meticulous analysis of the manuscript's handwriting to determine its legitimacy. To approach this question rigorously, the authors invoke the expertise of François Bovon, a distinguished scholar who emphasized the importance of direct manuscript study. However, the manuscript's disappearance complicates this ideal approach.

The Manuscript’s Journey

Morton Smith first encountered the Letter to Theodore in 1958 at Mar Saba, a Greek Orthodox monastery. He photographed the manuscript and returned it to its original location. It remained there until 1976 when a group of scholars, including Guy Stroumsa and David Flusser, relocated it to the Patriarchal Library in Jerusalem due to concerns about its preservation.

Kallistos Dourvas, the librarian at the Patriarchal Library, decided to separate the Letter to Theodore from the Voss volume, cataloging them as separate items. This decision, while meant to better organize the library, eventually led to complications in tracking the manuscript. By 1983, Quentin Quesnell was the last known scholar to have seen the manuscript. His detailed observations and subsequent color photographs became crucial as the manuscript vanished thereafter.

The Importance of High-Quality Images

Given the manuscript’s disappearance, scholars must rely on available photographs for analysis. Quesnell’s images, being of higher quality and in color, provide a more reliable basis for study than Smith's original black-and-white photographs. These images allow for close paleographic analysis, which is essential in determining the manuscript's age and authenticity.

Expert Opinions on the Handwriting

To gain a comprehensive understanding, Landau and Smith consulted several leading experts in Greek paleography:

1. Panagiotis Agapitos dated the handwriting to the mid-18th century, noting its complex and fluid style indicative of a private hand from that period. He highlighted the consistent use of post-Byzantine calligraphic forms and traditional abbreviations, deeming it highly unlikely to be a 20th-century forgery.

2. Erich Lamberz concurred, asserting the handwriting’s authenticity as 18th-century and ruling out the possibility of a modern forgery.

3. Zisis Melissakis placed the manuscript in the late 18th century but acknowledged some unusual letterforms and inconsistencies. He suggested that if it were a forgery, it would likely date to the early 19th century, not the 20th.

4. Agamemnon Tselikas, who published his analysis in 2009, pointed out grammatical and stylistic anomalies in the text and suspected modern Greek influences. Despite finding parallels with 18th-century manuscripts from Cephalonia, he proposed the possibility of Smith collaborating with a Greek-speaking scribe to forge the manuscript.

The mixed opinions from these experts reflect the complexities of paleographic analysis, an art that often relies on subjective judgment.

Key Observations and Conclusions

Several experts noted the presence of both older and newer letterforms, typical of a private 18th-century hand. Some identified peculiarities and inconsistencies but did not find these definitive proof of forgery. The accusation that a modern Greek term (apographon) was used instead of an ancient one (antigraphon) was investigated and found to be a weak point, as the term apographon can also be traced back to antiquity in certain contexts.

The Verdict

While the paleographic evidence does not conclusively prove the manuscript's authenticity, it strongly suggests that if it were a forgery, it would have to be an exceptionally sophisticated one, likely involving a highly skilled scribe familiar with 18th-century Greek handwriting. Given the lack of concrete evidence pointing to a 20th-century origin and the substantial support for an 18th-century date, the burden of proof lies with those claiming the manuscript is a modern forgery.

Landau and Smith’s analysis underscores the importance of relying on high-quality images and expert opinions while remaining cautious of speculative theories. As the debate continues, the paleographic evidence tilts the scale towards the manuscript's authenticity, though questions and controversies undoubtedly persist.