A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

[Roger Viklund]

I wonder whether Criddle developed the theory from the statistical anomaly but then never proceeded to test the theory to see if it produced the results with other authors. It was could enough to find an argument against one particular text. If it really was a discovery to help identify the authenticity of other texts, you'd expect him to have went on to apply the methodology to other disputed works - i.e. Origen. As such this was a 'one off' with the sole purpose of discrediting THIS text (a passion shared by his blogmate) rather than developing a widely applicable methodology.

As I said, I think Criddle’s study is interesting. However, there are several problems with the study (not the calculation, which is fairly straightforward). One problem is the fact that this is a letter and all the rest of Clement’s work that has survived is from books. Can one compare the writing of a letter with that of a book? Another is the selection of words in the study, what is a word? Greek is a language that is very inflected and Criddle's choice of words is not the same as Smith’s. Every word Clement has used just once before and that is in the letter, would according to Criddle speak for in-authenticity. Yet, how strange would it be that the word hierophantic, which happens to be such a word, is found in the letter which deals with the hierophantic teaching? Yet another problem is the actual length of the letter, the shorter the more variations. When Walter M. Shandruk made a simple study of other short texts, he also got similar variations, and the shorter the text was the greater the dispersion in ratios. "Statistics and Hapax Legomena in the Mar Saba Letter": https://web.archive.org/web/20100218022 ... log/?p=496

[andrewcriddle]

For those of us for whom statistics are not the strongest suit, if I may ask, what is your current assessment of your own statistical argument? Has it been thoroughly debunked? Only partially debunked? Debunked in any degree at all?

I think the statistical anomaly is clearly there. How statistically significant it is (how far could it be pure chance) is less clear. The exact numbers to be used are arguable (see discussion in my original paper) although my numbers produce a lower discrepancy from the expected than would arise if using Morton Smith's figures.

IMO there is genuinely something odd here. The question is, what is actually going on to produce the statistical anomaly ? I think, (but cannot prove), that the anomaly arises because the letter has less than expected distinctively non-Clementine words (words not used by Clement but found in other Alexandrian patristic writers) and more than expected distinctively Clementine words (words used at least once by Clement but not found in other Alexandrian patristic writers). IF this is right, the obvious explanation would be deliberate imitation of Clement by another writer.

Thanks, Andrew. So what do you think is going on with your method being able to identify only 3 out of 7 plays as Shakespearean?

FWIW it is poems not plays.

I haven't studied this in detail and can't really comment.

Andrew Criddle

[andrewcriddle]

I wonder whether Criddle developed the theory from the statistical anomaly but then never proceeded to test the theory to see if it produced the results with other authors. It was could enough to find an argument against one particular text. If it really was a discovery to help identify the authenticity of other texts, you'd expect him to have went on to apply the methodology to other disputed works - i.e. Origen. As such this was a 'one off' with the sole purpose of discrediting THIS text (a passion shared by his blogmate) rather than developing a widely applicable methodology.

I did carry out an (unpublished) study of Clement's ? to the newly baptized IMS the results gave roughly what one would expect for a genuine work as distinct from a deliberate imitation. Roughly twice as many new words as words used previously only once. Since this may not be by Clement but is not a deliberate imitation of Clement I don't think this establishes very much.

I was involved via e-mail with someone trying to apply the method to Philo and the Acts of the Apostles. Philo's works came across as generally genuine though with wide variations. The chapters in Acts were generally compliant except for chapter 11 where there were too many words otherwise used only once. This is because of the near repetition of a passage from chapter 10 in chapter 11. (This was put on a web site around 10 years ago but it doesn't seem online now.)

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add

Online at https://web.archive.org/web/20100218022 ... log/?p=496 Thanks Roger
(I have slightly revised the main text after reading this. My memory was not as good as I thought)

[Ben C. Smith]

FWIW it is poems not plays.

Ah, yes. I misread/misremembered. Thanks.

[Secret Alias]

But there seems to be a fixation with this text in particular among a hardcore group in scholarship. I don't know if that sort of intensity, that sort of scrutiny can produce results which bear any comparison in scholarship. If after thirty years of assault the best we can come up with is (a) parallels with a 1940s novel (b) Oscar Wilde (c) Aleister Crowley and (d) too Clementine for Clement I think it's time to wave the white flag. They can't all be true and none is stronger evidence than the others. It's only enough to cause doubt among those who wanted to have doubt in the first place.

[StephenGoranson]

The suggested list of "the best we can come up with" item is not complete, imo, and (a), for example, I would not consider one of the main issues (maybe he read it; maybe not). If I were making a list, I might include some of the Smith-Scholem letters. For instance in 1976 Smith wrote Scholem, in part: "...I think I've learned more about Jesus from you and Shabbatai Zvi (I'm sometimes not sure which is which) than I have from any other source except the gospels and the magical papyri." Importing antinomianism from Zvi to Jesus was something that Smith apparently did not persuade Scholem about. Scholem is the first person Smith reported showing the text.
I might include the 1958 copy Smith made of the text--in very neat handwriting (unlike his marginal notes)--now in his JTS archive upon which he also wrote "manufactured in the United States." Perhaps compare his HTR title ten years after publication "the Score So Far," as if sport. (Or the Voss book selection joke as Bart Ehrman suggested.)
Maybe the characterization colleague Theodor Gaster gave (to A. I. Baumgarten) of Smith: "_Morton Smith is like a little boy whose goal in life is to write curse words all over the altar in church, and then get caught._"
Or unlikely aspects of the letter, as pointed out by, e.g., C. Murgia. (Murgia also reportedly said Smith's Greek wasn't good enough to do it; maybe so, that is, in the time one spends on a letter usually, but, given time to compose, others who knew him well have considered him able enough.)
Or A. T. mentioning hands Smith examined (and could have been coached on, without necessarily involving anyone to cooperate in this specific text.)
Among others. (This is an illustrative and incomplete selection, unranked.)

[Secret Alias]

And all this stuff you've mentioned is "good enough"? Come on, this just "he's weird, he's a forger." I happen to think it's ok to be into Jewish mysticism. Not weird at all. American evangelicals and their support for Trump - that's derangement for me. Would this "derangement" serve as grounds for forgery IMHO? No certainly not. You can hate Jewish mysticism and homosexuals all you want. What about evidence of forgery? Can we get back to that?

Can you at least decide if homosexuality or Jewish mysticism is the motive? You can't expect normal people - that is people who aren't as hostile to Morton Smith as you - to simply accept ANY argument as long as it discredits the text. I know you guys do but you all have Morton Smith derangement syndrome

[StephenGoranson]

I would not say I was hostile to Morton Smith. At a conference I went up to him, and we had a good talk about Dead Sea Scrolls publication. I sent Smith by snail mail two times draft articles which he kindly criticized and mailed back to me. I thought that was generous of him. And I consider Gershom Scholem a great scholar. He, also, answered a letter from me, kindly.

[Secret Alias]

Still haven't answered the question. You've provided no evidence from the text that it's a forgery. It's all ad hominem against Smith. You jump right to motive. Motive without a crime. What is it - he did it because he's gay or because he was addicted to mysticism? Strangest case ever. It is all about Smith. It's not even about the text any more.

[Secret Alias]

The suggested list of "the best we can come up with" item is not complete, imo, and

(a), for example, I would not consider one of the main issues (maybe he read it; maybe not). If I were making a list, I might include some of the Smith-Scholem letters. For instance in 1976 Smith wrote Scholem, in part: "...I think I've learned more about Jesus from you and Shabbatai Zvi (I'm sometimes not sure which is which) than I have from any other source except the gospels and the magical papyri." Importing antinomianism from Zvi to Jesus was something that Smith apparently did not persuade Scholem about. Scholem is the first person Smith reported showing the text. ad hominem

I might include the 1958 copy Smith made of the text--in very neat handwriting (unlike his marginal notes)--now in his JTS archive upon which he also wrote "manufactured in the United States." Perhaps compare his HTR title ten years after publication "the Score So Far," as if sport. (Or the Voss book selection joke as Bart Ehrman suggested.) ad hominem

Maybe the characterization colleague Theodor Gaster gave (to A. I. Baumgarten) of Smith: "_Morton Smith is like a little boy whose goal in life is to write curse words all over the altar in church, and then get caught._" ad hominem

Or unlikely aspects of the letter, as pointed out by, e.g., C. Murgia. (Murgia also reportedly said Smith's Greek wasn't good enough to do it; maybe so, that is, in the time one spends on a letter usually, but, given time to compose, others who knew him well have considered him able enough.)
Or A. T. mentioning hands Smith examined (and could have been coached on, without necessarily involving anyone to cooperate in this specific text.)

Nothing whatsoever to do with forgery. All attacks against Smith. I'm sure you were a big fan. Probably have a poster of him on your wall.

Remember you guys used to have that 'forger's tremor' argument developed as it was from the shittiest possible images of the manuscript. Now you're back to square one without any evidence of forgery. Oh yeah all that Dan Brown 'mystery' about Morton Salt. You still have that. Home run.

So you almost have to explain why you continue to engage in these terrible personal attacks against Smith. He wrote 'manufactured in the US' oh my God, you've proved forgery right there. You're obviously a smart man. What's a smart man doing making stupid arguments like this? There's no better way to spend your last decade or so wasting time on this shit?