It may be futile to reply to the secret alias charge of "involuntary psychosis" for currently thinking that Secret Mark is a modern fake, but I'll note that I am interested in canonical and non-canonical gospels (e.g. the Hebrew one mentioned by Epiphanius as being in Tiberias), and in NT text criticism (e.g., my article in NTS 43 (1997) 154-7), and apocrypha, and pseudepigrapha, and agrapha, and early papyri (I'd welcome more genuine discoveries--there are a lot of fakes about, e.g., "Gospel of Jesus' Wife," some recently-sold "Dead Sea Scroll" fragments, etc.), and anti-Christian texts (e.g., my article "Celsus of Pergamum"), inscriptions, etc.
I'm less interested, for example, in arguments trying to prove a negative (e.g., no Torah before c. 270 BCE; no Nazareth before whenever, etc.). Or in arguments based on fake texts.
If the discovery had been made today (i.e. when Christianity was already on its death bed as a culturally significant tradition) rather than in the period in which the 'controversy' arose things would have developed quite differently. The manuscript would have sat on the shelf after its discovery a team of scholars would have examined the document and come to reasonable conclusions about the text. How does one explain why the text was allowed to rest on the shelves of libraries associated with the Jerusalem Patriarchate for almost a generation after its discovery with no effort to study the text? Most of the hysteria surrounding the document was - as noted - because it took place during the death throws of Christianity. That Quesnell the first important critic of the discovery had access to the text for an extended period of time and not only couldn't find a way of twisting this experience into new arguments for forgery effectively closes the book on all the published nonsense about the discovery. Indeed his failure to publish what he knew speaks volumes about his objectivity and his allies. It's all about preserving the status quo.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
The whole thing becomes so tiresome. We just need the old generation to die off and start afresh. When my son plays a soccer game on the weekend the experience of watching the game live and viewing it on video are surprisingly different. When you are at the game wrapped up in emotion the play seems so vibrant, the goals and mistakes magnified. But when you look at the recorded match it is surprising how uninteresting the same hour of anxiety becomes. The same thing will be true once the old men of the last generation die off. It will allow for sobriety to enter the discussion. Here's to the final score
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
To temporarily return to the topic of this thread, I for one think that Neusner's contribution to the field of Jewish studies has been huge and those taking the time to piss on him here will certainly feel the blow back. I've used a lot of Neusner's books, translations, analyses and works edited by him. His approach to rabbinical texts is always scholarly and always worthy of consideration. He has helped make those texts far more accessible to us all.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
StephenGoranson wrote:It may be futile to reply to the secret alias charge of "involuntary psychosis" for currently thinking that Secret Mark is a modern fake....
Probably futile in his case, yes, as he seems to fancy himself a psychologist for the plaintiff in court somewhere. But you are correct: I, for one, could not possibly care any less about the contents of Secret Mark being controversial, homosexually inclined, or damaging to faith. In fact, I rather wish the document were genuine (genuinely ancient, genuinely Clementine, and genuinely Marcan: all three layers); it would be another tool in the search for the relationships between the various gospels (that of John to Mark, for example, among others). But none of this openness or hopefulness helps allay my suspicions about the genuineness of Secret Mark.
I for one think that Neusner's contribution to the field of Jewish studies has been huge and those taking the time to piss on him here will certainly feel the blow back.
Probably true but to be fair (a) the texts would have been translated by someone else and (b) the back fighting in these fields is quite standard. To give an example my teacher I R M Boid savaged one of Smith's students Stanley Isser for his work on the Dositheans but did commend him for getting a reputable Arabic scholar to translate the appropriate sections of Abu'l Fath. He also raked through the coals the more recent translation of the second part of Abu'l Fath's chronicle so I just assumed these things were standard in the industry. There do seem to be a lot of unhinged students of Smith. In Neusner's case I think you are right we should separate the man from his work. He made texts available long before they would have become available without him. For that he should be commended and remembered.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
But Secret Mark is so out there in terms of positing two versions of Mark. I have come to know you fairly well at this site (or at least come to know your mind). I don't think you can honestly say that being left with no fucking clue about the gospels developed from a position of some fucking clue about how the gospels developed would be a minor development in your world. Really? You think that's no big deal for you? Sorry not buying it.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
But Secret Mark is so out there in terms of positing two versions of Mark. I have come to know you fairly well at this site (or at least come to know your mind). I don't think you can honestly say that being left with no fucking clue about the gospels developed from a position of some fucking clue about how the gospels developed would be a minor development in your world. Really? You think that's no big deal for you? Sorry not buying it.
I am not sure what you are saying here, nor how it proceeded from what I said. Can you rephrase?
I am not sure that I know what I am saying here but something like - would it really make you happy if it turned out that everything we thought we knew about early Christianity was wrong or wasn't so certain? I am saying I think that if you were to be honest you like the fact that you/we know something about the development of Christianity. That's not a bad thing. I like the fact that my son likes soccer (mostly because it means that I don't have to find an interest for him). I think that if I am to be honest I like the fact that we (as a collective culture here) don't really know as much as we think we know. But I wouldn't describe you as a gadfly on the collective authority of Biblical knowledge (nor am I saying that being a gadfly is better than not being a gadfly). We all have our roles in the ecology of Biblical scholarship I guess.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
