Having It Both Ways With Secret Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Having It Both Ways With Secret Mark

Post by StephenGoranson »

I am not particularly interested in M. Smith’s relationship with Miriam or X, Y, and Z persons. I, for one (not speaking for Andrew nor for anyone else, note to anyone who tends to presume baselessly), do not consider whatever happened in that case to be key in the matter at hand.
S. A. assumes he deals only with “reality” and “facts.” Wow. What must that be like?
Motives for forgery vary, and may not (gasp) be limited to what S.A. dictates. Sometimes money, though apparently not so here. To demonstrate expertise; maybe. To fool some other scholars; maybe. To tweek some believers; maybe. To demonstrate something about pseudepigrapha; maybe.
The Voss book ms was not exactly endorsed by Mar Saba librarians, afaik; and almost certainly not by Jerusalem Orthodox Patriarchy librarians. It is suspect by claiming to be a text by Clement that contradicts known Clement writing, though oddly in a pastiche of Clement-ish language. By having no support in earlier records. By post-dating Eusebius. And in other aspects also, but if one wishes to be a stonewall, why add here?
Quoting Theodor Gaster, who may be mistaken, of course, though he knew his colleague fairly well:
"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."
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Having It Both Ways With Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

But what's the problem with the document? The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate accepted its authenticity. That's in Quesnell's notes and in my discussion with others. The document was available for examination for almost thirty years and was examined by those who claimed it was a forgery with no evidence of forgery emerging from the week long examination. Just come out and say it - what's the problem with the letter that should lead everyone to accept it as a modern forgery. Not a shopping list of 'concerns.' Something substantial please.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Having It Both Ways With Secret Mark

Post by lsayre »

It could be a 17th or 18th century forgery. If every book in the NT is forged or redacted in one way or another, what would preclude this potential in the 17th or 18th centuries?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Having It Both Ways With Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

So there doesn't need to be a problem. There only needs to be a "possibility of a problem" - however unlikely - and it becomes the work for people in the field to constantly attend to assuaging the objections of these 'possible objection' raised by objectors. I guess that's the direction that scholarship is heading because that seems to drive Jesus mythicism. 'You can't prove Jesus existed THEREFORE he never existed. So fine. Let's deny the existence of any and everything we find 'objectionable' based on the flimsiest of rationales (i.e. a pulp fiction novel, blurry photocopies, randomly assembled book lists etc). We're now demanding "pristineness" from new discoveries, historical individuals, beliefs, traditions everything across the board. But how is that possible when an active party in the discussion - the Greek Orthodox Church - has ownership of the material? They won't let the manuscript be tested. Let's not forget a prominent critic of the discovery acknowledges that the authorities in Jerusalem wouldn't let him do that. That's an indisputable fact. An unavoidable inference is that they have prevented the manuscript from being tested to this day because they think there is a high probability it is authentic. It could be 17th or 18th century forgery. I think that's unlikely for a number of reasons.

The real issue is that these guys - the precursors of the Jesus mythicist crowd - as a collective raised vague objections and then as a group pronounced the document to be a forgery. Then they said to those who resisted 'now the ball is in your court to prove otherwise.' But the effort that led up to Carlson's book was disingenuous. There was no proof or even evidence of forgery. Just a series of misrepresentations and exaggerations deliberate or otherwise to get the achieved result. As noted the Jesus mythicists do the same thing with regards to Jesus's non-existence. There is no record of his birth (in fact there were falsified records of Jesus's birth which gets picked up in Tertullian's use of original material related to Irenaeus) = there is no mention of the Voss book in the library. The genealogies of Jesus were invented after Jesus's death no less than the lists of books were never meant to be taken to a 'snapshot' of all the books in the library. Every honest member of either discussion knows these facts to be true. Neither should have any impact on the question of whether or not this manuscript was there in the library where Smith found it or alternatively on the question of Jesus's historical existence. In each case, it is theoretically possible the document is a forgery. It is theoretically possible that Jesus didn't exist. If you simply want to take a short-cut and 'believe' that either are 'true' so be it. There are reasonable avenues of investigation in either scenario. But to say that 'there is evidence' of either is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. But what does the truth matter when 'influence' is the name of the game. This is where we've come - lying and dishonesty is a means to an end and that's all that matters.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Having It Both Ways With Secret Mark

Post by lsayre »

Bart Ehrman personally believes that it is fake, but he claims that most scholars in his field of study believe it to be authentic. If a majority believe it is authentic, then the perception that a majority have proclaimed it to be a forgery is incorrect.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Having It Both Ways With Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

That may be true today. It is after all a new generation. But in 2008 the squeaky wheels were squeaking A LOT and let's not forget. This is not a scientific investigation. It is not like they're saying 'let's just continue to investigate Morton Smith off to the side here' while the Letter to Theodore is accepted as a historical document from antiquity. It is rather 'let's destroy the reputation of the document by means of innuendo against Morton Smith' and HOPE it isn't used by anyone. It's a scholarly adaptation of the political smear campaign. Whether or not all the members are conservative it is a product of the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush culture wars especially against homosexuality as a 'push button' election issue (i.e. same sex marriage). Quesnell was arch-conservative (except of course when it came to Catholic doctrine that affected his life - i.e. celibate priesthood). Smith himself was right of Hitler as was his acolyte Neusner who sat on the Reagan era National Council of the Arts https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documen ... l-the-arts which enters the story because he refused to give a grant to Theodore Gaster which caused the fight with Smith (Theodore's wife and Smith were apparently a pair). Carlson's book was published by Baylor University Press whose most famous dean was Ken Starr from the Clinton scandal. Hurtado was another arch-conservative (I used to have emails from him). Robert Price is a Trump conspiracy junkie. The list goes on and on. The controversy has little to do with the document and everything to do with the loss of religious influence over American political life.
The Gaster family would play a very important role in Smith’s life. He was a regular fixture at the home. They only had one daughter - not a son as Baumgartner writes here - who affectionately references Smith as ‘Uncle Mortie’ and describes him as something of a surrogate father figure. Theodor and his wife Lotte had by all accounts a terribly dysfunctional relationship which took its toll on their daughter. Theodor eventually moved in with one of his male students near Philadelphia, the daughter insisting that Smith and her mother had a long term affair. It is unclear whether Theodor ever suspected any relationship was going on between them or even if he would have cared. The family suffered through seemingly endless financial hardship and Lotte credited Smith with saving the career of her husband throughout their marriage.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Having It Both Ways With Secret Mark

Post by StephenGoranson »

Secret A., you appear to be as fixated on what you apparently described as Clement’s “Letter to Theodore… a historical document from antiquity” as much as Giuseppe is fixated on mythicism.

Nevermind, as several have documented, that Clement, notwithstanding M. Smith, did not write the letter. That it is not ancient. That plenty of other recent discoveries, such as many additional sermons by Augustine and some new fragments from Origen’s Commentary on Matthew, have been examined and accepted as genuine copies of genuine, ancient, correctly-author-attributed texts.

Instead, you insist that anyone who expresses doubt that the Letter is from ancient history ineluctably must be doing so from evil intent, intent that you link with others you find evil and causing life on earth to go to hell in a handbasket. If that is how you wish to spend limited time….

(Theodor not Theodore. Does the unattributed quotation citing another unspecified text [“here”-where?] intend Baumgarten not Baumgartner?)
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Having It Both Ways With Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

I am only 'fixated' upon it because I can't understand how a small cabal of detractors managed to derail what seems to at least a naive observer like myself, a legitimate scientific discovery. BTW I am still wondering - any progress on detailing for us what's wrong with the document? I note your inability to actually produce something beyond (however veiled) innuendo about Morton Smith it's discoverer. I've gone through Quesnell's notes with a fine tooth comb. It was the same thing there. It was the same thing in Gospel Hoax. Just wanting to give everyone a chance to demonstrate that this isn't scholarship by character assassination. So far I only come up with Criddle's too Clementine for Clement and the silly notion that the list of books that has come down to us was written up as a conclusive list of books in the monastery. We all know that it wasn't.

The 'reality' and 'facts' of the case for me at least is that there isn't much to the case for forgery other than perhaps a personality conflict with Smith in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Then the political stuff took over. It's worth noting that these 'personality conflicts' are almost inevitable with great individuals. I was telling my son about Bela Guttmann and the Jewish origins of Brazilian football (which most people are unaware of) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9la_Guttmann. It's not just that 'everyone was resentful of his talent.' Guttmann was also an abrasive personality. As scholars we are supposed to be above petty resentment but then again, we are also human.


The best explanation IMHO for this controversy (until someone tests the document) is that Smith engendered a lot of hatred not necessarily related to the discovery of this document. That's what I consider to be the best explanation until you provide me with some actual evidence for what's wrong with document itself (which seems to be taking forever at this point). Over to you ...
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Having It Both Ways With Secret Mark

Post by StephenGoranson »

I do not hate Morton Smith. I was assigned one of his (non-Clement) books to read in grad school; it was a good book, as are several other of his publications. Some of his Ph.D. students have done excellent work. I heard him speak. I spoke with him. A little bit, we corresponded. He commented on two of my draft papers, helpfully. Of course, patristic texts are occasionally rediscovered; another example: Melito of Sardis, Peri Pascha.
His joke, though, is not by Clement, as has been shown by Andrew and by multiple others. Typing out bibliography, again, will not matter to anyone committed to be oblivious.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Having It Both Ways With Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

I never said that YOU were responsible for this situation. But again no explanation for what's wrong with the manuscript. Just Smith and the 'I Started a Joke' angle. I am not sure that even you think this is evidence for forgery. More of a storyline for a rejected episode of Columbo or something.
Post Reply