Having It Both Ways With Secret Mark

[StephenGoranson]

Alias, I see things somewhat differently. You dismiss those who disagree with you as “just people with a lot of time and a megaphone raising questions.” Well. And again with the reductionist, totalizing, two-side meshugas.

If experience is a guide, you may reject the following and draw on your well of contempt and disdain, but here goes again, maybe for some readers. (Credit where credit is due; I think you allowed the possibility somewhere that the Letter is either by Clement or someone capable of making a close imitation. Whew, took years?)

Is it within the better angels of your nature to consider the *possibility* of, say, Carlson being right about some things and not about others? (Despite knee-jerk habits here when some names are mentioned.) For example—possibly—right about hoax and right about the choice of Morton salt choice but wrong about Madiotes interpretation and smith in a footnote?

Maybe Smith read a novel; maybe not. So? No biggie, to me. I have visited two monasteries. If I happened upon a novel set in one of these, I might read it.

It may be enough to know his particular barbed sense of humor, and where it was aimed. Plus, I’m not sure he would even have approved your style of “defense” of poor defenseless Mort.

As I see it, Morton Smith had motive, means, and opportunity. No one else, so far known to me, including Clement of Alexandria, comes close. (Though, for the umpteenth time, I’ll read G.Smith/Landau’s proposal.) M. S. appreciated the fact that Scholem, Nock, and Lieberman, and, as I wrote, some “riffraff” (a word he used dismissively in one of his, unpublished but archived in JTS, texts about Clement) were not persuaded. As Theodor Gaster told Smith’s former PhD student Albert I. Baumgarten, Smith apparently wanted to be caught. Look what I did.

You say we know little about Clement, but then spin an elaborate tale about him, and Origen, and “Theodore.” Origen, of course, like Clement (now available in English Translation), and like Melito of Sardis, were considered by some heretical. Yet scholars, patristic scholars, have welcomed newly-recovered texts by them. A new text bears the onus of proof. Some pass. Some don’t deserve to.
I would welcome more genuine texts by Clement and especially Origen. Gotta go.

[Secret Alias]

You didn't answer the part about the difference between Jesus mythicists and Mar Saba mythicists. Isn't the same methodology being employed here by both conspiracy theories? "Conspiracy theory" being defined here as a theory about "someone" conspiring to manufacture false history.

[Ken Olson]

The paleography is of mixed types and dates, according to a most [notable?] expert Greek paleographer

.

That's not a proof. Tselikas has his opinion. Apparently you agree that it is unusual that spelling mistakes come up in the transcription of ancient documents. I don't share that view. Nor do I believe that Morton Smith gathered photos of the three manuscripts Tselikas claim 'make up' the handwriting found in the document. I don't know of anyone who shares Tselikas's assessment. I've even heard some Byzantine experts (one in Austria immediately comes to mind) who laughed out loud at the suggestion. I can bring forward a dozen Greek Byzantine experts who say the handwriting is 17th or 18th century. Tselikas offers a dissenting view. There is always diversity in scholarship.

[Ken Olson]

Once upon a time, a translation of the Letter to Theodore made by a non-expert paleographer (Morton Smith) took it for granted that the letter had Clement speak of the Carpocratians referencing them mentioning "naked man with naked man" in relation to Secret Mark. Now after citing Tselikas in another thread he has spoken of the need to have expert paleographers enter the discussion. The image he was commenting upon was developed with Tselikas via email for an upcoming article I have finished on Secret Mark. A few days ago Tselikas was for Ken "A (i.e. one of many) Greek paleographers." I have repeated mentioned that Tselikas is in a league of his own. Every Greek paleographer defers to his judgement on virtually everything. He's like God of the paleographers. Almost not joking about that.

[billd89]

Switcheroo?

His game is far, far, far 'Too Complicated' (read snark, there) for me to follow.

[Ken Olson]

Switcheroo?

His game is far, far, far 'Too Complicated' (read snark, there) for me to follow.

Switcheroo indeed. Tselikas is in a league of his own and every Greek paleographer defers to his judgement on virtually everything. He's like the God of paleographers.

Except in the cases where no one shares his assessment and one even laughs out loud at it. Tselikas has his opinion. He offers a dissenting opinion. Well, there is always diversity in scholarship.