Was Morton Smith a forger?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Was Morton Smith a forger?

Post by andrewcriddle »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:10 am
That the "Letter" was not written by Clement, imo, is by now rather well established.
The Trump "I hear" argument. No it is not 'established.' How can something "too Clementine to be Clement" at once be "obviously" not by Clement. There's just this insane will for certainty. There's no certainty here. The fact that I published a paper or so and so published a paper does little to move the move the needle either way. We investigate to uncover suggestive evidence. But everyone is free (and does) interpret that suggestive evidence in light of previous biases.

My position is. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. I recognize that there are circumstances where this 'simple' understanding does not hold true. I don't see any evidence that this is not what it appears to be but am open to any reasonable arguments.

But that experts on Clement of Alexandria have recognized it to be Clementine is enough to make it 'likely' or 'possible' or 'suggestive' that it was by Clement.

One argument that I made against Clementine authorship years ago has (rightly or wrongly) been little noticed.
http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2009/11/ ... texts.html
I argued that the letter attributed to Clement involves Neoplatonic ideas about mystical texts (as distinct from mystical readings of texts) that postdate Clement.

Andrew Criddle
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Morton Smith a forger?

Post by Secret Alias »

And you're a brilliant man who deserves more recognition for being a brilliant man. You make the world a better place Andrew.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Was Morton Smith a forger?

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:11 am One argument that I made against Clementine authorship years ago has (rightly or wrongly) been little noticed.
http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2009/11/ ... texts.html
I argued that the letter attributed to Clement involves Neoplatonic ideas about mystical texts (as distinct from mystical readings of texts) that postdate Clement.

Andrew Criddle
from Andrew's blog:
Andrew Criddle Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 10:21 pm

Hi Zimri
(The parallels I pointed out are with Proclus not Plotinus.) Morton Smith does appear to have been familiar with Kroll's Greek text of Proclus' commentary on the Republic. In the discussion of persons supposed to have be dead but later found to be alive on page 156 of Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark Kroll vol 2 page 113 is cited.
There is something very interesting about Morton Smith.

You are thinking about the letter and says:
If it's a forgery, then this and that knowledge was necessary for it.

And then someone else (or you yourself) asks:
Did Morton Smith really have this knowledge or isn't it all too far-fetched?

And then you do some research and you find out:
Yes, Morton had this knowledge. (Or at least:) His work shows that he was very close to this knowledge, so it is very likely that he had this knowledge.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:59 pm I was once a bit impressed that Secret Mark used the word "ὀργισθεὶς" (angry) concerning Jesus, known only from the version of Mark 1:41 in Codex Bezae, and I found it interesting that the Mar Saba letter has a further western reading („And after the words, ‚And he comes [ἔρχεται] into Jericho‘, the secret Gospel adds only ...“). The preferred variant in Mark 10:46 is „they come (ἔρχονται)“. Things get particularly interesting when one knows that the GMark text used by Clement is close to Western text type.

How could a forger know that? :confusedsmiley: But I found out – just for example – that Morton Smith knew a lot about that kind of stuff.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Morton Smith a forger?

Post by Secret Alias »

Andrew makes this argument a lot or accepts those who make it. With the account of the persecution of the Samaritans under Commodus it was the same argument from Andrew. posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=57055 It can't be that everyone is forging texts based on a 'modern' or late Platonism. It is quicker that scholarship over-estimates our understanding of Platonism and neo-Platonism in the period. And even if I am wrong surely the Samaritan text cited by Abu'l Fath wasn't written by Morton Smith. Given the examples of this happening throughout early Christianity (Dionysius Aeropagus) it would be more likely to be a sign of an ancient forgery than a modern one. The amount of nonsense that is connected with Morton Smith is incredible. Someone should make a list. Morton Smith having the first name that is shared by an American salt company is of course the worst of such arguments. At some point we just have to either accept (a) we don't know as much as we'd like to think we know about these various subjects (the scope and depth of Platonism for instance) or (b) we know enough about these subjects but the fact that Morton Smith might have picked up a book on a subject doesn't mean he did it. It's just silly.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Morton Smith a forger?

Post by Secret Alias »

In the discussion of persons supposed to have be dead but later found to be alive on page 156 of Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark Kroll vol 2 page 113 is cited.
So by this logic Andrew must respect the authority and exegesis of every whack job at this forum who regularly cite material from antiquity. Citing material from antiquity doesn't make you an authority on that material or to possess the ability to develop new material which incorporates those ideas in an original way.

He had library card and there are lots of books in the library. Therefore in theory he had the ability to borrow ideas from every book ever written. Therefore Morton Smith could have forged anything if he had happened to find it at Mar Saba.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Was Morton Smith a forger?

Post by John T »

I agree, cut & paste does not mean you understand what you cut & pasted. I won't mention any names but we just had a very good example of that on another thread when someone posted a video link about C-14 dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls but didn't even bother to watch it. Most embarrassing. :facepalm:

So, let's talk little more about what the experts claim is proof that Morton Smith was in fact the forger. Again, I don't think Morton was the forger but rather a victim (justly so) of a practical joke by the monks at the Mar Saba monastery. Apparently, besides having a penchant for magic and homoeroticism, Smith enjoyed playing pranks on people he thought was inferior to him. Which appears to be everyone.

There where claims that Smith left clues for his colleagues to see if they were as smart as him.

"According to Morton Smith’s detractors, he planted flaws—as a joke! The clearest and most frequently cited flaw is the reference in the Clement letter to adulterated salt. This, their argument goes, is an anachronism because the technique for granulating salt was invented only in the 20th century—by the Morton Salt Company! Morton made a pun on his own name—in effect planting evidence of forgery. Smith’s detractors would have us believe that Smith not only took a chance that he could produce a manuscript that would fool the experts, but that he would deliberately plant a flaw—the pun on his name—as a kind of higher-level joke.a It is impossible for me to believe this."...Hershel Shanks. Biblical Archaeology Review 35:6, November/December 2009

Now that is just a plain stupid example (cherry picking) by Shanks. But what would make it more funny and more likely is Morton was the butt of the joke by the monks. In Morton's arrogance (yes he was a very arrogant bachelor) he thought monks were stupid and couldn't see through him. After years and years trying to decipher what the monks doctored in the Clement letter to Theodore he still wasn't smart enough to see the joke was on him. :lol:

But the joke is not over, now the mythicists cling to it as holy scripture. Well played monks of Mar Saba, well played. :thumbup:
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Was Morton Smith a forger?

Post by John T »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:50 am And you're a brilliant man who deserves more recognition for being a brilliant man. You make the world a better place Andrew.
Don't forget to include that other guy on the "rt Panel" way back in December 2009. I wonder what ever happened to that Huller guy? :scratch:
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Was Morton Smith a forger?

Post by ABuddhist »

John T wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:59 pm But the joke is not over, now the mythicists cling to it as holy scripture.
Actually, the mythicist Robert M. Price is of the opinion that the Secret Gospel of Mark is a forgery, which he suspects was created by Morton Smith. See, for example, "Peter Jeffery, The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled: Imagined Rituals of Sex, Death, and Madness in a Biblical Forgery. Yale University Press, 2007." Reviewed by Robert M. Price. That article opens as follows: "Stephen C. Carlson’s Gospel Hoax, lately reviewed in these pages, adequately demonstrated the spurious character of Morton Smith’s pet pseudepigraphon the Secret Gospel of Mark."

If anyone has evidence that he has changed his mind, then feel free to cite it for me.
mbuckley3
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:47 am

Re: Was Morton Smith a forger?

Post by mbuckley3 »

andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:11 am



One argument that I made against Clementine authorship years ago has (rightly or wrongly) been little noticed.
http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2009/11/ ... texts.html
I argued that the letter attributed to Clement involves Neoplatonic ideas about mystical texts (as distinct from mystical readings of texts) that postdate Clement.

Andrew Criddle


[/quote]

Andrew

Your Hypotyposeis posts are a haven of rational and illuminating argument. But I have a problem with this one. IIUC, you hold that the division of texts (rather than oral teaching) into esoteric and exoteric categories was a Neoplatonic innovation. But Clement himself seems to have believed (erroneously) that the classic philosophers engaged in precisely this practice. In Strom. 5.9.58, in the midst of discussion about general and reserved oral instruction, he writes :

"It was not only the Pythagoreans and Plato, then, that concealed many things; but the Epicureans too say that they have things that may not be uttered, and do not allow all to peruse those writings. The Stoics also say that by the first Zeno things were written which they do not readily allow disciples to read, without their first giving proof whether or not they are genuine philosophers. And the disciples of Aristotle say that some of their treatises are esoteric, and others common and exoteric." (ANF tr.)

At least in this respect, the Letter to Theodore seems not to be anachronistic.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Was Morton Smith a forger?

Post by andrewcriddle »

mbuckley3 wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:21 pm
andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:11 am




One argument that I made against Clementine authorship years ago has (rightly or wrongly) been little noticed.
http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2009/11/ ... texts.html
I argued that the letter attributed to Clement involves Neoplatonic ideas about mystical texts (as distinct from mystical readings of texts) that postdate Clement.

Andrew Criddle

Andrew

Your Hypotyposeis posts are a haven of rational and illuminating argument. But I have a problem with this one. IIUC, you hold that the division of texts (rather than oral teaching) into esoteric and exoteric categories was a Neoplatonic innovation. But Clement himself seems to have believed (erroneously) that the classic philosophers engaged in precisely this practice. In Strom. 5.9.58, in the midst of discussion about general and reserved oral instruction, he writes :

"It was not only the Pythagoreans and Plato, then, that concealed many things; but the Epicureans too say that they have things that may not be uttered, and do not allow all to peruse those writings. The Stoics also say that by the first Zeno things were written which they do not readily allow disciples to read, without their first giving proof whether or not they are genuine philosophers. And the disciples of Aristotle say that some of their treatises are esoteric, and others common and exoteric." (ANF tr.)

At least in this respect, the Letter to Theodore seems not to be anachronistic.
You are absolutely correct that the distinction between esoteric and exoteric texts is older than Clement.
In my post I said
Esoteric ideas and reserve in communicating certain types of teaching to the general public were certainly widespread in Clement’s day among Jews Christians and Pagans. However it is difficult to find a close pre-Nicene parallel to this division of inspired texts into the educational and initiatory categories with their different capacities both for good and for ill.

However, the original usage appears to be a distinction between texts which teach the basics and texts that teach advanced stuff suitable only for advanced students. The idea that the esoteric material should be restricted, not so much because of its actual teaching, but because it deals with sublime matters that must be hinted at, in a way that makes the text harmful for people who read it in a crude prima-facie way, is IMO Neo-Platonic.

Andrew Criddle
Post Reply