Was Morton Smith a forger?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Was Morton Smith a forger?

Post by John T »

Morton Smith is not likely the forger but he got hold of a forged document just the same. Perhaps Smith was an innocent victim in this hoax. But a hoax it was.

"As of now the manuscript discovered by Smith, brought to Jerusalem to the Greek Patriarchate Library for photographing, and seen by several scholars, including Guy Stroumsa and the late Hebrew University professors David Flusser and Shlomo Pines, has disappeared."...Tabor

Just like my copy of Superman #1 that I found at a garage sell and paid $1 for. It will turn up somewhere, someday, you just wait and see. :cheeky:
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Morton Smith a forger?

Post by Secret Alias »

This is not a persuasive line of argumentation. Read my article in VC. The document was seen and handled and examined in great detail by one of the principal protagonists of the forgery thesis. Smith is unlikely to have been involved in the disappearance of the document. He was still knocking on the monastery door while Q had insider knowledge that it was in Jerusalem.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2269
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Was Morton Smith a forger?

Post by StephenGoranson »

I have not claimed that M. Smith caused the disappearance of the document. Agreed.
The VC article--which I have read--was worth publishing.
But it does not address what I wrote here earlier today.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Morton Smith a forger?

Post by Secret Alias »

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.

In the same way the fact that quis dives salvetur is found at the end of a collection of Origen manuscripts WILL ALWAYS leave open the possibility that it was written by Origen. It's not a persuasive argument. But circumstances are circumstances.

In the same way that Excerpta ex Theodoto is found in a collection of Clement's writings makes it 'Clementine' but is it?

There is simple-mindedness to these arguments which is exemplified by the time they got together at that SBL conference with psychiatrists and 'experts' of all stripes and pronounced Morton Smith to have mental illness. Why? Because there was this misguided notion that you cancel something if enough people were outraged or dismissive etc.

Please recognize the field we're in. We're not priests. We're not magicians. All we do is argue on behalf of SUGGESTIONS of truth. We have little power to determine what the truth is.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Morton Smith a forger?

Post by Secret Alias »

The reported view that M. Smith regarded all gospels as more or less fake, if so, would seem to lower the bar for one holding such a view to make another fake.
Context please. I was saying BECAUSE I AM DEBATING BOB PRICE someone who accepts Marcion's determination of the falseness of the gospels ... [etc. etc.] Not MS.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Morton Smith a forger?

Post by Secret Alias »

Morton Smith was 'canceled' (to use the modern terminology). It wasn't because he offended 'leftist' sensibilities (he and Neusner certainly did and would have offended the contemporary university culture if they lived today). Smith was effectively 'canceled' posthumously by religious people for SUGGESTING or being open to things about Jesus that they found offensive. There's no debate about this.

There are other motivations. Other 'voices.' There always are. But when you go through Q's writings it was clear that he was offended by the suggestions of Morton Smith. He also didn't like Smith. When Neusner turned (because he thought his mentor had turned on him) it was personal. It wasn't guided by 'higher criticism' of the discovery. That doesn't mean that EVERYONE who has since questioned the discovery was motivated by personality or religious extremism. But let's be honest. It began with two things (a) Smith 'hates' Christianity (b) Smith is an asshole.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Morton Smith a forger?

Post by Secret Alias »

And to go back to my original point, I don't know how to prepare for this. Usually in a debate you have to people arguing on behalf of two diametrically opposed POV. I don't understand where Price is coming from. If I was debating someone who accepted Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as 'authentic' or even canonical Mark as 'the bottom line' there are parameters where by we can debate 'authenticity.' How do you debate 'forgery' if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all held to be ancient forgeries? I guess we might debate Morton Smith's forging of the letter. But what if he doesn't go there. What if he's open to other suggestions? It is very difficult to prepare for this.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2269
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Was Morton Smith a forger?

Post by StephenGoranson »

SA: "Context please."
SG: context was given above, Tuesday, by gryan, including a link.

I don't think that in this context I defended Neusner. Nor that SBL session, which I did not attend.

It is my impression that Agamemnon T. is even better qualified to comment on the Voss inscription than was QQ.

As for possible, potential motives, e.g.:
M. Smith may have wanted to poke some in the eye
And/or impress G. Scholem with a supposed parallel to S. Sevi (though Scholem was not impressed).
And/or show he could do it
And/or show it as analogy to other gospels
Etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Morton Smith a forger?

Post by Secret Alias »

It is my impression that Agamemnon T. is even better qualified to comment on the Voss inscription than was QQ.
Yes he is one of a handful of experts and the best friend of one of my friends. Very nice man. Very devoted to scholarship. He was asked by BAR to come up with arguments for forgery. These arguments have not made an impact in the debate (perhaps because of the informalness i.e. just a 'website' rather than an academic paper) other than to say one of 10 or 20 experts in the field answered BAR's request with a NON-ACADEMIC list of 'curiosities' about the text. I've directed 3 other Greek experts with similar expertise who have been puzzled by some of the niavete displayed there (Tselikas acts as if he's 'surprised' that there are transcription errors in ancient MSS) and were unconvinced by ANY of the arguments. I can produce the emails if you'd like any time. Again we're in a field of 'suggestions' not of 'facts.' Interpretation rather than establishing binding rules or judgements. If you wanted absolute certainty there's religion.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was Morton Smith a forger?

Post by Giuseppe »

StephenGoranson wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 6:16 am.
The reported view that M. Smith regarded all gospels as more or less fake, if so, would seem to lower the bar for one holding such a view to make another fake.
Price reports the contrary: M. Smith loved so much all the gospels - even so-called New Age "gospels" - that precisely this recognized fact "would seem to lower the bar for one holding such a view to make another" gospel.
Post Reply