Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

FWIW on my shitty blog I've noted the link:

Serapion of Antioch, writing at the same time as Clement, makes reference to a 'heresy of Marcion' (αἱρέσεως ὁ Μαρκιανός) which he claims had an original "gospel which they put forward under the name of Peter" and which apparently was 'orthodox' (i.e. reflecting the established beliefs of Peter and the disciples) the first time Serapion saw it, but which had heretical things 'added to it' subsequently. (Eusebius H.E. 6.12) Irenaeus writing in the same period makes reference to a similar expansion of the original apostolic beliefs of Peter and the disciples by 'the perfect.' (A.H. 3.2.1). We are told that "after the departure" of "Peter and Paul in Rome" "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter" but that some "unlawfully assert that they [Peter and Paul] preached before they possessed 'perfect knowledge,' as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the [doctrine of the] apostles." (ibid).

How can it be argued then that the basic formula refenced in to Theodore of two gospels written by Mark at two different periods in history is without precedent in contemporary Patristic literature? Someone clearly expanded the original 'gospel of Peter' here. The only thing that is lacking in the testimony of Irenaeus is that these 'improvers of the apostles' did their work 'in the name of Mark.' Yet there is some sense of this in the contemporary reference from Serapion.

Moreover as we have demonstrated repeatedly here while Clement does not ever explicitly reference a 'mystic gospel' in addition to our familiar gospel of Mark. There is only explicit reference to Mark in all the writings which have survived intact down to us (Quis Dives Salvetur) and repeated embracing of the very idea vilified by Serapion and Irenaeus - i.e. the 'building on' of gnostic truth on top of the mere 'faith' of the original apostles (Str. 5.4). Moreover the very concept of a hidden 'mystic' key which unlocks all the secret meaning of scripture is one of the hallmarks of not only Clement's writings but those of Origen, his successor at the head of the catechetical school of Alexandria.

And again elsewhere:

The thing which seems to emerge from a critical evaluation of the Letter to Theodore is that Clement has received an inquiry from a certain Theodore about the existence of a secret gospel associated with St. Mark. The context seems roughly similar with Serapion of Antioch's near contemporary letter cited in Eusebius's Church History regarding a 'gospel' in the name of Peter which was expanded to include heretical information. Theodore has decided to track down the origin of this 'secret gospel' back to its source following a lead originating with adherents to the text.

So if I get your methodology correctly, the real job of scholarship is to find whatever will finally prove the document to be a forgery or to discredit books which advocate any other proposition other than Morton Smith was the forger. Even if it is as petty as criticizing footnotes. I am just being honest, you're right at home in this forum.

A friend reminded me of a passage in Ariel Sabar's 2020 book, Veritas: a Harvard Professor, a Con Man and the Gospel of Jesus's Wife, page 85:
"He [that is, Prof. Roger Bagnall, who was at Columbia U. from 1974 to 2007] quipped [to Prof. Karen King], "I'm glad at least that referee 3 doesn't think that you're Morton Smith redivivus!"

But is there evidence that Morton Smith was even bad guy? Does he have a criminal record? It's the same old story. There is no evidence to connect Morton Smith to crime or to criminality. You can't just accuse someone of criminality without any demonstrable examples of him being a criminal. So what is the basis to the assumption that he was the forger? It's the same old circular argument which really stems from, he wasn't liked. Not being liked is not the same thing as being a criminal or for participation in criminality. But this isn't kindergarten. Once you're an adult you don't have to nice to other children in the playground. There's no "being sent to the corner" for being anti-social. I came to America from a nice socialized country like Canada principally to be an asshole like everyone else (I witnessed yesterday while walking with my wife of someone who wanted to race through a stop sign only to see an oncoming car WHO DIDN'T HAVE A STOP SIGN and was furiously beeping at the oncoming car like the other guy was in the wrong). This is to a large extent a country of assholes.

There is evidence for a secret gospel in antiquity. When Paul says he went up to heaven and received from heaven the language implies mysteries and a mystery religion. Clement says it's Mark. I think the Carpocratians said it was by Paul like the Marcionites. But that's another story. There is evidence of a secret gospel in Tertullian. The same author implies some sort of sexualized mystery rites associated with a "Mark." There is evidence for other versions of Mark and for the "criminality" of Mark in the late second century. It's not crazy and the argument for a criminalized "Mark" goes beyond the evidence mustered by Smith in his 1973 book. Of course it's a controversy and as a controversy idiots can get published by merely adding fuel to the fire (I am one such idiot). But the bottom line is that there is no "there there" here. Nothing demonstrable or provable to any reasonably objective mind.

There the "antisocial" argument for those who are convinced that being sociable and nice is a virtue ("herd values" as Nietzsche called them) and the "religious" argument that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are "legitimate" gospels and everything else is "illegitimate." Let's see as religion continues to wither and die if the existence of "secret Mark" will prove to be as controversial once no one cares or believes in the "correctness" of canonical Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. This is a colossal case of eisegesis. Sorry. A complete waste of time like much of the humanities. Oops.

Any thoughts on the article, mentioned above in this thread, by Grant Adamson?

Or any thoughts on the freely-available article by J. Klawans mentioned in the Feb. 8 thread,
JJMJS 2022, including Klawans on M. Smith's "To Theodore"?
http://www.jjmjs.org/uploads/1/1/9/0/11 ... h_2022.pdf

Here's my schedule.

1. $100000 in receivables to collect since January 27.
2. three touring groups for Black History Month.
3. son playing in tournament in Las Vegas until Tuesday.
4. German naturalization ceremony on Thursday.

I will get around to it.

Never a good sign when the introduction to an article confesses "None of this amounts to direct evidence of forgery on the part of Smith."

"The impact of Smith’s provocative theories regarding early Christian libertinism have been blunted by the unsettled controversies surrounding Morton Smith and his find." Ummm the gay thing was a footnote in the scholarly work. It was Hegesippus, Irenaeus and Epiphanius who made the connection with libertinism. Just saying it wasn't Smith.

"Smith, we will show, breaks academic norms in defense of the authenticity of a letter presenting evidence that Jesus was a rule-breaker."

Ummm. Marcion.

"On the contrary, we will see that Smith’s creative argumentation in defense of authenticity (especially in Clement of Alexandria) repeatedly violates the academic standards to which Smith holds others; Smith’s more popular book raises additional questions, academic and moral."

So the main argument is that Smith was inconsistent. Oh boy as a parent I know that is utterly incredible. Let's see.