Sabar's New Morton Smith Article

[Secret Alias]

Matters of sex were raised by the Letter itself.

This is an ambiguous statement. Homosexuality is not addressed in the letter.

[Secret Alias]

The forger clearly studied Clement's writings or the original author is Clement.
The forger clearly read that Clement references the orgies of the Carpocratians in Stromateis 3, Epiphanius on the Carpocratians or the original author is Clement who read this information in Hegesippus.
The reading could be "naked with naked" or "nakeds with naked."
Even if the author was a forger "nakeds with naked" is what the forger would likely have written given the evidence from Stromateis 3, Clement would have written "nakeds with naked."

Smith didn't even consider "nakeds with naked" as a possibility. So what do we make of this?

Your approach: starts with Smith as the forger and because Smith rendered the text in a certain way it is the right reading. This is a circular argument.

[StephenGoranson]

Of course the word "homosexuality" is not mentioned in the Letter because it did not exist in ancient Greek, being, I think, a nineteenth-century (1800s) coining.
But a forger could certainly draw on reported "orgies of the Carpocratians."
Orgies do not have a reputation for following strict rules.
Anyway, whatever the Carpocratians did or didn't actually do (given that accounts of them can be questioned), such didn't stop whoever wrote the bogus verses.

[Secret Alias]

I also tentatively suspect that γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ is a mistake for γυμνός γυμνῷ. The phrase γυμνός γυμνῷ is very occasionally found in other ancient texts whereas γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ seems unique to the Mar Saba letter.

By that point you are arguing for its authenticity. And I know you're not. So either (a) Clement, who was fluent in Greek, wrote the letter and either is linguistically possible but Clement references group sex so it is more likely Tselikas's reading is correct (b) a forger wrote the letter whose mastery of Greek is not clear so your argument has no relevance. I am not arguing that Tselikas appealed to these considerations. I have corresponded with Tselikas many times on this issue. He finds other examples of iotas with this shape and the accent is clearly over the iota.

[Secret Alias]

But a forger could certainly draw on reported "orgies of the Carpocratians."

Exactly so it is the more likely reading.

[Secret Alias]

Let's list all the possibilities regarding the authorship of the letter:

1. Clement wrote the letter, Clement echoed the statements in Stromateis 3 and Epiphanius, the Carpocratians had group sex.
2. Clement wrote the letter, Clement received new information about the Carpocratians that aren't in any of existing sources, which had something to do with naked man with naked man, where Jesus and the disciple are naked together but not having sex.
3. Clement wrote the letter, Clement received new information about the Carpocratians that aren't in any of existing sources, which had something to do with naked man with naked man, where Jesus and the disciple are naked together, and the Carpocratians said they had sex together.
4. a forger wrote the letter based on the writings of Clement which he read and from the information in Stromateis 3 he repeated the understanding that Clement thought the Carpocratians had group sex.
5. a forger wrote the letter based on information in Stromateis 3 and decided to invent the whole new understanding that Jesus and a disciple were "naked with naked" with one another.

I find (3) and (5) the least compelling possibilities. The least likely by a long shot.

[StephenGoranson]

But it has been shown, by Andrew and many others, that Clement did not write the Letter, which was written later than his lifetime,
and, by the way, since you bring it up, is not attested elsewhere than by Morton Smith.

[Secret Alias]

But it has been shown, by Andrew and many others, that Clement did not write the Letter, which was written later than his lifetime,
and, by the way, since you bring it up, is not attested elsewhere than by Morton Smith.

I expect smart people not to behave like selfish stupid people. Even Andrew does not think that he has proved anything. He's suggested something. Of what value his suggestion is a matter of interpretation. And let's be honest about Sabar. He did a lot of research and then he decided which of the things he uncovered would damage Smith's character the most and of those he chose the ones that fit with preconceived notions of Smith's guilt and then he wrote his article. It was well researched article. It was a well written article. But in the way a political operative writes a hit piece. It was not an objective account of the life of Morton Smith nor the life of Morton Smith as it pertained to the document. It was a collection of "things that would make Morton Smith look bad." If he applied this research to anyone, my brother, your wife, the Pope, anyone, you'd end up with the same deliberately unpleasant narrative. I dare you to claim this was an objective piece on Morton Smith.

[StephenGoranson]

Whether Andrew thinks he has "proved anything," I leave to Andrew to say, given that you, SA, might possibly be somewhat less than a disinterested honest broker on that.
Or whether Eric Osborn, Landau/G. Smith, Grant Adamson, and several others so think.
I, speaking for myself only, consider it well proven that Clement ain't the author.

When reading something, the sexual views or experience or relations of someone often do not arise.
Exceptions may include in some biographies or autobiographies, in some opinion pieces, and so on.
Sometimes such aspects matter.
A case--this very day--in which sexual relations was judged (by a seated assigned official judge) as relevant was in the decision in Georgia USA concerning the case in which Trump has been charged with criminal acts.

PS, added later.
Is there any poster here who brings up sex more often than you?

[Secret Alias]

I leave to Andrew to say, given that you ... I, speaking for myself only, consider it well proven that Clement ain't the author.

So the debate was over once Criddle produced his paper and Sabar's article was a fair-minded assessment of the life of Morton Smith. I think if there is one person here who isn't objective it is the person who just said those things.