Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Joe,

Could not everything you say about John against Mark also apply to Matthew?

I say this because there are additional specific points of refutation in John against with Matthew not present in Mark (e.g., protoevangelium). John would not need Mark if he was refuting Matthew.

I think you put entirely too much weight on Secret Mark (which I am convinced is a fraud) here. And anyway it does not explain why John is so focused on refuting elements in Matthew not found in Mark (Secret or not).

From my vantage, John needs only to know two of the Synoptic Gospels to explain his content, the Marcionite (which he half agrees with, but disagrees with much also) and Matthew (which he opposes cover to cover). Mark is unnecessary to explain John's content.

which I am convinced is a fraud

But you also think the canonical gospels are frauds so in a sense this might mean you accept Secret Mark as an ancient gospel. If this is not your point and you are convinced somehow that Secret Mark is a modern forgery I would be interested in hearing what arguments convinced you of its modernity.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 2:06 pm

which I am convinced is a fraud

But you also think the canonical gospels are frauds so in a sense this might mean you accept Secret Mark as an ancient gospel. If this is not your point and you are convinced somehow that Secret Mark is a modern forgery I would be interested in hearing what arguments convinced you of its modernity.

The evidence for Secret Mark is entirely spurious, a 20th century fake. The motives of it's author, including his reported sexual orientation, are open for debate. Let's just say the source and author could be the same. There is no other evidence. By Fraud I mean somebody was able to profit, monetarily or in career standing, by it's production. The 10th book of letters of Pliny fall in this category.

I think you are using a rather elastic terminology in saying I think the Gospels are frauds. I simply think they were composed, like almost all ancient religious books, by unknown authors and developed by sects that found their theology useful for their message.

The addition of material to fit later purposes, e.g., pericope adulterae, constitute editorial or redactional changes within the church. Interpolations into Josephus and other Historians fall into a different category of fraud, pious fraud to support church teachings of history (Pliny's 10th book could also be said to fall into this category, and so do interpolations into the early Church Fathers). But none of these fall into the category of fraud of Morton Smith's find.

So what you are saying is that you haven't any evidence for your assertion that it's a 20th century fake. Surely you can come up with an argument or two. I wouldn't have taken you to be someone who openly bases his opinions on 'feelings.'

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 3:39 pm So what you are saying is that you haven't any evidence for your assertion that it's a 20th century fake. Surely you can come up with an argument or two. I wouldn't have taken you to be someone who openly bases his opinions on 'feelings.'

Nice try, but this response is a double fallacy of "tu quoque" and also "Burden of Proof."

Many others of far greater stature have addressed the fraud issue of Morton Smith's find. It is enough for me. Refute their arguments Stephen.

Besides this entire response by you is typical of how you deal with criticism or challenges, by attempting to frame it as fallacy of fallacies, so that you can ignore the primary question, which was not even addressed to you but since your taking it up, which is:

Could not the same argument be made, and even stronger, for John being in reaction to Matthew, in that his refutation is more specific to Matthew claims, and includes refutation to Matthew claims not even present in Mark?

Focus on the above question, and not defending a questionable "scholar" whom you have a bias in favor - Secret Mark is a side issue that you have some personal attachment to, and thus bias.

I think you need to look at yourself in the mirror, Stuart.

Besides--unfounded and irrelevant--accusations of Smith's sexual orientation, what argument is there thatLetter to Theodore is a forgery? It's based on a sci-fi novel, a la Price?

I want you to list, based on your own expertise, why and how, it is "spurious", "fraudulent", and "fake". Surely if it was so apparent and self-evident, you wouldn't need to evade the issue with passive aggressive remarks and insinuations. Huller, on the contrary, has given a whole battery of reasons in favour of the letter's authenticity on his blog.

You could at least grant him the benefit of the doubt, your own biases notwithstanding.

Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Tue May 22, 2018 4:17 am I think you need to look at yourself in the mirror, Stuart.

Besides--unfounded and irrelevant--accusations of Smith's sexual orientation, what argument is there thatLetter to Theodore is a forgery? It's based on a sci-fi novel, a la Price?

I want you to list, based on your own expertise, why and how, it is "spurious", "fraudulent", and "fake". Surely if it was so apparent and self-evident, you wouldn't need to evade the issue with passive aggressive remarks and insinuations. Huller, on the contrary, has given a whole battery of reasons in favour of the letter's authenticity on his blog.

You could at least grant him the benefit of the doubt, your own biases notwithstanding.

I agree, JDL, that Stephan Huller, as wild and wooly as he can be at times, is quite grounded in his defence of Smith against the charge of having forged Clement of Alexandria's Letter to Theodore with its citation of a bit of a "Secret Mark" only circulated among the inner circles of the Alexandrian church. (The underlined "a" is for Stuart's benefit, he should at least give the courtesy of spelling Stephan Huller's name correctly)

Like many, I am not certain that this letter fragment was genuinely written by Clement of Alexandria, as it has signs of being written in the 19th century by one of the educated linguists and Theosophists who thrived at the time, who doodled it into the margin of an old book left in the library by a visitor. The main library of parchment codices was removed to Constantinople prior to even then.

However, I do think that the crazy charges against Smith by Stephen Carlson have any merit at all. They are homophobic reactions to a mystic initiation account that grasps at straws (must be a homoerotic allusion) to make the most silly case I have ever seen. What amazed me is how many academics jumped on the bandwagon to besmirch Smith as if Carlson had spoken golden words like a modern day John Chrysostom.

Back to work ...

DCH

Many others of far greater stature have addressed the fraud issue of Morton Smith's find. It is enough for me. Refute their arguments Stephen.

This is passing the buck, Stuart. You can't just wave your hands in the air at this forum and point to 'smart guys.' And religion and homosexuality is a touchy subject for many scholars. I remember reading in Montaigne that while travelling to Rome he met a monastery where all the men were married and the standard explanation for the reference was that Montaigne was being cheeky and that he made this up. But why couldn't Montaigne have visited a monastery like this? And now the idea that most or many Catholic priests are gay is hardly controversial.

There is an unmistakable dislike - even hatred - of women in the monotheistic tradition. Even the idea that God made the world without a woman smacks of misogyny given the parallels between heaven and earth that otherwise are acknowledged to exist in the early tradition SAVE ONLY FOR THIS ONE DETAIL (where 'good' creation is given over to God). It's not incredible to think that a tradition which robs women of their glory and derides child birth as a curse could have morphed into an 'exclusively male club.' Indeed we see signs of this in earliest Christianity.

I think it's perfectly possible that an early sect of Christianity had rituals that sounded 'gay' especially given the fact that union with the godhead was the underlying purpose of Christianity and initiates and gods were all male. I don't get the 'hating on' Morton Smith thing. Sure anyone is capable of committing a crime. You can't overlook the husband when the wife goes missing and ends up murdered. But first you have to have a crime before you have crime scene. There's no evidence we have a crime let alone a crime scene.

OK. I'll drop the Smith allegation. I am not strongly attached to it anyway, and it is not my original, but it is out there and we are all aware of it (Stephen Carlson's book for example, or more balanced presentation from Tony Burke). Even so, I still cannot accept the letter existed prior to say the 16th century, and thus is likely a forgery from the late middle ages if not more recent. We have no evidence in the records to push it back any further, no other reference, no other data point. So I would put it in the most unreliable category at best. The onus of proof that it is original and not forgery is on the supporters of the letter, it has not passed muster to date -- it's not enough for Huller to demand I prove it fake as that assumes it is not, hence the accurate charge of his burden of proof fallacy.

But again both Smith and Secret Mark are a sideshow here. The primary question I asked is being side stepped by everyone:

Are not all the arguments presented for John being written in refutation of Mark better applied to Matthew, and better supported?

That's a good question. There may be an argument for that. Have to think about it.