a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Roger Viklund
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2016 1:03 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

Post by Roger Viklund »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:22 am I read your argument. You claim that Mark repeating himself is a sign that Mark wrote the Secret Gospel. But how do we really know that people repeat phrases and words over and over again when they write things? Did you demonstrate that other ancient writers - like Josephus - do the same thing? Until then we have to hold judgment on your proposition that people repeat certain phrases and words in their writings.
I don’t think that you present my argument entirely correct. Mark is an author who probably has Greek as a second language. A person not writing in his or her native language tend to use more simplified constructions and to repeat the phrases and expressions he or she is used to and comfortable with. For those on this forum who have English as their native language, it would probably be quite easy to realize that English is not my native language. One is less free to express oneself in a non-native language and therefore more prone to use simpler phrases and keep within the boundaries. I could never imitate Shakespeare or Edgar Allan Poe, try to write a letter in their name, and get away with. Experts would immediately realize that is was a forgery.

Mark is an author who tends to repeat certain phrases. It could then be that he uses καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς (and they come to) and variants thereof five times. So, when Secret Mark reads “καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς βηθανίαν” (and they come to Bethany) Watson argues that this must be from Mark 8:22: Καὶ ἔρχεταί εἰς Βηθσαϊδάν “And he comes to Bethsaida”. Yet the same phrase is found in Mark 5:38: And they come to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, in Mark 10:46: And they come to Jericho, in Mark 11:15: And they come to Jerusalem and Mark 14:32: And they come unto a place which was named Gethsemane. If the similarity between the phrase in Secret Mark and Mark 8:22 should be proof that Secret Mark has imitated Mark, why wouldn’t the same standard also apply for the rest of phrases in Mark? Why not claim that they also are forgeries? Why use a double standard so that the same circumstances in one case are interpreted as signs of authenticity and in another as signs of forgery?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

Post by Secret Alias »

I am just kidding. This whole 'debate' is so stupid. They pretend they're being objective and then proceed to doubt everything that hurts authenticity and take for granted 'facts' - like Smith's homosexuality and its effect on his 'motivation' - that aren't even facts. I think the whole thing illustrates the shoddy methodology they use on dead things - like books from the past - when applied to living things. It's not that easy to perpetrate this sort of subjectivity under scrutiny. But with books and ideas, you can pretty much make up shit and get away with it - even get a PhD. The humanities is a cesspool of subjectivity.

And when people say 'why did the monks write in the margins of a book' the answer is obvious. Because that's what they did. They wrote things anywhere because of the lack of writing materials. Even the walls of monasteries:

Image

It's like the old joke - why do dogs lick their balls? Answer - because they can.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

Post by Stuart »

Roger Viklund wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:45 am
Stuart wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:03 am You want to convince me, start with explaining the Pastiches.
The easiest way to explain them is to say that there is none. The parallels between Secret Mark on the one hand and Matthew, Luke and John on the other, are formalistic and generic. The (almost) only close parallels are to Mark, but then why would that be a sign of forgery? In other cases, such as the question of the authenticity of Testimonium Flavianum, the fact that there are close similarities to other passages in Josephus is used as an argument for authenticity, that Josephus also wrote the TF. But when Secret Mark has close parallels to Mark, then that is used as an argument for forgery; that someone cut and pasted from Mark to create a pastiche forgery.

When Watson published his article I wrote a blog post The pastiche forgery of Secret Mark, as presented by Francis Watson where I took all the examples presented by Watson and expanded them by including the Greek text. Underneath each example I searched for more parallels from the Gospel of Mark; then in the first place not meant to be parallels to the sentences from Secret Mark, but parallels to the parallels presented by Watson. I managed to find parallels to almost all of Watson’s parallels (i.e. parallels between Mark and Mark), whereas he only found parallels to the Secret Mark passage at a rate of 42% [66/157] or if I am being generous 53% [66/(157 – 32)]. I think the pastiche theory is a non-argument.
Pastiches particularly with John. How does Secret Mark, if it was written by Mark, know about the Lazarus story in John and the disciple whom Jesus loved? These have all been wrapped up in a youth.

The cut and paste problem goes beyond repeated words. It is also the lost context. This is a concept often used to show the secondary nature of say the Pastoral Pauline letters compared to the "authentic" core, or even within the "authentic" core to distinguish differences in authorship and dependence upon prior writings. The example of the "linen clothe" with drapes the nakedness of the young man in Secret Mark is merely a literal covering. It has been stripped of the metaphorical meaning we find at the tomb and at the arrest scene, where it parallels the linen clothe placed on Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea, and the dazzling white clothing of the angel (presented as a young man) at the tomb. Had the writer understood this he would not have invested the secret teaching into one who forsakes Jesus in 14:51-52, shedding the immortal clothing of Christ to save his own mortal life and get away.

We see other later elements. In the gospel Jesus never directly expresses anger/wrath, but low and behold we find "ὀργισθεὶv ὁ Ἰhsοῦv" in Secret Mark. This is an example of a modern concept, the angry Jesus.

So it's not just the issue of the same vocabulary, it is also the use. And it is from the use that we see it's Pastiche nature.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

Post by Secret Alias »

You, Stuart, are doing the same thing with Secret Mark that you do with Marcion. For you there are a set of "facts" which are firm and absolute and established for all of us. "Marcion" is he who the Church Fathers tell us he is. Similarities between the Secret Mark and John are explained by Johannine priority. But why is this true? Why couldn't John be based on Secret Mark? Why couldn't there be a common source for both? In a field such as this we likely don't know as much about the origins of most things. There are very few absolute truths. Your servile relationship with Detering underscores you have difficulty embracing the core reality in this field - we don't know the half of it or a quarter of it. It's not a matter of Secret Mark having absolute authority else it's a forgery. There's just so little to believe in with early Christianity. The gospels were corrupted. So too the epistles. So too the texts of the early Fathers and their reports about people like Marcion. It's all fake, corrupt and hopeless. To navigate these waters requires practical nihilism.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8026
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

Post by Peter Kirby »

rakovsky wrote: Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:07 pm #3 is how it lines up with literature like Mystery of Mar Saba, Anglo-Saxon Attitudes, and Oscar Wilde's Salome. eg. as Jeffrey notes: the Mar Saba letter references the "seven veils" and the Salome at the cross, but gay writer Oscar WIlde used the seven veils to refer to Herodias' Salome.
We've already discussed the "seven veils" recently. Both the original argument and your quickly-reformed version of it that removed the Oscar Wilde angle (amazingly fast turn-around for your new research, there!) proved to be an embarrassment for the pro-modern-forgery crowd.

Roger Viklund comments on this Mystery of Mar Saba 2.0, now with more attitude.

https://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2014 ... attitudes/
In Alexandrian Attitudes Jenkins has found a new parallel to the Secret Gospel of Mark in Angus Wilson’s 1956 novel Anglo-Saxon Attitudes. The plot in Jenkins’ own summary is as follows:

“Wilson’s novel synthesizes these three episodes. He describes the 1912 excavation at the Anglo-Saxon site of Melpham, which features the grave of a celebrated 7th- century missionary bishop named Eorpwald. (The date recalls Piltdown, the setting suggests Sutton Hoo.) To the astonishment of the chief excavator, Lionel Stokesay, Eorpwald’s grave includes a phallic fertility idol. The only explanation the archaeologists can suggest is that, in these dark early centuries, even the leaders of the venerated Anglo-Saxon church practiced a clandestine syncretism, a dual faith. The heroic Eorpwald was an apostate.

By the time of the novel’s main action in the 1950s, that shocking theory has achieved a grudging consensus status among British historians. It is particularly welcomed by ”Rose Lorimer,” a thinly disguised version of the eccentric real-life scholar Margaret Murray, the inventor of many modern theories about the history of witchcraft and neo-paganism.”

To learn the plot more thoroughly you could read this Wikipedia article. I’ll turn to Jenkins’ arguments.

The parallels presented by Jenkins are as follows:

1) Gilbert in Anglo-Saxon Attitudes sought to disgrace and embarrass the historical establishment who was stupid enough to believe an obvious hoax. Also Smith did the same thing.

2) Wilson was openly gay and also Smith was (possibly) gay or at least bisexual.

3) The items were in both cases “faked” in order make the church confront the possibility that those early predecessors themselves were open to unrestrained “pagan” sexuality.

4) Anglo-Saxon Attitudes had a particular appeal for readers interested in scholarship or in accurate accounts of the scholarly world and for those who were gay. Smith would then have had a particular interest in such a novel.

5) Both were forgeries planted in early Christian sites.

6) In both plots there was a man named Theodore.

7) The intrusive item promises to rewrite church history, by proving that Christian orthodoxy co-existed with controversial clandestine practices.

8) Both cases include dual religions where both shadow religions have a strong sexual content.

The first five arguments are only focused on Smith and not on the artifact itself. Also, the arguments presuppose that Secret Mark in fact IS a forgery and that Smith was the culprit. But they are only relevant if Smith was gay (for which there are no proofs, and even if he were, would it be relevant?), that he would have been interested in that book and its themes, that he wanted to embarrass the establishment and to promote a gay view; all which are unsupported suggestions which need to be proven before they can be used as proof (to avoid circular reasoning).

The remaining three arguments focus upon the parallels between “Anglo-Saxon Attitudes” and “Secret Mark”. In “Anglo-Saxon Attitudes” the forged phallic fertility idol is placed in the grave of bishop Eorpwald, “who is identified as a disciple of the great English Archbishop Theodore.” In both plots there is then, according to Jenkins, a man named Theodore. This, however, is only true to some degree. The otherwise unknown person that Clement is writing his letter to is named Theodoros and not Theodore. Theodore is of course an English (or proto-English) adaption of the Greek name. I doubt that the Theodore in “Anglo-Saxon Attitudes” also was known by the name of Theodoros. At least that name does not occur in the book and if that Theodore is based on an actual bishop (i.e. Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury), that man was probably also known by just the name Theodore.

Jenkins suggests that both findings promise to rewrite church history, by proving that Christian orthodoxy co-existed with controversial clandestine practices. And that is true. But seriously, how strange would that be? Secret Mark is a controversial text. But how difficult would it be to find a novel in which there is a controversial discovery made? Any thrilling novels in which discoveries are made are bound to include controversial discoveries. That is the genre of such novels.

Finally both shadow religions have, according to Jenkins, a strong sexual content. But then of course there is nothing sexual at all in Secret Mark. In the letter, Clement deals with an alleged sexual plot with a naked man with a naked man, but he strongly opposes that such a text was part of Secret Mark and the quotation he presents shows nothing of the kind.

So this so-called parallel is even more far-fetched than the one with “The Mystery of Mar Saba” and the only relevant parallel are the names Theodore – Theodoros. The name Theodore is though a very common ecclesiastical name.

However, I do wonder a bit about the mathematics in the scenario put forward by Jenkins. I have a really hard time understanding how he can envision that this “parallel” would make it more likely that Smith was influenced by fictional novels to make a forgery. Let’s follow Jenkins in his logic and see where it ends. He writes the following:

“In order to grant the truth of Morton Smith’s alleged discovery of the Mar Saba letter, at the particular time and place, we must accept an outrageous series of coincidences, to which we must now add explicit echoes of two separate contemporary novels. At some point, surely, Occam’s Razor requires us to seek the simplest explanation for the whole Mar Saba affair.”

Jenkins accordingly thinks that two parallels would be a stronger proof that Smith was influenced to forge the Mar Saba letter. Even though this parallel is a really weak parallel, for the sake of argument let’s presume it was a strong one. So, then we have two novels that might have influenced Smith. Which one was it then that influenced him? Is Jenkins suggesting that it was both and that they combined made a stronger impact than they would have done separately? Let’s say that we find another novel and another novel and another novel with parallels. Would it then be even more likely that Smith forged the text if we have five parallels? If we found a hundred novels (which possibly could be made if we simply need to find such superficial parallels as the ones found in “Anglo-Saxon Attitudes”) would it then be almost impossible that Secret Mark was genuine?

The truth is that the more parallels we can find, the less likely it is that Smith was influenced by anyone of these. Instead it shows that forgeries are a common theme in many novels and given that many tens of thousands such books has been written, there is nothing strange that occasional parallels to genuine events and artifacts can be found if you search through all the books available.

Roger Viklund, April 20, 2014
We can make lots of parallels, we have all of modern literature to work with. We're personal failures if we can't find parallels. However, our hypothesis on forgery does not fail or succeed based on whether we find parallels. This is not a method of falsification for forgery, and this is not a method of falsification for authenticity. It's more like images of Jesus in taco shells... you see what you want to see.

This is the kind of thing people like to use as details to fill in their story, if they believe in a forgery story. This kind of detail and color is not evidence of the hypothesis of the 20th century authorship, no more than someone finding some colorful things to say about an author in the 18th century or 5th century or 2nd century. There's plenty of "details" to draw upon for any hypothesis you want to advocate for. A more detailed story/hypothesis isn't a true one, as these stories are mutually exclusive.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8026
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

Post by Peter Kirby »

#4 is divided into parts.
rakovsky wrote: Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:07 pm (A) Stuart just brought up a new point for me that there are "no other examples of (sectarian) mystery cult material (quoted in full placed inside an existing canonical gospel." Marcion was a gnostic, but his version of the NT wasn't visionary or mystery cult material, AFAIK.
Read this phrase again: "(sectarian) mystery cult material (quoted in full placed inside an existing canonical gospel)."

It's an artificial construct of a category created for the sole purpose of arguing that it is a forgery. There can be no doubt about its motivated construction (Marcion's gospel was "in," but that was too uncomfortable, so the goalposts shifted again).

Suppose it's true. Suppose it's meaningful at all. It's not logical to conclude that the only known example of "it" (again, if "it" is meaningful and something we need to care about whether there are multiple of "it," which isn't demonstrated) is from the 20th century instead of the 2nd century. You can't make it not exist; it exists. It's real. The only question is where it comes from, when it comes from. You have to deal with it either way. You can't get rid of the Mar Saba letter. The text will always exist; there will always be at least one thing like it.

We have other cases of texts that aren't like other texts.

For example, the Epistula Apostolorum is a revelatory resurrection appearance text in letter form, but it's catholic, not gnostic.

The Gospel of Thomas surely has its own category, as already mentioned.

#5
rakovsky wrote: Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:07 pm (B) Roger Viklund got Robert Price to admit in 2009 that he was mistaken about Secret Mark, so then I tried to see if Price's views had changed, and it turns out in 2011 Price's book repeated his earlier rejection. On top of that, I found Price's discussion with Morton Smith, where Smith analogizes the Mar Saba letter to New Age forgeries of ancient documents, complains about a scholar who - like the Orthodox monastery - opposes the New Age forgeries, and concludes that the New Age documents are authentic because they represent faith. ie. by inference the Mar Saba letter hinting at secret rituals is analogously modern yet authentic because it represents someone's faith.
‘In 1985 I (Robert Price) asked Morton Smith how he responded to charges of forgery, recently renewed in Per Beskow’s excellent book “Strange Tales About Jesus: a Survey of Unfamiliar Gospels” (Fortress, 1983). He told me the now-familiar story of the custodians of the manuscript secreting it away out of embarrassment at the notoriety Smith’s book “The Secret Gospel” had brought them, henceforth wanting to suppress the evidence. He asked, furthermore, what business Beskow had in condemning all the more recent New Age gospels as spurious: if they embodied someone’s faith, weren’t they authentic gospels, no matter who wrote them or when? Later I wondered if his words did not apply equally, even especially, to his own Secret Mark!’

You've once again misinterpreted your source. It's wrong that "Smith analogizes the Mar Saba letter to New Age forgeries of ancient documents." It is Robert Price who, later, made that analogy/claim.

You've failed to mention the actual context. It was actually Per Beskow who decided to lump "Secret Mark" with various "New Age" gospels; this forced the context of the discussion such that there would also be an opportunity for Smith to say something about these New Age gospels. That Smith objected to considering Secret Mark as modern and to the libelous statements Beskow made about Smith, is evident from the legal threats Smith made against Beskow, which resulted in the publisher having Beskow change the wording of a paragraph of the book.

Now you know, kids, why it's important that you make legal threats and claim libel like this if you aren't a forger. Otherwise people are going to come along and claim that you're okay with others saying that you're a forger, when you are not a forger and are very much not okay with being called a forger. They're going to say that you gave their forgery libel a wink and a nod, even if you didn't have the guts to confess it directly.

Yes, it's maddening, but that's how it is. People will grasp onto anything they think they can get.

#6
rakovsky wrote: Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:07 pm (C) Secret Alias had made the argument
We're now in argument-for-the-opposite territory. If this was in the requested order of importance, it means we're all out of arguments.

#7
rakovsky wrote: Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:07 pm (D) I thought that chiasms were a good argument for Secret Mark's authenticity
Another argument for the opposite. Wow, we hit the bottom of the barrel even faster than I expected.

Okay, so, if we're this quickly in "zero" territory, and given that #1 was nothing but your claim that there are many, many arguments... it looks like the claim of #1 is not actually true. There may be many things that people say and that people enumerate as arguments, but they go off the rails into contrived stuff very quickly. These are the kind of highly-motivated "observations" that you add for the faithful, not arguments that are actually meaningful and convincing as evidence.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Roger Viklund
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2016 1:03 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

Post by Roger Viklund »

And Beskow never said it was a forgery. He included it in his bok of forgeries as he thought he could not ignore it. But he preferred to regard the question of authenticity as an open question.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

Post by andrewcriddle »

Peter Kirby wrote: Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:32 pm
rakovsky wrote: Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:07 pmLikewise, the portrayal of Clement as someone who himself engages in mystery cult rituals unknown in Church history is much different than what we know of him, as he typically was opposed to the gnostics' secretive knowledge rituals.
I'm not ignoring this point, but arguments specifically about whether Clement is the author belong in their own category, as they lead into many other alternatives, not just the modern forgery hypothesis. On this forum (in this thread...), I've also argued that Clement isn't the author (although I don't regard it as a closed question). It's regarding the modern forgery hypothesis that I'm most interested in knowing what the arguments are for it, as there appears to be a certain irrational exuberance among people who promote it.
Assume at least FTSOA that one doubts that the letter is by Clement.
Then the following argument supports a modern forgery.

If the letter is not by Clement it is a deliberate imitation. It is not like to the newly baptized which is very possibly a non-Clementine work mistakenly attributed to Clement.
The letter also contains passages intended to explain why, if this material is authentic no-one has previously heard about it. (The instruction to lie on oath to preserve the secrecy etc.)
This strongly implies that the author intended his contemporaries to accept the letter as by Clement, i.e. the letter was composed with the intention of publication/distribution during the lifetime of its author.

It is possible that this intention to distribute the forgery was thwarted and the letter was re-discovered by chance more than a century, maybe more than a millenium after the death of its author. It is more likely, however, that the letter was published, as planned, during the lifetime of its author.

Andrew Criddle
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

Post by Charles Wilson »

Joseph Heller, Catch 22:

""I’m cold." Snowden whimpered, "I’m cold."

"There, there. Yossarian mumbled mechanically in a voice too low to be heard. "There, there."

Yossarian was cold, too, and shivering uncontrollable. He felt goose pimples clacking all over him as he gazed down despondently at the grim secret Snowden had spilled all over the messy floor. It was easy to read the message in his entrails. Man was matter, that was Snowden’s secret. Drop him out a window and he’ll fall. Set fire to him and he’ll burn. Bury him and he’ll rot, like other kinds of garbage. The spirit gone, man is garbage. That was Snowden’s secret. Ripeness was all.

"I’m cold," Snowden said. "I’m cold."

"There, there," said Yossarian. "There, there," He pulled the rip cord of Snowden’s parachute and covered his body with the white nylon sheets.

"I’m cold."

"There, there." "

***
Mark 14: 51 - 52 (RSV):

[51] And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him,
[52] but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.
rakovsky wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:18 pm
davidbrainerd wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:22 am That suggests authenticity (in the sense of being ancient at least) because I can imagine 'John' (Cerinthus) further developing this secret Mark story. The other way around would seem weird. Why create such a secret story for a secret Mark when a better version of it exists already in public John?
Because for a forger who wanted to express ideas about secret instruction, the "Secret Mark" version is preferable to Lazarus' raising in John 11, which lacked instruction by Jesus of the healed/raised person.
Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:02 am There's at least the possibility, though, that Secret Mark has a close connection to the Gospel of Mark (whether standing before or after the canonical text, in the late first or second century) yet that the letter to Theodore itself is a forgery.
***
1) Clement and the church authorities denied the authentic existence of the Secret Gospel of Mark.
2) Carpocratians indulged in licentiousness that is claimed to be based on the Secret Gospel of Mark.
3) Clement and the church authorities claim the moral high ground and access to the truth.

The letter resolves these situations in this way:

1) Clement and the church authorities are lying, and they in fact know there was an authentic spiritual gospel of Mark.
2) The things said about Secret Mark are falsifications, and in fact there is nothing objectionable about the text at all.
3) Clement and the church authorities are liars who work to suppress the Carpocratians, while Carpocrates is the one offering the truth.

If we don't believe the letter is by Clement, then we should consider a suitable context for its forgery.
Joseph Heller, one of the greatest writers ever and one of the greatest Jewish writers ever, has told a Jewish Tale, an inverted Ecclesiastes. Man is matter, that is all - "Drop him out a window and he’ll fall. Set fire to him and he’ll burn. Bury him and he’ll rot, like other kinds of garbage. The spirit gone, man is garbage..."

The Markan Passage makes sense if placed in that same Realm (of Heaven). You may draw a conclusion that the boy is running, leaving his linen garment, and running for a greater reason than "Jesus" facing a Crew of thugs. This must be Transvalued. The greater story is known. The name "Lazarus" is known to the authors. The name is "Eleazar" and THAT story must be Transvalued as well.
If we don't believe the letter is by Clement, then we should consider a suitable context for its forgery
The comments given here are on target. There are any number of reasons to change the meaning of the bare story. Contrasting the given text with other (more favored) texts is risking a great mistake. You can see John through Mark again but the Intentionality is more opaque. The "...suitable context for its forgery..." may not be visible yet.

CW
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8026
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

Post by Peter Kirby »

andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Jan 17, 2019 1:21 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:32 pm
rakovsky wrote: Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:07 pmLikewise, the portrayal of Clement as someone who himself engages in mystery cult rituals unknown in Church history is much different than what we know of him, as he typically was opposed to the gnostics' secretive knowledge rituals.
I'm not ignoring this point, but arguments specifically about whether Clement is the author belong in their own category, as they lead into many other alternatives, not just the modern forgery hypothesis. On this forum (in this thread...), I've also argued that Clement isn't the author (although I don't regard it as a closed question). It's regarding the modern forgery hypothesis that I'm most interested in knowing what the arguments are for it, as there appears to be a certain irrational exuberance among people who promote it.
Assume at least FTSOA that one doubts that the letter is by Clement.
Then the following argument supports a modern forgery.

If the letter is not by Clement it is a deliberate imitation. It is not like to the newly baptized which is very possibly a non-Clementine work mistakenly attributed to Clement.
The letter also contains passages intended to explain why, if this material is authentic no-one has previously heard about it. (The instruction to lie on oath to preserve the secrecy etc.)
This strongly implies that the author intended his contemporaries to accept the letter as by Clement, i.e. the letter was composed with the intention of publication/distribution during the lifetime of its author.

It is possible that this intention to distribute the forgery was thwarted and the letter was re-discovered by chance more than a century, maybe more than a millenium after the death of its author. It is more likely, however, that the letter was published, as planned, during the lifetime of its author.

Andrew Criddle
This is a reasonable argument.

People who think the argument is stronger against Smith's involvement and also against Clement's authorship, may be compelled to view the re-discovery of a forgery to be their best hope of having a reasonable explanation.

Also, I don't think the best alternative here is to think that a forger didn't have the letter published as planned. A better alternative is that it existed in some libraries but that Eusebius (et al.) either didn't come across it or didn't mention it.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply