A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a forgery - this was argued by Prof. Solomon Zeitlin of Dropsie College in Philadelphia, about whose intellectual integrity the late Gershom Scholem expressed strong reservations in an article he published in Ha'aretz on January 3, 1956.
“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
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by perseusomega9 »

I like how biblical scholars can become experts in different fields to make their case.

Not a sociologist, no problem you can just incorporate sociology in your biblical studies without formal training.

Not trained in actual historical studies, no problem you can still write up a history about this or that with your degree in bible.

Not a forensic handwriting analyst, no problem, you can be that too.
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

The worst was when these asswipes plus 'psychologists' were brought to an SBL panel to posthumously diagnose Smith of being mentally unbalanced

21-330

Psychology and Biblical Studies
11/21/2009
4:00 PM to 6:30 PM
Room: Bacchus Suite - MR

Theme: The Secret Gospel of Mark, Sex, Death,and Madness; The Psychodynamics of Morton Smith's Proposal
Critical response to The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled; Imagined Rituals of Sex, Death, and Madness in a Biblical Forgery, by Peter G. Jeffery (Yale University Press, 2006).

J. Harold Ellens, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Presiding
Peter Jeffery, Princeton University, Panelist (20 min)
Robin Jensen, Vanderbilt University, Panelist (15 min)
Donald Capps, Princeton Theological Seminary, Panelist (15 min)
J. Ellens, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Panelist (15 min)
Raymond Lawrence, College of Pastoral Supervision and Psychotherapy, Panelist (15 min)
Peter Jeffery, Princeton University, Respondent (20 min)
Discussion (20 min)
Discussion (30 min)
Last edited by Secret Alias on Mon Jan 14, 2019 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

Moses Shapira's shop in Jerusalem - https://www.academia.edu/2127379/In_Sea ... cal_Enigma
“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: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:25 am And the ultimate question is - should any of these shitty arguments cause us think that Clement didn't write the letter to Theodore or that the letter wasn't ancient? No. It's just the worst part of working in the humanity is that your "gut feeling" can rise to an argument.
But... but... "coincidences"!

The conversation might be more productive if we could identify the few facts that could sway someone undecided.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by Peter Kirby »

DCHindley wrote: Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:47 am I think that the "scholarly consensus" of genuinity goes back to the opinion of Helmut Koester in Ancient Christian Gospels, which was published in 1992, so a little out of date.
This is so. They were simpler times, for the study of Secret Mark anyway.

Less nonsense (28 literary influences on Morton Smith! you'll never guess #17!) clogging up the discussion back then.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:10 am And they don't actually come up with plausible reasons for denying the authenticity of the discovery. There's no smoking gun.
It'd be interesting to know what pro-modern-forgery folks consider to be the best one piece of evidence. Or if they could, at the very least, try to enumerate them in order of significance. It could be a revealing exercise.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by Peter Kirby »

rakovsky wrote: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:34 amFor me, Secret Mark hasn't passed the test because of the reasons that I put in this thread earlier: the combination of unlikelihoods and hurdles to authentication. It's unlikely, but conceivable, that a lost Christian secret ritual in the mainstream 2nd c. Alexandrian church could turn up in a modern discovery.
Why is it "unlikely" that (in your words) "a lost Christian secret ritual in the mainstream 2nd c. Alexandrian church could turn up in a modern discovery"? What are the exact assumptions that constitute the argument towards that unlikelihood? What is the evidence supporting those assumptions?

In the OP you say:
rakovsky wrote: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:34 amAn alleged early Christian ritual practice - private gnostic-style instruction involving possibly disrobing and in my reading of the passage, homosexual activity - that was unknown or very rarely known until M. Smith's 20th c. discovery
So is it the "private gnostic-style instruction" that is unlikely?

Or do you have to add the "disrobing" for it to be unlikely?

Or does it become unlikely after adding the "homosexual activity" that is in your "reading of the passage"?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by Peter Kirby »

I noticed that the new hot thing is to claim that Smith had a co-conspirator to do whatever he could not do. At what point does the theory of his gay lover with mad forging skills get a respectable following? Seems inevitable as the next step.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by Peter Kirby »

I dub it the “gay guy of the gaps” theory. If you can’t explain it as something that Smith did, well he had a guy behind him who knew how to take care of it. Yes, they’re crafty like that, lol.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply