rodahi, if we can't call people's integrity into question, then we're going to have a lot of junk scholarship and inauthentic MS out there. We have to be judicious... The circumstances in his case call for it.

Also, if you can't call someone's integrity into question simply because they didn't or didn't seem to do ANYTHING questionable in the past, then we will end up accepting a lot of phoneys.

Finally, I ask you to explain to me why Smith didn't ask for help in securing this obviously important never-before-heard-of text?! It's hard to escape ulterior motives here. I mean it would have been much more scholarly and appropriate to have involved other scholars and protected his important "find".

Ish

Let's try one more time...

Hmm... so you still do not get the point.

Smith made the claims Omnedon. He has nothing to back them up except his reputation. In scholarly circles this is not quite enough to go on. So until someone shows us the goods, Secret Mark is, at best, a curiousity. At worst, it is a fraud. Perhaps you should reread Akenson's points in the original thread to see why Smith's work is the worst kind of scholarship (IOW, bullshit).

The "crime" he has committed is in spreading bullshit, and one can be perfectly honest and still do this (cf. Sagan quoting Morris' slander about Cardinal Newman). In this case, considering we have no evidence that there ever really was a Secret Mark, then Smith engaged in sensationalistic journalism rather than good solid reporting. This is not hard stuff Omnedon, no evidence to support a "scholarly" claim is as bad as pretending that Joseph Smith produced a completely new Gospel from some gold tablets. We have exactly as much evidence for what either Smith "discovered" (translation: zero, zip, nada). Photographs do not cut it as evidence in this case, since we have photos of Bigfoot and UFO's as well.

In the world of textual criticism, one must be able to produce a reliable and real document or fragment. Smith has NEVER done this. So far as we are aware, no one ever has, and no one ever will either. Further, even what M. Smith did have was no more than a copy of a letter reporting on the supposed existence of such a thing as Secret Mark, but no ACTUAL Secret Mark itself.

I do not know how to make this any plainer to you. If someone brought a picture of a fragment of a letter supposedly written by an 18th Century anthropologist that claimed to have found a (never seen) fragment of a bone from the "missing link", how much credence would it be given in the world of anthropology? None? Less than that?

The bullshit is right in front of you Omnedon. The link to the Secret Mark home page is on this thread. The total amount of non-evidence for its existence is well known, and is certainly not controlled by me or other Christians. Take a look and tell us what you have found.

Oh dear. Now you want a confession. Listen carefully:

Smith produced a paper in 1960 reporting on a "document" he claims to have seen and authenticated in 1958. No other Textual Critic has ever seen it before or since. Further, there is no evidence for anything that is actually contained in that letter. Smith was young, new to his field, and became very famous very quickly after his discovery.

Now, does this mean that he created the whole thing? No. Does it mean that he is guilty of the sloppiest form of textual criticism imaginable? Yes, and in spades. There is only one reason to treat Secret Mark uncritically, and that is if you want to believe it is real. In the absense of evidence, that is all anyone can do, just like Joseph Smith's gold tablets.

I have whacked you over the head with so much evidence your head appears to be spinning. Morton Smith's work should be given the same level of credence as is any other reported find for which we have no supporting evidence at all. I classify it with photos of UFO's, Joseph Smith's gold tablets and the like, and each of these is rightly considered to be bullshit by the sceptical community.

On what basis do you judge this one differently?

I guess you have not been reading this thread, nor the pages we have linked to. There is no evidence in support of Secret Mark available to ANYONE.

Even nice people, and reputable scholars can spread tales Omnedon. Given that you are a sceptic, I would have thought you would have known this already.


No, in the absense of evidence from anyone. Next time, read the links on the page before you make your assertions. Even Akido's links don't tell us anything we didn't know before (except that we have another picture. Big whoop as they say.)

I consider this one to be big enough on its own. For all I know Joseph Smith was a swell guy too. I still think the Book or Mormon and Pearl of Great Price were hoaxes.

Look up, and read my posts. Ish has also contributed to this proof.

What are you not getting here Omnedon? It is Morton Smith that is reporting things second hand, not me. I have, and will continue to demand evidence to support his claim, and that is how it should be.

It looks funny, and we don't know what happened here.

And as for evidence of Secret Mark, the world is still waiting.

Nomad

oops...

[This message has been edited by Ish (edited March 12, 2001).]

No. Cosmos means everything. All of it. Not just that, it also seems to imply a connectedness between all there is. Cosmos, however, doesn't state what "everything" includes. It just means everything, past, present and future.

sentinel00, now that was an even bigger oops than my oops!

Ish

ish:
rodahi, if we can't call people's integrity into question, then we're going to have a lot of junk scholarship and inauthentic MS out there. We have to be judicious... The circumstances in his case call for it.

Would you please present one iota of evidence that demonstrates Morton Smith did anything dishonest or inappropriate.


Also, if you can't call someone's integrity into question simply because they didn't or didn't seem to do ANYTHING questionable in the past, then we will end up accepting a lot of phoneys.

This is ludicrous. You question the integrity of a world-class scholar and this all you can say for yourself?

Finally, I ask you to explain to me why Smith didn't ask for help in securing this obviously important never-before-heard-of text?! It's hard to escape ulterior motives here. I mean it would have been much more scholarly and appropriate to have involved other scholars and protected his important "find".

Would you please present evidence demonstrating that Morton Smith did ANYTHING dishonest or inappropriate?

rodahi


[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited March 12, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited March 12, 2001).]

rodahi, my points seem to have blown right over your head. Look, I can't prove Smith did ANYTHING wrong. Is that what you want to hear? Nobody can. However, taking into account the strange circumstances surrounding Secret Mark that Nomad and I have tried to make you aware of, I find that I must question Smith's integrity.

Now that I've answered you question, answer mine:

I ask you to explain to me why Smith didn't ask for help in securing this obviously important never-before-heard-of text?! It's hard to escape ulterior motives here. I mean it would have been much more scholarly and appropriate to have involved other scholars and protected his important "find".

Ish

[This message has been edited by Ish (edited March 12, 2001).]

Ish:
rodahi, my points seem to have blown right over your head. Look, I can't prove Smith did ANYTHING wrong. Is that what you want to hear? Nobody can. However, taking into account the strange circumstances surrounding Secret Mark that Nomad and I have tried to make you aware of, I find that I must question Smith's integrity.

I disagree with your comment about your "points blowing over my head." I would say they seem to be beneath me, for you never made any "points." Thank you for admitting that you cannot find anything that Morton Smith did wrong, except in your imagination.

Now that I've answered you question, answer mine:

I ask you to explain to me why Smith didn't ask for help in securing this obviously important never-before-heard-of text?! It's hard to escape ulterior motives here. I mean it would have been much more scholarly and appropriate to have involved other scholars and protected his important "find".

If you had taken the time to read Morton Smith's account in The Secret Gospel, you could have answered this question yourself.

I am going to list some of the scholars with whom Smith discussed/shared his "find," before publishing The Secret Gospel:

Professor Gershom Scholem, Dr. Angelou, Dr. Dimaras, Dr. Kournoutos, Dr. Manousakas, Dr. V. Scouvaras, Professor Henry Cadbury, Dr. Erwin Goodenough, Dr. A.D. Nock, Professor A. Delatte, Dr. M. Richard, Professor G. Soulis, Dr. P. Topping, Professor E. Bickerman, Professor W. M. Calder III, Professor H. Chadwick, Professor B. Einarson, Professor L. Fruchtel, Dr. R. Grant, Dr. M. Hadas, Professor W. Jaeger, Dr. G. Lampe, Dr. C. Mondesert, Professor J. Munck, Dr. M. Richard, Professor W. Volker, Dr. A. Wifstrand, Professor J. Reumann, Dr. C. Richardson, Professor R. Schippers, Dr. Pierson Parker, Professor Baarda, Professor P. Benoit, Professor G. Kilpatrick, Dr. Helmut Koester, Professor C. Moule, Professor K. Stendahl, et al. These names are documented in his book and he goes out of his way to thank EVERY SINGLE ONE for their help.

Ish, do your homework.

rodahi

Those blinded by "canonical consciousness" can never completely approach evidence outside their paradigm: it is if at each encounter, the orthodox believer can only approach halfway each time. The paradox is that they will never really arrive.