Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chris Weimer · 10-25-2005, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

I'm simply pointing out that there's no evidence at all that Prof. Smith was guilty of any wrongdoing. Thus, I feel that it's unfair to portray him as a liar and cheat.

Except that Carlson did not do this. This is a direct ad hom. of Carlson without even reading his book! And if you had read the book, there is evidence. Quit talkin' out your arse, Yuri. It's actually starting to get annoying now.

10-26-2005, 01:50 AM

I read it last night (post to the UK is a bit slow) and thought that Carlson has succeeded in demonstrating that Secret Mark can be given no weight at all by scholars. It is a modern fake. The only question is who faked it and Smith is the prime suspect. I suspect the reason that Smith waited 15 years to publish was to see if anyone would twig. When they didn't he raised the game and still got away with it. Is the case proved beyond reasonable doubt? Yes, that it is a forgery/hoax. No, that Smith was the man who did it. But Carlson comes close.

Best wishes

Bede

Yuri Kuchinsky · 10-26-2005, 08:56 AM

Yuri:
I'm simply pointing out that there's no evidence at all that Prof. Smith was guilty of any wrongdoing. Thus, I feel that it's unfair to portray him as a liar and cheat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Except that Carlson did not do this. This is a direct ad hom. of Carlson without even reading his book! And if you had read the book, there is evidence. Quit talkin' out your arse, Yuri. It's actually starting to get annoying now.

Do you agree with me that Smith was an honest man?

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 10-26-2005, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

I read it last night (post to the UK is a bit slow) and thought that Carlson has succeeded in demonstrating that Secret Mark can be given no weight at all by scholars.

Your opinion only, Bede.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

It is a modern fake. The only question is who faked it and Smith is the prime suspect. I suspect the reason that Smith waited 15 years to publish was to see if anyone would twig. When they didn't he raised the game and still got away with it. Is the case proved beyond reasonable doubt? Yes, that it is a forgery/hoax. No, that Smith was the man who did it. But Carlson comes close.

Best wishes

Bede

So you're not yet persuaded by Carlson's analysis of the handwriting?

Yuri.

10-26-2005, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

So you're not yet persuaded by Carlson's analysis of the handwriting?

I am convinced that the writing is faked.

B

Chris Weimer · 10-27-2005, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

Do you agree with me that Smith was an honest man?

Yuri.

Perhaps you would have a better understanding after you read the book. We've all tried to explain it here, I've given you a link to my blog and others, what more do you want?

Roger Pearse · 10-29-2005, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Roger,

I already wrote a review -- even before reading the book,

(June 16, 2005) Why I think that Carlson's SecMk Debunking Theory is Completely Silly
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=128104

But now that you have a copy, do you see that Carlson has actually addressed all your queries?

Quote:

The basic premise of Carlson's theory is that Smith devised a highly complex scheme of self-destruction, but the expected outcome didn't take place because the monks covered for him (and are still continuing to do so).

No. He devised a text that would prove he was a better scholar than anyone else, and embedded in it jokes to show that he didn't seriously intend to deceive. Had it been a crude job, your comments might have been correct. But careers are not destroyed in this manner.

Quote:

It's not important to me that Secret Mark be authentic. Secret Mark plays no big role in any of my theories about the Christian origins.

I'm simply pointing out that there's no evidence at all that Prof. Smith was guilty of any wrongdoing. Thus, I feel that it's unfair to portray him as a liar and cheat.

Did you know him, or something?

Quote:

The state of morals within the NT studies guild seems to be quite similar to the den of thieves in 'Oliver Twist'. Except that perhaps the thieves have more respect for each other, and don't normally accuse their comrades without some pretty good evidence.

This is what baffles me. Given your views, I would have expected you to be delighted that an NT scholar had been caught red handed.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Yuri Kuchinsky · 11-02-2005, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

But now that you have a copy, do you see that Carlson has actually addressed all your queries?

How do you know that I have a copy, Roger?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

YURI:
The basic premise of Carlson's theory is that Smith devised a highly complex scheme of self-destruction, but the expected outcome didn't take place because the monks covered for him (and are still continuing to do so).

ROGER:
No. He devised a text that would prove he was a better scholar than anyone else,

Only someone who's very silly would want to do this.

Thus, Smith wanted to prove that he's very silly, but nobody could figure it out...

I just love Carlson's logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

and embedded in it jokes to show that he didn't seriously intend to deceive. Had it been a crude job, your comments might have been correct. But careers are not destroyed in this manner.

In the real world, it's very easy to tell the difference between something that was written 200 years ago, and something that was written just yesterday.

This is the crucial point here, Roger. Based on Carlson's reasoning, this _was_ a crude job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Did you know him, or something?

No, I didn't know him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

This is what baffles me. Given your views, I would have expected you to be delighted that an NT scholar had been caught red handed.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

But you see, formally, he wasn't a NT scholar. He was the Professor of Ancient History at Columbia University.

In the real world IMHO the only way Carlson's accusations against Smith can ever make any sense is if more people are involved.

If Smith was really the author of SecMk, then there would have to be some accomplices -- to help him plant the manuscript, and to help with the cover up.

Sorry, but I do think that Carlson's half-hearted accusations against Smith cannot be taken seriously. If you want a forgery/hoax, then you really should go all the way, and make your scenario at least somewhat realistic. Let's have a real full-blown conspiracy theory about SecMk. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time.

Regards,

Yuri.

Chris Weimer · 11-02-2005, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

Only someone who's very silly would want to do this.

Or smart.

Quote:

In the real world, it's very easy to tell the difference between something that was written 200 years ago, and something that was written just yesterday.

Oh really? Then what's all the fuss about the James Ossuary? Or about a hundred of the other forgeries that cause debate.

Quote:

This is the crucial point here, Roger. Based on Carlson's reasoning, this _was_ a crude job.

Which is why Smith a) barely used it in his Jesus the Magician work, and b) only did for laughs.

Quote:

But you see, formally, he wasn't a NT scholar. He was the Professor of Ancient History at Columbia University.

You have strange conceptions of what it is to be an NT scholar. I merely thought it was working with the New Testament, but hey, what do I know. :huh:

Quote:

Let's have a real full-blown conspiracy theory about SecMk.

Sometimes, the truth is simpler than the conspiracy.

Chris

Roger Pearse · 11-04-2005, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

YURI:
The basic premise of Carlson's theory is that Smith devised a highly complex scheme of self-destruction, but the expected outcome didn't take place because the monks covered for him (and are still continuing to do so).

ROGER:
No. He devised a text that would prove he was a better scholar than anyone else,

YURI:
Only someone who's very silly would want to do this.

No doubt; but many of the greatest scholars have been very little men.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-26-2005, 01:50 AM	#12
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	I read it last night (post to the UK is a bit slow) and thought that Carlson has succeeded in demonstrating that Secret Mark can be given no weight at all by scholars. It is a modern fake. The only question is who faked it and Smith is the prime suspect. I suspect the reason that Smith waited 15 years to publish was to see if anyone would twig. When they didn't he raised the game and still got away with it. Is the case proved beyond reasonable doubt? Yes, that it is a forgery/hoax. No, that Smith was the man who did it. But Carlson comes close. Best wishes Bede

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.