Roger Pearse

I've written a review of Stephen Carlson's book, the "Gospel Hoax" on Secret Mark. It's available from here.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Chris Weimer

Nice work, Roger.

Roger Pearse

Glad to help!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Loren Rosson III

Roger, it's a good review, though I think Carlson's case is more conclusive. But then I always thought Secret Mark was a transparent forgery.

In the review you wrote:

"While the portrait of Smith that appears is unaimiable, it is impossible to consider him merely a crank."

Ironically, I think Smith comes off better than he ever did, especially given Carlson's distinction between forgeries done for fame or money (i.e. cheating to get ahead) and pranks (which test people's competency for the sake of amusement). Smith was a prankster, not a cheater. He certainly wasn't a crank. He was a genius smarter than most of his colleagues combined. He may have been unpleasant -- and he obviously lacked some integrity -- but personally, I think his hoax is hilarious.

Roger Pearse

Yes, I've slightly reworded it at a couple of points, because it sounded more negative than I meant it to (written too fast with much else to do).

I know what you mean about Secret Mark; but the problem is that this is a subjective judgement, and my own judgement is invariably affected by my political and religious biases. These will mislead me, if I let them. So I try to descope them. With SM, Carlson has managed to find a way to do this.

Maybe so!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Chris Weimer

Sorry, but very well said! If only more could take your example when dealing with issues.

best,

Chris

mata leao

nice work! bully! bully!

Chris Weimer

Question, Roger - do you still have your original review saved somewhere?

Yuri Kuchinsky

Thank you for your review, Roger.

Here's a minor point. You write in your review,

"some colour photographs were taken on a subsequent trip with other scholars; and then the manuscript disappeared."

But actually the photos were taken by a librarian, and they were not "taken on a subsequent trip with other scholars". The librarian took these photos in Istanbul well after that trip took place.

Also, you wrote in your review,

"Smith was a specialist in Clement's works ..."

But actually there's no evidence that Smith was a specialist in Clement's works prior to 1958.

"... and possessed an index of his usage created in the 1930's."

There's no evidence that Smith bought that index prior to 1958.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, I think this is highly indicative... The way the things are today in NT studies, it seems like accusing someone of lying might be seen as some sort of a compliment!

Regards,

Yuri.