Concerning these eyewitness of the golden plates, actually upon examination the original three supposedly eye-witness’ in fact, turned out to be nothing more than visions. The original three witnesses were Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris. When Harris was questioned by a lawyer he asked him specifically: “Did you see the plates and the engravings upon them with your bodily eyes?” He replied: “I did not see them as I do that pencil-case, yet I saw them with the eye of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me-though at the time they were covered with a cloth.” David Whitmer’s testimony is no more convincing, and actually all three eventually quarreled with Joseph enough to have left the church, but none denied their visions. Eventually they all three came back, but Joseph was in need of more witnesses now. So he comes up with eight new ones. They were:

Christian Whitmer
Jacob Whitmer
Peter Whitmer, Jr.
John Whitmer
Hiram Page
Joseph Smith, Sen.
Hyrum Smith
Samuel H. Smith


Four witnesses were Whitmers, and Hiram Page had married a Whitmer daughter, while the other three witnesses were members of Smith’s own family. As Mark Twain once noted: “I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified.”

It was interesting how Joseph was able to obtain these testimonials. The most plausible was written by Thomas Ford who happened to be Governor of Illinois and happened to know several of Joseph’s key men intimately enough to where when they too became disenchanted and left the church they told their story of what happened. They told Ford that they were set to continual prayer, and other spiritual exercises. Finally he brought them all into a room, and produced the box which was supposed to contain the plates. The lid was open, and they were allowed to take a peep into it, but after doing so they told Joseph that didn’t see no plates, Joseph pulled a Jesus on them by saying: “O ye of little faith! how long will God bear with this wicked and perverse generation? Down on your knees, brethren, every one of you, and pray God for the forgiveness of your sins, and for a holy and living faith which cometh down from heaven.” So after several more hours of prayer session, Joseph again asked them to take another peep into the box, and this time they were all persuaded that the plates were indeed there after all. Fawn Bodie’s “No Man Knows My History” is an excellent work into human behavior and she documents her work well, devoting about the last 100 pages to supplements, appendixes, court records, and bibliography, and this is the source I have been quoting out of or paraphrasing. Anyone wanting to be a prophet should read this book. Joseph Smith was the best of the bamboozlers, IMO. I can’t help but admire the man.

John

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
Nomad: Do you personally give more, less or the same credence to Secret Mark than you do to Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon? Why?

rodahi: I think Morton Smith actually believed he had found a legitimate copy of a letter written by Clement. (In other words, I DO NOT think he "bullshitted" anyone. THAT is the issue.) I think this based on a careful reading of his book The Secret Gospel. If nothing else, Morton Smith came across as an honest scholar.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, what you are saying is that in spite of the absense of evidence for what Morton Smith is claiming, you have faith in his integrity. Would that be a fair summation of your position?

No. Why do you say there is "an absence of evidence for what Morton Smith is claiming?" We have a twentieth century world-class scholar who presented photographs of a MS. He has done NOTHING to indicate he is in anyway dishonest. How does "faith" come into the picture? Are you suggesting that we have no photographs? The EVIDENCE clearly shows we do. Are you suggesting that Morton Smith is dishonest? The EVIDENCE clearly shows that Morton Smith has always been an honest scholar.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the letter itself, there is the possibility the letter is a genuine copy. There is the possibility the letter is an ancient forgery or an eighteenth century forgery. The evidence is inconclusive, but I tend to think it is an ancient forgery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair enough. For what it's worth, I think the letter itself is legit, and the "Secret Gospel" itself that Clement is commenting on is apocryphal heresy.

Okay.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am totally convinced The Book of Mormon is a work of fiction. I have read Joseph Smith's biography, much of the Book of Mormon, and numerous commentaries on the subject. My conclusions are based on a careful analysis of as much evidence as I could get my hands on. The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates Joseph Smith perpetrated a fraud.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree, however, he has far more witnesses for his gold tablets than does Morton Smith for his Clementine letter. External evidence for both is so completely absent, however, that I consider both to be hoaxes BoM being relatively modern, and SM being very ancient.

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously untrustworthy, especially when the witnesses have a vested interest in what they claim. That is, the men who claimed to have seen the golden plates are no more trustworthy than those who claimed that Jesus rose from the dead.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I have a few questions for you:
1. Do you believe that Jesus' mother was impregnated by anything but human sperm when he was conceived? If not, why not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, I believe that Jesus was conceived and born of a virgin on the basis that an omnipotent God that created the entire universe from nothing could easily produce a virgin conception and birth. Second, we have two independent traditions for the virgin birth of Jesus (since neither Matthew nor Luke could have been relying upon one another). We also have no evidence that anyone from Jesus' time believed differently. Forth, the virgin birth was consistent with ancient Jewish prophecy and expectations for the Messiah to be born of a virgin. Finally, Church tradition is clear on this point, and affirms that the birth of Jesus, was, in fact, of a virgin.

You have every right to your belief. However:
1. You assume the existence of an uproven god. This is based on faith, not evidence.
2. You assume this unproven god created the universe. This is based on faith, not evidence.
3. The two traditions you speak of merely mention a dream sequence and an angelic visitor. Furthermore, there are no witnesses to either event. Your belief is based on faith, not evidence.
4. We don't have any early evidence that anyone believed in the virgin birth. The writer of Mark does not mention it. Paul does not mention it. The legends of the virgin birth came later. Your belief is based on faith, not evidence.
5. The ancient Hebrew Scriptures mention nothing of a future messiah who would be born of a virgin. Your belief is based on faith, not evidence. (There is a thread that discusses the evidence. Feel free to give your opinions.)
6. Church tradition is not evidence of anything.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Do you believe that dead people can come back to life? If so, why?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do. Again, I do not see why such a thing would not be possible for an omnipotent Creator God.

An omnipotent god could end world hunger as well. Since he has not, then there is no good reason to think there is one. There is no good reason to think any god has brought anyone back to life.

Second, the tradition of the dead coming back to life is extremely ancient in Judaism and Christianity.

This is not evidence. It is ancient belief.

Third, we have at a minimum, three independent accounts of the physical Resurrection of Jesus (Paul, Mark and John).

Why should anyone believe any of these accounts? They contradict each other and they are based on hearsay. Would you believe the writer of a book in which he told of conflicting eyewitness accounts of Elvis rising from the dead? One witness said he sang two choruses from "Blue Hawaii" and then disappeared in front of their eyes, only to appear a few days later to dance up a storm to an unseen group singing "Jailhouse Rock." Another witness said he was playing touch football with some friends while practicing karate moves between plays. Another witness said they saw him appearing in Las Vegas. He did a show and then disappeared while on stage. Of course, not everyone saw this performance, only those who believed Elvis to the the "King." Even some of those doubted. These witnesses claimed to have seen these things during a forty day period. Several other writers wrote similar but conflicting accounts of these purported events involving the risen Elvis. Would you believe these things actually happened, based on eyewitness testimony and multiple, corroborating reports? I wouldn't. Nor do I believe ancient propagandists.

Fourth, the Church has affirmed the authenticity of the Resurrection of Jesus, and sees it as the historical demonstration and proof of what will happen to all of us in the future.

What the "Church" thinks is not evidence.

rodahi




[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited March 15, 2001).]

Rodahi, so your bias goes beyond Morton Smith to Christianity!

You seem to imply that Christian beliefs are silly, so anything we say must be wrong by default.

I tell you what. You present your beliefs and lets see what you have to back them up. Just for starters, tell me exactly what happens when we die. No, no, not speculation, evidence! You're trying to build the same speculative case against the existence of the Christian God that I was attempting to build against Morton Smith. If I am biased, then so are you. It cuts both ways.

Finally, the Christian at least has the hope of an afterlife through Jesus Christ our savior. Compared with the speculative notion of a finite life and then nothingness, it sounds pretty good to me.

Once again, rodahi, you prove (with the evidence of your last post I might add) that you are not out to debate and understand others but to put down others beliefs. You will gain nothing by "debating" in this fashion. After all, what is your goal?

Ish

[This message has been edited by Ish (edited March 15, 2001).]

Hi penatis!

And here I thought I was gonna miss you.

Anywho, since I am not interested in getting into yet another you make an assertion, so I make a counter assertion, I'm gonna let you have the last word on this one.

Welcome back (or at least, glad you never left).

Peace,

Nomad

So, lemme get this straight for the rest of the lurkers on this thread...

Rodahi believes that Smith was honest, and that the document is a fraud... and Nomad thinks Smith was dishonest, but the document was real? Is this right?

I think you got rodahi's position about right.

Personally, I don't care whether Morton Smith was the most honest person alive (when he was alive that is). He is guilty of spreading the worst kind of bullshit (in the world of textual criticism), and being a top notch scholar should be doubly ashamed of his actions. It certainly gives him less of an excuse than some amateur might be able to claim for his sloppy methodology in this particular case.

Secret Mark remains a mystery, but certainly was NOT a part of the original Gospel. Most of us (rodahi included) appear to agree that it looks like a forgery. It (Secret Mark, not the Clementine letter) has no supporting evidence for its existence at all, and in the world of sceptics this usually means that it is given short shift and tossed in the dump (or worse, has scorn heaped upon it). This one has managed to stick around however, for reasons only known to the likes of Crossan and Koester and other "non-biased" thinkers.

So, again, I think it is an ancient heresy (or forgery, whichever you like to call it), and Clement talked about it. Beyond that, we shouldn't even be worrying about this piece of "work", although I must admit, the clear faith that Smith's supporters continue to place in him is intriguing.

Hope that clears things up a bit. I know that I, for one, certainly have enjoyed (and learned from) this thread.

Nomad

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad:
[b] I think you got rodahi's position about right.

Personally, I don't care whether Morton Smith was the most honest person alive (when he was alive that is).

Isn't that the point? How can an honest person "bullshit" anyone? That is a contradiction.

He is guilty of spreading the worst kind of bullshit (in the world of textual criticism), and being a top notch scholar should be doubly ashamed of his actions. It certainly gives him less of an excuse than some amateur might be able to claim for his sloppy methodology in this particular case.

Are you making this claim AFTER having READ books by Morton Smith, or are you making this claim because you are ignorant of what he actually did but take the word of those who also don't know what he did but give their biased opinions anyway?

Secret Mark remains a mystery, but certainly was NOT a part of the original Gospel.

It is certainly possible that it was, so this is nothing but conjecture on your part.

Most of us (rodahi included) appear to agree that it looks like a forgery. It (Secret Mark, not the Clementine letter) has no supporting evidence for its existence at all, and in the world of sceptics this usually means that it is given short shift and tossed in the dump (or worse, has scorn heaped upon it). This one has managed to stick around however, for reasons only known to the likes of Crossan and Koester and other "non-biased" thinkers.

Morton Smith admitted he had doubts and admitted that his conclusions were based on conjecture. If you had read his book you would know this. He purposely avoided "bullshitting" anyone.

So, again, I think it is an ancient heresy (or forgery, whichever you like to call it), and Clement talked about it. Beyond that, we shouldn't even be worrying about this piece of "work", although I must admit, the clear faith that Smith's supporters continue to place in him is intriguing.

I certainly hope your OPINION is based on a thorough reading and study of Morton Smith's books. Otherwise, you are not qualified to question anything he has said or done.

rodahi

I have read The Secret Gospel very carefully. Even Morton Smith himself expressed doubts at times that the Clement letter was genuine. Based on all available evidence, I THINK it is possible that the Clement letter, as presented by Smith, is an ancient forgery. It could be more genuine than any letter attributed to a man named Saul of Tarsus, but who knows?

Have you read anything by Morton Smith?

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited March 15, 2001).]

Ish, you sure left out a lot!

You certainly have provided enough evidence to question someone’s integrity, but it’s not the integrity of the one you thought! This site has Morton Smith coming out looking damn good, and actually most of it is a critique of the scholars who had criticized Morton Smith‘s work! Did you realize the author of this site goes through many of these scholars, and shows why their objections are often petty and ridiculous to the statements made here? That’s why they were listed. Sure you read it, so why the short snip? Since you didn’t provide it, and since it is about 50 pages long, I think it is important to post it: www.globaltown.com/shawn/secmark.html I can see now why you weren’t forthcoming when rhodahi mentioned that you didn’t provide a site to it. It does an excellent job of bringing everything out on the table, and Smith comes out looking great. In fact, most of these questions that you had been asking rhodahi are on that site. Let’s go through a few of these scholars:

As the site points out, all of the criticism seems to be coming from the religious right. Apologists and evangelicals are the ones wanting to dismiss Smith. Five that were on that list were Catholic scholars, and one was Fitzmyer who thought Morton Smith was dishonest because he titled his piece the “Secret Gospel of Mark” when it really was only fragments. Shawn Eyer whose name is at the top of this site mentions that Danker was the worse of them, who criticized Morton Smith for saying it does not have the Greek text, and although Danker says Smith did include a photograph, he says that "the publishers do not supply a magnifying glass with which to read it." To which Eyer replies:

“He deceptively omits that Smith's Harvard edition includes large, easily legible photographic plates of the original manuscript, alleging that Smith was ‘reluctant...to share the Greek text‘ he had discovered.”

Also Fitzmeyer, saw it important to also point out that Morton Smith was bald. This is who you referred to as a top-notch scholar.

Other scholars who criticized Morton Smith were Quesnell and Per Beskow. Quesnell said that the “photographic plates of the ms. are considered sub-standard.” And also they "do not include the margins and edges of the pages," they "are only black and white," and that they were marred by "numerous discrepancies in shading, in wrinkles and dips in the paper.” Per Beskow echoed the same sentiments saying that Smith only can present some mediocre photographs, which do not “even cover the entire margins of the manuscript.” But again Eyer points out:

“While the photographic plates in the Harvard volume do not extend to the margins due to the cropping of the publishers, Smith's photographs are printed elsewhere and do include the margins of the pages. Furthermore, they are quite in-focus and cannot be described as mediocre.”

Two scholars, found it proper to criticize Smith' because he used “too much documentation, as a ploy to confuse the reader.” Imagine that. Beskow also states that "Morton Smith seems quite alone in his view that the fragment is a piece of genuine Gospel material," but Eyer corrects him and says that this “is manifestly false” and goes on to list scholars to prove it. Here is how Eyer brings in Talley’s remarks:

[I made one correction to this quote where it was probably a typo when it states January of 19080, I took out one of the 0’s to have it read 1980.]

Here is why Eyer and others think the religious right is so strong against Morton Smith.

The site concludes nicely:

This site has some 50 pages to it, and quite contrary to the list you briefly snipped off wanting Morton Smith‘s integrity questioned, it supplied an adverse effect. I suspect, like Eyer that many religious folk are not ready to accept anything but the official gospel version of Jesus. It was imperative that anyone uncovering any unpropitious opinion stating otherwise should be discredited, and that it be done before too many scholars took hold of it and found their might just be something to his theories after all.

John



[This message has been edited by John the Atheist (edited March 15, 2001).]

Nice work, John. I had read the article myself and should have used it. Thank you for going to the trouble.

It is interesting that Ish did not provide the name of this website, isn't it?

rodahi