Sauron

Yes, but did that Robert Price ever write an article comparing this dimestore novel to the Secret Gospel of Mark?

If not, then Layman is still the person in question.

S.C.Carlson

Yes. That would be Robert M. Price, “Second Thoughts about the Secret Gospel,� Bulletin of Biblical Research 14 (2004), 127-132.

His bibliography claims to have another article forthcoming comparing Morton Smith and Joseph SMith.

Toto

I have split out some problematic posts.

Please use the report post button or PM a mod instead of complaining in thread.

It is clear that Sauron made a mistake in confusing Robert Price and Layman. (Anyone who has followed Robert Price will know how off the wall this is, but there is no reason to assume that Sauron's mistake was malicious.) Let's get beyond this. The rest of Sauron's post #6 seems to ask a legitimate question.

Toto

I am reserving any opinion on this until Stephen Carlson's book comes out.

I would think it highly possible that Morton Smith would have read a mytery novel about Mar Saba that involved the Higher Criticism, since academics tend to be mystery readers.

But I wonder about the significance of a character in the book whose name resembles Morton Smith's. Is there some indication that Smith contributed to the book, or is that just one of those coincidences?

Sauron

We routinely point out the double standards in how someone deals with data, or the standards that they use to evaluate something. We do it when we talk about creationists, ID'ers, pro-lifers, etc.

If we had a hypothetical someone who evaluated archaeological situation X according to to the tenets of one standard, and then abandoned that selfsame standard when a similar textual criticism situation Y arose, the question of WHY is a very relevant question to be asking. And it IS part of the topic - the standards of evaluation are intrinsically part of the discussion.

So why is this an exception?

S.C.Carlson

One major difference between Secret Mark and the James Ossuary is that a physical examination was performed on the James Ossuary, while none was ever conducted on the manuscript for Secret Mark.

Now, it turned out that the IGS physical examination of the ossuary was incompetent, but, on the crucial question of examining of the physical remains of the alleged find, the James Ossuary had a lot more going for it than Secret Mark ever did. In fact it still does: if we believe the prosecutor's theory of the case, the first half of the inscription actually is authentic; the second part is the forgery.

Stephen

Amaleq13

Pointing out double standards, regardless of the topic, actually does nothing to undermine the argument presented because it is aimed at the person rather than the argument. IOW, even if the individual offered an argument on a different subject based on completely different standards that really says nothing about the strength of the current argument. It would be relevant to the argument-in-question if the individual made a comparison of the two part of that argument. It would also be relevant if the primary argument was about the expertise or authority of a particular scholar/scientist (ie "That guy can't be relied upon as an authority because he switches his standards to suit his purposes").

Each argument stands on its own merits. To focus on the allegedly varying standards of an individual, however, is to change the subject from the argument to the person making the argument.

As far as "my" forum is concerned, I don't think it is an exception but please report any posts here where you believe such a redirection of the discussion has taken place but ignored so that it can be addressed.

If you feel you have a valid complaint about moderation, the appropriate place for it is in Problems & Complaints.

Sauron

Yes, but the physical examination did not support the claims being made for the ossuary. Moreover, depending upon the physical examination you're talking about -- it was not made by the most objective panel. Lemaire, Witherington, etc. are all embarrassingly discredited.

The other physical examinations either contradicted the claim, or cast doubts on it, such as when the Israeli Antiquities Authority ruled it a fake.Likewise, when an aerospace engineer ruled out the claims on the grounds of physical science.

So yes - the ossuary was available to be examined. In that respect, it's defintely a step ahead of SGM. But the results were so mixed and misinterpreted that no one should have been taking the strong position of authenticity. In that respect, it's not much better than SGM. AFter all, which is better:

1. an article that is available for inspection, but which yields inconclusive results; OR
2. an article that isn't available for inspection at all

At the end of the day, the result of 1 is the same as the result of 2: frustrating lack of conclusions, which mean no strong positions should be taken.

No, I dont think so. I think that certain people tried to read extra meaning into their report that simply wasn't there. The IGS is not a forensic investigative service; they're civil service geologists, not CSI Jerusalem. I'm sure they never expected people around the world to be splitting the finest of hairs and obsessing over the precise wording of their report. Yet that is precisely what happened.

I would be cautious about accepting the prosecutor's position as the de facto status of the archaeology surrounding the ossuary. As an attorney, he is trained to zero in on the point he thinks will be easiest to prove in a court, and isn't worried about the accuracy of the information he is presenting. Winning and being right are two different things. The first is the goal; the second is merely icing.

Now after 30 years have gone by and all this is just a quaint old tale, we might discover that the prosecutor's theory was, in fact, the same as the true archaeological situation. But at the moment, I would focus on what the archaeology says about the ossuary, instead of relying upon an attorney with a point to prove.

FWIW my position on this has been "box authentic, inscription fake" - but I haven't decided if all, or part, of the inscription is a fake yet.

Toto

I consider myself somewhat of a mystery buff, so I located a copy of the book.

I have to take back what I said about the probability of Morton Smith having read it. This is not the sort of fiction that academics usually read as recreation. "Cheesy" does not even begin to describe this novel.

The book was published by Zondervan, and is filled with evangelical propaganda. It is not actually a mystery, as the reader knows everything from the start. It is Christian pulp fiction, full of adventure, violence, romance, and evangelical fantasies about how the world works. It is rife with paleo-colonial stereotypes: the Arabs of Palestine are child-like, and the only reason for strife in Palestine is the presence of outside (German) agitators. The British are benevolent and efficient governors, who have a way of dealing with the natives, and are on a mission from God. The Christian men are muscular, possessing "manly bosoms," and are expert at the art of fighting. It only takes a few of them to repulse waves of Arab insurrectionists. The Christian women are breathtakingly beautiful.

The characters are continually giving little speeches professing their faith. At the beginning, when the hero rescues the blond blue-eyed Christian heroine (before he has been converted), and falls in love with her immediately, instead of falling into his manly arms she gives him a little speech about how he will be going to Hell if he doesn't accept Jesus. After his conversion, the main character gives a speech against evolution, which only undermined faith in God's purpose.

The plot revolves around a strategy revealed in the first chapter: a German professor of Higher Criticism intends to undermine British morale by forging a document that will shake their faith, thus softening them up for an invasion by the Germans.

If Morton Smith got anything from this book, it could only have been the basic idea of finding a forged manuscript at Mar Saba. But there are many points of difference. The fictional forgery was of an ancient manuscript, not a copy added to the end of an existing book. The fictional forgery was planted for someone else to find, not found by the forger himself (if Smith was the forger). The fictional forgery did not purport to be a secret part of the gospels quoted by a later church father - it was an extra-Biblical document.

And I doubt that anyone would need a novel like this to create the idea of forging a Christian document - that's been done before.

I somehow doubt that the Mystery of Mar Saba was so popular that Smith would necessarily have read it, or would have been discouraged from locating his find at Mar Saba because of the notoriety. It seems to have been aimed at a niche evangelical market, probably of midwestern American evangelicals.

The novel is rich with details about Palestine at the time, and it is probable that there is some historical basis for these background details. If so, we learn that the monastery at Mar Saba was fairly corrupt and disorganized. But this is not exactly news, and Smith does not seem to have needed to bribe anyone.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Thanks for your review of "The Mystery of Mar Saba" by J.H. Hunter, Toto.

Based on what you say, I don't think this book is really of so much help to the opponents of SecMk. Assuming Smith had read this 'cheesy' novel, and assuming further that he was a forger, it's not so easy to understand why he would have planted his "forgery" at Mar Saba.

The Secret Gospel of Mark,
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/secmk.htm

All the best,

Yuri.