Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Yuri Kuchinsky · 12-10-2005, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Yuri,

You may want to reconsider this hasty dismissal, in your own interests. Quite a lot of us have read the book, you know. Carlson's thesis may be proven mistaken: but it is certainly not laughable or trivial. On the contrary it is a painstaking piece of work which advances the subject considerably. While I don't think that SC has conclusively proven his case in every area, it can't be just dismissed in three sentences like this. It's much better than that.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Hi, Roger,

I already wrote a longish analysis where I demonstrated that Carlson's basic premise is hopelessly flawed,

(June 16, 2005)
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=128104

If a theory is based on an absurd premise, there's normally no need to examine the fine particulars of this theory, as they cannot have any independent validity of their own -- they have to stand or fall together with the premise on which they are based.

It's like the Hollow Earth Theory, for example,

http://www.crystalinks.com/hollowearth.html

If I don't accept that the Earth is hollow, why do I need to discuss the fine particulars of it -- such as whether the inhabitants of the Inner Earth have three eyes or maybe four eyes, or whether or not they get around on Flying Saucers?

All the best,

Yuri.

jakejonesiv · 12-12-2005, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

Do you really believe that the letter was "lost"?

Yes, don't you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

This is just silly. How could he "count" on something that (in real life) would be so extremely improbable?

Regards,

Yuri.

Please excuse my overuse of pronouns! It muddled the meaning of the previous message. With all the caveat's expressed before, here is a clarification.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake Jones

But the scheme was altered beyond recognition when the letter was lost. Smith cannot be blamed for that, he had counted on it the hoax being exposed. Certainly this the loss of the letter would come as somewhat of a relief to Smith, maybe he wouldn’t have to fess up after all. He had much more to lose professionally, and as for his love life, passions dim with time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

PS.
I have read Carlson's book by now, and I think that the whole thing is just laughable. It is nothing more than a tissue of fantasy and innuendo. There's nothing there that comes anywhere close to proof that Smith fabricated this manuscript.

So now I suspect that Carlson's book is actually just a hoax! His intention no doubt was to expose all that incompetence that is all too common in NT studies... IMO he wrote his book just to trap the incompetent NT scholars into believing him! Later he will probably come out clean, and we will all have a good laugh at all those boobs who were beguiled by his 'evidence'.

Disagree. Carlson's book is quite good and establishes by the preponderance of the evidence that Morton Smith hoaxed Theodore and Secret Mark.

I discussed many of his finding in my previous posts.

Congratulations to Stephen C. Carlson on a job well done! I recommend this book to all readers of IIDB.

Jake Jones IV

Toto · 12-12-2005, 11:41 AM

Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark

Yuri Kuchinsky · 12-13-2005, 08:15 AM

YURI:
Do you really believe that the letter was "lost"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Yes, don't you?

I don't think that it's very likely that the letter was lost purely by accident.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Please excuse my overuse of pronouns! It muddled the meaning of the previous message. With all the caveat's expressed before, here is a clarification.

Your "clarification" doesn't seem to clarify very much...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Disagree. Carlson's book is quite good and establishes by the preponderance of the evidence that Morton Smith hoaxed Theodore and Secret Mark.

Your opinion only.

One of the big problems with Carlson's theory is that it makes the behaviour of the monastic authorities completely incomprehensible. To all intents and purposes, Carlson is turning them into Smith's accomplices.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 12-13-2005, 11:57 AM

Ben Smith has posted his review of Carlson's book on his webpage, in which he generally supports Carlson's hoax theory,

http://www.textexcavation.com/secretmark.html

I've read Ben's review, and now I have some questions, that I hope he answers.

First of all, Ben, I'm wondering, have you also read the recent book by Scott Brown, in which he supports the authenticity of Mar Saba manuscript?

Scott G. Brown, MARK'S OTHER GOSPEL: RETHINKING MORTON SMITH'S CONTROVERSIAL DISCOVERY, Waterloo, ON.: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 2005.

It doesn't look to me like you have... Because some of the things you say in your review have already been addressed by Brown quite adequately.

In particular, this is what you write in your review,

http://www.textexcavation.com/secretmark.html

"... Smith was using his textual fake for the third purpose that Carlson identifies for a forgery, to further his own ideology (as expressed, for example, in his dissertation) ..."

Well, actually, Brown demonstrates rather conclusively that the Mar Saba manuscript in no way furthered Smith's own theories that he held prior to 1958, such as his theories about the gospel of Mark, for example.

I think any scholar who investigates this controversial subject needs to hear both sides of the story in order to come to a balanced and informed opinion. So I just wonder, did you only investigate one side of the story (as represented by Carlson's book), and formed your opinion on this basis alone, without also investigating the other side (as represented by Brown)?

And also, what about my own proof that Smith could not have been a forger?

http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/secmk.htm

What about the work of Talley, for example, that I think has some very solid support for the authenticity side?

So why are you disregarding all this other evidence, I wonder?

Regards,

Yuri.

Roger Pearse · 12-13-2005, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

I've read Ben's review, and now I have some questions, that I hope he answers.

First of all, Ben, I'm wondering, have you also read the recent book by Scott Brown, in which he supports the authenticity of Mar Saba manuscript?

Has anyone other than the professionals seen this? I was under the impression it had only just come out.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith · 12-13-2005, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

Ben Smith has posted his review of Carlson's book on his webpage, in which he generally supports Carlson's hoax theory,

http://www.textexcavation.com/secretmark.html

I've read Ben's review, and now I have some questions, that I hope he answers.

Why, certainly.

Quote:

First of all, Ben, I'm wondering, have you also read the recent book by Scott Brown, in which he supports the authenticity of Mar Saba manuscript?

No, unfortunately I have not. I have been having some trouble getting hold of it, but it looks like I will be able to get it very soon.

Quote:

I think any scholar who investigates this controversial subject needs to hear both sides of the story in order to come to a balanced and informed opinion.

I quite agree.

Quote:

And also, what about my own proof that Smith could not have been a forger?

http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/secmk.htm

Yes, I have read your essays several times over, and have always enjoyed them very much. You may have noticed that I even link to them in the section before my review of Carlson. Furthermore, I plan to address most if not all of your points in those essays at some point on my web page. I almost addressed them before uploading my page, but then got busy again and decided to hold off a bit.

Quote:

So why are you disregarding all this other evidence, I wonder?

This coming from a person who reviewed the Carlson effort before even cracking its cover....

But this disregard on my part, while perhaps unfortunate (but see the indiscriminately balanced list of reviews at the bottom of my page), is only temporary.

Thanks for your interest, Yuri, and I will certainly let you know when I upload a response to your essays on the secret gospel.

Ben.

Toto · 12-13-2005, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Has anyone other than the professionals seen this? I was under the impression it had only just come out.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

American buyers can follow the Amazon link in my post above, and Amazon will give you a package deal on Carlson's and Brown's books.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 12-14-2005, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Has anyone other than the professionals seen this? I was under the impression it had only just come out.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Here's another 'objective' commentator...

=====quote=====

Macleans.ca | Top Stories | Religion | Mark's secret gospel
http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/re..._105698_105698

May 12, 2005

Mark's secret gospel

What does a contested text say about Jesus, gay sex and baptism?

BRIAN BETHUNE

=====unquote=====

Best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 12-14-2005, 10:42 AM

Quote: