Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Yuri Kuchinsky · 05-14-2005, 01:11 PM

It seems like Stephen Carlson has a new effort under way to debunk Secret Mark as a forgery by Morton Smith.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textua...sm/message/860

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textua...sm/message/866

So far, no evidence has been presented publicly, so there's nothing to criticise.

And yet, still I'm extremely sceptical that anything worthwhile will come of this. I think he's in a real danger in the long run of making himself look foolish... Nobody so far has ever formulated coherently _any_ scenario of forgery involving Smith. Not even close...

The only hints so far of any evidence to support his case is something about handwriting; possibly some monk's handwriting might be similar to that of the SecMk manuscript.

Thus, Carlson seems to have discovered a conspiracy involving Smith, plus some unnamed monk.

But this conspiracy couldn't really stop here. By this logic, some other monks of Mar Saba must also be involved in this conspiracy. Indeed, why are they still hiding the manuscript? (As it is pretty clear that they are currently hiding it from inspection.)

I'm pretty sure that this big mountain of suspicion and speculation will not even produce a tiny little mouse of any solid results by the time when the dust settles.

It's interesting that Carlson has so far failed to engage with any of my new findings that prove conclusively that SecMk could not have been a forgery,

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

All the best,

Yuri.

Chris Weimer · 05-14-2005, 02:11 PM

Here is Carlson's blog entry about it along with a small peanut-gallery commentary on it.

Peter Kirby · 05-14-2005, 04:32 PM

If I were Carlson, I too would want to wait until the paper at SBL before giving away my hand. It increases the attendance of his seminar (I want to be there), ensures that he will get credit for his ideas, and allows him to have it recognized as an idea that came out of academia (instead of a "converted" popular Internet webpage).

Stephen Carlson has always been one of my favorite writers, and I await his presentation with anticipation and respect.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan · 05-14-2005, 04:48 PM

Yuri, I've seen this paper. It's absolutely convincing. Please suspend judgment because I think you will find that after Carlson delivers this paper everyone is going to be arrayed against your position. It's that good. Goodacre, who has also seen it, feels the same way.

Vorkosigan

Yuri Kuchinsky · 05-15-2005, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Yuri, I've seen this paper. It's absolutely convincing. Please suspend judgment because I think you will find that after Carlson delivers this paper everyone is going to be arrayed against your position. It's that good. Goodacre, who has also seen it, feels the same way.

Vorkosigan

Appeals to authority are no good here.

When there's some solid evidence presented, then we can talk.

Meanwhile, I'm 100% sure that this whole thing by Carlson will turn out to be a flop. Just wanted to put this on record here.

Regards,

Yuri.

Amaleq13 · 05-15-2005, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

Appeals to authority are no good here.

Predicting that "everyone" will be convinced by an argument is not an appeal to authority but an opinion about the convincing nature of the argument.

Chris Weimer · 05-15-2005, 04:21 PM

Well, from the abstract and his brief comments, I think he would have been better off leaving Smith out and saying a monk did it.

S.C.Carlson · 05-16-2005, 05:10 AM

Yuri and I had a lengthy exchange over Morton Smith and Secret Mark on Ebla back in March: http://www.eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?t=1209

Yuri Kuchinsky · 05-16-2005, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Predicting that "everyone" will be convinced by an argument is not an appeal to authority but an opinion about the convincing nature of the argument.

I was referring to the idea that since Goodacre was persuaded, therefore it must be a strong case.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 05-16-2005, 10:23 AM

Greetings, all,

An interesting article came out in Macleans, which is the main Canadian newsweekly,

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

In this article, we hear about a new book by Dr. Scott G. Brown of the University of Toronto, MARK'S OTHER GOSPEL (Wilfrid Laurier University Press). And that, in this book, "Brown makes a convincing case that it [SecMk] is a genuine work by the evangelist".

I'm familiar with Brown's other work on SecMk, and I thought that it was generally quite reasonable and well informed.

Here's a quote from Brown,

"To study Secret Mark I had to study
Smith for 10 years. I've never found anything
dishonest in him, and I think I would have after that
long."

Here's another quote from the article,

"For Brown, the controversy that has marginalized
Secret Mark has much to do with the fact that
conservative Biblical scholars want to discredit it.
"They want the locus of truth about Christianity to
be found only in the 27 books the early Church
canonized and put in the New Testament -- anything
outside the canon is to be ignored." Once the vicious
personal quarrel -- and the gay interpretation, which
Brown considers misinformed -- are stripped away,
he is left with something that looks like Mark,
sounds like Mark, feels like Mark. Why shouldn't it
be Mark?"

Also, this subject is now being discussed at XnForums,

http://www.xnforums.com/cgi-bin/ulti...7;t=001965;p=1

Among other contributions there, we find this from our own Vork, who seems to think that the monks just happened to lose the MS purely by accident,

"The monks can't find the book. I don't think their collection is catalogued and organized. It's not surprising, really."

And if you believe this, then perhaps I might also be able to interest you in buying a rather nice bridge in Brooklyn? :biggrin:

Best regards,

Yuri.

05-14-2005, 01:11 PM	#1
Yuri Kuchinsky Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,146	Carlson's attempt to debunk Secret Mark It seems like Stephen Carlson has a new effort under way to debunk Secret Mark as a forgery by Morton Smith. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textua...sm/message/860 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textua...sm/message/866 So far, no evidence has been presented publicly, so there's nothing to criticise. And yet, still I'm extremely sceptical that anything worthwhile will come of this. I think he's in a real danger in the long run of making himself look foolish... Nobody so far has ever formulated coherently _any_ scenario of forgery involving Smith. Not even close... The only hints so far of any evidence to support his case is something about handwriting; possibly some monk's handwriting might be similar to that of the SecMk manuscript. Thus, Carlson seems to have discovered a conspiracy involving Smith, plus some unnamed monk. But this conspiracy couldn't really stop here. By this logic, some other monks of Mar Saba must also be involved in this conspiracy. Indeed, why are they still hiding the manuscript? (As it is pretty clear that they are currently hiding it from inspection.) I'm pretty sure that this big mountain of suspicion and speculation will not even produce a tiny little mouse of any solid results by the time when the dust settles. It's interesting that Carlson has so far failed to engage with any of my new findings that prove conclusively that SecMk could not have been a forgery, http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/secmk.htm All the best, Yuri.

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

05-14-2005, 02:11 PM	#2
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Here is Carlson's blog entry about it along with a small peanut-gallery commentary on it.

05-14-2005, 04:32 PM	#3
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	If I were Carlson, I too would want to wait until the paper at SBL before giving away my hand. It increases the attendance of his seminar (I want to be there), ensures that he will get credit for his ideas, and allows him to have it recognized as an idea that came out of academia (instead of a "converted" popular Internet webpage). Stephen Carlson has always been one of my favorite writers, and I await his presentation with anticipation and respect. best, Peter Kirby

05-14-2005, 04:48 PM	#4
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Yuri, I've seen this paper. It's absolutely convincing. Please suspend judgment because I think you will find that after Carlson delivers this paper everyone is going to be arrayed against your position. It's that good. Goodacre, who has also seen it, feels the same way. Vorkosigan

05-15-2005, 04:21 PM	#7
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Well, from the abstract and his brief comments, I think he would have been better off leaving Smith out and saying a monk did it.

05-16-2005, 05:10 AM	#8
S.C.Carlson Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: USA Posts: 1,307	Yuri and I had a lengthy exchange over Morton Smith and Secret Mark on Ebla back in March: http://www.eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?t=1209

05-16-2005, 10:23 AM	#10
Yuri Kuchinsky Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,146	Greetings, all, An interesting article came out in Macleans, which is the main Canadian newsweekly, Macleans.ca \| Mark's secret gospel http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/re..._105698_105698 In this article, we hear about a new book by Dr. Scott G. Brown of the University of Toronto, MARK'S OTHER GOSPEL (Wilfrid Laurier University Press). And that, in this book, "Brown makes a convincing case that it [SecMk] is a genuine work by the evangelist". I'm familiar with Brown's other work on SecMk, and I thought that it was generally quite reasonable and well informed. Here's a quote from Brown, "To study Secret Mark I had to study Smith for 10 years. I've never found anything dishonest in him, and I think I would have after that long." Here's another quote from the article, "For Brown, the controversy that has marginalized Secret Mark has much to do with the fact that conservative Biblical scholars want to discredit it. "They want the locus of truth about Christianity to be found only in the 27 books the early Church canonized and put in the New Testament -- anything outside the canon is to be ignored." Once the vicious personal quarrel -- and the gay interpretation, which Brown considers misinformed -- are stripped away, he is left with something that looks like Mark, sounds like Mark, feels like Mark. Why shouldn't it be Mark?" Also, this subject is now being discussed at XnForums, http://www.xnforums.com/cgi-bin/ulti...7;t=001965;p=1 Among other contributions there, we find this from our own Vork, who seems to think that the monks just happened to lose the MS purely by accident, "The monks can't find the book. I don't think their collection is catalogued and organized. It's not surprising, really." And if you believe this, then perhaps I might also be able to interest you in buying a rather nice bridge in Brooklyn? :biggrin: Best regards, Yuri.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.