the_cave

Well, we may have to go our separate ways at this point, but a few more comments--

I mean he possibly did not suborn any presbyters at all! Or else maybe he just asked one of them to copy it down for him, which the presbyter did so without worries. It was only after the Carpocratian gospel got out that the Alexandrian church (or maybe just Clement alone) came up with the story that it was theft.

I see it as possibly no more than a manner of speech--"Seriously, dude, swear it wasn't Mark!"--but you make an interesting point. I have asked above whether it's possible that the letter is ancient, but non-Clementine.

Well, this is just a special case for Clement--Theodore has come to him with some clearly non-scriptural passages, and Clement needs to deal with them. But again, it's interesting to wonder if it's pseudo-Clementine.

But the Carpocratians need not have modified every pericope in the gospel--my sense is that Theodore is just showing Clement the passages that weird him out (or maybe the worst of them). Clement is dealing with what Theodore gave him, no more.

True, but this is a different day and age

Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear Andrew,

I wasn't really trying to make any specific point, as much as simply trying to set the record straight.

Of all the Clementine scholars who went on record, the overwhelming majority accept Mar Saba letter as Clement's (and now you agreed with this). But what you originally said could have caused a misunderstanding in this area.

In any case, comparing 'Clementine scholars' with 'NT scholars in general' is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Because the number of 'Clementine scholars' per se is really quite tiny in comparison to just 'NT scholars'. For one Clementine scholar there may be hundreds of 'NT scholars', most of whom probably never even heard of the Mar Saba letter (or only have a vague idea about it -- so what does it matter what they think about it?). But among the Clementine scholars, probably everyone knows about it, and have read it.

So from this perspective, it doesn't really do much good to compare these very disparate groups of individuals, as if their opinions were of equal value.

An added complication, of course, is the fact that Mar Saba MS contains both the letter and the gospel extracts. As someone already mentioned, one could envision the letter being authentic while not the extracts, or the extracts being authentic while not the letter, or both authentic, or both inauthentic. Accordingly, a different type of expertise may be required to evaluate these different claims, and the meaningfulness of counter-opposing these two groups of scholars is eroded even further.

All the best,

Yuri.

the_cave

But again, in that case, why would he a) choose to use the participle, and b) why would he mistranslate his own invention?

Ben C Smith

(A) The participle is more efficient in context than using the noun and then another participle (or verb). (B) I showed that it is not a mistranslation.

Ben.

the_cave

I still don't understand why he would use the Greek efficiently, and then use English inefficienty. And while I have agreed that it is a correct transalation, it is still inaccurate, since the grammar is not correctly translated--IOW, Smith isn't letting the Greek speak for itself. I call that a mistranslation, but we can agree to call this a quibble. (I just think it's a quibble that matters!)

Ben C Smith

He would presumably use the Greek efficiently because efficiency is better and what one might expect from an ancient Greek text written by a native Greek speaker, and the English inefficiently in order to make the connection to Salome clearer (to his mind, at any rate).

Actually, the translation I had in mind was simply veil. It seems here that you meant the entire line. And you may have a point. I do not know. I originally entered this discussion in order to make clear that the concept of a veil is indeed present in, not absent from, the Greek of the Clementine letter.

I should probably mention, lest you get the wrong idea, that I myself am not really convinced that the letter is a hoax. Forgery, yes. Hoax... well, I struggle with that. I mention in my review of Carlson that his weakest points, to my mind, are those which make the letter a hoax as opposed to a mere forgery. The potential allusions to Salome strike me as more consistent with a hoax (see if you can find this allusion!) than with a forgery (unless perhaps the allusions were subconscious, but I had really not considered that until just this minute while typing this sentence). And I am not yet convinced of them. But I would hate for someone to dismiss the allusions out of hand based on the notion that the concept of veiling is not in the Greek.

Ben.

Solo

FYI, M. Smith himself warns the reader of his Secret Gospel of mixing up the woman Salome from SkMk with the dancer of Oscar Wilde (footnote on p.70). So he himself made the gratuitous connection between 'seven veils' (hiding truth) and Wilde's Salome and did so explicitly.

Jiri

Ben C Smith

Yes, I realize that. Which is why I am saying that such behavior would be more in line with a hoax (teasing the reader) rather than a mere forgery (covering up tracks as best as possible).

My (off the cuff and completely hypothetical) suggestion that Smith subconsciously alluded to Salome would, of course, require that he later tracked down the source of this accidental allusion for himself and chose to make note of it in a footnote. But even this sounds more hoaxlike, since I would expect a forger to feign ignorance of the connection until it was revealed by someone else.

Ben.

Solo

Ok, no problem. I commented above on the Salome passage in Smith's book. He did maul the Salome traditions and especially the canonical Mark's portrait of her as a crucifixion and empty tomb witness. I was struck by Smith's conclusion that the little story of the second fragment of SecMk has no purpose other than "to discredit" Salome, who he says was perceived to be a "shady lady" in the early days. That certainly was not so, was it ?

The second fragment of Sec.Mk which so dramatically fits the gaping hole in Mk 10:46 says after they come to Jericho: 'And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them'. Now, Smith might have "subconsciously" mixed up his Salomes, and draw attention to the name by sheer absent-mindedness. But he is wrong if he says the little story has no other "use" than to discredit Salome and her companions. If one keeps open mind about the document, the most obvious "use" of this fragment, if it is a forgery, would be to assert the other two women in it - the mother and sister of the resurrected young man - and doing it in grand fashion, by filling the gaping hole in the canonical Mk 10:46. Except a little mishap might have happened: when the two fragments were composed, the forger mixed up his Salomes, 'forgetting' that the disreputable one has no name in GMark either (not just in Mt/Lk/Jn as Smith offers on p.70). F.F. Bruce suggested that if one accepts the equaton of Salome to the mother of Zebedee sons, the "not receiving her" may relate to the Matthean version of the Zebedees request for the kingdom's seating, for which Salome applies on their behalf. Problem is that Mark's Salome seemed a perfectly reputable matron, until 1973 that is.

Now the big question of course is 'why' Smith, if he was innocent of the mixup, would keep insisting on pushing through with the "bad Salome" theory even as he warns against the veiled dancer ?

I don't have an answer to that question. But I think that if a forger were to do a pseudo-scholarly analysis of his own work he would have tried, as hard as he could, to keep the reader's focus away from the two suspicious aliens whom he sneaked in into the gospel.

Jiri

the_cave

Actually that was so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salome_..._the_Apocrypha

1) In Against Celsus, Origen quotes Celsus as mentioning "Harpocratian Christians who trace themselves to Salome" in a list of other heretical groups, after mentioning those who trace their origin to Helen, Simon Magus' consort.
2) In the Protevangelon of James, Salome doubts the virgin birth, and when she, um, tests Mary's virginity, her hand withers. As she cries "Woe to me, because of my iniquity! For I have tempted the living God"
3) The Coptic Book of the Resurrection of Christ identifies a "Salome who tempted him" as present at Christ's tomb.