Solo

I have already posted that link...



That's great but the problem is Mark would know nothing about Origen, Celsus or Harpocratians' ideas about Salome.

Post Markan again, and a small detail really needs to be added here to set the record straight !

Salome petitions God : 14:23-24 "Make me not a reproach among the children of Israel but restore me sound to my parents ! For Thou well knowest, O Lord, that I have performed many offices of charity in thy name, and have received my reward from thee."

Upon which God sends an angel informing Salome her request would be granted, if she reached out her withered limb to baby Jesus and carried him. When she does this happens : 14:28-29 " And straight away Salome was cured. Then the midwife went out of the cave , being approved of by God !"

Post Markan again, besides it's like saying that because Judas Iscariot was considered Jesus' best friend among some gnostics, he was generally considered a heroic figure in the early Christianity.

Jiri

the_cave

Then why do you wonder about Salome's reputation? (In addition, Smith mentions all of these references himself, and adds another.)

You didn't ask about Mark--you asked about Smith's claim that Salome had a bad reputation among the early Christian authors. What makes you think that Mark thought anything about Salome? And do you think that Mark wrote secret Mark?

And, she could only be restored, if she were considered a sinner in the first place. And what does it matter whether this is post-Markan or not? (And is it? Do you know that secret Mark would have been written before the Protevangelum of James? The Protevangelum is typically dated to the middle of the 2nd c.--about the same time that many suggest that secret Mark was written.)

Smith says nothing about "generally considered". He says she was seen as a "shady lady". And so she was. You said this "certainly" was not so. But there is no certainty about it, based on the mixed evidence. Others did not see her as such. There is no contradiction here.

the_cave

Alright, but then we can't tell if he made the connection deliberately as a part of the hoax, or unwittingly (he did warn the reader not to confuse the Salome of secret Mark with Wilde's Salome, after all!)

And, I agree with you that the concept of a veil is indeed present in the Greek.

The concept of veiling is present, yes, I agree with that. I also agree the allusions should not be dismissed out of hand--though again, their mere existence doesn't tell us whether they were deliberate or unwitting.

Yuri Kuchinsky

I would call this a distinction without a difference...

Best,

Yuri.

Solo

I believe I explained my interest in the matter: just review post #99, to which you responded

First of all I did not ask about Smith's claim that Salome, and I quote in full, "in early Christian literature, was a very shady lady". I made comments that this appears to be a grossly distorted summary of Salome's traditions. My question was why Smith wanted to put himself so far out on Salome.

Second, I never said that Mark "thought" anything about Salome. I said that he made her a witness to the passion and one of the women who discovered the empty tomb. (these are the only two mentions of her in the canon).

Third, what I believe about the origins of SecMk, is a dfferent topic.

The reason why it matters whether the disreputable status of Salome originates after Mark is obviously because it bears on the authenticity of the fragments as part of the original GMark, for which Smith argued in "Secret Gospel". He allows only that the fragments, if they were expansions, were "very early" and "in the style and by the school of the original author".

But beyond this, I have pointed out to you that in your zeal to underwrite Smith's view of the woman reputation you left out the important part of the Protevangelium in which she is restored and favoured by God.

To which you responded by silly rant...... Why should I be interested in a debate of this sort ? Any ideas ? Because, this certainly does not look like an interesting conversation to me, in case you are wondering.

Jiri

Roger Viklund

I could perhaps make a little contribution to this discussion. I have spent the last couple of months digesting the Mar Saba letter in search for the claims made by Stephen Carlson in his book “The Gospel Hoax”, when it comes to the signs of forgery in the hand writing. I have so far finished my draft and put it on the Internet, yet not made it public (until now!) It could for certain be proofread. But since you are discussing the subject right now, it would be interesting to hear your opinion and particularly Stephen’s. The article is to be found here: http://www.jesusgranskad.se/theodore.htm and it is as far as I know the first of its kind dealing in detail with the tremors and the ink blobs.

Kindly, Roger Viklund
Sweden

DCHindley

Wow, that is rather impressive!

DCH

andrewcriddle

Hi Roger

It is an interesting article.

My immediate reaction is that the strongest part of your argument is the claim that the peculiarities pointed out by Stephen Carlson do not become less frequent in the course of writing the letter. Even if you are right on this, I am not sure how strong an argument this is against forgery. It is not obvious to me that, assuming the forger had previously made at least some trial attempts to write in a script that did not come naturally to them, that there would be noticeable improvement in the course of writing three pages.

IIUC you yourself make a similar point early on in your article.

Andrew Criddle

Roger Viklund

Hi Andrew!

IMO, the strongest part in my article is really to provide the actual images and thereby the comparative material. The weakest part is the lack of other contempary handwritings to compare with. I have however recently found (probably 18th century) handwriting from Mar Saba which contain both ink blobs and tremors. I can see them in the first handwriting of MS 22, the one Carlson said was identitical with Theodore, and which he thought (incorrectly) was written by M. Madiotes.

By the way, I have lately studied your 1995 article on the too Clementine wording and wonder if you have the actual material which you based your calculations on? I have some doubts concerning the status quo of the percentage, among other things, but need to check it out.

andrewcriddle

I suspect that "Salome who tempted him" refers to the incident in the Protevangelon. IE tempted = tested and what is meant is Salome's irreverent attempt to test the miraculous birth of Christ.

Andrew Criddle