Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 01-09-2009, 09:14 AM

Gospel Secrets: The Biblical Controversies of Morton Smith from the Jan 26, 2009 edition of The Nation.

An essay on Morton Smith and Gershom Scholem: Correspondence (or via: amazon.co.uk), 1945-1982 by Guy G. Stroumsa, ed.

Quote:

Last year, a distinguished Israeli historian of religion, Guy Stroumsa, set out to settle the question. His interest is understandable: as a young man, he played a minor but meaningful role in the story. In 1976 Stroumsa drove three other scholars--two of whom, David Flusser and Schlomo Pines, were among the greatest of the Hebrew University greats--from Jerusalem to Mar Saba, where they picked up the Vossius edition of Ignatius, still inscribed with the inventory number Smith had given it, and transferred it to Jerusalem. Flusser apparently thought Clement's letter a fake. But Stroumsa believes the document is genuine. He ascribes most of the resistance to Smith's groundbreaking discovery to more conventional scholars' prejudices: discomfort with what they thought they knew about Smith's sexuality, on the one hand; refusal to accept a radical discovery, on the other. "It is a well-known fact among scientists and epistemologists," Stroumsa has written, "that it takes a long time, up to thirty years, before scientific breakthroughs are widely acknowledged and their implications fully recognized. Smith published the account of his discovery in 1973. It seems the time has come to accept it."

To prove that Smith invented nothing, Stroumsa has published a fascinating collection of primary sources: Smith's correspondence with a lifelong friend, the twentieth century's greatest Jewish scholar, Gershom Scholem. Smith, an adventurer in life as well as in scholarship, went to Jerusalem in 1940 on a Sheldon Traveling Fellowship awarded him by the Harvard Divinity School. Caught in Palestine by World War II, he spent four years there. At the Hebrew University--the pre-eminent German university in the world in those days, thanks to its faculty of erudite, brilliant refugees--Smith studied classics with Moshe Schwabe and Hans Lewy and Jewish mysticism with Scholem. He helped translate Scholem's first great book on the Kabbala, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, and translated an ancient Jewish mystical text under Scholem's supervision. More remarkably, Smith wrote a doctoral dissertation, in Hebrew, on Tannaitic (early rabbinical) parallels to the Gospels and became the Hebrew University's first Christian PhD. Returning to the United States in 1945, he began a career in the Episcopalian ministry, then moved back into scholarship and became, eventually, a professor of ancient history at Columbia University, where he taught until 1990. From 1945 until Scholem's death in 1982, the two men corresponded regularly. Their letters, which Stroumsa and associates have edited, open a new window on Smith's career, the scholarly world in which Smith flourished and the Secret Mark.

For Stroumsa, the documents make one point clear beyond doubt: Smith could not have forged Clement's letter or Secret Mark. For Smith's letters show him discussing the material with Scholem, over time, in ways that clearly reflect a process of discovery and reflection. . . .

No Robots · 01-09-2009, 09:52 AM

Great article. Maybe there is some hope for the mainstream media.

Camio · 01-09-2009, 11:31 AM

Some thoughts from S.C. Carlson (or via: amazon.co.uk) would be welcome I guess.

PS: Sorry Toto, the amazon tag doesn't seem to work properly. I probably did something wrong.

andrewcriddle · 01-09-2009, 02:02 PM

I haven't read Stroumsa's account, but the fact that Morton Smith's claims to Scholem about the implications of "Secret Mark" developed with time seems of little relevance to the issue of authenticity.

Whether "Secret Mark" is hoax forgery or genuine discovery one would hardly expect Morton Smith to immediately claim "I have recently discovered a previously unknown letter of Clement of Alexandria referring to a previously unknown apocryphal Gospel. This discovery proves that Jesus was an antinomian magician." In any case the implications of the discovery (or supposed discovery) would be developed over time.

Andrew Criddle

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-09-2009, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Great article. Maybe there is some hope for the mainstream media.

Why do you think it's great?

Jeffrey

S.C.Carlson · 01-09-2009, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I haven't read Stroumsa's account, but the fact that Morton Smith's claims to Scholem about the implications of "Secret Mark" developed with time seems of little relevance to the issue of authenticity.

I've read through the correspondence between Smith and Scholem that Stroumsa published, and I didn't see anything in it that would exonerate Smith -- unless one takes the position that Smith would have never lied to Scholem. Unfortunately for either side, the correspondence has a year and half gap right, right at the critical period for Smith's composition of the text.

On the other hand, the correspondence does show that Smith had been thinking about Clement of Alexandria well before what had been previously known.

Stephen

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-09-2009, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Gospel Secrets: The Biblical Controversies of Morton Smith from the Jan 26, 2009 edition of The Nation.

An essay on Morton Smith and Gershom Scholem: Correspondence (or via: amazon.co.uk), 1945-1982 by Guy G. Stroumsa, ed.

Quote:

Last year, a distinguished Israeli historian of religion, Guy Stroumsa, set out to settle the question. His interest is understandable: as a young man, he played a minor but meaningful role in the story. In 1976 Stroumsa drove three other scholars--two of whom, David Flusser and Schlomo Pines, were among the greatest of the Hebrew University greats--from Jerusalem to Mar Saba, where they picked up the Vossius edition of Ignatius, still inscribed with the inventory number Smith had given it, and transferred it to Jerusalem. Flusser apparently thought Clement's letter a fake. But Stroumsa believes the document is genuine. He ascribes most of the resistance to Smith's groundbreaking discovery to more conventional scholars' prejudices: discomfort with what they thought they knew about Smith's sexuality, on the one hand; refusal to accept a radical discovery, on the other. "It is a well-known fact among scientists and epistemologists," Stroumsa has written, "that it takes a long time, up to thirty years, before scientific breakthroughs are widely acknowledged and their implications fully recognized. Smith published the account of his discovery in 1973. It seems the time has come to accept it."

To prove that Smith invented nothing, Stroumsa has published a fascinating collection of primary sources: Smith's correspondence with a lifelong friend, the twentieth century's greatest Jewish scholar, Gershom Scholem. Smith, an adventurer in life as well as in scholarship, went to Jerusalem in 1940 on a Sheldon Traveling Fellowship awarded him by the Harvard Divinity School. Caught in Palestine by World War II, he spent four years there. At the Hebrew University--the pre-eminent German university in the world in those days, thanks to its faculty of erudite, brilliant refugees--Smith studied classics with Moshe Schwabe and Hans Lewy and Jewish mysticism with Scholem. He helped translate Scholem's first great book on the Kabbala, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, and translated an ancient Jewish mystical text under Scholem's supervision. More remarkably, Smith wrote a doctoral dissertation, in Hebrew, on Tannaitic (early rabbinical) parallels to the Gospels and became the Hebrew University's first Christian PhD. Returning to the United States in 1945, he began a career in the Episcopalian ministry, then moved back into scholarship and became, eventually, a professor of ancient history at Columbia University, where he taught until 1990. From 1945 until Scholem's death in 1982, the two men corresponded regularly. Their letters, which Stroumsa and associates have edited, open a new window on Smith's career, the scholarly world in which Smith flourished and the Secret Mark.

For Stroumsa, the documents make one point clear beyond doubt: Smith could not have forged Clement's letter or Secret Mark. For Smith's letters show him discussing the material with Scholem, over time, in ways that clearly reflect a process of discovery and reflection. . . .

In the FWIW department, the use of, and appeal to, the correspondence between Smith and various colleagues as grounds for claiming that SM is authentic was the focus and main feature of one of the presentations at the special session devoted to SM at the 2008 SBL.

So far as I could tell, it did not seem to convince any one of the authenticity of SM except those who were aready so convinced as well those whose openly proclaimed that their reputation rides on its being authentic. Indeed, on others it had an opposite effect.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-09-2009, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

On the other hand, the correspondence does show that Smith had been thinking about Clement of Alexandria well before what had been previously known.

And also well before some SM advocates have been claiming as mighty point in favour of their case he had been, correct?

Jeffrey

S.C.Carlson · 01-09-2009, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

And also well before some SM advocates have been claiming as mighty point in favour of their case he had been, correct?

Yes, well before what Scott Brown claimed, for example.

Stephen

No Robots · 01-09-2009, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Why do you think it's great?

It gives an excellent summary of an intricate scholarly subject. It reveals its bias but does not grind its own axe.

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

01-09-2009, 09:52 AM	#2
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Great article. Maybe there is some hope for the mainstream media.

01-09-2009, 11:31 AM	#3
Camio Junior Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: France Posts: 88	Some thoughts from S.C. Carlson (or via: amazon.co.uk) would be welcome I guess. PS: Sorry Toto, the amazon tag doesn't seem to work properly. I probably did something wrong.

01-09-2009, 02:02 PM	#4
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	I haven't read Stroumsa's account, but the fact that Morton Smith's claims to Scholem about the implications of "Secret Mark" developed with time seems of little relevance to the issue of authenticity. Whether "Secret Mark" is hoax forgery or genuine discovery one would hardly expect Morton Smith to immediately claim "I have recently discovered a previously unknown letter of Clement of Alexandria referring to a previously unknown apocryphal Gospel. This discovery proves that Jesus was an antinomian magician." In any case the implications of the discovery (or supposed discovery) would be developed over time. Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.