Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, all,

The November edition of EXPOSITORY TIMES has a review of Carlson's book on Secret Mark. AFAIK this review by Paul Foster is the first published review of Carlson's opus (you need to be a subscriber to read it),

http://ext.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/117/2/66

I've already read this review and, clearly, Paul Foster is not persuaded by Carlson's debunking of Secret Mark. He's taking a wait-and-see attitude.

Obviously, Carlson has produced no 'smoking guns' that would expose Smith as a forger.

I'm surprised that Foster is giving Carlson's debunking theory at least a bit of credibility. For my part, I think it's completely silly...

All the best,

Yuri.

S.C.Carlson

Here is Paul Foster's concluding paragraph:

Carlson has written a provocative, entertaining and stimulating analysis of Secret Mark, which seeks to mount the most compelling case possible for viewing the document as a literary hoax. Like all good prosecutors, he presents the strongest arguments with carefully crafted phrases that push those that listen to his rhetoric to accept his conclusions. Yet one must ask if his is the only possible reading of the evidence? A number of New Testament scholars who have read the manuscript have already expressed the opinion that Carlson has sounded the death-knell for claims of genuineness for Secret Mark. His arguments are both cumulative and compelling on a first reading, and the book deserves close consideration, but perhaps a little more work is required before Morton Smith is convicted, beyond reasonable doubt, as a forger. The readers of Carlson’s book must act as the jury in assessing the integrity of Smith and the genuineness of Secret Mark.

The comment about convicting Smith of being a forger is a bit odd, since I specifically distinguish hoaxes from forgeries and argue against Smith being a "forger."

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hmm... He forged a piece of 18th century writing, but he's not a forger. I see...

Yuri.

Chris Weimer

Legally speaking, I presume.

Yuri Kuchinsky

A review by Wieland Willker is here,

(today, Oct 21)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textua...m/message/1217

Here are a couple of quotes,

"One general problem I have with the book is that it does not approach the case in a scientific way. It is extremely one-sided. It only tries to prove a hoax. But in the scientific world one has to evaluate both sides of the story unprejudiced."

"The book ... has some good points, but it's not "a scholarly bombshell" and not "utterly convincing"."

I don't often agree with Mr. Willker but, in this case, his views are worth noting...

I think he's being overly generous with Carlson's attempted debunking.

Regards,

Yuri.

Roger Pearse

Stephen addresses the difference between hoaxer and forger in his book, doesn't he? -- The former is done in order to show how clever you are; the latter for money or notoriety. That Smith was the former, not the latter, is shown by the embedded references to himself.

I've not seen any reviews, but I think SC has moved the whole game forward to a quite remarkable extent.

In particular his analysis of why a forgery/hoax *must* contain material which is wrong for its period and a topic of controversy in its own -- if it doesn't grab the attention of the period it is written for, it will never come to notice, but each period has its own keynote controversies -- is a truly excellent insight, which allows us to remove a lot of subjectivity from the question of 'it feels wrong'. The book is worthwhile for that alone; but there is much more.

But I will go and read Wieland Willker's review.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Yuri Kuchinsky

This just sounds like sophistry to me...

_If_ there are any such references there.

Here we may agree... Indeed, from my perspective, SC has made it clear just how little evidence there is for accusing Smith of any improprieties.

All this is intuitively obvious in any case.

Enjoy...

Yuri.

Roger Pearse

Are you going to write a full review? I'd be interested to read it. I was surprised that it important to you that Secret Mark be authentic, since that doesn't fit with what I know of your views generally. Why is it important?

I haven't made up my mind on this subject, btw.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Chris Weimer

I was sort of disappointed in Wilker's review. Although he lambasted Carlson for not providing the defense, he failed to do that either. He just said that someone "ought" to have done it.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Roger,

I already wrote a review -- even before reading the book,

(June 16, 2005) Why I think that Carlson's SecMk Debunking Theory is Completely Silly
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=128104

You see, when some elaborate theory is based on a faulty premise, there's no need to examine the fine particulars of this theory; it's enough simply to point out that the premise is highly problematic.

The basic premise of Carlson's theory is that Smith devised a highly complex scheme of self-destruction, but the expected outcome didn't take place because the monks covered for him (and are still continuing to do so).

The expected outcome for Smith should have been the same as for Konrad Kujau (see my 'review' above). I refuse to believe that Smith was as crazy as Kujau.

It's not important to me that Secret Mark be authentic. Secret Mark plays no big role in any of my theories about the Christian origins.

I'm simply pointing out that there's no evidence at all that Prof. Smith was guilty of any wrongdoing. Thus, I feel that it's unfair to portray him as a liar and cheat.

The state of morals within the NT studies guild seems to be quite similar to the den of thieves in 'Oliver Twist'. Except that perhaps the thieves have more respect for each other, and don't normally accuse their comrades without some pretty good evidence.

Regards,

Yuri.