FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-11-2006, 02:02 AM   #101
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Default

Excellent review Solo. Very well written, clear and to the point. Beautiful to read. In fact, it has increased my interest in this secret mark business. You write well.
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 09-11-2006, 12:13 PM   #102
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post

Salt. You state with confidence (p.61), that the technological anachronism in the salt-making implied in Theodore is no less damning to its authenticity that the Prussian Blue was to Archaic Mark. But is there any real technological anachronism in Clement’s salt metaphor or is just that the eye of the beholder in this case has a beam in it ? The argument you present has a distinct air of unreality. The idea that Morton Smith wished to identify himself as a forger by mutilating a Clementine idiom on faith it would become eventually apparent to a wise Clementine scholar who is also familiar with the inventions of certain salt company whose name, behold, is Morton Something-or-other, is nothing if not bizzare. Paranoia, they say, is total awareness !

Of course, I am a Clementine scholar to the extent that I know her father was a miner and a forty-niner, but that is beside the point. Here, I note that you were eagerly nodding to Andrew Criddle’s mathematically provoked suspicions of hyper-Clementine style, but when a certain innocent-looking variance in his idiom occurs, you are quickly on a different horse. And even though, not being a Clementine scholar, I cannot tell whether he, believing that some in the flock are not salty enough to begin with, contradicts himself when he says some true things when mixed with untruths are false, as even salt loses its flavour. In terms of logic, I do not see a contradiction. To me, the two statements address two different problems: the Stromateis’ saying targets those in the flock who just don’t get it; Theodore’s lowers the boom on the apostates. Surely the corresponding salt metaphors would look different.

On the issue whether the “mixing” idiom assumes some technological process and specifically adulteration of salt, I would say, no, it does not. To begin with, the Mt 5:13/Lk14:34 saying is a hyperbole as there is plenty of evidence that the ancients prized the stable property of salt, nowhere better illustrated than in the salarium of the Roman legions. The saying suggests the loss of salt’s savor as equal to the loss of faith; for neither there is a substitute. The letter to Theodore applies this saying against admixture of elements foreign to Christian belief; he likens it the salt losing its savor if mixed with elements which are not salt. There is no need to postulate a technological process of adulterating salt, or texture of salt which facilitates such process. The metaphor works with any “impure” form of salt regardless whether it is found in the wild or is produced intentionally/carelessly by men.

The most common form of salt extraction around the globe has been brine evaporation. The salt produced that way in the past varied in quality because of changing quantities of residual elements and compounds to halite. Two most common issues, taste-wise, with sea salt would be the concentrations of calcium sulphate and magnesium chloride. Both affect the taste of salt if not properly separated. The former is a dessicant and tasteless – naturally makes salt lose some of its “saltiness”-, the latter adds a distinctly bitter flavour.
The problem with this is that from our modern point of view brine evaporation producing unappetising salt due to its mixture with calcium sulphate magnesium chloride etc is a case of salt losing its savour through contamination.

It is much less clear to me that in the ancient world people would have understood it in that way. It seems to require modern ideas about chemical purity and lack thereof. In the absence of analytical techniques to show for example the presence of magnesium as well as sodium, the stuff that looks like salt but doesn't taste very nice would not I think be seen as contaminated by foreign substances.

I'm not disputing that this is what has happened only whether a person in the ancient world would have seen it that way.

(This may be a valid argument against the claim that the salt metaphor requires a 20th century date. I would not be surprised if 19th century or even slightly earlier parallels to the metaphor in the Mar Saba letter could be found. Once there is a clear concept of chemical elements, compounds and mixtures that might be all that is necessary but the idea still appears anachronistic in the ancient world.)

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 09-11-2006, 02:00 PM   #103
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
Of course, I am a Clementine scholar to the extent that I know her father was a miner and a forty-niner, but that is beside the point. Here, I note that you were eagerly nodding to Andrew Criddle’s mathematically provoked suspicions of hyper-Clementine style, but when a certain innocent-looking variance in his idiom occurs, you are quickly on a different horse. And even though, not being a Clementine scholar, I cannot tell whether he, believing that some in the flock are not salty enough to begin with, contradicts himself when he says some true things when mixed with untruths are false, as even salt loses its flavour. In terms of logic, I do not see a contradiction. To me, the two statements address two different problems: the Stromateis’ saying targets those in the flock who just don’t get it; Theodore’s lowers the boom on the apostates. Surely the corresponding salt metaphors would look different.
Obviously I may be biased here but I think you are confusing stylistic and semantic issues.

I regard the Mar Saba letter as hyper-Clementine in style and vocabulary while at the semantic level saying rather non-Clementine things.

Stephen's argument that what the letter says about salt is non-Clementine (in fact non Late Antique) in semantic content fits perfectly well with that (there is no dispute that the metaphor uses Clementine vocabulary)

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 09-11-2006, 03:25 PM   #104
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
The problem with this is that from our modern point of view brine evaporation producing unappetising salt due to its mixture with calcium sulphate magnesium chloride etc is a case of salt losing its savour through contamination.

It is much less clear to me that in the ancient world people would have understood it in that way. It seems to require modern ideas about chemical purity and lack thereof. In the absence of analytical techniques to show for example the presence of magnesium as well as sodium, the stuff that looks like salt but doesn't taste very nice would not I think be seen as contaminated by foreign substances.

I'm not disputing that this is what has happened only whether a person in the ancient world would have seen it that way.

(This may be a valid argument against the claim that the salt metaphor requires a 20th century date. I would not be surprised if 19th century or even slightly earlier parallels to the metaphor in the Mar Saba letter could be found. Once there is a clear concept of chemical elements, compounds and mixtures that might be all that is necessary but the idea still appears anachronistic in the ancient world.)

Andrew Criddle
I did my best to google out some Mediterranean antiquity reference to salt-making and salt quality before writing but had little luck. But I think I can put your mind at ease about the need to understand the chemistry of elements and compounds to make observations relative to changing quality of salt. There is an interesting article on Roman saltworks in Britain which shows some of the hazards of contamination, in this case coming from boiling brine in lead pans. Surely, the contaminated salt from an overheated lead-pan would have tasted little 'sweeter' than that harvested from beach salt-fields. As for the two compounds I mentioned, the Japanese actually learned to separate them centuries ago, in preparing tofu, being likewise completely innocent of Mendeleev's periodic table.

Regards,
Jiri
Solo is offline  
Old 09-11-2006, 04:31 PM   #105
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
Obviously I may be biased here but I think you are confusing stylistic and semantic issues.

I regard the Mar Saba letter as hyper-Clementine in style and vocabulary while at the semantic level saying rather non-Clementine things.

Stephen's argument that what the letter says about salt is non-Clementine (in fact non Late Antique) in semantic content fits perfectly well with that (there is no dispute that the metaphor uses Clementine vocabulary)

Andrew Criddle
Ok, could be.

But, what in the 'semantic content' do you see as non-Clementine ? Is it the Theodore's idea of mixing truth and lies in the gospel , with the result of 'salt (fidelity) losing its savor (purpose), which supposedly contradicts Clement's lament elsewhere that some in the flock, supposedly being 'salt of the earth', are like fish that are not salty (faithful) and need salting from such as himself ?

But you can see the difference in the two contexts, can you not ? In the case of Carpocratians, they have split from the Church, abuse its teachings to justify doing unspeakably horrible things for which they'll get hell (if that is Clementine). In the case of the bad actors among Clement's charges, they are disobedient, talk nonsense, and spread it, but they are still salvageable. And my wild guess is - let me make a fool of myself here - they are still in Clement's church or near it.

Jiri
Solo is offline  
Old 09-11-2006, 07:55 PM   #106
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo
Which leaves us with the shaky hands. “What they do to a man, those shaky hands” John Entwhistle used to sing in The Who’s version of the Marian minicult. It never ceases to amaze me how the silliest jargon seems to intimidate otherwise very bright people. There is a famous anecdote in which Jung scared Freud to death when he announced to him that the loud report he just heard issuing from the mahogany bookcase in the room, was an example of “catalytic exteriorization” of a ghost. Similarly, some bright people here consider the “forger’s tremor” a strong argument.
LOL!

That's a funny anecdote, Jiri.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo
I guess they did not notice how the idea is introduced in the writing. The notion that such a thing is present enters after some gratuitous links have been made between Secret Mark and known literary forgeries in the past. The explanation for the term is not offered immediately, or after an exposition and deliberation of what behaviors may be considered for the observed phenomena and under what conditions. The impression on the reader’s mind is to be made first by a dismissive label.
Yes, this was clearly the case... the power of specialist jargon to intimidate the unwary...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo
The passages dealing with the tremor fall into a style of argument in which you suggest that this or that aspect of Secret Mark fits into a known pattern of forger’s behaviour, then followed by a sleight of hand in which you present often dubious interpretation of facts as indisputable facts themselves. Pfaff’s forgery was traced by Harnack into anachronism of a dispute between Pietists and Lutherans in Pfaff’s time. The Theodore’s treatment of salt and Secret Mark’s homosexuality are declared anachronistic, ergo the Mar Saba ms is a forgery. The planting of jokes and clues is endemic in hoaxes. A would-be Sophocles planted an acrostic saying in which he identified himself by the slur on his opponent, ergo a salt company name which just happens to coincide with Smith’s first name must be a plant by Smith, even though there is no clue here other than that Clement uses a salt metaphor which you were unwilling or unable to puzzle out. Similarly, some unnamed person forged the checks of one Hellen Huellen, leaving signs of hesitation, uneven pressure and varied speed of writing, identified by an handwriting expert as artifact known as “forger’s tremor”. You then immediately assert, without the aid of the expert, that some of the signs of hesitation, uneven pressure, and varied speed of writing that appear in the manuscript are in fact evidence of forger’s tremor and allied conditions in Smith’s discovery.
But even on a cursory examination this assertion does not hold water. In the case of Helen Huellen, her signature on cheques was being forged, i.e. the context and intent of forgery was known and the issue was prosecuted (or litigated). The harm was explicit and the caution in “painting” the name then plausibly pointed to as an exhibit of mens rea. By contrast, you yourself champion the theory that Morton Smith did the hoax for fun, to assert his superiority. It is not then at all clear why his hand should have been shaking. Was it at the thought he did not have enough time to practice his 18th century Greek hand imitation ?
Absolutely! Presumably, Smith had all the time in the world to practice whatever hand he chose for his "hoax", so then what reason was there for a "tremor"? He didn't need to imitate any specific form of handwriting, unlike, for example, a forger of a check.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo
Your speculation will fare even worse if one contemplates it against other real possibilities for whatever handwriting anomalies you observe. You grudgingly admit that the tremor might be a sign of old age only to dismiss right away as inconsistent with the other signs. But for all we really know, the inconsistent writing could have in reality any number of explanations, singly or in combinations: the copying monk could have had poor eyesight, could have been distracted when writing, or tired, or cold, or drunk, or suffering from ticks, fighting off the devil or struggling with Menier’s syndrome, or disbelieving the outrage he saw on paper, or unsure of the orthography he was looking at. There could be any number of ways explaining the scrawl other than insisting it is a proof of forgery. One cannot read Smith’s intent into the handwriting if the intent itself is not corroborated by some substantial finding, in this case, at minimum, in being able to positively identify him as the writer of the manuscript. Brown has it right.
I think so too. This is a fine example of how Carlson wrote his <edit> book. Piling suspicions and insinuations high atop each other can never amount to substantial evidence, however high you pile them on.

And you did a fine job with the other points you've made.

All the best,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky is offline  
Old 09-11-2006, 09:58 PM   #107
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
So, as far as I am concerned , Morton is still a step ahead of you. You have overcommitted and went after a dead man recklessly attacking his character with patently inconclusive evidence. Frankly, I am not impressed.
It is highly ironic that a book review alleging a reckless attack on one's character would be as reckless as the accusation. You obviously have no concept of how much peer review went into the book before it was published. My publisher, aware of the sensitive nature of the topic, doubled the number of outside, anonymous readers before deciding to publish it. All of them stated that the book was scholarly and recommended that it be published. One of them, in fact, was Smith's friend and former colleague at Columbia. This person recognized Smith's sense of humor in both the Madiotes and the Morton Salt references, which you found "nothing if not bizzare." Well, it was not bizarre to someone who actually knew Smith. In fact, it was persuasive.

I also have to question your sense of history if you really believe that the 1950s were not an especially oppressive period for gay men in America. Joe McCarthy as proof that the 1950s were not repressive? What planet do you live on?

Finally, your insinuations of libel are beyond the pale of civilized discourse. You're going on my "ignore" list. ** Plonk **

Stephen Carlson
S.C.Carlson is offline  
Old 09-11-2006, 10:39 PM   #108
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Default

Carlson,
I think that is a response that is, IMHO, hasty and out of character.
I have always found you (and Anddrew C.) patient and focused even in the face of flapdoodle and your unqualified forbearance has won my respect for you.
I think Jiri raised several important points that should not be ignored simply because his perspective departs from that of your publisher and the parties that were consulted, or because of some sympathetic anecdotal evidence.
It is also unclear to me how an accusation of libel turns this into an uncivilized discourse. Of course, how you respond to your reviewers is your prerogative. But in my view, this specific response, to this specific review, is ineffective and squanders an opportunity for a debate that can help clarify matters and make the subject of this secret "gospel" more interesting and vibrant. This in my view is counterproductive because this is a debate that could potentially attract more readers and widen the debate.
I expected that you would tackle the challenges Jiri raised, directly and comprehensively, not dismissively. But clearly, my expectations were misplaced. My bad.
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 09-11-2006, 11:11 PM   #109
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman View Post
It is also unclear to me how an accusation of libel turns this into an uncivilized discourse.
Sorry, but this is the first time I have ever been accused of a felony on IIDB. If that's your idea of civilized discourse, then you too can join Solo on my ignore list.

Stephen
S.C.Carlson is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 12:15 AM   #110
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
Ok, could be.

But, what in the 'semantic content' do you see as non-Clementine ? Is it the Theodore's idea of mixing truth and lies in the gospel , with the result of 'salt (fidelity) losing its savor (purpose), which supposedly contradicts Clement's lament elsewhere that some in the flock, supposedly being 'salt of the earth', are like fish that are not salty (faithful) and need salting from such as himself ?
It is non-Clementine in the sense that AFAIK no-one in the ancient Greek-Latin world thought of salt losing its savour in that way.

I'm not sure that the Japanese making nigari saw themselves as removing contaminants from salt and in any case I doubt if it is relevant to Western perceptions.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:22 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.