Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 01-27-2011, 01:34 AM

It is well known that Justin called his gospels ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων - but could an ἀπομνημονεύματα or υπομνήματα be considered a 'divinely inspired' gospel text? The terms were used to denote something developed from memory but in the Platonic sense (a context which Justin was surely rooted) it was the first step towards something complete and ultimately perfected. I find it hard to reconcile a 'Holy Spirit' coming down from heaen to establish an ἀπομνημονεύματα or υπομνήματα. Indeed it is utterly absurd.

This is where we see the blind spots in the evangelical worldview which has effected scholarship as a whole for over a century.

The Protestants want to emphasize that there was this 'primitive Church' so when they hear that Justin used ἀπομνημονεύματα their little pea brains say ἀπομνημονεύματα = primitive and promitive good. Even Eusebius calls the gospel Mark wrote for Peter's followers a ὑπόμνημα the same stupidity manifests itself.

We all know the argument that is put forward WITHOUT examining the terminology - "God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe" (1 Cor 1:21) but this is always ripped out of context. The idea here wasn't that God favored morons but that the stupid message was a gateway to a 'hidden wisdom' which was for the perfect (1 Cor 2.6,7) something amazingly profound being built on the foundation of something seemingly stupid (1 Cor 3.10,11)

The point is that now after the triumph of the doctrine which ultimately arose from the Roman Church in the late second century all we are left with is the stupid part but even if you don't look at the Letter to Theodore there are all these hints that the 'polished' or 'finished' gospel existed in the world at one time.

My point here is that the terminology that Justin and Eusebius use (in Eusebius's case it is more explicitly connected with a canonical gospel) is entriely at odds with what Irenaeus tries to make with these same texts (or texts like those known to Justin). An ἀπομνημονεύματα or υπομνήματα can't be something patterned after the four living creatures which surrounded the divine chariot. You can't compare the four winds established by God at the beginning of creation with ἀπομνημονεύματα or υπομνήματα or Pythagorean notions of four as a perfect number.

The things created by God are supposed to be perfect the way they were originally established. ἀπομνημονεύματα or υπομνήματα are necessarily imperfect things waiting to be polished and reworked as Clement describes Mark doing in a later journey to Alexandria in the Letter to Theodore.

Irenaeus necessarily demonstrates himself to be at odds with the terminology originally employed by his sources.

This is so fundamental it alone demonstrates the genuineness of Morton Smith's discovery.

avi · 01-27-2011, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

... My point here is that the terminology that Justin and Eusebius use (in Eusebius's case it is more explicitly connected with a canonical gospel) is entriely at odds with what Irenaeus tries to make with these same texts (or texts like those known to Justin). An ἀπομνημονεύματα or υπομνήματα can't be something patterned after the four living creatures which surrounded the divine chariot. You can't compare the four winds established by God at the beginning of creation with ἀπομνημονεύματα or υπομνήματα or Pythagorean notions of four as a perfect number.

The things created by God are supposed to be perfect the way they were originally established. ἀπομνημονεύματα or υπομνήματα are necessarily imperfect things waiting to be polished and reworked as Clement describes Mark doing in a later journey to Alexandria in the Letter to Theodore.

Irenaeus necessarily demonstrates himself to be at odds with the terminology originally employed by his sources.

This is so fundamental it alone demonstrates the genuineness of Morton Smith's discovery.

I find this post confusing, at best.

1. Are you focused on explaining Justin? If so, you have not yet succeeded.
or
2. Are you hoping that we understand (I do not) how writings attributed to "Irenaeus" conflict with writings of Justin?
or
3. Are you confirming that any lack of concordance between and among 2nd and third century Christian authors is resolved by Eusebius?

In my opinion, your enthusiasm for claiming the veracity of Morton Smith's discovery would be better served by writing, succinctly, a paragraph highlighting the various documents employed to designate your belief that his "discovery" of a now missing manuscript, supposedly written in the earliest decade of the third century, but inserted

Quote:

into the endpapers of Isaac Vossius' 1646 printed edition of the works of Ignatius of Antioch

is not a hoax.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A differerent perspective on Morton Smith

There are two major arguments in favor of Secret Mark being a hoax:
1. Morton Smith had the scholarly expertise required to create the hoax.
2. The document (referring here to Clement’s letter to Theodore) contains flaws and anachronisms that affirmatively show that it is a hoax [11].
If Smith did hoax Secret Mark he would have to be capable in the following areas, according to Shanks:
“1. He would need to know enough to forge the two fragments of Secret Mark. Thus, he would have to be an expert in composing Greek, but also in New Testament textual criticism sufficient to fool a text critic like Harvard’s Helmut Koester. 2. Smith as forger would also have to be an expert in Clement, the purported author of the letter, as well as in the various subjects, like the Carpocratians, mentioned in the letter. He would also have to have sufficient knowledge of Latin to forge the Latin passage in the letter. 3. Finally, he would have to be an expert in 18th-century handwriting (paleography), when the second-century Clement letter was apparently copied in the back of the copy of a 1646 edition (by Isaac Voss) of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch [12].”
Even if the document is a hoax, Shanks notes that it does not prove that Smith is the hoaxer. Shanks also points to three flaws in Clement’s letter that have been alleged to demonstrate that Secret Mark is a hoax. Firstly, there is a reference to salt being adulterated with another substance in the letter that is an anachronism: that technology that is being referenced is a modern one. The only way salt can be adulterated is if it is poured. In order for it to be poured, it would first have to be granulated, a technology that the people in Clement’s time did not have access to. Stephen Carlson also thinks that this is a reference to the Morton Salt Company, a clever pun on Smith’s own name and a hint towards the identity of the hoaxer. The second flaw has to do with how homosexuality is portrayed in the letter. Shanks notes that Pearson has asserted that the view of homosexuality found in Clement’s letter is to be rooted in the middle of the 20th century, one that would be inconsistent with how homosexuality was viewed in ancient Greco-Roman culture. The third flaw also features another anachronism: Clement is referred to by the title Stromates. This is seen as anachronistic, Shanks says, because the letter was apparently written in the late 2nd or early 3rd century and Clement was not known by the title of Stromates until later [13]. Finally, Stephen Carlson has noted a fourth flaw in Clement’s letter. Carlson has observed the shakiness of the handwriting in the letter, a phenomenon known as forger's tremor, as well as the retouching of letters, the inclusion of 20th century letter forms and the letter too closely imitating Clement’s writing style until the end. Carlson alleges that all of these things point to the fact that Secret Mark is in fact a hoax [14]. Despite pointing out numerous things that have been used to condemn Secret Mark as a hoax, Shanks remains objective in his overall view of the controversy, concluding that in the end the controversy simply pits one scholar against the other [11].

Can you at least identify the source of the Greek quote allegedly from Justin?

avi

stephan huller · 01-27-2011, 10:09 AM

I thought this was pretty much self-explanatory given that AA has promoted Justin's relationship to what he calls 'Memoirs of the Apostles' (ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων) here for years but let me answer your questions one by one:

1. Are you focused on explaining Justin? If so, you have not yet succeeded.

What is there to explain? Justin is a philosopher who was rooted in Platonism (or at least would have been most familiar with Platonic terminology). David Dungan in his History of the Synoptic Problem (or via: amazon.co.uk) when dealing with the text called 'the Diatessaron' (and which is most commonly associated with Justin"s student Tatian writes:

Did this Pythagorean concept (of the diatessaron as a musical interval) influence Tatian? Possibly. Just as Justin used the Platonic/Pythagorean concept of memoirs to the three Christian Gospels he had harmonized, Tatian might have selected the Platonic/Pythagorean term diatessaron to identify his new fitting together of the four sacred books "of the barbarian philosophy.[A History of the Synoptic Problem p. 41]

So Dungan's point I believe is that (a) Justin created the so-called 'Memoirs of the Apostles' and (b) that he used the term in a Platonic sense (i.e. something 'recalled from memory' but which wasn't yet a completed literary product.

Now I don't believe that we have to think that EITHER Justin or Tatian necessarily wrote the texts they apparently witnessed in their writings - i.e. Justin the ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων, Tatian the 'diatessaron' harmony gospel (even though we really have no witness to the Diatessaron before Eusebius and no connection with Tatian until after Eusebius). This is a constant feature of people of limited intellectual ability (not just people at this forum but in scholarship generally) where they argue that our surviving witnesses should 'define' the entire paradigm to understand a given textual tradition. Just because Justin is the first to mention the ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων that doesn't mean he wrote it any more than Tatian was the author of the Diatessaron (or that the concept of 'diatessaron' itself should be defined in terms of the earliest reports linking Tatian to this gospel concept).

All that we have really are a collection of 'memorabilia' interestingly (ἀπομνημονεύματα) - 'reflections' of something which happened in 'real time' and space which is now lost and reduced to imperfect recollections.

My point is that as human beings we want to defy the garbage that has been handed down to us. So for instance when Constantine's mother picks up a piece of wood and says 'here is the true Cross' it is no longer a piece of wood or something that MIGHT be a witness to the original wood of the Cross or a memory aid to help us understand the concept of 'true Cross' - because of our desperate need to be close to the thing we are studying or hoping to be brought into acquaintance with it becomes 'a holy thing.'

I think this happened with the gospels under Irenaeus's influence.

Justin just speaks of 'memoirs' or 'recollections' or 'notes' associated with the apostles reflecting or witnessing what it was that Jesus said or did. Now this might have been a treasured document in the circles Justin moved, but these 'ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων' COULDN'T HAVE TAKEN ON THE MEANING that Irenaeus later attaches to the canonical gospels. Why? Because Justin was a philosopher and Plato had already established the as something below the rank of a finished literary work.

Now I don't know how familiar you are with Platonic philosophy or Greek terminology or Irenaeus's relationship with Justin but it is clear that Irenaeus never uses the term to describe the same canonical gospels which other witnesses before him (including Justin) describe as ἀπομνημονεύματα and υπομνήματα. I think this is significant.

In other words, Irenaeus clearly cites Justin, Papias and Polycarp as witnesses or teachers before him whose beliefs and traditions were 'in concert' with his own formulations. But it is Irenaeus who brings forward this idea of four 'perfect' gospels reflecting some divine 'tetrad' reflected in the Jewish writings and Greek natural science (i.e. the living creatures of Ezekiel, the four winds, Pythagorean devotion to the number four etc.)

Now if we can imagine driving in a car (as an allegory) through the writings of the Church Fathers there clearly is an adoption of Irenaeus's assumptions about the four gospels being 'perfect' and a reflection of the divinely established 'correctness' of the number four. If we start in the late fourth century and 'drive backwards' in time we hit Eusebius and then Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen and then Irenaeus but we necessarily stop right there and drive over a cliff if we see to go back further than Irenaeus.

The question has always been then to what degree did Irenaeus 'make up' the 'perfectness' of the four gospel? What I am saying is that there is a chasm between Irenaeus's description of the gospels - and the Gospel of Mark in particular (as one part of the perfect set of four) and his sources.

Let's leave Luke and John aside because they are unmentioned before Irenaeus. Papias and Eusebius (Eusebius might have Papias as his source, we don't know) describe Mark as this sort of 'memoir'. As I said earlier, this term is utterly incompatible with something later described as created according to some divine fiat or established through the Holy Spirit (it is more like Brian's shoe in the Life of Brian - viz. a humanly created thing with only an incidental significance insofar as it reflects a divine moment or is a witness to something divine but not something in itself 'perfect' or worthy of reverence).

Now compare that to Moses going up to a mountain and receiving a tablet inscribed with fire by the finger of God and you realize that something is missing from our conception. Yes, Justin only references these ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων but his student Tatian is associated with something else called 'a diatessaron' for reasons that we can't fully understand. It can't have meant a 'harmony of four gospels' because the term is Pythagorean and Platonic (just as the term ἀπομνημονεύματα and υπομνήματα are as Dungan notes).

A diatessaron is the interval between two notes. That's it. The reason these two notes are identified as 'diatessaron' is because the common instrument in antiquity was the lyre and the interval of the diatessaron was formed by the lyre player taking his finger and going 'across four' (Greek diatessaron) strings to hold down the two notes. My point is that the 'diatessaron' is clearly not a memoir but a finished product. It is called by the name 'the gospel of concord' in the earliest writings associated with Ephrem. The terminology suggests that this finished text was 'in concert' or 'harmonious' with the imperfect original memoir of the apostles in the very way that Clement's Letter to Theodore describes established from the recollections of Peter and Mark.

My point would be then that those who argue AGAINST the authenticity of the Letter to Thedore (and its witness to two gospels of Mark - a υπομνημα developed in Rome and a 'perfected' or completed text) can no longer make the case that the handwriting is forged so Watson, Hurtado, Evans etc make the case that the text 'doesn't fit in' with what is said of the development of the gospels in these very same sources I have just referenced. But I have just demonstrated the exact opposite with the help of Dungan (a peer of these people who is every bit their equal). It is just Irenaeus that stands in the way.

So what these people are saying in not that the scenario is of the Letter to Theodore is out of step with the writings of the Church Fathers (or 'everything we know from the Patristic witnesses' yuck!) - but really 'out of step with Irenaeus and HIS reconstruction of Church history up until 180 CE.

But that's a big fucking 'so what' because Irenaeus is ultimately out of step with his sources. Irenaeus is also literally at war with other tradition especially from Alexandria. You'd expect Irenaeus to be out of step with an Alexandrian document like to Theodore.

What it all comes down to then is who should we believe - Irenaeus's reconstruction of how the gospels 'harmonizes' with each other or Clement's formulation in the Letter to Theodore and in scattered places throughout his writings? I think that Clement's explanation is actually MORE in keeping with what appears in Papias, Justin and what is said of Tatian's gospel than Irenaeus's explanation. Irenaeus has an agenda to promote his 'canon' - but the original terminology here - viz. 'canon' is Pythagorean.

Everything that Clement says in his writings (both to Theodore and the Stromata) was that the canon - viz. he even speaks approvingly of a 'gnostic canon' at one point in the Stromata - was the agreement of two texts or two traditions saying things in slightly different ways likened to the interval of a diatessaron (a perfect fourth - i.e. E-A in the key of E). These two texts or tradition are clearly identified as follows - that associated with the apostles was good but 'imperfect' while only that which came later was perfect (a 'gnostic superstructure built on the foundation of Jesus Christ' citing a variant reading of 1 Cor 3:10).

It can't be coincidence that Irenaeus mentions a sect of Mark who are demonized for their reliance on Pythagoreanism and related musical theory. It can't coincidence that Clement's writings show clear signs of contact with these 'Marcosians.' Irenaeus explicitly condemns the same idea as witnessed by Clement - viz. that what was said by the apostles was 'improved' later in a subsequent age by the 'gnostics.' It all fits together to confirm the authenticity of the Letter to Theodore.

Quote:

2. Are you hoping that we understand (I do not) how writings attributed to "Irenaeus" conflict with writings of Justin?
or
3. Are you confirming that any lack of concordance between and among 2nd and third century Christian authors is resolved by Eusebius?

In my opinion, your enthusiasm for claiming the veracity of Morton Smith's discovery would be better served by writing, succinctly, a paragraph highlighting the various documents employed to designate your belief that his "discovery" of a now missing manuscript, supposedly written in the earliest decade of the third century, but inserted

I think all these questions have now been answered.

avi · 01-27-2011, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I thought this was pretty much self-explanatory given that AA has promoted Justin's relationship to what he calls 'Memoirs of the Apostles' (ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων) here for years but let me answer your questions one by one:...

Allow me to disabuse you of the notion that ANYTHING on this forum is "pretty much self-explanatory".

Nothwithstanding your excellent rejoinder to my questions, certain issues regarding the OP remain, a tad fuzzy, at least for me, if no one else.....

Issues which remain unclear:

1. Writings of Justin Martyr:

The question of whether Memoirs of the Apostles is conformant with, or dependent upon, or represents a derivative of, the synoptic gospels, has been disputed for several hundred years, at least. Thus far, I have not found any references that, alternatively, stipulate the possibility that Justin's text served as template for creation of the synoptic gospels, a possibility that seems reasonable at least to me...

The dates of our oldest extant manuscripts of Justin are problematical, at least in my opinion.

Quote:

There are extant but three works of Justin, of which the authenticity is assured: the two "Apologies" and the "Dialogue". They are to be found in two manuscripts: Paris gr. 450, finished on 11 September, 1364; and Claromont. 82, written in 1571, actually at Cheltenham, in the possession of M.T.F. Fenwick. The second is only a copy of the first, which is therefore our sole authority; unfortunately this manuscript is very imperfect (Harnack, "Die Ueberlieferung der griech. Apologeten" in "Texte and Untersuchungen", I, Leipzig, 1883, i, 73-89; Archambault, "Justin, Dialogue a vec Tryphon", Paris, 1909, p. xii-xxxviii). There are many large gaps in this manuscript, thus II Apol., ii, is almost entirely wanting, but it has been found possible to restore the manuscript text from a quotation of Eusebius (Church History IV.17). The "Dialogue" was dedicated to a certain Marcus Pompeius (exli, viii); it must therefore have been preceded by a dedicatory epistle and probably by an introduction or preface; both are lacking. In the seventy-fourth chapter a large part must also be missing, comprising the end of the first book and the beginning of the second (Zahn, "Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch.", VIII, 1885, 37 sq., Bardenhewer, "Gesch. der altkirchl. Litter.", I, Freiburg im Br., 1902, 210). There are other less important gaps and many faulty transcriptions. There being no other manuscript, the correction of this one is very difficult; conjectures have been often quite unhappy, and Krüger, the latest editor of the "Apology", has scarcely done more than return to the text of the manuscript.

The fourteenth century is not a particularly advantageous date to claim as representing an unaltered version of the original writings, of anyone. Possessing only a single version of this manuscript, one cannot be reassured of the authenticity of its contents... Even the writings of "Irenaeus" have an older time stamp, albeit in Latin translation, rather than Greek original...

Quote:

Originally Posted by
Justin speaks of the divine Logos

as "another God" beside the Father, qualified by the gloss: ‘other, I mean, in number, not in will’. Justin actually finds fault with the view of hellenized Jews who held that the divine Logos is no more distinct from God than sunlight is from the sun and suggested, instead, that the Logos is more like a torch lit from another. He wanted to do justice to the independence of the Logos.

I think one needs to tread lightly when using Justin Martyr as source of authority to exonerate Morton Smith...

2. Discrepancies between the writings of Irenaeus and Justin;
two authors about which so little is verifiable. One must really use faith to guide oneself, in accepting as veracious anything attributed to either of these two phantoms.

3. The writings of Clement of Alexandria vis a vis, secret Gospel of Mark. (or anything else, for that matter....)

Quote:

Originally Posted by
Single manuscript, Laurentianus, (L)

dating from the Eleventh century, located in Florence...
As the case was with P, L is full of textual corruptions: errors of names, numbers, omissions, misplaced sentences, as well as the insertion of marginalia into the text.

Oh yeah. Do we really want to go there? Down that road?

4. Claim of Morton Smith to have discovered a letter ostensibly written by Clement, addressed to Theodore, previously unknown, prior to Morton Smith's discovery of the document, hidden in plain sight, in the late 1950's. (Isn't it just a tiny bit peculiar that no one else knew about this document, which had apparently been sitting in that book for what, 300 years, since it was published?)

What little I have read of this sordid business, convinces me that Smith's claim is a hoax. I am eager for someone to explain:

a. how granulated salt was prepared in Alexandria Egypt 1800 years ago;
b. why mid-20th century representations of homosexuality found their way into a letter written by an Alexandrian Bishop;
c. evidence for the idea that the third composition of Clement was referred to by the title Stromateis, "patchwork", prior to the third century, i.e. prior to Clement's having supposedly authored this letter addressed to Theodore.

avi

stephan huller · 01-27-2011, 02:24 PM

I think part of the reason I find it difficult to tolerate mountainman (and to a lesser extent you) is that I really don't think we need to have the debate about whether or not every Christian manuscript purporting to be from the first, second and third centuries but which is preserved only in a later period is a forgery or was concocted by some conspiracy at Nicea.

There are other forums for this sort of thing just as there are UFOs, paranormal activities, notions that AIDS was started by the CIA etc.

Quote:

I think one needs to tread lightly when using Justin Martyr as source of authority to exonerate Morton Smith...

I disagree. I think most scholars haven't properly understood the term 'memoirs' which is used by Justin, Papias and most importantly Eusebius. Your interest of course is to leave open or discuss the improbably possibility that ALL the ancient writings were invented at the time or by Eusebius (or some such formulation which doesn't belong in this thread).

If we take Eusebius's testimony as is - he calls canonical Mark an υπομνημα. It would seem to every reasonable person that he is likely being influenced by Papias here. The point is that since even you guys accept Eusebius as a historical figure (I hope something like a doctrine of alien abduction hasn't worked its way into the fourth century conspiracy) the characterization of the gospel of Mark as a υπομνημα is problematic for the claim that the fourfold gospel is some perfect divinely created thing from the agency of the Holy Spirit.

It's hard to find an equivalent term in English but it is impossible in my mind to uncover a context where a divinely created υπομνημα could be put forward.

My argument then is that Irenaeus - the man who put forward this notion of the sanctity of 'set of four' did so by necessarily walking away from the original characterization of at least some of those gospels as υπομνηματα.

I think what bothers you about this formulation is that it exposes the implausibility of Eusebius as the guy who 'made the fourfold canon.' I'm sorry but that theory was stupid to begin with.

What my observation does confirm is that the fourfold canon was an absolute aberration in the development of Christianity - an aberration which ultimately left its mark - but one which nevertheless was unnatural and ultimately dishonest. Justin's writings may well have been edited and reformulation but it is difficult to imagine that a fourth century figure 'added' the idea of ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων

Why would someone want to diminish the perfection and completeness of the holy gospels? Why would someone want to open the door to the idea that early Fathers like Justin weren't using the canonical four?

What it does show I believe is the idea that there must have been original narratives which were less than perfect. Then - after some time - a 'completed' gospel emerged. Scholars of course grasp some of this in their studies of the terminology of Justin. However I don't think they have appreciated how incompatible what appears first in Justin and Papias with what manifests itself in the writings of Irenaeus.

Irenaeus was a dishonest steward.

When however Eusebius confirms that the gospel of Mark is a υπομνημα it is necessarily confirming the formulation in the Letter to Theodore. This because it confirms the interchangability of υπομνηματα and ἀπομνημονεύματα and more importantly makes Irenaeus's insertion of this very man-made text into a formula of a divinely created 'set of four' seem utterly forced.

Those who attack the authenticity of the Letter to Theodore have only recently started to open the question of whether the Mar Saba letter 'fits' the character of the writings of the age. But when they do this they don't mean 'let's compare Clement with Clement' but 'let's compare this purported letter of Clement with the orthodoxy established by Irenaeus' and then in small print 'which we assume the 'real Clement' was fully in concord.' Yet this is stupid. The real question should be is the letter to Theodore in harmony with the rest of the writings of Clement - and the answer is 'yes.' And then the next question - which is the real question - is whether Clement (i.e. the letter to Theodore) or Irenaeus (AH book 3) is more in keeping with the ideas of Justin, Papias, Eusebius and all those who identify the Gospel of Mark as a υπομνηματα or ἀπομνημονεύματα? The answer here again is that the Letter to Theodore while bold and original in many respects is more 'apostolic' than Irenaeus's wierd and untenably formulation.

This is incredibly important.

In other words - to use the lingo of the street - if Irenaeus 'get out the way' what is being said in to Theodore perfectly harmonizes with all things apostolic. The 'tension' appears with what is written in Irenaeus and even this isn't surprising as Irenaeus doesn't claim 'the fourfold harmony' of gospels was older than himself. He cites no witnesses, no precedent for his formulation. Is it really that incredible that a new idea like this might be at odds with what is laid out in Clement's letter when the same novelty is at odds with Justin and Papias understanding of Mark as a υπομνηματα or ἀπομνημονεύματα?

All of this is being swept under the carpet in order to make 'to Theodore' look strange and without precedent. But again it is only the idea in Irenaeus which is strange. We can't see that now because the formulation has become second nature. But the point stands and is in my opinion irrefutable.

Toto · 01-27-2011, 03:02 PM

On Salt

Quote:

Adulterated Salt

One of the arguments for the Secret Gospel of Mark being a forgery made by Stephen Carlson is the line to the effect that when good and bad are mixed, it is like salt that has lost its savor. Carlson argues that this is anachronistic, as only granulated salt can be adulterated with impurities, and granulated salt had not yet been invented. Shanks then spends several paragraphs (p. 60) demonstrating that ancient sources do indeed contemplate the existence of adulterated salt.

In reading this, I was surprised that no one took notice of the saying from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:13 (cf. Luke 14:34), which in the AV reads “Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted?”

Since pure chemical sodium chloride does not lose its flavor over time, commentaries often posit that the text must be referring to salt that has been adulterated by impurities.

Therefore, the saying about salt losing its savour from Secret Mark is already attested in a saying from Q, and therefore is clearly not anachronistic to the time of Clement.

Kevin L. Barney

Shanks' argument is available to subscribers only.

A paper that can be downloaded at
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/S...SALT-PAPER.rtf

"Mixed with Inventions’: Salt and Metaphor in Secret Mark" by Kyle Smith

states:

Quote:

Though Theodore may very well be a hoax, the salt reference in the letter is not an anachronism, is not inconsistent with Clement’s known references to salt and, in fact, may even be supported by an examination of patristic and biblical scholarship. As I will show, Carlson’s triangulation of Morton Smith with the Morton Salt Company and the salt reference in Theodore is an argument which does not withstand scrutiny; on the contrary, it is an argument which gives a tantalizing, but ultimately false, result.

stephan huller · 01-27-2011, 08:48 PM

What the copybook accomplished was a reflection of one’s own mind and experiences on paper, frozen in time and available for later reflection and analysis. The ability to record one’s life now existed for the Greeks, and “these new instruments were immediately used for the constitution of a permanent relationship to oneself” wherein “one must manage oneself as a governor manages the governed, as a head of an enterprise manages his enterprise” (Foucault 363).

The copybook allowed Greeks to view themselves as governable, primarily through the task of regulation made possible through reflection upon one’s own recorded life. Greek self-evaluation became a practice of “exercising upon oneself as exact a mastery as that of a sovereign against whom there would no longer be revolts” (Foucault 363). Thus, the copybook served as a way to conquer oneself, to render undesirable feelings, thoughts, or inclinations powerless through the control of one’s own mind. Conquering one’s own life, regulating and recording it, was aligned with “perfect government of the self” (Foucault 363). At the same time, hypomnemata “also formed a raw material for the writing of more systematic treatises in which were arguments and means by which to struggle against some defect (such as anger, envy, gossip, flattery) or to overcome some difficult circumstance (a mourning, an exile, downfall, disgrace)” (Foucault 364).

aeebee50 · 01-27-2011, 10:02 PM

Justin was a talker, even until death. One book I searched had a letter inserted in the back from Marcus Aurileus that could have saved him, but it was not to be. The letter how the Christians prayed to save Marcus from the barbaric tribes was quite interesting. I still think Justin would of had been famous, without him having to die.

Morton Smith was known for his great hoax reported by Stephen Carlson. The webb has a lot of information about the hoax and other information. http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/re...ospel_hoax.htm

Toto · 01-27-2011, 10:09 PM

Excerpts from Foucault's Hypomnemata

from The Foucault Reader (or via: amazon.co.uk)

stephan huller · 01-27-2011, 10:10 PM

Morton Smith was originally known for being one of the best scholars of his generation. A real commitment to learning. Most of what came after his death can be attributed to scholarly jealousy. Look at all these scholars https://www.surfgroepen.nl/.../SNTS%...ess%20list.doc. Think about all the papers they've published and no one read them no one cares. It's like Eleanor Rigby. Smith accomplished something that none of them will ever equal - not even the likes of Bart Ehrman. No wonder the jealousy.

01-27-2011, 01:34 AM	#1
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Does Justin's Use of the Term ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων Suggest A Secret Gospel? It is well known that Justin called his gospels ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων - but could an ἀπομνημονεύματα or υπομνήματα be considered a 'divinely inspired' gospel text? The terms were used to denote something developed from memory but in the Platonic sense (a context which Justin was surely rooted) it was the first step towards something complete and ultimately perfected. I find it hard to reconcile a 'Holy Spirit' coming down from heaen to establish an ἀπομνημονεύματα or υπομνήματα. Indeed it is utterly absurd. This is where we see the blind spots in the evangelical worldview which has effected scholarship as a whole for over a century. The Protestants want to emphasize that there was this 'primitive Church' so when they hear that Justin used ἀπομνημονεύματα their little pea brains say ἀπομνημονεύματα = primitive and promitive good. Even Eusebius calls the gospel Mark wrote for Peter's followers a ὑπόμνημα the same stupidity manifests itself. We all know the argument that is put forward WITHOUT examining the terminology - "God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe" (1 Cor 1:21) but this is always ripped out of context. The idea here wasn't that God favored morons but that the stupid message was a gateway to a 'hidden wisdom' which was for the perfect (1 Cor 2.6,7) something amazingly profound being built on the foundation of something seemingly stupid (1 Cor 3.10,11) The point is that now after the triumph of the doctrine which ultimately arose from the Roman Church in the late second century all we are left with is the stupid part but even if you don't look at the Letter to Theodore there are all these hints that the 'polished' or 'finished' gospel existed in the world at one time. My point here is that the terminology that Justin and Eusebius use (in Eusebius's case it is more explicitly connected with a canonical gospel) is entriely at odds with what Irenaeus tries to make with these same texts (or texts like those known to Justin). An ἀπομνημονεύματα or υπομνήματα can't be something patterned after the four living creatures which surrounded the divine chariot. You can't compare the four winds established by God at the beginning of creation with ἀπομνημονεύματα or υπομνήματα or Pythagorean notions of four as a perfect number. The things created by God are supposed to be perfect the way they were originally established. ἀπομνημονεύματα or υπομνήματα are necessarily imperfect things waiting to be polished and reworked as Clement describes Mark doing in a later journey to Alexandria in the Letter to Theodore. Irenaeus necessarily demonstrates himself to be at odds with the terminology originally employed by his sources. This is so fundamental it alone demonstrates the genuineness of Morton Smith's discovery.

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

01-27-2011, 08:48 PM	#7
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	What the copybook accomplished was a reflection of one’s own mind and experiences on paper, frozen in time and available for later reflection and analysis. The ability to record one’s life now existed for the Greeks, and “these new instruments were immediately used for the constitution of a permanent relationship to oneself” wherein “one must manage oneself as a governor manages the governed, as a head of an enterprise manages his enterprise” (Foucault 363). The copybook allowed Greeks to view themselves as governable, primarily through the task of regulation made possible through reflection upon one’s own recorded life. Greek self-evaluation became a practice of “exercising upon oneself as exact a mastery as that of a sovereign against whom there would no longer be revolts” (Foucault 363). Thus, the copybook served as a way to conquer oneself, to render undesirable feelings, thoughts, or inclinations powerless through the control of one’s own mind. Conquering one’s own life, regulating and recording it, was aligned with “perfect government of the self” (Foucault 363). At the same time, hypomnemata “also formed a raw material for the writing of more systematic treatises in which were arguments and means by which to struggle against some defect (such as anger, envy, gossip, flattery) or to overcome some difficult circumstance (a mourning, an exile, downfall, disgrace)” (Foucault 364).

01-27-2011, 10:02 PM	#8
aeebee50 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Texas Posts: 5,810	Justin was a talker, even until death. One book I searched had a letter inserted in the back from Marcus Aurileus that could have saved him, but it was not to be. The letter how the Christians prayed to save Marcus from the barbaric tribes was quite interesting. I still think Justin would of had been famous, without him having to die. Morton Smith was known for his great hoax reported by Stephen Carlson. The webb has a lot of information about the hoax and other information. http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/re...ospel_hoax.htm

01-27-2011, 10:09 PM	#9
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Excerpts from Foucault's Hypomnemata from The Foucault Reader (or via: amazon.co.uk)

01-27-2011, 10:10 PM	#10
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Morton Smith was originally known for being one of the best scholars of his generation. A real commitment to learning. Most of what came after his death can be attributed to scholarly jealousy. Look at all these scholars https://www.surfgroepen.nl/.../SNTS%...ess%20list.doc. Think about all the papers they've published and no one read them no one cares. It's like Eleanor Rigby. Smith accomplished something that none of them will ever equal - not even the likes of Bart Ehrman. No wonder the jealousy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.