Sheshbazzar

Spirts and magic and zombies! oh me! spirits and magic and zombies! oh my!
demons and ghosties and ghoulies! Look out! Zombie Jezuz is after yer braaaaains.

spin

Stephan, you are to blame for this silly post. You reap what you sow. And Earl, you should learn not to be baited.

andrewcriddle

Hi Stephan

Bart Ehrman may be over simplifying Morton Smith's interpretation of the Letter to Theodore.

On the other hand: On page 185 of Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark Morton Smith states that Clement is implying that the Carpocratian version of the ritual described in the Letter to Theodore is homosexual. (I agree that Morton Smith goes on to express grounds for doubting that this was made explicit in the Carpocratian text of Secret Mark.) On pages 113-114 of The Secret Gospel Morton Smith claims that Jesus' baptism, in which the disciple was spiritually united with Jesus by unknown ceremonies, (probably involving manipulation), led in some forms of gnostic Christianity to the completion of the spiritual union of baptizer and baptized by physical union. Of this physical union of baptizer and baptized Morton Smith claims, how early it began there is no telling.

Taken as a whole Morton Smith's position seems to be that the ritual described in the Letter to Theodore developed among some 2nd century groups, such as the Carpocratians, in ways that were understood by their opponents as homosexual. This understanding was in some cases justified. Morton Smith is uncertain as to how far these developments had a basis in the original form of the ritual.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

what's there to reap or to sow? I'm just havin fun. we both know that you cant be bart ehrman right? you're tim o'neil.:notworthy:

EarlDoherty

And it would be interesting if you actually made sense. The above is totally garbled. (Is English your third language?)

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Of course, the only way we can know that he is neither is for him to reveal who he really is.

Earl Doherty

stephan huller

Andrew,

I have always respected you and find nothing offensive about your published work on Morton Smith and the Mar Saba discovery. As I have said many times, it was the fact that you involved yourself at this forum that convinced me to participate originally. Nevertheless not all of those who added to the study of the discovery have been as fair or as honest as yourself. Some have deliberately employed shall we say less than honest research techniques.

To this end, let's consider Bart Ehrman in this respect

Here then is Smith’s clearest explanation of what Clement was making reference to in his Letter to Theodore. It appears in his incredibly dense and erudite scholarly study, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark, submitted to the publishers in 1966 but released only in 1973:

There is nothing in these words that can support Ehrman’s contention that Smith identified Jesus or his followers as homosexual. Yet this is the very section of the text where Ehrman looked to ground his claims. Indeed Ehrman combed through the footnotes to this reference in the hope of finding something sensational and titillating. Indeed in the middle of the dry footnotes to this section there is a reference to ‘the use of hands’ which Ehrman took out of context and – with all the zeal of a giggling adolescent – which became the very basis to his claim that both Smith and the Secret Gospel was really ‘gay.’

In what is perhaps one of the lowest moments in the history of the study of the Bible Ehrman lays out the basis to his ‘homosexual conspiracy theory’ based on this reference to the aforementioned material:

What Smith meant by the ‘use of his hands’ is clear to anyone who actually read his books. As John Dominic Crossan notes Smith is making reference to the manner in which “the miracle stories in the Gospels show a great many of the minor traits of magical procedures” and David Aune places it among “techniques... well-known to both Jewish and Greco-Roman magic practitioners.” Yet what does the truth matter to a young scholar who wants his new book to be a success?

Indeed, in spite of what Smith clearly means by ‘the use of his hands’ in Bart Ehrman repeatedly went to great lengths to turn around this little into a proof that Morton Smith was obsessively interested in homosexuality:

It would be the understatement of the year to say that Ehrman is misrepresenting what Morton Smith’s interpretation of his discovery. But then again, as we have already seen - Ehrman never lets the truth get in the way of a good story.

Indeed Ehrman’s disinterest in actually reporting what Smith actually wrote is palpably obvious – “I do not want to go into a prolonged discussion of every aspect of Morton Smith's interpretation of the Secret gospel.” Ehrman is so disinterested in the facts that in fact he refused to actually reference what Morton Smith actually wrote or believed. Ehrman sets up a caricature and then proceeds to defend his straw man – the ‘gay scholar’ discovering a ‘gay gospel’ claiming that this understanding was not brought in:

This is yet another untruth leveled against Smith. The reference to “freedom from the law” which leads to “completion of the spiritual union by physical union” is merely saying that the spirit was thought to enter the flesh of the initiate. There is no reference to homosexuality in Smith’s analysis. Indeed as I have shown in the other thread, Clement is really saying that those who claim a physical Jesus are necessarily corrupting the reality of his spiritual natural. Yet this ‘perversion’ applies equally well to Ehrman as it does to Morton Smith. Any believer in a historical Jesus the man is a ‘spiritual pervert’ according to Clement of Alexandria. We have already demonstrated that this view is not limited to the Letter to Theodore; it appears throughout the writings of Clement of Alexandria.

The end result of Ehrman’s misrepresentations – his laying out a patchwork of innuendos – is that they are all meant to come together to support the idea that Morton Smith took an active interest in promoting that this ‘gay gospel’ because he was in fact gay. Ehrman’s methodology is actually quite similar with others who have written on the subject. They bait their audience with words and ideas that never appear in the text. Ehrman’s reference to the naked baptism ritual as being the ‘climax’ of the document is quite typical of this genre. If explicit reference to sex isn’t there – just make it up

So the use of such sophomoric irony is almost a requirement in such books and articles. In some cases - the two men are said to be ‘climaxing’ together or with all the subtlety of a Rolling Stones lyric these writers transform the original letter’s mention of the youth who “beseeched” Jesus “that he might be with him” into him “wanting to spend the night with Jesus.” This cynicism is only reflective of the age we live in. We have ‘reality television’ which is fully scripted. We have gridlock in progressive government and an endless outrage’ over the most inconsequential things. The truth simply doesn’t seem to matter to anyone any longer. Everyone is ‘out to get theirs.’ ‘Get rich or die trying’ might well replace ‘in God we trust’ as the very motto of our nation.

stephan huller

And the only reason this discussion has relevance to Doherty is that Ehrman effectively does the same thing to him. Ehrman says this about Smith - "I do not want to go into a prolonged discussion of every aspect of Morton Smith's interpretation." The same thing appears in Ehrman's treatment of Doherty - something about it being an 800 page book that is too dense for anyone to comment on without devoting double the amount of pages - and so with that he basically develops caricatures to 'help' his reader understand these complicated scholars.

In Smith's case 'it all comes down to homosexuality' which is complete bullshit. I don't take up Doherty's defense because he is alive. He's more than capable of defending himself. Yet defending the dead who have been wronged is an obligation in my culture. I've been wrestling with this for days. But the blood cries out to me from the ground or something like that.

stephan huller

No he's American. This is how it is here - a nation of marginally unilingual citizens.

outhouse

Ah Earl, :blush: it warms my heart you have to resort to person attacks to defend your lack of a real scholarship.

If you take jabs at someone, I hope you enjoy getting it back. ><

Love ya brother, and some of your work is great.




Nope im not a author, and born and raised in Ca.