Vorkosigan

Let's be reasonable. Yuri does have a point here about Christian bias. The reason that scholars "are standing up" against SGM is that this particular document tends to reinforce views of early Christianity that are intolerable to many Christian scholars of the NT. One only need point to the happy reception accorded the obviously forged Ossuary to see this bias in reverse. It was accepted with delight because it reinforced those very same prejudices, even though it was even more obviously a forgery than Secret Mark is. If Secret Mark had somehow provided additional evidence for the HJ, you bet the NT scholarly world would be doing handsprings to confirm it.

In any case, it seems to me that SGM is only one vector. Is there anything on the Sophocles stuff? Roger, could you put an email onto the Classics-L list and solicit some opinions?

Vorkosigan

Haran

On some level, although I don't know why the monks would necessarily consider Secret Mark something that necessarily needed to be hidden, especially since the scholarly world already knows about it and theories have already evolved from it.

Let's not forget that bias lurks on the other side of the fence as well. In other words, there are scholars that want us to simply accept Secret Mark because it fits their preconceived notions of the textual development of the Bible and the development of early Christianity. There are some dishonest scholars who will publicly state that the Bible is fiction and yet proceed to create and publicize all kinds of fanciful theories geared to make Christianity look as bad or hopelessly unrecoverable as possible. Finally, if it was truly forged, then it seems more plausible to me that the MS was hidden or "lost" specifically because someone did not want it tested.

Bias is not restricted to Christians...let's be reasonable. (And don't even get me started on which of my descriptions Altman falls under... ).

Vorkosigan

"Dishonest scholars?" Names, please.

Roger Pearse

Only the morose would solemnly collect these, surely, which makes this an unfair query.

I agree with Haran that such things do go on. I don't regard the efforts of Bart Ehrmann to rewrite the history of Christian origins as particularly honest, for instance. Likewise when Paul Mirecki told the media that the damage to his papyrus 'Gospel of the Savior' must be due to Christian censorship, he had no way of knowing any such thing and spoke only to inflame prejudice.

No doubt there are many more, particularly in controversial areas. NT scholarship has at all periods reflected the wishes of the political establishment rather more than the (static) data base. Is that dishonest? Well, in my view it depends. But then, I try not to read such rubbish, and certainly don't assemble a blacklist.

That there are scholars whose theories owe more to the fashions of their times than the evidence before them cannot be controversial, I'd have thought.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Haran

I'm not going to name names. Have you not questioned the integrity of some Christian scholars before?

I will say that someone here once mentioned talking with a particular scholar who confided in them that he thought the Bible was a load of fiction (in somewhat different terms), yet this scholar has created and publicized elaborate theories about the beginnings of Christianity. If true, to me this seems dishonest. It seems as if a scholar has decided it's all bunk, so why not just rewrite history either to destroy hated Christianity or just to have fun and provide job security. If Morton Smith forged Secret Mark, he could possibly have done it for one of these reasons.

Roger Pearse

I can't agree with this, I must say. SGM is profoundly congenial to the manstream in NT studies, and the enthusiasm for gnosticism, I suspect.

I'm not actually subscribed to this, I'm afraid -- too high a volume, and too few posts that interest me.

It would certainly be interesting to know more.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steven Carr

Does anybody know if Morton Smith's mother has cleaned the manuscript?

This could make it appear as though it was a modern forgery, when it was actually genuine.

Haran

No, but I have heard that Oded Golan owned the manuscript a long time ago.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Bart Ehrmann (sic) trying to rewrite the history of Christian origins???

Actually Ehrman is a total mainstreamer... He's not radical in any way at all, and he's not saying anything that lots of other people didn't already say before him.

So it does seem to me like Roger has never actually read him!

Sure looks like here we have yet another example of Roger slamming a mainstream scholar without actually having read him...

Oh, well...

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

But if they did, why don't they say so?

Quote:

We need the damn document. Otherwises, frankly, it is speculation against speculation. Show the thing and the writing is earlier than Smith and you exonerate Smith.

Clearly that the document isn't available for inspection remains a problem. But it's not a problem for Smith, though... I'm saying that, in actual fact, the absence of the document is an argument in favour of Smith.

Yours,

Yuri.