Vorkosigan

One thing I haven't seen that perhaps The Man himself can fill us in on -- what was the reaction when the paper was read at the conference?

Vorkosigan

S.C.Carlson

I won't know until Nov. 21.

Stephen

Yuri Kuchinsky

The debate about the James Ossuary is over. I guess this proves my point, doesn't it?

For example?

This proves nothing.

He spent 15 years of his life just for laughs? Sorry, but this is silly.

Can you provide even _one_ example of a highly complex forgery that was done just for laughs?

Yuri.

Chris Weimer

Actually, no, it doesn't. It proves my point, since the ossuary, considered authentic by many, is now thought to be a fake. And still the debate rolls on. Just because Golan's indicted doesn't necessarily mean the scientific community has come to a close on it.

Must I really? Nope. Instead, check out Carlson's blog and Loren Rossen's blog on various hoaxes and forgeries.

Well, not just for laughs, but yes, he was probably laughing on the inside. Personal jokes are the best.

What's so complex about it?

Yuri Kuchinsky

The James Ossuary has now joined the Shroud of Turin as a certified Kook Magnet for a few unbalanced academics, mostly of the conservative persuasion. In so far as the Shroud is concerned, they even have a special name for it: 'sindology'. (I wonder what will be the special designation for an Ossuary wacko? I'm sure it won't be long before someone would devise something...)

The _real_ debate about the James Ossuary is over.

Hmm... You were talking about "a hundred of the other forgeries that cause debate". So why can't you name even one?

Everything.

Yuri.

Ben C Smith

I was wondering, where would one go to certify a Kook Magnet? There are several notions out there I would like to get the official K. M. papers for....

Ben.

jakejonesiv

This is a review of Steven Carlson's book, Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark

The text of Secret Mark can be found here.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ecretmark.html


Here is a brief review of what Secret Mark purports to be.

A "Secret gospel of Mark" was supposedly known in Alexandria in the early second century. The text describes Jesus raising a Lazarus like figure, with much emotion being displayed by both parties. This is followed by a suggestive initiation rite. "And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God."

Carpocrates supposedly tricked a copy from a presbyter of the church in Alexandria and circulated a corrupted version among his followers, adding explicit phrases such as "naked man with naked man". The Carpocratians taught that one must experience every obscenity and sinful act (this is presumed in SM to imply homosexuality) in order for the soul to free itself from the material world. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, chapter 25, section 4.

A certain Theodore, after reading the Carpocratian version, was mortified at the implications, and presumably wrote to Clement of Alexandria for assurance on the matter. Clement allegedly wrote back to Theodore and assured him that the Carpocratians were distorting the meaning of the document. According to this letter, Mark had composed a second, more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. This second edition, Secret Mark, otherwise unknown to history, was presumably authentic. The Capocrates were misuing it, and adding false elements to it. Thus, even if the sexual angle is discounted, orthodox Christianity is revealed as a mystery religion whereby progressively greater gnosis was revealed to insiders as they advanced in status. Apparently even Clement of Alexandria was in on the trick, and there were seven levels of initiation, the "innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils."

But just when we come to the part of the letter where Clement was to reveal the true interpretaion, the copy ends! "Now the true explanation and what accords with the true philosophy ...." Holy cliffhanger!

Clement's letter had supposedly been transcribed into the flyleaves of a book printed in the 17th century, namely Epistolae genuinae S. Ignatii Martyris, Isaac Voss, 1646. Where Clement's letter had been in the intervening 1500 years is anybody's guess.

Morton Smith reported the discovery of the manuscript at Mar Saba in 1958. Dr. Smith publically announced the discovery at the 1960 annual SBL meeting. Photographs of the alleged letter were available, but the original had been mislaid, making any inspection of the 17th century document impossible.

Morton Smith produced a popular book on Secret Mark, The Secret Gospel, 1973, in which he proposed an esoteric Christianity in which hallucination and altered states of consciousness played a prominent role.

It should come as no suprise that a document that is so controversial, and with so many convenient occurances in its provenance (it ends at just the point that the ambiguity would be removed, a 17th century document is easier to forge than a 2nd century document, but even the 17th century document was lost; one cannot analyze the ink of a photograph). Oh, and homoJesus is a joke that is just a little too good. (Just how gay does he have to be? Not only does he love the guy, he disses the three women). Add to this the coincidence that Morton Smith, the discoverer, likely possesssed the skills and knowledge to fabricate the letter (see below). None of this proves a hoax, but it is suggestive enough that it was not long before charges of fraud began to emerge. In 1975, Quentin Quesnell published The Mar Saba Clementine: A Question of Evidence in the CBC, and the controversy has continued since.

With that lengthy preamble, let's turn to Steven Carlson's book, The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's invention of Secret Mark.
After giving well deserved props to Andrew Criddle (p. xv) who identified that Theodore is hyper-Clementine (a deliberate imitation of Clementine's style) and Michael Turton (p. xvi) who noted the "fogery arc," Steven Carlson (henceforth SC) turns to the societal attitudes toward homosexuality. He astutley recognizes Secret Mark reflects the sexual mores of the 1950's rather than the 200's.

In antiquity, same sex relationhips were between men of widely divergent age and social standing. In modern times, these same sex partners are more often social peers. See page 69. Additionaly, "Secret Mark's linkage between its sexually charged nocturnal initiation and Jesus' arrest in the garden resonates only within a specific moment within a changing twentieth-century legal landscape that peaked in the 1950's. That Secret Mark came to light in 1958 is no coincidence." The phrase "spent the night together" that the Carpocratians allegely pounced upon as proof of their alleged homoerotic doctrine, is a thoroughly modern sexual innuendo. Jesus had already supposedly stayed with the disciple for six days. Above, I wrote that Theodore was mortified after reading Secret Mark. I could have as well written that he was Mortonified. (:down: OK, that is bad, but as bad as Morton salt?) .

SC notesthat Morton Smith seemed well qualified to perpetuate such a hoax. "Smith's publications before the summer of 1958 exhibited his erudation in a wide range of subjects relevant to Secret Mark."
. There is zero evidence for the antiquity of Secret Mark other than Morton Smith's discovery.
. In 1955 Smith had published an analysis of a commentary on GMark
. He had an intimate knowledge of monastic libraries, particularly Mar Saba which he had visited previously.
. He had inspected, photograghed, and transcribed dozens of Greek manuscripts, many of which he dated to the 18th century.
. While at Drew, Smith had become interested in the Philosophumena of Hippolytus, which includes a discussion of the Carpocratians. See Hippolytus of Rome, The Refutation of all Heresies, Book 7, chapter 20.
. Smith, in March 1958, published an article, Image of God, that cited Clement of Alexandria four times.

The Mystery of Mar Saba, by James H. Hunter, originally published in 1940 but frequently reprinted afterwards, revolved around the discovery of a revolutionary, ancient text in the monastery of Mar Saba that turned out to be a forgery (page 19). The forgery in the book is discovered by a scholar while he was cataloguing the manuscripts there. Both Secret Markand MMS write of rolling away of stones and of linen clothing. IMHO, we are approaching the limits of coincidence here.

Theodore (the alleged letter that encapsulates Secret Mark) contains a sphragis, a textual device to remind the readers of a previous work by the purported author to authenticate the currrent work. This is especially atttractive to fakers because the fake document usually starts with no external evidence. The sphragis here is the mention to Clement's Stromateis. "From the letters of the most holy Clement, the author of the Stromateis." That doesn't fit with a personal correspdence between acquaintances, but something put in for public validation. Likewise, SC identifies within Secret Mark a sphragis to Morton Smith's own previous works. The coupling of "the mystery of the kingdom of God" with a forbidden sexual relationship supports Smith's earlier linkage in 1951 of Mark 4:11 with forbidden sexual relationships (page 81). It seems as if M.Smith knew the punchline before the joke. The similarity of Secret Mark to the Lazarus story in GJohn supports Smith's 1955 contention that Mark used a "source with Johannine traits".

SC claims that each section of Secret Mark contains an intentional indicator that Morton Smith was the hoaxer.
SC notes that apparently free flowing salt adulterated by adding another ingredient is an anachronism. See page 60. "For the true things being mixed with inventions, are falsified, so that, as the saying goes, even the [Morton] salt loses it savor." I am not so sure about Morton salt , but IMHO, the sentence can be read as an outright confession. Morton had taken some true things, mixed them with inventions, and come up with something that is false.

According to SC, M.Smith also buries a reference to "Smith" in the commentary on the text, Jeremiah 28:17.
Well, maybe. :huh:

SC, based on handwriting analysis ("forger's tremor" etc.), indentifies the writer of the Secret Mark document, with another manuscript photgraphed and published by Morton Smith, assigned number 22 in Smith's catalog (pages 42-43). Smith dates the first hand, not to the 18th century, but confidently to the 20th century, and attributes it to M. Madiotes -- the "bald swindler". Smith was folically impaired, so this may be a confession.

Finally, I want to point out that SC kindly goes out of his way to call M.Smith's alleged fakery to be a hoax rather than a fogery. The reason is that a forgery is for monetary gain but a hoax isn't done to defraud or to cheat. I don't know if I can dance along that fine a line.

If this isn't a smoking gun, Stephen has definitley put the ball in the opponent's court.

Speculation by JJ:
I do think, that if Smith did fake Secret Mark, then it was done with an eye to the "joke" being found out shortly, but events got away from him, and he never could.

When he first concoted the story (if he did), his career was at a low point. He seemingly waited around for years and years waiting to see what would happen with Secret Mark. The more time passed, the more he had to lose. His career, his reputation. In the end, he left in his will to have his personal papers burned. Why? Was Dr. Smith gay? Was that the real secret? Was Secret Mark part of a plan to leave the closet? I don't know. Maybe the "one who knows" is Theodore, whoever that may be.
http://www.salon.com/feature/1998/04/cov_10feature.html

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Who was Theodore?

Stephen Carlson’s book has convinced me that the sexual mores reflected in Secret Mark and its surrounding text, the alleged letter from Clement to Theodore are reflective of attitudes about homosexuality in the US in the 1950’s. But there is a question SC fails to ask, perhaps out of delicacy. Why did Dr. Smith put so effort into a forgery concerned with this particular social issue? It seems reasonable to think that, in order to pull off the most successful hoax (allegedly) in the history of Christian origins, that Dr. Smith had some sort of personal stake in the issue.

The answer that presents itself is that Dr. Smith was gay. This is not the first time such speculation has been made on IIDB. (Thanks DQ).
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=103406&pp=25
The controversy that it stirred has made me a bit hesitant to continue, but only for a day. I don’t think the following can be proven, and in fact "proving it" perhaps shouldn't be pursued. Why root around in a deceased man's life? But to me this is the first scenario that makes sense of the matter. And it is offered only in that context, as a plausible explanation. Here goes.

If it is true that Morton Smith, the life long bachelor, was gay (and the hoaxer), then Secret Mark is the result of 20th century bigotry rather than 2nd century heresy. Assuming that is true, why did Morton Smith perpetuate the hoax? The key is Theodore. Just as Jesus is said to teach the young man the mystery of the kingdom of God, Clement reveals secrets galore to Theodore.

The letter to Theodore including Secret Mark was autobiographical. Morton Smith is Clement/Jesus and his lover is Theodore/the youth. I would not be surprised to learn that Morton Smith did indeed spend 6 days with a male friend, and on the seventh night, sexual initiation. And that friend’s name was likely “Theodore� or a variation such as “Ted� or “Teddy� or a pet name such as "Teddy Bear". This person was then the love of M.Smith’s life, but for societal pressures at the time an open relationship was not advisable. The Secret Gospel, was dedicated to “The One Who Knows�. This was not God, Smith was an atheist. This was not a co-conspirator, there were none, Smith wrote it himself. This was not Nock; he may have suspected the hoax, but he didn’t know the real secret. The one who knows was none other than his lost lover, Theodore.

Thus in 1958 Morton Smith’s personal life and professional career were both at a low point as he approached midlife, and this produced a crisis culminating in the hoaxing of Secret Mark. Perhaps the only way to strike back at the conservative churches that were bent on limiting his rights was to ironically paint the alleged founder of the religion as a "despised" homosexual also.

But Morton Smith always expected, perhaps at first even wanted the hoax to be exposed. SC has shown that MS always weasel worded any comments on the discovery. See The Gospel Hoax pages 40ff. The comments are much like a person under oath, who wanting to convey a false impression, nevertheless wishes to technically avoid the charges of perjury. (SC, being an attorney, is very qualified to notice such things). That is why Smith neglected Secret Mark for so many years. He was awaiting the exposure of the hoax with an “I told you so� and “take that, Christians!� It would be like flipping the bird to the bigots of society. His plans would come to fruition when the original of the letter to Theodore was examined. There would be something blatant to rub the hoax in the dups faces.

But the scheme was altered beyond recognition when the letter was lost. Smith cannot be blamed for that, he had counted on it. Certainly this would come as somewhat of a relief to Smith, maybe he wouldn’t have to fess up after all. He had much more to lose professionally, and as for his love life, passions dim with time. What seemed bold and daring 15 years previously may have become less alluring as time passed. The original might or might not ever turn up. It was probably best to fuzz everything up, write books about the hoax which and little or nothing to do with what was conveyed in the actual document. Continued misdirection seemed to be the best plan.

Which brings us back to the original point. Was its all done for Teddy? With the personal letters burned, we will probably never know.

Jake Jones IV
:thumbs:

Yuri Kuchinsky

Do you really believe that the letter was "lost"?

This is just silly. How could he "count" on something that (in real life) would be so extremely improbable?

Regards,

Yuri.

PS.
I have read Carlson's book by now, and I think that the whole thing is just laughable. It is nothing more than a tissue of fantasy and innuendo. There's nothing there that comes anywhere close to proof that Smith fabricated this manuscript.

So now I suspect that Carlson's book is actually just a hoax! His intention no doubt was to expose all that incompetence that is all too common in NT studies... IMO he wrote his book just to trap the incompetent NT scholars into believing him! Later he will probably come out clean, and we will all have a good laugh at all those boobs who were beguiled by his 'evidence'.

Roger Pearse

Yuri,

You may want to reconsider this hasty dismissal, in your own interests. Quite a lot of us have read the book, you know. Carlson's thesis may be proven mistaken: but it is certainly not laughable or trivial. On the contrary it is a painstaking piece of work which advances the subject considerably. While I don't think that SC has conclusively proven his case in every area, it can't be just dismissed in three sentences like this. It's much better than that.

All the best,

Roger Pearse