jakejonesiv

Jesus' alleged baptismal activity is already suggested from John 4:1.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

The doubling of alleged coincidences from 3 to 6 doesn't make sense. By that logic, if a third document was found, we would then have 12 coincidences.

No, we only have three alleged coincidences.
#1. Jesus baptised his disciples.
#2. A particular baptism occured before Jesus' entry into Jerusalem.
#3. The coptic sources come from Egypt and the Letter to Theodore purports to come from Egypt.

Apparently, the argument is that Morton Smith, or any other possible hoaxer, could not have hoaxed the Letter to Theodore without knowledge of the previously mentioned Coptic texts. Since these became known after Morton Smith produced the Leter to Theodore, the possibility of a hoax is precluded.

To begin, one comment needs to be made. Secret Mark doesn't state that Jesus baptised anyone. This is an inference made from the text. As reasonable as that presumption may be, if the intent of mentioning these alleged coincidences is to prove that it was impossible for the text to be hoaxed, we are already off on the wrong foot.

With that caveat, lets look at the three (not six!) claimed coincidences.

It is implied that Smith could never have imagined that Jesus allegedly baptized his disciples, since Thomas Talley's discovery had not yet been made.

But Smith didn't need any of that. He already had John 4:1-2. The editorial comment in 4:2 notwithstanding (gotta keep it secret!), it is supposed to have been widely believed that "Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John..." Coincidence #1 goes down in flames.

The timing of the incident (just before Jesus' alleged entry into Jerusalem) in Secret Mark is tied to the timing of the raising of Lazarus in GJohn. The baptising element, if present at all, does not determine the timing, it is just hitching a ride on the Lazarus tale. Thus, if #2 is deemed to be a coincidence, it is trivial.

As far as coincidence #3, all manner of things are purported to have originated in Egypt. In fact, I think there is reason to believe that the gospels themselves partly had an origin in Alexandria, but that is outside the scope of this thread. "Things that purport to originate in Egypt" is just too broad a category to have any bearing on whether the Letter to Theodore is a hoax or not.

I have a question. Why is the term LGM (Longer Gospel of Mark) being used in these discussions? I think the term presumes too much. We possess no such longer text from antiquity that combines GMark with the pled interpolations. All we have are photographs of the puported "Letter to Theodore" which encapsulates a couple of passages identified as the secret gospel, i.e. "Secret Mark."

Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith

Yuri, if you want to see approximately the tack I am taking in my critique, read what Jake has posted here. He is right, by the way, about doubling the coincidences. The stats do not seem to work that way.

Ben.

Yuri Kuchinsky

It makes plenty of sense.

Nope. You're making an elementary mistake here. In fact, if a third document was found, it would make 9 coincidences!

<edit>

We have six coincidences.

That's right.

Not at all. The majority of scholars believe there's a baptism being portrayed in LGM.

False. You haven't yet shown that John 4:1-2 weakens my argument in any way.

How do you know that these two Coptic writers were basing what they said on John 4:1-2? You simply assume that this is so. What is the basis for your assumption?

Why do you think so?

Says who?

Why should I believe you?

Huh? "Too broad a category"???

Really... How are we supposed to know what is "too broad" and what is "not too broad", according to you?

Obviously you're just grasping for straws now in your desperate effort to dismiss this document.

So why do you want to portray Morton Smith as a liar, I wonder?

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

He's just posted a bunch of equivocations. If you're impressed with these...

The teaching of science in US schools must be even worse than I suspected!

BTW, Scott Brown has now replied to Carlson in Expository Times 117 (2006) 144-49,
http://ext.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/117/4/144

(This is a PDF file, and the access is now apparently free.)

Brown demolishes Carlson's argument, such as it was, that Smith was Madiotes... In any case, the handwriting of Madiotes is _obviously_ very different from that of the letter to Theodore.

There's no similarity there at all, except for some people's will to believe...

I'm becoming ever more persuaded that this whole effort by Carlson is really just a hoax to trap the unwary.

Regards,

Yuri.

Roger Pearse

Interesting indeed -- thank you Yuri!

All he seems to be denying is the identity of the Madiotes ms with Theodore, on paleographical grounds. This is beyond my competence to assess, so I await the comments of the experts.

That new good photographs of the Madiotes ms. are now required seems the main point from all of this that now needs action.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

I do not see how each new text adds a new layer of the same coincidences. Perhaps you can elucidate this process for us scientific lightweights.

You will note that my critique of Carlson placed no weight on the interplay of Madiotes, Smith, the Mar Saba manuscript, and manuscript 22.

And many thanks for that link.

Incidentally, you were correct to protest that I should have read Brown before reviewing Carlson. You were also correct in your claim that his book is a very scholarly effort. So scholarly, in fact, that his literary analysis of the secret gospel provides its own refutation, truly the mark of a complete handling of a topic. I am now more convinced than ever that the secret gospel is a product of the twentieth century.

I apologize for the delay in reviewing your pages, Yuri. My schedule has been incredible of late. But my notes and outline are basically developed, and I will get to the review proper as soon as I can.

Ben.

Vorkosigan

You mean Brown's book?

Michael

Ben C Smith

Yes, the book, Mark's Other Gospel. Have you read it? It deserves a close reading.

Ben.

Vorkosigan

Not yet. It isn't available here, which means I would have to spend $$ on it. I'm saving for an analysis of Acts.

Michael