andrewcriddle

One problem I have with Talley's views about the religious year in Alexandria c 350 is this.

Since we know from Athanasius' Festal letters that Lent is being practiced as a movable fast before Easter, the idea that the church was at the same time practicing a fixed fast of similar length beginning after Epiphany does require a startling amount of fasting to be going on in the first few months of each year.

When Easter occurred particularly early the two fasts would overlap producing a very long indeed combined fast.

Even if a 6-7 week fast after Epiphany was at one time practiced I find it hard to credit that it was practiced at the same time as conventional Lent.

Andrew Criddle

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Andrew,

Quoting from Talley,

"Prior to Nicea, no record exists of such a forty-day fast before Easter. Only a few years after the council, however, we encounter it in most of the Church..." (p. 168)

So it looks like the forty-day fast before Easter was a late innovation. The earlier tradition was a fast of six days before Easter.

I'm not saying it was practised "at the same time"... The idea is to determine the earliest practice.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, all,

This is a re-edited version of my earlier post, where I've corrected some inaccuracies.

Clearly, all this evidence may give grounds for a suspicion that Dr. Talley was also a part of the conspiracy to forge Secret Mark, if this manuscript was indeed a forgery... (He might have known about these Coptic sources before, but only told Smith about them, so that Smith's forgery will be more readily believed.) Dr. Talley did admit to having some communications with Smith, at least at a later stage...

So here are, then, the simple facts on the ground.

In SecMk, Jesus performs a baptism right before his Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem -- he baptises one of his chosen disciples.

No other such account is known prior to SecMk manuscript.

Yet, a few years later, Dr. Thomas Talley 'discovers' in some obscure Coptic sources, not just one, but two similar accounts, that describe Jesus baptising some of his chosen disciples. Which would have already been remarkable enough... But, moreover, the time frame that these Coptic sources indicate for Jesus' baptising activities is the very same week just before Jesus' Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem!

Isn't this remarkable?

Thus, we seem to have the following apparent coincidences,

#1
-- SecMk purports to come out of Egypt.
-- Our Coptic sources also come out of Egypt.

#2
-- SecMk says Jesus was a Baptist.
-- Our Coptic sources also say that Jesus was a Baptist.

#3
Since our Coptic testimony comes from not just one, but two apparently independent sources, all these coincidences are thereby doubled.

#4
-- The time frame for Jesus' baptising activities, as indicated in SecMk, is just before his entry into Jerusalem.
-- The time frame for Jesus' baptising activities, as indicated in our Coptic sources, is also just before Jesus' entry into Jerusalem.

This seems to me like an awful lot of coincidences here... So, either Dr. Talley was a part of this conspiracy... or?

Any other suggestions? Psychic synchronicities, anyone?

Who's the specialist in this type of thing here? Offa?

Yuri.

Vorkosigan

Actually, in Sec Mark he baptizes a rich young man. That was one of Morton Smith's little jokes, for it makes Sec Mark say that the rich can enter the kingdom very easily.

...or Smith forged Sec Mark as Carlson will shortly demonstrate, and what coincidences are there, they are coincidences.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
In SecMk, Jesus performs a baptism right before his
Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem -- he baptises one of his
chosen disciples.


VORK:
Actually, in Sec Mark he baptizes a rich young man.

YURI:
Same thing...

VORK:
That
was one of Morton Smith's little jokes, for it makes Sec
Mark say that the rich can enter the kingdom very easily.

YURI:
This is a circular argument.

Quote from Yuri Kuchinsky:
Yet, a few years later, Dr. Thomas Talley 'discovers' in
some obscure Coptic sources, not just one, but two similar
accounts, that describe Jesus baptising some of his chosen
disciples. Which would have already been remarkable
enough... But, moreover, the time frame that these Coptic
sources indicate for Jesus' baptising activities is the very
same week just before Jesus' Triumphal Entry into
Jerusalem!

#1
-- SecMk purports to come out of Egypt.
-- Our Coptic sources also come out of Egypt.

#2
-- SecMk says Jesus was a Baptist.
-- Our Coptic sources also say that Jesus was a Baptist.

#3
Since our Coptic testimony comes from not just one, but
two apparently independent sources, all these coincidences
are thereby doubled.

#4
-- The time frame for Jesus' baptising activities, as
indicated in SecMk, is just before his entry into Jerusalem.
-- The time frame for Jesus' baptising activities, as
indicated in our Coptic sources, is also just before Jesus'
entry into Jerusalem.

This seems to me like an awful lot of coincidences here...
So, either Dr. Talley was a part of this conspiracy... or?

VORK:
...or Smith forged Sec Mark

YURI:
But the phrase "Dr. Talley was a part of this conspiracy" was already premised on the assumption that Smith forged Sec Mark.

Please try to keep up with the argument, Vork.

VORK:
as Carlson will shortly
demonstrate, and what coincidences are there, they are
coincidences.

YURI:
Hmm... We have like 7 coincidences already?

How many coincidences do you need to make up a conspiracy?

So now Vork is beginning to emerge as a "coincidence theorist" in this thread (as opposed to a "conspiracy theorist").

Yours,

Yuri.

Vorkosigan

<shrug>

Yuri Kuchinsky

Now, following up in regard to this theory that Dr. Talley might have been an accomplice of Morton Smith, here's some other interesting evidence.

This bit is from Charles W. Hedrick's article in the Journal of Early Christian Studies 11.2 (2003) 133-145.

As we can see, Dr. Talley freely admitted to having some private communications with Smith as early as in 1979, and he presented the following version to Dr. Hedrick.

Whether or not Dr. Talley was really on the level with Hedrick, and whether Smith was really "unaware" of this Egyptian liturgical tradition when he "discovered" SecMk, still remains to be decided, I suppose...

=====quote=====

"The Secret Gospel of Mark: Stalemate in the Academy", by Charles W. Hedrick.

[NOTE 14] Thomas Talley provided some additional substance to this argument for the genuineness of the secret Mark tradition from the liturgical tradition in Alexandria, information of which Smith was unaware when he published his books. Talley reported in an email in October 2001 that in 1979, when he first mentioned to Smith his theory on the Saturday of Lazarus at the end of Lent, Smith's "immediate remark was that it would never have occurred to him to look at the liturgical tradition." Talley goes on to say, "that [remark] has stuck in my mind as another reason to refuse any suggestion that [Smith] had 'forged' the text. Neither he nor anyone else could have conceived so complex a scheme" (email to C. W. Hedrick, October 25, 2001). See T. J. Talley, "Le temps liturgique dans l'Èglise ancienne: Ètat de la rescherché," La Maison-Dieu 47 (1981): 29-60; idem, "The Origin of Lent at Alexandria," SP 17.2 (1982): 594-612.

=====unquote=====

Regards,

Yuri.

Vorkosigan

Smith: always the comedian. People are going to laugh their asses off when they back through his comments to them after seeing Steve's paper.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Could you please provide some evidence of that?

Yuri.

Vorkosigan

Of what will happen in the future? How? I was only indulging in conjecture. You'll just have to wait until Steve's paper is read.