Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
12-29-2005, 09:15 AM | #61 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,146
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Regards, Yuri. |
|||
12-29-2005, 09:35 AM | #62 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,146
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The whole thing looks obvious to me -- it's a hoax by Carlson! One of the things that struck me immediately when I looked at Carlson's "evidence" is how very poor the quality of the reproductions in his book was. These photos look so smudged and bleary... (And Brown remarks on this too.) It's as if Carlson was trying (subliminally) to send us a signal that the whole thing isn't really what it's supposed to be... Well... and so it isn't! Cheers, Yuri. |
|||
12-29-2005, 10:09 AM | #63 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
Ben. |
|
12-31-2005, 01:30 PM | #64 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,146
|
Quote:
Happy New Year! Yuri. |
|
12-31-2005, 03:21 PM | #65 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
Happy 2006 to you, too. Ben. |
|
01-14-2006, 08:37 AM | #66 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,146
|
Madiotes is not Smith -- a tale of confusion
Greetings, all,
So now it looks like the central part of Carlson's theory about Morton Smith being a hoaxer is nothing more than a glaring misconception on the part of Carlson. He confused the pages of a manuscript, the various notes in this manuscript, and also the authors of these notes... All in all, it's a tale of confusion! This line of questioning was started by Peter Head on Dec 2, 2005, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textua...m/message/1341 His original hunch is now confirmed by an anonymous scholar in a note posted on Jan 8 2006 by Mr. Willker, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textua...m/message/1510 In between there were some replies by Carlson and various attempts to clarify matters. To make the long story short, the whole dispute is about a page of Greek handwriting as shown (only in part) on Figure 5A of Carlson's book. Let's call it 'Page P'. This Figure 5A is a photo, and 'Page P' is seen on the right in this photo. We can see only the left edge of 'Page P' (not so much of it, really). So, according to Carlson, this 'Page P' contains (at the very top of it) a short note by Smith, masquerading as Madiotes -- a certain 20th century individual. This note, that is so crucial to Carlson's case, is barely seen in the photo that Carlson provides for the reader of his book. (All in all, we can only see about 15 Greek letters of handwriting there.) So there are two big questions now, 1. Did Carlson identify this page correctly from Smith's published notes (i.e. is this 'Page P' really what Carlson claims it is)? 2. Does this 'Page P' really contain a note by Madiotes? Because if Carlson didn't identify this page correctly, then there's no note by Madiotes there! Well, it looks like the answers to our two questions are 'no', and 'no'. Carlson did not identify this page correctly from Smith's notes, and thus 'Page P' does not contain any note by Madiotes. Sure looks like this whole thing about "the bald swindler Madiotes" is just a figment of Carlson's imagination! Oh, well... The key to the whole thing IMHO is the date 1779, that is seen about midway down on 'Page P'. The note with the year 1779 in it (executed in a different handwriting from the alleged Madiotes note) is _below_ the note that Carlson claims is by Madiotes. But how can the date 1779 appear below a note by a 20th century individual? The whole thing is obvious nonsense -- a result of Carlson's utter confusion, and his eagerness to portray Smith as a liar... We must logically conclude that the note at the top of 'Page P' is not by Madiotes at all, but by some unknown individual who wrote it prior to 1779 (or in 1779). (Apparently there was a great snowfall in 1779, so the note under the alleged Madiotes note seems to be discussing this snowfall. This note contains the word XION; as argued in post #1510 at textualcriticism list, XION is actually a misspelling of XIWN = "snow" -- a common enough misspelling.) Best regards, Yuri. |
01-14-2006, 11:43 AM | #67 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
|
Quote:
Quote:
IE an 18th century individual writing well below the handwriting of 20th century M. Madiotes is what one would expect from Smith's description and causes no problems for Carlson's identification. Andrew Criddle |
||
01-15-2006, 10:40 AM | #68 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,146
|
Andrew Criddle:
What Smith as translated by Carlson says is <quote> f. 1 r. M Madiotes (handwriting of the 20th century), The monk Dionysios Archimandrite, (handwriting of the 19th century)....Anobos monk of the Holy Sepulcher (18th cent ?) <unquote> Assuming as seems probable that Smith is describing the entries in the order top to bottom this would result in a 20th century individual writing above a 19th century individual writing above an 18th century individual. YURI: But how probable is it that the entries on _any_ page would be arranged like that, i.e. in reverse chronological order? This would be rather unlikely, I'd say... In real life, of course, it's typical for the more recent entries to follow the previous ones. Andrew Criddle: IE an 18th century individual writing well below the handwriting of 20th century M. Madiotes is what one would expect from Smith's description and causes no problems for Carlson's identification. YURI: It is not entirely clear what Smith is describing for us in this case, so this matter must remain rather speculative (absent actual physical inspection of the manuscripts). But what we see on 'Page P' is certainly not speculative. What we see on 'Page P' is the notes that are clearly arranged naturally from top to bottom, as their authors wrote them. On 'Page P', the alleged note of Madiotes at the top takes nearly 1/3 of the page. Then begin other graffiti. There's just no way that these other graffiti would have been inscribed starting where they start, leaving the space for someone else in the 20th century to insert the alleged Madiotes note. This is just really unlikely, as any impartial observer examining 'Page P' would immediately realise. Regards, Yuri. |
03-01-2006, 02:00 PM | #69 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,146
|
Greetings, all,
Dr. Craig Blomberg, of Denver Seminary, has now reviewed Carlson's book, Denver Journal - 9:0202 - The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/art.../0200/0202.php He doesn't really say anything new or all that interesting in his review, but I especially liked his ending. Basically, he opines that the chances of the Mar Saba MS being authentic are rather tiny -- about the same as the chances of "atheistic evolution" being a valid scientific proposition! <quote from Blomberg> What is fair to assume is that if Carlson has not conclusively disproved the authenticity and antiquity of Secret Mark, then the cluster of coincidences he has identified that appear to disprove it rank fairly close to the famous analogy of atheistic evolution standing about as much chance of being true as if a roomful of chimpanzees on typewriters had produced the Encyclopedia Brittanica! <unquote> Well, I suppose I can live with that... If the Theory of Evolution is valid (as even the Pope, himself, thinks), then the Mar Saba MS is likewise valid! So I guess these views of Dr. Blomberg may indicate to us what sorts of exegetical circles Carlson's book is really geared towards... and who would be especially receptive to his hoax theory... All the best, Yuri. |
03-01-2006, 03:16 PM | #70 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
If a roomful of chimps could produce an encyclopedia, then the Mar Saba manuscript is valid.And I suppose I can live with that.... Ben. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|