FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-29-2005, 09:15 AM   #61
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
The testimony of Abu-'l-Barakat adds weight to the testimony of Macarius. And, conversely, the testimony of Macarius adds weight to what is stated by Abu-'l-Barakat. They mutually reinforce each other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith
You will note that my critique of Carlson placed no weight on the interplay of Madiotes, Smith, the Mar Saba manuscript, and manuscript 22.
So what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith
And many thanks for that link.
You're welcome.

Regards,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky is offline  
Old 12-29-2005, 09:35 AM   #62
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse
Interesting indeed -- thank you Yuri!
You're welcome, Roger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse
All he seems to be denying is the identity of the Madiotes ms with Theodore,
Which happens to be the central plank of Carlson's debunking effort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse
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
They are not required IMO.

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.
Yuri Kuchinsky is offline  
Old 12-29-2005, 10:09 AM   #63
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
So what?
Oh. I thought the remark about Madiotes was aimed at least at me, like the rest of your post was. If not, my mistake.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 12-31-2005, 01:30 PM   #64
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith
Oh. I thought the remark about Madiotes was aimed at least at me, like the rest of your post was. If not, my mistake.

Ben.
My dear friend, the main subject of discussion here is the manuscript, itself, rather than you.

Happy New Year!

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky is offline  
Old 12-31-2005, 03:21 PM   #65
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
My dear friend, the main subject of discussion here is the manuscript, itself, rather than you.

Happy New Year!

Yuri.
Somebody once told me it is not always about me, but I did not believe him.

Happy 2006 to you, too.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 01-14-2006, 08:37 AM   #66
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,146
Default 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.
Yuri Kuchinsky is offline  
Old 01-14-2006, 11:43 AM   #67
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
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?
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 ?)
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.

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
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 01-15-2006, 10:40 AM   #68
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,146
Default

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.
Yuri Kuchinsky is offline  
Old 03-01-2006, 02:00 PM   #69
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,146
Default

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.
Yuri Kuchinsky is offline  
Old 03-01-2006, 03:16 PM   #70
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
<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!
Perhaps you have more information about it than you have shared here, but it seems clear from that quote that Blomberg is comparing the chances of the secret gospel being genuine to the chances of a roomful of monkeys with typewriters producing an encyclopedia, not to the chances of evolution itself. He explicitly references the analogy, not the theory of evolution. Your last statement, then, needs rephrasing:
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.
Ben C Smith is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:20 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.