Vinnie

I'm not sure I "privilege" it over anything.

I don't expect you to claim such and I am setting up no such thing. I am merely using your level of skepticism and applying it to the canon. It is mainly this comment from you: "Unless and until the manuscript turns up SGM is dead and no one with a sceptical hair on their head should believe otherwise." I don't see why a manuscript is required.

Red herring. The question is not, "is the provinence of the NT miles ahead of SGM?"

I've seen a corrupted version of canonical Mark that was not the one used by Matthew and Luke. I know no one who has seen the actual Markan autograph. Matthew and Luke come closest as they saw an early version but they probably had different versions themselves (e.g. missing Bethsaida section in Luke).

We do not have to have the actual autographs or the text to be able to reconstruct it. Pictures of CV and CS would work just as good.

Agreed.

Two reasons:

1) Scholarly authority
2) Cost vs. reward

My own question for everyone:

What value does this discussion have? Enlighten me.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Vork, two parts of this are inconsistent. Its unfair to accuse Meier or relegating "important issues to footnotes" while knowing "that A Marginal Jew is supposed to be a kind of survey work aimed at larger audiences". Meier purposefully put the more technical and important "scholarly material" in the footnotes so the version would be accessible to a larger audience.

For those who don't, I recommend reading all footnotes if you are reading a work by a serious scholar. You end up missing half the book if you don't.

Personally, I think Meier's discussion was decent it simply is not thorough enough. He missed a fewf key issues that I would have liked to see discussed.

Vinnie

Haran

Mmmm...no. It seems to be somewhat understated and to leave out motive. The case was indirectly stated quite well by Quesnell, I really don't care to repeat it. If that's how you sum the evidence, then that must be how you see it.

This is about the third or fourth time I've stated this view now, but....

I believe, due to what I see as very convincing circumstantial evidence, that there is a high likelyhood that Morton Smith and/or an accomplice forged SGM.

Slander? I'm not sure I see it quite that way. I don't think I threw the word out originally, anyway, did I? I thought I was addressing the fact that everyone has bias, not just Christians and theists...

Anyways, I still don't see the word as a "mild form of slander". The person accusing someone else of "bias" has a particular defining line about some subject in their own head... If another person comes to conclusions too far from their own (that "defining line"), then they are called "biased". I think this happens on an individual level as well as a collective level (e.g. atheists vs. theists). Make sense?

So, it is a pretty relative thing. Since I see that "defining line" in the case of SGM to be very convincing circumstantial evidence, then if someone else does not see the same, it will seem that they have some "bias" not to be able to see what I see or in the way that I see it.

Also, as to "biases", I like to know how someone "leans" (i.e. what their typical choices are or what types of judgements and conclusions they make), whether in Biblical studies, politics, or anything controversial. It helps one determine how they will respond to the data someone else presents.

Ok, my brain is twisting in two. Hope you got all that 'cause I'm not tryin' again.

Many dictionary definitions work for me, I suppose. Here's one:

To incline to one side; to give a particular direction to; to influence; to prejudice; to prepossess.

We don't always see our own "bias" and prejudices until they're shown to us and then sometimes we don't want to believe it.

Well, that was quite a rambling post, huh? I'd better go get some sleep for the 4th tomorrow. I'm gonna go parkflyin' in the morning with my R/C plane!

Have a good weekend, guys!

Peter Kirby

The main methodological difficulty I have with analysis of the style of the Testimonium to establish authorship by Josephus (so Meier) or Eusebius (so Olson) is length. The reconstructed Testimonium is a mere 60 words in Greek, in four sentences. On the other hand, the Mar Saba fragment is 762 words in Greek (excluding the superscription), in about thirty sentences. This length, if not ideal, at least gives some material for statistical analysis, and more ample opportunity for a blunder.

Vinnie, I like the subject of inauthenticity, and I am intrigued by the claims that Morton Smith was the author of the letter.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

Change "intrigued" to "annoyed" and you have my thoughts

Vinnie

Haran

One more quick post before I go (mmmmman, I'm addicted)...

Smith's own scholarly authority? Or are you talking about the scholars who feel they must include it although they seem to almost always write some sort of disclaimer. Don't forget about Jacob Neusner, Smith's former student... Yuri even said we can't "disregard" the views of this "very influential man in the biblical field".

Cost in what sense? I can't see it costing much. Besides, a psychological reward outweighs a financial reward for some. Read Smith's books and weigh his much talked about extreme curiousity and preoccupation with respect to scholars' predjudices.

I already mentioned this in my post to Yuri. However, ultimately, probably not much value because many scholars seem content not to rock the boat.

The value in realizing that there might be a high probability that SGM is a fraud, is that scholars could quit wasting their time on it and incorrectly using it to reshape history. Would it have mattered to you if the ossuary had gone into the books anyway and possibly have incorrectly rewritten history?

Peter Kirby

If Quesnell was making a case for forgery by Smith, then Quesnell is a liar. Quesnell writes, "Dr. Smith feels the point of my article was to prove that he forged the Clement text. If that had been my point, I would have stated it clearly." Apparently Quesnell needed 20 pages, ranging from Smith's spelling errors to manner of citation, to make the point that it would be nicer and more convincing if the manuscript was in a museum or university rather than with the monks who own it.

Since Quesnell disclaims making the point that Morton Smith was the author, someone else will have to put together a case. If it can be expressed more strongly, then why not do so? Let's add alleged motive and see what we get:

1. The letter supports some position(s) Smith held prior to Mar Saba.
2. Smith planned it so that other scholars wouldn't have physical access to the manuscript. (If you thought that this was understated, wow.)
3. Smith would benefit from the manuscript being accepted as authentic. (Is this based on any further evidence than point 1?)

Is that the extent of the claimed evidence?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

The ossuary nonsense was entirely useless. I remained pretty much agnostic on the authenticity from the beginning but I've always maintained that it told us absolutely nothing new. The "Jesus" instead of "brother of the Lord" distinction was supposed to tell us something new?

I don't mean cost-vs-reward money wise. I mean, how difficult would it have been for Smith to do what some claim and what did he get out of it? I don't think it adds up but if you can show otherwise please feel free to.

And not Smith's own authority. Do not the majority of scholars accept authenticity here? That is the authority that I appeal to.

Vinnie

Haran

He is not. That is why I said "indirectly". Quesnell indirectly made a compelling case against Smith in order to prove a point about Smith's poor methodology in handling and revealing his find to the scholarly world.

I know you can read closer than that... Quesnell was working on a paper on the subject he more directly confronted Smith on. Much of it is in the footnotes.

Quesnell's case is indirect but, I feel, compelling. I find the most interest in Smith's abilities, eerie similarities between his work and SGM, and curious statements about scholarly prejudice (e.g. I think there is one in the article in reference to AD Nock). Judging by comments in his other books, it seems that he probably enjoyed the controversy surrounding his discovery.

Peter Kirby

And the people who discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls were ecstatic to find Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament centuries before what was previously extant. (Yes, we have the mss. and they've been carbon dated and all that. That's why the example works, because they are proven authentic. Motive != inauthentic.)

Making a case for inauthenticity is like making a pie. Your ingredients should include actual facts or blunders that are the substance of your pie. Once you have that, speculating about motive and opportunity is the whip cream you put on top. If all you have is whip cream, then I'm not eating your pie.

best,
Peter Kirby