Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Haran · 03-30-2003, 11:31 AM

Has anyone heard anything about the whereabouts of "Secret Mark" in a while?

It seems that the manuscripts still has not turned up for study, though pictures were taken of it a few years back.

Here is the last news I saw:

Latest News Secret Mark - Wieland Wilker

Toto · 03-30-2003, 10:42 PM

I am consolidating the Secret Mark comments on the other thread (How did this get into the Bible?) here.

There was a long thread on this a while back, in Nomad's time, which attacked the acceptance of Secret Mark.

Morton Smith and the Forged Secret Gospel of Mark

It looks like Nomad's and others registrations did not come through the conversion, and there are other formatting problems.

In response to Haran's request "I don't suppose you'd be able to find the thread where I (Ish) presented information about the possible forgery to "Rodahi" (aka "Penatis")?" I located these threads:

Secret mark photos

Morton Smith once again

In these threads, Nomad refers to Donald Harman Akenson's Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historic Jesus. I recently acquired a half-price copy of the book. Akenson is quite scathing in his treatment of Secret Mark. He contends that it is an obvious forgery, which he compares to Hitler's Diary, a simple case of fraud, part of a "very nasty, but very funny, knife-sharp joke," an "ironic gay joke at the expense of all of the self-important scholars who not only miss the irony, but believe that this alleged piece of gospel comes to us in the first-known letter of the great Clement of Alexandria." (p. 88) He uses this to discredit the entire field of liberal New Testament scholarship, and claims that it was only Helmut Koester's prestige that carried the day for the authenticity in most scholar's eyes.

I will quote from a footnote on p 274:

Quote:

Thus, Secret Mark has of its own momentus cruised into most of the work on the Historical Jesus and upon early Christian texts conducted in the 1980's and 1990's. Most "liberal" scholars unreflectively accept it and the more rigorous scholars who see it as a chimera, simply ignore it as a distraction. The field of the Quest for the Historical Jesus would be considerably clarified if (a) somebody would definitively drive a stake into the heart of this particular schoarly vampire and thereafter (b) those scholars who have affirmed the work would publicly recant and then examine how they might recalibrate their own scholary standards so as to avoid being gulled in the future.

As a model of the sort of scholary palinode that is required, see Jacob Neusner's "Foreward" to the reprint of Birger Gerhardsson's Memory and Manuscript. Oral Transmission and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism ... (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdemans, 1994) When Gerhardsson's study of transmission had appeared thirty years earlier, Neusner -- then an acolyte of Morton Smith -- had accepted and retailed a scathing review of Gerhadsson's work. Now, in his mature years, he made amends, writing a handsome, balanced introduction to the Swedish scholar's work, pointing out where he himself had erred. As a minor part of that exercise, he provided a fairly definintive description of his mentor.

Smith made his career as a ferocious critic of others. Smith thereby surrounded himself with a protective wall of violent invective' what he wished to hide, and for a while succeeded in hiding, was the intellectual vacuum within.

In all Smith wrote three important contributions to scholarship, one [Palestinian Parties] a model of argument and analysis though broadly igmored in the field to which it was devoted, another a pseudo-critical but in fact intellectually slovenly and exploutative monograph [Jesus the Magician] and the third and outright fraud

Right: fraud

On the other hand, I notice that Akenson is too much in love with the sound of his own writing, and is very good at bashing other scholars, but comes up with some rather unsupportable propositions himself.

Yuri Kuchinsky has an entry on the Secret Mark homepage arguing against forgery. Perhaps he will add something to this thread.

Toto · 03-30-2003, 10:57 PM

Early Christian Writings on Secret Mark gives a fair view of the anti-forgery view.

Koyaanisqatsi · 03-30-2003, 11:23 PM

Ahhh... Nomad. Now there was an unworthy adversary.

Not to hijack the thread, but anyobody know what happened to him?

Toto · 03-30-2003, 11:39 PM

Nomad is posting on CrossTalk now under his real name, Brian Trafford. His persona there is much less obnoxious, but he's still an apologist.

Haran · 03-31-2003, 06:05 AM

Thanks for providing those links Toto! Why do I not seem to have access to these old posts? Are they only for administrators and their friends or do I just not know exactly where to look?

I would encourage those who are interested in "Secret Mark" and have access to a good library to look up the Catholic Biblical Quarterly issues referred to in one of the threads above (vol 37 & 38). They present the views of Morton Smith (who found the manuscript) and Quentin Quesnell (an esteemed scholar). I would also recommend finding and reading Morton Smith's doctoral dissertation, Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels (especially the parts mentioned by Dr. Quesnell).

I still find it interesting that Morton Smith never responded to Quesnell's accusation that the ideas contained in "Secret Mark" were very close to the ideas contained in Smith's dissertation. Was Smith just proved right in the detail of his scholarly theories, or did he (or someone he knew) forge the document? Why is the manuscript still not available to scholars (or is it)? It's all pretty fishy to me.

Haran · 03-31-2003, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
His [i.e. Nomad's] persona there is much less obnoxious, but he's still an apologist.

If you'll excuse me, I think the reason for this could be that more people in that forum have good scholarly manners and are not necessarily trying to prove everything about the Bible incorrect using a lack of critical scholarly knowledge.

Both Nomad and Layman have done very well there on Xtalk. They are treated with respect there and they return the favor.

godfry n. glad · 03-31-2003, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran
If you'll excuse me, I think the reason for this could be that more people in that forum have good scholarly manners and are not necessarily trying to prove everything about the Bible incorrect using a lack of critical scholarly knowledge.

Both Nomad and Layman have done very well there on Xtalk. They are treated with respect there and they return the favor.

I'm not surprised. They're preaching to the choir over there. They _should_ fit right in. Crosstalk2 accepts the a priori assumption that Jesus was an historical personage. The group focus seems to be to argue over the specifics of that personality and what he purportedly taught.

So much for the "critical" aspect of scholasticism, eh?

godfry n. glad

Toto · 03-31-2003, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran
Thanks for providing those links Toto! Why do I not seem to have access to these old posts? Are they only for administrators and their friends or do I just not know exactly where to look?

. . . .

I think you should be able to get to them if you find the right rabbit hole.

In
Announcements and Policy Discussions click on Our archives or go directly to Our Archives .

Then this is the tricky part: select a forum, say Biblical Criticism - 2001 . It looks like nothing is there, but that's because it only shows posts from the past 60 days until you adjust the pull down option. Even if you don't do this, you can search for key words.

Regardless of the standards for scholarly manners on Xtalk versus II, I found both Nomad and Layman to be unnecessarily provocative and irritating on these boards, as if they were out to pick a fight. They take a less confrontational stance on Xtalk, except for Layman's recent attack on Vernon Robbins, which seems to have blown up in his face.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 03-31-2003, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto

In these threads, Nomad refers to Donald Harman Akenson's Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historic Jesus. I recently acquired a half-price copy of the book. Akenson is quite scathing in his treatment of Secret Mark. He contends that it is an obvious forgery, which he compares to Hitler's Diary, a simple case of fraud, part of a "very nasty, but very funny, knife-sharp joke," an "ironic gay joke at the expense of all of the self-important scholars who not only miss the irony, but believe that this alleged piece of gospel comes to us in the first-known letter of the great Clement of Alexandria." (p. 88) He uses this to discredit the entire field of liberal New Testament scholarship, and claims that it was only Helmut Koester's prestige that carried the day for the authenticity in most scholar's eyes.

Hello, Toto,

There seems to be a lot of sound and fury there, coming from Akenson, but I'm afraid so far it's signifying absolutely nothing.

The MS that Smith discovered is quite long, and I'm sure that if it was a modern forgery, this would have been proven already by someone. Lots of scholars tried, no doubt, but none of them could make any sort of a case for forgery.

Also, I disagree that, in most NT scholars' eyes, the MS is already authentic. To the contrary, most NT scholars don't have a clue about any of this, and they couldn't care less... And this is quite typical for any new MS that comes along. The first reaction is to run from it like hell. "Let someone else deal with this, but not me."

OTOH, it's a lot easier to slander someone behind his back. And I'm sure that this is what most NT scholars are only too happy to do -- especially if it provides them with a handy excuse not to spend any of their precious time studying the new MS.

The treatment that was meted out to M. Smith and to his discovery by his colleagues was outrageous, and had done much to open my eyes about who these mainstream NT scholars really are. These are no better than a pack of jackals. Always quick to stab someone in the back, always slow to do any work themselves.

Quote:

On the other hand, I notice that Akenson is too much in love with the sound of his own writing,

That's for sure!

Quote:

and is very good at bashing other scholars, but comes up with some rather unsupportable propositions himself.

Yuri Kuchinsky has an entry on the Secret Mark homepage arguing against forgery. Perhaps he will add something to this thread.

Glad to oblige...

Yuri.

03-30-2003, 11:31 AM	#1
Haran Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Dallas, Tx Posts: 1,490	"Secret Mark" Has anyone heard anything about the whereabouts of "Secret Mark" in a while? It seems that the manuscripts still has not turned up for study, though pictures were taken of it a few years back. Here is the last news I saw: Latest News Secret Mark - Wieland Wilker

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-30-2003, 10:57 PM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Early Christian Writings on Secret Mark gives a fair view of the anti-forgery view.

03-30-2003, 11:23 PM	#4
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	Ahhh... Nomad. Now there was an unworthy adversary. Not to hijack the thread, but anyobody know what happened to him?

03-30-2003, 11:39 PM	#5
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Nomad is posting on CrossTalk now under his real name, Brian Trafford. His persona there is much less obnoxious, but he's still an apologist.

03-31-2003, 06:05 AM	#6
Haran Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Dallas, Tx Posts: 1,490	Thanks for providing those links Toto! Why do I not seem to have access to these old posts? Are they only for administrators and their friends or do I just not know exactly where to look? I would encourage those who are interested in "Secret Mark" and have access to a good library to look up the Catholic Biblical Quarterly issues referred to in one of the threads above (vol 37 & 38). They present the views of Morton Smith (who found the manuscript) and Quentin Quesnell (an esteemed scholar). I would also recommend finding and reading Morton Smith's doctoral dissertation, Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels (especially the parts mentioned by Dr. Quesnell). I still find it interesting that Morton Smith never responded to Quesnell's accusation that the ideas contained in "Secret Mark" were very close to the ideas contained in Smith's dissertation. Was Smith just proved right in the detail of his scholarly theories, or did he (or someone he knew) forge the document? Why is the manuscript still not available to scholars (or is it)? It's all pretty fishy to me.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.