Haran

Excellent post, IM. It sounds as if Sigmund Freud might have had a lot to say about all this.

Haran

Fitzmeyer "rave about the James Ossuary"?

Wasn't he rather reserved? He seemed to doubt it at first. I've not heard many, if any comments from him, especially since the IAA's verdict. I certainly have not noticed him "raving"...

Ted Hoffman

Actually, I am very flattered by the compliments. I was initially bubbling with mirth when I posted it - it was a tongue-in-cheek kind of thing. The thought of Yuri's palpable outrage (cheeks flushed, a scandalized look in his eyes, clenched fists banging the keyboard and the angry frown expressing the aggravation of his simple moral sensibilities) at the implications of that post is enough to make me burst with laughter.

Anyway, I am incapable of taking something that lacks any provenance seriously. This guy Smith was a crank. A real fruitcake - what with all that mystic crap about altered-state of consciousness during baptism and the yogism (state of godliness) that the half-naked people got after baptism. His occultic link to this sexual cult that used his book as a channel to promulgate their orgies doesn't make things any better considerng the homosexual innuendoes in the secret Gospel (no disrespect to homosexuals intended). His post-script was tantamount to endorsement of the practices of that cult.

Now, as opposed to Ignatius' supposed reason for "promoting" a historical Jesus, we now have another motive for fabricating a historical Jesus.

Sometimes sex is found in the strangest of places.

To answer Vork, I don't know that Smith forged it. All I know is that I have no reason to take that gospel seriously. I will keep treating it as irrelevant in the mythicist landscape - it is more like a tiny gadfly on the leaping flanks of the huge bull that is Jesus mythicism - a flick of the tail is all it requires. It could be an example of people abusing religion to promote their own agendas. Perhaps it was written (even as it is) but it landed on the wrong hands - which were eager to use it for their own devices. And we dont know how far those hands could have gone in doing that. Of course there are questions that stand on the way of forgery - some of which Yuri raised. For example Charlie Hendrick - what did he know and is there any merit to the claims he made? Where are these claims he made documented - including the rumour here which circulated in the J Seminar grapevine that he had seen the actual ms and Yuri's claim that Hendrick alleged that the librarian of the monastic order "who confirmed to him [Hendrick] that he [the librarian] saw the MS himself, and handled it repeatedly". Too many issues unverified. Too many questions unanswered.

My last word on it would be as Quesnell said : a scholarly discussion cannot "reasonably continue" until all these issues (the objections he raised)--and more--are resolved.

Until then, as Hans Conzelmann said: Its "...science fiction..." "...does not belong to scholarly, nor even...discussable, literature...".

Toto

How did IronMonkey turn into Jacob Aliet so quickly???

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, here comes...

I'm palpably outraged!!!

My cheeks are flushed... a scandalized look in my eyes... my clenched fists are banging the keyboard... my angry frown expressing the aggravation of my simple moral sensibilities!!!

Happy now?

So now that I've laid out my simple moral sensibilities for all the world to see, perhaps it's time to get down to business...

A scholarly discussion cannot "reasonably continue"??? AFAIAC, it hasn't even began yet!

What we have now is a new bunch of wouldas and couldas that amount to absolutely nothing.

I repeat, I couldn't care less about the Secret Gospel of Mark, what anyone thinks of it, and what sort of a sexual innuendo one wants to read into it. What is important OTOH is that, so far, nobody has made _any sort of a case_ that Smith forged this document. I don't expect anyone to make such a case. No such case can ever be made.

So what we have instead is lots of paranoia, innuendo, suspicions, and plenty of wouldas and couldas. In other words, nothing new at all...

If someone wants to _begin_ a scholarly discussion of SecMk OTOH, let me know.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

OK, here's a scorecard for someone who might want to make some sort of a case that Smith forged this Mar Saba MS.

As I've outlined it in my old article,

http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/8secmk.htm

we're looking here at 3 forgeries in 1. Smith would have needed to forge not one but two documents:

1. The letter of Clement itself.
2. The two SecMk gospel fragments.

And also, the third item that he would have needed to have pulled off,

3. To have found a trained scribe who would have been able to forge some very unique and specialised 18th century Greek scribal handwriting.

In regard to #1, the Clementine scholars already accepted the MS as authentic. They simply see no reason not to accept it as authentic.

In regard to #3, the professional palaeographers already accepted the whole MS as authentic, based merely on a photo of it. They simply see no reason not to accept it as authentic.

Thus, in regard to these 2 items, the "scholarly discussion" is already long over. What more is there to discuss?

QED, Smith was not a forger.

Now, in regard to the two SecMk gospel fragments, our remaining item #2, this is a bit of a special case... One can say that no consensus of any sort is visible as yet among the NT scholars. And I predict that no such consensus will ever be achieved in the foreseeable future... mainly because of the nature of NT discipline as we know it. But... why should anyone care? Let me explain.

As I said, after many years of interaction with the scholars, I now see NT studies as little more than a snake pit. It is very far from being a "science". This is one of the most dishonest fields of studies that I know.

Generally, to put it plainly, NT scholars are crooks. Their dishonesty is legendary. They can't even admit the simplest things that stare right into their faces. For example, the 2 Source Theory (2ST) -- to which something like 90% of NT scholars subscribe -- which I would describe as A THEORY OF 1000 COINCIDENCES... That's right, folks, there are 1000 anti-Markan agreements between Mt and Lk, which, in the normal world, would have sent this misbegotten monstrosity to the garbage dump long ago.

But nobody cares about it!!! Everyone just keeps on churning out still more repetitive 1000-page pseudo-studies based on this "consensus view" that Mk was the basis of both Mt and Lk! "Liberals", "conservatives", "atheists", they all love this misbegotten monstrosity -- reason and common sense be damned!

And here's more such stuff,

Six Big Fallacies of NT Studies
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/6fallac.htm

The fraud just keeps going on.

So does it even matter what our doughty mainstream "NT Authorities" think about these two SecMk gospel fragments? Who the hell cares? They are just a bunch of crooks and idiots, so let them think what they want...

I'd just say that the subject of these two SecMk gospel fragments is waaaaaay too complicated for most of these flimflam artists to say anything intelligent about them, in the first place. Most of them never even bothered to get hold of the basic facts about them. To spread false rumours behind people's backs is just so much more fun!

So this is why I'm not really interested in discussing SecMk anymore, or in trying to figure it all out. The subject is just way too complicated even for those who are both competent and honest. For those who are both incompetent and dishonest, it's truly a lost cause.

Instead, I've recently been dealing with the ancient Aramaic gospel MSS, where the issues are actually crystal clear for the most part. These are the early versions of the gospels, written in the language of Jesus (or close enough to it). There are all sorts of amazing things there, that nobody has ever looked at, really. The number of scholars who've been interested in them recently? Maybe 1% of professional NT scholars. The rest of them, the 99%, never even laid their eyes on the stuff. I think this area has a lot of potential, so this is where I'm working now.

Regards,

Yuri.

Ted Hoffman

Ctrl+H then Find IronMonkey and Replace with Jacob Aliet.

Are clementine scholars trained and qualified in the detection of forgery (like the controversial Rochelle Altman for example?) or are they a bunch of bumbling, slow-thinking, anemic scholars thinking in lock-step and chorusing the same opinion for social (as opposed to academic) reasons?

Remember the James Ossuary? It renders your argument an appeal to authority.

And if NT scholars are idiots and and crooks as you claim - why not the clementine scholars? Are they aliens?

What about Quesnell's arguments (missing ink and radiocarbon dating?)

They (your professional paleographers) haven't even seen the ms, so how can they accept it as authentic?

The best they can do is believe that Smith told the truth (perharps based on Smiths reputation) - that is as far as they can go - they dont even have what we are talking about!

All they have is Smiths word on it. So you are overstating their case.

The best that professional paleographers can do is date the writing - and judge its scribble - whether well-written or otherwise ("unique and specialized" mean absolutely nothing as far as authenticity is concerned Yuri - we are not two year olds).
Spoken like a true faithful,

Vorkosigan

And if NT scholars are idiots and and crooks as you claim - why not the clementine scholars? Are they aliens?

ROFL! That'll teach me drink Coke and read JA's posts at the same time.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

More seriously Yuri, your vitriol aside, is there a place you've clearly "documented" your case against Markan priority - or was that the "evolutionary view..." thread - I never got round to read that one but I am interested in knowing what your arguments are.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Jacob,

On the question of the Mar Saba MS, I don't really think I can add much more to what I've already said.

The ball is still in your court. If you want to claim that Smith forged the Mar Saba MS, or was part of a conspiracy to forge it, it is up to you to present a coherent case against Smith.

Please state the basic outlines of this mythical conspiracy that you claim to have identified. How many people were involved? How long did it take them to plan and execute it? What was the main purpose of the conspiracy? What were the costs vs. the perceived benefits of this conspiracy, etc.?

In order to conclude that any MS is a forgery, some hard evidence is required. But so far, we have none.

The fact that the MS is currently unavailable for inspection doesn't yet constitute positive evidence of it being a forgery. After all, an alternative interpretation can also make plenty of sense here, viz., by continuing to withhold the original MS, the monks are hoping to cast some discredit on Smith, as well as on his theories of Christian origins, that are generally thought to be rather unconventional, and that have alarmed many conservative Christians. (As I've already said, myself, I don't agree with Smith's theories of Christian origins, so I'm by no means an apologist for Smith's theories.)

Thus, in order for a "scholarly discussion" of a potential forgery to begin, we really need a clear theory of forgery that can be discussed. If we have no theory of forgery -- i.e. no coherent scenario of a forgery -- then there's really nothing to discuss! After all, it's very difficult to discuss some vague feelings, suspicious, hunches, and wouldas and couldas.

Hey, it's never too late! Here it is,

EVOLUTIONARY VIEW OF THE GOSPELS
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=53550

Quote:

but I am interested in knowing what your arguments are.

That article outlines my general view about how the 4 gospels, not just Mk, evolved. Also, there was some relevant discussion of Mk/Mt later in that tread.

But I've never yet actually brought all my arguments against the Markan priority into one long article. Bits and pieces are scattered all around on my website, and in my book. Maybe because, in general, so few people are really interested in the Synoptic problem?

Even NT specialists often have problems understanding what various Synoptic theories are all about. (As an illustration of that, please go to the Synoptic-L, and check out the many complaints of Dr. Goodacre about how NT scholars so commonly misunderstand and misrepresent the Farrer-Goulder Theory, which he champions.) So, over the years, I've tried to simplify these issues as much as I could so even the non-specialists could see what's going on there.

I've mentioned the Anti-Markan Agreements primarily because I believe that this is the clearest case of fraud by mainstream NT scholars, and the easiest for non-specialists to understand. 2 Source Theory/Markan priority is really A THEORY OF 1000 COINCIDENCES! In comparison, the theory that pigs can fly would seem to make a bit more sense...

Also, recently Vinnie started a new thread on Koester's theories in regard to how our canonical Mk isn't the original Mk. He provided many detailed arguments there. And yet, his new thread about the proto-Mk seemed to have found very little interest on this forum. Very typical. This indicates further that very few people seem to be interested in the Synoptic problem -- or at least that very few feel that they have adequate expertise to deal with these complex issues.

Regards,

Yuri.