As for whether these two similar sentences are evidence that Smith read Hunter, we of course have to keep in mind that correlation does not imply causation. This is as true of modern source-criticism as it is of ancient source-criticism. Notice that Hunter's archaeologist says of Tischendorf that he was preparing to leave the monastery of Sinai "disappointed by his failure to find the remnant of the manuscript, some pages of which he had rescued from being burned some fifteen years previously." But how does Hunter know Tischendorf was disappointed? Tischendorf relates no such disappointment in his only English-language account of the discovery of the Sinaitic manuscripts, "When Were our Gospels Written?" (1867). Why state he was disappointed if he weren't? Hunter may be inventing this disappointment, or he may be using another account that relates that disappointment (pehaps based on Tischendorf's Latin account? I am still trying to acquire a copy of this, and will report if I discover anything.) It's hard to say, so Watson's evidence remains somewhat ambiguous and circumstantial.
In addition, even if Smith could be shown to have read Hunter's novel...so what? Again, this raises suspicion at best. But what should we really be suspicious of? And why assume that Smith read the novel prior to 1958, rather than following 1958? If he read it after 1958, there is no evidence for forgery at all. And he could have read it before 1958, and the discovery could still have been genuine--indeed, perhaps Smith's reading of Hunter's novel prior to 1958 was a cause of Smith's discovery! Perhaps Smith was prodded to visit Mar Saba in search of real manuscripts after reading Hunter's account of a forged manuscript at Mar Saba. Many scenarios are imaginable, and forgery by Smith is only one among these many.
Watson also demonstrates the textual parallels between Hunter's "Shard of Nicodemus" and the gospels of Mark and John, claiming that they betray a similar technique in the parallels between SGM1 and the gospels. But Hunter's compositional parallels are not similar to those between SGM1 and the gospels, because those found in Hunter are clearly just drawn directly from the passion narratives of Mark and John, whereas those found in SGM1 are related to text in multiple locations within all four gospels. Indeed, the thematic parallels Watson draws between SGM and the gospels are all real, but instead illustrate how deeply the redactive history of Mark is intertwined with the history of the composition of the entire New Testament (including canonical GMk itself, which is the result of two or three stages of redaction and composition). This extends, by the way, to the association of tombs with gardens in both SGM1 and the passion narrative.
IV. Watson concludes with "There is no alternative but to conclude that Smith is dependent on the novel." But there is indeed an alternative, one much more plausible than a forgery by Morton Smith: an early third-century CE author, writing in the style of Clement, witnessed to an earlier version of GMk that is currently lost to us. This gospel served as the source for not only canonical GMk, but also GJn, and
As you say, if both documents deal with biblical issues, are we to be surprised that they both share some similarities?
ReplyDeleteAfter Francis Watson has summarized the plot of Hunter’s novel, he says: “Thus far, the parallel with Smith’s Mar Saba discovery is intriguing but inexact.” Yes, because the only real similarity is the place of Mar Saba, where of course you could make a discovery of this magnitude and also a place you easily would chose in a novel for the same reason. And there is no similarity that both documents are forged, since we do not know that “To Theodore” is forged and you cannot simply assume that and use this as evidence when the actual issue is whether or not it is forged. If so it is a circular reasoning.
Then of course it was no secret that most manuscripts had been carried off to Jerusalem and that Morton Smith therefore would not have had any great expectations to make a major discovery. Watson writes that the “Nicodemus fragment and the letter to Theodore are discovered in similar circumstances narrated in similar language.” But what kinds of parallels are there really when Watson in Hunter’s novel finds that Sir William Bracebridge at a meeting back in London uses the word reconciled, while Smith wrote that he was reconciling himself, both to something negative, yet expressed differently? Really far-fetched! If you search for these kinds of similarities, you are bound to find some. Besides, there really are no “similar circumstances”.
Watson also claims that the “two Mar Saba discoveries are … similar in content.” To show this he refers to a “short but sensational excerpt of an early of an early text is discovered”. Now seriously, this is really generally expressed. What else could they find? In Smith’s case he did find many non sensational finds and this one was the sensational one. Are we then to suppose that he forged it because of this? Or shall we believe that he was inspired by Hunter to produce a sensational text? Further Watson claims that the discovery was made “together with a text or texts dating from the second century (manuscripts of Hermas and Barnabas, and of the letter to Theodore, respectively).” This is not entirely correct. It is never (as far as I can see) said in the novel that The Shepherd of Hermas and The Epistle of Barnabas are from the second century and they could be from the first. In the novel there are three separate documents for each book, and the third, “The Shred of Nicodemus”, is dated to the first century. This Shred of Nicodemus is never said to be “short” and is for sure no excerpt from a letter of Clement. So “The Shred of Nicodemus” is not short, not necessarily found together with a text or texts dating from the second century and there are separate documents found. The Mar Saba letter is only one letter, with two short excerpts from Secret Mark and the letter could well have been written in the third century.
I could go on, and will possibly do so.
You may feel free to continue, but probably you will just be saying things I already agree with ;)
ReplyDelete