p.58ff.
Here Carlson makes his argument that To Theodore 1.14-15 uses the adulteration of salt as a metaphor for the Carpocratian adulteration of the text of Mark. But as Brown points out in his 2006 Factualizing the Folklore article, this is not what the author is saying (Brown 2006, p. 307). He is saying that the truth, when mixed with inventions, becomes falsified--falsified, like salt that has lost its savor. To extend the metaphor from adulterating the truth to adulterating the salt might seem natural to us, but is in fact an overextension. And, we don't need the extended metaphor to perceive what the author is saying--that the salt of truth becomes savorless when falsified. The fact that the truth is falsified via adulteration is not inherent to the metaphor. In this case, it so happens that it's textual adulteration that falsifies the truth--but this is incidental to the metaphor. I refer to the remainder of the argument that Brown presents (from pp. 306-309) for a detailed discussion of the meaning of the salt metaphor. As for Brown's discussion of Pliny that Carlson chooses to focus on in his published responses, it is a red herring. Carlson has so far ignored Brown's explication of the actual operation of the salt metaphor.
We now turn to Carlson's claim that Smith has hidden his own name in the text of Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark. First, we note that without any supporting reference to "Morton Salt", Carlson's argument that Morton Smith has symbolically concealed his name within his own text loses a great deal of force.
The next error Carlson makes is another one of interpretation: he claims that the connection Smith makes between the "salt of the earth" saying in Matthew and Luke with the Septuagint text of Jer 10:14 (28:17 in the Septuagint) has no basis in the Greek, so Smith must be making a deliberate mistake. The next text Smith mentions in his commentary is the one we referenced in our last post, from The Rich Man: "the elect of the elect...hiding in the depth of their mind the ineffable mysteries...whom the Word calls 'the light of the world, and the salt of the earth.'" Carlson reasons that Smith is therefore trying to tell us something, by replacing a clause containing the Greek term KATHSCUNQH, translated by Carlson (following Lancelot Brenton’s 1851 translation) as "goldsmith", with an ellipsis, "hiding" the "mystery" of the true author of To Theodore. The "hidden" term of "goldsmith" thus becomes the secret author of To Theodore, i.e. Morton Smith himself.
But Carlson misunderstands the allusion Smith sees in Jer 10:14. Carlson thinks Smith is trying to draw a parallel between the "cast out" corrupt Christians that are implied in the use of the salt metaphor in the gospels, and the "cast" idols found in Brenton's translation of Jer 10:14. Carlson notes that this allusion only works in English, so it is bogus. But it is Carlson who is confused by the English translation, not Smith. Brenton just happened to translate ECWNEUSAN as "cast". Carlson noticed that Smith used the verb "cast out" when discussing the gospel salt metaphor, just before quoting the Greek of Jer 10:14. These two uses of "cast" have nothing to do with each other! One is used in a translation of the Septuagint in 1851...the other is used by Morton Smith when discussing Mt 5:13/Lk 14:34 in 1973. It is Carlson who thinks they are related, not Smith—and it is only Carlson who has drawn them together in his mind, not Smith at all.
Instead, Smith almost certainly was focusing on precisely the similarity that Carlson himself notes (p. 62) between MWRANQHNAI and EMWRANQH. Carlson passes this over as though it were of no interest, but it is the very location of the allusion that Smith sees. The play on words is under the meaning "to make tasteless"--like salt losing its savor! Jer 10:14 (in Septuagint Greek) is about men made tasteless by GNWSEWS! Just like the Carpocratians...and there may also be another apt term in the other clause of 10:14 that Smith includes: ECWNEUSAN, "falsehood/deceit".
So, Carlson misses the allusion with EMWRANQH. Thus the symbolism in Jer 10:14 is not about "casting out" but about "tastelessness", and possibly also about "false things". This seriously reduces the import of Carlson's reading of p. 19 in Clement. Carlson singles out the reference to Jer 10:14 because it seems superfluous to him. But it turns out there is a legitimate allusion between the Greek text of Jer 10:14 and Mt 5:13 (and hence with To Theodore as well) and therefore a legitimate reason for Smith to mention Jer 10:14 in the commentary of A Secret Gospel.
Even if "gold/metalsmith" is the best translation of KATHSCUNQH, or at least the one Smith had in mind (some bibles use "founder" when translating from the Hebrew), and even if there is anything unusual about the fact that a "goldsmith" is also mentioned in Jer 10:14 (in the clause that Smith replaces with an ellipsis) notice that there's something equally unusual about it: it turns out it contains a punning reference to the narrative contents of To Theodore--a "graven" image (GLUPTWN). Get it? "Grave-n" image? Like the resurrected man's grave? Remarkable, no? It must all be an amazingly sly statement by Smith that he is the forger of To Theodore...especially since Morton Smith was such a jokester...I'm sure it would be right up his alley to make a wordplay like that. I must have only confirmed Carlson's thesis even more securely! I mean, what are the chances that we could have found a pun on "grave" in the same clause as "goldsmith"?
But we are kidding ourselves. The "evidence" here is an illusion of our own creation, as we try and interpret the words we read. Words, even the absence of words, relationships, and symbols of all kinds, have multiple meanings for us, and we often struggle to pick out the relevant ones. "Graven" does not imply "grave"...except when we drop the -n and think of false cognates. Using an ellipses to remove a clause from a known bible verse is not the same thing as hiding it...unless we play loose with the meaning of "hide", or we presuppose that the author had the intent of hiding. KATHSCUNQH doesn't mean "Morton Smith"...unless you translate it into English using a British translator from 1851, compare to the most common surname in America, and then add "Morton".
"But how," you might ask, "could Carlson have found his evidence in Smith's text if it wasn't actually there?" Again, it's because he was looking for it, and interpreted what he read in a way that let him find what he was looking for. It can also be interpreted in a different but equally valid and meaningful way, and provide no evidence of forgery whatsoever. The fact that I can draw out a pun with "grave" from GLUPTWN and link it to the tomb in SGM1, is good evidence of this--there is nothing inherent in the Greek version of Jer 10:14 that enables me to do this. I can do it, simply because humans are good at finding their own multiple unintended meanings in texts when they want to.
Think back to the reference to the "salt of the earth" in The Rich Man that I mentioned in my last post. Imagine, for example, if some other scholar named Smith had been writing about The Rich Man instead, and noted the relation of salt (MWRANQH) to EMWRANQH in Jer 10:14 in his commentary. The Rich Man even features a discussion of death, burial, and regeneration, as I noted in my last post, so we can make the same play on words with "graven"! Should we conclude from all this that The Rich Man is a forgery by that scholar?
If not, why assume Morton Smith is the author of To Theodore, when all he does is perform the same analysis with that text? We can even imagine that our other scholar might quote Jer 10:14 from the Greek Septuagint, and remove the middle clause using an ellipsis. This would signify nothing other than that the author found the middle clause unhelpful in drawing out the allusion. Why should we assume it was anything more for Morton Smith?
Leave aside my pun on "graven", and focus solely on Carlson's play on "goldsmith"; are we really to believe that the mere existence of the English translation of Jer 10:14 makes it impossible for a scholar named Smith to write a legitimate commentary for a text about gnostic apocrypha that contains a proverb about salt losing its savor? If you think this is improbable, then again I have to present the scenario of someone named Smith writing a commentary on The Rich Man. This is a perfectly reasonable scenario, so why should it be unreasonable in the case of To Theodore?
Let me provide another example: four pages later in Smith's commentary, on p. 23 of A Secret Gospel, Smith uses another ellipses when quoting Acts 1:1. What does he leave out? "W QEOFILE", "O Theophilus". Well, Smith was a priest, so "Theophilus" must refer to Smith! Right? Heck, the note indiates it was an addition by Arthur Nock, implying Nock may have been in on the conspiracy after all, as some have suspected! Isn't it obvious? Yet another clue that Smith forged To Theodore.
But no, Nock was just leaving out "O Theophilus" to make a comparison of Acts 1:1 with Papias's statements about Mark more apt. All I have done is read in a false interpretation of this, because I was looking for it. And Smith was no longer an active priest by 1973 (or 1958 for that matter), indeed was probably even an agnostic by that time. Trying to find a sphragis "hidden" in this ellipsis at best borders on the absurd.
No comments:
Post a Comment