III. 2. Watson, like others, is impressed with the supposed connection between James H. Hunter's novel The Mystery of Mar Saba and Smith's discovery. I have dealt with the subject of Hunter's book here and here. Watson's new observations bring nothing very new to the discussion, save for an intriguing twist: his discovery of the two one-sentence parallels between Hunter's The Mystery of Mar Saba and Smith's Clement of Alexandria are admittedly intriguing, but do not make a case for forgery. At best, they raise the suspicion that Smith could have read Hunter's novel. But suspicions and insinuations do not make a case for forgery; further evidence is required, and Watson, Carlson, Jeffery, et al, have not adequately provided this evidence. For example, it's quite conceivable that Smith had read Hunter's work, and nevertheless made an authentic discovery at Mar Saba. The plot of Hunter's novel actually has very little resemblance to the events of Smith's life, save only for the claim of the discovery of a manuscript at the monastery of Mar Saba. Neither Watson nor anyone else have plausibly shown any other parallels.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
A Critique of Watson: Smith's Prior Work
III. 1. Watson thinks that Smith's scholarly work in the 1950s prefigured the content of his 1958 discovery to can extent that cannot be coincidence. But as I explain in this post, why can't we simply ascribe insightfulness to Smith on the point of esotericism? His critics are willing to ascribe all manner of talents to Smith--why is it inconceivable to them that he happened to be on the right track before he made his discovery? And why should Smith not be the discoverer of the evidence confirming his hypothesis? It might seem suspicious, but who better to take the effort to search eastern monasteries for lost manuscript evidence of gospel sources (as Smith spent the 1950's doing, not only at Mar Saba, but also in Greece)? It may not be much of an accident at all that Smith was the one to discover the manuscript. I am also quite puzzled by Watson's claim that "In the context of a discussion of rabbinic beliefs, Smith is not obliged to refer to this passage [from Clement on Jesus' esotericism]." But...so what? Smith might not have been obliged to refer to it, but it is indubitably appropriate to the discussion. Smith correctly noticed this. And, of course, he was not the only scholar in the 1950s pursuing these subjects.
A Critique of Watson: MWRANQHNAI and "Morton"
Does MWRANQHNAI say "Morton", as Watson claims it does?
Let's try to imagine the scenario:
Let's try to imagine the scenario:
A Critique of Watson: PARAXARASSETAI and "Smith"
II. 3. Watson next indulges in some wordplay of the sort attempted by other critics of Smith; they claim that Smith left clues in his syntax that divulge the name "Morton Smith", proving he is the forger. We will deal with Watson's inventive attempt in two parts.
Does PARAXARASSETAI say "Smith", as Watson claims it does?
Does PARAXARASSETAI say "Smith", as Watson claims it does?
A Critique of Watson: Papias
II. 2. Watson finds textual parallels between To Theodore's account of the composition of GMk and SGM, and Papias' account, recorded in Eusebius. Watson sees no reason why anyone besides a modern forger would use Papias as a basis for this account.
First of all, Watson states "The question is whether the links with Papias are conceivable for Clement, or whether they betray the work of a modern forger who has used the Papias excerpts as a template for his own work." But this is obviously a false dichotomy. As I have repeatedly pointed out, these are not the only alternatives for authorship of To Theodore. A third alternative is that it is the work of an ancient forger, who has used the Papias excerpts as a template for his own work. Nor can I find comprehensible Watson's claim that:
First of all, Watson states "The question is whether the links with Papias are conceivable for Clement, or whether they betray the work of a modern forger who has used the Papias excerpts as a template for his own work." But this is obviously a false dichotomy. As I have repeatedly pointed out, these are not the only alternatives for authorship of To Theodore. A third alternative is that it is the work of an ancient forger, who has used the Papias excerpts as a template for his own work. Nor can I find comprehensible Watson's claim that:
The author here derives from Papias both phraseology and a template for his own very different account of the limitations of Mark’s Gospel. This compositional procedure is more plausibly ascribed to a modern author than to a second-century one.
A Critique of Watson: Appropriate for its Time?
We now consider Watson’s more positive arguments for modern forgery by Smith. His first argument is divided into three parts, each of which we'll cover in this post, and which receive the labeling (a), (b), and (c) below.
II. 1. (a) Watson thinks that the letter inadequately addresses Theodore’s apparent concerns about the Carpocratians. But I fail to see how the letter is an "inappropriate response to Theodore’s concerns". Theodore is baffled by the Carpocratian account of Jesus, the resurrected man, and his family. The author of the letter (who I will begin calling "pseudo-Clement") is just breaking the news gently to Theodore about Secret Mark. So what if he admits that some of the Carpocratian account is true? If this does not meet with Theodore’s hopes, too bad for Theodore. It turns out that there is some truth to the Carpocratian claims—just as the letter’s author says there is.
II. 1. (a) Watson thinks that the letter inadequately addresses Theodore’s apparent concerns about the Carpocratians. But I fail to see how the letter is an "inappropriate response to Theodore’s concerns". Theodore is baffled by the Carpocratian account of Jesus, the resurrected man, and his family. The author of the letter (who I will begin calling "pseudo-Clement") is just breaking the news gently to Theodore about Secret Mark. So what if he admits that some of the Carpocratian account is true? If this does not meet with Theodore’s hopes, too bad for Theodore. It turns out that there is some truth to the Carpocratian claims—just as the letter’s author says there is.
A Critique of Watson: Introductory Arguments
These next few posts will be a critique of Francis Watson's article "Beyond Suspicion: on the Authorship of the Mar Saba Letter and the Secret Gospel of Mark." Watson takes the view that Morton Smith forged the Mar Saba Letter; I take the view that he did not. I'll be examining Watson's arguments one by one, in sequential order.
In my first post I'll cover Watson's introductory section I of his article. HIs substantive arguments in section II will be covered by individual posts for each sub-section 1, 2, and 3, with 3 broken up into two parts. Section III, part 1 will then get a post, and I'll conclude with a post about Section III, part 2, plus the conclusion in Section IV. I will label each section of my examination with Watson’s numeration, taken from his article.
We begin with Watson’s first substantive points, none intended to make a positive argument for forgery, but simply to introduce questions and doubts on various issues. I show that if at all valid, these questions nevertheless do not point towards a modern forger.
In my first post I'll cover Watson's introductory section I of his article. HIs substantive arguments in section II will be covered by individual posts for each sub-section 1, 2, and 3, with 3 broken up into two parts. Section III, part 1 will then get a post, and I'll conclude with a post about Section III, part 2, plus the conclusion in Section IV. I will label each section of my examination with Watson’s numeration, taken from his article.
We begin with Watson’s first substantive points, none intended to make a positive argument for forgery, but simply to introduce questions and doubts on various issues. I show that if at all valid, these questions nevertheless do not point towards a modern forger.
Monday, April 12, 2010
More on Farrer
For a brief time, I thought that something like the Farrer hypothesis must be correct: the Major/Minor Agreements were too knotty to solve with the Two-Source Hypothesis. But that introduced its own problems; the Lukan "muddle" that Goulder used as an explanation was too blatantly ad hoc to take seriously. Lukan omissions and innovations seemed too great to explain if he really had nothing more than GMt and GMk in front of him. And the realization that we couldn't stop with the Synoptic Problem, but also had to explain the relationship of GJn with the synoptics, further led my thinking away from over-simplistic explanations like the Farrer Hypothesis.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
The Competition
The major competition with my Hyper-Synoptic Solution is, of course, the Farrer Hypothesis:
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Critiquing Carlson, part 7: Inventing the Data?
Carlson tries to show that Smith tied the gospel of Mark with secret sexual practices for years prior to his discovery of SGM, so the discovery by Smith of a text proving this link is highly suspicious. However, at this point Carlson finally ignores the distinction between the text of SGM and Smith's interpretation of it. Carlson writes "The climax of the nocturnal initiation of Secret Mark contains a juxtaposition of Mark 4:11 and a sexual practice forbidden in Jewish law" (Carlson, p. 71). But this is totally false. Only in Smith's reading is this true--but Smith's reading is, I think, obviously far-fetched and badly mistaken. It's Smith who eventually tries links to link Mk 4:11 with sexual practices, not SGM.
Critiquing Carlson, part 6: Anachronistic?
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.
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.
Critiquing Carlson, part 5: Unlikely Details?
p. 54ff.
Carlson is convinced by Murgia's analysis of sphragis in the Mar Saba letter that its original author was deliberately engaging in forgery. Again, even if this is true, it fails to lead to the conclusion Carlson wants. Carlson uses some sleight of hand in casting the choice between a third-century authentic author (Clement) and a twentieth-century hoaxer (Smith). But this, of course, is a false choice. Other options are available to us, and it is much more likely that the letter is a third-century forgery than a twentieth-century one, if it is not authentic Clement.
Carlson is convinced by Murgia's analysis of sphragis in the Mar Saba letter that its original author was deliberately engaging in forgery. Again, even if this is true, it fails to lead to the conclusion Carlson wants. Carlson uses some sleight of hand in casting the choice between a third-century authentic author (Clement) and a twentieth-century hoaxer (Smith). But this, of course, is a false choice. Other options are available to us, and it is much more likely that the letter is a third-century forgery than a twentieth-century one, if it is not authentic Clement.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Critiquing Carlson, part 4: Too Clementine to be True?
I largely though only provisionally accept the bulk of Andrew Criddle's vocabulary work on To Theodore. Please see here
http://pubs.amstat.org/doi/pdf/10.1198/tast.2009.08163?cookieSet=1
[Solow & Smith, 2009]
for a partial vindication of Criddle's work, but also a partial critique of the methods he uses, in section 2 and section 6 of the Solow & Smith article. Perhaps I will be able to address these concerns in more detail at a later time.
In any case, even if Criddle's statistics are in any way valid, an early third-century imitator (or even simply a student of Clement's) is a perfectly reasonable explanation for all this. For that matter, Carlson tries to argue (p. 53) that because the manuscript tradition for Clement was so fragmentary, there is no way a forger could have lived prior to the printing era; but of course, this also pushes the timeframe for a forger closer to the time of Clement himself--precisely the time that the Origenist school flourished.
http://pubs.amstat.org/doi/pdf/10.1198/tast.2009.08163?cookieSet=1
[Solow & Smith, 2009]
for a partial vindication of Criddle's work, but also a partial critique of the methods he uses, in section 2 and section 6 of the Solow & Smith article. Perhaps I will be able to address these concerns in more detail at a later time.
In any case, even if Criddle's statistics are in any way valid, an early third-century imitator (or even simply a student of Clement's) is a perfectly reasonable explanation for all this. For that matter, Carlson tries to argue (p. 53) that because the manuscript tradition for Clement was so fragmentary, there is no way a forger could have lived prior to the printing era; but of course, this also pushes the timeframe for a forger closer to the time of Clement himself--precisely the time that the Origenist school flourished.
Critiquing Carlson, part 3: A Letter from Clement?
p. 49ff.
Andrew Criddle's vocabulary analysis is perhaps the best evidence that the Mar Saba manuscript is not genuine Clement. Some have cast doubt on the logic of Criddle's argument. I agree that no analysis of the sort that Criddle performed is an airtight case, while at the same time noting that Criddle's results are just the sort of results we might expect if the letter were indeed an imitation of Clement by another author. A case for real information about Secret Mark can still be made if the letter were an ancient forgery, rather than a modern one.
Andrew Criddle's vocabulary analysis is perhaps the best evidence that the Mar Saba manuscript is not genuine Clement. Some have cast doubt on the logic of Criddle's argument. I agree that no analysis of the sort that Criddle performed is an airtight case, while at the same time noting that Criddle's results are just the sort of results we might expect if the letter were indeed an imitation of Clement by another author. A case for real information about Secret Mark can still be made if the letter were an ancient forgery, rather than a modern one.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Critiquing Carlson, part 2: A New Hypothesis
In Part 1, I cast doubt on Carlson’s handwriting analysis, pointing to Roger Viklund’s subsequent analysis and criticism of Carlson’s work, using color photographs that Carlson did not use.
While I do think Viklund’s work weakens Carlson’s conclusions, I don’t go so far as to say they refute them. Based on my own inexpert examination of the photographs, both in black-and-white and in color, and following Carlson’s and Viklund’s criteria, I admit there is some room for questions about the hand that wrote the Mar Saba manuscript. Was it really the hand of someone well-versed in writing Greek? Are there really no signs of hesitation or tremor present in the script? Despite Viklund’s excellent attempt at answering these questions, I can’t quite say they’ve been resolved.
Carlson concludes from his analysis that the author was a forger, and that forger was Morton Smith. But even if we admit Carlson’s analysis, this is not a necessary conclusion. There are alternative scenarios to consider.
While I do think Viklund’s work weakens Carlson’s conclusions, I don’t go so far as to say they refute them. Based on my own inexpert examination of the photographs, both in black-and-white and in color, and following Carlson’s and Viklund’s criteria, I admit there is some room for questions about the hand that wrote the Mar Saba manuscript. Was it really the hand of someone well-versed in writing Greek? Are there really no signs of hesitation or tremor present in the script? Despite Viklund’s excellent attempt at answering these questions, I can’t quite say they’ve been resolved.
Carlson concludes from his analysis that the author was a forger, and that forger was Morton Smith. But even if we admit Carlson’s analysis, this is not a necessary conclusion. There are alternative scenarios to consider.
Critiquing Carlson, parts 2-7: Prelude
I’ve finally finished my full critique of Carlson, and will be posting it over the next couple of days. A few words first:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)