Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XTalk] Chilton on Carlson & Secret Mark

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... From: Stephen C. Carlson To: Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [XTalk]
    Message 1 of 17 , Oct 27, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...>
      To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:22 AM
      Subject: Re: [XTalk] Chilton on Carlson & Secret Mark


      > At 09:27 PM 10/25/2006 -0500, Jack Kilmon wrote:
      >>My examination of the fly leaves show a very rapidly...almost
      >>urgent...copying of an exemplar manuscript (probably in an uncial Greek)
      >>into a Phanariot Greek minuscule with all of the flourishes and ligatures
      >>peculiar to the 18th century.
      >
      > Thanks for your comments, Jack. For those on-list who may not
      > be aware of it, Jack's web page about his uncial exemplar
      > hypothesis is found here: http://www.historian.net/smunc.htm
      >
      > A major difficulty I'm having with your idea about an uncial
      > exemplar, Jack, is how could a early modern monastic scribe
      > copy a scriptio continua (no spaces between words) uncial
      > exemplar into a fully accented and word divided minuscule
      > script "very rapidly" without any word division errors or
      > typical confusions of uncial letters (e.g. between E O S).

      That's a valid point, Stephen. I would expect, however, that an 18th
      century Greek scribe whose natural hand was the "flourishy" Phanariot of SM
      could read an uncial mss and just copy away in his minuscule hand.



      > A further difficulty with the idea of a hasty scribe is
      > that the scribe must have expanded common uncial nomina
      > sacra (e.g. IC for name "Jesus") into its full spelling.

      If my natural hand is a minuscule without nomina sacra, as was the
      convention at that time, and I knew what the NS were, I see no problem with
      this.

      > The amount of editorial interventions to produce the text
      > we see in the photographs is irreconcilable with the idea
      > that the scribe was pressed for time.

      Even if his eyes were shifting back and forth from his copy to the original?


      >
      > Also, Smith had a lot of prior experience with 18th century
      > hands, as I documented in my book, so your observation about
      > the peculiarity of the hand would tend to exclude a great
      > number of people as a candidate for the scribe, but not Smith
      > himself.

      As I told Ken and Stephen , you may well be right...and I hope you are not
      offended by my skepticism...maybe I am just stubborn but my paleographer's
      eye is just not yet convinced. Does a 42 year old Smith have these
      abilities? I see a hand that must have taken years to develop. Why would a
      man in the peak of his career jeapardize it? I would like to further explore
      my opinion that the hand is a hurried one. This is an important issue and
      can be the deciding factor for me. The line quality of a hurried hand is
      good. Quality diminishes the slower the hand. There are normally 3 writing
      speeds for the average person using this type of script, which includes
      English). There is a set speed, a facile speed and a rapid speed.. SM
      appears to me, from the photographs, to be between a facile and rapid hand
      because of the line quality, use of accents, apparent quill pressure and the
      Phanariot flourishes. Because SM is a copy requiring the copyist to
      write...stop...look to the exemplar...write again, etc, I would expect quill
      lifts and rests. The person who wrote/copied SM was right handed...what was
      Smith?

      Where is the Voss book now? was there bleed through or offset transfer to
      the boardpaper? It seems to me that a forensic examination of the book
      itself, which I assume is in Jerusalem and was not "lost," could yield some
      information.

      I will say that your research and examination of the photographs is so well
      done and without bias that I am leaning in your direction...I just need more
      for the reasons I have outlined in these communications before concluding
      that Morton Smith was an extremely talented nut and a fraud.


      Best Regards,

      Jack


      Jack Kilmon
      San Antonio



      >
      > Stephen Carlson
      > --
      > Stephen C. Carlson
      > mailto:scarlson@...
      > Weblog:
      > http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
      > Author of: The Gospel Hoax,
      > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
      >
      >
      >
      > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
      >
      > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
      > crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > List managers may be contacted directly at:
      > crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Mike Grondin
      ... STM this is only the case if there is a natural hand tremor due to age or infirmity. Such a tremor would probably result in small jags if writing too
      Message 2 of 17 , Nov 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- Jack Kilmon wrote:
        > The line quality of a hurried hand is good.
        > Quality diminishes the slower the hand.

        STM this is only the case if there is a natural hand
        tremor due to age or infirmity. Such a tremor would
        probably result in small jags if writing too slowly.
        Not having that problem, however, I find the opposite
        to be true, viz. that the more quickly I write, the
        lower the quality.

        Mike Grondin
      • Bob Schacht
        ... Jack, Do you have evidence for this, or is it just your experienced opinion? It seems like an unlikely over-generalization to me. When writing fast, isn t
        Message 3 of 17 , Nov 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          At 09:21 AM 11/1/2006, Mike Grondin wrote:

          >--- Jack Kilmon wrote:
          > > The line quality of a hurried hand is good.
          > > Quality diminishes the slower the hand.

          Jack,
          Do you have evidence for this, or is it just your experienced opinion?
          It seems like an unlikely over-generalization to me. When writing fast,
          isn't there a tendency to do fine on the straightaways, but then tend to
          overshoot the hard turns? Or by "line quality" are you only talking about
          the "straightaways"?


          >STM this is only the case if there is a natural hand
          >tremor due to age or infirmity. Such a tremor would
          >probably result in small jags if writing too slowly.

          True, the straightaways will get more ragged if drawn too slowly.
          Seems to me *confidence* would be a bigger factor.
          Bob


          >Not having that problem, however, I find the opposite
          >to be true, viz. that the more quickly I write, the
          >lower the quality.
          >
          >Mike Grondin
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • David Hindley
          ... From: David Hindley [mailto:dhindley@njassociates.com] Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:30 AM To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Chilton on
          Message 4 of 17 , Nov 3, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            -----Original Message-----
            From: David Hindley [mailto:dhindley@...]
            Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:30 AM
            To: 'crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com'
            Subject: Re: Chilton on Carlson & Secret Mark

            Ken Olsen said:

            <<It seems that you wish to place the burden of proof on Carlson to prove the non-existence of flow tremors in hurriedly-written 18th century manuscripts. If you wish to falsify Carlson's claims about the tremors, all you have to do is produce counterexamples.>>

            I am not directing this response to you in particular Ken, but if one is making the claim that evidence for tremors almost certainly means forgery (or whatever semantic term we wish to employ for rhetorical effect), and I think Stephen has essentially done so in his book, he *should* include an examination of similar documents for indications of, or lack of, similar tremors. In other words, there has been no control study to compare the manuscript photos against. The fact that a tremor can be an indication of forgery, when other evidence rules out a contrary explanation, does not mean that these tremors prove forgery. This is basic scholarly method, as without controls we are only making allegations.

            I've said it before and I'll say it again, this whole debate about a possible forgery smacks of "advocacy scholarship" and a "will to believe" so strong that almost any argument seems persuasive. What's the argument here, really? "Smith *could* have done it (because he was an evil genius, like the devil himself), so he *must* have done it (because the idea of a Secret Mark, in which Jesus *may* be portrayed as a libertine, is repulsive to our sensibilities)." The unstated assumptions I am picking up are in parentheses.

            Smith might have originally zeroed in on this particular manuscript, in spite of its source (a partial manuscript quotation in a blank book page written in a modern hand), because it could be interpreted to show that a relatively early tradition once existed that supported his already formed opinion that Jesus was a libertine. Yet he ultimately did not press the issue, probably because evidence was not strong enough to really prove anything. He himself noted the letter fragment appeared too good to be true. At best, even if this letter of Clement of Alexandria was genuine, the Gospel which the author quoted may not have been. Remember, it was the supposed Carpocratian version of Secret Mark that said "naked man with naked man", with "Clement" denying that such a passage was in his own Church's version.

            Is it really necessary to kill the messenger to dispose of Secret Mark? It can be disposed of quite nicely on its own merits, without getting ugly.

            Respectfully,

            Dave Hindley
            Cleveland, Ohio USA
          • goranson@duke.edu
            ... Dave, I suggest that your message takes as too small the difference between whether the MS is a copy of a second century text or is a twentieth-century
            Message 5 of 17 , Nov 3, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Quoting David Hindley <dhindley@...>:

              >
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: David Hindley [mailto:dhindley@...]
              > Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:30 AM
              > To: 'crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com'
              > Subject: Re: Chilton on Carlson & Secret Mark
              >
              > Ken Olsen said:
              >
              > <<It seems that you wish to place the burden of proof on Carlson to
              > prove the non-existence of flow tremors in hurriedly-written 18th
              > century manuscripts. If you wish to falsify Carlson's claims about
              > the tremors, all you have to do is produce counterexamples.>>
              >
              > I am not directing this response to you in particular Ken, but if one
              > is making the claim that evidence for tremors almost certainly means
              > forgery (or whatever semantic term we wish to employ for rhetorical
              > effect), and I think Stephen has essentially done so in his book, he
              > *should* include an examination of similar documents for indications
              > of, or lack of, similar tremors. In other words, there has been no
              > control study to compare the manuscript photos against. The fact that
              > a tremor can be an indication of forgery, when other evidence rules
              > out a contrary explanation, does not mean that these tremors prove
              > forgery. This is basic scholarly method, as without controls we are
              > only making allegations.
              >
              > I've said it before and I'll say it again, this whole debate about a
              > possible forgery smacks of "advocacy scholarship" and a "will to
              > believe" so strong that almost any argument seems persuasive. What's
              > the argument here, really? "Smith *could* have done it (because he
              > was an evil genius, like the devil himself), so he *must* have done
              > it (because the idea of a Secret Mark, in which Jesus *may* be
              > portrayed as a libertine, is repulsive to our sensibilities)." The
              > unstated assumptions I am picking up are in parentheses.
              >
              > Smith might have originally zeroed in on this particular manuscript,
              > in spite of its source (a partial manuscript quotation in a blank
              > book page written in a modern hand), because it could be interpreted
              > to show that a relatively early tradition once existed that supported
              > his already formed opinion that Jesus was a libertine. Yet he
              > ultimately did not press the issue, probably because evidence was not
              > strong enough to really prove anything. He himself noted the letter
              > fragment appeared too good to be true. At best, even if this letter
              > of Clement of Alexandria was genuine, the Gospel which the author
              > quoted may not have been. Remember, it was the supposed Carpocratian
              > version of Secret Mark that said "naked man with naked man", with
              > "Clement" denying that such a passage was in his own Church's version.
              >
              > Is it really necessary to kill the messenger to dispose of Secret
              > Mark? It can be disposed of quite nicely on its own merits, without
              > getting ugly.
              >
              > Respectfully,
              >
              > Dave Hindley
              > Cleveland, Ohio USA

              Dave,
              I suggest that your message takes as too small the difference between whether
              the MS is a copy of a second century text or is a twentieth-century
              misdirected
              composition. If historians do not address that difference, whether for fear of
              being charged with "getting ugly" or "kill[ing]" or for some other reason,
              would that seem good to you? Or perhaps I misunderstand your
              recommendation. If
              it is (to skip the fake/forgery/hoax/fraud choice) bogus, shouldn't that be
              shown and known?
              Stephen Goranson
              http://www.duke.edu/~goranson
            • Stephen C. Carlson
              ... Actually, in my book, I specifically compared the photos of Smith s MS against three manuscripts from Mar Saba: Sabas 452, 518, and 523 (See FIGS. 2A, 2B,
              Message 6 of 17 , Nov 3, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                At 09:36 AM 11/3/2006 -0500, David Hindley wrote:
                >I am not directing this response to you in particular Ken, but if one is
                >making the claim that evidence for tremors almost certainly means forgery
                >(or whatever semantic term we wish to employ for rhetorical effect), and I
                >think Stephen has essentially done so in his book, he *should* include an
                >examination of similar documents for indications of, or lack of, similar
                >tremors. In other words, there has been no control study to compare the
                >manuscript photos against. The fact that a tremor can be an indication of
                >forgery, when other evidence rules out a contrary explanation, does not mean
                >that these tremors prove forgery. This is basic scholarly method, as without
                >controls we are only making allegations.

                Actually, in my book, I specifically compared the photos of Smith's MS
                against three manuscripts from Mar Saba: Sabas 452, 518, and 523 (See
                FIGS. 2A, 2B, and 2C, respectively).

                Stephen Carlson
                --
                Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.