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

Re: [XTalk] Peter Jeffery on Morton Smith's False Manuscript

Expand Messages
  • Loren Rosson
    ... I ve read four of the book s eleven chapters so far. It s proving to be very interesting, and certainly every bit as much fun as Carlson s Gospel Hoax. So
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 16, 2006
      goranson@... wrote:

      > The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled: Imagined Rituals
      > of Sex, Death, and Madness
      > in a Biblical Forgery, by Peter Jeffery (Yale U.P.,
      > 2006) offers further
      > evidence that Morton Smith composed the MS claimed
      > to be a Letter of Clement of
      > Alexandria that quoted a Secret Gospel of Mark.

      I've read four of the book's eleven chapters so far.
      It's proving to be very interesting, and certainly
      every bit as much fun as Carlson's Gospel Hoax.

      So far Jeffery's argument complements Carlson's case
      for Clement's letter showing itself to the product of
      the 1950s. In chapter three, for instance, he argues
      that while Secret Mark certainly suggests an
      initiation rite, its combination of resurrection
      symbolism, a period of teaching followed by a night
      vigil, and the wearing of a white cloth suggest
      20-century Anglican concerns (p 70). And second,
      "Clement and the Alexandrian church, in particular,
      held to a different theology of baptism that was based
      not on the Easter event of Jesus' resurrection, but on
      the Epiphany event of Jesus' baptism by John." (ibid)
      So Smith's hoax not only has the 20th-century Anglican
      liturgical renewal behind it (just as it evokes the
      50s milieu for American gay men, per Carlson), but it
      relies on Pauline associations between baptism and
      resurrection motifs (Rom 6) instead of baptism and
      epiphany motifs (i.e. creation, heavens opening with
      light, the descent of the Holy Spirit and fire, the
      seal of priestly and messianic anointings) (see p 68).

      And in a footnote on p 271, Jeffery says that his work
      is compatible with Carlson's, with only a slight
      disclaimer: "While I don't deny the motives that
      Carlson ascribes to Smith (Gospel Hoax, pp 78-86), I
      think there were more compelling motivations, which I
      identify in Chapter 11."

      I hope to have a full review of this book for the list
      when I've finished it.

      Loren Rosson III
      Nashua NH
      http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
      Sponsored Link

      Mortgage rates near 39yr lows.
      $420k for $1,399/mo. Calculate new payment!
      www.LowerMyBills.com/lre
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... Jeffery gets it right on p. 150, so it might be some kind of lapse. Perhaps not a lapse but an error in his source, Jeffery reports on p. 150 that Smith s
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 29, 2006
        At 06:30 AM 11/16/2006 -0500, goranson@... wrote:
        >The book is not free of
        >errors; on page 2 Jeffery says Smith got his "second doctorate" at Hebrew
        >University, but that 1945 degree was before his 1957 Harvard Th.D.

        Jeffery gets it right on p. 150, so it might be some kind of lapse.
        Perhaps not a lapse but an error in his source, Jeffery reports on
        p. 150 that Smith's first name is "Robert." According to my sources,
        including U.S. Census records, the first name is actually "Rupert,"
        the same first name as his father, Rupert Henry Smith.

        >In any case, this is a learned and lively book
        >that, in my view, shows even more than before that Smith wrote the Letter with
        >Secret Mark.

        Stephen
        --
        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.