Comments on: The Secret Gospel of Mark Revisited http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/10/31/the-secret-gospel-of-mark-revisited/ A Mormon Blog Tue, 14 Feb 2012 01:16:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Robert Conner http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/10/31/the-secret-gospel-of-mark-revisited/#comment-169585 Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:31:44 +0000 http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=13025#comment-169585 In the first place, as I point out in my review, Carlson’s a lawyer, not a qualified document examiner. He has claimed to prove a document is a forgery WITHOUT EVER HAVING SEEN THE DOCUMENT in question (am I talking loud enough?). Let me repeat: Carlson HAS NEVER SEEN NOR TOUCHED the document he claims is a forgery. Does anyone besides me, Charlie Hedrick and Roger Viklund see a problem here? Apparently not the scholars who are on Carlson’s cheering squad (Mark Goodacre, Larry Hurtado, etc).

The other issue the evangelical/Catholic side never ceases to comment on is Smith’s rumored homosexuality. According to the people who KNEW him –neither Carlson or Jeffery ever met Morton Smith– Smith was reticent about his personal life, understandable if he knew his peers were whispering behind his back. In other words, Smith was not figure skating down the halls of Columbia U with a sparkler in one hand and a penis popscicle in the other. So how did the academic community know anything substantive about his sexual orientation, and why would it have mattered anyway?

]]> By: stephan huller http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/10/31/the-secret-gospel-of-mark-revisited/#comment-169316 Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:16:07 +0000 http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=13025#comment-169316 Hi I just read your review and I wanted to alert you that a scholar has PROVEN that Carlson’s methodology was fundamentally flawed to ‘prove’ the forgery hypothesis.

http://salainenevankelista.blogspot.com/2009/12/tremors-or-just-optical-illusion.html

As David Trobisch, the eminent expert on Biblical manuscripts notes, Hi Professor Hedrick

I am sorry to bother you. I sent Viklund’s proof to our mutual friend David Trobisch notes “I read it right away but somehow forgot to let you know what I think. His arguments are absolutely clear and convincing. The “forgery” accusations only works with the low resolution photos. An excellent article.”

Please go to the attached link and see how no one actually checked Carlson’s methodology.

]]> By: Roger Viklund http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/10/31/the-secret-gospel-of-mark-revisited/#comment-168541 Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:57:52 +0000 http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=13025#comment-168541 Regarding the issue of “shaky handwriting” which Rameumptom commented upon, I have recently published a study: “Tremors, or Just an optical Illusion?” http://www.jesusgranskad.se/theodore2.htm . The “shaky handwriting” lies in the poor b/w images and not in the handwriting.

]]> By: Robert Conner http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/10/31/the-secret-gospel-of-mark-revisited/#comment-168381 Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:14:27 +0000 http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=13025#comment-168381 For a review of literature to date on Secret Mark and a criticism of the arguments of skeptics, particularly Carlson and Jeffery, see “A Letter to Theodore” at magicinthenewtestament.com.

]]> By: belledame2 http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/10/31/the-secret-gospel-of-mark-revisited/#comment-164310 Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:21:52 +0000 http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=13025#comment-164310 Thanks for the posts. I love reading stuff like this.

]]> By: Donna M http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/10/31/the-secret-gospel-of-mark-revisited/#comment-164096 Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:12:28 +0000 http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=13025#comment-164096 It appears that the letter is not forged and that the mystery rite was Jesus transferring his soul to the youth, not a homosexual act. It is said that the person crucified was not Jesus but another. If their spirits had been transferred then it all makes sense.

]]> By: BHodges http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/10/31/the-secret-gospel-of-mark-revisited/#comment-164040 Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:01:49 +0000 http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=13025#comment-164040 Interesting stuff, thanks for mentioning it Kevin.

]]> By: Dave R http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/10/31/the-secret-gospel-of-mark-revisited/#comment-163994 Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:42:25 +0000 http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=13025#comment-163994 I recently read Bart Ehrman’s book, “Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew.” It’s a great resource for those interested in early Christian faiths and the development of the New Testament canon. Chapter 4 is devoted to the Secret Gospel of Mark. He tells the fascinating story of SM and explains why there is so much disagreement about its authenticity. In the end, he concludes the most likely explanaition is that SM is a brilliant forgery by Smith. Next time you’re in a Barnes and Noble, flip to chapter 4 — you’ll end up buying the book.

]]> By: Rameumptom http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/10/31/the-secret-gospel-of-mark-revisited/#comment-163949 Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:12:45 +0000 http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=13025#comment-163949 The document was transcribed in the last few pages of a book dating to the 1600s. Later, others found the pages and took them to be analyzed. They were not allowed to do a C14 or other test on the text. While the book is still extant, the two pages containing Clement’s letter were lost by others, not Smith.

]]> By: Clark http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/10/31/the-secret-gospel-of-mark-revisited/#comment-163945 Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:00:41 +0000 http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=13025#comment-163945 It’s been a long time since I last really read the issue much. Can someone clarify why the original source Smith consulted can’t be found?

]]>