Comments on: The Secret Gospel of Mark and Carlson’s The Gospel Hoax: Smoking gun? (NT Apocrypha 22) http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2005/11/24/the-secret-gospel-of-mark-and-carlsons-the-gospel-hoax-smoking-gun-nt-apocrypha-22/ Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean houses my podcast, websites, blog, and publications, providing an entryway into social and religious life among Greeks, Romans, Jews, Christians, and others in the Roman empire. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:14:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean » Scott Brown’s review of Carlson’s Gospel Hoax http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2005/11/24/the-secret-gospel-of-mark-and-carlsons-the-gospel-hoax-smoking-gun-nt-apocrypha-22/comment-page-1/#comment-88 Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean » Scott Brown’s review of Carlson’s Gospel Hoax Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:02:00 +0000 http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/?p=9#comment-88 [...] In my earlier entry on Carlson’s Gospel Hoax I expressed some hesitation regarding what appeared to be the strongest evidence presented by Carlson in favour of the Secret Gospel of Mark being a hoax by Smith, namely the handwriting analysis. Scott Brown has now written a review of Carlson’s book in which Brown himself engages in detailed handwriting analysis in order to challenge what is at the heart of Carlson’s argument: the identification of the hand that wrote the Madiotes document with the hand that wrote The Letter to Theodore. After a detailed comparative analysis of the lettering, Brown concludes as follows: “Given the wholly insufficient basis for a hand-writing comparison, I believe that the strongest finding that a trained examiner might make if there were no significant differences between nos 22 [Madiotes] and 65 [Letter to Theodore] would be ‘inconclusive’. Since, however, there are many significant differences, a firm negative finding of two different writers seems warranted. The fact that Carlson drew such an unlikely conclusion without couching it in terms of probabilities19 or acknowledging any disconfirming evidence under-scores the wisdom of leaving forensic document examination to disinterested and highly qualified professionals. As Ron N. Morris emphasizes, competence in document examination is not easily acquired: [...] [...] In my earlier entry on Carlson’s Gospel Hoax I expressed some hesitation regarding what appeared to be the strongest evidence presented by Carlson in favour of the Secret Gospel of Mark being a hoax by Smith, namely the handwriting analysis. Scott Brown has now written a review of Carlson’s book in which Brown himself engages in detailed handwriting analysis in order to challenge what is at the heart of Carlson’s argument: the identification of the hand that wrote the Madiotes document with the hand that wrote The Letter to Theodore. After a detailed comparative analysis of the lettering, Brown concludes as follows: “Given the wholly insufficient basis for a hand-writing comparison, I believe that the strongest finding that a trained examiner might make if there were no significant differences between nos 22 [Madiotes] and 65 [Letter to Theodore] would be ‘inconclusive’. Since, however, there are many significant differences, a firm negative finding of two different writers seems warranted. The fact that Carlson drew such an unlikely conclusion without couching it in terms of probabilities19 or acknowledging any disconfirming evidence under-scores the wisdom of leaving forensic document examination to disinterested and highly qualified professionals. As Ron N. Morris emphasizes, competence in document examination is not easily acquired: [...]

]]> By: Phil Harland http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2005/11/24/the-secret-gospel-of-mark-and-carlsons-the-gospel-hoax-smoking-gun-nt-apocrypha-22/comment-page-1/#comment-2 Phil Harland Mon, 12 Dec 2005 23:28:31 +0000 http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/?p=9#comment-2 Loren Rosson III said... I think Stephen's arguments add up to a much stronger case than you allow, especially when you factor in The Mystery of Mar Saba novel and the paper Smith published right before visiting Mar Saba in 1958 (in which he connected Clement, Mk 4:11, and sexual immorality). Taking everything together, you've got to blink at a lot of amazing coincidences for the sake of being "wonderfully open-minded" about Secret Mark. You mention Scott Brown's book, which I recommend reading (I reviewed it today). 7:16 PM Delete Sacha M. said... When Carlson refers to "motive, means, and opportunity", what does he suggest was Smith's motive? 11:20 PM Delete Phil Harland Phil Harland said... Loren: I find those minor details (1940 novel, Smith's paper), which can be explained in a variety of ways, far less convincing than the evidence regarding handwriting, which far more directly suggests the possibility of a fake. Here I was suggesting that the handwriting argument could have been much stronger (assuming that other handwriting analysts actually agree that the writing indicates a fake). If the handwriting analysis is taken as correct, then the other minor details which fit with a theory of a fake then become more relevant. Sacha: Carlson's proposed motivation for Smith's hoaxing is having a laugh in relation to the academic community (successfully tricking them) and showing just how clever he (Smith) was in doing so. This is why Carlson refrains from the term "forgery" (which suggests deceptions with motivations of money-making) and uses "hoax" instead. I'm not sure how this (distinction in terminology relating to motive) relates to Carlson's earlier disagreement with me (see post cited above) over the use of the term "forgery" for ancient pseudonymous writings. In his disagreement with my earlier post (see link noted above), he seemed not concerned over applying "forgery" to ancient Christians writings (namely, the NT Apocrypha) for which we have little or no information about motives, and where the motive certainly was not (in most cases, it seems) aimed at money-making or similar things. One of my main objections to Ehrman's free use of "forgery" (Carlson agreed with Ehrman) was the issue of identifying the motives of people two thousand years ago (and the problem with readily assuming negative motives in historical subjects without evidence of such). 8:44 AM Delete Angela said... I have not yet read Carlson's book, though I intend to considering my book review was Scott Brown's book. By the sounds of the blog, it seems that this issue will never be solved because arguments can be made for both sides. I found Scott Brown's book convincing because of its literary analysis. However, if physical evidence is against you, what do you have? 1:48 PM Delete Phil Harland Phil Harland said... Angela: I was hoping you might post some comments on this (if you get a chance), since you did such a thorough read and review of Scott Brown's work. I'll look forward to hearing what you think. Phil 3:42 PM Delete Stephen C. Carlson said... Thanks for your clarifications, Phil. Let me briefly respond to one of your points: As well, I still wonder about the "elderly or ill writers" exception that even this expert mentioned in passing as an explanation for at least some of the anomalies in the "Clement" letter (elderly and/or ill monks were not scarce, I would suggest). I addressed this on p. 31: "For example, a writer's advanced can be responsible for the presence of a tremor in the execution of the hand, but the tremor caused by advanced age precludes the fine motor control as evidenced by the retouching of the stokes between letters." My expert refers to this retouching as "patching." 9:42 PM Delete Anonymous said... I also have not read this book and in fact am not familiar with the controversy. However, based on the information you provided, it sounds pretty weak. If you aren't double-blinding your handwriting analysis, it's just as easy to say that there was a profit motive for the expert to agree with his financier, and you are back to square one. This is the reason after all for double blinding, you eliminate prejudice from interpretation of results. Furthermore, saying that some reference to salt is a jib to "Morton Salt Company" sounds awful close to numerology/Bible-Code type reasoning. Was the author claiming victory here, or just adding up anecdotal unfalsifiable evidence in an attempt to demonstrate how it might be fake? 1:32 PM Delete Loren Rosson III said…
I think Stephen’s arguments add up to a much stronger case than you allow, especially when you factor in The Mystery of Mar Saba novel and the paper Smith published right before visiting Mar Saba in 1958 (in which he connected Clement, Mk 4:11, and sexual immorality). Taking everything together, you’ve got to blink at a lot of amazing coincidences for the sake of being “wonderfully open-minded” about Secret Mark.

You mention Scott Brown’s book, which I recommend reading (I reviewed it today).

7:16 PM
Delete
Sacha M. said…

When Carlson refers to “motive, means, and opportunity”, what does he suggest was Smith’s motive?

11:20 PM
Delete
Phil Harland
Phil Harland said…

Loren: I find those minor details (1940 novel, Smith’s paper), which can be explained in a variety of ways, far less convincing than the evidence regarding handwriting, which far more directly suggests the possibility of a fake. Here I was suggesting that the handwriting argument could have been much stronger (assuming that other handwriting analysts actually agree that the writing indicates a fake). If the handwriting analysis is taken as correct, then the other minor details which fit with a theory of a fake then become more relevant.

Sacha: Carlson’s proposed motivation for Smith’s hoaxing is having a laugh in relation to the academic community (successfully tricking them) and showing just how clever he (Smith) was in doing so. This is why Carlson refrains from the term “forgery” (which suggests deceptions with motivations of money-making) and uses “hoax” instead.

I’m not sure how this (distinction in terminology relating to motive) relates to Carlson’s earlier disagreement with me (see post cited above) over the use of the term “forgery” for ancient pseudonymous writings. In his disagreement with my earlier post (see link noted above), he seemed not concerned over applying “forgery” to ancient Christians writings (namely, the NT Apocrypha) for which we have little or no information about motives, and where the motive certainly was not (in most cases, it seems) aimed at money-making or similar things. One of my main objections to Ehrman’s free use of “forgery” (Carlson agreed with Ehrman) was the issue of identifying the motives of people two thousand years ago (and the problem with readily assuming negative motives in historical subjects without evidence of such).

8:44 AM
Delete
Angela said…

I have not yet read Carlson’s book, though I intend to considering my book review was Scott Brown’s book. By the sounds of the blog, it seems that this issue will never be solved because arguments can be made for both sides. I found Scott Brown’s book convincing because of its literary analysis. However, if physical evidence is against you, what do you have?

1:48 PM
Delete
Phil Harland
Phil Harland said…

Angela: I was hoping you might post some comments on this (if you get a chance), since you did such a thorough read and review of Scott Brown’s work. I’ll look forward to hearing what you think. Phil

3:42 PM
Delete
Stephen C. Carlson said…

Thanks for your clarifications, Phil. Let me briefly respond to one of your points:

As well, I still wonder about the “elderly or ill writers” exception that even this expert mentioned in passing as an explanation for at least some of the anomalies in the “Clement” letter (elderly and/or ill monks were not scarce, I would suggest).

I addressed this on p. 31: “For example, a writer’s advanced can be responsible for the presence of a tremor in the execution of the hand, but the tremor caused by advanced age precludes the fine motor control as evidenced by the retouching of the stokes between letters.”

My expert refers to this retouching as “patching.”

9:42 PM
Delete
Anonymous said…

I also have not read this book and in fact am not familiar with the controversy. However, based on the information you provided, it sounds pretty weak. If you aren’t double-blinding your handwriting analysis, it’s just as easy to say that there was a profit motive for the expert to agree with his financier, and you are back to square one. This is the reason after all for double blinding, you eliminate prejudice from interpretation of results.

Furthermore, saying that some reference to salt is a jib to “Morton Salt Company” sounds awful close to numerology/Bible-Code type reasoning.

Was the author claiming victory here, or just adding up anecdotal unfalsifiable evidence in an attempt to demonstrate how it might be fake?

1:32 PM
Delete

]]>