Comments on: Secret Mark at the 2008 SBL Annual Meeting

By: David C Hindley

David C Hindley — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:11:25 +0000

Thanks for this even-handed summary of the session. Unlike some of the others who have responded, I am not smitten by the Smith critics. Carlson, bright as he is, is a *patent* attorney, not a trial attorney. I get the distinct impression that many of the critics are more interested in discrediting Smith than the SG itself. Why all this righteous anger over what is, at best, a curiosity?

By: Fred C.

Fred C. — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:33:09 +0000

It seems the only glimmer of reason to come through was Hedrick’s call for an investigation into the whereabouts of the original. Get some real forensic analysis going and maybe everyone can start moving forward.

By: Mike Grondin

Mike Grondin — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:22:46 +0000

I agree with the above comments about Carlson, but more than that, Tony’s dismissal of his views on their own account is entirely too facile. One can’t dismiss them simply by saying that they “are not based on the methodology used by biblical scholars”. That’s a non sequitur. The only way to dismiss them is to show that they’re _irrelevant_ to the issue of authenticity of Secret Mark. Being based on a methodology other than one’s own (assuming that to be the case) doesn’t make them irrelevant.

By: Brad

Brad — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 03:06:58 +0000

If Carlson is not a biblical scholar, then Marvin Meyer and Scott Brown aren’t either. Meyer and Brown use literary critical methods to force Secret Mark into the text of canonical Mark. No one else but them see the neat intercalations and sandwiching that they see. It is all rather subjective and ahistorical.
Besides, Adela Collins of Yale University sides with Carlson and Jeffrey. If anyone is a real biblical scholar, it would be her. I trust her judgment about Secret Mark more than yours.

By: steph

steph — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 07:51:57 +0000

Carlson not a biblical scholar? What is a biblical scholar and so what if he isn’t? He has published in NT academic journals such as NTS, keeps an academic biblioblog and is writing a PhD at Duke University. And what is this rigid methodology of biblical scholars? Is the entire discipline really so unique it has its own language? Or so narrow minded and elitist like the “Golden Triangle” of the B.A.? As far as I’m aware, biblical scholars have different methodological approaches. Carlson is better equipped than most “biblical scholars” who approach this mysterious so-called Secret Gospel of Mark. As a lawyer he has more experience in logic, lateral thinking and thinking outside the square and solving problems. And with Secret Mark, we have a rather complex textual problem.