Comments for Apocryphicity

Comment on Searching for Syriac Manuscripts by Timothy B. Sailors

Timothy B. Sailors — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:40:45 +0000

Tony,

I’m hoping (knock on wood) to be in Tur Abdin this summer, though not in Iran or Iraq. I suspect we’re interested in the same groups of MSS, so if I learn anything I’ll let you know.

Timothy

Comment on Roger Viklund vs. Craig Evans on Secret Mark by stephan huller

stephan huller — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 01:15:27 +0000

Roger never disappoints! I have to find something not to like about this guy. And don’t forget – he’s not a professor. Maybe that’s why he makes so much sense

Comment on Children in Late Antique Christianity by rphenix

rphenix — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:14:41 +0000

Thank you again for contributing your work on Infancy Thomas to the volume. Send us a paper for the SBL Syriac program in Atlanta later this year!

Comment on A Debate on Secret Mark? by Peter Jeffery

Peter Jeffery — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:39:32 +0000

I think it’s important to give the most weight to interlocutors who actually have experience, training, expertise in whatever sub-topic is being discussed. In the case of the handwriting issues, Carlson has genuine background in this, while the many who have tried to discredit his handwriting arguments do not. I suggest we wait and see what the two experts hired by BAR will say. I don’t know what they will conclude or even if they will agree with each other, but I contributed to the fund to pay them because I think consulting the qualified is the right move, and from what BAR says they appear to be the most credentialed people who have ever looked at this question. The authenticity (or not) of the Mar Saba text is not going to be established by amateurs and people who don’t know what they’re talking about because they’ve never really studied these subjects.

Similarly with the other issues, such as the relationships to the gospels and to the writings of Clement. I support everyone’s right to chime in, but I give greater credence to people who have training, experience, and publications in whichever area it is. That is why one can hardly regard the blogs you cite as closing the question.

Comment on A Debate on Secret Mark? by stephan huller

stephan huller — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:26:49 +0000

Just a word on the ‘other guy’ who has promoted the idea that ‘Secret Mark’ is a forgery – Stephen Carlson.

It seems that everyone took Carlson at his word but no one bothered to check the methodology for his greatest proof.

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

The forger’s tremor was the one piece of evidence which gave me pause. Now it is gone. So according to my reckoning there is no reason any long to think that it is a forgery. Even Birger Pearson questions Carlson’s methodology now after reading that article

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2009/12/birger-pearson-says-it-best-it-is.html

There is nothing gay about Secret Mark; the only thing that was queer was Carlson’s methodology (and again that not one scholar bothered to check it … until now).

Comment on New Apocrypha Collection from Oxford by Brent Landau

Brent Landau — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:42:10 +0000

Looks like a potentially fantastic collection. I’m especially excited about the Latin Infancy Gospels, though I’m having a hard time believing that it’s *really* got a full English translation of Arundel or Hereford, much less both of them. But whether or not it does, I’ll certainly be picking it up!

Comment on A Debate on Secret Mark? by Peter Jeffery

Peter Jeffery — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 01:19:15 +0000

If “published something significant” is the criterion, then surely Andrew Criddle and Charles Murgia should be invited, if not Bart Ehrman. And if you really want to make progress, the overall question should be broken down into smaller ones and dealt with one at a time. Then you have everyone dealing with the specific area in which they are an expert, and nobody can hide. Issues like “the relationship to canonical Mark and other gospels,” “the relationship to Clement’s writings and opponents” “Morton Smith’s competencies, trustworthiness and possible motives,” should be treated separately, each with its own panel.

Comment on More Christian Apocrypha by Ted

Ted — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:38:56 +0000

I just read the narrative of Jopseph of Arimathea. Very interesting. I was struck by its reliance on physical phenomena: the physical theft of the Law, the relationship of Judas to Caiaphas, the framing of Jesus, the letters written and read. It’s quite a change from the mystery we find in Mark, for example. Perhaps that’s what time does to a tradition. As the years go by, skepticism increases – hence the need for something more substantial.

The figure of Demas is also interesting. His crimes are more vague than Gestas’ crimes, and in some ways he mirrors Jesus himself. And so he undergoes a transformation from guilt by association to spiritual twin.

Comment on On-Line Books on the Christian Apocrypha by Tony

Tony — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:32:48 +0000

Thanks Pilipos. I added these to the page.

Comment on A Debate on Secret Mark? by Tony

Tony — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:13:25 +0000

Peter,

Thanks for the feedback. I will pursue this further shortly, but one point about the selection of scholars that I listed. I listed only those scholars who have published something significant on the text and are therefore what we might call “experts.” You are right that it is unbalanced and that could be addressed but the goal there was to avoid having someone involved who is not conversant with the previous (or present) scholarship as we had at SBL.

Tony