mini-review of carlson's gospel hoax
On the Saturday evening of the recent SBL conference, I found myself at my hotel room with nothing to do. I had just bought my wagonload of books that afternoon, so I picked up Stephen Carlson's The Gospel Hoax, expecting to read a chapter or so and then drift off into much-needed sleep. But I simply couldn't put the book down. I read the whole thing straight through, riveted by the book to my bed, reveling in the revelations of this real-life detective novel.Carlson's book is a thorough, utterly convincing case for the forgery of the Secret Gospel of Mark by its discoverer, Morton Smith. There, I said it. I feel like I should have warned the reader of "plot spoilers" in advance, but of course it says as much in the subtitle and one doesn't warn of "plot spoilers" in reviewing an academic book anyway. But this is no ordinary academic book--it combines the rigour of academic writing with the ethos of a detective novel. It is hard to imagine anything that Carlson has left out in his analysis. He patiently explains how Smith had the means, motive, and opportunity to produce the Secret Gospel and the text in which it is embedded, the letter of Clement of Alexandria to Theodore.
This is an absolute must-read for anyone in the scholarly guild. It is important for clarifying our sources for the study of Christian origins and for exposing potential weaknesses in the system of scholarly research, but it's also just a good, fun read. It's one of those books I wish I had written. Or, at the very least, that Stephen Carlson had written in my name... :-)
Labels: academic book reviews, the gospels



5 Comments:
Here we go again ... :)
You theologians can be convinced quite easily, heh?
> It is hard to imagine anything
> that Carlson has left out in his analysis.
He left out 50%, the defense.
Here ar some thoughts of mine:
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Secret/discussion-hoax.html
I'm NOT arguing genuineness, I'm just arguing that the book is not "utterly convincing" and not the final statement. Am I really the only one? Huh, huh, huh ... :(
By
Wieland Willker, at 1:49 AM
Wieland, thanks for this. I read your response, and you make a good point that Carlson has not looked at this fully from the side of defending authenticity. But it's simply not true that he never brings up defences of its authenticity. In fact, he does so several times throughout the book, and then points out the flaws in those defences. Also contrary to your statement, he looked at the physical manuscript as well as one can considering the manuscript is lost, and he suggested at least once that if it becomes available again such a physical analysis would still need to be done.
I realize that your response is not intended to be a full critique of Carlson's book, but it doesn't offer anything substantive to make me think Carlson has left anything important out. You present vague generalities while Carlson has presented very specific arguments, and you haven't actually dealt with any of his specific arguments. Again, I know that's not the purpose of your statement, but someone's going to have to respond convincingly to each of Carlson's arguments before authenticity can even be considered again.
By
Michael Pahl, at 2:24 AM
> someone's going to have to respond convincingly
> to each of Carlson's arguments
That wouldn't be too difficult, but it would be just another intelectual exercise in diligence. Without an analysis of the physical object the case cannot be decided and will remain open. At least for me.
Btw. C. Hedrick was the only scholar who tried to find the MS, but for unknown reasons he didn't follow it up further after an initial attempt.
I know, I am an old grumbler ...
By
Wieland Willker, at 8:29 AM
Thanks for the little review Michael --- I intend to read it as soon as Amazon gets it to me! I do hope however that it doesn't cause much lost sleep (since I tend to read slower, what I enjoy.)
On a side note, Wieland --- you said “Without an analysis of the physical object the case cannot be decided and will remain open.”
Do we really need the physical object? Your use of the word ‘case’ puts me in the mindset of a court and in a court if sustainable and believable proof is put forth --- the case can be known! Further, what if we were to find a letter or journal from Smith where outlines how he fabricated the whole thing, would we really be in need of the object at that point?
By
Justin Jenkins, at 1:14 AM
You are right Justin, a confession from Smith (or someone "who knows") would, of course do, too.
By
Wieland Willker, at 4:35 AM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home