Subject: Hobbs et al. on Smith & Secret Mark, II

From: "GLENN WOODEN" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 10:59:20 AST4ADT

Forwarded material, #2: a long collection.

From: LUCY::EHOBBS "Edward Hobbs" 14-MAY-1995 18:47:00.73
To: "[email-masked]" 
Subj: Portion of My Critique on "Secret Mark" [Colloquy 18] 
 [This material is Copyright 1975.] 
 The issue before us in this Colloquy (as it properly is in
each of our Colloquies) should be the fundamental methodological
one: How is it that we solve problems about the interpretation
of a text? This is a special form of the more general issue of
how we make historical judgements. 
 Since we deal with the unrepeatable, and thus are deprived
of the experimental method in any strict sense, and since we
further are not engaged with logical deduction from postulates in the
fashion of mathematics, we are faced with the criterion of
probability. Thus much is, however, granted by everyone (or, almost
everyone!). The problem remains, what constitutes probability? I wish
to suggest that one crucial dimension of any theory of probability,
whether in the natural sciences or in the humanistic disciplines
including history, is the well-proven Law of Parsimony, or Ockham's
Razor: 
 Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem. 
 Ockham himself, as is well-known, did not invent the
principle; but he used it effectively and constantly (though not
in this exact formulation which goes by his name; he preferred
two other wordings), and he has handed on to us a tool for
cutting away flights of fancy and distinguishing the probable
from the merely possible. The modern form of it in the sciences
usually demands the postulation of the fewest unobservables
commensurate with or necessary to explain the evidence. 
 Morton Smith acknowledges the criterion of probability quite
explicitly (e.g., The Secret Gospel, p. 148--the last paragraph
of the book; and Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of
Mark, pp. 289-290--a passage parallel to the previous one); but
he also undercuts the criterion by saying, "But the truth is that
improbable things sometimes happen. Therefore truth is necessarily
stranger than history." (The Secret Gospel, p. 148) Unless this
sentence has a hidden meaning (and Smith seems to love them), he seems
to be saying that our notions of probability are not fitted to the
actual course of happenings in the world, and thus that "truth" (what
really happened?) is stranger than "history" (what non-Smith
historians write down?). This is a curious notion of probability,
indeed! 
 At the level of small detail, Smith's work is indeed
"erudite," as it is usually called; his Clement volume is filled
with a wealth of homework preparatory to historical explanation. At
the next stage of work, however, he moves suddenly into a rarified
realm from which he is able to dismiss all scholars and all scholarly
methods in general use with whom and which he differs; scholars' work
at odds with his (or even potentially at odds, in the future: see,
e.g., Clement, p. 287, "To prevent foreseeable stupidities...")
regularly is labelled "worthless," "ludicrous," "hostile," "muddled,"
"stupidity," in some cases "malicious and deliberately deceitful" (he
says there are several of these apparently, while singling out one as
"most" so), "extravagance of exegetic fantasy, " and the like. Tools
basic to the discipline seem either to be non-existent (e.g. redaction
criticism) or to be so badly used by everyone else that "alternatives"
need to be used (e.g. form criticism). Important redaction-critical
work is ignored or else dismissed as "fantasy" (so with Marxsen's
important work), and recent form-critical study, even of this precise
passage of Mark, is nowhere mentioned (e.g. H.-W. Kuhn's work). 
 In view of this treatment of differing scholars and methods,
our deliberations are unlikely to meet any different fate at the
hands of Smith; those who are sympathetic to his work will be
praised, and those who differ will be damned (will we, hopefully, be
allowed to choose whether we are to be labelled "stupid," "ludicrous,"
or merely engaging in "fantasy"?). 
 It seems to me that Ockham's Razor demands that we utilize
the least new hypotheses to account for this text. Smith calls
his explanation an "account" or a "history"; it is, in fact, an
elaborate web of many hypotheses, each one constructed to fit the
facts of the text to the previously constructed hypothesis. It is
ingenious, and is just the method adopted by the author of historical
fiction--one constructs an account which will touch on the known facts
at as many points as possible, so as to create the effect "Yes, it
might well have happened like this, indeed!" Like many scholars and
others, I enjoy historical fiction; I become uneasy only when the word
"fiction" is omitted from the sub-title or jacket description. And
note that "fiction" does not here mean untrue; it is possible that it
happened in such fashion. But the historian does not call his
elaborate construction that touches all points while going far beyond
them, a "history"; he reserves that term for the work to which he has
applied Ockham's Razor, removing all absolutely unessential or
unnecessary unobservables. 
 The simplest explanation is one which accords with other
phenomena already known to us from early Christian history. (In
what follows, I am assuming that the Letter is indeed from
Clement. I am uncertain of this; but Robert Grant, who is far
more capable than I to judge the question, considers that Smith
has proved this point, and I accept his judgment.) It is roughly
as follows: 
 (1) Following Paul's lead (Romans 6:1-11), some Christians
in Alexandria (Carpocratians, apparently, and others) interpreted
baptism as resurrection. Someone among them felt the need of an
account in the Gospels to illustrate this, and set out to fill the
need. 
 (2) Our author, working after the collection of our four
Gospels, is acquainted with the texts of all of them; but he best
knows Mark (long associated with Alexandria), just as most people have
a favorite Gospel. The Lazarus story (John 11) is the one lengthy
resurrection account, but it cannot be simply duplicated. Luke has a
resurrection story concerning a male (all of the Synoptics have the
story of Jairus' daughter), also; he is called *neaniskos*, a term
also occurring in Mark's story of the empty tomb. 
 (3) Our author has his clues, and begins to piece together
his paradigmatic pericope. The to-be-resurrected *neaniskos* has
(a mother--Luke? two sisters--John?) a sister, who intercedes for him.
The details of the pericope are easily assembled from other healing
accounts in Mark, plus the obvious Lazarus-parallel. Especially
attractive are some accounts which involve "resurrection" (*egeiro*,
1:31; 5:41; 10:49; 16:6) or a "tomb" (*mnemeion*, 5:2,3,5; 15:46;
16:2,3,5,8). 
 (4) The *neaniskos* produces by easy connections his
clothing (Mark 14:51) which is like that of the pre-resurrected
Jesus (Mark 15:46) and the statement that "looking on him, he
loved him" (Mark 10:21, with its Matthaean parallel for
*neaniskos*), as well as his wealth (Mark 10:22; cf. Luke 18:23
for exact wording). 
 (5) The locale is given by the Lazarus story--perhaps also
by Mark 8:22, text of Codex Beza. As noted by Smith, the
pericope's text often accords with the "Western" text; but the
simpler explanation is that our author actually read such a text
(coming into being about 150 by the usual dating), rather than
that the Western text derived from "Longer Mark," a theory that
explains nothing about the Western text in the rest of the
Gospels and Acts. Even the dating is given by the Lazarus story,
conflated (or maybe not, though the wording is identical) with
the opening of Mark's Transfiguration story (in which Jesus is
clothed in white, as is the *neaniskos* in the empty tomb). 
 (6) Our author at the end has to get Jesus back to where
the account in Mark continues.  
 The entire process is a simple one: A Mark-sounding story
is produced by utilizing related stories in Mark and their
phrasing, combined with the obvious resurrection story in John,
and some inevitable wording derived from memory of the Matthew
and Luke parallels (cf. our own "rich young ruler," a description
which is a conflation of the synoptic accounts). To account for the
similarities to Mark by having a translator (working from an Aramaic
Vorlage) deliberately imitate Mark's style is "multiplying entities,"
indeed. 
 Finally, could such an "invention" (a "pastiche" might be
the best term) be interpolated into Mark's text, even though the
Gospel was already accepted as in some sense "canonical"? Of
course it could!--all we have to recall is the way in which the
pericope on the adulterous woman was inserted into various
places, without fire falling from heaven (after Luke 21:38; after John
7:36; after John 7:52; after John 21:24), or the way in which various
endings were attached to Mark, endings pieced together in much the
fashion we have observed here. If Stendahl's statement (quoted on p.
85, Clement) means that the text cannot have originated in the late
second century or after, then it is demonstrably wrong, on the
evidence of the pericopes just cited and their textual history;
perhaps, however, Stendahl's comment refers to a time after the fixing
of the text, i.e., after the supremacy of the Byzantine text. 
 (by: Edward C. Hobbs -- From the Protocol of the 18th Colloquy) 

From: "[email-masked]" 15-MAY-1995 03:43:41.88
To: "[email-masked]"
CC: "[email-masked]"
Subj: RE: Lengthy account of Secret... 
Dear Professor Hobbs and friends, 
 Thanks to the professor for recalling Morton's visit to Berkeley in
1975. The topic seems now to be more important and exciting than it
was at the time, which is a surprise to me. I just want to add a few
things in order to balance out the report of E. Hobbs.
 No one that I knew took Professor Smith seriously at that time. I
 never
cease to be amazed when I hear people twenty years later talking about
his invention. Prof. Hobbs is right when he consigns this gospel to
the genre of historical novel. We all knew our visitor was mad, but
now people don't know this. I didn't know that Prof. Hobbs openly
contradicted our visitor. I don't remember anyone wanting to offend
the mad one. We thought it our duty to humor him and give him an open
forum at the Hermeneutic Center. At the time he was travelling all
over California attracting big crowds and newspaper coverage. I was
sent to the airport to pick him up and found a place for him to stay
in Benton Hall. I think I heard him speak but was more interested in
Professor Hobbs's selections of California reds at the time.
 Professor Smith's apologia in the Harvard Theological Review came as
 a
real shock to me, him marshalling and counting all these famous names
who believed in his historical romance. I really do not understand how
anyone, student or professor, can take seriously his fantasy. On the
other hand, I am concerned that apparently people are doing just that.
That's the reason I am saying that at that time no one who knew him
took this seriously but people tried to be courteous and not offend
someone who was obviously deranged..
 Richard Arthur, Merrimack NH
 [email-masked]   

From: LUCY::EHOBBS "Edward Hobbs" 15-MAY-1995 13:08:17.51
To: "[email-masked]"
Subj: Smith's visit to Berkeley: correction 
Richard Arthur's supplement to my account was a pleasant reminder that
other people still live who were there. But I'm afraid he is
remembering the wrong Colloquy. Smith visited Berkeley only once, to
my knowledge; it was for Colloquy 6, held on 12 April 1973. The
subject of his position paper was "The Aretalogy Used by Mark". It was
on that occasion that Richard Arthur picked up Smith and took him to
his room at PSR. Colloquy 18 is the one we have been discussing. Smith
was not present; neither was Richard Arthur (who may have graduated by
then?). The date for this Colloquy was close to three years later, on
7 December 1975. The Position Paper was by Reginald Fuller. Secret
Mark had not even been published when Smith was present in early 1973,
so of course I did not challenge him on it (never having heard of it).
I stand by my statement sent yesterday. How I wish everyone had
thought Smith deranged! But I did take him on, not only then (in his
absence), but on several later occasions, two of which I reported to
all of you yesterday. There was never an agreement to be nice to him,
at least not one I signed. I wasn't even nice to Ernest Badian
(Harvard) when he was with us in 1976 (what an arrogant fellow he
was). Incidentally, I received a message asking if I knew Morton Smith
was dead. Yes, I knew, almost immediately. So does Neusner know.
Edward Hobbs   

From: LUCY::EHOBBS "Edward Hobbs" 17-MAY-1995 15:46:38.71
To: "[email-masked]" 
 Secret Mark, Smith, Ad Hominem, & Koester 
 First, may I thank most warmly those of you who have responded
to unwarranted innuendoes about my report on the Secret Mark
controversy. I did not write that material of my own choice; I was
asked by more than a half-dozen of you to do so. Nothing in it was
fabricated, and nothing in it suggested that because Smith behaved
outrageously when crossed, his scholarship was to be disregarded. A
student from Canada has exhorted us to avoid ad hominem attacks,
implying that I had engaged in them. It was precisely for that reason
I had reported Smith's repeated use of the ad hominem attack; but I
did not use it myself. May I point out that;
 (1) I personally spent most of two months of 1975 in
organizing, conducting, and editing/publishing a careful analysis of
Smith's "Secret Mark" work. I also pointed out that I had carefully
refrained from expressing my private belief that the supposed MS. was
a recent forgery (i.e., within the last 1800 years). Surely this
counts as "judging his views on the basis of his written legacy."
 (2) "Jesus the Magician" was the recipient of more than 40
hours of my time, in 1976, resulting in more than 50 pages of
criticism delivered to Smith by me, along with a 45-minute oral
summary at the beginning of a day-long discussion of his MS. The
published volume altered almost every one of the passages I
criticized; had I not devoted that extended time to working
through his original MS., the published volume would have been
far more roundly criticized by its reviewers. This was not an ad
hominem attack. 
 That I reported to you some of what was asked for -- namely,
the living-person relationship I had with Smith -- was offered
not to attack his views, but to report what almost everyone knew
about him who disagreed with him.
 Bob Kraft has rightly -- and generously -- pointed out the
supportive, humorous, and congenial way Smith (at times) treated
his friends. He also acknowledged his cantankerous, intimidating,
confrontational ways on other occasions.
 I happen to admire Bob Kraft for his loyalty toward his
friends, even when dead; I count this a great quality in a
person. As I pointed out, sometimes Smith did not share this
quality (re: Parker and Neusner, for example). And I want to
state emphatically that Helmut Koester also possesses this
quality, even at great cost to himself (as in the Bob Funk
affair). Hence Helmut has loyally defended Smith through the
years, and gave him a forum at Harvard when he otherwise would
have been dismissed out of hand. Helmut is an honest scholar,
and a great scholar. He and I disagree about many matters of
N.T. scholarship, but he has never dismissed me or my work as a
consequence. He was my department chairman at the time of my
second major broadside against the Q-hypothesis (at SBL in
Chicago, six years after my first), and even then he only
declined to speak to me for two days! Then all was well again. 
I cannot want for a better friend and colleague. 
 May I suggest that when we evaluate the written legacy of a
scholar, we also take the trouble to read the written legacy of
those who have faulted that scholar's legacy. Apparently Smith
has supporters of his views who have not bothered to read the
reviews and follow-up work. (And among these I do NOT count
either Bob Kraft or Helmut Koester.) 
Edward Hobbs   

From:	"[email-masked]" "Edgar M. Krentz" 15-JUN-1995 11:22:23.14
To:	"[email-masked]" Subj:	Secret Gospel of Mark There was a
recent lengthy string about the _Secret Gospel of Mark_ published by
Morton Smith. Those interested may want to read a reent article: A. H.
Criddle, "On the Mar Saba Letter Attributed to Clement of Alexandria,"
_Journal of Early Christian Studies_ 2,3 (Summer 1995) 215-220.
Criddle argues that the Clement letter is spurious and that _Secret
Mark_ is therefore of dubious authenticity. His argument is based on a
model of vocabulary statisitics that he and an analysis of
uaantitative rhythms. Edgar Krentz <[email-masked]>        

Glenn Wooden
Acadia Divinity College
Wolfville N.S.
Canada

[email-masked]