Any interpretation that rests on a claim to know the intentions of an unknown ancient writer is a non-starter. The impetus to play “fill in the blanks ” or “connect the dots” is almost too powerful to resist. But the answer to a question for which we have no answer is “I don’t know“, not “-insert favorite explanation-“.
Stephen said
Any interpretation that rests on a claim to know the intentions of an unknown ancient writer is a non-starter. The impetus to play “fill in the blanks ” or “connect the dots” is almost too powerful to resist. But the answer to a question for which we have no answer is “I don’t know“, not “-insert favorite explanation-“.
I think this thread has gone astray.
What is the first version of Mark that we can know?
Clement’s Mark? Carpocrates’ Mark? Canonical Mark? Or something else?
CEJ said
Many folks have argued that, if Smith did not forge Clement’s letter, someone else may have before him.
“Forge”? Aren’t the gospels themselves “forgeries” to the same extent as Secret Mark? Who says that they are the authentic witnesses of Jesus’s life and the beginning of the Christian movement? We don’t know who wrote them. Don’t know what their sources were. All we can say about Secret Mark is that somebody wrote it at some time, just as we know about the Gospels.
jaihare said
CEJ said
Many folks have argued that, if Smith did not forge Clement’s letter, someone else may have before him.
“Forge”? Aren’t the gospels themselves “forgeries” to the same extent as Secret Mark? Who says that they are the authentic witnesses of Jesus’s life and the beginning of the Christian movement? We don’t know who wrote them. Don’t know what their sources were. All we can say about Secret Mark is that somebody wrote it at some time, just as we know about the Gospels.
I suppose all that can be said is that they say that they are the authentic witnesses, which is essentially the problem (especially to the degree that they do not agree with each other).
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)