'hoaxer' –noun from 'hoax' denoting those who engage in efforts malign the man who discovered the Letter to Theodore, claiming that Morton Smith instead invented the text as part of an elaborate 'hoax' to fool the world. Peter Jeffrey and I have had some limited - and indeed cordial - correspondences. None of what appears in this post applies to him. I am going to get a recording of the Samaritan liturgy for the seventh day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and actually send it to Jeffrey along with the pertinent citations from Mark (Marqe) when Benny Tsedaka comes over to my house next week.
I believe in the power of music. I hope that it can correct his fixation on the fourth century Alexandrian liturgy. If he truly believes in the words of the Christian Apostle there is always hope we can change his mind.So let's leave Jeffrey out of this discussion. I believe he sincerely loves music. As such with this beautiful music I think he can be brought over to the opinion that WE CAN'T SAY ANYTHING DEFINITIVE about To Theodore. Let's get to why I started writing this post. Here's what happened yesterday ...
I posted a response to Andrew Criddle's latest attacks against Secret Mark and guess what? My comments weren't even posted. Zut alors! Who would guess that these guys have no interest in hearing any other explanation for the alleged 'anomalies' in To Theodore other than the fact that they point back to a 'hoax' on the part of the text's discoverer, Morton Smith.
All I did was point out to Criddle - a person whose knowledge of the Church Fathers I truly admire - is that his insinuation that 'something is wrong' with the baptismal rites in the text CAN BETTER BE EXPLAINED by understanding that the Alexandrian Church originally baptized their catechumen on the eighth day of Passover.
Again, if this was the Middle Ages or set in the time of the ancient Church, I could accept that 'one side' didn't want to hear any other explanation other than 'their understanding.' But Criddle is SUPPOSED to be engaging in scientific research! He is supposed to let the best explanation of a phenomenon win the day.
As I see it we have a handful of explanations to consider. There is the idea that the baptismal practices of the Alexandrian church in the fourth century were already established at the time of Clement - an opinion promoted by Jeffrey, Smith and Talley in some form AND latched onto of late by Carlson and his partner Criddle. Then there is Brown's argument that the initiation in To Theodore DOESN'T HAVE TO BE understood in terms of being baptism rite. I am honest enough to identify this as a cop out.
Finally, there is my argument that EVERYTHING about the description in To Theodore points to it being set on the last day of Passover or - if you prefer the Samaritan (and early Christian terminology) the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
The arguments FOR this proposition SHOULD BE well known to Criddle. He is after all a recognized expert in the writings of the Church Fathers. Much has been written of the significance of the seventh day of Passover in the early Church. The range of sources which could be used to support the idea that what is described in To Theodore is a baptismal initiation BASED ON AN ORIGINAL PRACTICE OCCURRING ON THE SEVENTH DAY OF THE FESTIVAL OF UNLEAVENED BREAD (in Israel, on the eighth day outside of the Eretz Israel) would include the Apostle of Christianity ('Paul'), the Gospel of Peter, the Liber Pontificalis, Marcion, Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandra, Aphraates and Epiphanius.
That's a pretty impressive list if I may say myself.
The arguments integrating these various ancient sources - all known to Criddle in some form - appear at this site. My Blogger ID link to this site. Criddle has accepted posts from other people who disagree with his interpretation - albeit with weaker arguments.
So what is he afraid of?
Is it that I am disqualified because I engage in 'conspiracy theories'? The author whose site he posts his article is identified by others in the field as engaging in 'conspiracy theories.' Is it because he feels this site is not important enough to warrant his interest?
I have news for Criddle - my site has more readers than Hypotyposeis by any measure. Here are the latest Alexa statistics:
Hypotyposeis
Yesterday - -
7 day - -
1 month 2,992,213 +708,271
3 month 2,512,343 +497,957
Stephan Huller's Observations
Yesterday - -
7 day 2,276,952 -513,501
1 month 2,337,865 -
3 month 4,525,659 -55,501
I am not saying that Carlson's site isn't great. I like to read it. I think that he is remarkably knowledgeable for a conspiracy theorist ...
The difference between him and I is that when Peter Jeffrey posts things at my site I treat him with the respect he deserves. I may not agree with his conclusions but he is nevertheless presenting ideas which have influenced my understanding and I have credited him with changing my mind on a number of key issues with regards to Secret Mark.
Of course, Criddle CAN'T post my comments because somewhere in his heart of hearts he knows that there is SOMETHING to the ideas I am promoting. He can't deny that it is AT LEAST POSSIBLE - if not probable - that the Alexandrian Church at Clement's day did indeed baptize its catechumen based on a tradition associated with the seventh day of seven day festival EXACTLY AS SECRET MARK and Clement infer. That is why he can't post my comments. He needs to have certainty to promote the idea that the text is a fraud.
Of course this is a sad state of affairs. It demonstrates that the only hoax that is being perpetrated here is the illusion that these men are really engaging in anything that resembles a scientific methodology.
Remember, the defenders of the authenticity of To Theodore need only play for a draw (like an Italian soccer team of old). The onus is upon the hoaxers to PROVE that the only logical conclusion we can draw from the evidence is that Morton Smith engaged in forgery of some kind.
I put forward that this CANNOT be maintained based on the state of research to date.
UPDATE: I have been looking at Carlson's site trying to figure out why his numbers should have had such a dramatic drop this month. There are a number of explanations of course but I wonder if I am reading too much in these comments that appear in a post at the beginning of the month (Dec 2, 2009) "The Top 50 rankings are finished. Over. Done ... Of course, we all know what the real problem was. Let’s face it: Jim was the Goliath of the bibliobloggers and the rest of us were a bunch of David wannabees, hoping one day to knock the Giant of the top ranking but never quite able to handle the sling ... Clearly, the maintainer of the Top 50 has lost interest in the apparently futile attempt to conquer this giant."
I just wonder ...
Is it Carlson who lost interest in 'catching' Jim West? Is it Carlson who discontinued attempting to augment his numbers? In other words, given his conviction that ALL bibliobloggers were attempting to increase their numbers to equal Jim West it would stand to reason that he was engaged in things which would 'pump up' his numbers. He still writes a consistent number of posts. Hmmmm ... It seems ironic that Carlson 'proved' Morton Smith's engineering a fraud with less evidence than this ...
