On the Importance of Having a Second Language

Sometimes you just stumble into things ...

It might not be a big deal to most people, but I like to read books in their original languages whenever possible. English was not my first language. So I am quite aware of what it feels like to 'look in' on English as an outsider.

This isn't as clear to many Americans - even the educated - who often only correspond in a meaningful way with fellow English-speakers. Unless of course they are asking for more salsa at the local Mexican restaurant (and even then the 'superiority' of English gets reinforced by the fact that people speaking 'other languages' are essentially 'subordinates').

I have always noticed that it only among English speaking scholars that the idea that Secret Mark is strong. European scholars generally support the authenticity of the Mar Saba Letter or at the very least aren't as convinced of arguments in favor of the idea that it was forged by Morton Smith.

It has long puzzled me why that should be true. So it was that I was looking through some of the interviews that the film production company has been making with scholars all over the world and it just hit me after reading one of the emails from the many European scholars - English speakers inevitably fall into the trap of seeing the words "and he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God" as a sexual reference just because Carlson substitutes the word 'spent' for 'remained' in the sentence.

In other words Carlson (Gospel Hoax p 67) introduces a shade of meaning that is not present in Smith translation in order to prove that "to a twentieth-century scholar, the main Secret Mark passage culminates with a euphemistic suggestion of a casual sexual encounter between the young man and Jesus." The point is that only a European scholar who was not an English speaker would notice the subtle 'trick' that Carlson plays here.

Smith translated the passage as the neaniskos 'remained the night' with Jesus. It was Carlson not Smith the introduces the sexually charged euphemism that the young man 'spent the night.' The reason Smith went with 'remained' is because he was translating someone else's words. One can't imagine that Smith knew that wrote the Greek in such a way to allow Carlson to prove that 'spent the night' was meant.

Yet all of Carlson's arguments have this circularity. Just look at Carlson's claim that Smith left clues of his forgery for him to find. When you stand back from the Gospel Hoax Carlson seems more and more like a huckster from antiquity. Indeed one is left wondering if Smith was ever the 'hoaxer' Carlson claims him to be or whether, Carlson in fact, became the embodiment of the very thing that captivated Smith more than anything else - i.e. a goes whose goeteia deceived a whole generation of English speaking scholars.