The Mar Saba 'Controversy' - Why it All Comes Down to a Scholarly 'Grudge Match'

Those scholars who actively promote the hoax proposition can be divided into two categories, in other words I discovered some nuance in the academic typology. There are the homophobes to be sure. Given that most of these people are 'men of faith' it is hardly surprising that they will place undo emphasis on the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality (the Torah condemns haircuts, intermarriage and a host of other things that they pass over quite willingly). Yet I never realized that the obvious motivation for a lot of these otherwise erudite men developed from a loyalty to the execrable Jacob Neusner, the man who Morton Smith publicly and rightly condemned for misrepresenting the true heritage of Judaism.

The reader doesn't have to understand the complexities of this dispute between Morton Smith and Jacob Neusner. I will write a lengthy post about the irreparable harm that Neusner did to the study of Judaism shortly. It is enough to see the effects of this abuse by the fact that there are so many Christian evangelicals who use Neusner to harmonize what are essentially irreconcilable traditions - viz. rabbinic Judaism and normative Christianity.

These students of Neusner have actually had a great contemporary political influence in transforming American evangelic Christianity into what is effectively a new kind of heresy - Christian Zionism. The metamorphosis of Jesus into a Jewish rabbi could only have been facilitated by Neusner's absolute misrepresentation of what Judaism is and Chilton's ignorance of Clement of Alexandria's extreme monophysitism (Jesus being a wholly angelic being a la Marcion).

While Morton Smith rightly attacked Neusner for betraying the tradition of the 'hidden' within Judaism, Neusner's intimates could only see Smith's discovery of the Mar Saba document as a forgery because they were immediately aware of its implications. Their false synthesis of Judaism and Christianity was effectively challenged by a document that really wasn't controversial if you were familiar with the writings of Clement.

Clement was wholly indebted to Philo's Pythagorean/Platonic exegesis of the Jewish scriptures. Indeed Alexandrian Christianity was completely rooted in Philo. As a freethinker of neo-Sabbatean extraction I was born into the idea that the principles of exegesis of my ancestors went back to Moses. In other words, I believed that 'kabbalah' was an authentic part of the religious heritage of all Jews at all times. Now, after studying Clement of Alexandria (in no small part owing to the Mar Saba controversy) I am not so sure.

I can see a plausible argument that 'kabbalah' was a development of Alexandrian Judaism. We have very little to guide us through the Alexandrian Jewish literary genre. Indeed we are stuck with Philo as its only real voice. To this end, I am forced to concede that much of what is promoted in Jewish esoteric circles probably developed from Alexandria.

It is difficult to posit a beginning for this Alexandrian Jewish Pythagoreanism but the one thing that has been overlooked by scholars is the uncanny similarities which exist between the writings of Mark the architect of the surviving Samaritan religious cultus (i.e. Marqe bin Tute/Amram).  Broadie studied under John MacDonald, a pioneer in the study of Samaritanism, and his a Samaritan Philosophy (Brill 1981) is a provocative analysis of the unmistakable parallels between Mark and Philo.  One might go one step further and identify Marqe with Philo if it were not for the obvious difficulties.

In any event, Alexandrian Christianity developed from the tradition of Philo and so the emergence of a document from the Mar Saba monastery with hints of Pythagorean/Platonic mysticism is hardly surprising.  It is only a reflection of the shape and character of Clement's acknowledged writings.

We should have no problem with a debate about the authenticity of the Mar Saba document or any other lost manuscript.  Yet the perpetuation of a controversy that has no substantive basis other than a grudge match between two men, one dead and unable to defend himself and the other a scholar of dubious qualifications who happened to cultivate a large following among desperate and ignorant white people.

To his credit though it is a marvel that somebody could become an authority on the rabbinic writings without adequate knowledge of Rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic.  I was just watching an HBO special on Jerry Weintraub and was chuckling to myself that only my people - the people of the tribe - have ever had this kind of cleverness.  Weintraub at least admits he's bullshitter.  But then again to be fair - people who actually had a firm grasp of Hebrew and Aramaic knew Neusner for what he was.

I will have a lot more about Neusner in upcoming posts (I, unlike the hoaxers attack the living not the dead). For the moment, I tell my readers, don't be deceived. There is no case for claiming that the Mar Saba document is a forgery. When you hear people answer 'but why are so many excellent scholars advocating this position?' - you only have to remember this. Since the time of Plato, the devotion of students to their teachers eclipsed even that of their parents. Much of the 'controversy' is attributable to a misplaced sense of loyalty on the part of Neusner's students. It's a grudge match rather than a real academic debate.

The 'homosexual question' is a red herring to distract from their inadequacies of their instructor. Because let's face it. Questioning the authority of Neusner is in effect plucking at the laurels of the foundation of Craig Evans and Bruce Chilton's worldview.

 But as they say 'castles made of sand, fall in the sea, eventually ...'