In any event, I graduated from Glendon College of York but for the life of me I don't remember where Vanier is. It turns out a Google search reveals it is located at the main campus. All I remember being located up there on Keele St. (about a thousand miles from downtown Toronto) is La Sem, Party Packagers and a lot of sleazy massage parlours set up for old married Sicilian men in the neighbourhood (notice when I write in Canadian English I add the appropriate 'u' to words that normally end in 'or' in American English i.e. 'parlor' 'neighbor' etc.). Pretty soon I will start talking again about 'bank machines' instead of ATMs and 'drug stores' instead of pharmacies.
In any event I think the Silver Dollar was located across the street from York too. I wonder if that is still around? Maybe I go over there during some of the less interesting presentations. Anyway, here is the schedule with my comments:
The Case for AuthenticityI like Charlie even if he is still mad that I published that interview with Agamemnon Tselikas before getting Tselikas's explicit approval. I have always been clumsy in social situations. In any event, if I was to go to this conference I would actually get up for this one (even though it would mean getting out of bed the equivalent of 4:00 am PST). I like his main argument - there is no argument for forgery so why are we even debating authenticity. Then again there wouldn't be a conference if we took that approach.
9:15-9:30 “Secret Mark: Moving on from Stalemate,” Charles Hedrick (Missouri State University, Missouri)
This paper will briefly survey the status quo of scholarship on the Letter to Theodore and a Secret Gospel of Mark, and argue that, with the failure of the modern forgery theorists to make their case, research has no choice but to move on to a study the missing manuscript itself by means of the photographs. The paper, working back from the 18th century, argues that the sudden appearance of a previously unknown 2/3rd century manuscript in 18th century handwriting is not unusual. During the Renaissance, the classics of Greco-Roman tradition were recovered in versions much later than the time of their original composition—including texts previously unknown. The Letter to Theodore is taken seriously as deriving from the 2/3rd century, while Ernest Best’s argument that the longer excerpt of Secret Mark is “too much like Mark” to be Mark is found to be unconvincing. On the other hand, if the excerpts from a Longer Gospel of Mark in the Letter to Theodore are forgeries, they are likely to be early forgeries created in the context of Greco-Roman education, which stressed imitation as an important way of learning.
9:30-9:45 Response: Bruce Chilton (Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, New York)
I've talked to Bruce Chilton before. Nice enough guy. I have a problem with any author who writes about the 'Jewish Jesus' without spending the appropriate amount of time demonstrating that how much hatred there is in Jewish sources for Jesus. Growing up I only new about Jesus as the gay son of Josef Pandera. But live and let live. One of the few surprises. I wonder if the conference paid for his airplane ticket.
The Case for Forgery
10:00-10:15 “Morton Smith and the Secret Gospel of Mark: Exploring the Grounds for Doubt,” Craig Evans (Acadia Divinity College, Wolfville, Nova Scotia)
Although at one time I accepted Morton Smith’s account of his 1958 discovery of a lost letter of Clement of Alexandria, in which a longer edition of the Gospel of Mark is discussed and quoted, I no longer do so. I have doubts primarily because of a number of coincidences. The most troubling are these: (1) In three publications prior to the claimed discovery at Mar Saba Smith discussed the very elements that came to light in the discovery; and (2) Smith’s visit to Mar Saba, including his description of his frame of mind during the visit, parallels that of a fictional archaeologist in James Hunter’s novel, The Mystery of Mar Saba, published in 1940. The parallels are so close, one suspects influence, even dependence. Because Hunter’s novel predates Smith’s “discovery” by some 18 years, one must wonder if the novel served as Smith’s inspiration. For purposes of comparison Paul Coleman-Norton’s “Amusing Agraphon,” which is almost certainly a hoax, will also be discussed.
10:15-10:30 Response: Allan J. Pantuck (University of California, Los Angeles)
Craig Evans stuff on the rabbinic tradition is surprisingly insightful. It goes without saying that he has expertise on the Patristic writings. But his faith blinds him to nuance in their writings. I have never seen him write one insightful thing about Clement of Alexandria so I don't see how he becomes an expert on Clement or has any right to make a pronouncement on whether the Letter to Theodore is Clementine. He should probably keep his mouth shut about this topic because it is one of the few weak spots in his resume but his need to 'defend the faith' from the 'homosexual agenda' probably compelled him to make a fool of himself. In any event, he's from 'down East' so it's nice to see flickers of intellectual life from that part of Canada.
What am I going to say about Allan Pantuck. We're the same age and come from a similar background (at least on paper). My parents were just getting out of concentration camps when his parents were graduating from medical school. I'd like to go to Toronto just to meet my much, much more successful twin brother but I am afraid he'd be too embarrassed by antics to want to have me show him all the best Chinese restaurants in the city.
BTW the ONLY good thing about Toronto other than Niagara Falls strip clubs are the Chinese restaurants. They are as good as anywhere in China or Hong Kong. I remember going to Italy once and ordering food from what was called a 'Chinese restaurant.' I got durham wheat pasta with soy sauce.
10:45-11:00 Break
11:00-11:15 Report on Handwriting Analyses, Hershel Shanks (Editor, Biblical Archaeology Review)
Another MOT. That stupid Samaritan I hang out with told me he was a Christian. Why do I listen to Benny? He's never been right about anything. In any event. I have a history with Hershel. Nice guy. I wonder if he will explain why he hasn't published Agamemnon Tselikas's report. I'd say something but I think Memos reads my blog so I will keep my mouth shut except for saying I really liked the idea of Morton Smith the secret agent ...
11:15-12:00 pm General Discussion
WTF does 'General Discussion' mean? I assume if they only allow the rabble to engage the panelists at the end of the conference that we, in the audience, will hear more of the boring 'debate' between these fuddy duddies? Probably. I would have thought some entertainment would be in order. I know all the entertainers in Toronto. I thought I would get together with some ex-Cirque du Soleil people and do a mime reproduction of Morton Smith's alleged forgering complete with sneaking into the library and planting the book and coming back a number of time to make sure that no one checks that it is a recent production. It would bring the house down.
1:30-1:45 “The Young Streaker in Secret and Canonical Mark,” Marvin Meyer (Chapman University, California)
This paper, which assumes the authenticity of the Secret Gospel of Mark, focuses attention upon the several references to the youth, or neaniskos, in Secret and Canonical Mark. Such a youth, sometimes fleeing and often naked, is also to be found in other literary and artistic contexts. In the paper these literary and artistic presentations are surveyed, and their significance is assessed. The references to the youth in Markan literature are then studied, individually and in possible relation to one another, and conclusions are drawn about the neaniskos as a thematic literary element in Secret and Canonical Mark employed to further Mark's message of discipleship in the face of the cross.
I like Meyer and not just because he's on my side in the debate. I knew most of these people as books on my library shelves before I got interest in this debate. Meyer used to have a virtual cottage industry of books on gnosticism before April deConick slapped him over the Gospel of Thomas translation. She's such a bitch (I mean that in the modern 'bitch' as a sign of empowerment way).
I don't know what I can say about topic other than I think I read this all in a Meyer book about a decade ago. Maybe he has come up with some new ideas but it sounds like a complete retread of things he has already written.
2:00-2:15 “Halfway Between Sabbatai Tzevi and Aleister Crowley: Morton Smith’s ‘Own Concept of What Jesus “Must” Have Been’ and, Once Again, the Question of Evidence,” Pierluigi Piovanelli (University of Ottawa)
The recently published correspondence between Morton Smith and Gershom Scholem (1945-1982) provides new clues and insight into Smith’s intellectual itinerary. Smith claimed that in 1958 at Mar Saba, he discovered a fragment of a lost letter attributed to Clement of Alexandria which contained two quotations taken from a Secret Gospel of Mark. In fact, it seems far more plausible that Smith created the document himself, not in order to ridicule his colleagues, but rather, with the intention of promoting a new approach to the study of the Historical Jesus and Early Christianity.
This seems like the stupidest presentation in the whole conference. I don't think he has any clue about Sabbatian traditions other than the exaggerated things he might have read in Scholem. If I decide to go there I will make sure he doesn't make any disparaging comments about my heritage. It's Canada after all. Sean Hannity and Glen Beck would have been put in jail if they worked over there.
2:30-2:45 “What did he know and when did he know it? Further Excavations from the Morton Smith Archives,”Allan J. Pantuck (University of California, Los Angeles)
The theory that Morton Smith forged the Letter to Theodore presupposes both that he possessed all the expertise needed to create it and that he composed it for a specific purpose and with an intended interpretation prior to “discovering” it in 1958. This theory is possible to test. While there is no doubt that Morton Smith was an extremely competent scholar, was proficient in reading various ancient languages, and was acquainted with Greek manuscripts, there is little evidence that Smith, prior to his discovery, possessed an intimate knowledge of the writings of Clement of Alexandria sufficient to compose a de novo, original composition in Patristic Greek that would successfully imitate Clement’s complex thought, vocabulary, and writing style. Further, it has been persuasively established that Smith lacked the paleographic skills to physically write the Letter’s natural, free flowing, native eighteenth-century cursive Greek hand. A global survey of archival Smith papers and correspondence suggests both that Smith lacked the necessary abilities and motives to produce a text such as the Letter to Theodore in the 1950s, and that during the five years between 1958 and the completion of the first draft of Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark in June 1963, he was in fact developing his understanding of the letter’s significance and doing the research that he presented in this book.
If I go at all it will be for this presentation. Already I've been told by all my ex-mistresses and girlfriends they have no interest in seeing me - which in a way is reassuring because it means they must have felt something for me. At least that's what I tell myself. Pantuck's article in BAR was absolutely wonderful. I am looking forward to hearing what he has to say here.
2:45-3:00 Discussion
3:15-3:30 “Clement's Mysteries and Morton Smith's Magic,” Peter Jeffery (University of Notre Dame, Indiana)
The use by early Christian writers of vocabulary from the ancient mystery cults has been debated since the 17th century, but it is now possible to see that it represents a coalescence of idioms that were originally distinct. This is particularly clear in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, who describes the Christian sacraments, including the public reading of the scriptures, using glossaries from (1) Jewish apocalyptic, reapplied in the New Testament to the Incarnation of Jesus, (2) philosophical writing by Plato, and (3) typological, exegesis derived from Philo. The Mar Saba document, however, seems to follow the Clement of the Protrepticus, who was using mystery vocabulary literally in his disparaging descriptions of actual mystery cults. In this it seems to follow Morton Smith’s idiosyncratic understanding of “magic,” which made no distinctions among phenomena like shamanism, mysticism, divination, sacraments, miraculous healing, and so on—or among ancient Jewish, Greek, Egyptian, Near Eastern, Christian and Gnostic sources. For Smith, all forms of magic were the same, fraudulent attempts to induce paranormal experiences which, though they may be described in language of heavenly ascent, are fundamentally, or at least metaphorically, about (homo)sexual climax. Thus the writings of Smith provide the frame that makes sense out of the Mar Saba letter of “Clement,” just as the letter provides the frame that makes sense out of the “gospel excerpts.”
I should just go to respond to this idiotic line of argument. The Exhortation was written in response to anti-Christian polemics like Celsus's True Word where the Christian mystery religion at Alexandria was trashed in favor of the sublimity of the pagan originators. Why doesn't he read Chadwick? What are his sources for this? Anyway, I have said about this one. I actually think Jeffrey is an interesting guy who seems to be a great dad to his kids. Why does he continue to develop arguments against the discovery? I don't know but that's his perogative I guess.
3:45-4:00 “Behind the Seven Veils, I: The Gnostic Life Setting of the Mystic Gospel of Mark,” Scott Brown (Independent Scholar, Toronto)
An accurate understanding the life setting of the mystikon Gospel of Mark, as this is described in the Letter to Theodore, is vital to assessing the letter’s authenticity. Previous attempts to define this life setting have focused on the statement that this gospel was read “only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.” Are these persons candidates for baptism, as Morton Smith and most other scholars have reasoned? Or are they instead the most advanced students in Clement’s school (the “true gnostics”), as I have argued? The present paper expands on my previous studies by demonstrating, first, that the great mysteries in Clement’s undisputed writings are esoteric teachings pertaining to the noetic world, and second, that the letter confirms this meaning through its statement that the interpretation of the mystikon gospel “leads the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of the sevenfold veiled truth.” The decisive relevance of this metaphor has previously been overlooked: in Clement’s undisputed works, entering the innermost sanctuary connotes the mystical experience of perceiving the noetic world and rising incrementally through it (Strom. V.6.32.1–40.4; VI.8.68; Exc. 27.1–6). Initiation into the great mysteries and entry into the innermost sanctuary therefore describe the same thing—instruction in, and apprehension of, the unwritten gnostic tradition.
The readers should ignore everything I say about Scott because - let's face it - I am jealous of him. His piece for BAR was too long and went way over the heads of 90% of its readership but it was absolutely brilliant and became the last word on the handwriting analysis (at least for now). I am sure this presentation will be well researched and interesting. I think the whole conference was established so that Scott could make his presentation. Should be very interesting (even if it sounds like he has developed many of the ideas of Andrew Itter's recent book. I know the organizers asked Itter to attend but he couldn't make it. I hope Brown's presentation isn't just a retread of the book with some window dressing. If I fly 3000 miles I hope to gain some insight I could not otherwise get from a book. To be honest, aside from Pantuck's presentation there doesn't seem to be much new here. But what do I know. Life is a box of chocolates I guess.
7:00-9:00 pm Public Forum
Introductions: Tony Burke (York University)
Chair: Phil Harland (York University)
Panelists: Scott Brown (Independent Scholar, Toronto), Craig Evans (Acadia Divinity College, Wolfville, Nova Scotia), Peter Jeffery (University of Notre Dame, Indiana), Marvin Meyer (Chapman University)
This is when they let the canaille out of their kennels. If I went to this thing, would I stand up and ask a question? And to whom would I address it? I've decided on something while writing this. I will only go if one of my readers comes with me. Even if I managed to get one of my exes to accompany me, it would cost me (shoes, dinner, something). I am only going to go if someone says they will meet me in Toronto or my Mom reads this post and asks why she isn't important enough to warrant an extra trip to see here.
UPDATE - Pierluigi is not a terroni. Ho sbagliato per pensare che Pierluigi Piovanelli che era un terroni. Si è laureato presso l'Università di Firenze, in Italia e ha conseguito il dottorato di ricerca presso l'Università di Torino, Italia. La sinistra unica domanda è perché qualcuno dovrebbe lasciare l'Italia per lavorare in Canada?
