Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Peter Jeffery's response to Scott Brown

Peter has asked me to post a link to his response to Scott Brown's review of his book The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled, because RBL will not publish it. I am happy to do this. But I just want to note that as far as I know it is not RBL's policy to publish authors' responses to any reviews that are written of our books. If this were done, then it would not be a Review publication, but a Debate publication. One of the nice things about the blog world, however, is that it allows us some measure of response and recourse if we feel it necessary.

Other reviews and discussion of the Secret Gospel of Mark are being tracked HERE.

3 comments:

greg said...

Dear April,
I have been reading your blog now for about a year. I find it very interesting.
I was very impressed with Scott Brown's >Mark’s Other Gospel< especially his idea that the problem with Morton Smith is not that he invented this other gospel but that his interpretation is somewhat off.
Browns review of Peter Jeffery's work appears to me to be convincing as well.
Has the work of Morton Smith now been successfully repudiated or is the jury still out?

Greg
www.egyptology.com

April DeConick said...

Greg,

From what I can tell the jury is still out. There are scholars who have dug their heels in on both sides of this issue, hurling good arguments back and forth.

Smith himself vehemently denied the accusations, and he is no longer alive to defend himself.

I have tried to stay out of the discussion because it just cannot be resolved until we are able to locate the manuscript (if ever!) and test the ink for its age. Anything less than this is speculation on our part.

Also I hate to think that Morton Smith would have done such a thing. He was such a fascinating scholar and, over the years, his writing has taught me so much about esoteric traditions.

Robert Conner said...

Carlson's good argument consisted of declaring a document to be a forgery without having actually ever seen the document in question or having any expertise in paleography or document verification. Jeffery's good argument basically consists of 100 or so pages of gay bashing a scholar whose qualifications exceeded his own by several orders of magnitude. Both of these writers are frauds.