Discussion:Morton Smith

Aucune expertise ni aucune source secondaire

On peut croire à l'authenticité de ce prétendu document qui n'a été examiné par aucun expert, comme on peut croire à l'authenticité du suaire de Turin ou à la théière de Russell. Merci de ne plus supprimer les sources telles que Nock, Ehrman, etc., qui ont dénoncé ce canular. Si vous trouvez des sources de qualité, elles seront bienvenues. Sinon, vos modifications seront revertées. Juger de l'authenticité d'un prétendu document dont on n'a que des photographies produites par son soi-disant découvreur, cela relève de la fantaisie. Cdt, Manacore (discuter) 14 janvier 2018 à 23:31 (CET)

Contrairement à ce que vous prétendez, je n'ai supprimé aucune de vos citations. Toutefois vous ne citez pas Nock mais le juriste Rouvillois. Il y aurait lieu de citer le passage authentique de Nock s'il existe, d'ailleurs celui-ci étant mort en 1963 n'a pas pu lire le livre de Morton Smith publié en 1973. D'autre part les propos de Ehrman sont du domaine des imprécations contre Smith plutôt que des arguments. Libre à vous de mettre en doute des photographies, mais l'auteur, chercheur de haut niveau, qui est cité n'a pas votre opinion à ce sujet--2A02:A03F:50CA:F800:813B:67C2:B08C:4663 (discuter) 14 janvier 2018 à 23:58 (CET)

Des sources secondaires citent-elles des expertises scientifiques ? Où sont donc publiés les résultats ? Manacore (discuter) 15 janvier 2018 à 00:01 (CET)

La lettre trouvée par Morton Smith étant publiée dans l'édition scientifique des œuvres de Clément d'Alexandrie ainsi que dans les Écrits apocryphes chrétiens dans La Pléiade, est un indice que les chercheurs actuels penchent vers l'authenticité.--2A02:A03F:50CA:F800:813B:67C2:B08C:4663 (discuter) 15 janvier 2018 à 00:43 (CET)

Ce ne sont là que vos déductions personnelles, autrement dit un TI. Vous ne parvenez visiblement pas à trouver des résultats d'analyses scientifiques ni des sources secondaires récentes et fiables en faveur de l'authenticité. Manacore (discuter) 15 janvier 2018 à 00:56 (CET)

Là n'est pas le but, cela dépasse notre compétence, l'important est de faire connaître les divers point de vue en présence d'une manière neutre. Je n'exprime nulle part dans l'article ces déductions personnelles, mais le poids scientifique d'éditeurs sérieux doit inciter à ne pas rejeter d'un revers de manche leurs travaux en criant au hoax. Vos arguments et vos apport tendant à équilibrer les points de vues sont bien sûr bienvenus.--2A02:A03F:50CA:F800:6DE6:EDEC:318A:FE5B (discuter) 15 janvier 2018 à 10:36 (CET)

Toujours aucune source secondaire récente et de qualité ? Toujours pas d'expertise scientifique ? Manacore (discuter) 15 janvier 2018 à 15:04 (CET)

En tout cas, il faut rendre hommage à votre honnêteté. Vous avez su produire des sources à charge et à décharge. Et vous avez notamment retrouvé celle que je cherchais : le long article de Piovanelli en 2011. C'était à cela que je me référais en commentaire de diff lorsque j'indiquais que les sources secondaires vont de plus en plus dans le sens d'une mystification. Mais impossible de me rappeler le titre, l'auteur... Piovanelli emploie entre autres le mot d'"intimidation", et par ailleurs les démêlés de Smith avec diverses universités expliquent peut-être un certain nombre de choses - dont son attitude mais aussi l'agacement perceptible dans la remarque d'Ehrman. Je me suis donc permis de réutiliser votre ref à la fin du passage chronologique. Dernier point, très mineur : sur wp, les "puces" (*) ne sont possibles que dans les listes proprement dites, par exemple les bibliographies ou les énumérations de "liens" en fin d'article. Encore merci ! Cdt, Manacore (discuter) 18 janvier 2018 à 01:09 (CET)

Remarques

Sorry for writing this in English, but I’m unable to write in French. I hope I have correctly understood the French. First some remarks regarding claims made in the article.

1. Morton Smith was not born on May 29 1915, but in fact on May 28 (See sources in the Swedish article on Morton Smith https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Smith )
2. Morton Smith was not 26 years old when he made the discovery in 1958, but 43 years old (1958–1915=43).
3. If I correctly understand the French text, it’s incorrect to say that the book is missing. It’s still in the library. It’s the two end pages with the letter that are lost. They were torn out of the book by the librarian in the late 70’s and haven’t been seen since 1990.
4. There are at least two pairs of photos taken of the letter. Black and white taken by Morton Smith in 1958, colour photographs taken later by the librarian Kallistos Dourvas. Both sets have been published. The source given is from 1997. The colour photos were published by Hedrick and Olympiou in 2000.
5. In the article Stroumsa et al. are said to have seen the letter in 1976, a year before the letter was transferred to the Patriarchate. In fact, they were the ones who took the book with the letter to the Patriarchate Library in Jerusalem. They took the book with them in 1976 to have it scientifically tested. However, this was never done and it was left in the library in Jerusalem.
6. It should also be said that one of the so-called critics, Quentin Quesnell, himself had access to the letter for one week of study in 1983. He is the last known person outside of the Patriarchate to have seen the letter.

I also think it’s odd to have almost all the article on Morton Smith devoted to L'Évangile secret de Marc. Shouldn’t this be a separate article? Further, it is strange to have almost the entire part on L'Évangile secret de Marc devoted to those who think it is a forgery and give no attention to the arguments presented by those who think it is genuine. It is also strange that Scott G. Brown isn’t even mentioned (apart from his book and one of his articles being listed in the Bibliographie) and his researched isn’t given any notice, He has after all written more extensibly on the subject than anyone else and has even his Ph.D. on L'Évangile secret de Marc. For a list of relevant articles and books on the subject, see the Swedish article on L'Évangile secret de Marc https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemliga_Markusevangeliet ). As far as I can tell, the article does not give a single solid argument for the letter being a forgery, apart from naming people who believe so. As the article stands it is, in my opinion, biased. Roger Viklund (discuter) 18 janvier 2018 à 17:39 (CET)

Excusez-moi, mais tout ce que l'on trouve sur Internet est que Roger Viklund est un autodidacte publié à compte d'auteur. Il semble être sur :sv le principal rédacteur de l'article sur la prétendue "découverte" de Morton Smith, ainsi que, sur :en et :sv, de l'article sur Scott G. Brown, lequel a écrit une thèse (non publiée) pour tenter de démontrer qu'il ne s'agirait pas d'une falsification. Cela ne semble pas d'un grand poids face à des sommités internationales comme Joseph Fitzmyer ou Bart D. Ehrman, entre autres, qui ont démasqué le faussaire. Pour ne rien dire de la synthèse de Piovanelli, en 2011. Merci, donc, de ne plus essayer de faire passer l'état de l'art pour un prétendu "biais". Manacore (discuter) 20 janvier 2018 à 20:36 (CET)

Well, there is really no need for me to defend myself, as this isn’t about me. All the same and for what it’s worth, together with Timo Paananen I have published two articles in renowned peer review journals on the Lettre de Mar Saba and Évangile secret de Marc. Viklund, Roger; Paananen, Timo S. (2013), ”Distortion of the Scribal Hand in the Images of Clement’s Letter to Theodore”, Vigiliae Christianae 67: 235–247 and Paananen, Timo S.; Viklund, Roger (2015). ”An Eighteenth-Century Manuscript: Control of the Scribal Hand in Clement’s Letter to Theodore”. in F. Amsler, Apocrypha: Revue internationale des littératures apocryphes. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols. pp. 261–297. Vigiliae Christianae claims to be the “leading journal in its field” and “Apocrypha is published with the scholarly assistance of the Association pour l'Étude de la Littérature Apocryphe Chrétienne (AELAC) and the Société pour l'Étude de la Littérature Apocryphe Chrétienne (SELAC)” and the peer review is “single-blind undertaken by a specialist member of the Board or an external specialist”. I would say that this would qualify for being scholarly.

But that is really beside the point, as Wikipedia never was meant to rely on the authority of the author of the Wikipedia article, but on sound scholarly sources. I have only pointed out some errors of fact in this article and said that the part on Évangile secret de Marc is biased. It is biased no matter of my own opinion on this subject. The scholarly community is divided and there are many positions among these scholars. But simplified one can say that some of those scholars who have published on this subject think that the letter is genuine, and some think that it is not. Since there are two camps and nothing is settled and you choose to present the opinion of just one camp and ignore the other, the article will automatically be biased – even if everything said would be true, which it isn’t. Take for instance Stephen Carlson’s so-much praised book The Gospel Hoax, which are referred to in this article. The fact is that it has been thoroughly debunked and almost everything new Carlson presented has been shown to be wrong. Even Piovanelli dismisses it:

“In other words, did Smith commit what Carlson considers to be “an academic hoax” in order to ridicule those “preachers” with no philological and linguistic skills who had dared to humiliate him? In my opinion, the absence of any clearly identifiable “joke” embedded within the Letter to Theodore, along with Smith’s sincere commitment to true scholarship and, especially, his perseverance in defending the authenticity of his discovery without concessions until the very end, are all elements that tend to militate against Carlson’s overly simplistic hypothesis of a hoax.” (Piovanelli, Pierluigi (2013). ”Halfway Between Sabbatai Tzevi and Aleister Crowley: Morton Smith’s ‘Own Concept of What Jesus ‘Must’ Have Been’ and, Once Again, the Questions of Evidence and Motive”. in Tony Burke, Ancient Gospel or Modern Forgery? The Secret Gospel of Mark in Debate. Proceedings from the 2011 York University Christian Apocrypha Symposium. Eugene, Or.: Cascade Books, p. 169) Roger Viklund (discuter) 21 janvier 2018 à 09:07 (CET)

One could also listen to Bart Ehrman, even though he wrote this back in 2003 before Stephen Carlson’s “the Gospel Hoax” and Scott G. Brown’s “Mark’s Other Gospel” plus all articles in order to refute Carlson, were published, and not least Anastasopoulou’s comparison of the letter’s handwritten text to that of Smith’s with the verdict that it’s highly unlikely that Smith was capable of writing it. Anyway, this is what Ehrman wrote in 2003:

“I should emphasize that the majority of scholars Smith consulted while doing his research were convinced that the letter was authentic, and probably a somewhat smaller majority agreed that the quotations of Secret Mark actually derived from a version of Mark. Even today, these are the majority opinions. But they have never been the full consensus.” (Ehrman, Bart D. (2003), Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford: University Press), pp. 81–82) And he wasn’t that convinced himself, not to mention what he thinks of it today: “I am not willing to say that Smith was a latter-day Dionysius the Renegade, that he forged the letter of Clement which he claimed to discover. My reasons should be obvious. As soon as I say that I am certain he did so, those pages cut from the back of the book will turn up, someone will test the ink, and it will be from the eighteenth century! But maybe Smith forged it.” (Ibid, p. 89). Roger Viklund (discuter) 21 janvier 2018 à 09:28 (CET)