Book Reviews

Stephen Carlson's

Gospel Hoax

[spacer]
Page Contents:
  Order Your Copy Today From Amazon.com

Summary

Full Review Below
Book Reviewed Our Rating
Title:
Gospel Hoax
Author:
Stephen Carlson
Binding:
Paperback, 151 pages
Publisher:

Baylor U. Press: November, 2005
ISBN:
1932792481
List Price:
$19.95
Buy Now For: $13.57
 (32%)
Buy This Book Now
From Amazon.com
Review Date:
27 December, 2005
Reviewer:
J. P. Holding
We Recommend This Book

Recommended

Book Description:
Not available.

Bookshop Summary:
Makes an excellent case for the "Secret Mark" Gospel being an academic prank created by its main sponsor, Morton Smith. May be too techincal for the layman at times and some points are a little far-fetched, but the case is still solid.

Go To Top Of This Page
Mark Down


A Review of Stephen Carlson's Gospel Hoax

by
J. P. Holding
|

Make sure you see the subtitle before you mistake it for a Tony Bushby rant: "Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark". Not many gave Secret Mark much credence in the first place, and those that did always had to treat it differently than the canonical Gospels. Some even raised the suggestion that Smith had forged the thing. Well, in this book Carlson slam-dunks the case for Secret Mark being marked down as Morton Smith's little inside joke on the academy.

Some points made by Carlson -- an attorney -- are more convincing than others. I found especially solid his points that 1) the alleged Clementine letter that Secret Mark is quoted in [55] doesn't cohere with the rules of Greco-Roman letter writing; 2) commits a serious anachronism [61] with respect to the nature of ancient versus modern salt; and 3) the Secret Mark quote uses a phrase with specific sexual connotation ("spent the night") that would not have cohered in ancient Greek. Other arguments are less convincing and seem contrived (eg, the connection made for point 2 between "Morton" Smith and "Morton" Salt!), but as a whole, Carlson has done an excellent job in uncovering this academic prank. The only question that remains open is, will scholars who have become so enamored of Secret Mark be willing now to let it go and let bygone theories be bygone theories?

Go To Top Of This Page