BE> Masingill to Rice, 4-12-98: ---------------------------
 BE> > Smith, the historian who I heard and read and it IS speculation based
 BE> > on his "beliefs" and his discovery of _The Secret Gospel of Mark_.
 BE> > You can wow others here with it but not me.  I retain my
 BE> Not quite speculation; there is more to it than that.
   Bob, I don't dispute any of what you offer regarding the douments found by
Morton Smith OR their quite probably authenticity but I am VERY curious about
your rigging of this response to me.
   First of all, you were careful NOT to quote the statement set forth by 
ice
as a TRUTH (not a speculation) and THAT is what I challenged and still
challenge.  If an historian wishes to introduce evidence that might indicate
the Jesus band as a homosexual group, I have no objection to that as long as
it is not set forth as PROVEN which Rice's statements declared as though it
were proven fact.  At the moment I could go back and quote it if necessary 
ut
both he and you know that he offered no qualification at all of what he 
tated
flatly as the truth.
   I have also read Thiering's study of the possibility that the scene of the
Jesus story is not Jerusalem but Qumran but simply because she has put a lot
scholarship into it does not make it a proven fact - not yet, anyway.  
   You also did not mention something that Morton Smith gave a LOT of 
mphasis
and that is the betrayal scene where the young man (Mark??) was wearing a
linen cloth and when it was seized he "ran away naked."  Smith placed a great
deal of emphasis on this in his homosexual speculations.  But it is still 
NLY
something in study and by NO MEANS PROVEN.  It does NOT give Frederic Rice or
anybody else the right to state it as fact that Jesus was part of a 
omosexual
band.  I'm not defending either Jesus OR Christianity here - I'm defending 
he
integrity of history. 
 BE> Morton Smith published this stuff in 1973, the received view was that it
 BE> was fraudulent.  More recently, however, nearly all Clement scholars
 BE> believe that the fragment is authentic; that is, that it really did
 BE> appear in letters written by Clement of Alexandria (ca.150-215 A.D.).
   It was along about then that Smith was invited to our campus to speak on
this topic and his book and the burden of much of his lecture was simply the
asking of questions like "what was they doing under those sheets, etc."  That
is when I first became acquainted with his work.  I still have a review of 
is
book published at that time.
 FR> missed:  He worshipped a lying god.
 BE> > This is a perfect example of the Goebbels method of including the big
 BE> > lie in a perfect system of truths.  Since Columbus was not perfect in
 BE> > his geography and he WAS a devout Christian as were most of the
 BE> > scientists far beyond the period of his voyages, ergo, he was a kind
 BE> > of fool. ...
 BE> I think you're missing an important point here:  Rice's statement "He
 BE> worshipped a lying god" directly implies that this god exists.
 BE> Rice in fact does believe that god exists.
   You missed the point entirely.  I wasn't talking about what Rice believes
or does not believe about deity.  I really don't care.  I referred to his
setting up of truthful material regarding the knowledge of the size of the
earth at various periods only to take some curious opportunity to lam it into
Christopher Columbus because like virtually everybody else at the time he was
a Christian - even a devout one.  This did NOT make him a fool or a
charlatain.  
 BE> Rice in fact does believe that god exists.
   That must be a tremendous comfort for "god."  It interests ME  not one
whit.  
   Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
                                                       
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------