In 1950, Paul R. Coleman-Norton, Latin Professor at Princeton University, published his article “An Amusing Agraphon”.1 He claimed to have found a manuscript fragment in 1943, at a mosque in Fédhala, during his time in the U.S. Army.2 He said that an Imam showed him a book of Arabic writings in the mosque’s library. Between its leaves was a single page of Greek, a portion the Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, a collection of Matthean homilies. The page contained an agraphon (saying of Jesus) unparalleled in patristic literature.3 In it, Jesus refers to the “weeping and gnashing of teeth” by the unrighteous (Mt. 24.51). A disciple asks what will become of the toothless, to which Jesus replies, “if haply they will be lacking any, teeth will be provided.”4 Was this a genuine discovery, or was it something else? I will argue that this was a modern literary forgery, intended to prank other scholars and show how easily it was to fool them.
Coleman-Norton (pictured) was an Oxford-trained scholar, and was also well-versed in the Patristics.5 In the 1920’s, he researched the authenticity and textual transmission of Patristic literature, and in the 1930’s, taught a class in Latin Patristics.6 Thus, he was acquainted with the Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, which was once attributed to John Chrysostom.7 But the text was known as a Latin work, not Greek. It was thus convenient that he found a Greek “translation,” as he says that the Latin version “neither preserves the last part of 24:51 nor comments on it.”8 It left out the “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” freeing him to create his forgery and find story. Given his proficiency in the Patristics and Greek, he also possessed the technical know-how to create the forgery.
If the agraphon was not preserved elsewhere, one would expect him to have photographed it for other scholars. However, he says that he was transferred from Fédhala and unable to make arrangements to have it photographed, and that a former colleague was also unable to take its picture.9 He laments the lack of a photo, as it would have helped experts date it and determine its provenance.10 This plays into his rhetoric of deceit, a way of distracting from the fact that it was actually a forgery. After returning to the U.S., he claimed to have set aside his transcribed copy for a few years until he was reminded of it by hearing Mt. 25 at church, which follows after 24.51. He decided to return his attention to the agraphon, and, just like the Greek fragment sandwiched between Arabic pages, found his copy tucked between military papers.11 That is, the copy of the misplaced fragment was itself a misplaced document, likely an intentional wink and nod to readers.
In the article, Coleman-Norton said the agraphon was either “an ancient wag,” authentic, or a “pious invention.”12 In reality, the entire article was a modern “wag,” though perhaps he viewed it as a “pious invention.” He did not need to produce a physical apparatus, as he was only writing an article about his “discovery.” The article itself serves as the vehicle for an embedded forgery. But what was his motive in crafting it? Christopher Rollston suggests it was not for economic reasons, but was meant as a joke, and perhaps originally intended “to embarrass a rival institution and program.”13 Coleman-Norton had tried to get it published in the Harvard Theological Review, but after its rejection there and elsewhere, it was accepted by Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Had he been successful with Harvard, he would have “arguably felt it to be a particularly pungent prank.”14
The joke is almost acknowledged in the article. Following a public reading of its contents, someone noted that the saying appeared word-for-word in a 1941 book of jokes, nine years before the article and two years before its alleged discovery.15 He says in a footnote, “my sole comment on this coincidence can be that here then we have another proof of the antiquity of the present and the modernity of the past.” This is deflection from the obvious hoax. He also discusses puns and humor, and jokingly calls the disciple-questioner dumb “in the Pennsylvania German sense.”16 All of this suggests that the article was given by him in jest and good humor. But the biggest blow to the agraphon was revealed by his own student, Bruce Metzger. In the 1930’s, Metzger attended his class on Latin Patristics. During the class, Coleman-Norton joked that dentures would be “provided in the next world so that all the damned might be able to weep and gnash their teeth.”17 Metzger thus called the alleged agraphon a modern forgery.18
One scholar, Justin E.H. Smith, argues that the forgery/hoax “counts as great scholarship,” as he would much rather read it than most other “real” articles published recently.19 If one objects that the article was dishonest and “bad practice for an academic,” Smith responds, “I don't care. Any academic who thinks hoaxing as such is unethical or nugatory is a dull and petty functionary, and evidently has no interest in participating, or reveling, in the ongoing life of ideas.”20 I would differ from Smith in that the whole affair does seem unethical. Had Coleman-Norton eventually confessed to his hoax, and admitted his motivations, perhaps his actions may be viewed better in hindsight. He lived until 1971, over 20 years after its publication, but never recanted.
Where I agree with Smith is in his assessment of the article’s draw. Coleman-Norton successfully combined an interesting "find story," a scholarly interpretation, brought in Greek and Latin considerations, and provided the entertainment of the hour. Perhaps he hoped his “pious invention” would be uncovered, and would inspire scholars not to take discoveries at face value. He may have been attempting to alert scholarship to how easily it could be fooled with his “pious invention,” but if so, why did not later reveal his hoax to show how forgeries could enter academia? Regardless, the lack of admission on his part was a deceptive act. As amusing as the forgery is, the “tooth” did not set him free. In a role reversal from the agraphon’s teacher/disciple, maybe he hoped a former “disciple” would be the one to provide the answer, and unmask his modern “wag.” Indeed, it took his student, Metzger, to come along and tell the world that “truth” would be provided.
Endnotes
Bibliography
Annie Besant, “Anecdotes”, Our Corner V (1885): 120.
Anthony Grafton, Forgers and Critics, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019.
Bruce M. Metzger, “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha,” in New Testament Studies: Philological, Versional, and Patristic, Leiden, 1980.
Christopher A. Rollston, “Forging History: From Antiquity to the Modern Period” in Archaeologies of Text: Archaeology, Technology and Ethics, ed. Rutz, Matthew., and Kersel, Morag M., Joukowsky Institute Publication ; 6 (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2014), 176-197.
Justin E.H. Smith, “In Defense of Hoaxes”, The Chronicle of Higher Education 65, no. 9 (2018): B17.
P.R. Coleman-Norton, “An Amusing Agraphon”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 12, no. 4 (1950): 439-49.
“Under the Spreading Chestnut Tree,” Everybody’s Magazine XXIV (Jan.-June 1911): 142.
No comments:
Post a Comment