a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

Post by Peter Kirby »

http://www.textexcavation.com/secretmark.html
Ben C. Smith wrote:The answers to these three (sets of) questions produce four basic possibilities for the secret gospel and the letter describing it:
1. The secret gospel is genuine, written by Mark (or by whoever wrote the canonical gospel), whether before or after he wrote the canonical version.
2. The secret gospel is an ancient forgery, written by an ancient author imitating Mark.
3. The entire Clementine epistle is an ancient, medieval, or early modern forgery.
4. The manuscript itself is a late modern forgery, probably engineered by Morton Smith himself.
Ben C. Smith wrote:Technically, the secret gospel could itself be genuine while the Clementine letter describing it is not, but that possibility seems so remote as to deserve little reflection.
Typically we think about the problem as being like Russian nesting dolls: On the outside, you have the option to go for forgery by Morton Smith. Inside that, forgery by a 20th century person after 1936. Inside that, forgery in the 18th century. (These last two are quickly glided over.) After that, authorship of the letter by Clement of Alexandria, but forgery of the secret gospel. After that, the secret gospel is related to the ancient development of GMark, or even by the original author himself.

There's at least the possibility, though, that Secret Mark has a close connection to the Gospel of Mark (whether standing before or after the canonical text, in the late first or second century) yet that the letter to Theodore itself is a forgery.

Claims of forged letters and books were relatively common in antiquity. Sometimes the motives were financial--Galen the physician was compelled to write instructions on how to identify his own genuine works from the many being sold under his name. Other times, the motive was propaganda, as would be the case for the forged "Acts of Pilate," both of the pagan and the Christian variety.

Some have detected in the letter to Theodore an attention to authenticating and legitimizing the secret gospel of Mark. More than that, the text defends and supports the Carpocratians even as it utters formal denunciations of them, constantly giving ground and succor to the heretics ostensibly under fire. Consider these facets of the text.
You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocratians. For these are the "wandering stars" referred to in the prophecy, who wander from the narrow road of the commandments into a boundless abyss of the carnal and bodily sins. For, priding themselves in knowledge, as they say, "of the deep things of Satan", they do not know that they are casting themselves away into "the nether world of the darkness" of falsity, and boasting that they are free, they have become slaves of servile desires. Such men are to be opposed in all ways and altogether. For, even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.
The author of the letter does not bring himself to condemn the Carpocratians without leaving in both a stunning testimony to the hypocrisy of those doing so and the truth being told by them. As much as Plato's noble lie was a well-known ancient concept, it is also scandalous in its own very Machiavellian way, and the pretense of a private letter between close confidants allows it to be stated without apology and in the clearest terms. But what if this were not genuine private correspondence? Then we'd have to conclude that the letter reflects poorly on Clement and Theodore, making them less credible in any public exchange on the subject. Not only that, it grants major concessions: both that the Carpocrations teach the truth, at times, and that what they say indeed "seems true." Even to the ancient ear, the very rough statement that "not all true things are the truth" would sound a little too much like black-is-white nonsense, and indeed almost like parody.
Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. For the true things, being mixed with inventions, are falsified, so that, as the saying goes, even the salt loses its savor.
What are the falsifications, then, and to whose advantage is it to bring attention to them? We will see.
As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.
It's certainly plausible that Clement of Alexandria would want to confirm a "more spiritual Gospel" if he had known of one. Why do we suppose, then, that Clement draws attention to point that "he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord"? It stands merely as a statement of the fact and a defense of Mark's good intentions. On the other hand, if the Carpocratians had their own secret teachings, which were being developed out of this more spiritual gospel, would it not benefit them to get the word out there that there were parts Mark did not even divulge in the "extended edition"?
But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.
The letter continues to use strong words against the Carpocratians, and it accuses Carpocrates of liberating the secret gospel from the presbyter in the church in Alexandria that was keeping it away from them. Aside from the obligatory polemical tinge, Carpocrates appears in this story to be like a Prometheus figure, being punished for bringing the fire of the secret gospel of Mark to the people, who would otherwise have been denied even knowing of its existence.
To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath. For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men". For this reason the Wisdom of God, through Solomon, advises, "Answer the fool from his folly", teaching that the light of the truth should be hidden from those who are mentally blind. Again it says, "From him who has not shall be taken away", and "Let the fool walk in darkness".
The author emphasizes that the catholic churchmen are simply lying when they deny the existence of a secret gospel of Mark in Alexandria. As if only to magnify the perfidy, Clement instructs it to be denied under oath, so as to keep the people foolish and in darkness. They can't handle the truth.
But we are "children of Light", having been illuminated by "the dayspring" of the spirit of the Lord "from on high", and "Where the Spirit of the Lord is", it says, "there is liberty", for "All things are pure to the pure".

To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel.
And, finally, as promised, we are going to get to the matter of the falsifications that Clement takes care to refute.
For example, after "And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem" and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise", the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:

"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

After these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him", and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.

And after the words, "And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only, "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them." But the many other things about which you wrote both seem to be, and are, falsifications.
We are told that there are "many other things," which are falsifications, but the only words given as their example are "naked man with naked man." The author is very careful to indicate where the quotes belong in terms of the canonical text, quoting the differences in full and respectfully. The author says that "the secret Gospel adds only," and the words that follow seem innocuous.

But who profits from this slogan, "naked man with naked man"? Surely it is their opponents who gain from it, by using it as a shorthand for all the immorality and licentiousness that the Carpocratians engage in. Just as the Christians were accused of debauchery and cannibalism at their "love feasts," so also the Carpocratians are accused of a sexual immorality that becomes their strange and permissive doctrines.

If a church position at the time was that the "Secret Gospel" of Mark did not even exist, then anything that helped clear the text of these charges of promoting immorality would help to rehabilitate its use by the Carpocratians. If the allegation is that the Carpocratians justified these things from their text, then the Carpocratians stand to gain from clearing their text of the accusation and clarifying its exact contents.

So let's step back and assess a bit.

The letter brings up several "facts on the ground":

1) Clement and the church authorities denied the authentic existence of the Secret Gospel of Mark.
2) Carpocratians indulged in licentiousness that is claimed to be based on the Secret Gospel of Mark.
3) Clement and the church authorities claim the moral high ground and access to the truth.

The letter resolves these situations in this way:

1) Clement and the church authorities are lying, and they in fact know there was an authentic spiritual gospel of Mark.
2) The things said about Secret Mark are falsifications, and in fact there is nothing objectionable about the text at all.
3) Clement and the church authorities are liars who work to suppress the Carpocratians, while Carpocrates is the one offering the truth.

If we don't believe the letter is by Clement, then we should consider a suitable context for its forgery.

One such suitable context is staring us in the face: the letter would be a powerful weapon in the controversies in second century Egypt regarding the Carpocratians. It would be ammunition for the gnostics to show their own and to pull others into their fold.

(This doesn't really address the question of the "secret gospel" text itself, which logically just has to be prior to the letter. It could be a second century forgery, or it could have a more complex history. That's another question.)
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflec

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Peter Kirby wrote:http://www.textexcavation.com/secretmark.html
Ben C. Smith wrote:The answers to these three (sets of) questions produce four basic possibilities for the secret gospel and the letter describing it:
1. The secret gospel is genuine, written by Mark (or by whoever wrote the canonical gospel), whether before or after he wrote the canonical version.
2. The secret gospel is an ancient forgery, written by an ancient author imitating Mark.
3. The entire Clementine epistle is an ancient, medieval, or early modern forgery.
4. The manuscript itself is a late modern forgery, probably engineered by Morton Smith himself.
Ben C. Smith wrote:Technically, the secret gospel could itself be genuine while the Clementine letter describing it is not, but that possibility seems so remote as to deserve little reflection.
Oof. It is always disorienting to see words I penned more than 7 years ago (on a page I last edited, doubtless for something tiny, more than 2 years ago) resurface. Sometimes present Ben is still thoroughly impressed with what past Ben wrote; but there are other times when past Ben makes present Ben cringe a bit. :D

I feel certain I underplayed back then the possibility that you have highlighted. It does make more sense, the notion that the Clementine letter could be an ancient forgery while the Secret Gospel is genuinely Marcan, than I gave the idea credit for. It would take some tight argumentation, I think, and you even end your post with the acknowledgement that it does not address the genuineness of Secret Mark. But I would certainly not stand by my statement that the idea "deserves little reflection."
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflec

Post by Peter Kirby »

I know the feeling! Most of my website hasn't been updated in 16 years. Some of it is painful to read now.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflec

Post by Peter Kirby »

In terms of the study of the Mar Saba letter, there seem to be two common methodological holes big enough to drive a truck through:

1) Establishing the antiquity of the letter is the only alternative to forgery by Smith.
2) Establishing the authorship by Clement is the only option for an ancient letter.

So that a lot of writing falls into the game of, "is this Clement or is it Morton?" A false dilemma.

On the one side, there are very few ways to argue it is specifically Morton who wrote it, and all of them are utterly subjective. Not only that, they are on the shakiest of footing, in the long run of things, assuming that we continue to invest time into studying this more. Once the honeymoon phase of this idea is over, the cutesy arguments about evangelical novels, bald-headed signatures, and Morton salt will wear thin. Arguments that are a bit more serious, as over the ink (such as it can be seen), the handwriting, and Morton Smith's capacity to pull off the entire thing, should be pivotal (either way).

So, even if it is modern, it may not be by Morton Smith.

On the other side, even if it is ancient, it may not be by Clement of Alexandria. Some of the best arguments focus on whether or not it was written by Clement. The negative answer does not point the finger at Smith. There's a lot that is very strange about the letter itself, but that should invite study. If it's not by Clement, there may be better explanations of the strange letter than the idea that it was Morton Smith's creation.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflec

Post by John T »

Gnosticism is what Gnosticism does.

That is, they claim to have a deeper understanding of all things paranormal/metaphysical and can fill in the gaps for those who can not see past the physical world.

I don't see the Mar Saba letter as a modern day forgery as much as a distant anti-Christ echo that survived from the early Gnostic's who claimed to understand what they did not know about the historical Jesus.

Sincerely,

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflec

Post by davidbrainerd »

The story cited in the letter sounds like a rough draft for the story of Lazarus. That suggests authenticity (in the sense of being ancient at least) because I can imagine 'John' (Cerinthus) further developing this secret Mark story. The other way around would seem weird. Why create such a secret story for a secret Mark when a better version of it exists already in public John?
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflec

Post by andrewcriddle »

I think the letter (jf an ancient imitation of Clement) would have to be after Clement's death written by someone with access to Clement's works.

This would put it in the 3rd century at the earliest. I have doubts whether there were 3rd century Carpocratians to any significant extent. Origen claims never to have come across them. I'm also doubtful whether there would have been much mileage for a 3rd century gnostic in exposing Clement as a hypocrite. Clement's reputation in the 3rd century is rather marginal. Origen never names him.

It has previously been suggested that the Mar Saba letter is an ancient forgery/pseudepigraph See for example Annick Martin The letter is dated by Martin c 400 CE in the context of the Origenist controversy. The later date has advantages, IMO the background for the letter is Neoplatonic not Middle Platonic. However, if the letter is a very late ancient forgery Secret Mark itself seems unlikely to be authentic in any interesting way.

There is also the general issue that once we regard the letter as a Clementine imitation there seems no prima facie reason to regard it as ancient at all.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflec

Post by Peter Kirby »

andrewcriddle wrote:I think the letter (jf an ancient imitation of Clement) would have to be after Clement's death written by someone with access to Clement's works.
Wouldn't a contemporary with access to a major work, such as the Stromateis, have been able to do the same?

(At least, I would think so.)
andrewcriddle wrote:This would put it in the 3rd century at the earliest. I have doubts whether there were 3rd century Carpocratians to any significant extent. Origen claims never to have come across them. I'm also doubtful whether there would have been much mileage for a 3rd century gnostic in exposing Clement as a hypocrite. Clement's reputation in the 3rd century is rather marginal. Origen never names him.
Yes, a 3rd century date seems unmotivated.
andrewcriddle wrote:It has previously been suggested that the Mar Saba letter is an ancient forgery/pseudepigraph See for example Annick Martin The letter is dated by Martin c 400 CE in the context of the Origenist controversy. The later date has advantages, IMO the background for the letter is Neoplatonic not Middle Platonic.
Very interesting. Thanks for this reference.
andrewcriddle wrote:However, if the letter is a very late ancient forgery Secret Mark itself seems unlikely to be authentic in any interesting way.
It's certainly a factor to consider.
andrewcriddle wrote:There is also the general issue that once we regard the letter as a Clementine imitation there seems no prima facie reason to regard it as ancient at all.
Well, it's ancient, medieval, or modern. In any case, we'd want to find the most likely setting, with the most support.

There are probably some options in terms of medieval, renaissance, or Enlightenment era forgery that have gone entirely unnoticed. The conversation regarding forgery by Morton Smith tends to suck a lot of air out of the room.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflec

Post by andrewcriddle »

Peter Kirby wrote:
andrewcriddle wrote:I think the letter (jf an ancient imitation of Clement) would have to be after Clement's death written by someone with access to Clement's works.
Wouldn't a contemporary with access to a major work, such as the Stromateis, have been able to do the same?

(At least, I would think so.)
The Stromateis is generally regarded as written over a number of years beginning in the mid to late 190s (after the death of Commodus) with the last books written after 200 CE (probably after Clement had permanently left Alexandria). Given the fragmentary state of book VIII it was probably first published as a whole by Clement's friends after his death.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflec

Post by Peter Kirby »

andrewcriddle wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:
andrewcriddle wrote:I think the letter (jf an ancient imitation of Clement) would have to be after Clement's death written by someone with access to Clement's works.
Wouldn't a contemporary with access to a major work, such as the Stromateis, have been able to do the same?

(At least, I would think so.)
The Stromateis is generally regarded as written over a number of years beginning in the mid to late 190s (after the death of Commodus) with the last books written after 200 CE (probably after Clement had permanently left Alexandria). Given the fragmentary state of book VIII it was probably first published as a whole by Clement's friends after his death.

Andrew Criddle
Well, I had a feeling I was walking into a trap there. :D

Does the letter show dependence on Stromateis in some way, I wonder? (This might help complete the loop on this argument.)
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply