Origen Cites Secret Mark

[Secret Alias]

I was going through the Commentary on Matthew and found a reading for Mark that only appears in Secret Mark:

Ἐπεὶ δὲ Μᾶρκος καὶ Λου κᾶς κατὰ τινὰς μὲν τὴν αὐτὴν ἱστορίαν ἐκτίθενται κατὰ δὲ τινὰς ἑτέραν παραπλησίαν, ἄξιόν γε καὶ τὰ τούτων ἰδεῖν. καὶ πρῶτόν γε κα τανοητέον τὴν κατὰ τὸν Μᾶρκον, οὕ τως ἀναγράψαντα τὰ κατὰ τὸν τό πον· «καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς Ἱεριχώ. καὶ ἐκπορευομένου αὐτοῦ ἐκεῖθεν καὶ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ ὄχλου ἱκανοῦ, ἰδοὺ ὁ υἱὸς Τιμαίου Βαρτιμαῖος τυ φλὸς» καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, ἕως τοῦ «καὶ ἠκο λούθει αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ»[Comm Matt 16:12]

Yet as far as I can see all texts of Mark read:

Καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς Ἰεριχώ

there are no other citations of:

καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς Ἱεριχώ

And it's not as if this is an isolated example. Origen consistently cites Mark this way. Again:

καὶ εἴποι τις ἂν κατὰ τὸν μυστικὸν λόγον ὅτι πρῶτόν ἐστι τὸ τοῦ Λουκᾶ, δεύτερον δὲ τὸ τοῦ Μάρ κου, καὶ τρίτον τὸ τοῦ Ματθαίου. πρῶτον γὰρ δεῖ ἐγγίσαι τῇ Ἱεριχώ, εἶτα εἰσελθεῖν εἰς αὐτήν, καὶ <μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ> ἐκπορευθῆναι ἀπ' αὐτῆς. ἀνέγραψε τοίνυν ὁ μὲν Λουκᾶς τὸ «ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν αὐτὸν εἰς Ἱε ριχώ», ὁ δὲ Μᾶρκος· «καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς Ἱεριχώ, καὶ ἐκπορευομένου αὐτοῦ ἐκεῖθεν», ὁ δὲ Ματθαῖος οὔτε τὸ ἐγγίζειν τῇ Ἱεριχὼ ἀνέγραψεν οὔτε ὅτι ἔρχεται εἰς Ἱεριχώ, ἀλλὰ μόνον ὅτι ἐκπορευομένων αὐτῶν ἀπὸ Ἱεριχώ, ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ ὄχλος πολύς. [Comm Matt 16.13]

The Letter to Theodore reads:

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."

Μετὰ δὲ τὸ καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς Ἱεριχὼ ἐπάγει μόνον, καὶ ἦ σαν ἐκεῖ ἡ ἀδελφὴ τοῦ νεανίσκου, ὃν ἠγάπα αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, καὶ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ
καὶ Σαλώμη, καὶ οὐκ ἀπεδέξατο αὐτὰς ὁ Ἰησοῦς.

So what now? Morton Smith knew this and didn't add this to his meticulous study of the discovery? They didn't have searchable PDF's in the 1960s and 1970s. Smith didn't know therefore Smith didn't forge Letter to Theodore.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Yet as far as I can see all texts of Mark read:

Καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς Ἰεριχώ

It's a minor variant reading of 10:46, leaded by Bezae

καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς Ἰεριχώ.] B1 2427 Byz ς WH
καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς Ἰεριχώ.] D 2 61 258 481 788 ita itb itd itff2 iti itr1 syrs Origen
omit] B* 63 copsa(ms)

[Secret Alias]

Thanks.

[Secret Alias]

But it's still something that Smith - if the forger - would know that this would be found in Alexandria. Odd coincidence Origen would cite this reading. Do any of those texts suggest an Alexandrian provenance for this reading?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
There are some verses where Bezae, the Syriac Sinaitic und some Latins are in the same side. But Origen? Perhaps it could be rather Caesarea than Alexandria, but I'm not sure.

[Secret Alias]

... and Clement.

[Peter Kirby]

You could also say that Secret Mark cites Origen's Mark, e.g., if someone believed it was produced in Alexandria during the 2nd century. I.e., that Secret Mark builds on the text type in use there.

[Secret Alias]

Nah I have been going through Clement's Mark from QDS line by line. Some parallels but not the same.

[rakovsky]

Nah I have been going through Clement's Mark from QDS line by line. Some parallels but not the same.

OK, so sometimes Clement's and Origen's versions of Mark match each other, but sometimes they are different, and in this particular case they are the same? Wouldn't that suggest that an authentic Letter of Clement would more likely differ from Origen's quotes from Mark?

Does Clement anywhere else quote from these parts of Mark 10 so we can see whether he consistently quotes the canonical verses that match the Mar Saba letter's canonical verses?

To me, it doesn't look like a big deal if the Mar Saba Letter quotes minor variants, because a forger could have done that deliberately to make it seem less likely to be a forgery. Ben Smith got into this topic regarding Secret Mark on his website here: http://www.textexcavation.com/kuchinskybrownsecmk.html