Secret Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Secret Mark

Post by John2 »

I can't say I'm very interested in whether Clement's letter to Theodore about Secret Mark is genuine or not, but I'm not seeing what the big deal would be if it is. As far as I can tell, all it would mean is that there was a variant copy of Mark in Alexandria.

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 books 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 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.

I don't necessarily believe this, but it doesn't seem too far fetched or out of the question to me. All it would essentially mean is that Mark (or perhaps someone else) added some "mystical" things to an earlier version of his gospel and only certain people were allowed to read it. But Clement (allowing that it is Clement for the sake of discussion) goes on to say that Carpocrates had only interpreted it "according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine" and lied about its content:

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 withdrawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.

This is why Clement then says:

To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel.

Then he goes on to cite the portion about Jesus and the young man:

" ... Right away there was a loud cry from inside the tomb. Then Jesus rolled away the stone from in front of the tomb. He went in where the youth was and stretched forth his hand and raised him up. The youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beg him to be with him. Then they left the tomb and went to the young man's house, for he was rich. Six days later, Jesus gave him instructions of what to do and in the evening the youth came to him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth over his naked body. He remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And when Jesus woke up, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

I gather the underlined parts can be interpreted as implying that Jesus and the young man had a sexual relationship, but I don't think this is any different than the kind of love mentioned in John 15:8-10 (for example):

This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, proving yourselves to be my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Remain in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and remain in His love.



And Clement goes on to say that there was nothing in Secret Mark that supported Carpocrates' "blasphemous and carnal doctrine":

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 young man whom Jesus loved was there, along with his mother and Salome, but Jesus did not receive them." But many other things about which you wrote both seem to be and are falsifications.

So what's the big deal?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Do You Want To Know A Secret?

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG0u3-Gbu88
John2 wrote: Sat May 02, 2020 2:47 pm I can't say I'm very interested in whether Clement's letter to Theodore about Secret Mark is genuine or not, but I'm not seeing what the big deal would be if it is. As far as I can tell, all it would mean is that there was a variant copy of Mark in Alexandria.
JW:
If the Letter is authentic (and the unintentional vetting by Christian Bible Scholarship that it could be by trying and failing to prove that it could not) then Secret Mark is not just a possible editing of GMark but verse vices, a possible original GMark:

Do You Want To Know A Secret? The Greek Case For Secret Mark.

Let me qualify this by saying that the evidence that GMark is original is exponentially greater than Secret Mark being original and it is only the overall uncertainty regarding what was original that would make it possible that Secret Mark was original. That way Ken Olson will not have to waste time here and can get back to his forthcoming Jesus' Tomb Treatise.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Do You Want To Know A Secret?

Post by John2 »

JoeWallack wrote: Sat May 02, 2020 3:17 pm
If the Letter is authentic (and the unintentional vetting by Christian Bible Scholarship that it could be by trying and failing to prove that it could not) then Secret Mark is not just a possible editing of GMark but verse vices, a possible original GMark:

Well, as I said, I'm not very interested in the question of whether Clement's letter to Theodore is genuine or not, I'm only asking what would be the big deal if it is genuine. But regarding the idea of it being the original Mark, as noted above, Clement (or whoever wrote it) says that it is not:

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 books the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge.

This would put Secret Mark third in line according to Clement, since elsewhere he says that Mark wrote a private gospel (which Peter was indifferent to) and then a public one (with Peter's approval). This is why he says "his former books" here.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Secret Mark

Post by rakovsky »

To answer John's question: Before discovering or forging it, Morton Smith had been promoting his theory that early Christians had secret occult sexually-related rituals like some Jews did. The Jewish rituals were studied and published by a Jewish colleague that Smith had. However Smith's idea was not taken seriously. My own theory is that Smith forged "To Theodore" in order to support his secret rituals idea, due to the pile of circumstantial evidence to that effect that I listed on my thread's OP:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4843&hilit="Secret+mark"

"To Theodore" claims that the Carpocratians' version of Secret Mark that tells the nakedness in the secret instruction story about Jesus is fake. So "To Theodore" leaves the reader to speculate about what kind of secret rituals Jesus supposedly used.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

Morton Smith had been promoting his theory that early Christians had secret occult sexually-related rituals
Direct me to a publication pre 1958 please .... You realize that in Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark this appears as a tentative statement in a footnote. And what does "sexually related " mean exactly? Condom manufacturing? Abortion? Pornography? Such a vague statement. That Christians had mysteries is known to any Orthodox or Catholic. That Christians marry Christ at the culmination of their mystery initiation and marriage and sex are one and the same is hopefully well known . That Irenaeus mentions libertine Christians too and everyone follows him. Does this nonsense ever end? If you want to convince yourself the text is a forgery great news. You can find reason to doubt.
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Secret Mark

Post by rakovsky »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:18 am
Morton Smith had been promoting his theory that early Christians had secret occult sexually-related rituals
Direct me to a publication pre 1958 please ....
Craig Evans argues that Smith before the discovery had published three studies, in 1951,[294] 1955[295] and 1958,[296] in which he discussed and linked "(1) "the mystery of the kingdom of God" in Mark 4:11, (2) secrecy and initiation, (3) forbidden sexual, including homosexual, relationships and (4) Clement of Alexandria".[297]

References:

Smith 1951
Smith 1955
Smith 1958
Evans 2013, pp. 82–87.

Smith, Morton (1951), Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels, Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, ISBN 0891301763
Smith, Morton (1955), "Comments on Taylor's Commentary on Mark", Harvard Theological Review, 48, pp. 21–64., doi:10.1017/s0017816000025049
Smith, Morton (1958), "The Image of God: Notes on the Hellenization of Judaism, with Especial Reference to Goodenough's Work on Jewish Symbols", Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 40:2, pp. 473–512.

SOURCE: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark
Craig Evans writes:
It was in reading Smith’s 1951 dissertation (Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels), in the context of a study in the mid-1990s comparing the rabbinic-like sayings and parables of Jesus with the sayings of the Tannaitic Rabbis, that I began to have serious doubts.

In a paragraph found on pp. 155-56 of the dissertation, Smith discusses the possibility of “secret doctrine” in the early Church, as reflected in Mark 4:11 (“to you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God”) and in 1 Cor 2:1–7 (“we speak the wisdom of God in a secret”). Smith finds a parallel to the idea of secret teaching in early rabbinic tradition and appeals to Hagigah 2.1. (Smith refers to the Tosefta, but his quotation appears to reflect the parallel in the Mishnah.) Smith paraphrases the Hagigah passage as follows: “The (passages of the Old Testament dealing with) forbidden sexual relationships are not to be expounded to three (at a time) . . . and (Ezekiel’s vision of) the chariot may not be expounded to a single hearer . . . .”

For now, all I wish to note is the appearance of Mark 4:11 in a paragraph discussing, however briefly, forbidden sexual relationships. If you look at the Hagigah passage, you will see that it refers to Leviticus 18, which forbids homosexual activity (cf. Lev 18:22).

In an article that appeared in 1958 (BJRL 40 [1958]: 473–521), the year Smith visited Mar Saba, though written before the visit, Smith discusses, among other things, secrecy, initiation, union between believers and a deity, and Clement of Alexandria, who was fond of secrecy. Along the way, Smith remarks: “If a Jew [i.e., Jesus] could be supposed to invoke Beelzebub, he could be supposed to invoke Eros [the god of love]” (p. 485 n. 1).

In a lengthy and severely critical review (HTR 48 [1955]: 21–64) of Vincent Taylor’s commentary on the Gospel of Mark (1952), Smith speaks of a Markan “source with other Johannine traits” (p. 26) and of material that the evangelist Mark “would leave out . . . even if he did not deliberately censor it” (p. 35). Smith also returns to Mark 4:11, commenting that “the early Church had a wide variety of motives for attributing secret doctrine to Jesus, and among them may well have been the recollection that Jesus (also for a wide variety of motives) practiced secrecy” (p. 29).

I draw attention to these two curious proposals (i.e., the linking of the secrecy of Mark 4:11 to prohibited sexual practices and the idea that Mark’s sources may have included materials with Johannine traits) because they are the notable features of Smith’s Mar Saba find. First, Smith’s Clementine letter quotes a passage omitted from public Mark, in which a young man wearing a cloth over his “naked” body comes to Jesus at night and is taught “the secret of the kingdom of God” (Mark 4:11). Clement goes on in his letter to complain of those who interpret the passage in a “carnal” and “blasphemous” sense and asserts that the words “naked man with naked man” do not occur in the text. The discussion in the letter makes it clear that the passage quoted from Secret Mark could be understood and in fact was understood by some as hinting at homosexual activity. Secondly, the story of the raising of the young man parallels the story of raising Lazarus in John 11 (which Smith acknowledges and discusses). The long quotation of mystical Mark is an example of material at the evangelist’s disposal that contains “Johannine traits.”

In short, Smith claims to have found in 1958 a lost letter of Clement that contains two unusual elements that Smith himself discussed in pre-find publications, that is, works that Smith published in 1951, 1955, and 1958. What are the odds? Please understand what I am saying here. I am not saying that Smith interpreted his 1958 find in the light of his pre-find publications and interests. What I am saying is that his 1958 find (the Clementine letter and its quotations of a “mystical Mark”) contains the themes that Smith himself talked about in previous publications. This is what makes me so suspicious.

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/eva358016
I agree with Evans' point, and these are the kinds of issues that persuade me that Secret Mark is a hoax. It's like if I theorized that Abraham Lincoln secretly fulfilled his dream of traveling to Palestine during the Civil War and then I "found" a seemingly authentic copy of an old letter saying that he did. The unlikelihood of the "coincidence" involved should raise eyebrows.

Further, in the case of Secret Mark, there is a long list of these kinds of coincidences. And that reinforces Evans' question, "What are the odds?"
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

You have a right to think whatever you want. The question is and always will be is there actual evidence to support the silly diversions in your head? No. And what's more you have the worst sort of superficiality in terms of "categories" of ancient sects. You speak of the "Gnostics" like there were people who wore badges with this on their clothing. You typically speak about "Jews" like Judaism was completely in accordance with our surviving sources. There is so much we don't know and so much we think we know about ancient religious which is totally wrong and in need of correction. You want black and white and certainty. But none exists because our information about groups and traditions is not good. But I enjoy engaging with people's delusions. Delusions are what makes us human. It's fun to speculate. It's fun to play parlor games. It's fun to get into people's thought processes. But nothing you've ever said has any bearing on whether or not the field should ignore the Letter to Theodore. So please continue revealing yourself to the group here. It's nice to learn about other people.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Secret Mark

Post by John2 »

Rakovsky wrote:

"To Theodore" claims that the Carpocratians' version of Secret Mark that tells the nakedness in the secret instruction story about Jesus is fake. So "To Theodore" leaves the reader to speculate about what kind of secret rituals Jesus supposedly used.

But Carpocratians interpreted other NT writings in ways that seem similarly far-fetched to me, and likewise they were refuted "by the very words of the Gospel" (as Clement says about Secret Mark and as Irenaeus does in AH 1.25.4 regarding the Carpocratians' interpretation of Mt. 5:25-26).

They [Carpocratians] also declare the adversary [in Mt. 5:25-26] is one of those angels who are in the world, whom they call the Devil, maintaining that he was formed for this purpose, that he might lead those souls which have perished from the world to the Supreme Ruler. They describe him also as being chief among the makers of the world, and maintain that he delivers such souls [as have been mentioned] to another angel, who ministers to him, that he may shut them up in other bodies; for they declare that the body is the prison. Again, they interpret these expressions, You shall not go out thence until you pay the very last farthing, as meaning that no one can escape from the power of those angels who made the world, but that he must pass from body to body, until he has experience of every kind of action which can be practised in this world, and when nothing is longer wanting to him, then his liberated soul should soar upwards to that God who is above the angels, the makers of the world.



This is certainly not the impression I get of Mt. 5:25-26.

Reconcile quickly with your adversary, while you are still on the way to court. Otherwise, he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

And I likewise don't see anything to speculate about regarding the content of Secret Mark given that Clement says that "naked man with naked man and the other things about which you wrote, are not found" in it and that "many other things about which you wrote both seem to be and are falsifications." So whatever Clement means by "the innermost sanctuary of truth hidden by seven veils," it doesn't appear to have been anything salacious given that he says such interpretations were refuted "by the very words of the Gospel," and so it seems to me to judge from his citations of it. So if anything, To Theodore seems like nothing more than a condemnation of "deviancy."

... to the stories already written he [Mark] 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 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 ... To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel.
Aleph One
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 12:13 am

Re: Secret Mark

Post by Aleph One »

John2 wrote: Sat May 02, 2020 2:47 pmI can't say I'm very interested in whether Clement's letter to Theodore about Secret Mark is genuine or not, but I'm not seeing what the big deal would be if it is.
I think you're 100% right and it's a sad irony that a, sort of, cursory over-estimation of the document's import is actually used against it in arguments for its inauthenticity. I would invite believers in a Smith forgery to read Scott G. Brown's Mark's Other Gospel: Rethinking Morton Smith's Controversial Discovery (2005) as, personally, I found it quite convincing that the prospect the letter being a modern forgery by Smith is untenable. I've thought about recapitulating Brown's main points in a thread here but as of now I'm not really prepared for that. His conclusion, though, is that the letter is, at worst, a pre-1900 forgery, and most likely much older than that.

I think the reason this topic always hooks me is because such a cool discovery (if it is authentic) being ignored on the basis of conspiratorial innuendo is legitimately tragic.
Post Reply