Secret Mark
Posted: 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.
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:
This is why Clement then says:
Then he goes on to cite the portion about Jesus and the young man:
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):
And Clement goes on to say that there was nothing in Secret Mark that supported Carpocrates' "blasphemous and carnal doctrine":
So what's the big deal?
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?