stephan huller

I haven't even had time to read the article but a former student of Morton Smith, Allan J. Pantuck has just penned a response to some of the most recent arguments in favor of the Mar Saba letter being a hoax in the latest online edition of BAR. The article can be read here (http://www.bib-arch.org/scholars-stu...se-pantuck.pdf). It should be noted that Pantuck is responding to Francis Watson's recent article 'Beyond Suspicion: On the Authorship of the Mar Saba Letter and the Secret Gospel of Mark' in the Journal of Theological Studies. Pantuck can only find two points which need to be answered - (1) Watson's claim in the years prior to his discovery of the Secret Gospel Smith wrote things in an analysis of the Gospel of Mark (“Comments on Taylor’s Commentary on Mark”) that would later be “confirmed” by his discovery and (2) "provocative similarities" between the details of Smith’s discovery of the Secret Gospel, which occurred at the monastery of Mar Saba in 1958, and a novel titled The Mystery of Mar Saba published by James H. Hunter in 1940 eighteen years before Smith’s discovery.

It should be well worth the read!

PhilosopherJay

Hi Stephan,

Thanks for it. It is certainly an excellent defense of the authenticity of Smith's discovery by Allan J. Pantuck.

I like the fact that Pantuck brings up the idea that a number of historical events seem to be predicted by events in prior novels. One of the strongest arguments against Smith has been the perceived similaries between the novel, "The Mystery of Mar Saba" published in 1940 and his work in 1956 at Mar Saba. As he correctly points out fictional works do contain events which are rather interestingly paralleled in real life years later. Among his examples, he uses an 1898 novel called Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan about a sinking ocean liner named the Titan, which had strange parallels with the historical sinking of the Titanic in 1912.

Just to add to this type of bizarre fiction/fact connection, we can point to the 1956 movie 'Suddenly" in which Frank Sinatra plays a gangster attempting to assassinate the president with a high powered rifle through a window. This paralleled the assassination of President John Kennedy in 1963. In 1962, Sinatra again appeared in a movie about a man trying to assassinate the President with a rifle, "The Manchurian Candidate." Adding another bit of strangeness is the coincidence that Frank Sinatra was shooting a scene in a cemetery for the movie "Robin and the Seven Hoods" on the day Kennedy was actually shot. He recalls resting on top of a grave between takes and being surprised to find that the name on the grave was John Kennedy.

In another fiction-history coincidence, In the pilot episode of "The Lone Gunmen" which aired in March 2001, the lead characters foiled an attempt by a hijacker to fly a plane into the World Trade Center.

The truth is that tens of thousands of fictional novels, movies and television shows are produced each year. It is probable that an historical event will have some parallels with at least one of the millions of fictional events imagined and communicated each year. There is a slight chance that fictional events help to produce the parallel historical events. For example, it is possible that Lee Harvey Oswald saw one or both of the Sinatra movies and decided that using a rifle was a reasonable way to assassination a president. (I have no idea if this really happened or not)

In the case of Smith, reading the novel about Mar Saba might have suggested to him that reading ancient manuscripts at Mar Saba could lead to interesting discoveries. (Again I have no way of knowing if Smith actually read the novel or if it had any effect on him.)

In passing the article mentions an interesting theory of Morton Smith's:

This seems to me an excellent suggestion. It suggests a reasonable explanation for the tremendous differences in the synoptics and John. It does not tell us if any of the original Aramaic gospel was based on historical events or entirely based on wishful thinking.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Switch89

Here's another fiction paralleling real life: Eminem made a video called "Like Toy Soldiers" in which his friend "Proof" is depicted as being murdered. A couple of years later, he was.

stephan huller

I think what gets lost in all of this is how misleading the argument about the similarities between the Hunter book and Morton Smith's interest in Mar Saba are. At first glance it seems peculiar - why would two people take an interest in some obscure monastery near Bethlehem at the same time? There's no denying this seemingly strange coincidence but just asking the initial question and concluding that the only explanation here is that Smith based his 'forgery' on Hunter is a little misleading.

If people do a Google News Search for 'Mar Saba' they will discover that a very important news event took place at Mar Saba which clearly inspired Hunter and may well have accounted for Smith's 'awareness' of the monastery. An American evangelical missionary from Cleveland was kidnapped by Arabs. When his ransom was paid they left him in the Mar Saba monastery. If you read the context of the story in light of contemporary events (i.e. WWII) it is obvious where Hunter got his inspiration.

This doesn't of course account for the coincidence that both Hunter's character and Smith found manuscripts in the monastery - but let's not lose sight of the obvious fact - old monasteries do contain old manuscripts. It's no more suprising that a discovery happened there than - let's say at the local Seven Eleven. That would be utterly incredible. But one person writing a fictional account of a discovery of an old manuscript at an even older monastery and another person actually finding something - it's really not that amazing. If someone found an important undocumented manuscript in the Vatican Library which was equally controversial they'd turn around and say it was inspired by the Da Vinci Code. But such a possibility does exist - even if it involved someone who happened to be named 'Robert' or who owned a dog named 'Langdom' (or whatever that guy was named in the book).

If Lindsay Lohan died of a drug overdose on the same day as Ana Nicole Smith there is no immediate need to intimate some evil conspiracy being at work. Shit happens.

DCHindley

In fact, an important Greek work by Archimedes was found as a palimpsest on one of those old manuscripts once located at Mar Saba (although it was not recognized as such until it was in Constantinople, part of the collection of the Patriarch of Jerusalem).

That manuscript contains seven treatises by the ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes. "Two of these treatises... exist nowhere else in the world". Probably copied around the mid 9th century, it was reused to create a prayer book finished April 13, 1229. In the 16th century, a now-lost colophon indicated it was in the library of Mar Saba.

"Traditionally founded in 483 by St. Sabas, this monastery was an intellectual and spiritual center in the Holy Land at an early date. It is situated a few miles directly east of Bethlehem on the West Bank. The community at Mar Saba had a well organized scriptorium for writing books, some of them lavishly illuminated, at least into the twelfth century, and in 1834 there were more than 1,000 manuscripts in the Library."

Most of the contents of the Mar Saba library had been transferred to the library of the orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem around 1840. By the 1880s the library at Mar Saba was locked up, even to the monks there, with the key in the hands of the Jerusalem patriarch. Under lock & key, I suppose, because some mss of value were still there.

Some of this collection was housed at the Metochion of the Holy Sepulcher, in Constantinople. Textual critic Constantine Tischendorf "visited the Metochion in the early 1840’s and ... says that he ... found nothing of particular interest except for a palimpsest containing some mathematics," tearing off at least one leaf to take home as a souvenir (I'm not kidding).

In 1899 the scholar Papadopoulos-Kerameus produced a catalogue of the manuscripts which belonged to the Greek patriarch in Jerusalem at the Metochion, and noted this palimpsest. John Ludwig Heiberg, who was the world’s authority on Archimedes, visited the Metochion in 1906, and discovered the truth that this work included lost works of Archimedes, studying it closely in 1908, and published the complete works of Archimedes between 1910-1915.

Some time between 1908 and the 1960s, it ended up in the private library of a French collector, and the collector's family claimed it was in their possession.since the 1920s.

This, I suppose, illustrates how a unique mss could have been pretty much anywhere in libraries of monasteries of the east. Just the fact that a palimpsest containing otherwise lost works of a famous mathematician was found in 1906 signifies that ancient treasures were still to be found.

DCH

PhilosopherJay

Hi Stephan,

Yes, the conspiratorial/persecutorial mind can find any number of links between casually and coincidentally connected events.

The Spike Lee movie "Summer of Sam (Lee, 1999) gives an excellent example of this. A group of young men from the Bronx are sitting around trying to figure out the identity of a criminal who murdered a number of women with a 44 caliber gun. The killer, who later became known by the nickname "Son of Sam" was originally called the "44 Caliber Killer" by the newspapers. The young men come to the conclusion that the New York Yankee Baseball player, Reggie Jackson, is the chief suspect because he wears the number 44 on his uniform. Among the clues that they gather to prove this hypothesis is that he is known as "Mr. October" (for hitting many home-runs in October) and the killer struck in October.

This hilarious type of misuse of deductive reasoning is not too far from the claim that the mentioning of salt in the Clement letter was a clue because there is a large salt company called Morton's Salt and Smith's first name is Morton.


Warmly,

Jay Raskin

stephan huller

I know and the question which has to emerge out of all of this, now that the one argument that had any weight from the other side - viz. 'the forger's tremor' - has been tossed out because Carlson used the worst possible images of the original document to develop his case, is what is the substance of the claim that the discovery is a forgery?

Seriously. Would any of the stuff stand in a scientific forum or even any other forum OTHER THAN one driven by CONVICTION? I mean let's face it, the people who argue the text is a forgery FOR THE MOST PART don't like the implications of the text. It would be like having someone finding out their credit score was 145 and then taking seriously their claims that there was a conspiracy at work to discredit them.

I simply don't see any substance to the claim that the text is a forgery and moreover have little confidence that the people making the forgery claim know enough about Clement of Alexandria's writings, paleography or any of the other related disciplines to make an authoritative assessment. Their opinions seem driven by an agenda to keep things the way they were before the discovery - and to be fair - they have to a great degree succeeded in their aims because of the spectre of 'homosexuality' that is referenced in the narrative.

But as I said if anyone had any familiarity with Clement of Alexandria's writings it is incredible to see how much a role homosexuality and sex that is deemed 'contrary to nature' takes up in his writings. This is hardly surprising.

One of the major reasons no one knows about this is the decision of the English translators NOT TO TRANSLATE any of the references to homosexuality and render them instead in Latin. So of course when the average person wants to read something Clement wrote - no gay references.

But it is amazing to look for instance at the Paedagogue and see that the entire second half of the book (Paed 2.10 - the end of book three) is essentially a non-stop romp through what is and isn't 'sexually appropriate.' There are references to gay hyenas, hermaphrodites, where the sexual organs are in various species, how they mate - in short the stuff that most people surfing the internet WATCH on a nightly basis. The only difference is that no one has the opportunity to see Clement's 'homosexual interest' because it isn't translated - DELIBERATELY SO.

I can access the information quite easily and so can the handful of people who can read Greek, Latin or any of the other languages besides English (if people read French for instance remacle.org demonstrates the superiority and openness of even nineteenth century French culture in its openness to translate the text into the language of the common people). Roger Pearse, who is always looking for ancient Christian texts to translate for people, can read the material in Latin but it is strange that he has never taken it upon himself to commission a translation of large parts of Paed book 2 and 3 (there are two English translations now online of Stromata Book 3 which was formerly verboten by the guardians of contemporary Christian morals)

As a result I put forward that those of us who KNOW that there is absolutely nothing in the Letter to Theodore which is questionable or 'suspicious' SHOULD IMMEDIATELY PROVIDE THE PUBLIC WITH A FULL ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF CLEMENT so that they can see that the Mar Saba letter is little more than an extension of the habits and focus of the other 'existing' Clementine writings.

andrewcriddle

Hi Stephan

Most (not all) of Paedagogue Book 2 chapter 10 is available on Google Books preview Christ the Educator

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

Thank you Andrew. But how many people know about this? I didn't know about this. Most people will naturally come to the conclusion that there are no references to homosexuality in the writings of Clement (or worse yet no homosexuality in the early Church) because they can't find it in the Schaff edition or online at ccel.org or newadvent.com

I would argue that homosexuality is a common topic for Clement. But most people don't know that because it is not widely available.

stephan huller

And now that I am home I see that like many Google previews about half of the pages are NOT available for viewing. As such the need for a full online edition of the pertinent sections is still just as urgent. When people see that Clement not only spends a lot of time dealing with homosexuality and homosexuality in the contemporary Church, to Theodore will seem in keeping with this text and that of Strom. 3.

Also - for those who look deeper - there is an interesting demonstration of a cluster of narratives found in the Diatessaronic equivalent of Mark chapter 10. C W Phillips was the first to notice this pattern in Clement. Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem etc. I think it is indicative of another pattern related to the interest in homosexuality - a controversy involving a non-canonical rendering of the material in Mark chapter 10 - also reflected in to Theodore.

It was the Reverend C W Phillips who first noted the number of Church Fathers who cite this section of text which had (1) the Rich Fool, (2) the Question of the Rich Youth and (3) the Rich Man and Lazarus all together, one following the other in a highly integrated form. We can expand this slightly with our knowledge of other ancient witnesses (including Ephrem and Aphrahat) to include the portions of 'Secret Mark' cited by Clement in the Letter to Theodore:

1. the Rich Fool (Luke 12)
2. the Question of the Rich Youth (Mark 10:17 - 31)
3. the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16)
4. 'Don't Take the Best Seat'/the Parable of the Great Supper (Luke 14)
5. Jesus Warns of his Death in Jerusalem (Mark 10:32 - 34)
7. 6. LGM 1 (to Theodore)
8. Salome's Request for her Sons to Sit at the Right and Left of Jesus (Mark 10:35 - 45)
9. Jesus Comes to Jericho (Mark 10:46)
10. LGM 2 (to Theodore)
11. Zacchaeus (Luke 19)

Morton Smith's discovery of the Mar Saba letter has increased scrutiny of anything related to Mark chapter 10 in the writings of Clement (or at least should have). Clement clearly had a variant gospel in addition to the familiar four canonical texts. The question that will likely never be answered to everyone's satisfaction is whether it can be demonstrated that Clement's preferred gospel in his surviving writings outside of to Theodore is 'secret Mark.'

I think that there is more than enough evidence to intimate that this must have been the case. Already the Letter to Theodore intimates that 'additional things' were added to 'the gospel according to Mark.' Clement only cites the material which represents a radical departure from the familiar canonical narratives however:

(i) the second of these references (so-called 'LGM 2') makes its insertion at the very point the Diatessaron adds the Zacchaeus narrative.
(ii) Clement's Quis Dives Salvetur only makes sense if Clement knew that the Zacchaeus narrative followed in his gospel after Mark 10:17 - 31

This is only the 'tip of the iceberg' so to speak with regards to a Clementine interest in what we have called 'the Phillips Gospel Chronology.' Let us also make note of the fact that the same arguments made against an unnamed heretical group in Quis Dives Salvetur are developed in Stromata 3.1 - 11 albeit with more emphasis on the material which precedes the Zacchaeus narrative. In Strom 3.55 we see Mark 10.20-21 immediately followed by Luke 12.16-20.

Yet I just uncovered a new nexus of material in Paed. Book 2 where Clement develops an extended interest in the material in Luke 12 but in relation to the Rich Man and Lazarus narrative. Let's now follow the chain of references to the narratives of the so-called Phillips Gospel:

(a) near the end of Paed 2.10 Clement cites a string of references from Luke 12:22 - 30

(b) the Rich Man and Lazarus narrative is then brought forward with explicit connection to certain verses from the previous section - viz. "But hay figuratively designates the vulgar rabble, attached to ephemeral pleasure, flourishing for a little, loving ornament, loving praise, and being everything but truth-loving, good for nothing but to be burned with fire (Lk 12.28). “There was a certain man,” said the Lord, narrating, “very rich, who was clothed in purple and scarlet, enjoying himself splendidly every day.” This was the hay. “And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at the rich man’s gate, full of sores, desiring to be filled with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table.” This is the grass. Well, the rich man was punished in Hades, being made partaker of the fire (Luke 12.28); while the other flourished again in the Father’s bosom." Clement's point here is that the two parts of Luke 12.28 correspond to the (a) rich man and (b) Lazarus - "If that is how God clothes (a) the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, (b) how much more will he clothe you. Of course, the only place that Lazarus can be understood to be 'clothed' in this section is with the addition of LGM 1 in Secret Mark in the chain of narratives listed above.

After a slight digression Clement goes back to Luke 12.30 in Paed. 2.13 now making it explicit that he has been citing the material against a heretical group (clearly the gay over-sexed, over-eating and over-drinking heretics of Paed. 2:10:

(c) But you also oppose Scripture, seeing it expressly cries “Seek first the kingdom of heaven, and all these things shall be added unto you.” (Luke 12.30) But if all things have been conferred on you, and all things allowed you, and “if all things are lawful, yet all things are not expedient,”(1 Cor 10:23) says the apostle. God brought our race into communion by first imparting what was His own, when He gave His own Word, common to all, and made all things for all. All things therefore are common, and not for the rich to appropriate an undue share. That expression, therefore, “I possess, and possess in abundance: why then should I not enjoy?” is suitable neither to the man, nor to society. But more worthy of love is that: “I have: why should I not give to those who need?” For such an one—one who fulfils the command, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”—is perfect. (Mark 10:21 Quis Dives Salvetur) For this is the true luxury—the treasured wealth. But that which is squandered on foolish lusts is to be reckoned waste, not expenditure. For God has given to us, I know well, the liberty of use, but only so far as necessary; and He has determined that the use should be common. And it is monstrous for one to live in luxury, while many are in want. How much more glorious is it to do good to many, than to live sumptuously! How much wiser to spend money on human being, than on jewels and gold!
If the reader looks carefully at the passage he can begin to see how Clement is clearly weaving an interpretation developed from (1) the Rich Fool (Luke 12), (2) the Raising of Lazarus and (3) the Question of the Rich Youth (Mark 10) - all passages which follow one another in every Diatessaronic gospel.

This might become a little clearer when we cite Origen's reference to the Gospel of Hebrews which ultimately gave Phillips the insight to understand that such a highly integrated Alexandrian gospel text existed in antiquity. After citing the story of the Rich Fool (Luke 12), Origen moves on to an account of:

the second of the rich men (it saith) said unto him: Master, what good thing can I do and live? He said unto him: O man, fulfil (do) the law and the prophets. He answered him: I have kept them. He said unto him: Go, sell al that thou ownest, and distribute it unto the poor, and come, follow me. But the rich man began to scratch his head, and it pleased him not. And the Lord said unto him: How sayest though: I have kept the law and the prophets? For it is written in the law: Though shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, and lo, many of thy brethren, sons of Abraham, are clad in filth, dying for hunger, and thine house is full of many good things, and nought at all goeth out of it unto them (Commentary on Matthew 15)

While the specific reference to 'perfection' is lacking in this gospel narrative, Clement's connection between 'love thy neighbor as thyself' and Mark 10:22 is clearly present here as is the anticipation of the Rich Man and Lazarus narrative which immediately follows in the Diatessaronic gospels.

Not surprisingly then Clement - who clearly knew of yet another Diatessaronic gospel in addition to Origen's 'Gospel according to the Hebews' - ends up going back to the Rich Fool narrative (which begins the section in Origen) in what follows:

(d) O foolish trouble! O silly craze for display! They squander meretriciously wealth on what is disgraceful; and in their love for ostentation disfigure God’s gifts, emulating the art of the evil one. The rich man hoarding up in his barns, and saying to himself, “Thou hast much goods laid up for many years; eat, drink, be merry,” the Lord in the Gospel plainly called “fool.” “For this night they shall take of thee thy soul; whose then shall those things which thou hast prepared be?” (Luke 12.19, 20) Apelles, the painter, seeing one of his pupils painting a figure loaded with gold colour to represent Helen, said to him, “Boy, being incapable of painting her beautiful, you have made her rich.” Such Helens are the ladies of the present day, not truly beautiful, but richly got up. To these the Spirit prophesies by Zephaniah: “And their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the Lord’s anger.” ( Zeph. 1.18) But for those women who have been trained under Christ, it is suitable to adorn themselves not with gold, but with the Word, through whom alone the gold comes to light

The point of our discussion here once again isn't just that Clement preferred an Alexandrian Diatessaronic gospel to the canonical gospels but that this gospl clearly concluded with a reference to someone being 'dressed' in Christ. There can be no other explanation to the structure of the text.

In both Clement and Origen, the Phillips Gospel Narrative is used to illustrate the fate of two different rich people. The 'rich fool' does not give up his wealth - and so is doomed to a terrible fate in the afterlife. But his companion 'the rich youth' of the narrative that follows enters Hades and sees 'Lazarus' and learns the truth - riches condemn one to eternal damnation. It only makes sense that if we follow the implications of this highly integrated gospel tradition that Lazarus was sent into the body of the rich youth in the world above in the section of text highlighted in the Letter to Theodore. This is the reason that LGM 1 resembles the Gospel of John's Raising of Lazarus narrative. The name 'Lazarus' is a carry over from the Phillips Gospel Narrative, which in turn is really 'the secret Gospel of Mark' mentioned in the Letter to Theodore.