Haran

The erudite scholar Bart Ehrman has recently published a new book entitled Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. The book is an excellent new explication of his views on the development of early Christianity and its texts.

The book covers a range of early Christian apocrypha, among which is an entire chapter devoted to the "Secret Gospel of Mark", The Forgery of an Ancient Discovery? Morton Smith and the Secret Gospel of Mark.

Ehrman begins the chapter with information about recent known forgeries, showing that scholars can and have forged. Next, he presents detailed information about Morton Smith and his discovery. Finally, he procedes to the "question of forgery", concluding with a section on issues still to be addressed with respect to Secret Mark.

I believe Ehrman is quite even-handed in his treatment of the question. In fact, at points early in the chapter, I wasn't sure whether he was headed toward autheticity or forgery. However, in the last two sections of the chapter, Ehrman drives home some new and very interesting issues concerning, inter alia, the Voss' edition and its relation to the discovery which definitely lead one toward a conclusion of forgery (or must at least give one great pause as to authenticity).

Ultimately, Ehrman does not seem willing to put in writing that he is certain that "Secret Mark" is a forgery, but it can definitely be inferred that this scholar leans heavily toward the idea based on his study of the issue. He also makes it clear, stating it more than once I believe, that "scholars in increasing numbers have begun to suspect that it is {i.e. "a forgery by a modern scholar intent on deceiving the academic world"}." Some dogmatic scholars may "stick to their guns", but it sounds that, unless the book and separated manuscript are found and analyzed, the charade might be up for the majority of scholars.

It seems that the death knell may be tolling for Secret Mark...

{Amazon URL edited by Toto for revenue link}

Doctor X

This should not be controversial at all.

--J.D.

Haran

Actually, there are some well-known scholars that have held Secret Mark to be important to their theories of textual development (not to mention the development of Christianity). Many scholars have simply accepted the document as authentic and produced works about it or referencing it. It seems that could all be changing now.

{e.g. - Koester / Crossan - "...Helmut Koester and J.D. Crossan think that canonical Mark is derived from Secret Mark..."}

Toto

Previous thread on this book, which failed to pick up the Secret Mark issue:

Lost Christianities

Doctor X

Oh indeed . . . I was being sarcastic waiting for the shoe to drop, so to write. There is a poster here--and I intend no disrespect towards him whatsoever--who is rather "firm" in his contention that it could not be a forgery.

--J.D.

Haran

Thanks Toto. I missed that thread. Can't get them all read these days.

Toto

Yuri Kuchinsky's case for the authenticity of Secret Mark:

Parts 1 - 2

Parts 3 -4

Another post on Secret Mark

Haran

Ah... Should've seen it...

Toto

Which scholars' theories would be changed if Secret Mark were proven to be a forgery - besides Smith? I wasn't aware that any theories used that document as a lynchpin.

Haran

For completeness...

One of the best cases for Secret Mark was indirectly made Quentin Quesnell and can be found with reponse by Morton Smith in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly.

The Mar Saba Clementine: A Question Of Evidence by Quentin Quesnell