andrewcriddle

Although I agree that conservatives almost all reject the idea of Secret Mark as an genuinely early version of Mark comparable in age to canonical Mark, a number of conservatives have accepted the letter as a whole as genuinely by Clement with Secret Mark as a late 2nd century forgery. (F F Bruce did so for example).

In fact liturgical scholars, most of whom appear theologically conservative have welcomed the Mar Saba letter as providing evidence for a more elaborate liturgy and more developed liturgical year c 200 CE than is suggested by other sources. (see for example the work of Thomas Talley)

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Specifically Guy G Stroumsa has testified recently in the Journal of Early Christian Studies that in 1976 he together with the late David Flusser, Professor of New Testament, the late Shlomo Pines, Professor of Medieval Arabic and Jewish philosophy and Archimandrite Meliton were responsible for taking the Voss book with the letter on the end pages from the Mar Saba monastery to the Jerusalem library of the Patriarchate.

The letter appeared to be as Morton Smith had described it but attempts to have proper tests done were unsuccessful.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

I am aware of attempts to separate the letter from the Gospel itself. I just can't believe that such a separation can be made.

That's an interesting piece of information.....for it may reveal an anachronism that sheds light on the question of forgery.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Whywhywhy? How could they be "unsuccessful?" Were they blocked? Was funding not forthcoming? It seems incredible....

andrewcriddle

The only people in Jerusalem with the forensic skills and equipment to test for authenticity (eg the date of the ink) were the Israeli police. For political reasons Archimandrite Meliton refused the idea of handing over this precious material for testing by the Israelis.

Andrew Criddle

Casper

DramaQ,

I have been pondering your earlier assertions for weeks; re: the Clementine letter seems downright idiotic in content.

It did to me to, but I have come up with a simplistic lay analogy which excuses it, at least in my mind. If you would bear with me...


DramaQ (in a letter to Cas) "Casper, I am here in Hawaii and they have a different color M&M! Can this be acceptable? Did I miss something?"

Casper (formulating a reply to DQ) "No DramaQ, it is not acceptable. Indeed, there are special colors used at the Easter celebration, but these are not the same as those blasphemies in Hawaii."

(Casper then thinks for a moment and edits it so there can be no confusion) "No DramaQ, the blue of the Hawaiian M&Ms are unacceptable. Indeed, there are light blues used in the Easter celebration, they are completely different from the dark blue blasphemies in Hawaii."


...

Does that get us anywhere? There are countless variations on the theme too, if one accepts the possibility of an early forger, a transcription, etc.

Casper

Yuri,

I am more interested in criticisms which intend to explain the apparent "missing verses" as simple syntax exclusions or some other non-secret redaction. Are these ideas popular and do they have any standing room? Even if you believe that the whole thing is legitimate Clement, you would still need to address this, in my mind at least.

DramaQ

Hi Casper.

Hmmmm….. I hope I didn’t word it quite that way. First off, I’d like to be more clear on this. I think the construction of the letter is far from idiotic. I think whoever put it together did so with the finesse of a good playwright. (With the exception of the expository line.) It does a nice job of catching the reader and leading him to a conclusion.

I think the character we’re to believe is Clement is portrayed as a bit of an idiot. And not JUST because of the expository line. He doesn’t just repeat back some of Theodore’s words, he reveals whole tracts of SECRET material. Almost on a whim. The far more prudent thing to have done would have been to hint at the material and express a desire to discuss it in private, but meanwhile to squelch the “blasphemies� and deny their legitimacy.

As for your analogy:

There are a couple reasons this doesn’t work for me as a good analogy.

1) We don’t get a good feel for the sensitive nature of the subject from talking about M&M’s. If people were shocked by the out-loud mention of blue M&M’s, then you might be on to something. In the example you give, Casper has no reason to NOT mention the specifics about the M&M’s because there’s nothing secret, shocking, or outrageous about it.
2) In his initial letter, DQ never mentions the specifics about the color or nature of the M&M’s (for Casper to later repeat back to him). For the analogy to hold, he would have to have said something like “Are there secret M&M’s? In Hawaii they have secret M&M colors. And they have a saying that goes ‘True M&M fans prefer red cuz they make you horny.’ Then in Casper’s reply if he said, “Yes we have secret M&M’s. We have secret blue and secret pink. But ‘prefer red cuz they make you horny’ is just wrong!�

If Casper were outraged by the blasphemous M&M he would have said, “But that stuff you said about that other color is just wrong!� DQ already knew what was said and Casper didn’t need to lower himself by repeating it.

I think your point is well taken. The fact is, I didn’t say that Clement’s idiot character proved the letter was a forgery. Nor am I convinced it’s a modern one (though I am tending that way.) My initial question was “Is this idiotic behavior CONSISTENT with what is known of Clement.� After all, he COULD have written a drama-like, expository, secret-revealing letter to Theodore. I just think it’s more likely he didn’t.

But hey, I’m glad to hear you’ve been pondering on this. I hope you’re having as much fun with it as I am.

dq

DramaQ

I agree. Particularly in the second fragment, which fills in the Jericho narrative snag. I would rather hear ideas about a simpler, non-secret explanation with bad editing.

After all, there's really nothing “SECRET� about the second fragment. Why would it all have to have been expurgated from the canonical version? If anything, only the reference to the young man might have to be removed.

Casper

Thanks DQ, and yes I'm having fun with this. And yes, I meant the supposed character behind the letter; your point made a great reality check. I was just looking for ways to soften it a little, make it easier to picture as a possibility.