DramaQ

A search of the forum has revealed no discussions on this (that I can find). I was wondering what the state of the question is on the topic of “The Secret gospel of Mark�

The latest news on the webpage is seriously out of date.

Is there any kind of consensus among scholars about its authenticity?

Any links, comments, or directions to threads on where it’s been hashed out would be appreciated. Thanks.

DQ

Toto

How are you searching? If you search for "secret mark" in the title only, you get these threads:

Secret Mark is authentic (by Yuri Kuchinsky)

Same, parts 3-4

update on Secret Mark

We know Smith wrote Secret Mark! Er, I think (Peter Kirby) (the most comprehensive discussion)

I don't think that there is any real consensus, and there has been no new breakthrough, but for external reasons, people are becoming more suspicious of documentary or other evidence that neatly fits the prejudices of the person who produces it.

DramaQ

I used the search link at the top of the page, but after you responded I went back and noticed that I hadn't changed the default from infidels.org to iidb.org.

When I did, I found PLENTY of links to sift through. Thanks.

I thought I had read somewhere that Morton Smith had speculated about "sceret mark" material BEFORE he found the document. That would make the finding pretty suspicious.

For myself, I have my own problems with it (which I am likely to find already expressed by others in the links you've provided, so I will wait until I've done my homework before enumerating them.)

Thanks again, Toto....

DQ

Peter Kirby

I secured permissions to post these two book reviews to my site:

Paul J. Achtemeier on ChristianOrigins.com
Norman R. Petersen on ChristianOrigins.com

A recent and representative treatment is this trio of articles:

Journal of Early Christian Studies
Volume 11, Number 2, Summer 2003
Charles W. Hedrick: "The Secret Gospel of Mark: Stalemate in the Academy"
Gedaliahu A. G. Stroumsa: "Comments on Charles Hedrick's Article: A Testimony"
Bart D. Ehrman: "Response to Charles Hedrick's Stalemate"

I have photocopies of these, but I don't have permission to put them online.

There have been forgery allegations from the day the discovery was made known to other scholars. I suggest that a reasonable course would be to suspend judgment until the physical manuscript is recovered, if that happens.

best,
Peter Kirby

DramaQ

You’re right about making a final judgment on the document. But I do have a couple questions about the content of the letter itself.

I should start by saying that I have no “problem� with their having been a secret version of Mark. After all, it would give us all a lot more to talk about. And at first I looked at it with that thought in mind: that it would kind of “cool�.

Then two things occurred to me:

1) Is what is known of Clement of Alexandria consistent with the complete idiot depicted in this letter?

What do I mean?

a. The Clement in the letter tells Theodore “you did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocratians�

b. He goes on to admit that a “more spiritual� version of the gospel was indeed written by Mark. But that it was ONLY “for the use of those who were being perfected.�

c. He goes even further to say that Mark “did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord�

(And how did Clement know what Mark DIDN’T write down?)

d. Clement next admits that Carpocrates, using deceit, managed to obtain a copy of the secret Gospel.

(Heaven forefend, that he would use it for his own ends!)

e. Clement tells Theodore that he should never “concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath.�

f. Now for the kicker: after admitting that there IS a secret Mark, that the secret gospel is ONLY for initiates, and after admonishing Theodore to deny the existence of the secret gospel even under oath – this imbecile goes on the QUOTE FROM THE SECRET DOCUMENT!

All this in an open letter that presumably was sent off by messenger and could have fallen into ANYONE’S hands. (As it evidently did.)

Moreover, at what point did Clement decide that this Theodore was a worthy initiate? And what made him think he had the authority to? Obviously this Theodore was totally ignorant of any secret gospel. Therefore he wasn’t ENTITLED to know about it. He wasn’t an initiate or he would have known about it.

Did Clement think it was perfectly okay to say “Well, you’re good enough for the job. We can forgo any ritual for you to initiate you and won’t bother teaching you the inside information in private. Here’s the truth about the secret gospel and by the way here’s a bit of it for you to peruse.�

I ask again, how stupid was this man? And is this type of stupidity consistent with what is known of Clement?

Wouldn’t the far more prudent thing for him to have done was say “Theo, dude, tell the Carpocratians they’re full of crap and what they’re calling the gospel is all hogwash. We’ll talk about it when you get back to Alexandria.�

So far I haven’t read anything in all the pages and pages I’ve read about this letter where anyone questions why Clement would have been so carefree with what he says himself is secret information.

2) What the hell is so secret about it anyway?

I know a lot has been made of the text. I know some “controversial� interpretations have been put forward as to what the ritual describe MIGHT mean. But taken at its face value, what exactly is said in the part that was so secret it had to be expunged from Canonical Mark?

It doesn’t seem to be much more than a baptism rite. But that didn’t stop them from leaving Jesus’ own baptism in the canonical version. Is it the Gnostic element that they were worried about? Or is it the miracle working that smacked too much of “magic�. But that didn’t stop them from including water into wine miracles or feeding thousands with a few loaves of bread. Or a different raising from the dead periscope for that matter.

And on top of that, was the gospel of John all ready around by CoA’s time? If so, what would have been the big deal from Clement’s perspective? The Lazarus story is close enough that there shouldn’t have been anything about the SGM periscope that made it unsuitable for the uninitiated.

And what of the second bit? It only mentions that Jesus didn’t want to talk to his mother, Salome, and the sister of the guy he raised from the dead. What would have been the point of cutting that whole sentence? There’s no big “secret� going on here. Maybe cut the “sister of the youth whom Jesus loved� line, but why the whole thing?

(And if it was the other way around and the “secret� material was actually ADDED to the canonical text – which seems awfully absurd to me) why would that particular line have been added at all? What secret information would it have imparted to initiates that made it important to add?)

Maybe I’m missing something here, but to me the whole letter makes no sense because I don’t know why what we’ve seen would be important enough to hide from “the masses� and even if it was why Clement would be so cavalier and irresponsible as to blithely send off copies of it in the mail.

Anyway, that’s my 2 cents (adjusted for inflation).

DQ

Toto

These are good points in favor of forgery, DramaQ.

Clement of Alexandria appears to have been something of an intellectual, but even intellectuals can be practical idiots. And what we have is a report of a copy, so we don't know how secret it actually was. If it is not a forgery, it was well concealed for many centuries.

DramaQ

Which is a shame cuz personally I'd prefer it to be real - at least for the purposes of discussing it.

True. Not only of the secret gospel itself (if it existed) but also this letter.

And yet, as you point out, the letter is a copy. Which means not only did the original letter get into the hands of someone other than "Theodore", but at least one copy of it was produced and saved.

Makes me wonder how it did manage to stay secret for so long.

Ah well... I'm off to read up on Clement from the link you provided....

Thanks,

dq

Casper

Regardless of the Clementine letter's originality, would anyone disagree that there is something missing there?

Vorkosigan

C'mon, Peter, that's no fun!

DramaQ

You mean in Mark 10:46 where the second fragment purports to go? I believe that has been considered an awkward transition for a long time now, and the assumption has been that “something� was there originally and poorly edited.

Of course, that would make it in ideal place for someone to create an insertion.

I was reading an older thread on the Secret Mark debate and came across a brief discussion about the motive a forger might have for creating it. Why would someone “invent� Secret Mark?

I’d been thinking about another aspect of the letter that makes me believe I have a potential answer to that qustion.

It has to do with the way the information in the letter is presented. When you think about it, the letter has a way of “leading� the reader to a certain conclusion.

Consider this: At the beginning we have what amounts to a demonstration of Clement’s expertise in regard to the gospel when he explains how Mark wrote in Rome during Peter’s stay. But that he then moved to Alexandria after Peter’s martyrdom to compose a more “spiritual� version.

The problem: We’re pretty sure Mark did NOT write under Peter’s guidance, so right away we find ourselves questioning just how well informed Clement really is. We imagine Clement has simply “bought into� the traditional story and doesn’t “really know�.

That’s an important set up for what comes next.

Clement would have us (or Theodore anyway) believe that Mark first wrote what we know as the canonical version and THEN ADDED TO IT to form “Secret Mark�. As Casper points out, the riff in Mark 10:46 pretty clearly indicates material has been removed. It would hardly have been written with that awkward transition and then conveniently used to a later addition.

Once again, we are automatically - almost subconsciously – drawn to the conclusion that “Clement gets it wrong�.

Now look where that leads us: After Clement gives Theodore the “true� material in Secret Mark, he goes on to state that the rest of that materials found in the Carpocratian version are “falsifications�.

But - perhaps unawares - we’re already given a mind set that this Clement is on shaky ground with his facts. And that with regards to this additional material Theodore has found, maybe Clement once again got it wrong.

I know I for one – when I first read the letter – asked myself:

“If the REAL direction of writing is from Secret Mark to Canonical Mark – this is, from larger work to edited, shorter work – then isn’t it possible that the larger-still version held by the Carpocratians PREDATES Clement’s version? And that in reality THAT was the first version? That a later church expunged the quasi-erotic material to form Secret Mark. And that a further, third editing removed the ‘secret’ material to form the canonical one?�

The Smoking Gun:

According to the letter, Clement’s primary desire is to silence the Carpocratian’s claim that they have “true� Marcan material. In the process of this he admits to the existence of a secret version and (rashly) duplicates some of that in an open letter. This is his “proof� that what the Carpocratians have is NOT true gospel.

So what does he do? He repeats some of the Carpocratians text! The very text that he denies as true and calls “unspeakable teachings�.

Think about it: If you were Clement, wouldn’t committing ANY of the words of the contested document be the LAST thing you’d do? If anything, he simply could have written “All other things about which you wrote are not found�. Why on EARTH would he quote the material back?!

Especially given the fact that Theodore obviously KNOWS what the material is. After all HE’S the one who wrote it to Clement in the first place. He didn’t need it repeated right back to him.

The only way the inclusion of any of the Carpocratian material makes sense is if the author of the letter wanted readers to know what it said.

And from that, we’re free to draw our conclusions about the development of the gospel. (From larger secret material to lesser to canon.)

Or rather, we’re “lead’ to the conclusion by a very craftily constructed letter, the motive of which is to do just that.

DQ