andrewcriddle

I regard it as certain that the author of the Mar Saba letter is claiming that the Carpocratian understanding of Secret Mark is overtly sexual. This follows from the general reputation of the Carpocratians on the one hand (including in Clement's undoubted works) and from the statements in the letter on the other. The author is stridently insistent that the Carpocratian text and understanding of Secret Mark is a vile travesty of the truth, and the alleged textual differences make the Carpocratian version more explicitly sexual.
IIUC, when Morton Smith said he could only gues what the mysteries entailed, he meant the original mysteries from which Clement's version and the Carpocratian version supposedly both derived.

With respect to the mysteries as mystical ascent this is also found in the Naassenes according to Hippolytus eg the already quoted what is particularly impressive IMO about the Naassene material is how many of the themes in the Mar Saba letter are paralleled there. I could have mentioned for example the references/allusions to broad and narrow way from Matthew 7:13-14 in both and the Naassene reference to Great and heavenly mysteries But as Yuri rightly says there is a strong subjective element in which parallels one finds convincing.
Which medieval Jewish mystics referred to seven veils ? I'm genuinely curious. (The Coptic material although interesting is not relevant to the 18th century.)
The claimed parallel between the Mar Saba letter and Wilde's Salome is not just the reference to seven veils, which in itself is probably not all that impressive, but the fact that these two texts (and derived works) seem unique in referring to Salome and "seven veils" in the same context.
Knowledge of Gnosticism in the 18th century is an interesting question I should explore further. Preliminary results eg from Gibbon "Decline and Fall" are not encouraging.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

The connection between the Mar Saba letter and the Nassenes according to Hippolytus is compatible either with a modern work after the rediscovery of the text or with an ancient work before the text was lost.

I had already come to believe on other grounds that the work was not by Clement. I tentatively thought it was probably an 18th century imitation. However an 18th century imitator could not have used the Naassenes according to Hippolytus as a source. Therefore this possible solution was ruled out, if the connection to the Nassene material is really there and not just in my imagination.

Andrew Criddle

the_cave

lol

the_cave

I have to repeat here what I mentioned in the other thread on this topic: the Mar Saba letter does not appear to refer to seven veils. "Veils" is an interpolated clarification by Smith--or so Smith himself says. If it is in the Greek, can you show me how?

Yes, it fits. But as I note in that other thread, several other terms could fit as well, and not only that, but there are Talmudic sources that refer to seven gates in the Jerusalem temple, and one of them even notes that the temple has a veil for each (though the total number of veils is larger).

(It is also possible that Smith interpolated "veils" as a result of Wilde, I suppose.)

the_cave

Well, if that leaves the choice between an authentic Clementine text, and a hoax by Smith, I'll take the former

Have you read Scott Brown's critique of your work? (On pp. 54-57 of Mark's Other Gospel) Just curious. I myself would ask: why is it that vocabulary evidence that runs counter to our expecations is evidence of forgery, but vocabulary evidence (the prepositions) that runs according to our expectations is also evidence of forgery (because it is "too good to be true")? Isn't that a bit unfair?

If I may say so, based on your "Further Comments", it would seem that you support your interpretation in the face of the ambiguous evidence on three grounds:

1) Alexandrian Christians would not keep their gospel a secret if they all knew about it
2) Clement would never tell Theodore about the gospel if it were a secret
3) Clement would never have supported secret initiation rites

To which I would ask in reply:

1) Why not? Wasn't Christianity a mystery religion? Didn't proto-orthodoxy need to be defended against heresy?
2) But Theodore has already read a version of Secret Mark--the Carpocratian version. Clement can hardly hide it from him. And why should we assume that Clement didn't consider Theodore someone worthy of hearing about Secret Mark?
3) There weren't initiation rites in Clement's church?

Finally, isn't authenticity the simplest explanation? And if so, why not assume authenticity? What's so wrong with Secret Mark that we have to go hunting for a hoax?

DCHindley

I cannot find Smith's comment in The Secret Gospel, but perhaps it was in Clement of Alexandria and a secret Gospel of Mark, which I do not have a copy of. To be honest, it was hard not to notice the "naked man with naked man" passage. I got the impression that "Theodore" was the one who thought something immoral was suggested by the phrase, and simply wants to know if it really is in a secret version of the Gospel. "Clement" feels compelled to admit there was indeed a genuine secret version of Mark, but assures him this phrase was not in it. The version used by the heretics had been "adultered" etc. Smith doesn't even mention the nakedness issue except for it's relation to the passage in Mk 14:52. I'll be perfectly honest that I think much more has been made about this passage by modern critics than it would have attracted in 2nd century Alexandria. 17th or 18th century Europe with its humanists and the variety of protestant critics may be another matter.

Now you've got me curious. Unfortunately I do not know how much material was available about Naasenes or the doctrines or rites you think are paralleled prior to the discovery of Hipolytus' works in mid 19th century. I'll take a look at Mead (Fragments is actually a fairly good look at what was known about gnostics before Nag Hammadi).

I may have misspoke there. My Google searches kept bringing up "seven veils" in conjunction with chakras, and statements that the phrase derives from "medieval merkabah mysticism." Since I wasn't looking for that, I didn't pay close attention. Turns out to be something to do with New Age philosophy. However, The Secret Doctrine of the Rosicrucians, by "Magus Incognito," (1918), which claims to be publishing Rosicrucian teaching, says:

Part IX: In this Seventh Aphorism of Creation, the Rosicrucian is directed to apply his attention to the concept of the Sevenfold Soul—One in essence—of Man; which in the figurative language of the mystic constitutes the seven veils which conceal from (yet reveal to) Man his real Self. (pg. 144)http://www.sacred-texts.com/sro/sdr/sdr10.htm

So it does appear that the concept of "seven veils" was know in some mystic circles, but I cannot find anything about seven veils in any of my occult sourcebooks (yeah, I've got a couple) or the questionable Greater Key of Solomon or Sepher ha Razim.

Smith makes a point to note (pg 70n8) that "This one [Salome] should not be confused with the Herodian princess celebrated by Oscar Wilde. The name was common." S. Carlson does not seem to mention this, although I have seen it stated in some Internet discussions that it constitutes an anachronism. Since any Salome associated with Jesus would not be the same as the Salome who danced for Herod, and since the veil thing was invented by Wilde anyways, I think this is a red herring. ("Red" eh?)

Well good luck with that! I'll see what I can produce from my end, but no promises.

DCH

Solo

I believe the Salome referenced in Secret Mark is one of the women who later witnessed the crucifixion and discovered the empty tomb (: mother of the Zebedees in the Catholic tradition). It is curious that Smith should have "connected" the seven veils to Salome in the first place since the context of the Theodore letter does not invite the connection. In the footnote, he gratuitously cautions the reader not to confuse the daughter of Herodias and Oscar Wilde in with Salome, the witness of Jesus. I don't suppose many people (who know Mark) would come anywhere near mixing up the two women, simply on the cue of "seven veils".

Curious.

Jiri

andrewcriddle

The Greek is EPTAKIS KEKALUMMENHS veiled is a reasonably standard rendering for the perfect participle of KALUPTW See kaluptw. A typical translation would be the seven veiled truth Morton Smith's rendering that truth hidden by seven veils does make the parallel to Wilde seem a little closer than it is.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

I've discussed this with Scott Brown in email. I haven't actually read the version of his critique in Mark's Other Gospel.
I'm not quite sure what you mean.

If you mean am I inconsistent in my paper then I don't think so.
Both the general vocabulary evidence and the evidence of the prepositions are problematic in the same way. They both are unrealistically close to Clement's usage in his authentic works. This is clear for the prepositions. In the case of the general vocabulary what is happening is that the author is using an unusually high amount of distinctively Clementine words and an unusually low amount of non-Clementine words. This results in an improbably low ratio of non-Clementine words to Clementine words used once only, but this, (like the evidence from quotations in the letter and from rhythmns), is all part of a general tendency to overdo resemblance to Clement.

If you mean is it unfair that we should reject a work because of its discrepancies with an author's acknowledged works and also because of its closeness to an author's acknowledged works, then I don't think so either.

It does feel a bit like a double whammy, but over closeness to expectation is suspicious as well as divergence from expectation. If you throw a coin 1000 times and get 450 heads then this is suspicious. However so is a claim of exactly 500 heads.
Reply to 1/
First of all we have little or no evidence for this sort of secrecy (the Disciplina Arcani) before the 3rd century CE. (See for example Justin Martyr's openness about Christian belief practice and ritual).
However, that is not the point I was making. If Theodore is to swear falsely on oath about the authorship of Secret Mark, (an odd procedure anyway, Theodore cannot possibly have firsthand information on the point), the only plausible motive is to reassure ordinary Christian believers or catechumens. (It is unlikely that committed Carpocratians would believe him and unlikely that pagans would care one way or the other.) But, if the true state of affairs is known by all Alexandrian Christians then there is a major risk that Theodore's simple Christian hearers will be faced with an official denial on oath, by their church, of something they know or will learn to be true. This will not be reassuring at all. More generally if all Alexandrian Christians know some secret then it will be a very very leaky secret.

One can expand on this point. If the letter is meant to reassure Theodore it makes a very poor job of it. Theodore is asking for reassurance that the shocking claims of the Carpocratians are untrue and receives a reply that the claims are (mostly), sort of true. However you mustn't tell people because they won't understand. If I was Theodore I would not be reassured at all.

Reply to 2/ If the Gospel is revealed only to those who had undergone some post-baptismal initiation ceremony then it would be inappropriate to reveal it to Theodore who presumably has not undergone this ceremony. The fact that he is a worthy person who knows a garbled version anyway is not the point. It would be a basis for initiating Theodore and then telling him about Secret Mark but that is not what is going on here. Revealing Secret Mark in a letter would be particularly problematic in this scenario. If the situation is that Secret Mark is revealed only to initiates plus any other decent blokes who have some sort of plausible reason to know, then we are moving back towards leaky secrets.

Reply to 3/ Clement clearly regarded baptism as an initiation ceremony. What is much more doubtful is whether he believed in post-baptismal initiation ceremonies. (Save in the technical sense in which say one's first communion an hour or so after baptism is a post-baptismal initiation.)
I am a little surprised to come upon this argument in this forum where the bias is, shall we say, generally otherwise.

However my serious reply is that when one finds a relatively recent manuscript of a previously unknown work by an ancient writer, referring to an otherwise unknown work. And when this manuscript lacks any clear transmission history. Then one should immediately suspect an apocryphon.
To take an example from Clementine studies the plausibility of the (disputed) Clementine authorship of the "Precepts of Clement" fragment discoverd by Barnard depends on its (hypothetical) identification with the otherwise lost Clementine work mentioned by Eusebius "Exhortation to Endurance or to the Newly Baptized".

Morton Smith entirely accepted this. His work on the letter fully recognises that he must argue for the work being by Clement rather than a later writer. The question is whether his prima facie very impressive argument for this really works.

On the question of what is wrong with Secret Mark. There is little in itself implausible about such an ancient expanded version of Mark. (Apart from the lack of any other evidence.) What I regard as incredible is the Clementine framing letter. Although some Clementine scholars have had no problems with the letter there have historically been more reservations about authenticity among Clementine scholars than among NT scholars.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

seven-times veiled truth is probably better than seven veiled truth as a literal translation.


Andrew Criddle