stephan huller

Clement tells us that the Marcionites had another resurrection narrative involving Philip which was the basis to their claim that their bodies were supernatural. We read:

It should be noted that Clement is not citing from either the canonical gospels of Matthew or Luke. Let's compare the sayings:

Now let's take a closer look to the non-canonical resurrection narrative which clearly also appeared in the gospel shared by the Marcionites, Clement and possibly other heretical groups:

It is universally recognized that Clement is referencing some non-canonical gospel. Why not 'Secret Mark'? The Philosophumena implies that the Marcionites held their gospel to have been the true 'Gospel of Mark.' I don't want to go through all the evidence for assuming this to be true. I think everyone by now knows why I think this is so.

It is worth noting that when Clement does reference the raising of Lazarus from the gospel of John, his version of the story differs radically from ours. We hear Clement declare:

While John 11:43, like Secret Mark only references a 'tomb' (μνημείῳ) like Secret Mark and phrases Jesus's command to Lazarus differently:

I don't know how people simply assume that Clement is simply citing from our John. There is too much different about this narrative to allow for its uncritical acceptance.

Yes to be sure there is someone named 'Lazarus' who is dead who is ultimately resurrected by Jesus. That much is similar. However the word issued to the dead Lazarus are different. In Clement's source Jesus declares ἔξιθι; in the canonical gospel of John we read "Λάζαρε, δεῦρο ἔξω." Moreover the dead man in John is raised from a tomb (μνημείῳ) in John and Secret Mark. In Clement's source Lazarus is raised from a coffin (σοροῦ) after a prolonged 'suffering' (παθεῖν). The resemblance here at least seems far closer to the unnamed neaniskos in Luke chapter 7:12 - 14:

I am one of many who suspects that there was a lost original 'Gospel of John' which differed greatly from our canonical text, and which probably included synoptic material (i.e. a Diatessaron). What this text looked like exactly is difficult to say. But Clement is clearly not citing from our canonical gospel of John here. That much is for sure.

So when we go back to Strom 3.4.25 I can't say that this reference has to be from Secret Mark but at the very least Clement knew resurrection narratives from outside of the four gospels which he accepted and were close to his heart. There are similarities. I don't understand what stands in the way of accepting Secret Mark as authentic. Perhaps I never will.

mountainman

You could start with the innuendos within the extract that is mentioned to be inserted into Mark, and the consequential innuendos that result from the explicit construction of Secret Mark according to the insertion. No self-respecting christian would want to accept these innuendos as representative of the the authentic historical jesus.

And you have not made any comment at all about the existence of exactly the same same type of innuendos found in the Second Apocalypse of James.

The main problem as I see it with "Secret Mark" is its "late date" in the manuscript tradition.

Toto

??

mountainman

Here is the construction of "Secret Mark" acording to the Mar Saba letter"





So that's the first construction of "Secret Mark".

Here is the extract from the Second Apocalypse of James:

And Jesus kissed my mouth. He took hold of me saying, 'My beloved! Behold, I shall reveal to you those things that the heavens nor the angels have known. Behold, I shall reveal to you everything, my beloved. Behold, I shall reveal to you what is hidden. But now, stretch out your hand. Now, take hold of me'

The above extract appears quite similar to the extract quoted in the Mar Saba letter which is to be inserted into "Mark" in order to construct "Secret Mark" (see above). Stephan refers to the latter - in this thread - as exhibiting a "gay vibe". My point is that if stephan is correct, then this "gay vibe" also appears to appear at Nag Hammadi.

Toto

I think you are reading the "gay vibe" into this. But I don't claim to be an expert.

mountainman

Here's the "gay vibe" disclaimer under the quoted bit from Second Apocalypse of James on the WIKI page:

I dont claim to be an expert either.

It could just be a Pachomian Jesus joke.