Originally Posted by DramaQ

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

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

This is a similar argument to that of Charles Murgia in 'Secret Mark Real or Fake ?' pps 35-40 in 'Longer Mark Forgery Interpolation or Old Tradition ?' the 18th Colloquy of The Center for Hermeneutical Studies December 1975 (published 1976) Berkeley California.

Originally Posted by Toto

There is a reference to that Berkeley Colloquy here (a reprint of this.)

Originally Posted by DramaQ

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.

Originally Posted by ohwilleke

Trouble is, almost all of the early Christian apologetics do that in their anti-heretical rants. St. Augustine, for example, is one of the main sources for the beliefs of those he denounced.

Originally Posted by DramaQ

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�.

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

In this analysis here Yuri, you write:
http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/8secmk.htm

"Now I have revisited this old controversy. In the course of my recent
research re: the compositional history of the Gospel of Mark..."

where did you write up your research?

BTW, good to see your creative self around here again.

Vorkosigan