What's the story with "Secret Mark"?

[Pieman333272]

I’ve heard the name thrown around in books and articles, but I don’t actually know what the “Secret Mark” is. What’s its history? And it’s my understanding it’s considered a forgery? Why is that?

 

[patrick457]

I’ve heard the name thrown around in books and articles, but I don’t actually know what the “Secret Mark” is. What’s its history? And it’s my understanding it’s considered a forgery? Why is that?

Ah, the so-called ‘Secret Gospel of Mark’.

The late Morton Smith (1915-1991), professor of ancient history at Columbia University, claimed to have found near in the library of the Mar Saba Monastery in the summer of 1958 a previously-unknown letter which purports itself to be written by Clement of Alexandria. He says he discovered the text of the letter transcribed into the endpapers of Isaac Vossius’ 1646 printed edition of the works of St. Ignatius of Antioch. He published the findings in 1973, writing a second book (entitled The Secret Gospel: The Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel According to Mark) for the popular audience in 1974. Smith’s books reproduced black-and-white photographs he claimed to have taken at the time of the discovery.

In 1977 the volume containing the manuscript was taken to the library of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem. It was in that same year when the manuscript pages were removed from the bound volume by the librarian Kallistos Dourvas, to be photographed and kept separately. The photos were published in 2000.

Just a year before this, a group of four people - Professors David Flusser and Shlomo Pines, both of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem; Archimandrite Meliton of the Patriarchate; and Gedaliahu A.G. Stroumsa, at the time a Harvard graduate student - visited the monastery and viewed the manuscript. This visit remained unknown until 2003 when Stroumsa published an account. Subsequent attempts by scholars to view the manuscript have been unsuccessful, hence further research relied upon photographs and copies, including those made by Smith himself. The finding caused a sensation, but was soon met with accusations of forgery. The situation was complicated with the transfer and the subsequent disappearance of the manuscript.

So, what about the letter then?

It claims to be a letter from Clement to a certain Theodoros (Theodore). Clement begins by commending Theodoros’ actions against the gnostic sect known as the Carpocratians, after which he then turns to address questions posed by Theodoros regarding the Gospel of Mark, a secret variant of which the Carpocratians claim to have. Clement admits to knowledge of a second, “more spiritual” version of the gospel, written by Mark for “those being perfected,” which was carefully guarded by the Alexandrian church after his (Mark’s) death to the point that it is “read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.” He then asserts that the version promoted by the Carpocratians is not an accurate representation of this ‘mystical’ version of Mark, since they have corrupted the original (he claims that Carpocrates managed to convince a presbyter in Alexandria to hand him a copy of the text) with their own false additions, which Clements claims is the source of Carpocratian teachings, and to illustrate this, Clement supplies two ostensibly genuine excerpts from the ‘real’ secret Gospel. The letter then ends abruptly as Clement begins to explain these passages.

 

[patrick457]

Here is the text of the letter.

• From the letters of the most holy Clement, of the Stromata.

To Theodoros.

You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocratians, for these are the “wandering stars” (Jude 1:13) that had been prophesied, who wander from the narrow road of the commandments into an endless abyss, deceived by the fleshly and bodily sins. For having been puffed up of their knowledge - as they say - “of the depths of Satan,” (Revelation 2:24) they do not know that they are throwing themselves down into “the blackness of darkness” (Jude 1:13) of lies. And having boasted that they are free, they have become bondservants of base desires. Such are to be opposed in all ways and altogether. Because even if they say something true, still the lover of the truth should not agree with them, for not all true things are truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.

Now, concerning their babblings about the “God-breathed” (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16) Gospel according to Mark, some are wholly lies, while others, even if partly true, nevertheless are not reported truly. For the true things being mixed with inventions are debased so that, as the saying goes, “even the salt has become tasteless” (cf. Matthew 5:13).

As for Mark, then, during Peter’s stay in Rome he wrote an account of the acts of the Lord, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the mystical ones, but picking the things he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being catechized. Then when Peter was martyred, Mark came to Alexandria, bringing both his own knowledge and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his first book the things suitable about knowledge for those who are making progress. Thus he arranged a more spiritual gospel for the use of those who were being perfected.

Nevertheless, he did not reveal the things which are not to be uttered. He did not write out the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others, and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the adyton of the truth which is veiled seven times. Thus he prepared them - in my opinion - not ungrudgingly or unguardedly. And dying, he left his writing to the church in Alexandria, where even now it is still extremely carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.

However, since the polluted demons are always devising destruction for the race of man, Carpocrates, taught by them and using their deceptive arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the mystical gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and fleshly authority and, moreover, defiled, mixing with the most spotless and holy words the most shameless lies. From this mixture is derived the teaching of the Carpocratians.

To them, therefore - as I said above - one must never give way. Also, when they put forward their falsifications, one should not concede that the mystical gospel is by Mark, but should deny it even on oath, for not all truth are to be said to everyone. For this reason, the wisdom of God through Solomon gives a message, “Answer a fool from his folly” (cf. Proverbs 26:5), teaching that from those whose minds are blinded the light of the truth should be concealed. Again it says, “From him who has not, it will be taken away,” and, “Let the fool go in darkness.”

But we are the “sons of light” (John 12:36) who have been illuminated by “the dawn from on high” (Luke 1:78) of the Spirit of the Lord. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is,” it says, “there is freedom” (2 Corinthians 3:17), for “to the pure, all things are pure” (Titus 1:15). Therefore to you I will not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the gospel. For example, after “They were in the road, going up to Jerusalem,” and what follows, until “After three days He will arise,” (Mark 10:32-34) it takes up according to the text:

 

[patrick457]

And they come to Bethany, and a woman, whose brother had died, was there (cf. John 11:1). And coming, she fell down before Jesus and says to Him, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” but the disciples rebuked her. And becoming angry (orgistheis; cf. Mark 1:41 in some MSS, John 11:33), Jesus went with her to the garden where the tomb was. And immediately from the tomb was heard a great voice, and going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb.

And going in immediately where the young man was, He stretched out a hand and raised him up, holding his hand. The young man looked at Him and loved (egapēsen) Him, and began to beseech Him that He might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the young man - for he was rich, and after six days Jesus instructed him. And in the evening the youth comes to Him, having a linen-cloth (sindōn; cf. Mark 14:51-52) thrown around his naked body; and he remained with Him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God (cf. Mark 4:11). And arising from there, He returned to the other side of the Jordan.

After these things, this follows, “And James and John come to Him,” (Mark 10:35) and all that section. But the “naked man with naked man” and the other things which you wrote about are not found. And after, “And He comes into Jericho,” it adds only:

And there was the sister of the young man whom Jesus loved, and His mother, and Salome, and Jesus would not receive them.

But the many other things about which you wrote both seem to be and are lies. Now the true explanation and that which accords with the true philosophy…​

The text breaks off here.

 

[patrick457]

As mentioned, the Secret Gospel is known only from the Mar Saba letter, which is itself only known from the copy discovered by Morton Smith. Therefore, logically, at least three important questions arise:

1. *]Whether the Mar Saba letter really contains a genuine letter of Clement
   *]Whether Clement’s quotations from Secret Mark are accurate
   *]Whether these quotations reflect a genuine Marcan tradition
   
   The authenticity of the letter itself has been the subject of controversy since the beginning. The manuscript and the book where it was found have disappeared (and as of now, cannot be relocated); all that remains are black and white photographs made by Smith in 1958, and color photographs ca. 1976-1977. Early on, some scholars tended to discount Smith’s claims because, as it was believed, the copy of the letter had been seen by no scholar other than Smith. Yet, in 1976, Gedaliahu A.G. Stroumsa and three other scholars claim to have relocated the document, just before the the letter was cut out of the book in 1977.
   
   It is believed that the first scholar to suggest in print that Secret Mark was a modern forgery, possibly implicating Smith, was Quentin Quesnell, in his 1975 article.
   
   After Smith’s death, Prof. Jacob Neusner, a specialist in ancient Judaism with more than 900 books under his belt, came out and reinforced the notion that Secret Mark was a forgery. Rabbi Neusner was Smith’s student and admirer but, later, in 1984, there was a very public falling out between them after Smith publicly denounced his former student’s academic competence. Neusner subsequently described Secret Mark as the ‘forgery of the century’. Even then, Neusner never wrote any detailed analysis of Secret Mark, or an explanation of why he thought it was fake.
   
   In 2001, scholar Philip Jenkins drew attention to a popular 1940 novel by James Hunter entitled The Mystery of Mar Saba. This novel presents some unusual parallels to the events associated with Mar Saba MS, that have unfolded in real life after 1958. Later, Robert M. Price also drew attention to this novel. In 2007, musicologist Peter Jeffery also published a book accusing Morton Smith of forgery, arguing that Smith wrote the Mar Saba document with the purpose of “creat(ing) the impression that Jesus practised homosexuality.”
   
   In 2005, writer Stephen Carlson published the book The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith’s Invention of Secret Mark, where he spells out his case that Smith was the author of the Mar Saba manuscript. When Carlson examined the photographs supplied by Smith, he claimed to observe a ‘forger’s tremor’. Hence the letters had not actually been written at all, but drawn with shaky pen lines and with lifts of the pen in the middle of strokes. Carlson also claims that his comparisons with Morton Smith’s typical rendering of Greek letters (such as in his own correspondence and notes) reveal that the unusual formation of the letters theta and lambda in the Mar Saba text matched Smith’s own peculiar formation of those letters. Yet these claims by Carlson have been, in their own turn, challenged by subsequent scholarly research, especially by Scott G. Brown in numerous articles.
   
   In 2010, another handwriting analysis of the Mar Saba manuscript was undertaken by a Greek graphologist Venetia Anastasopoulou at the behest of Biblical Archaeology Review. An internationally known Greek handwriting expert, she compared the letter with known samples of Morton Smith’s Greek handwriting, and concluded that it was most probably not written by Morton Smith. Thus, a substantial number of respected academics and theologians have dismissed the allegations that Smith forged the letter.
   
   Even then, there still remains the possibility that while the transcription is genuine, the letter could well contain an ancient or medieval forgery, based on canonical texts. According to N. T. Wright most scholars who accept the text as genuine see in the Secret Gospel of Mark a considerably later gnostic adaptation of Mark in a gnostic direction. F. F. Bruce sees the story of the young man of Bethany clumsily based on the raising of Lazarus in the Gospel of John. Thus he sees the Secret Mark narrative as derivative, and denies that it could be either the source to the story of Lazarus or an independent parallel.