Paul Foster on Secret Mark

While I rest from an active three days of listening to conference papers and socializing, some people might be interested in this overview of the state of the research up to Scott Brown and Stephen Carlson by Paul Foster, “Secret Mark: Its Discovery and the State of Research” Expository Times 117 (2005): 46-52 (HT Wieland Willker).  It might be more readable than some of my blog notes   Foster also provides a nice forward to the publication on the York conference on Secret Mark, providing an international perspective to the debate held among scholars in North America.

Too Markan to be Mark, too Clementine to be Clement?

I have a confession:  I am terrible at math!  I avoided statistics courses and one of the hardests things was trying to recover basic highschool math for the GRE a few years ago   So I may not be the best to represent the next two contributions involving calculations of probability.  Although written before the Hendrick/Ehrman debate in 2003, it is important to mention the work of Ernest Best, Ch 11 Uncanonical Mark (197-205) in Disciples and Discipleship (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), from his review of E.J. Pryke’s Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel, and A. H. Criddle, “On the Mar Saba Letter Attributed to Clement of Alexandria,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 3.2 (1995): 215-20.

Best sets up an experiment, comparing Secret Mark (SM) (or “uncanonical Mark” [199-200]) to other Markan pericopes.  Of Mark’s stylistic features listed by Pryke, SM has impersonals (‘they come’) in II.23, redundant participle (‘she coming’; cf. 12:42; 14:40; 7:25) II.24, “and immediately” II.26/III.1, redundant participle (‘Jesus coming’, cf. 1:35; 7:24; 8:13) III.1, “immediately” (cf. 1:28; 3:6; 6:45; but see 6:25; 14:45 where it may not be redactional) III.2, archesthai [begin] + infinitive III.5, gar [for] explanatory (‘for he was rich’) III.6, genitive absolute (‘it being evening’) III.7, parenthetical clause (‘for he taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God; cf. 13:10; 8:15; alternatively clause an example of gar explanatory) III.9-10, ”redundant” participle (‘rising from there’, cf. 7:24; 10:1; such participles usually fall at beginning of incidents unlike III.10 at conclusion) III.10 – the Markan characteristics are spread out through SM whereas in canonical Mark (CM) they tend to cluster in the seams (200) (passages underlined in Greek text on p. 201, for a translated SM text with verses see here).  If one assumes the author was Mark, either a) he joined together a number of incidents, or b) there is a reason why he edited the material extensively at some points (e.g., III.5-7 possibly join of two incidents) (201).  Building on Smith’s painstaking details of parallels of SM to CM but going in a new direction, Best attempts to isolate phrases rather than individual words (underline relevent phrases, label them by page & line number [i, ii, iii], where a phrase continued from one line to the next it is identified by the earlier line or a long phrase like III.3 broken into sections [ii and iii] to make full value of their similarity apparent).  Each phrase is assigned a value = if it contains two significant words unvaried in comparison with some phrase in CM it is valued at 3, if some minor variation (e.g., change of person, number, tense, mood, gender, ‘Jesus’ to ‘he’) valued at 2, if more than one significant change valued at 1, and very common phrases (‘he said to them’) or vague parallels valued at 1 (201-2).  Of 157 words in SM, 91 fall into passages with similarity rated 2 or 3; two phrases get a value 1, fifteen a value 2 and ten a value 3 and totalling these obtains a correlation figure of 62 (2 x 1 + 15 x 2 + 10 x 3) (203).  He compares this with Mk 10:17-22 and finds that the similar phrases are shorter and contain fewer significant words than those in SM since, of 94 words, 26 have values 2 or 3.  Three passages get a value 1, four a value 2, four a value 3 and the weighted correlation figure is 23 (203-4).  On Mk 1:40-45, of 97 words 23 get values of 2 or 3; two passages get a value 1, seven a value 2, one a value 3 and the weighted correlation figure is 19 (204).  On Mk 7:24-30, of 129 words 17 get values of 2 or 3; eight passages get a value 1, six a value 2 and none a value 3 and the weighted correlation figure is 20 (204).  Thus, he concludes SM is too much like Mark so it is the work of an imitator picking up Mark’s phrases (204).  SM is a mosaic of Markan phrases and an example of ’overkill’ by an imitator, though we cannot know the date the imitator worked (noting where Smith notes paralells to Matt/Luke he thinks it possible SM postdates all 3 Synoptics) (205).  For a summary (204):

SM 157 words, 91 (values 2 and 3), 58.0%, Weighted Correlation Figure 62, Fraction of Total Number of words .395

1:40-45  97 words, 23 (values 2 and 3), 23.7%, Weighted Correlation Figure 19, Fraction of Total Number of words .196

7:24-30 129 words, 17 (values 2 and 3), 13.1%, Weighted Correlation Figure 20, Fraction of Total Number of words .155

10:17-22 94 words, 26 (values 2 and 3), 27.7%, Weighted Correlation Figure 23, Fraction of Total Number of words .245

Criddle notes most critics accept the Letter to Theodore (LT) as genuinely Clement with exceptions like C.E. Murgia, H. Musurillo, Q. Quisnell and E. Osborn (215), the last insisting LT is a pious forgery familiar with post-Eusebius traditions and imitating the style but misunderstanding Clement’s ideas (e.g., took too literally Clement’s image of heretics breaking in the back door to steal the Church’s teaching [Strom. 7:17]) (216).  Criddle aims to show LT, excluding the SM excerpts, has too high a ratio of Clementine to non-Clementine traits to be authentic (216).  Based on Stählin’s index (has an incomplete listing of the occurrence of words in quotations by Clement from texts like the Bible), Smith lists 7 words in LT not in Clement previously and 15 only once before, yet he has indiosyncratic criteria for what counts as a new word vrs a new form of a previously occurring word (e.g., he treats the comparative & superlative of an adjective as new words and the active & middle of a verb as separate words).  Correcting this as far as possible, Criddle finds 5 words used only once in LT not elsewhere in Clement (aperatos, apographon, aprophulaktōs, prosporeuomai, phthonerōs) and 10 words used once in LT in Clement only once (andrapodōdēs, asphalōs, ensōmatos, exaggellō, exantleō, Hierichō, hierophantikos, katapseudomai [2 times in LT], mēchanaō [active voice in LT, Clement uses once in the middle], prosepagō).  Prosporeuomai (come, approach) and Hierichō (Jericho) are used to show where to put SM passages in CM (III.12, 14) so are discarded, which leaves 4 non-Clementine words and 9 Clementine words used only once in LT, whereas a sampling of Stählin indicates around ³/₈ or 37.5% of Clement’s vocabulary consists of words used once and once only (617).  Then it gets tricky with mathematical formulas on pp 217-18 (I reproduce it below for a math whiz who reads this) but basically he determines that, by using the above fraction, for every increase in the total vocab of 8 words in a new work/fragment of Clement previously unknown we would estimate 5 words used only once by Clement to occur again in the new work.  This ratio of 8 to 5 disagrees with LT’s 4 to 9, showing too many words used previously only once and not enough words previously unknown (discrepancy is significant at the 2.5% level by a χ²  test) (218).  Several words in LT used only once by Clement are rare in other patristic texts (andrapodōdēs, exantleō, hierophantikos) and the use  of ensōmatos in a phrase (sarkikōn kai ensōmaton) recalls how Clement uses it once elsewhere in another context, while new words like apographon and aprophulaktōs are uncommon in Greek writers and phthonerōs is rare in patristic Greek.  Finally, LT is not unusually close to any given work of Clement (e.g., 17 words in LT not found in the Stromateis and only approx 12 words in LT found only once in the Stromateis), so LT brings together words scattered throughout Clement but often with new meanings and non-Clementine ideas (218).  LT picked words in Clement but not in other Patristic writers and avoided words not in Clement but found in other Patristic writers, so (s)he brought together more rare words/phrases from Clement than compatible with genuine Clementine authorship (!) (218).  Furthermore, the agreement Smith finds between the quantitative rhythms of LT and the 3rd book of the Stromateis appears greater than one would expect in an authentic fragment of Clement as short as LT (218).  That all the prepositions common in Clement appear at least once in LT while no other prepositions do is too good to be true (218) and, in one case, of the 12 prepositions in LT the 10th most common apo is used once in a phrase where we would expect the preposition ek but by using apo brings LT closer to the average of prepositions in Clement’s works (219).  Looking at quotations/allusions to biblical passages in LT, he finds Jude 13, Prov 26:5; 1 Thess 5:5; Tit 1:15 directly quoted where each used only once in Clement previously and Rev 2:24; Matt 25:29b, Ecc 2:14; 2 Cor 3:17b not previously found in Clement (though Matt 25:29a quoted several times), thus giving 4 new quotations and 4 only once previosly in Clement.  From Stahlin’s index we find that most cited passages in Clement are quoted only once, so using similar arguments to the  above we would expect the number of quotations previously occuring only once to be less than half of the number of previously unknown quotations which conflicts with the equal numbers of both cases in LT (again an imitator of Clement) (319).  He concludes LT does not accurately reflect Clement’s view of gnostic Christians with deeper insights into available texts (not access to forbidden texts) (319-20).

To avoid misrepresenting the math, let me just quote directly from Criddle on pp. 217-18: ”In simple models of vocabulary statistics, such as those of Herdan and Simon, the size of this fraction is independent, for a given writer, of the total size of the vocabulary used by that writer. Thus if a previously unknown work by an author with fraction α of his vocabulary used only once increases his total vocabulary by x, then (x – (y+z))/x = α, where y is the number of words in the new work previously used only once and z is the number of new words used more than once in the new work. (z would be small in the absence of “clumping” together of infrequently used words, in practice enough “clumping” occurs to make z ≈ x/10).  In more accurate models α slowly falls as total vocabulary rises so that α > (x – (y+z))/x ≈ ⁴/₅ α; thus α > (x – (y+z))/x < (x-y)/x, with α ≈ ½, we have  α ≈ (x – y)/x. ”  This leads him to note α is about ³/₈ and how we should estimate of 8 new words 5 used previously, while LT has the ratio of 4 to 9.

Let me know what you think about the arguments that SM is too Markan to be Mark or LT to Clementine to be Clement?  There is a rebuttal of both positions in Scott Brown’s book which I will get to in the post on Brown and I know Charles Hedrick responded as well to Best’s argument with other Markan pericopes at the forthcoming book on the York conference on Secret Mark (thanks to Tony Burke for the preview of the contents).  I have a conference Thursday-Saturday so I will probably get back to posting on Secret Mark (especially the contributions of Scott Brown, Stephen Carlson, Peter Jeffrey, and Francis Watson) next week.

 

Charles Hedrick versus Bart Ehrman on Secret Mark

Right before the forgery debate really kicked off, there was a debate in the Journal of Early Christian Studies 11.2 (2003).  Charles W. Hedrick “The Secret Gospel of Mark: Stalemate in the Academy” on pages 133-45 (cf. his views at the Fourth R) began by critiquing the ad hominem nature of many reviews and questions whether the focus on a passing comment about physical union in the rite by Smith was motivated by homophobia (136-7). He does note more sober reviews and how Smith benefited from Talley (who in an email to Hedrick Oct 21, 2001 mentioned Smith never thought to look at the liturgical tradition before he mentioned it in 1979) and Richardson (who had second thoughts on his baptism suggestion in favour of Encraitite origin) (137-8 n. 14; 138).  His section “A Historian’s view of non-canonical gospels” (138-40) notes we have 8 gospels, 7 in various states of preservation, 2 reconstructed (Q, Johannine signs source), brief quotes from 4 lost ones and names of at least 13 others that didn’t survive (e.g. Coptic Gospel of Judas was on the antiquities market for several years) (138).  In his view some had access to traditional material (Q, Thomas, Gospel of the Saviour), yet scholars are more willing to work with a hypothetical Q than a text whose editio princeps was published 30 years prior by Smith except to sideline it with concerns on the missing ms, Smith’s passing comment or standard views (139). Yet it is further evidence of the instability of gospel texts (e.g., Clement’s 3 versions of Mark like 3 fragmentary Greek mss of Thomas that disagree w/ each other or the Coptic) (139). He notes: 1. the letter exists (Patriarchate former librarian Kallistos confirmed in Aug 2000 he received it into the library in 1979, cutting it out of Voss’ book and took colour photos), 2. its whereabouts unknown (destroyed, sequestered, misplaced?), 3. Smith could not forge it in the conditions of the monastery in 1958 and all copies of Voss’ volume has 2 blank leaves bound to the back on which the monk copied it, 4. colour photos show an identical stain pattern (discoloration found in old books) migrating between the last printed page so the 2 blank leaves bound at the back appear to go back to 16th cent, 5. Clement scholars generally accept the Letter (140-1).  Asking if SM has a future (141-45), his concerns that 1. Historians should be indifferent as to whether SM supports a homosexual interpretation or not (if Clement tells the truth “naked with naked” not there, if lying this may be in the Carpocratians’ version) but instead only care for historical questions such as whether Jesus baptized (SM, Jn 3:22 [contra Jn 4:2]; cf. Paul’s practice in 1 Cor 1:14-15) (142-3), 2. its confirmation of multiple versions of gospels (143), 3. evidence of an undifferentiated (oral?) tradition with Synoptic and Johannine traits (cf. Johannine thunderbolt in Q, Egerton Papyrus 2, Gos Thomas or Savior) 9143-44), and 4. it can’t just be ignored (144, note his positive contrast of Schenke/Meyers with Gundry who all but dismisses any attempted connections with NT Mark [144 n. 39]). He concludes that bias against SM reflects its non-canonical status (145). Before turning to Ehrman, there is also an interesting article by Gedaliahu A.G. Stroumsa, “Comments on Charles Hedrick’s Article: A Testimony” pp 147-53. He recounts that with David Flusser, Schlomo Pines and Archimadrite Meliton saw the Letter in 1976 but were unable to get the ink tested (only the Israeli Police could do it and Meliton had no intention of giving it to them) (148). He goes over the private correspondence between Smith and the late expert on Jewish mysticism Gershom Scholem (75 letters from Smith between 1945-1983 and 48 from Scholem) which reveal Smith’s unfolding views on his discovery and how Scholem was convinced on some matters but rejected that libertinism goes back to Jesus (149-53).

Bart Ehrman, “Response to Charles Hendrick’s Stalemate”, pp 155-63 agrees with Hendrick on Christian diversity and instability of texts (as one might suspect from his Orthodox Corruption of Scripture), points he thinks stand regardless of SM (155). He also responds to Hendrick that Smith gave as good as he got to his critics (e.g., remarking Achtemeier and Fitzmyer rhyme with “liar”, though Hendrick conceded this harsh side of Smith [pp. 135-36]); the charge of homophobia needs to be backed with evidence as Smith’s passing comment was actually in his denouement and in a footnote on p. 113 n. 12 (155-7).  Further, Hendrick overlooks learned sober critics (Charles Murgia) and the fact that a majority of scholars accepted the Letter as Clement’s and two made big use of it in their reconstructions (Koester, Crossan) (156, 158-9). Erhman asks who contests that Voss’ book had 2 blank pages at the back (157-8). He notes that neither Hendrick nor Stroumsa answer objections of why Smith couldn’t forge it and we need new evidence (or deal with the evidence we have) (159).  He suggests that Smith could have taken years of planning to master the palaeographic skills/Clementine style and notes Smith was allowed to take library books back to his room at night (159 n. 8).  For the issues with the letter, Smith should have known the requirement to examine the physical evidence (i.e. testing if 18th century ink) and should have returned to the monastery to investigate further within the 15 years (159-60) and, aside from the major problem of silence on SM elsewhere, there are smaller objections like why the letter contradicts Clement (Eric Osborn review article on Clementine research for SCe 3 [1983] insists Clement understands knowledge as a deeper understanding of available texts, not hidden ones w/ arcane instructions, and condemns lying), tries to hard to imitate Clement’s style and biblical citations (cf. AH Criddle on overdoing Clement’s distinctive vocab), why are there no transmissional errors (is this an autograph?) (160-1). Under the category interesting or amusing, he notes how the text breaks off at the true explanation, Smith’s dedications to the skeptic Nock and to “One who Knows,” and the brilliant irony of placing it at the end of Voss’ volume where Voss scolds impudent fellows who made interpolations into Ignatius and filled pages with all kinds of nonsense (162). In the end he concludes we just don’t know until the ink is tested (162), but cannot pretend that the issues don’t exist (163).  So who wins this round?

Update: Since Ehrman mentions Charles E. Murgia,  ”Secret Mark: Real or Fake?” Pages 35-40 in Longer Mark: Forgery, Interpolation, or Old Tradition? Colloquy 18 of the Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture (edited by Wilhelm Wuellner; Berkley: Centre for Hermeneutical Studies, 1975), readers might be interested in his argument.  Basically Murgia noted parallels between the Letter to Theodore and Classical forgeries and how they rationalize why they only recently appeared, providing it a “seal of authenticity.”  For the Letter to Theodore, it is noted that SM is 1. only known in Alexandria, 2. carefully guarded, 3. read only by initiates, 4. its very existence is denied in public, and 5. even perjury should be committed to maintain its secrecy.

Does Secret Mark Pre or Post-Date Canonical Mark? Part III

In this post I will look at rebuttals to the arguments that Secret Mark (SM) preceded Canonical Mark (CM).  I want to summarize the excursus (pp 603-23) on SM in Robert Gundry’s Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross since he spends so much time countering every last example of Koester’s case for a proto-Mark or Crossan’s theory that the alleged scattered pieces of SM no longer make sense in their new Markan context (he also has reproduced this article “On the Secret Gospel of Mark” pp 74-97 in The Old is Better: New Testament Essays in Support of Traditional Interpretations [WUNT 178; Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2005]).  In my opinion Scott Brown also makes effective arguments against the priority of SM in his Mark’s Other Gospel: Rethinking Morton Smith’s Controversial Discovery, but I will save that for a separate post (Brown would disagree with Gundry’s leaning towards the pastiche option).

Noting criticism of Koester from a Griesbach hypothesis standpoint, Gundry takes up a rebuttal from the standard two documentary theory (Mark, Q) along with Luke’s use of Matthew as a subsidiary source (604) [this may explain the minor agreements, but why does Gundry then hold to Q instead of Farrer hypothesis?].  Against Koester’s late date for CM based on lack of mss, Gundry argues general neglect of CM based on its rough style/brevity and finds Koester’s case for textual evolution and word statistics unimpressive (605).  He aims to show the minor agreements all make sense as redactions of CM for stylistic/theological reasons, fitting how Matt redacts sources (Mk, Q, M) elsewhere, and at times influencing Luke (605, cf. 605-13).  Examples: Mk 2:27a (Sabbath for humanity) omitted because Matt often pares down non-Christological materials and expands Christological (3:14-5; 11:28-30; 9:1-8; 21:9) and influences Luke (otherwise Luke may have kept the humanitarian thrust of Mk 2:27a) (605).  Matt uses parable of seed growing itself with parable of sower/Baptist’s preaching (3:12) to create parable of tares (13:24-30) because Matt concerned with human responsibility, understanding and contemporary makeup of Church (606).  Matt substitutes his own vocabulary for “gospel” (e.g., “name” used 5 times in shared pericopes & 5 times in unique ones) (607) and sometimes “teaching” is omitted because it is part of larger omission, the audience/setting changed or for ideological reasons (Matt doesn’t want Pharisees/scribes taught at all!) and subsidiary influence on Luke (607-10).  In Mk 7:31, 11:11b Jesus goes to a place without doing anything there and Mk 10:46a may just be a Sabbath in Jericho (Matt omits Bartimaeus because he doubles blind men and omission influences Luke) (606).  The “third day” cleans up the discrepancy of Mark’s 3-days predictions with the empty tomb on Sunday (609).  Mk 5:11-12 “mystery” is a revealed secret given to others that matches singular “kingdom” (Eph 6:19 irrelevant) and Matt pluralizes “mysteries” because different parables exhibit different facets of kingdom (Matt 13 multiplies kingdom parables) and emphasizes understanding (610); Matt influences Luke and Thomas 62 (611).  Matt 20:22-23 omits Mark’s “baptism” (cf. Rom 6:1) so as not to detract from Jesus’ baptism by John as model to be followed (Matt 3:13, 3:17 “this is my Son” in response to baptism, 28:19) (611). Matt 17:14-21 omits much of Mk 9:14-21 because the subject of the scribes unspecified and crowd lacks reason to be amazed (Mk 9:14b-16), objects to father’s questioning Jesus’ ability and lack of faith and magical connotations of (ek)thambeomai (cf. Koester), enhances Jesus’ authority as demon silently exits and unified Mark’s symptoms by dropping deaf-mute spirit (611).  Finally, SM must postdate CM because it conflates the “young man” of Matt 19:16-22, love in Mk 10:17-22 and “rich” in Lk 18:18-23 and SM is likely an apocryphal expansion of Mk 14:51-52 (otherwise why not edit this part of SM out?) (612).

Against Crossan (613-21), Mk 10:46a 3rd person plurals fits Mk 10:32-33 (cf. 11:1, 12a, 20, 27; singular in 10:46b prepares Jesus to meet Bartimaeus), so SM’s “he comes into Jericho” either due to Clement’s quotation influenced by Mk 10:46b (or Lk 18:3) or SM made change to distingish from following 3rd person plural for the women Jesus rejects (614).  This rejection may be due to SM combining Mk 15:40/Matt 27:56 to make Salome the mom of James/John (cf. Matt 20:20) (614).  Problems with Crossan’s theory of relocating scattered parts of SM:  Bethany and “house” (11:1, 11, 12; 14:3) specifies where Jesus is staying outside Jerusalem, why transfer SM’s ”Bethany” more than once and Simon the leper introduced because it is his “house” (614).  It makes no sense to break up ”Son of David have mercy” by inserting Jesus into it rather than omit “Jesus” (615).  Mk 15:46 has a stone rolled to door of tomb which is why the women ask the question at Mk 16:3 (Matt omits Mk 16:3 because sealing of tomb/guards makes question nonsensical; Luke redaction in conflating Mk 16:3-4 and 2 men at tomb) and why wouldn’t CM retain Jesus rolling the stone away (615).  Even if Matt/Luke alter the clause about raising him grasping the hand (Matt 8:15/Lk 4:39; Matt 7:18/Lk 9:42; Matt 9:25/Lk 8:54), it is irrelevant as they are redacting CM (they couldn’t have known SM since it is not present in Matt/Luke).  Further, Mk 9:21 from “childhood” is a different term from “youth” and to appear as dead (Mk 9:26) not the same as actually dead and entombed (616).  Mk 10:17-22 rich man is not a “youth” but looks back on his youth and Jesus’ love for the man (rather than vice-versa) hardly a good counter-strategy against the youth’s love for Jesus (617).  The demoniac beseeching to be with Jesus fits its Markan context (617) and 6 days (Mk 9:2) is perfectly understood in Matt 17:1 (Lk 9:28 hardly adds clarity) (618).  Finally, why would CM transfer the story of the baptism of the youth to the flight in Mk 14:51-52?  It is more likely SM’s description is based off Mk 14:51-52; Crossan’s argument that the youth is wearing a baptism gard is belied by the fact that there is no baptism in SM at all (no water, no new garment, linen cloth not a technical term for baptism, baptisms do not just take place at night as Acts 16:33 has a specific context and 3rd cent Hippolytus Trad. Ap. 21 has baptism at dawn, Mk 4:11 is teaching a crowd not a rite) (618-19, 620-21).  Gundry concludes the 2nd century Alexandrian Christians’ idealization of poverty explains the youth’s attire in SM (622-23)

Does Secret Mark Pre or Post-Date Canonical Mark? Part II

In the last post I forgot to include Philip Sellew, “Secret Mark and the History of Canonical Mark”, pp 242-57 in The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honour of Helmut Koester (ed. Birger A. Pearson; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991).  In case Koester’s theory has readers scratching their heads (cf. Sellew’s review on pp 244-7),  Stephen Carlson’s Synoptic Problem website has a useful diagram (6th diagram down “With Proto-Secret Mark”, though Koester argues Luke used a ”proto-Mark” missing 6:45-8:26 while Matt an amplified “proto-Mark” with 6:45-8:26).  Sellew believes Koester is right in his basic insights (243) and his own thesis is that each successive stage in the evolution of Mark is reflective of the same interests of the Markan tradition from the start; that is, in writing, re-writing and redacting Markan tradition there is a trajectory through original Mark > Secret Mark (SM) > Canonical Mark (CM) rather than discontinuity or disruptive editing/tampering (253-4).  However, Sellew’s evaluation (247-53) challenges key points of Koester’s case.

Sellew begins on the note that Mark appears to be a redacted document, citing Mk 6:7-14 as an abbreviation of parallel Q (Lk) 10:2-16, agreeing with Koester on insertions of Mk 2:27 or “for the sake of the gospel” in 10:29 or 12:32-34, and noting that Koester’s hypothesis of an evolving Markan tradition and various 2nd century editions challenges the view that all minor agreements of Matt/Luke against Mark are scribal harmonizations (cf. Streeter) (247-8).  He concedes the issues in differentiating early and later redaction as the lack of comparative material (i.e. we don’t have an earlier form of Mark to compare), the lack of Mark mss before the 3rd century and the continuity of language/style throughout the alleged Markan layers (248-9).  Against Koester’s theory that Luke had a proto-Mark without 6:45-8:26, Peabody argued for linguistic connections of the section with the rest of Mark (but that could be the work of a later redactor fully integrating it into the source), there are reasons for Luke’s omission (e.g., doublets, repetition) and this section forms a major part of Mark’s plot of the increasingly uncomprehending disciples (249-50).  Furthermore, “teaching” may be added to CM but there are also cases where Matt/Luke edited it out as inappropriate (e.g., exorcism in Mk 1:27 has no content of the “teaching” so changed in Lk 4:36) and emphasis on Jesus’ teaching was in Matt/Luke’s source (cf. Matt 7:28-29, Lk 4:31-32) (251).  Second, Mk 14:51-52 has “a certain youth” (neaniskos tis), implying he is a new character!  Mark and the other evangelists following normal Greek narrative practice consistently use this construction with tis or anarthrous noun or proper name for a previously unmentioned character  (cf. textual variant heis tis neaniskos [A W Θ f^1.13] where numeral one with indefinite pronoun a feature of unliterary koine; cf. Mk 14:47; 12:42; Jn 11:42; SM 1.v.23) (252).  So either 1. Mk 14:51 youth not connected to SM youth but then we have 3 unconnected references to unnamed “youth” (!), 2. the enigmatic youth was in original Mark prompted SM to add the youth but Matt/Luke show no knowledge of Mk 14:51 and SM would then neglect to alter Mk 14:51 to allign it with its additions, or 3. Sellew favours the option that CM edited SM but its revisions were much more thoroughgoing than just deleting a couple offending passages as the connection to any past story is now severed in Mk 14:51 (252-3; p. 53 n. 38 shows that Mk 16:5 again introduces an indefinite youth previously unmentioned) (252-3).  Note: my own preference would actually be for option 2 and that Matt/Luke omit Mk 14:51-52 as too puzzling and SM tries to fill in the gaps by providing a background for the youth (perhaps the author didn’t notice the inconsistency or perhaps did reword it as SM may be longer than two excerpts quoted by Clement).

As he sees the implications of his study (253-7), Koester’s redactional stratums cannot be so neatly separated as the same tendencies and interests appear in all  stages (253).  CM’s possible insertions of “to teach” or “teaching” aside, the theme of teaching and understanding is pervasive in all editions of Mark with Jesus the miracle working teacher gathering a group of “disciples” or “learners” (he speculates that the term “disciple” for Jesus’ followers may be original to Mark as it is absent in Paul and Q except for Q 7:18 for disciples of John or at least Mark one of the first to emphasize it) (254-5).  Although SM replaced original Mark like Matthew, Luke or John and letting the original version fall out of use (256), the author of SM obviously found original Mark congenial to its purposes.  The introduction of SM by early 2nd cent Alexandrian catachumens or baptized believers continues the Markan emphases on miracles along magical lines, mysterious speech and teaching about the kingdom (shifted to the mysteries act of the baptismal sacrament taught by the hierophant Jesus) and the failure of the disciples especially in Gethsemane (256-57).

Does Secret Mark Pre or Post-Canonical Mark? Part I

Besides Smith a few scholars have argued that Secret Mark (SM) was actually part of original Mark excised from canonical Mark (CM) due to its misuse by the Carpocratians.  I will look at the proposals of Helmut Koester’s theory in Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (1990), where he refines his argument that had been presented at an earlier seminar, and John Dominic Crossan, Four Other Gospels:  Shadows on the Contours of Canon (1985). Again, these are just my notes on their work, not my own views.

Koester argues from the minor agreements (cf. Neirynck, Minor Agreements) of Matt/Luke against CM that they used another version of Mark ca 100 CE.  He admits some are common stylistic/grammatical corrections, accidental common omissions or scribal altering under influence of Matt, but focusses on instances where a recognizable editorial purpose may explain a change in CM from the “Mark” known to Matt/Luke (275-6).  Under common “omissions”, he argues the editor of CM inserted Mk 2:27 (interpreted as criticism of Sabbath observance, cf. Col 2:16; Ignatius Mg. 9:1; Barn. 15), Mk 4:26-29 (Matt 13:24-30 has similar Parable of the Tares but Matt 13 eager to expand Mk 4 parables), Mk 10:21, 24 (loved him, repetition, amazement), Mk 12:32-34 (appendix from Hellenistic Jewish/Christian propoganda of the scribe who makes the true confession of Shema [cf. Mk 12:29] and love of God from “whole understanding” superior to offerings [cf. Bornkamm]), Mk 14:51-52, and Mk 10:35-39 (Matt has cup as appropriate symbol of martyrdom but no baptism - a later homiletic expansion based on sacraments of eucharist & baptism, Rom 6:3-13 not a parallel [p. 278 n. 2]) (276-9).  CM alters the original wording preserved by Matt/Luke: Matt 13:11/Lk 8:10 (cf. Thom. 62; 1 Cor 13:2; 4:1; 14:2) plural mysteries to know better fits parables as mysteries to be explained than Mk 4:11 singular “mystery” given (summary about Jesus or the “gospel”, cf. Eph 6:19), Matt 16:21/Lk 9:22 third day & passive raised more primitive (cf. 1 Cor 15:4) than Mk 8:31 three days to rise (echo of Lazarus’ resurrection on 4th day? – p. 280 n. 2; cf. Smith, Clement, 163-4) and Matt 17:18-20a/Lk 9:42-43 older version of epileptic boy than Mk 9:14-29 (Mk 9:25-26 now a deaf-mute though remnants of epilepsy in 9:18, 20, 22, powerful contest with demon in exorcism as boy shakes and then as dead, but Jesus grabs him by the hand and raises him) (279-82).  Peculiar terminology in CM:  to teach (didaskein)/teaching (didache) (Mk 1:21, 22; 6:2, 6; [7:7]; 11:18; 12:14; 14:49) - sometimes reproduced in Synoptic parallels but many not and oddly placed like Mk 1:27 (cf. Acts 17:32 teaching = resurrection, Pap. Oxy. 1224, 2v. col. new teaching & new baptism), 6:30, 34; 8:31; 9:31 while Matt/Luke use different verb than “to teach” in parallel to Mk 2:13; 4:1-2; 10:1; 11:17; 12:35, 37, 38 – or the verb (ek)thambeisthai for amazement (1:27; 9:15; 10:24; 10:32; 14:33; 16:5, cf. 16:6) (283-4) (p. 284 n. 1 notes use of term in Hellenistic magic). Luke’s great omission with Mark’s doublets and peculiar features (“to understand” suniemi in Mk 6:52; 7:14; 8:17, 21 while elsewhere only Mk 4:12 allusion to Isa 6:9-10; synonymous noein 7:18; 8:17 and elsewhere only 13:14; “without insight” asunetos only in 8:17) shows his version of Mark missing this “Bethsaida section.”  So far, Koester reconstructs the evolution of CM in stages from the earliest version of Mark from the external evidence (not speculative Urmarkus – p. 285) used by Luke, an amplified Mark with 6:45-8:47 used by Matt, a new edition with SM (not yet argued), CM without 16:9-20 and the longer ending(s) (285-6).  On the Letter to Theodore (293-303),  he argues the vocab, style, syntax and manner of quotation identical with or similar to Clement’s writings so skepticism hard to justify (293-4) and may be written between 175-200 or 200-215 CE (Clement died ca 215) (294).  The greater mysteries of SM intended for mature Christians advancing in knowledge or undergoing second baptism (294 n. 7), but with no organized church and bishop/presbyters in early 2nd cent Alexandria it was easy to obtain copies of any writing (295).  SM’s vocab and style compatible with Mark so was from the same Markan school (cf. Johannine school) (295).  Parallels with John 11 story include the love (cf. Jn 11:3, 5, 35-36) and Bethany, but it lacks traces of Johannine redaction (names, motif of delay of travel, measurement of space/time, discourses with disciples or Mary/Martha) (296).  The youth’s initiation can’t be secondary because CM’s redaction shows awareness of it (Mk 4:11 ”mystery”; 10:21 loved him [cf. Jn 11:5, 36]; 14:51-52 youth in linen cloth; emphasis on “teaching”, Mk 8:31/9:31/10:32-34 3 days rise; 9:26-27 grasped by hand and raised; 9:15, 10:23-24, 10:32 “amazed”; 10:38-40a baptism, 10:46 Jericho) (297-302.  Thus, SM arranged Mk 8-10 to have two stories of raising a dead person, each after a passion prediction of resurrection in 3 days, and added references to the singular “mystery,” baptism as symbol for martyrdom, the youth fleeing naked in the garden (p. 297-8 n. 8 denies young man in Mk 16:5 in bright young man is same person and more likely an angel, cf. Gos Pet 13:55) and the teaching activity that leave traces in CM (301-2).  Meanwhile, Carpocratian additions including  ”naked with naked” was not in the Alexandrian church’s version, but Koester argues it need not imply sexual license as nakedness common in baptism (cf. Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition 21:11) (302)

Crossan divides SM into 5 parts: SM1 (=Mk 10:32-34 third passion prophecy), 2 (resurrected youth), 3 (=Mk 10:35[-45?] James & John), 4 (=Mk 10:46a Jericho) and 5 (women).  He finds SM2 more primitive than John 11 and lacks Johannine redactions with the following comparisons:  1. Voice – SM’s cry from the tomb like exorcised demons (Mk 1:26; 5:7) or Jesus himself in struggling with demonic power of death (Mk 15:34) changed to Jesus’ cry in Jn 11:43; 2. Anger – SM anger negative (cf. Mk 1:43; 14:5; Matt 9:30; Eger Pap 2, 2r51) at disciples rebuke of the sister while no reason for anger in John 11:33, 38 (verb different, usually translated deeply moved); 3. Garden - SM in a garden because youth rich while John 11 not in a garden but Jesus’ own garden tomb in 19:41 (104-6).  He argues the redactor of CM eliminated the raising of the youth and story behind Mk 10:46 though traces appear in CM (106-8). Parts of SM are still present in CM (SM1 verbatim first 8 words w/ Mk 10:32 and last 4 words with Mk 10:46; SM3 first 6 word verbatim of Mk 10:35; SM4 verbatim first 4 words of 10:46 except “he comes to Jericho” changed to “they come to Jericho” with “he was leaving Jericho with his disciples), while the omission of the episode at SM4 leaves a gaping hole in Mk 10:46 as we don’t learn what happened at Jericho (Clement’s copy must have already omitted something from SM5 as we don’t know why he didn’t receive the women – perhaps there was an original conversation with Salome?). Other parts that appear include the rich man obedient from his “youth” and whom Jesus loved and Salome at Mk 15:30/16:1 (109-10).  Of 5 literary elements of SGM (Arrival, Request, Miracle, Instruction, Departure) (111), CM dismembers and scatters them about:  Bethany (11:1, 11, 12) problematically relocated in 11:1 (rephrased in Lk 19:28-9/omitted Matt 21:1), “Son of David have mercy on me” to 10:47-48 awkwardly brackets “Jesus” (original petition of Bartimaeus just to “Jesus”?), rolled away the stone from door of the tomb to Mk 16:3 “who will roll away the stone” (not in Matt 28:2; Lk 24:2), the youth to young man at tomb in 16:5 (2 men in Lk 24:4, angel in Matt 28:2), ‘raised him seizing his hand’ to epileptic boy (Mk 9:26; cf. Mk 1:31; 5:41; 9:27; only retained in Matt 9:25/Lk 8:54), “that he might be with him” to former demoniac in 5:8, youth’s house to 1:29, 2:14-5, 3:20, “for he was rich” to Mk 10:17-22 (originally SM’s youth a new character as Clement has no knowledge of the rich man’s salvation in his exposition on this pericope but Mk 10:17-22 now has man obey from “youth” and Jesus “looks on him and loves him”), “after 6 days” to 9:2 (cf. Coptic tradition of 6th day of 6th week when Jesus baptized disciples), wearing linen cloth over naked body (cf. Thom 27, 37 wisdom, paradise regained and sexual asceticism; Jn 3:2 visit at night; Acts 16:33 nocturnal baptism; Pauline baptism imagery of taking off/putting on) relocated to odd story at Mk 14:51-2, mystery of kingdom to Mk 4:11 now in context of public parables, and other side of Jordan to 10:1 (omitted in Lk 9:51; changed in Matt 19:1) (111-9).  SM’s nocturnal baptism with its Edenic symbolism used in Alexandrian baptisms but misinterpreted as an erotic scene by the Carpocratians who added “naked with naked”, so the editor of CM dismembered it to make  SM look like a secondary Carpocratian edition (117-8).  Thus, Crossan’s model is of Markan tradition with SM (based on an oral tradition shared by John 11), then Carpocratian interpolations, then SM2 & 5 omitted as literary units and their parts dismembered throughout CM which finally left difficulties for Matt/Luke to make sense of CM’s editing (119-20) [note: doesn’t this imply a very late date for Matt/Luke if redacting CM after the Carpocratians!).

There are a few other works that are worth considering.  I do not have access to Marvin W. Meyer, “The Youth in the Secret Gospel of Mark” pages 129-53 in Semeia 49: the Apocryphal Jesus and Christian Beginnings (1990): 129-53 at the moment (the last publication of the innovative journal Semeia was in 2002 and has been replaced by a book series) and reprinted along with some other articles in his Secret Gospels: Essays on Thomas and the Secret Gospel of Mark (2003).  Basically he uncovers parallels of a beloved disciple in Christian literature and of a neaniskos (youth) fleeing naked in Greco-Roman literature and argues that if one adds back in the story of SM into its original location in Mark we have a consistent story of discipleship from the call of Jesus, the resurrection of the rich youth from the dead and initiation into the teaching of the kingdom while wearing baptismal garb, his failure like the rest of the disciples in Gethsemane (14:51-52) and his restoration when dressed in white proclaiming the resurrection (16:5) while the women fail at the end (16:8; is this why Jesus does not receive them in SM?).  Another work I have not yet read is by John Dart, a journalist who had long covered this issue, called Decoding Mark.  I am always a bit hesitant about finding chiasms as they seem like they can be found anywhere one wants to look but if someone who has actually read the book and wants to pass on their thoughts (RBL reviews here).

Morton Smith on Secret Mark Part III

Well, my copy of Smith’s more academic Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark has still not arrived from interlibrary loan and I want to move on to other scholarly approaches of Secret Mark (SM) in this blog series.   I have skimmed through it before and will need to incorporate it into my research on the general early patristic reception of Mark, but it is a shame I do not have a copy on hand to check how Smith justifies (or fails to justify) with much more textual analysis and documentation that the Letter to Theodore fits with Clement’s literary style or his take on the relationship of Secret Mark (SM) to the canonical Gospels or how SM allegedly reflects magical libertine circles that go back all the way to Jesus and Palestinian Christianity.  In any case, readers who had never heard of SM or Smith’s theories hopefully get the gist about the main lines of his argument.  Now a brief evaluation.

I think Smith did make efforts to verify his find by taking photographs, getting analyses of the handwriting, asking patristic experts to verify its authenticity, leaving it in the library where other scholars could consult before it got lost again.  Unfortunately he did not get the proper scientific tests that might have prevented all the uncertainty surrounding the discovery and we can only hope with luck the manuscript might one day be rediscovered.  Perhaps such tests may exonerate Smith but there would still be room for lots of other different options such as a forgery by an 18th century monk, an ancient forgery, or a genuine letter of Clement.  I could be persuaded by Smith’s points that SM imitates the Greek style of canonical Mark yet against the pastiche theory is independent of the other two Synoptics (perhaps parallels based on similar editing of Mark or contaminations from Synoptic influence over Clement’s quoting from memory; I strongly doubt Smith’s view that SM influenced Matt/Luke or textual tradition or was much known outside a limited circle in Alexandria) and John with the resurrected youth/Lazarus from shared oral tradition.  Where I remained unconvinced is that this story was part of a document behind Mark and John as similarities in order and geographical framework may be due to John’s familiarity with Mark (even if he had his own distinct sources/traditions/passion narrative) while a free-floating oral tradition may have located the story in Bethany.  Also it seems odd that canonical Mark would leave the secret traditions untranslated yet include the youth running away naked in the garden in Mark 14:51-52 without any of the background information or context provided by the secret material and more likely that the author of SM filled in the gaps and elaborated on enigmatic passages like canonical Mark 14:51-52 and 10:46 (what did they do in Jericho?).  I am also completely unpersuaded by Smith’s interpretation of the text as it just involves teaching the mystery of the kingdom – no baptism, no magical ascent to the heavens, no physical union – and there are no other traces of these extremely libertine circles Smith conveniently claims were suppressed to find until Irenaeus and Clement’s description of the Carpocratians (and we have to be careful about trusting polemical descriptions of the immorality of competing groups in the NT or patristic literature or any other text).  Anyways, moving on from Smith I intend to look at some other arguments for the priority of SM to canonical Mark (e.g., Koester), than at some counter-arguments that it post-dates canonical Mark and then the lead up to the current stalemate over authenticity/forgery so stay tuned…

Morton Smith on Secret Mark part II

For the 10th anniversary of his publications on Secret Mark (SM), Smith wrote, “Clement of Alexandria and Secret Mark: The Score at the End of the First Decade” HTR 75/4 (1982): 449-61.  Coverage began with the media, than attacks by “religious journals,” then few objective ones and picks 150 ”significant” (or “worthless but influential”) representative reviews (449).  4 positions:  1) Both bogus. (2) Both genuine. (3) letter genuine but not SM, (4) SM genuine but letter not by Clement.  Options 2/4 are ignored while of those in the bibliography, 25 attribute the letter to Clement (at least as a working hypothesis) (Beardslee, Brown, Bruce, Donfried, Fitzmyer, Frend, Fuller, Grant, Hanson, Hobbs, van der Horst, Johnson, Kee, Koester, MacRae, Mullins, Parker, Petersen, Pomilio, Richardson, Shepherd, Skehan, Trevor-Roper, Trocme, Wink), 6 suspend judgment or don’t discuss it (Achtemeier, Betz, Kolenko, Merkel, Reese, Schmidt) and 4 deny the attribution (Kümmel, Murgia, Musurillo, Quesnell).  He chastises Quesnell for misrepresenting him (CBQ editor agreed) and making up evidence for Smith as a forger, writing, “Unfortunately, nobody else has had so high an opinion of my classical scholarship” (450).  Musirillo has a “valuable paper” on the possibility of an ancient or 17th century forgery but the simplest hypothesis is a genuine letter survived a millenium or more left alone at Mar Saba, while Murgia argues forgeries often include bogus introductory letter defending the recent appearance & authenticity of the work yet the same is true of genuine works or secret texts. He is harsher on Kümmel, who builds on Quesnell and uses “secondhand trivalialities” and objections already answered, describing it as a “disgrace” (451).  Thus, he sees the case against Clement as weak and the verdict in the “provisional” inclusion in the Berlin edition of Clement’s works (452). Since most critics get his theory wrong, he reiterates that an original Aramaic gospel was twice translated into Greek by Mark and John (explains their agreement in outline but difference in wording), that each left out or added many elements, that Mark was expanded by Matt/Luke and SM and the latter imitated Mark’s Greek style yet added episodes from the old Greek translation of the original outline (why SM and John agree in location of “Lazarus story”).  According to Clement the Carpocratians got hold of SM and “corrupted” it further (452-3).  His key points is Mark and John based on an earlier gospel and SM added elements from it in Markan style and he notes half a dozen willing to agree (Beardslee, Donfried, Koester, MacRae, Pedersen, Trocme[?]) and half opposed (Brown, Fuller, Johnson, Merkel, Pomilio, Shepherd) (453).  Others contend SM is a pastiche of NT gospels (Brown, Bruce, Grant, Hanson [tentatively], Hobbs, van der Horst, Mullins, Richardson, Schmidt [parallels w/ Diatessaron], Skehan), a free invention like apocryphal gospels (Fitzmyer, Kümmel, Merkel, Parker, Shepherd) despite differences in style/literary form and 5 a free-floating pericope or oral tradition (Fuller, Frend [?], Johnson, Kee, Wink) despite not explaining the common order and geographical framework in Mark/John (453).  Against Pastiche theory:  1) naively assumes shared expression with NT Gospels must be borrowing instead of oral tradition w/ common expressions/motifs, 2) forgets SM in 18th cent ms so may be corrupted in transmission (e.g., contamination by other Gospels), 3) shared order of Mark/SM/John and SM’s more primitive than John is neglected for first impressions based on familiar wording (what about common Greek usage, oral tradition, evangelist borrowing, textual corruption?) (453-4; a lengthier footnote on p 454, n. 13 is given to R. Brown’s “outstanding exception” cautiously arguing dependence on John).  The great divide is 11 think SM preserves some pre-Markan oral/written tradition and 15 see it freely invented in the 2nd cent from scraps of NT Gospels, some reacting to Smith’s magical initiation theory which he concedes nobody accepts (455).  He thinks biases against him are religious or based on form/redaction critical fads (455), the latter he rejects as subjective (one can show a text has been altered from 1. mss, 2. historical reports changed, 3. inconsistences in wording, grammar or content but form criticism depends too much on intuition about #3) and Smith didn’t want to clutter up his work with form conjectures but just uses Jesus, Paul and so on as “frames” to fit in the new data (456).  His summary is Clementine authorship generally accepted with no strong arguments against; SM is either an apocryphal gospel of 2nd century (weakest), a pastiche (popular but weak as no early one extant and ignores SM’s priority to John and Mark/John outline) or an expansion imitating Markan style that nevertheless used earlier material of some sort (457).  The appendix notes Thomas Talley fitting SM into the early Egyptian baptismal liturgy on the 6th day of the 6th week of a lent immediately after Epiphany and the early work of Koester (458-9).

Overall, a useful summary of interactions in the first decade of Smith’s publications and scores some points against the Pastiche theory, though biased and sometimes polemics over argument.  One wonders what this article would look like if he saw the state of play today!  I went back to look at Smith’s complaint about Q. Quesnell, “The Mar Saba Clementine: A Question of Evidence,” CBQ 37 (1975) 48-67; M. Smith, “On the Authenticity of the Mar Saba Letter of Clement” 196-99 & Quesnell, “A Reply to Morton Smith,” 200-203 in CBQ 38 (1976).  Quesnell denies intent to prove Smith the forger (1986: 200) but perhaps it is not hard to read in that intent.  He raised questions about proper scientific examination such as accessibility of the ms (49-50), what info was passed on to experts who dated it and how do we distinguish their judgments from Smith’s (e.g. conclusions about the scribe’s skills, background) (50-52), the physical evidence (composition & colour of ink, state of ms, search for mss by same hand in library) (52-53).  The case for forgery depends on ability (copy of Voss’ book, samples of 18th cent handwriting & skills to imitate general style of period [rather than specific individual] or enlist help, command of Clement, opportunity to place it in library) and motivation (54-58).  This doesn’t mean Smith did it, but he notes Stahlin’s index published in 1936 so the “mystifier” could practice from that date (55), Voss was among 191 books not in 1910 catalogue (56) and Smith’s desire to see how scholars assimilate new data into their previous positions (57-58).  From there he looks at how Smith’s research impacted his reading (magic, ecstatic ”ascents”, Jesus’ antinomianism, secret doctrine in Mark and Tannaitic literature including forbidden sex) (58-60), his abundant but irrelevant documentation to overwhelm reader  (e.g., huge appendix on Carpocratians but mostly post-Clementine and derivative) (60-64), vagueness about reactions of scholarly peers (64-65), inaccurate citing (65-66) and unusual dedications (to Nock who was skeptical about Clementine authorship and sees work as mystification, to “One who Knows”) (66).  To defend Smith, he got a number of independent experts to verify handwriting and content and did not have permission to take it out of the library for scientific tests and had no idea it would get lost, there may be evolution in Smith’s thought before and after discovery (influenced by Richardson’s letter on baptismal rite, interested in secrecy prior but didn’t make Mk 4:11 about secret rites or have ritual ascents previously, SM has “taught” instead of “given” mystery though Smith since claims usage in Papyri graecae magicaê IV 750, 1872; Herodotus 2.171; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom 1.68.3; Porphyry, De Abstinentia 4.16; Oracula Chaldaica,ed des Places, n 224 [=Eus. Praep. Ev. 5.12.1]) (cf. Smith 198-99, 99 n. 12) and Smith may have imposed his own pet theories on a text he genuinely discovered (SM has no baptism, no magical rites, no mystical ascents, no libertinism within excerpts quoted of it whatever Carpocratians were doing).  If only it had been scientifically tested when there was the chance so that we could know for sure and if if passed get on with the work of interpreting it…

Morton Smith on Secret Mark Part I

I now have a copy of Morton Smith’s popular The Secret Gospel: The Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel According to Mark (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1974).  I will reserve praise and criticism until after I finish up a few posts on Smith’s views, but suffice it to say that my impression was that his theories were at once brilliant, creative “out-of-the-box” thinking and absurd.  I cannot help but wonder if there would be so much controversy over this text if a more mainstream scholar had discovered it?  It is long as I tried to have my notes accurately reflect the contents of the book (does not imply I agree with any of it), so if you are only interested in aspects of Theodore and Secret Mark (SM) the first section below looks at the discovery and authenticity of the text, the second on its relationship of SM to the Gospels and the third on Smith’s theory about the impact of the discovery on Jesus and Christian origins.

After an enigmatic dedication “For the One Who Knows” and preface on the fallibility of memory, Ch 1 The Preparation (1-9) recalls how Archimandrite Kyriakos Spyridonides (Custodian of Holy Sepulchre) invited the 26 year old Smith to go with him to Mar Saba in 1941.  On a travelling fellowship from Harvard Divinity to Jerusalem and, stuck during the war, he began a doctorate at Hebrew University and met Kyriakos at a hostel.  He describes the 1500 year old monastery where he spent 2 months such as the caves along the walls of the wadis and the 2 libraries, but was most impacted by the ”worship as a means of disorientation” (5) that “make the worshippers on earth participants in the perpetual worship of heaven” (6).  From his insight into the rites as “magical” (repeat words/actions as duty) and G. Scholem on Jewish mystical ascents to the divine throne room in hekalot books and a letter in 1752 from Hasidism legendary founder Baal Shem to R. Gershon of Kuty (7-8), he asks the important question whether Greek monasticism preserved a primitive tradition or if he imposed his own experiences onto SM (6-7).  Organizing a relief effort after 1948 he was invited back by the new Patriarch, His Beatitude Benedict, to spend 3 weeks (9).  In Ch 2 The Discovery (10-17), at age 43 he no longer attended the services and spent days cataloguing mss (short supply of paper meant many handwritten passages on all parts of books or mss used for binding) without expecting much since almost all were taken to the Patriarchal library in Jerusalem (11).  He found a letter by “one of the earliest and most mysterious of the great fathers of the Church” about “one of the most scandalous of the ‘gnostic’ sects” who held that “[o]nly by committing all possible actions could the soul satisfy the demands of the rulers of this world and so be permitted to go to the heavens, its true home” (parallels w/ 17th/18th cent Jewish mystics Sabbatai Zevi, Jacob Frank) (12, 14) on the back of a 1646 ed of letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch by Isaac Voss and photographed it 3 times (13) and translates it (14-17).  Ch 3 The Problems (18-21) covers his doubts (e.g., why is SM unattested?) (18), the need for a handwriting analysis, the ms history, authenticity issues and whether Clement (writing ca 180/200 CE) was right on SM (19-20).  Ch 4 The Manuscript (22-25) dates the handwriting to the second half of 18th cent (22-23).  Ch 5 The Letter (26-30) notes the heading identifying the author as Clement of the Stromateis is conventional and could be added and Theodore is unidentifiable, but 2 years of statistical analysis word-by-word (26-27) showed that vocab, phrases, grammatical constructions, rhythm & content were Clement’s but differences from his other works suggest it is not forged (28-29).  Most of 14 Clementine or patristic/classical scholars (except Munck, Völker) agreed (29) and he presented at SBL in 1960 (30).

Ch 6 The Gospel: Date and Style (39-44) dates SM to 100 CE based on Clement’s “cock-an-bull story” that Carpocrates  (peak activity ca 125-30 CE) got it by trickery and Irenaeus that Carpocrates wrote on secret sayings (40).  Clement thinks SM an expansion of Mark in Alexandria (cf. Matthew in Syria, Luke in Asia Minor) (40-41).  SM is closer to Mark than other Gospels with 6 major verbal parallels and left a few traces in textual traditions in Egypt before 150 (p. 142 clarifies the western text and the gnostic Theodotus) as well as a few passages in Matt/Luke (SM has few Matthean/Lukan elements), but it is too Markan so may be a very early imitation by an Egyptian writer (42-43).  Ch 7 The Gospel: Relation to John (45-62) notes parallels to Lazarus (contra Parker that it is patterned on Mk 5:1-20 – p. 46).  Parallel columns show links and outline of Jesus’ travels (Mk 10:1/Jn 10:40 beyond Jordan, SM/Jn 11:1, 18 Bethany) shared between Mk 10:1-34+SM and John (47-52).  SM is older than the Johannine account as it lacks John’s editorial hand -comparing Jesus to the Baptist (10:41), doubling sisters against simple miracle story, dramatic touches (love for Lazarus, building suspense as Jesus delays, disciple’s misunderstanding Jesus but ultimate loyalty), specific names & times (4 days = really dead), statistics (distance Bethany from Jerusalem) & explanations, Jewish audience, Johannine words/phrases (52-54).  The endings depart (no initiation in John, no Jewish plot in SM), but Smith concludes Jn 10:40-11:54 based on an old collection of stories like in Mk 10:1, 32-34 + SM that he reworked (demon’s cry from tomb to Jesus’ cry, ”Son of David have mercy” to “Lord if you had been here”, others move stone for Jesus, Jesus doesn’t grab dead by hand but just commands) (55-56).  Further if one adds SM back to Mk 10:1-34, the latter halves from Mk 6:32/Jn 6:1 run parallel (56-60) so he infers a common Aramaic source (60-61) (he describes his realization of this as a “high point of his life” that he has no memory [p. 61]).  Ch 8 The Gospel: Content (63-71) borrows from Richardson that Mk 10:13-45 used in all-night Paschal vigil before Easter when baptisms performed and inclusion of SM’s baptism of the youth who loves Jesus offsets the offense of preceding story of a rich man loved by Jesus who turns away.  Mark was for ordinary catachumens, SM read at the Paschal vigil and unwritten traditions for the true gnostic (64-65; cf. 66).  Modifications of Richardson’s theory:  1. Mk 10:13-45 not about 2 rich youths but 1 (note SM “for he was rich” seems influenced by Lk 18:23 but Smith sees it as later interpretive gloss of Clement [67, 69]) who rejects Jesus but when he is resurrected he loves Jesus (Jesus’ love for the man in Mk 10:21 inserted by the author of SM) (68), 2. 6-day preparation, nocturnal setting, linen sheet, mystery of the kingdom confirm baptismal rite, 3. the youth’s resurrection & initiation integral to the baptism purpose and so must be from Aramaic source (69).  The other story in SM where Jesus does not “receive” Salome (and the other women) uses a term in Luke-Acts (cf. 42-43 n. 2) and reflects a change Clement made to SM’s original account of a conversation between Jesus and Salome as Salome became disapproved in orthodox circles; this also explains why Salome’s name drops out in the other gospels and the lacuna in Mk 10:46 as scribal tampering (69-70).  If confused, his summary (70-71) is an original Aramaic document influenced Mark/John including the secret passages, NT Mark is a translation for elementary Christians that left the secret passages out, later the secret passages were translated (SM) by one imitating NT Mark’s Greek style.

Ch 9 The Secret Tradition: Introduction (72-77) hints that secrecy was common in Judaism and Christianity.  In Ch 10 The Mystery and the Kingdom (78-88), he argues the change from Mk 4:11 “to you the mystery of the kingdom of God has been given” in Matt/Luke to plural mysteries to know (mystery=meaning of parables) is mistaken (79).  Instead, SM shows the mystery was a baptism and mystery rites like baptism were generally given to initiates (“taught” in SM is a copyist mistake) (79) and this baptismal rite is also the background for the young man in the cloth in Gethsemane (Mk 14:51) (81).  He argues secrecy was practiced all over from the emperor (the arcana imperii) to societies for slaves, women, professions (craftsmen, medical), philosophical schools, mystery cults, the Temple cult/purity system (successive zones of purity guarded secrets of priests from Jewish laity from Gentiles) and Jewish sects (Qumran, Pharisees) (82-84).  He accepts the historicity of Jesus’ practice of secrecy like other religious teachers (85-86) but the desire to keep his messianic identity a secret from the authorities is only a partial explanation (doesn’t explain secret cures, exorcisms, communal meal, mystery of kingdom) (86-88).  Ch 11 Jesus Relation to the Kingdom (89-96) looks at the innovative rite of John’s baptism of repentance in anticipation of the end and argues Jesus continued baptizing (cf. Jn 3:22, 26; 4:1; he sees 4:2 as a bad translation of an Aramaic statement that Jesus baptized nobody but his disciples [94]), but the difference was Jesus’ baptism enabled his followers to enter the kingdom present now and be greater than the Baptist, free of the law and granted superhuman powers (95).  Ch 12 The Secret Baptism (97-114) compares John’s baptism to Paul’s (Rom 6:3ff; 1 Cor 12:12f; Gal 3:26ff; Col 2:9-3:4), the latter uniting the believer with the Christ by possessing his spirit – Rom 6 protests this leads to libertinism because believers died to sin, 1 Cor 12 that it leads to arrogance because we are all one body, Gal 3 against legalism because union with Christ sets one free from the law and Col 2-3 that Christ’s death & resurrection stripped the other cosmic powers (99-100).  If we leave aside Paul’s secondary interpretations, Paul’s baptism agrees with Jesus’ practice as: 1. a ritual of union with Jesus (cf. communion meal) (101-3), 2. the spirit characteristic of Jesus’ ministry (the baptism, the wilderness, exorcisms) (103-4), 3. the use of magical practices (104-8), 4. ascent to the heavens (108-11), and 5. freedom from the law (his resolution between Law-observant and anti-nomian traditions in the Gospels is that the legal traditions were for “those outside”) (111-13).  He concludes the chapter with the (in)famous summary that through the baptism one participated in a hallucination of ascent to the heavens, entered the kingdom, became free from the law ordained for the lower world and the ritual was completed by spiritual and perhaps physical union (113-14).  Ch 13 The Secret Tradition: Conclusion (115-38) follows with resurrection/ascension visions, the coming of the spirit manifested in incomprehesible tongues (contra Acts 2; Smith sees it as a symptom of schizophrenia [116-17; cf. 99]) on whole group rather than select initiates, debates over whether elementary Christians are still subject to the law, Jewish persecution (e.g., Saul) on libertine Christians, James succession as the triumph of the legalist party over the libertines while Paul in the middle ground between legalist and libertine wings, NT warnings against libertines (Mt 5:19; 7:15-27; Lk 7:36-50; Acts 20:29f; Rom 3:8; 1 Cor 5:2; Gal 5:13ff; Phil 3:18ff; 2 Thess 3:6ff; Eph 5:1-20; 1 Tim 1:19f; 2 Tim 2:16-4:4; Jas 2:14ff; 3:13-18; 1 Pet 2:11-16; 2 Pet 1:5-11; 2 Pet 2-3; Jude; 1 Jn 1:6,8, 10; Rev 2:6, 14f, 20ff), disappearance of the libertine tradition due to their writings suppressed and the tradition rejected in the “orthodox” church and its survival among gnostics (hence gnostic love of Paul, Carpocrates teaching as a Platonizing developing of the primitive secret doctrine of Jesus).  He summarizes his results in Ch 14The History of the Document(139-48).  As for why no one heard of this letter before, he believes it was written to Palestine (“Theodore” a popular name of Christians of Jewish ancestry as translates a number of common names like Nathan, Jonathan, etc; Clement studied in Palestine, had friends there and his friend Alexander became bishop in Jerusalem; letter turned up at Mar Saba) (143), disappeared from view under the persecution of Alexandrian Christians ca 200 or 210 CE (143), Eusebius knew nothing of collections of Clement’s letters yet one existed at Mar Saba during the 8th century as known to John of Damascus (worked there from 716-749) and Clement’s writings were rarely cited, copied or forged and as the Carpocratians were only prominent in the 2nd century this letter would hold little interest for anyone to cite (144-45).

F.F. Bruce on Secret Mark

While I wait for copies of Morton Smith’s books, in light of the 65th Anniversary of the Department of Biblical Studies at the University of Sheffield and the forthcoming lecture on Wednesday May 9th on the biography of its founder Frederick Fyvie Bruce, I will highlight F.F. Bruce’s contribution to the debate.  Bruce was an esteemed evangelical scholars of a past generation and many of his commentaries can still be read with profit and it looks like the 5th edition of his famous The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable can be read online.  Anyways, also online is his The ‘Secret’ Gospel of Mark. The Ethel M. Wood lecture delivered before the University of London on 11 February 1974. London: The Athlone Press, 1974. Pbk. pp.20.  One of Smith’s theories is that while Secret Mark (SM) is an expansion of canonical Mark (CM), the story contained therein is an older form of the story of the resurrection of Lazarus (John 11) and parallels between CM + SM and John indicate behind both stands a common (Aramaic?) document that included the story of the resurrected youth.  Bruce has a very different view.

He begins by noting apocalyptic texts with sealed contents until the appointed time, books hidden from public circulation until one reached maturity to read them (cf. b. Shabb. 13b) or apokryphos (apocryphal) as originally an adjective for ‘hidden’ or ‘secret’ (3).  He points to increasing 2nd century interest in secret writings, esoteric teachings for the elite and private discourses of the risen Jesus with disciples in Gnostic and non-Gnostic texts (he cites Pistis Sophia, the Apocryphon [Secret Book] of John, Epistle of the Apostles, Didache [perhaps], Apocryphon of James, Thomas colophon on secret words of Jesus, Iren A.H. 1.20.1 on multitude of gnostic texts, A.H. 2.11.7 on use of Mark) (4-5).  He describes its discovery, notes the majority of patristic consultants accept it as authentically Clementine (“we too may safely accept it as a working hypothesis”) and provides a translation (5-9).  No letters of Clement survive but citations of his letters are preserved in the Sacra Parallela traditionally attributed to John of Damascus (also went to Mar Saba) and that the Western reading of Mk 10:46 and Clement’s exposition on the rich man in the Markan section immediately preceding elsewhere may point to Clementine authorship (9).  However, he makes the interesting point that Clement may have reproduced Mk 10:17-31 in part from memory and contaminated by Matthean/Lukan parallels, so that may be a parallel to another penning SM out of Markan phrases letting Synoptic parallels slip in (10-11).  Turning to SM, he sees it as a pastiche of Markan phrases (w/ Matt) and John (though the account is confused from Jn 11:17-44 as the loud voice now comes from the tomb with a supposedly dead person inside and Jesus himself rolls away the stone).  Falling at Jesus’ feet (Mk 7:25), pity me son of David and the disciples disapproval (Matt 15:22-23; cf. Mk 10:47f), Jesus’ anger (Western reading Mk 1:41) & indignation at lazarus’ tomb (Jn 11:33, 38), the garden tomb (Jn 19:41), seizing the hand (Mk 1:31; 5:41), looked at him and loved him (Mk 10:21; cf. Jn 13:23 etc beloved disciple), beseeched Jesus to be with him (Mk 5:18), after 6 days (Mk 9:2), linen robe over naked body (Mk 14:51), stayed with him that night (perhaps Jn 1:39), Salome (Mk 15:40; Matt 27:56, if Salome is identified as mother of sons of Zebedee than she figures in the Matthean counterpart to Mk 10:35-40 in Matt 20:20f) (11-12).  He writes, “The fact that the expansion is such an obvious pastiche, with its internal contradiction and confusion, indicates that it is a thoroughly artificial composition, quite out of keeping with Mark’s quality as a story-teller” (12) and fits Clements credulity about apocryphal sources (13).  He questions the tradition of Mark as founding the church of Alexandria (perhaps based on a codex of Mark reaching Alexandria) and agrees with Walter Bauer on the gnostic origins of Alexandrian Christianity, but to Theodore reflects an earlier stage in the legend as Mark continued writing in Alexandria (13-15).  Just as Clement has no problem interpreting the Gospel of the Egyptians in his own way, he may have read Mark’s more spiritual gospel (cf. his comments on John in Eus., H.E. 6.14.7) with a moralizing interpretation (16).  In the Carpocratians hands, their spin on the mystery of the kingdom (Mk 4:11; cf. Iren A.H. 1.25.5) was mystical initiation and an uninhibited ethic in their interpretation “naked with naked” (he finds parallels in the libertine behaviours at Corinth and the condemnation of the Nicolaitans in Revelation) (16-19).  He concludes, contra Clement, that this secret gospel might just be a Carpocratian product.

The strengths of Bruce’s argument may be that it avoids over-complicated source-critical theories about how SM was originally a part of proto-Mark and excised by CM and instead explains the parallels to the NT Gospels as the sign of a later 2nd century text, fits with how Clement treated other extra-canonical sayings and gospel sources and explains why it was unknown outside Alexandria as it was the work of the Carpocratians or a like-minded group.  For weaknesses, Bruce may take Irenaeus and Clement’s polemic against the theology and libertine practices of the Carpocratians too much at face value (he argues that they do not make the same charges indiscriminitely of all Gnostics, Clement quotes Carpocrates son Epiphanes in Strom. 3.2.6), that it is questionable that SM describes an initiation at all (part of the fault may be due to Smith’s baptism interpretation) rather than just Jesus teaching on the kingdom and the key objection against the pastiche option is that SM lacks many of the distinctive (redactional?) features of John that one would think would show up if the author relied on John and many of the other parallels may not require literary dependence.  What do you think?