Conclusion on Secret Mark

Entering the scholarly discussion of Secret Mark is entering another world and forces a choice:  either ignore it and hope it goes away or take a risk one way or the other and see how deep the rabbit hill goes.  I want to acknowledge with gratitude that Tony Burke sent me a preview of the forthcoming book Ancient Gospel or Modern Forgery?  The Secret Gospel of Mark in Debate based on the York conference.  This book is valuable as it includes an opening forward by Paul Foster, an up-to-date review of the history of debate and brings together experts on both sides to present the strongest arguments (e.g., issues of whether Smith’s facility in Greek, questions about the letter’s provenance or whether it is anachronistic to Clement’s context, does the letter include ideas or themes that Smith’s scholarship that he entertained before his discovery, do the excerpts of Secret Mark fit into canonical Mark’s larger narrative themes or a later expansion of Mark, etc) while dropping weaker ones other arguments were not brought up (e.g., finding Smith’s personal signature encoded in the text such as a Mortan Salt, Forger=Smith, bald swindler) and a helpful Q&A that is revealing of some personal motivations of scholarship.  I have not read everything to read on Secret Mark (for other bloggers discussing Secret Mark far longer than I have see here, here, here, here), yet I think I need to rest from this issue for a while because “of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.”  From what I have read the last month I have endeavored to represent accurately and fairly in my notes, though mistakes on my part are based on hastily copying down notes or my efforts to abbreviate for a manageable blog post, so I encourage interested readers to consult the actual works themselves.  I think if it is an authentic letter of Clement it is worth studying and to ask questions about how Secret Mark relates to canonical Mark and to other canonical/apocryphal gospels.  Even if a 2nd century pastiche that is no reason not to study it anymore than any other later harmonies are worth scholarly attention (longer endings of Mark, Egerton Gospel, Diatessaron) and gives insight into the reception history of Mark (what did these additions mean to the Carpocratians or, alternatively, to Clement).  If you are convinced it is a fake and I have lossed my mind this past month , then it is worth studying at the very least as an interesting chapter in NT/patristic scholarship including some of the biggest names in the field and to ask how scholars inhabiting various ideological positions assimilate new data (e.g., who uses it to re-interpret the historical Jesus or Christian origins, for whom is it obviously secondary to the canon, etc).  So to wrap up some brief thoughts on Secret Mark, speaking as One Who is not in the Know:

• Until it is found and scientifically tested there will be uncertainty.  Thus there are excellent scholars whom I highly respect and some I have had the privilege of meeting  on both sides of the issue and I have tried to represent their views as non-polemically as possible.
• However, until proven guilty I am slightly inclined to the authenticity of the Letter to Theodore.  What inclines me in the direction is the recent handwriting analysis suggests it goes beyond Smith’s ability in the Greek, Smith does not appear to me to act like a forger (he left it in the library for anyone to access and run scientific tests if the monastery would allow it and not his fault it was lost, took photos and enlisted the help of handwriting and patristic/Clementine experts, consistently defended his interpretations without the fun of revealing he outsmarted the establishment, no death-bed confessions), Smith’s views appear to have changed after the discovery/input of other scholars (cf. Richardson) yet in imposing his own experiences and interests before & after onto the text may have badly misinterpreted it (e.g., the text does not describe a secret, libertine baptismal rite!), and I wonder if some of the perceived historical anachronisms reflect the ingenuity of the critics rather than in the text itself (does a nighttime visit [cf. Nicodemus] and disciple who loves Jesus [cf. rich man] and loved by Jesus [Lazarus; John's anonymous beloved disciple] and teaching all night have to imply anything sexual apart from whatever the Carpocratians may have added; Clement may see it as a mystic text for those advancing in gnosis [knowledge] with nothing to do with the Alexandrian ritual practice or liturgy)
• Are there any better candidates then Clement.  Could an ancient imitator pull off this imitation without modern resources (e.g. Stählin’s index) and why would an 18th cent monk forge a text like this?
• I do not accept the priority of Secret Mark (Koester, Crossan, Meyer) or else the editing of canonical Mark makes no sense to me.  Why omit the whole episode of SM 2 except for the note that Jesus came and left Jericho in Mk 10:46 where it no longer makes sense?  Why edit out all of SM yet forget to edit out the naked youth (introduced as a new character “a certain youth”, cf. Sellew, Gundry) running away in the Garden?  Why scatter the elements of SM all over the Gospel?  The arguments that the alleged later redaction of canonical Mark shows knowledge of Secret Mark seem to me to do no such thing (“teaching”, “gospel”, “amazed”, some of Mark’s dramatic flare in individual pericope [e.g., epileptic boy] or references to “baptism” w/ the cup or Jesus “loved him” seem to me to be original to Mark and edited by Matt/Luke).
• It seems to me that Secret Mark is a later expansion of Mark in early 2nd cent Alexandria by an author familiar with Mark’s style.  This author wanted to fill in the narrative gaps (who is this youth in Gethsemane, what happened at Jericho) and wanted to counterbalance the man with many possessions who turned away with another rich man who was raised from the dead and answered the call to give away all and follow on the path of self-denial and death (linen cloth).  While I tend to agree with much of Brown’s views, I don’t think it belongs to the evangelist’s own narrative as not sure it fits as a Marcan intercalculation (see “reactions” in the post on Brown).
• I think Brown makes a fair case against the pastiche view or literary dependence on John’s account on Lazarus; some parallels may be based either on similar redaction to Mark or on common oral traditions that survived into the period of the Apostolic Fathers (cf. Lk 1:1-4, Papias’ living voice, citations/allusions in apostolic fathers).
• Whatever authorial intentions of the Alexandrian author of these expansions, it was taken over and added to by the Carpocratians who found in the “mystery of the kingdom” a license for their teachings/practices (since the text does not explain what Jesus taught in private [cf. Mk 4], perhaps the Carpocratians “filled in” the details).  Clement urges Theodore to disown the Carpocratian text altogether.

Well, what do you think?

Peter Jeffrey on Secret Mark

The last work on the forgery side I will cover is Peter Jeffery, The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled: Imagined Rituals of Sex, Death, and Madness in a Biblical Forgery.  A more polemical tone is set from Smith’s “anguished soul” in the acknowlegments.  Ch 1 (1-18) begins with a history of the monastery (1-2) and Smith’s time there (2-5) before launching into misgivings:  why travel so far or spend Sabbatical time at Mar Saba when no longer interested in its services or material (liturgical, devotional, canon law, etc.) on “chance” something was missed,  why skip some material (e.g., leather folder w/ mss older than 17th cent), why publish catalogue in journal only for Jerusalem Patriarchate, why if hoping for ancient unknown mss not go to Jerusalem Patriarchate to find ms of Isodore of Pelusium or not care much about his find of a 15th cent commentary on Sophocles or pages of 15th cent ms of St. Macarius of Egypt, why upon discovering Letter to Theodore (LT) leave for Vespers despite saying earlier he stopped attending religious services (5-11).  Instead of the focus on Secret Mark’s (SM) relationship to NT Mark, Jeffery turns attention to LT’s initiation into great mysteries (mystērion=sacrament for Greek Orthodox) to see how it compares to 3 sacraments of Christian initiation (baptism; charismation, sealing or confirmation w/ oil; Eucharist) (17).  Ch 2 (19-54) asks further questions: why didn’t Smith compare the handwriting to other mss relocated to Jerusalem to find the hand (20), was Mar Saba a continuous library from John of Damascus to 18th cent (e.g., history of pillages) (21-2), did Clement write LT (23-4), is Ireaneaus testimony on the Carpocratians from their books reliable (LT’s surpise is not only Carpocratians but Clement had alternate Mark with Carpocratian additions not cited except one highly provocative line) (25-6), was SM by or known to the evangelist (cf, Smith’s complicated theory; Jeffery believes Smith’s memory loss of the moment Smith arrived at this theory as a dissociative episode of his literary persona [29]) (26-9), does it pertain to the historical Jesus (29-31), and further questions about its interpretation and the current stalemate about its authenticity.

In Ch 3, he defines a rite as action/performance of an individual or community with 3 aspects (textual, practical/actional, theoretical/critical) and at Ritual Criticism which studies the meaning and emergence of rites from later explanations or justifications (studying texts, archaeological data, images, etc) (56-9).  SM has 3 features of an initiation rite:  1. week long teaching ending in a nocturnal vigil (Sat night – Sun morning), 2. naked body with linen cloth (towel for water immersion or shroud/burial cloth) has performative dimensions, 3. resurrection of youth who becomes a disciple offers a critical dimension (61).  Yet SM’s rite is odd: no lengthy period of fasting, exorcisms, catechism, repentance or faith professions but a sensual holiday (“for he was rich”), no immersions or annointings require removal of clothing, no vocabulary of light or illumination or sealing or crowning, no Promiseland imagery though Jesus crosses the Jordan and no banquet or Eucharistic motifs (62).  Claiming SM is older as documentation of liturgical practices increased post-Nicea doesn’t work as SM has 3 anachronisms for 2nd cent:  resurrection themes, preparation period leading to a vigil and white garment (4th/5th cent) (62). It was at home among Anglican liturgiologists in the mid 20th cent (e.g, Book of Common Prayer has the gospel [Matt 27:57-66] has evening time frame and the sidōn in account of burial by Joseph of Arimathea, the prayer [Rom 6:3-11] connects baptism with death/resurrection; 2 Anglican scholars trying to find the Saturday night vigil and white robe from Hippolytus The Apostolic Tradition) (63-8).  Yet Paul’s death/resurrection typology of baptism for Easter became dominant later; the earlier preference associated baptism with Pentecost and gift of the Spirit in the Latin west or with Jesus’ baptism by John on Ephiphany (Jan 6) in Syria, Egypt and parts of the West (cf. Clement, Prot. 9; Paed. 1.6; Egyptian or Ethiopian liturgies) (68-9).  Clement notes a nocturnal rite at Epiphany similar to the Paschal Vigil which he connects with the Basilidians (Strom. 1.21.146.2) and describes an Alexandrian all-night or predawn services as an evening banquet followed by hymn-singing till dawn which is not in SM (69-70).  So SM doesn’t fit nocturnal worship or Christian initiation in 2nd cent Alexandria, but might it fit its lectionary (71-2)?  Ch 4 is a well-argued refutaton of Thomas J. Talley’s (a name that has popped up a few times in my posts) “Liturgical Time in the Ancient Church: The State of the Research” Studia Liturgica 14 (1982): 34-51 (I found the whole article available on google preview in pp 25-47 in Between Memory and Hope: Readings on the Liturgical Year [ed. Maxwell E. Johnson; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000]) and book The Origins of the Liturgical Year.  He pokes holes into Talley’s reconstruction of hypothetical Alexandrian liturgical readings from later texts on the lectionary of Lent in Constantinople and argues LT works better as a post-Nicean product reading back practices to Clement and the evangelist Mark, but it still does not fit because it does not fit the Epiphany season of Alexandria (e.g. water imagery, John’s baptism linked with Cana; the medieval Egyptian traditon of Jesus baptized on 6th day of 6th week is a later justification for a practice whose origin has been forgotten) nor is there any trace of SM in the Eyptian lectionary that has been published nor was Mark’s Gospel held any more prominently (quoted the least by Clement, John seems to be the favourite) (74-89).

Ch 5 not only views SM as a pastiche of the NT Gospels and other ancient texts, it sees it as an extended double entendre with an encoded homosexual message.  So the aorist form of proskuneō (Smith translates prostrated) was associated in Smith’s day with “kiss” (e.g., kiss an idol) so the sister “coming” “bent down to kiss” Jesus but was rebuked by the disciples and angered Jesus who went for the young man (92-3).  Since he sees hand gestures as rare (Gal 2:19 may support liturgical clasping of hands, Apostolic Tradition 21.9 has presbyters grasp those receiving baptism without specifying hands, hints of Gnostic baptisms with liturgical handshakes), he interprets SM’s grasping of the hand as a sexual reference (“holding hands”, “hand” as euphemism for the genitals, seizing hands in Greek wrestling “naked man with naked man”) (93-5).  Finally, SM’s Jesus rejects Salome and the other women for the young man he loves (96-9).  Jeffery sees no support for Smith’s far-fetched theories on Christian initiation rites (spirit possession in baptism, ascent to heavens, higher & lower morality, physical unions) in primary sources (NT, Qumran and Hekhalot hymns, magical papyri, Gnostic texts) (99-109).  Changing clothes can be a metaphor for conversion and in late 4th cent newly baptized Christians were dressed in symbolic white but Smith’s arguments about the sidōn and nude baptism is not supported by the passages he prooftexts (e.g., the men in white at Jesus tomb or in Revelation not wearing a sidōn, a sidōn may be a burial shroud or worn by Cyrnic philosophers but use in baptism needs to be documented) (111-8).  Ch 6 discussion of hynoptic hymns again sees sexual imagery.  So listening to Byzantine hymns Smith “relaxed and enjoyed it”, causing disorientation and a spiritual union that leads to physical union (128-31).  Ch 7 (149-84) provides a bio of Smith (149-51) followed by Smith’s negative assesments of psychiatry and psychological disorders (cf. Clement on lying on behalf of the church like a physical deceiving sick patients influence Smith? [178]) and as an ordained Episcopal priest his harsh counselling of 3 penitents (including a homosexual man) and attitudes towards homosexuality out-of-step even for his time.  Ch 8 (185-212) is a study of ancient paederastry on the Athenian model of 5th/4th cent BCE where a higher status male lover (erastēs) pursues a resistant (at first) young beloved (erōmenos) as part of his initiation into Hellenistic education and cultural mores.  This Platonic model was not generally a matter of sexual orientation (the erastēs had wives to take care of the children/household and mistresses) but enculturation and reflected hierarchical social relations as boys (like women, slaves, foreigners and other lower-status persons) were not to be the active but the passive recipients, whereas SM is anachronistic in that the youth pursues a relationship with Jesus as if he was his social equal (209-10).  In Ch 9, noting he revival of Plato studies in the 19th cent, sees Smith as influenced by a “Uranian” homoerotic subculture of Universities  that admired the ancient Platonic model (which they misunderstood) against the morality of the Church (213-25). Ch 10 (226-39) covers parallels with a gay icon Oscar Wilde’s play Salome which tells how Salomes’ advances were spurned by John the Baptist (like Jesus spurning another Salome’s advances?) even after her “dance of the 7 veils” (cf. LT’s innermost sanctuary behind the 7 veils).

Reactions

Paul Foster, “Secret Mark Again” ExpTim 119 (2007): 50-51 sees the book as a pendulum shift towards the forgery side but with certainty still elusive, yet notes a couple potential objections (variant liturgical traditions in the secretive bridal chamber ritual in the Gospel of Phillip, those who believe LT authentic will object to the book’s moralizing with Smith as the negative foil).  Scott Brown’s 47 page RBL review is uniformly negative and takes on Jeffery’s reading of mystērion as a fixed meaning and misunderstanding Clement’s usage on the deeper meanings of sacred texts or revealed truths (cf. Philo), on his liturgical reading of SM (it does not narrate what happens during the 6 days and only teaching on the 7th day, takes place before Palm Sunday not the Paschal, the linen sheet was what the youth was wearing since his burial and is not described as white or put on after baptism), on sexual connotations read into SM (e.g., proskuneō just to prostrate or worship with any kissing of the feet or hem of the robe, raising by the hand used elsewhere in NT Mark), on applying a 5th/4th century BCE Athenian model to a story set in 1st century Palestine with a young adult male (neaniskos) and how the anachronistic homosexual joke reading contradicts the anachronistic liturgical reading, of SM as a pastiche or LT as imitation of Clement (cf. Criddle’s statistical study) and the Smith bashing.  Peter Jeffery’s rejoinder is here, responding that Brown’s biography of mystērion is out of date (notes its diversity in apocalyptic-incarnational, cultic-philosophical and tabernacle typology usage) and can be applied to Christian sacramental actions of the liturgy, that Platonic philosophy was in the Alexandrian milieu of the Carpocratians/Clement and Smith’s libertine interpretations of Christian practice is pervasive, and Brown misunderstands what Jeffery means by extended double entendres at the narrative level (not just in ambiguous words/phrases) which include an element of deniability (a double meaning that plants an idea in another’s mind but can be innocently denied).  He adds that Brown’s translation of LT is an effort to tone down the problems.   J. Harold Ellens also responded with a much more positive RBL review which is a useful summary but does not find any points to critique at all, even admiring the book itself as “lovely to read, hold, fondle, smell, and contemplate as an aesthetic object” (   ), naming scholars who agree with the positive assessment and taking on negative reviewers who “largely discredited themselves” (consciously aimed at Brown who Ellens feels made a ad hominemattack on Jeffery as an orthodox Roman Catholic).

Francis Watson on Secret Mark

Another major case for forgery was advanced in a lengthy article by Francis Watson, “Beyond Suspicion:  on the Authorship of the Mar Saba Letter and the Secret Gospel of Mark” JTS 61 (2010): 128-70.  He begins by noting the possibility of forgery (ancient or modern) was briefly entertained by a few at the 1975 Colloquy on Secret Mark at Berkeley, California (128-9).  Questions about physical evidence or handwiting or Smith’s psychological development are not enough; the way to reach a verdict beyond reasonable doubt is to examine the Letter to Theodore (LT) and Secret Mark (SM) against the double background of Clement’s corpus and Smith’s writings (30-1).

Then follows an outline of LT in 6 sections (132-3).  The Editorial Into (I.1) reflects a citation of a letter of “Clement the Stromatist” in John of Damascus’ Sacra Parallela at Mar Saba in 716-39 CE though the formula in the latter more limited (ek [from] the  21st letter) and LT broader (ek [from] the letters) (133-4).  Against the Carpocratians (I.2-15) reflects Irenaeus/Clement’s descriptions of the Carpocratians (desire every bodily experience to be free of cycle of reincarnation, hold women in common, antinomian Jesus, sacralize sex and Jude quoted against them) and Clement’s rejection of encraitite groups who advocate abstinence and appeal to the Gos. Egyptians (Jesus words to Salome) which Clement interprets in a non-Encraitite fashion, but does LT’s addition of homosexual practice fit Irenaeus’ description or is it anachronistic? (134-6).  The Origin/Falsification of SM (I.15-II.10) may be compared with Clement on the gospels w/ geneologies (Matt/Luke) as first and then Mark recording Peter’s preaching in Rome though Peter learned of it later and finally John as a pneumatikon euangelion (spiritual gospel) (Eusebius, H.E. 2.15.1-2; 6.14.6-7; cf. Clement, Adumb. 1 Pet 5:13) and the tradition of Mark in Egypt (Eus., H.E. 2.16.1), while LT has Mark’s account in Rome independent of Peter and after Peter’s martyrdom from his and Peter’s notes (hupomnēmata) composed a more spiritual gospel (pneumatikōteron euangelion) in Alexandria (136-8).  The Need for Secrecy (II.10-19) urges Theodore to deny the text exists at all against the Carpocratians (contra Strom. i.1.14.4 on things written cannot fail to become known) and is characteristic of pseudonymity for why a text has recently come to light (cf. Dan 12:4) (138-9; 138 n. 32 challenges Brown’s translation of only denying the Carpocration falsifications is SM rather than that the SM is by Mark).  The Contents of SM (II.19-III.17) are a collage/mosaic of Markan and Synoptic phrases which contribute 66 of SM’s 157 words, in sequences of between 3 and 10 words, and a minimum of 32 remaining words to complete the sense units.  This leave 5 sentences with Synoptic language but not depenent on synoptic word-sequences and with affinities to John 3, 11 so Johannine stories provide the framework and Mark the phraseology (139-40)  The series of precise verbal parallels to a variety of contexts suggests imitation, less likely 2nd cent than a modern compositional procedure (142).  Exegesis (III.17-18) is cut off but follows Clement’s exposition on rich man where a problematic text gets a mystic spin (142-3).  Indications of modernity in use of old introductory formula as template, homosexuality theme, detachment of Mark from Peter’s preaching, “more spiritual gospel” on Clement’s “spiritual gospel”, secrecy, compositional technique and noting provenance before exegesis (143).

Next Watson looks at anomalies in LT.  First, in response to Theodore’s worries about a number of promiscuous passages in the Carpocratian’s copy of Mark (III.13) Clement confirms the Carpocratian longer version of Mark is largely true and played a major role in Alexandria with the only assurance that nakedness was added, Theodore is not just to deny this addition but the whole text and Clement extensively quotes and locates SM passages that Theodore already knows so the real intention of LT is to authenticate SM (146-8).  Second, LT imitates Papias (wrote an account of Lord’s deeds, series of negatives on Mark’s limitations) to make different claims:  Papias argues Mark not in order, not a hearer nor follower of Lord but rather of Peter; LT Mark did not narrate all Lord’s deeds nor reveal concealed ones but rather chose stories for beginners (LT = ou mentoi…  oude mēn… all; Papias = ou mentoi… oute gar… oute… husteron de) (149).  LT uses similar sequence of negatives (oudepō… oude… alla) for SM as Mark did not divulge unutterable things nor hierophanic teachings but to stories already written added others and mystic sayings (150) and draws upon Papias on Matthew (sunetaxe, sunetaxato aorist tense of compose/compile, logia) (151).  Third, Watson sees Smith’s signature on LT: noting Carlson’s case on salt he sees a looser link between corruption of salt and truth falsified (paracharassetai meaning to be marked with a false stamp [charagma], to forge).  The mingling of truth and falsehood like mixture of precious and base metal in a counterfeit coin (paracharagma).  Paracharassō focusses on imprinting a false image but English “forge” (from French forger, Latin fabricare) can mean to make or manufacture and originally derives from production of metal objects but when “forger” came to be associated with a counterfeiter (counterfeit coins or literary documents) the word “smith” was substituted.  This may read too much into paracharassō (Clement uses it with heretical connotations elsewhere) but in conjunction with the salt to be corrupted (mōr[an]thēn[ai], can also mean to be made a fool of) to spell out “Morton” (why he chose the aorist infinitive passive instead of a finite verb form closer to Synoptic mōranthē) (152-5).

Placing LT in Smith’s context, his review in 1955 of Taylor’s Mark commentary mentions information in Mark’s sources left out even if not censored and Johannine characteristics behind the controversy stories in Mk 2:1-3:6 maybe from a common source (157), connects Mk 4:11-12 with secrecy doctrine in Jesus and Paul (Mk 4:34 discredits outside teachers and disciples exclusive hold on secrets) (158-9) and cites Clement 4 times and uses him to support secrecy tradition and connects Strom. 1.1.13-14 to m.Hag. 2.1 in his 1958 “Image of God” article (159-60).  Last, he goes over in greater detail parallels with The Mystery of Mar Saba (161-70), a novel that went through 9 American/Canadian editions from Nov 1940-Jan 1947 and the title & pic of the monastery on the dust jacket may have intrigued Smith (163).  Both Smith’s take on his discovery if vindicated and the discovery in the novel (a text by Nicodemus about Jesus’ body moved) would bring “the downfall of Christianity” (163-4).  Parallels include doubt that an important ms will be found yet finds one that he publishes (165), the expectation that one of the oldest monasteries might have some overlooked and hidden away mss even though most removed (165-6), the feeling before the discovery that the results of searching for mss will come back negative (166), a short sensational excerpt accompanied by a text to verify it (shred of Nicodemus discovered with Hermas and Barnabas; SM found in Clement) (166-7), the construction of a Greek text with canonical phraseology (of 71 words, 28 in five phrases with 3-or-more words from Mark, John, or LXX) and Johannine echoes (167-9).

Reactions

Allan Pantuck responded with “Solving the Mysterion of Morton Smith and the Secret Gospel of Mark.”  He points out the significant discontinuities in Smith’s views pre-and-post discovery: Smith had interpreted mysterion as something taught (in his dissertation he saw a parallel in rabbinic Judaism of truths not communicated even to believers) with Mk 4:11-12 as apologetic for why Jesus was not recognized as Messiah because they did not know his secret teachings and Mk 2:1-3:6 were from a source with Johannine-like traits rather than Mark & John sharing a common source based on similar geographical outlines in their latter halves (note SM lacks Johannine traits).  As for the novel, Pantuck notes the similar situation (manuscript hunters at Mar Saba) and gives examples of art imitating life.  Watson responded with “Beyond Reasonable Doubt: A Response to Allan J. Pantuck” where he notes that Pantuck only dealt with 5 of his 43 page argument, that his point is a high degree of continuity in Smith’s views (esotericism, may be a shift in teachings toritesthough SM still has “teaching” despite setting & nudity hint at private rites) and deems Pantuck’s argument that both just deal with experience of mss hunters described in similar ways as too generic for the extent of the parallels (the novel’s text as a collage of canonical phraseology, the novel anticipated what actually happened just as one would be suspicious if the Piltdown Man hoax had been anticipated in a creationist novel before).  Pantuck and Brown give a more extensive rebuttal in the forthcoming volume on the York conference to the latest forgery arguments that expands on the points by Allan above where similarities based on the common experience of mss hunters (the novel imitates the real life Constantin von Tischendorf who rediscovered Sinaiticus) and the different circumstances of the discovery and how Smith’s pre-discovery views need to be read in context to show differences from his later views.

Stephen Carlson on Secret Mark

Stephen Carlson’s The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith’s Invention of Secret Mark (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2005) is a short, exciting read that convinced many that the Letter to Theodore (LT) and Secret Mark (SM) were forged.  His introduction (1-4) touches on the debate, observing the general consensus on SM as a 2nd cent Alexandrian gospel allows it to be late enough for NT scholars to ignore (3).  Ch 1 (5-12) introduces the content of LT (5-8) and a bio of Smith (8-12).  Ch 2 (13-22) opens with Quesnell’s objection on physical examination of the ms but, as there is no way out of the predicament that it is lost, we need to use what we have to determine authenticity (e.g., Anthony Grafton on historical anachronisms exposed with passage of time) (13-4).  Other tactics of forgery include controlling the authenticiating process with masses of overwhelming but misleading supporting documentation (15).  Carlson differentiates between deliberate deception to defraud for monetary gain and hoaxes to intellectually challenge scholars or for personal amusement with the payoff through subtly disclosing it is a hoax through deliberate mistakes, jokes or clues (15-6; e.g., Christoph Mattäus Pfaff forgery of 4 fragments of Irenaeus in 1712 and 647 page commentary in 1715 vs Paul R. Coleman-Norton’s amusing agraphon in 1950 [16-20]).  Such clues may be in the plot of the evangelical thriller The Mystery of Mar Saba which has a discovery of a forged Greek text with a naturalistic explanation for a resurrection (note the youth is still alive in the tomb to cry out in SM)  and the letter is printed on back of Voss’ book which purged the Ignatian corpus of forged letters (19-20).

Ch 3 (23-48), after questioning the info provided to Smith’s 10 handwriting experts and their lack of written reports (24), summarizes 3 reasons why this was not by an 18th cent monk: 1. script reveals unnatural hesitations in pen strokes (“forger’s tremor”) and anomalies in shapes of letters compared to other 18th cent mss at Mar Saba, 2. the provenance can’t be traced before 1958, 3. an unnoticed ms from same hand which Smith identified as from a 20th cent individual can be used for comparison (25).  The case revolves around Carlson’s handwriting analysis (25-35), the lack of evidence of whether the ms was copied in or outside Mar Saba library or even the book there prior to 1958 (not in 1910 catalogue, thefts/additions to insecure library, Voss’ book stands out from other material in the liberary from where it was published to its language and subject) (36-9) and Smith’s catalogue of ms no 22 he attributed to a 20th century M. Madiotēs betrays the same hand (similarities in shaping tau, pi, rho and omicron-upsilon ligature, narrow nib pen, blunt edges & forger’s tremor) and has a superficial Greek name (suffix otēs not in a current Greek telephone directory) which broken down means bald swindler (madō “to lose hair” or figuratively “to swindle”) (42-4).  Carlson adds that Smith was competent with 18th cent handwriting (cf. work with mss in 1951-52) and the typography was influenced by Western part of Greece conflicts (cf. Smith’s sample comparison of Callinicus III) which conflicts with the eastern location of Mar Saba (44-5), Smith had prior knowledge of the Voss volume (45) and Smith’s Greek letter formation has similarities to the letter to Theodore and Stählin’s index was available  (46-7).

Ch 4 (49-64) reviews the low number of hapax legomena (words that occurs only once in an author) in LT and Criddle’s statistical analysis of vocabulary and biblical citations (50-2).  This makes this hyper-Clementine imitation a modern forgery as it would be impossible before the age of printing and without Stählin’s concordance and LT seeks to pass modern authenticity tests involving hapax legomena (53-4).  The literary sphragis (a textual device of self-authentication where authors identify themselves and past works) and “seal of authenticity” (cf. Murgia) is unnecessary in a supposed private letter (used clay seals or personal couriers).  Its description of the Carpocrations reminds of the Stromateis and extensive quotations of SM rather than just denying the line “naked with naked” is to interest external readers in a supposedly private letter (54-8).  Contradictions with Clement’s corpus, which Smith wrote as going against forgery, may be due to the difference of private and public correspondence (58-9).  On anachronisms, LT’s allusion to a Synoptic saying reflects mixing modern free-flowing table salt with an adulterant to change its flavour (contra Clement’s saltwater metapor in Strom. 1.8.41.3-4, salt in lumps in Protr 2.14.2; 2.22.4, Strom. 7.4.26) and the solution of a chemist in 1910 to prevent salt from forming clumps at the Morton Salt Company (59-61).  Smith’s further comments on it linking Matt 5:13 to Jer 28;17 does not work in the Greek (Jeremiah’s echoneusan means “shaping metal objects” or metephorically to create false things, not to mix truth & lies) and Jer 28:17 LXX refers to a goldsmith (another clue) (62-3).  Finally, his “Image of God” article published before his return to Mar Saba mentions Clement 4 times and is indebted to Stählin (63-4).  Ch 5 (65-72) argues “he remained with him that night” is unnecessary as SM already mentioned Jesus lodging at the youth’s house and is an unparalleled idiom in its ancient context but a euphemism for casual sex in a modern one.  This is reinforced by the youth’s love for Jesus , the rejection of 3 women, the Jude passage in LT which had been used against modern homosexuals (cf. 126 n. 12), and the sexual ineuendos do not fit the ancient world where homoerotic encounters took place between social unequals but the context of gay urbanities in 1950s seeking relationships in public parks (66-71).  Smith had also connected Mk 4:11 to forbidden sexual relationships in his PhD thesis and “Image of God” article (71-2).  Ch 6 (73-86) sees a triple confession in M. Madiotes, allusions to his own name and the sphragis of his own scholarly writings (73-4).  Scott Brown’s defense relies on the disparagement of Smith’s abilities in Greek and in the patristics (especially Clement) (74-6).  Smith’s motive was to put forward a hoax to test the establishment (note the dedication to the sceptic Nock) and to prove himself after denied tenure at Brown in 1955; his fanciful theories were deliberate obfuscation (i.e. he couldn’t have forged LT if it does not support his theories) to distract from LT’s vindication of Smith on a common source behind Mark/John and secret libertinism against orthodox Christian views (78-86).  Ch 7 (87-98) wraps up the case as an academic hoax.

Reaction

Paul Foster, “Secret Mark: Uncovering a Hoax” ExpTim 117 (2005): 66-68 is a positive review but notes that a scribe copying an unfamiliar text may hesitate at points when re-checking, that inconsistencies in letter-formation or the form of nomina sacra or deviations in orthography are all found in P.Cair. 10759 (so-called Gos of Peter discovered at Akhmîm in 1886/7) dated between 7th-9th cent (67), there may be reason why a philosophical work with specialized vocabulary like Stromateis has more hapax legomena and sexuality & cultic practice may not be anachronistic (68).  Kyle Smith inclines to Carlson’s case yet challenges the point on LT’s use of the salt metaphor as either anachronistic or un-Clementine in “Mixed with Inventions: Salt and Metaphor in Secret Mark” (cf. Carlson’s response).  Further developments on the handwriting analysis include Roger Viklund’s “Tremors, or Just an Optical Illusion“ (asking if the low-resolution black & white photos instead of the colour photos led to Carlson’s results), Allan Pantuck and Scott Brown “Stephen Carlson’s Questionable Questioned Document Examination” (takes issue with Carlson doing the handwriting analysis himself and posts the letter of professional document examiner Julie C. Edison), and BAR two handwriting analyses by professional Greek questioned document examiner Venetia Anastasopoulou (Greek of LT too advanced for Smith) and Greek paleographer Agamemnon Tselikas (forger imitated the style of late 17th/early 18th cent and Smith put the book in the library monastery).   Scott Brown works tirelessly to try to refute Carlson:  ”Reply to Stephen Carlson” ExpTim 117 (2006): 144-49, “The Question of Motive in the Case against Morton Smith” JBL 125 (2006): 351-83 (cf. Carlson’s response); “Factualizing the Folklore: Stephen Carlson’s Case against Morton Smith” HTR 99 (2006): 291-327; with Allan Pantuck, “Morton Smith as M. Madiotēs: Stephen Carlson’s Attribution of Secret Mark to a Bald Swindler” JSHJ 6 (2008): 106-25; “The Letter to Theodore:  Stephen Carlson’s Case Against Clement’s Authorship” JECS 16 (2008): 573-597.

Scott Brown on The Longer Gospel of Mark (aka Secret Mark)

To turn to Scott G. Brown’s, Mark’s Other Gospel: Rethinking Morton Smith’s Controversial Discovery (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University, 2005), he begins his preface with a note that the title “Secret Mark” is a misnomer as mystikon euangelion translates “mystical gospel” and settles for a neutral “longer gospel of Mark” (LGM) (xi).  Ch 1 (3-22) reviews scholarly assessments of Smith’s discovery (6-17).  His key point is LGM’s status as a heterodox, non-canonical text meant it was disregarded by conservative critics (would they dismiss the Sermon on the Mount or Matt 9:27-34? [10]) and valued by those with a liberal myth of origins (early diversity suppressed by proto-orthodoxy, textual instability).  His thesis is LGM 1 (raising youth) and 2 (Jesus not receiving women) form a Markan literary sandwich around James/John request for seats of honour and elaborates on Markan themes (discipleship, Christology) (19-20).

Ch 2 (23-74) gives a history of the ms and the fading of the (iron gall?) ink from black to rusty brown and browning of paper favouring an older hand than Smith (25-8).  Then follows a review of the arguments for a modern or ancient forgery (28-71).  Against Murgia’s “seal of authenticity” for why no one heard of this text before, the Carpocratians discussed it openly, Clement only meant it wasn’t widely distributed nor for unproven characters/those untrained in mysteries but its existence not a secret, Theodore only to deny Carpocratian falsifications, baptized Christians (childer of light”, “illumined”, “spirit of the lord”) could have access to LGM and an honest life may be better than oaths but there are situations when oaths are necessary (Strom. VII.8) as are half-truths (cf. Strom VII.9.53.2).  As for lack of scribal errors, it may be due to scribal corrections and no lengthy transmission history (1000 years in monastery) (29-34).  Quesnell thought it a controlled experiment by Smith but never directly accused Smith of forgery in print (34-6), but his demand on Smith unfair as he was not allowed to take the book and did not act like trained forgers usually do (took photos, gave info on where to locate the ms, no detectable anachronisms, did not “forge” corroborating texts) (36-8).  Neusner had a falling out with Smith (39-45). Akenson made errors (e.g., assumed historical Jesus scholars use LGM in their reconstructions, that only Smith saw the ms and verified the handwriting, etc) and assumed non-experts know more than NT/patristic experts (46-8).  Brown finds the suspicion unreasonable as Smith’s views changed post-1958 (new emphasis on Jesus as libertine magician, historicizing explanations of Mark, reinterpreted the “mystery” from secret parables to baptism rite) (49-51) and his interpretations not supported by LGM or his contemporaries (e.g., opposed form critical view on pure “miracle story” interpolated with Jesus’ private instructions, rationalist take on LGM, substituted “gave” for LGM’s ”teaching”) (51-4).  Brown pokes holes in Criddle’s analysis: why would a forger pick words almost as rare in Clement as in other patristics, a pre-modern forger would not have the tools (requires comparing Stahlin’s 1936 index to patristic lexicons to find distinctive words), needs to broaden study to words used more than once and Clement’s corpus as a whole to see how distinctive LGM’s vocab is to Clement as a whole, the % of unique words in Clement’s corpus based on his need to impress with his learning and so may be different from his private letters of which this is the only one to survive, needs to factor in vocab from Clement’s practice of free citation (55-6).  The Mystery of Mar Saba novel is similar in sense of a scholar searching for lost mss in Mar Saba, but was not a lost “gospel” (a text disputing the resurrection), was found in an old chapel buried behind a stone (not a tower library), was not forged by its discoverer and portends the destruction of civilization.  Why would Smith care for this anti-intellectual spy novel (57-9).  Against dependence on Eusebius (HE II.15.2-16.1), Eusebius relies on older tradition (“they say”) and letter doesn’t make Mark bishop of Alexandria (59-60).  Against Osborn there is evidence in Clement of hierophanic teaching for qualified members or gnostics (60-9).  Finally LGM disappeared during the persecution under Septimus Severus and perhaps a single copy was preserved by Clement in the catechetical school but forgotten when he left Alexandria (70-1).

Ch 3 (75-120) covers LGM’s relationship to other gospels.  Oral elements to aid memory in Mark/LGM include a healing narrative’s threefold pattern with exposition of healing, performance of healing, confirmation of healing (78-9) and the “loud voice” (Mk 1:26; 5:7; 15:34, 37; cf. Jn 11:33) from tomb and anger (Mk 1:41, cf. emotional state in Jn 11:35, 38) may reflect earlier exorcism story (79-84; the private instruction in the house secondary redaction [85]).  In relation to John, LGM lacks all distinct Johannine redaction and is contradictory with Jn 11 (and Jn 1:35-40) (86-92).  The 2nd cent pastiche option is based on parallelomania, adducing a number of vague parallels that could be ”found” in canonical gospel pericopes if one went looking for them, and is unnecessarily overly-complicated (93-7).  He finds only 2 potentially significant parallels to Matt/Luke – LGM 1:6 “and approaching Jesus rolled away the stone” similar to Matt 28:2 (cf. Lk 7:14) and LGM 1:9b “for he was rich” to Lk 18:23 (“young man” in Matt 19:20, 22) – but the former shares 8 words w/ Mk 16:3 versus 5 words w/ Matt 28:2 and the expression “and approaching” with past tense ”rolled away” is natural in the context while the second may be that LGM made a similar editorial change as Luke because he was rich fits context of the youth owning a house better than having many possessions (Mk 10:22, but cf. D text “for he was having much wealth”, Quis dives salvetur? 4.7) and “rich” in Mk 10:25 (98-101).  Comparisons with non-canonical gospels like Papyrus Egerton 2, longer endings of Mark and the Diatessaron all fail because LGM not harmonizing the Gospels and distinctly Markan (parallel to redactional Jn 21) (101-4).  As for the relationship to Mark, he notes problems in Best’s experiment (subjectivity in determining vague parallels/significant words or dividing up large phrases, excluded LGM 2, only selected 3 Markan passages) and refines it to find the verbal repetition of LGM1 at 60.9% (LGM 1b 56.4%, LGM 1a 62.7%), LGM2 30.3%, Mk 1:16-28a 59% and Mk 4:1-2 at 76.5% (106-8).  He adds that Markan stylistic traits occur throughout the gospel, though higher quantity at the seams in introducing passages, and Peabody judged Mk 4:1-2 to have 17 stylistic traits (contra LGM1&2 with only 4 or 5) (109-10).  Against the priority of LGM, Koester’s argument that the redactions of canonical Mark are related to LGM unpersuasive as the raising of the youth inspires love but not amazement, LGM uses regular term “raise up” so “rise” in Markan passion predictions unrelated, “gospel” not present in LGM at all (Koester later allows “gospel” in Mk 13:10; 14:9 to be original), no baptism in LGM or Mk 4:11 so Mk 10:38-39 “baptism” irrelevant, and there is nothing significant or sacramental about more Markan references to “teaching” (114-6).  Further since LGM longer than 15 sentences Clement quoted, one has to assume Mark omitted a whole bunch of mystical material for no discernable reason yet missed 14:51-52 (117-20).

Ch 4 (121-143) looks at the mystikon euangelion, not meaning hidden or concealed as Mark ful of private instructions/epiphanies but the mystikai are traditions on the Lord (cf. logia) that lead to deeper truth (122-6).  The early Christian use of mystērion in contrast to pagan usage was in a cognitive rather than cultic sense, the mystery of salvation history (1st cent) or philosophy (2nd/3rd cent) and for Clement is divine truth beneath the literal level and allegorical interpretation (127-35).  Initiated into the great mysteries was not a Paschal evening baptism but persons advanced in gnosis to read LGM (130) and very securely kept implies it was intended for select interpreters and separate from public Mark to prevent heretical misappropriation (Clement would never accept a libertine text), which is why Clement urges Theodore to deny apostolic authorship of the unauthorized Carpocratian version (135-42).  Ch 5 (144-62) debunks the baptism reading as no water, the conjunction “for” and imperfect “was teaching” explains why the youth remained til evening, “mystery” used earlier in Mark for teaching (4:11) and too profound for pre-baptismal catechism, why is the youth still wearing his pre-baptism garment in Gethsemane, and Mark favours spirit or metaphoric baptism (1:7-8; 10:38-9) (145-6).  This disproves Talley’s theory on LGM in Alexandrian liturgy on 6th day (Friday) of 6th week (Coptic tradition on day when Jesus baptized disciples) of the fast (Epiphany [Jan 6] – Feast of Palms on first Sunday after baptisms) as LGM for those advanced in gnosis, has no  baptism, “after 6 days” does not equal 6th day and a fragment of Clement’s Hypotyposes has Jesus just baptize Peter (149-50).  Other cultic theories problematic (e.g., Smith’s secret 2nd baptism contradicts Richardson’s baptismal lection for converts) (151-3).  Seeking LGM’s function in a Sitz im Leben is hopeless; we have no evidence of a rite of nocturnal instruction of initiates in linen sheets (153) and what function did LGM2 serve (if a conversation with Salome altered why not omit the whole thing, if Encraitite celibacy why did Jesus earlier positively respond to the youth’s sister and angry at disciples for rebuking her)  (154).  Instead, Brown opts for a literary solution and that LGM forms a intercalculation around James/John call to follow Jesus to martyrdom (154-5, 157-8).  LGM was written in Alexandria at least before 125 CE for mystical interpretation (159).

The final part looks at Mark’s literary techniques.  Ch 6 (165-79) explains Mark’s intercalculations (A1-B-A2 = Jairus 12 year old daughter dead, womanwith a haemorrhage for 12 years, daughter raised; LGM 1 youth’s sister and away from disciples in Bethany, James/John requent, LGM 2 youth’s sister [+ women] and away from disciples in Jericho) (165-73).  The significance of this literary technique was not understood until redaction (1960s/70s) and moreso literary critics (1980s/90s) (174, 176-9) and Jesus words on the (Eucharist) cup and baptism to John interpret the youth wearing an initiation garment as symbol of metaphorical baptism (=death) (175).  Ch 7 (180-97) notes LGM 1:6-7, 9 shares 8 Greek words with Mk 16:3, 5, 8 and LGM has a number of words only in Mk 14:51-52 & 15:40-16:8 (young man, having put on, linen sheet, naked, Salome) (180-1).  Mk 10:32 and 16:7-8 form an inclusio as Jesus “going before” astonished and scared disciples on way to Jerusalem and “going before” you to Galilee with scared women disciples (183-4), 10:32 is part of the discipleship section (8:22-10:52) with its emphasis on the passion/incomprehension/discipleship & self-denial (184-8).  16:7-8 is the reassembling of the flawed disciples and Peter back to Galilee and the exaltation of the young man in white at the empty tomb mirrors the shameful flight of the naked youth in the Garden (188-95).  Thus, the young man is paradigmatic of the disciples’ failure (seed on rock) and restoration as symbolized by the white garb and proclamation of the risen one in Galilee (195-7).  Ch 8 (198-214) looks at verbal echoes in LGM.  “For he was rich” seems an akward gar clause (stayed at his house “for he was rich” [cf. Mk 5:42; 11:13; 16:4] but recalls the man with many possessions in Mk 10 vrs this youth abandoned everything in wearing linen sheet of a corpse (cf. Gundry) (199-201).  After 6 days echoes the transfiguration and the youth’s own transformation in white (201-3).  The great cry from the tomb embodies the power of death (demoniacs, the herd of pigs, the great wind of the storm, the great stone at the tomb) (204-5).  “Mystery of the kingdom” is the deeper understanding that is hidden (4:11-12) but will be revealed (4:21-2, 24-5) and Mark calls to deeper insight on the sea & feeding miracles into Jesus’ messianic identity (210-4).  His conclusion is that LGM elaborates on the call of discipleship as self-denial and death (215) and was written after canonical Mark by the same evangelist in Alexandria (scholars skeptical of the traditions of Mark in Alexandria often substitute speculative reconstructions of a Markan community instead) (231-2)

Reactions

After each review in my last few posts in this series I will include a section on scholarly reactions.  Wieland Willker provides some on his homepage.  Paul Foster, “Book of the Month: Secret Mark is No Secret Anymore” Expository Times 117 (2005) (pp 64-6)  finds Brown to make a strong case for the authenticity of LGM and a sensible interpretation of it.  He judges his arguments against the Koester line of Markan priority to be stronger that the pastiche argument; against his latter case later gospels may expand or abbreviate their sources (cf. E.P. Sanders) and a forger might want to make it appear a more primitive version than John (64-5).  He also finds fault with the intercalculation argument as there is not as obvious a degree of connectivity between the elements of the alleged intercalculation in LGM 1 and LGM 2 in simultaneity of action or thematic parallels and the addition of LGM undoes Mark’s literary structure of threefold passion prediction/misunderstanding/correction (65).  Stephen Carlson, “Reply to Scott Brown” Expository Times 117 (2006) 185-88 notes that Brown’s views are better supported than Smith’s himself (e.g., not a baptism) (185), but Smith’s outlandish theories were meant to divert attention from the forgery (187-8).  Carlson raises objections to Brown’s use of intercalculations.  LGM 2 does not complete the narrative of the youth at the tomb and the nocturnal initiation in LGM 1, which itself is 2 stories spliced together that take place 6 days apart!  Thus Brown relaxes standards of Markan intercalculations (186-7).  Instead, Carlson sees this as a sign of forgery as scholars in the 1950s did not have a clear understanding of this technique but just saw it as Mark splicing together stories (187).  Carlson has also written a full series responding to Brown’s criticisms of those in the forgery camp trying to produce a motive for Smith that one can access them all here.  If you have a blog post or a review on a website feel free to pass them on in the comments.

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).