Loading...In my previous posts I discussed how Morton Smith claimed he discovered a copy of an ancient letter of Clement of Alexandria (ca. 200 CE), written in the back of a 17th century book, by a scribe of the 18th century, in which Clement described a mysterious “Secret Gospel” – an intriguing and possibly scandalous longer version of the Gospel of Mark.
In yesterday’s post I indicated how Smith went about trying to authenticate the discovery. Here I pick up at that point, again, as recounted in my book Lost Christianities.
******************************
A key question was whether the copyist who put the alleged letter of Clement of Alexandria that Smith mound into the bak of a book was copying an actualy letter of Clement of Alexandria. There is no difficulty believing that a scribe of the eighteenth century might have had a fragmentary copy of an ancient letter at his disposal – possibly a loose sheet in the ancient library, known for its famous ancient texts – and that rather than simply discard it, he decided to preserve its contents by copying it onto the only spare pages to be found, those in the blank pages at the back of a book at hand. But how could one establish that the letter was from Clement, rather than, say, from a forger pretending to be Clement hundreds of years later (who fooled, then, the eighteenth-century scribe who copied the letter)? The first step Smith took in answering the question was to show the letter to scholars who were experts in Clement; who had spent their lives studying Clement; who would recognize a new work by Clement simply on the basis of its subject matter and writing style. When he did so, the majority of the experts agreed, this looked very much like something Clement would write. If someone had forged it, she or he had done highly credible work.
But how could one know for sure? The only way to decide is by
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Are we discussing two or three versions of Mark?
Here are the versions that seem distinct to me:
1. Mark plus the info from Clement. Some seem to think this was the oldest, original version
2. Mark, without the inconvenient info. “Short Mark”.
3. Mark , edited as above, plus the resurrection addition.
Could there have been perchance still a 4th version with both Clement’s passages and the resurrection addition?
Finally, was there a Carpocatian version?
In all of this, if I understand correctly, there are tales about two naked youths only:
the resurrected one from Clement’s letter, who is the same as John’s Lazarus ( or are these two distinct persons?),
and the youth from Gethsemane.
If Clement’s youth is *not* to be conflated with Lazarus, then are we reading testimony about three youths?
Right! Lots of options, none of them obvioulsy right! My view is that Secret Mark was probably forged by Smith so there was one version that got edited in various ways (e.g., by the addition of the last twelve verses).
I had a conversation with Seth Schwartz a few years back about the Secret Gospel of Mark. Seth as you know is an outstanding scholar of Jewish history in antiquity. Morton Smith was his doctoral advisor and Seth, I believe, was his last graduate student.
Seth professed not to know himself as to the authenticity of the Secret Gospel, but he was emphatic that Smith would never lie nor ever forge a document. He was convinced that Smith stood fully behind his scholarship.
BTW: If I can give a plug to Seth’s own scholarship for your blog readers: his “Imperialism and Jewish Society: 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E.” is a penetrating social history of Roman Galilee during period when Post Second Temple Judaism, i.e., modern Rabbinical Judaism, was established.
Yes, Smith’s students almost uniformly say this. Some of his colleagues don’t. Seth is a superb scholar as you know.
Professor, … so your saying Smith thought long ending Mark also with secret Mark’s naked man scene was the original/autograph? Or are we dealing with three versions – long, short & Secret.
Apparently so.
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy:
The account of Jesus’ Torture before Crucifixion by Order of Pilate Reads Like It Was by Order of Titus
Josephus writes painfully that at Titus’s order, the Jews, upon their capture:
were accordingly scourged and subjected to torture of every description
before crucifixion.
Titus hoped this would induce Jews to surrender.
The scourging and crucifixion by a man who found no fault in him (think Mel Gibson’s movie, The Passion of the Christ)
in comparison to
the scourging and crucifixion by Titus and Roman soldiers of the Jew Revolt.
Mark also speaks of the Legion of demons who possessed a man.
Was this the PTSD aftermath of the Jewish Revolt put down by Titus?
In the Gospel of Mark, Don’t lord power over people the way the Gentiles do is highly likely a reference to the way Titus lorded his power over the defeated Jews.
When the Biblical Jesus feeding the multitudes had the people sitting in companies, group by group, that is a recall of how Roman soldiers were fed in multitudes, especially when legions were left in Israel after the First Jewish-Roman War.
Inspired by The Gospel of Mark and the Roman-Jewish War of 66-70 CE by Stephen Simon Kimondo, PhD
Pilate and his soldiers had nothing on the motivation of Titus and his soldiers.
Pilate did not even torture the Samaritan Redeemer before he slew him, but then he is going to be enraged and angry at the biblical Jesus?
Stephen Kimondo, author of The Gospel of Mark and the Roman-Jewish War of 66-70 CE:
When the Biblical Jesus feeding the multitudes had the people sitting in companies, group by group, that is a recall of how Roman soldiers were fed in multitudes, especially when legions were left in Israel after the First Jewish-Roman War.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy:
When the Biblical Jesus feeding the multitudes had the people sitting in companies, group by group, this is a recall of 67 CE when Galilean soldiers of the Jewish revolt were fed in multitudes in the lead up to the Battle of Galilee (Vespasian vs. Jesus of Galilee (city: Gamala).
I wonder if some of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas actually go back to Jesus but were edited out as they seemed too strange to include in other gospels. Then there’s this stuff in Secret Mark taken out (maybe). Yet other stuff seems to be added in, put on the lips of Jesus. Have you ever tried to estimate what % of Jesus’ sayings in the Gospels you think are authentic? I guess there’s no way to estimate how much of what he taught was left out. Reminds me of the lines in Jesus Christ Superstar: “Now why’d you choose such a backward time in such a strange land? If you’d come today You could have reached the whole nation; Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication.” But maybe the edited version played better than the full version would have; we’ll never know.
Dr. Ehrman,
Concerning the secret in the canonical Gospel of Mark, is the author using a play on words or is there a real secret? If so, what is it and how is it a secret?
My question really wasn’t clear. I’m wondering if there’s anything about the language of Mark that may be construed as secretive.
Are you asking if he uses mysterious language that is difficult to penetrate and understand? Nope, not really.
Which secret do you mean?
In chapter 4, Jesus tells the parable of the sower and shortly afterwards, tells his disciples that the parables are meant to keep outsiders from understanding the secret of the kingdom of God. How do you, for instance, break down the meaning of this parable to show how it concealed the secret? Or do you believe that this is all just a play on words?
Scholars have long claimed that the “interpretatoin” of the parable that follows was not originally part of the parable, so that in fact it was seen as mysteirous To us it just makes obvious sense because we read Mark’s interpretation of it and that’s what we naturally think it means.
Even if it’s unoriginal, I’m not sure I understand what we really think it means. Lol
“there is nothing at all implausible about the idea that Mark’s Gospel circulated in different versions”.
Absolutely so Bart; indeed all three of our synoptic gospels – Matthew, Mark and Luke – present ancient texts that are expansions on a ‘source-Mark’ (taking ‘canonical Mark’ as adding the extra verses to chapter 16).
But would I be correct in saying that all of these three independent witnesses, are apparently dependent on essentially the *same* source-Mark? That, while there are some ‘minor agreements’ where Matthew and Luke appear to be reading a different source-Mark text from that read by ‘canonical Mark’, none of the three canonical authors is reading a consistently expanded base text?
Specifically that none of these three witnesses show any indication that they know of additional text at the two particular points where they are in Secret Mark. So, Matthew 20:19-20 essentially reproduces Mark 10: 34-35; and Matthew 20; 29:30 appears as a trimmed-down version of Mark 10:46-47.
This common source-Mark appears to have been minimal-Mark, not Secret Mark.
Supposing Secret Mark preceded minimal-Mark, and continued therafter to be copied; is there any supporting evidence other than in Morton Smith’s discovery?
I”d say that is is usually assumed that the copies of Mark known to Matthew and Luke were *basically* our version of Mark (up to 16:8), but that some words are changed here and there and possibly some passages added or missing from one of the two known copies or the other. The expanded Mark argued by Smith doesn’t have any other textual attestation.
Thanks Bart.
So, if source Mark is secondary to Secret Mark, but was in circulation for Matthew, it must have been created *very* soon after Secret Mark was written.
I think Secret Mark was written inthe 20th century.
I suspect that not all Clementine scholars thought Smith’s ostensible letter of Clement was authentic. Similarly, I suspect that not all relevant scholars agree(d) that the material from the Secret Gospel of Mark is authentic to Mark. Am I correct on these counts?
The original readers of Smith’s photos apparently did think the Clementine letter was authentic. Since then it is disputed. And it’s always been disputed if Secret Mark was originally Mark.
“it is so much like Clement that it would be well nigh impossible to imagine someone other than Clement being able to write it”
Really it was so impossible for a scholar armed with Otto Stählin’s work to write a letter as if it were from Clement?
So with paleography , you can have endless arguments about the probability of someone making a forgery so good that even the experts could conclude if it is or not a fake.
But there is something that it would be really impossible for Morton to do , it was to take 18th century paper and ink and to write a letter in the 20th century as if it were from 200 years before.
So the definitive , conclusive proof would be a physical analysis of the alleged letter.
Believe it or not, in the 30 years from Morton’s announcement of the ‘discovery’ of the letter to its very (very) mysterious disappearance, NOBODY could make such an analysis.
So what’s the real evidence to support Morton’s “discovery”??
His word and a group of photos of a letter nobody ever could put under a test.
My position is that Smith used Stahlin to make the letter sound like Clement. It would not be impossible to write the letter in the back of a 17th century book. And the ink is not around to check….
For, “Not all true things are to be said to all men”. For this reason the Wisdom of God, through Solomon, advises, “Answer the fool from his folly”, teaching that the light of the truth should be hidden from those who are mentally blind. Again it says, “From him who has not shall be taken away”, and “Let the fool walk in darkness”
(Letter of Clement of Alexandria on Secret Mark)
I contrast this passage from Clement’s alleged letter with your observation that Morton “ thought most scholars were fools.”
He evidently knew early christian literature is full of forgeries, maybe he wanted to add his own work.
Even though the “Secret Mark” will never be part of the NT, apparently it achieved recognition as a genuine work by a good part of biblical scholarship.
Fascinating.
.. But what about the book it was written in; apparently the only antique publication in Latin in a library otherwise comprised of printed volumes in Greek?
From your account of conversations with Guy Strouma in your ‘Lost Christianities’, it would seem that the blank end-pages into which Clement’s letter was copied, have since been cut out – and sadly misplaced (or destroyed).
But might there not still be value in examining the Ignatius volume itself – assuming that it is still in the Greek Patriarchate, to which it was apparently removed at some time after the 1970s? What else might have been written into it over the years? Can it be definitely located in the monastry of Mar Saba in the eighteenth century?
At least this might check whether Morton Smith might have brought the text – ready written – into the monastry in 1958.
Has the Ignatius book been carefully examined?
Good questions. The librarian at the Greek Patriarchate, as I understand it, did confirm that the Voss edition of Ignatius did come to the Patriarchate; we have other copies of that edition of course. I would have thought that others looked through the book to see if anything else was written in it (Smith, the librarian who cut the pages out, etc.), but don’t know for sure.
Good questions. The librarian at the Greek Patriarchate, as I understand it, did confirm that the Voss edition of Ignatius did come to the Patriarchate; we have other copies of that edition of course. I would have thought that others looked through the book to see if anything else was written in it (Smith, the librarian who cut the pages out, etc.), but don’t know for sure.
“The expanded Mark argued by Smith doesn’t have any other textual attestation.”
Yep! And this is when Clement’s alleged letter comes to Morton’s rescue !!!
In “The Martyrdom of Polycarp as a Clever Christian Forgery” (https://ehrmanblog.org/finally-the-martyrdom-of-polycarp-as-a-clever-christian-forgery/)Barts explains in relation to the colophon that “It FUNCTIONS here as it does in other places, such as the Apocalypse of Paul, to EXPLAINS why the account has now surfaced in the mid to late third century (after the days of Pionius) when it was previously unknown to interested Christian readers.”
How does Morton explain that the secret gospel of Mark “has now surfaced in the [20th century ] when it was previously unknown. ?
Well, as Clement wrote:
“But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter… Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord…and, dying, he left his composition to the church where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries. “ (from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/secretmark.html)
So since Mark’s times the secret was ”most carefully guarded” !!!!
Come on !!!
(1) Dr. Ehrman, among many errors Justin Bass made in his debate with you, perhaps the most glaring was his understanding of Mormon church history. You may already know this, but I wanted to give you these quotes from Joseph Smith very early on in his church. He too claimed at the outset that his church would go to the ends of the earth (in 1830 and 1842 respectively):
When Moroni ostensibly visited Smith, we read, “He called me by name,” Joseph Smith later recalled, “and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people” (Joseph Smith — History 1:33).
see comment (2)
(2) And, just twelve years after the church was established, Smith said: “The standard of truth has been erected. No unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the great Jehovah shall say the work is done” (History of the Church, 4:540).
Not that Jesus even spoke about the Gospel going to the ends of the earth. But if he did it would not be unique among religious figures. To any ex-Mormon, Justin Bass really showed his ignorance and lack of good argumentation. He also hinted that the only Mormons are in Utah. This is obviously not the case. More Mormons live outside the U.S. than within it.
Let me know if I can do anything for the blog.
Thanks. And yes, Justin says a lot of things that come into his head.
There goes my keyboard, again.
After all these years, I should know not to read these blog posts while drinking coffee 🙂
Or other select beverages.
I have a question. Why did Da Vinci paint Bacchus later from John the Baptist? Shouldn’t it be the opposite as far as time line? Shouldn’t it be John to Bacchus? It is just a question and I wanted to hear what you thought.
However, the pointing finger in this painting indicates that whoever the painter really was, the original subject is likely to have been St. John and the painting was originally called St. John the Baptist in the Desert, a name which was later changed to Bacchus in a Landscape.
I don’t know!
“But were the quotations of Secret Mark in this letter of Clement actually written by the author of the Gospel of Mark? Here again, it is a question of vocabulary, writing style, modes of expression, and theology. And in fact, a careful analysis of the quotations of Clement indicate that these passages – while not in the style of Clement himself – are very much like the style of Mark as found in the New Testament.”
The excerpt is not like the style of GMark in general. GMark has an extreme negative style with negatives, double negatives, surprises, contrasts, misunderstandings, audience reaction, irony, more irony and good parallels to Greek tragedy. The excerpt is straight-forward positive. The only parts of GMark with this style are the long ending which you, I, Bob Dole and the American public all agree is unoriginal. The other part of GMark is the beginning (1:1-3) which I have faith is not original.
There’s no evidence that Smith ever understood this. As to my one allotted question, in following your career I have faith that you have become increasingly skeptical of traditional Christian assertions. Have you moved towards acknowledging that GMark has parallels to Greek Tragedy?
I suppose every tragic account of someone’s life has parallels to Greek tragedy, but that doesn’t mean that the authors had read the great tragedians and were heavily influenced by them. Nothing suggests Mark was. (I’m reading Oedipus Tyrannus just now in Greek — a great way to spend a bit of time in the morning before getting on with the day. It ain’t like Mark!)
i am new to the blog, and have enjoyed your blog and video site very much. Thank you.
Could you point me to a concise LIST or Bulletpoint reference for all of the meaningful discrepancies between versions of the gospels / Paul’s letters / all NT books? ones that scholars all AGREE upon? Perhaps one of your books gives this list?
–and to any associated theologian’s explanations describing why these are irrelevant or why they shouldn’t provoke doubt or at least curiosity?
I don’t think I know of a list! I suppose different scholars would have different lists. Many evangelical scholars would say there aren’t *any*. The book where I talk about a number of them is Jesus Interupted. If you want to see scholars who disagree with me on everything I say, just look my name up on Amazon and you’ll find some books!