This could be an interesting discussion as long as we remember that the ancients did not share many of the concepts we take for granted and while they frequently use the same words they frequently mean different things by them. So it’s almost impossible not to impose our own categories on this discussion. Confusion reigns when folks do this without realizing they’re doing it.
Stephen said
This could be an interesting discussion as long as we remember that the ancients did not share many of the concepts we take for granted and while they frequently use the same words they frequently mean different things by them. So it’s almost impossible not to impose our own categories on this discussion. Confusion reigns when folks do this without realizing they’re doing it.
Well I think, first, we need to look at Secret Mark and ask whether it is genuine and, if so, how it fits into the development of canonical Mark. Everything I’ve read or heard from Dr. Ehrman is that he is unsure but leans toward a forgery.
Koester at Harvard argued canonical Mark is a direct descendant of Secret Mark. In other words, the version of Mark in the NT had the material commonly referred to as Secret Mark removed from it. I side with Koester.
And then the question is, what is the nature of the relationship between Jesus and the unnamed young man in Secret Mark? Was it a pederastic relationship or not? Or more precisely, how did the author intend the reader to view that relationship?
Many commentators — probably most that I have read — view the relationship as pederastic. But other folks think that is not what is portrayed; e.g., Scott G. Brown, “Mark’s Other Gospel”.
That’s a good starting point, I think.
Thanks for the welcome and questions, Robert.
Yes, I have read considerably on the subject, though it has been a good ten years ago or so.
That reading includes Smith’s popular book and his scholarly one, which I still have.
I have also read Carlson’s Gospel Hoax and Jeffery Peters’ SM Unveiled.
My sense is that most of the folks objecting to SM are concerned with the possible sexual interpretation that can be given to it — which Smith did.
But maybe you have a better sense of that.
Robert said
I just don’t see any indication in the gospel of Mark (or even in Secret Mark) that there’s any specific discussion of pederasty. I’ve always had my doubts about Morton Smith and Secret Mark, but even if Morton Smith did not forge it, I see no reason to be believe that it represents an earlier version of Mark’s gospel. Why rule out the possibility that someone else added these verses to Mark to make room for secret initiation meanings?In my experience, the more pedestrian meaning of a passage is usually more likely. The disciple who ran away naked could simply represent the complete abandonment of all of Jesus’ followers at his arrest and subsequent trial. Even if one does connect this figure to the young man at the tomb, where is there any indication that this is about sex, homosexuality, or pederasty?
Many folks have argued that, if Smith did not forge Clement’s letter, someone else may have before him.
If I recall correctly, Koester spells out his reasoning for why he thought SM preceded canonical Mark in his two volume text, “Intro to the NT”.
For me, Koester’s reasoning is sound but his reasoning is not my only consideration. For me, many puzzles in canonical Mark melt away with the addition of SM, and canonical Mark seems dependent on it thematically. I also don’t think whether you view SM as having sexual connotations or not changes much in that regard.
As to the sexual connotations, in his letter, Clement denies that another version of SM that is in the hands of the Carpocratians, a licentious group, is genuine. What Clement quotes from it, “naked man with naked man,” he claims is not in his version. But was it? And if not, who’s text is the earlier, Clement’s or the Carpocration’s? Regardless, Clement’s letter raises sexual issues that need to be considered.
Robert said
CEJ said
Many folks have argued that, if Smith did not forge Clement’s letter, someone else may have before him.
That’s not what I’m suggesting. Even if the letter is genuine, that’s no indication that the Secret Mark passages were original to the gospel. Why rule out the possibility that someone else added these verses to Mark to make room for secret initiation meanings? Among those who think the letter is genuine, most do not accept that these passages were original to Mark.
If I recall correctly, Koester spells out his reasoning for why he thought SM preceded canonical Mark in his two volume text, “Intro to the NT”.
For me, Koester’s reasoning is sound …
In my experience, Koester has had more influence in the US than his arguments deserve because of his position at Harvard. His source-critical theories, even when toned down by Crossan, are far-fetched in my humble opinion. In this case, Koester differentiates five stages: proto-Mark, which did not include these sections, that was used by Luke, a second version that also did not include these sections, and which was used by Matthew, then Secret Mark, then the Carpocratian version, and then finally our version of the gospel of Mark. So, according to Koester, we are still with the sections of Secret Mark being later additions to the third and fourth versions of the gospel.
… but his reasoning is not my only consideration. For me, many puzzles in canonical Mark melt away with the addition of SM, and canonical Mark seems dependent on it thematically. I also don’t think whether you view SM as having sexual connotations or not changes much in that regard.
Can you elaborate on how puzzles of Mark are resolved and how canonical Mark is dependent on it thematically? About the only thing I can think of is the issue of what, if anything, Jesus may have done while passing through Jericho. But that’s not really much of a problem in Mark.
As to the sexual connotations, in his letter, Clement denies that another version of SM that is in the hands of the Carpocratians, a licentious group, is genuine. What Clement quotes from it, “naked man with naked man,” he claims is not in his version. But was it? And if not, who’s text is the earlier, Clement’s or the Carpocration’s? Regardless, Clement’s letter raises sexual issues that need to be considered.
Sure, everything needs to be considered, but the Carpocratian (or some other esoteric) origin of the Secret Mark sections seems like a very plausible explanation of where and why they originated.
Koester, Crossan and Smith all concluded that canonical Mark is a derivative of SM, though not following the same path to arrive at that conclusion.
Of course, I agree with that conclusion, but I don’t necessarily agree with how they arrive at that it. One cannot agree with all of them anyway, eh?
I don’t accept that SM was added to and then removed from what essentially was conical Mark before SM’s author got his hands on it. SM’s author, in my opinion, is the author of Mark as we know it, and the SM passages were part of that gospel.
Mysteries in Mark? Sure, the Jericho lacuna. SM fills that gap, though as Smith noted, Clement seems to have shortened that passage. And the naked youth running from Jesus’ arrest, as well as the youth in Jesus’ tomb, seem mysteries to me as presented in canonical Mark. And finally, Mark’s odd ending may be a consequence of the editing that seems to have been involved in removing the SM passages we know of, as well as ones we likely we don’t know. I doubt Clement’s letter tells us everything he knew of from SM.
Robert said
CEJ said
Koester, Crossan and Smith all concluded that canonical Mark is a derivative of SM, though not following the same path to arrive at that conclusion.
Of course, I agree with that conclusion, but I don’t necessarily agree with how they arrive at that it. One cannot agree with all of them anyway, eh?
I’m not asking you to agree with all of them. Previously you said, you agreed with Koester’s sound reasoning. Is that still the case? It sounds like you no longer agree with Koester:
I don’t accept that SM was added to and then removed from what essentially was c[an]onical Mark before SM’s author got his hands on it.
If that’s correct, then do you now agree with Crossan or Smith instead of agreeing with Koester? Whose reasoning do you now consider to be sound? I’m just trying to clarify your position so that we can have a valid discussion.
I agree with their conclusion — SM precedes canonical Mark. I don’t necessarily agree with any of them in all the fine points of their reasoning.
Perhaps you can identify who you most agree with on this topic. No need to limit it to the three above, of course.
Robert said
I don’t agree with any of them. We have the current text of Mark, and I think we should interpret that in its historical context as best as that can be determined. Carpocratian versions of Secret Mark are not widely witnessed and seem to be easily placed later. I’ve yet to hear a reason to doubt this consensus.
Well, certainly, anything the Carpocratians created would have to be late, but I don’t ascribe SM to them, except for possibly their own version of it, to the extent it actually differed from Clement’s.
I find SM fascinating and believe it illuminates canonical Mark. I think, in a gospel that seems a polemic against Jesus’ inner circle, the youth’s fuller story was what the reader was supposed to look to as the model of discipleship.
If I recall correctly, I believe that was a point Marvin Meyer made in his book mentioned above.
Robert said
So how does Meyer’s point differ from the reasoning of Koster, which you previously agreed with above?
I don’t recall Meyer getting into the weeds on SM’s development but rather focusing on its interpretation.
But it’s been a good ten years since I read his book, so maybe he did.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)