Loading...Here now is the second of my two posts on reasons for suspecting that Morton Smith himself may have been the one who forged the “letter of Clement” that discusses the “Secret Gospel of Mark” (see my post from yesterday).
Again taken from my article, “Hedrick’s Consensus on the Secret Gospel of Mark,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 11 (2003) pp. 155-64.
******************************
(2) Several things that are hard to explain about the “discovery.” For those who want to show the letter is authentic (i.e. really written by Clement of Alexandria), these are the issues to address. I leave off several other matters that some have raised, such as
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!
Really fascinating! I was unaware of some of the issues that potentially call Smith’s discovery into question. I have an off-topic question for you:
In your most recent podcast, you spoke with Hugo Mendez about the authorship of the Gospel of John and whether that book should be viewed as a forgery. Dr. Mendez argued that the author of the gospel strongly implies that he is the beloved disciple. You didn’t seem to disagree with him on that point, but I recall that in previous blog posts on the subject, you’ve argued forcefully that the author of John does not claim to be the beloved disciple. That seems like an important point for the rest of Mendez’s argument that it’s a forgery and there is no Johannine community. Just curious to hear your thoughts on that issue.
Ah, I didn’t disagree with him on the air, but I didn’t agree either! I actually disagree. We had a long discussion of it after the recording (about an hour!)
I was a little surprised to see it called a new view that the letter was a forgery by an eighteenth-century monk. I thought that was always considered a possibility, even if not an especially likely one.
Speaking of malfeasance by prominent scholars, are you aware of any new developments in the criminal case against Dirk Obbink? I’ve googled, and haven’t found any news over the past year.
No, I haven’t heard anything.
Do you find the line
“but ‘naked man with naked man’ and the other things about which you wrote, are not found”
a bit too suspiciously intriguing?
There seemingly for the benefit of a later reader rather than Theodore himself.
I do, yes!
I stand with Stroumsa!!!
Mark does not deserve to be so misunderstood , nor in his wildest dreams he thought his “naked young” (he was naked because he GAVE EVERYTHING for following Jesus,just that ) could lead to such an absurdity as the “secret gospel”.
Stroumsa is mainly arguing that Smith was not the one who forged it. He suspects that there really was some such ancient Gospel. That’s not the same as saying it really goes back to Mark, of course.
Robert Price believes the Secret Gospel of Mark is a forgery because of the circumstances of its discovery is too similar to the 1940 novel The Mystery of Mar Saba by J.H. Hunter. Is this convincing to you? http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_secret.htm
I’m afraid I haven’t looked into the idea in detail.
What about the “Popular” notion in some groups that this letter somehow confirms that Jesus was gay and enjoyed the night sleeping naked with young men as part of a sacred ritual? I have seen some politically motivated groups jump at this interpretation.
Yup, Smith himself makes suggestions to that end. It’s one of the things that got his academice opponents especially riled, as you might imagine. Some claimed he forged it in order to make this point.
Thank you, Dr Ehrman. I think I may have been one of the Blog members who asked for more on Secret Mark/Morton Smith and you didn’t disappoint. I find this the most fascinating of all the early Christianity topics. Like all mysteries, it will probably be an anticlimax if it is ever definitively solved. My own view is 51% hoax, 49% genuine.