The Secret Gospel of Mark:
Discussion on Crosstalk 1998
From: "Jon Peter" <jnp@home.com>
Date: 2 Dec 1998 20:57:08 -0000
Subject: Re: Secret Mark whereabouts
Those contemplating a Mar Saba visit should be interested in the experience of Charles Hedrick, NT scholar at Southwest Missouri State Univ. I recently wrote him because his name had come up on this list as a supposed SGM eyewitness.
Well, no such luck. Hedrick has not seen it, though he did go looking for it at Mar Saba together with a colleague who had an "in" with the abbot. After a search, they failed to find the ms.
He next visited the Gr Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem. No luck there either, as the ms could not be found.
On the plus side, Hedrick did come into possession of more ms. photos, which were not the same as Morton Smith's. These came from a former librarian at Jerusalem Patriarchate library.
Patriarchate tel. no. is 6282048.
From: y.kuchinsky@utoronto.ca
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 10:49:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Secret Mark whereabouts
Many thanks to Jon for the information he provided. We need solid
information like this in order to understand Mar Saba fragments better,
rather than merely baseless rumours and malicious gossip.
I agree that the result of Hedrick's investigation is somewhat troubling.
There indeed seems to be a chance that the ms is now lost. But what if
it's not lost? It may be still in Istambul, where it was at some point
when Tulley tried to see it.
If the monks lost the ms, this would be a shame, but it would be hardly
Smith's fault. And it's good that there's a second set of photos.
I have no idea what is happening with these monks -- all this is quite
puzzling. They admitted to Tulley that they had the ms, and we have two
sets of photos. Did they really loose the ms? Or are they embarrassed by
it somehow (the order being quite conservative theologically), and are
perhaps trying to hide it away? Or are they genuine bunglers who can't
keep their records and archives straight -- and the ms is still in one of
their libraries somewhere? There are a few possibilities to consider here.
But I would estimate the possibility of the monks "loosing the ms entirely
by accident" as rather low in the order of probabilities.
Of course, for the sake of some of our conspiracy theorists, we should
also mention the possibility that the monks are in cahoots with "Smith the
forger" and are covering up for him. Anybody would like to argue this
seriously, really?
Myself, I still have no doubts that the ms is authentic, until some new
and persuasive evidence turns up that it's not. I've given plenty of
reasons in my long article on my webpage.
I have no desire to continue the squabble with Ian, although I think he is
widely off base. To clarify, I'm certainly _not_ saying that the
possibility of forgery should not be considered -- far from it. Rather,
what I'm saying is that unfounded accusations of forgery and deceit based
merely on ignorance of facts, and on personal faiths should not be made --
because this would be unethical. (And yes, Jim, based on what you already
said a few days ago, I indeed have very good indications that you haven't
read either of Smith's books.) We have to maintain some minimal standards
of decency on this list.
By my lights, a respected scholar should be assumed innocent until proven
guilty. Not assumed guilty, a liar and a cheat, with no evidence offered,
until proven innocent. Because this would be nothing but a witch hunt --
vindictive and paranoid like all witch hunts -- something that I wouldn't
want to unfold on Crosstalk.
Regards,
Yuri.
From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@historian.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 12:03:40 -0800
Subject: Re: Secret Mark whereabouts
The removal of the endpapers from the 1646 Voss book was a mistake.
When I think of how many ancient biblical manuscripts have been
lost or destroyed by monks (Tischendorf saved alpha from being fuel
to toast marshmallows) through carelessness or design, I get very
pessimistic that we will ever see this Clementine epistle again.
Jack
From: joe baxter <joseph@wco.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 00:27:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: RE: Secret Mark
A few thoughts about the Secret Mark discussion:
1. Much thanks to Wieland for his website.
2. My sympathies go with the authenticity of Secret Mark. Still, there are
so many suspicious circumstances associated with that document. The Hobbs
discussion on Wieland's website is very informative. Apparently, a number of
scholars do suspect a forgery on Smith's part. Jim West has plenty of
respected company.
3. So much is suspicious about the Secret Mark. The plan seems all too
perfect. Only a scrap of the Secret Gospel is found. To forge the whole
Gospel would not have been possible. Just by coincidence, the fragment
explains why it was lost. The Gospel was itself secret. Clement himself said
to hide the truth. This is all much too pat. And how about the way the
fragment ends. Clement is about to explain everything.
4. Not a single reference to this alleged Clement letter or the Secret
Gospel is known in history; and the book in which Morton Smith found the
letter at the Mar Saba monastery was not listed in any previous catalog of
that monastery.
5.Morton Smith made no effort whatever toward conservation of the
manuscript, nor has the document apparently been seen or brought to light
for testing and analysis by anyone else. There is no evidence beyond M
Smith's word that he found the old book in the monastery. He kept the matter
secret for 14 years, then published two books, a "scholarly" one and a
"popular" one. This 14 year wait seems very convenient. If someone went to
the Monastery and couldn't find the book, Smith would have a good
explanation. The book was moved. The former librarian, or the former abbot
is no longer there. Etc. No other person has ever been able to locate the
book in which this stuff was
supposedly written.
6.Note also how Smith dedicated his book on the Secret Gospel, cryptically,
"To the one who knows"; he never disclosed who this person was or what this
person knew.
7. I haven't read Smith's work, Jesus The Magician, but if the title conveys
its contents, it suggests that Smith is attracted by sacred trickery.
8. I don't accept the idea that Smith couldn't have pulled something like
this off. This type of thing is done all the time with artwork. Rembrandt
forgeries which can pass for an original, and fool many of the experts, do
appear. Smith was apparently a brilliant man. Only someone quite brilliant
could do something like this. So what if he needed help. Maybe that's "The
one who knows."
9. The absence of the MS, and the inability of anyone to verify the truth is
certainly consistent with forgery.
10. I don't accept your argument stemming from the allegedly hurried way the
MS was placed in the back of an old book. Who was in a hurry? Supposedly the
prior copy had been rotting away for centuries. And so about a million days
pass, and what happens, on the millionth day the monastery is suddenly out
of paper? So they toss this rare MS which raises some of the most profound
questions in the history of Christianity, and make a copy, and where do
they put the copy of this rare MS? On a flap in the back of a book?
11. The current absence, of course, can also be explained by other factors.
Possibly the monastery or the Patriarchate are themselves suspicious about
this MS and want to pull the MS from circulation. As for conspiracy
theorizing, isn't the Vatican always suspected in these matters? Doesn't the
secret Vatican library contain the full version of the Gospel of the
Hebrews, and Q also? Didn't they snatch the Himis MS discovered by Nicolas
Notovich? (:>
With kind regards,
Joe
From: y.kuchinsky@utoronto.ca
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 10:46:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: RE: Secret Mark
Because I think it is really important to correct some wide-spread
misunderstandings in this area, I have prepared this reply to what I
found on Wieland's site. I would appreciate if Wieland would include these
corrections on his website as well.
Unfortunately, these B-Greek exchanges featured many sordid and defamatory
ad hominem comments. I will avoid these parts, and will stick to
substance.
Prof. Edward Hobbs expressed a strong opinion that Morton Smith was the
forger. I think this is impossible, and the accusation is extremely unfair
to Smith.
First, here's an old post from Paul Moser.
> I wonder if any listmember knows of a careful review of Jacob Neusner,
> *Are There Really Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels?* (Scholars
> Press, 1993). The book is a vigorous criticism of Morton Smith's
> *Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels*. In addition, Neusner announces
> that Smith's proposed evidence for the so-called Secret Gospel of Mark
> "must now be declared the forgery of the century" (p. 28). Neusner
> suggests that Smith himself forged the Clement of Alexandria fragment
> that allegedly surfaced in a library in Sinai in 1958, giving evidence
> of the Secret Gospel.
I have read this a while back, and was not persuaded. Actually, Neusner
gave next to no evidence to back up his negative opinion. He merely stated
his negative opinion.
Next, is a message from Greg Doudna.
> Not a single reference to or
> reaction against this alleged Clement letter is known in history;
That a collection of Clement's letters (now lost) existed at Mar Saba is
attested by historical sources.
> and
> the book in which Morton Smith found the letter at the Mar Saba
> monastery was not listed in any previous catalogue of that monastery.
The library was poorly catalogued.
> Morton Smith made no effort whatever toward conservation of the
> manuscript,
This is not true. He notified the authorities about this valuable
manuscript.
> nor has the document apparently been seen or brought to
> light for testing and analysis by anyone else.
This is incorrect. The ms was seen since by a number of people. A few
years ago, librarians of the monastic order have confirmed to respected
scholar Thomas Talley, the author of a very interesting and important book
_The Origins of the Liturgical Year_, that they had the ms. It is true
that the whereabout of the ms are now not clear. (Charles Hedrick reports
that the ms is apparently not now in Israel. The monks may have lost it,
or it may be in Istambul where the order is headquartered. On the other
hand, Hedrick has now obtained from the monks a second set of photographs
of the ms, different from the ones taken by Smith.)
And now, Prof. Hobbs.
> Charles Murgia, then Chairman
> of the Dept. of Classics at Berkeley, wrote a devastating proof of
> forgery.
I found no "proof of forgery", either devastating or otherwise, in what he
wrote.
> In the discussion, he said that he didn't think Smith himself
> did the forging, because Smith's knowledge of Greek was inferior to
> that of the author/forger, and because the forger had an excellent
> sense of humor, which Smith lacked.
This seems to exonerate Smith, of course.
> My own effort in advance was to prepare a
> Greek Synopsis, with three columns: "Clement's" Text, Parallels in
> Mark, and Parallels in John. I thought it evidenced that the work was
> a "pastiche" created from canonical Gospel materials.
I'm not persuaded by Prof. Hobbs' analysis. He merely formulated a
hypothesis of "what might have happened". A number of problems exist with
this.
> ( I also said
> that since I wasn't a Clement-scholar, I couldn't judge whether the
> forgery was pre- or post-Clement, hence I would simply assume Robert
> Grant's opinion that the letter sounded like Clement.
Now, this is interesting. Prof. Hobbs implied that while Clement's letter
may be genuine, Smith still somehow managed to forge the fragments Clement
included in his letter. Needless to say, big logical problems exist with
this scenario.
> I didn't believe it,
It is to be regretted that Prof. Hobbs chose not to be up front about what
he believed at the time.
Certainly, I cannot see how the authenticity of Clement's letter can be
separated from the authenticity of SecMk fragments. If there is a way to
do it, I would like to hear about it from somebody.
> but I didn't want to take on THAT issue as well.
Again, is this an attempt to separate the authenticity of Clement's letter
from the authenticity of SecMk fragments? If so, this does not make
logical sense.
> He [Smith]
> produced no MS., only some "photographs"
I don't think any doubt exists about these photographs being photographs,
somehow...
> The entire affair reeks of fraud, which Quentin Quesnell had the
> courage to publish aloud (I DID have the courage to call attention to
> his work during the Colloquy!)
I regret to disagree with Prof. Hobbs' assessment.
The rest of what Prof. Hobbs said in his posts is not really relevant at
this point. He suggested a theory that SecMk fragments could have been put
together from various scraps of canonical material. That it could have
been done cannot be a proof that it was so done. The biggest problem with
Prof. Hobbs' theory is that he failed to explain how Smith, not being a
Clementine scholar, could have forged the rather long letter of Clement.
It is absurd to think that while the letter of Clement is genuine -- which
is what the overwhelming opinion among the Clementine scholars is -- and
yet that the SecMk fragments are somehow forged by Smith. (The possibility
of some kind of an ancient forgery cannot be discounted, of course.)
Best regards,
Yuri.
From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@historian.net>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 15:08:35 -0600
Subject: Re: Secret Mark
If there is any invective owing to anyone on the issue of
this document, it should be directed against the Orthodox
Patriarchate. Removing these endpapers with the 18th century
copy of the Clementine letter from the Voss' 1646 book was
stupid...or designed. Carting them off somewhere to be
either squirrelled away somewhere or lost was also stupid...
or by design.
I don't see how the Voss book being uncatalogued is
suspicious since Prof. Smith was there to do exactly that,
catalogue what wasn't catalogued.
Unless and until these endpapers are produced by
religious who have every reason to suppress them, all we
have to go on is the available evidence. The photos,
the style of the minuscule, and the philology.
The Greek hand is an 18th century style, is fluid,
non-forced and uninterrupted. The literary style seems
Clementine to me but being no expert, I bow to the
Clement scholars who view it as Clementine. All the
evidence of handwriting and literary style points to
this text being penned into the endpapers of this book
by an 18th century monk to preserve the text...and if the
actions of the current monastic authorities are any
indication...probably because the more ancient
exemplar was destined for the same fate as the copy
found by Smith.
Even if we had this document, we still do not have
the exemplar used by the 18th century scribe. It
seems to me that this issue is going to have to be
settled on the basis of literary style alone.
Jack
From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@mindspring.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 17:31:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Secret Mark
A plea for moderation in this debate. I think we all have to admit that
there is simply is not enough evidence to support our separate conclusions.
The fundamental and necessary evidence for the authenticity of a document
is the document itself. Without the document, whether it is a copy of
Clement's letter to Theodore or the Talmud Jmmanuel, it is very difficult
to sustain that the document is genuine. If you want to claim Clement's
letter is genuine: SHOW ME THE MANUSCRIPT! (apologies to Cuba Gooding, Jr.)
As for the issue of whether Secret Mark is a modern forgery or even that
Smith was the forger, it is premature to argue such because, as I said
earlier, there is no document. Without a showing of an inauthentic document,
the question of forgery is largely moot. However, Smith is one of the
few people in the world to have the means and opportunity, if not the
motive, to do so.
My final point is on the argument that Smith cannot be the forger because
he lacks the competence to technically pull it off. If I were a highly
respected scholar in the field, I would rather be slandered by an
accusation of forgery than by an accusation of incompetence.
Stephen Carlson
From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@mindspring.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 21:55:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Secret Mark
At 08:52 AM 12/7/98 -0700, Jeff Peterson wrote:
>At 5:31 PM 12/6/98, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
>>My final point is on the argument that Smith cannot be the forger because
>>he lacks the competence to technically pull it off. If I were a highly
>>respected scholar in the field, I would rather be slandered by an
>>accusation of forgery than by an accusation of incompetence.
>
>Many thanks to Stephen for a just and concise summary of the state of this
>question. I am however uncomfortable with the last point as a general rule
>for judging scholarly work. Scholarly competence admits of degrees, unlike
>dishonesty. So stated in terms of the extreme of incompetence I suppose
>Stephen is right, but I would place much greater value on the work of the
>mid- to upper-level scholar who might be mistaken but who will not lie than
>on that of the technically peerless scholar who would knowingly mislead --
>and who therefore can never be trusted. (To save Yuri the trouble of
>composing a response blasting this post, I am not declaring that Morton
>Smith belongs in the latter category but am agreeing with Stephen that
>absent the MS we have to leave that question open.)
Thank you very much for your judicious note of caution here. I did
intend to contrast two extremes (e.g. "slandered ... by an accusation
of incompetence"), and I would agree that being accused of moral
turpitude (which forgery is) is a very serious matter, for which my
tongue-in-cheek comments are somewhat out of line.
At the same, however, I am troubled about the strategy of upholding
the authenticity of the Mar Saba letter by denigrating Morton
Smith's competence. For example, one person, who thought the Mar
Saba letter was a forgery, attempted to exonerate Smith by claiming
that Smith's knowledge of Greek was inferior to the forger's and
that Smith lacked the forger's sense of humor.
I think that it is somewhat contradictory to argue simultaneously
from Morton Smith's authority and his lack of skill. I am aware
that an exhaustive concordance of Clement's then-extant writings
had been published about ten years before the alleged discovery of
the Mar Saba letter. This resource and perhaps a little imagination
would seem to be sufficient for an above-average scholar in early
Christian studies to produce a pastiche of a Clementine letter.
A. H. Criddle's analysis in "On the Mar Saba Letter Attributed to
Clement of Alexandria," J. EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES 2 (1995) 215-220,
suggests that the author of the Mar Saba letter was statistically
significantly more reluctant to introduce a new hapax legomenon
than Clement was. (As far as I aware, Yuri's defense of Secret
Mark never addressed Criddle's peer-reviewed criticism.)
If there was a forgery, however, the best evidence of it, in fact
the *corpus delicti* of it, would be the manuscript of the Mar Saba
letter. Only with the manuscript, not the photograph, can we even
begin evaluate whether the paper did belong to a seventeenth
century book or written in an eighteenth century ink. Since I
believe that producing such a letter in Clement's style is well
outside the capabilities of a medieval forger or indeed of anyone
before the publication of the Clementine concordance, the hard
evidence of the manuscript promises to settle of the issue of
the authenticity of the Clement letter once and for all.
Until the manuscript is produced, however, we should refrain from
drawing any conclusion on its authenticity. The burden of proof
for the authenticity of the Mar Saba letter has not established,
because the document has not been produced, and despite Smith's
reputation as a highly regarded scholar, he should not be given
the benefit of the doubt because he failed to preserve the
document. Likewise, without the document, it is premature to
speculate whether it was a forgery and whether Smith is the
victim or the perpetrator of it.
Stephen Carlson
From: y.kuchinsky@utoronto.ca
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 11:22:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Secret Mark
On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
> At the same, however, I am troubled about the strategy of upholding
> the authenticity of the Mar Saba letter by denigrating Morton
> Smith's competence. For example, one person, who thought the Mar
> Saba letter was a forgery, attempted to exonerate Smith by claiming
> that Smith's knowledge of Greek was inferior to the forger's and
> that Smith lacked the forger's sense of humor.
Stephen,
This strategy may be problematic, but I've never used it myself.
> I think that it is somewhat contradictory to argue simultaneously
> from Morton Smith's authority and his lack of skill.
Not at all. His authority is not in question. His lack of skill to produce
such a forgery is also not in question AFAIAC. No contradiction.
> I am aware
> that an exhaustive concordance of Clement's then-extant writings
> had been published about ten years before the alleged discovery of
> the Mar Saba letter.
I'm aware of this too.
> This resource and perhaps a little imagination
> would seem to be sufficient for an above-average scholar in early
> Christian studies to produce a pastiche of a Clementine letter.
This I find highly questionable. But also you completely forgot the other
two forgeries (see my article explaining about three forgeries in one).
The gospel fragments, plus the handwriting. In other words, you barely
scratched the surface so far.
> A. H. Criddle's analysis in "On the Mar Saba Letter Attributed to
> Clement of Alexandria," J. EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES 2 (1995) 215-220,
> suggests that the author of the Mar Saba letter was statistically
> significantly more reluctant to introduce a new hapax legomenon
> than Clement was. (As far as I aware, Yuri's defense of Secret
> Mark never addressed Criddle's peer-reviewed criticism.)
We've had this discussion a long time ago, Stephen. I told you back then
that I see this argument as nothing more than a nitpick. It lacks
persuasiveness. Let's see... A complex statistical calculation evaluating
certain word sets, and depending on a lot of variables easily affected by
all kinds of subjective factors has indicated a marginally lower
proportion of hapax legomena in the letter than would have been expected
on the basis of someone's expectations? I think this is the sort of an
argument that only a true believer would find persuasive.
Before taking this argument seriously, I would like to ask you, Stephen,
Even supposing that Criddle is _totally right_, and his calculations and
data sets are _all valid and justified_, to what degree of probability can
forgery be indicated on the basis of this sort of an argument? Please give
me your level best estimate of this. My own estimate is that this is
mostly wishful thinking. Making an elephant out of molehill.
In the real world, things are different, Stephen. May I remind you that we
have zero evidence of wrongdoing -- none that I'm aware of. So there is no
crime and there's no trial. Smith is certainly not on trial since nobody
has made any sort of a case against Smith as yet. But this prosecutor
comes around and says that he found that there might be some little
evidence of wrongdoing. And so on this basis the man who is not on trial
is now a criminal? Is there something wrong with this picture?
> If there was a forgery,
I would like to remind you that we don't have a single shred of evidence
for this.
> however, the best evidence of it, in fact
> the *corpus delicti* of it, would be the manuscript of the Mar Saba
> letter.
Your argument is clearly circular. "If there was a forgery, then we would
need some evidence to demonstrate a forgery". Where's your logic?
> Since I believe that producing such a letter in Clement's style is well
> outside the capabilities of a medieval forger or indeed of anyone before
> the publication of the Clementine concordance,
And I also happen to believe that producing such a letter is well outside
the capabilities of a non-Clementine scholar after the publication of the
Clementine concordance.
> the hard evidence of the manuscript promises to settle of the issue of
> the authenticity of the Clement letter once and for all.
Sure. But by my lights the matter is already settled to all intents and
purposes.
> Until the manuscript is produced, however, we should refrain from
> drawing any conclusion on its authenticity.
This is not logical. May I remind you that Clement's letter is universally
accepted by competent scholars as authentic. So while you're pretending to
be setting up the rules of the game, your game is actually lost already.
> The burden of proof for the authenticity of the Mar Saba letter has not
> established,
It's already proven -- that's what Clementine scholars think. Try to
connect with reality, Stephen. At this point, if you want to show that
it's a forgery, the burden of proof is CLEARLY YOURS, because you need to
show why Clementine scholars are all wrong.
> because the document has not been produced, and despite Smith's
> reputation as a highly regarded scholar, he should not be given
> the benefit of the doubt because he failed to preserve the
> document.
This is simply ridiculous. It was not his job to preserve the document. He
was not the owner of the document.
Regards
Yuri.
From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@historian.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 18:14:19 -0600
Subject: Re: Secret Mark
Y'know, I have been thinking about this whole situation under the
premise that the Clementine letter is authentic. Everyone is frustrated
that the manuscript has not been made available by the Orthodox
Patriarchate. The odd act of actually removing the endpapers from the
1646 book and it's sudden disappearance points to a deliberate decision
on the part of the Patriarchate.
One cannot help but wonder why. My opinion is this:
In the ANE, as well as in many places in the East today, nudity is not
met with the "hang-ups" that are normal for Americans and Europeans.
Maybe its because Eastern societies and certainly ancient societies
weren't burdened with all the Western hang-ups about homosexuality. I
seem to recall that the first notion expressed by western scholars is
that Jesus may have been a homosexual because the young man being
initiated was naked. I am sure baptism in the ANE was not done with all
the clothes on. All those people being baptised by John in the river
almost certainly shed their cloaks, tunics, etc when they strolled out
for immersion, including Jesus.
I remember on numerous occasions, while traveling in the Middle East,
my male host would take my hand as we walked the street. This is a
natural thing in the East yet in Paris, London or Houston would be met
with snickers.
It may be this interpretation of the night initiation that has caused
the Patriarchate to squirrel the document away. They may be loathe to
have any speculation that Jesus was gay.
Jack
From: Phil@sedona.net (Philip B. Lewis)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 11:00:11 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Secret Mark
Jack Kilmon's speculation today about the motives of the Patriarchate for
"squirreling away" the famous Clenetine letter prompt me to add another
consideration to the ms interest,
First, I have no doubt that M. Smith discovered a real document. And I
would not question the judgment of those who had seen the PHOTOGRAPHS Smith
provided, that the letter was authentically Clement's. That said:
Has anyone done a study of the photographic film/plates used? Was it
orthochromatic or panchromatic? How was it developed? In what solution?
What lens/camera was used? What FILTRATION was used to make the record?
>From the photos of the document in my 1st edn _Secret Gospel_ the details
are NOT that clear. It is clear that natural light was used for taking the
photos. Anyone who has done any photocopying knows that filters HAD to be
used to distinguish letters in a 200 year old volume. Note that the book
print itself is quite legible; the copied pages leave something to be desired.
This has nothing to do with Smith's integrity; I have never doubted it. It
raises questions of how much of the bracketing [] Smith provided "to make
the meaning clear" was necessary because of image-lacunae which can occur
when copying is inexpertly done.
Anyone able to provide the verification of the photographing process?
From: Phil@sedona.net (Philip B. Lewis)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 18:56:58 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Photographing Secret Mark
Re-reading Morton Smith's story of his discovery of Clement's letter, I
learned that he used a hand=held camera (I would guess a Leica or possibly a
Minox) and did not refer to any filtration of the film. The film was
developed and prints made in Jerusalem. End of record. No other details
supportive of the copying procedure.
I raise the point because if there is no ms available, one should look for
the negatives. That should go without saying. Who's got 'em? Does anybody
care? Probably not. Since I was able to demonstrate (not prove) that by
GMark's travel notices of Jesus' "Third Journey", a rehearsal of David's
Return to Jerusalem (hence Bartimaeus' "testimony") that the Raising of a
Dead Man would have been an intrusion into the text, I consider the matter
settled. Secret Mark was a Gnostic fraud - ask Clement himself!
Philip
From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@historian.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 22:58:42 -0600
Subject: Re: Photographing Secret Mark
I don't think it's that simply explained. Canonical Mark shows
redaction
which was also responsible for the raising of the young man in SecMark.
Passages in canonical Mark appear to be secondary redactions to passages
of Mark preserved by Matthew and Luke. If Matthew and Luke did not use
the extant Mark, what earlier version did they use? Clement's "Public
Mark"
is not the earlier version Matthew and Luke used nor the Canonical
version.
The style and vocabulary of the Secret Mark fragments are perfectly
consistent with GMark which makes me believe (not necessarily from the
same author) that SecMark arose from the same community. You ask to
ask Clement himself...and Clement is beating up on the Karpokrations
for having fiddled with the genuine Secret Mark which is a "more
spiritual"
gospel than the public Mark, according to Clement.
Where does Secret Mark fit in the trajectory? I don't know yet.
I have read Smith, Koester, Crossan and Schenke and remain convinced
of only one thing...The Clementine Letter from Mar Saba is not
a modern forgery.
Jack
From: y.kuchinsky@utoronto.ca
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 13:48:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Photographing Secret Mark
On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Jack Kilmon wrote:
> If Matthew and Luke did not use the extant Mark, what earlier
> version did they use?
Proto Mark. But I guess you already knew I would say this, Jack?
> Where does Secret Mark fit in the trajectory? I don't know yet.
Here's my answer
pMk --> SecMk --> canonical Mk
So pMk was expanded to SecMk (but probably both of them were secret
gospels). Then the canonical Mk was produced as an abridgement of SecMk.
Cheers,
Yuri.
Back to the Secret Mark Homepage