The Secret Gospel of Mark
This document was found by Prof. Morton Smith in 1958 at the Mar Saba monastery, southeast ofJerusalem. In the document, authoritatively attributed to Clement of Alexandria, a “Secret Gospel of Mark” is mentioned. Clement presents fragments from the text of this secret gospel which he claims is in the custody of the Church inAlexandria, but which is kept secret. Perhaps the most important issue confirmed by this letter is the fact that in Clement’s time “hierophantic teachings of the Lord” and Gospel texts now lost were still transmitted within the church to a select group of Christians. Fragments attributed to the Secret Gospel of Mark are shown below in italics.
A Letter Attributed to Clement ofAlexandria
Translation by Morton Smith:
You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocrations. For these are “wandering stars” referred to in the prophecy, who wander from the narrow road of the commandments into a boundless abyss of the carnal and bodily sins. For, priding themselves in knowledge, as they say, “of the deep things of Satan, they do not know that they are casting themselves away into “the netherworld of the darkness” of falseness, and boasting that they are free, they have become slaves of servile desires. Such men are to be opposed in all ways and alltogether. For, even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be prefered to the true truth, that according to the faith.
Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truely. For the true things being mixed with inventions, are falsified , so that, as the saying goes, even the salt loses its savor.
As for Mark, then, during Peter`s stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord`s doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over toAlexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former books the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue , lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautionously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in 1, verso Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initated into the great mysteries.
But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is withdrawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.
To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way ; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath. For, “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 with 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”. But we are “children of Light” having been illuminated by “the dayspring” of the spirit of the Lord “from on high”, and “Where the Spirit of the Lord is” , it says, “there is liberty”, for “All things are pure to the pure”.
To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after “And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem” and what follows, until “After three days he shall arise”, the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:
“And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, “son of David, have mercy on me”. But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered , went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus thaught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.”
And these words follow the text, “And James and John come to him” and all that section. But “naked man with naked man” and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.
And after the words,“And he comes into Jericho,” the secret Gospel adds only, “And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them.” But many other things about which you wrote both seem to be and are falsifications.
Now the true explanation and that which accords with the true philosophy…
[Here the text abruptly stops in the middle of the page]
Secret Mark – the state of the question
Ten years after the original publication M. Smith writes:
“In sum “the state of the question” would seem to be about as follows: Attribution of the letter to Clement is commonly accepted and no strong argument against it has appeared, but Clement’s attribution of the gospel to “Mark” is universally rejected. As to the gospel fragments, the field is split three ways. The weakest position seems to be that of those who declare them an apocryphal gospel of the common second-century sort; this overlooks their conspicuous differences from that type. The most popular opinion declares them a pastiche composed from the canonical gospels. Since such pastiches are reported, the fact that no early one is extant is a less serious objection to this theory than is its failure to explain the apparent priority of the new resurrection story to John’s Lazarus story, and its relation to the Markan-Johannine outline. The third opinion is that the new text comes from an expansion of Mark which imitated Markan style, but used earlier material. This escapes the previous objections, but those who hold it are much divided as to what sort of earlier material was used.”
M. Smith “Clement of Alexandria and Secret Mark: The Score at the End of the First Decade”,
Harvard Theological Review 75 (1982) 449 – 461
This article discussing scholarly and popular response to Morton Smith’s discovery of the Secret Gospel of Mark was originally published in Alexandria: The Journal for the Western Cosmological Traditions, volume 3 (1995), pp. 103-129.Alexandria is edited by David Fideler and is published by Phanes Press. The whole of this article is copyright © 1995 by Phanes Press. All rights reserved, including international rights.
The Strange Case of the Secret Gospel According to Mark:
How Morton Smith’s Discovery of a Lost Letter
by Clement of Alexandria Scandalized Biblical Scholarship
by Shawn Eyer
“Dear reader, do not be alarmed at the parallels between… magic and ancient Christianity. Christianity never claimed to be original. It claimed . . . to be true!” With these words in the New York Times Book Review, Pierson Parker reassured the faithful American public that it need not be concerned with the latest news from the obscure and bookish world of New Testament scholarship. It was 1973, and the Biblical studies community, as well as the popular press, was in a stir over a small manuscript discovery that–to judge from the reactions of some–seemingly threatened to call down the apocalypse. A newly-released book byColumbiaUniversity’s Morton Smith, presenting a translation and interpretation of a fragment of a newly-recovered Secret Gospel of Mark, was at the center of the controversy.
The Discovery (1958-1960)
In the spring of 1958 Smith, then a graduate student in Theology atColumbiaUniversity, was invited to catalogue the manuscript holdings in the library of the Mar Saba monastery, located twelve miles south ofJerusalem. Smith had been a guest of the same hermitage years earlier, when he was stranded inPalestineby the conflagrations of the second World War.
What Smith found during his task in the tower library surprised him. He discovered some new scholia of Sophocles, for instance, and dozens of other manuscripts. Despite these finds, however, the beleaguered scholar soon resigned himself to what looked like a reasonable conclusion: he would find nothing of major importance at Mar Saba. His malaise evaporated one day as he first deciphered the manuscript that would always thereafter be identified with him:
[. . . O]ne afternoon near the end of my stay, I found myself in my cell, staring incredulously at a text written in a tiny scrawl. [. . . I]f this writing was what it claimed to be, I had a hitherto unknown text by a writer of major significance for early church history.
What Smith then began photographing was a three-page handwritten addition penned into the endpapers of a printed book, Isaac Voss’ 1646 edition of the Epistolae genuinae S. Ignatii Martyris. It identified itself as a letter by Clement of the Stromateis, i.e., Clement of Alexandria, the second-century church father well-known for his neo-platonic applications of Christian belief. Clement writes “to Theodore,” congratulating him for success in his disputes with the Carpocratians, an heterodoxical sect about which little is known. Apparently in their conflict with Theodore, the Carpocratians appealed to Mark’s gospel.
Clement responds by recounting a new story about the Gospel. After Peter’s death, Mark brought his original gospel toAlexandriaand wrote a “more spiritual gospel for the use of those who were being perfected.” Clement says this text is kept by the Alexandrian church for use only in the initiation into “the great mysteries.”
However, Carpocrates the heretic, by means of magical stealth, obtained a copy and adapted it to his own ends. Because this version of the “secret” or “mystery” gospel had been polluted with “shameless lies,” Clement urges Theodore to deny its Markan authorship even under oath. “Not all true things are to be said to all men,” he advises.
Theodore has asked questions about particular passages of the special Carpocratian Gospel of Mark, and by way of reply Clement transcribes two sections which he claims have been distorted by the heretics. The first fragment of the Secret Gospel of Mark, meant to be inserted between Mark 10.34 and 35, reads:
They came toBethany. There was one woman there whose brother had died. She came and prostrated herself before Jesus and spoke to him. “Son of David, pity me!” But the disciples rebuked her. Jesus was angry and went with her into the garden where the tomb was. Immediately a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going up to it, Jesus rolled the stone away from the door of the tomb, and immediately went in where the young man was. Stretching out his hand, he lifted him up, taking hold his hand. And the youth, looking intently at him, loved him and started begging him to let him remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus gave him an order and, at evening, the young man came to him wearing nothing but a linen cloth. And he stayed with him for the night, because Jesus taught him the mystery of theKingdomofGod. And then when he left he went back to the other side of theJordan.
Then a second fragment of Secret Mark is given, this time to be inserted into Mark 10.46. This has long been recognized as a narrative snag in Mark’s Gospel, as it awkwardly reads, “Then they come toJericho. As he was leavingJerichowith his disciples…” This strange construction is not present in Secret Mark, which reads:
Then he came intoJericho. And the sister of the young man whom Jesus loved was there with his mother and Salome, but Jesus would not receive them.
Just as Clement prepares to reveal the “real interpretation” of these verses to Theodore, the copyist discontinues and Smith’s discovery is, sadly, complete.
Smith stopped briefly in theHebrewUniversityinJerusalemto share his discovery with Gerschom Scholem. He then returned toAmericawhere he sought the opinions of his mentors Erwin Goodenough and Arthur Darby Nock. “God knows what you’ve got hold of,” Goodenough said. “They made up all sorts of stuff in the fifth century,” said Nock. “But, I say, it is exciting.”
At the 1960 annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Morton Smith announced his discovery to the scholarly community, openly presenting a translation and discussion of the Clementine letter. A well-written account of his presentation, with a photograph of the Mar Saba monastery, appeared the next morning on the front page of The New York Times. A list of the seventy-five manuscripts Smith catalogued appeared the same year in the journal Archaeology as well as the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate journal, Nea Sion. And Morton Smith embarked on a decade of meticulous investigation into the nature of his find.
The Reaction (1973–1982)
While there may seem nothing particularly scandalous about the apocryphal episodes of Secret Mark in and of themselves, the release of the material to the general public aroused a great deal of popular and scholarly derision. Smith wrote two books on the subject: first, the voluminous and intricate scholarly analysis Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark, and then The Secret Gospel, a thin and conversational popular account of the discovery and its interpretation. The first book was delivered to the Harvard University Press in 1966, but was very slow at going through the press. Smith’s popular treatment, however, was released by Harper and Row in the summer of 1973. This is the version that most scholars had in their hands first. What did it say that was so shocking?
Smith’s analysis of the Secret Mark text–and consequently the wider body of literature bearing on the history of early Christianity–brought him to consider unusual possibilities. Because Secret Mark presents a miracle story, this meant a particular concentration upon material of a like type. Smith was working outside of the traditional school of Biblical criticism which automatically regarded all miracle accounts as mythological inventions of the early Christian communities. Instead of taking as his goal the theological deconstruction of the miracle traditions, Smith asked to what degree the miracle stories of the gospels might in fact be based upon actions of Jesus, much in the same way scholars examine the sayings traditions.
It has been typical for critical scholars of the Bible to reject any historical foundation for the “miracle-worker” stories about Jesus. Because such tales would tend to rely on the supernatural, and scholars seek to understand the origins of the Bible in realistic terms, it is more plausible for the modern critic to propose reasons for which an early Christian community might have come to understand Jesus as a miracle-worker and subsequently engage in the production of mythologies depicting him in that mold. Smith’s understanding of the kingdom language in the Christian writings, with its well-known ambivalent eschatological and yet emphatically present or “realized” tendencies, evolved to the conclusion that:
[Jesus] could admit his followers to thekingdomofGod, and he could do it in some special way, so that they were not there merely by anticipation, nor by virtue of belief and obedience, nor by some other figure of speech, but were really, actually, in.
Smith held that the best explanation for the literary and historical evidence surrounding the mircles of Jesus was that Jesus himself actually performed–or meant to and was understood to have performed–magical feats. Among these was a baptismal initiation rite through which he was able to “give” his disciples a vision of the heavenly spheres. This was in the form of an altered state of consciousness induced by “the recitation of repetitive, hypnotic prayers and hymns,” a technique common in Jewish mystical texts, Qumran material, Greek magical papyri and later Christian practices such as the Byzantine liturgy. This is a radical departure from the mainstream scholarship which seeks to minimize or eliminate altogether any possible “supernatural” elements attached to the Historical Jesus, who is most often understood as a speaker on social issues and applied ethics . . . an Elijahform social worker, if you will.
Morton Smith did not begin with that assumption, nor did his reinterpretation of Christian history arrive at it. Thus, the new theory summarized in his 1973 book for general readership displeased practically everyone:
[. . . F]rom the scattered indications in the canonical Gospels and the secret Gospel of Mark, we can put together a picture of Jesus’ baptism, “the mystery of thekingdomofGod.” It was a water baptism administered by Jesus to chosen disciples, singly and by night. The costume, for the disciple, was a linen cloth worn over the naked body. This cloth was probably removed for the baptism proper, the immersion in water, which was now reduced to a preparatory purification. After that, by unknown ceremonies, the disciple was possessed by Jesus’ spirit and so united with Jesus. One with him, he participated by hallucination in Jesus’ ascent into the heavens, he entered the kingdom of God, and was thereby set free from the laws ordained for and in the lower world. Freedom from the law may have resulted in completion of the spiritual union by physical union. This certainly occurred in many forms of gnostic Christianity; how early it began there is no telling.
In an interview with The New York Times just before his books were released onto the market, Smith noted with appreciation, “Thank God I have tenure.”
The Inquisition: Let’s Begin
Not a moment was lost in the ensuing backlash. Smith had laid aside the canon of unwritten rules that most Biblical scholars worked by. He took the Gospels as more firmly rooted in history than in the imagination of the early church. He refused to operate with an artificially thick barrier between pagan and Christian, magic and mythology. And he not only promulgated his theories from his office inColumbiaUniversityvia obscure scholarly periodicals: he had given them to the world in plain, understandable and all-too-clear language. Thus there was no time for the typical scholarly method of thorough, researched, logical refutation. The public attention span was short. It was imperative that Smith be discredited before too many Biblical scholars told the press that there might be something to his theories. Some of the high-pitched remarks of well-known scholars are amusing to us in retrospect:
Patrick Skehan: “…a morbid concatenation of fancies…”
Joseph Fitzmyer: “…venal popularization…” “…replete with innuendos and eisegesis…”
Paul J. Achtemeier: “Characteristically, his arguments are awash in speculation.” “…an a priori principle of selective credulity…”
William Beardslee: “…ill-founded…”
Pierson Parker: “…the alleged parallels are far-fetched…”
Hans Conzelmann: “…science fiction…” “…does not belong to scholarly, nor even…discussable, literature…”
Raymond Brown: “…debunking attitude towards Christianity…”
Frederick Danker: “…in the same niche with Allegro’s mushroom fantasies and Eisler’s salmagundi.”
Helmut Merkel: “Once again total warfare has been declared on New Testament scholarship.”
The possibility that the initiation could have included elements of eroticism was unthinkable to many scholars, whose reaction was to project onto Smith’s entire interpretive work an imaginary emphasis on Jesus being a homosexual:
[. . . T]he fact that the young man comes to Jesus “wearing a linen cloth over his naked body” naturally suggests implications which Smith does not fail to infer.
Hostility has marked some of the initial reactions to Smith’s publication because of his debunking attitude towards Christianity and his unpleasant suggestion that Jesus engaged in homosexual practices with his disciples.
Many others cited rather prominently the homoerotic overtures of Smith’s thesis in their objections to his overall work. Another criticism, which holds more weight from a scholar’s standpoint, was Smith’s rejection of the form and redaction critical techniques preferred by the reviewer.
Two scholars, embarassingly, found a flaw in Smith’s use of what they considered too much documentation, as a ploy to confuse the reader.
Many scholars felt that the Secret Mark fragments were a pastiche from the four gospels, some even suggesting that Mark’s style is so simple to imitate the fragment must be a useless pseudepigraphon.
In reaction to Clement’s claim to perform initiation rites, some scholars simply dogmatized that Alexandrian Christians only used words like “initiation” and “mystery” in a figurative sense, therefore the letter must not be authentic.
Finally, some reactions truly border on the petty. Two scholars held that Morton Smith didn’t really “discover” the Secret Gospel of Mark at all. Because the letter only contains two fragments of it, Smith is described as dishonest in his subtitle “The Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel of Mark.” Worst of all is Danker, who complains that the Smith’s first, non-technical book does not include the Greek text. “The designer of the jacket, as though fond of palimpsests, has obscured with the book title and the editor’s name even the partial reproduction of Clement’s letter,” and that while there is another photo inside the book, “the publishers do not supply a magnifying glass with which to read it.” All this just to tell us that, after he and a companion had painstakingly transcribed the Greek text, Smith’s transcription and translation are “substantially correct.” He deceptively omits that Smith’s Harvard edition includes large, easily legible photographic plates of the original manuscript, alleging that Smith was “reluctant…to share the Greek text” he had discovered.
Only one reviewer, Fitzmeyer, saw it worthwhile to point out that Morton Smith was bald. Whatever importance we may attach to the thickness of a scholar’s hair, it seems that detached scholarly criticism fails when certain tenets of faith–even “enlightened” liberal faith–are called into question.
Is the Ink Still Wet? The Question of a Forgery
Inevitably a document which is so controvertial as Secret Mark will be accused of being a forgery. This is precisely what happened in 1975 when Quentin Quesnell published his lengthy paper “The Mar Saba Clementine: A Question of Evidence” in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly. In this article he brings to bear a host of objections to Smith’s treatment of the document.
Foremost is the lack of the physical manuscript. Smith left the manuscript in the tower at MarSabain 1958 and had been working with his set of photographs ever since. Quesnell regards this as a neglect of Smith’s scholarly duties. Perhaps those duties might be assumed to include the theft of the volume a la Sinaiticus or the Jung Codex. In fact, even Smith’s publication of photographic plates of the ms. are considered sub-standard by Quesnell. They “do not include the margins and edges of the pages,” they “are only black and white,” and are in Quesnell’s eyes marred by “numerous discrepancies in shading, in wrinkles and dips in the paper.”
Quesnell calls into question all of Smith’s efforts to date the manuscript to the eighteenth century. Although Smith consulted many paleographic experts, Quesnell feels this information to be useless as compared to a chemical analysis of the ink, and a “microscopic examination of the writing.”
Then he asks the “unavoidable next question”: was the letter of Clement a modern forgery? He remarks that Smith “tells a story on himself that could make clear the kind of motivation that might stir a serious scholar even apart from any long-concealed spirit of fun.” Pointing out Smith’s interest in how scholars tend to fit newly-discovered evidence into their previously-held sacrosanct interpretive paradigms, and how Smith requested scholars in his longer treatise to keep him abreast of their research, Quesnell asks if it might not be that a certain modern forger who shall not be named might have “found himself moved to concoct some ‘evidence’ in order to set up a controlled experiment?”
Quesnell raises still more objections, and representative of them is his claim that the mass of documentation Smith brought to bear in Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark is really a ploy to distract the reader. “[. . . I]t is hard to believe that this material is included as a serious contribution to scholarly investigation,” Quesnell suggests. In fact, he insinuates that its function is really to “deepen the darkness.”
Quesnell did not feel that scholarly discussion could “reasonably continue” until all these issues–and more–were resolved.
Smith’s answer to the accusation of forgery was published in the next volume of the Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Humorously he advised his detractor that “one should not suppose a text spurious simply because one dislikes what it says.”
“Not at all,” was Quesnell’s reply. “I find it quite harmless.”
Quesnell’s arguments were still echoed in 1983 by Per Beskow, who wrote that Smith “can only present some mediocre photographs, which do not even cover the entire margins of the manuscript.” While the photographic plates in the Harvard volume do not extend to the margins due to the cropping of the publishers, Smith’s photographs are printed elsewhere and do include the margins of the pages. Furthermore, they are quite in-focus and cannot be described as mediocre.
The Popular Response
The religious right was particularly displeased with the new Secret Gospel of Mark. Even without the magical interpretation of earliest Christianity Smith promulgated in his two books, the discovery of another apocryphal gospel only spells trouble for conservative theologians and apologists. What information about Secret Mark made it past the blockade into the evangelical press? There was Ronald J. Sider’s quick review in Christianity Today:
Unfounded . . . wildly speculative…pockmarked with irresponsible inferences . . . highly speculative . . .operates with the presupposition that Jesus could not have been the incarnate Son of God filled with the Holy Spirit . . . simply absurd! . . . unacceptable . . . highly speculative . . . numerous other fundamental weaknesses . . . highly speculative . . . irresponsible . . . will not fool the careful reader.
Evangelical scholarship has since treated Secret Mark as it traditionally has any other non-canonical text: as a peculiar but ultimately unimportant document which would be spiritually dangerous to take seriously.
Secret Mark and Da Avabhasa’s Initiation to Ecstasy
Perhaps the strangest chapter in Secret Mark’s long history was its appropriation by the Free Daist Communion, a California-based Eastern religious group led by American-born guru Da Avabhasa (formerly known as Franklin Jones, Da Free John, and Da Kalki). In 1982, The Dawn Horse Press, the voice of this interesting sect, re-published Smith’s Harper and Row volume, with a new forword by Elaine Pagels and an added postscript by Smith himself.
In 1991 I made contact with this publisher in order to ascertain why they were interested in Secret Mark. I was answered by Saniel Bonder, Da Avabhasa’s official biographer and a main spokesman for the Commununion.
Heart-Master Da Avabhasa is Himself a great Spiritual “Transmitter” or “Baptizer” of the highest type. And this is the key to understanding both His interest in, and The Dawn Horse Press’s publication of, Smith’s Secret Gospel. What Smith discovered, in the fragment of the letter by Clement of Alexandria, is–to Heart-Master Da–an apparent ancient confirmation that Jesus too was a Spirit-Baptizer who initiated disciples into the authentic Spiritual and Yogic process, by night and in circumstances of sacred privacy. This is the single reason why Heart-Master Da was so interested in the story. As it happened, Morton Smith’s contract with a previous publisher had expired, and so he was happy to arrange for us to publish the book.
Because of the general compatibility of Smith’s interpretation of the historical Jesus and the practices of the Da Free John community, the group’s leader was inclined to promulgate Smith’s theory. It is difficult to judge the precise degree of ritual identity which exists between Master Da and Jesus the magician. Some identity, however, is explicit, as revealed in Bonder’s official biography of Master Da:
Over the course of Heart-Master Da’s Teaching years, His devotees explored all manner of emotional-sexual possibilities, including celibacy, promiscuity, heterosexuality, homosexuality, monogamy, polygamy, polyandy, and many different kinds of living arrangements between intimate partners and among groups of devotees in our various communities.
The parallel between the Daist community during this time and the libertine Christian rituals described by Smith is made stronger by the spiritual leader’s intimate involvement with this thorough exploration of the group’s erogeny. “Heart-Master Da never withheld Himself from participation in the play of our experiments with us . . .” Georg Feuerstein has published an interview with an anonymous devotee of Master Da who describes a party during which the Master borrowed his wife in order to free him of egotistical jealousy. Like the Carpocratians of eighteen-hundred years ago, and the Corinthian Christians of a century earlier still, the devotees of the Daist Communion sought to come to terms with and conquer their sexual obstacles to ultimate liberation not by merely denying the natural urges, but by immersing themselves in them.
For many years Da Avabhasa himself was surrounded by an “innermost circle” of nine female devotees, which was dismantled in 1986 after the Community and the Master himself had been through trying experiences. In 1988 Da Avabhasa formally declared four of these original nine longtime female devotees his “Kanyas,” the significance of which is described well by Saniel Bonder:
Kanyadana is an ancient traditional practice inIndia, wherein a chaste young woman…is given…to a Sat-Guru either in formal marriage, or as a consort, or simply as a serving initimate. Each kanya thus becomes devoted…in a manner that in unique among all His devotees. She serves the Sat-Guru Personally at all times and, in that unique context, at all times is the recipient of His very Personal Instructions, Blessings, and Regard.
As a kanyadana “kumari”, a young woman is necessarily “pure”–that is, chaste and self-transcending in her practice, but also Spiritually Awakened by her Guru, whether she is celibate or Yogically sexually active.
The formation of the Da Avabhasa Gurukala Kanyadana Kumari Order should be seen against the background of sexual experimentation and confrontation through which the Master’s community had passed in the decade before, and in light of the sexuality-affirming stance of the Daist Communion in general. The Secret Gospel presented a picture of Jesus as an initiator into ecstasy and a libertine bearing more than a little resemblance to the radical and challenging lessons of Master Da Avabhasa, in place long before 1982 when The Dawn Horse Press re-issued the book.
The Cultural Fringe and Secret Mark
Occasionally one still encounters brief references to Secret Mark in marginal or sensational literature. A simple but accurate account of its discovery was related in the 1982 British best-seller The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Written by three television documentary reporters, the book describes an actual French society called the Priory of Sion which seeks to restore the French monarchy to a particular family which, it seems, traces its blood-line back to Jesus himself. In the course of arguing that this could actually be the truth, the authors find it convenient to cite Secret Mark as an example of how the early church edited unwanted elements from its scriptures. “This missing fragment had not been lost. On the contrary, it had apparently been deliberately suppressed.”
A quick reference to Secret Mark is made in Elizabeth Clare Prophet’s book on the supposed “lost years” of Jesus. She writes that discoveries such as Secret Mark “strongly suggest that early Christians possessed a larger, markedly more diverse body of writings and traditions on the life of Jesus that appears in what has been handed down to us in the New Testament.” However, the remainder of the book speculates about whether Jesus might have studied yoga inIndia, and has little to do with Secret Mark or Jesus the magician.
Where Are We Now? (Scholarly Interest from 1982 to the present)
For scholars the problem remains unsettled. While even the most acid of reviews often ended with a statement to wit that a real conclusion would require an in-depth treatment of Smith’s books, none came. In 1982 Smith commented wryly on the rhetoric of the reviews which made work on the Secret Mark problem almost impossible in the 1970s:
For example, Achtemeier’s review, of which the predendedly factual statements are often grossly inaccurate. Though worthless as criticism, it cannot confidently be described as “useless.” It probably pleased Fitzmyer, who was then editor of The Journal of Biblical Literature, and thus may have helped Achtemeier get the secretaryship of the Society of Biblical Literature. That both names rhyme with “liar” is a curious coincidence.
Some important Catholic scholars, including Achtemeier, Fitzmyer, Quesnell, Skehan and Brown, have tended to ignore Secret Mark or dismiss it as worthless. C.S. Mann’s Anchor Bible commentary on Mark, published in 1986, represents the whole controversy as finished, a matter of “mere curiosity.” With the blessing of the Imprimatur behind him, John P. Meier advised in 1991 that Secret Mark, the Gospels of Thomas and Peter, the Egerton Gospel and all other non-canonical Jesus material were worthless and might simply be thrown “back into the sea.”
At the same time, there has been an increase in the number of scholars producing Secret Mark studies since 1982. That “Morton Smith seems quite alone in his view that the fragment is a piece of genuine Gospel material,” as claimed in 1983 by Beskow is manifestly false. Smith’s work in the early 70s was greeted with more-or-less positive reviews by a small number of important scholars including Helmut Koester, Cyril Richardson, George MacRae, and Hugh Trevor-Roper. Some scholars did not write reviews but openly expressed the notion that Smith’s work was meritorious. When asked by the New York Times about Smith’s interpretation of Jesus as a magician, Krister Stendhal tactfully replied, “I have much sympathy for that way of placing Jesus in the social setting of his time.”
While that sympathy does not remain particularly widespread, accepting Smith’s magical Jesus has nothing to do with taking Secret Mark seriously. The two issues may be discussed seperately: the argument for magical practises in early Christianity may certainly be made without reference to Secret Mark, and Secret Mark may be discussed as a text with no more magical implications than we find in canonical Mark.
In Thomas Talley’s 1982 article on ancient liturgy, he describes his own attempt to physically examine the Secret Mark manuscript. As his is the last word on the physical artifact in question, it is fortuitous to quote him at length:
Given the late date of the manuscript itself and the fact that Prof. Smith published photographs of it, it seemed rather beside the point that some scholars wished to dispute the very existence of a manuscript which no one but the editor had seen. My own attempts to see the manuscript in January of 19080 were frustrated, but as witnesses to its existence I can cite the Archimandrite Meliton of the Jerusalem Greek Patriarchate who, after the publication of Smith’s work, found the volume at Mar Saba and removed it to the patriarchal library, and the patriarchal librarian, Father Kallistos, who told me that the manuscript (two folios) has been removed from the printed volume and is being repaired.
Although one wishes this document were available for the examination of Western scholars, it is no longer reasonable to doubt the existence of the manuscript itself. That it represents an authentic tradition from Clement of Alexandria is disputed only by a handful of scholars and, as Talley also points out, the letter has itself been included in the standard edition of the Alexandrian father’s writings since 1980.
Taking on the pressing question of Secret Mark’s textual relationship with the version of Mark in our New Testament, Helmut Koester has published two intriguing studies arguing that the development of Mark was an evolutionary process. First came the version of Mark known by Matthew and Luke, the proto-Mark or Urkarkus long known to scholars of the synoptic problem. After this original version of Mark was published, the expanded version used by the Alexandrian church in Christian mysteries was made (and from that, its gnosticized Carpocration version). Soon afterward or simulaneously, a mostly expurgated version of Secret Mark was published widely and became canonical Mark. The original Urmarkus, lacking anything not found in Matthew or Luke, went the way of the sayings source and was not preserved.
Koester’s view has made some inroads. Hans-Martin Schenke adopts it with the modification that Carpocratian Mark predates the Secret Mark of the Alexandrian Church. John Dominic Crossan developed a theory like Koester’s in his 1985 Four Other Gospels. Secret Mark has been included in the texts being translated as part of the Scholars Version project, and is described as an early gospel fragment in material that the Jesus Seminar has been making available to popular audiences. None of these treatments is significantly affected by one’s assessment of the magical Jesus suggested by Smith.
Still, Jesus as magician is not a dead issue. John Dominic Crossan’s very intriguing book on The Historical Jesus has an extended discussion of the topic. He argues that Jesus may indeed be understood as a magician. He rejects an artificial dichotomy between magic and religion, saying, “the prescriptive distinction that states that we practice religion but they practice magic should be seen for what it is, a political validation of the approved and the official against the unapproved and unofficial.”
Conclusion: Where No Secret Gospel Has Gone Before
Secret Mark’s plight constitutes a warning to all scholars as to the dangers of allowing sentiments of faith to cloud or prevent critical examination of evidence. When seen in light of the massive literature which has been produced by the other major manuscript finds of our century, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi codices, the comparative dearth of good studies on this piece in particular cannot be explained in any other way that a stubborn refusal to deal with information which might challenge deeply-held personal convictions. It is good to keep in mind an unofficial directive of the Jesus Seminar: “Beware of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to you.”
“It is my opinion,” writes Hans Dieter Betz, “that Smith’s book and the texts he discovered should be carefully and seriously studied. Criticizing Smith is not enough.” Certainly it is reasonable to concur. After twenty years of confusion, it must be time to set aside emotionalism and approach both this fragment and Morton Smith’s assessment of the role of magic in early Christianity with objective and critical eyes. However that question is ultimately to be resolved, Secret Mark provides yet another fascinating window into the remarkable ritual diversity we may identify in the first phases of the development of Christianity.
1 Parker, “An Early Christian Cover-up?”, 5.
2 Smith, “Monasteries and their Manuscripts.”
3 Smith, The Secret Gospel, 12.
4 Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel according to Mark, 1.
5 Smith, The Secret Gospel, 13-14.
6 ibid., 24.
7 ibid., 25.
8 Knox, “A New Gospel Ascribed to Mark.”
9 Smith, “Monasteries and their Manuscripts.”
10 Smith, “Hellenika Cheirographa en tei Monei tou Hagiou Sabba.”
11 Smith, The Secret Gospel, 76.
12 Smith, Jesus the Magician, 3-4.
13 Smith, The Secret Gospel, 94.
14 ibid., 113n1.
15 ibid., 113-114.
16 Shenker, “A Scholar Infers Jesus Practiced Magic.”
17 Skehan, review of Smith’s work in Catholic Historical Review, 452.
18 Fitzmyer, “How to Exploit a Secret Gospel,” 572.
19 Fitzmyer, “Mark’s ‘Secret Gospel?'”, 65.
20 Achtemeier, review of Smith in Journal of Biblical Literature, 626.
22 Beardslee, review of Smith in Interpretation, 234.
23 Parker, “An Early Christian Cover-Up?”, 5.
24 Conzelmann, “Literaturbericht zu den Synoptischen Evangelien (Fortsetzung).”, 321. (Translation from Schenke, “The Mystery of the Gospel of Mark,” 70-71.)
25 ibid., 23. (Translation from Schenke, “The Mystery of the Gospel of Mark,” 70-71.)
26 Brown, “The Relation of ‘The Secret Gospel of Mark’ to the Fourth Gospel,” 466n1.
27 Danker, review of Smith in Dialog, 316.
28 Merkel, “Auf den Spuren des Urmarkus?”, 123. (Translation from Schenke, “The Mystery of the Gospel of Mark,” 69.)
29 Musurillo, “Morton Smith’s Secret Gospel,” 328.
30 Brown, “The Relation of ‘The Secret Gospel of Mark’ to the Fourth Gospel,” 466n1.
31 Including Fitzmeyer, “How to Exploit a Secret Gospel”; Parker, “An Early Christian Cover-Up?”; Skehan, review of Smith in Catholic Historical Review 60(1974); Gibbs, review of Smith in Theology Today 30(1974); Grant, “Morton Smith’s Two Books”; Merkel, “Auf den Spuren des Urmarkus?”; Kummel, “Ein Jahrzehnt Jesusforchung”; and Beskow, Strange Tales about Jesus. Anitra Kolenkow’s comments on this bias are salient: “We know that the gospel of John long has been known as possibly containing both gnostic and homosexual motifs. John may have been written at approximately the same time as Mark. What difference does it make to us if Jesus is not separated from a homosexual situation?” (Quoted from Kolenkow’s response to Reginald Fuller, Longer Mark, 33.)
32 Examples are Achtemeier, review of Smith in the Journal of Biblical Literature 93(1974); MacRae, “Yet Another Jesus”; Gibbs, review of Smith in Theology Today 30(1974); and Fuller, Longer Mark: Forgery, Interpolation, or Old Tradition?
33 See the statements to this effect in Quesnell, “The Mar Saba Clementine,” and Hobbs (response in Fuller, Longer Mark: Forgery, Interpolation, or Old Tradition?).
34 Such scholars included Pierson Parker, Edward Hobbs and Per Beskow.
35 See Bruce, The ‘Secret’ Gospel of Mark; Musurillo, “Morton Smith’s Secret Gospel”; and Kummel, “Ein Jahrzehnt Jesusforschung.”
36 Fitzmyer, “How to Exploit a Secret Gospel”; Gibbs, review of Smith in Theology Today 30(1974).
37 Danker, review of Smith in Dialog, 316.
40 Quesnell, “The Mar Saba Clementine,” 49.
41 ibid., 50.
42 ibid., 52.
43 ibid., 53.
44 ibid., 57.
45 Smith, The Secret Gospel, 25.
46 Smith, Clement of Alexandria, ix.
47 Quesnell, “The Mar Saba Clementine,” 58.
48 ibid., 61.
49 ibid., 60n30.
50 ibid., 48.
51 Smith, “On the Authenticity of the Mar Saba Letter of Clement,” 196.
52 Quesnell, “A Reply to Morton Smith,” 201.
53 Beskow, Strange Tales about Jesus, 101.
54 Smith, “On the Authenticity of the Mar Saba Letter of Clement,” 196.
55 Sider, “Unfounded ‘Secret’,” 160.
56 Private correspondence with Saniel Bonder.
57 Bonder, The Divine Emergence of the World-Teacher, 234.
58 ibid., 235.
59 Feuerstein, Holy Madness, 90-92.
60 ibid., 94.
61 Bonder, The Divine Emergence of the World-Teacher, 287.
62 ibid., 288.
63 It is neccessary to stipulate that nothing in the above discussion of the Free Daist Communion should be read as derogatory. The purpose is simple description. Despite the controversy which has sometimes surrounded this movement, the author does not feel that its practices are in any way fraudulent or abusive. Scholars should consider the possibility that examination of modern new religious movements such as the Da Avabhasa sect might be extraordinarily helpful in our understanding of the community dynamics of early libertine Christians such as the Carpocratians.
64 Baigent et al, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, 290.
65 Prophet, The Lost Years of Jesus, 9. Most interestingly, in her notes Prophet quotes a 1984 telephone interview with scholar Birger A. Pearson, in which he says that “many scholars, maybe even most, would now accept the authenticity of the Clement fragment, including what it said about the Secret Gospel of Mark.” (434n16)
66 Smith, The Secret Gospel (1982 Dawn Horse edition), 150n7.
67 Mann, Mark (The Anchor Bible), 423.
68 Meier, A Marginal Jew, 140.
69 Beskow, Strange Tales about Jesus, 99. One wonders what a “genuine piece of gospel material” might be. Are gospel additions such as the second ending of Mark (16.9-20) and the famous story of the adulterous woman (John 8.53-9.11) “genuine gospel material,” even if we know they were not originally part of the gospels in which they are found?
70 Shenker, “Jesus: New Ideas about his Powers.”
71 Talley, “Liturgical Time in the Ancient Church,” 45.
73 See Koester, “History and Development of Mark’s Gospel,” and Ancient Christian Gospels.
74 Schenke, “The Mystery of the Gospel of Mark,” 76.
75 Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 310.
76 Funk et al., The Five Gospels, 5.
77 Fuller, Longer Mark: Forgery, Interpolation, or Old Tradition?, 18.
Achtemeier, Paul J. Review of Smith. Journal of Biblical Literature 93 (1974): 625-628.
Allegro, John M. The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. New York: Doubleday, 1970.
Baigent, Michael, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. Holy Blood, Holy Grail. New York: Delacorte, 1982.
Baigent, Michael, Richard Leigh. The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception. New York: Simon & Shuster, 1991.
Bauckham, Richard. “Salome the Sister of Jesus, Salome the Disciple of Jesus, and the Secret Gospel of Mark.” Novum Testamentum 33 (1991): 245-275.
Beardslee, William A. Review of Smith. Interpretation 28 (1974): 234-36.
Beskow, Per. Strange Tales about Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
Bonder, Saniel. The Divine Emergence of the World-Teacher. Clearlake, CA: Dawn Horse Press, 1990.
____________. Private correspondence, 1991.
Brown, Raymond E. “The Relation of ‘The Secret Gospel of Mark’ to the Fourth Gospel.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974): 466-85.
Bruce, F.F. The ‘Secret’ Gospel of Mark. London: Althone Press, 1974.
Bultmann, Rudolf. 1958. Jesus Christ and Mythology. New York: Scribner’s, 1958.
Burkert, Walter. 1987. Ancient Mystery Cults. Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity Press, 1987.
Conzelmann, Hans. “Literaturbericht zu den Synoptischen Evangelien (Fortsetzung).” Theologische Rundschau 43 (1978): 23f.
Crossan, John Dominic. Four Other Gospels: Shadows on the Contours of Canon. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985.
____________. The Cross that Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988.
____________. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. HarperSanFrancisco, 1991.
Danker, Frederick W. Review of Smith. Dialog 13 (1974): 316.
Donfried, K. “New-Found Fragments of an Early Gospel.” Christian Century 90 (1973): 759-60.
Feurestien, Georg. Holy Madness: The Shock Tactics and Radical Teachings of Crazy-Wise Adepts, Holy Fools, and Rascal Gurus. New York: Penguin Arkana, 1990.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “How to Exploit a Secret Gospel.” America 128 (1973): 570-572.
____________. Reply to Morton Smith in “Mark’s ‘Secret Gospel?’.” America 129 (1973): 64-65.
Frend, W. “A New Jesus?” New York Review of Books 20 (1973): 34-35.
Fuller, R. Longer Mark: Forgery, Interpolation, or Old Tradition? (Center for Hermeneutical Studies, colloquy 18), edited byW. Wuellner.Berkeley,CA: Center for Hermeneutical Studies, 1975.
Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover and The Jesus Seminar. The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New York: Macmillan, 1993.
Gibbons, J. Review of Smith. Sign 53 (September 1973): 48.
Gibbs, J.G. Review of Smith. Theology Today 30 (1974): 423-26.
Grant, Robert. “Morton Smith’s Two Books.” Anglican Theological Review 56 (1974): 58-65.
Greene, D.St.A. Review of Smith. The National Observer 12 (1973): 15.
Hanson, R.P.C. Review of Smith. Journal of Theological Studies 25 (1974): 513-21.
Hobbs, Edward C. Response to Reginald Fuller. In Longer Mark: Forgery, Interpretation, or Old Tradition?, edited byW. Wuellner, 19-25.Berkeley,CA: Center for Hermeneutical Studies, 1975.
Horst, P. van der. “Het ‘Geheime Markusevangelie.'” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 33 (1979): 27-51.
Jaeger, Werner. Early Christianity and Greek Paideia. Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity Press, 1961.
Johnson, M.D. Review of Smith. The Lutheran Quarterly 25 (1973): 426-27.
Johnson, S. “The Mystery of St. Mark.” History Today 25 (1975): 89-97.
Kee, Howard Clark. Review of Smith. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 43 (1975): 326-29.
Knox, Sanka. “A New Gospel Ascribed to Mark.” The New York Times, 30 December 1960, p. 1, 17.
____________. “Expert Disputes ‘Secret Gospel’.” The New York Times, 31 December 1960, p. 7.
Koester, Helmut. Review of Smith. American Historical Review 80 (1975): 620-622.
____________. “History and Development of Mark’s Gospel (From Mark to Secret Mark and ‘Canonical’ Mark),” in Colloquy on New Testament Studies, ed. Bruce Corley. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983.
____________. Ancient Christian Gospels. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990.
Kolenkow, Anitra Bingham. Response to Reginald Fuller. In Longer Mark: Forgery, Interpretation, or Old Tradition?, edited byW. Wuellner, 33-34.Berkeley,CA: Center for Hermeneutical Studies, 1975.
Kümmel, Werner Georg. “Ein Jahrzehnt Jesusforschung (1965-1975).” Theologische Rundschau 40 (1975): 299-302.
Levin, Saul. “The Early History of Christianity, in Light of the ‘Secret Gospel’ of Mark.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischem Welt 2.25.6 (1988): 4270-4292.
MacRae, George. “Yet Another Jesus.” Commonweal 99 (1974): 417-420.
Mack, BurtonL. A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins. Philadelphia: Fortess, 1988.
Mann, C.S. Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible Series.New York: Doubleday, 1986.
Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Volume One.New York: Doubleday, 1991.
Merkel, Helmut. “Auf den Spuren des Urmarkus? Ein neuer Fund und seine Beurteilung.” Zeitschrift fuer Theologie und Kirche 71 (1974): 123-144.
Metzger, Bruce M. 1972. “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha.” Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 3-24.
Meyer, Marvin W., ed. The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987.
Mullins, Terence Y. “Papias and Clement and Mark’s Two Gospels.” Vigiliae Christianae 30: 189-92.
Musurillo, H. “Morton Smith’s Secret Gospel.” Thought 48 (1974): 327-331.
Osborn, Eric. “Clement of Alexandria: A Review of Research, 1958-1982.” The Second Century 3 (1983): 219-244.
Pagels, Elaine. Foreword to the 1982 reprint of The Secret Gospel. Clearlake,CA: Dawn Horse Press, 1982.
Parker, Pierson. “An Early Christian Cover-Up?” New York Times Book Review, 22 July 1973, p. 5.
____________. “On Professor Morton Smith’s Find at Mar Saba.” Anglican Theological Review 56 (1974): 53-57.
Patterson, Stephen J. and Helmut Kuester. “The Secret Gospel of Mark,” 402-405 in Miller, Robert J., ed., The Complete Gospels: Scholars Version. Sonoma,CA: Polebridge Press, 1992.
Petersen, N. Review of Smith. Southern Humanities Review 8 (1974): 525-531.
Prophet, Elizabeth Clare. The Lost Years of Jesus: Documentary Evidence of Jesus’ 17-Year Journey to the East. Livingston,MT:SummitUniversity Press, 1987.
Quesnell, Quentin. Review of Smith. National Catholic Reporter, Nov. 30, 1973.
____________. “The Mar Saba Clementine: A Question of Evidence.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 37 (1975): 48-67.
____________. “A Reply to Morton Smith.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38 (1976): 200-203.
Reese, J. Review of Smith. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974): 434-435.
Richardson, Cyril C. Review of Smith. Theological Studies 35 (1974): 571-77.
Schenke, Hans-Martin. “The Mystery of the Gospel of Mark.” The Second Century 4 (1984):65-82.
____________. “The Function and Background of the Beloved Disciple in the Gospel of John,” in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity, Charles W. Hedrick and Robert Hodgson, Jr., eds.Peabody,MA: Hendrickson, 1986.
Schmidt, Daryl D. The Gospel of Mark. Scholars Version. Sonoma,CA: Polebridge Press, 1990.
Scroggs, Robin. Review of Smith. Chicago Theological Seminary Register 1974: 58.
Scroggs, Robin, and Kent I. Groff. “Baptism in Mark: Dying and Rising with Christ.” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973): 531-548.
Shenker, Israel. “A Scholar Infers Jesus Practiced Magic.” The New York Times, 23 May 1973, p. 39.
____________. “Jesus: New Ideas about His Powers.” The New York Times, 3 June 1973, p. IV 12.
Sider, Ronald J. “Unfounded ‘Secret’.” Christianity Today 18 (9 Nov 1973): 160.
Skehan, Patrick W. Review of Smith 1973b. Catholic Historical Review 60 (1974): 451-53.
Smith, Morton. “Hellenika Cheirographa en tei Monei tou Hagiou Sabba.” Nea Sion 52 (1960): 110-125, 245-256.
____________. “Monasteries and their Manuscripts.” Archaeology 13 (1960): 172-177.
____________. The Secret Gospel: The Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel according to Mark. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.
____________. Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.
____________. Reply to Joseph Fitzmeyer in “Mark’s ‘Secret Gospel?’.” America 129 (1973): 64-65.
____________. “Merkel on the Longer Text of Mark.” Zeitschrift fuer Theologie und Kirche 72 (1975): 133-150.
____________. “On the Authenticity of the Mar Saba Letter of Clement.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38 (1976): 196-199.
____________. “A Rare Sense of prokoptô and the Authenticity of the Letter of Clement of Alexandria,” in God’s Christ and His People: Studies in Honor of Nils Alstrup Dahl, ed. Jacob Jervell and Wayne A. Meeks. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977.
____________. Jesus the Magician. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.
____________. “Clement of Alexandria and Secret Mark: The Score at the End of the First Decade.” Harvard Theological Review 75 (1982): 449-461.
____________. Postscript to the 1982 reprint of The Secret Gospel. Clearlake, CA: Dawn Horse Press, 1982.
____________. “Paul’s Arguments as Evidence of the Christianity from which he Diverged.” Harvard Theological Review 79 (1986): 254-60.
Stagg, F. Review of Smith. Review and Expositor 71 (1974): 108-110.
Talley, Thomas. “Liturgical Time in the AncientChurch: The State of Research.” Studia Liturgica 14 (1982): 34-51.
Trevor-Roper, Hugh. “Gospel of Liberty.” London Sunday Times (30 June 1974), 15.
Trocmé, Étienne. “Trois critques au miroir de l’Évangile selon Marc.” Revue d’histoire et philosophie religieuses 55 (1974): 289-295.
Wilson, Ian. Jesus: The Evidence. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984.
Wink, Walter. “Jesus as Magician.” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 30 (1974): 3-14.
Yamauchi, Edwin M. “A Secret Gospel of Jesus as ‘Magus?’ A Review of Recent Works of Morton Smith.” Christian Scholars Review 4 (1975): 238-251.
The author would like to offer thanks to Saniel Bonder of the Mountain of Attention Sanctuary for his kind assistance in providing research materials and his willingness to share with me information pertaining to The Dawn Horse Press and The Secret Gospel. Further thanks are due to Dr. Jon Daniels of The Defiance College for his helpful insights into the subject matter of this study.
The Secret Gospel of Mark:
Y. Kuchinsky against forgery 1998
[This is a well written post arguing for authenticity. I agree with most of it. It has been written before Yuri went at odds with everybody.]
Why it is impossible that Morton Smith could have forged Clement’s letter & the SecMk fragment.
Now I have revisited this old controversy. In the course of my recent research re: the compositional history of the Gospel of Mark, I have reread Morton Smith’s two books on the subject, after many years. I was interested primarily by what SecMk can tell us about the history of early Christianity.
I certainly don’t agree with Smith in everything he says. In fact, I see quite a few areas where Smith seems rather off base in his interpretations of early Christian history. In particular, I’m much more skeptical than he in attributing the events SecMk narrates directly to the events in life of the Historical Jesus. SecMk seems to me more like a later Gnostic-oriented expansion, while still produced within the Markan community. Nevertheless, Smith had done a huge amount of background research in this area, and his book reveals many unexpected surprises on my later rereading.
Speculation has been rife in recent years that Smith was the forger of this intriguing document, or else was in charge of a criminal conspiracy to produce this forgery. Such speculation has been broadcast of late especially by the famous scholar Prof. Jack Neusner, the former student of Smith turned his enemy (this happened for reasons entirely unconnected with the ms). Neusner is of course a very influential man in the biblical field, and his views cannot be disregarded. Some other scholars also tended to lend support to such accusations.
It is my purpose to show in this article that these accusations are entirely without merit, and that, if anything, they may only raise doubts about the professional competence of those making them.
It needs to be noted, of course, that there are many responsible scholars who are skeptical about this SecMk fragment, and who suspect it is a forgery. But generally these skeptics consider that this was an old forgery of some sort. Some maintain it is a forgery produced in the 18th century; others say it was produced any time in between the 2nd and the 18th centuries.
Prima facie, that this is an old forgery is not impossible, of course. And academic discussions of such scenarios have been going on for great many years, ever since the discovery of the fragment was announced by Smith, first privately to some scholars in 1958, and then publicly in 1960. This is a very complex debate, and I will not be able to deal with it now. The purpose of this article is merely to defend Smith from what I see as entirely unjustified accusations of wrongdoing. He was an honest scholar who happened to come across a mysterious manuscript, and who devoted many years of his life to trying to understand its meaning. He did not deserve these sordid accusations.
While, as I show further, it would have been impossible for Smith to have accomplished such a forgery, the same arguments should apply to a lesser extent to other theories of forgery not involving Smith. Myself, I have looked at length into these debates and into various versions offered by different scholars, and my view is that the balance of the evidence points to Clement’s letter fragment as being genuine, i.e. authored by Clement himself. I think the whole ms is exactly what it claims to be, i.e. it is a letter of Clement containing what Clement thinks is part of a secret version of Mk’s gospel, as used in the Church of Alexandria. (By the way, it also seems likely to me that Clement’s version of the textual development of Mk as given in the letter is not entirely accurate, for whatever reasons.)
It seems like most serious opponents of SecMk in the last few years have been focusing their criticism on the fact that the manuscript has been seen by so few. There was some mystery about this manuscript. Where is it? How come basic tests on paper, ink, or other such tests have not been conducted? The piece of information Mahlon Smith have supplied recently on Crosstalk list about the manuscript having been seen recently after all by a credible witness is very important in this respect, to help put some of these doubts to rest.
I’ve suggested before that perhaps the main reason the manuscript has been seen by so few was that so few were really so interested in seeing it. Certainly it is a lot easier to spread groundless rumors behind people’s backs than to go out and actually do such field research, which, needless to say, may involve such complications as having to pack your suitcase and do a bit of travel for a change… It is to the credit of Charles Hedrick that he did go out and take his time to look up the ms, instead of just talking endlessly about how few have seen it, and what all this may signify…
Three Forgeries In One
Now, to begin my case for authenticity, I would like to stress that we are actually talking about _three_ separate hypothetical forgeries here. Let’s keep this in mind. In other words, in order for Smith to have accomplished such a highly complex forgery, he would have had to have done the following.
He would have needed to forge not one but two documents:
1. The letter of Clement itself.
2. The two SecMk gospel fragments.
And also, the third item that he would have needed to have pulled off.
3. To have found a scribe, really a genius of a scribe, who would have been able to forge some very unique and specialized 18th century Greek scribal handwriting, and to forge it flawlessly, with all its highly unique abbreviations and complexities. Nobody in their right mind would try to suggest that Smith was an expert scribe himself. Not quite. He would have certainly needed an accomplice for this.
Since these two texts, the letter itself, and the gospel fragments as given by Clement, are composed in completely different styles, and using very different vocabularies, in order to forge them Smith would have had to be an expert on both Clement and Mk. He was neither, certainly not before 1958.
So, now, let’s consider these 3 items in order.
1. The excerpt from the letter of Clement, itself, is much longer than the gospel fragments, and it would have been a lot harder to forge credibly. As Thomas Talley, one serious investigator of this problem, indicated, at this time only a small handful of scholars still dispute that the letter represents an authentic tradition from Clement of Alexandria. Every word and sentence of the Clementine portion of this ms has been put under the microscope and compared in minutest detail to the extant undisputed Clementine texts, of which we have quite a lot. And every comparison has basically held up. These detailed studies are many and freely available for perusal by interested parties.
Out of the fourteen leading Clementine scholars Smith consulted originally, only two had some reservations, and Smith had dealt with their quite minor technical objections in detail, and showed them insufficient to cause doubt as to authenticity.
It is important for our case that the letter has been included in the standard edition of the Alexandrian father’s writings since 1980. [Talley, Thomas. “Liturgical Time in theAncientChurch: The State ofResearch.” Studia Liturgica 14 (1982), p. 45] And this should speak better than anything else about where the consensus of the Clementine scholars is now in regard to this matter.
This first item alone should make it appear highly unlikely that Smith could have pulled it off, i.e. could have fooled the whole world of scholarship to such an extent.
2. Now, the SecMk fragment, in itself, presents us with a very special set of highly complicated problems of its own. On purely linguistic basis, scholars have been arguing whether or not the fragment could have been put together merely from scraps of the canonical material. (Since almost every serious opponent of SecMk thinks this would have been an ancient forgery, the debate has been conducted primarily in this context.) The balance of evidence seems to point to the fragment being based on an original tradition, separate from and prior to the canonical traditions. But a definitive judgment here on purely stylistic grounds is quite a tough call, since the fragment is rather short. In any case, Smith not being known as a Mk scholar prior to his discovery, very few indeed suggested that he, himself, could have created the fragment ex nihilo.
Now, the next and a separate question about this SecMk fragment should be, Supposing it’s genuine, how does it fit together with the canonical gospels? I.e. what about the contents of this fragment, rather than just the style of writing? Because, it is important to note, the parallels must be considered not only with the rest of Mk, but also with Jn, since the SecMk fragment narrates the raising of a young man that is very close to the raising of Lazarus in the Fourth Gospel.
And not only that, there’s yet another complicated matter to consider here. Smith has also suggested in his two books that there are also other and more significant structural parallels between Mk and Jn, the parallels going far beyond the fragment.
According to Smith, his thinking in this area was stimulated by the research associated with the fragment. Once he saw the parallels between the SecMk fragment and Jn, he also began to see much greater parallels between large parts of Mk (beginning at 6:32; cf. p. 56 in SECRET GOSPEL) and large parts of Jn (beginning at 6:1). He bases his theories in this area in part on the work of some scholars who were working early in this century, and who suggested compatible theories re: the redact ional history of Jn, and Jn’s possible use of Mk — among them Bultmann, N. Huffmann, and especially Charles Dodd. (CLEMENT, p. 146ff.)
It is not possible to deal here now with all these complex relationships. Their full consideration should involve,
- the proto Mk theories of Helmut Koester, and of Alfred Loisy,
- other controversial wider theories about how Jn, Lk, and Mt relate to Mk (was Jn really influenced by Mk’s structure?),
- Smith’s own views on the matter that were clearly evolving and changing over time, as his published work indicates,
- the question of how many other commentators, such as Crossan, evaluated this evidence,
- possible Aramaic proto-sources (Smith favored this idea, but received little support from other scholars on this),
- and much more besides.
All that needs to be said at this point is that for Smith to have managed to accomplish this second forgery, and to accomplish it in such a way that scholars are still debating the matter hotly after 40 years, would be nothing short of miraculous. And, generally, I don’t believe in such unlikely miracles.
Epigraphy Leaves Little Room For Doubt
3. And, finally, the handwriting. As Smith details in his book, the near consensus of all the top paleographic experts he consulted both in Greece and the US was that the manuscript dates to the 18th century (on pp. 22-23 of his SECRET GOSPEL, Smith gives the long list of the names of these experts).
Certainly the opinion of these competent scholars should not be taken lightly. We are talking here about some highly specialized criteria that they take into consideration, such as the use of special scribal ligatures, of subscripts, of very complex abbreviations, both medial and terminal, the use of the coronis, and other such matters comprehensible for the most part only to experts.
And also Smith reports in his Clement Of Alexandria that a rare manuscript was found that is remarkably close in appearance to our ms. Smith writes that a Greek scholar, Professor Scouvaras, has discovered
“…an eighteenth-century ecclesiastical document in a native Greek hand strikingly similar to that of our manuscript. [It is reproduced on Plate IV in Smith’s book] … [It is] an autograph codex of the Ecumenical Patriarch Callinicus III and was written about 1760 in the Phanariot hand which had been formed inConstantinopleshortly before that time.” (p. 2)
So here we are, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Three forgeries in one, Smith’s critics would like to charge him with. Two unique ancient texts, so different in style and content, _plus_ finding an epigraphic genius forger to put them down on paper. Does this stray far beyond the realm of reality? I sure think so.
An Impossible Scenario
And now let’s look at what Smith would have had to do to put it all together. To remind, his discovery was made when he was doing the job of cataloguing odd mss in the rather neglected library of the great Greek Orthodox desert monastery of Mar Saba, near Jerusalem. Presumably, the critics charge, Smith would have planted the book with the text already written into it while he was doing that job. This means that he would have had to have spent years of his life previously to that getting himself totally immersed into Clement and Mk, becoming a “secret world-class expert” in these two highly complex areas.
And when he finally accomplished that task, and composed the two texts, next he would have had to find the “Genius Scribe”, his presumed accomplice. (Or did he find this accomplice even before he embarked on his nefarious course?) So they pulled it off, and produced the flawless forgery. Then he goes to MarSabaand plants the mss. From then on, the story unfolds as previously known.
An obvious question needs to be asked here. Is there any evidence that Smith knew far in advance that he would be doing this two-week job at Mar Saba in 1958? Actually, according to his Clement Of Alexandria, p. ix, Smith was given permission by Benedict, Patriarch of Jerusalem, to catalogue the library when he was already inJerusalem in 1958.
In my opinion, it is this premeditation part of this supposed plot to forge these documents that makes it really quite fantastic. He had this idea, “I will produce this forgery and will plant this book in this library.” And then he devotes years of his life to this, working in the highest secrecy… Does this sound like a light-hearted prank that some suggested as his motivation?
And it also needs to be noted here that if Smith managed to “plant” this particular manuscript in any other library other than MarSaba, the case for authenticity would have been rather weaker. This is because there’s a recorded tradition that a collection of Clement’s letters _has been attested_ in MarSabaduring the Middle Ages. So such a discovery in MarSabawas not totally unpredictable, after all…
Smith devoted many well-documented years of his life on an academic study of the ms he discovered. Some commentators have actually suggested half-jokingly that the amount of effort he put into all this was almost inexplicable. After reading his two books, it indeed seems like Smith was genuinely obsessed with his discovery.
So Neusner and Co. would presumably claim that Smith did all this background research _before_ he “discovered” the ms? And then he “pretended” to do all this work later? But he repeatedly consulted dozens of noted scholars later and not before! Many of these scholars are still around to tell their side of the story…
To summarize. To accomplish _the three_ such highly complex forgeries, and not to have been caught, would have been beyond the power of one man. To have even _attempted_ such a hopeless task, a task both so hopeless and so time-consuming, would have been quite silly, and Smith was generally not thought of as silly.
And finally, when Smith’s discovery is looked at dispassionately, there’s really not much there on the surface. What kind of an earth-shaking reaction did he accomplish? Not much really beyond some obscure disputes among professional text crunchers. It’s not like the ms just comes out and says, “Jesus was a homosexual, and the whole of Christian religion is a hoax”… Not at all. All it really says is that the Carpocratian heretics were perverts and twisted the Scriptures. But this was already well known before. So, in other words, the pay-off from such a monumental forgery would have been not all that much in any case.
To conclude, the mss is genuine.
And for any who still have doubts, by all means, lobby for the tests on the ink of the mss. Such tests should surely remove all doubt as to the authenticity of this, on the whole, certainly very intriguing, and probably highly revealing document.
Yuri Kuchinsky ||Toronto
Secret Mark – Further Comments
by Andrew Criddle.
In recent discussions on Crosstalk there have been several mentions of my paper in the Journal of Early Christian Studies concerning the letter attributed to Clement concerning Secret Mark. It might be helpful for me to make a few comments.
The paper claims that the letter is an imitation of Clement’s style dating from a much later period, it does not make a definite claim as to exactly when the letter was written or by whom. Although some aspects of Morton Smith’s conduct may arouse suspicion, I do not believe that a seventeenth or eighteenth century forgery can be ruled out.
The paper argues that the fragment is too good to be true. It shows more Clementine traits and less divergence from the vocabulary of Clement’s previously known works than a typical passage of similar length from Clement’s undisputed works.
The precise level of statistical significance claimed for my results does, I agree, depend upon arguable decisions as to how to analyze the statistics, but this works both ways, there are more or less plausible ways of presenting the data which would produce a higher nominal level of significance than I claimed in my paper. Morton Smith’s own analysis of the vocabulary, (seven non-Clementine words, 15 used once only by Clement), which I did not follow in detail for reasons mentioned in my paper, would by my methods produce a higher level of significance than I claimed for my analysis, (based on four non-Clementine words, and nine used once only by Clement).
I agree that one should use this type of statistical argument with caution, but the particular circumstances increase one’s unease about the Clementine origin of this fragment. It is a letter allegedly by Clement, no other surviving letters by Clement being available for comparison. (A few isolated sentences quoted by other writers as from letters by Clement do survive, but are too brief to provide any basis for comparison with anything.) The fragment draws on pagan mystery religions to describe Christian belief and practice to an extent much greater than anything found in Clement’s undisputed works. It is difficult to believe that a passage differing substantially in form and content from anything in Clement’s previously known opus would be more Clementine in style than most passages from Clement’s previously known works.
It would be helpful if defenders of the authenticity of the letter would relate it more closely to their view of Clement’s own life situation rather than merely making claims as to its general acceptance by Clementine scholars, claims that are in any case exaggerated. (See the article by Osborn in Second Century 1983.) I have great difficulties in finding a plausible context for the letter and I suspect that this difficulty is general if not generally acknowledged. Morton Smith himself sometimes seems to be suggesting that the Secret Gospel was not available for catechumens but was used in baptism by the Alexandrian church, i.e. its existence and nature was more or less known to baptized Alexandrian Christians, at other times he seems to suggest that it was revealed only to those who had undergone some subsequent initiation. The fact that the letter admits more than one interpretation is not in itself a problem.
The difficulty is that any interpretation fails to meet all the facts. At one extreme, if the Gospel was more or less known about by all Alexandrian Christians in full fellowship, then the letter’s injunction to preserve secrecy about it even if this involves lying on oath is difficult to take seriously.
At the other extreme, if the Gospel was available only to those who had undergone some subsequent secret initiation, then it is most unlikely that Clement would be prepared to divulge information about it in a letter to a correspondent who, on this interpretation, would not be entitled to know about it.
Although the following points are matters of legitimate dispute, I also find it hard to believe either that a version of Mark available to a large segment of the Alexandrian church would have left no clear trace on the subsequent tradition, or that Clement would have supported secret initiation ceremonies subsequent to baptism. Those who differ on the second point, are, I believe, taking language in Clement about initiation, which is influenced by Philo and common in Middle Platonism, more literally than is appropriate.
I agree that in late Neo-Platonism and later Christian writers such as Pseudo-Dionysius such language may be meant literally, but that is another story.
I hope these comments clarify some of the issues involved.