What's more, I think we have fragments of this gospel--both in the Gospel of Peter fragment, and in our Gospel of the Hebrews fragments. ETA: I now regard this diagram as schematic, distinguish between GEbi and GNaz, and equate Q with GEbi, not GPet.
But wait--there's more. I think I have a hyper-Synoptic solution--in other words, a relationship between the synoptic gospels and the Gospel of John:
(Here I use the "SGM" nomenclature for "Secret Gospel of Mark", though I prefer "SecMk" or even just "sMk". SGM, however, is the common usage, so I'll be using that for these purposes.)
I can't decide what to call this hypothesis. Its closest affinity is with the theories of Koester, though it goes even beyond his claims. The "Hyper-Synoptic Hypothesis" is one candidate. The "Apocryphal Source Hypothesis" is another. The "Mystery Source Hypothesis" is a third.
I have so far, however, favored the label "Multi-Source Hypothesis" because, in fact, the hypothesis is even larger than this. I think lying behind SGM (and GJn, and possibly also GLk and even GPet) is a proto-gospel, quite different from the gospels with which we are familiar (but structurally most similar to GJn). Furthermore...I think that this proto-gospel, and possibly also both GPet and GLk, use another source that is not usually included in synoptic solution diagrams, but which I think must now be taken seriously as a gospel source. Can you guess what I'm talking about?
Even if you can guess, I bet you can't guess one of my final sources, though it is closely related. Hint: if you're a regular reader of my posts on IIDB, you may have read me make mention of it once or twice...
More to follow as the week progresses, I hope.
Audience here, holding our collective breath. Please, do go on.
ReplyDeleteAt least I now why a site about the Mar Saba document is called 'synoptic solutions.' I guess who you are isn't important as engaging someone who has interests in the same things that I do. My only question - you place the Gospel of Peter UNDER the 'Secret Gospel.' In To Theodore it is said:
ReplyDeleteAs 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.
Is there any reason in your mind for supposing that this HAS TO BE another Gospel according to Mark. The word 'gospel' is never even used to describe this text. Couldn't Crossan's ideas about the relationship between GofM and the GofP be used to place some text written in the name of Peter (i.e. either the kerygma Petrou or the Gospel of Peter) BEFORE Secret Mark.
In other words, we don't even need to argue AGAINST Clement's description of Secret Mark being created AFTER the 'account of the Lord's doings' written for Peter IF this Petrine text IS IDENTIFIED as something other than canonical Mark.
Under this scenario, Brown is right for identifying Clement denying that the Carpocratian gospel is actually Mark's gospel. 'Secret Mark' is really only a longer Alexandrian Gospel of Mark (in the same way Trobisch identifies a longer Gospel of John lying behind our canonical text of the same name).
The canonical texts were shortened again to make them 'fit together' as a set.
To this end, Clement never says anywhere that the Gospel of Mark was Peter's gospel or written for Peter (this is said in the Hypotyposeis and there are a number of good reasons for denying that the Hypotyposeis were written by Clement). The end result of all of this is that Clement is only acknowledging that the Gospel of Mark was originally dependent on the Petrine text mentioned in To Theodore (whether that text was called the kerygma Petrou, the Gospel of Peter I don't know for sure) albeit turned around in such a way as to reinforce Markan primacy in the Alexandrian see (i.e. Mark 'wrote' the Petrine text rather than appropriated information from it).
Nice to see you back occupying your cave
Stephan
Stephan--there isn't any reason why the Markan gospel of To Theodore has to be Mark, no, though I think it probably is. However, it so happens that (as I briefly mentioned) I think there was a gospel prior to SGM--and, in fact, I think it was the predecessor of SGM--SGM is an expansion and revision of this proto-gospel. This will become more clear once I post my final diagram sometime tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteNo, you're missing my point. There is only ONE Gospel according to Mark referenced in to Theodore - this one:
ReplyDeletewhen Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge.
The first text that was written by Mark is not identified as a 'gospel of Mark' or anything other than a work attributed to Peter:
during Peter's stay in Rome he [Mark] 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.
Maybe someone called "Peter" wrote a gospel. I have no idea--personally I kind of doubt it, but I'm willing to be open-minded. I don't think it matters who wrote it; what matters to me is what the sources of SGM are. And, I think it has a proto-gospel as its source. You can call this "Peter's gospel" if you like, ok. It does sound as though such a proto-gospel is referred to by the author of To Theodore, so if he thinks such a document existed, then I agree with him. The story may have arisen that Peter wrote this gospel. While it sounds like that's that the author of To Theodore thought, again, I really have no idea what the truth is. What's more important IMO is the position of this proto-gospel in the source diagram, and the reasons why it's necessary as an explanation.
ReplyDeleteWhatever you call it, it is equivalent to a "proto-Mark", in the sense that it is the source of SGM. However, because it lies so far back in the chain of transmission, I prefer to simply call it the "proto-gospel" to avoid confusion.
And even if we can say that Peter wrote it, it should in no way be confused with our "Gospel of Peter"--the one with the resurrection scene, the cross that spoke, etc. Although ultimately descended from the proto-gospel, GPet is removed from it by two textual generations, and served as a proto-Matthew, as I hope to demonstrate.