We now consider Watson’s more positive arguments for modern forgery by Smith. His first argument is divided into three parts, each of which we'll cover in this post, and which receive the labeling (a), (b), and (c) below.
II. 1. (a) Watson thinks that the letter inadequately addresses Theodore’s apparent concerns about the Carpocratians. But I fail to see how the letter is an "inappropriate response to Theodore’s concerns". Theodore is baffled by the Carpocratian account of Jesus, the resurrected man, and his family. The author of the letter (who I will begin calling "pseudo-Clement") is just breaking the news gently to Theodore about Secret Mark. So what if he admits that some of the Carpocratian account is true? If this does not meet with Theodore’s hopes, too bad for Theodore. It turns out that there is some truth to the Carpocratian claims—just as the letter’s author says there is.
Watson also betrays his modern prejudices when he writes, for example, "The authentic Secret Mark is only slightly less prurient than the falsified one." But the authentic Secret Mark is not "prurient" at all! Watson can't imagine two men in the same second-century CE room at night who share agape, and one of whom is wearing only a linen shroud. But this is precisely the liturgical situation of the early church. Watson apparently thinks all male-male love must be romantic, and that the wearing of linen shrouds must be erotic. I find this perspective bizarre--especially for the second century CE! Contrary to Watson's claims, pseudo-Clement provides Theodore with all the evidence he needs that there is "absolutely no substance" to Carpocratian claims. Watson appears to have modern prejudices that prevent him from seeing this.
(b) Watson claims Theodore is told not to use any of the information provided about Secret Mark, rendering the letter suspiciously useless, other than for source-critical reasons. But while pseudo-Clement does urge Theodore to lie to the Carpocratians, he actually doesn't tell him to lie to his fellow Christians--or to anyone else, for that matter. So the information pseudo-Clement provides is actually quite useful; Theodore now knows more about his faith than he used to. For that matter, since the letter obviously went on to provide an interpretation of SGM1 and SGM2, Theodore is now more enlightened than he used to be, and therefore closer to a state of perfection (as outlined in Clement's other writings).
(c) Watson says that the letter only tells Theodore what he already knows, since Theodore, in Watson's words, "has already listed the additions he has found in the Carpocratian gospel," and goes into excessive detail about the textual location of SGM1 and SGM2, but is strangely dismissive about the rest of Theodore's concerns. But, on the one hand, we don't know how badly interpolated Theodore's text was--if it was badly interpolated, then pseudo-Clement needs to sort it out by providing Theodore with a detailed quotation. On the other hand, maybe Theodore just described some stories he'd heard from the Carpocratians, and pseudo-Clement is just quoting directly from the Secret Gospel, giving Theodore information he didn't have. The critic's counter-argument to this is, how can pseudo-Clement be quoting from Secret Mark, if it is "most carefully guarded" in Alexandria? But if we assume that my pseudo-Clementine author is not Clement, but a near-contemporary of his, perhaps an Origenist working from Origen's collection in Caesara, these concerns largely vanish. The author correctly states that Secret Mark is still "most carefully guarded" in Alexandria. But the author may not share the concerns of the Alexandrians, especially if he isn't writing from Alexandria. And, since at the end of the letter fragment, the author is about to divulge gnostic interpretations to Theodore, it would appear that regardless of Alexandrian practice, Theodore is far enough along in his spiritual development that describing Secret Mark to him would be unproblematic, whether in Alexandria or elsewhere.
And, Pseudo-Clement only describes the locations of SGM1 and SGM2 in the text of GMk by way of explicating what text is authentic and what text is not. The "many other things" are probably just dismissed because they were less shocking, and possibly also because they contained no authentic SGM material (though this does not mean there was not more authentic SGM material).
No comments:
Post a Comment