Carlson is convinced by Murgia's analysis of sphragis in the Mar Saba letter that its original author was deliberately engaging in forgery. Again, even if this is true, it fails to lead to the conclusion Carlson wants. Carlson uses some sleight of hand in casting the choice between a third-century authentic author (Clement) and a twentieth-century hoaxer (Smith). But this, of course, is a false choice. Other options are available to us, and it is much more likely that the letter is a third-century forgery than a twentieth-century one, if it is not authentic Clement.
p. 56
Carlson also (with Attila Jakab) wonders why Theodore would write Clement about "a secret gospel kept in Alexandria" if Clement were not in Alexandria. But this is a silly question--Theodore doesn't know anything about the Secret Gospel's local usage in Alexandria! All he knows about is the Carpocratian gospel. It's the author of the letter who informs him of the Secret Gospel's local use in Alexandria.
p. 57
Carlson finds it odd that the author quotes Secret Mark in detail if all he needs to do is tell Theodore that the Carpocratian passages were interpolated. But this is likewise a weak argument--the author is obviously dealing with a Carpocratian text that seriously interpolates the real text of Secret Mark. It's important to him to sift out the authentic text for Theodore, rather than tell him the entire thing is bogus.
Carlson also says that Secret Mark is quoted with a level of care that is non-Clementine. But the care which the author uses in quoting Secret Mark can also be explained if it were an Origenist writing, or even a Clementine student, rather than Clement himself. Carlson likewise protests that Secret Mark is quoted as though there were a copy before the author. I disagree: we have no way of knowing if these passages are quoted with total accuracy—indeed, the fact that the quoted passages contain a grammatical error is evidence IMO that the author was working from memory.
And, if the grammar and vocabularly of SGM is perfect evidence for dating it prior to GJn (as Carlson also notes on p. 57), why should that not be compatible with the hypothesis that it is, in fact, prior to GJn? Carlson sees conspiracy any time there is any evidence at all that Secret Mark was, in fact, a real document predating the canonical gospels. Conspiracy theories have a way of finding supporting evidence wherever they want to. I have to say that as fun as they can be, when push comes to shove, I'm personally inclined to disbelieve them. Most especially when there is a rational alternative that is equally supported by the evidence.
Carlson says To Theodore is surprisingly concerned with the precise location of the passages in Secret Mark. But in light of my claims about the author's need to untangle authentic Secret Mark from the Carpocratian gospel, this should not be surprising. As for Carlson's claims that it too-conveniently creates a "literary sequence" in Mark, see my previous statement that it actually creates no obvious sequence.
Carlson notes that the only known reference to Mark in Clement's other writings is likewise from Mark 10, a notable coincidence. But should this be surprising? No doubt Theodore, if he is writing Clement, knows of Clement's work, and is therefore asking him about a passage he knows Clement is an expert on. And, if the letter is a forgery from near Clement's time, it may not be surprising at all if the forger chose a passage from the Carpocratian gospel close to the passage that Clement spent so much time on. It would have been an area of the gospel familiar to the forger, having studied Clement's works. The point is that whether it's Theodore or an ancient forger who is reacting to the Carpocratian gospel, they are themselves the ones deliberately selecting out a passage with relevance to Clement. So we don't need a theory about Smith as a modern-day forger to explain the connection with Mark 10.
While I'm at it, look at what Clement includes in his discussion about Mark 10 in his treatise Who Is the Saved Rich Man (Tis Ho Swzomenos Plousios). There is this--including a line from 1 Cor--in Plousios 23:
I regenerated you, who were ill born by the world to death. I emancipated, healed, ransomed you. I will show you the face of the good Father God. Call no man your father on earth. Let the dead bury the dead; but follow Me. For I will bring you to a rest of ineffable and unutterable blessings, which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of men; into which angels desire to look, and see what good things God has prepared for the saints and the children who love Him.
Regeneration...the dead burying the dead...ineffable and unutterable blessings which eye has not seen, nor ear heard...all thematically resembling SGM1.
And, better still, this (noted by Smith himself in A Secret Gospel, and about which we discuss more below) in Plousios 34::
There are, besides, some, the elect of the elect...hiding in the depth of their mind the ineffable mysteries...whom the Word calls "the light of the world, and the salt of the earth."
The "elect of the elect" hiding "in the depth of their mind the ineffable mysteries", who are called "the salt of the earth"...all direct thematic parallels with the contents of To Theodore, and all this in discussion of Mark 10! Carlson suggests that there is indeed a connection, but that it runs from Clement to Morton Smith; that Smith uses this passage in constructing his hoax. But how is that a simpler solution than the much more obvious proposal I am making: that SGM is real, and an ancient student of Clement--perhaps a follower of Origen--wrote To Theodore knowing of its existence? And that the concepts of elect gnostics, secret knowledge, and salt as a metaphor for spirituality, were likewise derived from SGM? Carlson simply wants to add one more superhuman feat of textual allusion to the already-long list of powers Smith needed to pull off his forgery...this seems more like an ad hoc addition to an already over-complex theory, than an elegant explanation of the links between Clement and To Theodore.
Carlson says that Secret Mark is surprisingly more concerned with "details about the literary origin" of Mark than we should expect. But this is quite compatible with my hypothesis of an Origenist author. In light of Origen's work with the Hexapla, one of Origen's followers would be a fine candidate for a more literary relation of the composition of Mark's gospel.
No comments:
Post a Comment