Some Comments on Francis Watson's Latest Reply

Back in April, Francis Watson published a brief reply to Allan Pantuck's "Beyond Suspicion" article in JTS.  I thought I'd just add my own two cents to the discussion.

Watson's reply relates to only two points:

1) the coincidence of Smith's scholarly interests prior to the manuscript's discovery, and
2) the coincidence of the plot points in James T. Hunter's novel The Mystery of Mar Saba to Smith's discovery.

Putting the Smoke Back in the Gun (Sort Of), pt. 3

As mentioned previously, there does remain one intriguing parallel between The Secret Gospel and The Mystery of Mar Saba: the resemblance of the clause in Smith "I was gradually reconciling myself to my worst expectations" with that in Hunter "I was prepared to leave Mar Saba, reconciled to the negative results of my search".  The parallels are:

--"I was"
--"reconciling/-ed"
--"my"
--and the fact that both accounts happened at Mar Saba.

These resemblances are real, though somewhat slim.  Nevertheless, the use of "reconciling/-ed" is a little striking, and may deserve attention.  However, I would like to present an alternative account of how both Hunter and Smith could have used the same phrase in similar contexts.

Putting the Smoke Back in the Gun (Sort of), pt. 2

Trying to prove that one work influenced another can be a tricky business.

In his 1960 Archaeology article "Monasteries and their Manuscripts", Morton Smith does use an interesting phrase that resembles Hunter’s words in the novel The Mystery of Mar Saba. We read that

Almost all the material is of the seventeenth century and later. The earlier manuscripts were carried to Jerusalem in the mid-nineteenth century, by order of the Patriarch, and now form the well known Mar Saba collection in the central library of the Patriarchate. (“Monasteries”, p. 177)

Here we see Smith again using “almost all”, but in a different context: he is describing the date of the material, not its fate. It’s still possible that the “-most” in “almost” finds its source in Hunter’s novel, but it would more likely seem that the phrase “almost all” is just a particular reflex of Smith’s personal syntax. To be fair, Watson himself does not draw a comparison with this phrase. And the remainder of this sentence does not indicate any similarity with Hunter’s novel, so there is no evidence of influence here.


However, earlier in the article, there is an interesting phrase which does resemble Hunter’s words. We read that

Putting the Smoke Back In the Gun (Sort of), pt. 1

Francis Watson, in his article "Beyond Suspicion: on the Authorship of the Mar Saba Letter and the Secret Gospel of Mark", tries--among other arguments--to link Morton Smith's work The Secret Gospel to James Hunter's novel The Mystery of Mar Saba by finding two or three similar phrases shared by both works, and used in similar contexts in each (in addition to other attempts at linking the two which we won't discuss here).  This can be found in section III.2 of Watson's article.  Watson claims this helps show that "Smith is dependent on the novel" (Suspicion, p. 170).

However, there is an intervening work that shows the same sort of similarity to The Mystery of Mar Saba, and a much closer similarity to The Secret Gospel, and which Morton Smith is more likely to have read: John Allegro's 1964 book Search in the Desert.   

A Critique of Watson: Hunter's Novel Redux

III. 2. Watson, like others, is impressed with the supposed connection between James H. Hunter's novel The Mystery of Mar Saba and Smith's discovery. I have dealt with the subject of Hunter's book here and here. Watson's new observations bring nothing very new to the discussion, save for an intriguing twist: his discovery of the two one-sentence parallels between Hunter's The Mystery of Mar Saba and Smith's Clement of Alexandria are admittedly intriguing, but do not make a case for forgery. At best, they raise the suspicion that Smith could have read Hunter's novel. But suspicions and insinuations do not make a case for forgery; further evidence is required, and Watson, Carlson, Jeffery, et al, have not adequately provided this evidence. For example, it's quite conceivable that Smith had read Hunter's work, and nevertheless made an authentic discovery at Mar Saba. The plot of Hunter's novel actually has very little resemblance to the events of Smith's life, save only for the claim of the discovery of a manuscript at the monastery of Mar Saba. Neither Watson nor anyone else have plausibly shown any other parallels.

A Critique of Watson: Smith's Prior Work

III. 1. Watson thinks that Smith's scholarly work in the 1950s prefigured the content of his 1958 discovery to can extent that cannot be coincidence. But as I explain in this post, why can't we simply ascribe insightfulness to Smith on the point of esotericism? His critics are willing to ascribe all manner of talents to Smith--why is it inconceivable to them that he happened to be on the right track before he made his discovery? And why should Smith not be the discoverer of the evidence confirming his hypothesis? It might seem suspicious, but who better to take the effort to search eastern monasteries for lost manuscript evidence of gospel sources (as Smith spent the 1950's doing, not only at Mar Saba, but also in Greece)? It may not be much of an accident at all that Smith was the one to discover the manuscript. I am also quite puzzled by Watson's claim that "In the context of a discussion of rabbinic beliefs, Smith is not obliged to refer to this passage [from Clement on Jesus' esotericism]." But...so what? Smith might not have been obliged to refer to it, but it is indubitably appropriate to the discussion. Smith correctly noticed this. And, of course, he was not the only scholar in the 1950s pursuing these subjects.

A Critique of Watson: MWRANQHNAI and "Morton"

Does MWRANQHNAI say "Morton", as Watson claims it does?

Let's try to imagine the scenario:

A Critique of Watson: PARAXARASSETAI and "Smith"

II. 3. Watson next indulges in some wordplay of the sort attempted by other critics of Smith; they claim that Smith left clues in his syntax that divulge the name "Morton Smith", proving he is the forger. We will deal with Watson's inventive attempt in two parts.

Does PARAXARASSETAI say "Smith", as Watson claims it does?

A Critique of Watson: Papias

II. 2. Watson finds textual parallels between To Theodore's account of the composition of GMk and SGM, and Papias' account, recorded in Eusebius. Watson sees no reason why anyone besides a modern forger would use Papias as a basis for this account.

First of all, Watson states "The question is whether the links with Papias are conceivable for Clement, or whether they betray the work of a modern forger who has used the Papias excerpts as a template for his own work." But this is obviously a false dichotomy. As I have repeatedly pointed out, these are not the only alternatives for authorship of To Theodore. A third alternative is that it is the work of an ancient forger, who has used the Papias excerpts as a template for his own work. Nor can I find comprehensible Watson's claim that:

The author here derives from Papias both phraseology and a template for his own very different account of the limitations of Mark’s Gospel. This compositional procedure is more plausibly ascribed to a modern author than to a second-century one.

A Critique of Watson: Appropriate for its Time?

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.

A Critique of Watson: Introductory Arguments

These next few posts will be a critique of Francis Watson's article "Beyond Suspicion: on the Authorship of the Mar Saba Letter and the Secret Gospel of Mark." Watson takes the view that Morton Smith forged the Mar Saba Letter; I take the view that he did not. I'll be examining Watson's arguments one by one, in sequential order.

In my first post I'll cover Watson's introductory section I of his article. HIs substantive arguments in section II will be covered by individual posts for each sub-section 1, 2, and 3, with 3 broken up into two parts. Section III, part 1 will then get a post, and I'll conclude with a post about Section III, part 2, plus the conclusion in Section IV. I will label each section of my examination with Watson’s numeration, taken from his article.


We begin with Watson’s first substantive points, none intended to make a positive argument for forgery, but simply to introduce questions and doubts on various issues. I show that if at all valid, these questions nevertheless do not point towards a modern forger.