The Unforgivable Sin Logion, Pt. 2

In our last post, we ended by wondering if there is direct textual evidence that the author of Mk 3:28-29 relied on Did 11:7 as his source for the saying about the unforgivable sin, rather than GTh 44.  This post will present that evidence.

The Unforgivable Sin Logion, Pt. 1

This post inaugurates a short series on GTh 44.  It will prove crucial to the next phase of my HSH project.  Logion 44 seems to have parallels in both GMk and in the Q-gospel.  We'll be investigating it to see how it could have ended up in both.  Our conclusions will be somewhat surprising.

At first I included logion 44 in my list of triple-traditions sayings, i.e. the Thomasine sayings used by Secret Mark, and from thence copied into the synoptic gospels, via Q, canonical Mark, or both.  Other GTh scholars, like De Conick, also note parallels to logion 44 in all three synoptic gospels.

However, I now think that only the Q author used logion 44.  The Markan author didn't.  The Markan version is independent of the Q version.  Matthew used both the Markan and the Q version, and Luke blended the two together.

The reason why I changed my mind is because there's another, extra-canonical version of logion 44.  It's in the Didache.  Didache 11:7--

"And every prophet who speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven."

What if the Markan author took it from Didache instead? 

Two Lists: GTh sayings in the Markan and Q traditions

So here are the results of our research on the Gospel of Thomas.  We have two groups of sayings: one was incorporated together into the Markan tradition, by the author of Secret Mark (and hence became triple synoptic tradition), and the other was incorporated together into the Q gospel (which itself derived from Secret Mark, hence already included some of the triple tradition material).

Canonical Mark was then derived from Secret Mark, and was combined with the Q gospel (i.e. the Gospel of Peter) to create the Gospel of Matthew and Marcion's gospel.  (Marcion's gospel would eventually morph into the Gospel of Luke, largely based on Marcion's work.)

Here is the group of logia incorporated directly from GTh into Secret Mark--parentheses indicate questionable parallels, a tilde ("~") indicates a similarity to a stronger parallel, and the square brackets indicate an alternate versification.

4:2  (5~)6:5-6  9  (14:4?)  (14:5?)  20  (21:9[10]?)  22:1-2(~46:2)  31  33  35  (40?)  41  46b  47  48(~106)  62:1  65  66  71  99  100  104  113

And here is the (much larger) group of logia incorporated directly from GTh into Q:

2  3:1-2  4  8  10  14:4  16  21:5  24:3  26  30  32  33:1  34  36  39:1-2  43:3  45  46a  47:2  54  55  57  58  61:1  61:3  62:2  63  64  68  69  72  73  75  76:1-2?  76:3  78  79  86  89  90  91:2  92:1  93  94  95  96:1-2  101  103  107  109  113

A couple of things to notice right off the bat:

GTh: Moving Mountains

A bit more about the saying “On Faith” (i.e. moving mountains/uprooting trees)

Adding GTh: Cleaning Up, pt. 3

Just a couple more to discuss: logia 75 and 21:9.

75

Schenk thinks Mt 22:14 is a parallel to logion 75.  De Conick notes that Schuermann connects it with Lk 13:25, only to dismiss this claim.  I disagree with De Conick, however, but I would also expand the parallel to include Lk 13:24-25.  This has its own parallel in GMt, Mt 7:13-14, and is a Q saying.  Mt 22:14, meanwhile, is probably just an echo of this same saying.  I doubt logion 75 is the original version of the saying, but whatever it was, it should probably be added to the list of Thomasine parallels in the Q-gospel.

21:9

This saying merits a brief discussion.  Earlier I suggested it could just be ignored; maybe it was a chance resemblance between GMk and GTh, or else for one reason or another both Matthew and Marcion/Luke happened to leave it alone.  It could be that it was ignored by Q, and then consequently by Matthew and Luke.  That's still not unlikely, but the possibility that it's a chance resemblance between GMk and GTh, due perhaps to oral tradition, is even more likely than I previously suggested, because as De Conick shows, this saying has a parallel in Revelation 14:15-16.  In the HSH, Revelation likely predates all the canonical gospels (and I am not the first to suggest an early date), so this logion may have simply been commonly used in early Christian circles.  It therefore could easily have found its way independently into both GTh and canonical GMk.  I move it to the list of parallels in Secret Mark, but only with strong reservations.  At any rate, even if it wasn't added by Secret Mark, but rather by canonical Mark, that is no evidence whatsoever that canonical Mark used GTh; he could well have been familiar with the logion via a separate tradition.


And that basically completes our investigation.  However, we have a couple more cases to discuss in detail: the "On Faith" pericope, and the "Beelzebub/Unforgivable Sin" pericope.  That will launch us into our next subject: the Didache.  And before that, we'll be able to provide a complete list of GTh logia used by Secret Mark, and then those used by Q.

Adding GTh: Cleaning Up, pt. 2

We have three sayings to discuss: In the uniquely-Matthean tradition, there are a couple of logia I didn't notice the first time around: 40 and 75.  Then, in the uniquely-Markan tradition, I have a few more words to say about logion 21:9, which I had formerly moved to the triple-tradition list of sayings used by Secret Mark; I assumed Q, while copying Secret Mark, just happened to ignore this saying, hence Matthew and Marcion/Luke happened to ignore it, too.  I may modify that position a bit.

But first, logion 40.

Logion 40 at first seems unique to Matthew among the synoptics.  However, there is evidence that not only Luke may have known it, but Mark as well. 

One of the keywords in this logion is "root" (Coptic NOUNE): "it will be pulled up by its root".  The word "root" (Greek RIZAN) appears in the triple tradition twice, both in the Parable of the Sower, first in the parable itself, then in the explanation:

Adding GTh, Cleaning Up: pt. 1.

We're basically done investigating GTh as a source for the gospels, but there are some odds and ends to tidy up.  Let's try to get a finalized list of sayings that were added at each step: by Secret Mark on the one hand, and then later by the Q-gospel author.

One resource I've used to help firm up this list is the commentary by Craig Schenk at the Internet Sacred Text Archive:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas.htm

Schenk doesn't find every parallel and makes a few mistakes, but has been very helpful in showing that Miller et al's analysis is incomplete as well.  (I'll also be checking April De Conick's list in the appendix to The Original Gospel of Thomas In Translation just to make sure I've caught everything.)

Adding GTh, pt. 8

In closing, we'll examine the last two uniquely Lukan logia on our list: logia 3:3a and 113.  We'll be looking to see if we can explain how parallels to these two logia found their way into the Marcionic/Lukan tradition, but not into the Matthean.

Adding GTh, pt. 7

Let’s look at the GTh parallels in Luke/Marcion.  Again, they are

        3:3a    Lk 17:21b
        10    Lk 12:49
        63    Lk 12:16-21
        72    Lk 12:13-14
        79    Lk 11:27-28
        113    Lk 17:20-21

Adding GTh, pt. 6

In my last post, I said that it was unlikely that the Thomasine sayings found in Mc/GLk could have been in the Q source, because Matthew would have had no good reason to ignore them.  They were all compatible with the Matthean ethic.  And yet, they were not in fact found in GMt; so I concluded that they must therefore have been left out of the Q source, but added by Marcion/Luke directly from GTh.

I may have spoken too soon, however.

Adding GTh, pt. 5

Remember that we're looking for the simplest solution, that still explains all the evidence.  Due to the interlocking relationships among the four traditions of Thomasine sayings we've found in the synoptics (Markan, Q, Matthean, and Marcionic/Lukan), we still need to consider two simpler possibilities--under the assumption, that is, that GTh predates the synoptics:

a) One is that the Thomasine sayings unique to Mc/GLk were actually found in Q, and Matthew chose to ignore them. 

b) The other is that the Thomasine sayings unique to GMt were actually found in Q, and Marcion/Luke chose to ignore them.

Of course, there is an even simpler solution:

ab) The Thomasine sayings unique to GMt, and those unique to Mc/GLk, were all found in Q, and Matthew and Marcion/Luke each ignored the ones they disliked.  (And, some may have been ignored by both and are now lost to us.)

We don't have Q at our disposal, so we can't say with certainty what its contents were.  Scholars have assembled a "Q" document, based on material shared between GMt and GLk, but were those the only contents of Q?  We really have no way of knowing, and it is just as likely that there was more there than that the shared material is a complete description of its contents.  If there was more there, some could have found its way into GMt without finding its way into GLk, and vice versa.  So how are we do decide among the scenarios presented above?

Adding GTh, pt. 4

We now examine logia from GTh found uniquely in one synoptic gospel or another.

Adding GTh, pt. 3 continued

Of course, I have already noted that Lk 17:5-6 may not have been in Marcion at all (Knox puts it in his category C, "uncertain")--in which case, Luke (=the author of canonical GLk) was the first to combine the separate Markan and Q sayings about moving the mountain into the single saying in Lk 17.  In that case, we have to explain why Marcion would have left it out--especially if he found it twice, once in each source.

But then we have almost the same problem under the traditional understanding that Marcion edited Luke.  We not only have to explain why Luke combined the two sayings into one, but we also have to explain why Marcion would have left it out. 

And, if we instead assume that Marcion did not leave it out, and that Tertullian just didn't happen to mention it, that solves the problem for Marcionic priority just as much as it does for Lukan priority.  So I am not very concerned about whether there is an obvious answer to the question of why Marcion wouldn't have included what we now know as Lk 17:5-6.

Adding GTh, pt. 3

To recap, we found that there are two large blocks of GTh material found in more than one gospel: one block found in all three synoptics, and another found in Q material.  This implies that each block was added to a source document, which was then used by other gospels.  In the two-source hypothesis, these two sources would have been GMk and Q; in a Farrar-Goulder hypothesis, these two sources would have been GMk and GMt.  In the Hyper-Synoptic Hypothesis, these two sources would have been either Secret Mark or GMk (we'll decide later), and GPetQ.

Adding GTh, pt. 2

In pt. 1, we eliminated any direct link between GTh and GJn.  This means we need only figure out the direct relationship between GTh and the synoptics.

We're therefore looking for seven categories of uses of GTh in the synoptics:

1) triple-tradition logia
2) logia shared only by GMt and GLk/Mc (i.e. logia found in Q)
3) logia shared only by GMt and GMk (other than those found in Q)
4) logia shared only by GMk and GLk/Mc (other than those found in Q)
5) logia unique to GMt
6) logia unique to GMk
7) logia unique to GLk/Mc

Adding GTh, pt. 1

This post begins a series in which I'll present the links between GTh and the gospels, showing that not only were there three instances of these links, but that GTh predates all four canonical gospels.  We leave aside for now the argument for multiple stages of composition for GTh (fwiw I think this is possible, and it's compatible with my diagram here, but we're keeping things simple for now.  Hopefully we'll have time to come back to this later.)

Remember that in the HSH, one of our guiding rubrics is the assumption that the apocryphal works precede the canonical gospels, and not the other way around.  So, we're trying to find evidence that GTh precedes the gospels.

A Very Minor Error in Aland

In the apparatus of the 4th/5th edition of Aland's Synopsis, there seems to be a small error for Lk 23:34.  For verse 34a, "Cl" is listed as a witness to the text.  But Lk 23:34 is not found in Coasert's study of Clement.  Instead, the witness should almost certainly be "Cl^hom" since verse 34a does in fact appear in the Homilies.

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.   

The Gospel of the Hebrews

Another long delay...but another problem solved (I think/hope).

I've been spending what spare time I could over the last months or so studying the problem of the Gospel of the Hebrews.  I think I've finally figured it out.  In brief:

There were originally two different gospels called "according to the Hebrews" (or similar phrasing).  One was used by a group called the Ebionites, the other by a group called the Nazarenes/Nazaraeans. The Ebionite gospel was written in Greek, and the Nazaraean gospel was written in Aramaic, and in Aramaic script (which resembles Hebrew script). This agrees with Petri Luomanen, though I disagree with Luomanen in that I think there was only one edition of the Ebionite gospel, i.e. the Greek one.

The first--the Ebionite gospel--was written in the voice of an apostle named "Matthew", and in turn spawned the canonical gospel of Matthew, possibly with the help of the Gospel of Peter.  (One or the other of these was also termed the "Gospel of the Twelve".)

It also spawned a second Aramaic gospel, the gospel of the Nazarenes, this time possibly with the help of canonical Matthew.  (Hegesippus may also have played a role.)  This gospel was a source for canonical Luke-Acts.

Otherwise, my hyper-synoptic diagram remains the same.  This pleases me. ETA: I have removed the diagram for this post, as the old one no longer represents my hypothesis. Please see my more recent posts for the relationship of GEbi and GNaz to the synoptics.

And actually, there is one other tie-in: Hegesippus, also written in Aramaic, and which should also be included as an influence on GNaz.  I'll add it sometime later.

This really opens up a lot of fascinating possibilities in terms of synoptic development--it's even possible I might revise one or two of my connectivity arrows altogether based on this new information, but for now I keep essentially the same structure.  And the first order of business will be going through the secondary Jewish-Christian gospel references one by one, assigning each to either GEbi or GNaz, and a few to Hegesippus (though some will remain indeterminate).

I'm afraid I don't have time for that right now and probably won't get to it for several days, but consider this a preview.  Hope you are all having a fine summer.  August will bring much more time for me.

The Evidence: Petronius, Part 4

I also differ from Burkett's explanation in that I think the dying person was not originally a DOULOS. First, Burkett points out that Matthew's version speaks of the centurion's PAIS, whereas Luke speaks of both a PAIS and a DOULOS, to mean the same person. In addition, GJohn refers to an UIOS, and a PAIDION/PAIS. The official, in John's version, also meets his DOULOI on the road while returning home. So here's what I think happened: (Edited 4/9/11, 2/21/15, and 7/6/15)

The Evidence: Petronius, Part 3 (Revised)

We now turn to Delbert Burkett's discussion of the centurion's pericope, found in his recent work Rethinking the Gospel Sources, Volume 2: The Unity and Plurality of Q. We'll discover that this discussion (p. 175-183) helps show how my Hyper-Synoptic Hypothesis explains some features of this pericope.

ETA I have changed my position on this and edits are below. Basically I no longer see a need to assume that Marcion had access to any documents besides Q and canonical GMk.

The Evidence: Petronius, Part 2.

So why doesn't the name "Petronius" appear in GMatt/GLuke?

The Evidence: Petronius, Part 1.

In this post and the next few, I will present evidence that the Gospel of Peter (GPet) must precede both GMatt and GLuke. I'll accomplish this by focusing on the figure of the centurion in all three gospels.


GPet gives the centurion at the crucifixion a name: Petronius. This should start ringing bells for readers of Josephus: it's the name of the Syrian governor sent to quell unrest in Judea when Caligula tried to place his effigy in the Jerusalem temple. Publius Petronius gives a speech in Galilee in which he says, according to Flavius Josephus' War of the Jews (2.10.4):

KAI OUK EGW, KAI GAR AUTOS, WSPER UMEIS, EPITASSOMAI

An Item in Burkett's Hypothesis

Delbert Burkett, in his book Rethinking the Gospel Sources: From Proto-Mark to Mark, argues for a hybrid synoptic hypothesis, which posits two similar versions of Mark that were blended by the canonical author into one text.  Thus he tries to use the best arguments for the Griesbach hypothesis, but avoids its weaknesses by keeping the Q material out of Mark's sources; he thinks the Q material was added to these earlier versions of Mark separately by Matthew and Luke.

I admire Burkett's creativity, and his work has done a lot to spur my own thinking on the synoptic problem.  However, Burkett's case rests on one important piece of evidence (among others I won't be discussing today): a statistical improbability he claims to find in the distribution of Markan dual expressions between GMatt and GLuke.

Burkett's discussion can be found on pp. 121-129 of his book, with an important in-depth detailed discussion in his Appendix B.  In that appendix, he explains how he takes Neiryck's category 10 and revises it to create a list of "two temporal or local expressions in the same context".  He then eliminates expressions not in both GMatt and GLuke to create a good test.  He divides the remaining expressions into categories summarized on p. 123.  He then compares the category of dual Markan expressions split between GMatt and GLuke, and those where GMatt and GLuke contain the same half.  He finds out of the total of 17 expressions in both categories, 14 are split, and 3 have one shared item.  Assuming random choices by Matthew and Luke, the odds of this happening are improbable (testing well beyond the .05p significance level).

I admire Burkett's work here, but I must disagree with his findings.  I note that if we can find a distribution whose likelihood is greater than .05p, Burkett's hypothesis fails significance.  This could be done in two ways, either by removing items from the first list (of split expressions), or by adding items to the second list (of one-shared-items).  We will show that enough items can be removed from the first list to remove significance for Burkett's hypothesis.

There are five expressions whose place on Burkett's list is dubious.  We will consider each in turn.

(Please note that when romanizing Greek, I prefer to use "X" for chi, and "C" for xi, in contrast to some conventions.)

Mark 1:28 

Burkett thinks this is a single two-fold example, where Matthew writes EIS OLHN THN SURIAN on the one hand, and Luke writes EIS PANTA TOPON TES PERIXWROU on the other.  But instead, isn't this actually an example where Matthew uses one half, and Luke both halves, of Mark's duplicate expression "everywhere/throughout the whole region of Galilee"?

Matthew does use EIS OLHN where Luke uses EIS PANTA TOPON.  But when Matthew adds TEN SURIAN, surely he is refering to Mark's "region of Galilee"?  Thus, Luke refers to the same place when he uses TES PERIXWROU.  What Burkett tries to do is pair SURIAN strictly with Mark's "Galilee", since both are proper names, but this won't work--Syria and Galilee are not the same, though Syria and the "region of Galilee" are.  So Matthew effectively uses just "throughout the whole region of Galilee", and Luke effectively uses both "everywhere" and "throughout the whole region [of Galilee]".

Furthermore, PANTAXOU is only found in the Alexandrian texts.  What if Luke had a version with the Alexandrian reading, and Matthew didn't?  In which case, Matthew wouldn't have read a duplicate expression at all, and it clearly wouldn't belong on Burkett's list. 

Perhaps Burkett is also suggesting a nestled duplicate in "the whole/region".  (He seems to be on his chart.)  However, this is hard to read in the grammar, and at any rate Matthew would then be the one to refer to both, by using both EIS OLHN and TEN SURIAN--again, the latter to refer to the "region of Galilee"--and Luke only TES PERIXWROU--to refer to "the region [of Galilee]".  This would likewise eliminate it from Burkett's list.

The above considerations show that Mk 1:28 does not obviously serve as an example of opposed Matthean/Lukan readings of a Markan pleonasm (of time/space or any other type).  It should be dropped from Burkett's analysis.

Mark 2:19bc

Matthew writes EF OSON and Luke writes EN W.  But couldn't Matthew be read as using both halves of Mark's "while...as long as", trying his best to blend together the meaning of Mark's verse?  (EN W...OSON XRONON).  Thus Mk 2:19, too, can be dropped from Burkett's list, as least as easily as it can be kept on it.

Mark 3:8cd

This one is fairly simple to dispense with: "beyond the Jordan" and "around Tyre and Sidon" are not duplicate expressions.  We drop it from the list without need for further discussion.

Mark 5:12

Mark's "into the pigs/into them" (EIS TOUS XOIROUS EIS AUTOUS) is not obviously a local expression, an expression of place.  Pigs are not a location in the same way Mark's other locations are; pigs are mobile creatures, who themselves have a location.  The non-obviousness of this example also lets us drop it from Burkett's list.  This example also shows how subjective the category of "local/temporal expressions" is.

Mark 10:27

This is perhaps the easiest case: "with God/with [the] God" (PARA QEW PARA TW QEW) is not a local or temporal expression at all.  Dropping this one from the list is a no-brainer.


What does this leave us with?  Twelve expressions, nine of which are opposed readings of Markan pleonasms, three of which are shared readings of one item.  At this pont one can calclulate the binomial odds of this distribution, and find that while still interesting, they now fail significance at the conventional .05p level.  They are still worth explaining (I would simply say that Luke is interested in including Markan material that Matthew did not include, and is less interested in making sure all of GMatt is included) but they do not disprove alternative hypotheses that assume Markan priority, without assuming Markan blending of separate sources.

Adding Marcion

Hi there--haven't posted in a while.  I've been busy ruminating on the major/minor agreements.  But as a result, I have a new diagram.

I've decided Farrer must be in part correct: canonical GLuke did use canonical GMatt, one way or another.  (I'm also moving to the following nomenclature: GMatt, GMark, GLuke, GJohn, but will still use the standard abbreviations for apocrypha, i.e. GHeb, GPet, etc.)

But the problem is there's so much language that Luke did not use from GMatt.  Goulder can sometimes explain this, but not always.

I stumbled upon a solution, however: if Marcion's gospel were a source for Matthew...and if Luke revised Marcion using Matthew...then that would explain a lot of phenomena.

Importantly, it would explain the minor agreements, but would also explain why so much Matthean vocabulary is unique, or nearly so.  It would also finally resolve the question of which came first, GLuke or Marcion's gospel (which I abbreviate "Mc" though this is irregular).

It would also explain why some of the minor agreements are not to be found in Marcion--like in the passion narrative, for example.  How?  Because...Marcion didn't use GMatt.

He used Q/GHeb.

It also pleases me because it finally decides a place for Marcion's gospel, which I really wondered about.  It thus increases the scope of the HSH, giving Mc a vital place as the source for both GMatt and GLuke.  I've also now placed one of the last remaining major gospels into my solution.  (Next stop: GThom!)

Did Mc invent the Q sayings?  I don't know.  My hunch is no, he didn't (I think they had significant presence in Q/GHeb; remember, GHeb was said to be a mutilated version of GMatt) but he might have revised them heavily.

So there's a new diagram: ETA: I no longer equate GPet with Q/GHeb, and regard the latter as equivalent to GEbi.

(I've redone everything using Photoshop.  Here I use the old nomenclature for comparative purposes.)

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.

More on Farrer

For a brief time, I thought that something like the Farrer hypothesis must be correct: the Major/Minor Agreements were too knotty to solve with the Two-Source Hypothesis. But that introduced its own problems; the Lukan "muddle" that Goulder used as an explanation was too blatantly ad hoc to take seriously. Lukan omissions and innovations seemed too great to explain if he really had nothing more than GMt and GMk in front of him. And the realization that we couldn't stop with the Synoptic Problem, but also had to explain the relationship of GJn with the synoptics, further led my thinking away from over-simplistic explanations like the Farrer Hypothesis.

The Competition

The major competition with my Hyper-Synoptic Solution is, of course, the Farrer Hypothesis:

Critiquing Carlson: A Summary

To summarize my criticism of The Gospel Hoax:

Critiquing Carlson, part 7: Inventing the Data?

Carlson tries to show that Smith tied the gospel of Mark with secret sexual practices for years prior to his discovery of SGM, so the discovery by Smith of a text proving this link is highly suspicious. However, at this point Carlson finally ignores the distinction between the text of SGM and Smith's interpretation of it. Carlson writes "The climax of the nocturnal initiation of Secret Mark contains a juxtaposition of Mark 4:11 and a sexual practice forbidden in Jewish law" (Carlson, p. 71). But this is totally false. Only in Smith's reading is this true--but Smith's reading is, I think, obviously far-fetched and badly mistaken. It's Smith who eventually tries links to link Mk 4:11 with sexual practices, not SGM.

Critiquing Carlson, part 6: Anachronistic?

p.58ff.
Here Carlson makes his argument that To Theodore 1.14-15 uses the adulteration of salt as a metaphor for the Carpocratian adulteration of the text of Mark. But as Brown points out in his 2006 Factualizing the Folklore article, this is not what the author is saying (Brown 2006, p. 307). He is saying that the truth, when mixed with inventions, becomes falsified--falsified, like salt that has lost its savor. To extend the metaphor from adulterating the truth to adulterating the salt might seem natural to us, but is in fact an overextension. And, we don't need the extended metaphor to perceive what the author is saying--that the salt of truth becomes savorless when falsified. The fact that the truth is falsified via adulteration is not inherent to the metaphor. In this case, it so happens that it's textual adulteration that falsifies the truth--but this is incidental to the metaphor. I refer to the remainder of the argument that Brown presents (from pp. 306-309) for a detailed discussion of the meaning of the salt metaphor. As for Brown's discussion of Pliny that Carlson chooses to focus on in his published responses, it is a red herring. Carlson has so far ignored Brown's explication of the actual operation of the salt metaphor.

We now turn to Carlson's claim that Smith has hidden his own name in the text of Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark. First, we note that without any supporting reference to "Morton Salt", Carlson's argument that Morton Smith has symbolically concealed his name within his own text loses a great deal of force.

Critiquing Carlson, part 5: Unlikely Details?

p. 54ff.
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.

Critiquing Carlson, part 4: Too Clementine to be True?

I largely though only provisionally accept the bulk of Andrew Criddle's vocabulary work on To Theodore. Please see here

http://pubs.amstat.org/doi/pdf/10.1198/tast.2009.08163?cookieSet=1

[Solow & Smith, 2009]

for a partial vindication of Criddle's work, but also a partial critique of the methods he uses, in section 2 and section 6 of the Solow & Smith article. Perhaps I will be able to address these concerns in more detail at a later time.

In any case, even if Criddle's statistics are in any way valid, an early third-century imitator (or even simply a student of Clement's) is a perfectly reasonable explanation for all this. For that matter, Carlson tries to argue (p. 53) that because the manuscript tradition for Clement was so fragmentary, there is no way a forger could have lived prior to the printing era; but of course, this also pushes the timeframe for a forger closer to the time of Clement himself--precisely the time that the Origenist school flourished.

Critiquing Carlson, part 3: A Letter from Clement?

p. 49ff.
Andrew Criddle's vocabulary analysis is perhaps the best evidence that the Mar Saba manuscript is not genuine Clement. Some have cast doubt on the logic of Criddle's argument. I agree that no analysis of the sort that Criddle performed is an airtight case, while at the same time noting that Criddle's results are just the sort of results we might expect if the letter were indeed an imitation of Clement by another author. A case for real information about Secret Mark can still be made if the letter were an ancient forgery, rather than a modern one.

Critiquing Carlson, part 2: A New Hypothesis

In Part 1, I cast doubt on Carlson’s handwriting analysis, pointing to Roger Viklund’s subsequent analysis and criticism of Carlson’s work, using color photographs that Carlson did not use.

While I do think Viklund’s work weakens Carlson’s conclusions, I don’t go so far as to say they refute them. Based on my own inexpert examination of the photographs, both in black-and-white and in color, and following Carlson’s and Viklund’s criteria, I admit there is some room for questions about the hand that wrote the Mar Saba manuscript. Was it really the hand of someone well-versed in writing Greek? Are there really no signs of hesitation or tremor present in the script? Despite Viklund’s excellent attempt at answering these questions, I can’t quite say they’ve been resolved.

Carlson concludes from his analysis that the author was a forger, and that forger was Morton Smith. But even if we admit Carlson’s analysis, this is not a necessary conclusion. There are alternative scenarios to consider.

Critiquing Carlson, parts 2-7: Prelude

I’ve finally finished my full critique of Carlson, and will be posting it over the next couple of days. A few words first:

One Response By Carlson to his Critics

To be fair, I should note that Carlson has tried to respond to some of his critics, and I'd like to highlight one of those responses here.

Carlson attempts a partial rebuttal to Scott Brown's treatment of The Gospel Hoax in his own book, Mark's Other Gospel, in the following article:

http://ext.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/117/5/185

but it is a somewhat flimsy rebuttal, focusing on only three minor issues: 1) the abandonment by Smith of SGM as evidence for his scholarship 2) the question of Smith's talents as a scholar, and 3) the question of Smith's reading of SGM1 and SGM2 as an intercalation.

Critiquing Carlson, part 1

Carlson's arguments are presented, essentially, on pp. 23-72 of The Gospel Hoax, though pp. 73-86 present a secondary argument that may be worthwhile taking up. For now, we'll focus primarily on the case presented on pp. 23-72, beginning with Chapter 3, pp. 23-48 in this post.


On the pages just prior to that, there are some introductory arguments that we'll also address. We'll introduce each point Carlson makes by page:

Another Defense of Smith and Secret Mark

The independent scholar Robert Connor has posted a very interesting article in support of the authenticity of SGM, and has somewhat strenuously (but entirely fairly IMO) met the arguments of Smith's recent critics:

http://magicinthenewtestament.com/MaginNT/A%20Letter%20to%20Theodore.pdf

I have to say I sympathize almost entirely with Connor's article; he and I are very much of the same mind, at least when it comes to supporting an authentic SGM and speaking out against Smith's recent critics.  I strongly encourage you to read Connor's article, regardless of which side of the debate you find yourself on.  I know nothing of Connor's other scholarship, but on SGM I can at least say that we are in the same camp.

A Challenge to Carlson

I was hoping to continue developing my explanatory source-critical diagram, but I realized there was an important detail I hadn't yet dealt with.  Untangling it is taking some time, and I need a few more days to think it through.  I'm very encouraged, however, by the way things are progressing--at first I worried it was an insurmountable difficulty with my hypothesis, but it turns out that my earlier suspicions are confirmed even more so than ever before.  There are still a couple of dilemmas that need careful untangling, but just a few more days and I feel I will probably arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.  Indeed, I've made some very surprising discoveries--discoveries that are entirely congruent with the principles that have guided me so far.  So that's encouraging.

In the meantime, therefore, I'd like to finish up some work on the Secret Gospel of Mark (henceforward SGM, in line with the usage of most critics).  Here I'd like to finally take on Stephen Carlson's The Gospel Hoax.

Summarizing My Methods

 I did promise a summary :)  So here it is:

Guiding Principles, Part 4: Authorial Methodology

We now move from the why of textual causes (i.e. the authors' motivations, namely story and theology) to the how of textual causes.  The "how" (methodology) runs parallel to the "why" (motivation), and will explain most of the phenomena that the authors' motivations cannot.  I argue that almost every gospel author, whether canonical or apocryphal, was trying to combine at least two textual sources into one.  This results in two primary mechanisms for the influence of those sources on the new text:

Guiding Principles, Part 3: Story and Theology

The next set of principles deal with how the authors themselves handled the texts they had.  In other words, what caused them to write what they wrote?  What were their motivations?  What caused them to make their textual decisions?  When looking for explanations, often one is looking for causes, and since textual history is what we are studying, the causes of that history are exactly what we are looking for.

I propose that the NT authors were motivated by two primary factors: story, and theology. 

Guiding Principles, Part 2: Parsimony, and Textual Parsimony

Two principles will be guiding our theorizing about gospel sources: parsimony in general, and a specific kind of parsimony appropriate to NT studies, namely what I will call "textual parsimony".

Guiding Principles, Part 1: Evidence-Based Reasoning

Before getting underway, I thought it might be helpful to write up a statement of principles, to show how we should approach a solution to the synoptic problem.  The next few posts will state these principles, with a summary at the end.  The principles themselves are fairly simple, but a slightly detailed explanation of them could prove illuminating.  Hopefully it won't prove too boring :) and at any rate it will be over with soon enough.  I won't be going in to too much detail; just enough to explain where I'm coming from, and why I think my solution is the best.

Sneak Preview

Oh, I can't help it--here's a preview of my new hypothesis:

Boring, right?  It's just the 2SH!  Well...note that I think that Q was a full-fledged gospel--with a beginning, middle, and an end (the PN).

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.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Gospel of the Egyptians

I was going to write a post (or series) about the relationship (and perhaps identity) of Secret Mark with the Gospel of the Egyptians.  In fact, I'd been planning it for a while--I thought I was just getting some of the preliminaries out of the way.

However, I've been having much grander thoughts about SecMk and...my next series of posts will be on that subject.  In fact, it will occupy this blog for the forseeable future--without sounding too grand, I think it should prove to be quite intriguing.  For one thing, I no longer think SecMk is the same thing as GEgy at all, though if I have time I'd like to discuss the theology of GEgy in more detail, and point out some relationships with the canonical gospels.  They themselves are very interesting--I think GEgy is related to the canonical gospels one way or another, probably via SecMk, though not necessarily.

But the bulk of my work here will now be taken up by a much, much larger project--what I think may be a new solution to the synoptic problem.  I'm looking forward to it, so I hope you will have as much fun reading as I will writing!  It will be slow-going; I'm very busy these days, and when it comes to this new hypothesis I have to proceed very, very carefully.  The gospels are incredibly complicated texts in terms of composition and stemmatics, and solutions are not easy to come by.  But I think I've found a stable structure that has withstood several important tests, and is finally ready for its unveiling.  Challenges will be welcome; my hypothesis will need as much testing as possible.

To Theodore: A Forgery After All?

Andrew Criddle, in comments to a previous post, notes that one great difficulty with To Theodore is the admonition of Clement to Theodore to lie under oath about the authorship of the Secret Gospel.

Indeed, this is the most difficult wording of To Theodore to explain.  For, in Strom. 7.51, of course, Clement rather explicitly explains how the Christian "gnostic" is to behave with respect to oaths, and he makes it clear that no deception is permissible.  "He will neither lie nor commit perjury so as to wrong the Deity....The Gnostic swears truly..."  Indeed, the Gnostic is not to swear at all, or to lie, even on pain of death: "And so he swears not even when asked for his oath; nor does he ever deny, so as to speak falsehood, though he should die by tortures."

It is, however, somewhat incongruous to read 7.52 immediately after, and it seems like Clement is trying to admit that there may be exceptions, or even to have it both ways.  7.51 says "Nor yet will he lie or commit any transgression, for the sake of the neighbour whom he has learned to love, though he be not on terms of intimacy."  Yet Clement immediately follows this up with "But for the benefit of his neighbours alone, he will do things which would not have been done by him primarily, if he did not do them on their account," in 7.52.

We shouldn't eliminate the possibility that Clement sometimes talked out of both sides of his mouth, or tried to whitewash his teachings.

Nevertheless, lying under oath also seems like a pretty severe violation of Clement's teachings, so I admit it is unusual, and can't be easily explained away, given the texts that we have.

To Theodore: Perfectly at Home in 2nd c. Alexandria

Jeffery is right to take Brown to task about claiming that the "greater mysteries" could not have referred to liturgy or sacraments.  But this strengthens the argument for Secret Mark; it was used to teach about Christian liturgy and sacraments, in particular the summit of the liturgy and the greatest of the sacraments: the Eucharist.  Jeffery even says this explicitly on p. 2 of his response to Brown:

That is why, in ancient times, becoming a Christian meant going through a whole series of initiation rites, which included not only exorcisms and prayers, confessions and professions, anointing, immersion, and first eucharist, but also the reading and preaching of selected pericopes from the Bible in which human beings come to a true knowledge of who Christ is--just the sort of reading that the first Secret Gospel excerpt appears to be.  Thus even if it were correct that the Mar Saba letter says nothing about water immersion, anointing, or eucharist, it would not be correct to conlcude that it says nothing about liturgy.

I agree entirely: the mysteries mentioned in To Theodore are related to the mysteries of the Christian liturgy.

Clement and the Noble Lie

Did Clement of Alexandria advocate a policy of deceit when it was necessary to further the cause of faith? I'll be arguing that he did.

Secret Mark and the Baptism of the Dead

This post is more of a speculative argument.

Peter Jeffery has argued that Secret Mark can't be authentic, because it appears to be about baptism (symbolized by the raising of the dead man).  But it doesn't seem to reflect any actual baptismal practices in place during Clement of Alexandria's time, therefore it can't be authentic.  Thus, any claims about the use of Secret Mark in early Christian baptismal ritual (in Alexandria or elsewhere) can't be true.

I've tried to argue against this in many ways, but here I'm just going to address one specific facet of Jeffery's claim, namely: the relationship of the resurrection of the man in Secret Mark to baptism in general.

Evidence from Epiphanius

Epiphanius, in his Panarion, lists numerous "falsificatons" that Marcion supposedly made to the gospel of Luke.  It's hard to tell when he's talking about a different version of a pericope, or the absence of it altogether.  We can sometimes get this information from Tertullian and other authors, but sometimes it can't be completely determined.

At any rate, two of these textually divergent passages are mentioned right after one another in Panarion: the blind man of Jericho, and the third prediction of the passion (Panarion 42.11.6.51-52).  Epiphanius doesn't tell us how Marcion's story of the blind man differed from Luke's, and Tertullian doesn't help us much.  The third prediction seems to have been missing from Marcion's gospel entirely--Epiphanius states it was "falsified in its entirety" and Tertullian doesn't discuss it at all.  Furthermore, in Scholion 52 of that same book (Panarion 42) Epiphanius explains in more detail that Marcion "concealed the lines".  This could mean they were missing altogether, though it could also mean that something else was in their place.

Is There a Problem With Secret Mark 2? (part 2)

Continuing my last post--

2) Jesus does reject the women at Jericho, for unclear reasons.  It does seem to be a specific repudiation of his female disciples, which is troubling in general, but also rather non-canonical. IMO this is much more out of place in Secret Mark than the purportedly homoerotic love that Jesus and the resurrected man share for one another.

However, keep in mind 1 Cor 7:1: “Now concerning the things about which you wrote to me: it is good for a man not to touch a woman”.  Jesus, if portrayed as a good Pauline Christian, would have to keep himself away from women.  (This is admittedly an overly-literal interpretation of Paul’s admonition, but it does illustrate the point.  Perhaps the writer of Secret Mark was working against traditions like those found in the Gospel of Philip, where Mary Magdalene is made into Jesus’ consort.)  If this seems like a stretch, keep in mind the many contacts of canonical Mark with 1 Cor, as listed by Michael Turton in his online commentary.  Note also Jesus’ own admonition in Jn 20:17 to Mary Magdalene: “Do not touch me”. (Yet another link between GJn and Secret Mark—one which I’ve pointed out before.)

Furthermore,

Is There a Problem With Secret Mark 2? (part 1)

[ETA: some small edits have been made below]

While most of the attention that To Theodore earns centers around the first quotation from Secret Mark, much less attention is given to the second quotation.

Yet it's the second quotation that is really the source of all the trouble.

Secret Mark 1, without Secret Mark 2, is a largely unproblematic passage.  It's only Morton Smith's somewhat bizarre interpretation of it that has made it notorious.  There is simply no conceivable way, for example, that the "mystery of the kingdom" in Clement's time could have anything to do with an erotic ritual.  Maybe for the Carpocratians, but the author of To Theodore is writing against the Carpocratians.  There is simply nothing in Secret Mark 1 that would imply any such ritual, in the context of the 2nd c. CE.

It's Secret Mark 2 where things get a little more complicated: now we have a Jesus who loves back the man (NEANISKOS, an adult male in his twenties) who loves him.  Jesus also rejects the women at Jericho--as though they were unworthy to be in his presence.  It's really Secret Mark 2 that is in any way scandalous!

So, the "scandal" is two-parted: 1) the man's love for Jesus is reciprocated, and 2) Jesus wants nothing to do with the women disciples of Jericho.  But let's look at each part a little more carefully.

Egyptian Lectionaries, Pt. 2: Spirit Baptism and the Raising of Lazarus

[1/23: edited again]


First, an aside: regarding the relationship between Secret Mark and Lenten baptismal traditions in Egypt, Jeffery first notes that Secret Mark doesn't mention any water. I've argued elsewhere that we don't really know that--I think Clement isn't necessarily quoting Secret Mark in full here, but rather may only be discussing what Theodore presented to him. I don't think Clement has Secret Mark in front of him. However, I'm willing to pass over this for now.


Anyway, we are continuing our discussion of Thomas Talley's proposal that readings from the canonical gospels in early Egyptian lectionaries were used to replace readings from Secret Mark in earlier (now lost) versions of those lectionaries. Peter Jeffery has, however, noted (Jeffery, p. 78) that certain Egyptian lectionaries use Jn 3 for baptismally-related days in Lent. Peter Jeffery thinks that if Talley is right, then Jn 3 must have replaced the use of a Markan reading (whether from GMk or Secret Mark) on those days. However, because Jn 3 is not thematically related to anything in GMk or Secret Mark, the use of Jn 3 in the Byzantine-era lectionaries we have indicates it was not in fact used to replace a Markan reading in any earlier (lost) versions of those lectionaries, defeating Talley's argument (or Jeffery's extended version of that argument, at any rate.)

However, I disagree. Arguments similar to those in my last post can be made to explain the use of Jn 3 (the dialogue with Nicodemus) on the sixth Friday/Saturday/Sunday in early Egyptian lectionaries (The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled, p. 83-5), in place of a Markan reading--like, for example, Secret Mark 1.

Egyptian Lectionaries, Pt. 1: Establishing Plausibility

[rewritten substantially to discuss the healing of the boy with the unclean spirit in more detail]


We will now discuss the possibility, suggested in general by Thomas Talley in The Origins of the Liturgical Year, that readings from the canonical gospels were substituted for readings from Secret Mark that were originally in Egyptian lectionaries. If Talley is right, this is evidence for Secret Mark, since the early lectionaries at Constantinople interrupt a Markan cycle of readings with Jn 11, the raising of Lazarus.  Talley suggests this reading was originally Secret Mark 1, and was replaced by the orthodox Johannine version at some point. Jefferey argues against this (The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled, p. 72ff) 


1/23 ETA:

The Symbolism of Secret Mark

Now I want to mention something Jeffery gets right: the language of "mystery" in To Theodore. This is discussed in, again, Jeffery's rejected comment on Scott Brown's review of Jeffery's book. Jeffery is correct about the two-stage process of Christian initiation that To Theodore reflects. (I've spoken about how To Theodore reflects this in earlier posts and comments). Furthermore, I don't doubt his claims about the three-fold typology of "mystery" in Christian theology of the time.

But Jeffery wants to dismiss the authenticity of To Theodore for just these reasons. He finds one of the typologies (the "apocalyptic-incarnational vocabulary) absent from the letter, and considers the baptism represented in To Theodore "the wrong kind of baptism", reflecting a resurrection theme rather than the baptism of Jesus more closely associated with Epiphany traditions.

But I think Jeffery is wrong. First, he does admit that two out of three "mystery" typologies are present in the letter (the "Tabernacle" typology and the "mystery-cult" typology). I agree with this. But I also think that the "apocalyptic-incarnational" typology is strongly implied. The "great mysteries" for the early church were surely related to the eucharist. I have (again, in an earlier post) linked Secret Mark to the Johannine foot-washing/passover tradition, which is a narrative parallel with the Last Supper story--and I also showed, in that same post, an additional link between the Last Supper narrative in John and Mark. Furthermore, we should keep in mind that the eucharist was liturgically "protected" from non-initiates in the early church, and the newly-baptized and anointed were (and are, in the Orthodox church) often given the eucharist shortly after their baptism/anointing. We shouldn't be surprised if the passage in Secret Mark was taken to refer to an explanation, to those initiated by baptism at one point or another, of eucharistic symbolism (and that Clement was about to launch into an explanation of this in the truncated section of To Theodore). The eucharist is directly linked to incarnational theology, and so we have a likely reference to the incarnational typology that Jeffery thinks is absent from this Secret Mark pericope. Furthermore, if this eucharistically-incarnational typology were present, that would strengthen the presence of the Tabernacle typology (which Jeffery feels is only weakly present).

Secondly, I am not sure that any baptismal symbolism in To Theodore is "the wrong kind of baptism". I've written before that I'm uncertain To Theodore represents any baptismal tradition at all. However, if it does, I think there are a couple of different ways it might relate to baptisms. The first is simply via the liturgical traditions Jeffery discusses in chapter 4 of his book. We'll have a look at that next.

Anti-Carpocratian symbolism in the Arrest of Jesus

Ancient authors, contemporary with Clement, stated that the Carpocratians marked their members with a scar or tattoo on the ear.

Irenaeus:

Others of them employ outward marks, branding their disciples inside the lobe of the right ear. (Against Heresies, 1.25.6)

Hippolytus:

Certain, likewise, of these (heretics) brand their own disciples in the back parts of the lobe of the right ear. (Refutation of All Heresies, 7.32.8(7.20))

Irenaeus' claim is also repeated in Epiphanius, two centuries later, but Epiphanius appears to be copying Irenaeus almost verbatim. (The same could be said, btw, of Epiphanius' information about Carpocratian homosexuality.)

Now note the incident during the arrest of Jesus, where the high priest's servant's ear is cut off (Mt. 26:51, Mk 14:47, Lk 22:50, Jn 18:10).

This seems plausibly related to Marcionite practices of ear-branding. I find the incident to be a narrative problem in the passion narrative; exegetes usually interpret it as an example of pacifism by Jesus, and indeed that does seem to be the lesson of the text. But is that really all the text represents? We have the detail of the severed ear to explain as well, but no really good text-critical explanation has been provided for it. Jesus doesn't seem to be protesting violence in general, but rather a specific kind of violence.

So, if it was originally intended to represent attacks on Carpocratians, with their ear-branding practices, that would make a lot of sense. In the original version (wherever it was written), a disciple of Jesus cuts off the ear of the high priest's servant--symbolically representing the proto-orthodox's hatred of the Carpocratians. Hence, the high priest and his men represent the gnostic opponents of the proto-orthodox church. This would be an interesting insight into the symbolic uses of the Passion Narrative in the early church.

And notice a detail: both Luke and John add that it was the servant's right ear that was cut off. It just so happens that the Carpocratians branded the right ear! This can hardly be coincidence. So, the best evidence for anti-Carpocratian symbolism is in Luke and John.

But, I admit, not Matthew and Mark. If the Luke-John version of the capture of Jesus goes out of its way to drive home the anti-Carpocratian message...what about the Matthew-Mark version? Doesn't this seem to cast a bit of doubt on their anti-Carpocratian symbolism? Why would Luke and John need to add this extra detail, if the symbolism were already there?

On the other hand, maybe canonical Mark simply dropped the detail, thinking it was superfluous, and Matthew copied Mark's version.

I'm not here to sort out this particular synoptic issue, but I do make the claim that the version in Luke and John, at least (and, possibly, all four gospels), is anti-Carpocratian symbolism. I'd be intrigued to learn if anyone else has noticed.

While I'm at it, this is a passage that Epiphanius singles out in Panarion as "falsified". It remains unclear what Epiphanius means when he calls a Marcionite passage "falsified"--absent? replaced?--but it's intriguing that the Marcionite version is different in some significant way from the Lukan one.

A parallel passage with To Theodore in Stromata?

Just wanted to mention this interesting passage from Stromata. This is the very end of 6.16 7.16 and the very beginning of 6.17 7.17:

For we must never, as do those who follow the heresies, adulterate the truth, or steal the canon of the Church, by gratifying our own lusts and vanity, by defrauding our neighbours; whom above all it is our duty, in the exercise of love to them, to teach to adhere to the truth. It is accordingly expressly said, "Declare among the heathen His statutes," that they may not be judged, but that those who have previously given ear may be converted. But those who speak treacherously with their tongues have the penalties that are on record.

Those, then, that adhere to impious words, and dictate them to others, inasmuch as they do not make a right but a perverse use of the divine words, neither themselves enter into the kingdom of heaven, nor permit those whom they have deluded to attain the truth. But not having the key of entrance, but a false (and as the common phrase expresses it), a counterfeit key (ἀντικλεῖς), by which they do not enter in as we enter in, through the tradition of the Lord, by drawing aside the curtain; but bursting through the side-door, and digging clandestinely through the wall of the Church, and stepping over the truth, they constitute themselves the Mystagogues of the soul of the impious.

So those who follow the heresies:

1) adulterate the truth,
2) steal the canon of the Church, by
3) gratifying their own lusts, and
4) do not draw aside the curtain to attain the truth, but
5) dig secretly into the church to become
6) false mystagogues.

Very much like the Carpocratians in To Theodore, who

1) mix the truth with inventions, by
2) stealing the secret gospel, and
3) engage in carnal sins, unlike
4) the Christians who witness the truth hidden by veils. The Carpocratians
5) stole the most carefully guarded gospel, which for the Christians serves as
6) a mystagogue.

The Mar Saba Letter: Correcting the Record

[ETA:

This post has been heavily edited; much of it was simply irrelevant to the Secret Mark debate. I am greatly relieved by this. Of the rest, I have tightened the focus on the fact that the letter's author did not need a modern source for its account of the Carpocratians. I will leave it at that for now.]


In Peter Jeffery's response to Scott Brown (the "official" version, rejected by RBL but self-published on Jeffery's website), Jeffery protests that Clement's known writings show no awareness of homosexuality among the Carpocratians:

[T]he vice Clement ascribed to the Carpocratians was heterosexual wife-swapping, the sharing of wives like common property as in Plato's Republic (Strom. 3.5-10, 3.25.5, 3.54.1). Whoever was trying to set up a confrontation between Clement and homosexuality, in other words, picked the wrong heretical group. Where did the Mar Saba "Clement" get the idea that the Carpocratians were particularly interested in naked men?

Jeffery suggests that Smith got the idea from Gershom Scholem's studies of the Sabbateans:

The answer: from Smith's teacher Gershom Scholem, who compared the Carpocratians to certain antinomian sects descended from the seventeenth century Jewish heresy of Sabbatai Zevi. Scholem's opinion that these sects believed in "Redemption through Sin" appears to explain Smith's statement that "Carpocrates was said to have taught that sin was a means of salvation."

But, first of all, we have evidence from Irenaeus, closely pre-dating Clement, that Carpocratians did have a "redemption through sin" theology (Against Heresies, 1.25.4: "They deem it necessary, therefore, that by means of transmigration from body to body, souls should have experience of every kind of life as well as every kind of action"). Furthermore, we have evidence in Stromata that the Carpocratians and the group Clement calls “the Opponents” held a similar theology (Strom. 3.34.3-4: "Since it is the [demiurge] who said 'You shall not commit adultery,' we should, they say, commit adultery so as to annul his order). All this is similar to Irenaeus’ description of the Carpocratian teachings concering the “adversary”:

They also declare the "adversary" is one of those angels who are in the world, whom they call the Devil, maintaining that he was formed for this purpose, that he might lead those souls which have perished from the world to the Supreme Ruler....Again, they interpret these expressions, "You shall not go out thence until you pay the very last farthing," as meaning that no one can escape from the power of those angels who made the world, but that he must pass from body to body, until he has experience of every kind of action which can be practised in this world, and when nothing is longer wanting to him, then his liberated soul should soar upwards to that God who is above the angels, the makers of the world. (Against Heresies, 1.25.4)

Notice also that in defining each group, both Clement’s Opponents and Irenaeus’ Carpocratians refer to Mt 5:25-26, quoted in Against Heresies, 1.25.4 above (and again later in the same passage), as well as in Strom. 3.36.1, in reference to the Opponents. Irenaeus also writes that the Carpocratians “declare they have in their power all things which are irreligious and impious, and are at liberty to practise them”, and if they also “lead a licentious life” (Against Heresies 1.25.3).

Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to think that To Theodore attributes homosexuality to the Carpocratians. True, the letter opens with a denunciation of the Carpocratians as those who wander “into a boundless abyss of the carnal and bodily sins” and goes on to describe a man who is said to love Jesus upon seeing him, and who begs to “be with” Jesus. But there is certainly nothing the text of Secret Mark that attributes homosexual behavior to either Jesus or the man.

We also know that the Carpocratian text went on to add something about “naked man with naked man”, but that's all. Nowhere in any of this do we have persuasive evidence of Carpocratian homosexuality. Indeed, the reference to male nudity might be entirely non-sexual, as we know that early Christian baptismal rituals, for example, involved nudity. The only thing the letter accuses the Carpocratians of is “carnal and bodily sins”--and in this it is quite consistent both with what Clement says of them in Stromata and with what Irenaeus says of them in Against Heresies. The letter's account of the Carpocratians provides no evidence for forgery.

The Hunter hypothesis

Sorry it's been so long; my busy life has intervened. Let's get back to our discussion of the James H. Hunter novel The Mystery of Mar Saba and whether or not it tells us anything about the likelihood of a forgery by Morton Smith.

Let's try to think about what one might term the "Hunter hypothesis", or the idea that because James H. Hunter wrote about a fictional discovery of a piece of bogus early Christian literature at Mar Saba, any subsequent discovery of early Christian literature at Mar Saba must also be bogus.

But does this apply to, say, any discovery of early Christian literatre at an eastern monastery? Probably not, since much of Hippolytus' Philosophumena was discovered at Mt. Athos in 1842! Think also of Tischendorf's discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus. Indeed, one should not be surprised if discoveries such as these were an inspiration for Hunter (along with the real forgeries of apocrypha in the decades preceding Hunter's novel).

So, it can't be impossible in principle for lost early Christian writings to be discovered in eastern monasteries, in any given year. The only suspicion introduced by Hunter's gospel is the involvement of Mar Saba specifically, as the location of some bogus early Christian literature. But why should we be surprised if some early Christian literature were discovered at Mar Saba? Does the writing of Hunter's novel somehow preclude this possibility? The idea is absurd.

We should only be surprised if any discovery at Mar Saba, after the publication of Hunter's novel, closely resembled the manuscript described in that novel. But the letter to Theodore in no way resembles this (fictional) manuscript--not even remotely.

So we see that the only connection between Hunter's novel and Smith's discovery is the fact that the Mar Saba monastery is the location for both.

The other connection that Smith's critics make is the connection between the forgery of the fragment in Hunter's gospel, and the purported forgery of To Theodore. But the forgery of To Theodore cannot be proved in this manner, because that would be taking the conclusion as a premise. The forgery in Hunter's novel does not resemble the discovery of To Theodore, unless the forgery of To Theodore can be independently demonstrated!

So Hunter's novel is of no help at all in proving that To Theodore is a forgery. Only after a probable case has been made for the forgery of To Theodore, can Hunter's novel be proposed as any supporting evidence at all.

Indeed, Hunter's novel relies on the plausibility that a fragment of early Christian literature could in principle be discovered at Mar Saba! Hunter's plot requires the reader to believe that the forgery of the Shard of Nicodemus is a plausible scenario. (Hunter himself also obviously found it plausible, otherwise he wouldn't have written a novel in which the world uncritically accepts the "Shard of Nicodemus" as authentic. Furthermore, his publisher obviously thought it would be plausible to the general readership. Hunter's novel is not presented as a work of fantasy; instead, it is presented as a thriller, set in the real world, however contrived its characters and plot.)

So, Hunter's novel can in some ways be seen as a small piece of evidence supporting the authenticity of To Theodore.

And at this point, I think we can leave the Hunter hypothesis aside, and instead consider only the real arguments for and against the authenticity of To Theodore.