a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

[Stuart]

Secret Mark is a fraud. It doesn't fit the theology of the young man at the tomb (clothed/unclothed of Paul and Revelation) of the material which the language of Mark 14:51-52 closely parallels. Being unclothed and found naked, means being without the new clothing of Christ. It is a metaphor for falling away, for handing Christ over. It is closest to the angel/spirit of Judas being unclothed, no longer with Christ. This disciple flees Christ, shedding the immortal clothing to save his mortal life, "For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it" - Mark 8:35 (see also Luke 9:34, Matthew 10:39). Smith instead, turns it into a homoerotic passage in his fraudulent insertion.

There are no other examples of (sectarian) mystery cult material quoted in full placed inside an existing canonical gospel. All such material are contained in apocrypha. This makes it a highly unusual outlier. This alone should raise our suspicion of the material. But there is more unusual and bizarre in the supposed letter from Clement. If we examine the Stromata, the most extensive works of his to survive, we find no extended verbatim passage of apocrypha with some generic condemnation. Instead we find Clement's style was to give a short snippet or paraphrase and then rip apart the offending sect for various misunderstandings of doctrine or of the passage itself (a couple of examples on the Carpocrates, 3.6.54, 3.2.9 ... really all of 3.2). The letter is itself looking very "un-Clement" style. You can get down to more specifics on the letter and find additional inconsistencies that make it highly unlikely to be legitimate.

For us the issue is related to the homoerotic elements of Secret Mark, which also hint at the Disciple Jesus loved (agape type) in John. There is a problem here. Mark is generally held to have been written without knowledge of John, and most think prior to John (I am ambivalent on the dating with respect to John, but agree there was no contact between the gospels, or if there was it was John knowing Mark as well as Matthew, not the other way around). This makes it highly unlikely the loved disciple could have been known to Mark without the invention of additional pre-gospel documents circulating in Christianity. To independently develop this element is unlikely.

But it is even more unlikely that Mark would incorporate a special section to a disciple who abandoned Christ to save his own life in violation of Mark 8:35 command. Further he downgrades the disciple to an initiate. Whoever wrote the secret Mark completely misread the passage and did not understand the metaphorical symbolism of Mark 14:51-52 in respect to Mark 16:5-7 (most closely resembles the angel Gabriel from Luke 1 and Daniel, who is the explainer and bringer of the gospel message, Luke 1:19). Further there is a turning of the Carpocrate theology from that of "wife sharing" to that of homosexual hints of Jesus.

There are far too many inconsistencies in the material to believe they could possibly have been written by Mark or even somebody familiar with the immediate context of the material (i.e., within the 2nd century AD). The emphasis on mystery cult ritual strikes me as more a 20th century fad among NT scholars than anything from antiquity. The content points very much toward a 20th century hoax. Anyone basing their New Testament work on this is unfortunately in the same situation as those in paleoanthropological working on theories based on the Piltdown Man.

[Roger Viklund]

And since I don’t think Morton Smith was capable of making a fraud like this one, and since apart from Smith, I don’t see how anyone from Medieval time and onwards could have made such a forgery, I regard the letter as probably genuine.

Since we're in this thread, and since the alternative that the letter is ancient but not Clement's has been glossed over, I would be curious to know what you believe of the possibility/probability of the idea that the letter is not by Clement of Alexandria but was written by someone else in his name in antiquity, like many other texts of antiquity that are attributed to apostles and church fathers.

Didn't Smith himself do that? He may have glossed over it too.
DCH

I m not aware of any identification made by Smith:

Returning to the question of the letter's authenticity, we first remark its title: "From the letters of the most holy Clement, the author of the Stromateis, to Theodore." If the letter is not genuine, this title must be the result either of deliberate falsification or of a mistaken guess—some copyist found an unidentified letter "to Theodore" and attributed it to Clement on the grounds of content and style. But it has already been shown that the mistaken-guess theory is unlikely because the style of the letter is so close to Clement's that the work must either be his or a deliberate imitation, and if it were an imitation the imitator would have provided the title. Moreover, the words "from the letters" suggest (but do not absolutely require) that the letter at some time came from a collection of letters by Clement, and a collection is less likely to have been misattributed than a short, isolated text. On the other hand, "to Theodore" argues against falsification, for no Theodore is known to have been associated with Clement; nor was there any eminent Theodore who lived about his time and with whom he might plausibly be supposed to have corresponded. The name, especially because of its acceptability to Christians of Jewish background, fits very well with the content and finding-place of the letter; but a forger would probably have attempted something more spectacular—would have made Clement instruct his reported pupil Origen or his undoubted friend Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem. Of Theodore one can say, as Lebon said of Dositheus (Fragments 17 n58), "This name is neither rare nor illustrious at this period; there is nothing about it which would have tempted a forger." (M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark, pp. 77)

[andrewcriddle]

Since we are discussing the Mar Saba letter being addressed to Theodore, I have a suggestion.

The letter is addressed to Theodore in deliberate imitation of the only other (purportedly) ancient letter to refer to Carpocrates
(PSEUDO-ANTHIMUS), 'ON THE HOLY CHURCH
This letter mentions Carpocrates in a list of heretics. It is addressed to Theodore and attributed to Anthimus a Christian martyr but is certainly pseudonymous.

We have two (purportedly) ancient letters which mention Carpocrates. Both are addressed to Theodore. One is certainly pseudonymous, the other is the Mar Saba letter.

Andrew Criddle

[rakovsky]

We have two (purportedly) ancient letters which mention Carpocrates. Both are addressed to Theodore. One is certainly pseudonymous, the other is the Mar Saba letter.

Good catch. Maybe the modern forger chose the forged letter to Theodore as a basis for his own forged letter to Theodore because it was forged. He seems to have chosen alot of his sources for his own forgery based on their relationships to forgery and fraud. (eg. Anglo-Saxon Attitudes, Mystery of Mar Saba, Voss' book printed to address spurious copies of Ignatius, Oscar Wilde's fictitious references to Salome and the Seven Veils.

[rakovsky]

Secret Mark is a fraud. It doesn't fit the theology of the young man at the tomb (clothed/unclothed of Paul and Revelation) of the material which the language of Mark 14:51-52 closely parallels. Being unclothed and found naked, means being without the new clothing of Christ. It is a metaphor for falling away, for handing Christ over. It is closest to the angel/spirit of Judas being unclothed, no longer with Christ. This disciple flees Christ, shedding the immortal clothing to save his mortal life, "For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it" - Mark 8:35 (see also Luke 9:34, Matthew 10:39). Smith instead, turns it into a homoerotic passage in his fraudulent insertion.

There are no other examples of (sectarian) mystery cult material quoted in full placed inside an existing canonical gospel. All such material are contained in apocrypha. This makes it a highly unusual outlier. This alone should raise our suspicion of the material. But there is more unusual and bizarre in the supposed letter from Clement. If we examine the Stromata, the most extensive works of his to survive, we find no extended verbatim passage of apocrypha with some generic condemnation. Instead we find Clement's style was to give a short snippet or paraphrase and then rip apart the offending sce tfor various misunderstandings of doctrine or of the passage itself (a couple of examples on the Carpocrates, 3.6.54, 3.2.9 ... really all of 3.2). The letter is itself looking very "un-Clement" style. You can get down to more specifics on the letter and find additional inconsistencies that make it highly unlikely to be legitimate.

For us the issue is related to the homoerotic elements of Secret Mark, which also hint at the Disciple Jesus loved (agape type) in John. There is a problem here. Mark is generally held to have been written without knowledge of John, and most think prior to John (I am ambivalent on the dating with respect to John, but agree there was no contact between the gospels, or if there was it was John knowing Mark as well as Matthew, not the other way around). This makes it highly unlikely the loved disciple could have been known to Mark without the invention of additional pre-gospel documents circulating in Christianity. To independently develop this element is unlikely.

But it is even more unlikely that Mark would incorporate a special section to a disciple who abandoned Christ to save his own life in violation of Mark 8:35 command. Further he downgrades the disciple to an initiate. Whoever wrote the secret Mark completely misread the passage and did not understand the metaphorical symbolism of Mark 14:51-52 in respect to Mark 16:5-7 (most closely resembles the angel Gabriel from Luke 1 and Daniel, who is the explainer and bringer of the gospel message, Luke 1:19). Further there is a turning of the Carpocrate theology from that of "wife sharing" to that of homosexual hints of Jesus.

There are far too many inconsistencies in the material to believe they could possibly have been written by Mark or even somebody familiar with the immediate context of the material (i.e., within the 2nd century AD). The emphasis on mystery cult ritual strikes me as more a 20th century fad among NT scholars than anything from antiquity. The content points very much toward a 20th century hoax. Anyone basing their New Testament work on this is unfortunately in the same situation as those in paleoanthropological working on theories based on the Piltdown Man.

Good observations, especially in your second paragraph. I hadn't come across that line of argument before.

[Peter Kirby]

We have two (purportedly) ancient letters which mention Carpocrates. Both are addressed to Theodore. One is certainly pseudonymous, the other is the Mar Saba letter.

Good catch. Maybe the modern forger chose the forged letter to Theodore as a basis for his own forged letter to Theodore because it was forged. He seems to have chosen alot of his sources for his own forgery based on their relationships to forgery and fraud. (eg. Anglo-Saxon Attitudes, Mystery of Mar Saba, Voss' book printed to address spurious copies of Ignatius, Oscar Wilde's fictitious references to Salome and the Seven Veils.

Or maybe Morton Smith is God. Maybe. After all, the name resembles one "more" "than" with the ability to "smite," a divine power!

[Peter Kirby]

The emphasis on mystery cult ritual strikes me as more a 20th century fad among NT scholars than anything from antiquity.

Can this comment be elaborated into a sound argument for 20th century authorship? (Or is it not intended as one?)

[rakovsky]

The emphasis on mystery cult ritual strikes me as more a 20th century fad among NT scholars than anything from antiquity.

Can this comment be elaborated into a sound argument for 20th century authorship? (Or is it not intended as one?)

I think that mystery cult rituals were a part of gnostics, including ancient Christian gnostics. So Stuart is wrong in that there were gnostic versions of apostolic Christian writings, like "gnostic" apocalypses and acts ascribed to Apostles.

But Stuart made a good point in that other than Marcion, we typically don't have gnostic versions of canonical gospels like the Carpocratians' alleged "Secret Mark". Likewise, the portrayal of Clement as someone who himself engages in mystery cult rituals unknown in Church history is much different than what we know of him, as he typically was opposed to the gnostics' secretive knowledge rituals. And one of the arguments of those like Robert Price and Peter Jeffrey who find the Mar Saba Letter to be a forgery is that forgeries are often time-stamped by the concerns of their era, so that years later in a different cultural atmosphere, the letters look like forgeries matching those concerns. For example, the forged Donatio of Constantine that gave special heightened powers to the Pope was marked by the later time in which it was written. Homosexuality among clergy is much more publicly discussed and tolerated in today's USA and UK than it was in Morton Smith's mid-20th century England, where as Jeffrey explained, it was its own unofficial subculture among the English elite. All the American states had anti-sodomy laws until 1962. Morton Smith's dedication "For the One Who Knows" makes much more sense for the subculture's members in the light of the hidden-ness in which they operated in that time period.

[Peter Kirby]

The emphasis on mystery cult ritual strikes me as more a 20th century fad among NT scholars than anything from antiquity.

Can this comment be elaborated into a sound argument for 20th century authorship? (Or is it not intended as one?)

I think that mystery cult rituals were a part of gnostics, including ancient Christian gnostics.

It's almost as though Stuart made a specious argument.

But Stuart made a good point in that other than Marcion, we typically don't have gnostic versions of canonical gospels like the Carpocratians' alleged "Secret Mark".

You can't make a valid generalization when you start by eliminating any attested examples (and not even "eliminating" - ignoring - as there is nothing wrong with the example).

This is a very narrowly defined, somewhat arbitrary category (to speak of "gnostic" versions of "canonical" gospels - when we know there are many "versions" of many ancient texts).

Also, it wouldn't necessarily be a good argument, even if there were no other attested examples (of "gnostic versions of canonical gospels," as you describe it), as the Gospel of Thomas (for example) doesn't have a lot of attested examples in its own category (of sayings gospel), but that doesn't make it a 20th century invention.

And one of the arguments of those like Robert Price and Peter Jeffrey who find the Mar Saba Letter to be a forgery is that forgeries are often time-stamped by the concerns of their era, so that years later in a different cultural atmosphere, the letters look like forgeries matching those concerns. For example, the forged Donatio of Constantine that gave special heightened powers to the Pope was marked by the later time in which it was written. Homosexuality among clergy is much more publicly discussed and tolerated in today's USA and UK than it was in Morton Smith's mid-20th century England, where as Jeffrey explained, it was its own unofficial subculture among the English elite. All the American states had anti-sodomy laws until 1962. Morton Smith's dedication "For the One Who Knows" makes much more sense for the subculture's members in the light of the hidden-ness in which they operated in that time period.

The discussion does seem to circle back to the question of homosexuality.

Is that the strongest argument for Secret Mark being modern, or is there another that is stronger?

[Peter Kirby]

Likewise, the portrayal of Clement as someone who himself engages in mystery cult rituals unknown in Church history is much different than what we know of him, as he typically was opposed to the gnostics' secretive knowledge rituals.

I'm not ignoring this point, but arguments specifically about whether Clement is the author belong in their own category, as they lead into many other alternatives, not just the modern forgery hypothesis. On this forum (in this thread...), I've also argued that Clement isn't the author (although I don't regard it as a closed question). It's regarding the modern forgery hypothesis that I'm most interested in knowing what the arguments are for it, as there appears to be a certain irrational exuberance among people who promote it.