a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

[Giuseppe]

I am saying that:

if Secret Mark is authentic, then a lot of other texts (much less scandalous) would be expected as genuine. The probability of a historical Jesus increases, it doesn't diminuish.

While, if Secret Mark is a modern forgery, then a lot of other texts (much more serious and prima facie “orthodox”) would be expected as possible old forgery. The probability of a historical Jesus decreases, accordingly.

The logic is the same of the following phrase: “if even the most guilty prisoner is released, then who knows how many other prisoners deserve freedom!”

[Secret Alias]

How does this follow???

if Secret Mark is authentic, then a lot of other texts (much less scandalous) would be expected as genuine.

I am just curious - in a way that has nothing to do with Secret Mark. This isn't a Secret Mark inquiry. I am just trying to understand your mind. You realize of course that 'Secret Mark' hasn't been found, right? What was found was a letter by Clement which references a controversy involving a gospel used by the Alexandrian Church. So what's been found is a letter or a fragment of a letter which is known to have existed according to the testimony of a monk who lived in Mar Saba. So I am not sure what 'scandal' you are talking about other than the scandal that Clement refers to which he says, did not exist, because Secret Mark was being misinterpreted by heretics. So Clement says - there's no scandal involving 'naked and naked' - words that don't appear in the text. It's all according to the true philosophy of - presumably - the Christian tradition of Alexandria. So no scandal.

And what does this have to do with other ancient texts that - if I get you correctly - are presently viewed as forgeries but because Secret Mark is authentic should be viewed as authentic. It's a confusing mess of a logical argument (as usual) that I can't follow despite you trying to explain it. What does the authenticity of a letter attested from a collection of Clement of Alexandria attested by John of Damascus as actually having been in the Mar Saba monastery have to do with other scandalous forgeries from antiquity - that you don't identify?

Clement had a gospel that wasn't the canonical gospels, right? He repeatedly cites 'the gospel according to the Egyptians' and those citations reference Salome and Salome appears only in Mark. It's hardly surprising once you read the leader that 'the gospel according to the Egyptians' - i.e. the Alexandrians would be a version of the gospel of Mark as Mark is the patron saint of the Alexandrian Church.

[Roger Viklund]

I am saying that:

if Secret Mark is authentic, then a lot of other texts (much less scandalous) would be expected as genuine. The probability of a historical Jesus increases, it doesn't diminuish.

While, if Secret Mark is a modern forgery, then a lot of other texts (much more serious and prima facie “orthodox”) would be expected as possible old forgery. The probability of a historical Jesus decreases, accordingly.

The logic is the same of the following phrase: “if even the most guilty prisoner is released, then who knows how many other prisoners deserve freedom!”

I believe this is a misunderstanding, or … at least I don’t agree. If Secret Mark is authentic, NO other text needs to be. Secret Mark is authentic if it's authentic. If it’s a forgery, then it’s not authentic, it’s as simple as that. Secret Mark is a not a hypothetical text but a text that we have. And if the Clement letter is not a modern forgery, then Secret Mark is an ancient gospel.

I would say that there is nothing scandalous at all with Secret Mark. The only scandalous about SM is some interpretations. Whether the probability of an historical Jesus increases or decreases depends on how one interprets the Secret gospel. Another version of Mark which obviously is more symbolic, would not add any strength to the issue of historicity. However, the letter by Clement would lend some support to the historicity of Jesus, as we then have another statement by Clement that Mark wrote the gospel from what he had heard Peter preach. Of course, we already had that information, so I don’t think it would add much, but some.

I don’t know what other texts you are referring to that are much more serious and "prima facie 'orthodox'”? However, other texts would by no means be expected to be forgeries if Secret Mark would be a forgery. There is simply no connection. Pro-forgers tend to put forward examples of forgeries from the past and then argue that if that text could be a forgery, then also SM could be. They simply don’t seem to realize that there is no connection whatsoever between these issues. Why? Because we know that there are forgeries. So, every text could be suspected to be forged. Each text has to be examined on its own merits, so also Secret Mark. But the fact that some texts have been forged previously makes it not in any way more probable that Secret Mark specifically would be a forgery.

Secret Mark fits perfectly well into the gospel tradition. The only suspect would be that it shows the more elitist and secret, mystic side of Christianity with secret knowledge being passed on to those thought to be enlightened. I find this to be totally trustworthy, but I can see how faithful orthodox Christians would oppose such a view.

[Secret Alias]

Known gospels from antiquity which existed in the second century:

1. Gospel of the Hebrews
2. Gospel of Paul/Marcion
3. Gospel of the Ebionites
4. Gospel of the Nazarenes
5. Gospel of Justin
6. Gospel of Tatian (the Diatessaron)
7. Egerton Gospel
8. Gospel of Basilides
9. Gospel of Mark
10. Gospel of Matthew
11. Gospel of Luke
12. Gospel of John
13. Gospel of Thomas
14. Gospel of Peter (known from Antioch)
15. Gospel of Peter (surviving)
16, Secret Gospel of Mark
17. The oracles of the Lord by Matthais

Third century:

18. Gospel of Mani

Of course there is certainly duplication here. But is it really that hard to believe that another gospel existed in antiquity? Note the Gospel of Mark associated with the Marcionites in the Philosophumena which the author says 'added mystical doctrines' from Empedocles.

[Secret Alias]

And isn't the gospel of Luke really just an expanded gospel of Mark after the manner of Secret Mark anyway?

[Ben C. Smith]

Known gospels from antiquity which existed in the second century:

1. Gospel of the Hebrews
2. Gospel of Paul/Marcion
3. Gospel of the Ebionites
4. Gospel of the Nazarenes
5. Gospel of Justin
6. Gospel of Tatian (the Diatessaron)
7. Egerton Gospel
8. Gospel of Basilides
9. Gospel of Mark
10. Gospel of Matthew
11. Gospel of Luke
12. Gospel of John
13. Gospel of Thomas
14. Gospel of Peter (known from Antioch)
15. Gospel of Peter (surviving)
16, Secret Gospel of Mark
17. The oracles of the Lord by Matthais

Gospel of the Egyptians, gospel of Mary, gospel of Judas.

[Ben C. Smith]

At least two infancy gospels.

[Secret Alias]

I think if Secret Mark was authentic it has to be identical with Gospel of the Egyptians. There's no way they could be two separate texts. Remember there is a consistency in the Letter to Theodore and Clement's other writings. He strongly implies - makes explicit I think - that the Alexandrian gospel is never identified openly as 'according to Mark.' This would explain the 'according to the Egyptians' reference to an unknown gospel which referenced Salome. That Greek speaking people identified Alexandria as identical with Egypt is up for grabs. But I think someone could find allusions to 'Alexandria' being referenced as 'Egypt' and 'Alexandrians' as 'Egyptians.' It would probably take a couple of hours and 3 or 4 examples would pop up.

[Roger Viklund]

And isn't the gospel of Luke really just an expanded gospel of Mark after the manner of Secret Mark anyway?

Charles Hedrick argued that if Secret Mark was a forgery because it was an expansion of Mark, then also Matthew and Luke should be considered forgeries.

[Giuseppe]

I believe this is a misunderstanding, or … at least I don’t agree. If Secret Mark is authentic, NO other text needs to be. Secret Mark is authentic if it's authentic. If it’s a forgery, then it’s not authentic, it’s as simple as that. Secret Mark is a not a hypothetical text but a text that we have. And if the Clement letter is not a modern forgery, then Secret Mark is an ancient gospel.

I agree that the final judgement has to be based on the case considered per se, please don't misinterpret me . But at least on a prima facie level, I personally, as eager mythicist (one who would like to increase his own doubts about a HJ) would be more comforted with the idea that Secret Mark is a modern forgery and one made for the stupidest reason/caprice (apology of homosexuality). So virtually, always in terms of what would be more expected, the probability would increase that a lot of other texts were easily interpolated/fabricated/invented for the slightest reasons/caprices.

Viceversa, if SM is genuine, I should have more optimism about the ability of the our texts to reflect original views. I should be less "conspirationist".

All here.