andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2019 3:58 am
The author appears convinced that the text is ancient, but less certain that it is by Clement of Alexandria. This may be problematic. If one admits that the evidence linking the letter to Clement is weak then the prima-facie evidence for antiquity is weak.
Andrew Criddle
By that line of reasoning, all pseudepigrapha is "modern." If it is actually a case of a "secret gospel" used by the elites in the Christian church(es) of Alexandria, we do not know if Clement is correct to attribute it to Mark the interpreter of Peter.
A) Clement of A. actually wrote this letter,
1) He used a genuine document, a "Secret" version of the gospel of Mark used by his church
2) He used a pseudepigraphic document Clement of A believed was a genuine.
B) Someone other than Clement wrote the letter (another christian from Alexandria, or a gnostic), somewhere up to, say, 500-600 CE.
1) He used a genuine document, a "Secret" version of the gospel of Mark used by his church
2) He used a pseudepigraphic document Clement of A believed was a genuine.
3) He made it all up as part of a back story to mask the fact that he was not Clement.
C) Someone from Medieval or even more modern times wrote the letter,
1) He used a genuine document, a "Secret" version of the gospel of Mark
2) He used a pseudepigraphic document Clement of A believed was a genuine.
3) He made it all up just like he made up the letter.
I am not at all convinced that A is correct. There should be traces of it in Authors such as Origen, and to my knowledge there aren't.
IMO, B is possible, and if so, it joins the ranks of Christian Pseudepigrapha, like the Clementine Homilies/Recognitions. Since in the case of the Clementines, pseudo-letters of James, etc., are either affixed to the Clementine document as "prefaces," or alluded to in the text, I can agree that one of the B options are definitely possible in the case here.
I know you are fairly convinced that scenario C.3 was the case, perhaps Smith faked it as a spoof. While certainly a possibility, it is hardly a certainty. Carlson's argument that Morton Smith had to have written it because of silly puns he teased out of it on the flimsiest of evidence, "proves" that M Smith hinted that he himself wrote it, because he is "bald swindler." I expressed this opinion even before Hoax was published, as I was given a look at the galley proofs, calling it a "hatchet job." My feeling is that those who jumped on Carlson's bandwagon, probably due to unease over real or imagined implications of a naked initiation rite described in "Secret Mark," engaged in a knee-jerk reactionary response to it at best, not a scholarly one, and should be ashamed of themselves in hindsight.
However, as you know, the traces of late 19th century CE theosophy and medieval Kabbalah mysticism popular in the 19th century, suggest to me a theosophic oriented critic of that time. While I've offered up G R S Mead as the author, there were others intimately familiar with Orthodox traditions who could also be candidates.
I cannot explain how such a thing, possibly a mere whimsical/fictional composition, would have ended up in a remote monastery. I'll only note that it was not in the monastery's main library, which had been moved to Jerusalem and/or Constantinople some time before then, but found in an auxiliary library open to perusal by visitors.
A qualified traveler could have left the old tattered Voss edition of the Ignatian epistles there intentionally for another equally qualified specific traveler to find, as a kind of joke played on that fellow traveler. It was somewhat out of place in the library in which it was found. Perhaps the Voss edition actually belonged to the intended recipient, stolen or otherwise, and used as a kind of bait.
It's resonant with the kind of academic tit for tat that went on between Constantin von Tischendorf and Constantine Simonides. I'd say Simonides left it for Tischendorf to find, but he never had the opportunity to take the bait. (I can be whimsical as well I suppose ...
)
DCH