Decoding Mark revealed Secret Mark

[Secret Alias]

I wonder, with all the warnings of Clement to his reader to beware of Gnostic forgeries, whether Smith is not winking to his readers to beware of his own hoax

Wonder away!

[rakovsky]

Morton Smith bio
https://www.encyclopedia.com/environmen ... ith-morton

Smith was perhaps at the height of his perceived credibility during the time of his interview on
the 1984 documentary TV series titled Jesus: The Evidence (Smith's bit is introduced with the night moon scene at 34:45):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czAXC23_yFU

Thanks for sharing. The documentary at that point in the video says that M. Smith was connecting Eastern Orthodox liturgy, which he finds "hypnotic" to Jewish hermetic mystic rituals about ascending to heaven and theorizing about whether there was a "common source."

As an Eastern Orthodox myself, this kind of interpretation of Orthodox liturgy comes off as very "Orientalist." It is coming from someone in the modern Western Post-Reformation world looking at Orthodoxy and finding it mysterious and thinking up speculations to explain it. In reality, Eastern Orthodox liturgy is much like the Roman Catholic "high mass" (eg. Gregorian Chant style) from before the Reformation. The "common source" of Orthodox liturgy a weird Jewish hermetic secret ritual Gnosticism or whatever M. Smith might have been positing, but rather mainstream Second Temple Judaism, which has a generally recognized theology. Second Temple Judaism had much emphasis on the Temple rituals like the Passover sacrifice, which became incorporated into Christian liturgy and theology.

In the documentary, it claims that from early illustrations, it's clear that Jesus' Baptism by John was a much more elaborate and intimate affair than the ceremony we know now. But in reality, the artistic depictions, which anyway would be from the 2nd century or later, don't show anything more than what we already know about early Christian baptism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen any early Baptism depictions that go beyond what we already know. They don't show the Catechumens playing games in the water or combing Baptism with the Eucharist.

In this film he is making a case for the authenticity of "Secret Mark" and he is also trying to speak in a persuasive manner, with a steady eye to eye gaze into the camera, as if he were a mystical adept initiating (hypnotizing) his students.

Yes, he comes off as kind of weird in the film, with a deadpan stare, kind of monotonous voice, and maybe a hint of "Duper's Delight," especially once you realized that he forged it.

Morton Smith asks rhetorically why the Gospels say practically nothing about Jesus performing baptisms, insinuating that Jesus had weird secret baptism rituals. But in reality the Bible is pretty open on that topic- it says that Jesus did NOT baptise people himself directly. Obviously anyone is free to imagine that the Bible is wrong on the topic. But regardless, Morton Smith's statement that the Bible says nothing about it is false. Then as he finishes his question, "Why?," he hold his mouth wide open (at 4:35), as if he is enjoying playing with his audience to get them to think about Jesus performing weird baptism rituals.

Then M. Smith confuses two different concepts for his audience: The exegetical "mystery" of why the Bible supposedly doesn't mention Jesus baptizing people, and the spiritual "Mystery of the Kingdom of God." M. Smith is enjoying secretly playing with his audience's minds.

"Jesus may have given the initiates a hypnotic experience," M. Smith says... ... ... all the while M. Smith is using his deadpan stare and monotonous view.

This is really messed up. Even M. Smith's forged "Secret Mark" nowhere claims that Jesus gave people "hypnotic experiences." This is just something that M. Smith is speculating about and then treating as if it's real- which is the way that fraudsters work in the first place.

[Secret Alias]

Your entire post is eisegesis. You know nothing or very, very little about Morton Smith and effectively created a parody based on a few scraps of information you found on Youtube and then flogged the caricature for being the exact thing you created. The last poster complained that Morton Smith wrote about the relationship between John and Mark and then found a gospel which he interpreted as such. What about me? I see the letter in terms of Marcion. Stephen Goranson inevitably posts about forgery and thinks the letter is a forgery. Stephen Carlson wrote a book about this topic at the height of the Da Vinci Code fad and his argument ... sounds remarkably like the Da Vinci Code. I am not getting why any of this proves or disproves forgery. All it shows is that humans have narcissistic tendencies. We project 'inner things' on to 'outer things.' In order to prove forgery you have to come up with 'something' about the letter that looks 'forged.' Something about the handwriting, the contents, some connection between what is there and what is somewhere else. Something. Anything. I have a negative view of humanity. I am 'all in' to proving that Morton Smith is just as shitty as everyone else in the world. Please by all means let me hate him too with a good conscience. Show me something that proves he is just another asshole. But in order to get me on board you have to convince me that you aren't just another asshole who will make up shit about another person just to drag them through the mud. In order to prove Morton Smith is an asshole you have to pass the test that you aren't an asshole and the shit you're finding isn't from you.

[gryan]

He had already surmised that Mark may have omitted or censored material present in the older authentic tradition he inherited—tradition shared in part with the Fourth Evangelist

Isn't the Johannine use of the synoptics a topic that many prominent scholars even today continue to write about? To make this into a proof of 'forgery' is eisegesis plain and simple.

No, it is the other way around.

Before his "discovery" Smith hypothesized something quite peculiar: That the author of GMark may have "deliberately censored" material from a source that the author of GJohn also used.

Watson writes: "Precisely these points are attested in Clement's letter to Theodore. The Secret Gospel's story of the raising of the young man appears to be an earlier version of the extended Johannine account of the raising of Lazarus."

[rakovsky]

You know nothing or very, very little about Morton Smith and effectively created a parody based on a few scraps of information

One thing that I don't know about him is whether he went solo in his "Secret Mark" forgery or if others helped him. And if he was connected to others, then were they the same kind of people who brought us the DaVinci Code "Fanfiction"-style take on the Gospels?

It's kind of like the 19th century Joseph Smith. Certainly there were others who were aware that he was forging the Book of Mormon. But even today there are masses of True Believers in it and his other texts.

[Secret Alias]

One thing that I don't know about him is whether he went solo in his "Secret Mark" forgery or if others helped him

It's good that you admit you don't know everything. I was going to ask you for lottery numbers to pick for this weekends draw. Apparently you don't have all the answers. Too bad. I was hoping for a demonstration of your supernatural abilities. Have to wait I guess.

[rakovsky]

Before his "discovery" Smith hypothesized something quite peculiar: That the author of GMark may have "deliberately censored" material from a GJohn source.

Watson writes: "Precisely these points are attested in Clement's letter to Theodore. The Secret Gospel's story of the raising of the young man appears to be an earlier version of the extended Johannine account of the raising of Lazarus."

Good point. A scholar with an odd pet theory just happens to find an odd document that reflects his odd pet theory. Obviously that alone is not enough to prove forgery. It's just a red flag. But... there are so many red flags on this text that it looks like Chinese New Years in Chinatown.

[Secret Alias]

That the author of GMark may have "deliberately censored" material from a source that the author of GJohn also used.

Where does the letter say that Mark deliberately censored John or some common source? I am confused. I guess you have more pages of the letter than I do. Send them over to me so I can read them. Maybe you're right after all. I only have two and a half pages of the letter and none of this is mentioned in the parts I have.

[Secret Alias]

Let me give you a tip. Watson also manages to turn the Letter to Theodore into a referendum on ideas he's previously published. It's kind of what scholars do. If you're like me and you spend a lot of time emailing with these people you find a pattern - they inevitably manage to turn whatever you're writing about into whatever they've written about or are working on at the moment and if they can't manage to do that ... they ignore you. I respect scholars immensely but they are all narcissistic pieces of shit the way humanity as such are all narcissistic pieces of shit. They only talk to you or engage with anyone to make it 'all about them.' Again that's because human beings are shitty beings not because one or two of them are forgers.

[gryan]

That the author of GMark may have "deliberately censored" material from a source that the author of GJohn also used.

Where does the letter say that Mark deliberately censored John or some common source?

Yes. As I see it, Pseudo Clament contains "secret Mark" which was supposedly censored from GMark and which resembles the raising of Lazarus in GJohn. This is a little different than Watson's point, but close enough IMHO.

Watson's paper is rich in detail, and it deserves close reading by anyone who really wants to assess whether Smith forged Secret Mark. A lot of it went over my head. Nevertheless, the parts I understood convinced that Smith was the intentional forger of the document attributed to Clement containing "Secret Mark". That said, I may bow out of this argument.

\