My own remarks on Secret Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
brewskiMarc
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:17 pm

My own remarks on Secret Mark

Post by brewskiMarc »

Greetings all. I used to hang out here long ago but have been lost in the wilderness. My recent curiosity over the current prevailing opinion among scholars about Secret Mark has led me back.

I am not a scholar, but I do have an opinion. It is based only on my own Criteria of Bugs. If enough things about something bug me then I have a problem with it. Here’s what bugs me about Secret Mark:

1. “Well Now That You Mention It…”
• The part he hated, why did Clement specify so much? Quote it back even. It’s like, “Pay no attention to the naked man behind the curtain.” Well geez, now I have to look! (Ken Olson’s take on this says it much better than I am.) Wouldn’t it have been a lot more prudent for Clement to write, “That other terrible stuff you read is BS and doesn’t belong.” And leave it at that? Instead of, “No, no. There’s nothing salacious in the REAL Secret Mark. No naughty ceremonies, no fleshy stuff. And definitely no naked man on man. It doesn’t say anything about naked man on man. So just don’t even mention it.” Protest much?

2. “There’s Truth and Then There’s Truth. (And Then There’s Not.)”
• Clement says right there in the letter, “Hey, if you have to, go ahead and lie about it. Lying is okay when it’s done for good.” So… uh… why didn’t Clement just lie to Theodore about it? “Dear Theo. Nope. No such thing as a ‘Secret Mark’. They made it up. Tell the Carpocratians to pound sand.” Even if he thought Theodore was initiated enough or pious enough to learn about Secret Mark, would an open letter be the place to reveal it to him?? Just how stupid was Clement?

3. “No Seriously, Just How Stupid Was Clement??”
• “Okay Theodore, here’s the thing: don’t write or say another word about the S.M. thing you mentioned until I get there to talk to you in private,” is exactly what Clement DIDN’T write. Instead, he blithely blabs one of the biggest secrets ever kept by the church. It WAS a big secret, right? Since no one heard about it for centuries. And he not only says, “Oh sure, there’s a Secret Mark.” He actually QUOTES from it in an open letter! I mean, come on! What would have happened if that letter had wound up in the hands of the wrong persons who made a copy of it and kept it around? Which, if we accept the letter as genuine is exactly what happened. Did he forget, “most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries” just two paragraphs ago?

4. “Well, Wasn’t THAT Lucky?!”
• So how many other additional passages are there in Secret Mark? One? Five? A hundred? And where do THEY squeeze into the existing GMark? Oh sure, we could argue there are potential seams everywhere. Between Chapters 8 and 9 would be a good place. Cut a Secret Mark-ricope out of there and no one will even notice it’s missing. But how lucky are we that the one and ONLY passage we’re privy to just happens to be the one cut from the single most obvious clunky segue in the book? You could sure look at that and think, “Oh yeah, maybe it’s true. It DOES look like there’s something missing there! Good thing the passage we discovered fits in THAT spot and not any unobvious place. Otherwise we might have been more skeptical about it. Sorry, I just don’t buy that kind of coincidence. It bugs me.

Marc (not Secret)
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: My own remarks on Secret Mark

Post by Peter Kirby »

brewskiMarc wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:31 pm Greetings all. I used to hang out here long ago but have been lost in the wilderness. My recent curiosity over the current prevailing opinion among scholars about Secret Mark has led me back.
Welcome back!
brewskiMarc
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:17 pm

Re: My own remarks on Secret Mark

Post by brewskiMarc »

Thanks!
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: My own remarks on Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

Everyone's got a take.
brewskiMarc
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:17 pm

Re: My own remarks on Secret Mark

Post by brewskiMarc »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:30 pm Everyone's got a take.
Is it a “take”?

I thought it was four issues worth noting:

1. It deliberately draws attention to the subject it says it wants silenced.
2. It uses honesty when lying would have been safer.
3. It blatantly reveals contents it itself describes as hidden and guarded.
4. It describes one passage (of many?) that is “missing” from GMark situated in the single most obvious place to have missing text.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: My own remarks on Secret Mark

Post by StephenGoranson »

Good point.
Dear Theo, This is secret and guarded and available only to select few under special initiatory circumstances, so don't share this letter--make no copies ever!--nor tell anyone about specifically forbidden X, Y and ....
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: My own remarks on Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

Theo,

Is life expected to be "ordinary"? Yes. Ordinary is by definition ordinary. But can life be extraordinary? Yes it can be. Indeed, if, as suggested by the letter, the letter preserves something extraordinary it's not surprising that it does so by means of hints and innuendos.

Let's look at things another way. Clement of Alexandria in his other letters hints at the mystery experience in Alexandria. Alexandria seems to have been associated with 'gnosticism' (I hate that word) where a 'sacred marriage' took place in a 'bridal chamber.' Ignoring the overt sexuality of this metaphor, a bridal chamber is a 'secret' experience. It is also the basis for all music from the early modern era (before the widespread availability of pornography) when sex was deemed to be something 'mysterious' (i.e. 'the mysteries of love' etc.).

I don't mean to give you a history lesson on love but I am a little older than many at the forum (though not as old as some). At one time men and women weren't certain about 'the bridal chamber.' They lived in communities where the consequences of sex could be disastrous (public shame, pregnancy out of wedlock, illegitimate birth etc.) All these things have been removed from the modern world but you had a situation where secretly everyone had a biological need or urge to have sex but the authorities of the world made it seem sinful and thus dangerous.

Women in these cultures hinted, seduced, held the power in the relationship up until the moment the sex act was consummated. So there were hints, flirtatious behavior, 'hot and cold' treatment of the male to keep him aroused and 'interested.' He couldn't just go home and masturbate with 1000000 different choices on the menu. As a result he was nervous, restless, being led through a labyrinth with his partner as a kind of mystagogue and he the initiate. These are things I know about from personal experience because I lived through it. The world had a certain order and structure and formal marriage was the end result. When I took animal psychology in university they used to say 'men do the cruising, women do the choosing.' Each were trying to pick their way to the eventual state of 'sanctioned love i.e. marriage.

Not turning to the situation in the letter to Theodore. In order for us to contextualize what is going on we have to engage in speculation but here is my take. Take it with a grain of salt but I am trying to answer your question.

We know nothing about Clement of Alexandria other than his name. There are some hints in Eusebius but even he doesn't provide us with a lot of information. He was a priest. He left Alexandria at some point. He wrote the Stromata at the end of the reign of Commodus. There seems to have been rampant speculation at that time about the end of the world which I believe explains his use of an ancient chronology and his interest in Book One with calculation from the beginning of the world. Maybe he was from Athens. Maybe not. Our information is not good.

But two further things are apparent. He lived at the same time as Origen and the two never refer to one another despite both coming from Alexandria. Now again our information isn't good so it's hard to base anything definitive on this information but there it is. Origen similarly was born in Alexandria, had a father who was a Christian, who apparently died in a persecution, was self-castrated, worked as a grammaticus, may have been instructed by Ammonius Saccas who in turn 'apostasized' to pagainism, was taken over by Ambrosius a former heretic, was someone who got into a fight with the authorities in Alexandria and especially Demetrios, left Alexandria, went to Palestine where he worked as a priest angering Demetrios, had an arrest warrant from the Roman Senate, befriended members of the royal household, became acquainted with Hippolytus and likely the Roman church as well as others, wrote hundreds of books, and may have died after torture in the second half of the third century.

Once we see that Clement doesn't mention Origen and vice versa AND Origen was the enemy of the Alexandrian Church under Demetrios (i.e. the time Clement lived) I think we can read some of the surprisingly positive references to marriage in the Stromata as attempts by Clement to flatter, butter up, befriend Demetrios who tradition says was (scandalously) married. The scandal came because the Alexandrian priesthood was either celibate or castrated (= Origen and others). Demetrios seems to have come from outside of Alexandria (against according to tradition). Clement constantly and surprisingly lauding the married state despite being a native Alexandrian priest likely ensured his continued authority in the Egyptian church. What I think this suggests is that Clement was a 'company man' - i.e. someone who was close to the mysteries of the religion (the Roman Catholic Church, Greek Orthodox Church use this language it has nothing specifically to do with to Theodore) and Origen was more like Martin Luther a religious innovator.

Now we come to the identity of Theodoros. It is possible that Theodoros was just some 'Theodore.' It must have been a common name. There were many that have come down to us from the Church Fathers living at this time. But it is also true that we have Origen's writings which display a similar 'wooing' of a certain Theodore (who later went on to be called 'Gregory'). He was very rich and studying to be a lawyer in Tyre before going to Alexandria (I presume) to be initiated into the mysteries of the Christian religion. It might have been Palestine. But the idea that the two rivals - Origen and Clement - were actively wooing this Theodore with whispers of love. In Origen's letter there are covert and explicit mentions of similar 'homoerotic' imagery and allegories pertaining or relating to his initiation.

I would argue that Clement is trying to seduce Theodore. You are right. He is like a woman trying to seduce her man but in the context of 'holy matrimony' - i.e. his confirmation as a initiate into the Alexandrian Church. The same thing can be seen if you ever attend a modern Roman Catholic mass and the priest comes out and mentions to the congregation that they will be having preparation classes for new members. Yes the announcement is grounded in 'sound discourse.' But references to mysteries, becoming a bride, a bridal chamber (baptism) are still to be found and there is a kind of hocus pocus language which is referenced. I am not that sure that the fact that Clement drops hints and develops a story explaining the existence of an Alexandrian gospel which is related to 'common Mark' is all that unusual. Origen might have been Carpocrates or Ammonius.

The point I am saying that the context you mention can be explained by the assumption of Clement and Origen being rivals for 'picking up' rich (of course the Church always goes after those with money, just have your kid attend a religious school you'll see) young studs. Clement is the company man, the missionary as it were for an established tradition. Origen on the other hand seems to have broken away from this tradition and established his own teachings within a framework that we can quite discern but later became known as 'Origenism' which apparently was quite influential. In short, I don't see the 'hints' and innuendo you reference as being at all problematic. This is the way converts are made to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox faith to this day.
brewskiMarc
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:17 pm

Re: My own remarks on Secret Mark

Post by brewskiMarc »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:59 am if, as suggested by the letter, the letter preserves something extraordinary it's not surprising that it does so by means of hints and innuendos.
Except it doesn’t. It “preserves” by outright copying and quoting, not hinting. Moreover, preservation is not the letter writer’s implicit task. If the letter is to be believed, the document is already preserved in a secure place.

As for the rest of your post, it is an interesting diversion but in no way relevant to my points. Also it assumes authenticity.

Since you mention the fact that the document “preserves something extraordinary”, this gives me a better idea. Thank you. Preservation of secret material would work AGAINST Clement and FOR a forger. So let’s see if that same thing applies to my points above:

Content of letterResult if genuineResult if forgery
Emphasizing/quoting salacious material in SMarkNot good: Reveals and draws attention to what should be suppressedGood: Slips in titillating content in the guise of suppressing it
Honestly confirming SMark’s existenceNot good: Unnecessarily reveals a secret when simple denial would have served the same purposeGood: Allows the reader to learn of the “secret”
Quoting back contents of SMarkNot good: Exposes carefully hidden material to non-initiatesGood: Allows the reader access to specific contents of the “secret gospel”
The location of the passage within GMark at an awkward segueNeutral: With respect to content. But a mighty big coincidence aka suspiciousGood: Adds credibility as it allows the reader to accept that a passage COULD be in that space

Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: My own remarks on Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

Also it assumes authenticity.
Well, don't we have to start with that? I mean, a letter comes in the mail. It's the IRS. They want to do an audit. You're first assumption has to be 'holy shit it's the IRS they want an audit.' What kind of a maniac starts with the assumption that it's not the IRS, that it's not an audit?

A manuscript is found with 17th or 18th century handwriting that looks exactly like 17th or 18th century handwriting that purports to be a letter from Clement that sounds exactly like Clement in a form that agrees with what we know about ancient letter writing. Why would we start with 'it's a fake.' What possibly justifies that assumption?

The content? But what do we know about Clement, his letters, or Theodore? What is 'expected' here? There are general references to things, concerns which existed at the time Clement was writing (Carpocrates, apocryphal gospels, etc). You can do whatever you want. You can think I wrote the letter to Theodore. But your suspicions are unfounded and should be treated as akin to the cart leading the horse.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: My own remarks on Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

And I developed a scenario which addresses your content concerns. You just ignored it. You have an idea about 'how things should be' without any knowledge or understanding of the way things were. Not surprisingly you don't like the outcome (the letter). But you aren't in charge of the universe, you don't govern the outcomes. Maybe you can take these issues up with God - i.e. how a 'secret gospel' should 'properly be introduced' to someone.
Post Reply