Having It Both Ways With Secret Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Having It Both Ways With Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

If anyone has any questions for me to ask him let me know. I will talk to him some time this week. Maybe I should do a Zoom call and record it.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Having It Both Ways With Secret Mark

Post by andrewcriddle »

This is interesting but a bit inconclusive. It seems to be claims made by a woman's daughter about a long ago friendship of her mother which friendship the mother never discussed with her daughter.

(Just to clarify, I'm not really doubting that the daughter did late in life make such claims, but do we have direct testimony or is it a matter of claims by others about what the daughter claimed ?)

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Having It Both Ways With Secret Mark

Post by andrewcriddle »

One argument for a recent date of the Mar Saba letter is as follows.

The letter refers to an esoteric version of Mark liable to literalist misunderstanding but which with the proper mystical interpretation will lead the student to knowledge of divine mysteries. (This may be a tendentious paraphrase but not IMO drastically so.) This is an unusual type of esotericism for the time of Clement, clear parallels are later or much later. however it does have resemblances to the speculations of Gershom Scholem in Jewish Gnosticism... published in 1960 but based on lectures given in New York in early 1957. (IIUC Morton Smith arranged for Scholem to give these lectures). Scholem argued that the Song of Songs was regarded in Tannaitic Judaism as an esoteric text which properly interpreted would lead to understanding of the Shiur Komah the measure of the mystical body of God.
I t seems to me, therefore, that Origen's statement calls for another explanation. I have said that the Song of Songs—because it contained a detailed description of the limbs of the lover, who was identified with God—became the basic scriptural text upon which the doctrine of Shiur Komah leaned. But it is clear that the authors of our fragments of Shiur Komah, instead of interpreting the Song of Songs as an allegory within the framework of the generally accepted midrashic interpretations, saw it as a strictly esoteric text containing sublime and tremendous mysteries regarding God in His appearance upon the throne of the Merkabah. Indeed, by virtue of these strange revelations Shiur Komah comes to be considered, in the fragments thathave been preserved, as the deepest chapter opened up to the Merkabah mystic for his inspection and speculation.* For, as the Lesser Hekhaloth puts it, Shiur Komah speaks of "God who is beyond the sight of His creatures and hidden from the angels who minister to Him ; but who has revealed Himself to R. Akiba in the vision of the Merkabah." " R. Ishmael and R. Akiba are even made to promise the initiate, who is encouraged to study this "Mishnah" every day after his prayer, that "Whoever knows the measurements of our Creator and the Glory of the Holy One, praise be to Him, which are hidden from the creatures, is certain of his share of the world to come."
At first sight this parallel to the Mar Saba letter would support authenticity by providing a parallel in Jewish esotericism from the time of Clement. However Scholem's speculation here, an original idea of Scholem's developed in the 1950's is probably wrong. See e.g. Peter Schafer The Origins of Jewish Mysticism. If Scholem is wrong and there is a real relation between his ideas and the Mar Saba letter then the dependence has to be from Scholem's ideas to Secret Mark.

Andrew Criddle
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Having It Both Ways With Secret Mark

Post by StephenGoranson »

Makes good sense, Andrew.
And fits with other evidence that Morton Smith modeled his version of Jesus based on Scholem’s interpretation of Sabbatai Zevi, and told--explicitly wrote to--Scholem about his proposed parallel, but Scholem demurred. Scholem was the first person (known) to whom Smith showed the letter. His communication with the monks and patriarch and his eventual catalog was, in its description, less forthcoming.
And whatever Morton Smith’s preferences or experiences (not important to the question of authenticity or not), he knew what would bother some readers.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Having It Both Ways With Secret Mark

Post by lsayre »

StephenGoranson wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:27 am Scholem was the first person (known) to whom Smith showed the letter.
What did Gershom Scholem think of the Mar Saba letter?
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Having It Both Ways With Secret Mark

Post by StephenGoranson »

In addition to M. Smith’s two books, most important is Morton Smith and Gershom Scholem, Correspondence 1945-1982 (Brill, 2008). Some of which I think I quoted here before.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Having It Both Ways With Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

"Makes good sense" is the equivalent of "interesting." We can't mistake "makes good sense" and interesting with "therefore the letter is proved a forgery." But many of us do because of the subjectivity of the humanities. It always feels like we're participating in a popularity contest when it comes to this letter, or the existence or non-existence of Jesus. Which version of reality do you like better? That's how sick we are as a culture. "Interesting" becomes license to turn your back from reality.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Having It Both Ways With Secret Mark

Post by StephenGoranson »

“Makes good sense”--not accepted by S. A. Surprise? Let me rephrase, though I do not count on this to end selective cheerleading.
So far, I find the hypothesis that M. Smith composed the Letter in part--only in part--motivated to show Gershom Scholem.
In other words, I find that hypothesis (that M. Smith, and not e.g., Clement or someone else) composed it more persuasive than any other hypothesis I have yet encountered, including in all that I have read, so far, by S. A., who wrote that he prefers "reality," though left undefined
I plan to read Geoffrey Smith and Brent Landau’s announced-as-forthcoming book, The Secret Gospel of Mark: A Rogue Scholar, A Controversial Gospel of Jesus, and the Fierce Debate Over Its Authenticity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. If it persuades me of a different hypothesis--or not--so be it.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Having It Both Ways With Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

I guess I lack the intelligence to comprehend what you are saying so I will start from scratch with a parallel.

1. a daughter is on a breathing apparatus, the doctors say she has Covid.
2. let's say Andrew Criddle comes up with an alternative explanation that dovetails with conspiracy theories involving homosexual doctors
3. parents chose to believe Andrew Criddle. They 'feel' it is the right answer.

what's the difference between that and

1. a manuscript with 17th - 18th century Byzantine handwriting was found in the blank pages of a book in a monastery and was accepted as such by the librarians of the Patriarchate in charge of the library
2. Andrew Criddle comes with an alternative explanation that dovetails with homosexual theories
3. Stephen Goranson chooses to believe Andrew Criddle. He likes the explanation better than the facts.

The reason I always make homosexuality the backbone of the conspiracy is because no one seriously believes or could believe that Morton Smith falsified a document with such meticulous care for any other purpose. Morton Smith's 'interest' in the Letter to Theodore led to Jesus the Magician. Magic is mentioned in the Letter to Theodore but surely it wasn't created for that purpose. As such the only 'Trojan horse' argument that works with the Letter to Theodore is the homosexual argument. You can dance all you want around it, everyone who accepts the forgery argument is drawn in by the 'frustrated homosexual' paradigm. We can all believe that sex is an unconscious motivator (at least in a former age where males aren't bombarded by freely available sexual images of every imaginable kind). In this way the alleged homosexuality of Morton Smith is the lynchpin to the forgery argument whether or not it is explicitly referenced or not. BTW I haven't had time to contact the NASA scientist yet. He sent me the following FWIW:
I remember Miriam wanted to write a novel about the Bar Kochba Revolt, intending to title it "Star Man's Son", that being a loose translation of Bar Kochba from Aramaic. Ethne and I both convinced her everyone would assume a science fiction novel from that title, and she finally planned it as "Arise Oh Warrior", but so far as I can tell never actually wrote it.
I am sure of course that some will say that 'hanging around' with Morton Smith 'caused' her to want to write this. The more reasonable of us will see that isn't necessarily true. I say the most reasonable of course. Of course this is such a subjective field that people likely actually walk themselves through the implications of his Jewish girlfriend Miriam. I even know of some scholars IN FAVOR of authenticity who don't like the Miriam revelation because it implies some moral questionability for their hero.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Having It Both Ways With Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

The question would obviously be - what distinguishes denying the authenticity of a 17/18th century manuscript from any other reality denying conspiracy theory? What is the 'problem' that your preferred 'alternative reality explanations' address? It used to be the photos don't show the margins, how do we know it exists and then - IMHO - it just continued AS IF there was a problem without there actually being an underlying problem. The parallel again would be 'what's the problem with vaccines?' 'what's the problem with the existence of Jesus?' 'why couldn't Lee Harvey Oswald have been solely responsible for assassination of JFK?' 'why couldn't the Americans have landed on the moon?' 'why does the Devil have to be invoked to explain the occurrence of evil?' 'why can't the world be round?' 'why couldn't the planes in the 9/11 hijacking have brought down the buildings?' In other words, why isn't the 17/18th century manuscript a 17/18th century manuscript EXACTLY as 10 out of 10 experts on Byzantine handwriting see it when I write a blind email to them and ask them to examine the handwriting not knowing the whole 'homosexual-conspiracy' controversy thing?

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, acts like a duck usually - it's a duck. But you are saying 'don't let you're eyes be fooled. There's something wrong with this document?' Why not stop and tell me - what's the 'something' that's wrong with the 17/18th century document that distinguishes it from an actual 17/18th century document?
Post Reply