My own remarks on Secret Mark

[brewskiMarc]

I usually loiter here, as despite my interest, my formal education in the subject matter is negligible and insufficient. I think your 4 points are reasonable concerns, and no one who has responded to the thread has really engaged with them. However, if the assumption is that the letter is genuine, it's impossible to engage with them, as the letter is what it is. Can they be used to prove the letter is not genuine ? Probably not. They are interesting ideas nonetheless. They fall short of a smoking gun. So, in my view, they cannot do much but provoke defensiveness from people with opposing views, and speculation, that cannot be resolved.

I liked your post nonetheless.

Thanks. Funny thing is, I'm not really trying to prove forgery. I just don't want to be bugged by what I read in it.

I would be perfectly happy if someone went over my points and provided me a reasonable explanation for how the writer might have behaved in this odd way (if he were the real Clement). I don't need "proof". Just a reasonable explanation.

I'm not sure it's impossible to engage with my points. IF the letter is genuine, then we have to shrug off Clement writing such idiotic things. I guess he was an imbecile who didn't know what a "secret" is. I prefer to use the Reasonable Person standard. Clement writing what he did is not very reasonable. A forger writing what he did is very reasonable.

Marc

[Secret Alias]

I'm not really trying to prove forgery. I just don't want to be bugged by what I read in it.

I would be perfectly happy if someone went over my points and provided me a reasonable explanation for how the writer might have behaved in this odd way (if he were the real Clement). I don't need "proof". Just a reasonable explanation.

As I said earlier. We know almost nothing about Clement. As such what you are asking is a quite remarkable feat. I attempted an explanation. It was discarded without due consideration. Good luck on your authentication of ancient discoveries by Facebook like. I wish you luck.

[brewskiMarc]

For anyone who is troubled by what I am asking, let me try by example:

I happen to overhear two strangers in a coffee shop. I don’t know who they are, or anything about them.

• John Dee: Oh, hi John Cee! What’s new?

• John Cee: Nothing much. Except my company is about to announce the release of a product that will make millions. I’m not supposed to talk about it. But here are some details about it anyway…

Now, without knowing anything at all about these individuals, what might I reasonably speculate about John Cee?

a) He is a negligent moron for talking about something he was specifically told not to talk about
b) He is yanking the chains of the people eavesdropping in the coffee shop.
c) They are shooting a scene for HR about disclosing company secrets.

Are there others? Feel free to join in. Remember, all we know about John Cee is what we overheard.

[DCHindley]

mr. brewski,

You've never had something weird happen out of the blue? I've experienced it before.

Once, in a high end restaurant in the Flats district of Cleveland (on the Cuyahoga River, I think it was D'Poos), it was mid day Wednesday. I was selling cars and we get a weekday off to offset working in Saturdays, I chose Wednesdays. At mid day, there was hardly anyone there, so I was sitting alone at a table by the docks. At some point this guy, maybe in his mid-20's, pretty clean cut, hangs over the rail overseeing the docks and starts to say a bit of chit chat.

"You mind if I sit here with you?" he asked. I thought he might have been hitting on me (I was about 30) but he just seemed anxious to talk about things. Says he was AWOL from Navy (not the 1st AWOL military I've known or met), but then he starts talking about all this hush hush transfer of parts for US Military fighter jets in the possession of the Iranians after the Ayatollah took control of Iran from the Shah. They were keeping them in the air by cannibalizing some for parts for others, because obviously there was an embargo. This was during the hostage crisis.

Well, he sez, sez he, that we had been involved in transferring a ton of these spare parts to Iranian hands as part of a deal to use the plane parts to ransom the hostages from the US Embassy, still held almost a year after they were taken hostages. I'm ;like "Yeah, Sure!" I laughed. He assured me he was serious. He was cavalier about it but you could tell something about what he had been involved with had rubbed him the wrong way. We said goodbye and never saw each other gain.

At first I did not realize what he was talking about, not until it broke in the news midway in Reagan's 1st term several months after I ran into this AWOL sailor. "Arms for Hostages" was the headline. I had long wondered, though, why he felt compelled to talk to me about that sort of thing. I was just a skinny awkward car salesman on my day off, hardly a news reporter type ready to be set up with a planted story. The problem, it wasn't a "fake story" because the news broke afterwards, and the circumstances were confirmed. Reagan had indeed sold fighter jet parts to Iran, inducing them to release the hostages shortly after.

This was just after President Carter tried to pull off a midnight "raid on Entebbe" style commando raid to get back the hostages, which went badly when two helicopters' got too close. Was this guy trying to make a statement about playing politics with the military in such a way? Was it just pure chance? If I knew then what I knew later I would have asked more questions of him. I never got the whole story, only that they offloaded some crates of aircraft parts somewhere in the Mediterranean that was rumored to be headed for Iran.

I swear this actually happened. So, crazy stuff does happen. Only pieces and parts of the "real" story get passed on.

FWIW, the whole letter with a snippet of a secret version of the gospel of Mark seems to me to be very similar to the fictional letter of James to Simon Peter in the preface to either the Clementine Recognitions or Homilies (forget which at the moment) where James makes Simon Peter swear to make his Preaching only available to approved types. It plants the idea that the hidden preaching of Peter could be discovered in the Clementine literature. It's just a commonplace in pseudepigraphic literature. In reality, I doubt that a document named The Preaching of Peter ever really existed, only in legends.

DCH

For anyone who is troubled by what I am asking, let me try by example:

I happen to overhear two strangers in a coffee shop. I don’t know who they are, or anything about them.

• John Dee: Oh, hi John Cee! What’s new?

• John Cee: Nothing much. Except my company is about to announce the release of a product that will make millions. I’m not supposed to talk about it. But here are some details about it anyway…

Now, without knowing anything at all about these individuals, what might I reasonably speculate about John Cee?

a) He is a negligent moron for talking about something he was specifically told not to talk about
b) He is yanking the chains of the people eavesdropping in the coffee shop.
c) They are shooting a scene for HR about disclosing company secrets.

Are there others? Feel free to join in. Remember, all we know about John Cee is what we overheard.

[John2]

1. It deliberately draws attention to the subject it says it wants silenced.

By "the subject" do you mean the content of Secret Mark? If so, then I would disagree, since by my reading Clement (or the author, if you prefer) is concerned rather with silencing "the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocratians." As Clement goes on to say about these teachings:

Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. For the true things, being mixed with inventions, are falsified, so that, as the saying goes, even the salt loses its savor.

I don't think Clement is trying to silence the content of Secret Mark since he quite openly describes and cites from it to counter "the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocratians." As he says:

... Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.

Clement does say that Markan authorship of Secret Mark should be denied to Carpocratians, but otherwise it was read to Christians "who are being initiated into the great mysteries" and Clement apparently deemed Theodore worthy of it ("To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel").

2. It uses honesty when lying would have been safer.

Why would lying be safer for Clement if the content of Secret Mark refuted the teachings of the Carpocratians?

3. It blatantly reveals contents it itself describes as hidden and guarded.

Yes, it was carefully guarded, but it was read to Christians "who are being initiated into the great mysteries," and Clement apparently deemed Theodore as being worthy of knowing about it.

4. It describes one passage (of many?) that is “missing” from GMark situated in the single most obvious place to have missing text.

Clement describes another passage and it looks like there is something missing from Mark there too.

And after the words, "And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only, "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them."

Cf. Mk. 10:46:

And they come to Jericho: and as he went out from Jericho ...

So maybe these "missing" parts were added to an earlier version of Mark like Clement says (by Mark, like Clement says, or by someone else).

But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils.

[brewskiMarc]

You've never had something weird happen out of the blue? I've experienced it before.

Hi DCH,

Thank you for your response and input. Yes, I have definitely had weird things happen. None quite as chilling as yours! I should point out though that by Reasonable Person I mean we assume an ordinary person with ordinary characteristics. So I would avoid the once-in-a-lifetime kind of scenarios.
However, you raise an excellent point and I am adding what I’ll call “guilty conscience” to why Mr. Cee would blab a secret in public. In fact, it makes me think of a couple more.

So I am going to add a column indicating, in each case, whether (I think) it is likely that the content of the secret being blabbed is true. (Not in the mind of the blabber, but in reality.)

Why did Mr. Cee blab?	Likeliness of subject being true
Negligence	Likely
Yanking our chains	Unlikely
Staged event	Unlikely
Guilty conscience	Likely
Delusional	Unlikely
Seeking attention	Neutral

ETA: In hindsight I think I should say "favors true" or "favors false" rather than "Likely" or "unlikely". Need more coffee...

[brewskiMarc]

By "the subject" do you mean the content of Secret Mark? If so, then I would disagree, since by my reading Clement (or the author, if you prefer) is concerned rather with silencing "the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocratians." As Clement goes on to say about these teachings:

No, sorry I wasn’t clear. I mean the subject of the “unspeakable things”. Which the writer then goes on to speak about. Quoting part of it. All he had to say was “those other things”. Why did he have to specifically tell the Theodore, who already knew the content of the Carpocratian document anyway?

Clement apparently deemed Theodore worthy of it

Possibly. But I’m not willing to buy that he deemed it was okay to “initiate” Theodore by sending him a letter. Fraternal organizations usually have swearing in ceremonies and such with face-to-face approval.

Why would lying be safer for Clement if the content of Secret Mark refuted the teachings of the Carpocratians?

The letter creates two risks: 1) It puts the information in writing where it can be obtained by people who shouldn’t see it, 2) By refuting the Carpocratians version as “the wrong version” it explicitly confirms the existence of the very thing that is supposed to be a secret.

Had Clement just lied to Theodore and said, “There is no such thing as Secret Mark. They are liars and their document is a heretical abomination and you tell them I said that” then he would have put the Carpocratians in their place and kept Secret Mark secret.

Yes, it was carefully guarded, but it was read to Christians "who are being initiated into the great mysteries," and Clement apparently deemed Theodore as being worthy of knowing about it.

Again, possibly. But then why not, “I think you’re worthy of reading it. Come here and I’ll swear you in and show you a copy.” Not, “And here’s some of the content.”

Clement describes another passage and it looks like there is something missing from Mark there too.

Yes, you got me on this one. Sort of. It is the second passage he quotes that I was thinking of. The location of the longer passage between Mark 10:34 and :35 is nothing extraordinary. There is no indication of anything missing there. Neither does it preclude an additional passage.

However, the point stands with a little less pizzazz. A passage (which directly refers back to the longer one) is given which fits in the awkward segue at Mark 10:46. If the letter was genuine, sure it COULD be that that’s where that particular quote happened to fit, but what it the likelihood over anywhere else in the book? If it was a forgery, the forger would FAVOR placing the quote in that location exactly because it looks like such a good place to put some missing information.

Thank you for your feedback. You're keeping me on my toes!

Marc

[Secret Alias]

I mean the subject of the “unspeakable things”. Which the writer then goes on to speak about.

Ok. You may not listen to me on the other things. But this time it has to be different. There are LOTS of examples of this happening in early Christianity. For one 'unspeakable things' is usually a reference to Paul's statement in 2 Corinthians 12:4:

“How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.”

In several places the Marcionites - making reference to this statement - spoke about the mysteries Paul was referencing he heard and the Church Fathers say exactly what you say i.e. how can someone say it can't be said and then you say it. But you know what, people contradict themselves. Also if the people speaking the unspeakable truths inter pares - i.e. among Christians who it is presumed were partakers in the said 'unspeakable' mysteries maybe they didn't feel Paul's dictum restricted them. Alcibiades was similarly punished for speaking about the unspeakable mysteries of Eleusis. And so and so on.

On Clement's understanding of 2 Corinthians 10:4 it appears in Stromata Book 5;

To these statements the apostle will testify: "I know a man in Christ, caught up into the third heaven, and thence into Paradise, who heard unutterable words which it is not lawful for a man to speak," -- intimating thus the impossibility of expressing God, and indicating that what is divine is unutterable by human power; if, indeed, he begins to speak above the third heaven, as it is lawful to initiate the elect souls in the mysteries there.

Clearly - as we see from the Ophite diagram (which bears certain similarities with Clement) there were 7 powers in heaven and the Alexandrians initiated people through an ascent to those heavens. The seven veils likely correspond physically (i.e. in the holy of holies) to the seven heavenly gates as has already been demonstrated. And so on.

[Secret Alias]

If you are interested in how ancient Christians criticized other Christians for uttering the 'unutterable' mysteries associated with Paul https://books.google.com/books?id=3yP-K ... le&f=false I have the French translation in its entirety and there are several places where Eznik criticizes Marcion for uttering the unutterable mysteries of Paul and noting the contradiction you do. This does not mean that Marcion was invented by Morton Smith.

[brewskiMarc]

Ok. You may not listen to me on the other things. But this time it has to be different. There are LOTS of examples of this happening in early Christianity. For one 'unspeakable things' is usually a reference to Paul's statement in 2 Corinthians 12:4:

For gods’ sake S.A. if you want me to respond to you then say something about what I’m actually talking about!!

I don’t give a rat’s presented hindquarters what ancients considered “unspeakable things”. I am talking about the contradictory content of the letter.

Try it this way:

Clement to Theodor: “I’ll tell you of the Magic Cherry Pie, but you must remember to never ever speak of it. Most especially you must tell no one there is a Secret Ingredient which is kept secret in a vault. (And which is a touch of lemon juice.)”

This does not mean that Marcion was invented by Morton Smith.

I’m sorry, who’s Morton Smith?