Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Pique and Puig

The best are usually gay. Just saying. That's why I am happy to suck at everything.

I think from this rather insipid response to this insipid article and engaging with Stephen again I have finally put my finger on the problem that Secret Mark brings. For religious people Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are "the right gospels." "Whoever heard of a secret gospel let alone of Mark?" If you look at Clement's response however it is not as cut and dry as saying that there was a "secret gospel of Mark."

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.

Whoever Theodore has been talking to they "keep saying" things "the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark." It is not Clement who introduces the idea into the discussion. Yes he makes up an explanation for how this "secret gospel of Mark" arose:

As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. 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. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.

Let's concede that most of this is borrowed from Papias. It's an invention. Assuming that Clement wrote the letter he's trying to explain how this "secret gospel of Mark" arose. Why? By his own definition it's a secret. It's wrong to reveal secrets. If someone presses you to reveal a secret you have one of two choices. Break your oath and reveal the secret or lie. Let's suppose Clement lied or made up this Mark story. Would that really be against Christian principles or the principles of the Christian mystery religion? I suppose it would be better than revealing the secret. The religion would be over once its secrets were revealed.

To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath.

This is the queerest line of the whole text. So it would seem that Clement is revealing the divine secret to Theodore but denying the divine secret to everyone else. But is that necessarily the only solution to the problem? I have lied once or twice in my life. Most people lie to create a sense of intimacy with the person they are speaking to. "Tell you what I am going to do. For YOU I am going to make this special offer." What special offer? Everyone gets the same fucking price. But that's what lying does. Cheaters lie to their mistress as well as their wife. Lying is intimately connected to intimacy. I'd go so far as to say that lying is almost always connected with intimacy and creating a false sense of intimacy.

So again. Either Clement is lying to everyone else or he is lying to Theodore. Because he by the rules of the mystery cult can't reveal the secret to anyone who hasn't undergone the proper training and initiation. So my guess is that (a) the Carpocratian invented the idea of a "secret gospel of Mark" (b) Clement rejects whatever they say about it but invents a new myth about Mark and Peter from Papias and (c) adds the bit about him denying the Mark claim to everyone else implying, I would suggest, that in reality the secret gospel has another explanation.

Again, as I've said before, it was Paul's secret gospel mentioned in Marcionite literature from 2 Corinthians 12:4. That's the hint at the beginning of the letter:

You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocratians.

The Carpocratian teachings are "unutterable" here because of how horrific the community is (according to Hegesippus). But the other meaning of the term comes from 2 Corinthians 12:4.

Revelation of the holy Apostle Paul: the things which were revealed to him when he went up even to the third heaven, and was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words.

We see from the Scillitan Martyrs that possession of a collection of writings wholly devoted to Paul was connected with martyrdom https://www.livius.org/sources/content/ ... anslation/. Clement was hoping to avoid the same fate as the Marcionites. That's my guess.

Clement says that Christianity effectively began with Paul after the ascension. Did Paul possess the Jesus spirit that went up to Paradise? I don't know. But he's avoiding admitting he is a Marcionite. That's my guess again.

And this is patently untrue:

Smith’s fascination with religio-sexual antinomianism begins with Aleister Crowley and Sabbatai Zevi and must continue to consider Avatar Adi Da, whose Dawn Horse Press continues to keep Smith’s Secret Gospel in print.74

The footnote:

74 Without reference to Jones/Adi Da, Robert M. Price recalls Smith speaking sympathetically of new age gospels: “If they [New Age Gospels] embodied someone’s faith, weren’t they authentic Gospels, no matter who wrote them or when?” See Price, “Second Thoughts on the Secret Gospel,” BBR 14.1 (2004): 127–132 (130).

He's complaining about Smith engaging in bad scholarship. Where is the footnote confirming Smith's interest in Crowley? Sabbatai Sevi is one of Scholem's most important studies. This is utter garbage. He's accusing Smith of not engaging in good scholarship ... while himself engaging in shoddy scholarship. Scholem pioneered the scholarly study of kabbalah. On the one hand the author accuses Smith of not following his teacher but then accuses him of an interest in his teachers most important work. I have had enough.

Also the consistent attempt to accuse Smith of things that happened outside of his lifetime. For instance using Cohen's eulogy against him and the publication of his popular book by an occultist book shop. How are these accusations? And I like Bob but come on. He thinks the 2022 election was stolen.

This is what is wrong with this article and all those that see Smith's interest in "occultism" as confirming that he was a mystic. He was the furthest thing from a mystic. But let's address the repeated mention of Sabbatai Sevi. You can't accuse him on the one hand of "not being loyal enough to his teacher Scholem" (which he does at the beginning of the paper) and then questioning why he was so interested in Sabbatai Sevi. From the great book written by Scholar which I have read many times:

https://press.princeton.edu/books/paper ... batai-sevi

Gershom Scholem stands out among modern thinkers for the richness and power of his historical imagination. A work widely esteemed as his magnum opus, Sabbatai Ṣevi offers a vividly detailed account of the only messianic movement ever to engulf the entire Jewish world. Sabbatai Ṣevi was an obscure kabbalist rabbi of seventeenth-century Turkey who aroused a fervent following that spread over the Jewish world after he declared himself to be the Messiah. The movement suffered a severe blow when Ṣevi was forced to convert to Islam, but a clandestine sect survived. A monumental and revisionary work of Jewish historiography, Sabbatai Ṣevi details Ṣevi’s rise to prominence and stands out for its combination of philological and empirical authority and passion. This edition contains a new introduction by Yaacob Dweck that explains the scholarly importance of Scholem’s work to a new generation of readers.

What is wrong with people? Are people really this fucking mendacious. You can't have it both ways. Smith was interested in Sabbatai Sevi because of his teacher Scholem. End of story. This industry of writing idiotic papers about Smith's interest in the occult as if he was engaged in Satanic rituals is ridiculous. Scholem was the most legitimate source for this interest. They engaged in on going correspondence which is well know. This is all very silly and a waste of everyone's time. Why not accuse Scholem of the same "evil"? Oh he's Jewish. That's the out. I guess Jews are by nature evil and mendacious. No need to pile on.

And as an authority on ancient Judaism https://www.bu.edu/prsocial/profile/jonathan-klawans/ it perhaps explains why the author isn't familiar with the fact that Carpocratians are described in sexualized terms by the ancient sources. How successful would a Christian author be at writing a paper on the Pharisees? This idea of "sexualized Christianity" and antinomianism wasn't invented by Morton Smith. Marcion is the most prominent antinomian Christian. He and his followers were eunuchs or castrated and such individuals were inevitably sexualized in antiquity like the contempoary interest in "trannies." A specialist in early Judaism isn't likely as familiar also with the subtleties of (a) Hegesippus (b) used by Irenaeus and Epiphanius and (c) Lawlor's breakthrough that Epiphanius has a copy of Hegesippus in hand while writing the Panarion. Epiphanius mentions the homosexuality associated with the sect because it was in Hegesippus. The same idea of homosexual mystic rites in early Christianity makes it's way to Tertullian's Against the Valentinians. It all comes together here with Christian "gnostics" raping eunuchs in some reenactment (allegedly) of an aeonic process:

ipsi autem spiritus in totum fient intellectuales neque detentui neque conspectui obnoxii, atque ita invisibiliter in Pleroma recipiuntur. furtim si ita est. [3] quid deinde? angelis distribuentur satellitibus Soteris. in filios putas? non. sed in adparatores? ni istud quidem. sed in imagines? utinam vel hoc. in quid ergo si non pudet dicere? in sponsas! tunc illi sabinas raptas inter se de matrimoniis ludent. haec erat spiritalium merces, hoc praemium credendi. [4] fabulae tales utiles ut Marcus aut Gaius in hac carne barbatus et in hac anima severus maritus pateravus proavus--certe quod sufficit masculus--in nyphone Pleromatis ab angelo. . . tacendo iam dixi; et forsitan parias aliquem novissimum Aeonem. his nuptiis recte deducendis pro face et flammeo tunc credo ille ignis arcanus erumpet et universam substantiam depopulatus ipse quoque decineratis omnibus in nihilum finietur et nulla iam fabula. [5] sed ne ego temerarius qui tantum sacramentum etiam inludendo prodiderim. verendum mihi est ne Achamoth quae se nec filio agnitam vol- uit insaniet, ne Theletus irascatur, ne Fortunata acerbetur. et tamen homo sum Demiurgi; illuc habeo devertere ubi post excessum omnino non obnubitur, ubi superindui potius quam despoliari, ubi etsi despolior sexui meo, deputor angelis non angelus non angela; nemo mihi quicquam faciet quem nec tunc masculum inveniet.

If he had more familiar with the ancient sources he likely wouldn't have attempted this silly paper. It always should be a rule of anyone writing a paper to actually familiarize yourself with the subject matter you are writing about. Total bullshit.

In a rant above emerges this question:
"Where is the footnote confirming Smith's interest in Crowley?"

Try Klawans footnote 49.

Or, to restate, in a letter from Smith to Scholem dated November 26, 1945, Smith mentions Crowley--eight times.

Morton Smith and Gershom Scholem, correspondence 1945-1982
edited with an introduction by Guy G. Stroumsa.
Scholem, Gershom, 1897-1982
Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2008, pages 10 and 11.

He would take Smith to task for that. Still Smith developed an interest in these practices because the discovery guided his research. The author is seemingly oblivious to (a) the history of antinomianism in early Christian thought (Marcion) (b) reports of sexualized and homosexualized rituals in early Christianity involving "Mark" and (c) the acknowledged transmission of Hegesippus to other Church Fathers. If he does know these things he is doing the same things he accuses Smith of engaging in. Maybe intellectual dishonesty is at the heart of all humanities papers. Maybe Smith is just another self-centered humanities scholar. What's the author's qualifications in the field of early Christianity?

I don't really see any background in early Christianity

https://bu.academia.edu/JonathanKlawans

You can see he wrote this paper as an extension of his work against the Shapira text. Best not to pontificate on things you know a lot about.

Regarding the sentence above:
"Still Smith developed an interest in these practices because the discovery guided his research."

Check the chronology.
Smith's letter to Scholem mentioning Crowley----------1945.
Smith's claimed To Theodore find-------------------------1958.