Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

And let's not forget I assume we are evaluating things from the guilty until proven innocent perspective. If, like in France, the onus is upon me to prove that the text is authentic, no I can't do that. I have no reference to Clement specifically mentioning a secret gospel or a secret gospel of Mark. I can accept that if THAT is the burden of proof to accept the letter to Theodore into the canon of Patristic writings is proof of authenticity it can't be done. But I am not sure that there is ever that burden of proof on any other discovery from the period. As we've mentioned many times before the style of the letter resembles Clement's other writings. We know that a collection of Clementine letters existed at Mar Saba as late of the 9th century. The fragment of the gospel written by Mark seems Markan. We know 'secret gospels' existed in the period Clement wrote and are referenced by Irenaeus and Tertullian and were associated with heresies. Heresies in the period seem intimately associated with Alexandria. While the epistle of Barnabas had great importance in the community, a lot more of the Alexandrian texts, traditions and personalities seem to show up on the 'heresy' side of the ledger. Even Clement and Origen end up being classified among the heretics.

It's not hard to imagine the 'secret gospels' as such - which are mentioned in works like Prescription Against Heresies - developed from Alexandria. It's not explicit in the work. But the famous library of Alexandria was located within the Serapeum a building which was dedicated to Harpocrates. As such the idea of a mystery religion developed around a book seems right at home in Alexandria. While it can be argued that the Yahwehist temples in Samaria and Judea were the proper model for 'the Christian mysteries' the example of the Serapeum looms larger. Even in the surviving traditions regarding St Mark regarding an angry mob which dragged him by a rope to Bucolia under the cliffs near the sea, the cult of Serapis lurks in the background. The model likely developed from Philo's understanding of throngs of angry worshipers leaving the Serapeum and assaulting the Jewish districts in the city. The papyrus which resembles the Acts of the Pagan Martyrs indicates that Isidorus met Flaccus in the Serapeum temple before the pogrom started.

So there is this rivalry between the nascent Christian 'mystery' cult built around a text - the gospel - and the traditional Greek Alexandrian cult of Serapis. The fact that the enemies of the gospel mystery religion are called Harpocratians or Carpocratians associated allegedly with Salome - a figure only found in Mark - is telling too. Ancient antagonisms were always resurfacing even in the retelling of the material. It did so again in the revolt under Avidius Cassius which Marco Rizzi ties to ancient antagonisms between Christians and Serapis devotees https://books.google.com/books?id=BdQts ... is&f=false. The point is that there must have been a rich Alexandrian Christian culture from at least the beginning of the second century. We know almost nothing about any of this. All our information develops from (a) an artificial history of Christianity in Antioch, Greece and Asia Minor in the historical romance the Acts of the Apostles, the Acts of Paul and the marginalia associated with the orthodox recension of the Pauline Epistles and (b) a struggle for the capitol of the Empire within Christianity principally fought by the enthusiastic foreign adherents of the Johannine tradition of Asia Minor and the Roman Church which the natives - the original lineage of bishops of Rome - ultimately lost.

To this end I don't think that it's entirely surprising that when we actually start to learn about Alexandrian Christianity, the traditional hierarchy is under assault. Clement of Alexandria and Origen, the closest thing to 'orthodox' Church Fathers both end up fleeing the city by the beginning of the third century. Tradition holds that the first 'orthodox' bishop we know anything about - Demetrius - was a married foreigner. Aside from driving leading figures from the past out of the city Demetrius seems fixated on imposing new rules about the calculation of the Passover/Easter. The third century was marked by strife and when Christianity finally reconstitutes itself in the fourth century the chief opponent to the new order happens to be the man who sat on the throne of the Church of St Mark mentioned in the letter to Theodore and which was still visible to native Alexandrians until Nasser's modernization of Egypt transformed the Alexandrian coastline https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 151005550/.

There must have once been a rich Alexandrian Christian history - one which only reveals itself as being in opposition to what was later known as 'the Melkite Church' - i.e. the church of Rome. I don't possess the magical abilities required to piece together what happened to this tradition which was the heir to Philo, Mark and the first Popes of Alexandria (the term 'Papa' is of Alexandrian Christian origin). All that I know is that existed. It predated Clement's writings and included the figure of Marcion, Basilides, Julius Cassian, Apelles and a host of other figures who have been lost to the sands of time. None of this proves that the Secret Gospel of Mark was ever preserved in this ancient church. But circumstantially the story seems to fit what little we know of the culture there. I think it is better to side with its authenticity as a reminder that we don't know everything about early Christianity, than deny it's existence simply as a means of affirming what we know about Christianity outside of the city. There is no compelling argument to claim that Morton Smith forged the document. If it was an ancient forgery it still serves as a testimony - no worse than any other - as to the existence of a glorious tradition which is often overlooked in any discussion of Christian origins.

Even if the letter to Theodore is a forgery it is an ancient one. If the story about Mark coming to Alexandria and establishing a church and a secret gospel are fables they are fables no different than those which make of the Acts of the Apostles and related history. If we are going to include fables in our attempt to reconstruct the origins of Christianity it is best to include the widest possible amount of myth-making to fully investigate the ancient imagination of Christian writers.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 7:45 pm Why does it make more sense to you that Jesus had an asterisk beside his judgment on divorce? It is because of your presuppositions about Jewish Christianity. Did he have an asterisk beside his opinions on sacrifices? Lending at interest? Lust? Pointless asking you to think rationally. You have an idea about what you want Jewish Christianity to be for entirely personal reasons. I on the other hand couldn't care less if Jesus turned out to be a white rabbit. I enjoy the abstract thinking excercise and only the abstract thinking excercise.

To judge from Mt. 5:23-24, Jesus does appear to have had an asterisk beside his opinion on sacrifice. He was not opposed to it but thought it was more important to be reconciled with a fellow.

So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

As I've said before, I also couldn't care less how the chips fall with respect to Jesus, and the way that they fall in what I gather are the earliest writings about him appears to be that he taught about observing more than the Ten Commandments.

So Matthew's asterisk is earlier than Luke's no asterisk? Asterisks always come later like- I love you but ... inevitably develops after a long period of I fucking love you to death. Very hard to go from i love you but ... to I love you period. The asterisk is an afterthought I need to set parameters on the original no asterisk.

I wrote:

Where does he (Papias) say, or where does an ancient author say he said, that he added stories to his gospel on top of the things Peter told him?

And:

Do you have evidence that that the Gospel of Mark exhibits a knowledge of Platonism, or more specifically, Platonic love and that this shaped his portrayal of Jesus?

And Secret Alias replied:

And let's not forget I assume we are evaluating things from the guilty until proven innocent perspective. If, like in France, the onus is upon me to prove that the text is authentic, no I can't do that... (snipped)

I take it this means, no, you don’t know of a passage where Papias says Mark added stories to his gospel on top of the things Peter told him and, no, you don’t have evidence that the author of Mark exhibits a knowledge of Platonism and that it shaped his portrayal of Jesus.

Terence Mullins wrote two papers on the relationship between Secret Mark and Papias's classic statement. I just assumed everyone knew what statement in Papias I was references as there is only Papian statement on Mark. I will link to both papers.

Steve, Clement's attitude toward Matthew 5:32 is kind of eye-opening. Clement rightly notes that the law proscribes death for the female adulterer not merely divorce:

Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law, "Thou shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of fornication;" and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive. Not to deck and adorn herself beyond what is becoming, renders a wife free of calumnious suspicion. while she devotes herself assiduously to prayers and supplications; avoiding frequent departures from the house, and shutting herself up as far as possible from the view of all not related to her, and deeming housekeeping of more consequence than impertinent trifling. "He that taketh a woman that has been put away," it is said, "committeth adultery; and if one puts away his wife, he makes her an adulteress," that is, compels her to commit adultery. And not only is he who puts her away guilty of this, but he who takes her, by giving to the woman the opportunity of sinning; for did he not take her, she would return to her husband. What, then, is the law? In order to check the impetuosity of the passions, it commands the adulteress to be put to death, on being convicted of this; and if of priestly family, to be committed to the flames. And the adulterer also is stoned to death, but not in the same place, that not even their death may be in common. And the law is not at variance with the Gospel, but agrees with it. How should it be otherwise, one Lord being the author of both? She who has committed fornication liveth in sin, and is dead to the commandments; but she who has repented, being as it were born again by the change in her life, has a regeneration of life; the old harlot being dead, and she who has been regenerated by repentance having come back again to life. The Spirit testifies to what has been said by Ezekiel, declaring, "I desire not the death of the sinner, but that he should turn." Now they are stoned to death; as through hardness of heart dead to the law which they believed not. But in the case of a priestess the punishment is increased, because "to whom much is given, from him shall more be required."

The link the Mullins's first paper - https://www.jstor.org/stable/1582193?re ... b_contents

It looks at the meaning of the word ἔνια in Papias and relates it to what is written about Secret Mark in Clement's letter to Theodore

ὃς πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας, ἀλλ' οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λογίων, ὥστε οὐδὲν ἥμαρτεν Μάρκος οὕτως ἔνια γράψας ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευσεν

I put the relevant section of Mullins's second paper here - https://secretmarkblog.blogspot.com/202 ... s-two.html

I figured you were familiar with the reference to Papias and the obvious parallels to the Letter of Theodore. Terrence Mullins thinks the accusation was that the evangelist did not transcribe every word at Peter's dictation and added a few items from his fallible memory. Mullins argues that the term ἔνια, translated as a small portion in distinction from a greater one, is incapable of accommodating a book the size of Mark (cf. 1 Clem. 44:6; 2 Clem. 19:2). He correlates the illegitimate additions with the short excerpts of the Secret Gospel of Mark discovered by Morton Smith.

And Steve it is noteworthy how rarely any Church Father cites Luke 16:18. It only gets cited it seems in commentaries on Luke:

Tertullian Against Marcion (which is in essence a commentary on Luke) 4.34.1,4, 6, 9 and 5.7.6, John Chrysostom, Aduersus oppugnatores uitae monasticae libri 3, Theodoret Interpretatio in epistulas Paulinas, Ambrosius Exposition on Luke 8.2, 4, 5, 7, 9, Jerome Epistle 127. That's extremely rare. The passage is clearly Marcionite.

Thanks for the reference to Mullins. I’ve looked out his 1960 and 1976 papers now and can see what you are talking about. Mullins suggests a possible reading of Papias on Mark in the first paper and then assumes it to be the correct reading in the second. I think his reading is pretty arbitrary. Eusebius’ treatment of Papias is brief and a lot of people can suggest a not-impossible reading of it that supports their own theory of gospel origins (I know I can), but Mullins seems to be more-than-usually arbitrary in just picking a possible meaning and then adopting it as the correct reading without considering alternatives or even all of the fragment of Papias.

First, he notes that the fragment begins by saying that Mark became the interpreter of Peter and says this permits the interpretation that Mark was the translator of a written work by Peter. Then Mullins is done arguing for the point and just assumes it as the basis for the rest of his interpretation.

Second, he suggests that ENIA, “some” is an odd word for a work as long as Mark and that in can only be “some” in relation to a whole and concludes that Papias meant Mark added “some” of the teachings that Peter had delivered orally to the written translation he had made of Mark, so thus there were two written works by Mark - one a translation of Peter’s written work and the other that translation supplemented by additional material Mark had heard orally.

Mullins first point, that we might as well assume a written work by Peter, is simply arbitrary, particularly when he has to go on to assume Mark also translated some of Peter’s oral teachings.

The second point fails to consider likely alternatives. ENIA could mean some of a whole, but the whole could be the Logia or the things said and done by the Lord (which I would take to be synonymous and refer to the body of the apostolic tradition about Jesus). I don’t see any reason to think that Mark could not be “some” of the Jesus tradition. Your two examples don’t concern literary works. It is telling that Mullins does not discuss what the Logia are or compare what Papias says about Mark to what he says about Matthew. But perhaps more likely, ENIA does not mean ‘some’ here but ‘individuals’ or ‘individual elements’, which would make sense because it’s being contrasted to an orderly arrangement. Kirsopp Lake renders it as ‘single points’ in the Loeb translation of the HE. In his quick run through of a few prior translations, Mullins notes that Lake’s is “closer to the sense,” but doesn’t stop to explain how he knows it’s *not* the sense.

I found Mullins reading of Papias arbitrary and less convinving than other translations, and particularly much worse than more recent discussions of the issue that treat what Papias says about Mark and Matthew together and what the Logia are.

Best,

Ken

As a general point of interest for readers this book edited
by Panagiotis on Platonism and Christian Thought in Late Antiquity is free for the next seven days:

https://tfstore.kortext.com/platonism-a ... ity-421685