The debate concerning the authenticity of "Secret Mark" has certainly not abated. Two items indicate this: (1) a recent panel discussion, and (2) a forthcoming article in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus.
(1) On February 28th, the Caremont Graduate University’s Institute for Antiquity and Christianity hosted a panel discussion on Secret Mark. Chris Zeichmann provides an excellent summary of the discussion on the blog "Thoughts on Antiquity". He begins: "The panel discussion involved four scholars discussing and one moderating, representing the two extremes of the opinions on this controversial gospel. Birger Pearson and Dennis MacDonald (moderator) took the position that the Clementine epistle and the gospel were both forgeries by Morton Smith, whereas Gesine Robinson, John Dart and Marvin Meyer were of the view that Secret Mark represents the original form of the canonical Gospel of Mark." You can read the rest of it here.
(2) The next issue of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (6.1) will contain an essay by Allan J. Pantuck and Scott G. Brown, "Morton Smith as M. Madiotes: Stephen Carlson’s Attribution of ‘Secret Mark’ to a Bald Swindler." The abstract for this essay is: "In 1960, Morton Smith announced that he had discovered in the Mar Saba monastery tower library a fragment of a previously unknown letter of Clement of Alexandria containing excerpts from a longer version of the Gospel of Mark that Smith called the “Secret Gospel of Mark”. Controversial since its publication in 1973, this discovery has recently been criticized in print as both an academic hoax and a malicious forgery. This paper uses newly discovered manuscript photographs and archived documents to refute a claim found in Stephen C. Carlson’s The Gospel Hoax, namely that Smith invented a pseudonymous twentieth-century individual named ‘M. Madiotes’ as an elaborate and deliberate clue that he himself had forged the letter of Clement."
Unfortunately, this essay was not published in time to be discussed by the panelists.
When this next issue of JSHJ is released, I will inform the readers of this blog.
So some make the case that Secret Mark is really original Mark. Is that really likely, given what we are told about the origins of the gospel up to Eusebius? Looks like a move similar to trying to get the Gospel of Peter or the whole of Thomas to be as early as possible.
Darrell, Thanks for your comment. It's good to have an opportunity to chat.
There are two issues here: (1) is the fragmentary Secret Mark a modern forgery by Morton Smith or an ancient text (whether 1st century or 3rd/4th century is irrelevant at this point)? (2) If (and it is a big "if") Secret Mark is authentic, what is its original provenance?
With respect to the first issue (authenticity), I do think the matter is still open to discussion. Yes, there have been the two volumes put forth by Stephen Carlson and Peter Jeffery, but others are now beginning to examine their arguments (the wheels of scholarship do turn slowly, in contrast sometimes to the media) and argue for authenticity (thus the JSHJ article I announced). Please note, I think the matter of authenticity is still open to discussion; I personally have not been convinced either way.
With respect to the second issue (provenance), I think you are right, in that there is a scholarly tendency by some to seek early texts that could augment the other early sources we already have (esp. the canonical Gospels). But there is also another scholarly tendency by others to want to push those texts to be "later" in an attempt to defend the canonical Gospels. Both tendencies reveal a perspectival bias that arises as much from presuppositions and predispositions as from the evidence itself. But we must let people argue their cases, and ultimately we will be convinced one way or the other by the evidence they produce as well as the influence of our own presuppositions and predispositions.
Concerning Secret Mark, I am a firm fence-sitter with respect to authenticity (ouch!). But as editor of JSHJ, the decision to publish the Pantuck/Brown article was based upon positive recommendations by editorial board members that this was a good essay that brought forth genuine new evidence. Thus, we published it. With respect to provenance, if authentic (big if), I do think a whole other case needs to be mounted to argue it is early. My own sense would tend to see it as later.
Concerning Gospel of Peter and Thomas: Well, you know how I've wrestled with these! And since this will be coming out in print in a while, I think I'll leave it there. (It is bad when a response to a comment is three-times longer than the original comment!)
I agree these are two distinct questions and that the second is far less likely than the first. Thanks for the full response. I was not complaining about the decision to publish. All sides need a hearing. As you know, it is one thing to hear all sides and another to be convinced by it as your fence position so eloquently indicates.
Darrell, thanks. I do know that you were not complaining at all about the decision to publish. What I was doing was explaining to readers why as an editor I would publish something on a particular issue when at the same time as a scholar I am sitting on the fence with respect to that issue (or might disagree with it). As you know, an editor of a journal must bend over backwards to ensure that the journal represents the discipline fairly and the variety of views expressed within it. It must not become a vehicle for the editor's own views.
Post new comment