Talk:Secret Gospel of Mark

Secrecy

Wetmen -- I enjoyed your inclusion of the information on "secrecy". This article is thought-provoking. Especially when you put "secret Mark" in the context of the Gospel of Mark. Is is possible that the disciple whom "Jesus loved" was either Lazarus, or Mary, the sister of Lazarus?

Of course.. What other context could it be in? I take no credit for the notes by Robert M. Grant, (A Historical Introduction to the New Testament)-- written years before Clement's reference to Secret Mark was found, by the way. Speculations on the identity of the "beloved disciple' are a separate story really. --Wetman 06:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Separate Story? One that needs telling! - Melissa

Your redlinks await: either Beloved Disciple or Beloved disciple, marshalling all the evidence and mentioning the candidates that have been discussed in print. (And let no reader detect what your opinion is!) --Wetman 12:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Got your point. Melissa. By the way, I like the articles you have worked on.(My POV)

Disciple whom Jesus loved needs lots of work! --Wetman 08:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

75.191.151.75 (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article

I found this to be an interesting article, although quite controversial. I noted that Johnstone who put the disputed tag up in November 2004 has not done much to improve the article. I (Melissa) have tried to clean it up to meet Wikipedia standards. I hope it meets with Johnstone's approval. However, the article still needs more cleanup. (User:Melissadolbeer)

The recent somewhat blurred edit has "Deleted what seemed irrelevant and POV", according to its Edit Summary.

• "Allegedly written" in the opening sentence: shall we intrude "allegedly written" in Gospel of Mark, which is less likely to have been written by its "alleged" author? Former text carefully read "a letter that presents itself as written." The "allegations" are inherent in the text itself.
• "Privately": "Gospel of Mark that was circulated privately". Why is "privately" suppressed? It is the essential nature of this gospel, as the letter-writer describes it.
• Reaction: "a storm of recrimination, denial and abuse" was too vivid and far too accurate for the censor, who substituted the flaccid cliché "much debate". The reaction in print to the Mar Saba letter clearly needs a much more detailed subsection, with plenty of quotes to give the actual flavor of the abusive recriminations and denial, without characterizing them in any way.
• Suppressed "The controversy is currently unresolved" and substituted a resolution of the debate for Wikipedia's readers: " However, in both cases statistical evidence has been presented that the similarities are too good to be true and suggest a deliberate imitation rather than an authentic work." No use of "allegedly" in this context, one notes. Perhaps our censor will return to her handiwork and take these points into consideration, not invoking "NPOV" but restoring neutrality. Having the tag removed is like losing an abcessed tooth: thank you! --Wetman 13:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wetman, 'abuse' is a strong word. Can you give an example or is it your POV. -Melissa

Just Google any of the salient words-- like Mar Saba Morton Smith Secret Mark-- and read how Morton Smith is accused of incompetency, intellectual dishonesty, fraud, forgery. You'll see why my hair stands on end! --Wetman 08:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suppressing Content

User:Ashibaka suppressed the following text, which I have now restored:

According to the letter, the Secret Gospel of Mark was "a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected" in Egypt. Because of the contents of the Secret Gospel, described below, it has been heavily controversial. On one hand, it clears up some inconsistencies in Mark which are all too mysterious, such as the scantily clad man in Mark 14:51-52, and the abrupt transition in Mark 10:46. On the other hand, it has some elements of a fiction: the backstory which explains the existence of the Secret Gospel, the convienient abrupt ending right before the Secret Gospel is explained, and the sole interjection from the Carpocratians that seems to bring the subtext of the Secret Gospel into the clear.

This utterly relevant and neutral text quotes the document being discussed, explains the controversy (vividly expressed by Ashibaka's suppression of all mention of it) and demonstrates that some text is indeed missing from Mark as we have it in the canonic version. When text is suppressed in this manner, it is a sign that more information needs to be added to the entry. Wetman 23:53, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand this at all. It talks about material being suppressed by Ashibaka and restored by Wetman. But, on the basis of the edit history, the material seems to have been added by Ashibaka and suppressed by Wetman sarban@supanet.com

Don't be misled by "13" (April) and "18" (March). Look at the content and the sequence of these edits in the History... if you have that much empty time. Wetman 20:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Random Inserts

"the shortest version of a story is usually the earliest" is a false statement inserted by Anonymous User 198.208.6.35. The link at Page History will give the edit history of this person. I have set this statement into a context that keeps it from being misleading. Check my edit of today.Wetman 23:02, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This person was me. Charlie Turek magician

---

"The earliest Christian art( 3rd century, this is at least a hundred years after Jesus' time) depicts Jesus holding a wand when performing the miracles of changing water to wine, the multipication of loaves and the raising of Lazarus from the dead. When healing is the miracle, Jesus lays on hands. This art has never been kept in secret." What 3rd century "art" is being referred to here? Is this sheer invention? Wetman 22:57, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See my review of Morton Smith's book Jesus the Magician on Amazon.com. See my other reviews too. Charlie Turek magician charlesturek@comcast.net

I think Peter is the only apostle with a wand.

What's the connection to the text called Secret Gospel of Mark in this? Please enter relevent information in the entry. Saying "see my review " in the Discussion does not identify a work of art of the 3rd century that is being adduced to prove a point. Relevent information means simply information that is relevent to Secret History of Mark, the subject of this entry.Wetman 18:59, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Disputedness

Okay, this article looks rather rough and connected to a certain theological faction. Look at it: does it deserve a "disputed" label? (NB: entered by Anonymous User:158.38.66.154: click on the link to see the other contributions by the Anonymous User!)

Please identify what you consider "rough" and we will make it plain. We're trying only to get the facts straight. What is this unidentified "certain theological faction"? The "disputed" label has been rendered disreputable precisely by its use as a weapon in this fashion, usually by logged-in users. Wetman 18:59, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(There was no further response from User:158.38.66.154.)

Jesus the Magician

Anyone interested in entering material on Morton Smith's book Jesus the Magician or on the subject of Jesus as a Hellenistic magician, etc, need only click on the link in the heading and start editing! The subject may be linked in its entry to Secret Gospel of Mark, for aught In know, and to other texts that document a secret history of Jesus as a magician. No need to clutter this Discussion. Wetman 19:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Carpocratians

Shouldn't the prologue that Clement has in his letter before he quotes from the Gospel also be mentioned? I.e. his condemning of the claims that the gospel has the terms "naked man with naked man" ("gymnos gymnos" in Greek) in it. This puts into context exactly what the gospel was perceived to claim and justify by the Carpocrations, and why Clement quotes the passages to attempt to counter the claim. --81.156.179.151 19:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indeed it should: any text that throws light directly on the lost Secret Mark is relevant to the entry. --Wetman 00:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Transliteration

I have edited the text of the entry on Secret Mark to show that the Greek for "naked man with naked man" ought to be transliterated as "gymnon gymno." The two words are not identical; rather the first is in the accusative case while the second is dative to suggest "with." The first "o" in "gymnon" is an omicron while the final "o" in "gymno" is an omega. In transliteration, the latter should be an "o" with a line over it, but I don't know how to do that either in Word or html. Milesnfowler 16:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I modified the transliteration as you suggested. Below the edit box there are a number of special characters which one can click to insert into the text. Michael Slone 19:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sexuality

I came to this article after reading a section in the Jesus page. I think we ought to put into the article the conclusions that Morton Smith made (or was claimed to make) about Jesus' Sexuality from the text, and why this lead to his discovery of the text for a long time being very controversial. --81.156.179.151 19:10, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Conclusions that Morton Smith was "claimed to make" don't need encyclopedia treatment, revealing as they are of his detractors' mindset and techniques. A quote from Morton Smith about whatever sexual content might have been in the spiritually transforming experience Jesus was apparently offering is apropos, however. Care to find one? --Wetman 01:32, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are a few quotable sections on this in Morton Smith's book Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel of Mark. I am afraid I don't have a copy to hand, or its ISBN number.

I think it is important that some of his detractors complaints also be included (I don't know where to find quotes for these), so that the article shows the level of controversy which surrounded the discovery of the gospel, and why it arose. 217.150.114.18 15:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, when you have time... --Wetman 16:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cutting apart

I think the article is too long in its present form to be readable. Could it be split into sections, e.g. discovery, content, interpretation?CheeseDreams 20:12, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is not nearly so long as the entry Pokemon, which may be a more gripping subject. This entry is a connected text on a coherent subject, providing some context. Not everyone is daunted by a couple of thousand words of text. --Wetman 20:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was going to suggest something similar to what CheeseDreams suggested. In no particular order: the background about the letter, the forgery controversy, and what the letter says about the Secret Gospel. Stuff about Morton Smith and his book should go in separate articles, but may merit being linked here. (Smith, as the discoverer; his book, only if it is primarily an exegesis of what the letter tells us.) I'm tempted to cut it up right now, but there are some redundancies and other problems that are going to make it more than a few minutes' work to do right. — B.Bryant 21:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The entry subject here, let us not forget, is Secret Gospel of Mark. The "background about the letter" is relevant to the entry Mar Saba Letter, and should be mentioned and linked here; the forgery controversy belongs in one place: here has been the sensible choice; the Mar Saba letter would be another sensible choice, butthe controversy should be already linked from Mar Saba letter and from Morton Smith. "Stuff about Morton Smith" belongs in his bio, of course. "Redundancies" however are rife in Wikipedia: each article needs to be complete, so information does get repeated that appears in another context elsewhere. Not knowing anything about a somewhat contentious subject is most certainly "going to make it more than a few minutes' work to do right."

A sure sign of an educated person is a sense of the limitations of our competence. As we approach our boundaries, modesty might take up the slack where self-confidence naturally fails. To the wise, a word is sufficient. --Wetman 00:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Morton Smith article stubbed. --Bastique 04:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say there that he translated excerpts of it? All we have of it is a few bits quoted in the letter, right? — B.Bryant 06:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right. A complete Clement letter, with the excerpts of Secret Mark it contains. --Wetman 08:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Has the original book ever been made available?

As far as I can tell, the original book with the transcriptions was never made available for critical examination, at least through the late 1990's. Therefore, I've added several "alleged"'s to the article.--Johnstone 03:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The letter of Clement's has been printed. What "book" is User:Johnstone imagining? Don't just sprinkle entries with "alleged," if you are too lazy to look into the subject first. --Wetman 04:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In looking into this subject, before editing, I encountered the following at http://www.gnosis.org/library/secm_commentary.htm, which is presently the last external link in the article:

"What Smith then began photographing was a three-page handwritten addition penned into the endpapers of a printed book, Isaac Voss' 1646 edition of the Epistolae genuinae S. Ignatii Martyris. It identified itself as a letter by Clement of the Stromateis, i.e., Clement of Alexandria, the second-century church father well-known for his neo-platonic applications of Christian belief....

"Inevitably a document which is so controversial as Secret Mark will be accused of being a forgery. This is precisely what happened in 1975... Foremost is the lack of the physical manuscript. Smith left the manuscript in the tower at Mar Saba in 1958 and had been working with his set of photographs ever since....

"Quesnell calls into question all of Smith's efforts to date the manuscript to the eighteenth century. Although Smith consulted many paleographic experts, Quesnell feels this information to be useless as compared to a chemical analysis of the ink, and a microscopic examination of the writing. Then he asks the 'unavoidable next question': was the letter of Clement a modern forgery?....

"Quesnell's arguments were still echoed in 1983 by Per Beskow, who wrote that Smith "can only present some mediocre photographs, which do not even cover the entire margins of the manuscript....

"In Thomas Talley's 1982 article on ancient liturgy, he describes his own attempt to physically examine the Secret Mark manuscript. As his is the last word on the physical artifact in question, it is fortuitous to quote him at length: 'My own attempts to see the manuscript in January of 1980 were frustrated, but as witnesses to its existence I can cite the Archimandrite Meliton of the Jerusalem Greek Patriarchate who, after the publication of Smith's work, found the volume at Mar Saba and removed it to the patriarchal library, and the patriarchal librarian, Father Kallistos, who told me that the manuscript (two folios) has been removed from the printed volume and is being repaired.'...

The "book," is the printed volume, Epistolae genuinae S. Ignatii Martyris, specifically the endpapers with the manuscript. It appears that it has never been made available for examination. Can you provide any references that state that it has?--Johnstone 02:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thomas Talley's remarks need to be quoted in the entry, don't they. --Wetman 02:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Talley's remarks would be a good addition, as well as statements that:

• the original has not been made available. (My $0.02: Arguments from authority are no substitute for physical analysis.)
• numerous scholars believe that it is likely a forgery, even Smith's professor (Arthur Darby Nock), and [at least one of] his students (Jacob Neusner, who called it "the forgery of the century"), etc.
• Smith's interpretation of the content was and is controversial.

And, of course, the word "alleged" should be inserted where appropriate.--Johnstone 00:56, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone imagine that the original will ever be seen again? Doesn't everyone realize how extremely unusual it is to remove endpapers from a printed book, under the rubric of "repairs"? Is anyone taken in by Johnstone's disingenuous remark about "arguments from authority"? Is this not classic Christianist cult behavior?

User:Johnstone has applied an NPOV label to this article. --Wetman 10:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm offended that User:Wetman has accused me of being disingenuous. His use of the loaded, prejudiced phrase "classic Christianist cult behavior" is also offensive. The remark in question expresses my genuine sentiment. Regardless of how or why it has not been made available for analysis, this is nonetheless a fact, and I simply communicated my opinion that arguments from authority (such as Talley's reference to the Archimandrite and librarian as "witnesses to its existence") would be a poor basis upon which to argue that the document is genuine, and that physical analysis would be the best method to determine this. Even though there are many things suggesting that the manuscript was a forgery (for example, see http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&itemid=2599&cat=7), if it really did exist and was permanently hidden or destroyed by the Archimandrite and librarian, it would be wrong. Again, if it hasn't already happened, whoever has it should make the document available for analysis, so that it can "speak" for itself. Truth is good.--Johnstone 01:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Offended"! Preposterous!--Wetman 04:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Although an increasing number scholars are beginning to think that something is wrong about the discovery of Secret Mark (e.g. Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities), please be aware Alden Bass in the linked Apologetics Press article certainly exaggerates his case when he stated that "most scholars believe it to have been a fraud." He also incorrectly listed Scott Brown for supporting the idea that Clement's letter is a forgery--Brown actually argues that, though Secret Mark was written after canonical Mark, both of them were written by the same person. --scc 03:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to Charles E. Hedrick and Nikolaos Olympiou, "Secret Mark: New Photographs, New Witnesses," Fourth R 13, no. 5 (September/October 2000): 3-16, the Mar Saba manuscript, which had been separated from the book for photographing, has probably been misfiled somewhere in the fairly disorganized Patriarchal library. Fortunately, the new 1970s-era photographs have been located and published. --scc 03:41, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Misfiled!" Endpapers removed from a bound printed book, and then misfiled. This embarrassing letter of Clement of Alexandria has been misfiled, we are to believe! And the letter itself is being called a fake! --Wetman 04:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Read Charlie's article. He's been to the library and knows the librarians and their procedures, so his optimism that it may turn up again some day has some factual basis--at least a lot more than what either one of us has. --scc 21:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

mentioning the controversy

I think the fundamental issue is that at least a large minority of scholars, rightly or wrongly, do consider the Mar Saba letter to be a modern (18th or 20th century) forgery.

For the sake of neutrality this should be made clear in the main article, although it is probably legitimate to say that most scholars regrd it as a genuine letter of Clement.

This article is already rather long and would probably not be improved by a detailed discussion of the technical arguments pro and con authenticity.

All that is necessary is a clear brief statement that the authenticity of the letter is a matter of scholarly dispute.

sarban@supanet.com

It certainly should be mentioned. But the bases for doubt should be briefly and colorlessly mentioned too (by someone sympathetic), as they are also quite revealing of agendas, without any overt commentary required. --Wetman 03:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've written an account as neutrally as possible. I'm worried it is too long but if we're to mention the arguments for and against authenticity at all I'm not sure it can be any shorter.

sarban@supanet.com

Thanks for addition to the article. I think it is a fair summation. One question though: when you say that a majority of scholars accept the Mar Saba letter as being of Clement, do you mean Clement scholars in particular or any scholar with an interest in Secret Mark? --scc 18:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Stephen C. Carlson)

I meant any scholar with an interest in the matter although I suspect the answer would be the same anyway. AFAIK Osborn is the only really major Clement scholar to have said in print that the work is not authentic.

sarban@supanet.com

Osborn is about as major as they get, though. Ursula Treu included it in the GSC edition "provisionally" to spur discussion, but I think Robert M. Grant is more optimistic about its authenticity. My general sense of active Clement scholars is that, if they mention it at all, they usually note that its authenticity is disputed, and few articles really depend on what is in it. Also, as you must certainly know, some good Clement scholars have taken positions in print questioning the letter's authenticity (e.g. Criddle 1995, Jakab 1999). --scc 21:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Given that the major reason for putting the NPOV disputed label up has (IMHO IIUC etc) been largely dealt with, would it be appropriate to remove the label ??

sarban@supanet.com

20th century text discoveries

I've replaced the remark

"Starting with the Dead Sea Scrolls, textual discoveries in the later 20th century revealed a new understanding of the broadly divergent oral traditions and parallel texts..."

With this more accurate and inclusive review:

"Starting with the recovery of the Didache, the papyri from Oxyrhyncus, the Nag Hammadi library and the Dead Sea Scrolls, textual discoveries through the 20th century revealed a new understanding of the broadly divergent oral traditions and parallel texts..."

I don't imagine this will raise a fury, but you never know... --Wetman

The part you changed is now pretty good. I have little idea what "broadly divergent oral traditions and parallel texts" is supposed to mean, though. scc 09:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cross-ref to Assorus Tablet

I moved this from the main text, because it is dubious (see discussion on the Assorus Tablet page. scc 09:24, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Assorus Tablet supposedly discovered in November 2004 may contain further Secret Markan material.

I second that. Most dubious indeed. The story will doubtless unravel in 2005, perhaps amusingly. --Wetman 10:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Confused Article

Questionable neutrality isn't this article's only problem. The text gets into issues of evidence for and against the Secret Gospel of Mark before it even hints at what the Secret Gospel is, somewhere around the 7th or 8th paragraph. I think some restructuring of the article is called for, with a clear and encyclopedic introductory paragraph that avoids charged expressions like "provoked a storm of recrimination, denial and abuse". It is annoying to have to read nearly half the article before figuring out precisly what the article is talking about. func(talk) 01:47, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So move the controversy down to the end. --Wetman 02:38, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

uh

"Defenders of authenticity claim: a) Analysis of the handwriting shows that the manuscript dates from the 18th century. "

that would be evidence against authenticity, right? - Omegatron 05:47, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

It's not in Clement's very own handwriting. There is a distinction between authenticity of text and the authenticity of a manuscript. Manuscripts are generally much later than the origin of the text. In this case a previously unknown letter of Clement, definitely not meant for publication as an "epistle," survived to be copied into the flyleaf of a printed book, which was in the library at Mar Saba, where it was discovered. The book has now been hidden from sight, but but was photographed first, and now all is said to be "doubted", especially the honesty of the scholar who published this awkward piece of documentation. Is that unclear in the entry? Several people have been working hard to make it so.... --Wetman 06:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's unclear to someone who's not immersed in this stuff. It says "critics claim it is a forgery from the 18th or 20th century. defenders of authenticity say it looks like it could be from the 18th." this seems a contradiction. - Omegatron 16:16, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Intentional obscurity. Note how "critics" are not identified, --Wetman 00:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There should be an explanation both at the entry about Secret Mark (there is now) and the Mar Saba letter explaining this situation. Smith's guess--based on historical knowledge of a fire in the Mar Saba library in the 18th century--was that the orignal letter was badly damaged and that an 18th century monk copied by hand what was left of it into the back of a printed book. This does create a serious problem: even if the document could be found and tested, it would only prove that it was written in the 18th century; this would absolve Smith of charges that he forged it but not that it was someone else's forgery. In such a case, however, one of several points in favor of authenticity would be that the letter's "imitation" of both Markan and Clementine vocabulary is so good that it could only have been faked by someone with 20th century knowledge of both of these vocabularies. An 18th century forger would not have had such knowledge; hence, proof that the text photographed by Smith was written over two hundred years ago would strengthen the case for authenticity if not prove it conclusively.

By the way, whoever wrote the comment below about John being written and printed "last year" clearly has tongue firmly in cheek. If offered to prove a point by being ridiculous, it has succeeded at being ridiculous, but the point? It would be fair to say that the Gospel of John does run into problems because the earliest known fragment and the earliest known complete text are obviously copies, but, more than that, we have the last two verses of John (21:24-25) speaking of John in the third person; someone other than the author(s) of most of the text wrote these final words, reminding us of the absense of a modern sense of respect for the integrity of any text-as-written among early Christian copyists. Milesnfowler 17:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The Gospel of John is clearly a forgery. It isn't in John's own handwriting. Someone wrote it on a typewriter and printed it last year.

misuse of anathema in 'Interpretation' section

Use of the word "anathema" is misleading. Taken from the Wikipedia entry for "Anathema" [After the time of the apostolic church, the term anathema has come to mean a form of extreme religious sanction beyond excommunication.] Perhaps using 'heretical' or 'contrary'.

Morton Smith as the forger

Is there much good evidence for other suspected forgers besides Smith? The subversive elements in Secret Mark are subtle, unlike Smith's conclusions. He thought Jesus was a wand-waving magician with a ressurrected boyfriend; I don't think this is implied at all in the text. If he was the forger, you'd think he'd have included better evidence for his claims. Not that I know very much about this, but it seems to if the document was a fake, it was made by someone less sensational than Morton Smith.--Cuchullain 23:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Read Carlson's book. He shows that there are two jokes in the story that Smith placed there so people would eventually know he himself wrote it. The first is a reference to free-flowing salt, a concept which didn't exist until the 20th century and was invented by the Morton Salt Co. The second is the name of a Greek monk, but his name doesn't actually exist in Greek and is a made-up name based on a word that can mean both "baldy" (Smith lost his hair infamously early) or swindler (as Smith did with this all). Carlson does mention how Smith used Secret Mark in his own studies, which is a little more complicated than you say. CRCulver 04:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Carlson's book is not an ideal source for the Secret Gospel of Mark, and in any case you misrepresent his arguments. There is no reference to "free-flowing" salt in the letter ascribed to Clement; the text speaks rather of salt that has lost its savor. The name that Carlson finds suspicious does not occur in the text of the letter at all, or even in the book in which the letter is copied; it is written on the title page of another Mar Saba book altogether. For a good evaluation of Carlson's book, see the recent review by Scott G. Brown, in the Harvard Theological Review, vol. 99, p. 291ff. ECKnibbs 17:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Brown's review of Carlson in Harvard Theological Review isn't available through JSTOR. Could ECKnibbs add to the article a concise summary, with a <ref></ref> reference? Or does it belong at Morton Smith, since it's his posthumous reputation set at stake? Or both. --Wetman 19:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion of forgery belongs here, though of course some mention on the Morton Smith page wouldn't hurt. I'll add a bit on Brown's review of Carlson by the end of the week. ECKnibbs 14:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added very breief summary of some of Carlson's evidence in the section on authenticity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beretta NZ (talk • contribs) 10:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed Section

I removed the following section:

[Not so, according to author John Dart who in his 2005 book "Decoding Mark" lays to rest any conceivable doubt of Secret Mark's authenticity by unveiling a matrix of chiastic codes embedded within the pages of the gospel of Mark. Secret Mark fits neatly back into Original Mark where it had obviously been omited. The young man naked before Jesus is none other than the beloved disciple, Lazarus, not John, as is the popular misconception.]

It even included the brackets. The wording does not seem to adhere to a neutral point of view. It needs to be reworded, and the argument spelled out a little better, probably with some links and citations. Wje 16:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There are also some factual mistakes; for example, John Dart's book was published in 2003. Less enthusiastic reviews are found on-line in the Review of Biblical Literature. Stephen C. Carlson 22:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

POV, Original Research Issues, and Splitting

I think this needs to be split into two articles: one on the Letter of Saba, and one on the Secret Gospel. As it is, the discussion of the two is intertwined and it's hard to tell at some points which text is being discussed.

There is a lot of emphasis on the controversiality of the contents. I've cut some of this out but I think more ought to go.

A lot of this sounds like original analysis. Mangoe 17:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

splitting the article

In trying to sort things out I've decided that it's necessary to split out the material about the letter from the material about the secret gospel. Therefore I've replaced the redirect on Mar Saba letter with material from this page. All the material about the letter and its authenticity will go to that page, and all the discussion of the gospel excerpts will remain here. Mangoe 00:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've completed spltting the articles. (Sorry I took so long.) There is still some clean up needed on the references.Mangoe 17:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hint needs details

A much improved article. The following needs to have specific details added to it, because in its present form it does not actually transmit information, only hints: "Several further echoes of Secret Mark are identifiable in the canonic Mark, according to textual analysts." --Wetman 20:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comparison with Gospel of Thomas

I've restored the comparison with the Gospel of Thomas. It is true that the Oxyrhynchus finds predated those at Nag Hammadi, but identification of the former was predicated on the latter find. Mangoe 11:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

OK: I've changed the text to get rid of the erroneous implication that the Oxyrynchus fragments were "another work": there is no indication that they were. Grover cleveland 16:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's try a combined version. Mangoe 17:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The whole comparison should be tossed, or at least re-worded. Secret Mark is not at all in the same position as Thomas was prior to finding manuscript copies; to say so is to say that we have multiple, early, undisputed references to the existence of Secret Mark. Which is obviously false. We have a single, disputed transcription of an undated source. 64.234.1.144 22:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Brian Bethune article

Please could someone familiar with this article fix up the final section of the article to make it comprehensible and verifiable? Thanks, Grover cleveland 02:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Clement Letter" and "Secret Gospel" are an 18th century put-on

How can anyone doubt it? Surely both these documents were written by an eighteenth-century monk. He wrote it as a joke, not even with the intention of deceiving anyone but simply to amuse himself, and the whole thing's gotten out of hand.

When I visited India, I came across Hindu and Jain monks who did nothing all the time but memorize texts. They sometimes amused themselves by writing imitations and parodies of the stuff they were memorizing, and these imitations would be indistinguishable (on literary grounds) from the original books themselves. They did it just for something to do.

There were Christian monks in the same situation, and one of them wrote the Clement Letter and the Secret Gospel as a lark. There's no doubt it's full of local in-jokes we'll never understand, and tongue-in-cheek stuff about "particular friendship."

When Smith first came across this stuff, scholars said it absolutely had to be authentic. Why? Because nobody, according to them, could have done such a fine imitation of Clement's style prior to the publication of the big-time glossary of Clement that hadn't come out yet. Now, isn't that ridiculous? A monk who spent huge amounts of his time memorizing and copying Clement couldn't do a keen imitation of Clement's style?

This eighteenth-century monk, whatever world he's in now, is probably laughing himself silly over the stir he made with a little snippet he tossed off in his spare time. Tom129.93.17.174 03:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

All very interesting, but without reference to reliable sources this is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Grover cleveland 04:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction between articles

This article says "the copy that Morton is alleged to have discovered has been seen by nobody other than Smith. After the alleged discovery, the document disappeared from Mar Saba, the only evidence being photographs taken by Smith, at least one of which shows Smith's initials written on the page. The ink and fiber was never subjected to examination."

Mar Saba letter says "In 1976 a group of four scholars[3] visited Mar Saba, viewed the manuscript, and took color photographs of it. This visit remained unknown until 2003 when one of the party, G.A.G. Stroumsa, published an account of the visit.[4] In 1977 the volume containing the manuscript was taken to the library of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem. That same year, the manuscript pages were removed from the bound volume by the librarian Kallistos Dourvas, to be photographed and kept separately. These photographs were published in 2000. Subsequent attempts by scholars to view the manuscript have been unsuccessful."

This is a blatant contradiction. I note that one of the articles has a source for the relevant text - and it is not this article. So this article needs to be revised on at least this point. GRBerry 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the controversy by adding a brief history of the MSS. Feel free to add refs as needed. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories: restoring 'Ancient Christianity'

It is not clear to me why Carlaude removed the 'Ancient Christianity' category. Secret Gospel of Mark is a disputed document. Many scholars support its authenticity, so this should be reflected in the article. Since '20th-century Christian texts' is among the categories already, NPOV demands that either this should also be removed, or the 'Ancient Christianity' category be included. --Dyuku (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixing the remaining problems with this article

I removed the section "The theory of a "secret initiation"", and tried to fix up the rest of the problematic parts. The section was quite confusing; it wasn't quite clear what its argument was. This stemmed in part from the problems with Bethune's article on which the argument relied. I've cut some unreferenced material, and rewrote what remained, trying to make some sense of it. So now the "Refimprove" tag can be removed. Dyuku (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of "the cry"

This edit by User:Dylanstephens is problematic.

This is what Dylanstephens added to the article:

"The significant words: 'And straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb' was dismissed by Morton Smith in his Secret Gospel pg 55 as 'the scream of Death, a demon about to be robbed of its prey'. If this letter does represent at least the true writings of a version of Mark that Mark had from Peter, this "cry" has a greater significance. The logical conclusion should be be that Lazarus was not dead, but merely symbolically dead i.e. defrocked. This lends credence to the theory that all miracles were symbolic."

But there's a problem with logic and clarity here. It's really difficult to see how "a great cry being heard from the tomb" can lead to the conclusion that "all miracles were symbolic".

So I invite Dylanstephens please to explain what he meant, or to clarify his addition. Otherwise, his contribution may be removed. Dyuku (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Roger Viklund

The repeatedly re-added paragraph on Roger Viklund is going to require further discussion before it can be included. Specifically, the source given is to a blog, which is not a reliable source.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, Cuchullain, I see what you mean about Viklund. But my revision went well beyond that one sentence about Viklund, so there was no need to reverse the whole edit. Just take out that one sentence about Viklund if you object to his stuff. Dyuku (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of BRD, if you get a revert, it's best to head to the talk page and discuss the matter, not to revert back. At any rate, Viklund was the real problem, since the source given was a blog; some of your wording changes were further based on that paragraph being there ("Still more recently..."). I've removed those again pending discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of idiomatic modern ENglish should be noted

The use of the phrase "And he remained with him that night" (as well as other idiomatic phrases) suggests that the text was composed in modern English and then translated into Greek. That should be highlighted in the article. Overall, this article (in my opinion, falsely) suggests that the weight of scholarship is on the side of Smith; globally, it is almost universally rejected as a modern forgery by biblical scholars outside of the USA (and even there only a single faction supports it). The article needs to be substantially rewritten to reflect the _true_ scholarly consensus rather than that of a few partisans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.74.110.134 (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent removals

This edit removed sourced material. The paragraph attributed to Bart Ehrman is certainly appropriate and about as neutral as it could be. Additionally, a passage indicating that most scholars believe this is a hoax was removed. A discussion on how to improve neutrality is welcome, but these changes did not improve the article.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Does the original source actually state that "most mainstream scholars today ... regard the discovery as a hoax"? Or is that a POV addition? It seems to me that this argument/conclusion belongs down in the authenticity section, not something this specific up top. Maybe just mention here that there's debate, or something along those lines, with the details below. Macduff (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The source is quite emphatic that the scholarly consensus is that this is a hoax, probably perpetrated by Smith himself. You can read it here, but no page numbers. The editors are Biblical scholars Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov. If the consensus really is that it's a hoax, that would assuredly be relevant to the lead, though the details should be in the article body.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful pointer to the book. I think you're being somewhat generous though by describing the authors as "biblical scholars". Evans is an academic at the Academa University in Nova Scotia, Canada - an institution according to its website "with strong connections to the Baptist religious community". Are we certain that this source is neutral? Thi aside Evans actually admits that "many scholars have accepted the Clementine letter as genuine and the validity of its testimony that there was in circulation a secret version of the Gospel of Mark."

Cúchullain is correct. The article should reflect modern sources since Smith died (this is relevant because publishers of scholars like Per Beskow were threatened with being sued by Smith when he was alive) so the "scholarly discussion" was somewhat skewed. Also all other sources should be dated in the text, "F F Bruce (1972) said " etc., given what is now known. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Red herring. You can only be sued in historical discourse if you say something disparaging or libellous. There was nothing to stop Per Beskow from giving his opinion as an academic. But I agree the more modern sources we use the better. But what do we know dfferently since Morton's death? There are a lot of pseudo-academic works that focus on this as part of a broader list of conspiract theories. We should dismiss those works. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My worry at the moment is that this article tries very hard to demonstrate that the Mar Saba letter was a forgery. In fact too hard. I'm not convinced yet that there is a consensus that the document is forged. I am carrying out some research on the various academic studies done in this area and will feed back my thoughts shortly. Certainly the more important questions are not whether Morton forged it but rather whether it is a medival forgery; is written by Clement of pseudo-Clement; and whether it tells us anything useful at all about the historical Jesus. At the moment we are relying too heavily on writers (and not always academics) who seem embarassed at some supposed homoerotic interpretation. The paragraph suggesting that Morton Smith (who was a distinguished historian at Columbia Unversity) forged the letter because he himself was gay is pretty undignified and a bit cheap for an encyclopaedia such as wikipedia. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's much room to argue that Evans and Tov are not Biblical scholars or reliable sources. Both have advanced degrees in this field, and currently work and publish in it. And despite how you parse it, the book's clear conclusion is that most scholars regard this as a hoax, with Smith being the likely perpetrator. Additionally, there is absolutely no call to remove the Ehrman material, as you've now done three times without explanation or consensus. As I already stated, it is relevant and neutral, and obviously comes from a reliable source. The suggestion that Smith had a motive to add this material because he was gay is notable; the passage quite plainly says that "this may not be relevant", though there is plenty of other evidence of forgery.

I'm not convinced that your rearrangements of material are an improvement. It makes it very difficult to tell what else you've changed or removed. I'll review them more closely when I am able.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect I'm not particularly concerned whether or not you think my changes are an improvement. I think they are clearly an improvement on what was there both (a tangle of poorly drafted insinuations) and that is sufficient for me. I've read the Evans passage several times and he states clearly that many scholars believe it to be genuine - perhaops you would furnish me with the passage where he says that everyone thinks it a hoax? I've nevertheless left in references to Evans and Tov - although I have myself a low opinion of the institutions where they teach, and fear that religious bias must inevitably creep in. But I shall give the benefit of the doubt in this case. Leave in the Ehrman quote if you're strongly attached to it but I can't help thinking it's lazy scholarship. I have no idea what gay plot you think Moreton Smith was trying to achieve?Contaldo80 (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Your edit contain your third revert of cited material within the last 24 hours, despite repeated objections and WP:BRD. I'm assuming good faith that you won't do it again and will participate in discussion before making any more major changes.
On Evans and Tov, the very next paragraph after the one you quoted contains the relevant material. The quote: "The sad thing is that all this labor has been misspent; the Clementine letter and the quotations of Secret Mark embedded within it constitute a modern hoax, and Morton Smith almost certainly is the hoaxer. Several scholars have for years suspected this to be the case, but the recently published clear, color photographs of the document have given experts in the science of forgery detection the opportunity to analyze the document's handwriting and compare it with samples of handwriting from the late Professor Smith. The evidence is compelling and conclusive: Smith wrote the text." He then lists evidence from Stephen Carlson and Peter Jeffrey, and concludes "The upshot of the whole matter is that Smith's Mar Saba Clementine is almost certainly a hoax and Smith is almost certainly the hoaxer. No research into the Gospels and the historicity of Jesus should take Smith's document seriously."
So, our wording isn't quite right. First, the similarity to the Mystery of Mar Saba novel isn't the only piece of evidence for forgery, and Evans and Tov are clear that there was much more room for debate prior to the publication of the color photographs in 2000. Perhaps we should say something like, "Subsequent study, including handwriting analysis of higher quality color photographs of the document first published in 2000, revealed more possible evidence of forgery, leading scholars such as [Evans, Tov, etc] to conclude the work is a hoax, with Smith being the most likely perpetrator.[pp. 270-272]" Then, we can add the less decisive view of Bart Ehrman: "However, while an increasing number of scholars have been convinced by this view, the forgery explanation is not universally accepted, and debate continues about the authenticity of the Mar Saba letter and the Secret Gospel of Mark.[cite to Ehrman's "Lost Christianities", p. 70.]" Thoughts?--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Contaldo80

Please discuss here before removing any more academic references. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Per Beskow, section Recent Discoveries

— "Professor Smith got upset about what I had written, threatening to sue for one million dollars in damages if the book was not immediately withdrawn, and the publisher yielded to the threat.", Blackwell Companion to Jesus ed. Delbert Burkett - 2011

I'm not sure whether you are looking for me to build consensus for my edits or approval. I shall assume good faith and suggest it is the former. But likewise I would ask that other editors similarly seek to build a compelling case for amendments. I note that several of my earlier edits have been gradually overturned. I fully acknowledge the right for this to happen, but I'm not yet convinced of the basis for dismissing Morton-Smith as a hoaxer. Sure you cite that Evans makes the point - but are Evans or Tov really historical heavyweights? The article now says that most mainstream scholars believe the letter to be a hoax. To support that addition I would find it helpful if you would list who these scholars are so we can judge whether they are the mainstream majority. I think it's best we leave out that sentence until then; and we should seek agreement on the talk page first please before re-inserting. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I already pointed out that our article was somewhat wrong, as Evans and Tov don't make a claim toward consensus (in fact, they say that before the color photos were published in 2000 there was much more room for debate). Their opinion, of course, is that this is almost absolutely a forgery by Smith. Above I demonstrated that Evans and Tov are indeed reliable sources. I also brought up Ehrman, who is undeniably a reliable source for this. Ehrman says, "scholars in increasing numbers have begun to suspect that it is [a forgery by a modern scholar]." However, he adds, "As far as I can tell, the jury is still out".

Your most recent edit just swapped one weasel word for another. What we need to say is that scholars increasingly think this gospel is a forgery by Smith, but that this isn't a universal view and debate continues. I believe the current version does this.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

But the point is they don't. You are making a spurious claim. Supporters for Morton Smith include important names such as Helmut Koester, Cyril Richardson, George MacRae, and Hugh Trevor-Roper. In addition the letter has itself been included in the standard edition of the Alexandrian father's writings since 1980. If you are going to say that "scholars increasingly think this gospel is a forgery" then you need to make it up. Are you arguing this from a faith position? Because if you are then may I remind you that the text doesn't say Jesus was homosexual, and we don't know whether it is a medieval forgery, a misunderstanding by Clement, or a corruption by the original sect. The contentious aspect as whether Jesus was a type of "magician". I also note your first reversion to my amendments.

In his introduction in The Complete Gospels, Stephen Patterson notes: "The handwriting can be dated to around 1750. Smith published the letter in 1973. Early discussion of it was marred by accusations of forgery and fraud, no doubt owing in part to its controversial comments. Today, however, there is almost unanimous agreement among Clementine scholars that the letter is authentic." Contaldo80 (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"Make it up?" What? The passage is sourced to Bart Ehrman, who I'm sure you're familiar with. FWIW Erhman also reiterated this same thing again in his 2011 book Forged: Writing in the Name of God - basically, based on new developments, scholars increasingly believe the work is a forgery, though it's not universally accepted. Your edit fundamentally altered what the source actually says, and so had to be restored. As for Patterson, he wrote your quote in 1994, before the publication of the color photographs in 2000 and the spate of works since that time arguing that Secret Mark is a forgery. Things have changed.

And no, I'm not arguing from a "faith position", and have no idea why you would assume that based on the above.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As a note, as recently as 2003 Charles W. Hendrick argued that the issue was a "stalemate" and that scholars should just accept the letter as authentic for the sake of moving forward on the subject.[1] This position was quickly - and politely - challenged by Ehrman.[2] Since then there have been more publications arguing for a forgery based on new developments, especially the Carlson and Jeffries books.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we're finally making some progress on this. It would have been reassuring for me to have seen the 'Journal of Early Christian Studies' before. This is a much more scholarly source than some that have floated around. I've had a look at the text and think I can live with it (although I don't know why we must use "color" and not "colour", but I guess Morton Smith was American so there is some logic...) Ideally it would be good to summarise and reflect Hendrick and Ehrman's conclusions somewhere in the text if we can. What you have said above summarises the current position most helpfully and the article would benefit from having it included somewhere. Apologies if I doubted your intentions - I have experienced a number of edit discussions in the past with editors who let religious considerations influence their judgement. It's made me wary. My only concern is where we say that Morton Smith was "reluctant" to produce the original. As far as I can gather he was never in a position to do so - it never belonged to him Contaldo80 (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Good, I think we've got something workable going; it's certainly better than before. We do need to be more clear about the current scholarly consensus regarding the hoax interpretation; it's kind of all over the place currently. On the spelling, I didn't even notice that at first. However, the article appears to have used American English since it was created back in 2004, so that's the variety we should stick with.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe there are still issue, in particularv with the introduction. The last line reads as though the vast majority believe it is a hoax and a few outliers still think its real. In fact, as Ehrman stated "The majority of scholars consulted were convinced that the letter was authentic, and a somewhat smaller majority agreed that the quotations of Secret Mark actually derived from a version of Mark" (Ehrman: 2003, pg 81). This has been discussed previously, but I believe the intro needs to be modified to give the correct appraisal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.41.140.2 (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A majority believe still believe the letter is genuine, but more and more are convinced it is a forgery, as Ehrman says elsewhere. That's what needs to be here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, recent removals on related bio Morton Smith restored

Academic/BAR source removals reverted, and POV comment "Academics from religiously-funded universities" - which was unsourced but more importantly doesn't seem to be true removed. Please discuss here since evidently related. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Fabulous

This is an exemplary article. Origin of the Eucharist should be lucky enough to attract such editing talent. Crossan says the naked man was nude for baptismal purposes. I'll get the cite. Eschoir (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)