Excerpt from
Paananen, T.S.(2012) 'From Stalemate to Deadlock: Clement’s Letter to Theodore in Recent Scholarship,' Currents in biblical research, vol. 11, no. 1, pp.87-125 . https://doi.org/10.1177/1476993X1
The letter appears to be Clement's response to a query from Theodore, concerning a variant of the Gospel of Mark which Theodore had encountered whilst conversing with the Carpocratians, a group of early Christians heavily vituperated by various church fathers. Clement affirms that in Alexandria Mark the evangelist expanded the Gospel that he had written in Rome during Peter's lifetime, and that this 'μυστικὸν εὐαγγέλιον' (Theod. II.6,12; 'secret Gospel' in Smith's translation) was still in use in Alexandria. The Carpocratian version, however, was yet again a different variant.
According to Clement, Carpocrates had obtained a copy of the Secret Gospel and 'polluted' its text by 'mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies' (Theod. II.8-9). For one thing, Mark never wrote the words 'naked man with naked man', which Theodore asked about (Theod. III.13). To dispel the misinformation Theodore had been given, Clement cites two passages from the Secret Gospel of Mark, placing the first between Mk 10.34 and 10.35, and the second after the first sentence in Mk 10.46.
'And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan' (Theod. II.23-III.11).
'And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them' (Theod. III.14-16).
The first three decades of the debate
Following the publication of the letter text in 'Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark' (Smith 1973a), a number of scholars have attempted to summarize the state of the debate. In 1982 Smith himself conducted a review of the first ten years of research. At that time, the authenticity of the Clementine letter was accepted by almost everyone 'though', he noted, 'a substantial minority are still in doubt' (p. 451). Opinions were more divided over the composition of the Secret Gospel of Mark. Some scholars saw pre-Markan traditions behind it, while others judged the gospel text to have emerged from bits and pieces of canonized material, augmented by the imagination of the compiler. The one thing everyone agreed on concerned the historical significance of the story of Jesus and the young man. No one accepted Smith's suggestion that the historical Jesus practised baptism as a rite of initiation into the kingdom of God and as a liberation from the Mosaic law (p. 455). In the end, Smith was slightly disappointed because of the low number of even 'relatively objective studies', concluding that 'serious discussion has barely begun' (p. 449) ...
The next section - bottom of p.4f - is a very good, succinct read of how Smith poisoned-the-well re debate about the letter and the so-called Secret Gospel therein ...
From mid p.6:
... Still in 1995, Eyer had to conclude that, even though some have already studied the Secret Gospel of Mark as a genuine piece of early Christian literature, there is a 'comparative dearth of good studies', explainable only by a 'stubborn refusal to deal with information which might challenge deeply-held personal convictions' (p.119)
< some omitted >
– the Secret Gospel of Mark has played an important, constructive part in the study of the Gospel of Mark for such prominent scholars as Helmut Koester (1983) and John Dominic Crossan (1985), and had finally become the sole subject of a PhD dissertation a few years earlier (Brown 1999) – it is arguably true that no adequate scholarly reasons can be given to the half-heartedness with which scholars have tackled the questions Secret Mark poses to our understanding of early Christianity. Other reasons, however, are readily found. Eyer's survey shows clearly how the debate got off on the wrong foot, a situation notoriously hard to remedy. Hedrick considers how much a latent homophobia, bearing in mind the one sentence in both 1973 books by Smith in which a 'physical union' between Jesus and the young man is suggested, could be responsible for the tone of the debate. The question remains unanswerable but natural enough (p.136).
In an expanded version of his 1999 dissertation Scott G.Brown suggests that the main source of scholars’ reluctance to study this text was the talk of 'suspicion and controversy', which became 'self-fulfilling', a vicious circle wherein the folklore of forgery generated the suspicions that validated the folklore (2005: 39). Who among scholars could bet much on a text of uncertain provenance? Was there not something ambiguous in its discovery, in its discoverer, and in the original reconstruction of Christian origins it was used for? Although Clementine scholars were mostly content in treating the new Clementine letter as authentic, the field of exegetics was divided over the Secret Gospel, some embracing the text (Meyer 2003); while others pronounced extreme indictments of the obvious deception and the fools who had been duped by it (Akenson 2000).
Hedrick got it essentially right in the title of his survey ['The Secret Gospel of Mark: Stalemate in the Academy', JECS 11: 133-45; 2003]. The academy had played itself into a stalemate, or, in the words of Brown, 'most [scholars] frankly have no idea what to make of this text' (p.19). It would take a whole new perspective to rekindle the debate, and to bring something new to the table for scholars to try and reach a more unanimous decision regarding the use of Clement's Letter to Theodore in the study of Christian origins.
The hoax hypothesis
A whole new chapter on the issue of authenticity was began in the summer of 2005 when Stephen C. Carlson, then a practising patent attorney, now a PhD candidate at Duke University, made a detailed case against Morton Smith in 'The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark'. Although the accusations of forgery were rehashed time and again during the earlier phase of the debate, Carlson claimed to have found a unique perspective that promised a firm resolution. If Clement's Letter to Theodore did not originate in antiquity, the deception could be uncovered reliably even without access to the actual manuscript ...
The double entendre hypothesis
Since Carlson's rekindling of the debate, others have strived to expand and supplement his arguments for the faux Gospel in the form of one other monograph by Peter Jeffery (2007a) and two articles by Birger A. Pearson (2008) and Francis Watson (2010). Independently but echoing Carlson, Jeffery puts much weight on anachronisms he finds in Clement's letter. If Clement's church utilized the Secret Gospel of Mark in their baptismal liturgy, why does it contain symbolism more closely connected to the Resurrection at Easter, when the baptism of Jesus at the Epiphany (January 6) would be expected in an Alexandrian context? (pp. 55-90) Why does the clearly evident homosexual relationship between Jesus and the young man present the youth as the initiator, combined with the complete rejection of the three women, when both are at odds with Greek literature on pederasty, the practice of love between a man and an adolescent boy? (pp.185-212) ...
https://helda.helsinki.fi/server/api/co ... a0/content
Paananen, T.S.(2012) 'From Stalemate to Deadlock: Clement’s Letter to Theodore in Recent Scholarship,' Currents in biblical research, vol. 11, no. 1, pp.87-125 . https://doi.org/10.1177/1476993X1
- the full article here: https://helda.helsinki.fi/server/api/co ... a0/content
The letter appears to be Clement's response to a query from Theodore, concerning a variant of the Gospel of Mark which Theodore had encountered whilst conversing with the Carpocratians, a group of early Christians heavily vituperated by various church fathers. Clement affirms that in Alexandria Mark the evangelist expanded the Gospel that he had written in Rome during Peter's lifetime, and that this 'μυστικὸν εὐαγγέλιον' (Theod. II.6,12; 'secret Gospel' in Smith's translation) was still in use in Alexandria. The Carpocratian version, however, was yet again a different variant.
According to Clement, Carpocrates had obtained a copy of the Secret Gospel and 'polluted' its text by 'mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies' (Theod. II.8-9). For one thing, Mark never wrote the words 'naked man with naked man', which Theodore asked about (Theod. III.13). To dispel the misinformation Theodore had been given, Clement cites two passages from the Secret Gospel of Mark, placing the first between Mk 10.34 and 10.35, and the second after the first sentence in Mk 10.46.
'And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan' (Theod. II.23-III.11).
'And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them' (Theod. III.14-16).
The first three decades of the debate
Following the publication of the letter text in 'Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark' (Smith 1973a), a number of scholars have attempted to summarize the state of the debate. In 1982 Smith himself conducted a review of the first ten years of research. At that time, the authenticity of the Clementine letter was accepted by almost everyone 'though', he noted, 'a substantial minority are still in doubt' (p. 451). Opinions were more divided over the composition of the Secret Gospel of Mark. Some scholars saw pre-Markan traditions behind it, while others judged the gospel text to have emerged from bits and pieces of canonized material, augmented by the imagination of the compiler. The one thing everyone agreed on concerned the historical significance of the story of Jesus and the young man. No one accepted Smith's suggestion that the historical Jesus practised baptism as a rite of initiation into the kingdom of God and as a liberation from the Mosaic law (p. 455). In the end, Smith was slightly disappointed because of the low number of even 'relatively objective studies', concluding that 'serious discussion has barely begun' (p. 449) ...
The next section - bottom of p.4f - is a very good, succinct read of how Smith poisoned-the-well re debate about the letter and the so-called Secret Gospel therein ...
From mid p.6:
... Still in 1995, Eyer had to conclude that, even though some have already studied the Secret Gospel of Mark as a genuine piece of early Christian literature, there is a 'comparative dearth of good studies', explainable only by a 'stubborn refusal to deal with information which might challenge deeply-held personal convictions' (p.119)
< some omitted >
– the Secret Gospel of Mark has played an important, constructive part in the study of the Gospel of Mark for such prominent scholars as Helmut Koester (1983) and John Dominic Crossan (1985), and had finally become the sole subject of a PhD dissertation a few years earlier (Brown 1999) – it is arguably true that no adequate scholarly reasons can be given to the half-heartedness with which scholars have tackled the questions Secret Mark poses to our understanding of early Christianity. Other reasons, however, are readily found. Eyer's survey shows clearly how the debate got off on the wrong foot, a situation notoriously hard to remedy. Hedrick considers how much a latent homophobia, bearing in mind the one sentence in both 1973 books by Smith in which a 'physical union' between Jesus and the young man is suggested, could be responsible for the tone of the debate. The question remains unanswerable but natural enough (p.136).
In an expanded version of his 1999 dissertation Scott G.Brown suggests that the main source of scholars’ reluctance to study this text was the talk of 'suspicion and controversy', which became 'self-fulfilling', a vicious circle wherein the folklore of forgery generated the suspicions that validated the folklore (2005: 39). Who among scholars could bet much on a text of uncertain provenance? Was there not something ambiguous in its discovery, in its discoverer, and in the original reconstruction of Christian origins it was used for? Although Clementine scholars were mostly content in treating the new Clementine letter as authentic, the field of exegetics was divided over the Secret Gospel, some embracing the text (Meyer 2003); while others pronounced extreme indictments of the obvious deception and the fools who had been duped by it (Akenson 2000).
Hedrick got it essentially right in the title of his survey ['The Secret Gospel of Mark: Stalemate in the Academy', JECS 11: 133-45; 2003]. The academy had played itself into a stalemate, or, in the words of Brown, 'most [scholars] frankly have no idea what to make of this text' (p.19). It would take a whole new perspective to rekindle the debate, and to bring something new to the table for scholars to try and reach a more unanimous decision regarding the use of Clement's Letter to Theodore in the study of Christian origins.
The hoax hypothesis
A whole new chapter on the issue of authenticity was began in the summer of 2005 when Stephen C. Carlson, then a practising patent attorney, now a PhD candidate at Duke University, made a detailed case against Morton Smith in 'The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark'. Although the accusations of forgery were rehashed time and again during the earlier phase of the debate, Carlson claimed to have found a unique perspective that promised a firm resolution. If Clement's Letter to Theodore did not originate in antiquity, the deception could be uncovered reliably even without access to the actual manuscript ...
The double entendre hypothesis
Since Carlson's rekindling of the debate, others have strived to expand and supplement his arguments for the faux Gospel in the form of one other monograph by Peter Jeffery (2007a) and two articles by Birger A. Pearson (2008) and Francis Watson (2010). Independently but echoing Carlson, Jeffery puts much weight on anachronisms he finds in Clement's letter. If Clement's church utilized the Secret Gospel of Mark in their baptismal liturgy, why does it contain symbolism more closely connected to the Resurrection at Easter, when the baptism of Jesus at the Epiphany (January 6) would be expected in an Alexandrian context? (pp. 55-90) Why does the clearly evident homosexual relationship between Jesus and the young man present the youth as the initiator, combined with the complete rejection of the three women, when both are at odds with Greek literature on pederasty, the practice of love between a man and an adolescent boy? (pp.185-212) ...
https://helda.helsinki.fi/server/api/co ... a0/content
Statistics: Posted by MrMacSon — Sun Mar 10, 2024 4:26 pm