A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Angellous_Evanellous did not write this article. He has used it with expressed permission by the author, Scott Higginbotham.
SOUTHWESTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY
AN ANALYSIS OF AN ALLEGED ADDITION TO THE TEXT OF MARKS GOSPEL DISCOVERED BY MORTON SMITH
PAPER SUBMITTED TO
DR. JIM WICKER
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE COURSE
BASIC NEW TESTAMENT II
NEWTS 4323
BY
SCOTT HIGGINBOTHAM
21 NOVEMBER 2002
Comedic television has explored the problem ad nauseum involved with hearing half a conversation, or stepping in at the wrong time to hear the wrong phrase. A casual joke or ill-timed offhand comment can lead to disastrous misunderstanding or worse if heard without the proper context.
Context is often the lens that puts things in perspective. Without both full text and context, innocent conversation can sound guilty, offhand phrases can be twisted into weapons, and simple words become complex. In the case of ancient manuscripts, scholars are sometimes left without the benefit of the full text, the context, or both.
The Letter from ClementMorton Smith discovered in 1958 what amounts to less than half of a two-way conversation. On the last page of an edition of the Epistlulae Genuinae S. Ignatii Martyris by Isaac Voss dated from the year 1646, Smith stumbled across a copy of an incomplete Greek manuscript attributed to the most holy Clement, the author of the Stromateis[1]. The manuscript itself was written over both sides of the last page (which was blank) of the original book and over half the recto of a sheet of binders paper.[2] Smith also notes that the addition appears to be contemporary to the book itself, within about 20 years.
The letter is a response to Theodore. The identity of Theodore remains a secret; nothing else in the manuscript suggests who or where Theodore might have been. However, the existing text suggests that Theodore was seeking counsel concerning a heretic known as Carpocrates.
Those are the facts surrounding the nature of this Clementine letter. More astounding, though, is the use of an expanded text of part of the tenth chapter of the Gospel of Mark.[3] Apparently, Carpocrates procured a copy of The Secret Gospel from a church in Alexandria and was using it to defend his own unspeakable teachings.[4][5]
Smith notes that the text in general breaks into three parts: the heading, the letter, and the Gospel quotations.[6] There is no farewell section, and no commentary on the Gospel text by Clement; the letter is abruptly cut off with this tantalizing bit: Now the true explanation and that which accords with the true philosophy . One can assume that there should be more to the text of this strange letter but the specifics of the missing portion cannot be determined.
The Carpocratians were a gnostic sect founded by Carpocrates of Alexandria who believed that Christ developed much of his theology and understanding from a 6 year study in the Temple of Isis in Egypt.[7]
The Carpocratians might be a model of the typical gnostic sect in the early centuries of the first millennium. Founded by Carpocrates and his son Epiphanes (whose own name means God manifest)[8], the Carpocratians believed the nature of the created world to be inherently evil and a thing to be escaped. In essence, they believed that men had formerly been united with the Absolute, and had been corrupted by inhabiting creation. As a result, adherents to this philosophy found the concepts of private property and individual ownership contrary to true spiritual existence and formed a virtually communistic society. Followers of Carpocrates believed that by hating the created order, one might be saved in this life or else later through successive transmigrations.[9] Jesus, they believed, was among those who had gained salvation from the trappings of creation and moved on to an exalted state.
This letter to Theodore is not the first time Clement had set his sights on the Carpocratian sect. In the third book of his Miscellanies, Clement attacks the Carpocratian belief that justifies extreme sexual license[10] in conjunction with a wholly communistic lifestyle.
In response to Theodores apparent inquiry on the Carpocratians, Clement has strong words. He calls the Carpocratian doctrine blasphemous and carnal and accuses the sect of mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. This accusation is followed by an exhortation to never give way in regard to the teachings of Carpocrates and should even deny that the secret Gospel is by Mark even deny it on oath.
They came to Bethany. There was one woman there whose brother had died. She came and prostrated herself before Jesus and spoke to him. "Son of David, pity me!" But the disciples rebuked her. Jesus was angry and went with her into the garden where the tomb was. Immediately a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going up to it, Jesus rolled the stone away from the door of the tomb, and immediately went in where the young man was. Stretching out his hand, he lifted him up, taking hold his hand. And the youth looking intently at him, loved him and started begging him to let him remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus gave him an order and, at evening, the young man came to him wearing nothing but a linen cloth. And he stayed with him for the night, because Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And then when he left he went back to the other side of the Jordan.[11]
One other fragment in the letter is to be placed into Mark 10:46. It reads:
Then he came into Jericho. And the sister of the young man whom Jesus loved was there with his mother and Salome, but Jesus would not receive them.[12]
The text here is superficially similar to the incident of the raising of Lazarus in John 11:17-44, says Bruce; but he also points out that the event is thoroughly confused instead of showing signs of an independent Markan narrative of the Johannine story. Bruce indicates that the secret text includes bits and pieces from other gospel accounts: the young man cries from the tomb, which is contradictory of the dead Lazarus in John 11; the plea of the sister recalls the Syrophoenician woman of Mark 7; and the garden placement of the tomb is reminiscent of the Johannine burial narrative.[13]
Whatever the origin of the text, Smith contends that Clement did not write the text, but the text was accepted by him rather against his personal inclinations because he found it already accepted by that church in Alexandria.[14] Smith claims that Christians of the period contemporary to Clement often accused one another of corrupting and misinterpreting the scriptures. Consequently, it is possible that the text rendered was altered to this Clementine variant before Carpocrates got his hands on it to benefit the needs of the growing church.[15] Regardless of the source of textual contamination, Bruce affirms that Clement was disposed to acknowledge it [the quoted Mark text] as part of a fuller edition written by the evangelist himself and often had no trouble at all referencing texts now considered apocryphal in nature.[16]
Because of the difficulty with the Clementine addition found nowhere else outside this obscure reference the question must turn to the authorship and dating of the canonically regarded text. Origen, a student of this same Clement, allegedly made the claim that Mark wrote the gospel as Peter explained it to him.[17] Likely this was also Clements view of Mark; thus it is fair to assume that Clement understood the gospel to have been written before 70.[18] Clements life spanned from 150 to the early part of the third century.[19] The span of 100 years between leaves room for contamination or change of the gospels text in Alexandria before Clement ever would have laid eyes upon it.
Did a manuscript of the Marks gospel end up in Alexandria during the time of Clement? This is indisputable. Did one or more copies of this gospel contain significant textual differences in comparison with the text Christians have today? This is probable. Did some believe this different text to be the true gospel of Mark? Undoubtedly. Is this secret text material that should be added to the present text of Marks gospel? In this case neither full text nor immediate context are available to answer the question. But more than 1500 years of silence might be able to take a stab at the answer.
WORKS CITED
Ferguson, John. Clement of Alexandria. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1974.
Smith, Morton. Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973.
Smith, Morton. The Secret Gospel. New York: Harper and Row, 1973.
Stock, Augustine OSB. The Method and Message of Mark. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1989.
Tenney, Merrill C. New Testament Survey, Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans Publishing, 1985.
Carpocrates, The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001 http://www.bartleby.com/65/ca/Carpocra.html
http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/c/carpocratians.html
The Strange Case of the Secret Gospel According to Mark: http://www.globaltown.com/shawn/secmark.html
[1] Morton Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), 1
[2] Ibid.
[3] F.F. Bruce, The Secret Gospel of Mark. (London: Athlone Press, 1974), 6
[4] Smith, 446-447
[5] Smith includes in this more scholarly volume photographs of the Greek text he discovered, full translation, and transcriptions of the Greek text for personal study.
[6] Morton Smith, The Secret Gospel (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), 26
[7]http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/c/carpocratians.html
[8] John Ferguson, Clement of Alexandria(New York: Twayne Publishers, 1974) 129
[9] Carpocrates, The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001 http://www.bartleby.com/65/ca/Carpocra.html
[10] Ferguson, 130
[11] The Strange Case of the Secret Gospel According to Mark: http://www.globaltown.com/shawn/secmark.html
[12] Ibid.
[13] Bruce, 11
[14] Smith, Clement of Alexandria, 88-89
[15] Smith, 89
[16] Bruce, 13
[17] Merrill C. Tenney, New Testament Survey: Revised Edition (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans Publishing, 1985) 162
[18] Augustine Stock, The Method and Message of Mark (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1989) 6,7 This text also includes more detailed arguments for the pre-70 dating of the Gospel of Mark based on clues within the gospel text itself.
[19] Ferguson, 13,17
SOUTHWESTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY
AN ANALYSIS OF AN ALLEGED ADDITION TO THE TEXT OF MARKS GOSPEL DISCOVERED BY MORTON SMITH
PAPER SUBMITTED TO
DR. JIM WICKER
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE COURSE
BASIC NEW TESTAMENT II
NEWTS 4323
BY
SCOTT HIGGINBOTHAM
21 NOVEMBER 2002
Introduction
Reading someone elses mail presents not only an ethical question, but also a pragmatic one. It is one thing to look through pizza coupons, magazine subscriptions, promises from the Prize Patrol, and offers from this weeks credit company of choice. It is another thing altogether to rummage through private correspondence; the fact that half a story can be more interesting than the whole story lends itself to all kinds of interpretive problems.Comedic television has explored the problem ad nauseum involved with hearing half a conversation, or stepping in at the wrong time to hear the wrong phrase. A casual joke or ill-timed offhand comment can lead to disastrous misunderstanding or worse if heard without the proper context.
Context is often the lens that puts things in perspective. Without both full text and context, innocent conversation can sound guilty, offhand phrases can be twisted into weapons, and simple words become complex. In the case of ancient manuscripts, scholars are sometimes left without the benefit of the full text, the context, or both.
The Letter from Clement
The letter is a response to Theodore. The identity of Theodore remains a secret; nothing else in the manuscript suggests who or where Theodore might have been. However, the existing text suggests that Theodore was seeking counsel concerning a heretic known as Carpocrates.
Those are the facts surrounding the nature of this Clementine letter. More astounding, though, is the use of an expanded text of part of the tenth chapter of the Gospel of Mark.[3] Apparently, Carpocrates procured a copy of The Secret Gospel from a church in Alexandria and was using it to defend his own unspeakable teachings.[4][5]
Smith notes that the text in general breaks into three parts: the heading, the letter, and the Gospel quotations.[6] There is no farewell section, and no commentary on the Gospel text by Clement; the letter is abruptly cut off with this tantalizing bit: Now the true explanation and that which accords with the true philosophy . One can assume that there should be more to the text of this strange letter but the specifics of the missing portion cannot be determined.
The Carpocratians
The Clementine letter is addressed to Theodore as an answer to the Carpocratian movement. Clement quotes Jude 13 in referring to this cult, calling the movement wandering stars who stray from the narrow way of the commandments in an effort to gratify the sins of flesh.The Carpocratians were a gnostic sect founded by Carpocrates of Alexandria who believed that Christ developed much of his theology and understanding from a 6 year study in the Temple of Isis in Egypt.[7]
The Carpocratians might be a model of the typical gnostic sect in the early centuries of the first millennium. Founded by Carpocrates and his son Epiphanes (whose own name means God manifest)[8], the Carpocratians believed the nature of the created world to be inherently evil and a thing to be escaped. In essence, they believed that men had formerly been united with the Absolute, and had been corrupted by inhabiting creation. As a result, adherents to this philosophy found the concepts of private property and individual ownership contrary to true spiritual existence and formed a virtually communistic society. Followers of Carpocrates believed that by hating the created order, one might be saved in this life or else later through successive transmigrations.[9] Jesus, they believed, was among those who had gained salvation from the trappings of creation and moved on to an exalted state.
This letter to Theodore is not the first time Clement had set his sights on the Carpocratian sect. In the third book of his Miscellanies, Clement attacks the Carpocratian belief that justifies extreme sexual license[10] in conjunction with a wholly communistic lifestyle.
In response to Theodores apparent inquiry on the Carpocratians, Clement has strong words. He calls the Carpocratian doctrine blasphemous and carnal and accuses the sect of mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. This accusation is followed by an exhortation to never give way in regard to the teachings of Carpocrates and should even deny that the secret Gospel is by Mark even deny it on oath.
The Gospel Text
The text fragment that Clement quotes is to be inserted in Mark 10 between verses 34 and 35. It reads:They came to Bethany. There was one woman there whose brother had died. She came and prostrated herself before Jesus and spoke to him. "Son of David, pity me!" But the disciples rebuked her. Jesus was angry and went with her into the garden where the tomb was. Immediately a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going up to it, Jesus rolled the stone away from the door of the tomb, and immediately went in where the young man was. Stretching out his hand, he lifted him up, taking hold his hand. And the youth looking intently at him, loved him and started begging him to let him remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus gave him an order and, at evening, the young man came to him wearing nothing but a linen cloth. And he stayed with him for the night, because Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And then when he left he went back to the other side of the Jordan.[11]
One other fragment in the letter is to be placed into Mark 10:46. It reads:
Then he came into Jericho. And the sister of the young man whom Jesus loved was there with his mother and Salome, but Jesus would not receive them.[12]
The text here is superficially similar to the incident of the raising of Lazarus in John 11:17-44, says Bruce; but he also points out that the event is thoroughly confused instead of showing signs of an independent Markan narrative of the Johannine story. Bruce indicates that the secret text includes bits and pieces from other gospel accounts: the young man cries from the tomb, which is contradictory of the dead Lazarus in John 11; the plea of the sister recalls the Syrophoenician woman of Mark 7; and the garden placement of the tomb is reminiscent of the Johannine burial narrative.[13]
Whatever the origin of the text, Smith contends that Clement did not write the text, but the text was accepted by him rather against his personal inclinations because he found it already accepted by that church in Alexandria.[14] Smith claims that Christians of the period contemporary to Clement often accused one another of corrupting and misinterpreting the scriptures. Consequently, it is possible that the text rendered was altered to this Clementine variant before Carpocrates got his hands on it to benefit the needs of the growing church.[15] Regardless of the source of textual contamination, Bruce affirms that Clement was disposed to acknowledge it [the quoted Mark text] as part of a fuller edition written by the evangelist himself and often had no trouble at all referencing texts now considered apocryphal in nature.[16]
Because of the difficulty with the Clementine addition found nowhere else outside this obscure reference the question must turn to the authorship and dating of the canonically regarded text. Origen, a student of this same Clement, allegedly made the claim that Mark wrote the gospel as Peter explained it to him.[17] Likely this was also Clements view of Mark; thus it is fair to assume that Clement understood the gospel to have been written before 70.[18] Clements life spanned from 150 to the early part of the third century.[19] The span of 100 years between leaves room for contamination or change of the gospels text in Alexandria before Clement ever would have laid eyes upon it.
Conclusion
At its best, the Clementine discovery highlights the theological hurdles Christians faced in the early first millennium. It is difficult to speak for one whose voice was lost nearly two millennia ago. It becomes a guessing game involving riddles and assumptions that few, if any, are qualified to answer.Did a manuscript of the Marks gospel end up in Alexandria during the time of Clement? This is indisputable. Did one or more copies of this gospel contain significant textual differences in comparison with the text Christians have today? This is probable. Did some believe this different text to be the true gospel of Mark? Undoubtedly. Is this secret text material that should be added to the present text of Marks gospel? In this case neither full text nor immediate context are available to answer the question. But more than 1500 years of silence might be able to take a stab at the answer.
WORKS CITED
Bruce, F.F. The Secret Gospel of Mark. London: The Athlone Press, 1974.Ferguson, John. Clement of Alexandria. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1974.
Smith, Morton. Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973.
Smith, Morton. The Secret Gospel. New York: Harper and Row, 1973.
Stock, Augustine OSB. The Method and Message of Mark. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1989.
Tenney, Merrill C. New Testament Survey, Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans Publishing, 1985.
Carpocrates, The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001 http://www.bartleby.com/65/ca/Carpocra.html
http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/c/carpocratians.html
The Strange Case of the Secret Gospel According to Mark: http://www.globaltown.com/shawn/secmark.html
[1] Morton Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), 1
[2] Ibid.
[3] F.F. Bruce, The Secret Gospel of Mark. (London: Athlone Press, 1974), 6
[4] Smith, 446-447
[5] Smith includes in this more scholarly volume photographs of the Greek text he discovered, full translation, and transcriptions of the Greek text for personal study.
[6] Morton Smith, The Secret Gospel (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), 26
[7]http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/c/carpocratians.html
[8] John Ferguson, Clement of Alexandria(New York: Twayne Publishers, 1974) 129
[9] Carpocrates, The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001 http://www.bartleby.com/65/ca/Carpocra.html
[10] Ferguson, 130
[11] The Strange Case of the Secret Gospel According to Mark: http://www.globaltown.com/shawn/secmark.html
[12] Ibid.
[13] Bruce, 11
[14] Smith, Clement of Alexandria, 88-89
[15] Smith, 89
[16] Bruce, 13
[17] Merrill C. Tenney, New Testament Survey: Revised Edition (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans Publishing, 1985) 162
[18] Augustine Stock, The Method and Message of Mark (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1989) 6,7 This text also includes more detailed arguments for the pre-70 dating of the Gospel of Mark based on clues within the gospel text itself.
[19] Ferguson, 13,17