Secret Gospel of Mark

Part of a series on
New Testament apocrypha
First page of the Gospel of Judas
(Page 33 of Codex Tchacos)
Apostolic Fathers
Apocryphal gospels
Jewish–Christian gospels
Infancy gospels
Gnostic gospels
Other gospels
Lost gospels
Apocalypses
Epistles
Lost epistles
Acts
Misc.
Other apocrypha
Related topics
icon Christianity portal

The Secret Gospel of Mark or the Mystic Gospel of Mark[1] (Biblical Greek: τοῦ Μάρκου τὸ μυστικὸν εὐαγγέλιον, romanized: tou Markou to mystikon euangelion),[a][3] also the Longer Gospel of Mark,[4][5] is a putative longer and secret or mystic version of the Gospel of Mark. The gospel is mentioned exclusively in the Mar Saba letter, a document of disputed authenticity, which is said to have been written by Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 150–215). This letter, in turn, is preserved only in photographs of a Greek handwritten copy seemingly transcribed in the 18th century into the endpapers of a 17th-century printed edition of the works of Ignatius of Antioch.[b][8][9][10] Some scholars suggest that the letter implies that Jesus was involved in homosexual activity, although this interpretation is contested.

In 1958, Morton Smith, a professor of ancient history at Columbia University, found a previously unknown letter of Clement of Alexandria in the monastery of Mar Saba situated 20 kilometres (12 miles) south-east of Jerusalem.[11] He made a formal announcement of the discovery in 1960[12] and published his study of the text in 1973.[10][13] The original manuscript was subsequently transferred to the library of the Greek Orthodox Church in Jerusalem, and sometime after 1990, it was lost.[14][15] Further research has relied upon photographs and copies, including those made by Smith himself.[16]

In the letter, addressed to one otherwise unknown Theodore (Theodoros),[17][18] Clement says that "when Peter died a martyr, Mark [i.e. Mark the Evangelist] came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book [i.e. the Gospel of Mark] the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge."[19] He further says that Mark left this extended version, known today as the Secret Gospel of Mark, "to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries."[19][20][21] Clement quotes two passages from this Secret Gospel of Mark, where Jesus in the longer passage is said to have raised a rich young man from the dead in Bethany,[22] a story which shares many similarities with the story of the raising of Lazarus in the Gospel of John.[23][24][25]

The revelation of the letter caused a sensation at the time but was soon met with accusations of forgery and misrepresentation.[26] There is no consensus on the authenticity of the letter among either patristic Clement scholars or biblical scholars.[27][28][29][30][31] As the text is made up of two texts, a handful of possibilities exist: both may be authentic or inauthentic, or one may be authentic and the other inauthentic.[32] Those who think the letter is a forgery mostly think it is a modern forgery, with Smith being denounced the most often as the perpetrator.[32] If the letter is a modern forgery, the excerpts from the Secret Gospel of Mark would also be forgeries.[32] Some accept the letter as genuine but do not believe in Clement's account, and instead argue that the gospel is a 2nd-century Gnostic pastiche.[33][34] Others think Clement's information is accurate and that the secret gospel is a second edition of the Gospel of Mark expanded by Mark himself.[35] Still others see the Secret Gospel of Mark as the original gospel which predates the canonical Gospel of Mark,[36][37] and where canonical Mark is the result of the Secret Mark passages quoted by Clement and other passages being removed, either by Mark himself or by someone else at a later stage.[38][39]

There is an ongoing controversy surrounding the authenticity of the Mar Saba letter.[40] The scholarly community is divided as to the authenticity, and the debate on Secret Mark therefore in a state of stalemate,[41][32][26] although the debate continues.[42]

  1. ^ Schenke 2012, p. 554.
  2. ^ Tselikas 2011
  3. ^ Burnet 2013, p. 290
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference SGB 2005 xi was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Smith 1973, pp. 93–94
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Isaac Vossius was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference P&B 2008 107-108 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Smith 1973, p. 1
  9. ^ Smith 1973b, p. 13
  10. ^ a b Brown 2005, p. 6
  11. ^ Burke 2013, p. 2
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference Burke 2013 5 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ Watson 2010, p. 128
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference SGB 2005 25-26 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference H&O 8-9 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hedrick 2013 42-43 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  17. ^ Hedrick 2009, p. 45
  18. ^ Rau 2010, p. 142
  19. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Smith's translation of the MS was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  20. ^ Brown 2017, p. 95
  21. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hedrick 2003 133 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  22. ^ Grafton 2009, p. 25
  23. ^ Cite error: The named reference Meyer 2003 139 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  24. ^ Cite error: The named reference Koester 1990 296 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  25. ^ Cite error: The named reference Theissen Merz 1998 46 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  26. ^ a b Grafton 2009, p. 26
  27. ^ Cite error: The named reference SGB 2005 68 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  28. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hedrick 2003 141 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  29. ^ Carlson 2013, pp. 306–307
  30. ^ Cite error: The named reference BDE 2003 81-82 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  31. ^ Burke 2013, p. 27
  32. ^ a b c d Hedrick 2013, p. 31
  33. ^ Cite error: The named reference Smith 1982 457 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  34. ^ Cite error: The named reference Burke 2013 6 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  35. ^ Hedrick 2013, p. 44
  36. ^ Cite error: The named reference Burke 2013 9 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  37. ^ Burke 2013, p. 22
  38. ^ Cite error: The named reference Fowler was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  39. ^ Ehrman 2003, p. 79
  40. ^ Huller & Gullotta 2017, p. 354
  41. ^ Hedrick 2003, p. 144
  42. ^ Meyer 2010, p. 75


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).