The Secret Gospel of Mark

The Washington Post recently published an op-ed piece that claimed that the number of Christians in America were dropping. According to that post, the percentage of Christians in the US had dropped from 86% in 1990 to 76% today. However, that still leaves the US a country that is overwhelmingly dominated by Christians.

I'm not a Christian. My biggest problem with Christianity is not that I think that it is a bad religion as religions go. My biggest problem is that I don't think there is any reason to believe its underlying tenets are true. Undoubtedly, many would claim that the reason I think that is that I don't know very much about Christianity. They would direct me to books by Christian apologists like Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel. Thanks, but I've read them. I'm not impressed.

It is ironic that those who are first to accuse me of ignorance with respect to Christianity are themselves ignorant of a rather vast body of critical scholarship that is not quite so supportive of their view of Christianity. There are genuine controversies out there. But these people generally know nothing about them.

It's not their fault. How could they know. Their preachers don't tell them. The apologetic books by McDowell, Strobel, et al. may allude to them, but they do so in a way that says, "Don't worry about it, it is ridiculous." These books never go into the evidence behind the controversies. Instead they give the opinion of an "expert" who says what they want to hear.

In this blog, I am going to talk about a controversy that many Christians will find disturbing. The controversy has not yet been resolved, and perhaps may never be resolved. In fact, it is my personal opinion that if there is a resolution then it is more likely than not to be resolved in favor of the way most Christians would want it to be.

If you were to ask a typical bible-reading Christian what gospel of Jesus was written first he would say, "Matthew". Matthew is the first of the four canonical gospels, and tradition dating back to the 2nd century CE has it as being the first. Yet most biblical scholars of today (even most evangelical scholars) agree that the first gospel was not Matthew, but Mark instead.

That is not the controversy I really want to cover, so I will not go into detail on the evidence behind it. Suffice it to say that once one looks at the evidence behind the traditional priority being placed on Matthew, it isn't very strong; and when one compares the texts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke it makes MUCH more sense to believe that Mark was the first and Matthew and Luke used Mark as a template for their gospels.

The controversy I want to focus on is the ending of the Gospel of Mark. Mark has 16 chapters. Chapter 16 has 20 verses. However, verses 9-20 are NOT found in any early manuscript of the bible before the 5th century CE, or almost 500 years after Jesus' death. Some end at verse 8, others tack on what is called the "short ending".

That means that Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene, his appearing to two disciples on the road, his commission to the disciple to spread the word, and his ascension into heaven is NOT in the earliest and the best manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark.

From that one might be inclined to think that the original ending of Mark was verse 8. But if that is true then Mark ends with Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome finding the empty tomb and a "young man dressed in white" telling them that Jesus had been raised from the dead and they should go tell Jesus' disciples and Peter that Jesus would meet them in Galilee. Then we have verse 16:8 --

So they [Mary Magdalene and the other women] fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. (NRSV)

That's it. No indication that they did as the young man told them to do (in fact, it says they didn't) and inform Jesus' disciples and Peter to meet him in Galilee ... no nothing. That is a pretty awkward ending. It almost begs for something more to go along with it. That is probably the reason that later on people DID add something to go along with it (verses 9-20).

However, it has also led critical bible scholars to speculate that originally Mark did have another ending ... one that somehow became lost -- or one that early Christians found so disturbing as to keep secret. What could possibly be this "Secret" ending of Mark?

The journal, Biblical Archaeological Review, has an article describing the history of one man's search and findings to questions like this.

In 1958 (yes, that long ago), a well-respected bible scholar from Columbia University, Morton Smith, was on sabbatical at the Turkish monastery of Mar Saba. This is a very old monastery and it has a library filled with very old manuscripts. Smith spent his time there searching for and reading old texts. These texts are very valuable so a monk from the library was assigned to sit with Smith as he did his searching, but occasionally Smith was allowed to take some the texts back to his small room for further study.

One such text was a 1647 edition of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, an early church father. Let's stop here for a moment and discuss how information was transmitted in early times.

Books don't last forever. Eventually they wear out. In order for the information in a book to survive, books must be copied. Prior to the printing press, copies were made by hand using pen and ink. The people who did that the most were monks. The Mar Saba monastery had for centuries been home to monks who did just this. That is why it had such a large library of old texts. Mar Saba monks continue the tradition even today.

Copying texts was a time-intensive and expensive process. Ink had to be made up specially for it and paper was not nearly as plentiful as it is today. In fact, it was a rare material. As a result only the most important manuscripts were copied and often paper was reused when it could be.

Originally, the 1647 edition of the letters of Antioch had a couple of blank pages in the back of the book. As was often done, these blank pages were later used to record something else, totally unrelated. Smith claimed to have found on these pages a copy of a letter claiming to be from the very early church father, Clement of Alexandria. Originally the letter would have been written in early second century. Smith, an expert on paleography (the study of early writing) dated the copy to the 18th century.

Smith photographed the letter. He spent the next 15 years teaching and along with some professional colleagues studying the letter. He published his findings in 1973. The impact was such that academicians in the field called it a "nuclear event". Yet, I'll be willing to bet few people reading this blog are aware of any of it.

The letter was addressed to someone named Theodore. In it, Clement was denouncing the teachings of the Carpocratians. Again let's pause here for a moment and talk about early Christianity.

Early Christianity was not the same Christianity we have now, just at an earlier time. Christianity has evolved. Its evolution has (ironically enough) been by a process much like natural selection. Early Christianity consisted of a wide variety of beliefs. What eventually became the orthodox view was back then only one of many. It was what scholars nowadays refer to as "proto-orthodox". If we lived back at that time and compared the proto-orthodox sect with other Christian sects we would be hard pressed to predict which one would be the eventual winner. Other sects were just as numerous and had their own sacred "gospels" and other texts.

One very large Christian sect at that time was the Gnostics. And one branch of the Gnostics were the Carpocratians. We do not know very much of the Carpcratians. Their writings have been destroyed. What we do know of them comes from critiques by the proto-orthodox early church fathers whose writings have been preserved. What we know of the Carpocratians comes primarily from what Eusebius of Casarea (a 4th century church father) says that Ireneas (a second century church father) says of them.

Eusebius transcribed (and many scholars feel often changed) the writings of many early Christian figures. It is his rendition of Ireneas' Against Heresies that survives today. According to that the key for salvation according to Gnostics lay in obtaining secret knowledge. For Carpocratians the key to obtaining the secret knowledge was in experiencing "everything ungodly and impious".

Now, back to Clement's letter. In it he praises Theodore for suppressing Carpocratian teaching. He claims the Carpocratians are sinfully carnal, engaging in orgies "unit[ing] with whom they will". He then goes on to tell Theodore how they bastardized proto-orthodoxy into coming into this belief.

He says that Mark had originally written his gospel in Rome. That version was intended for beginners. Mark then came to Alexandria and there he appended some secret mystical material making it a "more spiritual gospel" appropriate for one "being perfected" in the faith. Carpocrates (the founder of the Carpocratians) conned a gullible presbyter out of this secret gospel and then added his profanity to the sacred words. So while there was some truth in the Carpocratian's version of Mark, it was also misleading.

He then gives some quotes about what the secret sections of Mark REALLY said:

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.

Clement, evidently referring to the Carpocratian distortion of that passage goes on to say that nowhere does the passage use the phrase "naked man with naked man". One should infer from this that a homosexual connotation does not necessarily apply.

What should we make out of this? Well, if we take the letter at face value ... I think Clement's exegesis is little weak. Even without the phrase "naked man with naked man", the passage clearly suggests a homosexual relationship. Perhaps an argument could be made that in the context of that time the above phraseology would not have implied a homosexual relationship. While I don't rule that out, I doubt it severely. Homosexual relationships between young boys and adult men were normal and common in Greek and Roman times. It was even expected that an affluent male would take youth under their wing and in doing so engage in homosexual activity. If Mark really did write it in Rome and Alexandria it could be his attempt to picture Jesus as a powerful and respected person.

But, I think a better question is, "Should we take this at face value?" In my study of religion, I think we shouldn't. Religion is too easily used to promote one's personal agenda. That is what Clement's letter is accusing the Carpocratians of doing, if Clement's letter is real ... that is what I suspect Clement is doing, that is what I suspect the proto-orthodoxy did, that is what I suspect the forgers of biblical artifacts like the ossuary with the inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" did. So immediately we should question whether or not this is as it is portrayed to be ... a copy of a letter written by Clement of Alexandria.

An obvious thing to do is get the letter and do some tests on it. Is the ink from the 18th century as Smith believed the copy of the letter to be? How old is the paper? What does the microscope reveal about the stroke marks of the lettering? Unfortunately, we can't do any of that stuff. The letter is now lost. The only evidence of its existence now is Smith's photographs.

The next best thing is to ask, "Did anybody have the means, motive and opportunity to forge the letter?" The answer is, "YES" ... Morton Smith.

Morton Smith was a well-respected biblical scholar. But well-respected scholars can do some terrible things. He was an expert on paleography, so it would have been well within his abilities to forge the document. While a monk sat with him while he was in the library, he was allowed to take some books back to his room alone. There he could have forged the document. He made a career out of this finding, so that could be motive itself.

But he may have had a more understandable motive than that. Smith had at one time been an ordained member of the Episcopal clergy. He left that to devote his career to academia. He lived and died a bachelor. There has been speculation as to his sexuality. Perhaps, he was a homosexual himself. If so, perhaps he would have felt such a letter would give some biblical justification to homosexuality.

In short, IF the letter is a forgery, then Morton Smith is almost certainly the forger. But, having means, motive, and opportunity to do a crime does not mean the person did the crime. Is there evidence that suggest Smith didn't forge the document? Yes to that too ...

While it is very convenient that the actual letter that Smith found is lost, Smith is not the one who lost it. Three years after Smith left the monastery, three Hebrew University scholars went to Mar Saba to relocate the letter, and they did. They wanted the whole book to be relocated at a more secure place, the Patriarchate library in Jerusalem (it was). They also wanted to do some scientific tests to date the ink (those weren't done since the letter was deemed too valuable). In 1980 another scholar reported that he was NOT allowed to see the letter because the letter was being repaired. Shortly later there was a report in the literature about the letter being removed from the book so more pictures could be taken. The report said the letter was placed back in the book. The book was evidently misfiled and was lost for almost 20 years. In 2000, the book was found again ... but the letter was gone.

So in short, the letter was clearly in existence long after Smith had control of it. Thus, while the letter is lost, Smith didn't lose it. If Smith forged the letter and being a renowned scholar, he presumably would have realized that scientific tests COULD have been performed on the letter that would have shown his forgery. It would have been only luck that saved him from being exposed.

The next question to ask is, "How does the passage fit in with the rest of Mark?" The answer is .... eh?

We have already discussed that the ending of the original Mark is a bit shakey. It is plausible that something could have been left out of it. But this passage would not have been it. In the letter, Clement says the passage fits in between Mark 10:34 and 10:35. That is not the end. But biblical scholars who do believe the Clement letter to be real use it as evidence that things have been intentionally hidden in the Gospel of Mark..

However, there is a passage in the canonical version of Mark that is reminiscent of Clement's Secret Mark passage. In Mark's pericope (biblical story) about the arrest of Jesus, it ends with a rather cryptic couple of verses, Mark 14:51-52:

A certain young man was following him wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked (NRSV)

So what do we make out of this? As best as I can tell scholars seem to be equally divided on whether or not Secret Mark is real. I personally lean slightly toward the side of forgery. I feel like Secret Mark fits too much with what I suspect Morton Smith would have wanted to find. Things like that make me suspicious. Furthermore, it is something that I (being a non-Christian) would sort of like to be true. I wouldn't mind seeing some smug Christian apologists I know squirm to make this fit in their worldview. Perhaps, it is the pessimist in me, but if I am skeptical of things that seem to turn out the way I want them to. So at the moment with no additional evidence to push me one way or the other, I remain skeptical of Secret Mark.

What does it mean for your everyday bible-reading Christian? That depends on how much they choose to think about it. With respect to the question of whether or not the biblical Jesus had homosexual experiences, I think the everyday Christian is well within his rights to dismiss it entirely at the moment, or he is also well within his rights to remain open to the idea. But I hope he expands his thoughts. This blog is probably telling him something he has never heard of before, yet it has been a topic of heated controversy in the realms of academic Christianity for over 35 years. What else does he not know about? For one thing, he might not have known that Mark, not Matthew is considered the first Gospel. He might be unaware that scholars tend to agree that NONE of the gospels were actually written by the people whom we have traditionally attributed authorship.

The everyday Christian might have passing awareness that scholars believe that much of what the bible says Jesus said and did, he DIDN'T do. They may have felt comfortable in dismissing these claims because of the ridicule and scorn many popularizers of Christianity have heaped upon the Jesus Seminar. I would HIGHLY recommend that they remain open to the idea. There is more to the Jesus Seminar than what they have been told and there is more to the evidence that Jesus did not do what the bible said he did than the Jesus Seminar.

The everyday Christian is probably unaware that scholars believe that 6 of the 13 epistles of Paul are actual forgeries. That is, they weren't written by Paul.

And the final thing they are almost certainly unaware of, is that most of the scholars who believe in those things above are themselves Christians.