Fragments, Agrapha, and Secret Mark

(I recently moved into a new house and have been without an internet connection at home for two weeks. So, I am a little behind on posting my usual post mortem of my New Testament Apocrypha class. Here is last week’s post; this week’s will follow shortly).

This week’s New Testament Apocrypha class covered the agrapha and fragmentary gospels. The course is structured so that we review an orthodox/canonical text and then discuss related heretical/non-canonical texts. This week the orthodox text was Mark. The point of the structure is to have the students see how the apocrypha expand upon or react to other texts (the assumption is that the apocrypha are later than the canonical material, though my lectures note the theories of Koester, Crossan, et al who claim otherwise). This structure also allows us to look at the orthodox material for heretical ideas, or ideas that heretics will read into them, such as Mark’s adoptionist Christology.

In our discussion of agrapha I was struck by the methodology employed to delimit the 270-or-so known agrapha. It makes sense to eliminate some material from the corpus, such as material now identified as apocryphal texts (Gospel of Thomas) or fragmentary texts typically featured separately in editions (Papyrus Egerton). But otherwise the goal  appears to be to find which agrapha could go back to the historical Jesus. Therefore, anti-Christian polemical sayings are eliminated, as are agrapha from Muslim sources (indeed many of these are transformations of narratives from apocryphal gospels), and sayings with parallels in pagan literature. The elimination of this material is unfortunate. All of these are useful for seeing developments in Christian traditions and would be worth giving wider visibility. I tend to object to the idea that we should be focusing solely on “early” material. But most objectionable about this methodology is the elimination of “heretical” sayings—i.e., sayings that do not agree in form or content with the canonical gospels. The assumption is that the historical Jesus would not say anything that is distinctly different from what we find in the canon. No wonder then that many scholars see little in the agrapha to change our knowledge of the historical Jesus.

Much of our discussion of fragmentary gospels focused on Secret Mark. Not a scholar of Secret Mark, I am happy to remain agnostic about the issue of the text’s authenticity. So, my lecture provided the students with an overview of Stephen Carlson’s position that the text is a forgery. Each point of his argument was countered with objections brought forward by Scott Brown and some objections of my own. Scott has become the go-to-guy for rebuttals of the forgery hypothesis advanced by Carlson and, more recently, by Peter Jeffrey. For Scott’s reply to Jeffery, see his lengthy review of Jeffery’s book, The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled: Imagined Rituals of Sex, Death, and Madness in a Biblical Forgery at the RBL site and then see Carlson’s response to Brown on Hypotyposeis (and be sure to read the comments from other readers). For another recent post on Secret Mark see Roger Pearse’s comment on Thoughts on Antiquity.

Carlson seems genuinely surprised that Scott “is not budging” on his belief that Secret Mark is genuine and critiques Scott for “overstatements” that Jeffery’s arguments are unsubstantiated (alas, Carlson does not confront Scott’s arguments against Jeffrey’s case for forgery). I have not read Jeffery’s book but I was surprised at some of what Scott says about the author’s position on the text—particularly on his reading of it as “obscene” (p. 250), misogynistic, and supportive of pederasty. Jeffrey apparently shows great disrespect to Smith, almost to the point of demonization (he states: “And I pray for the late Morton Smith—may God rest his anguished soul,” p. ix). Jeffery’s agenda seems more to discredit Secret Mark for its homosexual content (a forced identification—e.g., Jesus’ “seizing of the boy’s hand” is meant to be a euphemism for genitals? the cave tomb represents a closet?) and it’s “forger” for his homosexual lifestyle than to present a solid, carefully-researched case for its inauthenticity. Again, I don’t necessarily support Scott’s position that Secret Mark truly is an ancient gospel, but I am impressed at the rigour of his research (this 47-page review includes references to the archive of Smith’s correspondence, which assists in dispensing of some elements of the forgery hypothesis, particularly those elements that bear on Smith’s motives). Those, like Jeffrey, who wish to argue for forgery need to read Scott’s book (Mark’s Other Gospel: Rethinking Morton Smith’s Controversial Discovery) and follow his example.

Addendum: Stephen Carlson clarified his position on Secret Mark in a post on his blog Hypotyposeis. Carlson believes the text is a hoax, not a forgery–that is, Morton Smith invented the text as an elaborate joke on the academy. My apologies, Stephen, for being imprecise.