Tag Archives: Morton Smith

Secret Gospel of Mark – The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled: Imagined Rituals of Sex, Death, and Madness in a Biblical Forgery

Morton Smith’s demons November 18, 2006
Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase

Like Stephen Carlson a year ago, Peter Jeffery is able to show how obvious it is that Morton Smith fabricated Clement’s letter to Theodore. One would think that Carlson exhausted all of Smith’s anachronisms (the “bald swindler” M. Madiotes, Morton Salt, and modern gays in the 1950s being arrested in public Gethsemanes), but Jeffery has spotted more:

* The three features of Secret Mark’s initiation rite — resurrection symbolism, a period of teaching followed by a night vigil, and the wearing of a white cloth — point to the Anglican Paschal liturgy as it was before the 1960s liturgical renewal movement. In addition, Clement and the Alexandrian church had a theology of baptism that was based not on the easter event of Jesus’ resurrection, but on the epiphany event of Jesus’ baptism by John. Secret Mark should thus have epiphany motifs (i.e. creation, the heavens opening with light, the descent of the Holy Spirit and fire, the seal of priestly and messianic anointings) rather than easter motifs (i.e. Pauline associations between baptism and resurrection).

* The homoeroticism in Secret Mark makes no sense in an ancient context. Adult males were supposed to pursue young boys/men, who in turn were supposed to acquiesce only after “playing hard to get” and only if the boy perceived that the sex would have intiatory value (i.e. that the man would go beyond sex and educate him in proper mores). But in Secret Mark, Jesus does not pursue the young man: just the opposite if anything, and this would have been shamefully unacceptable. Secret Mark was evidently written by a modern person who assumed that ancient homosexuality would have followed Plato’s model of an older teacher with a young disciple, but who didn’t quite understand how the roles played out — and such misunderstandings were common in academic circles before the work of K.J. Dover in the late 70s. (This would seem to improve on Carlson, who argued that the homoeroticism in Secret Mark makes no sense since Jesus and the young man are depicted as social peers. But a “young man”, however rich, suggests they’re not quite peers.)

* Clement’s letter is riddled with allusions to Oscar Wilde’s 19th-century play, Salome, and Wilde was a homosexual martyr to boot. In the play Salome does the “dance of the seven veils”, which is punned by Smith’s Clement, who writes about “the truth hidden by seven veils”. She is punned, in turn, by Smith’s Salome, whom Jesus rejects along with the rest of the female race.

On top of this, Jeffery catches Smith in some pretty amusing lies. A notable one: whereupon discovering Clement’s letter, Smith says he went to Vespers instead of staying to investigate his discovery, apparently forgetting what he said two pages earlier (in The Secret Gospel, p 10) — that he had stopped attending religious services because he no longer “responded” to them.

Jeffery examines Smith’s brief career as an Anglican priest, noting his excessively harsh judgments on homosexuals in a 1949 article — very severe by Anglican standards at the time. Any fool can make the diagnosis: Smith was going through his own sexual crisis that caused him to leave the priesthood a year later. Interestingly, in that same 1949 article, Smith referenced a 19th-century debate between Catholics and Protestants over whether Clement of Alexandria believed that lying was justified if it served the causes of the church. Quelle surprise: the letter to Theodore answers that very question.

Jeffery goes after Morton Smith pretty hard, unlike Carlson who seemed (at least in part) to respect or admire a man who had the skills to bamboozle so many academics. Jeffery expresses sorrow and contempt: Smith “became what he opposed: a hypocritical Clement who condoned lying for the sake of a fundamentalist sexology”; “a man in great personal pain”, who didn’t even understand himself despite pretensions to a superior gnosticism; a bitter academic, whose hoax stands as “the most grandiose and reticulated ‘F— You’ ever perpetuated in the long and vituperative history of scholarship”. He’s right about that last one, but whether Smith wrote his hoax more out of experimental amusement or angry revenge remains unclear.

The names Stephen Carlson and Peter Jeffery will soon become closely associated, and that’s a credit to them both. But who has the stronger case? Carlson has the edge with his forensic handwriting analysis. The Morton Salt exhibit (Carlson) and Anglican liturgical analysis (Jeffery) each point to Morton Smith in particular. Both address the homosexuality issue — which also puts Smith directly on the spot — though Jeffery more satisfyingly. Carlson insists on the pernicious nature of fakes, while Jeffery seems more interested in the perniciousness of Morton Smith himself. They complement each other perfectly, and stand as definitive twin debunkings of the Secret Mark hoax.

Leave a comment

Filed under The Ramblings of a Reformed Ecclesiastic

Secret Gospel of Mark

Morton Smith

Morton Smith (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: Mar Saba Monestary עברית: מנזר מר סבא...

English: Mar Saba Monestary עברית: מנזר מר סבא, על גדת נחל קדרון (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: Letter of Clement of Alexandria to Th...

English: Letter of Clement of Alexandria to Theodore, where he quotes from the Secret Gospel of Mark. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Ancient Mar Saba monastery ca. 1900.

Ancient Mar Saba monastery ca. 1900. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

The Gnostic Society Library

Gnostic Scriptures and Fragments

The Secret Gospel of Mark: Commentary on Recent Scholarship

Archive Notes

This article discussing scholarly and popular response to Morton Smith’s discovery of      the Secret Gospel of Mark was originally published in Alexandria: The Journal for the      Western Cosmological Traditions, volume 3 (1995), pp. 103-129. Alexandria is edited      by David Fideler and is published by Phanes Press. The whole of this article is copyright       © 1995 by Phanes Press. All rights reserved, including international rights.


The Strange Case of the Secret Gospel According to Mark: How Morton Smith’s Discovery of a Lost Letter     by Clement of Alexandria Scandalized Biblical Scholarship

by Shawn Eyer

“Dear reader, do not be alarmed at the parallels between… magic and ancient      Christianity. Christianity never claimed to be original. It claimed . . . to be      true!” With these words in the New York Times Book Review, Pierson Parker reassured      the faithful American public that it need not be concerned with the latest news from the      obscure and bookish world of New Testament scholarship.[1] It was 1973, and the Biblical      studies community, as well as the popular press, was in a stir over a small manuscript      discovery that–to judge from the reactions of some–seemingly threatened to call down the      apocalypse. A newly-released book by Columbia University’s Morton Smith, presenting a      translation and interpretation of a fragment of a newly-recovered Secret Gospel of Mark,      was at the center of the controversy.

The Discovery (1958-1960)

In the spring of 1958 Smith, then a graduate student in Theology at Columbia      University, was invited to catalogue the manuscript holdings in the library of the Mar      Saba monastery, located twelve miles south of Jerusalem. Smith had been a guest of the      same hermitage years earlier, when he was stranded in Palestine by the conflagrations of      the second World War.

What Smith found during his task in the tower library surprised him. He discovered some      new scholia of Sophocles, for instance, and dozens of other manuscripts.[2] Despite these      finds, however, the beleaguered scholar soon resigned himself to what looked like a      reasonable conclusion: he would find nothing of major importance at Mar Saba. His malaise      evaporated one day as he first deciphered the manuscript that would always thereafter be      identified with him:

[. . . O]ne afternoon near the end of my stay, I found myself in my cell, staring        incredulously at a text written in a tiny scrawl. [. . . I]f this writing was what it        claimed to be, I had a hitherto unknown text by a writer of major significance for early        church history.[3]

What Smith then began photographing was a three-page handwritten addition penned into      the endpapers of a printed book, Isaac Voss’ 1646 edition of the Epistolae genuinae S.      Ignatii Martyris.[4] It identified itself as a letter by Clement of the Stromateis, i.e.,      Clement of Alexandria, the second-century church father well-known for his neo-platonic      applications of Christian belief. Clement writes “to Theodore,” congratulating      him for success in his disputes with the Carpocratians, an heterodoxical sect about which      little is known. Apparently in their conflict with Theodore, the Carpocratians appealed to      Mark’s gospel.

Clement responds by recounting a new story about the Gospel. After Peter’s death, Mark      brought his original gospel to Alexandria and wrote a “more spiritual gospel for the      use of those who were being perfected.” Clement says this text is kept by the      Alexandrian church for use only in the initiation into “the great mysteries.”

However, Carpocrates the heretic, by means of magical stealth, obtained a copy and      adapted it to his own ends. Because this version of the “secret” or      “mystery” gospel had been polluted with “shameless lies,” Clement      urges Theodore to deny its Markan authorship even under oath. “Not all true things      are to be said to all men,” he advises.

Theodore has asked questions about particular passages of the special Carpocratian      Gospel of Mark, and by way of reply Clement transcribes two sections which he claims have      been distorted by the heretics. The first fragment of the Secret Gospel of Mark, meant to      be inserted between Mark 10.34 and 35, 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.

Then a second fragment of Secret Mark is given, this time to be inserted into Mark      10.46. This has long been recognized as a narrative snag in Mark’s Gospel, as it awkwardly      reads, “Then they come to Jericho. As he was leaving Jericho with his      disciples…” This strange construction is not present in Secret Mark, which 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.

Just as Clement prepares to reveal the “real interpretation” of these verses      to Theodore, the copyist discontinues and Smith’s discovery is, sadly, complete.

Smith stopped briefly in the Hebrew University in Jerusalem to share his discovery with      Gerschom Scholem.[5] He then returned to America where he sought the opinions of his      mentors Erwin Goodenough and Arthur Darby Nock. “God knows what you’ve got hold      of,” Goodenough said.[6] “They made up all sorts of stuff in the fifth      century,” said Nock. “But, I say, it is exciting.”[7]

At the 1960 annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Morton Smith      announced his discovery to the scholarly community, openly presenting a translation and      discussion of the Clementine letter. A well-written account of his presentation, with a      photograph of the Mar Saba monastery, appeared the next morning on the front page of The      New York Times.[8] A list of the seventy-five manuscripts Smith catalogued appeared      the same year in the journal Archaeology[9] as well as the Greek Orthodox      Patriarchate journal, Nea Sion.[10] And Morton Smith embarked on a decade of      meticulous investigation into the nature of his find.

The Reaction (1973–1982)

While there may seem nothing particularly scandalous about the apocryphal episodes of      Secret Mark in and of themselves, the release of the material to the general public      aroused a great deal of popular and scholarly derision. Smith wrote two books on the      subject: first, the voluminous and intricate scholarly analysis Clement of Alexandria      and a Secret Gospel of Mark, and then The Secret Gospel, a thin and      conversational popular account of the discovery and its interpretation. The first book was      delivered to the Harvard University Press in 1966, but was very slow at going through the      press.[11] Smith’s popular treatment, however, was released by Harper and Row in the      summer of 1973. This is the version that most scholars had in their hands first. What did      it say that was so shocking?

Smith’s analysis of the Secret Mark text–and consequently the wider body of literature      bearing on the history of early Christianity–brought him to consider unusual      possibilities. Because Secret Mark presents a miracle story, this meant a particular      concentration upon material of a like type. Smith was working outside of the traditional      school of Biblical criticism which automatically regarded all miracle accounts as      mythological inventions of the early Christian communities.[12] Instead of taking as his      goal the theological deconstruction of the miracle traditions, Smith asked to what degree      the miracle stories of the gospels might in fact be based upon actions of Jesus, much in      the same way scholars examine the sayings traditions.

It has been typical for critical scholars of the Bible to reject any historical      foundation for the “miracle-worker” stories about Jesus. Because such tales      would tend to rely on the supernatural, and scholars seek to understand the origins of the      Bible in realistic terms, it is more plausible for the modern critic to propose reasons      for which an early Christian community might have come to understand Jesus as a      miracle-worker and subsequently engage in the production of mythologies depicting him in      that mold. Smith’s understanding of the kingdom language in the Christian writings, with      its well-known ambivalent eschatological and yet emphatically present or      “realized” tendencies, evolved to the conclusion that:

[Jesus] could admit his followers to the kingdom of God, and he could do it in some        special way, so that they were not there merely by anticipation, nor by virtue of belief        and obedience, nor by some other figure of speech, but were really, actually, in.[13]

Smith held that the best explanation for the literary and historical evidence      surrounding the mircles of Jesus was that Jesus himself actually performed–or meant to      and was understood to have performed–magical feats. Among these was a baptismal      initiation rite through which he was able to “give” his disciples a vision of      the heavenly spheres. This was in the form of an altered state of consciousness induced by      “the recitation of repetitive, hypnotic prayers and hymns,” a technique common      in Jewish mystical texts, Qumran material, Greek magical papyri and later Christian      practices such as the Byzantine liturgy.[14] This is a radical departure from the      mainstream scholarship which seeks to minimize or eliminate altogether any possible      “supernatural” elements attached to the Historical Jesus, who is most often      understood as a speaker on social issues and applied ethics . . . an Elijahform social      worker, if you will.

Morton Smith did not begin with that assumption, nor did his reinterpretation of      Christian history arrive at it. Thus, the new theory summarized in his 1973 book for      general readership displeased practically everyone:

[. . . F]rom the scattered indications in the canonical Gospels and the secret Gospel of Mark, we can put together a picture of Jesus’ baptism, “the mystery of the kingdom of God.” It was a water baptism administered by Jesus to chosen disciples, singly and by night. The costume, for the disciple, was a linen cloth worn over the naked body. This cloth was probably removed for the baptism proper, the immersion in water, which was now reduced to a preparatory purification. After that, by unknown ceremonies, the disciple was possessed by Jesus’ spirit and so united with Jesus. One with him, he participated by hallucination in Jesus’ ascent into the heavens, he entered the kingdom of God, and was thereby set free from the laws ordained for and in the lower world. Freedom from the law may have resulted in completion of the spiritual union by physical union. This certainly occurred in many forms of gnostic Christianity; how early it began there is no telling.[15]

In an interview with The New York Times just before his books were released onto      the market, Smith noted with appreciation, “Thank God I have tenure.”[16]

The Inquisition: Let’s Begin

Not a moment was lost in the ensuing backlash. Smith had laid aside the canon of      unwritten rules that most Biblical scholars worked by. He took the Gospels as more firmly      rooted in history than in the imagination of the early church. He refused to operate with      an artificially thick barrier between pagan and Christian, magic and mythology. And he not      only promulgated his theories from his office in Columbia University via obscure scholarly      periodicals: he had given them to the world in plain, understandable and all-too-clear      language. Thus there was no time for the typical scholarly method of thorough, researched,      logical refutation. The public attention span was short. It was imperative that Smith be      discredited before too many Biblical scholars told the press that there might be something      to his theories. Some of the high-pitched remarks of well-known scholars are amusing to us      in retrospect:

Patrick Skehan: “…a morbid concatenation of fancies…”[17]         Joseph Fitzmyer: “…venal popularization…”[18] “…replete with        innuendos and eisegesis…”[19]         Paul J. Achtemeier: “Characteristically, his arguments are awash in        speculation.”[20] “…an a priori principle of selective credulity…”[21]         William Beardslee: “…ill-founded…”[22]         Pierson Parker: “…the alleged parallels are far-fetched…”[23]         Hans Conzelmann: “…science fiction…”[24] “…does not belong to        scholarly, nor even…discussable, literature…”[25]         Raymond Brown: “…debunking attitude towards Christianity…”[26]         Frederick Danker: “…in the same niche with Allegro’s mushroom fantasies and        Eisler’s salmagundi.”[27]         Helmut Merkel: “Once again total warfare has been declared on New Testament        scholarship.”[28]

The possibility that the initiation could have included elements of eroticism was      unthinkable to many scholars, whose reaction was to project onto Smith’s entire      interpretive work an imaginary emphasis on Jesus being a homosexual:

[. . . T]he fact that the young man comes to Jesus “wearing a linen cloth over his        naked body” naturally suggests implications which Smith does not fail to infer.[29]

Hostility has marked some of the initial reactions to Smith’s publication because of      his debunking attitude towards Christianity and his unpleasant suggestion that Jesus      engaged in homosexual practices with his disciples.[30]

Many others cited rather prominently the homoerotic overtures of Smith’s thesis in      their objections to his overall work.[31] Another criticism, which holds more weight from      a scholar’s standpoint, was Smith’s rejection of the form and redaction critical      techniques preferred by the reviewer.[32]

Two scholars, embarassingly, found a flaw in Smith’s use of what they considered too      much documentation, as a ploy to confuse the reader.[33]

Many scholars felt that the Secret Mark fragments were a pastiche from the four      gospels, some even suggesting that Mark’s style is so simple to imitate the fragment must      be a useless pseudepigraphon.[34]

In reaction to Clement’s claim to perform initiation rites, some scholars simply      dogmatized that Alexandrian Christians only used words like “initiation” and      “mystery” in a figurative sense, therefore the letter must not be authentic.[35]

Finally, some reactions truly border on the petty. Two scholars held that Morton Smith      didn’t really “discover” the Secret Gospel of Mark at all. Because the letter      only contains two fragments of it, Smith is described as dishonest in his subtitle      “The Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel of Mark.”[36] Worst of      all is Danker, who complains that the Smith’s first, non-technical book does not include      the Greek text. “The designer of the jacket, as though fond of palimpsests, has      obscured with the book title and the editor’s name even the partial reproduction of      Clement’s letter,” and that while there is another photo inside the book, “the      publishers do not supply a magnifying glass with which to read it.”[37] All this just      to tell us that, after he and a companion had painstakingly transcribed the Greek text,      Smith’s transcription and translation are “substantially correct.”[38] He      deceptively omits that Smith’s Harvard edition includes large, easily legible photographic      plates of the original manuscript, alleging that Smith was “reluctant…to share the      Greek text”[39] he had discovered.

Only one reviewer, Fitzmeyer, saw it worthwhile to point out that Morton Smith was      bald. Whatever importance we may attach to the thickness of a scholar’s hair, it seems      that detached scholarly criticism fails when certain tenets of faith–even      “enlightened” liberal faith–are called into question.

Is the Ink Still Wet? The Question of a Forgery

Inevitably a document which is so controvertial as Secret Mark will be accused of being      a forgery. This is precisely what happened in 1975 when Quentin Quesnell published his      lengthy paper “The Mar Saba Clementine: A Question of Evidence” in the Catholic      Biblical Quarterly. In this article he brings to bear a host of objections to Smith’s      treatment of the document.

Foremost is the lack of the physical manuscript. Smith left the manuscript in the tower      at Mar Saba in 1958 and had been working with his set of photographs ever since. Quesnell      regards this as a neglect of Smith’s scholarly duties.[40] Perhaps those duties might be      assumed to include the theft of the volume a la Sinaiticus or the Jung Codex. In fact,      even Smith’s publication of photographic plates of the ms. are considered sub-standard by      Quesnell. They “do not include the margins and edges of the pages,” they      “are only black and white,” and are in Quesnell’s eyes marred by “numerous      discrepancies in shading, in wrinkles and dips in the paper.”[41]

Quesnell calls into question all of Smith’s efforts to date the manuscript to the      eighteenth century. Although Smith consulted many paleographic experts, Quesnell feels      this information to be useless as compared to a chemical analysis of the ink, and a      “microscopic examination of the writing.”[42]

Then he asks the “unavoidable next question”[43]: was the letter of Clement a      modern forgery? He remarks that Smith “tells a story on himself that could make clear      the kind of motivation that might stir a serious scholar even apart from any      long-concealed spirit of fun.”[44] Pointing out Smith’s interest in how scholars tend      to fit newly-discovered evidence into their previously-held sacrosanct interpretive      paradigms,[45] and how Smith requested scholars in his longer treatise to keep him abreast      of their research,[46] Quesnell asks if it might not be that a certain modern forger who      shall not be named might have “found himself moved to concoct some ‘evidence’ in      order to set up a controlled experiment?”[47]

Quesnell raises still more objections, and representative of them is his claim that the      mass of documentation Smith brought to bear in Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel      of Mark is really a ploy to distract the reader. “[. . . I]t is hard to believe that      this material is included as a serious contribution to scholarly investigation,”      Quesnell suggests.[48] In fact, he insinuates that its function is really to “deepen      the darkness.”[49]

Quesnell did not feel that scholarly discussion could “reasonably continue”      until all these issues–and more–were resolved.[50]

Smith’s answer to the accusation of forgery was published in the next volume of the      Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Humorously he advised his detractor that “one should not      suppose a text spurious simply because one dislikes what it says.”[51]

“Not at all,” was Quesnell’s reply. “I find it quite harmless.”[52]

Quesnell’s arguments were still echoed in 1983 by Per Beskow, who wrote that Smith      “can only present some mediocre photographs, which do not even cover the entire      margins of the manuscript.”[53] While the photographic plates in the Harvard volume      do not extend to the margins due to the cropping of the publishers,[54] Smith’s      photographs are printed elsewhere and do include the margins of the pages. Furthermore,      they are quite in-focus and cannot be described as mediocre.

The Popular Response

The religious right was particularly displeased with the new Secret Gospel of Mark.      Even without the magical interpretation of earliest Christianity Smith promulgated in his      two books, the discovery of another apocryphal gospel only spells trouble for conservative      theologians and apologists. What information about Secret Mark made it past the blockade      into the evangelical press? There was Ronald J. Sider’s quick review in Christianity      Today:

Unfounded . . . wildly speculative…pockmarked with irresponsible inferences . . .        highly speculative . . .operates with the presupposition that Jesus could not have been        the incarnate Son of God filled with the Holy Spirit . . . simply absurd! . . .        unacceptable . . . highly speculative . . . numerous other fundamental weaknesses . . .        highly speculative . . . irresponsible . . . will not fool the careful reader.[55]

Evangelical scholarship has since treated Secret Mark as it traditionally has any other      non-canonical text: as a peculiar but ultimately unimportant document which would be      spiritually dangerous to take seriously.

Secret Mark and Da Avabhasa’s Initiation to Ecstasy

Perhaps the strangest chapter in Secret Mark’s long history was its appropriation by      the Free Daist Communion, a California-based Eastern religious group led by American-born      guru Da Avabhasa (formerly known as Franklin Jones, Da Free John, and Da Kalki). In 1982,      The Dawn Horse Press, the voice of this interesting sect, re-published Smith’s Harper and      Row volume, with a new forword by Elaine Pagels and an added postscript by Smith himself.

In 1991 I made contact with this publisher in order to ascertain why they were      interested in Secret Mark. I was answered by Saniel Bonder, Da Avabhasa’s official      biographer and a main spokesman for the Commununion.

Heart-Master Da Avabhasa is Himself a great Spiritual “Transmitter” or        “Baptizer” of the highest type. And this is the key to understanding both His        interest in, and The Dawn Horse Press’s publication of, Smith’s Secret Gospel. What Smith        discovered, in the fragment of the letter by Clement of Alexandria, is–to Heart-Master        Da–an apparent ancient confirmation that Jesus too was a Spirit-Baptizer who initiated        disciples into the authentic Spiritual and Yogic process, by night and in circumstances of        sacred privacy. This is the single reason why Heart-Master Da was so interested in the        story. As it happened, Morton Smith’s contract with a previous publisher had expired, and        so he was happy to arrange for us to publish the book.[56]

Because of the general compatibility of Smith’s interpretation of the historical Jesus      and the practices of the Da Free John community, the group’s leader was inclined to      promulgate Smith’s theory. It is difficult to judge the precise degree of ritual identity      which exists between Master Da and Jesus the magician. Some identity, however, is      explicit, as revealed in Bonder’s official biography of Master Da:

Over the course of Heart-Master Da’s Teaching years, His devotees explored all manner        of emotional-sexual possibilities, including celibacy, promiscuity, heterosexuality,        homosexuality, monogamy, polygamy, polyandy, and many different kinds of living        arrangements between intimate partners and among groups of devotees in our various        communities.[57]

The parallel between the Daist community during this time and the libertine Christian      rituals described by Smith is made stronger by the spiritual leader’s intimate involvement      with this thorough exploration of the group’s erogeny. “Heart-Master Da never      withheld Himself from participation in the play of our experiments with us . . .”[58]      Georg Feuerstein has published an interview with an anonymous devotee of Master Da who      describes a party during which the Master borrowed his wife in order to free him of      egotistical jealousy.[59] Like the Carpocratians of eighteen-hundred years ago, and the      Corinthian Christians of a century earlier still, the devotees of the Daist Communion      sought to come to terms with and conquer their sexual obstacles to ultimate liberation not      by merely denying the natural urges, but by immersing themselves in them.

For many years Da Avabhasa himself was surrounded by an “innermost circle” of      nine female devotees, which was dismantled in 1986 after the Community and the Master      himself had been through trying experiences.[60] In 1988 Da Avabhasa formally declared      four of these original nine longtime female devotees his “Kanyas,” the      significance of which is described well by Saniel Bonder:

Kanyadana is an ancient traditional practice in India, wherein a chaste young        woman…is given…to a Sat-Guru either in formal marriage, or as a consort, or simply as        a serving initimate. Each kanya thus becomes devoted…in a manner that in unique among        all His devotees. She serves the Sat-Guru Personally at all times and, in that unique        context, at all times is the recipient of His very Personal Instructions, Blessings, and        Regard.[61]

As a kanyadana “kumari”, a young woman is necessarily “pure”–that      is, chaste and self-transcending in her practice, but also Spiritually Awakened by her      Guru, whether she is celibate or Yogically sexually active.[62]

The formation of the Da Avabhasa Gurukala Kanyadana Kumari Order should be seen against      the background of sexual experimentation and confrontation through which the Master’s      community had passed in the decade before, and in light of the sexuality-affirming stance      of the Daist Communion in general. The Secret Gospel presented a picture of Jesus as an      initiator into ecstasy and a libertine bearing more than a little resemblance to the      radical and challenging lessons of Master Da Avabhasa, in place long before 1982 when The      Dawn Horse Press re-issued the book.[63]

The Cultural Fringe and Secret Mark

Occasionally one still encounters brief references to Secret Mark in marginal or      sensational literature. A simple but accurate account of its discovery was related in the      1982 British best-seller The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Written by three television      documentary reporters, the book describes an actual French society called the Priory of      Sion which seeks to restore the French monarchy to a particular family which, it seems,      traces its blood-line back to Jesus himself. In the course of arguing that this could      actually be the truth, the authors find it convenient to cite Secret Mark as an example of      how the early church edited unwanted elements from its scriptures. “This missing      fragment had not been lost. On the contrary, it had apparently been deliberately      suppressed.”[64]

A quick reference to Secret Mark is made in Elizabeth Clare Prophet’s book on the      supposed “lost years” of Jesus. She writes that discoveries such as Secret Mark      “strongly suggest that early Christians possessed a larger, markedly more diverse      body of writings and traditions on the life of Jesus that appears in what has been handed      down to us in the New Testament.”[65] However, the remainder of the book speculates      about whether Jesus might have studied yoga in India, and has little to do with Secret      Mark or Jesus the magician.

Where Are We Now? (Scholarly Interest from 1982 to the present)

For scholars the problem remains unsettled. While even the most acid of reviews often      ended with a statement to wit that a real conclusion would require an in-depth treatment      of Smith’s books, none came. In 1982 Smith commented wryly on the rhetoric of the reviews      which made work on the Secret Mark problem almost impossible in the 1970s:

For example, Achtemeier’s review, of which the predendedly factual statements are often        grossly inaccurate. Though worthless as criticism, it cannot confidently be described as        “useless.” It probably pleased Fitzmyer, who was then editor of The Journal of        Biblical Literature, and thus may have helped Achtemeier get the secretaryship of the        Society of Biblical Literature. That both names rhyme with “liar” is a curious        coincidence.[66]

Some important Catholic scholars, including Achtemeier, Fitzmyer, Quesnell, Skehan and      Brown, have tended to ignore Secret Mark or dismiss it as worthless. C.S. Mann’s Anchor      Bible commentary on Mark, published in 1986, represents the whole controversy as finished,      a matter of “mere curiosity.”[67] With the blessing of the Imprimatur behind      him, John P. Meier advised in 1991 that Secret Mark, the Gospels of Thomas and Peter, the      Egerton Gospel and all other non-canonical Jesus material were worthless and might simply      be thrown “back into the sea.”[68]

At the same time, there has been an increase in the number of scholars producing Secret      Mark studies since 1982. That “Morton Smith seems quite alone in his view that the      fragment is a piece of genuine Gospel material,” as claimed in 1983 by Beskow is      manifestly false.[69] Smith’s work in the early 70s was greeted with more-or-less positive      reviews by a small number of important scholars including Helmut Koester, Cyril      Richardson, George MacRae, and Hugh Trevor-Roper. Some scholars did not write reviews but      openly expressed the notion that Smith’s work was meritorious. When asked by the New York      Times about Smith’s interpretation of Jesus as a magician, Krister Stendhal tactfully      replied, “I have much sympathy for that way of placing Jesus in the social setting of      his time.”[70]

While that sympathy does not remain particularly widespread, accepting Smith’s magical      Jesus has nothing to do with taking Secret Mark seriously. The two issues may be discussed      seperately: the argument for magical practises in early Christianity may certainly be made      without reference to Secret Mark, and Secret Mark may be discussed as a text with no more      magical implications than we find in canonical Mark.

In Thomas Talley’s 1982 article on ancient liturgy, he describes his own attempt to      physically examine the Secret Mark manuscript. As his is the last word on the physical      artifact in question, it is fortuitous to quote him at length:

Given the late date of the manuscript itself and the fact that Prof. Smith published        photographs of it, it seemed rather beside the point that some scholars wished to dispute        the very existence of a manuscript which no one but the editor had seen. My own attempts        to see the manuscript in January of 19080 were frustrated, but as witnesses to its        existence I can cite the Archimandrite Meliton of the Jerusalem Greek Patriarchate who,        after the publication of Smith’s work, found the volume at Mar Saba and removed it to the        patriarchal library, and the patriarchal librarian, Father Kallistos, who told me that the        manuscript (two folios) has been removed from the printed volume and is being        repaired.[71]

Although one wishes this document were available for the examination of Western      scholars, it is no longer reasonable to doubt the existence of the manuscript itself. That      it represents an authentic tradition from Clement of Alexandria is disputed only by a      handful of scholars and, as Talley also points out, the letter has itself been included in      the standard edition of the Alexandrian father’s writings since 1980.[72]

Taking on the pressing question of Secret Mark’s textual relationship with the version      of Mark in our New Testament, Helmut Koester has published two intriguing studies arguing      that the development of Mark was an evolutionary process. First came the version of Mark      known by Matthew and Luke, the proto-Mark or Urkarkus long known to scholars of the      synoptic problem. After this original version of Mark was published, the expanded version      used by the Alexandrian church in Christian mysteries was made (and from that, its      gnosticized Carpocration version). Soon afterward or simulaneously, a mostly expurgated      version of Secret Mark was published widely and became canonical Mark.[73] The original      Urmarkus, lacking anything not found in Matthew or Luke, went the way of the sayings      source and was not preserved.

Koester’s view has made some inroads. Hans-Martin Schenke adopts it with the      modification that Carpocratian Mark predates the Secret Mark of the Alexandrian      Church.[74] John Dominic Crossan developed a theory like Koester’s in his 1985 Four Other      Gospels. Secret Mark has been included in the texts being translated as part of the      Scholars Version project, and is described as an early gospel fragment in material that      the Jesus Seminar has been making available to popular audiences. None of these treatments      is significantly affected by one’s assessment of the magical Jesus suggested by Smith.

Still, Jesus as magician is not a dead issue. John Dominic Crossan’s very intriguing      book on The Historical Jesus has an extended discussion of the topic. He argues that Jesus      may indeed be understood as a magician. He rejects an artificial dichotomy between magic      and religion, saying, “the prescriptive distinction that states that we practice      religion but they practice magic should be seen for what it is, a political validation of      the approved and the official against the unapproved and unofficial.”[75]

Conclusion: Where No Secret Gospel Has Gone Before

Secret Mark’s plight constitutes a warning to all scholars as to the dangers of      allowing sentiments of faith to cloud or prevent critical examination of evidence. When      seen in light of the massive literature which has been produced by the other major      manuscript finds of our century, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi codices, the      comparative dearth of good studies on this piece in particular cannot be explained in any      other way that a stubborn refusal to deal with information which might challenge      deeply-held personal convictions. It is good to keep in mind an unofficial directive of      the Jesus Seminar: “Beware of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to you.”[76]

“It is my opinion,” writes Hans Dieter Betz, “that Smith’s book and the      texts he discovered should be carefully and seriously studied. Criticizing Smith is not      enough.”[77] Certainly it is reasonable to concur. After twenty years of confusion,      it must be time to set aside emotionalism and approach both this fragment and Morton      Smith’s assessment of the role of magic in early Christianity with objective and critical      eyes. However that question is ultimately to be resolved, Secret Mark provides yet another      fascinating window into the remarkable ritual diversity we may identify in the first      phases of the development of Christianity.


Footnotes

1 Parker, “An Early Christian Cover-up?”, 5.       2 Smith, “Monasteries and their Manuscripts.”       3 Smith, The Secret Gospel, 12.       4 Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel according to Mark, 1.       5 Smith, The Secret Gospel, 13-14.       6 ibid., 24.       7 ibid., 25.       8 Knox, “A New Gospel Ascribed to Mark.”       9 Smith, “Monasteries and their Manuscripts.”       10 Smith, “Hellenika Cheirographa en tei Monei tou Hagiou Sabba.”       11 Smith, The Secret Gospel, 76.       12 Smith, Jesus the Magician, 3-4.       13 Smith, The Secret Gospel, 94.       14 ibid., 113n1.       15 ibid., 113-114.       16 Shenker, “A Scholar Infers Jesus Practiced Magic.”       17 Skehan, review of Smith’s work in Catholic Historical Review, 452.       18 Fitzmyer, “How to Exploit a Secret Gospel,” 572.       19 Fitzmyer, “Mark’s ‘Secret Gospel?'”, 65.       20 Achtemeier, review of Smith in Journal of Biblical Literature, 626.       21 ibid.       22 Beardslee, review of Smith in Interpretation, 234.       23 Parker, “An Early Christian Cover-Up?”, 5.       24 Conzelmann, “Literaturbericht zu den Synoptischen Evangelien (Fortsetzung).”,      321. (Translation from Schenke, “The Mystery of the Gospel of Mark,” 70-71.)       25 ibid., 23. (Translation from Schenke, “The Mystery of the Gospel of Mark,”      70-71.)       26 Brown, “The Relation of ‘The Secret Gospel of Mark’ to the Fourth Gospel,”      466n1.       27 Danker, review of Smith in Dialog, 316.       28 Merkel, “Auf den Spuren des Urmarkus?”, 123. (Translation from Schenke,      “The Mystery of the Gospel of Mark,” 69.)       29 Musurillo, “Morton Smith’s Secret Gospel,” 328.       30 Brown, “The Relation of ‘The Secret Gospel of Mark’ to the Fourth Gospel,”      466n1.       31 Including Fitzmeyer, “How to Exploit a Secret Gospel”; Parker, “An Early      Christian Cover-Up?”; Skehan, review of Smith in Catholic Historical Review 60(1974);      Gibbs, review of Smith in Theology Today 30(1974); Grant, “Morton Smith’s Two      Books”; Merkel, “Auf den Spuren des Urmarkus?”; Kummel, “Ein Jahrzehnt      Jesusforchung”; and Beskow, Strange Tales about Jesus. Anitra Kolenkow’s comments on      this bias are salient: “We know that the gospel of John long has been known as      possibly containing both gnostic and homosexual motifs. John may have been written at      approximately the same time as Mark. What difference does it make to us if Jesus is not      separated from a homosexual situation?” (Quoted from Kolenkow’s response to Reginald      Fuller, Longer Mark, 33.)       32 Examples are Achtemeier, review of Smith in the Journal of Biblical Literature      93(1974); MacRae, “Yet Another Jesus”; Gibbs, review of Smith in Theology Today      30(1974); and Fuller, Longer Mark: Forgery, Interpolation, or Old Tradition?       33 See the statements to this effect in Quesnell, “The Mar Saba Clementine,” and      Hobbs (response in Fuller, Longer Mark: Forgery, Interpolation, or Old Tradition?).       34 Such scholars included Pierson Parker, Edward Hobbs and Per Beskow.       35 See Bruce, The ‘Secret’ Gospel of Mark; Musurillo, “Morton Smith’s Secret      Gospel”; and Kummel, “Ein Jahrzehnt Jesusforschung.”       36 Fitzmyer, “How to Exploit a Secret Gospel”; Gibbs, review of Smith in      Theology Today 30(1974).       37 Danker, review of Smith in Dialog, 316.       38 ibid.       39 ibid.       40 Quesnell, “The Mar Saba Clementine,” 49.       41 ibid., 50.       42 ibid., 52.       43 ibid., 53.       44 ibid., 57.       45 Smith, The Secret Gospel, 25.       46 Smith, Clement of Alexandria, ix.       47 Quesnell, “The Mar Saba Clementine,” 58.       48 ibid., 61.       49 ibid., 60n30.       50 ibid., 48.       51 Smith, “On the Authenticity of the Mar Saba Letter of Clement,” 196.       52 Quesnell, “A Reply to Morton Smith,” 201.       53 Beskow, Strange Tales about Jesus, 101.       54 Smith, “On the Authenticity of the Mar Saba Letter of Clement,” 196.       55 Sider, “Unfounded ‘Secret’,” 160.       56 Private correspondence with Saniel Bonder.       57 Bonder, The Divine Emergence of the World-Teacher, 234.       58 ibid., 235.       59 Feuerstein, Holy Madness, 90-92.       60 ibid., 94.       61 Bonder, The Divine Emergence of the World-Teacher, 287.       62 ibid., 288.       63 It is neccessary to stipulate that nothing in the above discussion of the Free Daist      Communion should be read as derogatory. The purpose is simple description. Despite the      controversy which has sometimes surrounded this movement, the author does not feel that      its practices are in any way fraudulent or abusive. Scholars should consider the      possibility that examination of modern new religious movements such as the Da Avabhasa      sect might be extraordinarily helpful in our understanding of the community dynamics of      early libertine Christians such as the Carpocratians.       64 Baigent et al, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, 290.       65 Prophet, The Lost Years of Jesus, 9. Most interestingly, in her notes Prophet quotes a      1984 telephone interview with scholar Birger A. Pearson, in which he says that “many      scholars, maybe even most, would now accept the authenticity of the Clement fragment,      including what it said about the Secret Gospel of Mark.” (434n16)       66 Smith, The Secret Gospel (1982 Dawn Horse edition), 150n7.       67 Mann, Mark (The Anchor Bible), 423.       68 Meier, A Marginal Jew, 140.       69 Beskow, Strange Tales about Jesus, 99. One wonders what a “genuine piece of gospel      material” might be. Are gospel additions such as the second ending of Mark (16.9-20)      and the famous story of the adulterous woman (John 8.53-9.11) “genuine gospel      material,” even if we know they were not originally part of the gospels in which they      are found?       70 Shenker, “Jesus: New Ideas about his Powers.”       71 Talley, “Liturgical Time in the Ancient Church,” 45.       72 ibid.       73 See Koester, “History and Development of Mark’s Gospel,” and Ancient      Christian Gospels.       74 Schenke, “The Mystery of the Gospel of Mark,” 76.       75 Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 310.       76 Funk et al., The Five Gospels, 5.       77 Fuller, Longer Mark: Forgery, Interpolation, or Old Tradition?, 18.


Bibliography

Achtemeier, Paul J. Review of Smith. Journal of Biblical Literature 93 (1974):      625-628.

Allegro, John M. The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. New York: Doubleday, 1970.

Baigent, Michael, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. Holy Blood, Holy Grail. New      York: Delacorte, 1982.

Baigent, Michael, Richard Leigh. The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception. New York: Simon      & Shuster, 1991.

Bauckham, Richard. “Salome the Sister of Jesus, Salome the Disciple of Jesus, and      the Secret Gospel of Mark.” Novum Testamentum 33 (1991): 245-275.

Beardslee, William A. Review of Smith. Interpretation 28 (1974): 234-36.

Beskow, Per. Strange Tales about Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

Bonder, Saniel. The Divine Emergence of the World-Teacher. Clearlake, CA: Dawn      Horse Press, 1990.       ____________. Private correspondence, 1991.

Brown, Raymond E. “The Relation of ‘The Secret Gospel of Mark’ to the Fourth      Gospel.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974): 466-85.

Bruce, F.F. The ‘Secret’ Gospel of Mark. London: Althone Press, 1974.

Bultmann, Rudolf. 1958. Jesus Christ and Mythology. New York: Scribner’s, 1958.

Burkert, Walter. 1987. Ancient Mystery Cults. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University      Press, 1987.

Conzelmann, Hans. “Literaturbericht zu den Synoptischen Evangelien      (Fortsetzung).” Theologische Rundschau 43 (1978): 23f.

Crossan, John Dominic. Four Other Gospels: Shadows on the Contours of Canon. San      Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985.       ____________. The Cross that Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative. San      Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988.       ____________. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. HarperSanFrancisco,      1991.

Danker, Frederick W. Review of Smith. Dialog 13 (1974): 316.

Donfried, K. “New-Found Fragments of an Early Gospel.” Christian Century      90 (1973): 759-60.

Feurestien, Georg. Holy Madness: The Shock Tactics and Radical Teachings of      Crazy-Wise Adepts, Holy Fools, and Rascal Gurus. New York: Penguin Arkana, 1990.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “How to Exploit a Secret Gospel.” America 128      (1973): 570-572.       ____________. Reply to Morton Smith in “Mark’s ‘Secret Gospel?’.” America 129      (1973): 64-65.

Frend, W. “A New Jesus?” New York Review of Books 20 (1973): 34-35.

Fuller, R. Longer Mark: Forgery, Interpolation, or Old Tradition? (Center for      Hermeneutical Studies, colloquy 18), edited by W. Wuellner. Berkeley, CA: Center for      Hermeneutical Studies, 1975.

Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover and The Jesus Seminar. The Five Gospels: The Search      for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New York: Macmillan, 1993.

Gibbons, J. Review of Smith. Sign 53 (September 1973): 48.

Gibbs, J.G. Review of Smith. Theology Today 30 (1974): 423-26.

Grant, Robert. “Morton Smith’s Two Books.” Anglican Theological Review      56 (1974): 58-65.

Greene, D.St.A. Review of Smith. The National Observer 12 (1973): 15.

Hanson, R.P.C. Review of Smith. Journal of Theological Studies 25 (1974):      513-21.

Hobbs, Edward C. Response to Reginald Fuller. In Longer Mark: Forgery,      Interpretation, or Old Tradition?, edited by W. Wuellner, 19-25. Berkeley, CA: Center      for Hermeneutical Studies, 1975.

Horst, P. van der. “Het ‘Geheime Markusevangelie.'” Nederlands Theologisch      Tijdschrift 33 (1979): 27-51.

Jaeger, Werner. Early Christianity and Greek Paideia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard      University Press, 1961.

Johnson, M.D. Review of Smith. The Lutheran Quarterly 25 (1973): 426-27.

Johnson, S. “The Mystery of St. Mark.” History Today 25 (1975): 89-97.

Kee, Howard Clark. Review of Smith. Journal of the American Academy of Religion      43 (1975): 326-29.

Knox, Sanka. “A New Gospel Ascribed to Mark.” The New York Times, 30      December 1960, p. 1, 17.       ____________. “Expert Disputes ‘Secret Gospel’.” The New York Times, 31      December 1960, p. 7.

Koester, Helmut. Review of Smith. American Historical Review 80 (1975): 620-622.             ____________. “History and Development of Mark’s Gospel (From Mark to Secret Mark and      ‘Canonical’ Mark),” in Colloquy on New Testament Studies, ed. Bruce Corley.      Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983.       ____________. Ancient Christian Gospels. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International,      1990.

Kolenkow, Anitra Bingham. Response to Reginald Fuller. In Longer Mark: Forgery,      Interpretation, or Old Tradition?, edited by W. Wuellner, 33-34. Berkeley, CA: Center      for Hermeneutical Studies, 1975.

Kümmel, Werner Georg. “Ein Jahrzehnt Jesusforschung (1965-1975).” Theologische      Rundschau 40 (1975): 299-302.

Levin, Saul. “The Early History of Christianity, in Light of the ‘Secret Gospel’      of Mark.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischem Welt 2.25.6 (1988):      4270-4292.

MacRae, George. “Yet Another Jesus.” Commonweal 99 (1974): 417-420.

Mack, Burton L. A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins. Philadelphia:      Fortess, 1988.

Mann, C.S. Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor      Bible Series. New York: Doubleday, 1986.

Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Volume One. New      York: Doubleday, 1991.

Merkel, Helmut. “Auf den Spuren des Urmarkus? Ein neuer Fund und seine      Beurteilung.” Zeitschrift fuer Theologie und Kirche 71 (1974): 123-144.

Metzger, Bruce M. 1972. “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha.” Journal      of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 3-24.

Meyer, Marvin W., ed. The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook. San Francisco: Harper      & Row, 1987.

Mullins, Terence Y. “Papias and Clement and Mark’s Two Gospels.” Vigiliae      Christianae 30: 189-92.

Musurillo, H. “Morton Smith’s Secret Gospel.” Thought 48 (1974):      327-331.

Osborn, Eric. “Clement of Alexandria: A Review of Research, 1958-1982.” The      Second Century 3 (1983): 219-244.

Pagels, Elaine. Foreword to the 1982 reprint of The Secret Gospel. Clearlake,      CA: Dawn Horse Press, 1982.

Parker, Pierson. “An Early Christian Cover-Up?” New York Times Book      Review, 22 July 1973, p. 5.

____________. “On Professor Morton Smith’s Find at Mar Saba.” Anglican      Theological Review 56 (1974): 53-57.

Patterson, Stephen J. and Helmut Kuester. “The Secret Gospel of Mark,”      402-405 in Miller, Robert J., ed., The Complete Gospels: Scholars Version. Sonoma,      CA: Polebridge Press, 1992.

Petersen, N. Review of Smith. Southern Humanities Review 8 (1974): 525-531.

Prophet, Elizabeth Clare. The Lost Years of Jesus: Documentary Evidence of Jesus’      17-Year Journey to the East. Livingston, MT: Summit University Press, 1987.

Quesnell, Quentin. Review of Smith. National Catholic Reporter, Nov. 30, 1973.       ____________. “The Mar Saba Clementine: A Question of Evidence.” Catholic      Biblical Quarterly 37 (1975): 48-67.       ____________. “A Reply to Morton Smith.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38      (1976): 200-203.

Reese, J. Review of Smith. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974): 434-435.

Richardson, Cyril C. Review of Smith. Theological Studies 35 (1974): 571-77.

Schenke, Hans-Martin. “The Mystery of the Gospel of Mark.” The Second      Century 4 (1984):65-82.       ____________. “The Function and Background of the Beloved Disciple in the Gospel of      John,” in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity, Charles W. Hedrick      and Robert Hodgson, Jr., eds. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1986.

Schmidt, Daryl D. The Gospel of Mark. Scholars Version. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge      Press, 1990.

Scroggs, Robin. Review of Smith. Chicago Theological Seminary Register 1974: 58.

Scroggs, Robin, and Kent I. Groff. “Baptism in Mark: Dying and Rising with      Christ.” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973): 531-548.

Shenker, Israel. “A Scholar Infers Jesus Practiced Magic.” The New York      Times, 23 May 1973, p. 39.       ____________. “Jesus: New Ideas about His Powers.” The New York Times, 3      June 1973, p. IV 12.

Sider, Ronald J. “Unfounded ‘Secret’.” Christianity Today 18 (9 Nov      1973): 160.

Skehan, Patrick W. Review of Smith 1973b. Catholic Historical Review 60 (1974):      451-53.

Smith, Morton. “Hellenika Cheirographa en tei Monei tou Hagiou Sabba.” Nea      Sion 52 (1960): 110-125, 245-256.       ____________. “Monasteries and their Manuscripts.” Archaeology 13 (1960):      172-177.       ____________. The Secret Gospel: The Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel      according to Mark. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.       ____________. Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark. Cambridge, MA:      Harvard University Press, 1973.       ____________. Reply to Joseph Fitzmeyer in “Mark’s ‘Secret Gospel?’.” America      129 (1973): 64-65.       ____________. “Merkel on the Longer Text of Mark.” Zeitschrift fuer Theologie      und Kirche 72 (1975): 133-150.       ____________. “On the Authenticity of the Mar Saba Letter of Clement.” Catholic      Biblical Quarterly 38 (1976): 196-199.       ____________. “A Rare Sense of prokoptô and the Authenticity of the Letter of      Clement of Alexandria,” in God’s Christ and His People: Studies in Honor of Nils      Alstrup Dahl, ed. Jacob Jervell and Wayne A. Meeks. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977.       ____________. Jesus the Magician. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.       ____________. “Clement of Alexandria and Secret Mark: The Score at the End of the      First Decade.” Harvard Theological Review 75 (1982): 449-461.       ____________. Postscript to the 1982 reprint of The Secret Gospel. Clearlake, CA:      Dawn Horse Press, 1982.       ____________. “Paul’s Arguments as Evidence of the Christianity from which he      Diverged.” Harvard Theological Review 79 (1986): 254-60.

Stagg, F. Review of Smith. Review and Expositor 71 (1974): 108-110.

Talley, Thomas. “Liturgical Time in the Ancient Church: The State of      Research.” Studia Liturgica 14 (1982): 34-51.

Trevor-Roper, Hugh. “Gospel of Liberty.” London Sunday Times (30 June      1974), 15.

Trocmé, Étienne. “Trois critques au miroir de l’Évangile selon Marc.” Revue      d’histoire et philosophie religieuses 55 (1974): 289-295.

Wilson, Ian. Jesus: The Evidence. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984.

Wink, Walter. “Jesus as Magician.” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 30      (1974): 3-14.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. “A Secret Gospel of Jesus as ‘Magus?’ A Review of Recent Works      of Morton Smith.” Christian Scholars Review 4 (1975): 238-251.

Author’s note:
The author would like to offer thanks to Saniel Bonder of the Mountain of Attention      Sanctuary for his kind assistance in providing research materials and his willingness to      share with me information pertaining to The Dawn Horse Press and The Secret Gospel.      Further thanks are due to Dr. Jon Daniels of The Defiance College for his helpful insights      into the subject matter of this study.

Archive | Library | Bookstore | Index    | Web Lectures | Ecclesia Gnostica    | Gnostic Society

Leave a comment

July 5, 2013 · 09:12