Secret Gospel of Mark

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mar Saba Monastery , Bethlehem

The Gospel of Mark , translated after the first name A Secret Gospel of Mark , is the name for a supposed , non-canonical Gospel of Mark . The assumption is based on two fragments of a Gospel text that are said to have come down to us in a letter from Clement of Alexandria (around 150–215), of which only photographs of a manuscript have survived.

The text would be - if it were genuine - part of a letter from Clemens to an unknown Theodorus, whom Clemens warns of this version of the Gospel of Mark. Because the processing of the text by Carpocrates of Alexandria had falsified it and contained heresy. Two passages are cited that should be classified between Mk 10.34  EU and 10.35 EU as well as after 10.46a EU . From this text, an expanded or modified version of the Gospel of Mark was concluded.

Discovery, publication, reception

The fragment was found by Morton Smith (1915–1991) in the summer of 1958 in the monastery of Mar Saba , as a handwritten note at the end of a printed edition of the works of Ignatius of Antioch . Smith published the text on the basis of black and white photographs in 1973. Although the authenticity of the text is disputed, the "Theodorus letter" was included in the more recent editions of Clement of Alexandria. Morton Smith's The Secret Gospel was reissued in 1982.

Smith based the text on widespread speculation regarding the historical Jesus and early Christian morals. Almost all biblical scholars reject these conclusions as untenable. The authenticity of the text is also seen by many as very questionable or completely disputed. Many researchers flatly believed the text to be a forgery by Smith. This is supported by similarities with the plot of a Canadian novel by James Hogg Hunter published in 1940 : The Secret of Mar Saba .

content

The recipient, Theodorus, is said to have asked Clemens about some of the alleged Markus quotes that the Carpokratians distributed. Clemens now reports that Markus wrote an extended Gospel in Alexandria, which is kept there in the library :

“[In such a way] [Mark] composed a more spiritual gospel for use by those who were just being perfected. In spite of this, he did not reveal the things not to be disseminated, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but added other stories to the stories he had already written and, moreover, introduced certain sayings, of which he knew that their interpretation as a mystagogue would appeal to the hearers would lead the inmost sanctuary of that truth which is veiled by seven [veils]. So overall, in my opinion, neither reluctantly nor carelessly, he determined things beforehand and dying left his work to the Church in Alexandria, where it is still carefully guarded today and only read to those who are initiated into the great mysteries. "

Nevertheless, Karpokrates , the leader of a Gnostic Christian sect, had come into possession of a copy with the use of insidious magical arts and is now defiling the “flawless and holy words” by adding “extremely shameless lies” to them. And if the Carpocratians now showed their falsified work, one should deny under oath that it was the secret gospel of Mark - even if it contained parts of this gospel.

"But since the unclean spirits always contemplate the destruction of the race of men, Karpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful magical arts, made a certain presbyter of the Church in Alexandria so docile that he got a copy of the Secret Gospel from him, which he interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, tainted it by adding extremely shameless lies to the flawless and holy words. It is from this mixture that the teachings of the Carpokratians are drawn. Therefore, as I said above, one must never give in to them, nor should one admit to them that the Secret Gospel is from Mark when they expose their falsifications, but should even deny it under oath. Not all truth has to be said to all people. "

This is followed by a passage from the "secret gospel" in the original text, indicating the exact passage (between Mk 10.34 and 35):

“And they came to Bethany, and a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And coming here, she prostrated herself before Jesus and said to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rejected them. And Jesus, who was furious, went with her into the garden where the tomb was, and immediately a loud cry was heard from the tomb. And stepping closer, Jesus rolled the stone away from the entrance to the tomb. And immediately he went into where the young man was, stretched out his hand and pulled him up, taking his hand. But the young man, looking at him, loved him and began to beg him to be with him. And they went out of the tomb and came into the young man's house, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the young man came to him, wearing a linen cloth over [his] naked [body]. And he stayed with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And from there he got up and went back to the other side of the Jordan. "

Then the author points out that the words “naked man with naked man” and the other things about which Theodorus wrote are not there.

Also add the following to the words "And he comes to Jericho" (in Mk 10:46), the secret gospel:

“And the sister of the young man whom Jesus loved, and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive her. But the many other [things you wrote about] appear to be wrong and are forgeries. Well, the true explanation and what agrees with true wisdom ... "

Here the letter breaks off in the middle of the page.

Research Discussion

The research report by Morton Smith and the conclusions drawn from it have for the most part been received with skepticism in biblical research.

Discussion on the authenticity of the copy

The documents described by Smith are said to be no longer to be found after the transfer from Mar Saba Monastery near Jerusalem to the library of the Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem. The photographic reproductions published by Smith in 1973 are known. Later color photographs have also been available since 2000; the manuscript itself is considered lost. The methodological principle was violated: “The authenticity of a text can only be stablished by the consensus of experts who have studied the original document under scientifically appropriate circumstances.” Thus, the color photographs do not provide any new proof of authenticity. Smith himself never tried to produce the original. A confirmation of the authenticity of the copy and its chronological classification is therefore methodologically impossible as long as the original is not available. Since there are no more originals, only the photos from 1958 published in 1973, the age of the manuscript cannot be determined by chemical analysis.

Discussion about the content of the script

Early linguistic analyzes believed that Clement of Alexandria could authorize it. However, discrepancies in content to the rest of Clement's work were found.

The text comes close to the Gospel of John and other Gospels in various ways.

Hypothesis of a Gnostic text expansion of the canonical Gospel of Mark

Several New Testament scholars see a Gnostic revision of the Gospel of Mark from the 2nd century in the text published by Smith. Klaus Berger dates the text to around 130.

Even assuming that Clemens was the author, the authenticity of his report is questionable. No other author testifies to this text version of the Gospel of Mark, and Clemens is not considered a consistently reliable source for the attribution and recognition of non-canonical and apocryphal texts.

The story of the “young man” in Mk 14.50–52 and the gap in Mk 10.46, which was already known before the discovery of the “Secret Gospel of Mark”, needs to be explained, assuming a Gnostic text extension. One would have to assume that the authors of the Gnostic expansion also noticed the linguistic inconsistencies in Mark's Gospel and solved them in a highly complex way.

Hypothesis of a temporal priority of the "Secret Mark Gospel"

Very few scholars believe that the secret Gospel of Mark is older than the canonical Gospel of Mark. Helmut Koester, for example, argues for the following text development: At the beginning there was the original version that Matthew and Luke would have used. Then that Mark text was published, which the Alexandrian Church had owned. The Gnostified version of Karpocrates then emerged from this. Soon after, or at the same time, an abbreviated version of Mark was widely published and became the canonical Gospel of Mark. The original Mark, like the source of the logia Q , has not been preserved. Koester also suspects further reflexes of the “Secret Mark Gospel” in the canonical Mark text.

This hypothesis refers to two places in the canonical Gospel of Mark. So it says there on the occasion of the arrest of Jesus by the high priests:

“But a young man who was only clothed in a linen cloth wanted to follow Jesus. Then they grabbed him; but he dropped the cloth and ran away naked. "

- Mk 14.50-52  EU

The fact that the young man who tried to follow Jesus was only clothed with a linen cloth can be explained under the assumption of the predecessor of the “Secret Gospel of Mark”: It is then about the young man whom Jesus raised from the dead in Bethany had (according to Jn 12.1  EU therefore about Lazarus ). Such a reference to Lazarus is also suspected by authors who do not refer to the secret Gospel of Mark. The general church tradition assumes, however, that the youth was Mark himself.

The abrupt transition in Mark 10.46  EU (in the first sentence the disciples come to Jericho, in the second sentence they leave it again) can also be explained as a result of a shortening based on the “Secret Gospel of Mark”.

The unusual shrinkage of the Gospel of Mark can then be explained as the censorship of passages that did not agree with the later church teaching. For example, Paul condemns same-sex lust between men in various places ( Rom. 1.27  EU ). This could be one reason why the longer of the two fragments quoted above has been deleted. The deletion of the shorter fragment, on the other hand, is probably due to the mention of Salome . In Gnostic scriptures, Salome and Mary Magdalene are counted among the disciples.

Against the assumption that the Gospel of Mark precedes the canonical Mark text, a. the text-critical principle brought up that the shorter of two text variants is usually also the older. There is also no independent evidence or demonstrable parallels for the assumption of “censorship”.

compilation

Another hypothesis is that it is a compilation , i.e. a combination of texts from various Gospels, possibly using older material. Many such compilations have been handed down from a later time. This thesis is supported by the biblical scholar FF Bruce , who in his London lecture identifies each of the individual pieces of text and gives the source. Here, too, the inconsistencies in the canonical Gospel of Mark and the question of why they are resolved in the secret gospel remain an open problem.

Modern fake

Some authors hypothesize that the secret Gospel of Mark is a modern forgery or " hoax " of Morton Smith himself. Stephen C. Carlson undertook handwriting comparisons, style and vocabulary analyzes and found evidence of an origin in the 20th century. Francis Watson observes internal text anomalies that speak against an authorship by Clemens. Smith also had similar interests and issues before 1958/1960. The paleographer Agamemnon Tselikas judges the letter to be a forgery. He notes that the manuscript bears no resemblance to the monks' manuscripts. According to the precise records of the monastery, the book was not in possession before 1923 and after 1923 no one could have written the letter in it, as the library is strictly monitored. He comes to the conclusion that the entry was made elsewhere and the book was subsequently brought to Mar Saba. From this he concludes that the opportunity and motive make Smith a suspect and that Smith made the forgery or had someone make it.

Due to the different interpretations, Peter Jeffery identified a need for clarification and commissioned the Athens writing expert Venetia Anastasopoulou to compare Smith's handwriting with the Ignatius edition. According to the expert opinion of Venetia Anastasopoulou, the font is self-confident and calm in a spontaneous manner and differs significantly from Smith's Greek handwriting. It is therefore not a forgery by Smith himself. She also does not consider the work as a whole as a forgery, she rules out that the forgers can be found in Smith's environment, since the text has no resemblance to a modern spelling.

Interpretation and evaluation

Morton Smith

The conclusions published by Smith in his books The secret Gospel: The discovery and interpretation of the secret Gospel according to Mark (1974) and Jesus the Magician (1981) are rejected by the vast majority of researchers.

“From the scattered hints in the canonical gospels and the secret Gospel of Mark we can get an idea of ​​the baptism of Jesus, the 'mystery of the kingdom of God'. It was a water baptism that Jesus performed with selected disciples, individually and at night. The disciple wore a linen cloth over his naked body. This cloth was probably removed for the actual baptism, the immersion in water. This immersion was a preliminary cleaning. Afterwards, the disciple was united with the Spirit of Jesus through unknown ceremonies. One with Jesus, he took part in his ascent into heaven through hallucination, he entered the kingdom of God and was thereby freed from the laws of the lower world. Freedom from the law could have been the completion of spiritual union through physical union. This certainly happened in many forms of Gnostic Christianity. How early it started cannot be said. "

- Morton Smith: The Secret Gospel . 1974

Homosexual Act or Initiation?

In various media of the gay movement, Morton Smith's hinted at the possibility that Jesus and the unknown young man had entered into a sexual relationship during the night was reinterpreted as a fact that was proven by the secret Gospel of Mark . It was also concluded that Jesus was either homosexual or bisexual.

However, this interpretation can be described as anachronistic , since the formulations (“... in the evening the young man comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over [his] naked [body]. And he stayed with him that night because Jesus taught him the secret of the Kingdom of God. ”) presumably did not imply a homosexual act for an ancient reader. "The nocturnal teaching corresponds to a Jewish topos as it is preserved in the jubilee book " or in John 3 : 1–2 EU , where Nicodemus seeks a conversation with Jesus at night.

Identity of the young man

Although the parallels between the account of the awakening of the young man cited in Clement's letter and the pericope of the awakening of Lazarus in John's Gospel are very striking, it cannot be concluded with certainty that the young man in Clement's letter is identical to Lazarus from John 11.

Overall, one can say that the question of the identity of the youth does not open up a new field, but rather expands an existing one. The following forms of the NT are available for mutual identification:

  • the rich young man ( Mk 10.7–22  EU )
  • the young man at the grave ( Mk 16.5–7  EU ) (wearing a long, white robe)
  • the youth in the garden of Gethsemane ( Mk 14.51-52 EU ) (wears linen robe  on bare skin, flees leaving it behind)
  • Lazarus, brother of Mary and Martha ( Jn 11.1 to 46  EU ; 12,1-2 EU , from 12.9 to 11 EU , from 12.17 to 19 EU ) (contributes to the resurrection from the dead grave napkins and napkin)
  • the disciple whom Jesus loved ( Joh 13.23–26  EU ; 19.26–27 EU ; 20.2–10 EU ; 21.20–24 EU )

In particular, the enigmatic figure of the young man at the grave and the casual mention of the young man in the garden of Gethsemane by Markus, who is otherwise known for his brevity, have posed insoluble problems for generations of exegetes.

Edwin Yamauchi

A prominent critic of Smith's interpretation was the historian Edwin M. Yamauchi . In his 1986 essay on magic and miracles, he pointed out some weak points in Smith's work, particularly with regard to his reinterpretation of Jesus as a Magus wizard. Yamauchi argued that Smith's propensity for finding parallels between Jesus and the life of the Pythagorean Apollonius of Philostratus was historically anachronistic. He also argued that Smith cited sections of Greek magical papyri out of context to support his argument that Jesus and the early Christians practiced magic.

FF Bruce

In 1974 the biblical scholar Frederick Fyvie Bruce saw in the text a Gnostic apocryphal, which is much younger than the canonical scriptures, and considers it quite possible that it originated within the Carpocrats or a similar group. He regards the fact that Clemens considered them to be real as irrelevant in view of Clemens' very uncritical acceptance of other apocrypha. For him, the story is very obviously a rather clumsy imitation of the resurrection of Lazarus in John and not an independent Mark parallel to it, not to mention that it could be the source of the John's account.

See also

literature

  • Klaus Berger, Christiane Nord: The New Testament and early Christian writings . Insel-Verlag, Frankfurt (first edition 1999) 2005, ISBN 3-458-17249-1 , pp. 926f. (Translation and explanation).
  • Scott G. Brown: Mark's Other Gospel: Rethinking Morton Smith's Controversial Discovery . Wilfrid Laurier University Press, Toronto 2005, ISBN 978-0-88920-461-4 (monograph with Greek text and translation of the writings in question, which Brown pleads for their authenticity).
  • FF Bruce : Extra-Biblical Testimonies about Jesus and early Christianity . Edited by Eberhard Güting. Brunnen-Verlag, Giessen 1991, ISBN 3-7655-9366-4 .
  • Stephen C. Carlson: The Gospel Hoax. Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark . Baylor University Press, Waco TX 2005, ISBN 1-932792-48-1 .
  • Morton Smith: Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark . Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA) 1973, ISBN 0-674-13490-7 (scientific).
  • Morton Smith: In Search of the Historical Jesus. Discovery and interpretation of the secret gospel in the desert monastery of Mar Saba . Ullstein, Frankfurt am Main 1974, ISBN 3-550-07467-0 (popular).
  • Edwin M. Yamauchi : A Secret Gospel of Jesus as 'Magus'? A Review of the Recent Works of Morton Smith . In: Christian Scholar's Review 4, 1975, 3, ISSN  0017-2251 , pp. 238-251.
  • Helmut Merkel: The secret Gospel of Mark; In: Christoph Markschies , Jens Schröter : Ancient Christian Apocrypha in German translation; Volume I, Gospels and Related, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2012. pp. 390–399.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Klaus Berger, Christiane Nord: The New Testament and early Christian writings . Frankfurt 2005, p. 926.
  2. ↑ Work edition by Isaac Voss, Amsterdam 1646
  3. ^ Morton Smith: Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark . Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 1973, ISBN 0-674-13490-7 ; as well as in: The Secret Gospel . Harper and Row, New York 1973, German translation. In search of the historical Jesus. Discovery and interpretation of the secret gospel in the desert monastery of Mar Saba . Ullstein, Frankfurt am Main 1974, ISBN 3-550-07467-0 .
  4. ^ Edition also in the edition of the work by Clemens Alexandrinus, obtained by Otto Stählin : Ursula Treu (ed.): The Greek Christian Writers . Clemens Alexandrinus 3, Akademie Verlag, Berlin 1980, with a note of provisionality.
  5. ^ Morton Smith: The Secret Gospel. The Discovery And Interpretation of the Secret Gospel According to Mark , Middletown (California) 1982.
  6. ↑ See Hans-Josef Klauck : The apocryphal Bible: a different approach to early Christianity . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2008, pp. 87-93, here p. 89. Craig A. Evans: The Apocryphal Jesus. Assessing the Possibilities and Problems . In: Craig A. Evans, Emanuel Tov (Eds.): Exploring the origins of the Bible . Baker, Grand Rapids 2008, pp. 147-172. Stephen C. Carlson: The Gospel hoax: Morton Smith's invention of Secret Mark . Baylor University Press, Texas 2005, p. 111. Robert M. Price: Second Thoughts on the Secret Gospel (PDF; 101 kB) . In: Bulletin for Biblical Research , 14/1 (2004), pp. 127-132, here pp. 131f. Scott Gregory Brown: Mark's other gospel. Rethinking Morton Smith's controversial discovery . Studies in Christianity and Judaism 15, Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, Waterloo, Ontario 2005, p. 57ff. Jacob Neusner : Who Needs “The Historical Jesus”? An essay review (PDF; 149 kB). In: Bulletin for Biblical Research 4 (1994), pp. 113-126, here pp. 115f.
  7. ↑ Markschies, p. 391.
  8. ↑ JD Crossan, Four Other Gospels, Minneapolis 1985, p. 100, quoted from Markschies 391f. German: "The authenticity of a text can only be confirmed by a consistent judgment of experts who were able to examine the original document under scientifically appropriate circumstances."
  9. ↑ Bart D. Ehrman: Response. Pp. 155–163, after Markschies, p. 392, note 5.
  10. ↑ Markschies, p. 391
  11. ↑ Cf. Bernd Kollmann : Die Jesus-Mythen. Sensations and legends . Herder, 2nd edition Freiburg 2009, ISBN 978-3-451-32198-6 , p. 55.
  12. ↑ Cf. FF Bruce : The 'Secret' Gospel of Mark (PDF; 172 kB), Ethel M. Wood Lecture delivered before the University of London on Feb. 11, 1974, The Athlone Press, London 1974.
  13. ↑ See, for example, Gerd Theissen, Annette Merz: The historical Jesus . 2001, p. 130: “The majority of the interpreters see the secret gospel as a Gnostic revision of the canonical Mark, which was written in the second century. This is supported by the emphasis on its 'secret' character and its use in Carpocratic circles, who obviously used it to legitimize certain liturgical customs. ” Robert H. Gundry 1993, NT Wright 1996 and Wilhelm Schneemelcher in New Testament Apocrypha made similar statements , Vol. 1, 5th edition, p. 92.
  14. ↑ Klaus Berger, Christiane Nord: The New Testament and Early Christian Writings , Frankfurt 2005, p. 926.
  15. ↑ See H. Koester: From Jesus to the Gospels. Interpreting the New Testament in its context . Fortress, Minneapolis 2007, p. 52.
  16. ↑ Stephen C. Carlson: The Gospel Hoax. Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark . Baylor University Press, Waco TX 2005, ISBN 1-932792-48-1 .
  17. ^ Francis B. Watson: Beyond Suspicion: on the Authorship of the Mar Saba Letter and the Secret Gospel of Mark . In: Journal of Theological Studies 61/1 (2010), pp. 128–170.
  18. ↑ Agamemnon Tselikas' Handwriting Analysis Report , commissioned by the British journal Biblical Archeology Review, 2010.
  19. ↑ Ms. Anastasopoulou 'Handwriting Analysis Report ( Memento of December 27, 2013 in the Internet Archive )
  20. ↑ Links to the individual contributions of the scientists
  21. ↑ Klaus Berger, Christiane Nord: The New Testament and early Christian writings . Frankfurt 2005, p. 926.
  22. ^ Klaus Berger, Christiane Nord: The New Testament and Early Christian Scriptures . Frankfurt 1999, p. 924.

Web links