If You Want to Understand to Theodore You Have to Understand the Physical Layout of Coptic Churches

For God's sake people. Let's drop the endless bickering about whether or not Morton Smith forged this document and actually UNDERSTAND WHAT IT SAYS in terms of the physicality of the Church of St. Mark in Alexandria (which was a real place and one of the most important Christian pilgrimage sites), the 'inner sanctum' or adyton (which is an actual place within the church) and most important of all - 'the truth hidden by seven veils' which is as I have demonstrated time and time again a clear reference to the throne of St. Mark which is always reported by ancient eyewitnesses to have rested near the altar in the inner sanctum behind the veils of the Church (see my forthcoming article in the Journal of Coptic Studies next month).

As I said it doesn't matter right now whether you think Morton Smith 'forged' the text or whether it was actually written by Clement. You have to understand what it says in order to engage in a proper evaluations of its contents. Please, please, please look at this layout of the fourth century church of St. Sergius in Old Cairo or go to this site here and look at the lay out of this fifth century Coptic Church (the original Church of St. Mark would have been far more impressive than either of these buildings). You can also click on the link which says 'iconostasis.' The earlier Church of St. Mark would have had a veil or 'veils' (seven if you believe the letter to Theodore is from the earlier period) and then realize that the throne of St. Mark - viz. the 'truth hidden by seven veils' would have been on the other side of the veil with the choir and all the functionaries of the Church, and then read again what is in Morton Smith's discovery:

Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.

But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.

I am not arguing that Morton Smith couldn't have known many if not all of these details. I only suggest that it is odd that Smith never connected the reference to the 'truth hidden by seven veils' with the underlying and well established physicality of ancient Coptic churches. Morton Smith never showed any interest in the ancient witnesses to this throne of St. Mark, the fact that it was stolen from Alexandria by Italians who also claimed to have taken the original autographed copy of the gospel of St. Mark that was kept or 'guarded' - as to Theodore suggests - in the same adyton with the throne.

The bottom line for me is that if Smith wrote the text - why doesn't he know that 'truth' in the period denoted 'episcopal throne' and so here meant the 'Episcopal throne of St. Mark'? Why didn't he direct people to the documents that I uncovered for my article regarding a confirmation of this physicality described in the same letter? In short as was noted by Marvin Meyer at a recent symposium "the strongest argument for authenticity was that Smith himself did not understand the document properly."

If you are interested in reading how this observation fits within my greater understanding of the workings of Secret Mark WITHIN the contemporary Alexandrian Church please go here

If you want to read more about how Alexandrian Christianity was rooted in the Jewish traditions of Alexandria, Philo of Alexandria and more feel free to purchase my new book here