Yuck!
I never wanted to be a 'team player.' I don't like 'taking sides' on an issue. In the case of Secret Mark I can acknowledge and respect the intelligence of both sides in certain respects. I agree for instance with Scott Brown et al that Morton Smith did not forge the text himself but I also - strangely enough - respect Stephen Carlson for trying to actually make sense of the text.
You see Carlson and many of his supporters don't like the implications of Secret Mark. That's the real issue. They aren't homophobes as some like to portray them. Just look at Carlson's website. He is very aware of the nuances related to the formation of the New Testament canon. His opposition to Secret Mark stems from the fact that it basically throws two hundred years of research into this field (his included) out the window.
There are of course other reasons why people on the 'no' side oppose to Theodore. Many are indeed motivated by an underlying hostility to homosexuals and homosexuality but it would be unfair to characterize Carlson as belonging to this camp.
Yet here is my difficulty, for when I read through Scott Brown's argument in favor of the authenticity of Morton Smith's discovery you'd think you were talking about two different texts.
Brown rightly observes that the gospel Clement references in To Theodore is portrayed as a "'mystic' or 'more spiritual' gospel that proved to be especially apt at leading its readers to an appreciation of the philosophical truths of orthodox Alexandrian Christianity, what Clement referred to as 'the great mysteries'" [p. 2].
So before we go any further we should recognize that Brown appears to be arguing for an 'Alexandrian orthodoxy' which Clement not only acknowledged but promoted in the letter to Theodore. Yet having personally corresponded with Brown on many occasions I can tell you that he doesn't have a clue about the actual state of Alexandrian or Coptic Christianity over the ages. Indeed when you make this kind of argument you can't then just go back to the familiar 'Roman' or European 'orthodoxy' to make sense of the gospel of Mark.
Sure you'll get the vast majority of scholars to agree with you. But it isn't true. Alexandrian Christianity was unique. That's why all its leading representatives - Clement, Origen, Arius etc. - were always getting in trouble with foreigners, like Irenaeus, Demetrius and Hosius of Cordoba.
In any event as the vast majority of scholars don't care to investigate what Alexandrian Christianity was, is and always they don't see the implications of Scott Brown's position. Yet wait until you see when he tries to repackage Roman-inspired interpretations of the gospel as something 'common to Alexandrian orthodoxy.' Clement would be spinning in his grave.
According to Brown then "the naked flight of the young man in Gethsemane (Mark 14:51-52) comes to symbolize the failure Jesus' disciples to be 'baptized' with his metaphorical 'baptism' of death in Jerusalem (10:38 - 39)." Only a European or a person myopically centered on European Christian tradition could make such a bone-headed assessment of what 'Alexandrian orthodoxy' might have been.
Indeed while this tradition seems to be quite self-contradictory at times one consistent train of thought in Alexandrian Christianity is the identification of St. Mark or John Mark as the naked, young man of Mark 14:51 - 52. In other words, there is absolutely no way that Alexandrian Christianity could have posited the idea that this youth represented 'failure' in any shape or form.
Moreover it might come as a shock to Brown and others but the official Coptic position on this naked neaniskos is that he did not 'fail' Jesus but end up as a witness to the Passion itself. This idea not only appears in Coptic hymns but in the earliest surviving documents from that tradition which make direct reference to St. Mark including the Passio Petri Sancti where this is made explicit and moreover Mark appears to Peter I in the form of the naked neaniskos.
As I said in a previous post these scholars are very good at writing long, detailed but ultimately boring treatises which throw so much information at the reader that he does not even realize that the author has completely missed the mark (so to speak).
The problem of the naked neaniskos in Mark 14:52 is central to Secret Mark and its placement just before the lead up statement as it were in Mark 10.38 and what follows regarding 'a baptism which Jesus AND his chosen disciple(s) MUST go through' in order to receive the redemption of the throne of God.
Scholars like Brown who have a very narrow understanding of what Christian is aren't even aware of the nuances of Alexandrian Christianity. They should not make sweeping statements about how To Theodore reflects this very same 'Alexandrian orthodoxy' and then turn around and impose Roman or European suppositions about the meaning of the gospel.
One would expect an American to be guilty of such cultural ignorance - but a Canadian? My God, what's next? Loud, boorish and crass Canadians? Oh yeah, I'm describing myself ...
When I read to Theodore I read it as a declaration of Alexandrian Episcopal primacy. But then again I know that such an argument already exists in the hearts and minds of members of the faith. I happen to have friends (or at acquaintances) who are leading members of the monastic tradition (my unhappy married life drove me to them - lol) and I know quite well what statements like those which Clement makes in To Theodore would mean if THEY MADE THEM.
Yes, Clement is speaking or reflecting on Alexandrian orthodoxy but this position would necessarily mean that St. Mark is the neaniskos of LGM 1. It doesn't have to be declared openly for God's sake. Read Severus Al'Ashmunein or if you don't like historically remote writers like that read the current Pope Shenouda III's the Evangelist Mark.
What's the matter with these people?
So as I already if you follow Carlson's argument which is entirely hostile to Morton Smith's discovery and Secret Mark in general one can argue against 'Alexandrian orthodoxy' and assume that there is only one understanding of the Gospel of Mark which was in line with Church Fathers dating from the time of Irenaeus. In other words, Carlson has a right to think that all the ideas I have come to defend and promote are a bunch of nonsense.
My point is that Brown and all the other scholars who want to defend To Theodore and Secret Mark necessarily have to walk through the door of traditional Alexandrian ideas about the gospel and St. Mark. You just can't project our familiar inherited notions about 'the gospels,' 'the Acts of the Apostles' (which doesn't mention Alexandria or Alexandrian Episcopal primacy), and all the other nonsense we are so familiar with we can cite while blindfold walking backwards.
Let me give me readers a parallel example.
My good friend Rory Boid is a professor at the Monash University and one of the leading scholars on the phenomenon of Samaritanism. Now what I love about Rory so much is that he understands cultural nuance. He doesn't just project our inherited Jewish assumption on Samaritanism or subordinate the legitimacy of the tradition of the 666 living Samaritans on the earth in the face of our general familiarity (and general preference) for Judaism.
We not only have to 'respect' Samaritanism we have to take the time above all else to listen and search for the underlying logic to the Samaritan system of thought as such. You can't just assume that Samaritanism is 'Judaism gone bad.' You have to try to make sense of Samaritanism as a distinct religious form from Judaism and all other religious forms related to it.
Now it seems utterly ludicrous to me that someone would try to defend Secret Mark as a form of 'Alexandrian orthodoxy' and yet have no - and I mean ABSOLUTELY NO WORKING KNOWLEDGE of what Alexandrian Christians have always believed.
And I don't mean to pick on Scott Brown. I can say the same thing about all the defenders of Secret Mark. It is absolutely pathetic, my friends. They want to defend a witness to 'Alexandrian orthodoxy' not realizing that this argument necessarily turns EVERYTHING WE HAVE COME TO TAKE FOR GRANTED ABOUT CHRISTIANITY ON ITS HEAD.
This is why I strangely respect Stephen Carlson more than Scott Brown. As I said in a previous post Scott Brown has developed the perfect argument to defeat Carlson. That's why he's not defending his thesis that much any more.
Brown is quite right to point to the evidence and say that Secret Mark was written by the same 'Mark' as the gospel of Mark. But his theory falls apart when you actually look at the structure of canonical Mark.
You can't simply insert LGM 1 and LGM 2 into the gospel of Mark you might buy at Barnes and Noble and say "here is that 'more spiritual gospel that proved to be especially apt at leading its readers to an appreciation of the philosophical truths of orthodox Alexandrian Christianity, what Clement referred to as 'the great mysteries'"
Carlson actually has a better grasp of the issues related to the New Testament canon as a whole. He understands that having a separate ALEXANDRIAN gospel of Mark, guarded and preserved by the Egyptian church on its own necessarily contradicts the claims that Irenaeus makes about the Gospel of Mark being written at Rome.
Now before someone makes the argument that it doesn't matter where the gospel was written you have to remember that the gospel of Mark is the entire basis of Rome and St. Peter's authority over the Christian Church. If this turns out to be a lie than the Catholic Church is a big lie.
That means Irenaeus has no real authority to have formulated any notion of orthodoxy all the way over Rome. Irenaeus would have had no right to condemn the 'false gnostics' (the actual title of his book which goes by the name 'Against the Heresies'). Clement who proudly identifies himself as a 'true gnostic' would actually represent the true orthodoxy of the Church.
I know there are people out there who want to claim that I am exaggerating the significance of To Theodore but they are wrong. Irenaeus is the sole authority in the history of Christianity who ever thought that four separated gospels represent 'the gospel' of truth. When we start seeing Clement intimating that just ONE GOSPEL - a gospel of Mark - was preferred by the Alexandrian Church - that 'perfect' text must necessarily have been 'complete' by itself.
You can't have one holy gospel hidden the adyton of the Church of St. Mark and then tell people - 'oh, that story - the stuff about what happened after the Resurrection - with Christ showing his hands and feet - oh that stuff! That's in this other gospel that we keep out by the toilets ...'
I will say it again, Scott Brown has only developed the best argument for overcoming those who want to discount Morton Smith's discovery but it is not the truest argument or truest understanding of the contents or the context of Secret Mark. There is a massive difference between something that is merely 'useful' and the 'truth.'
And by the way, Brown's arguments that LGM 1 is not about baptism is completely ridiculous. Morton Smith knew the truth in this regard. Indeed anyone who knows anything about the writings of Clement knows that that any reference to Christian 'initiation' is almost inevitably refers to baptism. I can provide a list of citation to back this up but I don't think it at all necessary.
Brown's arguments are 'useful' they are not necessarily 'true.' Brown also has written books on how to get academic papers published. This explains his dissertation for he has managed to sacrifice all the 'truth' and strangeness of To Theodore by separating it from Morton Smith and argued for its 'ordinariness.'
This is a shame because in the process he has misrepresented its essence in order to gain acceptance, apparently a necessary part of getting a paper - and a dissertation - published in the current academic climate ...
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
