I Can Begin Building a Case For the Authenticity of Secret Mark Using Irenaeus as a Principle Witness [Part 3]

If you haven't already read the two previous posts in this series, I think it is a good idea to read these first - part 1, part 2.

I will let you know that I am currently working on something that ALL OTHER SCHOLARS studying the discovery of the Letter to Theodore should have attempted long ago - an understanding of the basic question, what is a gospel? I know this sounds very stupid to some, but I am not thoroughly convinced that we can have ANY DISCUSSION as to whether or not the very concept of 'Secret Mark' is 'fraudulent' without coming to terms with why Mark NAMED HIS TEXT - 'the gospel of Jesus Christ' or some such variant.

The difficulty with those who argue that the gospel was developed in Greek is the fact that there is no pre-existent literary genre associated with 'the evangelion.' After having read Black's An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts my life was changed. Scholars pick apart at particular interpretations of passages but I have never read anyone attempt a refutation of his basic point that the foundation of the gospel was laid out in Aramaic.

Indeed the fact that Mark continually refers to an Aramaic original text in my mind supports that basic understanding that is EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY IRENAEUS - viz. that an Aramaic 'Gospel of the Hebrews' lay behind the gospels.

I am not convinced that we have to accept Irenaeus' claim that the Gospel of Matthew was the original Greek translation of that text. I think this is contradicted by the acknowledgment of scholars that Mark was older than Matthew. Indeed Epiphanius offers up the tradition that the Diatessaron was the original translation of the Aramaic gospel.

For the moment it is enough for me to say that I think that when we start thinking about the possibility that THE LITERARY OR ORAL GENRE of 'the gospel' original derived from Semitic soil we can actually begin to see how 'Secret Mark' might well represent a Greek translation of the original Aramaic 'Gospel to the Hebrews.'

This of course was Morton Smith's suspicion - or 'hope' - that his discovery had some relation to the original Aramaic gospel. Of course Smith was not equipped for the task of proving this association. He lacked the linguistic skills to carry out the arguments needed to prove this thesis.

The truth is that I am EVEN LESS qualified for this task but I have one remarkable advantage - my enduring friendship with Dr. Ruairdh Boid of Monash University, who happens to be uniquely qualified to piece together these matters.

I recommend the reader keep coming back to this post over the next three days as time will be needed for me to email Rory and wait for his responses to my questions.

Basically however, I think I CAN explain why Mark called the narrative at the heart of Christianity 'the gospel.' I think this explanation also takes into account why the heretics identified the title had something to do with the 'ogdoad' and more importantly it explains where Clement got the seemingly extraordinary idea to interpret 'Secret Mark' as a 'spiritualized' version - 'spiritualized' because of the addition of 'spiritual sayings' which Clement (and Jesus) elsewhere liken to 'leaven.'

I will save everyone the suspense the Aramaic word behind the title of the gospel has three meanings, one of which means 'flesh' and is related to the term 'leaven.' My explanation will necessarily take into account traditional Jewish (and Samaritan) ideas associated with the Feast of Unleavened Bread AND THE APOSTLE OF CHRISTIANITY'S APPLICATION OF THESE IDEAS TO THE CENTRAL RITUAL OF CHRISTIANITY.

I think all of this will help REINFORCE the idea that To Theodore was beyond the capabilities of Morton Smith as an alleged forger. I think Smith had good instincts but there will be simply no question that when the reader continues to go through my analysis there an Alexandrian cultural milieu BEHIND THE TEXT - a development of Jewish and Samaritan ideas - which Morton Smith proved he wasn't aware of when he made the stupid, boneheaded argument that the Alexandrians of Clement's day celebrated a liturgy in line with fourth century usage.

I have always said that I owe Peter Jeffrey's AN ETERNAL DEBT OF GRATITUDE. If I hadn't spend hours analyzing his book, I never would have come to terms with the ultimate proof that Morton Smith WAS NOT THE FORGER of To Theodore. Smith didn't know that Alexandrians venerated the eighth day of Passover - the baptism in the sea [cf 1 Cor 10:2] as the day to baptize their catechumen.

Origen alludes to this historical situation existing in Alexandria. The Liber Pontificalis confirms that the practice of Origen's day (early third century) was ALSO THE PRACTICE of the previous generation.

Indeed it is very easy - as we have already demonstrated - to see the letter to Theodore interpreting the differences between the 'carnal' Roman text of the Gospel of Mark and the 'spiritual' Alexandrian text of Mark AND the Carpocratian 'corruption' of that original Alexandrian gospel in terms of this central ritual of baptizing the catechumen on the eighth day of Passover, the Feast of the Unleavened Bread.

As I noted all of this will become utterly intuitive for most people when we demonstrate that besora - the Aramaic word for gospel - MUST HAVE HAD THE CONNOTATION of 'bread' in the same community.

You'll all be amazed. Just have patience ...