In the realm of religious scholarship, however, biases are all too common. It’s not as straightforward as outsiders might think. The "bad" scholars aren’t just "religious people" advocating for a literal interpretation of the Bible. The controversy over Secret Mark, supposedly discovered by Morton Smith as an 18th-century manuscript of a letter by Clement of Alexandria about a hidden gospel of Mark, initially stirred up by religious fervor, has evolved. By 2024, figures like Mark Goodacre have shifted all debates about New Testament texts towards supporting the fourfold gospel canon established by Irenaeus around 195 CE. This isn’t necessarily about religiosity; rather, it seems driven by a preference for order over chaos—a desire for the safety of established narratives over the uncertainties that come with alternative accounts.
This isn’t about a religious conspiracy but reflects a broader tendency towards conservativism, particularly among certain demographics seeking comfort in the familiar. This group clings to the notion that all gospels derive from the four canonical ones as a defense against the messiness of history that suggests we may never fully understand early Christianity. Such theories offer a false sense of security, suggesting everything boils down to how Matthew and Luke adapted Mark’s gospel.
The reality is that Luke was unknown before Irenaeus, who likely fabricated this gospel towards the end of the second century. References to Matthew from earlier times show it as distinct and sometimes at odds with canonical Mark. Moreover, Marcion, predating Irenaeus by generations, possessed a gospel linked directly to Paul, who Marcion claimed as the only true apostle—using the term in a way typically reserved for Moses, a singular spokesman for God.
The insistence by some scholars on a fixed four-gospel canon overlooks the richness and complexity of early Christian writings, including numerous non-canonical texts. The debate over the authenticity of Secret Mark, whether it's an authentic letter, an ancient fabrication, or a modern forgery, remains unresolved. But the efforts by Goodacre and his followers to promote a simplified, sanitized version of Christian origins only serve to shield academia from the full spectrum of early Christian diversity. Our understanding of these texts continues to evolve, and assertions about a so-called orthodox canon as the definitive Christian narrative are not only misleading but also dismissive of the broader historical context that shows a far more varied Christian expression.