Anyone familiar with Secret Mark?

R

RileyWins

Registered Senior Member
One of the resources that John Dominic Crossan (who co-chairs The Jesus Seminar along with Robert Funk) uses is called "Secret Mark".

No one has a copy of the alternative version of Mark's Gospel, but a few quotes from it are mentioned in a letter from Clement, head of the Alexandrian catechetical school around 200 C.E., to a follower named Theodore.

Clement tells of two different versions of the Gospel written by Mark—our familiar, canonical Mark; and an expanded, "secret" Mark, containing additional information to be read only to an inner circle of initiates.

Apparently, a group of rogue Christians led by Carpocrates had further expanded Secret Mark to accomodate their own heretical practices. Clement has offered "legitimate Christians" his opinion on how to deal with the heretics, and in doing so, quotes the passages that seem to have offended them.

The quoted passages tell of the "mystery of the kingdom of God," which in context seems to refer to baptism. The idea that Jesus practiced baptism (other than his own) is conspicuously absent from the synoptic gospels, though it is implicitly stated in the Gospel of John. Apparently, the methods and purpose for Jesus's baptism ritual were considered privileged information by the apostles, and thus was a subject carefully avoided by the early gospel writers.

This gives Jesus's words in Mark 4:11 (and several other passages) a new, clearer meaning—specifically, that his followers must be baptized to gain entrance to the Kingdom.

Mark 4:10
And when he was alone, those about him, with the twelve, did ask him of the simile,

Mark 4:11
and he said to them, 'To you it hath been given to know

>> the secret of the reign of God,

but to those who are without, in similes are all the things done; that seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand, lest they may turn, and the sins may be forgiven them.'


One theory suggests that certain implications in Secret Mark offended members of the church, so the more explicit passages were taken out to form our version - canonical Mark - leaving some strange rifts in the text.

For example, there is a "jump" in the text of 10:46, suggesting something has been removed or edited out, in a rather sloppy fashion:

Mark 10:45
for even the Son of Man came not to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.'

Mark 10:46
And they come to Jericho, and as he is going forth from Jericho, with his disciples and a great multitude, a son of Timaeus -- Bartimaeus the blind -- was sitting beside the way begging,

Not only is the stop in Jericho entirely pointless to the narrative, the subject shifts from plural to singular.

According to Clement, Secret Mark has a passage between these sentences.

The longer pericope from Secret Mark is a parallel of John's Lazarus story, not found anywhere in the synoptics. It appears to be told as a continuation of the lesson in Mark 10:17-22, where a young rich man is loved by Jesus but will not make the sacrifices necessary to follow him. In the secret passage, another young rich man returns his love and reaps the rewards, including the symbolic ressurection.

Secret Markan describes how new initiates are dressed for their baptism—clad in only a linen cloth. Our Gospel of Mark has apparently lost a section where a young man is given a baptism, but there's a second mention of him that wasn't removed:

Mark 14:47
and a certain one of those standing by, having drawn the sword, struck the servant of the chief priest, and took off his ear.

Mark 14:48
And Jesus answering said to them, 'As against a robber ye came out, with swords and sticks, to take me!

Mark 14:49
daily I was with you in the temple teaching, and ye did not lay hold on me -- but that the Writings may be fulfilled.'

Mark 14:50
And having left him they all fled;

Mark 14:51
and a certain young man was following him, having put a linen cloth about [his] naked body, and the young men lay hold on him,

Mark 14:52
and he, having left the linen cloth, did flee from them naked.

Mark 14:53
And they led away Jesus unto the chief priest, and come together to him do all the chief priests, and the elders, and the scribes;


The identity of this young man has always been a mystery - but if Secret Mark is right, there was a different/expanded version of Mark where a passage describes how the youth was baptized.

unbound.biola.edu
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Walker
I expected this thread to be about subdermal barcodes.
Click to expand...
________

Sorry, it takes me a few minutes to get the info in the right order.

This is the text of the letter known as "Secret Mark." It helps, up front, to understand that the term "Secret Mark" refers to this letter and not the alternative version of the Gospel, which is not known to exist anywhere today.

Translation by Morton Smith:


From the letters of the most holy Clement, the author of the Stromateis. To Theodore.

You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocratians. For these are the "wandering stars" referred to in the prophecy, who wander from the narrow road of the commandments into a boundless abyss of the carnal and bodily sins. For, priding themselves in knowledge, as they say, "of the deep things of Satan," they do not know that they are casting themselves away into "the nether world of the darkness" of falsity, and, boasting that they are free, they have become slaves of servile desires. Such men are to be opposed in all ways and altogether. For, even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.

Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. For the true things being mixed with inventions, are falsified, so that, as the saying goes, even the salt loses its savor.

As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, 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. Frorn this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.

To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath. For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men." For this reason the Wisdom of God, through Solomon, advises, "Answer the fool from his folly," teaching that the light of the truth should be hidden from those who are mentally blind. Again it says, "From him who has not shall be taken away," and, "Let the fool walk in darkness." But we are "children of light," having been illuminated by "the dayspring" of the spirit of the Lord "from on high," and "Where the Spirit of the Lord is," it says, "there is liberty," for "All things are pure to the pure."

To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after ,"And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem," and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise," the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:

"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tornb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

After these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him," and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.

And after the words, "And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only,

"And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them."

But the many other things about which you wrote both seem to be and are falsifications.

Now the true explanation and that which accords with the true philosophy...

______

Now, here's the kicker.

The story of Lazarus being raised from the dead only appears in the canon in John.

The Clements letter suggests that, in the original Mark text, Lazarus was the unnamed brother of this woman, and Lazarus never rose from the dead. Instead, Lazarus' sister appears just before Jesus visits a tomb and rolls away the stone and finds a young man inside clad only in a white robe.

Oooh, that sounds familiar.

Is this original version (in Secret mark, not canon Mark) the source of the story about the young man that Martha and Mary met inside the tomb where Jesus was buried? A story that does not appear at the end of Mark in the earliest surviving mss?

If so, then all of the other theories about the resurrection accounts are just spinning wheels, because it's just a re-editing of the earlier version of the Lazarus story and didn't actually happen.
 
Last edited:
This "secret" Mark seems to have all the hallmarks of your average old Gnosis Christian type stuff. A part of a Mystery Religoin out of which Chistianity arose - with the time frame of 200CE this would make sense and if anything be expected.
 
Interesting post. Have you investigated 'The Gospel of Thomas' . . . that might help you somewhat. I can add a link if you like.
 
Originally posted by Michael
This "secret" Mark seems to have all the hallmarks of your average old Gnosis Christian type stuff. A part of a Mystery Religoin out of which Chistianity arose - with the time frame of 200CE this would make sense and if anything be expected.
Click to expand...

_______

That's one explanation - IF your theory is that somehow mainline Christianity and gnostic Christianity are two different animals --

BUT it doesn't explain who the young man is, or why he is naked under his linen robe, or why a description of him appears in the canonical Mark.

Mark 14:51
and a certain young man was following him, having put a linen cloth about [his] naked body, and the young men lay hold on him,

Mark 14:52
and he, having left the linen cloth, did flee from them naked.


The explanation in Secret Mark - that the young man had taken part in a baptism ritual and the robe was part of the props - makes too much sense to deny out of hand.

And that suggests that an earlier part of the story, where the young man was introduced, has been taken out.

And that brings us to the next point:

Did Jesus actually spend the night with this young man?

Or did Peter have a thing for spending the night with boys in the early church, and Peter invented this story of Jesus baptising young men in the nude in order to convince converts that Jesus wanted them to be baptized Peter's way? Was 5that the secret that Jesus promised to share with them?

There are some good articles on why allegations of priests molesting young boys are coming out - but could it be that Peter created this religion with this kind of relationship as a tenet?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top