Apocryphicity

I have been holding off on writing my own assessment of the Secret Mark Symposium because I thought a participant's view would be more valuable. Calogero A. Miceli, a Ph.D. candidate at Concordia University in Montreal, offered a report of the event at a forum a few days ago and graciously offered to pass along this summary for Apocryphicity.

On April 29^th, 2011 a symposium was held at York University (Toronto, Ontario) where scholars from across North America gathered to present their opinions and understandings of the Secret Gospel of Mark (as found in the Mar Saba Letter) and of Morton Smith. The event was organized by Tony Burke (York University) and Phil Harland (York University) and since I recently presented a report of the symposium at the following: GRECAT Université Laval-Concordia University 2^nd Annual Workshop on May 4^th, 2011 held at Laval University (Quebec City, Quebec), I was kindly asked by Tony Burke to offer my account of the symposium as a guest-post on his blog ‘Apocryphicity’. I was present for the entire day of the symposium and here I offer a short overview of what happened and what came out of the conference. I will focus very little on the particular presentations and arguments of the scholars present mainly because these will be able to speak for themselves upon the publication of the papers of the symposium in an upcoming monograph edited by Tony Burke and Phil Harland – which I look forward to! It is also important to note that in such short time several other accounts of the symposium have already made their way to the web, see the posts on X, Y and Zen and Synoptic Solutions. Though my report here is not as thorough as some of these, a collective reading of all of these accounts of the conference seems to me a very good and comprehensive overview of the entire symposium. 

The event featured scholars from across North America whom have published on Secret Mark as Burke and Harland tried very hard to find a balance of scholars to argue for the various positions concerning the apocryphal text, namely the two sides – those who agree with Morton’s Smith’s account and accept Secret Mark as it is & those who disagree with Morton Smith’s account and believe that Secret Mark is a forgery perpetrated by Smith himself. The following scholars were invited and asked to present: Scott Brown (Independent Scholar), Craig Evans (Acadia Divinity College), Charles Hedrick (Missouri State University), Peter Jeffery (University of Notre Dame), Marvin Meyer (Chapman University), Allan J. Pantuck (University of California), Pierluigi Piovanelli (University of Ottawa), and Hershel Shanks (Editor, Biblical Archaeology Review).

The symposium was opened with a few words by Tony Burke. In his introduction, Burke spoke of how the symposium came into fruition, most notably the 2008 SBL session on Secret Mark where many scholars (some of whom were again present at York University) discussed the Secret Gospel of Mark. A good report on the happenings of this 2008 SBL session can still be found in earlier blog posts by Tony Burke on ‘Apocryphicity’. In light of the debate in 2008, Burke got together with several others and organized this symposium specifically dealing with Secret Mark. He mentioned in the opening remarks that the hope was to have some sort of consensus amongst the scholars present.  

Most of the papers were handed out to the participants in advance of the conference which made it that much easier to follow a particular argument and it helped in bringing people into the world of Secret Mark in today’s debate. (Hedrick, Evans, Meyer, Piovanelli (in French), and Brown’s papers were sent to the participants prior to the event). The presentations all went very smoothly and I particularly enjoyed the responses of Chilton and Pantuck as this allowed for an interesting way for scholars to discuss their points and critique one other. However, as the response papers were given, it was clear to me that there could easily have been a response to the response. The back and forth may never have ended.

During the sessions, of particular interest was the ‘Report on Handwriting Analyses’ by Hershel Shanks. The first handwriting expert Venetia Anastasopoulou stated that Smith did not forge the document (as was revealed in an article on the BAR website) whereas the second handwriting expert, Agamemnon Tselikas concluded – as was revealed by Shanks at the symposium – that the letter is a forged document perhaps by Morton Smith. Therefore, the two handwriting experts commissioned by Shanks have both made public their opinions and these are of opposing opinions.

The conflicting positions of the two handwriting analyses mirror the conflict between scholars regarding Morton Smith and the Secret Gospel of Mark. Throughout the conference, both sides stuck to their arguments and did not let up. Some of the arguments were rehashings of the same old arguments for or against Secret Mark and not much was said in way of innovating evidence. The thing that often came up throughout the day was the notion that a new discovery may help to clarify things or that a new text might help to resolve this issue. The hope or need for a new discovery may be the only thing that might move the conversation forward; however, as of right now we do not have anything ‘new’. 

The scheduling was tight throughout the day (presenters were only given 15 minutes to speak and they easily went over time limit). Much of the planned discussions between papers were sacrificed in order to keep with the schedule. The best discussions, in my mind, came during the public forum at the end of the conference (though it was said to me that during the dinner where all of the presenters went to eat, that this was the best discussion that took place). During the public forum, many of the scholars seemed loosened up from the process of having to present their papers and instead engaged in a more open discussion of the text at hand and they took questions from Phil Harland who presided over the forum and then from the audience present. One of the questions asked, by me, was what the future of the study of Secret Mark might be and how scholars intend to move forward with the text at hand. This garnered different yet interesting responses from the panel. Craig Evans noted that scholars have a lot of other works and things to consider while restating his skepticism concerning Secret Mark; he noted that the warning flags are there and that he will move on and not use Secret Mark. Marvin Meyer’s response was that the decision to work on or abandon Secret Mark is a decision each individual must decide for themselves. Meyer noted that it is an interesting gospel and that whatever we can do to better understand it we should pursue it and that we should not forget about it entirely. Peter Jeffrey also offered some insights for future scholarship saying that scholars need robust discussions with Clement of Alexandria experts. Jeffrey also stated that there is as of yet no solid examination of Morton Smith’s study of magic and also that everyone could use a good and sympathetic biography of Morton Smith’s life that should be well documented. I must agree with Jeffrey that this would be a great addition to the discussion since a biography of Smith’s life would be extremely helpful in the discussion.

As for the issue of consensus, it was clear during and by the end of the conference that scholars all disagree and will continue to disagree baring some new ‘evidence’ which may or may never come. While some scholars will turn away from Secret Mark and instead focus their energies on texts which are less ‘problematic’ it is clear that there will still be others who will continue to argue for or against this controversial text. By the end of the symposium there was still no consensus concerning whether or not Smith perpetrated the forgery or not, there was no consensus about the handwriting of the document and whether or not this was Smith’s own hand, and there was no consensus on what the future of the document should be. In my opinion, it is clear that both sides agree on only one thing, and that is to disagree.  

I want to thank Tony Burke and Phil Harland for their hard work in organizing such an interesting and well planned symposium as well as give a thank you to all of the presenters for their interesting papers and insights. The symposium, which I hope to see continued in the future, was a great convergence for exploring the Secret Gospel of Mark and while it did not bring harmony to the discussion, in my mind, it has become clear that scholars do not and will not come to an agreement. This realization that scholars can only agree to disagree may be a step in the right direction and may help to shape the future of the study on Secret Mark.

The first York Christian Apocrypha Symposium (featuring the Secret Gospel of Mark) takes place in just a few days. Everything is in place for the event and we hope for it to go off without a hitch. We should have an audience of about 60 people, which is respectable for our first event in the series. I will blog fairly regularly (for a change) over the next few days to let everyone who could not attend know how it is going (or went). To whet your appetites for Friday's papers, visit Timo Paananen's Salainan evankelista blog for a discussion of the symposium and an update on recent on-line scholarship on the text.

Also, we have created a facebook page for the series (search for "York Christian Apocrypha Symposium Series"). I hope you will "like" it.

The one-day Secret Mark conference Phil Harland and I are hosting at York University is only weeks away. For those interested, here is the preliminary programme.

The York University Christian Apocrypha Symposium Series Presents:

Ancient Gospel of Modern Forgery? The Secret Gospel of Mark in Debate

Vanier College, April 29, 2011

9:00-9:15 Introductions: Tony Burke (York University) and Philip Harland (York University)

9:15-12:00 Session 1: The Authenticity Debate

Chair: Tony Burke, York University

The Case for Authenticity

9:15-9:30 “Secret Mark: Moving on from Stalemate,” Charles Hedrick (Missouri State University, Missouri)

This paper will briefly survey the status quo of scholarship on the Letter to Theodore and a Secret Gospel of Mark, and argue that, with the failure of the modern forgery theorists to make their case, research has no choice but to move on to a study the missing manuscript itself by means of the photographs.  The paper, working back from the 18th century, argues that the sudden appearance of a previously unknown 2/3rd century manuscript in 18th century handwriting is not unusual.  During the Renaissance, the classics of Greco-Roman tradition were recovered in versions much later than the time of their original composition—including texts previously unknown.  The Letter to Theodore is taken seriously as deriving from the 2/3rd century, while Ernest Best’s argument that the longer excerpt of Secret Mark is “too much like Mark” to be Mark is found to be unconvincing.  On the other hand, if the excerpts from a Longer Gospel of Mark in the Letter to Theodore are forgeries, they are likely to be early forgeries created in the context of Greco-Roman education, which stressed imitation as an important way of learning. 

9:30-9:45 Response: Bruce Chilton (Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, New York)

9:45-10:00 Discussion

The Case for Forgery

10:00-10:15 “Morton Smith and the Secret Gospel of Mark: Exploring the Grounds for Doubt,” Craig Evans (Acadia Divinity College, Wolfville, Nova Scotia)

Although at one time I accepted Morton Smith’s account of his 1958 discovery of a lost letter of Clement of Alexandria, in which a longer edition of the Gospel of Mark is discussed and quoted, I no longer do so. I have doubts primarily because of a number of coincidences. The most troubling are these: (1) In three publications prior to the claimed discovery at Mar Saba Smith discussed the very elements that came to light in the discovery; and (2) Smith’s visit to Mar Saba, including his description of his frame of mind during the visit, parallels that of a fictional archaeologist in James Hunter’s novel, The Mystery of Mar Saba, published in 1940. The parallels are so close, one suspects influence, even dependence. Because Hunter’s novel predates Smith’s “discovery” by some 18 years, one must wonder if the novel served as Smith’s inspiration. For purposes of comparison Paul Coleman-Norton’s “Amusing Agraphon,” which is almost certainly a hoax, will also be discussed.

10:15-10:30 Response: Allan J. Pantuck (University of California, Los Angeles)

10:30-10:45 Discussion

10:45-11:00 Break

11:00-11:15 Report on Handwriting Analyses, Hershel Shanks (Editor, Biblical Archaeology Review)

11:15-12:00 pm General Discussion

12:00-1:30 pm Lunch

1:30-5:00 Session 2: Contexts and Interpretations

Chair: Phil Harland (York University)

1:30-1:45 “The Young Streaker in Secret and Canonical Mark,” Marvin Meyer (Chapman University, California)

This paper, which assumes the authenticity of the Secret Gospel of Mark, focuses attention upon the several references to the youth, or neaniskos, in Secret and Canonical Mark. Such a youth, sometimes fleeing and often naked, is also to be found in other literary and artistic contexts. In the paper these literary and artistic presentations are surveyed, and their significance is assessed. The references to the youth in Markan literature are then studied, individually and in possible relation to one another, and conclusions are drawn about the neaniskos as a thematic literary element in Secret and Canonical Mark employed to further Mark's message of discipleship in the face of the cross.

1:45-2:00 Discussion

2:00-2:15 “Halfway Between Sabbatai Tzevi and Aleister Crowley: Morton Smith’s ‘Own Concept of What Jesus “Must” Have Been’ and, Once Again, the Question of Evidence,” Pierluigi Piovanelli (University of Ottawa)

The recently published correspondence between Morton Smith and Gershom Scholem (1945-1982) provides new clues and insight into Smith’s intellectual itinerary. Smith claimed that in 1958 at Mar Saba, he discovered a fragment of a lost letter attributed to Clement of Alexandria which contained two quotations taken from a Secret Gospel of Mark. In fact, it seems far more plausible that Smith created the document himself, not in order to ridicule his colleagues, but rather, with the intention of promoting a new approach to the study of the Historical Jesus and Early Christianity.

2:15-2:30 Discussion

2:30-2:45 “What did he know and when did he know it? Further Excavations from the Morton Smith Archives,”Allan J. Pantuck (University of California, Los Angeles)

The theory that Morton Smith forged the Letter to Theodore presupposes both that he possessed all the expertise needed to create it and that he composed it for a specific purpose and with an intended interpretation prior to “discovering” it in 1958. This theory is possible to test. While there is no doubt that Morton Smith was an extremely competent scholar, was proficient in reading various ancient languages, and was acquainted with Greek manuscripts, there is little evidence that Smith, prior to his discovery, possessed an intimate knowledge of the writings of Clement of Alexandria sufficient to compose a de novo, original composition in Patristic Greek that would successfully imitate Clement’s complex thought, vocabulary, and writing style. Further, it has been persuasively established that Smith lacked the paleographic skills to physically write the Letter’s natural, free flowing, native eighteenth-century cursive Greek hand. A global survey of archival Smith papers and correspondence suggests both that Smith lacked the necessary abilities and motives to produce a text such as the Letter to Theodore in the 1950s, and that during the five years between 1958 and the completion of the first draft of Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark in June 1963, he was in fact developing his understanding of the letter’s significance and doing the research that he presented in this book.

2:45-3:00 Discussion

3:00-3:15 Break

3:15-3:30 “Clement's Mysteries and Morton Smith's Magic,” Peter Jeffery (University of Notre Dame, Indiana)

The use by early Christian writers of vocabulary from the ancient mystery cults has been debated since the 17th century, but it is now possible to see that it represents a coalescence of idioms that were originally distinct. This is particularly clear in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, who describes the Christian sacraments, including the public reading of the scriptures, using glossaries from (1) Jewish apocalyptic, reapplied in the New Testament to the Incarnation of Jesus, (2) philosophical writing by Plato, and (3) typological, exegesis derived from Philo. The Mar Saba document, however, seems to follow the Clement of the Protrepticus, who was using mystery vocabulary literally in his disparaging descriptions of actual mystery cults. In this it seems to follow Morton Smith’s idiosyncratic understanding of “magic,” which made no distinctions among phenomena like shamanism, mysticism, divination, sacraments, miraculous healing, and so on—or among ancient Jewish, Greek, Egyptian, Near Eastern, Christian and Gnostic sources. For Smith, all forms of magic were the same, fraudulent attempts to induce paranormal experiences which, though they may be described in language of heavenly ascent, are fundamentally, or at least metaphorically, about (homo)sexual climax. Thus the writings of Smith provide the frame that makes sense out of the Mar Saba letter of “Clement,” just as the letter provides the frame that makes sense out of the “gospel excerpts.”

3:30-3:45 Discussion

3:45-4:00 “Behind the Seven Veils, I: The Gnostic Life Setting of the Mystic Gospel of Mark,” Scott Brown (Independent Scholar, Toronto)

An accurate understanding the life setting of the mystikon Gospel of Mark, as this is described in the Letter to Theodore, is vital to assessing the letter’s authenticity. Previous attempts to define this life setting have focused on the statement that this gospel was read “only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.” Are these persons candidates for baptism, as Morton Smith and most other scholars have reasoned? Or are they instead the most advanced students in Clement’s school (the “true gnostics”), as I have argued? The present paper expands on my previous studies by demonstrating, first, that the great mysteries in Clement’s undisputed writings are esoteric teachings pertaining to the noetic world, and second, that the letter confirms this meaning through its statement that the interpretation of the mystikon gospel “leads the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of the sevenfold veiled truth.” The decisive relevance of this metaphor has previously been overlooked: in Clement’s undisputed works, entering the innermost sanctuary connotes the mystical experience of perceiving the noetic world and rising incrementally through it (Strom. V.6.32.1–40.4; VI.8.68; Exc. 27.1–6). Initiation into the great mysteries and entry into the innermost sanctuary therefore describe the same thing—instruction in, and apprehension of, the unwritten gnostic tradition.

4:00-4:15 Discussion

4:15-5:00 General Discussion

7:00-9:00 pm Public Forum

Introductions: Tony Burke (York University)

Chair: Phil Harland (York University)

Panelists: Scott Brown (Independent Scholar, Toronto), Craig Evans (Acadia Divinity College, Wolfville, Nova Scotia), Peter Jeffery (University of Notre Dame, Indiana), Marvin Meyer (Chapman University)

Allan Pantuck who, along with Scott Brown, has contributed significantly to defending the authenticity of Secret Mark, has made a new contribution to the debate in "Solving the Mysterion of Morton Smith and the Secret Gospel of Mark" available at the Biblical Archaeology Review site (HERE).

Phil Harland (also of York University and an avid blogger himself) and I have been working over the past several months to plan a one-day conference on the Secret Gospel of Mark. This is intended in the first of a series of symposia on various apocryphal texts, though highlighting the work of North American scholars. All of the funding is in place so we can now make a formal announcement of the event. For information, see the page on my main site (HERE). Registration is very inexpensive (and free if you're a student) and the evening public debate is also free-of-charge. We hope to see a lot of people come out for the event so that we can continue the series for future years.

Scott Brown and Peter Jeffery weigh in once again on the results of the handwriting analyses commissioned by Biblical Archaeology Review. See also Stephan Huller's interview with Agamemnon Tselikas, the paleographer who was also commissioned by BAR but whose report has yet to see publication.

Stephan Huller has posted an interview on his blog (HERE) with paleographer Agamemnon Tselikas conducted earlier in the year by Charlie Hedrick. Tselikas is one of two experts commissioned by Biblical Archeology Review to examine the images of the Secret Mark manuscript for signs of forgery. His report should see publication very soon.

Some time ago Peter Jeffery (author of The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled) and I discussed on Apocryphicity (see HERE) the idea of assembling scholars of Secret Mark for some kind of fruitful debate–more fruitful, at least, than previous attempts which featured little more than a presentation of papers. Phil Harland and I (in consultation with Jeffery and Allan Pantuck) have since put together a proposal for such an event, which, if all goes well, will take place at York University in May of 2011.

The biggest challenge in planning this symposium thus far has been in securing the participation of scholars who argue that the text is a modern hoax or a forgery. Certainly many hold that opinion, but of the few scholars in North America (and we are trying to focus only on North American scholars) who have published significant works arguing that position, only Peter Jeffery and Bruce Chilton have accepted our invitation to attend. Is the argument in jeopardy, particularly with BAR's publication of the report of a handwriting expert? Or have efforts by Allan Pantuck, Scott Brown, and others to dismantle the argument for Morton Smith's creation of the text succeeded in silencing some of the proponents for the theory?

Allan Pantuck passed along to me a few links to the BAR website with recent articles on the handwriting analyses of the Secret Mark manuscript (or better, photographs of the manuscript) commissioned by BAR. The first is Peter Jeffery's response to the results (from April). The second is an editorial by Hershel Shanks comparing the conflict over the text to debate on who wrote Shakespeare's plays.