Talk:Secret Gospel of Mark

Section move proposal

Following on from this AfD, I propose moving the sections of this article relating to the discovery and authenticity of the letter (namely, #Discovery and #Debate on authenticity and authorship) to the article Mar Saba letter, replacing each section with a short summary and a {{Main}} hatnote linking to the other article. Dan from A.P. (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t notice the discussion about the deletion of the Mar Saba letter. If I had I would have voted for deletion. There is basically nothing in that article that isn’t covered in this article. And, since the letter and the Secret Gospel are so intertwined, you cannot deal with one without dealing with the other. Moving those parts from this article will ruin this article. The Mar Saba article, on the other hand, is outdated and contains errors, which thereby would leave two articles incomplete. Roger Viklund (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

If I could give my two cents, I think it makes little sense to give the "Secret Gospel of Mark" its own page, when it is not mentioned outside of the Mar Saba letter and it is not even clear if it exists or not. I'd suggest outright merging the Secret Mark and Mar Saba pages together entirely, since they seem so entwined they can't be described separately from each other. Simonopedian (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree, for the reasons given above. --Jfruh (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Scott Brown vs. the World

The whole article seems very partisan and rather than informing it seems to want to demonstrate that the Secret Gospel of Mark is authentic.

I've noticed an incredible abundance of quotes from Scott G. Brown. Why is his work so much cited? His Wikipedia page doesn't say much about him, and from what little I understand all his work is based on the Secret Gospel of Mark, it seems to me a far from neutral (and authoritative) source.

Consider this paragraph as an example:

"According to Criddle, the letter had too many hapax legomena, words used only once before by Clement, in comparison to words never before used by Clement, and Criddle argued that this indicates that a forger had "brought together more rare words and phrases" found in the authentic writings of Clement than Clement would have used.[193] The study has been criticized for, among other things, focusing on "Clement's least favorite words" and for the methodology itself, which turns out to be " unreliable in determining authorship.""

It seems to imply that the study has been criticized by a certain number of scholars, but then on seeing the quote he has only been criticized by Brown. Each time it is like this, a scholar proposes a hypothesis and then Brown's criticism immediately afterwards.

I think that if Brown's criticisms are not shared by other scholars then they should be removed. AngryKeyboard (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you actually, especially in the section where Brown is used as essentially a per contra source. He definitely merits mention, but this is a bit much. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Case for authenticity of the secret Mark (says nothing about the letter)

This case study came up rather unexpectedly. In the book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” there is an extensive foray into the history and composition of the canonical Gospels. According to the conclusions of that research Mark and Matthew were written while main participants of the events in question — Peter and James, brother of Jesus ­— were still alive and actively participated in the writings. Luke and John, on the contrary, were written when no eyewitnesses and participants were alive any longer. That was the basis for the explanation why certain stories were excluded from the Mark and Matthew, even so they were available from the very beginning. Those stories were simply censored, edited out by eyewitnesses because of their damning evidential value, their giveaway in the narrative.

One of those stories is an episode describing the resurrection of Lazarus. When the argument was presented to the counterpart on Facebook, he recalled the story described in the letter by Clement of Alexandria that implied that the episode similar to resurrection of Lazarus was once present in the Gospel of Mark, but was edited out and considered to be a part of quoted, but not discovered “spiritual,” extended (or secret) Gospel of Mark that at some point was edited down to the canonical Mark that is commonly known. General agreement among scholars is that the story from the letter of Clement described the same event that was described in the Gospel of John. Contrary to that opinion the arguments provided in the book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” point to the opposite direction. The narrative in the letter of Clement describes a similar, but totally unrelated event in regard to the event known as resurrection of Lazarus.

Before proceeding to the details, considerations of the framework need to be declared.

1. This work, while weighted considerably on the side of authenticity of the letter, will not make such a claim.
2. The existence of “extended” Mark and its relation to the redacted Mark (basic premise) considered to be true.
3. The description of the "resurrection" of Lazarus is considered to be a description of the real event, being accurate in details and circumstances.
4. The description of the "resurrection" of an unnamed young man in the fragment that was eventually excluded from “extended” Mark is also a description of the real event that is accurate in detail.
5. The rest of the fragment of the letter, not directly related to resurrection, will not be evaluated, if anything, for readability purposes.

Here the story of the resurrection of Lazarus as described in the Gospel of John with commentary from the book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.” It is a part of chapter 80. English Standard Version (ESV) is used for quotations from the Gospels.

People casually think that the reality show was invented a decade or so ago… Igor believed (not 100%) that it was “Survivor” … Here the reality show, Holy Land style, and the name “Survivor” fits just about right!

John 11:1 - 44 (ESV)

The Death of Lazarus

11 Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. 3 So the sisters sent to him, saying, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.” 4 But when Jesus heard it he said, “This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.”

5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. 6 So, when he heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was. 7 Then after this he said to the disciples, “Let us go to Judea again.” 8 The disciples said to him, “Rabbi, the Jews were just now seeking to stone you, and are you going there again?” 9 Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. 10 But if anyone walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him.” 11 After saying these things, he said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him.” 12 The disciples said to him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.” 13 Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep. 14 Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus has died, 15 and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.” 16 So Thomas, called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”

I Am the Resurrection and the Life

17 Now when Jesus came, he found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb four days. 18 Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles off, 19 and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to console them concerning their brother. 20 So when Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, but Mary remained seated in the house. 21 Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you.” 23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 24 Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” 27 She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.”

Jesus Weeps

28 When she had said this, she went and called her sister Mary, saying in private, “The Teacher is here and is calling for you.” 29 And when she heard it, she rose quickly and went to him. 30 Now Jesus had not yet come into the village, but was still in the place where Martha had met him. 31 When the Jews who were with her in the house, consoling her, saw Mary rise quickly and go out, they followed her, supposing that she was going to the tomb to weep there. 32 Now when Mary came to where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet, saying to him, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” 33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in his spirit and greatly troubled. 34 And he said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to him, “Lord, come and see.” 35 Jesus wept. 36 So the Jews said, “See how he loved him!” 37 But some of them said, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man also have kept this man from dying?”

Jesus Raises Lazarus

38 Then Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone lay against it. 39 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days.” 40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?” 41 So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.” 43 When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.” 44 The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”

It is a carefully planned operation to “regain ground” in Judea… It reads like a movie script… because it is!... Just another spectacular performance inspired by John the Baptist! Igor would not even bother pointing out the glaring details… As a collection of independent facts, it is puzzling, but a large organizational entity encompassing people and locations making it clear as day… And Jewish tradition of speedy funeral was definitely handy in setting up the stage. And one more important detail is that Lazarus is put to rest in the tomb. Tombs were usually only for well off people. Lazarus was a beggar. If Lazarus was to be buried in the class appropriate shallow grave cinematographic quality special effects would be required to stage his resurrection.

That was the end of the quote from chapter 80 (chapter 80 continued to related matters that are not relevant to this consideration).

For the purpose of this narrative John 11.45 and 46 are also useful.

45 Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him, 46 but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done

What is also pointed out in the book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt,” is that some of Jesus' “performances” were carefully scripted and actual written script was produced, not unlike one in theatrical productions or moviemaking. The scripts were collected and saved (and their collection referred to as the “signs” gospel), and used while writing canonical Gospels, along with other early written documents – depositions and field reports. Most obviously script, once created, could have been re-used if needed, and tweaked to circumstances. "Resurrection" of Lazarus is a complicated act and script most likely existed for this kind of performance.

Another observation was noted in the book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.” When Jesus had to interact with people he did not know and never met, verbal (or combined, like climbing a tree) handshake was implemented. The kind of event that is prominent in the Gospels is when a beggar who was contracted to be “healed” by Jesus greets him with code words “Jesus, the son of David.” Most obviously, when Jesus encounters a person he knows the verbal handshake was not needed.

The next is the quote about the resurrection from the letter of Clement of Alexandria utilizing translation by Morton Smith.

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 straightaway, 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 tomb, 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 follow the text, "And James and John come to him", and all that section.

What is obvious about this event (described in the letter) and the event extensively described in Gospel of John is that both events possibly share the same basic script. Grieving sister is asking to bring back to life the recently deceased brother. But this is where similarities end. The details, each and every of them, are as different as they could be. As for the presence of the second sister, Martha, in the resurrection of Lazarus, the body of scholarship exists that consistently demonstrates that airdropping Martha into the narrative is a later interpolation, and originally there was only one sister – Mary. There are two plausible opinions about which Mary is playing the role of the “sister” in the resurrection of Lazarus. But regardless of if this is the same woman that anointed Jesus and wiped his feet with her own hair as mentioned in John 11.2, or that is she, however speculative it is, was a Mary Magdalene herself, Jesus knew her, and verbal handshake was unnecessary. Whether or not Lazarus is really her brother, or if they both pretend to be related, is unclear and not really relevant. According to the book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” Mary Magdalene mostly did logistics, but apparently, she could have risen to the occasion and showcase some performing talent that she usually only applied for clandestine work. Aside from the general premise, similarities between the two performances taper off very quickly. The “sister” from extended Mark is someone who Jesus did not know. She had to use a verbal handshake for identification. Jesus most obviously knew Mary (Magdalene?), and no identification aid was needed or mentioned in the story from the Gospel of John.

The story from the Gospel of John is carefully staged and choreographed, probably to avoid suspicions that Jesus is orchestrating the whole thing. The story from extended Mark presented as spontaneous, even so both narratives describe carefully prepared and staged events. Both Jesus and disciples that accompanied him at the moment are described as displeased with the appearance of the woman in extended Mark. That echoed with one of the variants of Mark when Jesus was angry with a beggar who had leprosy in one of the variants of Mark (Codex Bezae). In both cases displeasure of Jesus could have something to do with timing, as speculated in the book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” about the episode with the leper. It looks like only Jesus and some of the disciples were present when resurrection in Mark occurred, and that obviously was not a targeted audience for such a carefully prepared and elaborate performance. It could be that Jesus expected to attract some wider audience, some people who would be compelled to follow him after listening to his pitch on the market square or in synagogue. The incorrect timing (too early) is easy to extrapolate from the description of the events in Mark. While Lazarus was patiently waiting in the tomb until Jesus and Mary (acting as Lasarus’ sister) would do their parts, the unnamed participant in extended Mark actually started to panic, expressed audible discomfort, and generally “came alive” without regard for the proper timing. It might be that he suffered from the foul odors/gases, had lack of oxygen, or suffered from onset of claustrophobia. When his co-conspirator “sister” discovered that her “brother” was shrieking from the tomb she did the only sensible thing to do – found Jesus and coerced him to speed up timing of the performance. She could have freed her “brother” from the tomb by herself, but that would mean forfeiting the money (if any monetary agreement was in place), or she might have a problem moving the stone because of physical limitations. It is possible that the property where resurrection in Mark supposed to have taken place was adjacent to a place where Jesus was about to give his speech, and “sister” dashed there to fetch him ASAP. It is very apparent that the story in John does not exhibit that kind of urgency. A long interaction between Jesus and “sister” taking place for the purpose to make the action more believable for the spectators. The spectators or witnesses also defined differently in extended Mark and John. In mark it is only disciples – nobody else is mentioned. In John there is the presence of other people who are unaware of the outcome. Naturally, in Mark remarkable nothing happens in the aftermath of resurrection – Jesus stays in the house enjoying hospitality, until he removed or compelled to leave to meet James (the Just, brother of Jesus) and John the Baptist who is following the actions of his subordinates closely (that remark obviously re-enforces conviction in the authenticity of the material attributed to the extended Mark. Identification of supposed disciples James and John with James the Just and John the Baptist was made in the book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” in relation to other episodes). In the Gospel of John episode everything is not as peachy as intended. Apparently, some of the people in attendance figured that they witnessed a farce and submitted complaints to the pharisees/religious authorities. Jesus had to leave town and hide somewhere (John the Baptist is probably under arrest at that point). Whole thing is very risky, and Jesus is under the umbrella of (justifiable) suspicion. In summary, two stories diverge considerably in the audience and aftermath/outcome. Even more divergence is in the description of the act of resurrection. Lazarus, a hardened beggar, stayed put until it was time to come out, and came out in an orderly and dignified manner. The counterpart entombed in the story described in extended Mark was in a state of panic and produced sounds even before Jesus came to the proximity of the tomb. While the writer of the Gospel pretends that an entombed person came alive from the mere presence of Jesus, it is as fishy as it can be. Because help was not readily available Jesus had to wrestle with the stone by himself and pull the entombed individual outside by the hand. The scene is pitiful and unconvincing. But because there are no outside witnesses Jesus just stays lodging with formerly entombed for a few days.

The takeaway of this piece of comparative literature is devastating for the image of Jesus. The only small consolation is that it is a deprivation of John the Baptist (who apparently was around when the scheme was tried the first time), and not Jesus himself that started this whole resurrection of the dead person travesty. Gchernya (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:not a forum. You do not need to prove that something is true to include it in the article- and should not! You need to provide a citation to a WP:reliable source that makes that claim.

TypistMonkey (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman thinks it's a forgery, but it is still a disputed matter, there is no academic consensus. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not qualified to throw the opinion about the letter, but the fragment has sister/brother scheme that was repeated in the resurrection of Lazarus, and verbal handshake (Son of David). If someone knew that much to forge the fragment, he would likely to know about the whole deception. "Mark" however, knew about the reality show, and was (obviously) hesitant to put in the Gospel such outrageous material. He did put Jarius daughter in, but that can be interpreted as delayed resuscitation (it was really a theater production - maybe performed, or maybe just scripted). Mark did not know if the readers will be that gullible as to accept any resurrection of already buried body as a fact of life, also he had both Lazarus and Secret Mark fragments in front of him (from the dossier of Jesus). As well known "Mark" only wrote a short ending of Gospel of Mark, out the very same credibility concern. When use of Matthew and Luke showed that readers of the Gospels able to "eat" resurrection of the buried body, someone wrote a long ending of Mark. "Mark" used fragment known as "Secret Mark" as promotional material for his, now canonic Gospel. Secret part was supposed to demonstrate to a few chosen ones (like church leaders) that Jesus is even more powerful than canonical Mark portrayed him to be. Just marketing gimmick. On the separate note, "Mark", during the writing of his hostile communication replaced John the Baptist and James the Just with disciples James and John. Protective swordsmen Simon/Peter and Judas/Juda kept their names, but not the roles in the story (described as another two disciples), and Jesus had a code-name, Joses. Mary Magdalene was an operation supervising officer of many talents. Gchernya (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTESSAY. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)