Ancient Letter, Modern Mystery: The “Secret Mark” Translation

Click to view larger image and caption.

While looking for ancient documents in the Mar Saba monastery library in the Judean Desert, scholar Morton Smith made a discovery that rocked the academic world: Copied onto the end-pages of a 17th-century book was a previously unknown letter from Clement of Alexandria, a second-century church father, which contained passages of a lost “secret” gospel of Mark. Over fifty years after this remarkable revelation, the debate over the authenticity of the document continues. But what did the letter say? What follows is Morton Smith’s translation as it appears in his book Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark.

Folio I Recto	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
5	bodily sins. \| ⁱ 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
10	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
15	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
20	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
25	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
I verso	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,
5	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
10	utterly shameless lies. From 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,
15	“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.”
20	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
25	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
2 recto	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
5	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
10	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,
15	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

[Here the fragment ends.]

Talkback

Add Your Comment

"With deep respect"

Gavin Lyall — (9/2/2011 5:22:38 AM)

Tselikas says: "I do not proceed to such personal criticism...To me these are parasites of real and true science." I see nothing in the way of personal attacks in Pantuck's response, especially on the order of "parasite".

• • • • • • •

allegedly forged but secret Mark book

effie maddara — philippines (6/17/2011 2:24:51 PM)

this "secret mark" need not be glorified! the four books on the gospel of the LORD Jesus Christ do synchronize well. whatever secret scenario this "secret intruder smith-clement tie up" is being played up, let's leave that to their name. do we want our hands messed up with smith-clement "SECRET MOTIVES?" let's just be aware that there are more 'false christs' littering around than genuine apostles of GOD'S Son. only Seth made it. only 8 made it. only 11 plus Paul, to them ONLY we listen

• • • • • • •

Re: Agamemnon Tselikas’ Handwriting Analysis Report

Sandor Arpa — United KIngdom (6/17/2011 12:05:07 PM)

I have to admit that I am no expert in Greek handwriting nor any biblical study. I took considerably time to read Tselikas' reports. At the end it seems to me less of a scientific study and rather a speculation.

• • • • • • •

Secret Mark

Cheryle Readus — USA (6/16/2011 3:47:27 PM)

I don't know what all the shouting is about. Where is your faith? Jesus was the Christ and helped and loved everyone..It didn't matter about color or wheather he was "Gay" or not, Christ loves us equally.

• • • • • • •

Ancient or Modern: Still a Forgery

Robert Bub — USA (6/15/2011 4:56:05 PM)

Any way you cut it the document Morton Smith published about is almost certainly a forgery. Even if Smith didn't forge it the person claiming to be Clement in the letter probably wasn't him. And who ever wrote the original "secret Mark" certainly wasn't the real Mark or even the person who actually wrote Mark which was actually written anonymously.

• • • • • • •

Prurient Interpretations

Bill McGee — United States (6/15/2011 1:13:29 PM)

A man dressed in a linen cloth can mean many things besides homosexuality. Initiation rites of all sorts require initiates to be dressed this way. Washing and anointing (to be made clean from the sins of the world), prior to instruction and initiation into the deeper mysteries, has a lot of precedent and does not have anything to do with homosexuality. The young man as novice and Christ as High Priest certainly hints at a secret Gospel intended solely for the inner circle of initiated disciples.

• • • • • • •

secret mark

stephan huller — (5/20/2011 5:24:09 PM)

It is wonderful to see a real expert who has the right to make pronouncements on whether the text is a forgery taking the opportunity to do so. Everything that has been written so far on the subject is utter nonsense. It is time now for everyone to start over again and assess the merits of Tselikas's analysis. It is obvious that he has spent a lot of time on this exhaustive study. The battle is far from over. In fact I'd argue it's just beginning. Here's to the pursuit of the truth!

• • • • • • •

Find the manuscript

Wieland — (2/22/2011 2:49:38 AM)

There are only two things that can prove anything: Either one finds a genuine Smith letter in which he admits the forgery, or, one finds the actual manuscript and can analyze it. Until then the case remains open, how ever many articles and books are written. So, find the manuscript!

• • • • • • •

novels

Peter Jeffery — USA (2/20/2011 12:53:57 PM)

On cannot argue that EITHER Smith was inspired by the Hunter novel OR he really discovered something. He could also have had a similar idea on his own without knowing the novel. Original ideas can occur simultaneously to people of the same historical period simply because they fit the tenor of the time: Leibniz and Newton developed calculus; Huxley and Darwin discovered evolution. "What if I discovered the definitive disproof of Christianity?" was the dream of many people in the 20th century.

• • • • • • •

Morton Smith and Secret Mark

Alan Barber — USA (2/9/2011 8:58:07 PM)

I'm surprised nobody mentioned Peter Jeffery's exhaustive study, "The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled," (Yale University Press, 2007). Jeffery's painstaking analysis shows quite convincingly that Smith DID forge Secret Mark, a forgery "steeped in anachronisms." Jeffery writes: "[Smith's tragedy is not] that he wasn't a good Christian, but that he wasn't even a very good Gnostic. Despite his [qualifications] and access to world-famous libraries, he wrote what he did not know."

• • • • • • •

Secret Mark Letter

Mark Deckard — USA (12/16/2010 8:07:36 AM)

I have yet to ascertain what Morton Smith had to gain by forging a letter from Clement. The letter is a repudiation of the verses of the so called Secret Mark. So if Smith was trying to manufacture evidence, to what end? If he was trying to denounce some attribution of homosexuality of Jesus, who in his time was making such a claim that he would need to fight it? There is plenty of canonical defense against that. Did ancient gnostics push a homosexual Jesus. That would seem very likely.

• • • • • • •

Naked in the night

Gregory Thomas — United States (11/4/2010 5:33:49 PM)

"A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind." Mark 14:51-52 I see no problem with the basic premise of the purported Secret Mark, It was not Jesus' first time being in the company of scantily clad men.

• • • • • • •

THE SECRET IS OUT...

S. H-R — USA (10/31/2010 4:21:11 PM)

Reading some of the naysayers comments is quite amusing. They seem to forget, the PATRIARCHATE has NEVER once DENIED the physical EXISTENCE of the SGM, and the letter appears prominently in the official writings of Clement of Alexandria today as a legitimate Clementine document, having been thoroughly studied by the top experts in the field. Once again, the Greek Orthodox Church has merely maintained that they’ve allegedly 'misplaced' the lost manuscript; they do not refute it actually existed

• • • • • • •

Secret Mark

A B Chrysler — USA (10/17/2010 7:38:29 AM)

It would be nice to know if these passages were forged or if they are authentic. If they are authentic, then the more important question would be whether the passages were inspired or not. I think that the passages are authentic but it is obvious that the Holy Spirit did not guide the pen that wrote them.

• • • • • • •

Secret Mark analysis

Diana Gainer — USA (5/20/2010 2:50:43 PM)

The handwriting analysis of Morton Smith and the document purported to be a letter by Clement of Alexandria made for fascinating reading. The differences between the two samples are certainly significant. Someone may have been a forger but it doesn't look like Smith was!

• • • • • • •

handwriting analysis of Secret Mark

don smith — USA (5/20/2010 11:43:51 AM)

No one could be happier hearing about BAR's handwriting expert vindicating Morton Smith. However, it has been suggested to me that a "second" expert commissioned by Hershel Shanks drew a different conclusion. If true, his/her analysis should be made public. Also, I can't help but wonder "WHY?"

• • • • • • •

Smith Forgery

Kenneth Shelton — USA (5/19/2010 9:18:36 PM)

I wondered why both sides couldn't be right? The letter is a "forgery", and Smith did not do it. Why couldn't it be the case that a monastic brother created the letter in the 18th century or earlier, just as many pseudo-apostolic and other extrabiblical texts have been done over the centuries? It is both "inauthentic" in that Clement didn't actually write it, but the document is legitimately from the period so stated.

• • • • • • •

date of examination opinion

harold buckingham — usa (5/19/2010 3:31:17 PM)

I am surprised that here appears to be no date on the examiner's opinion. Yet, she warns that her opinion could be changed by subsequent information/evidence. Other than interest, I have no stake in this debate.

• • • • • • •

handwriting analysis

Robert Conner — United States (4/16/2010 9:27:24 PM)

Those who had made the claim that Smith was a forger have done a perilously sloppy job of analysis. To my knowledge Carlson has no credentials in document verification or paleography, nor (unlike Smith) did he consult experts on Greek handwriting before publishing a disastrously flawed argument against the authenticity of the Clement letter. Ehrman's facile claim that Smith could have forged the handwriting does him no credit either now that samples of Smith's Greek handwriting have appeared.

• • • • • • •

Handwriting Expert Report

Timo S. Paananen — Finland (4/16/2010 1:41:20 PM)

I sincerely wish to thank BAR for getting the first professional handwriting analysis done on Clement's letter to Theodore. Of interest may be the new online article by Scott G. Brown and Allan J. Pantuck (http://salainenevankelista.blogspot.com/2010/04/stephen-carlsons-questionable.html) that discloses many of the weaknesses of the first handwriting analysis by Stephen C. Carlson, in which an opposite conclusion was reached.

• • • • • • •

Secret Mark

Jaclyn Y — USA (1/28/2010 7:36:05 PM)

There is one idea that seems to be missing from these musing. That Christ himself spoke in parable, and the bible (all chapters) is written in such a way that multiple interpretations can exist. After all, without this, the bible would have been outdated centuries ago. Therefore, just because this is read as homosexuality, does not mean that was the meaning. Perhaps this is symbolic of inocence, or mental openness, or a naked purity much like children have, etc. Teaching's not a narrow concept

• • • • • • •

Mark my words...

BJ English — (1/13/2010 6:36:53 PM)

I could see where Morton Smith might have thought this was real, but since the copied article in the book has since been removed from the library and the ink cannot be authenticated as dating to a certain time period, it would seem to me to be copied from a gnostic text, not the real Mark of Jesus' time. God condemned homosexuality and stated that no one who took part in it would enter heaven.Jesus said he did not come to change the words of his father but to uphold them. Jesus vs. Smith- choose

• • • • • • •

secret mark

stephan huller — (12/21/2009 3:22:43 AM)

Hi I just read your review and I wanted to alert you that a scholar has PROVEN that Carlson's methodology was fundamentally flawed to 'prove' the forgery hypothesis. http://salainenevankelista.blogspot.com/2009/12/tremors-or-just-optical-illusion.html As David Trobisch notes, "I read it right away but somehow forgot to let you know what I think. His arguments are absolutely clear and convincing. The "forgery" accusations only works with the low resolution photos.'

• • • • • • •

secret gospel

Robin Sheffield — USA (11/7/2009 12:25:27 AM)

It is an interesting idea. But I believe that I have heard speakers at BAS seminars explain why and how this "secret gospel" was truly a forgery. Morton Smith, if truly guilty of this, toyed with other people's religiosity. This is neither scholarly nor humane. But the article serves as a good reminder that not everything that passes for "gospel" should be believed.

• • • • • • •

An attempt to give Franke an answer.

Roger Viklund — Sweden (11/6/2009 1:01:29 PM)

In the 8th century, John of Damascus had access to at least 21 letters of Clement at Mar Saba. Some of these could have survived. If a letter for some reason were almost destroyed, either of age, fire, or if it was ordered to be destroyed because of its alleged controversial content, some conscientious monk maybe realized its immense value and decided to copy it before it was destroyed. And if no other paper was available (which seems to be the case), one could use the blank pages inside a book.

• • • • • • •

The "new" gospel of Mark

Mark Hillen — USA (11/5/2009 5:25:58 PM)

This does not sound like the writings of Mark or any other writing in the New Testament. I believe it is a fraud......

• • • • • • •

Taking one step further back

Franke — (11/5/2009 10:50:03 AM)

Whether Morton forged this document or not, I'll leave to experts. However, I do wish someone would take one step back and ask the question of how a copy of a second century document ended up in the 17th century book. Who could have originally copied it and where is the original? This seems to be a question that those who believe in its authenticity need to answer.

• • • • • • •

Secret Mark

Ong Siong Kai — Indonesia (11/5/2009 2:12:33 AM)

Thank you Dr. Craig Evans. Quite frankly I am surprised to see so many articles in BAR written by scholars bent on discrediting the Faith and with little balance from the other side of the fence. Let scholarship be unbiased and balanced not one with obvious pre-conceived bent. Frankly, only a fool can ever think that Secret Mark is the genuine stuff. It is obvious and that's why it did not stood the test of time as so many others.

• • • • • • •

Rowley

Miles — (11/4/2009 5:46:53 PM)

Such obvious promotion of homosexuality makes the document spurious. It also does nothing to add respect to the dubious proposition that Peter was ever in Rome.

• • • • • • •

Fraud?

Adam Crowl — Australia (11/4/2009 4:49:05 PM)

If "Secret Mark" had been demonstrated to be a fraud by Craig Evans then there wouldn't be any discussion. But unless Morton Smith left a signed confession vetted by witnesses there's no "proof", only suspicions. I think the correspondence between Smith and Gershon Scholem indicates that fraud is excessively unlikely.

• • • • • • •

Secret Mark and Craig A: Evans

Roger Viklund — Sweden (11/4/2009 12:36:08 PM)

In commenting on Richard Ball, who believes that we should Google Dr. Craig Evans in order to learn that Secret Mark has been exposed as a fraud, I would like to point out that Craig A. Evans is embarrassing ignorant on matters regarding Secret Mark. This I have shown in my article “One Thousand and One Untruths: How Reliable Is the Account of Secret Mark by Lee Strobel and Craig Evans?” http://www.jesusgranskad.se/strobel2.htm

• • • • • • •

Secret Mark

Fr. Joe O'Steen — USA (11/3/2009 5:22:20 PM)

David Landry, in Word And World (Luther Seminary: Journal, St. Paul Mn.)believes Carlson's "refutation" of the gospel, partly based on salt. Neither of them seem to recognize the quote from Matthew's Gospel, attributed to Jesus!:"if the salt has lost its savor..." I enjoyed your latest BAR essays on the subject. Joe O'Steen

• • • • • • •

Secret Mark is a Fraud

Richard Ball — Canada (10/21/2009 9:59:27 PM)

Secret Mark has been exposed as a fraud perpetrated by Morton himself -- Google Dr. Craig Evans.

• • • • • • •

Secret Gospel of Mark

Paul Ballotta — United States (10/16/2009 11:32:01 AM)

It's possible this mystery-religion baptismal initiation involved the ritual purification from coming into contact with a dead body mentioned in Numbers 19, particularly verse 4 where the sprinkling of the blood 7 times toward the sanctuary corresponds to the "the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by 7 veils." Also at the fortress of Kuntillet 'Ajrud there is a depiction on an 8th century b.c. storage jar of a bizarre ritual enacted by 2 figures wearing cow masks. Egyptian Hathor?

• • • • • • •

THE

ROBERT W. LAPOINTE — U.S.A. (10/14/2009 7:32:38 PM)

Thank you for this wonderful piece of our saint's writings. I loved reading it. Please do not stop - keep bringing us the facts of the past. One very happy Catholic. God bless you and all who read this. Bob Lapointe.

• • • • • • •

RECIPIENT'S NAME
ADDRESS 1
ADDRESS 2
CITY
STATE	ZIP
E-MAIL

Biblical Archaeology Review