Talk:Secret Gospel of Mark

message: Wetmen -- I enjoyed your inclusion of the information on "secrecy".  This article is thought-provoking. Especially when you put "secret Mark" in the context of the Gospel of Mark.  Is is possible that the disciple whom "Jesus loved" was either Lazarus, or Mary, the sister of Lazarus?
:Of course.. What other context could it be in? I take no credit for the notes by Robert M. Grant, (A Historical Introduction to the New Testament)-- written years before Clement's reference to Secret Mark was found, by the way.  Speculations on the identity of the "beloved disciple' are a separate story really. --Wetman 06:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your redlinks await: either Beloved Disciple or Beloved disciple, marshalling all the evidence and mentioning the candidates that have been discussed in print. (And let no reader detect what your opinion is!) --Wetman 12:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Disciple whom Jesus loved needs lots of work! --Wetman 08:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secrecy 

message: I found this to be an interesting article, although quite controversial.  I noted that Johnstone who put the disputed tag up in November 2004 has not done much to improve the article. I (Melissa) have tried to clean it up to meet Wikipedia standards.  I hope it meets with Johnstone's approval.  However, the article still needs more cleanup. (User:Melissadolbeer)
:The recent somewhat blurred edit has "Deleted what seemed irrelevant and POV", according to its Edit Summary.
*"Allegedly written" in the opening sentence: shall we intrude "allegedly written" in Gospel of Mark, which is less likely to have been written by its "alleged" author? Former text carefully read "a letter that presents itself as written." The "allegations" are inherent in the text itself.
*"Privately": "Gospel of Mark that was circulated privately". Why is "privately" suppressed? It is the essential nature of this gospel, as the letter-writer describes it.
*Reaction: "a storm of recrimination, denial and abuse" was too vivid and far too accurate for the censor, who substituted the flaccid cliché "much debate".  The reaction in print to the Mar Saba letter clearly needs a much more detailed subsection, with plenty of quotes to give the actual flavor of the abusive recriminations and denial, without characterizing them in any way.
*Suppressed "The controversy is currently unresolved" and substituted a resolution of the debate for Wikipedia's readers: " However, in both cases statistical evidence has been presented that the similarities are too good to be true and suggest a deliberate imitation rather than an authentic work." No use of "allegedly" in this context, one notes. Perhaps our censor will return to her handiwork and take these points into consideration, not invoking "NPOV" but  restoring neutrality. Having the tag removed is like losing an abcessed tooth: thank you! --Wetman 13:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just Google any of the salient words-- like Mar Saba Morton Smith Secret Mark-- and read how Morton Smith is accused of incompetency, intellectual dishonesty, fraud, forgery. You'll see why my hair stands on end! --Wetman 08:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting article 

message: User:Ashibaka suppressed the following text, which I have now restored:
:According to the letter, the Secret Gospel of Mark was "a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected" in Egypt. Because of the contents of the Secret Gospel, described below, it has been heavily controversial. On one hand, it clears up some inconsistencies in Mark which are all too mysterious, such as the scantily clad man in Mark 14:51-52, and the abrupt transition in Mark 10:46. On the other hand, it has some elements of a fiction: the backstory which explains the existence of the Secret Gospel, the convienient abrupt ending right before the Secret Gospel is explained, and the sole interjection from the Carpocratians that seems to bring the subtext of the Secret Gospel into the clear.
This utterly relevant and neutral text quotes the document being discussed, explains the controversy (vividly expressed by Ashibaka's suppression of all mention of it) and demonstrates that some text is indeed missing from Mark as we have it in the canonic version. When text is suppressed in this manner, it is a sign that more information needs to be added to the entry. Wetman 23:53, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be misled by "13" (April) and "18" (March). Look at the content and the sequence of these edits in the History... if you have that much empty time. Wetman 20:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppressing Content 

message: Okay, this article looks rather rough and connected to a certain theological faction. Look at it: does it deserve a "disputed" label? (NB: entered by Anonymous User:158.38.66.154: click on the link to see the other contributions by the Anonymous User!)
:Please identify what you consider "rough" and we will make it plain. We're trying only to get the facts straight. What is this unidentified "certain theological faction"? The "disputed" label has been rendered disreputable precisely by its use as a weapon in this fashion, usually by logged-in users. Wetman 18:59, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputedness 

message: Anyone interested in entering material on Morton Smith's book Jesus the Magician or on the subject of Jesus as a Hellenistic magician, etc, need only click on the link in the heading and start editing! The subject may be linked in its entry to Secret Gospel of Mark, for aught In know, and to other texts that document a secret history of Jesus as a magician. No need to clutter this Discussion. Wetman 19:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jesus the Magician]]

message: Shouldn't the prologue that Clement has in his letter before he quotes from the Gospel also be mentioned? I.e. his condemning of the claims that the gospel has the terms "naked man with naked man" ("gymnos gymnos" in Greek) in it. This puts into context exactly what the gospel was perceived to claim and justify by the Carpocrations, and why Clement quotes the passages to attempt to counter the claim. --81.156.179.151 19:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it should: any text that throws light directly on the lost Secret Mark is relevant to the entry. --Wetman 00:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carpocratians 

message: I have edited the text of the entry on Secret Mark to show that the Greek for "naked man with naked man" ought to be transliterated as "gymnon gymno." The two words are not identical; rather the first is in the accusative case while the second is dative to suggest "with." The first "o" in "gymnon" is an omicron while the final "o" in "gymno" is an omega. In transliteration, the latter should be an "o" with a line over it, but I don't know how to do that either in Word or html. Milesnfowler 16:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I modified the transliteration as you suggested. Below the edit box there are a number of special characters which one can click to insert into the text. Michael Slone 19:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliteration 

message: I think the fundamental issue is that at least a large minority of scholars, rightly or wrongly, do consider the Mar Saba letter to be a modern (18th or 20th century) forgery. 
For the sake of neutrality this should be made clear in the main article, although it is probably legitimate to say that most scholars regrd it as a genuine letter of Clement. 
This article is already rather long and would probably not be improved by a detailed discussion of the technical arguments pro and con authenticity. 
All that is necessary is a clear brief statement that the authenticity of the letter is a matter of scholarly dispute. 
sarban@supanet.com
:It certainly should be mentioned. But the bases for doubt should be briefly and colorlessly mentioned too (by someone sympathetic), as they are also quite revealing of agendas, without any overt commentary required. --Wetman 03:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for addition to the article.  I think it is a fair summation.  One question though: when you say that a majority of scholars accept the Mar Saba letter as being of Clement, do you mean Clement scholars in particular or any scholar with an interest in Secret Mark? --scc 18:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Osborn is about as major as they get, though.  Ursula Treu included it in the GSC edition "provisionally" to spur discussion, but I think Robert M. Grant is more optimistic about its authenticity.  My general sense of active Clement scholars is that, if they mention it at all, they usually note that its authenticity is disputed, and few articles really depend on what is in it.  Also, as you must certainly know, some good Clement scholars have taken positions in print questioning the letter's authenticity (e.g. Criddle 1995, Jakab 1999).  --scc 21:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  mentioning the controversy 

message: The Wikipedia article mentions part of what I think is one of the strongest and most interesting argument against Secret Mark's authenticity as the "real", "spiritual", or "original" version of canonical Mark when Wikipedia says: "Pierluigi Piovanelli is suspicious about the letter's authenticity as he thinks it is “the wrong document, at the wrong place, discovered by the wrong person, who was, moreover, in need of exactly that kind of new evidence to promote new, unconventional ideas”." It would be helpful to hear more what Piovanelli meant.
For me, the series of unlikelihoods or at least coincidences required for "Secret Mark's" authenticity include that: 
(A) An alleged early Christian ritual practice - private gnostic-style instruction involving possibly disrobing and in my reading of the passage, homosexual activity - that was unknown or very rarely known until M. Smith's 20th c. discovery, was related in 
(B) a gospel version (Secret Mark) that was unknown or very rarely known until the 20th c. discovery; the gospel version being related in
(C) a Second century Letter by a self-identified Clement of Alexandria (a "Pseudo-Clement" being also known in Church literature), unknown to the public until M. Smith's 20th century discovery, addressed to
(D) "Theodore" a Second century Christian leader (since he was able to take measures against the heretical version of "Secret Mark"), whose identity is unknown today; the letter being preserved
(E) in a flawless 18th century copy, which was unknown until Smith's 20th c. discovery, and which had been made in
(F) the back of a 17th century book of Ignatius' epistles, a book missing from lists of Mar Sabas' books catalogued before the mid-20th c. discovery and first catalogued by
(G) Morton Smith, a professor whose research had already linked topics also found in the Letter, eg. "the Kingdom of God", Mark's gospel, secretive early Christian rituals, and Clement of Alexandria. (Smith's articles being titled: "Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels", "Comments on Taylor's Commentary on Mark", "The Image of God: Notes on the Hellenization of Judaism, with Especial Reference to Goodenough's Work on Jewish Symbols"), and who went on to write the book "Jesus the Magician", which like the seeming secretive sexual practices in Secret Mark, would tend to be unsettling or embarrassing for traditional modern-day Christians. The description for Smith's book "Jesus the Magician" on Google says:
This book challenges traditional Christian teaching about Jesus. While his followers may have seen him as a man from heaven, preaching the good news and working miracles, Smith asserts that the truth about Jesus is more interesting and rather unsettling. (https://books.google.com/books?id=_XxaBQAAQBAJ&dq=%22morton+smith%22+homosexual+OR+homosexuality+magician&source=gbs_navlinks_s) Rakovsky (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: (A) and (B) are covered in the article. Regarding (C), the letter is not self-identified by Clement of Alexandria. The first line is a heading added by someone else at a later stage – the letter was possibly part of a collection as there obviously was a collection of at least 21 letters of Clement in Mar Saba in the 8th c. (also covered in the article). Regarding (D), there were, of course, a lot of Christians in those days that we’re unaware of. Nevertheless, Michael T. Zeddies has identified the author as Origen, not Clement (as apart from the later added heading, the letter does not reveal its author), and it so happens to be that Origen had a disciple named Theodore (known as Gregory Thaumaturgus). Anyway, although Zeddies’ theory is not included, the objection (D) is also covered in the article. (E) is covered in the article. The point (F) is missing from the article and should perhaps be added, although it plays no major part in the debate pro and con anymore. There was a list made in 1910 with 191 book titles and where the Vossius book was not included. But the list was incomplete. For instance, did Smith in his incomplete listing list 489 books. Accordingly, most books in the library were not included in the 1910 list and so the fact that the Vossius book was missing actually says nothing. The library was a total mess with books spread all over the place. And the point (G) is covered in the article. Roger Viklund (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 08:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your replies. (F) is significant. The absence of Vossius' book from the 1910 cataloguing of 191 of the library's few hundred books tends to suggest that the book was not present in the library in 1910. If you know that your car is in one of two parking lots (Lot #1910 and Lot #1958), and you do a survey that covers 40% of the first lot and don't find your car there, then your search makes it 20% more likely that your car is in the second lot. This is because the Percent unsearched in Lot #1958 minus the Percent searched in Lot #1910 = 100% ÷ 2 - 60% ÷ 2 = 80%. Hence it's more likely that the book was introduced into the library after 1910, like during Morton Smith's 1958 cataloguing and "discovery." Rakovsky (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Well, both the assumptions and the math are incorrect. We simply don’t know the number of books in the library. In the late 19th century (in 1857, 1864 and 1887) a large number of books (thousands) were transferred from Mar Saba to the Patriarchate Library in Jerusalem. In 1910, a list of 191 books, then presumably present in the tower library, was put together. Smith referred to 489 books in the tower library during his stay in 1958. Then at that time, there were at least 489 books in the library, but there could have been more. Smith never claimed to have listed all the books (his preserved notes end with item 489) but he estimated the number of books to between 400 and 500. There was also a second library, not included, the so-called Chapel Library. Further, we don’t know if books were added or removed in the time between 1910 and 1958, and if so, how many. Even if we would make the unjustified assumption that Smith listed all books and that no books had been added or removed in the 48 years between 1910 and 1958, only 191 of the 489 books presumably present in 1910 were included in the list and 298 books were unreported. That is, 61 percent of the books would not have been included in the list made in 1910 and consequently, it would have been more likely that the Vossius book had not been included in the 1910 list. But since everything is guesswork, no math can be done. Roger Viklund (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whether Authenticity Depends on a Series of Unlikelihoods 

message: I've replaced the remark
:"Starting with the Dead Sea Scrolls, textual discoveries in the later 20th century revealed a new understanding of the broadly divergent oral traditions and parallel texts..."
With this more accurate and inclusive review:
:"Starting with the recovery of the Didache, the papyri from Oxyrhyncus, the Nag Hammadi library and the Dead Sea Scrolls, textual discoveries through the 20th century revealed a new understanding of the broadly divergent oral traditions and parallel texts..."
I don't imagine this will raise a fury, but you never know... --Wetman
:The part you changed is now pretty good.  I have little idea what "broadly divergent oral traditions and parallel texts" is supposed to mean, though.  scc 09:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 20th century text discoveries

message: Questionable neutrality isn't this article's only problem. The text gets into issues of evidence for and against the Secret Gospel of Mark before it even hints at what the Secret Gospel is, somewhere around the 7th or 8th paragraph. I think some restructuring of the article is called for, with a clear and encyclopedic introductory paragraph that avoids charged expressions like "provoked a storm of recrimination, denial and abuse". It is annoying to have to read nearly half the article before figuring out precisly what the article is talking about. func(talk) 01:47, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So move the controversy down to the end. --Wetman 02:38, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused Article 

message: Is there much good evidence for other suspected forgers besides Smith? The subversive elements in Secret Mark are subtle, unlike Smith's conclusions. He thought Jesus was a wand-waving magician with a ressurrected boyfriend; I don't think this is implied at all in the text. If he was the forger, you'd think he'd have included better evidence for his claims. Not that I know very much about this, but it seems to if the document was a fake, it was made by someone less sensational than Morton Smith.--Cuchullain 23:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read Carlson's book. He shows that there are two jokes in the story that Smith placed there so people would eventually know he himself wrote it. The first is a reference to free-flowing salt, a concept which didn't exist until the 20th century and was invented by the Morton Salt Co. The second is the name of a Greek monk, but his name doesn't actually exist in Greek and is a made-up name based on a word that can mean both "baldy" (Smith lost his hair infamously early) or swindler (as Smith did with this all). Carlson does mention how Smith used Secret Mark in his own studies, which is a little more complicated than you say. CRCulver 04:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Carlson's book is not an ideal source for the Secret Gospel of Mark, and in any case you misrepresent his arguments.  There is no reference to "free-flowing" salt in the letter ascribed to Clement; the text speaks rather of salt that has lost its savor.  The name that Carlson finds suspicious does not occur in the text of the letter at all, or even in the book in which the letter is copied; it is written on the title page of another Mar Saba book altogether.  For a good evaluation of Carlson's book, see the recent review by Scott G. Brown, in the Harvard Theological Review, vol. 99, p. 291ff.  ECKnibbs 17:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Brown's review of Carlson in Harvard Theological Review isn't available through JSTOR. Could ECKnibbs add to the article a concise summary, with a  reference? Or does it belong at Morton Smith, since it's his posthumous reputation set at stake? Or both. --Wetman 19:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the discussion of forgery belongs here, though of course some mention on the Morton Smith page wouldn't hurt.  I'll add a bit on Brown's review of Carlson by the end of the week.  ECKnibbs 14:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added very breief summary of some of Carlson's evidence in the section on authenticity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beretta NZ (talk • contribs) 10:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Morton Smith as the forger

message: I removed the following section:
:[Not so, according to author John Dart who in his 2005 book "Decoding Mark" lays to rest any conceivable doubt of Secret Mark's authenticity by unveiling a matrix of chiastic codes embedded within the pages of the gospel of Mark. Secret Mark fits neatly back into Original Mark where it had obviously been omited. The young man naked before Jesus is none other than the beloved disciple, Lazarus, not John, as is the popular misconception.]
It even included the brackets. The wording does not seem to adhere to a neutral point of view. It needs to be reworded, and the argument spelled out a little better, probably with some links and citations. Wje 16:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also some factual mistakes; for example, John Dart's book was published in 2003.  Less enthusiastic reviews are found on-line in the Review of Biblical Literature.  Stephen C. Carlson 22:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue of Chiasms & Removed Section

message: I think this needs to be split into two articles: one on the Letter of Saba, and one on the Secret Gospel. As it is, the discussion of the two is intertwined and it's hard to tell at some points which text is being discussed.
There is a lot of emphasis on the controversiality of the contents. I've cut some of this out but I think more ought to go. 
A lot of this sounds like original analysis.
Mangoe 17:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV, Original Research Issues, and Splitting

message: In trying to sort things out I've decided that it's necessary to split out the material about the letter from the material about the secret gospel. Therefore I've replaced the redirect on Mar Saba letter with material from this page. All the material about the letter and its authenticity will go to that page, and all the discussion of the gospel excerpts will remain here. Mangoe 00:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: splitting the article

message: A much improved article. The following needs to have specific details added to it, because in its present form it does not actually transmit information, only hints: "Several further echoes of Secret Mark are identifiable in the canonic Mark, according to textual analysts." --Wetman 20:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hint needs details

message: I've restored the comparison with the Gospel of Thomas. It is true that the Oxyrhynchus finds predated those at Nag Hammadi, but identification of the former was predicated on the latter find. Mangoe 11:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK: I've changed the text to get rid of the erroneous implication that the Oxyrynchus fragments were "another work":  there is no indication that they were. Grover cleveland 16:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's try a combined version. Mangoe 17:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with Gospel of Thomas 

message: Please could someone familiar with this article fix up the final section of the article to make it comprehensible and verifiable?  Thanks,  Grover cleveland 02:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brian Bethune article

message: How can anyone doubt it? Surely both these documents were written by an eighteenth-century monk. He wrote it as a joke, not even with the intention of deceiving anyone but simply to amuse himself, and the whole thing's gotten out of hand. 
When I visited India, I came across Hindu and Jain monks who did nothing all the time but memorize texts. They sometimes amused themselves by writing imitations and parodies of the stuff they were memorizing, and these imitations would be indistinguishable (on literary grounds) from the original books themselves. They did it just for something to do. 
There were Christian monks in the same situation, and one of them wrote the Clement Letter and the Secret Gospel as a lark.  There's no doubt it's full of local in-jokes we'll never understand, and tongue-in-cheek stuff about "particular friendship."
When Smith first came across this stuff, scholars said it absolutely had to be authentic. Why? Because nobody, according to them, could have done such a fine imitation of Clement's style prior to the publication of the big-time glossary of Clement that hadn't come out yet. Now, isn't that ridiculous? A monk who spent huge amounts of his time memorizing and copying Clement couldn't do a keen imitation of Clement's style? 
This eighteenth-century monk, whatever world he's in now, is probably laughing himself silly over the stir he made with a little snippet he tossed off in his spare time. Tom129.93.17.174 03:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All very interesting, but without reference to reliable sources this is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Grover cleveland 04:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Clement Letter" and "Secret Gospel" are an 18th century put-on 

message: This article says "the copy that Morton is alleged to have discovered has been seen by nobody other than Smith. After the alleged discovery, the document disappeared from Mar Saba, the only evidence being photographs taken by Smith, at least one of which shows Smith's initials written on the page. The ink and fiber was never subjected to examination."
Mar Saba letter says "In 1976 a group of four scholars[3] visited Mar Saba, viewed the manuscript, and took color photographs of it. This visit remained unknown until 2003 when one of the party, G.A.G. Stroumsa, published an account of the visit.[4] In 1977 the volume containing the manuscript was taken to the library of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem. That same year, the manuscript pages were removed from the bound volume by the librarian Kallistos Dourvas, to be photographed and kept separately. These photographs were published in 2000. Subsequent attempts by scholars to view the manuscript have been unsuccessful."
This is a blatant contradiction.  I note that one of the articles has a source for the relevant text - and it is not this article.  So this article needs to be revised on at least this point.  GRBerry 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have cleaned up the controversy by adding a brief history of the MSS. Feel free to add refs as needed. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction between articles 

message: It is not clear to me why Carlaude removed the 'Ancient Christianity' category. Secret Gospel of Mark is a disputed document. Many scholars support its authenticity, so this should be reflected in the article. Since '20th-century Christian texts' is among the categories already, NPOV demands that either this should also be removed, or the 'Ancient Christianity' category be included.
--Dyuku (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories: restoring 'Ancient Christianity' 

message: I removed the section "The theory of a "secret initiation"", and tried to fix up the rest of the problematic parts. The section was quite confusing; it wasn't quite clear what its argument was. This stemmed in part from the problems with Bethune's article on which the argument relied. I've cut some unreferenced material, and rewrote what remained, trying to make some sense of it. So now the "Refimprove" tag can be removed. Dyuku (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing the remaining problems with this article 

message: This edit by User:Dylanstephens is problematic. 
This is what Dylanstephens added to the article:
"The significant words: 'And straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb' was dismissed by Morton Smith in his Secret Gospel pg 55 as 'the scream of Death, a demon about to be robbed of its prey'. If this letter does represent at least the true writings of a version of Mark that Mark had from Peter, this "cry" has a greater significance. The logical conclusion should be be that Lazarus was not dead, but merely symbolically dead i.e. defrocked. This lends credence to the theory that all miracles were symbolic."
But there's a problem with logic and clarity here. It's really difficult to see how "a great cry being heard from the tomb" can lead to the conclusion that "all miracles were symbolic".
So I invite Dylanstephens please to explain what he meant, or to clarify his addition. Otherwise, his contribution may be removed. Dyuku (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of "the cry" 

message: The repeatedly re-added paragraph on Roger Viklund is going to require further discussion before it can be included. Specifically, the source given is to a blog, which is not a reliable source.--Cúchullain t/c 19:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Cuchullain, I see what you mean about Viklund. But my revision went well beyond that one sentence about Viklund, so there was no need to reverse the whole edit. Just take out that one sentence about Viklund if you object to his stuff. Dyuku (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the spirit of BRD, if you get a revert, it's best to head to the talk page and discuss the matter, not to revert back. At any rate, Viklund was the real problem, since the source given was a blog; some of your wording changes were further based on that paragraph being there ("Still more recently..."). I've removed those again pending discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 12:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Roger Viklund

message: ^I don't know who wrote the above section title, but Stephen Huller claimed that Irenaeus knew of Secret Mark in this article: "Irenaeus Knew that Details of Secret Mark" http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2009/11/day-of-recompense-as-fulfillment-of.html Rakovsky (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Stephan is not the only person to argue that people knew about Secret Mark. Yuri Kuchinsky suggested that two fourteenth-century Coptic sources by Abu-'l-Barakat and the tenth-century writing by Macarius show knowledge of Secret Mark (Thomas Talley in support of Secret Mark). I have even myself in an article co-written with David Blocker highlighted the close similarities between the information in Secret Mark where Jesus is said to have spent the night in Bethany teaching the disciples about the Kingdom of God and the 14th century Hebrew treatise Even Bohan by Shem-Tob ben Shaprut ( A Fourteenth Century Text in which Jesus Taught the Kingdom of God During the Night at Bethany) The only published attempt to show that Secret Mark was known in Ancient time, that I am aware of, is made by Konstantinos Spanoudakis. In  he argues that “it looks as though Nonnus uses the precedent in the SGM (for him perhaps a version of the Lazarus story) as a subtext to construe part of the Staphylus/Botrys episode”. None of these attempts shows parallels that are strong enough to prove that SGM is authentic, especially regarding an issue of such great dispute. And further, the arguments are not so easy to explain. So, I have not (yet) included anything in the Secret Mark article about this, but thought that maybe Spanoudakis’ article could be included. Roger Viklund (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Irenaeus mentions Secret Mark in Against Heresies, why is there no mention of Irenaeus speaking of this document in the article?" 

message: The use of the phrase "And he remained with him that night" (as well as other idiomatic phrases) suggests that the text was composed in modern English and then translated into Greek.  That should be highlighted in the article.  
Overall, this article (in my opinion, falsely) suggests that the weight of scholarship is on the side of Smith; globally, it is almost universally rejected as a modern forgery by biblical scholars outside of the USA (and even there only a single faction supports it).  The article needs to be substantially rewritten to reflect the _true_ scholarly consensus rather than that of a few partisans  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.74.110.134 (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of idiomatic modern ENglish should be noted 

message: Academic/BAR source removals reverted, and POV comment "Academics from religiously-funded universities" - which was unsourced but more importantly doesn't seem to be true removed. Please discuss here since evidently related. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Likewise, recent removals on related bio [[Morton Smith]] restored

message: This is an exemplary article.  Origin of the Eucharist should be lucky enough to attract such editing talent.  Crossan says the naked man was nude for baptismal purposes.  I'll get the cite. Eschoir (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Fabulous

message: I've noticed a suspiciously liberal sprinkling of Scott Brown's work in this article. I would suggest that such abundant use of his work, especially in the forgery section, is unwarranted. Brown is to date the only person whose dissertation is on the Secret Gospel of Mark. That means if it turns out to be a forgery, his dissertation is worthless. He has an extremely vested interest in promoting the authenticity of the text, and it would be devastating to his career if the document proved inauthentic. At the least, some mention of this fact should be made akin to pointing out Neusner's fallout with Smith. Whole Wheat Ιγνάτιος (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that Brown should be downplayed. He is certainly a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, and one of the most significant writers on the topic. The article needs to reflect all the significant viewpoints of scholars in relevant fields. I think the solution will be to rewrite that and other sections to properly incorporate these viewpoints and give them their appropriate weight. Ehrman's Lost Christianities has a good overview of the entire situation that will be useful here.Cúchullain t/c 22:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: While agreeing with the Ehrman and later sources being the way forward, there is an issue with over-citing of Scott G. Brown, it's unfortunate but the fact is that he did indeed invest the earlier part of his career in what now widely known to be a hoax, which has parallels with sources in many similar situations. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think he's being over-cited. He's cited for the history of the manuscript after Morton, which isn't particularly controversial, and then mostly for his own attributed interpretation, which is certainly noteworthy. The article in general could be much better worded, though, and there are probably other parts of the debate we're not covering appropriately. This is the book to use.--Cúchullain t/c 16:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Scott Brown as a source

message: I'm wondering about the sourcing/notability of this content. Yes it's the conclusion of http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/secretmark.html from Crossan 1985, but why is Peter Kirby, the owner of the website, notable? Also the website doesn't appear to have been updated. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Peter Kirby?

message: Concerning the 1st sentence in the next-to-last paragraph.
I felt confident enough that the original statement about "the Voss book" was meant to refer to the "Vossius" book, so I corrected that myself.   I believe this sentence needs another correction, and I'd prefer someone more knowlegeable and/or with access to the Brown book in Note #43 evaluate & make the following change.
I suggest:
... comparing them to images of the Vossius book taken in 2000....
Should be edited to say:
... comparing them to Father Kallistos' color photographs of the Vossius book published in 2000....
77th Trombone (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor rephrasing needed in "Possible forgery" section:  2nd from last paragraph? 

message: >A review of Jeffery's book by W. V. Harris, where these accusations are dismissed; Times Literary Supplement, October 19, 2007 available online (access date 28 Feb 2009)
I tried to find an archived copy (Archive.org) or new version on the Times Literary Supplement site, but I was unsuccessful. A tireless editor could probably find a working link or hard-copy text. Anonymous-232 (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link to review 

message: With '...to photograph and re-cataloged them. However, the re-cataloging never happened...' has something been lost or should it be 'and re-catalogue'?
Is it time for the talk page to be archived? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cataloguing 

message: Considering that the subject of the article is only alleged to exist and that allegation relies entirely on the veracity of a document which has only been seen in photographic form, the article is far too credulous. I guess this is probably a mistaken attempt to maintain NPOV? Greater weight should be given to the many sceptical studies and books - the burden of proof is on Smith and his supporters, after all - than to the countervailing claims of authenticity. As is, a newcomer (like me) reading the article could easily get the impression that the Secret Gospel of Mark is more likely than not to have existed, which clearly isn't borne out by the research. 86.139.250.23 (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The document has not been seen "only in photographic form", though, but the independent verification of the manuscript's existence and second set of photographs of the manuscript were themselves unknown for 30 years - the which time most of the sceptical commentary was published, and which fact would have likely held a significant amount of weight in the outcome of the conclusions. All things being though as they be may, the forgery explanation does fail occham's razor when ALL of the details of all of the facts are considered (rather than cherry picking to emphasize the details that support a particular position and to gloss over the ones that do not). That is: ALL of the things that would have to have taken place in order for the document to have been a forgery are more improbable than all of the things that would be required to have happened in order for it to be authentic. Firejuggler86 (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV/balance 

message: The Wikipedia entry says: "If the two verses in Mark preceding Secret Mark are included, both stories tell us that the disciples are apprehensive as they fear Jesus’ arrest. In each story it is the sister whose brother just died who approaches Jesus on the road and asks his help; she shows Jesus the tomb, which is in Bethany", etc. I understand that the raisings of Lazarus (John 11) and of the youth (Secret Mark) have enough parallels that one can appear to be based on the other. It would make Secret Mark look more legitimate if the relevant part of the Lazarus story in John matched up with the relevant parts of Canonical Mark plus Secret Mark. However, when I line up the relevant texts, it doesn't look this way to me. Compare Mark 10:33-34 (ie. the part right before Secret Mark) with John 10-11:
Mark 10: 33. Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles: 34. And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again. John 10: 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. 24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. ... 39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand, 40 And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode.
To me this doesn't look really like the same timing and events in the two canonical passages: In Mark, Jesus is going to Jerusalem and warns that He will be killed there, whereas in John 10-11, Jesus is already at Jerusalem and He escapes the threats there of being killed. So while I can see a very loose parallelism (because topics include Jerusalem and the killing of Jesus), and I see how Secret Mark's made-up story about raising the youth could have been a reworked version of the raising of Lazarus, I don't see the close parallelism in the two canonical passages that the wikipedia entry does. I don't see the closeness, because the topics of Jerusalem and the killing of Jesus are major recurrent themes in different parts of the gospels. A forger could have just picked a place in canonical Mark where the two themes came together and inserted a reworked version of Lazarus' story because Lazarus' story in John is preceded by the same themes. Rakovsky (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Gospel of John was in broad accordance with the other gospels, that would be a much stronger argument..however, the extent of which the John gospel strays from the others is far too great for this to be a very meaningful argument against authenticity
Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation: The raising of Lazarus in John and of the young man in Secret Mark 

message: Whether one considers "Secret Mark" to be authentic or the "forgery of the century", as Jacob Neusner put it, one of the most interesting aspects for me about the text and the story of its discovery are the coincidences that they share with earlier literature. One might explain the coincidences by proposing that the 20th c. literature served as inspiration for a forgery by Morton or by someone associated with him:
(A) In The Mystery of Bar Saba by James H. Hunter (1940), an British detective, "Moreton", opposes the efforts of Nazis to plant a fake document at Bar Saba monastery that would undermine Christianity, whereas in real life, Morton Smith later claimed to have discovered the Mar Saba letter that in the view of many readers (including myself) would tend to be unsettling for its description of alleged homosexual occult early Christian rituals, and Morton Smith did go on to write the book Jesus the Magician that would reference the Letter briefly and also tend to undermine traditional Christian views.
(B) The Letter that M. Smith presented had been written into a copy of Isaac Vossius’ 1646 printed edition of Ignatius of Antioch's letters, which Bruce Chilton noted is itself relevant to the issue of forgery. Chilton may have referred to how there is a forged, Arian version of Ignatius' letters.
(C) In 1936, Otto Stahlin published a compendium of Clement of Alexandria's vocabulary and phrases, making it more practical for a later forger to draft documents and misatribute them to Clement of Alexandria.
(D) Angus Wilson's 1956 novel Anglo-Saxon Attitudes narrates the false discovery of a phallic fertility symbol in the grave of the seventh-century bishop Eorpwald, a disciple of the English Archbishop Theodore. In the novel, an archeologist planted the symbol to discredit the site's excavator and other scholars. According to Philip Jenkins, “much of the book depicts English gay subculture... By faking the discovery, [the archeologist] was subverting the heroic image that the modern-day church has of its founders... To a large degree, he succeeded, as scholars so uniformly accepted these bizarre claims and integrated them into their understanding of medieval faith.” (https://www.apocryphicity.ca/2014/04/19/philip-jenkins-new-source/). If M. Smith forged the Mar Saba Letter a few years after the novel was published, it could explain the source of the bishop "Theodore" in the letter. Tony Burke notes that "Jenkins sees a number of parallels between Wilson’s novel and Smith’s discovery: a forgery planted in an early Christian site, the association with the name Theodore, underground controversial clandestine practices, and accusations of sorcery (against Eorpwald in the novel, and against Jesus in Smith’s monograph Jesus the Magician)"(https://www.apocryphicity.ca/2014/04/19/philip-jenkins-new-source/), although Burke thinks that the coincides are unrelated to M. Smith's discovery.
(E) According to Andrew Criddle, in The Codex (published 1954 in a journal and separately in 1955), the scholar C.H. Roberts suggested that a very early manuscript of Mark played a central role in the beginning of Egyptian Christianity. A few years later in 1958, M. Smith made his alleged discovery of the Mar Saba Letter, which described Egyptian Christians as using "Secret Mark". Decades later in The Birth of the Codex (1983), Roberts largely retracted his theory of the early version of Mark.
More direct potential sources, references, or parallels to the content in Secret Mark include:
(A) The canonical gospels' stories of Lazarus' raising, the rich young man, the shrouded youth in Gethsemane and at the tomb, and the Beloved Disciple. I understand that there is mystery with the stories of the shrouded youth and the Beloved Disciple, but I don't find them necessarily and unintentionally "incoherent" like the Wikipedia entry suggests. I think that gospel authors sometimes left elements of their story deliberately mysterious or unclear, like the story of the water carriers at Jerusalem's gates.
(B) According to Stephen Huller, Irenaeus (late 2nd c.) knew of Secret Mark (http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2009/11/day-of-recompense-as-fulfillment-of.html)
(C) Origen (late 2nd-early 3rd c.) cited the Clementine Recognitions as telling a story of Clement of Rome taking Barnabas and educating him overnight in the mysteries, IIRC, according to a discussion on the Early Writings forum.
(D) Nonnus of Panopolis (late 4th-5th c.) may have construed the Staphylus/Botrys episode based on something like Secret Mark, according to K. Spanoudakis, as Roger Viklund mentioned earlier in this talk section.
(E) Y. Kuchinsky suggested that 2 fourteenth-century sources by Abu-'l-Barakat and a tenth-century writing by Macarius show knowledge of Secret Mark, as R. Viklund mentioned also.
(F) Shem Tov's version of Matthew (c.1385) has places that resemble passages from Secret Mark, as R. Viklund has mentioned.
(G) Whereas the typical early Christian model for initiation seemed to be a catechumenate period, followed by water baptism, "Secret Mark" seems to present a motif where the young man is raised from the dead out of a tomb and then learns secret mysteries from Jesus. This motif reminds me of Freemasonry's ritual initiation, where the initiate is "raised a mason" out of a coffin and then given secret teachings. (See eg.: Death, Burial and Resurrection
in the Masonic Lodge, http://www.emfj.org/dbr.htm) 
Rakovsky (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coincidences with or Inspirations from other literature 

message: 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  hatnote linking to the other article. Dan from A.P. (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Section move proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Scott Brown vs. the World