BC2 Longer Gospel of Mark

Marco de Vos (9237666)

Framing Stories
A study of narrative elements in the Longer Gospel of Mark

Paper aangeboden aan: Prof. Caroline Vander Stichele

Departement Godgeleerdheid, Faculteit Geesteswetenschappen, Universiteit Utrecht

Als onderdeel van de cursus: Buiten-Canonieke Teksten II RTMD10056

Marco de Vos 9237666 14 januari 2012

BC2-LongerGospelMark.doc - Version 2012/01/16

Page 1 of 15

BC2 Longer Gospel of Mark

Marco de Vos (9237666)

Contents

1 2

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................3 The primary source ..................................................................................................................4 2.1 2.2 2.3 Overview of the text ..........................................................................................................4 Discovery and Controversy ...............................................................................................5 The literary perspective.....................................................................................................6

Narrative techniques in Mark and the Longer Gospel ................................................................7 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Narrative techniques in Mark.............................................................................................7 Inserting the fragments .....................................................................................................8 Intercalating Mark 10:35-46a.............................................................................................8 Framing the Passion .........................................................................................................9 Closing the gaps .............................................................................................................10 Consequences for the interpretation................................................................................ 11 Consequences for the authenticity .................................................................................. 12 Consequences for the Sitz im Leben ............................................................................ 13

Consequences for the primary source .................................................................................... 11 4.1 4.2 4.3

Conclusions ...........................................................................................................................14

Cover: Rossano Gopels: folio 8v, showing Mark recording the story of Christ Before Pilate, 6th C vellum codex, Rossano, Italy Cathedral Treasury (from http://www.oberlin.edu/images/Art315/Art315a.html). Mark is writing on wax tables, but one wonders what the scrolls at his feet have to add

BC2-LongerGospelMark.doc - Version 2012/01/16

Page 2 of 15

BC2 Longer Gospel of Mark

Marco de Vos (9237666)

Framing stories a study in narrative elements of the Longer Gospel of Mark In 1958, prof. Morton Smith discovered a copy of a letter that claimed to be written by Clement of Alexandria and described a longer version of the gospel written by Mark, including two quotes. This small and incomplete letter and two minute quotations have given rise to extensive discussions, both scholarly and popular, and often in mixed form. Partly because Morton Smith drew far-reaching conclusions in his first publications based on the scarce material, major controversies arose on the authenticity of the letter and the gospel it describes. After an interlude of almost a decade in which no new methodological elements appeared, Scott Gregory Brown studied the gospel fragments from a literary critical perspective, relating their literary and narrative structure to the canonical gospel of Mark. His PhD thesis brought a fresh scholarly perspective in the discussion. Brown proposes that the Longer Gospel of Mark was an Alexandrian expansion of the canonical gospel, intended to give a more profound understanding of the mystery of the kingdom of God. The present paper first seeks to verify Browns claims that the Longer Gospel of Mark uses the same narrative framing techniques applied in the gospel that was included in the canon. Then the consequences for the interpretation and background of the Longer Gospel are considered. Based on another literary feature shown by the canonical gospel, an alternative primary purpose for the Longer Gospel is proposed: releasing the suspense created by the narrative reticence in the canonical gospel. 1 Introduction

This paper deals with a letter allegedly written by Clement of Alexandria that refers to and quotes from a longer version of the gospel by Mark. The purpose of the paper is to verify the recent literary approach to this longer gospel 1, and to rethink the consequences for its meaning and motivation.

First the primary source is described, and a brief overview of the controversies surrounding it is given. Then an analysis is made of the main the narrative techniques used in the version of Mark that was included in the canon (further referred to as the canonical gospel of Mark, GM or Mark). The fragments from the assumed longer gospel (further referred to as the Longer Gospel of Mark2 or LGM) are then placed into Mark and analyzed for their impact on literary structure. The consequences of this analysis are discussed: for the interpretation of LGM, the authenticity of the primary source, and the possible Sitz im Leben of the longer gospel. Finally some conclusions are drawn.

Scott G. Brown, The More Spiritual Gospel: Markan Literaty Techniques in the Longer Gospel of Mark, PhD Following Brown who calls the denominator secret for this gospel an unfortunate epithet (Brown 1999, pg 2,

thesis, Centre for the Study of Religion, University of Toronto, 1999.

2

note 2). The primary source refers to a mustikon euaggelion, but since the meaning of mystery is ambiguous, I prefer to use the neutral denominator longer.

BC2-LongerGospelMark.doc - Version 2012/01/16

Page 3 of 15

BC2 Longer Gospel of Mark

2 2.1 The primary source Overview of the text

Marco de Vos (9237666)

The primary source considered in this paper consists of three handwritten pages found at the end of a printed edition of Ignatius letters by Isaac Voss, published in 1646. According to the text these pages contain a copy of the first part of a letter written by Clement of Alexandria (~150-216). Translations of the source can be found in Smith and Brown 3.

The letter describes the following context. A certain Theodorus (not otherwise known) has been confronted by Carpocratians, a libertine Gnostic group known from other sources . The Carpocratians justify some of their libertine practices on a longer version of the gospel of Mark. Confronted by these claims, Theodorus has asked Clement for advice. Clement now answers that there is indeed an extended, more spiritual version of Marks gospel that Mark wrote in Alexandria. This version is not used for public reading, but only for those being initiated in the megala musteria. Clement describes how the Carpocratians got hold of a copy and corrupted it to support their teachings. He then gives two quotes from the Longer Gospel, putting them in the context of the earlier version (which is assumed to be the version that was included in the canon).
4

The first fragment (further referred to as LGM1) describes how Jesus arrives in Bethany. A woman asks Jesus for help as her brother recently died. Jesus resurrects the brother. This young man loves Jesus and wants to be with him; they stay at his house. Then afer six days, Jesus gave charge to him; when it was evening the young man comes to him donning a linen cloth upon his naked body, and he remained with him that night; for Jesus was teaching him the mystery of the kingdom of God.5 After this Jesus leaves. The second fragment (further referred to as LGM2) describes how Jesus, upon entering Jericho, does not want to receive the sister of the young man, his mother 6 and Salome.

Clement refers to the Carpocratian modifications, refuting them. The text stops at the point where he starts to describe the true teachings of the longer gospel. The longer gospel is referred to in the text as a pneumatikwteron euaggelion and a mustikon euaggelion. This is in line with its reserved use for those who were further initiated, whatever the great mysteries may refer to. It should be noted though that Clement also stresses that Mark did not write everything down: there are things

Morton Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, In particular Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, III.2 and Ireneaus from Lyons, Contra Heresis I.25. For ease of reference, LGM1 is split in the resurrection (LGM1a) and teaching (LGM1b) It is unclear whether this refers to the mother of the young man or to Jesus mother.

1973. Quotes in this paper are from Brown, 1999 unless otherwise stated.
4 5 6

BC2-LongerGospelMark.doc - Version 2012/01/16

Page 4 of 15

BC2 Longer Gospel of Mark

Marco de Vos (9237666)

not to be uttered; there are hierophantic teachings of the Lord that should not be written down. This is consistent with Clements other writings.7 2.2 Discovery and Controversy

The primary source was found by Morton Smith in 1958, while searching for manuscripts in the library of the monastery of Mar Saba. Smith took black and white photocopies of the pages but had to restore the book to the library. He announced his findings at the 1960 Annual Meeting of the SBL. He published the results only after long years of study in 1973, simultaneously in a scholarly work and a popular book.

The scholarly work gives a detailed and careful analysis of the text, including comments from experts in the field and Smiths response to these. Smith compares both the thoughts and the language of the text to the non-contended works of Clement and contemporary writers. Based on this analysis, Smith concludes that the text is a copy of an authentic letter by Clement. Based on his analysis of the fragments, he concludes that these are not written by Clement, but were derived from an Aramaic source. He claims this source was also at the basis of John 11:1-44, but preserved here in a more primitive, hence older form.

A significant part of Smiths work is formed by a chapter on Backgrounds, where he concludes that LGM1b describes a mystery rite that was actually performed by the historical Jesus. He claims that in this rite, Jesus through hypnosis and magic incurred a spiritual experience in the initiate. This filling with the spirit freed the initiate from the obligations of the law. He therefore suggests that the version used by the libertine Carpocratians may well have been the original version. En passent Smith also suggested homo-erotic elements in the rite. This brief allusion may have been a major cause for the upheaval caused by his discussion of the Secret Gospel.

Smiths thorough analysis of the text was generally praised, and the dispute on the authenticity of the letter was initially quite balanced. Smiths conclusions on the longer gospel, however, were widely contended. Suspicion was raised that the letter was a recent forgery. The vocabulary of the text contained significantly more words specific too Clement than any single of his non-contended works. Also the fragments were considered to be a patchwork composition based on other parts of Mark. Personal attacks on Smith, relating to his personality and assumed motives, started to play an increasingly dominant role in the debate.

This was strengthened by the fact that for decades the only sources for the text were the photographs Smith made. The primary source itself was not available, as Smith left it at Mar Saba.

E.g. Stromateis I.13.2 which mentions things [the Lord] did not reveal to the people on the street [but only

to] those who can accept the mysteries and be confirmed to them. Quotes from the Stromateis are from John Ferguson, The Fathers of the Church, Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, Books 1-3, CUAP, 1991.

BC2-LongerGospelMark.doc - Version 2012/01/16

Page 5 of 15

BC2 Longer Gospel of Mark

Marco de Vos (9237666)

Strousma8 describes how the book was taken to the library of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem, where the manuscript pages were separated from the book and photographed 9. Researchers have not been granted access to the text since 1976. Physical analysis has thus been impossible. Statistical analysis and handwriting studies have been inconclusive.10 2.3 The literary perspective

More recently, two new elements that both could be termed literary in some way entered the debate. Strousma11 published an analysis of the correspondence between Smith and the famous Jewish scholar Gershom Scholem. This clearly shows the development of Smiths thinking on the text, and it is highly implausible that these letters were faked or forged. 12

The other more formally literary approach was by Scott G. Brown, who made a literary analysis of LGM, published first in his 1999 PhD thesis and then in a more popular book Marks Other Gospel 13. In both works, Brown gives a level-headed analysis of the controversy. He traces and verifies secondary sources (where indeed many other publications took these for granted) and exposes several folk tales 14

He then applies recent insights in narrative structure and literary analysis to the longer gospel. This opens several new perspectives on the text. One new methodological element is that he considers not just the fragments, but LGM as a whole, insofar as possible. Unfortunately all we know of LGM is GM with LGM1 and LGM2 inserted at the places described in the letter. This shows the major limitation of Browns approach. Nevertheless, assuming LGM to be a literary unity, extending GM with stories and statements like LGM1 and LGM2 allows for an analysis of narrative structure.

Gedaliahu A.G. Stroumsa, Comments on Charles Hedricks Article: A Testimony, Journal of Early Christian Charles W. Hedrick, The Secret Gospel of Mark: A Stalemate in the Academy, Journal of Early Christian Stephen C. Carlson, The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smiths Invention of Secret Mark, Waco, TX: Baylor University

Studies, 11-2, pp 147-153, 2003; pg 147-148

9

Studies, 11-2, pp 133-145, 2003.

10

Press, 2005 is a recent demonstration, trying to provide convincing proof but apparently using inadequate handwriting studies are definite proof, see Scott G. Brown, The Letter to Theodore: Stephen Carlsons Case against Clements Authorship, Journal of Early Christian Studies 16:4, pp 535572, 2008.
11 12

Strousma, op.cit. pg 150 vv. Ehrman finds these arguments inconclusive, see Bart D. Ehrman, Response to Charles Hedricks Stalemate, Scott G. Brown, Marks Other Gospel: Rethinking Morton Smiths Controversial Discovery, Waterloo, ON, Like the common claim that no one had seen the manuscripts after 1953.

Journal of Early Christian Studies, 11-2, pp 155-163, 2003.

13

Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2005.

14

BC2-LongerGospelMark.doc - Version 2012/01/16

Page 6 of 15

BC2 Longer Gospel of Mark

Marco de Vos (9237666)

3 3.1

Narrative techniques in Mark and the Longer Gospel Narrative techniques in Mark

Before we consider LGM, we first have to identify the narrative techniques applied by the author of Mark. For the purpose of this paper we limit ourselves to two main characteristics. The first apparent characteristic is that Mark applies structure and connections at all levels. There are recurring themes (e.g. seeing) and keywords (e.g. bread) that span the whole gospel. The overall structure shows an arrangement of major parts with highly symmetrical sizes.15

At the level of many chapters, we can identify framing stories that bracket several narrative blocks. For instance, the central part of Mark is framed by two stories where a blind man is healed (Mk 8:2226 and 10:46-52). In between, the disciples get an increasingly clear view on Jesus as Messiah. So the framing stories introduce themes that are important to or developed in the framed narratives. At an even more local level we see recurring structures. For instance, Mk 8:31-9:1, Mk 9:30-37 and Mk 10:32-42 show a recurring pattern of passion prediction, misunderstanding by disciples and teaching on discipleship. Finally, Mark uses intercalations, where a narrative is temporarily interrupted by another story. An example is the healing of Jairus daughter, which is interrupted by the healing of the bleeding woman. The pattern of an intercalation is: A1 B A2 GM 5:22-24 GM 5:25-34 GM 5:35-43 Jairus asks Jesus to heal his daughter Healing of the bleeding woman (has been ill for 12 years) Healing of Jairus daughter (reported to be 12 years old)

The stories mutually interpret each other, and there are usually verbal clues that connect the interrupting story (B) with the enclosing narrative (A=A1+A2). The second apparent characteristic considered here is that Mark leaves gaps in the narrative. A clear example is the musterion thv basileiav in Mark 4:11, which is not further explained. Also the reader is left to ponder on the reasons for the Messianic Secret (that Jesus is the Messias has to be kept secret). The Hebrew Bible makes extensive use of such narrative gaps, but there the function is most often to hold back moral judgment16. This function is not present in Mark, as the examples given above clearly indicate. The function rather seems to be to create suspense, a tension that forces the reader to think about whats not being said.

15 16

Bas M.F. van Iersel, Belichting van het Bijbelboek Marcus, KBS, 1986. Marco de Vos, Onder de oppervlakte, BSc thesis, Utrecht, 2010 and references therein.

BC2-LongerGospelMark.doc - Version 2012/01/16

Page 7 of 15

BC2 Longer Gospel of Mark

3.2 Inserting the fragments

Marco de Vos (9237666)

We will now consider these narrative techniques for LGM. Our best reconstruction of LGM is GM with the fragments inserted at the places identified by the letter. The narrative in the direct environment of the fragments than becomes:

GM 10:32-34 LGM1

Passion prediction (The Son of Man will be delivered ) Raising of the young man Instruction of the young man Jesus leaves

GM 10:35-46a

John & James ask for the places of honor Instruction to be each others servant Arrival at Jericho

LGM2

The young mans sister, his mother and Salome are there Jesus refuses to receive them

GM 10:46b-52

Leaving Jericho Healing of blind Bartimeus

It should be noted that by inserting LGM1 at this place, a recurring structure in GM is broken. LGM1 interrupts the recurring pattern of passion prediction, misunderstanding of disciples and teaching on discipleship described earlier. 17

3.3

Intercalating Mark 10:35-46a

18

Brown states that LGM1 and LGM2 frame Mark 10:35-46a, thus making the story an intercalation .

A1

LGM1

Raising of the young man Instruction of the young man

GM 10:35-46a

John & James ask for the places of honor Instruction to be each others servant

A2

LGM2

Jesus refuses to receive the three women

For this sequence to be an intercalation there has to be continuity between LGM1 and LGM2. Indeed the young mens sister, which appeared in LGM1, reappears here. There is no direct narrative clue connecting the framing story to the framed narrative (like the mention of 12 years in Mk 5:22-43). But neither do we find such clues in Mk 11:12-26, which is generally considered a clear example of an intercalation.

17

Scott G. Brown, On the Composition History of the Longer (Secret) Gospel of Mark, JBL 122:1, pp 89-110. Brown, 1999, pg 293 vv

2003.
18

BC2-LongerGospelMark.doc - Version 2012/01/16

Page 8 of 15

BC2 Longer Gospel of Mark

Marco de Vos (9237666)

In other ways though, the structure seems atypical. LGM1 seems to be complete without LGM2, whereas the other Markan intercalations require A2 to complete A1. Brown considers this a matter of the degree to which A1 and A2 complete each other 19, but that seems not entirely satisfactory. Of course it might be that for the first readers LGM1 was incomplete, and required a closing statement referring back to the sister. There could be thematic continuity: at first Jesus did grant the request of the sister, but now that the young man has become a disciple, he no longer wants to receive her.20 It should also be noted that LGM2 is significantly smaller than LGM1. All other Markan intercalations have A2 significantly longer than A1. Brown justifies this on the nature of the story.
21

However, from

a narrative perspective, the story about John and James could have been placed between LGM1a and LGM1b just as well. So the intercalation remains atypical. Also one wonders how likely it is that the two small fragments we have, happen to create an intercalation 22 3.4 Framing the Passion

Brown also states that LGM has framing stories around the passion narrative. He bases this on the reuse of keywords and themes in GM10:32+LGM1+LGM2 and GM 16:1-18.

F1

GM 10:32 LGM1 LGM2 GM 10:46b-15:47

Jesus goes before his disciples to Jerusalem Resurrection of a young man by Jesus Introduction of three women, including Salome The events in Jerusalem Three women, including Salome Jesus resurrection reported by a young man Jesus goes before his disciples to Galilee

F2

GM 16:1-8

Indeed the level of reuse is comparable to e.g. the two healings of a blind man that frame the central part of Mark. The framing stories as identified above do indeed flag themes that are developed in the passion narrative23. Nevertheless, the situation is much more complex.
24 First it should be noted that GM already shows symmetry between 1:1-15 and 15:40-16:8 . Both

units are of roughly equal size and their transition is marked by a confirmation that Jesus is the Son of God (the voice from heaven and from the centurion respectively25). There is no strong indication of reuse of keywords and themes in these two sections. We should therefore not try to identify them
19 20 21 22 23

Brown, 1999, pg 273. Echoing Mk 10:29. Brown, 1999, pg 254. C. Vander Stichele, comment during presentation. It is clear that the framed section contains much more than just the passion. Brown apparently refers to the Van Iersel, 1986. A third expression occurs close to the centre of Mark in Mark 9:7, again from heaven.

passion because it is here that the themes flagged in the framing stories are developed.
24 25

BC2-LongerGospelMark.doc - Version 2012/01/16

Page 9 of 15

BC2 Longer Gospel of Mark

Marco de Vos (9237666)

as framing stories around the entire gospel. Rather they form the introduction and conclusion. If LGM has 16:1-18 as the closing framing story (F2), it seems to break the symmetry of the overall composition of Mark.

More damaging to Browns hypothesis is that the introduction of the three women in LGM2 is ambiguous. Therefore it is not obvious that they are indeed the same as the three in 16:1. The three are unambiguously introduced in 15:40. So if the author of LGM2 wished to frame the passion narrative, why did he not introduce the three women more clearly?

A final, an in my opinion conclusive argument against Browns hypothesis is the fact that the first framing story (F1) is a multi-event narrative. All framing stories in Mark are single event, and are much shorter. F1 is a long, complex structure itself, including the intercalation discussed above. If the author of LGM wanted to frame the passion, he would have had to limit F1 to GM10:32, LGM1a and LGM2. So although there is reuse of themes and keywords, it does not seem plausible that LGM has framing stories around the passion. 3.5 Closing the gaps

Let us now turn to the second literary technique mentioned: the narrative gaps left by Mark. The fragments leave many things open. What is the meaning of Jesus teaching [the young man] the mystery of the kingdom of God? What is the reason for mentioning that the young man only wore a linen sheet over his naked body? Why did Jesus refuse to receive the three women? It seems plausible than that LGM applies narrative gaps in much the same way as GM does. 26
27 However, the fragments also fill in some of the gaps we find in the canonical gospel . The table

below compares the three occurrences of neaniskov in LGM. neaniskov ... peribeblhmenov sindona epi gumnou kai eiv tiv neaniskov ... peribeblhmenov sindona epi gumnou neaniskon kayhmenon ... leukhn

LGM1:10 GM 14:51 GM 16:5

GM 14:51-52 introduces a young man, wearing a linen sheet over his naked body. In the canonical gospel, he appears without any background. It seems entirely plausible that LGM1 refers to the same anonymous youngster. Then LGM1 provides at least some background to GM 14:51-52. The young man is a disciple of Jesus, and his habit of wearing light cloths is put in a context of instruction or initiation. Although this does not resolve the tension of the narrative gap completely, it does fill it partially.

26 27

Brown, 1999, pg 248 vv. Brown, 1999, pg 380.

BC2-LongerGospelMark.doc - Version 2012/01/16

Page 10 of 15

BC2 Longer Gospel of Mark

Marco de Vos (9237666)

Brown states that all three occurrences refer to the same neaniskov. 28 This would then lead to a narrative where the young man is resurrected by Jesus, is taught the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, nevertheless is not prepared to share in Jesus passion, but finally is restored, giving a new clothes and a new function as a messenger. 29

Also LGM2 fills in a gap in the canonical gospel. What happened in Jericho between GM10:42a,b? LGM2 does not resolve the tension completely, but gives us some relieve: there was an encounter with three women. Unfortunately we are now left with a new question: why did Jesus refuse to receive those women? So in its literary structure, as far as we can infer from the two small fragments, LGM seems on the one hand to fill in some narrative gaps, replacing them by new ones.

4 4.1

Consequences for the primary source Consequences for the interpretation

Assuming LGM1+Mark 10:35-46a+LGM2 form an intercalation, what consequences does that have to the interpretation of the text? Brown infers that this sequence stresses that discipleship means leaving everything behind and being prepared to suffer. 30. As the framing stories (A1,A2) and the included narrative (B) interpret each other, the focus indeed seems to be on discipleship. Whereas the young man wants to be with Jesus, coming without signs of honor (only the linen sheet), John and James want to sit next to Jesus, occupying the places of honor. Browns argument seems to be consistent, and his conclusion that LGM here extends Marks theology well supported.

Assuming the passion narrative is framed as described above, what consequences does that have for the interpretation? Brown states that the framing stories highlight that even this selected disciple fails, leaving the sign of his initiation behind (Mark 14:51-52), but that he finally is restored (in dress and function) to pass on the good news. 31 This chain of events is plausible, and might extend a shorter but similar line already present in the canonical gospel (between GM14:51,52 and 16:5). Brown also states that the fact that Jesus did not want to receive the three women signifies their failure to carry on the news of the resurrection.32 This argument ignores the careful introduction in GM 15:40 and 47, and contradicts the positive way in which the women are introduced there. So this interpretation seems not warranted.
28 29

Brown, 1999, pg 325 vv Brown, 1999, pg 326; note that this analysis is valid even if the framing of the passion as discussed above is Brown, 1999, pg 296. Brown, 1999, pg 326. Brown, 1999, pg 344.

rejected.
30 31 32

BC2-LongerGospelMark.doc - Version 2012/01/16

Page 11 of 15

BC2 Longer Gospel of Mark

Marco de Vos (9237666)

Overall, Brown concludes that in LGM the mystery of the kingdom of God is the paradox that one saves one's life by losing it, and loses one life by saving it.33 The analysis given above confirms that the intercalation indeed interprets GM 10:35-46a this way. The connection of the neaniskov stories supports this interpretation as well. The framing stories around the passion seem much less plausible and thus do not add to the evidence. 4.2 Consequences for the authenticity

LGM demonstrates literary features that are used in GM as well, but were not known and recognized as such before the 1980s. Therefore Brown claims that the fragments cannot be a modern forgery. Indeed a modern forger could not have applied these techniques intentionally. But we can never rule out that they happen to be there unintentionally, either by pure chance, or because a forger intuitively adopted them in his imitation of Mark. The intercalation discussed above, though atypical, seems intentional, and therefore supports the case that the fragments are either authentic or an early forgery. The framing story around the passion deviates too much from other framing stories in GM, and therefore cannot be used in defense of authenticity34.

Brown concludes (contra Smith) that LGM is later than GM. One argument is that GM 14:51 has tiv neaniskov, indicating that the young man was not introduced earlier. recurring structure
36 35

Also, LGM1 clearly breaks a

in GM. The present analysis has shown that the fragments break other patterns

in GM as well. Therefore there seems to be strong evidence that LGM was written later than GM. Since the same literary techniques are used, Brown assumes LGM was written by the author of Mark 37 or one of his disciples. Since LGM ruthlessly breaks several patterns in the original composition of GM, it seems not likely that the author is the same. In fact, the breaking of patterns might indicate that the author of LGM had not recognized these structures. Someone from the circles around the author of GM seems more likely.

33 34

Brown, 1999, pg 364. Of course the absence of framing stories around the passion cannot be used as an argument against Brown, 1999, pg 59. See 3.2 above. Mark himself (whoever that person was), Brown, 1999, pg 258.

authenticity.
35 36 37

BC2-LongerGospelMark.doc - Version 2012/01/16

Page 12 of 15

BC2 Longer Gospel of Mark

4.3 Consequences for the Sitz im Leben

Marco de Vos (9237666)

Smith interprets LGM1b as a mystical initiation rite performed by the historical Jesus. For this, he has to amend the text : Edidaskh Edoken
38

for Jesus was teaching him the mystery of the kingdom of God for Jesus was giving him the mystery of the kingdom of God

His reasoning also rests on the assumption of an older, original Aramaic source. All this is highly speculative, and not supported by the text. In particular the amendment is entirely arbitrary. The whole context of the letter and LGM1 is one of teaching, not of ritual. Nevertheless, many scholars have interpreted the nightly meeting with a baptismal rite.39 On form critical grounds, Mark 10:13-45 is defined as a Baptismal Lection. The only argument from the text for this interpretation is the reference to a sindona epi gumnou. A much more plausible explanation for this is a reference to GM 14:51-52. I consider it very unlikely that if LGM1b describes a baptismal rite, the text would not mention (the word) baptism. Moreover the entire context is one of instruction/teaching, not of ritual. The baptismal interpretation is attractive, but speculative.

Brown concludes that LGM seems to be an adaptation of the gospel of Mark to [the Alexandrian] environment.40 Teaching esoteric truths privately to a selected few was common to the Alexandrian thought as it reaches us e.g. through the non-contended works of Clement. 41 LGM1 would then refer to a symbolic initiation into deeper truths through study of the concealed meaning of scripture42 It is appropriate that the description of such an initiation leaves much to be guessed. As the letter to Theodorus says, the written things only lead us to the inner sanctuary of truth (I.25-26).

This interpretation seems indeed well aligned with the Alexandrian context in Clements time. It is also well aligned with the selection of exactly these fragments in the letter to Theodorus. The Carpocratians were Gnostics and thus interested in passages describing an initiation in deeper secrets. These were likely passages for them to use or adapt in support in of their views, and thus passages that Clement would have to quote for Theodorus. LGM would then have been written, as described in the letter to Theodorus, as a more spiritual gospel, intended to be read by a selected few, leading them to more knowledge (I.20-21).

38 39 40 41

Smith, 1973, pg 183. Starting with Richardson before Smiths publications, see Smith, 1973, 167-168. Brown 1999, pg 260. E.g. [The Lord] did not reveal to the people on the street [but only to] those who can accept the mysteries

and be confirmed to them (Stromateis, I.13.2), Wisdom means understanding hidden meanings (Stromateis. I.51.3)
42

Brown, 1999, pg 261.

BC2-LongerGospelMark.doc - Version 2012/01/16

Page 13 of 15

BC2 Longer Gospel of Mark

Marco de Vos (9237666)

However, we have seen in 3.5 above that LGM1 and LGM2 also resolve several narrative gaps (as well as creating some itself). Therefore an alternative motivation for the construction of a longer gospel suggests itself. Could LGM have been written to release the tension caused by some of the narrative gaps in GM? We can find support for this hypothesis by looking at another extension of GM that has been known for a long time: the second closing (Mark 16:9-20). It seems reasonably certain that this text was added because Mark 16:8 was not considered an appropriate conclusion. In narrative terms: readers could not handle the tension created by a narrative gap. The story has the women running away without telling anybody, but the reader knows the news must have been spread in some way. So an additional story is added (derived from other sources) to release the tension, breaking the narrative plan of the original composition. Features like the strange conclusion in Mark 16:8, the Messianic Secret, the reference to the gnwnai to musthrion thv basileiav tou yeou (Mark 4:11), the recurring use of bread all show that the canonical gospel is already to a large extend a mustikon euaggelion. Mark does not give the full story, but leaves something to be filled in. He gives a narrative that kindles the light in our soul43, but needs to be complemented by oral material. This is entirely consistent with the reports on Markan authorship we find in Clement and Eusebius. Writing down the teachings of the apostles was done with some hesitation. Mark gave in to pressure from Peters hearers, Peter had to approve in retrospect.

Later redactors apparently were tempted to fill in some of these narrative gaps. The second closing creates a well-attested longer gospel. It seems plausible that the longer gospel referred to in our primary source was motivated by the same reason: not to create a more spiritual gospel for the more advanced, but to resolve the tension from some narrative gaps. Explaining, for instance, that the young man we see running after Jesus arrest is a disciple who as the Twelve had been taught the mysteries of the Kingdom. Again available material is reused, in this case a resurrection story also known to John.

Conclusions

The present study confirms that LGM uses some narrative techniques that are also found in the canonical gospel. LGM applies Markan literary constructs in an atypical way, and disturbs earlier structural patterns. Arguments are given against the framing of the passion proposed by Brown. The literary analysis of the biblical literature started only after the discovery of the primary source. Therefore a literary analysis of LGM provides additional arguments against the theory that the Clement letter is a modern forgery. The evidence is still not conclusive.

43

To use an expression from Clement, Stromateis I.10.4

BC2-LongerGospelMark.doc - Version 2012/01/16

Page 14 of 15

BC2 Longer Gospel of Mark

Marco de Vos (9237666)

Since LGM1 breaks existing recurring structures, it is likely that the fragments were written by a different author, but close to the circles where Mark got its final redaction. LGM fits well almost too well with the views of Clement: deeper truths conveyed orally to a selected few initiates. The written texts hint at these mysteries but do not reveal them. However, we find this feature already in GM. So it seems plausible to suggest that LGM may have been composed to release the suspense created by some of the narrative gaps in GM. This hypothesis places the fragments in the same category as the second closing (Mark 16:9-20). This may be a less interesting explanation, but it needs a minimum of additional assumptions. Thus it prevents us from being framed by the fragments.

References Scott G. Brown, The More Spiritual Gospel: Markan Literaty Techniques in the Longer Gospel of Mark, PhD thesis, Centre for the Study of Religion, University of Toronto, 1999. Scott G. Brown, On the Composition History of the Longer (Secret) Gospel of Mark, JBL 122:1, pp 89-110. 2003. Scott G. Brown, Marks Other Gospel: Rethinking Morton Smiths Controversial Discovery, Waterloo, ON, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2005. Scott G. Brown, The Letter to Theodore: Stephen Carlsons Case against Clements Authorship, Journal of Early Christian Studies 16:4, pp 535572, 2008. Stephen C. Carlson, The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smiths Invention of Secret Mark, Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005. Bart D. Ehrman, Response to Charles Hedricks Stalemate, Journal of Early Christian Studies, 11-2, pp 155-163, 2003. John Ferguson, The Fathers of the Church, Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, Books 1-3, CUAP, 1991. Charles W. Hedrick, The Secret Gospel of Mark: A Stalemate in the Academy, Journal of Early Christian Studies, 11-2, pp 133-145, 2003. Bas M.F. van Iersel, Belichting van het Bijbelboek Marcus, KBS, 1986. Gedaliahu A.G. Stroumsa, Comments on Charles Hedricks Article: A Testimony, Journal of Early Christian Studies, 11-2, pp 147-153, 2003. Morton Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.

BC2-LongerGospelMark.doc - Version 2012/01/16

Page 15 of 15