The Mara Saba Epistle from Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 215)
to one Theodore (a Bishop?)
Is it right and proper to allow fraudulent additions into the Bible?
And the Secret Gospel of Mark
Hi
This is the third and last in the trilogy (What is it like to be a Christian (?) and Pious Forgeries) of Christian past wrongdoings of falsifying the Gospels and biblical literature to enhance and authenticate it religion. Christians rewrote the Gospel as how they saw it and telling lies was not wrong if it benefited their God and the Church. “If the truth of God has been spread by my lie, then why am I judged a sinner.” Romans 3:7
Some OPs need to be in a politically correct theme, others neutral and there are some like this one who needs to be told as it is! With no refinement and no political correctness.
However, the likes of fundamentalists and conservative Christians who harbour extreme ideologies along with their homophobia have no place in their narrow minds for academic biblical truth. As their belief is built on faith alone, through generations of indoctrination, which is not constructed by factual means that follow the consensus of biblical scholars. To them, the modern Bible takes president over the ancient biblical manuscripts (MSS), forgetting that it is from these ancient MSS that their modern Bibles were translated.
In the case at hand, the 1611 King James Bible was translated from Greek MSS. That said, the early orthodox church corrupted many parts of the ancient biblical text to support their doctrines. Such as the two verses in 1 John: For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1 John 5:7-8 KJV aka Johannine Comma. Between the two verses in 1 John 5, the counterfeit is highlighted in square brackets [ ] represents more than 53% of the two verses.
John 7:53-8:11 the Story of the Adulteress (aka the Pericope Adulterae) is another forgery that should not (scholars words, not mine) be in the New Testament. The list of inclusions into the New Testament (NT) goes on and on! Yet, we hear from these Christian extremists who say on these later additions to the NT: despite the absences from the early manuscripts these and other passages are thought to be so edifying that it is worthy of being treated as Holy Scriptures. What hypocrisy! Christians have been rewriting the Gospels to prove authenticity by enhancing the Bible with falsehoods; moving the goalpost as it were to satisfy their extremist ideology.
That said, what about the Good Christians knowingly knowing that sections of the NT to be a fabrication, and allowed it to be printed. The late American scholar Metzger wrote: …Although the committee [that is, the editorial committee of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament] was unanimous that the pericope was originally no part of the Fourth Gospel, in deference to the evident antiquity of the passage a majority decided to print it, enclosed within double square brackets, at its traditional place following John 7.52…Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 219-221. Which is the same as saying: despite the absences from the early manuscripts these and other passages are thought to be so edifying that it is worthy of being treated as Holy Scriptures.
What about being morally correct and TRUTHFUL!
It has long been known that there were more than one versions of the Gospel of Mark (probably four or more), however, I will only mention two, the canonical Gospel of Mark, and the Secret Gospel of Mark. However, it is only right that I should say a word or two on a third version which the Carpocratian Christian sect had, which was a longer version than the canonical Mark. Which annoyed the Orthodox Christians at the time, which saw Jesus as a bisexual. To know what the early Christians thought (several sects were known, with their own unique slant on Jesus’ orientation) about their saviour’s sexuality.
I quote the Orthodox version of events. The version told by Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 215 CE) in a letter to one Theodore. Who was anxious to know what to do about the Carpocratians that he was attacking their morality and their belief in Jesus’ orientation and the Carpocratians false(?) version of the Gospel of Mark. Which the Orthodox claimed that their version was written by Mark after the death of Peter in Rome. A version, which was so sensitive it was locked away in Alexandria and was only read by the church hierarchy. Even Clements tells Theodore (one has to assume he was a bishop) not to divulge the secret, especially to the Carpocratians that he was attacking their immorality and their beliefs on Jesus.
The scholar Prof. Francis Watson writing in the Oxford Academic—the Journal of Theological Studies. His Paper was concerning the Carpocratians and the Mar Saba Letter and Secret Gospel of Mark wrote:
The Real Purpose of the Letter (Clement to Theodore’s about his attack on the Carpocratians)
Clement’s ‘Secret Mark’ is long in relation to the canonical Mark but short in relation to the Carpocratian one that has caused Theodore such anxiety…It is on such stories as these that the Carpocratians base their ‘dogma’ (II.10), their ‘unspeakable teachings’ (I.2). Their version of the Gospel of Mark provides warrant for their promiscuity: in acting as they do, they imitate Jesus himself…Or perhaps they claim that their version is the original one, composed by Mark himself and that crucial passages were later excised by those who took offence at Jesus’ radical disregard for conventional morality. The Journal of Theological Studies, Volume 61, Issue 1, April 2010, Pages 128–170, https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/flq008 Published: 23 March 2010.
One can imagine if a modern biblical translator were to insert a homoerotic Jesus into the canonical gospels. These Christian extremists would create such havoc, on a scale not seen since the destruction by the Alexandrian Christians on the Serapean and its daughter library of Alexandria in 391 CE.
“I am sure the fundamentalist and Co, would not find it edifying and worthy of being treated as Holy Scriptures.”
That is what I intend to do to show it to show that merging the short canonical Gospel of Mark, with that of the Secret Gospel of Mark, as the ingredients are already there. One has only to merge the two Mark’s together as some scholars have hypothesised. But, first we read verse 51 of the canonical Mark: And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
Then by merging extract from the Mar Saba/Secret Gospel of Mark which has more truth to it than the forged verses of 1 John 5:7-8 and John 7:53-8:11 above.
We then read: 51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: [But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God.] Extract in bracketed [ ] from Clement of Alexander letter to Theodore.
What do you say?
Jero Jones