Devil and Satan Flash Card

Here's what Adrian Paul Miles has come up with for his Devil and Satan Flash Card

Enoch was translated so as not to see death Hebrews 11:5

The Number of the Beast

666 -- The Number of the Beast

"Here is wisdom ('Here is scope for ingenuity' -- Weymouth) let him that hath understanding count the number of the Beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is six hundred and three score and six" -- Rev. 13:18 From the second century A.D. onwards, the interpretation "LATEINOS" has been given, because the numerical values of the letters add to 666. This identification was given by Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp (born A.D. 70) who was contemporary with the apostle John. The official name or title of the popes is "Vicar of the Son of God" -- 'Vicarius Filii Dei' V I C A R I U S F I L I I D E I 5 1 100 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 50 1 1 500 0 1 = 666 The Hebrew word for this power is 'ROMIITH' -- the Hebrew value being: R O M I I TH 200 6 40 10 10 400 = 666 The official signature of the Pope is "DUX CLERI" which means "High or Chief Priest." Being Latin this adds to: D U X C L E R I 500 5 10 100 50 0 0 1 = 666 Thus, every time the Pope of Rome officially signs a document, he writes the Latin equivalent of the number 666.

The Trinity Test

To Jehovah's Witnesses leaving the Watchtower

Children themselves realize child baptism is wrong; baptism is by immersion of adults

Children themselves realize child baptism is wrong; baptism is by immersion of adults

God … endured with much patience”

There is a complete change of theme today in Paul’s letter to the Romans compared to what we read yesterday. In chapters 9 to 11 his thoughts are on Israel: he had formerly been proud of being an Israelite, the chosen nation. The main point he makes in these chapters is that he now sees that everything depends on God’s mercy. Israel, although the chosen nation – is to experience God’s wrath. Although the Gentiles (non-Jews) are now, in a sense, chosen, the underlying foundation fact is that God is calling individuals and each one will depend on God’s “mercy”.

Of course, this has always been the foundation principle in God’s calling; Paul writes, “For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy” (9:15,16).

No one can ‘earn’ salvation. Our lives are a training period – it is surprising to read that it even was for Jesus! The point is made in the letter to the Hebrews, “Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered” (5:8). We follow in his footsteps. We also, as we read recently, should “walk in the footsteps of the faith that … Abraham had …” (Romans 4:12).

Now, we must take note of Paul’s point and his question, “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patiencevessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known …” (verses 22,23). To make known what?

Before we quote his answer, let us appreciate the patience of God in not yet acting to punish the world for its ungodliness. One of the hidden sevens in the book of Revelation is that this word ‘patience’ occurs 7 times. And what does God’s ‘patience’ make known? Verse 23 continues, “… to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory – even us whom he has called”.

Let us more fully respond to his calling, these are the only “riches” in our lives worth having – indeed, it is essential that we have them, otherwise we will not be among the “us” he is calling to experience the incredible “riches of his glory”.

DEVIL’ AND ‘SATAN’ IN A POLITICAL CONTEXT

DEVIL’ AND ‘SATAN’ IN A POLITICAL CONTEXT

These words ‘devil’ and ‘satan’ are also used to describe the wicked, sinful world order in which we live. The social, political and pseudo-religious hierarchies of mankind can be spoken of in terms of ‘the devil’. The devil and satan in the New Testament often refer to the political and social power of the Jewish or Roman systems. Thus we read of the devil throwing believers into prison (Rev. 2:10), referring to the Roman authorities imprisoning believers. In this same context we read of the church in Pergamos being situated where satan’s throne, was - i.e. the place of governorship for a Roman colony in Pergamos, where there was also a group of believers. We cannot say that satan himself, if he exists, personally had a throne in Pergamos.

Individual sin is defined as a transgression against God’s law (1 Jn. 3:4). But sin expressed collectively as a political and social force opposed to God is a force more powerful than individuals; it is this collective power which is sometimes personified as a powerful being called the devil. In this sense Iran and other Islamic powers have called the United States, “the great satan” - i.e. the great adversary to their cause, in political and religious terms. This is how the words ‘devil’ and ‘satan’ are often used in the Bible.

In conclusion, it is probably true to say that in this subject more than any other, it is vital to base our understanding upon a balanced view of the whole Bible, rather than building doctrines on a few verses containing catch-phrases which appear to refer to the common beliefs concerning the devil. Study 6.1 and this section will repay careful, prayerful re-reading. It is submitted that the doctrinal position outlined there is the only way of being able to have a reasonable understanding of all the passages which refer to the devil and satan. Those words can be used as ordinary nouns, or in some places they refer to the sin which is found within our own human nature. Some of the most widely misunderstood passages which are quoted in support of the popular ideas are considered in the Digressions which accompany this study.

Those who have problems in accepting our conclusions need to ask themselves: (1) Is sin personified? Clearly it is. (2) Is it true that ‘satan’ can be used just as an noun? Yes, it is. What real problem, therefore, can there be in accepting that sin is personified as our enemy/satan? The world is often personified in John’s letters and Gospel (see R.V.); what better title for this personification than ‘satan’ or ‘the devil’?




These words ‘Devil’ and ‘Satan’ are also used to describe the wicked, sinful world order in which we live. The social, political and pseudo-religious hierarchies of mankind can be spoken of in terms of ‘the Devil’, not least because they are structured around human, sinful desires- the great adversary to God's Spirit. Hence 1 Pet. 4:2,3 parallels living "in the flesh, to the lusts of men" with "working the will of the Gentiles". The will of the world is the will of the flesh, and is thus adversarial, 'satanic', to the will of God. The Devil and Satan in the New Testament often refer to the political and social power of the Jewish or Roman systems. Thus we read of the Devil throwing believers into prison (Rev. 2:10), referring to the Roman authorities imprisoning believers. In this same context we read of the church in Pergamos being situated where Satan’s throne, was - i.e. the place of governorship for a Roman colony in Pergamos, where there was also a group of believers. We cannot say that Satan himself, if he exists, personally had a throne in Pergamos. The Bible repeatedly stresses that human political authority, civil authorities etc. are God given, deriving their power from Him (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17); never are they said to derive their authority from 'Satan'. Yet they can be called 'Satan' in that they are adversarial at times to His people.

Individual sin is defined as a transgression against God’s law (1 Jn. 3:4). But sin expressed collectively as a political and social force opposed to God is a force more powerful than individuals; it is this collective power which is sometimes personified as a powerful being called the Devil. In this sense Iran and other Islamic powers have called the United States, “the great Satan” - i.e. the great adversary to their cause, in political and religious terms. This is how the words ‘Devil’ and ‘Satan’ are often used in the Bible. And again I repeat the path of logic used a few paragraphs above: 1) Is sin personified? Clearly it is. 2) Is it true that ‘Satan’ can be used just as an noun? Yes, it is. What real problem, therefore, can there be in accepting that sin is personified as our enemy/Satan? The world is often personified in John’s letters and Gospel (see R.V.); what better title for this personification than ‘Satan’ or ‘the Devil’?

It has been observed, however, by many a thoughtful mind- that the total evil in the world does so often appear greater than the sum of all the individual personal sin / evil which there is committed by and latent within each person. In this context, let's hear Tom Wright again: "All corporate institutions have a kind of corporate soul, an identity which is greater than the sum of its parts... industrial companies, governments or even (God help us) churches, can become so corrupted with evil that the language of "possession" at a corporate level becomes the only way to explain the phenomena before us" (17). In the same way as collective bodies of persons somehow achieve an identity greater than the sum of the individual contribution of each person, so, I submit, there appears a corporate evil / sin in our world which is greater than the sum of what each individual person contributes towards it. But in the same way as there is no literal 'ghost in the machine', so this phenomena doesn't mean that there is actually a personal superhuman being called 'Satan'. But it would be fair enough to use the term "the Satan", the adversary, to describe this globally encompassing corporation of 'sin' which we observe. For it's not solely our own personal sinfulness which is our great enemy, but also the kind of corporate sin which exists in our world. Arthur Koestler's work The Ghost In The Machine analyzes the progressive self-destructiveness of humanity over history, and seeks to address the question of how the total evil in the world is simply so huge (18). He takes the perspective that there is no personal Satan responsible, but rather the human mind has progressively developed in evil so that impulses of hate, anger etc. overpower- and progressively are overpowering- what he calls "cognitive logic"; i.e. we do what we know is unwise, illogical and wrong.

In conclusion, it is probably true to say that in this subject more than any other, it is vital to base our understanding upon a balanced view of the whole Bible, rather than building doctrines on a few verses containing catch-phrases which appear to refer to the common beliefs concerning the Devil. It is submitted that the doctrinal position outlined here is the only way of being able to have a reasonable understanding of all the passages which refer to the Devil and Satan. I submit it's the key which turns every lock. Some of the most widely misunderstood passages which are quoted in support of the popular ideas are considered in Chapter 5.

Faith Cometh by Hearing

Faith Cometh by Hearing"Ye should contend earnestly for THE FAITH which was once delivered unto the saints" -- Jude 3
FAITH occupies a prominent place in the divine plan of redemption, as a casual reading of the Bible will reveal. Yet the theology of Christendom has reduced the subject of Faith to mere generalities which obscures the meaning of that Faith spoken of in Heb. 11:6, which Paul says is necessary to please God.

Faith is usually treated of as an abstract principle of confidence or trust in someone or something without regard to whether or not such "faith" is based upon evidence. We hear the expression, "blind faith," when actually there is no such thing, for faith is the result of belief, and belief must be based upon evidence.

There is a total absence of faith, in the scriptural sense, in the mind of one who has no knowledge of that in which faith is essential. In Hebrews 11:1 Paul says --"Now Faith is the assurance of things hoped for; the CONVICTION of things not seen." (RSV)It takes indisputable evidence to convince one that a thing is true. Therefore, the faith pleasing to God is not some vague, undefinable proposition in which one has "blind" confidence. Scriptural faith is a definite form of teaching which God has revealed concerning Himself and His purpose in Christ, which He offers to man as a basis for eternal salvation through faith in Him.

The doctrines presented to man as a basis of faith were designed of God as the things necessary to be understood, believed and obeyed as the way to prepare one for eternal association with Him.

In Rom. 10:14-17 we find how God-pleasing faith is obtained. We are also shown the futility of depending on manmade articles of faith. Paul says --"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? . . So Faith cometh by Hearing, and hearing by the Word of God."Scriptural Faith comes from one source only--divine revelation, as delivered by "holy men of God," who--" . . .spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."Eph. 4:4-6 reveals the seven-fold unity of divine teaching--"There is One Body, and One Spirit, even as ye are called in One Hope of your calling; One Lord, ONE FAITH, One Baptism, One God and Father of all."Such a thought is odious to the mind deluded by modern "liberalism"; but the Word of God leaves no doubt--there is but ONE Faith with which God is pleased, and that faith comes in no other way except through knowledge and belief of God’s Word.

Worship of any other god, except the God revealed in His Word, is vain worship; likewise any other faith is a delusion. In 1 Cor. 8:5-6 Paul sets this matter at rest--"For though there be that are called gods, to us there is but ONE GOD . . . and One Lord Jesus Christ."Christendom has not the faith pleasing to God; for they worship a triune god which does not exist and "another Jesus" whom they say is one part of this triune godhead, thus denying that he is the Son of God. They have "faith" that they will go to heaven to reign with Christ, which never will be realized, for there is no such promise in the Bible. Therefore their faith cannot please God. One must cast aside all human creeds and devote himself to zealous, prayerful and reverential study of God's Word. And therein one will find that THE Faith pleasing to God is based upon CERTAIN promises which God made to the fathers of Israel, which are to be fulfilled in Christ. Let us briefly outline those things given us as a basis for the faith which is pleasing to God.

We read in Heb. 11 how certain persons through faith pleased God and in v.6 we read that --"Without Faith it is impossible to please Him; for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him."We shall see that Paul did not refer to faith in just any god which the minds of men might invent. He had sole reference to faith in the ONE God of Israel, the only true God. He had reference to God who had made certain promises about an eternal inheritance of the land of Canaan and rulership over the earth. This promise became the One Hope and the One Faith, for which, as Jude says the disciples were to --"Contend earnestly for THE FAITH, once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).It was THE Faith, forming the basis for eternal salvation; distinct, separate and opposed to all the creeds and religions of human origin.

Revelation of THE FAITH begins in the first chapter of Genesis, where we read of the creation of this planet as a habitation for man. And the reason why God created the earth is revealed in Isa. 45:18, where He says --"God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it; He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited."Jesus said (Matt. 5:5) -- "THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH." And Rev. 5:9 (the Song of the Redeemed) --"Thou . . . hast made us unto our God kings and priests, and we shall reign ON THE EARTH."

Dan. 7:27 -- "And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High."

Zech. l4:9 -- "The Lord shall be king over all the earth; in that day shall there be one Lord, and His Name one."The Faith pleasing to God is not belief in something He never promised, an inheritance "beyond the skies", but Faith in what He HAS promised, an eternal inheritance on this earth, which He created to be inhabited by that immortal throng which He, through faith, is taking out of the world -- a people for His Name, to be rulers in His kingdom.

Man sinned and lost any right to which he might have attained as an inhabitant of this globe in a state of perfection. But God provided a Redeemer through whom God's plan for an eternal Paradise on earth was to be consummated.

In Gen. 3:15 we have the promise that the Seed, or descendant, of the woman was to "bruise the Serpent's head," a symbol showing that Jesus Christ, the woman's Seed, was to destroy sin from the earth and fulfill God's purpose concerning the earth and man upon it. This promise was developed as time went on, but it remained the unchanging purpose of God, the basis for Faitb in Him. We come down many centuries to Gen. 12, where God called Abraham from his native land and promised him --"I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great . . . and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed."Paul, speaking of Abraham's faith (Heb. 11:8), says --"By FAITH Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed."When Abraham arrived at this "place" he found it to be the land of Canaan, and God said to him --"Unto thy seed will I give this land."In Gen. 13:14-17 we read where the Lord again appeared to Abraham and re-affirmed the promise of the land inheritance, where it is made certain that Abraham at some time was to possess this land, as we read --"For all the land which thou seest, to THEE will I give it, AND to thy seed forever . . . arise, walk through the land, in the length of it and in the breadth of it, for I will give it unto THEE."In Gen. 22:17-18 the promise to Abraham is enlarged to define just how ALL nations were to be blessed in him and his Seed. He is promised that --"Thy Seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy Seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed."It is clear that this Seed was to bless all nations by establishing a kingdom on earth, conquering and ruling over all people. In Gal. 3:16 we are told who this seed is --"Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds as of many, but as of one, and to thy Seed, which is CHRIST."In Rom. 4 Paul tells us that this Faith was counted unto Abraham for righteousness, and that all who walk in the steps of that faith shall be blessed with him. Without that faith none can please God or win salvation. For Paul says:"Wherefore remember, ye being in times past Gentiles in the flesh . . . That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the Covenants of Promise, HAVING NO HOPE, and without God" (Eph. 2:11-12).God made a similar promise to David (2 Sam. 7:10-16) in which David was assured that the people of Israel would be "planted in a place of their own to move no more;" that his throne would be established forever through a Son who would rule forever upon that throne in the presence of David. In Acts 2:30 Peter tells us that this Son promised was Christ. The angel's words to Mary before the birth of Jesus, were a confirmation of the promise to David --"The Lord shall give unto him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever."The "Covenants of Promise" are the "Hope of Israel" which Paul preached; the Gospel "which is the power of God unto salvation;" the foundation upon which Christian character is built. (See Acts 26:6-8; 28:20, 23, 30, 31; Rom. 1:15-16; Gal. 3;8; 2 Peter 1:4-11).

The whole mission of the Lord Jesus Christ, past and future, was designed to fulfill the Covenants of Promise, and prepare a people to reign with him when he is given "the nations for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession" (Psa. 2:8). It was to confirm the Covenants of Promise that he died and rose from the dead (Rom. 15:8; Heb. 9:13-15). Christ's mission would be meaningless if disconnected from the Promises to the Patriarchs.

In putting on the Name of Christ in baptism, the believing sinner thereby becomes an heir with Christ of the Promises to the first Patriarchs of Israel (Gal. 3:27-29) --"As many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ . . . And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the Promise."In speaking of God-pleasing faith, let us keep in mind that knowledge and acceptance of that Faith alone will not save us. It takes faith like Abraham had, who --" . . . was strong in faith, giving glory to God; and being FULLY PERSUADED that what He had promised He was able also to perform."Faith which does not put one to work is not faith pleasing to God. The sinner is justified by faith; the saint is perfected only by works which (Eph. 2:10) --"God hath ordained that we should walk in them."True Faith moves all who have it to ENERGETIC action --"FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD" (Jas. 2:17-26).

Is the ‘Secret Gospel of Mark’ genuine?

Posted by Jon Burke | Published on July 1, 2012

The Text

The text (supposedly discovered in 1958), appears to be a letter from early Christian writer Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c.215), quoting a ‘secret gospel’ by Mark.^1 2

Analysis

Smith himself noted features of the text which could indicate it was an imitation of Mark’s style by another writer.^3 4 5 6 Physical analysis has been impossible since the original letter disappeared after being photographed in 1972,^7 8 but there is no evidence Smith prevented access to the text.^9 10

Photographs show it has the appearance of age,¹¹ but this could be the product of forgery.^12 1314 Suspicion of forgery was raised immediately.^{15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22} The provenance and style,²³ content,²⁴ date,²⁵ and lack of scribal errors, have all been questioned.^26 27

Scholarly Views

Few scholars believe ‘Secret Mark’ is historically useful to studies of Jesus, even if it is genuine,^2829 30 and most question its authenticity.^{31 32 33 34}

1. ‘According to Smith, the letter in question was found on the final blank pages of the works of Ignatius of Antioch, the latter of which was copied in 1646. The handwriting of the extract is written in a different hand from the works of Ignatius and has been dated to c. 1750, about a century later than the Ignatius works of which it is a part. In the letter published by Smith, Clement replies to a certain Theodore who has been troubled by the teachings of the gnostic Carpocratians, a sect that indulges in illicit sexual practices based upon a variant version of the Gospel of Mark. Clement refutes the Carpocratians by citing two passagesfrom the suspect version of Mark, which Morton Smith calls the Secret Gospel of Mark.’, Edwards, ‘The Gospel According to Mark’, Pillar New Testament Commentary, p. 509 (2002). [↩]
2. ‘It was not until 1973 that the text, along with Smith’s translation and notes, was finally published.’, Charlesworth & Evans, ‘Jesus in the Agrapha and Apocryphal Gospels’, in Chilton & Evans (eds.), ‘Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research’, p. 526 (1994). [↩]
3. ‘Smith recognized that Markan vocabulary and sentence construction could point either to Mark’s authorship or to imitation of Mark by another author. Smith noted three features that suggested imitation:’, Brown, ‘Mark’s Other Gospel: Rethinking Morton Smith’s controversial discovery’, p. 6 (2005); Brown is a supporter of the authenticity of the letter, which he defends comprehensively in this work. [↩]
4. ‘More generally, he noted that “The text was more like Mark than a section of Mark should be.”‘, Brown, ‘Mark’s Other Gospel: Rethinking Morton Smith’s controversial discovery’, p. 6 (2005). [↩]
5. ‘‘The style is certainly Mark’s, but it is too Marcan to be Mark’; such was already C.C. Richardson’s verdict in 1974, and E. Best in 1979 confirmed this judgment in detail. In Mark itself the Marcan peculiarities of style are nowhere so piled up as in the ‘secret Gospel’!’, Merkel, ‘Appendix: the ‘secret Gospel’ of Mark’, in Schneelmelcher & Wilson, ‘New Testament Apocrypha: Gospels and related writings’, p. 107 (1991). [↩]
6. ‘Smith refers to three ‘semitisms’, which, however, often occur in the Synoptics; as Smith himself admits, such semitisms are easily imitated.’, ibid., p. 107. [↩]
7. ‘Suspicion surrounded the text in part because after being photographed by Smith in 1958 and then a team of scholars in 1972, the text mysteriously disappeared, making it impossible to subject the text to the testing necessary to authenticate it even as an eighteenth-century production. The text still has its advocates.’, Köstenberger, Kellum, & Quarles (eds.), ‘The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament’, p. 1343 (2009). [↩]
8. ‘M. Smith photographed this text, which breaks off in mid-sentence on the third page, but did nothing about safeguarding the original, which to this day has not been accessible to anyone else. Only in 1973 did he publish the text with an extensive commentary; at the same time he published a popular presentation of the story of the discovery and his work upon it.’, Merkel, ‘Appendix: the ‘secret Gospel’ of Mark’, in Schneelmelcher & Wilson, ‘New Testament Apocrypha: Gospels and related writings’, p. 107 (1991). [↩]
9. ‘The truth is that at least three other scholars and two members of the Greek Patriarchate handled the manuscript. The information obtained by various inquirers, moreover, corroborates Smith’s account that he left the book containing the manuscript among the seventy items that he catalogued in the library at Mar Saba.’, Brown, ‘Mark’s Other Gospel: Rethinking Morton Smith’s controversial discovery’, p. 26 (2005). [↩]
10. ‘It would appear, then, that the manuscript was found at Mar Saba in 1976 rather than 1977, or eighteen years after Smith photographed it, and it disappeared many years after the Archimandrite took it to Jerusalem and a librarian removed it from the book. These facts show how preposterous it is to suggest that Smith prevented other scholars from examining the manuscript.’, ibid., p. 26. [↩]
11. ‘In view of what is known about the fading and browning of inks and the browning of paper in contact with ink, we can conclude that the photos depict a manuscript that looks like it is a few hundred years old.’, ibid., p. 28. [↩]
12. ‘Brown’s research indicates that some formulas of iron gall inks result in writings that would turn brown quite rapidly through exposure to sunlight.’, ibid., p. 28; this would give the ink a false appearance of age. [↩]
13. ‘There was a way of ageing paper artificially that was used in the 1960s by experienced researchers such as Barrow.’, ibid., p. 28; Brown questions whether Smith had the skill for such forgery. [↩]
14. ‘It is also possible to age paper and ink using chemicals that oxidize the ink and paper.’, ibid., p. 28. [↩]
15. ‘Some of the scholars Smith consulted in the 1960s thought the letter was an ancient forgery, although they had difficulty explaining how an ancient author would benefit by creating it. Smith dealt with their arguments in his book.’, ibid., p. 12. [↩]
16. ‘However, the spectre of forgery came back with a vengeance in 1975, when two scholars offered influential arguments that the letter was a modern hoax.’, ibid, p. 12. [↩]
17. Quesnell suggested that an erudite scholar who had access to Otto Stahlin’s 1936 index of Clement’s vocabulary and other modern studies of Clement’s style could have produced the document, especially if he had the help of someone skilled in imitating handwriting. Quesnell added that any scholarly apparatus Smith used to “authenticate” the document could have assisted a forger in imitating Clement. And he pointed out that Smith’s ability to gain access to the tower library at Mar Saba shows that a forger could have planted it there.’, ibid, p. 12. [↩]
18. ‘According to Quesnell, Smith’s approach of not producing the original for scientific study and restricting his analysis to the content is congruent with the pattern of known forgers; that fact raises the possibility of recent forgery.’, ibid., p. 35. [↩]
19. ‘many agreed with Quesnell that the manuscript should be subjected to forensic testing before it is deemed authentic.’, ibid, p. 12. [↩]
20. ‘Their suspicions only increased when Charles Murgia offered arguments for modern forger based on the content of the letter. Murgia suggested that the letter consisted mostly of information that was suspiciously self-authenticating, and noted that the manuscriptlacks the major errors that result from a long period of transmission.’, ibid, p. 12. [↩]
21. ‘Murgia noted parallels between the letter and “Classical fakes,” which raised the possibility that this manuscript was written much later than it appears to be.’, ibid, pp. 28-29. [↩]
22. ‘every sentence of the letter, other than the actual quotation of secret Mark, is admirably designed to provide A SEAL OF AUTHENTICITY for the passage of secret Mark. Great care is taken to convince the modern reader of why he has never heard of this gospel before.’, Murgia quoted in ibid., p. 29; Brown notes ‘Smith himself commented in 1976 that Murgia’s “theory of a ‘seal of authenticity’ is the strongest case I have seen yet for the supposition that the letter is a forgery”‘, but criticizes Murgia’s case, ibid., p. 29. [↩]
23. ‘The only manuscript (actually, a photograph of a manuscript) seems to derive from a different provenance than the monastery where it was supposedly found, and evidence seems to suggest that it appeared at the monastery only in recent times. Its attribution to Clement is stylistically open to quesiton;117 it also clearly presupposes modern idiom and perhaps modern custom.’, Keener, ‘The Historical Jesus of the Gospels’, p. 60 (2009). [↩]
24. ‘Attempts to argue that the Secret Gospel of Mark is older than canonical Mark3 are clearly mistaken, and have been judged so by a majority of scholars.4 The most important reason for this judgment is that the material alleged by Smith appears in no other church father and in none of the thousands of ancient manuscript witnesses to the Gospel of Mark. Furthermore, that Secret Mark is a later addition to canonical Mark is virtually proven by the fact that “they came to Bethany” is a glaring anachronism in the text of Mark since Jesus and the disciples have not yet come to Jericho (Mark 10:46), and Bethany lay beyond Jericho. Finally, the Carpocratians mentioned by Theodore to Clement did not arise until the mid-second century, that is, a full century after the composition of Mark.’, Edwards, ‘The Gospel According to Mark’, Pillar New Testament Commentary, p. 512 (2002). [↩]
25. ‘Even if we accept the authenticity of the letter of Clement and grant that he knew a ‘Secret Gospel’, it suffices to posit a mid-second-century date for its composition.’, Klauck, ‘Apocryphal Gospels: An introduction’, p. 35 (2003). [↩]
26. ‘Over against the linguistic indications which speak for authenticity, differences of substance as compared with the rest of Clement’s writing have been noted. Finally, it is striking that the text contains none of the errors typical in manuscript traditions.’, Merkel, ‘Appendix: the ‘secret Gospel’ of Mark’, in Schneelmelcher & Wilson, ‘New Testament Apocrypha: Gospels and related writings’, p. 107 (1991). [↩]
27. ‘the lack of serious errors indicative of transmission weighs in Murgia’s favour’, ibid., p. 33., Brown, ‘Mark’s Other Gospel: Rethinking Morton Smith’s controversial discovery’, p. 8 (2005). [↩]
28. ‘Very few scholars believed that LGM 1 or 2 [the two texts of ‘Secret Mark’] can tell us anything about the historical Jesus or ventured to use this story to reconstruct the tradition that lay behind John 11.’, ibid., p. 11. [↩]
29. ‘Accordingly, everything points to the view that the ‘secret Gospel’ is an apocryphon resting on the foundation of the canonical Gospels. On this ground alone any conclusions relating to the historical Jesus are not possible. The time of origin of the ‘secret Gospel’ probably lies not before the middle of the 2^nd century.’, Merkel, ‘Appendix: the ‘secret Gospel’ of Mark’, in Schneelmelcher & Wilson, ‘New Testament Apocrypha: Gospels and related writings’, p. 107 (1991). [↩]
30. ‘Even if the letter is authentic, however, we can deduce no more than that an expanded version of Mark was in existence in Alexandria about A.D. 170. When Smith seeks to go back to the last years of the 1^st century for the composition of the expanded Mark,that rests on pure speculation.’, ibid., p. 107. [↩]
31. ‘By the end of the 1970s, New Testament scholars still mentioned “secret” Mark in an incidental manner, but were generally reluctant to take the gospel too seriously and risk looking foolish should it prove to be a fake.’, Brown, ‘Mark’s Other Gospel: Rethinking Morton Smith’s controversial discovery’, p. 14 (2005). [↩]
32. ‘The novelty value of this text and of the reporting of its find justifies the mention of it in this collection, but its antiquity and genuineness are questioned by many scholars.’, Elliott, ‘The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation based on M.R. James’, p. 148 (1993). [↩]
33. ‘There can be little question that the extract produced by Smith considerably postdates Mark. On the whole, so-called Secret Mark appears to be a forgery, although whether modern or ancient is difficult to say.’, Edwards, ‘The Gospel According to Mark’, Pillar New Testament Commentary, p. 512 (2002). [↩]
34. ‘If the jury is still out, it is seeming more and more likely that their verdict will be that the work is a modern forgery or hoax.’, Collins, & Attridge, ‘Mark: A Commentary on the Gospel of Mark’, Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, p. 493 (2007)