The Mystery of the Gospel of Mark*

The Gospel of Mark is even more mysterious than many perceive it to

be, and the more one spends time with it, the more its mystery increases.
For the modern investigator, the diverse and enigmatic components of
this mystery can be understood only by taking account of the fact that
between its original composition and its inclusion in the four-Gospel
canon, the Gospel of Mark had a history. Within this time it must have
undergone modifications, additions, and omissions—but without losing
its identity.
Only recently a thrilling discovery about Mark has been made, one
which unveils a great mystery and, at the same time, presents several
new ones, making the history of the Gospel between its composition and
its canonization appear even more complicated than before. The discov-
ery in question is the fragment of a letter from Clement of Alexandria
to a certain Theodore, found in 1958 by Morton Smith in the Mar Saba
Monastery and edited by him in 1973, after a long period of research.1 The
fragment supplies information about what is called the “secret” or “mystic”
Gospel of Mark—a heretofore unknown form of the Gospel, said to have
been used in the church of Alexandria along with the common form. The
present paper will discuss this mystic Gospel of Mark and Clement’s
statement about it with reference to three topics: (1) the prior state of
the Markan question and the basis of my receptivity to the contents of
Clement’s letter; (2) the reception of Clement’s letter by the scholarly
world, especially Helmut Koester’s interpretation, as a starting point
for further investigations; (3) the possible relevance of Clement’s letter
beyond Koester’s conclusions.

* The SecCent 4 (1984) 65–82.

An earlier version of this paper was read during a lecture tour (October–November,
1982) at Wesleyan University, Union Theological Seminary in New York, Harvard Univer-
sity, Southwest Missouri State University, Iliff School of Theology, and the Institute for
Antiquity and Christianity in Claremont.
I should like to thank my friend Wolf-Peter Funk and also Elizabeth Castelli of the Insti-
tute for Antiquity and Christianity, who improved the English of my paper.
1 M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark, Cambridge, MA, 1973;
popular presentation in The Secret Gospel: The Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret
Gospel according to Mark, New York 1973.
 the mystery of the gospel of mark 555

I. The Prior State of the Question

In this perspective, the first mystery of the Gospel of Mark is its curiously
abrupt ending (16:8), which textual criticism shows to date from the very
beginnings of the Gospel’s known textual history. This is a well-known
problem that I will not discuss here. I simply want to state in passing that
I think the original conclusion of Mark is probably lost. The objection
to this hypothesis that argues the ending was not just lost, but was sup-
pressed because of its content, does not seem valid to me. In any case,
from the testimony of the manuscripts one does not get to the origin
of the Gospel’s history; hence there are no compelling objections to the
hypothesis from textual criticism.2 Presumably it was only without its ori-
ginal ending that Mark entered official circulation in the church—just as
the Gospel of John, on the other hand, entered circulation only with its
secondary ending (ch. 21). If, as I believe, the Gospel of Mark underwent
some sort of development before attaining its final form as the canoni-
cal Second Gospel, and if, furthermore, it originally was a highly disputed
document,3 then to assume that the original ending was suppressed is
not so daring after all. What is missing from the text after 16:8? In literary
terms, the text lacks the fulfillment of the promises made at 14:28 and
16:7; indeed, these unfulfilled promises are like dangling threads. In theo-
logical terms, the text lacks a narrative about the appearance of the risen
Jesus in Galilee, a narrative that would establish some connection with
the present celestial existence of Jesus. The bodily risen Jesus still had to
be transformed from a terrestrial being into a supernatural one in order
to be raised from earth.
No less relevant to our study of Mark, as a text with a history, is the less
familiar problem of the beginning of the Gospel. I have in mind the Markan
story about the baptism of Jesus and his sojourn in the desert. This account
is probably dependent upon a myth of the coming of the savior that in
fourteen-fold variation has now become especially evident in Apocalypse
of Adam (NHC V) p. 77,21–82,28. The new text illuminates already-known
parallels. James M. Robinson has recently hinted at this problematic state

2 K. Aland, “Der wiedergefundene Markusschluss? – Eine methodologische Bemerkung

zur textkritischen Arbeit,” ZThK 67 (1970) 9.
3 K. Niederwimmer, “Johannes Markus und die Frage nach dem Verfasser des zweiten
Evangeliums,” ZNW 58 (1967) 172–188.
556 essays

of affairs.4 To be sure, Robinson’s argument does not claim, for the time
being, to be more than a beginning at working out this religio-historical
background. Many points are still open to question. Nevertheless, it is
obvious that the Gospel of Mark does not, as many scholars claim, begin
in a plainly “historical” way. At any rate, two short sentences at the end
of 1:13, “and he was with the wild beasts, and the angels ministered unto
him” (καὶ ἦν μετὰ τῶν θηρίων, καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι διηκόνουν αὐτῷ), appear to be
the remnant of something lost. Furthermore, it might well be asked in
this perspective whether the interpretation of Mark 1:9–13 by the Gnostics
Cerinthus and Basilides5 is in fact as much out of line as scholars usually
assume. Perhaps one should rather suppose that the text of Mark itself
met the Gnostic interpreters halfway. This possible affinity between the
text of Mark and Gnostic interpretation6 should be kept in mind.
The history of the development of Mark must also be related to some
aspects of the Synoptic problem or, in other words, to the gray zone of the
two-source hypothesis.
On the one hand, there are those noteworthy cases where only one of
the users of Mark (Matthew or Luke) presents a section of Mark while it
remains obscure why the other Gospel omits it—provided that this evan-
gelist had known the material in question. Such sections are:
Mark Matt Luke
1:21–28 .... 4:31–37
6:17–29 14:3–12 ....
9:38–41 .... 9:49f.
12:41–44 .... 21:1–4
10:35–40 20:20–23 ....
In each case the question arises whether one of the evangelists has made
an omission of the text. It would be easier to assume that the version of
Mark in the hands of that evangelist did not yet include the section in
question. This solution would, as I see it, be plausible for at least some
of these sections. But it would imply that there were several versions of
Mark’s Gospel and that Matthew used a version different from Luke’s. On
this assumption, too, the phenomenon of the so-called great Lukan omis-
sion—the striking absence in the Third Gospel of any material equivalent

4 “On the Gattung of Mark (and John),” in: D. G. Miller/D. Y. Hadidian (ed.), Jesus and
Man’s Hope, Pittsburgh 1970, 99–129.
5 Irenaeus, Adv. haer. I.26.1; I.24.2 and 4.
6 Cf. generally Irenaeus, Adv. haer. III.11.7.
 the mystery of the gospel of mark 557

to Mark 6:45–8:26 || Matt 14:22–16:12—could be accounted for. Conver-

sely, this “omission” is the clearest evidence for different versions of Mark
being used by Matthew and Luke. One would have to suppose that this
particular section of Mark was not yet—or no longer—a part of the ver-
sion that lay before the third evangelist.
On the other hand, there is some significance in the material completely
peculiar to Mark, as well as in the larger or smaller agreements between
Matthew and Luke against Mark. To be sure, the material that is peculiar
to Mark is not extensive. It includes some whole sections: Mark 4:26–29;
7:32–37; 8:22–26. It also includes parts of other sections that do not appear
in either Matthew or Luke, e.g. Mark 2:26 (only the words ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ
ἀρχιερέως); 2:27; 3:20f.; 9:29,48; 12:32–34; 14:51f.; 15:21 (only the words τὸν
πατέρα Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ Ῥούφου); 15:44f. The absence of these passages from
Matthew and Luke calls for an explanation, especially if one assumes, as I
do, that Mark was one of the sources of the other two synoptics. In prin-
ciple, the following alternatives are possible: either Matthew and Luke
omitted these passages from Mark independently of each other, or they
did not find them in their source. But this question need not be answered
in the same way for each of the problematic passages. Suffice it to say,
some of them probably were added to Mark only after Matthew and Luke
had used it. Thus these passages, and others where Matthew and Luke
seem unaccountably to agree against Mark, suggest the conclusion that
the Markan source as a text was susceptible to changes even after its use
by Matthew and Luke. The history of its development continued.
Within the special Markan material, one of the above-mentioned pas-
sages will play a prominent role in the present paper: Mark 14:51f. This is
a well-known crux both in its wording and individual motifs, and in its
meaning within a larger context. It is often assumed that Matthew and
Luke omitted it since they no longer understood its meaning. If we may
disregard details and come directly to the point, thus far only three inter-
pretations have emerged as possibilities:7

1. The passage is open to interpretation as a familiar literary motif of

flight, in which a pursuer only gets hold of a coat that the chased
person lets slip (cf. Gen 39:12; Act. Thom. 98). Thus the whole scene
might be understood as an illustration of the general flight of the

7 Cf. especially H. Fleddermann, “The Flight of a Naked Young Man (Mark 14:51–52),”
CBQ 41 (1979) 412–418.
558 essays

disciples (v. 50). (Fleddermann proposes this interpretation and con-

siders it a new one.)
2. Amos 2:16 reads, ὁ γυµνὸς διώξεται ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡµέρᾳ. Accordingly, one
might be inclined to understand the scene again as an illustration of
the disciples’ flight, but constructed under the influence of the passage
from Amos, which would be understood as a scriptural proof.8
3. The scene might represent the oldest tradition and reflect a historical
event. In this case, of course, the question about the identity of the
νεανίσκος would arise, a question to which many answers have been
offered.

While the first two interpretations have never seemed very plausible
to me, I have long adhered to the third possibility. Recently, however,
I began to have doubts about this interpretation. The latest state of my
thinking—before I became acquainted with Smith’s letter of Clement and
under the influence of Robinson’s view on the beginning of Mark—was
to see in 14:51f. (as in 1:13b) the now incomprehensible remains of some-
thing that was originally more extensive, which had been eliminated, and
may have been of a highly mythological nature. Thus I was already more
favorably predisposed to Smith’s discovery than were a great many of my
colleagues.

II. Reception of the Letter of Clement by the Scholarly World

The overall reception of Smith’s announcement of his discovery was not

very favorable. The German establishment of New Testament scholarship
reacted almost malignantly to what they saw as Smith’s violation of the
public tranquility.
Once again total warfare has been declared on New Testament scholarship.
The miraculous weapon expected to blow up all its laboriously-gained posi-
tions is an incomplete copy made in the 18th century of a hitherto unknown
letter of Clement of Alexandria. The strategist who discovered it and con-
trols its operation is Morton Smith, professor at Columbia University, New
York. The blurb of the book published in fall 1973 promises that, in the
case of its authenticity, the letter-fragment would “radically alter thinking
about the practice and teaching of Jesus, the origins of the Gospels, and
the character and early history of the Christian church.” Those full-toned

8 E. Klostermann, Das Markusevangelium, HNT 3, Tübingen 41950, 153.

 the mystery of the gospel of mark 559

announcements call to mind all sorts of things. . . . All those attempts to

understand Jesus against the biblical tradition are now enriched by an
obstinate variant by Morton Smith: Jesus is said to have been a libertine.
The starting point of this thesis is a fragment of a “secret gospel,” which is
said to have been in use in the Alexandrian church and with the gnostic
Carpocratians. It proves, according to Smith, that Jesus within his closer cir-
cle of disciples practiced magic, and possibly homosexuality. In addition to
that, Smith wants to demonstrate a libertine trend also in the early church,
which later would have been hushed up by the church. Surprisingly the
yellow press has not yet taken up this “discovery.” But this will not be long
in coming.
Such are the opening words of Helmut Merkel in his review (to my
knowledge the first one in German) of Smith’s book.9
Werner Georg Kümmel, in his synopsis of recent research on Jesus,
begins his account with an impartial summary of the contents of Smith’s
work;10 but in the concluding critical comments the following judgments
are to be found:
And indeed, the Clementine origin of this text is anything but probable
or proved, as has been confirmed to me by Hans von Campenhausen in
writing. Not only does its way of transmission speak against it, but also the
description of ecclesiastical archives holding secret writings, the recommen-
dation of a lie to be reinforced by a false oath for polemical reasons, the
conception of two stages of secret teachings of Jesus, and the news about an
emigration of Mark to Alexandria contradict all we know of Clement. Since
the Clementine origin of the whole letter is anything but probable, Smith’s
judgment on the literary character and the historical value of the gospel
fragments quoted in the letter can only be characterized as untenable in any
case. In careful investigations, H. Merkel, R. E. Brown, and F. F. Bruce have
pointed out that the alleged fragments of a partly-enlarged, partly-shortened
Gospel of Mark in reality presuppose all four canonical gospels (and not
only gospel traditions!), as is likewise the case with other apocryphal texts
of the 2nd century (e.g., the so-called “Unknown Gospel”). . . . Hence, the
fanciful quotation from the “secret gospel” found in the alleged letter of
Clement is in any case a falsification dating from the end of the 2nd century
at the earliest, and the interpretation Smith derived from this text stating
that Jesus performed a magical rite of baptism, possibly of a homosexual
nature, follows from the text only by completely untenable manipulations
and is in flagrant contradiction to the whole gospel tradition about Jesus. . . .
[O]ne cannot but regret that so well-informed and meritorious a scholar as

9 “Auf den Spuren des Urmarkus? Ein neuer Fund und seine Beurteilung,” ZThK 71
(1974) 123f. The translation is my own.
10 W. G. Kümmel, “Ein Jahrzehnt Jesusforschung (1965–1975),” ThR.NF 40 (1975) 299–
302; cf. also ThR.NF 41 (1976) 353.
560 essays

M. Smith has applied such an arbitrary and fanciful interpretation to the

text he has discovered.11
Hans Conzelmann, in his report of the literature on the synoptic Gospels,
even says:
The book of M. Smith has undeservedly created a sensation, above all in
America. It is not reviewed here since it does not belong to scholarly, nor
even to discussible, literature. This holds true even if the letter of Clement
of Alexandria discovered by the author under somewhat mysteriously repor-
ted conditions and now published should be genuine, which is believed by
many serious scholars. This letter contains information about a secret ver-
sion of Mark that is suggestive of rank apocryphal growth. Such an apocry-
phon may have existed, for all I care. But now Smith obtains from it the
historical Jesus as a magician and performer of nocturnal consecration with
a homosexual touch.12
In his supplement Conzelmann once again refers to the book as the
“science fiction story on Mark by Morton Smith.”13
However, the most severe-criticism (in terms of facts, not words)
came from within the United States in the comment made by Quentin
Quesnell.14 This comment is curiously attractive in more than one respect
and, in its frankness and exaggeration, is able to clear the air like a tem-
pest. Quesnell makes no secret of his suspicion that Smith might have
forged the Clementine letter himself. Two points are important in this
connection. (1) Considering the possibility of forgery, Quesnell is none-
theless unable to provide an understandable intention. What remains is
only the purpose of mystification. (2) At the same time, it becomes evi-
dent from Quesnell that a forgery would have been feasible under normal
circumstances only after 1936, that is, only after the publication of vol-
ume 4 of Stählin’s edition of Clement, which included indexes. The rest
of Quesnell’s argument is as far from oriental reality as Massachusetts is
from the desert of Judah. He demands the protection of the discovered
object that North American or European museums grant to their posses-
sions, and an investigation of its authenticity by using all the methods of
modern criminology. Finally, in addition to the other aspects of Smith’s

11 Ibid., ThR.NF 40 (1975) 302f. The translation is my own.

12 H. Conzelmann, “Literaturbericht zu den Synoptischen Evangelien (Forsetzung),”
ThR.NF 43 (1978) 23. The translation is my own.
13 Ibid., ThR.NF 43 (1978) 321. The translation is my own.
14 “The Mar Saba Clementine: A Question of Evidence,” CBQ 37 (1975) 48–67.
 the mystery of the gospel of mark 561

work that do not stand Quesnell’s criticism, there is one aspect for which
Quesnell expresses my own sentiments exactly. Quesnell is justified in his
astonishment at the immense quantity of unnecessary scholarly minutiae
in Smith’s book. I would summarize Quesnell’s suspicion in this way: Why
is Smith’s demonstration so tedious? Could he have intended to lull read-
ers to sleep in order to lead them all the more easily where they do not
want to go?
It is suitable at this point to say that, in my opinion, it is to a large
degree the fault of Smith himself that his discovery has not been duly
appreciated. Indeed, the various parts of his work are of varying value.
The first half of his work is admirable and extremely instructive, even if
its expression flows sluggishly. The second part, however, is characterized
by a rapid fall into an abyss. Nevertheless, one may recognize Smith as a
scholar to whom the ideal of completeness is more important than the
ideal of concentration on the essential. Moreover, Smith’s method may
be condoned because he is breaking new ground. Since Smith does not
adhere to one of the great schools of New Testament scholarship, there
is no reason to be astonished at the direction that his analysis of the
document takes—that is, directly toward the historical Jesus. Obviously
he does not accept the “spectrum analysis,” as it were, of early Christian
tradition, which has become a matter of course for almost everyone else.
Rather, in unrestrained biblicism, he has seen everything on one level.
Consequently, there is no denying that his conclusion that Jesus is the
greatest of all magicians has some logical consistency.
Smith’s analysis, however, is only one matter. Quite another matter is
the discovered document itself—provided that it is genuine. Whether or
not it is genuine is the question here. If it is genuine, it will be of utmost
relevance, though in quite a different way than Smith has pursued. In this
situation, however, we cannot wait for the proof that Quesnell demands.
Taking the risk of assuming the genuine character of the document seems
to be a defensible position. This is, in any case, the view—or the conces-
sion—of a vast majority of scholars. Besides, no comprehensible motive
for an alleged forgery has been named. Provided that the letter of Clement
is genuine, it follows that the special version of Mark described in the
letter as a document used in Alexandria is (relatively) old. The docu-
ment’s age suggests that, with respect to its features, which criticism has
judged to be “apocryphal,” the manifest or demonstrable correspondence
or points of contact with passages from canonical Gospel narratives can-
not automatically signify literary dependence on the respective canonical
Gospels. Here we arrive at another crucial point: Is the view initiated by
562 essays

Helmut Koester15 about the value of early Christian apocryphal writings

for the history of tradition correct?
Koester from the outset responded affirmatively to Smith’s discovery and
research, and in regard to the relevance of the letter of Clement and the
information it conveys, he appropriately shifted the object of study.16 The
new text shines light not on the historical Jesus, but on the origin of
the Gospel of Mark and its early history. Koester’s efforts in this direction
eventually culminated in a great paper entitled “History and Development
of Mark’s Gospel (From Mark to Secret Mark and ‘Canonical’ Mark).”17 It
is natural that some of the facts with which I began are also to be found
in Koester’s discussion. Koester uses these facts, along with others, as the
basis and frame for his particular view, whose character is already evident
in the title of his paper. His point is that there is no direct path from the
Mark that Matthew (or Luke) used to the Second Gospel as we have it.
Rather the Alexandrian Secret Gospel of Mark was an intermediate stage.
This apocryphal version of Mark from Alexandria would by no means have
been an enlargement of our Second Gospel; rather, our Gospel would have
been a purified abridgement of the Alexandrian apocryphon.
Koester’s argument and presentation are, on the whole, self-evident.
Therefore, I want neither to describe nor to scrutinize the individual steps
in his demonstration. However, since I will use his results as a basis for
raising further questions, at least the relevant results of his study should
be given in some detail and in his own words. The following sentences are
taken from Koester’s conclusion, in which he summarizes the assumed
five-stage process of the development of Mark. The quotation covers
stages 4a, 4b, and 5a:
(4a) Whereas Matthew and Luke fundamentally altered the character of
Proto-Mark and thus, in fact, created new gospels, the further development
of Proto-Mark which resulted ultimately in canonical Mark was more con-
servative and preserved the original outline more or less intact. . . . There

15 “Dialog und Spruchüberlieferung in den gnostischen Texten von Nag Hammadi,”

EvTh 39 (1979) 532–556; idem, “Gnostic Writings as Witnesses for the Development of the
Sayings Tradition,” in: B. Layton (ed.), The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, SHR 41, Vol. I: The
School of Valentinus, Leiden 1980, 238–256 (256–261); idem, “Apocryphal and Canonical
Gospels,” HThR 73 (1980) 105–130.
16 Review of the two books by M. Smith in note 1, AHR 80 (1975) 620–622; “Apocryphal
and Canonical Gospels,” HThR 73 (1980) 109. 111; idem, Einführung in das Neue Testament
im Rahmen der Religionsgeschichte und Kulturgeschichte der hellenistischen und römischen
Zeit, Berlin 1980, 604f. and 660f.
17 In: Bruce Corley (ed.), Colloquy on New Testament Studies: A Time for Reappraisal and
Fresh Approaches, Macon, GA, 1983, 35–57.
 the mystery of the gospel of mark 563

is one stage of revision which can be more clearly identified: The Secret
Gospel of Mark. The story of the raising of a youth from the dead and his
subsequent initiation, attested by Clement of Alexandria as part of Secret
Mark, is closely related to a number of other Markan features which were
not present in the copies of Proto-Mark used by Matthew and Luke: a spe-
cial understanding of Jesus’ teaching in terms of resurrection and initiation,
the concept of “mystery” as the sum total of Jesus’ message to the disci-
ples and probably a similar interpretation of the term εὐαγγέλιον, and the
elevation of Jesus to a supernatural being endowed with magical powers
and with a “new teaching.” (4b) A different edition of Secret Mark was used
by the sect of the Carpocratians. . . . (5a) A large number of features which
distinguish Canonical Mark from Proto-Mark are so closely related to the
special material of Secret Mark quoted by Clement of Alexandria that
the conclusion is unavoidable: Canonical Mark is derived from Secret Mark.
The basic difference between the two seems to be that the redactor of
canonical Mark eliminated the story of the raising of the youth and the ref-
erence to this story in Mk 10:46. . . . It is easy to understand why this story of
the raising of the youth was not acceptable for a gospel publicly used in the
church. . . . The redaction of Mark which produced the Secret Gospel must
have taken place early in the 2nd century. . . . “Canonical Mark” would have
been written some time thereafter, but before Clement of Alexandria. The
Carpocratians, however, based their new edition of Mark upon the full and
unabbreviated text of the Secret Gospel.18
This view of the process of transmission is based essentially on two sup-
ports. One is Mark 4:11, where the central concept of mystery is expressed
in the strange singular (ὑµῖν τὸ µυστήριον δέδοται τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ),
as against the Lukan and Matthean plural, mysteries (ὑµῖν δέδοται γνῶναι
τὰ µυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ || τῶν οὐρανῶν), which corresponds with
the ἐδίδασκε . . . αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὸ µυστήριον τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ from the
first quotation of the Secret Mark in the letter of Clement.19 The second
support, which is more important, is Mark 14:51f. This enigmatic material
in Mark, upon which we laid so much stress earlier, becomes understand-
able only in the light of the whole resurrection narrative of the Secret Gos-
pel of Mark. The figure of the young man wearing a linen cloth over his
naked body is found here, so to speak, in its natural context. The opposite
view (which is held by all those who consider the narrative to be a cento
made from all four Gospels) that the clothing of the youth in the resurrec-
tion narrative was taken over from Mark 14:51f. appears to be unnatural.

18 Ibid., 55–57.
19 Ibid., 47–49 for the details.
564 essays

III. Further Relevance of Clement’s Letter

We may now turn to those considerations based on Koester’s theory that

are the actual goal of this discussion. Three complexes of questions will
be addressed.

The Secret Gospel in Alexandria

The first question is: How did the Secret Gospel of Mark get to Alexan-
dria? Our Second Gospel has shown up as a purified abbreviation of the
Secret Gospel of Mark, which is attested to have been available and in use
(only) in the church of Alexandria. This fact can, or even must, be under-
stood as an indication that the church of Alexandria may have played a or
the decisive role both in the final shaping of Mark and in its consideration
for the growing (four-)Gospel canon of the whole church. We may indeed
be indebted to the church of Alexandria that Mark did not experience the
fate of the “Sayings Gospel” (which we call the “sayings source”), which
became superfluous and disappeared after its incorporation into the Gos-
pels of Matthew and Luke.
How may it be explained that in Alexandria the Secret Gospel gained
such great importance and functioned as a ritual text used in the initia-
tion of the Perfect? Indeed, the rite connected with the Secret Gospel of
Mark is so strange that many scholars refuse to acknowledge it as real.
But provided that the letter of Clement is genuine and, accordingly, that
this rite was really practiced in Alexandria, then the rite must have been
something that was never introduced to that place but rather something
that was simply there. Applied to the Secret Gospel of Mark, this would
mean that it never came to Alexandria, but was there all along. It is the
very own Gospel of orthodox Christianity in Alexandria and is linked in a
fundamental way to the origin of that Christianity.
The origin of orthodox Christianity in Alexandria, however, is not iden-
tical with the origin of Alexandrian Christianity—according to common
opinion. Therefore, the inquiry must go further. Now the inevitable ques-
tion concerns the presumed relationship between the Secret Gospel of
Mark and the Carpocratian Gospel of Mark. It may be conceded to Smith
that this question is, strictly speaking, “insoluble.” But we have every rea-
son to inquire behind the embarrassed, fanciful, and anti-heretical inter-
pretation that Clement gives regarding the relationship between the two
versions of Mark and to resist all rash commitments to his view. I am
referring to statements such as, “The Carpocratians, however, based their
 the mystery of the gospel of mark 565

new edition of Mark upon the full and unabbreviated text of the Secret
Gospel.”20 Rather, we have to go beyond Clement’s interpretation and try
to discover the underlying situation concerning the various versions of
Mark in Alexandria. The situation was as follows. In Alexandria, there were
three versions of the Gospel of Mark: (1) the canonical Gospel of Mark,
(2) the Secret Gospel of Mark, and (3) the Carpocratian Gospel of Mark.
Canonical Mark was in public use and was, as a matter of course, assumed
to be used in the church beyond Alexandria as well. The Secret Gospel
of Mark existed only in Alexandria and was handled by the church there
with a sort of arcane-discipline. The Carpocratian Gospel of Mark is again
not to be thought of as confined to the city of Alexandria. Nevertheless,
it could have in fact originated in Alexandria, in which case at least this
assertion by Clement would be correct. However, it need not have been
produced there by the Carpocratians. We can only assume with certainty
that they used it inside and outside of Alexandria. Accordingly, it cannot
be rejected that the text was used in addition by other heretical Christians
who were related to the Carpocratians. Of course, all three versions of the
Gospel are closely related to one another. The differences are not such
that the Gospel of Mark loses its identity. It seems, however, that versions
2 and 3 are more closely related to each other than the two of them are
to version 1.
Obviously, Clement could explain this relationship only by recon-
structing the history as leading from no. 1 via no. 2 to no. 3. Now, on the
basis of Koester’s hypothesis, which was discussed and accepted above,
the reversal of no. 1 and no. 2 within the sequence is obligatory.21 One
may ask whether it is not more logical to assume the reverse direction of
development for the whole chain, all the more so if one is inclined to see
the origin of the specifically Alexandrian version of the Gospel of Mark
in connection with the origin of Christianity itself in Alexandria. These
beginnings were heretical—according to the view of the specialists. By
the way, it seems to me that a statement of Koester found elsewhere is in
harmony with these considerations:
Perhaps this apocryphal version of the gospel was brought to Egypt earlier
than the Gospel of Mark, which was later admitted to the canon of the New
Testament. The Secret Gospel of Mark gives indications of a secret initiation
rite: Jesus spends a night with the young man he had raised from the dead;

20 Ibid., 56–57.
21 Ibid., 57.
566 essays

he comes to Jesus dressed only in a linen cloth, and Jesus teaches him the
mystery of the kingdom of God. This fits very well with what is otherwise
known about secret rites of initiation among the gnostic sects of Egypt.22
Important, too, in this connection is the opinion of F. F. Bruce, who
thinks it possible that the longer text of Mark originated in Carpocratian
circles.23
Supposing that this view is true, we would have to extend Koester’s
hypothesis on canonical Mark as a purified abbreviation of the Secret
Gospel of Mark. We would modify Koester’s thesis to say that canoni-
cal Mark is a later version of the “Carpocratian” Gospel of Mark, purified
and shortened in two phases. Or to be more precise, we should say that
canonical Mark is a later version of the Gospel that was peculiar to the
early non-orthodox Christianity of Alexandria.

The “Young Man”

A second set of problems converges with this consideration. In discus-
sing these problems, we will attempt on the basis of our hypothesis to
get to the bottom of the mystery described at the end of the first part of
this paper. We may ask, What can be said now about the meaning of the
(repeated and seemingly unmotivated) appearance of the “young man,
having a linen cloth cast about his naked body”—which means wearing
the ritual garment of a special initiation ceremony24—and his flight in
Mark 14:51f.? At first, we might present a quite modest answer: of the three
classical interpretations mentioned above, only the third remains accept-
able as regards the understanding of the redactor himself. This is the best
answer for the necessary and difficult question of why, in purifying the
Secret Gospel of Mark, the redactor cancelled the whole complex in which
the young man is introduced and where he is “at home,” so to speak, but
then left untouched the true conclusion of the story in 14:51f. Presumably,
he no longer saw the connection between the two passages—the eyes of
the readers may have changed—and then he understood the content of
14:51f. as stating a simple fact of the passion narrative, a narrative that
now aroused such great interest that he did not want to omit any avail-
able information. Yet we are not primarily interested in the subsequent

22 Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2, History and Literature of
Early Christianity, Philadelphia 1982, 223.
23 The ‘Secret’ Gospel of Mark, The Ethel M. Wood Lecture, University of London, 11
February 1974, London 1974, 20.
24 M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark, 175–178, 221.
 the mystery of the gospel of mark 567

interpretation of what is only a fragment in the Second Gospel, but rather

in the presumably original meaning of this scene in the context of the
Secret Gospel of Mark. I should like to begin with Koester’s answer to
this question, which reads: “The scene at Gethsemane, with Jesus being
‘amazed’ (θαµβεῖσθαι) and distressed, may have attracted the redactor to
introduce the youth once more—who had been initiated into the mystery
of the kingdom and now flees shamefully.”25 It is this last phrase, “and
now flees shamefully,” that triggered a reaction in me to seek the solution
in the opposite direction. At any rate, Carpocrates, Cerinthus, Basilides,
and all the rest of the early users of Mark certainly understood the scene
in another way. Strictly speaking, the youth is not at all a human being
of flesh and blood, but rather only a “shadow,” a sort of symbol, an ideal
figure. He is something like the Johannine “beloved disciple,” according to
the interpretation of Rudolf Bultmann and his school.
The same picture emerges from the structure of the narrative that intro-
duces the figure. What underlies the narrative here is a separately circu-
lating “apocryphal” resurrection story, the older version of the same story
that, via the Signs Source, has also been included as the resurrection of
Lazarus in the Gospel of John. This story itself extends to ἦν γὰρ πλούσιος
(III 6). In addition, an older conclusion of it may be preserved in the fol-
lowing supplement, having it then read: ἐκεῖθεν δὲ ἀναστὰς ἐπέστρεψεν εἰς
τὸ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (cf. III 10f.). This supplement, however, which was
added to the story at the latest at the point of its insertion into the Secret
Gospel of Mark, makes it a mere antecedent of something like an institu-
tion story. This new focal point, on the strength of which the risen youth
now appears as a prototype and a symbol of all those who are to be initi-
ated into the higher discipleship of Jesus, bestows a new dimension upon
the resurrection story itself. The whole story then necessarily appears as
a symbol.
Accordingly, the later scene in which this symbolic figure of the ideal
disciple—virtually a double of Jesus—flees in such a strange manner,
ought to be meant symbolically. At least, it might have been intended to
show that the genuine disciple, once he has become the equal of Jesus,
cannot be taken prisoner and kept in custody by the powers of this world.
Whatever they are able to seize is only his corporeal cover. At the same
time, this scene would serve as an announcement (according to the
rule that the disciple is the same as his master, and vice versa) that the

25 H. Koester, “History and Development of Mark’s Gospel,” 54.

568 essays

rulers will not be able to detain Jesus either—or that they were not able
to detain him depending on whether one takes the immanent perspec-
tive of the narrative or the backward perspective of the reader. In these
words it is presupposed—and it may also be stated explicitly—that I feel
certain associations to be inevitable, when one reflects on Mark 14:51f. in
the new perspective of the Secret Gospel of Mark. Generally, the complex
of metaphors about putting on and stripping off the body, or about the
soul being naked or dressed, may be noted in this connection; but atten-
tion may also be drawn, especially, to the relationship between Jesus and
his ideal disciple combined with the literary elements of a foretelling and
a gazing down upon the events of the passion from a lofty standpoint, as
is found in First Apocalypse of James and Apocalypse of Peter.
Incidentally, our interpretation of Mark 14:51f. as just outlined is not
absolutely new. There is some correspondence, as I see belatedly, between
this interpretation and the interpretations that were attempted now and
then off the beaten track of scholarship. Mentioned above all should be
Hermann Raschke who, referring to W. B. Smith, says in answer to the
question of the identity of the strange youth of Mark 14:51f.:
The only conjecture worth being taken seriously in terms of scholarship
is . . . that this figure is the angelic self of Jesus, his pneumatic nature hidden
in the lower cover, just the higher nature of Jesus, which is Christ.
For properly speaking, one cannot see how the men are entitled to seize
the youth; they may forbid him to come along, they can drive him away,
but there is no reason to arrest him except that they make a sheer mistake,
taking one for the other since they are the same in every way. The fact that
the servants behave toward the youth just as if he were Jesus, the person to
be arrested himself, indicates the identity of the two doubles. But regarding
the explicit statement: “they took hold of the young man,” how is it conceiv-
able that a person already in the hands of some robust soldiers should yet
try to escape? This is impossible naturally. But whatever can be seized of
this being by human power certainly remains in the fists of the myrmidons,
namely the seizable cover, which from another point of view, they already
have in their hands in the person of Jesus.26
A similar interpretation, though one without Gnostic implications, is put
forward by J. Knox27 and A. Vanhoye.28 “Knox and Vanhoye see in the young

26 Die Werkstatt des Markusevangelisten – Eine neue Evangelientheorie, Jena 1924, 81, 82.
The translation is my own.
27 “A Note on Mark 14:51–52,” in: S. Johnson (ed.), The Joy of Study, New York 1951,
27–30.
28 “La fuite du jeune homme nu (Mc 14, 51–52),” Bibl 52 (1971) 401–406.
 the mystery of the gospel of mark 569

man a pre-figurement of the risen Jesus. The man is arrested, but, leaving
his clothing, he flees. Just so Jesus is arrested, but he also leaves the cloth
in which he was wrapped and escapes in the resurrection.”29 There are
also interesting correspondences with the interpretations of H. Waetjen30
and R. Scroggs/K. Groff.31 This is Fleddermann’s summary of their posi-
tion: “Waetjen . . . compares the young man and Jesus with the help of his
Joseph typology. Just as Joseph was rejected and then exalted, so Jesus is
rejected and then exalted”; “Scroggs and Groff see in the fleeing young
man the Christian baptismal initiate who strips off his old clothing to be
clothed in the white baptismal robe.”32

“Six Days”
No less exciting than the phrase νεανίσκος . . . περιβεβλημένος σινδόνα ἐπὶ
γυμνοῦ (III 8), seen in its context, is the motif of the six days—καὶ μεθ᾽
ἡμέρας ἕξ (III 6.7)—within the greater fragment of the Secret Gospel of
Mark. This very motif is the point of our third question: What is behind
the mystery of the six days? The initiation of the young man into the mys-
tery of the kingdom of God, his transfiguration into the nature of Jesus, as
it were, takes place six days after his resurrection. The six days, in and of
themselves, are not mysterious, nor are they mysterious for having been
mentioned in this context. Rather, the matter is important only because
the exegete associates this καὶ μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας ἕξ with the inexplicable phrase
καὶ μετὰ ἡμέρας ἕξ (Mark 9:2) with which the story of the transfiguration
of Jesus begins. So the question arises as to whether there might be a
meaningful correspondence in the mention of this period of time in the
two cases, and whether this correspondence might cast new light on the
dark phrase in Mark 9:2. The suspicion that such a correspondence is
intentional seems to be quite reasonable, if the two situations that are
introduced with the phrase are both, in fact, transfigurations. Such a cor-
respondence, however, is not manifest in the text. Yet the phrase “after six
days” in the transfiguration narrative, unconnected as it is in its present
context, is one of the reasons for the familiar hypothesis that the trans-
figuration narrative was originally a post-resurrection narrative that has
been transplanted backwards into the life of Jesus. In this perspective,

29 H. Fleddermann, op. cit., 416.

30 “The Ending of Mark and the Gospel’s Shift in Eschatology,” ASTI 4 (1965) 117–120.
31 “Baptism in Mark: Dying and Rising with Christ,” JBL 92 (1973) 536–540.
32 H. Fleddermann, op. cit., 416, 417.
570 essays

the six days appear to be a natural counting from the day of the resur-
rection forward. Once one imagines the transfiguration functioning as an
appearance and glorification of Jesus at the end of Mark, then the corre-
spondence emerges clearly: the phrase “after six days” connects resurrec-
tion and metamorphosis in both cases. The resurrection and initiation of
the ideal disciple represent the resurrection and deification of Jesus. It is
only in this perspective that the whole of the first fragment of the Secret
Gospel of Mark displays the logic that is embedded in its material.
To be sure, there is nothing that entitles us to assume that either the
Secret Gospel of Mark or the Carpocratian Gospel of Mark still included
the transfiguration scene as the concluding post-resurrection narrative.
But it would suffice for our explanation to assume that the Alexandrian
addition to the Gospel of Mark was done with the awareness that
the “transfiguration” scene, though located in the middle, belongs at the
end, and virtually is the end. Or, are we allowed even to assume that the
author(s) of the addition knew, or at least had heard about, such a ver-
sion of the Gospel of Mark, with the “transfiguration” scene still at the
end? In the light of the new information about the Secret Gospel of Mark,
the process of development of the Gospel of Mark appears to be much
more complicated than has been assumed so far. This being the case, one
may not easily be inclined to rule out such a possibility. In other words, if
the development of the Gospel has been so complex, then even a version
of Mark may have existed that looked at the end like the source of the
Second Gospel as Walter Schmithals reconstructs it.33 According to him,
in the immediate predecessor of canonical Mark the material of 9:2–8a
was actually located after Mark 16:1–8, where it was still followed by the
complexes 3:13–19 and 16:15–20. In order to give a clear idea of this recon-
struction, below is Schmithals’s reconstructed conclusion of the source
document.
After six days Jesus appeared to Simon and led him up to a high mountain.
He was transfigured before his eyes; his face shone like the sun, and his
raiment became shining like light. And there appeared to them Moses and
Elijah, and they were talking to Jesus. And Simon said to Jesus, Master, it
is well that I am here: let me make three booths; one for you, and one for
Moses, and one for Elijah. For he did not know what to say; for he was exceed-
ingly afraid. And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice

33 “Der Markusschluss, die Verklärungsgeschichte und die Aussendung der Zwölf,”

ZThK 69 (1972) 379–411.
 the mystery of the gospel of mark 571

came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: listen to him. And
suddenly, when he looked round about, he no longer saw any one.
And after forty days Jesus appeared again on a mountain and called to
him those whom he desired: and they came to him. And he appointed the
twelve apostles: Simon and Andrew, and Simon he surnamed Peter and
said to him, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift
you like wheat: But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail. And
you, strengthen your brethren. And James the son of Zebedee, and John
the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons
of thunder: And Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and
James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, and
Judas Iscariot.
And he said to them, Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to the
whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who
does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those
who believe: In my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new
tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any
deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they
will recover.
So then the Lord after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven,
and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went forth and preached
everywhere while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message
by the signs that attended it.34
As evidence for the prior existence of such a version of Mark, or of any
Gospel document where the transfiguration story was still the narrative of
a post-resurrection appearance, Schmithals and his predecessors usually
refer to the fact that both 2 Peter 1:16–18 and Apocalypse of Peter (the non-
Gnostic) 15–17 were still familiar with the transfiguration story as an Eas-
ter narrative.35 The force of these two references can be augmented by
a third reference. The so-called Epistle to Rheginos (also known as “The
Treatise on Resurrection,” NHC I,4) contains a passage (p. 48,6–19) that
unfolds the Gnostic view of resurrection in diatribe style:
What, then, is the resurrection? It is always the disclosure of those who have
risen. For if you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and
Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion. It is no illusion,
but it is truth. Indeed, it is more fitting to say that the world is an illusion,
rather than the resurrection which has come into being through our Lord
the Savior, Jesus Christ.36

34 Das Evangelium nach Markus, ÖTK 2, Gütersloh/Würzburg, 1979, 721, 729, 740, 746.
35 Ibid., 400.
36 NHLibEng, New York 1977, 52–53.
572 essays

The reference to the scripture made in this text entails two key questions:
(1) To whom does “with him” refer (Coptic nm̄ mef, line 10, renders Greek
σὺν αὐτῷ)? (2) Which Gospel is meant? So far, to my knowledge, all the
translators and commentators have taken the expression “with him” to
refer to Elijah (Moses appeared together with Elijah)—all except Bent-
ley Layton. Only Layton saw and took up another possibility, which is
the only way to make the dark sentence comprehensible both in itself
and as an argument in the context. Layton understands the expression
“with him” to refer to Jesus (both Elijah and Moses appeared together
with Jesus).37 According to this understanding, Jesus, too, is assumed to
have appeared; and this, in turn, means that the story referred to was a
version of the “transfiguration” scene in which the “transfiguration” was
still seen as an appearance of the risen Christ after Easter. But in which
Gospel was Rheginos supposed to read this scene? This question, while
posed explicitly by Layton,38 is not evidently answered by him. However,
to have asked this question in our present perspective is to have answered
it. It must have been the same sort of Gospel that Schmithals imagines the
Markan source to have been, or such a version of the Gospel of Mark as
the redactors of the longer Alexandrian Gospel of Mark (“Carpocratian”
Gospel of Mark/Secret Gospel of Mark) will have had in mind when,
inserting the great supplement as an institution narrative for a mystery,
they joined the two components by the phrase “and after six days.”

37 The Gnostic Treatise on Resurrection from Nag Hammadi Edited with Translation and
Commentary, HDR 12, Missoula, MT, 1979, 27 and 94.
38 Ibid., 94f.