The Mar Saba Clementine. A Question of Evidence

THE MAR SABA CLEMENTINE: A QUESTION OF EVIDENCE
Author(s): Quentin Quesnell

Source: The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 1 (JANUARY 1975), pp. 48-67
Published by: Catholic Biblical Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43715268
Accessed: 21-10-2019 15:29 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Catholic Biblical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Catholic Biblical Quarterly
This content downloaded from 109.48.55.215 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:29:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
THE MAR SABA CLEMENTINE: A QUESTION OF EVIDENCE
For the scholars , at least , the matter will conte down , in the end, to
the question of evidence. (Morton Smith, The Secret Gospel , p. 25)
Morton Smith has recently presented the text and background of a manu-
script from Mar Saba which appears to be a letter of Clement of Alexandria.
The presentation, in two volumes, one published by Harvard University Press
( Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark; henceforth CA) and
one by Harper and Row ( The Secret Gospel : The Discovery and Interpreta-
tion of the Secret Gospel according to Mark ; henceforth SG) already is or
soon will be sufficiently well known from reviews in the journals and is avail-
able in the libraries and bookstores. Its contents therefore will not be re-
hearsed in detail here.
Smith anticipates considerable scholarly discussion on the issues raised in
his presentation (CA preface; SG 25). His anticipation is justified, for the
issues are significant. Indeed, the discussion has already begun. The present
essay intends modestly to raise the question whether enough evidence has
been included in Smith's presentation so that scholarly discussion can
reasonably continue.
I. The Basic Question
At first sight, CA seems to abound with evidence. It has 290 closely written
and carefully argüed pages of text, an additional 89 pages of appendixes in
five languages, 43 pages of indexes, 22 pages of bibliography, and a final ten
pages of manuscript photographs, transcriptions, translations and a com-
parative illustration. But, on closer examination, it becomes clear that only
three pages of the text (Chapter One: The Manuscript, pp. 1-4), plus the
photographs (p. 449, 451, 453), present evidence that touches on the manu-
script find itself, the physical reality of the new discovery, which is the
foundation of all the rest. This raises some questions.
In the opening pages of his classic work Strange New Gospels , Edgar
Goodspeed warned: ł 'Whatever the source of the discovery. . . it is the busi-
ness of scholarship to inquire most narrowly into its claims to acceptance,
since only in this way can we hope to sift the genuine from the spurious. And
every such claim must meet these tests if it is to have any right to the atten-
tion of intelligent or serious people."1
More specifically: "It is the practice of scholars when any new discovery in
ancient literature is brought to their attention to inquire as to the form in
which it was found
'(University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1931), p. 5.
48
1975] The Mar Saba Clementine: A Question of Evidence 49
ment itself. ... He naturally wishes to scrutinize its material, whether

papyrus, parchment, or paper; to examine the writing with an eye to deter-
mining its date; and in general to interrogate the discovery on a whole series
of particulars bearing upon the all-important question of its genuine-
ness. . . "2
A. Accessibility of the manuscript
These demands of scholarship impose a corresponding obligation upon

scholars who have new discoveries to announce:
"At the very least they are usually quick to tell where the document in
question is preserved, and to give every possible aid to other investigators who
may be interested to verify their discovery. ... If the original cannot be
shown, and a photograph of it is out of the question, the irreducible mini-
mum upon which scholarship insists is exact information as to its where-
abouts - the library, convent, or archive in which it lies, and the number,
date, and other contents of the book that contains it. . . ."3
Smith describes his 1958 visit to the monastery of Mar Saba and states that
the Clement letter was "among the items examined" during that visit (CA, p.
ix). The presumption of course is that what he describes is still there in the
tiny library in the old tower. But Smith does not exactly say so. Nor does he
state whether or how access to the manuscript is possible for "other investi-
gators who may be interested to verify [his] discovery."4
Future researchers must also regret that Smith has apparently made no
effort to assure the safety of his find. For apparently the tower library is an
insecure repository. Members of the order, with no scholarly interest in
patristics (CA 287; SG 11) visit it privately, borrowing the key from the
monastery's superior. Books and manuscripts are shipped off elsewhere,
without records being kept (CA ix; 290); other books are introduced, again
without record (CA 290); major fires have caused losses (CA 289); many older
2 Strange New Gospels , p. 3.

3 Strange New Gospels, p. 4.
4In a private communication, Smith was good enough to fill in some details: "So far as I
know, the m s is still where I left it in 1958 - in the top room of the tower library. Nobody at the
Patriarchate has written me anything about it since. The library is kept locked, and, if I remem-
ber correctly, only the hegoumenos has the key, though he may give it on special occasions and
for specific purposes to a deputy, as he did to the monk who used to go up with me and oversee
my hunt for manuscript material. Normally, I believe, nobody is admitted to the library except
members of the order and outsiders who come armed with a letter from the Patriarch directing
that they are to be admitted. I've heard nothing of anybody else working on the manuscripts
since I left them" fletter of November 21, 1973).
My own request to the Patriarch for a letter of admission, sent as of the same date, has not
yet received an answer (March, 1974).
50 The Catholic Biblical Quarterly [Vol. 37
books and manuscripts have been deliberately destroyed to prov

materials for other works (SG 12f.). Nevertheless, Smith has
contact with the Patriarchate since he left in 1958, and he says no
having warned them at that time that this document might n
protection.5
Smith does present photographs. In a printed book, that is all one can do
directly. But, since photographs are always only second-best, they should
really be accompanied by the witness of some other competent observers who
have checked them against the original and will verify them as true and satis-
factory reproductions.
Moreover, Smith's photographs are less than satisfactory. He made them
himself in 1958 with a hand-held camera, photographing each page three
times "for good measure" (SG 13f.). But those reproduced in CA, though
supposedly "actual size" (CA 1), do not include the margins and edges of the
pages. Moreover they are only black and white, while modern manuscript
photography gets its best results with color photography and filters. Finally
there are numerous discrepancies in shading, in wrinkles and dips in the
paper, between the photo of the first page of the manuscript on CA 449 and
the one in SG 38. These should be explained.
B. The experts ' report on the dating
Smith dates his find by the reports he received from a series of experts. He
names the experts (CA 1 and SG 23). "All of these scholars were so kind as to
examine photographs of the manuscript and give me independent opinions
about the date of the hand" (CA 1). According to Smith's summary of these
opinions, the experts identified the hand as typical of the period from about
1700 to 1800, a few years later at the very most.
Unfortunately, Smith does not specify exactly what questions were put to
the experts. Were they asked only: What period does this type of writing
represent? Or were they asked directly: When was this specimen produced?
Did the questions include: Could this be a forgery, an attempt by someone in
our own time to imitate and re-create an eighteenth-century hand?
Unfortunately again, Smith does not include the text of the answers which
the experts gave. If, for instance, they were asked: When was this written? or
What are the possibilities of forgery here?, did none of their reports make
5His mention of this manuscript, along with some seventy others, in the Patriarchate Journal
gave no hint that there was anything "revolutionary" (CA ix) about its contents. Cf. 4 "EÀ Avvoca
XeiQÔyQacpa cv Trj Mov^ tou áyíou I aßßa," NEA IIQN 52(1960)23f. ["23f." is based on the
printed page-numbering which appears on a xerox of the pertinent pages supplied by the author.
According to CA (p. ix) the article appeared on pp. 1 lOff. and 245 ff.]
clear that those questions cannot be answered with certainty unless access is
given to the original?6
Smith's short chapter on the manuscript does include two observations
specifically attributed to the experts, but these do not bear on the issues
being raised here.7 One judgment is attributed to the experts globally: "The
hand is generally agreed to be that of an experienced writer and a scholar."
Most of the chapter is made up of arguments supporting that general
judgment. None of these arguments, however, is attributed to any or all of the
experts. They might all be Smith's. If they are a mixture of his arguments
and theirs, there is no indication of which are which. The arguments vary
considerably in their probability and force.8
A final conclusion, not attributed to the experts, is that the scribe "was
interested not only in patristics, but also in the beginnings of western critical
scholarship" (CA 3). This seems especially questionable. If this scribe had
been studying Voss' Ignatius and not merely using it for copy paper, one
would expect him to have attempted what Voss attempted: to distinguish
genuine ancient epistles from fraudulent imitations. Voss would not copy an
older manuscript without indicating what manuscript he was copying, where
he had found it and where he was leaving it. But this scribe has let his
♦A recent illustration of this fact was reported in TIME, February 4, 1974, p. 12. Yale
University's treasured Vinland map/' previously dated around 1440, was found under physical
examination to have been drawn with an ink unknown before the 1920's. Photographs alone
could never have revealed this. (Cf. C., below.)
7A. Angelou observed that the shape of the nu in the text is characteristically Western. And
Professor Scouvaras "produced an eighteenth century ecclesiastical document in a native Greek
hand strikingly similar to that of our manuscript" (CA 2).
•For instance, it seems quite reasonable to argue that the scribe is an experienced writer and
scholar because he writes small, evenly, sets margins well, spells correctly (with a few excep-
tions), shows the influence of Greek typography of the 18th century, is familiar with many of the
older Greek manuscript abbreviations and ligatures. But it is less satisfactory to conclude that
the hand is so close to the style of the patriarchal autograph (on p. 454) that one can call it the
work of one trained in the Phariotis hand of the Patriarchal Academy in Constantinople. The
many important differences would have to be explained.
That the writer was a monk, because he began his work with a cross, is plausible enough. But
that he was in a hurry, because the cursive character of the hand becomes more marked as he
goes on, does not follow. Other explanations are possible.
The minor mistakes in the letter (about 15) would seem to call for a detailed commentary by
the experts. Are the mistakes such as would be expected from "a scholar and experienced
writer" in the period suggested?
Finally, the judgment that the writer "had an excellent knowledge of patristic Greek" is left
completely unsupported. (The suggestion that a characteristically western shape to the nuy due
to the influence of western typography, can be extended to everything about the hand, can then
be specifically credited to reading of western patristic editions and finally can be related to the
depth of the man's knowledge of patristic Greek is too loosely drawn to be called an argument.)
original disappear without a trace. Did he carefully copy it into the ba

printed book, not tell where he had found it, and then throw the
away? Perhaps. But hardly out of interest in critical scholarship.
C. "A whole series of particulars. . . (Goodspeed)
The "whole series of particulars" on which the scholar would l

interrogate every discovery include those physical aspects of the d
the examination of which can help determine when, where, and by wh
manuscript was produced.
For instance, one can analyze the composition of the ink used,
checking it against the inks characteristic of given periods work out p
dates for the writing. By microscopic examination of the impressions
page, one can check what kind of pen was used and whether it is appr
to the period suggested.
The color of the ink, its consistency and its degree of penetratio
pafter are important. One can check how these compare with the p
ties and expectations for the type of paper and ink used. One can a
pare color, consistency and penetration of similar ink on similar
writing samples of known age, to see how closely the document r
them.9
One should make a microscopic examination of the writing to see wh
it is indeed the free-flowing rapid scrawl of someone using his native
or whether perhaps traces of careful copying, the subliminal trem
tentative scratches of the forger, can be detected.
There is also some possibility in this case of checking how l
volume in question may have been at Mar Saba. Climate has its e
books, and three hundred years in Jerusalem or, on the other hand, i
for instance, should have left markedly different effects on the p
"that heavy white paperboard" (CA 1) of the 1646 Voss.
'It would also be important to know if there are not other handwritten notes anywher
the Voss volume. Smith never discusses the point. He does say that the tower library
many samples of material written into printed volumes. "Many of the printed books
extensive handwritten passages. Binders* pages at front back, blank pages betwe
ters, even margins had been pressed into use" (SG 11). Thus there might be m
examples there of printed books with eighteenth century annotations which coul
instances for comparison. For some standard techniques in the physical examination
dating, cf. for example Albert S. Osborn, Questioned Documents (The Lawyers* Co
Publishing Company, Rochester, 1910), and The Problem of Proof (The Essex Pres
1926); Jay N. Baker, The Law of Disputed and Forged Documents (Charlottesville
1955), Sonia Cole, Counterfeit (London, 1955), pp. 186-192.
A physical search could also be instituted to establish the identity of th

scribe. One should look through the other tower volumes to see if he has
written in any others, and if so, what. One should also search through th
material transported to Jerusalem from Mar Saba a century ago to see if any
other traces of his work appear. One should also sift that same materia
carefully to see if it might possibly contain the mysterious original from
which he copied.
Morton Smith's formal presentation of his find to the scientific world,
made fifteen years after the original discovery, does nothing to satisfy
scholars' legitimate curiosity about this "whole series of particulars." But
as he himself recognizes, scholarly judgments can be based only on the evi
dence made available.
Conclusion : Smith's exposition is frankly based on the principle that, in

dealing with a new manuscript discovery, content is the primary criterion of
authenticity. His chapter on the manuscript closes with the words: "We
proceed to the primary test of authenticity - examination of the wording."
This article would maintain the traditional principle, that the primary test of
authenticity is examination of the manuscript.
To relax this principle is to open the doors wide to possibilities of deliber-
ate deception. As K. L. Schmidt pointed out in his exposure of the once cele-
brated letter of Benan: "The question we face is not: Does the content of this
ancient letter show an apocryphal character or an authentic one? The ques-
tion for us is rather: Did a letter of Benan, the physician of Egypt, ever really
exist?"10
II. The Unavoidable Next Question
"In historical questions one has to decide from observable evidence and
rational arguments" (SG 30).
When adequate physical evidence for determining a document's age has
not been provided, the scientific inquirer is forced to go on to ask about the
,0łłDer Benanbrief. Eine moderne Leben-Jesu Fälschung. . . . aufgedeckt/' Texte und Unter-
suchungen Series 3, #14,4 (1921) p. 15.
In a personal letter, Smith writes: 4 4 Had there been anything really suspicious in the
material, I might have tried, at least, to get the Patriarch to permit a detailed physical examina-
tion. But given the evidence of the content, it seemed to me that I should be wasting my time; the
chance that such an examination would yield a date substantially different from the palaeo-
graphic one seemed infinitesimal - and even if the thing did turn out to have been written in
1875 rather than 1775, the problem of explaining the content would not be substantially altered.
So I let the matter ride" (Nov. 21, 1973).
The possibility which this leaves unexplored will be considered in Part II of this article.
possibilities of forgery. The inquiry here might conveniently

suggestion of A. D. Nock that the letter Smith found at M
from Clement of Alexandria, but from a later imitator, and t
of "mystification for the sake of mystification" (CA 88, n
To produce the document Smith found at Mar Saba, a "m
have needed: 1. the ability; 2. the motivation. Let us exam
1. The ability: The ability to produce the document woul
a. a copy of Voss' Ignatius (Amsterdam, 1646) into whi
b. samples of 18th century handwriting to imitate;
c. the skill to imitate the writing;
d. control of the known writings of Clement of Alexandr
produce a text without obvious errors in subject matter
phrasing, and general stylistic characteristics;
e. opportunity to introduce the document into the Mar
Let us examine these points in sequence.
a. Possession of a copy of the 1646 edition of Voss' Ignatiu
lem.
b. Specimens of eighteenth century Greek handwriting
abundance. Besides originals, obtainable with little effort, pri
photographic reproductions appear in the ordinary manua
ography.
c. The skill to imitate the handwriting is the skill of the forger. Not everyone
has it, but many do.12
d. Control of the corpus of Clement, sufficient to avoid serious errors might
be found in not a few historians, patrologists and litterateurs. But a mastery
"Nock's statement is made in the context set by Smith, that of a discussion of content. Nock
held the letter "on stylistic grounds not later than the fourth century" (CA 287). But, as P. R.
Coleman-Norton said of the "ancient wag," in a cautionary footnote to his own scholarly hoax,
"Eiusmodi homines vix singuli singulis saeculis nascuntur." Cf. "An Amusing Agraphon," CBQ
12(1950)439-449, n.21. On this article, cf. Bruce M. Metzger, "Literary Forgeries and Canonical
Pseudepigrapha," JBL 91 (1972) If.
12The skill is probably as widely distributed among persons whose native language is Greek as
among those whose native language is American English. A scholar preparing a mystification
would probably have done well to enlist the aid of such a person. (A Greek of the last century,
Constantine Simonides, was probably the greatest forger in histoiy: cf. James A. Farrer, Literary
Forgeries [London: Longmans, Green, 1907]pp.45ff.) Still, he could also have done it without
help. His task, after all, would not have been to imitate exactly the hand of any known individual
from the 18th century: the Clement letter is unsigned and unattributed. He would only have had
to produce something in the general manner and style of an 18th centuiy hand, which would
have been considerably easier.
of detail sufficient to avoid blunders in vocabulary, phraseology and style is

hard to imagine in a single individual. That is why Smith's commentary puts
so much emphasis on this point, and why he concludes from it the genuine-
ness of the letter (CA 67). 13
But Smith overlooks one important possibility. Since there is no physical
evidence to establish the date at which the letter was produced, it is possible
that it was written at any time prior to 1958. Now, in 1936 Stählin published
Volume IV of his critical edition of the works of Clement.14 828 pages of that
volume are devoted to final summary indexing. Clement's vocabulary is
covered on pp. 197-828. Every occurrence listed is accompanied with a
quotation long enough to show how the word is used in context. Words of
more frequent occurrence are conveniently subdivided.
With the help of this index, Smith is able to check the correctness of the
letter's vocabulary and phrase-construction. He appeals to Stählin's four
volumes throughout his commentary. But in drawing his conclusions, he
overlooks the fact that, if he can check every word and phrase with the help of
Stählin's index, so could a mystifier have checked every word and phrase with
the same index and thus successfully eliminated from the first draft of a
mystification whatever was not characteristic of Clement.
The same argument applies to style. There is no physical evidence to
compel admitting a date earlier than 1936. But a mystifier working after 1936
could have had modern research tools to help him perfect his style as well.
Many monographs on Clement's usage exist in this century. They cover not
only favored grammatical constructions and rhetorical devices, but also the
authors most cited, the ways Scripture is used, etc. Smith's own bibliography
is an excellent introduction to such monographs.15
Smith overlooks the fact that, if he can check the apparent authenticity of
style with the help of these monographs, so could a mystifier have used the
13Cf., too, the synthesized study of linguistic and stylistic data (CA 67-77) and of "content"
(CA 77-85).
14 Clemens Alexandrinus , four volumes: I 1905 (1936*), II 1906 (1936* I9603), III 1909, IV
1936, Leipzig (GCS 12, 15 [52, 3d ed.], 17, 39.
"It includes technical works like E. Tengblad s Syntaktisch-stilistische Beitrage zu Kritik und
Exegese des Clemens von Alexandrien (Lund, 1932); J. Scham's Der Optativgebrauch bei
Klemens von Alexandrien (Paderborn, 1913); R. Swanson's The Gospel Text of Clement of
Alexandria (unpublished dissertation, Yale University, 1956); J. Tsermoulas' Die Bildersprache
des Klemens von Alexandrien (Cairo, 1934); and some thirty other works on Gement, as well as
various studies on Greek style in general, like F. Cloud's The Use of the Perfect Tense in the
Attic Orators (Philadelphia, 1910).
same monographs to check and correct a mystification un

appearance of authenticity.16
e. Opportunity to introduce the volume into the library. Sm

clear that the library has been long neglected and unsuperv
that he found at least 191 books there which were not in the lib
to the catalog of 1910. One of these books was the Voss volum
the Clement letter is written. As Smith himself sums it up: "Th
the last analysis, no proof that the present text was or was not
Saba
Smith visited the monastery, work

room in 1958. Is it impossible or eve
had the same privileges some tim
might have wanted to produce a "
tion"?
2. The motivation. Motivation for creating a mystification is not as hard to

find as Smith suggests.17 Literary and other forgeries and hoaxes have always
been produced.18 And, where successful, they have usually been produced by
competent scholars of serious reputation. Yet each of these had some
motivation.
If forgeries were committed only by incompetents, then competent schol-

ars would never or almost never be fooled by them. But they have been
fooled, and frequently. If among competent scholars, hoaxes could be com-
mitted only by persons well known for their pranks, their playful delight in
practical jokes, it would never take very long to develop suspicions about any
concrete example. But truly successful frauds are achieved by talented, well-
trained persons of sufficiently serious reputations. Their reasons, by nature
of the case, must normally remain a matter of speculation, but at least the
"The general principle, then, would be that whatever research tools were available to Smith
might also have been available to any "mystifier" working after 1936. What Smith is able to
"authenticate," the "mystifier" would have been able to imitate.
A similar principle would apply to intellectual resources as well. That is, if Smith can
construct arguments for genuineness from his insights into what a forger would not have done
(e.g., CA 84f.), there seems to be no reason why an intelligent mystifier could not have foreseen
such arguments and added some "untypical" elements as indispensable to a successful mystifi-
cation.
17E.g., CA 85, 85 note 8, 89 note 1, 286, 287.

1$Cf., for instance, the long list in the Anhang (pp. 313-324) to Wolfgang Speyer, Die Liter-
arische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum (Munich, 1971) (Handbuch der
Altertumswissenschaft 1,2).
persons concerned were moved by them to overcome considerable obstacles

and to run considerable risks.19
Incidentally, Smith tells a story on himself that could help make clear the
kind of motivation that might stir a serious scholar even apart from any long-
concealed spirit of fun. He tells (SG 23-25) of the day he showed his manu-
script photographs to E. Goodenough and A. D. Nock for the first time. After
describing their markedly different reactions, he concludes: "I have related
these two interviews because they show two great scholars, with diametrically
different attitudes and intellectual qualifications, confronted with important
new evidence in the field of their special competence, and reaching immedi-
ately the conclusions compatible with their previous positions. Consistency is
a remarkable virtue. If scholars of the caliber of Goodenough and Nock
could react in this way, how far can I trust myself? Not far, I fear, but at least
I'm aware of the problem. That is why I look forward to the scholarly discus-
sion that will follow the publication of the text. What will others see in it?
And what evidence will they be able to find to support their insights? For the
scholars, at least, the matter will come down, in the end, to the question of
evidence" (SG 25).
This interest in how scholars spontaneously turn any new discovery into
support for their own previous positions has been with Smith for many
years.20 It appears again perhaps behind the pre-note to CA: "I shall of
19 For instance, PfafF s Irenaeus-fragments were universally accepted as a genuine discovery
from 1710-1900. They appeared in all the standard editions during those two centuries. Some
scholars denied that the fragments were all from the pen of Irenaeus, but no one ever dared
suggest they might have been forged by a man of such reputation and scholarly attainment as
Pfaff, Professor and Chancellor at Tubingen, the discoverer and editor of so many genuine
patristic manuscripts. Cf. Harnack, "Die Pfaffschen Irenaus-Fragmente als Fälschungen
Pfaffs nachgewiesen/' Texte und Untersuchungen NF , 3 (1900) 7f., 22 n., 24 n., 28, 32, 69.
Harnack had himself accepted them for many years, but he finally became convinced they were a
creation of Pfaff. He proved it in his 1900 article, and no one takes the Pfaff material seriously
today.
20His conviction that apologetic plays a major role in most of what passes as history is a theme
of his dissertation, Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels ĢBL Monograph Series VI, 1951). Cf.
especially pp. xii, 16, 24, 47, 71f., 73, 1 10, 1 1 1 n. 18, 1 16f., 125. His summary remarks in "Com-
ments on Taylor's Commentary on Mark" HTR 48(1955)21-63 express the same idea. He
believes, he says, that "Taylor's work will influence the study of Mark for years to come" (p. 21).
And his conclusion is: "The passages discussed are sufficient for a clear picture not only of
Taylor's book, but of the sort of NT scholarship it represents: the work of determined apolo-
gists. It is for apologetic motives that Taylor is willing
apologetics that he does not notice. . . What are these apologetic m

historical reliability of Mk. and the liberal Protestant picture of Jesu
him to the methods just described, the second to casuistical 'explanat
clear sense of the text and to arbitrary rejection of material which c
62f.).
course want to follow the discussion of this text; I the

scholars who write about it will be so kind as to send copies
tions to me at the Department of History, Columbia Univ
10027, U.S.A." (CA ix).
Since surely many others besides Smith must be equall
the question of how scholarly conclusions relate to eviden
that one of them found himself moved to concoct some "evide
set up a controlled experiment?
Conclusion : Until the standard physical evidence is produced
remains wide open that the document was produced some
and 1958. The motivation of the one who might have p
remain, as is usual in such cases, a matter of speculation.
known hoaxes, as well as some comments by Smith, show
tion would not have to range beyond the bounds of con
concern.
III. Further Questions for Smith
Having proceeded this far in the investigation, it is perhaps no

to go on to some further questions concerning the presentation o
CA. For some aspects of the book, while not exactly mystify
puzzling, to say the least. Let us raise five questions.
/. In what sense does Smith* s historical sketch of Jesus an
tianity ( Chapter IV , "The Background ") result from his res
meaning of the letter?
The question arises in two ways, logically and historically. It ar
from the same set of facts which has caused some reviewers to no
"background" is not really very closely connected with the lette
not dependent on it.21 The "background" seems rather t
which - with considerable creative ingenuity, to be sure - co
The opening words of Smith's article» "Pauline Problems: Apropos of J. Mu

die Heilsgeschichte' " {fi TR 50[1957]107-131), carry on the same point: "All
suffer from the unconscious transformation of generally accepted hypothese
known facts/ This transformation is particularly frequent in NT criticism
amount of directly relevant material necessitates constant resort to hypot
particular credit is due to Munck for writing a book which challenges man
hypotheses about Paul" (p. 107).
Cf. too Smith's "What is Implied by the Variety of Messianic Figures?' VÄL
21 Cf. J. Fitzmyer's review in America 128/24(23 June, 1973) 570-72 and my
Catholic Reporter y November 30, 1973, p. 12.
spun out of New Testament and patristic texts, whether or not the letter had
ever been discovered.
The question arises historically from Smith's narrative account in SG of
how he came to his interpretation of the letter. There he tells how for several
years following his discovery, he worked at its meaning and implications (SG
72ff.). He describes then (SG 96) how he finally arrived at an over-all inter-
pretation in 1963, when he saw that five different elements about which he
had been wondering could all fit together into a coherent whole to explain
the work of Jesus and his followers.
The five elements were: 1. union with Jesus; 2. the work of the Spirit; 3.
magic (=miracles and exorcisms); 4. ascent into the heavens; and 5.
liberation from the law. The new insight which brought them together for
Smith to explain early Christianity was the notion that each of these five
could be related to a ritual, supposedly central to the ministry of Jesus, which
had as many libertine sexual overtones as it did religious (SG 113f.).
Smith came to this realization, he tells us, by reflecting on the language of
mystery and secrecy that appears in the NT (SG 74f.; 81-87). Secrecy seemed
to imply something which of its nature had to be hidden from respectable
religious people - something in Jesus' teaching and practice which would
have been considered shocking, disreputable (SG 121-134).
He came to this, it seems, only after finishing his work on the textual com-
mentary in 1962 (SG 75;%). Before that his main concern had been the
language of the letter. While checking the language, he had however been
making notes on other ideas as they came to him. He went back to those
notes in 1963 (SG 72). They showed, he tells, how during the period 1958-62
certain questions developed in his mind: 4 The central problem, I had
gradually come to see, was the element of secrecy in primitive Christian tra-
dition. Why did Clement's church have a secret Gospel? And why did even
this secret Gospel merely hint at further secrets it would not reveal (for
instance, the content of 'the mystery of the kingdom of God')? What was
there to conceal?" (SG 73). "What most concerned me was the mystery of
Jesus and particularly 'the mystery of the kingdom of God,' since that phrase
appeared in the text" (SG 74).
Nevertheless, Smith's writings from before 1958, before he found the letter,
show him reading Jesus' miracles as "magic"22 and being reminded by early
Christian exorcisms of "the widespread use of the Hebrew names in the magi-
cal texts. . . "23 As early as 1941 he is interested in religious ritual as produc-
ing a hypnotic, eccstatic experience of "ascent into the heavens" (SG 7f.). In
""Comments on Taylor's Commentary on Mark" HTR 48(1955)23.
""The Jewish Elements in the Gospels" JBR 24 (1956)93.
1956 he describes liberation from the law as the aspect of

which the early Church was most embarrassed by and which
strained to conceal.24
In his dissertation (1951) he had written: "An important part of primitive
Christianity was a secret doctrine which was revealed only to trusted mem-
bers."2S He found this implied in the "mystery of the kingdom of God" (Mk
4:11) and he interpreted it in the context of a "similar distinction" by which
the Tannaitic literature kept secret all material "dealing with forbidden
sexual relationships."26
In "Comments on Taylor's Commentary on Mark" he pointed to certain
"secrecy themes of Mark's sources, possibly reflecting the behavior of Jesus
himself."27 He insisted against Taylor that the mysterion of Mk 4:11 could
connote "secret rites" as well as "esoteric knowledge communicated to
'initiates.' "28 He suggested that "Jesus might have had good reason to limit
some of his teaching to a hand-picked group."29
There are many echoes in all this of the theory expounded in CA Chapter
IV "The Background" (CA 195-278). But the echoes precede the discovery
itself. And the gradual development from 1958 to 1962 (as described in SG
73) is not apparent. Hence the question.
2. Can any scholarly reason be assigned for most of the documentation the
book includes?
Thorough documentation is not only a virtue; it is an absolute necessity of
solid scholarship. Other parts of this article criticize Smith for omitting
essential documentation at crucial points. But on the other hand, the need
for thoroughness does not set an automatic norm of "the more the better."
When useless or irrelevant information is richly and painstakingly
documented, the cause of scholarship can be actually impeded rather than
advanced.30
24Smith explains there was a "progressive Judaizing of Christianity after Jesus' death" as the
Christian community gradually settled down to life as a Jewish sect. Jesus' own position had been
extreme: his was "the individual's response to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in defiance of the
custom and authorities of the society around him." "It may be, therefore, that Jesus had less
regard than his disciples for the standards of other Jewish groups. . . " (Jewish Elements in the
Gospels", p. 95f.).
25 Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels , p. 155f.
"Ibid.
27p.43.
2$p.29.
"p.31.
Î0A note in Coleman-Norton (loc. cit., n. 38) cites Macrobius to the point: "He who explains
more than is necessary deepens the darkness." Coleman-Norton's article is of course a perfect
example of the point. It distracts the reader's attention from the lack of basic evidence by
It is not only that the non-specialist may be too easily dazzled by the mere
sight of heavily annotated pages and foreign scripts. But also, unless the
author has taken great care to distinguish the important from the trivial, the
central from the incidental, even the specialist can be oppressed by the exces-
sive labor it would take to come to grips with the author's thought; not being
able to check everything, he may see little point in checking anything; having
work of his own to do before he dies, he may feel constrained to settle for a
temporary appraisal of "very scholarly," laying the work aside for a leisurely
thorough analysis in some vague future.
To go through the text of CA here page by page in an attempt to show that
it does indeed contain for the most part richly documented irrelevant detail
would be too long for the limits of an article. In the end, the results would still
be unsatisfactory, for who is to say which individual items of information or
documentation might not prove useful or interesting to some other scholar
somewhere sometime? Instead of that, it seems better to try to demonstrate
the point from a single example, using an example which looms large enough
to be significant (one-eighth of the entire book in size), and the irrelevance of
which seems able to be shown beyond question.
Consider Appendix B (CA 295-351). After some introductory matter, it
consists of fifty-three pages of "all reasonably certain references to Car-
pocrates that I have found in patristic literature" (295). To the casual ob-
server, this may be the most impressive item in the book. With the exception
of one Coptic text which appears in English translation and one from
Michael Syrus which appears in French, all the texts are printed in Latin or
Greek. The texts are accompanied with serious-looking marginal annota-
tions and a quarter to a half of most pages is given over to formidable foot-
notes filled with the subtleties of variant readings, proposed emendations,
etc. The texts are drawn from the best available editions, usually GCS (Die
griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte) or CCL
(Corpus Christianorum - Series Latina ).31
Nevertheless, it is hard to believe that this material is included as a serious
contribution to scholarly investigation. To begin with, twenty-nine of the
fifty-three pages are devoted to citations of authors later than Clement*. Not
inundating him with information about everything else: circumstantial details of how and where
the find was made (pp. 439-441); long, painstaking analyses of style, grammar and vocabulary
(443; 446f.); the history of individual words in classical and Homeric Greek (443, n. 19); possible
parallels with the gospels (447, n.26; n.27; n.31; n.32). Similarly, PfafPs two pages of Irenaeus
fragments were accompanied with 160 pages of textual commentary, besides a 21 page
refutation of a critic and several essays on related doctrinal matters. (Cf. Harnack, "Die PfafF
sehen Irenaus Fragmenta," pp. 67ff.).
3 'The GCS volumes are identified only under the names of their individual editors: Koetschau,
Wendland, Schwartz, etc., without dates and places of publication.
62 The Catholic Biblical Quarterly [Vol 37
one of these contains any new evidence on the Carpocratians. A

is later repetition, with variations due to misunderstandin
already contained in the citations on the first twenty-fou
Irenaeus and Clement.32
To give so much space to "repetitions and confusions" is in itself suspi-
cious, considering the cost of books, the time of the reader, and the minimal
treatment afforded some other very important matters.33 But to print all the
repetitions and confusions in their original Latin and Greek seems, under the
same considerations, not only without point but without excuse.
Finally, to accompany each of the repetitions and confusions with its own
set of text-critical footnotes seems beyond explanation. The notes are
borrowed unchanged from good critical editions of the individual authors. In
their proper place within those editions they make excellent sense, of course.
But in the appendix to CA these authors are being cited as possible sources of
background information on Carpocrates. In actual fact they have no real
information to give.34 What reasonable purpose then is served by informing a
reader who is looking for background information on Carpocrates that
(beginning, as an example, with the first page of the post-Clement material,
322) Tertullian De Anima XXIII. 2 has the heading "Unde Anima" in two
manuscripts,, and "Unde Anima, adversus haereticos qui earn de coelis
deferunt" in another? Or that "Sed et Carpocrates" is the reading of A, but
"Sed Carpocrates" of B and Gel? Why is there a note explaining that
"mundipotentium" appears in AB as "mundi potentium"?
Moreover, if these items do have any reasonable purpose in Appendix B,
then why are A, B, Gel, Semi, Iun, Rig etc. not identified? If one must turn to
"Smith himself comments in the text: "After Clement, the material in Appendix B affords
almost no reliable information about the Carpocratians" (CA 274); "From the minor authors in
Appendix B there is even less to glean" (CA 275); "The later fathers furnish repetitions and
confusions" (CA 276).
His citations from Epiphanius' Panarion might possibly be justified, at least in part. They do
add some specifications to the Irenaeus and Clement material, even though they are late and "so
unreliable that it does not add to our knowledge" (CA 275), and even though in these specifica-
tions Epiphanius "is probably indulging his libidinous imagination" (Ibid.).
"Omitting any discussion of the need for physical examination of the manuscript; omitting
the text of the experts' opinions (cf. Part One of this article); not including a complete index to
the references to Clement made throughout the book [82 are enumerated in the index of
"Ancient Works Discussed"; but there are in fact thousands. More than 82 occur on the first ten
pages alone]; a full statement on the tradition - or, rather, lack of tradition, in regard to any
"letters of Clement." (The eight lines on CA 6 are inadequate and misleading both as to the
quantity and value of the evidence and as to Stählin's stance. The four lines under point (4) on
CA 285 are inaccurate; and the rest of the discussion on CA 287-290 does not claim to be factual
or evidential.)
î4Cf. note 32, above.
the Waszink Corpus Christianorum edition of Tertullian to find out, then

one was not benefitted by finding the passage and notes reproduced complete
in Appendix B. A simple page reference to Waszink would have sufficed.
Reproduction of the full text in this book is presumably for people who are
reading this book and do not have Waszink (and the many other editions
cited for other Fathers in the following 28 pages).
The marginal annotations are subject to the same criticism. The second De
Anima passage is marked "f.l47v, V 361, f. 148/' etc. What manuscripts,
what editors are being referred to? If one is to go to Waszink to find out, how
was one served by the presence of the notes here? What scholarly purpose
have they in Appendix B of CA?
The next page continues in the same vein: approbant Gomperz 73;
ThSt.T 33/4 Stowasser," etc., without any attempt to identify these people;
and with further enlightenment on manuscript variations between <4ad
custodiam" and "in custodiam," "diligite inimicos vestros" and "diligite
enim inimicos vestros," etc. This would be understandable and forgivable -
although it would still be a bad use of expensive space - were these pages
mere photographic reproductions of the originals. But examination of the
type fonts used shows that every line on these pages has been reset in the
preparation of this book - though without any deliberate modification of the
originals.^
But another large segment of Appendix B gives even more ground for
suspicion. The first paragraph on p. 298 and all the material from p. 311
through 321 is cited from the works of Clement of Alexandria. Like the rest
of Appendix B, it is in the original Greek, here borrowed from the GCS
edition of Stählin. Stählin's marginal notes and footnotes are reproduced in
the original German, again without any explanation of symbols or abbrevia-
tions, and without any bibliographical accounting for such items as "vgl.
Rohde, Psyche 2 p.234f."
But what makes most questionable the seriousness of the author's inten-
tions in including these eleven pages of Greek text from Clement is their
manifest uselessness in the book the author has written. He has so
constructed his book that these pages cannot serve any but an orname
purpose. For, throughout the 290 pages of his five chapters, Smith has mad
all his citations of Clement and references to Clement in such a way that t
cannot possibly be traced except by someone who has a copy of Stäh
edition on the desk in front of him.
îsSo closely do they follow the original that even the footnotes are left in the German or Latin
of the original editors.
In his thousands of references to individual items in the works of

Clement,36 Smith never gives the name of the work to which he refers, the
book and (where applicable) the chapter. Instead, he consistently refers
exclusively to the volume, page and line in the edition of Stählin. Thus, not
Stromata 1,18 (11.153.28) but only 11.153.28; that is, Stählin, Volume II, page
153, line 28. The reference is exact and accurate, but is useless without a copy
of Stählin. No other edition, no personal familiarity with the writings of
Clement will help. One must have Stählin.37
Now if this entire book is so set up that it cannot be read seriously except
by persons who already have the four volumes of Stählin at hand for constant
reference, what serious intention could there be in including in the book
eleven and a half pages of Greek text from Stählin? Everyone who reads
Greek and is interested in verifying references already has the full text before
him. Those who do not read Greek or are not interested in verifying refer-
ences will get no benefit from the eleven pages. This calls for an explanation.
3 . How much of the text of CA was actually seen by the many scholars
named as readers ?
The vagueness in Chapter I about the precise role played by the ten pale-
ographers was discussed above.38 Close reading of the text of CA also leaves
doubt as to the exact role of the scholars named in the following chapters.
A "first draft0 of Chapter II was read by 18 persons, named on p. 6, and a
"number of scholars" "also" made comments but are not included in the p. 6
list - e.g., P. Benoit (= P.B., 113,120,141). Only four of those who read the
first draft of Chapter II also saw Chapter III, while one (Nock) read only the
first part of it (CA 87). An additional six persons read Chapter III, but not
Chapter II (CA 87). Only one person who had read both Chapters II and III
was also given "a draft" of Chapter IV (CA 195). One other scholar was also
J6Smith provides no summary index of these references, so their numbef must be estimated by
sampling a few pages. The first five pages of the commentary (CA 7-11) alone contain sixty such
references.
5 7 While one hesitates to say that a given practice is absolutely singular, this way of referring to
Clement is at least unusual. I do not find it followed by other authors in journals in which Smith
commonly publishes: HTR , JBL; not in such standard reference works as RGG, LTK; not in
books I have consulted in preparing this paper which were written by persons on Smith's list of
experts: Metzger, Mondésert, Chadwick, Munck, Nock.
The advantage of being able to give a specific line reference to Clement is obvious, especially
when one is making a word by word commentary; but equally obvious is the disadvantage of
rendering all one's references meaningless except to those readers who have immediate and
constant access to all four volumes of Stählin. The compromise, fairly frequent in modern dis-
cussions, is to cite the traditional book title and chapter number and then, when useful, the page
and exact line in Stählin.
"Part One. B.
shown a draft of Chapter IV, but nothing is said of his ever having been
shown Chapters II and III.
Fifteen of those who read Chapter II 41 'concluded that the manuscript's
attribution of the text to Clement was probably correct" (CA 67). No similar
summary of the scholars' reactions to Chapters III or IV appears.
4. Why is there such a high percentage of inaccuracies in such a serious
study?
Obviously this is a double question, and cannot fairly be posed without
first establishing the fact that there is an extraordinarily high proportion of
inaccuracies in CA. Again, to do this by going through the 454 pages, trying
to point out all the errors would be much too large an undertaking for a
single article. (Typographical errors alone run to more than one for every six
pages.) But the proportion of error can be suggested by taking a fair
sampling and examining it thoroughly. Let us simply examine in sequence
then each of the first dozen references to the works of Clement on the open-
ing pages of Smith's commentary (CA 6ff.).
I. and 2.: Under ímoro/jíoat ; 1.187.8 and 1.192.22. These first two referen-
ces are accurate.
3. "Clement cited Titus 1. 10 (11.27. 14f.), in an attack on libertine heret

The citation of Titus 1,10 in 11,27, 14f. (Stromata 1,8) is part of a warni
sophistry and empty argumentation are the corruption of true philo
There is no mention of libertines.
4. 4 'Clement cited. . . Titus 1,12 (II.37.25ff.) in an attack on Hellenizers."
II.37.25ff. (Stromata 1,14) is part of an explanation of how Christians may
cite Greek philosophers for their own purposes, as Paul himself did. It does
not mention Hellenizers; if anything it would be an argument in their favor.
5.6 44 ¿m0T0fii'£ü) normally has for its object a person or an animal - so
always in Clement - but it is used with an inanimate object often in Philo, of
the passions, and in Josephus AJ XVII.251:. . . ." 'Emcrro^i£a> does not
always have for its object a person or an animal in Clement. Smith cites
I.187.8 and I. 192.22. These are two of the three occurrences in Clement
listed in Stählin's index. The third occurrence listed is 1.185.19 (Paidagogos
II,5: On laughter). It reads: h'kà xa' aí/ròv tòv yeAcara biioro^iorcov .
Laughter is not a person or an animal. An appeal to Philo and a quote from
Josephus were unnecessary. The appeal to Clement's practice was inaccurate.
7.8. aģģrjrovt and óidaaxaÁíaç : the references to places in Clement where
these words are used of pagan mysteries with sexual overtones are accurate
but tendentiously selective, aęgrjroę and óióaoxaXia are used in many dif-
ferent contexts in Clement (cf. Stählin's index). According to context,
açQrjroç can be 44unspeakable" or 44ineffable."
66 The Catholic Biblica l Quarterly [Vol. 37
9. 10. "KaçnoxQaTiavœv . Referred to as a sect ( aÏQeou, ) IL 19

H.197.27 does refer to the Carpocratians as a sect ( oXqioíç )
not.
11. 12. "Jude 13. Jude is cited by Clement (I.262.19ff.; 11.200.25) where it is
said to refer to the Carpocratians. . . ." I.262.19ff. (Paidagogos 111,8) cites
Jude, but makes no mention whatever of the Carpocratians. II. 200.25ff.
(Stromata 111,2) mentions them, but does not precisely affirm that Jude
"refers to the Carpocratians." It sums up a chapter where Clement discusses
the Carpocratians, the doctrine of Plato on the community of wives, and
Xanthus' account of similar practices among the Magi. It then states "About
these and similar heresies, I think, did Jude write prophetically in his letter,
w. 8-16/'
Experience working with the rest of CA suggests that the same proportion
of inaccuracies can be revealed by a close examination of any representative
sampling from the work. In a book of such scope, prepared over so many
years, this is puzzling.
5. Is there any connection between the dedications of CA and SG?
CA is said to be written "for Arthur Darby Nock/' who, Smith tells in the
book, refused till the day he died to admit the authenticity of the letter, sug-
gesting instead that it was "mystification for the sake of mystification."39 SG
is written "For the one who knows."
Who is "the one who knows"? What does he know?
IV. Conclusion
Part One of this paper reviewed the most basic tests which a newly
announced find must meet "if it is to have any right to the attention of intelli-
gent or serious people" (Goodspeed). It found Smith's presentation of the
Mar Saba Clementine deficient in this respect. Hopefully Smith can produce
his evidence in the near future.
"Cf. CA 67: "Nock was inclined to deny this attribution. . . ." and CA 88, n.l on "mystifica-
tion for the sake of mystification" as his alternative suggestion. Smith there maintains that
Nock's "supposition therefore rests on nothing more than the feeling this just cannot be genuine.
That feeling may be correct - given Nock's knowledge of Greek and his amazing intuition, one
hesitates even to doubt it - but it is not, by itself, conclusive."
Cf., too, SG 29: "Nock persisted in denying the attribution to Clement, though in the face of
the collected evidence, he could give no reason for his denial save instinct.' That made me ner-
vous and still does, not only because of Nock's immense knowledge of Greek and his remarkable
feel for Greek style, but also because, apart from his learning, he was a man of unusual intuition."
Part Two went on to the question which unavoidably arises when the most
basic test is not met: Is there a reasonable possibility of forgery? The answer,
working only with the evidence Smith presents, seems to be clearly, yes. But,
again, it is possible that Smith has more evidence to present.
Part Three pointed to a few other matters in Smith's presentation which,
whether or not the Clement letter is a "mystification," remain quite puzzling
in themselves. Since Parts One and Two call for some response from Smith, it
seemed appropriate to suggest he might at the same time offer clarification in
regard to these other points as well.
Quentin Quesnell
390 North Farms Road
Northampton , MA 01060

The Mar Saba Clementine. A Question of Evidence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Mar Saba Clementine. A Question of Evidence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE MAR SABA CLEMENTINE: A QUESTION OF EVIDENCE

Author(s): Quentin Quesnell

I. The Basic Question

'(University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1931), p. 5.

ment itself. ... He naturally wishes to scrutinize its material, whether

A. Accessibility of the manuscript

These demands of scholarship impose a corresponding obligation upon

2 Strange New Gospels , p. 3.

books and manuscripts have been deliberately destroyed to prov

B. The experts ' report on the dating

original disappear without a trace. Did he carefully copy it into the ba

C. "A whole series of particulars. . . (Goodspeed)

The "whole series of particulars" on which the scholar would l

A physical search could also be instituted to establish the identity of th

Conclusion : Smith's exposition is frankly based on the principle that, in

II. The Unavoidable Next Question

possibilities of forgery. The inquiry here might conveniently

of detail sufficient to avoid blunders in vocabulary, phraseology and style is

same monographs to check and correct a mystification un

e. Opportunity to introduce the volume into the library. Sm

Smith visited the monastery, work

2. The motivation. Motivation for creating a mystification is not as hard to

If forgeries were committed only by incompetents, then competent schol-

17E.g., CA 85, 85 note 8, 89 note 1, 286, 287.

persons concerned were moved by them to overcome considerable obstacles

apologetics that he does not notice. . . What are these apologetic m

course want to follow the discussion of this text; I the

III. Further Questions for Smith

Having proceeded this far in the investigation, it is perhaps no

The opening words of Smith's article» "Pauline Problems: Apropos of J. Mu

1956 he describes liberation from the law as the aspect of

one of these contains any new evidence on the Carpocratians. A

the Waszink Corpus Christianorum edition of Tertullian to find out, then

In his thousands of references to individual items in the works of

3. "Clement cited Titus 1. 10 (11.27. 14f.), in an attack on libertine heret

9. 10. "KaçnoxQaTiavœv . Referred to as a sect ( aÏQeou, ) IL 19

You might also like