Shining Light on Morton Smith's Discovery Process

The ongoing debate around Morton Smith and the Letter to Theodore centers on the idea that Smith himself might have authored the letter. Those who advocate this view argue that the phrase γυμνὸς γυμνῷ (naked with naked) serves as the innermost layer of a deliberately crafted exegetical matryoshka doll, implying that the letter is not by Clement of Alexandria but by Smith. According to this theory, Smith created a “fake” gospel pericope designed to mimic the literary habits of Mark. The suggestion of nudity concerning the youth was intended to align with a fabricated exegesis by the Carpocratians, subtly implying a homosexual relationship between Jesus and the youth.

The Forger Hypothesis

Proponents of the forgery hypothesis argue that Smith's intention was to present Clement’s condemnation of the Carpocratian “homosexual” exegesis as a veiled way of introducing the idea of a gay Jesus and a gay Christianity. They contend that the Letter to Theodore ends abruptly with a promise by Clement to provide a fuller exegesis, a promise that is inherently disingenuous. According to this view, there never was a true or false exegesis, nor a secret gospel of Mark. It was all orchestrated by Smith to introduce the blasphemous concept of a gay Jesus.

The Importance of γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ

The discovery that the manuscript actually reads γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ (naked with naked, in plural) rather than γυμνὸς γυμνῷ (naked with naked, in singular) fundamentally challenges the forgery hypothesis. This reading undermines the idea that Smith intended to imply a homosexual relationship between Jesus and the youth, as the plural form could include women and does not support the primary focus of the forgery theory on homoerotic themes.

Clement’s Perspective on Revealing Mysteries

It is crucial to consider Clement of Alexandria's own perspective on revealing sacred mysteries through writing. In a significant passage from the Stromateis, Clement clearly states that a written letter was an inappropriate medium for disclosing such mysteries:

I know that when the Apostle says he is coming to you, he will come in the fullness of Christ's blessing, bringing the spiritual gift and the Gnostic tradition, which he longs to impart to them in person (for it was not possible to disclose these things through a letter [emphasis mine]). He calls it the fullness of Christ, revealed now through prophetic writings according to the command of the eternal God, to make known the mystery kept silent for long ages but now revealed to all the nations unto obedience of faith, that is, to those from the nations who believe. To a few of these, it is also shown what these things are in the mystery.

Whoever wrote the Letter to Theodore, whether it was Clement himself or a forger, would have likely been aware of this passage and crafted the letter in a way that did not contradict this prohibition.

The Complexity of Contextual Interpretation

Smith's struggle to interpret the manuscript accurately is a testament to the complex nature of ancient texts and the intricacies involved in their analysis. His cautious approach in interpreting the phrase “naked with naked” and his subsequent revisions in transcription highlight the difficulties faced by scholars when dealing with ambiguous ancient manuscripts. Smith’s changes in interpretation and transcription over the years suggest that he was continually re-evaluating his findings in light of new evidence and perspectives, a hallmark of rigorous scholarship, not forgery.

Conclusion: Re-evaluating the Forgery Hypothesis

The recent revelation that the text reads γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ rather than γυμνὸς γυμνῷ challenges the foundations of the forgery hypothesis. It emphasizes the need for a more nuanced understanding of the Letter to Theodore and the context in which it was written or discovered. Morton Smith’s handling of the document reflects the challenges and uncertainties inherent in the field of paleography and ancient manuscript studies. While the letter remains controversial, the new evidence suggests that the accusations of forgery against Smith may be unfounded. Instead, his cautious and methodical approach to interpreting the text underscores his commitment to academic integrity and the complexities of authenticating ancient documents.