The Conspiracy: Unraveling the Secret Gospel of Mark Controversy

In the ongoing saga of the Secret Gospel of Mark, the debate over its authenticity has seen numerous scholars weigh in, each bringing their unique perspectives and methodologies. Chapter Six of Brett Landau and Geoffrey Smith's book delves into the latest wave of skepticism, focusing on the works of two prominent scholars who have published book-length arguments asserting that Morton Smith forged the manuscript: Stephen Carlson and Peter Jeffery. This chapter meticulously examines their claims, often referred to as "breadcrumbs," and assesses their validity.

Stephen Carlson: The Gospel Hoax

Stephen Carlson's 2005 book, The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith’s Invention of Secret Mark, stands as a significant contribution to the forgery hypothesis. Despite Carlson's initial lack of formal training in biblical studies—he was a lawyer specializing in patent law—his arguments have been taken seriously for several reasons. Firstly, Carlson was already well-versed in early Christianity and later pursued doctoral studies in the field, mentored by Bart Ehrman. Secondly, Carlson had previously demonstrated a forged biblical manuscript, establishing his credibility in identifying forgeries. Lastly, his book continues to be cited as a compelling case for Smith's forgery of the Mar Saba letter.

Carlson's analysis focuses on purported handwriting anomalies in the manuscript. He argues that signs of unnatural writing, such as "forger's tremor," indicate that the manuscript was not written naturally but rather imitated. However, Carlson's methodology has been criticized. He based his analysis on low-resolution reproductions of Smith’s photographs, which introduced visual distortions. Higher resolution images do not support Carlson’s claims of handwriting irregularities, undermining his argument.

Scott Brown, another scholar deeply involved in the debate, has been pivotal in contesting Carlson's claims. Brown's extensive research dismantles the supposed anomalies and highlights methodological flaws in Carlson's approach, such as relying on low-quality images for forensic analysis.

Peter Jeffery: The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled

Peter Jeffery's 2007 book, The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled: Imagined Rituals of Sex, Death, and Madness in a Biblical Forgery, approaches the controversy from a different angle. Jeffery, an expert in liturgical history, suggests that Smith's motivations were deeply personal and psychological. Jeffery posits that Smith’s homosexuality and possible mental health issues influenced his creation of the Secret Gospel. He interprets Smith's writings and the Secret Gospel narrative through a lens that emphasizes hidden sexual meanings and psychological distress.

Jeffery’s arguments have faced significant criticism for their speculative nature. He relies heavily on the notion that Smith embedded clues about his identity and motivations in the manuscript and his publications. Jeffery’s analysis of Smith's sexuality and mental health has been particularly controversial, with critics arguing that it lacks solid evidence and relies on outdated stereotypes about homosexuality and mental illness.

Jeffery’s treatment of Smith’s sexual identity as a central factor in the forgery hypothesis has also been criticized for reinforcing harmful stereotypes. By suggesting that Smith's homosexuality and mental health issues drove him to create the forgery, Jeffery risks perpetuating negative associations between these aspects of Smith's identity and deceitful behavior.

Assessing the Breadcrumbs

Both Carlson and Jeffery build their cases on identifying "breadcrumbs," subtle clues purportedly left by Smith to reveal his forgery. However, these breadcrumbs often crumble under scrutiny. For example, Carlson’s theory that Smith embedded a clue involving the Morton Salt Company in the manuscript has been debunked by Brown, who demonstrated that Carlson misunderstood the historical context of salt production in antiquity.

Similarly, Jeffery’s interpretations of sexual innuendos in the Secret Gospel narrative, such as the young man’s resurrection as a metaphor for coming out of the closet, are seen as far-fetched. Jeffery’s focus on Oscar Wilde’s influence on Smith is another example of speculative reasoning that lacks concrete evidence.

Conclusion: The Fragility of the Forgery Hypothesis

The arguments presented by Carlson and Jeffery, despite their complexity and initial appeal, often collapse under detailed examination. Their reliance on speculative breadcrumbs and questionable interpretations weakens their case for Smith’s forgery. As Landau and Smith conclude, the sheer quantity of arguments does not compensate for their lack of quality.

The ongoing debate over the Secret Gospel of Mark exemplifies the challenges of historical scholarship, where the line between rigorous analysis and speculative theory can sometimes blur. While the forgery hypothesis remains influential, it is essential to approach it with a critical eye, recognizing the limitations and biases that may underlie even the most compelling arguments.