Why Smith Got it Wrong

I don’t think Morton Smith forged the Letter to Theodore. Nevertheless, I recognize that it is difficult to defend the authenticity of a letter for which we have no previous information. By all accounts, the language of the letter is Clementine. The association between St. Mark and Alexandria is established for us by Eusebius. As the canonical gospels are generally recognized to be later developments of the Gospel of Mark, it surely can’t be outside the realm of possibilities that Mark himself expanded his gospel. Since Clement of Alexandria used extra-canonical gospels, particularly a “Gospel according to the Egyptians,” which exhibited Markan features – such as the prominence of Salome – the idea that a copy of a letter made by the earliest Alexandrian Church Father was somehow preserved at a “hub” of ancient manuscript production doesn’t seem as outlandish as some people make it out to be.

There are, of course, many other scenarios to explain the Letter to Theodore as a fake not produced by Morton Smith. I can’t go into all those details in the space afforded me in this paper. Instead, it is enough to say that the Secret Gospel of Mark was more than likely a “fake” in the way the canonical gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John were fakes. The young Morton Smith was clearly concerned that his discovery might have been a fake. There are at least twenty references to the possibility the text might have been a forgery in his 1973 book. “Almost any work of ancient literature can be supposed a forgery.” I interpret this obsession with the possibility as a sign that he didn’t want his emerging reputation in academia to be besmirched by an association with a fake text, yet I am aware there have been other takes on this situation.

It is difficult to account for his mistaking the accented iota of γυμνοί for a sigma. My sense is that it was rooted in the same caution which caused him to take the possibility of forgery so seriously. There are at least Greek witnesses for the reversed phrase γυμνῷ γυμνὸς. We must also assume that Smith, like any good scholar, was trying to determine the meaning of the phrase by its immediate “context” (εννοιολογικό). To this end, γυμνὸς γυμνῷ likely seemed the better choice owing to its immediate context in the Letter. Smith saw Clement bringing forward the passage from the so-called “Secret Gospel of Mark” as a means of contextualizing “naked with naked.” Since there were two men in that scene, Smith thought the Carpocratians must have been talking about two naked men.

It’s not a terribly unreasonable reading of the letter. Clement’s reference to “what the Carpocratians are saying” – that is, naked with naked – immediately follows Clement’s reproduction of a scene from the secret gospel with two men, the younger coming to the older “wrapped in a linen cloth over his naked body” (περιβεβλημένος σινδόνα ἐπὶ γυμνῷ). Since one of them was naked, Smith must have thought the Carpocratians taught that both were naked. Morton Smith was an erudite scholar. But he struggled with his task of interpreting his discovery. This is readily apparent from Smith’s first attempt to transcribe the document in 1958, where he rendered to Theodore’s Τὸ δὲ γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ καὶ τἆλλα περὶ ὧν ἔγραψας οὐκ εὑρίσκεται as:

But the <passage containing the words> "naked <man> with naked <man>" and the other things which you wrote are not found <in the text>.

There is a footnote beside the bracketed translated words above where Smith acknowledges the idea that “naked with naked” was actually in the gospel was speculative. He writes, "interpretive insertion, perhaps only "the <words>."

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.

Moreover, 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. This process of re-evaluation is a hallmark of rigorous scholarship, not of forgery. The fact that he considered the possibility of the text being a forgery demonstrates his commitment to academic integrity and his awareness of the complexities involved in authenticating ancient documents.

Conclusion: A Scholar's Dilemma

Morton Smith’s handling of the Letter to Theodore reflects the challenges and uncertainties that come with the discovery and interpretation of ancient texts. While his initial reading of the manuscript included possible errors, his approach was marked by a cautious and methodical attempt to understand and authenticate the document.

The case of the accented iota versus sigma is a prime example of how even the most meticulous scholars can face difficulties in interpreting ancient texts. Smith’s careful consideration of context and his willingness to revise his interpretations indicate a scholar grappling with the complexities of his find, rather than a forger trying to deceive.

In conclusion, while the Letter to Theodore remains a controversial document, Morton Smith's actions and scholarship surrounding it demonstrate a commitment to academic rigor and integrity. His cautious approach and ongoing revisions highlight the inherent challenges in the field of paleography and ancient manuscript studies.