Biblical Archaeology Review

Mishnah, Tractate Eruvim 10, 14, The Mishnah, Danby translation (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1933), p. 136.

Stephen Carlson, The Gospel Hoax (Waco, TX: Baylor Univ. Press, 2005), p. 60.

See Helmut Koester, “Gospels and Gospel Traditions in the Second Century,” in Andrew Gregory and Christopher Tucket, eds., Trajectories Through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2005), pp. 27–44; see also Koester, From Jesus to the Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), pp. 24–38.

Jeff Jay, “A New Look at the Epistolary Framework of the Secret Gospel of Mark,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 16 (2008), pp. 573–597.

Here are a couple more examples: In the story of the rich young man who seeks eternal life (Mark 10:17–22=Matthew 19:16–22=Luke 18:18–23), Mark tell us that “Jesus, looking upon him, loved him.” This observation is missing from the parallel account of Matthew and Luke. They apparently did not find this sentence in their copies of Mark.

“Mystery” is more accurate than “secret” with which the New Revised Standard Version (and others) translates the Greek μυστηριον. The NRSV does, however, note “Or mystery” in a footnote to the text.

Jeffery, The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled, p. 72.

Thomas J. Talley, Origins of the Liturgical Year, 2nd, emended ed. (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991), pp. 205–206. For Talley, Secret Mark explains “the origin of the Saturday of Lazarus, the major baptismal day preceding Palm Sunday at Constantinople” (p. 211).

I found Jeffery’s 340-page tome immensely erudite but largely irrelevant to the question of whether Morton Smith forged the Clement letter. The following paragraph will give a sense of the argument of Jeffery’s book:

Morton Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1973), p. 1.