Michael T. Zeddies

718 W Jefferson

Ann Arbor, MI 48103

mzeddies@gmail.com

Origen’s Authorship of the Mar Saba Letter: A Reply to Francis Watson

ABSTRACT: I have argued for Origenian authorship of To Theodore, the letter discovered by Morton Smith at the Mar Saba monastery in 1958. In light of this thesis, and of some recent work by Arthur Urbano on ancient Christian clothing, as well as other recent commentary regarding Papias, Origen, and Eusebius, it is instructive to re-examine Francis Watson’s analysis of the Mar Saba letter. I draw particular attention to Watson’s description of the secret gospel as “prurient”, and show that in contrast with Watson’s misunderstanding, the third-century philosophical milieu Origen inhabited provides a context for understanding the dress of the secret gospel’s neaniskos as that of a philosopher. I also re-evaluate Watson’s evidence that the letter’s author used Papias as a literary model, by demonstrating that Origen used Papias closely, as we see by quotations from Eusebius and elsewhere. Scott Brown and Allan Pantuck have also recently shown that the letter does not use correlative conjunctions in the manner of Papias, and I build upon this by showing instead that the letter uses these conjunctions in the manner of Origen. The thesis of Origenian authorship also mitigates or eliminates most of Watson’s other arguments for Smithian forgery.

In a 2010 article on the letter To Theodore, discovered by Morton Smith in 1958 at the Mar Saba monastery, Francis Watson presented an extended argument for forgery of the letter by Smith.

Clement of Alexandria as a Source for the Letter’s Author: More Evidence from Origen

As I have explained elsewhere,[footnoteRef:1] the letter’s character seems entirely Origenian, and I have especially found the letter’s imitation of Clement to be Origenian. Thus I agree in principle with Watson’s statement that “(1) When correlated with material from Clement’s authentic writings, the most closely related passages may constitute not so much a parallel as a source”, summarizing Section I of his article.[footnoteRef:2] A few qualifications, however, are necessary. [1: Michael T. Zeddies, “Did Origen Write To Theodore?”, SBL Midwest Meeting, Bourbonnais, IL, 2013; see also the forthcoming by Zeddies, “Is To Theodore a Letter by Origen?”, SBL Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD, 2013.] [2: Watson, “Suspicion”, 170.]

Watson states that the letter contradicts the authentic Clement in portraying the evangelist Mark as working only from the apostle Peter’s notes, rather than from the memory of his preaching, and also as working independently, rather than at the urging of Peter’s followers.[footnoteRef:3] Yet we can agree with Watson here, while accepting Origenian authorship instead of Smithian forgery. We might at first wonder if the letter contradicts Origen, too, since as Eusebius relates, Origen stated that Mark wrote at Peter's "instructions" (ὐφηγήσατο), yet the letter does not.[footnoteRef:4] However, Robert Gundry has explained that here, ὐφηγήσατο simply means "guidance,” and may refer to the way Peter’s preaching set an example for Mark’s writing.[footnoteRef:5] Origen does state that Mark wrote his gospel while Peter was in Rome, and thus both the letter and Origen connect Mark with Peter, but leave out the Clementine detail that Mark knew Peter directly. [3: Ibid., 136-37.] [4: h.e. 6.25.5.] [5: Robert Horton Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1993), 1045. There is a typo in Gundry: he cites h.e. 6.24.5-7 for Eusebius’s version of Clement’s account of Mark, but it is actually found at h.e. 6.14.5-7.]

Watson also wonders whether Clement's comment that John wrote a "spiritual gospel" (πνϵυματικὸν ποιῆσαι ϵὐαγγέλιον) has been imitated in the letter's claim that Mark himself wrote a "more spiritual gospel (πνϵυματικώτϵρον ϵὐαγγέλιον).[footnoteRef:6] But Clement was an important influence over Origen,[footnoteRef:7] so the evidence again implicates Origen as author, not Smith as forger.[footnoteRef:8] Watson also proposes that Clement’s Quis dives 5.2 served a template for the fragmentary letter’s last sentence,[footnoteRef:9] but again, Origen was influenced by and imitated Clement, so Origenian imitation of Clement here makes as much sense, if not more sense, than Smithian imitation. And, like both the letter and Clement, Origen certainly contrasted the one sense of scripture, sometimes called the “carnal sense”, with a more elevated or “mystical sense”.[footnoteRef:10] [6: Watson, “Suspicion,” 136-37.] [7: See Jerome, Ep. 70.4; also Pierre Nautin, Origène: sa vie et son oeuvre (Paris: Beauchesne, 1977), 293; also Henry Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition: Studies in Justin, Clement, and Origen (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966), 72-73; also Chadwick, tr., Origen: Contra Celsum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955), ix; also Thomas Scheck, tr., Origen: Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 1-5, FC 103 (Washington, DC: Catholic University Press, 2001), 4. I elaborate on this point in my SBL paper.] [8: Watson, “Suspicion”, 137-38.] [9: Ibid., 142-43.] [10: princ. 4.2.4-5; see also 4.3.9, Εἰ τοίνυν αἱ προφητεῑαι αἱ περὶ Ἰοθδαίας καὶ περὶ Ἱεροθσαλὴμ καὶ Ἰσραὴλ καὶ Ἰούδα καὶ Ἰακώβ, μὴ σαρκίνως ἡμῶν ἐκλαμβανόντων ταῦτα, μυστήρια τοιάδε τινὰ ὑποβάλλοθσιν (GCS 22:335); also see also Jerome’s Comm. in Gal. 3.5,13a.1-94, translating and citing Origen’s Stromateis on carnali Scripturae intellegentia, and the contrast between in Scripturae carne permaneat and spiritum Scripturae (CC 77a:172). I elaborate on this point in my SBL presentation.]

Watson adds that “the letter is oddly reminiscent of modern studies of the gospels in discussing issues of provenance, purpose, authenticity, and text-form as preliminary to exegesis.”[footnoteRef:11] It seems Watson refers here to the letter’s discussion of the details regarding the gospel’s compositon, prior to the (now fragmentary) explication of its deeper meaning.[footnoteRef:12] But we find these tendencies in Origen, too: in the Eusebian quotations from comm. in Mt.,[footnoteRef:13] Jo.,[footnoteRef:14] and hom. in Heb,[footnoteRef:15] we see clear attention to all four issues of provenance, purpose, authenticity, and text-form: [11: Watson, “Suspicion,” 143.] [12: I.15-30, II. 20-III. 17. Watson may also be thinking of Stephen Carlson’s examination of these issues in Hoax, 57-58. I reply to Carlson in my SBL paper.] [13: h.e. 6.25.3-6.] [14: h.e. 6.25.7-10.] [15: h.e. 6.25.11-14.]

· In the passage from comm. in Matt., Origen is careful to note that each gospel had an apostolic provenance, citing Matthew, Peter, Paul, and John;

· He also states that Matthew wrote “for the faithful from Judaism” (Ἰουδαϊσμοῦ πιστεύσασιν) and Luke “for the Gentiles” (ἐθνῶν), providing a didactic purpose for each;

· In the passage from Jo., he carefully distinguishes his confidence in the authenticity of 1 Peter and 1 John from his doubts regarding authorship of 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John, and in the passage from hom. in Heb. he discusses at length the questions concerning its authorship;

· And that discussion carefully examines the epistle’s text, focusing on its language (λέξεως…λόγῳ…λέξεως…φράσεων) and comparing it with its thought (νοήματα contrasted with φράσις and σύνθεσις).

The passage on the four gospels comes from the first book of Origen’s exegetical commentary on Matthew’s gospel, and that on Hebrews from his exegetical homilies on the epistle, so clearly these matters are offered as “preliminary to exegesis”, in the same supposedly “modern” way that the Mar Saba letter offers them. Even the notes on John’s writings are situated relatively early (in book five) in Origen’s exegetical commentary on his gospel. Origen exhibits all the critical characteristics that the letter’s author does.[footnoteRef:16] [16: For other examples of Origen’s careful text-based analysis, see Amy S. Anderson, The Textual Tradition of the Gospels: Family 1 in Matthew, NTTS 32 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 74; Law, “Origen’s Parallel Bible,” 9-13, 18, citing comm. in Mt. 15.14; M. W. Holmes, “Codex Bezae as a Recension of the Gospels,” in Codex Bezae: Studies from the Lunel Colloquium, June 1994, ed. David C. Parker and Christian-Bernard Amphoux, NTTS 22 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 146-47; Trigg, Origen (1998), 6; Martens, Origen and Scripture, 42-49.]

The Letter’s Purpose: Origen and the Philosopher’s Garment

Watson’s second point, “(2) While the ostensible purpose of the letter is to assist its addressee in his struggles with heretics, its real purpose is to divulge the existence of the Secret Gospel of Mark and to establish its authenticity”,[footnoteRef:17] summarizes Section II.1 of his article. In that section, Watson claims there are “three major anomalies” in the letter author’s response to Theodore’s concerns. But Origen’s critical traits explain all three purported anomalies. [17: Watson, Suspicion, 170.]

We turn our attention in particular to the first of these: the claim that the secret gospel is “only slightly less prurient than the falsified one” of the Carpocratians. Watson believes the letter’s author provides Theodore almost no “reassurance” that the secret gospel differed substantively from the Carpocratian one; he describes the νεανίσκος of the secret gospel passage as “scantily clad” and “nearly naked”.[footnoteRef:18] But this description is badly mistaken. [18: Ibid., 147. Watson, like most translators of the passage (including Smith), uses “young man” for νεανίσκος or, alternatively, “youth”, but both terms are misleading, for a νεανίσκος was a man in his twenties, or even his early thirties. Thus he was only a few years younger, or even roughly the same age as, Jesus himself—but no one refers to Jesus as a “young man” or “youth”.]

It does without saying that in the ancient Greco-Roman world, to wear a single garment indoors in the privacy of one’s home, even (or especially) an inner garment like the χιτών, was normative behavior.[footnoteRef:19] The tunica, the Roman equivalent to the χιτών, was also worn this way.[footnoteRef:20] Certainly the ἱμάτιον, normally an outer garment, was sometimes worn alone outdoors.[footnoteRef:21] Carthaginians in particular dressed in this manner.[footnoteRef:22] This style was also known in Israel: the χιτών was typically worn alone by the poor, both indoors and outdoors, and was also worn alone indoors by the upper class, who sometimes wore the ἱμάτιον alone outdoors.[footnoteRef:23] And the σινδών, too, was worn alone, as Howard Jackson explained two decades ago.[footnoteRef:24] Lev. Rab. 1.14, too, seems to describe the private dress of a king in a manner that implies a linen inner garment.[footnoteRef:25] Attributed to the third-century Rabbi Hoshaya Rabba, this saying may have been known to Origen,[footnoteRef:26] providing him with an exegetical perspective on the dress of the neaniskos in the secret gospel. [19: Alice Zimmern, tr., Home Life of the Ancient Greeks (London: Cassel & Co., 1893; 3rd ed., 1910; orig. Hugo Blümner, Leben und Sitten der Griechen [Leipzig: G. Freytag; Prague, F. Tempsky, 1887]), 19: "At home, as a rule, only the chiton was worn." See also Helen McClees, Daily Life of the Greeks and Romans (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1924; numerous eds.), 47: “Greek dress, both for men and women, consisted of two portions, a garment for the house and a wrap to be worn over it.”] [20: John Henry Freese, tr., The Culture of Ancient Greece and Rome: A General Sketch (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1926; orig. Franz Poland, Ernst Reisinger, and Richard A. Wagner, Die antike Kultur in ihren Hauptzuegen dargestellt [Leipzig; Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1922]), 239: "The man's under-garment, which was sufficient clothing for him at home, is the tunica." See also Max Carty and T. J. Haarhoff, Life and Thought in the Greek and Roman World (London: Meuthen & Co., 1940), 96: "[The tunica] was usually the sole garment of…leisured persons in the privacy of their homes.” Also Ugo E. Paoli, Vita Romana, (Firenze: Le Monnier, 1940; numerous eds.), 234: “In provincia e in campagna, o nell’intimità della sua casa, il Romano stave in tunica.”; repeated in R. D. Mcnaghten, tr., Rome: Its People, Life and Customs (New York: David McKay Company, 1963), 101. John Sandys, A Companion to Latin Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1943), 194 calls the tunic the “ordinary indoor dress.” See also Frank R. Cowell, Everyday Life in Ancient Rome (London: Batsford, 1961), 75: "As soon as a Roman got back home he laid aside his toga and wore only the belted tunic, except for festive occasions." ] [21: Mary G. Houston, Ancient Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Costume and Decoration, vol. 2 of A Technical History of Costume (London: Black, 1931; 2nd ed, 1946), 68: "The himation was at times worn without the chiton under it"; Larissa Bonfante and Eva Jaunzens, “Clothing and Ornament,” in Michael Grant and Rachel Kitzinger, eds., Civilization of the Ancient Mediterranean: Greece and Rome, 3 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1988), 1390: "Men wore a cloak called a himation, sometimes alone, sometimes over their chiton"; Lesley Adkins and Roy A. Adkins, Handbook to Life in Ancient Greece, Updated Edition (New York: Facts on File, 2005), 452. "The draped himation was often the only garment worn"; see Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, 11.26.5. ] [22: Bonfante and Evans, “Clothing,” 1407: “The Carthaginians…wore neither mantle nor toga, but only an unbelted tunic”.] [23: Samuel L. Lachs, “Rabbinic Miscellany,” in Nahum Waldman, ed., Community and Culture: Essays in Jewish Studies, In Honor of the Ninetieth Anniversary of the Founding of Gratz College, 1895-1985 (Philadelphia: Seth Press, 1987), 111-22, esp. 114-15: “The poorer class frequently wore the chitōn as their only garment, both in and outside of the house….[The himation and stola], however, were “worn over the chitōn or even without it. At home, in the privacy of his chamber, the king and others of the upper classes, would wear only the chitōn” (115).] [24: Howard M. Jackson, “Why the Youth Shed His Cloak and Fled Naked: The Meaning and Purpose of Mark 14:51-52,” JBL 116.2 (1997): 273-89, esp. 279: the ἱμάτιον and σινδών were both “used either as an overgarment or as the sole garment”.] [25: Lachs reads (ב)אותנין in Lev.R. I.14 as Greek ὀθόνιον, explaining that the χιτών was a “lighter garment not made of ordinary linen, but of othonion” and that the ἱμάτιον was “made of heavier material” (Lachs, “Miscellany,” 115). But see n. 69 below.] [26: A link between R. Hoshaya Rabba and Origen has been established by several: see Marc Hirshman, “Reflections on the Aggada of Caesarea,” in Avner Raban and Kenneth G. Holum, ed., Caesarea Maritima: Retrospective after Two Millennia, DMOA 21 (Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 1996), esp. 471.]

It may be that Watson has been misinformed by unsubstantiated and outdated research on the Markan term σινδών. Gundry, writing in 1993, refers to the σινδών as a “mere piece of cloth…or at most a scanty tunic, easily slipped out of”, but offers no basis for this claim.[footnoteRef:27] Jackson deftly dispenses with such notions, explaining that they are in fact based on nothing more than imagination, and lack an understanding of ancient Greek dress.[footnoteRef:28] Despite this, Joel Marcus, writing in 2009, continued to maintain that “the reference is apparently to a loincloth”, but cited only the 1993 Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary entry for “Dress and Ornamentation”.[footnoteRef:29] The AYBD entry, written by Douglas Edwards, provides no authority save for Mk 14.51-52 itself, and it seems this description, too, can only have been the product of the same sort of imaginative confusion that Jackson demolishes.[footnoteRef:30] Indeed, in effectively citing nothing more than the very gospel text he is examining, Marcus has only begged the question of the word’s meaning. It is puzzling why Marcus did regard Jackson’s research as superseding Edwards’ article, for Marcus himself also cites Jackson’s explanation of σινδών.[footnoteRef:31] Jackson’s account seems to be the only reliable one, especially based on the additional evidence provided above, from Collins, Urbano, and elsewhere. [27: Gundry, Mark, 620.] [28: Jackson, “Youth”, 278-280.] [29: Joel Marcus, Mark 8-16, 994.] [30: AYBD, Dress and Ornamentation, 236, states only “Another undergarment was a type of linen cloth, Gk sindōn, wrapped around the loins (Mark 14:51-52). The same term can refer to a linen shroud (Matt 27:59).”] [31: Ibid.]

To wear a single garment was especially how philosophers dressed, who were well-known for the simplicity of their fashion.[footnoteRef:32] The single garment of the philosophers was sometimes called ἱμάτιον,[footnoteRef:33] but was also called τρίβων, likewise worn alone and often doubled in some form.[footnoteRef:34] This garb was associated in particular with the Cynic school, though others like the Stoics were also said to wear it.[footnoteRef:35] This fashion was in particular connected to these schools' devotion to mental discipline and a life of relative impoverishment.[footnoteRef:36] In Latin, the philosopher’s garment was called the pallium, worn in the same manner, and with a specific connection to early Christianity.[footnoteRef:37] Arthur Urbano has recently examined this connection in detail: [32: Leonard Whibley, A Companion to Greek Studies (Cambridge; Cambridge University, 1905; 3rd ed., 1916), 632: "Philosophers and persons affecting an extreme simplicity of dress and manners usually wore a himation only without any other garment summer or winter"; Walter Miller, The Greeks (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1941), 123: "[T]he himation might be the only garment worn, as we see it in the portraits of Sophocles and Socrates"; Peter Green, tr., Daily Life in Greece at the Time of Pericles (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1965), 154: "Many Athenians...wore a himation next the skin, and nothing more. Socrates did so, and many other philosophers followed his example,” orig. Robert Flacelière, La vie quotidienne en Grèce au siècle de Péricles (Paris: Hachette, 1959), ##: xxx. Blümner also admitted this: “Nur Leute, welche ihren Körper besonders abhärten wollten, ferner Dürftige und auch gewisse Philosophen, welche ihre cynischen Grundsätze auch durch übertrieben ärmliche Tracht befunden wollten, gingen, und selbst in Winter, im Mantel ohne Unterkleid” (Blümner, Leben der Griechen, 30). ] [33: Dio. Chr. Or. 72.2; Xen. Mem. 1.6.2.] [34: William Smith, William Wayte, and George E. Marindin, eds., A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, 3rd ed. rev. (London: John Murray, 1890), 318-322, esp. 321 (pallium): “[T]he τρίβων…was not an over-garment, but a sole garment, supplying the place of χιτών and ἱμάτιον…”; 869-70 (TRIBON), esp. 869: “The τρίβων was a variety of ἱμάτιον, belonging to the class of the χλαῖναι διπληγίδες.”] [35: Maria M. Evans, Chapters on Greek Dress (New York: MacMillan and Co., 1893), 55, noted that despite its peculiarity, the τρίβων was nevertheless “worn by philosophers and persons of peculiar views” and that “in Athens only poor people and philosophers wore the upper without the under garment in public or vice versâ.” Ethel Abrahams wrote that the τρίβων was "worn by Spartans and people of austere or Laconizing tendencies, like Socrates and the Cynic philosophers” in Ethel B. Abrahams, Greek Dress: A Study of the Costumes Worn in Ancient Greece, from Pre-Hellenistic Times to the Hellenistic Age (London: John Murray, 1908; rep. with Evans, Chapters, as Marie Johnson, ed., Ancient Greek Dress [Chicago: Argonaut, 1964]). Miller, too, wrote: "The Cynic and Stoic philosophers everywhere, aping the austere life of Sparta, wore a tunic, or tribon, of coarse material" (Miller, Greeks, 124). ] [36: "From the time of Socrates the tribon was also the typical coat of Cynic and Stoic philosophes, to display their frugality," Hurschmann, Rolf (Hamburg). "Tribon." Brill’s New Pauly. Brill Online, 2013; Paul Harvey and Margaret Howatson, eds., Oxford Companion to Classical Literature, 2nd Ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 198: "Either poverty or the ability to endure hardship was similarly demonstrated by those who wore a cheap and often threadbare himation known as a trībōn (or tribōnion), notably Spartans and philosophers." Robin M. Jensen, Face to Face: Portraits of the Divine in Early Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 44: “One popular figure in Roman art was a reader shown in profile, holding a partially unrolled scroll and wearing the traditional philosopher’s garb of the pallium…often without the undertunic, thus leaving a partially bare chest. Such a physical presentation suggested indifference to worldly beauty and a preference to cultivate the mind and to develop a disciplines or spiritual outlook on life.” See also Paul Zanker, The Mask of Socrates: The Image of the Intellectual of Antiquity, tr. by Alan Shapiro (Berkeley, CA; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1995), 198-320.] [37: Apuleius, Metamorphoses, 11.8: nec qui pallio baculoque et baxeis et hircino barbitio philosophum fingeret; Florid. 7, neu rudes, sordidi, imperiti pallio tenus filosophos imitarentur; Lillian May Wilson, The Clothing of the Ancient Romans (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1938), 80: "The pallium, therefore, was a Greek himation, or a Roman adaptation of it. It was the characteristic drapery of Aesculapius and of philosophers, and was adopted as the mantle of the Christians”; and 81: "On some statues of the period…including those of Aesculapius, this mantle is represented without an undergarment….Tertullian intimates that the wearing of the tunic with the pallium was optional in his day." See De Pallio 5.3.3, Si quid interulae subter est, vacat zonae tormentum. See Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae, 9.2.1-4; also Grant and Kitzinger, Civilization, 1404: "The rectangular Greek himation was also worn in Rome, where it was called the pallium. Pallium and sandals constituted the dress of Greeks, philosophers, Greek gods like Aesculapius (Asklepios), and Romans when at home or when the occasion did not require them to wear the formal toga. The plays of Plautus and Terence, set in Greece, were called fabulae palliatae, because the actors dressed as Greeks. Eventually the pallium was taken over as the mantle of the Christians, as we hear from Tertullian..." A few satirical sources also call this garment the abolla (see also Brill’s New Pauly, “abolla”), but Wilson, Clothing, 85-86, explains that this identification is not really possible.]

Early Christian portraits of Jesus, the apostles, and other biblical figures most often depict these subjects wearing the garment customarily worn by Greek philosophers…[T]he garment, known as the tribōn in Greek and the pallium in Latin, dresses Christian sages and saints. Related to the Greek himation, the robe became increasingly characteristic of the portraiture of philosophers, poets, and orators beginning in Hellenistic Athens.[footnoteRef:38] [38: Arthur P. Urbano, “’Dressing a Christian’: The Philosopher's Mantle as Signifier of Pedagogical and Moral Authority,” SP 52. (Peeters: Leuven, 2012), 1-17 esp. 1-2. On early Christian iconography, see also See Walther Lowrie, Monuments of the Early Church (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1906), 403-407, esp. 406: “In the catacomb paintings Christ and the Apostles are always represented in the pallium….The pallium represented official dignity in the Church”, pointing to one portrait of Christ seemingly clad only in the pallium (ibid., 224). See also Margarete Bieber, "Roman Men in Greek Himation (Romani Palliati) a Contribution to the History of Copying," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 103(3): 374-417, esp. 411; also Alexander Coburn Soper, "The Latin Style on Christian Sarcophagi of the Fourth Century,” The Art Bulletin 19(2) [1957]: 148-202. Wilson observed the pallium worn with a tunic underneath (Wilson, Clothing, 81), but Soper points to two different “Latin” styles of wearing the pallium found on double-register sarcophagi, one resembling that of the toga, but for the other "the pallium seems still to be held by the left wrist; its lower corner hangs across the left leg at the ankle, and below it no under-robe is visible" (Soper, “Sarcophagi”, 168), meaning apparently that there is no visible hem of an inner tunic. This could imply that any inner tunic was simply too short to be visible or represented, but Wilson notes that “In the late second and early third centuries and later, the long tunic came into fashion” (Clothing, 83). The larger point here is that Christians had adopted the pallium, at times worn alone, by the Severan period.]

Urbano includes the Epicureans among the schools who adopted this garb, notes that even Apollonius of Tyana, a Neopythagorean, and certain gods, too, were depicted in this manner, including the healer Asclepius.[footnoteRef:39] Thomas Matthews points to early iconography of Jesus clad in this fasion (bare-chested in a pallium) that resembles contemporary portrayals of Asclepius.[footnoteRef:40] Robin Jensen, describing this same iconography, explains that “Christ also appears in the guise of the philosopher, with full beard and bare chest (he has no tunic or undergarment, but only the pallium draped over his left shoulder—the garb of an itinerant intellectual).”[footnoteRef:41] [39: Urbano, “Dressing,” 5; Bonfante and Evans, “Clothing,” 1404: “Pallium and sandals constituted the dress of Greeks, philosophers, Greek gods like Aesculapius (Asklepios), and Romans when at home or when the occasion did not require them to wear the formal toga”; De Pallio, 4.10.3.] [40: Thomas Matthews, The Clash of Gods: A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), 69-72. Zanker, Mask, 300, prefers to draw a link with contemporary portraits of philosophers. However, the example of the portrayal is more important than its source. ] [41: Jensen, Face to Face, 154.]

And this garment was called σινδών: As Barbra Yarbro Collins explains, Diogenes Laertius, also in the third century, tells us that Crates the Cynic wore a σινδών.[footnoteRef:42] Crates himself, Laertius tells us, used the phrase σινδόνα περιβεβλημένον to describe the dress of Theophrastus the Aristotelian, echoing the letter's phrase περιβεβλημένος σινδόνα, and with the same phrase appearing in Mk 14.51, it would seem it was a stock phrase associated with donning the σινδών.[footnoteRef:43] Tertullian calls Crates’ garb a duplex (doubled) pallium.[footnoteRef:44] It would seem that the σινδών was identified with the dress of philosophers, and of Crates the Cynic in particular, making it a variety of ἱμάτιον equivalent to τρίβων and, by extension, pallium, especially of the doubled sort.[footnoteRef:45] Laertius, writing not long before Tertullian, relates how the Cynic philosopher Antisthenes was the first to wear his τρίβων “doubled” (καὶ πρῶτος ἐδίπλωσε τὸν τρίβωνα),[footnoteRef:46] though he added that some said the Cynic Diogenes was the first.[footnoteRef:47] A connection between Christianity and this doubled garment, worn alone in a characteristic manner, may also be reflected in the identification of a statue of Asclepius at Caesarea Philippi with Christ, which Eusebius describes as “clad decently in a double cloak” (διπλοΐδα κοσμίως περιβεβλημένον).[footnoteRef:48] The fourth-century monk Serapion also wore only the σινδών.[footnoteRef:49] [42: Collins, Mark: A Commentary, 693 nn. 209-10.] [43: Collins, Mark, 693, notes it is also found in Galen. See also Vitae Aesopi, Vita G, 112.6: περιβεβλημένος σινδόνα καθαράν; Papyri magica, 4.3091: σινδόνα καθαρὰν περιβεβλημένος; Ps.-Call., vit. Alex., 3.28.6: περιβεβλημένος σινδόνα. These seem to indicate a somewhat Egyptian and hierophantic context for the phrase.] [44: De Pallio 5.3: At enim pallio nihil expeditius, etiam si duplex, quod Cratetis.] [45: Note that the σινδών of the Synoptic tradition (Mt 27.59//Mk 15.46//Lk 23.53) seems to be, or become, the ὀθονίος of Jn 19.40 and the ὀθόνια of Lk 24.12//Jn 20.5-7, and Raymond Brown cites a 4th century papyrus in describing σινδών as ὀθονίος at Brown, John 13-21, AB 27a (New Haven: Yale University, 1970), 942. John Fitzmeyer cautioned that the question whether “sindon is a specific form of generic othonia is far from clear, pace R. E. Brown” at Fitzmeyer, Luke 10-24 (New Haven: Yale University, 1970), but Lachs (n. 23 above) identifies the χιτών with ὀθόνιον cloth, suggesting a σινδών of ὀθόνιον was also an inner garment. Consider Josephus, Ant. 3.7.2(153), Ἐπὶ δὲ τούτῳ λίνεον ἔνδυμα διπλῆς φορεῖ σινδόνος βυσσίνης, χηόμένη μὴν καλεῖται, λίνεον δὲ τοῦτο σημαίνει. Having said that, Tertullian calls Crates’ pallium “doubled” (duplex), and that was what Diogenes Laertius called a σινδών. It seems a σινδών could have been made of ὀθόνιον but still serve as an outer garment, so long as the fabric was doubled. Apollonius of Tyana wore a garment of ὀθόνη (Philostratus, VA 1.32). Fitzmeyer’s caution should admittedly be kept in mind. Perhaps the σινδών, like the τρίβων and pallium, did not fit very neatly into traditional Greek categories of dress. ] [46: Diog. Laert. 6.1.17.] [47: Diog. Laert. 6.2.22 (τρίβωνα διπλώσας πρῶτος).] [48: h.e. 7.18.1-3. Alexander Nagel, The Controversy of Renaissance Art (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), 136, suggests that this phrase implies the figure identified with Christ “wore this slight clothing without looking underdressed,” pointing by way of example to a fifteenth-century statue of Christ “wearing a diplois without a fibula, leaving the right shoulder free, and the torso exposed. The overall effect is not one of near-nudity but of high virtue and dignity.”] [49: Palladius, Lausaic History, 37.1 (TS 6:109).]

A connection between Christians and the philosopher’s garb was also drawn satirically by Lucian in Peregr., 11-16, where we read of the Christians harboring the charlatan Peregrinus. Peregrinus became imprisoned but was still supported by the Christians who called him the “new Socrates” (καινὸς Σωκράτης),[footnoteRef:50] and he was subsequently released by the Syrian governor, a man “fond of philosophy” (φιλοσοφία χαίροντος). Peregrinus then appears before the people of Parium wearing the τρίβων (τρίβωνα πιναρὸν ἠμπείχετο) and is hailed by them as “the one true philosopher…rival of Diogenes and Crates” (ἕνα φιλόσοφον…ἕνα Διογένους καὶ Κράτητος ζηλωτήν).[footnoteRef:51] After escaping, he returns to the Christians, who at first receive him back with hospitality, [footnoteRef:52] suggesting perhaps that his attire, associated by the Parians with Cynic philosophers, was accepted among the Christians. Lucian also refers to Jesus as a “crucified sophist” (ἀνεσκολοπισμένον...σοφιστὴν),[footnoteRef:53] indicating a philosophical perspective on Christianity, however satirical. [50: Socrates’ garment was also called τρίβων: see Plat. Prot. 335d.] [51: Peregr. 15.] [52: Ibid., 16.] [53: Ibid., 13.]

H. Langerbeck states that "the conception that the Christian religion is the one true philosophy, to which the old 'philosophies' are opposed as heresies, is widespread in the second century,”[footnoteRef:54] again emphasizing the direct connection between Christianity's self-image and philosophy.[footnoteRef:55] As Urbano summarizes: [54: H. Langerbeck, "The Philosophy of Ammonius Saccas," JHS 77(1):1957, 67-74, esp. 70.] [55: See Hans Dieter Betz, "Jesus and the Cynics: Survey and Analysis of a Hypothesis," JR 74 (1994): 453-75; William Desmond, Cynics (Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 272; F. Gerard Downing, Cynics, Paul and the Pauline Churches (New York: Routledge, 1998, repub. 2013); Tuomas Rasimus, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, and Ismo dunderberg, ed., Stoicism in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010); and Hubertus R. Drobner, "Christian Philosophy," in Susan Ashbrook Harvey, David G. Hunter, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies (New York: OUP, 2008), 672-90.]

By maintaining or assuming a style of dress associated with these philosophers, some Christian teachers enacted a visual engagement and challenge to contemporary philosophical culture. At the same time, this style of dress aroused tensions within Christian communities as Christians debated among themselves the value of Greek literary and philosophical education.[footnoteRef:56] [56: Urbano, “’Dressing,” 2.]

Urbano explains how Christians came to adopt this fashion:

Usually worn without a tunic underneath, the pallium can be seen in the bare-shouldered portraits of philosophers that began to appear in the Hellenistic era…Literary and iconographic evidence illustrates that the tribōn remained the garb of the self-professed philosopher into the fourth century and was worn even by Christians. For those Christians who adopted the philosopher’s look, the pallium served as a locus of contemplation as those Christians displayed their educational credentials, dedication to philosophy, and their ascetic way of life, while positioning themselves as legitimate intellectuals and teachers in comparison to pagans.[footnoteRef:57] [57: Ibid., 5.]

Urbano cites Herodian, a contemporary of Origen, as including the τρίβων among the φιλοςόφου σηῆμα.[footnoteRef:58] Justin Martyr also refers to the philosopher’s σχῆμα,[footnoteRef:59] and Lucian, too, not long before Origen, specifically included the τρίβων among the philosopher’s σχῆμα.[footnoteRef:60] [58: Ibid., 6.] [59: Ibid., 6; see Dial. Tryph. 1, Apol. 4.8.1.] [60: At Fug. 14, the character Φιλοσοφία says “What characterizes us is very easily attainable….It does not require much ceremony to don a short cloak” (καὶ οὐ πολλῆς τῆς πραγματείας δεῖ τριβώνιον περιβαλέσθαι), saying those who do are protected from abuse by “the usual respect for the cloth” (τὸ σχῆμα αἰδὼς παρέξειν ἔμελλεν). This can only mean the τριβώνιον was included in the philosopher’s σχῆμα, whether worn by true philosophers or false ones. Fug. concerns the character of Peregrinus (see Fug. 1; compare to Peregr. 35).]

And Langerbeck proposed that Ammonias Saccas, Origen’s teacher, himself wore this garment.[footnoteRef:61] Langerbeck admits that "It was in fact surely very unusual for a Platonist to assume the tribon of the Cynic," but "[t]hat the school of Ammonius did distinguish itself by a peculiar dress, we see from the letter of Origen in Euseb. VI. 19, 13-14..."[footnoteRef:62] There, Origen describes his fellow Christian, Heraclas, likewise a student of Ammonius, as taking on the “philosophical look” (φιλόσοφον ἀναλαβὼν σχῆμα),[footnoteRef:63] which Urbano states “would have included the tribōn”.[footnoteRef:64] Urbano points to other third-century Christians who dressed in this manner,[footnoteRef:65] and by the early fifth century, Christian monks had adopted it.[footnoteRef:66] Origen betrays no discomfort with Heraclas’s adoption of the philosopher’s dress, saying he modeled his own teaching after that of Heraclas, and would later make him a teacher of the Alexandrian Christians.[footnoteRef:67] There seems to be no reason why we should expect Theodore to have felt any discomfort with this form of dress either. [61: Langerbeck, "Ammonius Saccas," 68: "If one starts from the usual meaning of σάκκος, coarse cloth or coarse garment, it is natural to interpret σάκκος as the appellation of an ascetic philosopher, 'wearer of the σάκκος',” citing Theodoret Graec. Aff. Cur. 6.60 as interpreting σακκᾶς to mean "sack-carrier.”] [62: Ibid. ] [63: h.e. 6.19.14 (SC 41.117).] [64: Urbano, “Dressing,” 9-10. ] [65: Ibid., 10, esp. the Christian martyr Aedesius of MP 5.2 (SC 55.137) who dressed ἐν τρίβωνος σχήματι.] [66: Synesius of Cyrene, Letter 147: Rudolph Herscher and John Francis Boissonade, ed., Epistolographi Graeci (Paris: A. F. Didot, 1873), 730: οὗτος οὖν ὁ Γάνος ἐπεφήμιςέ σοι τὸν μονήρη βίον...καὶ φαιὸν τριβώνιον ἀμπέχεςθαί σέ φησιν.] [67: h.e. 6.19.13; 6.15.1.]

In this context, Watson’s description of the resurrected man’s garb as “prurient” seems entirely groundless. The resurrected man of secret Mark seems to be dressed in perfectly appropriate attire for a philosophical lesson taught within his own home. Origen, a Christian thinker known for his training in and attention to Greek philosophy,[footnoteRef:68] would have been well aware of this, even if occasionally some non-Greeks were not.[footnoteRef:69] It seems that the letter’s reply to Theodore is in no way an “inappropriate response to Theodore’s concerns”, as Watson claims, nor would Theodore have felt any “discomfiture” at the author’s explanation of the secret gospel.[footnoteRef:70] [68: ] [69: See Dio Chr., Or. 72.1-2, on those who mock the philosophers for their dress.] [70: Watson, “Suspicion,”, 146, 147. Origen also devoted some attention to the exegetical interpretation of the “coats of skins” of Gen. 3.21 that covered Adam and Eve’s nakedness; see for example Alexandra Pârvan, “Genesis 1-3: Augustine and Origen on the Coats of Skins,” VC 66(1): 56-92. Ronald E. Heine, “The Testimonia and Fragments Related to Origen’s Commentary on Genesis,” ZAC/JAC 9 (2005): 122-42; Heine, Origin: Scholarship in the Service of the Church, Christian Theology in Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 113-15, 120-22; and Cels. 4.40]

Indeed, even Gundry was untroubled by the man’s manner of dress, finding nothing in it but Christian symbolism. Amid an expert analysis of SGM1, he explains:

By wearing only that much when he comes to Jesus, the young man demonstrates his obedience; during the balance of the day, i.e. between the time of Jesus' command and the evening, the rich young man disposed of his wealth and now has nothing left but the linen cloth, only what a corpse needs (cf. 15:46). Thus he has qualified himself to follow Jesus. As a result, Jesus can teach him the mystery of God's kingdom.[footnoteRef:71] [71: Gundry, Mark, 622.]

Gundry goes on to draw a connection with “the growing ideal of poverty in Alexandrian Christianity.”[footnoteRef:72] As we have seen above, the connection runs even deeper than that, since the philosopher’s adoption of the single garment was an expression of their rejection of worldly trappings, and a devotion to the life of the mind. Thus we see that the neaniskos of SGM1 has also only what a philosopher needs. His devotion to philosophy likewise qualifies him to follow Jesus, and become worthy to learn the mystery of the kingdom. Just so does the neaniskos following Jesus at Mk 14:51-52 also wear the philosopher's garment, suggesting that to follow Jesus was to become a philosopher—as we see in Origen’s approval of Heraclas when he adopted the philosopher’s look.[footnoteRef:73] [72: Ibid., 623.] [73: It would also seem to follow that when Jesus is buried in a sindon, he is buried dressed as a philosopher.]

The Letter’s Purpose: The Usefulness and Precision of Origenian Exegesis

Second among the “anomalies” described in section II.1 of his article is Watson’s claim that “Theodore is instructed to make absolutely no use of his new-found knowledge of the authentic Secret Mark” and that “[h]is new knowledge is for himself alone. For all practical purposes, it is useless.”[footnoteRef:74] But this ignores the indication in the letter’s fragmentary ending that the author provided Theodore with a much more extended explanation of the gospel’s meaning and interpretation. Nor would Origen have found this application useless: on the contrary, Origen saw philosophical and spiritual exegesis of Christian texts as one of the most useful activities a Christian could undertake.[footnoteRef:75] Under the thesis of Origenian authorship, it is no surprise at all that Theodore is asked to “resist the temptation to parade his new text-critical knowledge,”[footnoteRef:76] for that is precisely what Origen told his students to do: withhold their exegetical methods from the less-enlightened, so as not to confuse them with knowledge they could not understand. [74: Watson, “Suspicion,” 147.] [75: Oulton and Chadwick, Alexandrian Christianity, 185-86.] [76: Ibid., 147.]

Third among these “anomalies”, Watson also claims that the letter’s author “goes to considerable lengths to inform his correspondent of what he already knows,” in explaining to Theodore what portions of the Carpocratian gospel were authentic, and where the authentic portions were found in the Markan narrative of the secret gospel.[footnoteRef:77] But we can easily imagine that the Carpocratian gospel was so badly mutilated that the letter’s author was forced to quote the secret gospel passages in full in order to distinguish them from the adulterated versions. At any rate, this “excess of detail”, in Watson’s words, is typical for Origen, who often discussed biblical and gospel passages at a similar level of detail.[footnoteRef:78] [77: Ibid.] [78: For example, at comm. in Mt. 15.14. See T. M. Law, "Origen's Parallel Bible: Textual Criticism, Apologetics, or Exegesis?,” JTS 59.1 (2008): 1-21, esp. 9-13, 18; Amy S. Anderson, The Textual Tradition of the Gospels: Family 1 in Matthew, NTTS 32 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 74; M. W. Holmes, “Codex Bezae as a Recension of the Gospels,” in Codex Bezae: Studies from the Lunel Colloquium, June 1994, ed. David C. Parker and Christian-Bernard Amphoux, NTTS 22 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 146-47.]

Papias as an Aid to Composition: The Evidence from Origen

This leads us to Watson’s third point: “(3) In its account of the various editions of the Gospel of Mark, the letter uses passages from Papias as aids to composition in a way that is inconceivable for Clement,” summarizing Watson’s section II.2.[footnoteRef:79] Turning again to Origen, we can likewise accept this statement, while rejecting the conclusion that it must have been Smith who used Papias in this manner. For it turns out that Origen did. [79: Watson, “Suspicion”, 170.]

Watson points to several somewhat close grammatical or stylistic parallels between To Theodore and Papias. Watson states:

It is hard to imagine why Clement of Alexandria should depend so heavily on the wording and structure of Papias's statements about two successive gospels....In Clement's authentic account of Markan origins, as preserved in Eusebius, echoes of Papias are perceptible but faint. Although informed by the tradition derived from Papias, Clement tells his story in his own words and his own way. Unlike his imitator, he needs no model for his composition.[footnoteRef:80] [80: Ibid., 151.]

Watson views this as evidence of forgery by Smith: "It is all too easy," he writes, "to imagine a modern author gratefully availing himself of Papias's assistance as he laboriously crafts his pseudo-Clementine fictions."[footnoteRef:81] [81: Ibid.]

But the Papian tradition informed the writings of another ancient author: Origen. To repeat an observation Charles Hill made some fifteen years ago:

[Some of Origen's] other comments on the Gospels show that he probably had come into contact with a copy of Papias' books at some point. It is in fact most probable that the copy Eusebius used was housed in the great library at Caesarea which Origen had founded with his personal holdings. A fragment from Origen's Commentary on Matthew, written sometime after 244, preserved by Eusebius (HE 6.25) relates what Origen says he had learned 'by tradition'. This account not only agrees with Papias in the common belief in a Hebrew original of Matthew, but follows its mention of Mark writing his Gospel 'according to the instruction of Peter', with a supporting reference to Peter's acknowledgement of Mark in his General Epistle (I Pet 5:13), just as we know Papias had done earlier (HE 2.15.2). Learning 'by tradition' could easily be a way of referring to an account of Papias, who is quoting another earlier witness who is either unnamed or is of no particular personal reputation.[footnoteRef:82] [82: Charles E. Hill, “What Papias Said about John (and Luke): A ‘New’ Papian Fragment,” JTS 49 (1998): 582-629, esp. 608-09.]

This judgment was recently accepted by T. Scott Manor.[footnoteRef:83] Moreover, this agreement is not limited to the belief in a “Hebrew” Matthew and the linking of Mark’s gospel with Peter; the agreement is even closer, with several directly parallel phrases at the lexical level, such that the same close grammatical or stylistic parallels found between the letter and Papias can also be found between Origen and Papias. [83: T. Scott Manor, “Papias, Origen, and Eusebius: The Criticisms and Defense of the Gospel of John”, VC 27 (2013) 1-21, esp. 7.]

Eusebius quotes Origen in his Church History regarding the composition of the gospels.[footnoteRef:84] Origen explains first Matthew’s gospel, then explains that Mark wrote his own gospel as related by Peter. Just as Watson found that To Theodore’s account was “obviously related” to Papias’s, so too does it seem obvious that Origen’s is related to Papias’s. This relation is found not merely at the thematic level, but also at the level of lexical detail. Adapting Watson’s methodology, I present here first the testimony of Papias, as preserved in Eusebius, links with Origen indicated by providing Papias’s Greek: [84: h.e. 6.25.3-14]

Papias: Mark, who had been Peter’s interpreter, wrote down [ἔγραψεν] carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord’s sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of His followers, but later [ὕστερον δὲ], as I said, one of Peter’s. Peter used to adapt [ἐποιεῖτο] his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord’s sayings, so that Mark was quite justified in writing down [γράψας] some things just as he remembered them. For he had one purpose [ἐποιήσατο] only – to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it….Matthew compiled [συνετάξατο] the Sayings in the Aramaic language [Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ], and everyone translated them as well as he could.[footnoteRef:85] [85: Ibid., 3.39.15-16]

Next, Origen’s account, also found in Eusebius, links with Papias indicated by providing Origen’s Greek:

Origen: Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written [γέγραπται] by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards [ὕστερον δὲ] an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared [συντεταγμένον] for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language [Ἑβραϊκοϊς]. The second is by Mark, who composed it [ποιήσαντα] according to the instructions of Peter…[footnoteRef:86] [86: Ibid., 6.25.4]

We see from the above that the accounts share several related terms. Furthermore, in his first statement about Matthew (ὕστερον δὲ), Origen draws not only from Papias’ testimony concerning Matthew, but also from that concerning Mark, in the same way that To Theodore draws on Papias’s statements about both Matthew and Mark when explaining the Markan gospel. And Origen and Papias both speak specifically of Matthew, in addition to Mark and Peter.

And there is another parallel between Origen and Papias in Eusebius, shortly after the one above, that seems at least as striking and direct than anything Watson puts forth between To Theodore and Papias. Again, Papias writes of Mark’s gospel (quoting the same Eusebian passage as above, but with different emphases than above):

Papias: Mark, who had been Peter’s interpreter [ἑρμηνεθτὴς], wrote down carefully, but not in order [ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν], all that he remembered [ὅσα ἐμνημόνεθσεν] of the Lord’s sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of His followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter’s. Peter used to adapt his teachings [τὰς διδασκαλίας] to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord’s sayings so that Mark was quite justified in writing down some things just as he remembered them [γράψας ὡς ἀπεμνημόσεθσεν].[footnoteRef:87] [87: h.e. 3.39.15]

Origen, Eusebius later reports, wrote the following in his now-lost Homilies on Hebrews:

Origen: If I were asked my personal opinion, I would say that the matter is the apostle’s, but the phraseology and construction are those of someone who remembered [ἁπομνημονεύσαντός] the Apostle’s teaching and wrote his own interpretation [σχολιογραφήσαντός] what his master [τοῦ διδασκάλου] had said.[footnoteRef:88] [88: h.e. 6.25.13]

Watson noted that the letter seems to adapt Papias' syntax to a different context,[footnoteRef:89] but here Origen seems to do the same: Origen states that the author of Hebrews interpreted the teaching of Paul, in the same way that Papias states that Mark interpreted the teaching of Peter. Watson also claimed that To Theodore’s emphasis on interpretation (ξήγησιν) loosely echoes that of Papias (ἡρμήνευσεν); and it seems that in hom. in Heb., Origen likewise loosely echoed Papias’s emphasis on interpretation, with σχολιογραφήσαντός. [89: It would seem that Eusebius happened to draw these passages in Origen together, in close proximity, for the simple reason that they both addressed the composition of the Christian scriptures. We might well surmise from Eusebius that Origen must have received a great deal of his information about that composition from Papias, and that is precisely the conclusion that Manor reached when examining Eusebius and Origen on the composition of John’s gospel specifically. It would seem that these repeated parallels between Origen and Papias, collected together by Eusebius, indicate that Manor’s thesis is correct.]

Watson also found rhythmic parallels among the correlative conjunctions used in To Theodore and Papias.[footnoteRef:90] However, Allan Pantuck and Scott Brown have pointed out that these constructions are not actually shared in full.[footnoteRef:91] For now, we form a compromise by conceding that the phrase οὐ μέντοι is genuinely shared between the letter and Papias. [90: Watson, “Suspicion,” 148-50.] [91: Brown and Pantuck, “Evans”, 133-34.]

Thus in all, Watson found about half a dozen points of contact between the letter and Papias (treating series of conjunctions as a single point). But there are the same or more between Origen and Papias, including several connections not shared with the letter:

To Theodore

Origen

(h.e. 6.25.4†,13††)

Papias

(h.e. 3.39.15, 16)

ἀνέγραψϵ

γέγραπται†; σχολιογραφήσαντός††

ἔγραψεν; γράψας

οὐ μέντοι

---

οὐ μέντοι

---

ὕστερον δὲ†`

ὕστερον δὲ

---

ἀπομνημονεύσαντός††

ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν; ὡς ἀπεμνημόσευσεν

τὰς πράξϵις τοῦ κυρίου; πράξϵσιν

---[footnoteRef:92] [92: Origen does mention the book of Acts, Πράξεις, in the same passage from comm. in Heb., at h.e. 6.25.14.]

τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου ἢ λϵχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα

---

τοῦ διδασκάλου††

τὰς διδασκαλίας

---

ποιήσαντα†

ἐποιεῖτο, ποιούμενος, ἐποιήσατο

συνϵτάξατο; συνέταξϵ

συντεταγμένον†

τὰ λόγια συνϵτάξατο

λόγια

---

---

Ἑβραϊκοϊς†

Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ

τὴν ξήγησιν

σχολιογραφήσαντός††

ἡρμήνϵυσϵν δ’αὐτά

From the table above we see that in the two passages Watson selected from To Theodore (on canonical Mark and secret Mark), six elements are shared with Papias, including one thematic parallel. Yet in the two passages selected from Origen (on canonical Mark and Matthew), nine elements are shared with Papias, also including one thematic parallel. Even if we treat the passages from Eusebius’ Origen separately (since, unlike the passages from To Theodore, they are taken from separate works) we still respectively find five shared in comm. in Matt., and four in hom. in Heb.

Returning to the question of paralleled sequences of correlative conjunctions, Brown and Pantuck demonstrated that letter really contains only one such sequence, οὐ...οὐδὲ...ἀλλά, and that this is not in fact found in Papias. Brown and Pantuck noted that it is shared with Clement’s authentic writings,[footnoteRef:93] but it is also used in the authentic Origen. The letter uses variations on this construction twice: [93: Ibid.; the reference in Clement is Protr. 1.2.4.]

Theod. (1): [Mark] wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however [οὐ μέντοι], declaring all of them, nor yet [οὐδὲ μήν] hinting at the secret ones, but [ἀλλ᾽] selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith…

(2): Nevertheless, he yet did not [οὐδέπω] divulge the things not to be uttered, nor [οὑδέ ] did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but [ἀλλά] to the stories already written he added yet others

Again, there is no parallel with this in Papias (save only for the term οὐ μέντοι), but in Origen’s works, as in Clement’s, we find both examples:

Origen (1): “Traced”; not [οὐ] “to be investigated”, nor yet [οὐδὲ μὴν] “sought for”, but [ἀλλ’] “known exactly”.[footnoteRef:94] [94: fr. in Ps. 138.3.6: ἐξιχνίασας, οὐ ζητοῦντός ἐστιν, οὐδὲ μὴν ἐρεθνῶντος, ἀλλ’ ἀκριβῶς ἐπισταμένου.]

(2): [The Samaritan woman] does not yet [οὐδέπω] think, however, that he is greater than the prophets, or [οὐδὲ] that he is the one of whom the prophets spoke; but [ἀλλά] only that he is a prophet.[footnoteRef:95] [95: Jo. 13.12.75.]

The sequence in general (οὐ...οὐδὲ...ἀλλά) that Brown and Pantuck isolated is found repeatedly throughout Origen, for example:

And he made his riches by neither [οὐ] caring about judgment nor [οὐδὲ] by having judgment, but [ἀλλ᾽] by acting without judgment.[footnoteRef:96] [96: hom. in Jer. 17.2.15.]

Now He did not [οὐ γὰρ] say “ask me” or [οὐδὲ] simply “ask the father.” On the contrary [ἀλλά], He said “If you ask anything of the Father, He will give it to you in my name.”[footnoteRef:97] [97: Or. 15.2.]

Other parallels are too numerous to be included here, but various examples can be found at hom. in Jer. 2.2.4, 4.4.2 (twice), 5.2.3, and 12.2.66; and comm. in Mt. 10.14.14, 11.2.61, 13.30.102, 14.4.27, 14.7.11, and16.16.88. The letter appears to reflect not merely the characteristic language of Papias, but also that of Origen.

Origen appears to use Papias at least as closely as the letter does, if not more so. And To Theodore and Origen seem to exhibit the same behavior: repeated and careful attention to Papias’s testimony on the one hand, plus characteristic uses of conjunctions on the other. The features of the letter—close reliance on Papias and patterns of correlative conjunctions—seem to implicate not Smith as forger, but Origen as author.

Origenian Traits in the “Forger’s Signature”

Watson’s fourth point, “(4) In the mixed metaphor of the forgery and the salt, the real author may secretly have signed his own work” summarizes his section II.3. Watson tries to extract hidden meaning from the letter’s παραχαράσσεται and μωρανθῆναι, such that they produce the name “Morton Smith”. But attention to Origen’s works eliminate Watson’s arguments here, too. First, like the letter, Origen links παραχαράσσω with ἀληθὲς.[footnoteRef:98] Thus, Origenian authorship is as good an explanation for the letter’s use of παραχαράσσω as Watson’s convoluted one involving Smithian forgery.[footnoteRef:99] Second, Watson focuses intently on the infinitive form μωρανθῆναι in the letter, and the fact that its ν provides a transliteration of “Morton” in the Greek word—that is, so long as we equate ω with “o”, θ with “t”, η also with “o”, and ignore the first ν, thus: μωρ[αν]θῆν[αι].[footnoteRef:100] According to Watson, we are to take this (together with παραχαράσσεται) as evidence that Smith has “concealed his own signature” in the letter.[footnoteRef:101] Leaving aside the rather dubious plausibility of Watson’s transliteration, note that Origen also links a form of μωρος with ἅλς at fr. in Mt. 90 (ἅλας μωραίνεται) and at fr. in Mt. 91 (ἅλες ἐμωράνθησαν). This last example, like the letter, uses salt as a symbol of goodness,[footnoteRef:102] and includes the same transliteration of “Morton” as Watson found in the letter: [ἐ]μωρ[άν]θη[σα]ν. Watson’s peculiar (and dubious) transliteration of “Morton” is, of course, meaningless when found in Origen, so there seems no reason to take it seriously in the letter, either. Instead, Origen’s own stylistic features explain the phenomena of the letter just as well as, if not better than, Watson’s strained attempts to find a forger’s signature behind those phenomena. [98: princ. 3.1.5.] [99: Watson, “Suspicion,” 152-54.] [100: Ibid., 155.] [101: Ibid., 154.] [102: As does Origen elsewhere, for example at Cels. 8.70, a point I elaborate on in my SBL presentation. Brown mentions Cels. 8.70 in “Factualizing the Folklore: Stephen Carlson’s Case against Morton Smith,” HTR 99(3):2006, 291-327, at p. 307 n. 48. Kyle Smith also mentioned Cels. 8.70 as a parallel in K. Smith, “’Mixed with Inventions’: Salt and Metaphor in Secret Mark” (2005: http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Secret/SALT-PAPER.rtf), pointing out that in assuming that salt itself can become corrupted, Origen’s metaphor there “is much closer to Theodore’s interpretation of the parable [than other church fathers were].” Stephen Carlson made reply to this paper at Hypotyposeis: Kyle Smith’s Critique of Gospel Hoax [sic] (December 23, 2005: http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2005/12/kyle-smiths-critique-of-gospel-hoax.html), arguing that “[t]he critical–and anachronistic–detail of corruption by adulteration that distinguishes the metaphor in Theodore, however, is lacking in Origen.” However, Brown (“Folklore,” 307-08) has pointed out that while the corruption of salt in the letter’s metaphor is indeed the result of adulteration, it is not the metaphorical salt that is adulterated by the Carpocratians, but rather the truth about the secret gospel. The adulteration of this truth leads metaphorically to the corruption of the salt, and that does seem to echo Origen’s unique concern at Cels. 8.70.]

Clementine Authorship as Interpretation, in light of Origenian Authorship

Origenian authorship also mitigates Watson’s fifth claim: “(5) The letter itself—and not just its interpretation—is imbued with Smith’s own concerns and interests prior to discovery,“ which summarizes his section III.1.[footnoteRef:103] This point in general was answered indirectly at length by Scott G. Brown and Allan J. Pantuck at the York University Symposium.[footnoteRef:104] Pantuck and Watson had briefly exchanged their views directly online: there, Watson maintained that his argument was best understood once “one grasps how unusual Smith’s esotericism is within the context of New Testament scholarship in the 1950s and indeed today,”[footnoteRef:105] but this was also countered at the York University symposium.[footnoteRef:106] [103: Watson, “Suspicion,” 170.] [104: Brown and Pantuck, “Craig Evans and the Secret Gospel of Mark: Exploring the Grounds of Doubt,” in Tony Burke, ed., Ancient Gospel or Modern Forgery? The Secret Gospel of Mark in Debate: Proceedings from the 2011 York University Christian Apocrypha Symposium (Cascade: Eugene, OR, 2013), 101-34, esp. 104-19.] [105: BAR Magazine, Scholar’s Study: Did Morton Smith Forge ‘Secret Mark’? (20 February 2011; http://www.bib-arch.org/scholars-study/secret-mark.asp).] [106: Evans, “Doubt,” 81-89, but see Brown and Watson, “Evans,” 105-119, showing that Smith’s attention to esoteric traditions was not particularly unusual, whether in the 1940’s and 50’s or now.]

Watson does draw attention in particular to Smith’s interest in secrecy traditions, nothing that in a separate 1958 article, “Clement is cited precisely as a witness to a secrecy tradition” by Smith, whose article cites Clement four times in total.[footnoteRef:107] As Watson summarizes, “By 1958 Smith already saw Clement as articulating a tradition according to which Jesus taught higher truths in secret,”[footnoteRef:108] holding this up as evidence that “[t]hese elements do not simply recur in Smith’s interpretation of the letter, as one would expect; rather, they are embedded within the letter itself.”[footnoteRef:109] Watson had already stated: [107: Watson, “Suspicion,” 159, 159 n. 94. ] [108: Ibid., 161.] [109: Ibid., 160.]

There will obviously be continuities between his prior views and his interpretation of the letter—a point that [Smith] himself acknowledges. But it would be a remarkable coincidence if the letter itself anticipated views already held by its discoverer prior to his discovery.[footnoteRef:110] [110: Ibid., 156.]

But as I have shown, Clementine authorship does not belong to the letter itself; it is, in fact, an interpretation of the letter. Rather than anticipating the letter’s views, Smith’s pre-1958 work merely anticipates his mistaken understanding of the letter.

The Origenian Context and Content of the Letter

Watson’s sixth point, “(6) The elaborate discovery story re-enacts the plot of a forgotten novel”, summarizes his section III.2, but was replied to in general at the York University symposium.[footnoteRef:111] Allan Pantuck and Watson have also exchanged views on this directly.[footnoteRef:112] There, Watson remained reluctant to concede this point to Pantuck in general, but did concede that “coincidences do happen in real life”. [111: Brown and Pantuck, “Evans,” 120-21.] [112: Did Morton Smith Forge ‘Secret Mark’?]

To this point overall, I must add that even if the links Watson draws between James Hunter’s fictional Shred of Nicodemus and the letter’s first passage from secret Mark (Watson, “Suspicion,” 168) imply anything beyond sheer coincidence, we face a serious and probably insurmountable inferential obstacle, since we know from Pantuck’s presentation at the 2011 symposium that Hunter visited Mar Saba in 1931.[footnoteRef:113] Thus it is not impossible that Hunter himself saw the manuscript, and based his fiction on the contents of the letter fragment. [113: This observation was for whatever reason not included in the published proceedings.]

Watson writes that "The two Mar Saba discoveries are also similar in content. In both cases, a short but sensational excerpt of an early text is discovered, together with a text or texts dating from the second century." But this is not so. As we have seen above, the secret gospel passages are not “sensational” in the way that Watson thinks they are. Watson also claims that in both Hunter’s novel and Smith’s discovery, second-century texts lend authenticity to an earlier one. But Origenian authorship of the Mar Saba letter renders any similarity here less apt, since it turns out the letter is from the third century, not the second.

Lastly, Watson would also find a parallel in the obstacles to forgery presented both in Hunter’s novel and in Smith’s account of his discovery; in the former, a lack of motive is cited, and in the latter, the difficulty in imitating Clement is citied. However, Origenian authorship eliminates this parallel, since Origen’s “profound study” of Clement was in fact an imitation of him.

Conclusion

Watson first concludes that “The author of the Mar Saba letter cannot have been Clement of Alexandria,” basing this claim on the first three of his points.[footnoteRef:114] I concur with Watson in part, agreeing that the author cannot have been Clement, that Clement did indeed serve as a source for the letter’s author, and that the author’s use of Papias as an aid to composition is indeed un-Clementine. However, this use of Papias is not inconceivable for any patristic author, for we have seen that Origen used Papias as an “aid to composition”. Rather than leading us to Smith as forger, these uses of Clement and Papias by the letter-writer lead us to Origen as author. [114: Watson, “Suspicion,” 170.]

Watson next concludes that “it is clear that the author of this letter is Morton Smith,” basing this claim on his second three points.[footnoteRef:115] However, we have seen how Origen’s use of metaphor allows us to dismiss Watson’s fourth point. Origenian authorship also mitigates Watson’s fifth point regarding the anticipation of the letter’s ideas in the pre-1958 writings of Morton Smith. And it mitigates his sixth point, since Origen was in fact an expert imitator of Clement, contrary to Smith’s expectations. It seems there is little or nothing remaining in Watson’s argument that would prohibit the conclusion that Origen wrote the letter.[footnoteRef:116] Indeed, Watson’s own arguments have helped lead us to that conclusion. [115: Ibid.] [116: Certainly we can leave aside the numerological metaphor lying at the end of Watson’s article as lacking any persuasive merit.]

Watson notes, rightly, that the difficulties with attributing authorship of the letter to Clement “make it impossible to dismiss the question of authenticity” by simply referring to the number of scholars who accept that Clementine authorship. Watson insists that “the debate about this text should rest on something more substantial than impressionistic observations”.[footnoteRef:117] I agree, and this paper is intended as the sort of substantial argument, based on textual evidence, that Watson calls for. This evidence indicates that the letter was not written by Clement after all. However, it does not indicate it was written by Smith, either. Instead, the substantial evidence indicates it was written by Origen. [117: Watson, “Suspicion”, 144.]

18