Mark's Other Gospel: Rethinking Morton Smith's Controversial Discovery

A.J. Pell is editor of the Canadian Evangelical Review, an instructor of
Liturgy in the Anglican Studies Program at Regent College, Vancouver,
and pastor of the Church of the Resurrection in Hope, B.C.

In 1958, in a monastery in the Judaean desert, Morton Smith of Columbia
University discovered a previously unknown letter by Clement of
Alexandria that spoke about a version of Mark’s gospel longer than the
canonical version, and gave two passages (15 verses in total) from it.
Since then this longer version has become a matter of scholarly debate,
with the majority of New Testament scholars dismissing it on various
grounds. Scott Brown became interested in this longer version and made
it the subject of his doctoral dissertation in 1998, expanded and
reworked for this book.

Brown takes the reader through detailed argument, beginning with a
study of the authenticity of Clement’s letter. In three chapters he
sketches out the possible relationship of the longer version of Mark to
known canonical and non-canonical gospels, as well as its nature and
probable purpose. Finally, he devotes three chapters to a detailed
comparison and analysis of literary techniques in Mark’s gospel and
the 15 verses from the longer version quoted by Clement. He closes with
a very good chapter drawing together his arguments and stating his
conclusions. Brown is convinced that the full longer version (at present
not known in its full form) made much greater use of symbolic material
than the canonical version, and that both versions were written by the
same author. He accepts Clement’s view that the canonical version was
written for newcomers to the faith, while the longer version used a
great deal of allegorical material because it was intended for more
knowledgeable Christians.

In ascribing to the longer version of Mark an authenticity and even an
orthodoxy that most New Testament scholars would not, Brown displays an
impatience with their criticisms. For example, in his preface Brown
tries to dismiss critics by saying “that when scholars form opinions
on non-canonical gospel they rarely stray from their religious
commitments,” implying that any criticisms are automatically biased.
That edge appears from time to time right up to the conclusion. It’s
an unnecessary attitude that does him no credit.