Margaret M. Mitchell, Joseph G. Barabe, and Abigail B. Quandt, “Chicago’s “Archaic Mark” (ms 2427) II Microscopic, Chemical and Codicological Analyses Confirm Modern Production,” NovT 52 (2010): 101-133. Abstract:
Comprehensive testing and analysis (microscopic, chemical and codicological) of University of Chicago ms 972-Gregory-Aland ms 2427 confirms that it is a modern production made sometime between 1874 and the first decades of the 20th century. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/not/2010/00000052/00000002/art00001
The latter line of inquiry, into possible modern editions that might have been used to account for the codex’s surprising level of concurrence with Codex Vaticanus,3 has been taken up skillfully by Stephen C. Carl- son, who proposed that the exemplar used by the scribe of ms 2427 was the 1860 edition of the Greek New Testament by Philipp Buttmann,4 indicating that the manuscript is a modern forgery.
Abigail Quandt’s portion is telling: “Reconstruction of the Forger’s Technique.” She concludes:
In summary, the materials and processes used in the creation of the “Archaic Mark” reinforce, on the one hand, what is already known about manuscript forgeries during the modern period and, on the other hand, give us an even deeper understanding of the careful work that went into creating such a complex and ultimately successful forgery that has mystified scholars up until the present day.
In Mitchell’s final portion titled “The Forger’s Textual Dependence” Stephen Carlson’s “keen detective work” is acknowledged, but also Wieland Willker:
The most extensive list of comparisons of ms 2427 with Buttmann’s 1860 edition, following on and confirming Carlson’s proposal, was made in an excellent online contribution by Dr. Wieland Willker. Willker lists nine “first rate indications” of agreement between ms 2427 and features unique to Buttmann, and seven instances as “additional supporting evidence.” Tracing the genealogical history accounting for these “unique features” and “very rare or unusual readings” in the Buttmann edition allows us to confirm how strong and decisive the case is for its use by the forger of ms 2427.
Wieland’s online contribution “Ms 2427 – a fake” (2006) is available here.
One significant feature of the Mar Saba letter is the way it divides inspired narratives into two categories or types:
As for Mark, then, during Peters stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lords doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former books the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected [TELEIOUMENWN]. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue , lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautionously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initated into the great mysteries.
The first type (which includes canonical Mark) is the educational intended for instruction in the Christian faith. The second type (which includes Secret Mark) is the initiatory or perfecting. The educational type of sacred narrative is available for all. The initiatory type of sacred narrative is reserved for some sort of elite and appears to require a special type of mystagogic exegesis. Unauthorized readers of inititiatory texts who fail to use the appropriate type of exegesis may be seriously led astray, this is what supposedly happened to Carpocrates and his followers. However, with the right mystagogic exegesis, initiatory texts are able to bring the reader within the veil, into the divine presence, in a way that educational texts cannot.
Esoteric ideas and reserve in communicating certain types of teaching to the general public were certainly widespread in Clement’s day among Jews Christians and Pagans. However it is difficult to find a close pre-Nicene parallel to this division of inspired texts into the educational and initiatory categories with their different capacities both for good and for ill. We maybe fail to appreciate this sufficiently because these ideas are very much at home in late Neo-Platonism and we are the heirs of the late Neo-Platonic world view, tending to read back these ideas into earlier periods. (Barton’s generally very sound Oracles of God ,about Prophetic and Apocalyptic Jewish works, tends to read back late Neo-Platonic ideas into Rabbinic debates about the canon.) In fact the best parallel I have found to the ideas in the Mar Saba letter comes from the late Neo-Platonist Proclus in his commentary on Plato’s Republic. (There are weaker parallels with the Emperor Julian and others but the parallel with Proclus is close enough to possibly suggest direct influence.)
Proclus’ commentary on the Republic is a series of essays not a continuous commentary. The Greek text is edited by Kroll. There is no full English translation (although there is a French translation by Festugiere). Proclus has to reconcile Plato’s notorious condemnation of the Homeric myths with his own conviction of the supreme inspiration of Homer. He does so using the resources of late Neo-Platonism such as the dissimilar symbol and compares the harmful potential of Homer for the general public with the value of the lurid Homeric myths for an enlightened elite.
Proclus In Remp 1.81 11- We are reminded from what has been said that Socrates thought that there were two types of myth. I mean one is for education, the other for initiation [TELESTIKON]; one provides for ethical virtue, the other for contact with the divine; the one can benefit the majority of us, the other is suited to very few; the one is common and familiar to people, the other is forbidden and inappropriate for those who lack the zeal to establish themselves entirely with the divine; the one is concomitant with the dispositions of the young, the other is scarcely revealed even with sacrifices and mystical tradition.