Talk:Mar Saba letter

Separation from 'The Secret Gospel of Mark'
In order to distinguish between discussion of the Mar Saba letter and discussion of the Secret Gospel of Mark, I have removed the redirection here and am moving material about the letter itself to a separate article here. Discussion of the secret gospel will remain at the old location. Mangoe 01:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * At some point the 2 articles will probably need to be merged, as consensus of academics now concludes that the two are part of the same one hoax. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead revised to get the point quickly per WP:LEAD
There's no point beating around the bush here, Manual of Style/Lead section indicates that the most pertinent content should be nutshelled in the lead. I have edited as follows:

See also ongoing discussion at Talk:Secret Gospel of Mark. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mar Saba letter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19990822081504/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Secret/secmark_home.html to http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Secret/secmark_home.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils
the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils is stated as common to Gnostics of the period, but I have studied almost all of the gnostic's texts and I recall no instance of this. Rather the reference begins with the Letter of Clement. It may have been used in something pagan previously, but I cannot find any reference anywhere to this. To say that the letter is gnostics is highly unlikely as it has no other gnostic suggestions. There are many, many suggestions of secret teachings of Jesus in the Gospels and this actually is in defense of other things that the opponents of Christianity were doing. In fact the letter in content is against the gnostics as it is critical of the Carpocrations who were gnostics. This more upholds orthodox Christianity. Also the fact that it was found in a Cathedral would make it genuine as they would have destroyed it if it was gnostic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.50.63 (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I suppose that if one interprets the sentence “The central element of initiation and progress to ‘the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils’ is common to Gnostic writings and to the mystery religions of the period” literally, then the statement is incorrect. This expression would perhaps not be found in Gnostic writing. But Gnostic is a wide definition and the writing of Clement of Alexandria is also defined as Gnostic in some sense. Clement uses the expression of entering the “innermost sanctuary of the truth” in Strom. V.4.19.3. Scott G. Brown shows in the articles Behind the Seven Veils I and II, how the “sevenfold veiled truth” is a Christian-Gnostic metaphor for concealing the truths and how Clement uses it in his undisputed works to denote “the mystical experience of perceiving the immaterial cosmos and rising incrementally through it.” Brown’s interpretation of Clement is that the entering of “the innermost sanctuary is to begin experiencing the great mysteries of the immaterial cosmos.” Whether one sees this as Gnostic or not is a question of perspective and, on the surface at least, it is different than the Nag Hammadi writings. Personally I find this whole article unnecessary as everything essential in it is covered in the article on the Secret Gospel of Mark, as the two subjects are so intertwined that they best be handled in one article, and in all other language versions there is just one article. Roger Viklund (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Consider re-merge or better disposition
Presently, this article and the Secret Gospel of Mark largely cover the same ground, namely, the authenticity vz. forgery issue. The original idea of the split thus now is confuscated. One possible way to proceed is to remerge the articles; another, to shift the authenticity of the letter (as an antique document from the circles of (proto)Clemens of A.) here, while leaving all discussion about the (potential) impact on the emergence of the gospels there, and to provide better cross-references between these articles. JoergenB (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)