This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

The Mar Saba Letter is a Greek document which scholar Morton Smith in 1973 claimed to have discovered 15 years earlier in the library of the Mar Saba monastery, and which now survives only as photographs. The text purports to be an epistle of Clement of Alexandria and contains the only known references to a "Secret Gospel of Mark". The consensus of academic study since 2000 is that the letter is a forgery, and probably a hoax by Smith himself.[1 (Evans/Tov ref)]

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

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]