by Justin Cargill (BA Hons)
"And
a young man followed him [Jesus], with nothing but a
linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, but he
left the linen cloth and ran away naked." (Mark
14:51-52.
R.S.V.)
This
parenthetical detail recorded by Mark appears to be a
senseless intrusion into the account of Jesus' agony and
arrest. It is a curious little episode which requires
some explanation. What is the point of it? At least one
scholar
thought
he knew and he gave it particular significance.
The
late Morton Smith, professor of ancient history at
Columbia University, New York, was a recognised
authority on the religions of antiquity. In 1973 he
published two books discussing the implications of a
manuscript which he had discovered in 1958 at a Greek
Orthodox monastery at Mar Saba, south-east of Jerusalem.[1]
This
18th century manuscript contained part of a letter
allegedly written by Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-211),
and it referred to and cited from what Clement claimed
to be an expanded gospel of Mark, written by Mark for
those who were being initiated into the great mysteries.
According to this fragment our canonical gospel of Mark
is a condensed version of a "Secret Gospel" written
for those who were not initiates. By 'secret,'
Clement meant that the gospel possessed a symbolic or
allegorical level of meaning.
The
fragment indicates that Clement was aware of a passage
from this expanded gospel of Mark according to which
Jesus raised a young man from the dead and gave him the
secrets of the kingdom of God. The passage is said to
have appeared after Mark 10:32 and replaces Jesus'
prophecy of his trial and death in Jerusalem (10:33-34).
The writer of canonical Mark allegedly deleted this
story which appears in the Secret Gospel and
Smith believes a similar story involving a secret
initiation would account for the young man in the Garden
of Gethsemane (Mk.14:51-52).[2]
In
fact, Smith argues that Mark 14:51-52 confirms the idea
that Jesus practised a secret rite of baptism which was
administered by him "to chosen disciples, singly, and
by night."[3]
This is why the young man was wearing a linen cloth. He
believes that Mark 14:51-52 indicates that Jesus had
been teaching a young man the esoteric secrets of the
kingdom of God and had been performing a secret baptism
in Gethsemane when he was surprised by the High Priest's
soldiers.[4]
Smith,
therefore, thinks Jesus was involved in occultic and
hypnotic rituals. He maintains that Jesus was a magus or
magician and describes Jesus' miracles as the works of a
magician who used hypnosis.[5]
He also believes that Jesus' teaching was libertine, and
that his immediate disciples wrote libertine documents.
Smith believes that this libertine tradition was at
first the dominant position in the Jerusalem church but
it lost its influence with the introduction of new
converts under James' leadership. It was then driven
underground when Peter, whom he identifies as the leader
of the original disciples, was driven from the city by
persecution under Herod.
[6] Smith believes that James
and Paul suppressed this libertine aspect of Jesus'
teaching.[7]
If
Smith's conclusions are correct, then, Christianity is
founded on mystery, magic, and a hitherto unknown secret
baptisimal initiation which granted initiates a
libertine freedom from the law. He insists that his
discovery has "consequences for the history of the
early Christian Church and for New Testament criticism
that are revolutionary."[8]
How
do we respond to all this?
Some
actually believe that the writing attributed to Clement
is a forgery from anywhere between the 3rd and 5th
centuries. In fact, the classicist A.D. Nock, who Smith
described as his "principal adviser in the classical
field,"[9]
did not accept that Clement actually wrote the letter.[10]
Even
if the letter were, however, written by Clement it does
not follow that he was correct to attribute the Secret
Gospel to the writer of canonical Mark. In
principle, the Secret Gospel could have been a
second-century apocryphal gospel which he incorrectly
ascribed to Mark. After all, Clement assigned the Apocalypse
of Peter to Peter,[11]
so he was not necessarily reliable or
discerning in regard to apocryphal material. Smith
himself believes that the Secret Gospel was drawn
from an older Aramaic Gospel which had also served as a
source for canonical Mark. He believes the writer of the
Secret Gospel translated this older Aramaic
source into Greek and he also drew upon canonical Mark.
Thus the Secret Gospel is a version of our
canonical Mark expanded by material from an alleged
libertine tradition derived from the Aramaic source.[12]
The writer of the Secret Gospel reintroduced
stories that the author of canonical Mark had allegedly
omitted from his narrative. Smith believes the writer of
the Secret Gospel imitated Mark's style very
closely,[13]
and that both the Secret Gospel and canonical Mark were
later attributed to Mark, Peter's companion.[14]
Although
the style appears to be Markan, Smith's comparative
analysis of the words in Mark and the Secret Gospel
is based upon such a small sample from the Secret
Gospel that any conclusions drawn from the
statistics may be unreliable.[15]
Certainly Mark's style can be easily imitated but there
is evidence that the style is just as close in parts to
Matthew, Luke, or John.[16]
If
the Secret Gospel is as early as Smith argues,
being written before Matthew and Luke,[17]
one might have supposed that traces of it would appear
in second century literature, especially material which
had origins in Alexandria or which was being used there.
After all, according to Clement this is where it was
supposed to have been written and yet Clement's letter
is the first to mention it.[18]
Of course, a number of texts have survived without being
cited, but neither Origen nor any other successor of
Clement refers to this expansion of Mark. Either they
did no know about it or did not trust it.[19]
Smith
is not surprised that Clement's letter itself could
have existed for centuries without being cited. He
points out that there are many examples of texts which
have survived although they were never cited. He
observes also that medieval authors "were often
unwilling to quote or even to refer to material they
thought possibly heretical."[20]
Smith goes on to say that there are many ancient secret
gospels which we now only know about by name because
they were never preserved. He then concludes that lack
of reference to the letter of Clement does not count
against its authenticity. In fact, Smith thinks the lack
of reference is an argument in favour of authenticity
for if it were genuine it would be a private and
confidential letter so its lack of reference could be
explained. But if it were a forgery it would have been
written with a propaganda purpose in mind and would have
been meant for circulation. Smith says its lack of
reference would then be harder to explain.[21]
However, Smith has already provided an explanation.
Since he observes that the Church fathers and medieval
writers were not diligent about preserving or citing
material they deemed heretical, the letter could have
been a forgery and have enjoyed some initial circulation
although it was later ignored because of its suspected
heretical nature. Indeed, Smith tells us specifically
that early manuscripts of Clement are rare because he
"was not much thought of" and he also was not
popular during the middle ages,[22]
so it is difficult to see why the lack of reference to
his letter should constitute evidence that it was really
a personal and confidential letter that by its nature
never circulated.
Even
those scholars who believe that the letter was written
by Clement and that the Secret Gospel predated
canonical Mark, do not support Smith's speculations
regarding the kingdom of God and his claims that there
was a libertine element in early Christianity.[23]
There is, in fact, nothing in the passage cited by
Clement about secret nocturnal baptismal rites.
Smith
believes that the reference in the Secret Gospel
to the young man in the linen cloth being raised from
the dead and receiving the secrets of the kingdom of God
was left out of the canonical text of Mark 10. He
reasons that it refers to a secret rite of baptism
inappropriate for those who were not initiates. But if
this is so, why didn't the writer also omit from Mark 14
the details of the secret rite of the Lord's Supper
which, according to Smith, contains the secret words of
institution?[24]
Smith's
evidence that a baptismal rite is indicated by this
passage allegedly cited by Clement is very weak. He
appeals to the fact that the young man is wearing a
linen cloth over his naked body, and notes that later
sources indicate that such dress was used in baptisms,
and that this kind of costume was also used in magical
initiations.[25]
He sees a parallel with the story of the young man in
the linen cloth in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mk. 14:51-52), and as already observed, thinks that the idea
of a secret baptismal rite performed by Jesus explains
this curious incident. He says the fact that the
incident takes place at night agrees with the story in
the Secret Gospel.[26]
It
is to be noted, however, that Smith draws upon later
sources to show that linen cloth was later used in
baptism and, given his reasoning, it seems apparent that
no one in first century Palestine could wear linen cloth
to conceal themselves unless they were engaged in
magical initiations! Moreover, any attempt to uphold
Smith's scenario involves having to reject canonical
Mark's vivid and precise narrative regarding Jesus'
agony in the Garden of Gethsemane and its reference to
Jesus preparing himself for his death.[27]
Smith believes that in order to replace the fact that
Jesus was performing a secret baptism at the time of his
arrest, the story of Jesus' agony in Gethsemane was
invented and substituted.[28]
Interestingly,
this whole idea means having to explain the continued
presence of Mark 14:51-52 in an account which is
supposed to have been written by an author trying to
cover up the whole story! If this expanded gospel of
Mark told of Jesus baptising a young man on the night of
his arrest, why, in substituting this story with the
story of Jesus' agony, didn't the writer omit reference
to the young man in the linen cloth altogether
(Mk.14:51-52)? This is rather like someone rewriting
John's gospel in order to remove any evidence for
Jesus'
pre-existence whilst retaining the very first verse! If
linen cloth suggests baptisms and magical initiation,
why retain such tell-tale evidence?
Of
course, it is possible to suggest that the story of the
young man in the linen cloth was included in order to
provoke questions about his identity. If the author of
canonical Mark actually later authored the Secret
Gospel, he
could have anticipated this later work by introducing
the young man as a means of prompting his readers to
inquire into the mysteries through a study of his later
allegedly more advanced and 'spiritual' Gospel. But
the details regarding the young man being seized and
leaving his garment behind readily fit the idea that
they are there to heighten the narrative. And if the
writer was encouraging his readers to expect a sequel in
which certain mysteries would be elaborated, we might
expect this to be done in a provocative and intriguing
manner at other points in his narrative as well.
Perhaps
the young man represents an unnamed disciple or the
prototype of the Christian. However, he is depicted as
deserting Jesus in order to save himself. Perhaps then
he is meant to represent all who would follow Jesus but
who fall away when trouble comes. This would be in
keeping with Mark's emphasis on the challenge of
discipleship (eg. 8:34-9:1; 9:35-50; 10:17-45). But the
point is already being made by Mark. He had already said
that Judas had betrayed Jesus (14:43-45) and the other
disciples had fled at his arrest (14:50). Mark also goes
on to say that Peter denied Jesus (14:66-72) and the
women fled from the tomb in fear (16:8), although in
this last example, it is not clear that Mark means to
indicate a failing on their part. They may have been
expressing fear and astonishment in the presence of the
divine which seems to be a Markan theme.[29]
Still, Mark does make it clear that Jesus' followers
fell away from him. What purpose does it serve to add an
additional character, a symbolic figure, who also
abandons Jesus?
A
further possibility is that canonical Mark intends his
readers to identify the young man in 14:51-52 with the
young man at the tomb in Mark 16:5. This is the only other use of the expression
'young man' in his gospel so he could, in principle,
intend that both passages be understood to describe the
same person. The only other instance of 'linen' in
Mark's gospel is in relation to the cloth in which
Jesus was wrapped (15:46). Pursuing this thought, the
young man could then be symbolically linked to the
experience of sharing in Jesus' suffering and death.
The linen cloth then becomes a symbol of the youth's
commitment to Jesus but his flight demonstrates his
failure to pay the cost of discipleship. His appearance
at the tomb wearing a white robe could thus symbolise
his subsequent victory and faithfulness after initial
defeat. If he is representative of the disciples he
could symbolise their subsequent return to faith.
However,
in 14:51 the writer identifies those who tried to seize
the youth as
'young
men' (lit. in Greek). This suggests that the writer is
not wishing his readers to be sensitive to a semantic
link designed to establish in their minds a connection
between the young man in Mark 14 and the young man in
Mark 16.
Moreover,
the young man at the tomb wears a white robe. This
could, of course, suggest the idea of victory if the
young men in Mark 14 and 16 are the same and the writer
means to depict the young man's return to faith.
Alternatively, the white robe could indicate purity
associated with the youth's identification with the
dying and rising Christ (cf. Rev. 7:9,13-14). But it is
doubtful that the young man in Mark 16 is to be
identified with the young man in Mark 14. It is more
likely that he is an angel.
There
are a number of reasons for thinking that canonical Mark
intended the young man in Mark 16 to be identified as an
angel. The fact that he is referred to as a 'man'
does not count against this for Luke refers to two men
at the tomb (24:4) although it is clear he believed they
were angels (24:23). Bode points out that there is
precedent in 2 Maccabees 3:26, 33-34 for referring to an
angelic appearance as an appearance of a young man.[30]
And although, as noted above, 'white' could suggest
victory or purity in relation to the young man, Bode
argues that the white robe symbolises heavenly dress and
he cites Dan. 7:9; Rev. 3:4,5,18; 7:13. He observes that
it recalls the only other instance in which Mark uses
white - the description of Jesus' clothing at his
transfiguration (9:3).[31]
This suggests that a 'supernatural' context is
involved. Moreover, Bode observes that the words spoken
by the young man involve divine revelation, the
authoritative announcement of Jesus' resurrection. In
addition, the women's reaction is one of fear and
astonishment and this suggests that they identified the
young man as a "heavenly messenger." Their reaction
is the typical biblical response in the presence of the
supernatural.[32]
Why
then does the account of the young man in the linen
cloth appear in canonical Mark? The only adequate
explanation for this incidental detail is that it is a
personal reminiscence. The incident would clearly be
memorable to the young man who was the subject of it and
it would hardly be memorable to anyone else. The view
that the young man was none other than the writer
himself is certainly reasonable.
There
are further problems with Smith's approach. There is no
evidence at all that Jesus taught libertinism and that
his first followers were libertines. Smith accounts for
this lack of evidence by insisting that this early
libertine
teaching
was suppressed by James and Paul.[33]
Actually, Smith contradicts himself. He asserts that the
early libertine parties derived from Jesus himself, and
that when their views can be reconstructed we are closer
to true early Christianity than the New Testament.[34]
He says material is lacking from the libertines in areas
where Paul's Christianity triumphed, but concludes that
we can infer what early Christianity was like from the
things Paul opposed in his letters.[35]
Elsewhere, however, he says that Paul got his views
directly from Jesus.[36]
Now, Smith can't really mean by this that Paul taught
libertinism (if this is what Jesus really taught). On
the contrary, according to Paul both wrong faith and
wrong morals played havoc on the Christian (1 Cor.
5:9-13; 11:27-30; Gal. 5:19-21). Besides, if Paul
derived his views from Jesus and such views were
libertine,
how could Smith claim that Paul helped to suppress early
libertine writings? And how could he claim that we can
infer what those writings were like from those things
which Paul opposed?
If,
on the other hand, we take the view that the first
Christians were libertines but Paul was not, we still
cannot claim to know what this libertinism was like from
what Paul opposed. There is, in fact, no evidence from
Paul's letters that he was in constant conscious
opposition to a strong libertine teaching which preceded
him. Although he spent much of his time combating false
doctrine, in only a few places did he need to condemn
antinomianism,[37]
and it is clear that this resulted from a perversion by
others of his own theology. It was not a consequence of
people having followed an earlier libertine teaching
derived from Jesus. Paul was defending his own teaching
from those who thought it led to libertinism (Rom. 3:8;
6:1f).
In
fact, the idea that Paul (or for that matter James)
opposed the teaching of the first Christians is
contradicted by the fact that there is no indication
that Paul and Peter disagreed on such a fundamental
issue as that regarding libertinism. Paul's letter to
the Galatians implies a fundamental agreement with Peter
over the contents of the gospel tradition. Admittedly,
we find Paul taking Peter to task for inconsistency, but
his criticism certainly doesn't indicate that Peter
tended to libertinism. Paul actually criticises Peter
for yielding to Jewish legalists (Gal. 2:11-21)! And in
what way could Paul speak as he does of receiving the "right hand of fellowship" from those who were
"reputed to be pillars," - Peter, James and
John (Gal. 2:9) - if there were such rifts? And how could
Paul speak at all of James, Peter and John as "pillars" if James was actively suppressing
the teachings of Peter and John? For those like Smith
(and Baur long before) who argue for a discontinuity
between Jesus and his first followers, on the one hand,
and those like Paul, on the other, there can be no more
disappointing document than Paul's letter to the
Galatians.[38]
Of
course, it is possible to argue that Paul invented the
details of Galatians 2 in order to conceal the attack he
and James had made on Jesus' first followers. But why,
then, mention the argument he had with Peter and which
could have given rise to speculation? And even a
superficial acquaintance with Paul's letters is sufficient
to show that Paul was not the kind of person to want to
show that his enemies agreed with him. In any case, the
risk of being caught out would be too high. There was
too much movement and communication among the Christians
of the first century (eg. Rom. 16:1-2; 1 Cor. 16:10-12,17; Gal. 2:4,11,12; Eph. 6:21-22; Phil. 4:18,
etc.) for us to
entertain the idea that Paul
could
simply invent details of this significance and expect to
get away with it.
In
1 Corinthians 15:11, Paul also indicates that the gospel
he preached was essentially the same as that preached by
the original apostles. He could not have expected to
maintain this if it were not true when he knew that
members of the Corinthian church were to visit Jerusalem
with funds (l Cor. 16:2-4) and would find out!
Smith,
of course, insists that the libertine element was
suppressed and that Peter had been driven out of
Jerusalem but he can provide no evidence for this. Smith
believes that Peter was driven from Jerusalem under
persecution from Herod Agrippa 1 in AD 41-44.[39]
But Paul indicates that Peter was still in Jerusalem
seventeen years after his own conversion (Gal. 2:9, cf.
1:18; 2:1). This would place Peter in Jerusalem around
AD50. The libertine element clearly had time to make its
mark in Jerusalem. Why, then, would Paul have encouraged
the Corinthians to visit Jerusalem, perhaps at a point 6
or 7 years later, when he could have no control over who
they met or what they heard? Smith's insistence that an
early libertine teaching was suppressed by other
Christians should be rejected.
Smith
even believes that the experiences of the resurrected
Christ were based on
hallucinations![40]
This is not only too simple, it is simple-minded. He
also claims that the Lord's Supper is derived from
ancient magic,[41]
but he
does
so by grasping at remote parallels with other
literature, and by completely ignoring the roots of the
Communion in the Jewish passover meal.[42]
After all, Jesus and his first followers were Jews. What
is more likely? That Jesus appealed to magical tradition
or that he appealed to his own Jewish tradition?
Even
granting the authenticity of Clement's letter and the
genuineness of the passage cited by him, Smith's
interpretation of its meaning and significance is,
therefore, unconvincing. If Clement really did refer to
another gospel attributed to Mark, it was probably
adapted from the canonical gospels. It makes sense to
understand this expanded gospel as having been written
later, having drawn upon passages like Mark 14:51-52.
Grant, who accepts that the material was cited by
Clement, actually concludes that it demonstrates an
attempt to combine elements from John, Matthew and Luke
with elements from canonical Mark, in order to provide
what Clement calls a "more spiritual" or
"mystical" gospel than canonical Mark.
Suggesting that the phrase "spiritual gospel" is not
a characteristic of Clement's style, Grant argues that
Clement was influenced by Alexandrian tradition and
understood that the composite text was similar to John
for both were "spiritual."
[43]
There
is much more that could be said about Smith's approach
and it has been said by others. But this brief review of
Smith's work raises an interesting question. Smith's
arguments are embarrassingly weak and even at times
self-defeating.
Why, then, would a scholar such as Morton Smith engage
in such eccentric speculation? Certainly, Smith's work
featured for a time in the popular press. Is it this
desire for publicity which prompts a scholar to abandon
all caution, to draw conclusions from the flimsiest of
evidence and from no evidence at all, or is it something
else? Is it something about the message of the gospel
itself which provokes such unreasoned responses?
One
is reminded of the bizarre claims of John M. Allegro. A
competent Semitic scholar, Allegro attempted by an
incredible misuse of philology to prove that Jesus was
not an historical person but a code name for a sacred
hallucinogenic
mushroom
allegedly used by the first Christians! The first
Christians were thus members of an ancient fertility
cult which committed their secrets to writing in an
elaborate cryptogram, the New Testament itself.[44]
In a sequel, he explored
the
implications of his theory.[45]
His work certainly had implications but not for
Christianity. Has anyone now heard of Allegro?
Certainly,
Christians are constantly bombarded by the media with
the claims of non-believing scholarship. Invariably,
however, the scholarship is no more compelling than that
demonstrated by Smith. Christians need to know that the
evidence for Christianity is surprisingly strong and
they should not be intimidated by speculation
masquerading as scholarship. Nor should they be
intimidated by the opinions of friends and colleagues
whose ideas have often
been
moulded by sensationalism and ignorance promoted by
media appeals to the works of scholars like Smith.
Return to Top
References
-
Clement of Alexandria
and a Secret Gospel of Mark. (Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1973); The Secret
Gospel: The discovery and interpretation of the
Secret Gospel According to Mark. (New York:
Harper and Row, 1973). [Return
to text]
-
Clement of Alexandria,
p.237. [Return
to text]
-
Clement of Alexandria,
p.251. [Return
to text]
-
Clement of Alexandria,
p.237. [Return
to text]
-
Clement of Alexandria,
pp.227, 240; Secret Gospel, pp.101, 105-8,
140. [Return
to text]
-
Secret Gospel,
pp.122, 131, 141. [Return
to text]
-
Clement of Alexandria,
pp.255-56, 263; Secret Gospel, pp.122-23,
130-32, 141-42. [Return
to text]
-
Clement of Alexandria,
p.ix. [Return
to text]
-
Secret Gospel,
pp.63-64. [Return
to text]
-
Secret Gospel,
pp.24-25. [Return
to text]
-
Ferguson, Everett. "Apocalypse of Peter," in Encyclopedia
of early Christianity, ed. Everett Ferguson.
(New York: Garland Publishing, 1990), p.56. [Return
to text]
-
Secret Gospel,
p.142. [Return
to Text]
-
Secret Gospel,
pp.43, 142. [Return
to text]
-
Secret Gospel,
p.142. [Return
to text]
-
Yamauchi, Edwin M. "A
secret gospel of Jesus as 'Magus'? A review of
the recent works of Morton Smith." Christian
Scholar's Review 4, no.3 (1975): 240. [Return
to text]
-
Parker, Pierson. "On
Professor Morton Smith's find at Mar-Saba." Anglican
Theological Review, 56, no.1 (1974): 53-54. [Return
to text]
-
Secret Gospel, p.43.
[Return
to text]
-
Frend, W.H.C. "A new
Jesus?" New York Review of Books, 20 (9 Aug
1973): 25. [Return
to text]
-
Parker, p.56. [Return
to text]
-
Secret Gospel,
p.145. [Return
to text]
-
Secret Gospel,
pp.145-46. [Return
to text]
-
Secret Gospel,
pp.144-45. [Return
to text]
-
Koester, Helmut. Review
of The Secret Gospel: The discovery and
interpretation of the Secret Gospel According to
Mark and Clement of Alexandria and a Secret
Gospel of Mark. American Historical Review,
80 (June 1975): 620-22. [Return
to text]
-
Koester, p. 620. [24]
-
Clement of Alexandria,
p.223; Secret Gospel, p.81.
[Return to text]
-
Secret Gospel.
[Return to text]
-
Frend, pp.24-25.
[Return to text]
-
Clement of
Alexandria, p.243. [Retutn
to text]
-
Bode, Edward Lynn . The
first Easter morning: The gospel accounts of the
women's visit to the tomb of Jesus. (Rome:
Biblical Institute, 1970), p.37.[Return
to text]
-
Bode, p.27.[Return
to text]
-
Bode. [Return
to text]
-
Bode, pp.27-28, 37. [Return
to text]
-
Clement of
Alexandria, pp.255-56, 263; Secret Gospel,
pp.122-23, 130-32, 141-42.[Return
to text]
-
Clement of
Alexandria, pp.254, 276; Secret Gospel,
p.131. [Return
to text]
-
Clement of Alexandria,
p.264; Secret Gospel, pp.124, 132. [Return
to Text]
-
Clement of
Alexandria, p.248. [Return
to text]
-
Antinomianism:
relating to the doctrine that by faith a Christian
is released from the obligation of adhering to any
moral law. (The Concise Oxford Dictionary) [Return
to text]
-
It is interesting
that although F.C. Baur (1792-1860) believed there
was a deep rift between Peter and Paul, he did so on
very different grounds. Contrary to Smith, Baur did
not think that Peter taught freedom from the Mosaic
law and also libertinism. He believed Peter taught
that the Mosaic law was still binding. Smith and
Baur cannot both be right. In fact, they are both
wrong. The Mosaic law is not binding on Christians
but this does not imply libertinism. It is wrong to
assume that the only alternatives to legalism are
immorality and sin. [Return
to text]
-
Secret Gospel,
pp.131, 141. [Return
to text]
-
Secret Gospel,
p.140. [Return
to text]
-
Clement of Alexandria,
pp.218-19; Secret Gospel, pp.102-3, 140. [Return
to text]
-
Yamauchi, p.243. [Return
to text]
-
Robert M. Grant.
"Morton Smith's two books." Anglican
Theological Review, 56, no.1 (1974): 61-62. [Return
to text]
-
John M. Allegro. The
sacred mushroom and the cross. (Garden City:
Doubleday, 1970). [Return
to text]
-
John M. Allegro. The
end of a road. (London: MacGibbon and
Kee, 1970). [Return
to text]
©2000 Wellington Christian Apologetics Society (Inc.) All Rights Reserved.
Previously published in
Apologia (The Journal of the Wellington Christian Apologetics Society)
vol. 3, no.1 (1994): 55-59
Return to Top
|
