Did Anyone Think Stuff Was Missing Between Mk 10:34 + 10:35?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Anyone Think Stuff Was Missing Between Mk 10:34 + 10

Post by Secret Alias »

antinomian mysticism
I am sorry but in this post-truth age terms like this get bandied about, Mr Saturn wasn't an 'antinomian mystic' for God's sake. This is exactly what I say about Marcion. Please Stuart take note of this. If you are going to start bandying about meaningless terms like 'antinomian' in this way (and I know you inevitably will) let's start looking at Scholem's use of the terminology in other respects. Here https://books.google.com/books?id=9QnJD ... an&f=false St Paul's doctrines are identified as 'antinomian' so by the twisted logic of the Morton Smith obsessed if Smith wrote or commented on one of the Pauline epistles his action before 1958 could constitute just such an 'interest.'

For fuck's sake Smith was not an Aliester Crowley devote! Will you evil men stop at nothing to destroy a man's career who happened to stumble on a discarded book in a library? I actually happened to have known a devotee of Crowley. I happen to have come from a Frankist background. I have gone through papers of Smith's when he tended private (Swedenborgian) school in Pennsylvania, I've gone through his academic papers up to and after 1958. Can we stop with this endless bullshit please.

Smith was not a libertine. He was the furthest thing. He would have been a Trump supporter or at least he was to the right of Trump. His protege Jacob Neusner shared his 'alt right' sensibilities. Smith did not attend fucking black masses or eat babies or any of the other nonsense you typically accuse him of. He was very, very conservative. He likely had what we would now call 'sexual issues' - he never got laid. Never. No guy was fucking him in the ass. He wasn't fucking any girls in the ass, vagina or whatever. He likely masturbated a lot - like most of the participants in this forum because girls don't 'dig' ugly-ass eggheads.

In other words, it's not surprising that Smith who was a great scholar never got laid. Do I imagine that Von Campenhausen was a pussy hound? Do I have my suspicions that Von Harnack was sending secret payments to his baby mama? All of us, I mean of all of us, who care about these things are not getting laid and likely have sexual performance issues. So can we stop pretending we playas or that some of us are straight or gay please? We all ascetics or at most have a woman who grudging goes along with our monthly or weekly release. No one finds any of us attractive, we don't find ourselves attractive. That's why we bury ourselves in old books that no one else cares anything about.

But I have to bring this up because of the repulsive misrepresentation of nebulous terms like 'antinomian' in these discussions. 'Antinomian' can be used to mean whatever you want it to mean. 'Mystical' refers to the essence of the religious experience. Is there any evidence that Smith PRACTICED any form of religious mysticism or magic? No of course not - he was a scholar and so kept a 'safe distance' from the subject he was studying (unlike many of his critics I might add). He learned Hebrew and studied Jewish texts but there is no evidence that he PRACTICED Judaism. Yes he claimed that Jesus was a magician. So did others (Celsus most notably). But I attribute that to the fact that he was following a line of inquiry rather than - as I am sure you and your ilk would suggest - he was himself a magician.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Anyone Think Stuff Was Missing Between Mk 10:34 + 10

Post by Secret Alias »

So getting back to the OP no one before the discovery (at least according to our collective efforts as passive as they may have been) has ever identified Mark 10:34 - 35 as 'missing some information' or having had 'information removed.' There is a well established connection between the baptism reference (which only appears in Mark) and the heretical baptism of a sect associated with a certain Mark that most or many observers connect with Mark the evangelist. Hilgenfeld did speculate (at least according to Andrew's citation - I haven't read the passage because of the archaic fonts) about something missing from the second passage mentioned in the letter to Theodore and moreover the Diatessaron inserts the Zacchaeus story from Luke and Clement doesn't contradict this evidence either:
And when Jesus entered and passed through Jericho, there was a man named Zacchaeus, rich, and chief of the publicans. And he desired to see Jesus who he was; and he was not able for the pressure of the crowd, because Zacchaeus was little of stature. Arabic, And he hastened, and went before Jesus, and went up into an unripe fig tree to see Jesus: for he was to pass thus. And when Jesus came to that place, he saw him, and said unto him, Make haste, and come down, Zacchaeus: to-day I must be in thy house. And he hastened, and came down, and received him joyfully. And when they all saw, they murmured, and said, He hath gone in and lodged with a man that is a sinner. So Zacchaeus stood, and said unto Jesus, My Lord, now half of my possessions I give to the poor, and what I have unjustly taken from every man I give him fourfold. Jesus said unto him, To-day is salva- tion come to this house, because this man also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man came to seek and save the thing that was lost. And when Jesus went out of Jericho, he and his disciples, there came after him a great multitude. And there was a blind man sitting by the way side begging. And his name was Timaeus, the son of Timaeus. And he heard the sound of the multitude passing, and asked, Who is this? They said unto him, Jesus the Naza- rene passeth by. And when he heard that it was Jesus, he called out with a loud voice, and said, Jesus, son of David, have mercy on me. And those that went before Jesus were rebuking him, that he should hold his peace: but he cried the more, and said, Son of David, have mercy on me. And Jesus stood, and commanded that they should call him. And they called the blind man, and said unto him, Be of good courage, and rise; for, behold, he calleth thee. And the blind 33 man threw away his garment, and rose, and came to Jesus. Jesus said unto him, What dost thou wish that I should do unto thee? And that blind man said unto him, My Lord and Master, that my eyes may be opened, so that I may see thee. Arabic, And Jesus had compassion on him, and touched his eyes, and said unto him, See; for thy faith hath saved thee. And immediately he received his sight, and came after him, and praised God; and all the people that saw praised God.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Did Anyone Think Stuff Was Missing Between Mk 10:34 + 10

Post by rakovsky »

DCHindley wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:15 am This whole idea that something is missing from canonical Mark is just conjecture. I cannot remember if The Letter to Theodore says that Canonical Mark was a condensed version of Secret Mark, or Secret Mark an expansion of Canonical Mark. IIRC, it was the latter
You are right, as it says: " From what he brought, he supplemented his first book with the appropriate items about knowledge for those who are making progress. He arranged a more spiritual gospel for the use of those being perfected."

If the Mar Saba Letter was correct, then when one was reading canonical Mark, one would probably not sense that something (Secret Mark) was missing, because the Letter says that Secret Mark was supplementary.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Did Anyone Think Stuff Was Missing Between Mk 10:34 + 10

Post by rakovsky »

iskander wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:49 am It was left out of the Gospel by Judaizers. Probably


http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictiona ... izers.html
In Galatians 2:14 it means to "live like Jews" (RSV, neb, NASB, Phillips),"follow Jewish customs" (NIV), or "live by the Jewish law"(Barclay). The context for this reference is the episode in Antioch when Paul condemnsPeter's withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentile Christians. Peter's actions areviewed by Paul as a serious compromise of the gospel of salvation by grace through faithalone, lending support to the position that sought to impose Jewish ceremonial law on theGentiles. Thus, Paul interprets Peter's withdrawal in terms of its effect in compellingGentile Christians to live like Jews.
The "Ebionites" (as opposed to the Jewish "Nazarenes") sounded to me like a gnostic, Judaizing group based on what the Church fathers wrote, IIRC, as they kept the Torah regulations but still also seemed to have some unusual (and gnostic?) theology.
Secret Mark's idea of secret ritual initiations also sounds gnostic. Therefore, to say that Secret Mark was suppressed by Judaizers is not specific enough, since as shown by the Ebionites, Judaizing and gnosticism probably were not mutually exclusive.

Most likely though my guess is that Secret Mark is a modern forgery, based on research I've seen about it (eg. Peter Jeffrey's The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled, and the Text Excavation site's pages on the alleged forgery.).

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Did Anyone Think Stuff Was Missing Between Mk 10:34 + 10

Post by rakovsky »

Charles Wilson wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:05 am John 1: 19 - 20 (RSV):

[19] And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?"
[20] He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ."

Does anyone see anything missing from this fragment?
Of course there's someting missing!

"And this is the testimony of John...": Is this from the Preparation Day Crucifixion or the Passover Day Crucifixion?
"...the Jews": How do "the Jews" get to send priests and Levites FROM Jerusalem?

HE CONFESSED...: Why would you have to confess that you are NOT the Christ? "We'll have to beat it out of you!...Confess! You are NOT the Christ!...Hit'im again. He hasn't confessed to Not being enough yet..."

So it is with the Markan Passage. We just can't agree on what that "Something Happened" is.
Joseph Heller knew. I know. SA knows. We just don't agree on what didn't happen.

CW
I really don't get what you are referring to as missing. I think you are using humor.
:cheers:

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Did Anyone Think Stuff Was Missing Between Mk 10:34 + 10

Post by rakovsky »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:09 am But was that recognized in 1958? How widespread was this knowledge? ...Maybe Smith 'figured out' something that was out of his area of expertise (he did publish a review of someone's book on Mark but were these things mentioned in that book?)

...
I was interested if this was just an assumption - even an erroneous assumption - looking back for us. Once you see Secret Mark the lacunae manifest themselves. But did observers notice these 'gaps' before Secret Mark? That's my question.
They knew that the gospels used chiasms. Here is a document search for Mark, Gospel, and Chiasms from documents in Google Books before 1959:
https://www.google.com/search?num=100&c ... nlw0R4sAuY

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Did Anyone Think Stuff Was Missing Between Mk 10:34 + 10

Post by rakovsky »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:28 pm Well Origen starts by saying contemporary Christians have argued that martyrdom is the perfect baptism, but he seems to indicate that it is really a second baptism distinct from John's water immersion that seems to involve heavenly ascent.
The concept of two "baptisms" is well known in mainstream traditional Christianity - the idea of a purely ritual baptism with water, and another baptism, that of the spirit, whereby the person has a spiritual experience (eg. a feeling of heavenly ascent). But generally the two are very much associated with each other, so that the person is considered to often get both baptisms at once. Ie. the person gets faith, they undergo ritual baptism with water and meanwhile the Holy Spirit comes on them.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Did Anyone Think Stuff Was Missing Between Mk 10:34 + 10

Post by rakovsky »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:44 pm Origen cites two scriptures Psalm 24 and Isaiah 63 as reflections of Jesus's heavenly ascent:
This is the generation of them that seek him, that seek the face of the God of Jacob. Pause.

7Lift up your gates, ye princes, and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors; and the king of glory shall come in.

8Who is this king of Glory? the Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle.

9Lift up your gates, ye princes; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the king of glory shall come in.

10Who is this king of glory? The Lord of hosts, he is this king of glory.
It is interesting that the Naasenes read this psalm in the same way.
Michael Turton (who thinks Secret Mark is a forgery, BTW) also thinks that Psalm 24 is related to the story of Jesus' resurrection (after which he ascended) in Mark 16, where the youth says Jesus is risen. Turton finds this based on similarity between Mark 16 and the LXX of Psalm 24. I believe it - I see the analogy.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Did Anyone Think Stuff Was Missing Between Mk 10:34 + 10

Post by rakovsky »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:00 am But it is important to note that this is a very strong tradition which - strangely - is linked to a number of 'secret' ideas. The first clearly is that the powers in heaven don't recognize Jesus. This is odd because most Church Fathers must have understood and did understand that Jesus was Yahweh. Why don't the powers recognize God?
I found this idea in other 1st century Christian works that I've been reading (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2786&p=62053#p62053). The idea is that God hid himself because otherwise the whole deal with God incarnating and overcoming the powers that harm the world wouldn't have been so effective. God hiding himself is not really odd because it happens with the Pillar of Fire or the Cloud in the Torah.
If Jesus had shown openly that He was God, the bad powers wouldn't be properly tested and beguiled as they would just bow to his greater power and authority.
It's kind of like the government's leaders playing the role of a secret agent to test society. There are stories of kings going undercover to see what their kingdom was really like or how the world really operated. (Peter the Great comes to mind.)
Secret Alias wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:00 am More importantly however is Origen's original identification of this ascension through the planetary watchers with the 'another baptism' of Mark 10:35f, the baptism the followers of Mark (Marcosians) linked with 'redemption.'

Why would Origen see the sons of Zebedee bringing this 'other baptism' at this point in the narrative?
The most obvious answer is that Secret Mark is real and there was a tradition that Jesus had just baptized someone between Mark 10:34 and 10:35.
One need not theorize Secret Mark for the answer. The sons of Zebedee want to be on Jesus' sides, and Jesus is saying that one must come into this status, and such position is done through baptism, but to be right on the sides is tough because the "baptism" for it is tough (involving the suffering). And the discussion in the narrative at this point fits because in v.32-34 Jesus had just said that he is going to Jerusalem for his passion (with the metaphorical spiritual "baptism" of suffering, ascent, etc.).

You could ask Wasn't Jesus baptized already? But I think there is an idea that spiritual baptism could be continuous or happen more than once.
Secret Alias wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:00 am Could Morton Smith really have been this clever to (a) learn from all the Church Fathers about this 'redemption baptism' dating back to the 'followers of Mark' and then (b) construct a missing narrative to 'explain' this sustained interest while at the same time (c) not mentioning any of this in his 1973 treatise?
Like I said, the concept of two kinds of baptism is common in Christianity and stated reasonably clearly enough already in canonical Mark 10 when it comes to John's and James' metaphorical potential "baptism". It's not really an issue of cleverness on that particular issue.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Did Anyone Think Stuff Was Missing Between Mk 10:34 + 10

Post by rakovsky »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:13 pm Moreover Mark as it now stands in our canon makes explicit reference to baptism only in Mark 10:35. Only Secret Mark has the actual baptism (or at least hints at its existence). Those however who understand this section to be about a 'secret baptism' - even a heavenly ascent are heretics, heretics whom Irenaeus identifies as 'those of Mark':
It happens that their tradition respecting redemption(10) is invisible and incomprehensible, as being the mother of things which are incomprehensible and invisible; and on this account, since it is fluctuating, it is impossible simply and all at once to make known its nature, for every one of them hands it down just as his own inclination prompts. Thus there are as many schemes of "redemption" as there are teachers of these mystical opinions. And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith.

2. They maintain that those who have attained to perfect knowledge must of necessity be regenerated into that power which is above all. For it is otherwise impossible to find admittance within the Pleroma, since this [regeneration] it is which leads them down into the depths of Bythus. For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins, but the redemption brought in by that Christ who descended upon Him, was for perfection; and they allege that the former is animal, but the latter spiritual. And the baptism of John was proclaimed with a view to repentance, but the redemption by Jesus(11) was brought in for the sake of perfection. And to this He refers when He says, "And I have another baptism to be baptized with, and I hasten eagerly towards it."(12) Moreover, they affirm that the Lord added this redemption to the sons of Zebedee, when their mother asked that they might sit, the one on His right hand, and the other on His left, in His kingdom, saying, "Can ye be baptized with the baptism which I shall be baptized with?"(13) Paul, too, they declare, has often set forth, in express terms, the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; and this was the same which is handed down by them in so varied and discordant forms.

3. For some of them prepare a nuptial couch, and perform a sort of mystic rite (pronouncing certain expressions) with those who are being initiated, and affirm that it is a spiritual marriage which is celebrated by them, after the likeness of the conjunctions above. Others, again, lead them to a place where water is, and baptize them, with the utterance of these words, "Into the name of the unknown Father of the universe--into truth, the mother of all things--into Him who descended on Jesus--into union, and redemption, and communion with the powers." Others still repeat certain Hebrew words, in order the more thoroughly to bewilder those who are being initiated, as follows: "Basema, Chamosse, Baoenaora, Mistadia, Ruada, Kousta, Babaphor, Kalachthei."(1) The interpretation of these terms runs thus: "I invoke that which is above every power of the Father, which is called light, and good Spirit, and life, because Thou hast reigned in the body." Others, again, set forth the redemption thus: The name which is hidden from every deity, and dominion, and truth which Jesus of Nazareth was clothed with in the lives(2) of the light of Christ--of Christ, who lives by the Holy Ghost, for the angelic redemption. The name of restitution stands thus: Messia, Uphareg, Namempsoeman, Chaldoeaur, Mosomedoea, Acphranoe, Psaua, Jesus Nazaria.(3) The interpretation of these words is as follows: "I do not divide the Spirit of Christ, neither the heart nor the supercelestial power which is merciful; may I enjoy Thy name, O Saviour of truth!" Such are words of the initiators; but he who is initiated, replies, "I am established, and I am redeemed; I redeem my soul from this age (world), and from all things connected with it in the name of Iao, who redeemed his own soul into redemption in Christ who liveth." Then the bystanders add these words, "Peace be to all on whom this name rests." After this they anoint the initiated person with balsam; for they assert that this unguent is a type of that sweet odour which is above all things....
Pretty convincing evidence IMHO that from ''Secret Mark' to canonical Mark to Matthew there is a systematic 'reworking' of the original meaning of the section - i.e. what it is all about.
Secret Alias:
Irenaeus does not say that anyone who understands this section, Mark 10 (about the upcoming 'baptism'/suffering of Christian apostles) to be about a metaphorical/spiritual baptism or a heavenly ascent are heretics. He says that if you look at this gnostic group's rituals, with all their weird references like to strange beings and theology, you realize that they are actually denying Jesus' redemptive baptism and denying Christianity. His complaint is that they have "a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith."
Here is his big objection about their views: "For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins, but the redemption brought in by that Christ who descended upon Him, was for perfection".
Mainstream Christians however who see Mark 10 as being about metaphorical baptism don't fall into that classification to which he is objecting.
Irenaeus does point to the canonical gospels: <<And to this He refers when He says, "And I have another baptism to be baptized with, and I hasten eagerly towards it.">> (See Luke 12:50 on Jesus' "other baptism") (etc. including the baptism of the sons of Zebedee)
But Irenaeus' complaint is that the gnostics equate their fringe divine Christ-only/non-Jesus baptism with Jesus' mainstream metaphorical baptism mentioned in Mark 10.

So Irenaeus' passage doesn't support the idea that Secret Mark is an authentic record of a secret gnostic second baptism liturgical ritual observed by the apostle Mark. Irenaeus is correctly saying that this idea misunderstands the Bible's teaching of a metaphorical spiritual baptism in the canonical Mark 10.
Last edited by rakovsky on Sun Jan 13, 2019 1:59 pm, edited 4 times in total.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
Post Reply