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.
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: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:09 am Another overlooked fact is that In Mark the tenses of the significant verbs are probably sufficient alone to indicate that Mark did not understand Jesus' language to refer to martyrdom, for Jesus is made to speak of the cup which "I am drinking" and the baptism with which "I am being baptized," both verbs being presents and probably progressive presents. ... But doesn't this suggest the authenticity of Secret Mark? How else can all of this be explained?
Mark has a common practice of employing the present tense. One need not draw special inferences from this like you are doing when you say that Mark had in mind a current action of Jesus, as if Jesus was in the middle of drinking a cup.

Check the second underlined word in the first sentence above. When you read the sentence, I'm sure that you did not think I meant that Mark was in the middle of writing his gospel in 2019. Mark writes the same way with the present tense. (Many scholars can explain this, it's not just my own idea.)

I respect how much effort you put into studying Secret Mark and going through QQ's materials.
But this discussion on Irenaeus supposedly equating Mark 10's metaphorical baptism with the gnostics, the misunderstanding of the two baptisms (water and spiritual), and now Mark's use of the present tense comes across as really low grade. It makes me really hesitant to just follow along trustingly about the supposed surprising lost secrets revealed by so called "Secret Mark".
Last edited by rakovsky on Sun Jan 13, 2019 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2017 10:45 am .
It may be worth considering whether "Bethany" in Secret Mark could be one of the elephants in the room. In GMark Jesus is coming from Galilee (Mark 9:30), in chapter 10 in "the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan" and on the way to Jericho.
Yeah, there's some weird issue where Secret Mark diverges from John 11 on Lazarus' raising because a close look shows that they are about two different Bethanys, one by Jerusalem and the other by the Jordan. I say weird because these kind of confusions (like if Secret Mark has Jesus doing a side trip to the northern sea of Galilee) make it look like Secret Mark is forged (in the real Mark, the broader picture is that Jesus is on his way to Jerusalem for the Passion, and there's no point in a major detour).

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 »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:21 pm .
A further point could be an astonishing parallel :shock: between Origen’s “Commentary on Matthew”, Book 16,1, and the so called "letter to Theodore"



:
The letter to Theodore, (here in Greek) folio 1 versoOrigen, Commentary on Matthew, Book 16,1 (on Matthew 20:17), here page 261
To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel.

For example, after "And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem" and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise", the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:
μελει μετα το, “Ησαν δε εν τη οδω αναβαινοντες εις Ιεροσολυμα“, και τα εξης εως, „Μετα τρεις ημερας αναστησεται“, ωδε επιφερει κατα λεξιν•
.
.
.
τὰ δὲ ἰσοδυναμοῦντα τούτοις καὶ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ ἀναγέγραπται τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον
.
»ἦσαν δὲ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ἀναβαίνοντες εἰς ‘Ιεροσόλυμα, καὶ ἦν προάγων αὐτοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς« καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ »καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστήσεται«.

The English translation is here:
http://www.academia.edu/35210397/Origen ... ranslation

I can see the match, but I don't see it as a big deal. The passage is just Origen quoting Mark 10 and then saying and up to another verse in Mark 10 that he cites. Of course the quotes could easily match the quote in the Mar Saba letter's own quote from Mark 10 and also the words "up to".

Or one might suppose that the potential forger could have check what Church fathers wrote about this passage in Matthew 20 and Mark 10 and then matched their Greek.

It weakens one's argument for authenticity if this has been supposedly proven as matching Clement's vocabularly and style, and then one switches one's argument that this is a document by Origen because it matches his style.

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 29, 2017 10:29 am 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.' ... 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.
Good find. It looks like this story from Luke 19 naturally fits into the potential lacunae in Mark 10, and is much better than the remark about Jesus rejecting women that Clement's Secret Mark puts there. Unlike Luke 19, Secret Mark's reference there seems to have no point except to suggest Jesus' reject of women, begging the question of why he would do that after spending so much time with their brother and with having good relations with other women in other NT passages.

I see that Mark at an early date might not insert Zaccheus' story, because of persecution risks, and it looks like gaps got filled in (eg. on Nicodemus) about peoples' identities as the gospels developed (ie with more gospels being written).

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

rakovsky wrote: Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:37 pmIt looks like this story from Luke 19 naturally fits into the potential lacunae in Mark 10....
That was my conclusion in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3814, as well.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
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 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:41 pm
rakovsky wrote: Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:37 pmIt looks like this story from Luke 19 naturally fits into the potential lacunae in Mark 10....
That was my conclusion in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3814, as well.
I like how you sort through the materials trying to get peoples' identities right.
I tried this myself for different figures and was only able to get some things clearly distinct. For example, I think that Matthew is different from Matthai, because IIRC Matthew was one of the 12 before Judas defected and Matthai took over. There could be some confusion due to people having more than one name and sharing names between each other. It's even more confusing probably in Aramaic where Matthew and Matthai are the same.

If Secret Matthew were real, the young raised man would likely be Lazarus. And then we could speculate on whether Lazarus was the running robed youth in Gethsemane.

But as it stands, the identity of the robed youth in Mark 14 & Mark 16 isn't clear. Some have speculated reasonably that it's actually Mark the author who could have been a youth in c. 33 AD. But Matthew equates the youth instead with an angel who came down at the Resurrection.

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