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
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8426
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

DCHindley wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:Good question. The first place I would check is the anti-literature, which might have scoured up anything if it's there (pre-discovery).

(Have you read the books arguing for forgery? If so, do they mention anything in the earlier literature?)
I'm pretty sure that most of the "anti" faction(s) are evangelical Christians, so they do not believe that anything is missing from the NT. It is the sum total of everything God wants us to know, no more or no less.
Did you misunderstand?

They could mention any scholarly conjecture earlier than the discovery (i.e. pre-Smith) as part of their arguments and research, for forgery (by Smith).

This is completely independent of your (irrelevant and questionable) assertion that these people are evangelical Christians (or that "most" are).
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
JPCusickSr
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:50 am
Location: 20636
Contact:

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

Post by JPCusickSr »

Secret Alias wrote:Right but that's not the point of the thread. The discussions among the 'veterans' here are quite nuanced. The context is the question of whether Morton Smith could have 'learned' to put the 'addition' between Mark 10:34 and 35 based on what he read or better yet 'is it possible to demonstrate that the core idea behind Secret Mark from contemporary or previous scholarship on Mark' - or better yet still 'did pre-existent scholarship on Mark 'help' Morton Smith compose Secret Mark?'
Excuse me.

:confusedsmiley:
SIGNATURE:
JP Cusick Sr.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8426
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

iskander wrote:"Morton Smith could have 'learned' to put the 'addition' between Mark 10:34 and 35"

He couldn't have added anything because he was never a student of this forum
Non sequitur.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Secret Alias
Posts: 18683
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

This might qualify, in a different sense:
Why should Matthew omit the mention of baptism? One reason may be that he found the Marcan tradition already used — as it was before the days of Irenaeus — by heretics who introduced new rites of "redemption." These might affirm not only that the Lord said “I have another baptism to be baptized with,” but also that He “appointed as an addition this redemption to the sons of Zebedee. . .saying, 'Can ye be baptized with the baptism which I shall be baptised with?"[1] Another reason may be that Christians in the first century found it hard, as Origen appears to have done[2], to define the difference between the cup and the baptism, and the way in which the sons of Zebedee actually drank the cup and were baptized with the baptism. James the son of Zebedee died as a martyr and might be said to have fulfilled Christ's prediction, but how was it fulfilled by John the son of Zebedee, who was believed to have lived to a great age and to have died a natural death?

In attempting to explain Matthew's omission we must start from ancient facts and not import into them modern notions. The Greek word baptizein, rendered by us "baptize," means literally "immerse," and metaphorically implies for the most part

[1] Iren. i. 21. 2, quoting Lk. xii. 50 and Mk X. 38.
[2] Origen on Mt. xx. 22 (Lomm. iv. 15 foll, and i. 266). In the latter passage (Comm. Joann. vi. 37) the words You ydp rohpqpérepov Baa-aving rc'w )ui'yov indicate his dissent from previous opinion

https://books.google.com/books?id=mvw8A ... 22&f=false
Here is the passage in question from the Commentary on John
and this is why He forbids Mary to touch Him, saying, John 20:17 Touch Me not, for I am not yet ascended to My Father; but go and tell My disciples, I go to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God. And when He comes, loaded with victory and with trophies, with His body which has risen from the dead—for what other meaning can we see in the words, I am not yet ascended to My Father, and I go unto My Father,— then there are certain powers which say, Who is this that comes from Edom, red garments from Bosor; this that is beautiful? Isaiah 63:1 Then those who escort Him say to those that are upon the heavenly gates, Lift up your gates, you rulers, and be lifted up, you everlasting doors, and the king of glory shall come in. But they ask again, seeing as it were His right hand red with blood and His whole person covered with the marks of His valour, Why are Your garments red, and Your clothes like the treading of the full winefat when it is trodden? And to this He answers, I have crushed them. For this cause He had need to wash His robe in wine, and His garment in the blood of the grape. Genesis 49:2 For when He had taken up our infirmities and carried our diseases, and had borne the sin of the whole world, and had conferred blessings on so many, then, perhaps, He received that baptism which is greater than any that could ever be conceived among men, and of which I think He speaks when He says, Luke 12:50 I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished? I enquire here with boldness and I challenge the ideas put forward by most writers. They say that the greatest baptism, beyond which no greater can be conceived, is His passion. But if this be so, why should He say to Mary after it, Touch Me not? He should rather have offered Himself to her touch, when by His passion He had received His perfect baptism. But if it was the case, as we said before, that after all His deeds of valour done against His enemies, He had need to wash His robe in wine, His garment in the blood of the grape, then He was on His way up to the husbandman of the true vine, the Father, so that having washed there and after having gone up on high, He might lead captivity captive and come down bearing manifold gifts— the tongues, as of fire, which were divided to the Apostles, and the holy angels which are to be present with them in each action and to deliver them. For before these economies they were not yet cleansed and angels could not dwell with them, for they too perhaps do not desire to be with those who have not prepared themselves nor been cleansed by Jesus. For it was of Jesus' benignity alone that He ate and drank with publicans and sinners, and suffered the penitent woman who was a sinner to wash His feet with her tears, and went down even to death for the ungodly, counting it not robbery to be equal with God, and emptied Himself, assuming the form of a servant.
The reason I am double-minded about the original passage in Abbott is that one might argue that Smith could have read Abbott and 'got the idea' that Mark is referring here to the baptism that is now in Secret Mark. But we still haven't demonstrated where he got the idea for a 'missing story' fitting in here. Moreover Smith was naturally inclined to posit the existence of a primal Hebrew gospel. Did he really think that Mark was developed from that text? And where did he 'get the idea' that Secret Mark was that Hebrew gospel? It seems pretty clear to me at least that even in his analysis of the passage he is forcing his own assumptions about a Hebrew gospel original on top of what Clement says. Clement does not himself argue on behalf of Smith's prejudices.
“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 »

I somewhat remember reading that scholars had been thinking that something was missing in that spot in Mark and that then Morton Smith found the missing verse.
It was a long time ago when I started reading about the Secret Mark issue. The author mentioning this was doing so to explain what Secret Mark's importance was.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
Secret Alias
Posts: 18683
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

But where is the evidence for that assertion? Where is the proof that scholars before Smith knew something 'belonged' in the place after Mark 10:34 and before Mark 10.35?
“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: 18683
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

I noticed something about the Origen testimony I never noticed before:
We have lingered over this subject of the martyrs and over the record of those who died on account of pestilence, because this lets us see the excellence of Him who was led as a sheep to the slaughter and was dumb as a lamb before the shearer. For if there is any point in these stories of the Greeks, and if what we have said of the martyrs is well founded—the Apostles, too, were for the same reason the filth of the world and the offscouring of all things, what and how great things must be said of the Lamb of God, who was sacrificed for this very reason, that He might take away the sin not of a few but of the whole world, for the sake of which also He suffered? [καὶ «πάντων περίψημα» λεγομένων διὰ ταῦτα τῶν ἀποστόλων, τί ὑποληπτέον καὶ πηλίκον περὶ τοῦ ἀμνοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ τοῦτο θυομένου, ἵνα ἄρῃ ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ὀλίγων, ἀλλ' ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου, ὑπὲρ οὗ καὶ πέπονθεν] 6.55.285 If any one sin, we read, We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous [Κἂν γάρ «τις ἁμάρτῃ, παράκλητον ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον 1 John 2:1-2 ] and He is the propitiation for our sins [καὶ αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν], and not for ours only , but for those of the whole world, since He is the Saviour of all men, 1 Timothy 4:10 especially of them that believe [οὐκ ἐπὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου» ἐπεὶ «σωτήρ ἐστιν πάντων ἀνθρώπων, μάλιστα πιστῶν»], who Colossians 2:14-15 blotted out the written bond that was against us by His own blood, and took it out of the way, so that not even a trace, not even of our blotted-out sins, might still be found, and nailed it to His cross [ὁ «ἐξαλείψας τὸ καθ' ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον» τῷ ἑαυτοῦ αἵματι καὶ ἄρας αὐτὸ ἐκ τοῦ μέσου, ἵνα μηδὲ ἴχνη κἂν ἀπαληλιμμένων τῶν ἁμαρτη μάτων εὑρίσκηται, καὶ «προσηλώσας τῷ σταυρῷ»]; who having put off from Himself the principalities and powers, made a show of them openly, triumphing over them by His cross [ὃς «ἀπεκδυσάμενος τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας ἐδειγμάτισεν ἐν παρρησίᾳ θριαμβεύσας» ἐν τῷ ξύλῳ]. And we are taught to rejoice when we suffer afflictions in the world, knowing the ground of our rejoicing to be this, that the world has been conquered and has manifestly been subjected to its conqueror [6.55.286 Καὶ θαρρεῖν γοῦν θλιβόμενοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ διδασκόμεθα, τὴν αἰτίαν τοῦ θαρρεῖν μανθάνοντες ταύτην εἶναι, τὸ νενικῆσθαι τὸν κόσμον καὶ
δηλονότι ὑποτετάχθαι τῷ νικήσαντι αὐτόν]. Hence all the nations, released from their former rulers, serve Him, because He saved the poor from his tyrant by His own passion, and the needy who had no helper [∆ιὰ τοῦτο πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἀνεθέντα ἀπὸ τῶν πρότερον ἐπικρατούντων δουλεύουσιν αὐτῷ, ὅτι «ἐρρύσατο πτωχὸν ἐκ δυνάστου» διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου πάθους «καὶ πένητα, ᾧ οὐχ ὑπῆρχεν βοηθός»]. This Saviour, then, having humbled the calumniator by humbling Himself, abides with the visible sun before His illustrious church, tropically called the moon, from generation to generation. [6.55.287 Οὗτος δὴ ὁ σωτὴρ ταπεινώσας συκοφάντην διὰ τοῦ ἑαυτὸν τεταπεινωκέναι, συμπαραμένει τῷ νοητῷ ἡλίῳ πρὸ τῆς λαμπροτάτης ἐκκλησίας, τροπικώτερον σελήνης λεγο μένης, τυγχάνων γενεῶν γενεαῖς]. And having by His passion destroyed His enemies, He who is strong in battle and a mighty Lord required after His mighty deeds a purification which could only be given Him by His Father alone; and this is why He forbids Mary to touch Him, saying, John 20:17 Touch Me not, for I am not yet ascended to My Father; but go and tell My disciples, I go to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God. [Ἀνελὼν δὲ διὰ τοῦ πάθους τοὺς πολεμίους ὁ ἐν πολέμῳ δυνατὸς καὶ κραταιὸς κύριος καθαρσίου δεόμενος τοῦ ἀπὸ μόνου τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῷ δοθῆναι ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀνδραγαθήμασιν δυναμένου, κωλύει αὐτοῦ ἅψασθαι τὴν Μαρίαν λέγων· «Μή μου ἅπτου, οὔπω γὰρ ἀναβέβηκα πρὸς τὸν πατέρα· ἀλλὰ πορεύου καὶ εἰπὲ τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου· Πορεύομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν καὶ θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν»] And when He comes, loaded with victory and with trophies, with His body which has risen from the dead—for what other meaning can we see in the words, I am not yet ascended to My Father, and I go unto My Father,— then there are certain powers which say, Who is this that comes from Edom, red garments from Bosor; this that is beautiful? [6.56.288 Ὅτε δὲ πορεύεται νικηφόρος καὶ τροπαιοφόρος μετὰ τοῦ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστάντος σώματος–πῶς γὰρ ἄλλως δεῖ νοεῖν τὸ «Οὔπω ἀναβέβηκα πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου» καὶ τὸ «Πορεύομαι δὲ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου»; –τότε αἱ μέν τινες λέγουσιν δυνάμεις· «Τίς οὗτος ὁ παραγενόμενος ἐξ Ἐδώμ, ἐρύθημα ἱματίων ἐκ Βοσόρ, οὕτως ὡραῖος»] Then those who escort Him say to those that are upon the heavenly gates, Lift up your gates, you rulers, and be lifted up, you everlasting doors, and the king of glory shall come in. [Οἱ δὲ προπέμποντες αὐτὸν τοῖς ἐπὶ τῶν οὐρανίων πυλῶν τεταγμέ νοις φασὶν τὸ «Ἄρατε πύλας, οἱ ἄρχοντες, ὑμῶν, καὶ ἐπάρ θητε πύλαι αἰώνιοι, καὶ εἰσελεύσεται ὁ βασιλεὺς τῆς δόξης»] But they ask again, seeing as it were His right hand red with blood and His whole person covered with the marks of His valour, [6.56.289 Ἔτι δὲ πυνθάνονται οἱονεί, εἰ δεῖ οὕτως εἰπεῖν, ᾑμαγ μένην αὐτοῦ βλέποντες τὴν δεξιὰν καὶ ὅλον πεπληρωμένον τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀριστείας ἔργω]· Why are Your garments red, and Your clothes like the treading of the full winefat when it is trodden? [«∆ιὰ τί σου ἐρυθρὰ τὰ ἱμάτια, καὶ τὰ ἐνδύματά σου ὡς ἀποπάτημα ληνοῦ πλήρους καταπεπατημένης»] And to this He answers, I have crushed them. [Ὅτε καὶ ἀποκρίνεται· «Κατέθλασα αὐτούς»] For this cause He had need to wash His robe in wine, and His garment in the blood of the grape. [6.56.290 Ἀληθῶς γὰρ ἐπὶ τούτοις δεδέηται τοῦ πλῦναι «ἐν οἴνῳ τὴν στολὴν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐν αἵματι σταφυλῆς τὴν περιβολὴν αὐτοῦ»]. For when He had taken up our infirmities and carried our diseases, and had borne the sin of the whole world, and had conferred blessings on so many, then, perhaps, He received that baptism which is greater than any that could ever be conceived among men, and of which I think He speaks when He says, Luke 12:50 I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished? [Τὰς γὰρ ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν λαβὼν καὶ τὰς νόσους βαστάξας, παντός τε τοῦ κόσμου
ἄρας τὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ τοὺς τοσούτους εὐεργετήσας, τάχα τότε βάπτισμα εἴληφεν τὸ παντὸς τοῦ ὑπονοηθέντος ἂν παρὰ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις μεῖζον, περὶ οὗ οἶμαι αὐτὸν εἰρηκέναι· «Βάπτισμα δὲ ἔχω βαπτισθῆ ναι, καὶ πῶς συνέχομαι ἕως ὅτου τελεσθῇ»] I enquire here with boldness and I challenge the ideas put forward by most writers. They say that the greatest baptism, beyond which no greater can be conceived, is His passion. But if this be so, why should He say to Mary after it, Touch Me not? [6.56.291 Ἵνα γὰρ τολμηρότερον βασανίζων τὸν λόγον στῶ πρὸς τὰ ὑπὸ τῶν πλείστων ὑπονοούμενα, λεγέτωσαν ἡμῖν οἱ τὸ βάπτισμα τὸ μέγιστον, ὑπὲρ ὃ ἄλλο οὐκ ἔστι νοῆσαι βάπτισμα, νομίσαντες αὐτοῦ εἶναι τὸ μαρτύριον, τί δήποτε μετὰ τοῦτο λέγει τῇ Μαριάμ· «Μή μου ἅπτου»] He should rather have offered Himself to her touch, when by His passion He had received His perfect baptism. [Ἐχρῆν γὰρ μᾶλλον ἑαυτὸν ἐμπαρέχειν τῇ ἁφῇ, ἅτε τὸ τέλειον βάπτισμα διὰ τοῦ μυστη ρίου τοῦ πάθους εἰληφότα]. But if it was the case, as we said before, that after all His deeds of valour done against His enemies, He had need to wash His robe in wine, His garment in the blood of the grape, then He was on His way up to the husbandman of the true vine, the Father, so that having washed there and after having gone up on high, He might lead captivity captive and come down bearing manifold gifts— the tongues, as of fire, which were divided to the Apostles, and the holy angels which are to be present with them in each action and to deliver them. [6.57.292 Ἀλλ' ἐπεί, ὡς προείπομεν, τὰ κατὰ τῶν ἀντικειμένων ἀνδραγαθήματα πεποιηκὼς ἐδεῖτο τοῦ πλῦναι «ἐν οἴνῳ τὴν στολὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν αἵματι σταφυλῆς τὴν περιβολὴν αὐτοῦ», ἀνῄει πρὸς τὸν γεωργὸν τῆς ἀληθινῆς ἀμπέλου πατέρα, ἵν' ἐκεῖ ἀποπλυνάμενος μετὰ τὸ ἀναβῆναι εἰς ὕψος, αἰχμαλωτεύσας τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν, καταβῇ φέρων τὰ ποικίλα χαρίσματα, τὰς διαμεμερισμένας τοῖς ἀποστόλοις γλώσσας ὡσεὶ πυρὸς καὶ τοὺς παρεσομένους ἐν πάσῃ πρά ξει ἁγίους ἀγγέλους καὶ ῥυσομένους αὐτούς]. For before these economies they were not yet cleansed and angels could not dwell with them, for they too perhaps do not desire to be with those who have not prepared themselves nor been cleansed by Jesus. [6.57.293 Πρὸ γὰρ τούτων τῶν οἰκονομιῶν ἅτε μηδέπω κεκα θαρμένοι οὐκ ἐχώρουν ἀγγέλων παρ' αὐτοῖς ἐπιδημίαν, τάχα οὐδ' αὐτῶν βουλομένων πω τοῖς μὴ εὐτρεπισμένοις καὶ κεκαθαρμένοις ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ παρεῖναι].
For it was of Jesus' benignity alone that He ate and drank with publicans and sinners, and suffered the penitent woman who was a sinner to wash His feet with her tears, and went down even to death for the ungodly, counting it not robbery to be equal with God, and emptied Himself, assuming the form of a servant [6.57.294 Τῆς γὰρ Ἰησοῦ μόνου φιλανθρωπίας ἦν μετὰ ἁμαρτωλῶν καὶ τελωνῶν ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν, καὶ παρέχειν ἑαυτοῦ τοὺς πόδας τοῖς δακρύοις τῆς μετανοούσης ἁμαρτωλοῦ, καὶ μέχρι θανάτου καταβαίνειν ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγουμένου τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, καὶ κενοῦν ἑαυτὸν τὴν τοῦ δούλου λαμβάνοντος μορφήν]. And in accomplishing all this He fulfils rather the will of the Father who gave Him up for sinners than His own. [6.57.295 Ταῦτα δὲ πάντα ἐπιτελῶν μᾶλλον τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ παραδόντος αὐτὸν ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν ἐπετέλει ἤπερ τὸ ἑαυτοῦ]· For the Father is good, but the Saviour is the image of His goodness [ὁ μὲν γὰρ πατὴρ ἀγαθός, ὁ δὲ σωτὴρ εἰκὼν τῆς ἀγαθότητος αὐτοῦ]; and doing good to the world in all things, since God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, which formerly for its wickedness was all enemy to Him, He accomplishes His good deeds in order and succession, and does not all at once take all His enemies for His footstool [Πάντα δὲ τὸν κόσμον εὐεργετῶν, ἐπεὶ θεὸς ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσει ἑαυτῷ, πρότερον διὰ τὴν κακίαν ἐχθρὸν γεγενημένον, ὁδῷ καὶ τάξει τὰ εὐεργετού μενα εὐεργετεῖ, οὐκ ἀθρόως λαμβάνων ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν πάντας τοὺς ἐχθρούς]. For the Father says to Him, to the Lord of us all, Sit on My right hand, until I make Your enemies the footstool of Your feet. [Λέγει γὰρ αὐτῷ ὁ πατὴρ τῷ κυρίῳ ἑκάστου ἡμῶν· «Κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου, ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου»] And this goes on till the last enemy, Death, is overcome by Him. [6.57.296 Καὶ ταῦτα γίνεται ἕως ὁ ἔσχατος ἐχθρός, ὁ θάνατος, ὑπ' αὐτοῦ καταργηθῇ]. And if we consider what is meant by this subjection to Christ and find an explanation of this mainly from the saying, 1 Corinthians 15:26 When all things shall have been put under Him, then shall the Son Himself be subjected to Him who put all things under Him, then we shall see how the conception agrees with the goodness of the God of all, since it is that of the Lamb of God, taking away the sin of the world. [Ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ὑποτάσσεσθαι τῷ Χριστῷ νοήσωμεν ὅ τί ποτ' ἔστιν μάλιστ' ἐκ τοῦ «Ὅταν δὲ αὐτῷ <τὰ> πάντα ὑποταγῇ, τότε αὐτὸς ὁ υἱὸς ὑποταγήσεται τῷ ὑποτάξαντι αὐτῷ <τὰ> πάντα», ἀξίως τῆς ἀγαθότητος τοῦ τῶν ὅλων θεοῦ νοήσω μεν τὸν ἀμνὸν τοῦ θεοῦ αἴροντα τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου]. Not all men's sin, however, is taken away by the Lamb of God, not the sin of those who do not grieve and suffer affliction till it be taken away [6.58.297 Οὐ πάντων δὲ ἡ ἁμαρτία ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀμνοῦ αἴρεται, μὴ ἀλγούντων μηδὲ βασανιζομένων ἕως ἀρθῇ].
It appears the emboldened material connects ascent ritual with the baptism in Mark 10.
“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 »

Secret Alias wrote:I noticed something about the Origen testimony I never noticed before:

It appears the emboldened material connects ascent ritual with the baptism in Mark 10.
Thats long. Can you please summarize?

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
Secret Alias
Posts: 18683
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

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.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“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: 18683
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

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.

Psalm 63 was also read this way https://books.google.com/books?id=G9wlA ... nt&f=false
“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
Post Reply