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.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

.
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«.

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 »

Very interesting. There is a new paper in the Journal of Early Christianity that argues that the letter was written by Origen not Clement. I wonder if he noticed this.
“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
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

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

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote:
  • I wonder if he noticed this.
You wonder if who noticed this?
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
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 »

MrMacSon wrote:
Secret Alias wrote:
  • I wonder if he noticed this.
You wonder if who noticed this?
he = author of article in Journal of Early Christianity
this = parallel quotes of Origen and letter to Theodore in post by Kunigunde
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
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 »

What is even more interecting is that even though the Commentary has been reassigned as pertaining to Matthew the book was originally a commentary on an Alexandrian gospel harmony - likely Ammonius's. In the section you cite KK it follows Mark, pages and pages on Mark. When the question of James and John is examined Mark's "baptism" allusion is ever present.
“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 »

It is interesting to see Origen's discussion after the citation of Mark 10:32 - 34 which is quite eye-opening. To me at least Mark 10:32 - 34 is pretty straightforward - Jesus is predicting his own fate in Jerusalem in a few weeks i.e. he is going to fall into the hands of the Jews who will beat and abuse him. Oddly enough Origen IMMEDIATELY begins his discussion by using Mark 10:32 - 34 in order to make the case that someone else besides Jesus will undergo these things - viz. Paul:
Paul both contemplated Christ, in the face of manifest dangers, proceeding and eagerly going up to Jerusalem with the foreknowledge that he would be handed over to the chief priests and scribes and sentenced to death, and he exhorted us to imitate him as he imitated Christ, as he says, “Be imitators of me as I am Christ." And he did something similar to what Christ did when he took his disciples aside. For Agabus, taking his belt and girding himself about the hands and feet said, “These things the Holy Spirit says: they will bind in this way the man who owns this belt” when he goes off to Jerusalem. When Paul learned of this, in imitation of his teacher, he went up eagerly to Jerusalem. When the people saw his human weakness he had to stop for the sake of his love for them and said "Why are you weeping and breaking my heart? I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.”

Ὁ προτρεπόμενος ἡμᾶς Παῦλος μιμεῖσθαι αὑτόν, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς Χρι στὸν ἐμιμήσατο, καὶ εἰπών· «μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε, καθὼς κἀγὼ Χριστοῦ», ἰδὼν Χριστὸν ὁμόσε τοῖς προφανέσι κινδύνοις χωροῦντα καὶ <προθύμως> ἀναβαίνοντα εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα μετὰ τοῦ προεγνωκέναι ὅτι παραδοθή σεται τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσι καὶ γραμματεῦσι καὶ κατακριθήσεται θανάτῳ καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, τὸ παραπλήσιον πεποίηκεν. ὁ μὲν γὰρ Ἄγαβος λαβὼν αὐτοῦ «τὴν ζώνην», δήσας ἑαυτὸν χειρῶν καὶ ποδῶν ἔλεγε· «τάδε λέγει τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον· τὸν ἄνδρα οὗ ἐστιν ἡ ζώνη αὕτη οὕτω δήσουσιν» ἀπελ θόντα εἰς «Ἱεροσόλυμα». μαθὼν δὲ ταῦτα ὁ Παῦλος, ὡς τὸν διδάσκαλον μιμούμενος ἀνέβαινε προθύμως εἰς τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα. παθὼν δέ τι ἀνθρώπινον ὑπὸ τῶν διὰ τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀγάπην κλαιόν των καὶ κωλυόντων «αὐτὸν ἀνα βαίνειν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα» εἶπε· «τί ποιεῖτε κλαίοντες καὶ συνθρύπτον τές μου τὴν καρδίαν; ἐγὼ γὰρ οὐ μόνον δεθῆναι εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα γενόμενος ἑτοίμως ἔχω, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀποθανεῖν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ κυρίου μου Ἰησοῦ».
“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 »

Here is something else that is interesting. Augustine:
refers to a codex which read 'two' rather than 'twelve' apostles in Matthew 20:17:

in primo ergo libro in eo quod positum est dominus seorsum duobus discipulis suam retulisse passionem, mendositas codicis nos fefellit; nam duodecim scriptum est non duobus. (Retractationes 2.12 on Quaestiones euangeliorum 1.27)

In the first book, therefore, where it is written The Lord announced his Passion to two disciples separately, the fault of the manuscript led us astray; twelve is written, not two.https://books.google.com/books?id=C14VD ... 22&f=false
Curious of course because these 'two disciples' continue through the remaining material. Such as, at the beginning of the next chapter:
As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.”
Here is what I can find written about this reading:
In the passage that is relevant for the current study, Augustine refers to Matt 20:17 as cited in his work Quaestiones evangeliorum. In this writing, he says apologetically, he was deceived by a faulty manuscript and thus cited this verse with the false numeral duobus instead of duodecim. 40 There is, however, no Greek evidence in the apparatus of NA28 that corresponds to the erroneous reading that is corrected by Augustine. Moreover, the Vulgate as well as the manuscript41 and patristic evidence collected in the VLD only support the version Augustine offers as correction. http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v20/TC-2015-Schirner.pdf
“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 »

Consider also that Clement never specifies whether his text had 'twelve' or 'two'
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:

"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."
Now let's take a careful look at what Mark 10:32 does say:
They were (Ἦσαν) on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and they were astonished (ἐθαμβοῦντο), while those (οἱ) who followed (ἀκολουθοῦντες) were afraid. Again he took aside (παραλαβὼν) the Twelve (τοὺς δώδεκα) and told them what was going to happen to him.
And Matthew 20:17
Now Jesus was going up to Jerusalem. On the way, he took (παρέλαβεν) the Twelve aside (κατ’ ἰδίαν) and said to them
When you really think of it we don't pay much attention to this little story. However it is interesting. How many people were traveling on the road here to Jerusalem? The sense I've always had was that it was Jesus and the disciples. If this is true how did Jesus separate the Twelve from ... themselves? This is why the idea of Jesus taking aside two disciples - or a number smaller than 'twelve' - makes intuitive sense.

If two disciples are pulled aside and only they are told about the Passion the behavior of the disciples at the Passion makes a great deal more sense. If ten weren't aware of what was about to happen, then the chaos at the arrest scene is better explained.
“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
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

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

Post by andrewcriddle »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:.
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«.

Am I missing something ?

Both texts appear to be quoting canonical Mark word for word. (Mark 10:32)

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

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

Post by andrewcriddle »

Secret Alias wrote:Very interesting. There is a new paper in the Journal of Early Christianity that argues that the letter was written by Origen not Clement. I wonder if he noticed this.
The article is here. It does not mention the common quotation of Mark 10:32.

IMHO the thesis is improbable from the beginning, but one specific issue, (which the author discusses but does not IMO satisfactorily resolve), is that Origen claims never to have come across Carpocratians. Contra Celsum
He next pours down upon us a heap of names, saying that he knows of the existence of certain Simonians who worship Helene, or Helenus, as their teacher, and are called Helenians. But it has escaped the notice of Celsus that the Simonians do not at all acknowledge Jesus to be the Son of God, but term Simon the power of God, regarding whom they relate certain marvellous stories, saying that he imagined that if he could become possessed of similar powers to those with which be believed Jesus to be endowed, he too would become as powerful among men as Jesus was among the multitude. But neither Celsus nor Simon could comprehend how Jesus, like a good husbandman of the word of God, was able to sow the greater part of Greece, and of barbarian lands, with His doctrine, and to fill these countries with words which transform the soul from all that is evil, and bring it back to the Creator of all things. Celsus knows, moreover, certain Marcellians, so called from Marcellina, and Harpocratians from Salome, and others who derive their name from Mariamme, and others again from Martha. We, however, who from a love of learning examine to the utmost of our ability not only the contents of Scripture, and the differences to which they give rise, but have also, from love to the truth, investigated as far as we could the opinions of philosophers, have never at any time met with these sects. He makes mention also of the Marcionites, whose leader was Marcion.
(I think we can safely assume that the Harpocratians from Salome are the Carpocratians.)

Andrew Criddle
Post Reply