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 »

I agree about the Origen paper. It's amateur inference building at its worst. Many of the "Origen texts" used to build his argument are not even necessarily written by Origen. Also he doesn't take into account how little (comparatively) survives from Clement. Not a far comparison. Also he stole the identification of "Theodore" with Origen's disciple Gregory an "observation " I published on my blog which he reads (numerous emails before he started working on the article between us prove that) and didn't even credit me with a footnote.
“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's something interesting though ... in Origen's Commentary (ostensibly 'on Matthew') the citation of Mark appears to agree with one text type and Clement's another. However Origen's also agrees with the Diatessaron
And while they were going up in the way to Jerusalem, Jesus went in front of them; and they wondered, and followed him fearing. And he took his twelve disciples apart, and began to tell them privately what was about to befall him. And he said unto Arabic, them, We are going up to Jerusalem, and all the things shall be fulfilled that are written in the prophets concerning the Son of man. He shall be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and deliver him to the peoples; and they shall treat him shamefully, and scourge him, and spit in his face, and humble him, and crucify him, and slay him: and on the third day he shall rise.
I've always argued that Origen's Commentary was originally based on a lost gospel harmony - probably Ammonius's. It was just refashioned as a commentar on Matthew subsequent to the original publication. But it is interesting to note at least that despite the 'Mark says' business and the artificial manner in which each chapter begins with an explicit citation of Matthew the actually commentary follows from the citation of 'Mark.' The mekhilta was refashioned in the same way (i.e. with MT citations starting each section but what follows is based on the Samaritan/Qumran text of Exodus (i.e. with bits of Deuteronomy).

I don't know how Origen's commentary helps us understand Secret Mark just yet. Clearly Clement and Origen are citing different 'super gospels' (if my theory holds up). Nevertheless Clement doesn't actually say 'first canonical Mark' and then 'secret Mark.' In fact he says he is citing from the 'secret gospel' throughout:
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:

"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."

After these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him", and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.

And after the words, "And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only, "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them." But the many other things about which you wrote both seem to be, and are, falsifications.
The idea that this him citing 'canonical Mark' first and then secret Mark second is eisegeis (to use spin's favorite term) on the part of the scholarship. He's citing secret Mark and only secret Mark. Indeed there is only one Mark for Clement. No hint of another Mark other than Mark had a hand in writing a gospel for Peter. What this other gospel was named is anyone's guess. The gospel of Peter? I don't know but I don't see anywhere where it says that there are 'two gospels of Mark.' Anywhere. Scholars have been following Smith's line of interpreting rather than reading the text.

All of which brings us back to Origen's Commentary. You're right in asking 'what's so special about the way Origen cites Mark.' Yes it superficially resembles the pattern and language of Clement but there are clearly two different texts here - Clement cites the secret gospel throughout which has characteristics of the Alexandrian text and Origen is citing either (a) one edition of Mark or (b) the ancestor of the Arabic Diatessaron or a text which exhibits harmonization characteristics found in the Arabic Diatessaron (if I am correct). The fact that Origen appears to change from 'Alexandrian' to 'Caesarean' texts is worth noting too. There is a lot to investigate here but some of the possibilities include that there was a standardized 'super gospel text' (i.e. a Diatessaron) in the late second century for lectionary use. Have to think about 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
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 »

And that Hilgenfeld link! That archaic German font is crazy to read for any period of time. I miss 23 letter words for dependence like Abhängigkeitsverhältnis.
“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
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
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 »

Now seems like a good time to re-mention this curious thingy:

http://peterkirby.com/basic-stylometry-101.html
10 of 11 (# matches to Clement) / 90.9% Not by Origen, Possibly by Clement of Alexandria (or Someone Else)
2 of 2 Fragmenta in Jeremiam (in catenis)
5 of 5 Expositio in Proverbia (fragmenta e catenis)
3 of 4 Fragmenta in Lamentationes (in catenis)
(Though this may be nothing; ... and if not nothing, may be later reassignment by later hands to Origen.)

One possible explanation for the quote business here is that Origen stole from Clement freely, including quotations. Quoting quotations while cutting out the middle man without so much of a mention is easy as pie.

If that is the explanation, it might even help with the apparent change in text types...

(Then again, I could be wrong...)
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
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 »

andrewcriddle wrote:
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)
I think the point is that both texts quote Mark 10.32; then both texts say "and what follows until"; and then quote Mark 10.34. IOW, both texts use almost exactly the same phraseology to delineate the textual block that is Mark 10.32-34 (the only real exception being that the Origenic text contains a bit more of Mark 10.32 than the Clementine text).
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
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 »

Though this may be nothing; ... and if not nothing, may be later reassignment by later hands to Origen.
Peter, while me theories might not amount to much I am intrigued also by the reference of Clement to a text called 'First Principles' (or something like that) which matches from what I remember Origen's treatise of a similar name. The overlap is intriguing (for instance Clement's seven volume Stromatis versus Origen's ten volume text of the same name). Moreover the complete silence of any reference to the two men having any sort of relationship (where you would expect C to be the teacher of O) is most intriguing. Instead Origen is only said to be the student of Ammonius who in turn (oddly enough) has a gospel harmony associated with him - even though he is later identified to have 'given up' his Christian faith and become a pagan.

Something isn't quite kosher about the whole arrangement. Throw Demetrius into the mix hunting down Origen across the Empire (along with the aid of the Roman Senate) and you have a story. Unfortunately there isn't a lot of information to go on. My suspicion is that the pattern we see with other documents in earliest Christian antiquity apply to those of Alexandria - namely that we might find things written by Clement were 'corrected' and repackaged as longer works of Origen. I certainly don't trust the story that Origen was just 'walking around inventing' new dogmas. Christian truth must have already been established long before Origen. What changed? The Imperial effort to modify Christianity into something manageable. This changed the canon and ultimately forced creative minds like Origen to adapt traditional (heretical) teachings to the new canon. This is the innovation - making the old dogma square with the new texts.
“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
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
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 »

Secret Alias wrote:I certainly don't trust the story that Origen was just 'walking around inventing' new dogmas. Christian truth must have already been established long before Origen. What changed? The Imperial effort to modify Christianity into something manageable. This changed the canon and ultimately forced creative minds like Origen to adapt traditional (heretical) teachings to the new canon. This is the innovation - making the old dogma square with the new texts.
This, yes... this sounds very true to life, from my reading of the texts.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

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

Post by Charles Wilson »

Peter Kirby wrote:
Secret Alias wrote:I certainly don't trust the story that Origen was just 'walking around inventing' new dogmas. Christian truth must have already been established long before Origen. What changed? The Imperial effort to modify Christianity into something manageable. This changed the canon and ultimately forced creative minds like Origen to adapt traditional (heretical) teachings to the new canon. This is the innovation - making the old dogma square with the new texts.
This, yes... this sounds very true to life, from my reading of the texts.
Let me make a call to Joe Atwill right now and let him know the good news... :D

CW
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 »

I thought he just responded to the thread
“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
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

Here's a curious remark from the Zeddies Origen Letter to Theodore article (p. 57):
"His [Smith's] interest in the antinomian mysticism he thought he saw in the letter post-dates his discovery of it...."
Given Smith's earlier interest in antinomian mysticism, e.g. in his 1940s study of Sabbatai Sevi with Gershom Scholem, do the weird time sequence assertions beg the question?
(Minor point on the same page: misspelling of Hershel Shanks.)
Post Reply