a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

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: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

Post by Secret Alias »

In case someone wants to read the testimony in its original context here it is, from the Acts of John:
Then the blessed John turned to those men and said to them: Go about to the goldsmiths and jewellers for seven days, and when ye have proved that these are true gold and true jewels, tell me. And they went, both of them, and after seven days returned to the apostle, saying: Lord, we have gone about the shops of all the goldsmiths, and they have all said that they never saw such pure gold. Likewise the jewellers have said the same, that they never saw such excellent and precious gems.

XVI. Then the holy John said unto them: Go, and redeem to you the lands which ye have sold, for ye have lost the estates of heaven. Buy yourselves silken raiment, that for a time ye may shine like the rose which showeth its fragrance and redness and suddenly fadeth away. For ye sighed at beholding your servants and groaned that ye were become poor. Flourish, therefore, that ye may fade: be rich for the time, that ye may be beggars for ever. Is not the Lord's hand able to make riches overflowing and unsurpassably glorious? but he hath appointed a conflict for souls, that they may believe that they shall have eternal riches, who for his name's sake have refused temporal wealth. Indeed, our master told us concerning a certain rich man who feasted every day and shone with gold and purple, at whose door lay a beggar, Lazarus, who desired to receive even the crumbs that fell from his table, and no man gave unto him. And it came to pass that on one day they died, both of them, and that beggar was taken into the rest which is in Abraham's bosom, but the rich man was cast into flaming fire: out of which he lifted up his eyes and saw Lazarus, and prayed him to dip his finger in water and cool his mouth for he was tormented in the flames. And Abraham answered him and said: Remember, son, that thou receivedst good things in thy life, but this Lazarus likewise evil things. Wherefore rightly is he now comforted while thou art tormented, and besides all this, a great gulf is fixed between you and us, so that neither can they come thence hither, nor hither thence. But he answered: I have five brethren: I pray that some one may go to warn them, that they come not into this flame. And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them. To that he answered: Lord, unless one rise up again, they will not believe. Abraham said to him: If they believe not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again. And these words our Lord and Master confirmed by examples of mighty works: for when they said to him: Who hath come hither from thence, that we may believe him? he answered: Bring hither the dead whom ye have. And when they had brought unto him a young man which was dead (Ps.-Mellitus: three dead corpses), he was waked up by him as one that sleepeth, and confirmed all his words.

But wherefore should I speak of my Lord, when at this present there are those whom in his name and in your presence and sight I have raised from the dead: in whose name ye have seen palsied men healed, lepers cleansed, blind men enlightened, and many delivered from evil spirits ?
But the riches of these mighty works they cannot have who have desired to have earthly wealth. Finally, when ye yourselves went unto the sick and called upon the name of Jesus Christ, they were healed: ye did drive out devils and restore light to the blind. Behold, this grace is taken from you, and ye are become wretched, who were mighty and great. And where as there was such fear of you upon the devils that at your bidding they left the men whom they possessed, now ye will be in fear of the devils. For he that loveth money is the servant of Mammon: and Mammon is the name of a devil who is set over carnal gains, and is the master of them that love the world. But even the lovers of the world do not possess riches, but are possessed of them.
“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: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

Post by Secret Alias »

To recap, the variants of this story in the canonical four (where common features are listed):

1. Origen's citation of the Gospel of the Hebrews (supposedly proto-Matthew) - no mention of Lazarus strictly anti-riches parable/story
2. Marcion's gospel (unknown what it said) probably mentioned name Lazarus (though not certain) may have had shared 'resurrection of the dead' with Acts of John gospel
3. Leucius Charinus's Acts of John gospel (cited above) - calls the 'youth' Lazarus resurrects youth from dead, resurrection story contextualized by anti-riches parable/story
4. Secret Mark - youth not called Lazarus no reference to anti-riches parable/story
5. the gospel harmony used by Justin-Tatian's single gospel tradition - who knows but see below
6. canonical John - resurrected youth called Lazarus no reference to anti-riches parable/story

Good luck determining which gospel tradition had the original and 'true' version of this narrative and what it looked like. But what Stuart is doing is (unconsciously) pre-determining the result by assuming canonical John's story is the original. That's like having a beauty contest where the contestant from Russia is the already the most beautiful from the outset. When you start by assuming the contestant from Russia is the most beautiful before the contest even starts - you don't need to await the result - Miss Russia wins every time.

But there is no reason to assume that the form of the Gospel of John 'Lazarus' story is the most original. That's just a personal prejudice/choice of the lazy (uninformed). Ephrem's Diatessaron can be gleaned from his Commentary:
[Through] that which [he said], Good Master, (Mark 10:17) he anticipated our Lord with a gift. But our Lord removed this opportunity for flattery, to show him that it is right to both speak and hear the truth. He looked at him lovingly, (Mark 10:21) so that perhaps through this he might be attracted to draw closer to perfection, through which also the former [commandments] are cultivated. But, because his righteousness was according to the Law - and because it was in the hope of the goods of here [below] that [the former commandments] were cultivated - he trusted in his wealth as the recompense for his righteousness. Wherefore, it is difficult for the rich and for those who trust in this for their riches are the due recompense of their activities. Indeed those who think that riches are a reward for their righteousness are not able to leave them. Lest [the rich man] say, "Even from the beginning he replied to me indignantly and rejected me with some pretext," [the Lord] said to him, One only is good. Is he not therefore good, who is called the Son of the Good One? This is why he looked at him lovingly, so that he might show [the rich man] that it was his own self that he was rejecting. For he is the rich man, who was attired in purple.(Luke 16:19) See, he is a son of Israel, because of what [he said], My father, Abraham,(ibid) and because of, They have Moses and the prophets.(Luke 16:29) [Ephrem, Commentary on the Diatessaron, McCarthy translation p. 233]
Notice that the raising of Lazarus episode appears in the same spot (i.e. after Mark 10:17 - 21) as Secret Mark. The point is that we can't limit the source comparison between John and Mark. The situation is more complex.
“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
Roger Viklund
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2016 1:03 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

Post by Roger Viklund »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:29 am
Roger Viklund wrote: Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:00 am
Stuart wrote: Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:22 am Common Source is the problem. It postulates an additional source. Without secret Mark no such source is required for Mark or John.
That of course depends on what sort of gospel Secret Mark is and when it was made – supposing it’s genuine. I'd say it would not postulate an additional source. If, as I think, it was the original Gospel of Mark (at least more original), then one can simply replace Mark with Secret Mark and make all the suppositions you make.
But this is not true; moreover, it is in the most trivial sense that it is untrue. Stuart's suppositions included:
Stuart wrote: Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:22 amThe least complex dependency for John is Matthew and a Marcionite shorter form of Luke. Everything in John that finds parallel in Mark is also found in Matthew, but not all items parallel in Matthew are found in Mark. Occam's razor would suggest only Matthew is needed to explain the content and retorts of theology in John.
But, if you replace canonical Mark with the secret version, Matthew + Marcionite Luke no longer comprise the least complex dependency for John. Now you need Matthew + Marcionite Luke + Secret Mark. (This is not to say that Stuart's suppositions are correct and yours are incorrect; it is merely to say that you are incorrect to suggest that Secret Mark entails zero changes to Stuart's suppositions.)
Okay, I might have misunderstood Stuart. What I was trying to say was that if Secret Mark preceded Mark, you “could solve” the synoptic problem in the same way as before starting from Mark – and ignoring Secret Mark. Of course, with Secret Mark, there will be an additional Gospel. Yet we can’t say if that gospel was known to any of the other gospel authors, simply because we don’t know what was in Secret Mark, apart from that which was quoted by Clement. Stuart wrote that “John can know Matthew (or Mark or both [1]) and no additional dependence is required. No two-way dependence is required.” This could, AFAICT, be true also if Secret Mark is genuine because there is no proof that Secret Mark knew John and no proof that John knew Secret Mark. There is accordingly no need to suggest that John must have used Secret Mark (although, it is possible) and so Matthew + Marcionite Luke could still comprise the least complex dependency for John if one believes that to be the case. The synoptic problem, anyway, seems to be an unsolvable problem unless we get hold of radically new information.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

Post by Stuart »

Ben,

Thanks for making my attempt at reducio ad absurdem even more complicated.

And I hope people do understand that this is only one of the issues I have with Secret Mark. We can start with the lack of manuscript evidence as a second point. A third point is the introduction of Jesus who shows anger/wrath. There is also the issue of Clement using a direct martyrdom formula with Peter, something he never does anywhere else in his voluminous works that we have.

I should have also applied the dependency problem not just to John, but also to Mark. For instead of merely needing to know some prototype form(s) of the gospel (whatever it was used for before it was an evangelical tool), Mark now has to have access to additional source material common to the Marcionites and also to John. It also diminishes the imagination and skill of Mark as writer (I know at least one poster here who would definitely put up a strong defense for the skill of Mark as an author).

We have the problem of Johannine language, and the Marcionite/Luke Lazarus model in Secret Mark, which is what the dependency problem entails. Secret Mark being authentic requires additional complexity in pretty much every model of the sources for Mark; the most significant for me, as I already have an anathema for Q and other source documents beside a prototype gospel (two forms to be sure, but basically the same document no more diverged as say the long and short forms of Ignatius letters). But we have to invent another source document with Secret Mark.

We also have the compositional problem, if Secret Mark is original. In this case Mark would introduce the naked youth, give him a secret learning of a special insider, while at the same time losing the symbolism of the covering -- which seems odd, as it is his invention. Or alternately have this secret initiate fall away at his arrest, shedding Christ (represented by the linen cloth - the burial cloth of Jesus given to him by Joseph of Arimathea) in order to save his life in direct contradiction to Mark 8:35ff. This is a huge inconsistency.

I guess this is my way of saying Ben is right about John's dependency being the trivial one. It is Mark's interdependence which is the problem more than John, such that Mark has to know Luke (Marcionite form) and John, or we have to invent an source additional document to explain Mark.

All of these three basic problems, are show stoppers for Secret Mark.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Stuart wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 1:12 amI guess this is my way of saying Ben is right about John's dependency being the trivial one.
Just to be clear, the "triviality" I spoke of had nothing to do with your argument; it was about Roger's reading of it (which he has since corrected), which I felt was mistaken in a superficial, just-the-facts, no-interpretation-needed sort of way.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

Post by Secret Alias »

del
Last edited by Secret Alias on Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:40 am, 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: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

Post by Secret Alias »

We can start with the lack of manuscript evidence as a second point.
How many copies of a top secret CIA document or sensitive corporate internal report would you expect to have written? If the Eleusian mysteries had a "guide book" would you expect that text to have had mass distribution? You've got to get out of your banal understanding of what is and isnt possible. You haven't really thought through what Secret Mark was purported to be, why copying out the gospel by Carpocrates was such a scandalous act in the letter. Sometimes there's just supposed to be one copy of something. Wu Tang Clan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Up ... in_Shaolin. Nixon's tapes. Most playwrights from the time of Shakespeare had their works survive as single manuscript exemplars https://books.google.com/books?id=F1cAh ... pt&f=false. The list goes on and on and fucking on. The fact that CERTAIN MSS from the orthodox tradition were mass produced like bubble gum wrappers doesn't speak of a "rule" in ancient literature but rather a unique situation. Perhaps it was the intention of the dominant orthodoxy to flood the market as it were with these cheap knock off texts to define what was acceptable and orthodox and true. But Justin survives in a single corrupt exemplar. So too Clement of Alexandria. Whatxs wrong with you? What's the problem you have with single copies of something? You act like it's such a big deal when it's quite common. And whats worse YOU WASTE YOUR LIFE STUDYING A COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE CONCEPT LIKE "MARCION'S GOSPEL" WHERE NO - I MEAN NO - MANUSCRIPTS HAVE BEEN FOUND!!! Yet you say there's 'only' one MS of the Letter to Theodore. Yet you are only too happy to make up complete subjective nonsense with a non-existent MS but deny a single manuscript exemplar of something else because there's just one MS. And you want to be taken seriously. You can't be a Marcionophile and tell people "there's just one MS" of To Theodore. No one should take you seriously.
“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: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

Post by Secret Alias »

(Dubious) works that are commonly accepted to have existed in early Christianity for which we have no MS evidence:

Marcion's gospel - No manuscript evidence is extant, so we begin with the attempted reconstruction of Harnack." https://books.google.com/books?id=enzhL ... 22&f=false
Marcion's antitheses - "Christian copyists did not make any particular effort to transmit it, with the result that no manuscript of the Antitheses has come down to us." https://books.google.com/books?id=2CFZD ... on&f=false

With the antitheses for instance it's not clear WTF this work was. But scholars have decided to treat is as an independent 'stand alone' book - for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me. Are you really saying that Secret Mark is less likely to be an ancient text than this make-believe Marcionite work? Come on. We can give the benefit of the doubt to Secret Mark.
“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
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

Post by Stuart »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:40 am
We can start with the lack of manuscript evidence as a second point.
How many copies of a top secret CIA document or sensitive corporate internal report would you expect to have written? If the Eleusian mysteries had a "guide book" would you expect that text to have had mass distribution? You've got to get out of your banal understanding of what is and isnt possible. You haven't really thought through what Secret Mark was purported to be, why copying out the gospel by Carpocrates was such a scandalous act in the letter. Sometimes there's just supposed to be one copy of something. Wu Tang Clan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Up ... in_Shaolin. Nixon's tapes. Most playwrights from the time of Shakespeare had their works survive as single manuscript exemplars https://books.google.com/books?id=F1cAh ... pt&f=false. The list goes on and on and fucking on. The fact that CERTAIN MSS from the orthodox tradition were mass produced like bubble gum wrappers doesn't speak of a "rule" in ancient literature but rather a unique situation. Perhaps it was the intention of the dominant orthodoxy to flood the market as it were with these cheap knock off texts to define what was acceptable and orthodox and true. But Justin survives in a single corrupt exemplar. So too Clement of Alexandria. Whatxs wrong with you? What's the problem you have with single copies of something? You act like it's such a big deal when it's quite common. And whats worse YOU WASTE YOUR LIFE STUDYING A COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE CONCEPT LIKE "MARCION'S GOSPEL" WHERE NO - I MEAN NO - MANUSCRIPTS HAVE BEEN FOUND!!! Yet you say there's 'only' one MS of the Letter to Theodore. Yet you are only too happy to make up complete subjective nonsense with a non-existent MS but deny a single manuscript exemplar of something else because there's just one MS. And you want to be taken seriously. You can't be a Marcionophile and tell people "there's just one MS" of To Theodore. No one should take you seriously.
This post contains an amazing litany of logical fallacies. A beautiful example of whataboutism combined with ad hominen.

Stephen, Marcionite versions, or shorter versions of Paul and the Gospels have significant Patristic evidence, much stronger evidence than the theories you throw about based on Patristic readings I might add (well perhaps it's opinion, as you place enormous weight on the mythology Eusubius paints as history). There are also significant textual variant evidence for many of the Marcionite readings, including the Western non-interpolations (but by no means limited to these), which I know you are fully aware of. And being that you are aware, then you are presenting false and misleading statements here - I suppose for emotional reaction (i.e., "trolling"). I hope you are better than that.

Of course, Marcion has nothing to do with Mark or Secret Mark, so it is irrelevant to the thread (but typical of you to bring up; attack the messenger, not the message I guess). I know my base concept for Christian origin and development is very different from yours and the two views are largely incompatible. I believe you are wasting your time, and you believe I am wasting my time. So be it. I do not feel threatened by you, but your responses, often filled with vitriol, suggest you do feel some threat from me. Whatever dude. Go get some lunch and have a beer with it.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

Post by Secret Alias »

On the works that have survived as late manuscripts from single exemplars - https://books.google.com/books?id=U-YcB ... 22&f=false I think the whole appendix from Kok is a reasonable assessment about where we are with the evidence and whether or not the text is a forgery.
“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