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 »

But just to keep the 'reasonable argument' in context. It's like saying - if you think the mailman is really your father, you might have Italian heritage.
“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: a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

Post by rakovsky »

Regarding the OP, I read in "The Strange Case of the Secret Gospel according to Mark" (abish.byui.edu/reserve/LenhartM/110/TheStrangeCaseS.G.of%20Mark.htm) by S Eyer that Smith's professor's response when seeing Secret Mark was: "They made up all sorts of stuff in the fifth century". This goes along with the hypothesis that it was a forgery of Clement's writing that was made before the seemingly 18th c. "copying". I found this when looking for Nock's opinions about Secret Mark.

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

An example of this process is found in the Gospel of the Savior https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Savior-Ne ... 0944344909 which Hedrick identified as possibly of second century origin and Suciu argues is a later composition - https://alinsuciu.com/tag/gospel-of-the-savior/ But this is not what is going on here. This is a text which places Clement's name at the very beginning. The phrasing "the true philosophy ...' etc is obviously Clementine - deliberately or otherwise. There are familiar references to the Carpocratians. The anonymous group in Can the Rich Man be Saved should be included in Carpocratian references by Clement. So there are clear signs that the author either is Clement or someone trying to write like Clement.

Note, although to be fair the writings ascribed to Origen used the phrase 'the true philosophy' https://books.google.com/books?id=vCHdB ... en&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
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 »

rakovsky wrote: Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:47 am Regarding the OP, I read in "The Strange Case of the Secret Gospel according to Mark" (abish.byui.edu/reserve/LenhartM/110/TheStrangeCaseS.G.of%20Mark.htm) by S Eyer that Smith's professor's response when seeing Secret Mark was: "They made up all sorts of stuff in the fifth century". This goes along with the hypothesis that it was a forgery of Clement's writing that was made before the seemingly 18th c. "copying". I found this when looking for Nock's opinions about Secret Mark.
You're certainly taking every little detail and try to turn them into evidence that the letter is a forgery. After Smith left Mar Saba he went to Jerusalem and developed the photographs he had taken of the letter. He began to decipher the whole letter and first then realised that Clement quoted from a hitherto unknown gospel. He went to his colleague and friend Gershom Scholem and showed him the photos of the letter. He then went back home and showed the photos to Erwin Goodenough and Arthur Darby Nock, and Nock was skeptical but thought that Smith should study it carefully before announcing his discovery. The fact that Nock at his initial view of the images said that “they made up all sorts of stuff in the fifth century” was of course nothing but a hunch from his side and something I’m sure he never would have said publicly without having studied it more carefully. In fact Nock never made any detailed analysis of the letter but simply had a feeling that it was a forgery. AFAIK, he never accused Smith for having forged it.
Last edited by Roger Viklund on Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

Stuart wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:49 pm Pastiches particularly with John. How does Secret Mark, if it was written by Mark, know about the Lazarus story in John and the disciple whom Jesus loved? These have all been wrapped up in a youth.
There are three possibilities, either 1) Secret Mark relied on John (your option, but in my opinion unlikely) or 2) John relied on Mark (possible, and IMO less unlikely than option 1) or 3) they both relied on some sort of common oral or written source (IMO maybe the most likely).
Stuart wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:49 pm The cut and paste problem goes beyond repeated words. It is also the lost context. This is a concept often used to show the secondary nature of say the Pastoral Pauline letters compared to the "authentic" core, or even within the "authentic" core to distinguish differences in authorship and dependence upon prior writings. The example of the "linen clothe" with drapes the nakedness of the young man in Secret Mark is merely a literal covering. It has been stripped of the metaphorical meaning we find at the tomb and at the arrest scene, where it parallels the linen clothe placed on Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea, and the dazzling white clothing of the angel (presented as a young man) at the tomb. Had the writer understood this he would not have invested the secret teaching into one who forsakes Jesus in 14:51-52, shedding the immortal clothing of Christ to save his own mortal life and get away.
Why would the context indicate that Secret Mark is a forgery? In fact the deviations between the stories suggest that neither John nor Secret Mark had read the other. If Secret Mark would have relied on John, then why did he place the raising of the youth in another Bethany, why didn’t he name Lazarus and Mary and why didn’t he even mention Martha? And there are no traces in Secret Mark of the obvious Johannine redaction or of its language.
Last edited by Roger Viklund on Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

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

Post by Charles Wilson »

Roger Viklund wrote: Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:50 am ...they both relied on some sort of common oral or written source (IMO maybe the most likely).
Plz See: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2207&hilit=grafted+story+empty+tomb

Our old Poster Jay Raskin is quoted from his book, Christ and Christianities,
ISBN-10: 1413497918
ISBN-13: 978-1413497915

One of his major points is that Mark and John almost literally tore material from a common Source in writing their books. Got to the top of p. 3 of the Thread. Other Threads imply that John is "Correcting" Mark, esp. in the Burial Scene.

My vote goes for an agreement with you: Common Source.

All the Best,

CW
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 »

Common Source is the problem. It postulates an additional source. Without secret Mark no such source is required for Mark or John.

John can know Matthew (or Mark or both [1]) and no additional dependence is required. No two-way dependence is required. Occam's razor says we should not expect an additional source. This alone argues for a forgery.

But you guys are trying to avoid the problem of conflation of accounts here, the loss of meaning from the Gospels where the similar material is found. The loss of of context is another sign of a late hand. You do not answer that. You also do not answer how you have a wrathful Jesus. This is not a 1st or 2nd century construct.

Adding instead a layer of complexity, a hitherto unknown common source is really nothing more than special pleading. Focus on the primary problems. The end run attempt is "out of bounds."


Note:
[1] The 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. (Be aware, individual copies of gospels have textual variants often common with other gospels, so one or two readings that appear to conform more to another gospel could simply be the result of a local variant before the author using the source)
“’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
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 »

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. Then the Gospel of Mark would simply be a shorter, perhaps slightly modified, version of Secret Mark done either by the original author (whom we can call Mark for the sake of simplicity) or by someone else at a later stage (and then this redactor does not have to be Mark as it would require less skills to remove certain material than to write new material in the same style as Mark). Matthew and Luke (i.e. Markion's gospel) could still rely on Mark or other versions of that gospel, even on Secret Mark.
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 »

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.)
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

Good point Ben. It is important and fair to note the changes that would occur to existing models of the development of the gospels. We should however note that variants in John's raising of Lazarus narrative exist right under our noses. For instance in the Acts of John (the highlighted section is what I consider to be new information not found in the canonical gospels):
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.
The point of course is that with respect to the Lazarus story we have (1) canonical John (2) the gospel of John (what other gospel could have featured in a book devoted to the 'acts' of John) according to Leucius Charinus i.e. the Acts of John (3) Secret Mark.

So let's recap. Luke's Rich Man and Lazarus goes back to a heretical gospel (Marcion's gospel?) where after telling the crowd this story about 'Lazarus' a request comes to prove the story. Jesus takes a dead youth (= neaniskos undoubtedly) and raises him. Let's not also forget that Origen cites a version of the Lazarus and the Rich Man from the Hebrew Gospel (in the Latin Commentary on Matthew). We are dealing with a very controversial narrative which was altered not merely in the differences between Mark and John but Luke and proto-Matthew.
“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