Re: Did Anyone Think Stuff Was Missing Between Mk 10:34 + 10
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:00 am
Here is the use of Psalm 24 among the Naasenes. It is virtually identical with Origen it is understood as connected with ascent through the planetary watchers:
Why would Origen see the sons of Zebedee bringing this 'other baptism' at this point in the narrative? The most obvious answer is that Secret Mark is real and there was a tradition that Jesus had just baptized someone between Mark 10:34 and 10:35. Could Morton Smith really have been this clever to (a) learn from all the Church Fathers about this 'redemption baptism' dating back to the 'followers of Mark' and then (b) construct a missing narrative to 'explain' this sustained interest while at the same time (c) not mentioning any of this in his 1973 treatise? Seems rather far fetched to me. The simplest explanation is that the passage is authentic and was lost.
The mix of Psalm 22 and 24 is interesting. Heine's summary of Origen's use of the material:In regard, however, of his ascension, that is his regeneration, that he may become spiritual, not carnal, the Scripture, he says, speaks (thus): "Open the gates, ye who are your rulers; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in," that is a wonder of wonders. "For who," he says, "is this King of glory? A worm, and not a man; a reproach of man, and an outcast of the people; himself is the King of glory, and powerful in war."
He goes on to cite other Fathers. But it is important to note that this is a very strong tradition which - strangely - is linked to a number of 'secret' ideas. The first clearly is that the powers in heaven don't recognize Jesus. This is odd because most Church Fathers must have understood and did understand that Jesus was Yahweh. Why don't the powers recognize God? More importantly however is Origen's original identification of this ascension through the planetary watchers with the 'another baptism' of Mark 10:35f, the baptism the followers of Mark (Marcosians) linked with 'redemption.'Origen makes the ascension scene more complex by blending Isaiah 63:1–3 with Psalm 24:7–10.102 After Christ destroyed his enemies by his passion and took up our infirmities, diseases, and sins, his garments were stained with the blood of battle. He must therefore ascend to the Father and be cleansed in a kind of baptism, Origen argues, before he can descend and distribute gifts to humanity (cf. Eph. 4:8–11). As Christ, with his escort, approaches heaven, the powers ask in the words of Isaiah 63:1, “'Who is this that is coming from Edom, with scarlet garments from Bosra, so beautiful?' And those escorting him say to those stationed at the gates of heaven" "Lift up your gates, and the king of glory will come in." The gatekeepers, however, hesitate because of the visible blood and ask further, in the words of Isaiah 62:2, “Why is your apparel red and your garments like the residue of a full wine-vat which has been trampled down?” Christ answers in a paraphrase of Isaiah 63:3, “I have crushed them in pieces” (ComJn 6.287–292; cf. ComMt 16.19).103 In this dialogue it is the bloody wounds of the passion in the body of the ascending one that raise questions among the powers in heaven. This implies, of course, that it is the body of flesh that is ascending, as in the accounts of Irenaeus and Justin, which we noted above.
Origen was admired and read by many fathers in both East and West in the fourth century, and like him these fathers use Psalm 24:7–10 in either explicit or implicit conjunction with Isaiah 63:1–3 to emphasize the ascension of the body to heaven. Jerome, who is certainly dependent on Origen, uses these passages to interpret Ephesians 3:10–11 in his Commentary on Ephesians. He states Origen's doctrine that Christ's passion was for the angels and heavenly powers as well as for humans. The passion, he thinks, was that part of God's wisdom the heavenly beings had not known. “Accordingly,” Jerome says, “they are amazed at God returning to heaven with a body and say, 'Who is this who comes from Edom with scarlet garments from Bosra, so beautiful in his bright robe?' (Isa. 63:1). And in another passage, 'Who is this king of glory? The Lord of the powers, he is the king of glory' (Ps. 23[24]:8).”104 Ambrose, another fourth-century Latin-speaking admirer of Origen, blends Isaiah 63 and Psalm 24 in his presentation of the ascension in his treatise On the Mystery. The sight of flesh ascending into heaven causes the powers to have doubts about Christ's identity, so they ask, “Who is this king of glory?” When some wanted to admit him and said, “Lift up your gates,” others responded with the question of Isaiah 63:1: “Who is this that comes up from Edom, in garments red from Bosor?" (On the Mystery 7.36). In his treatise On the Faith, in which he argues against the Arians, who considered Christ less than God, Ambrose places a somewhat different emphasis on Psalm 24. In this context it is the glory of the ascending one and the numerous trophies he brings with him as conqueror of death that, Ambrose says, causes astonishment among the heavenly powers. Consequently, the angelic host seeks a more lofty entrance for Christ on his return than the gates through which he had departed. They cry out, therefore, that the gates be "lifted up." Some among the heavenly host, however, are still so overcome with amazement at the sight that they ask, “Who is the King of glory?” Other angels, who had been present at the resurrection and know who he is, reply, “It is the Lord, strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle." The cry goes out again to “lift up the gates,” but the objectors repeat their question, “Who is the king of glory?" They ask, Ambrose explains, because they had seen him in his humiliation and cannot associate that with the glorious being they see before them. The first group replies to their question, “The Lord of hosts, he is the king of glory.” The Son Ambrose then remarks, is the Lord of Hosts of Psalm 24:7–10. But “Lord of Hosts” is an appellation of the Father in the Old Testament. How, then, he concludes, can the Arians say the Son is less than the Father (On the Faith 4.1.5–14)? Isaiah 63 is not cited in this treatment of Psalm 24, because the use made of it in the Origenist tradition to highlight the ascension of the wounded flesh of Jesus would have detracted from the point Ambrose wants to make.https://books.google.com/books?id=7cSua ... 22&f=false
Why would Origen see the sons of Zebedee bringing this 'other baptism' at this point in the narrative? The most obvious answer is that Secret Mark is real and there was a tradition that Jesus had just baptized someone between Mark 10:34 and 10:35. Could Morton Smith really have been this clever to (a) learn from all the Church Fathers about this 'redemption baptism' dating back to the 'followers of Mark' and then (b) construct a missing narrative to 'explain' this sustained interest while at the same time (c) not mentioning any of this in his 1973 treatise? Seems rather far fetched to me. The simplest explanation is that the passage is authentic and was lost.