Mark Wrote for Highly Educated People

[Secret Alias]

I think your placing to much certainty on the mystery here. Yes it was there, but no where near primary to the stupid poor peasants and pagans that were proselytized to.

I don't think I am. I think I approach the question of the gospel in a wholly psychological manner - i.e. there was something 'in it' for the believers, that's why they believed in the gospel and the story of Jesus.

Can you or Bernard or any of the standard bearers for the 'it's a historical narrative first and foremost' understanding of the gospel explain to me why a Gentile would care about this 'peasant rebellion' in Palestine? I get the Palestinian rebels believing in a messiah called Jesus who was crucified. Somehow - sort of - I get how this 'original belief' in a rebel leader morphed into a magic belief in the crucified rebel leader or something or other. Not quite sure how a dead messianic Jewish leader 'saves' his original followers who were left behind but let's suppose something like that occurred along the lines of Sabbatai Zevi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatai_Zevi

But the Donme never expanded beyond the original messianic community before 1666 and indeed severely contracted in numbers. The thing I never get about this 'historical community of Jewish rebels' understanding is how the rebellion of Jesus fails ... and not only does everything get transformed through magic and divinity but suddenly outsiders (Gentiles) are brought into the fold in mass numbers. I don't get it because it doesn't make any sense.

If Jesus was the messiah for reasons X, Y and Z for the Jewish rebels - like Sabbatai was the messiah for the ma'aminim because of X1, Y1 and Z1 I don't get how a wholly different 'high Christology' develops that somehow (a) is able to retain some of the original members of the messianic community and manages to attract massive numbers of new Gentiles. It can't have happened in my estimation because there is no common ground between the original Jewish rebels (who are clearly massively pro-Jewish) and the rest of the world which inevitably (as is always the case) hated Jews and Jewish beliefs. It's a bridge too far for me.

[Secret Alias]

Surely acrostics are signs that a given text was at least partially meant to be experienced by someone looking down at a page as opposed to simply 'hearing it.'

Beginning with Aphrahat in the 3rd century and his 23 Demonstrations we find that 22 of these are alphabetic acrostics.22 Syriac hymnology knew no other form of hymn writing than using acrostics. Some of these acrostics were more sophisticated. Ephrem's chiastic arrangements lend themselves to palindromic movement both within the lines and in “ABBA" strophic patterns and other variations. The Nativity Hymn 11 lends itself to palindromic-acrostic patterns. https://books.google.com/books?id=oI2CD ... 22&f=false

Moreover the Manichaean hymns shared in this obsession. How else can this be explained that at least part of the experience of the hymn has to be read 'in one's head' to be understood? That there is a 'secret message' that only is 'unlocked' if you look down at the page?

[Secret Alias]

If our earliest acrostic in Syriac sources dates to the third century, Tertullian (or his source) is our earliest witness to the use of it in Greek:

But we, little fishes, after the example of our Icqus Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water [De Baptismo 1]

[Secret Alias]

Here is something interesting from Ben Witherington:

There is this further difference between Paul and Mark: Mark's work apparently is primarily meant to be read, while Paul's letters are meant to be declaimed and heard in the congregation. Mark 13:14 speaks of "the one reading," in the singular, thus apparently indicating something other than a public or congregational reading." The rhetorical situation that generates Mark's Gospel and Paul's letters is quite different. Mark is meant to be seen as a text, perhaps the first real Christian text, perhaps the first "book" in the later Western sense of the term, whereas Paul's letters are not intended this way. The latter are surrogates for oral communication. To push this a bit further, Mark's rhetoric is of the sort one finds in a handbook or a biography written with a knowledge of the sort of rhetoric one finds in the progymnasta. These are "recollections" of Jesus in written form, collected, edited, and presented as a bios. Mark is not meant to be heard, but rather to be taken in through the act of reading. Paul's letters are closer to speeches and preaching, while Mark's Gospel is intended to provide additional information about Jesus that supplements the preaching — it has catechetical and paraenetic purposes molding and shaping those who are already disciples. https://books.google.com/books?id=QzNgJ ... 22&f=false

Witherington's thesis is widely accepted and is therefore cited approvingly.

[Secret Alias]

All the studies of Mark's use of ἀναγινώσκων in chapter 13 ignore the fact that a 'secret' gospel was known in Alexandria. This changes and turns upside down the discussion. The logic of those writing about Mark 13:14 is:

1. Mark was an ancient book
2. ancient books were intended to be read aloud
THEREFORE the gospel of Mark was read aloud

But what about a 'secret book'? Surely not.

[Secret Alias]

Pretianda writes in Public Reading in Early Christianity p. 25:

Public reading should not be understood as the opposite of silent reading, namely as a primarily open and communal enterprise that takes place in public space, in contrast to a secluded and individual activity which occurs in privacy. Public reading exists in both public and private settings, or rather on a sliding scale between private and public. Such a scale includes at least four tiers, of which public reading in early Christian gatherings probably belongs to b or c,depending on how open the community is to outsiders:a) reading aloud for a single listener, namely in a private setting (for example,a lector who reads aloud for his master)b) reading a loud in a small, controlled context, namely in a semi-private setting (for example, an author or a lector who reads aloud at a literary gathering)c) reading aloud in a limited, but less controlled context, namely in a semi-private setting (for example, a lector who reads aloud at a dinner party)d) reading aloud in a large-scale, open context, namely in a public setting(for example, an author or lector reading aloud in a recital hall or a theater) Public reading is not the opposite of silent reading, then, but of private reading. Private reading, which will not be a major topic in this study, is defined as reading for oneself. It can consist of reading aloud as well as silent reading; the significant factor is that the reader is the sole recipient or beneficiary of the reading event.The qualifier “public” in public reading does not indicate whether it occurs in a private or public setting, or somewhere in between, but rather that a text is read aloud for one or several listeners with the intention of giving a correct rendering of the text according to contemporary conventions. As I will indicate in chapter three, the same conventions were used in different settings, even in those that we might consider private, for example, when a lector reads aloud for a limited and closed group of friends in a private home.Individual early Christian manuscripts are occasionally defined as “public” or “private,” in the sense that they are thoughttohavebeenproducedprimarily for either public or private reading. For example, the three manuscripts that will be examined in the case studies in the next chapter are all considered asintended for public reading. Although individual manuscripts were used in varying contexts, they werepresumablyproducedprimarilyforeitherpublicorprivatereading.Whenappliedtomanuscripts,thelabels“public”and“private”thus indicate features of their production and intended use, rather than in which settings they were actually employed. A codex described as producedfor public reading could, for example, be loaned and used in private settings,such as in private study.Thequalier“public”isconsequentlyemployedinseveralwaysinthisstudy.“Public reading” refers to reading aloud for one or more listeners, “public set-ting” indicates that a reading event is open to the public, and “public manu-script” denotes an early Christian manuscript that is produced for public read-ing. Correspondingly, “private” is also used in various ways. “Private reading”indicates reading for oneself (namely, in individual study), “private setting”denotes a reading event that either includes only the reader (such an eventequates private reading) or the reader and a single listener (an example of public reading in a private setting), and “private manuscript” refers to an early Christian manuscript that is produced for private reading (for example, aminiature codex with a writing area of only 5×5cm).

[Secret Alias]

Pretianda goes through arguments originally made by Charlesworth that some of our earliest texts show signs of public and private use and then adds this footnote:

There is a scene in the New Testament that depicts private reading, when the Ethiopianeunuch is described as reading to himself (Acts 8:28, 30). Other early Christian sources,from the second century and onwards (and in greater number from the third century),also relate to private reading (Gamble, Books, 232–234). Literacy levels in antiquity areexamined in chapter three.

[Secret Alias]

If we go to the so-called 'secret gospel' of Mark, it is worth noting that there appears to be a private reading to a small number of initiates:

As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the private ones (μυστικὰς ὑποσημαίνων), but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book (βιβλίον) the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected (τῶν τελειουμένων χρῆσιν). Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered (τὰ ἀπόῤῥητα), nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue (μυσταγωγήσειν), lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read (ἀναγινωσκόμενον) only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries (τὰ μεγάλα μυστήρια).

But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy (ἀπόγραφον) of the secret Gospel (τοῦ μυστικοῦ εὐαγγελίου), which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.

To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath. For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men". For this reason the Wisdom of God, through Solomon, advises, "Answer the fool from his folly", teaching that the light of the truth should be hidden from those who are mentally blind. Again it says, "From him who has not shall be taken away", and "Let the fool walk in darkness". But we are "children of Light", having been illuminated by "the dayspring" of the spirit of the Lord "from on high", and "Where the Spirit of the Lord is", it says, "there is liberty", for "All things are pure to the pure".

[Secret Alias]

The Gospel of Mary makes reference to a private teaching passed from Jesus to Mary:

After Mary had said these things, she was silent, since it was up to this point that the Savior had spoken to her.
Andrew responded, addressing the brothers and sisters, "Say what you will about the things she has said, but I do not believe that the S[a]vior said these things, f[or] indeed these teachings are strange ideas."
Peter responded, bringing up similar concerns. He questioned them about the Savior: "Did he, then, speak with a woman in private without our knowing about it? Are we to turn around and listen to her? Did he choose her over us?"
Then [M]ary wept and said to Peter, "My brother Peter, what are you imagining? Do you think that I have thought up these things by myself in my heart or that I am telling lies about the Savior?"

[Secret Alias]

Apparently "there are a handful of occasions when Origen acknowledged the private reading of Scripture in his Caesarean congregation"4

4 For references to the private reading of Scripture in Origen's congregations, see, for instance, Hom Gen 2.5 and 12.5. For a more complete dossier of evidence, see A. Harnack, Bible Reading in the Early Church, transl. I. R. Wilkinson (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2005), 68-76. It is a distinct possibility that, when compared to other pre-Nicenes, Origen's relatively frequent references to the private reading of Scripture in his homilies and commentaries reflects the presence of his pupils in his audience https://books.google.com/books?id=vCHdB ... ce&f=false