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.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10742
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » 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:
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."
The mix of Psalm 22 and 24 is interesting. Heine's summary of Origen's use of the material:
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
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.'

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.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 10742
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:13 pm

So let's look at the evidence again. In our standard texts of Mark we have the following narrative preserved:
32 They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. 33 “We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34 who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.”

35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.” 36 “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked. 37 They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.” 38 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” 39 “We can,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”
As we all know 'Secret Mark' places a hitherto unknown ritual - widely acknowledged to be a baptism rite - between the two paragraphs. Clearly if that rite was once there, it explains why the 'baptism' discussion that follows is raised. As it stands, one can just as well connect martyrdom with 'baptism' (as Origen says was common in his day) based on the structure of canonical Mark.

What is odd however - as Abbott notes - is that Matthew takes Mark's story and removes the baptism reference from it:
Now Jesus was going up to Jerusalem. On the way, he took the Twelve aside and said to them, 18 “We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death 19 and will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!”

20 Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him. 21 “What is it you want?” he asked. She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.” 22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?” “We can,” they answered. 23 Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”
In my mind the removal of the baptism reference and the emphasis on martyrdom derives from Matthew's reconstruction. We can see this a generation earlier where Irenaeus uses Matthew to help promote the idea that this story is about Jesus encouraging martyrdom:
"Then [4914] drew near unto Him the mother of Zebedee's children, with her sons, worshipping, and seeking a certain thing from Him." [4915] These people are certainly not void of understanding, nor are the words set forth in that passage of no signification: being stated beforehand like a preface, they have some agreement with those points formerly expounded.

"Then drew near." Sometimes virtue excites our admiration, not merely on account of the display which is given of it, but also of the occasion when it was manifested. I may refer, for example, to the premature fruit of the grape, or of the fig, or to any fruit whatsoever, from which, during its process [of growth], no man expects maturity or full development; yet, although any one may perceive that it is still somewhat imperfect, he does not for that reason despise as useless the immature grape when plucked, but he gathers it with pleasure as appearing early in the season; nor does he consider whether the grape is possessed of perfect sweetness; nay, he at once experiences satisfaction from the thought that this one has appeared before the rest. Just in the same way does God also, when He perceives the faithful possessing wisdom though still imperfect, and but a small degree of faith, overlook their defect in this respect, and therefore does not reject them; nay, but on the contrary, He kindly welcomes and accepts them as premature fruits, and honours the mind, whatsoever it may be, which is stamped with virtue, although not yet perfect. He makes allowance for it, as being among the harbingers of the vintage, [4916] and esteems it highly, inasmuch as, being of a readier disposition than the rest, it has forestalled, as it were, the blessing to itself.

Abraham therefore, Isaac, and Jacob, our fathers, are to be esteemed before all, since they did indeed afford us such early examples of virtue. How many martyrs can be compared to Daniel? How many martyrs, I ask, can rival the three youths in Babylon, although the memory of the former has not been brought before us so conspicuously as that of the latter? These were truly first-fruits, and indications of the [succeeding] fructification. Hence God has directed their life to be recorded, as a model for those who should come after.

And that their virtue was thus accepted by God, as the first-fruits of the produce, hear what He has Himself declared: "As a grape," He says, "I have found Israel in the wilderness, and as first-ripe figs your fathers." [4917] Call not therefore the faith of Abraham merely blessed because he believed. Do you wish to look upon Abraham with admiration? Then behold how that one man alone professed piety when in the world six hundred had been contaminated with error. Dost thou wish Daniel to carry thee away to amazement? Behold that [city] Babylon, haughty in the flower and pride of impiousness, and its inhabitants completely given over to sin of every description. But he, emerging from the depth, spat out the brine of sins, and rejoiced to plunge into the sweet waters of piety. And now, in like manner, with regard to that mother of Zebedee's children, do not admire merely what she said, but also the time at which she uttered these words. For when was it that she drew near to the Redeemer? Not after the resurrection, nor after the preaching of His name, nor after the establishment of His kingdom; but it was when the Lord said, "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they shall kill Him, and on the third day He shall rise again." [4918]

These things the Saviour told in reference to His sufferings and cross; to these persons He predicted His passion. Nor did He conceal the fact that it should be of a most ignominious kind, at the hands of the chief priests. This woman, however, had attached another meaning to the dispensation of His sufferings. The Saviour was foretelling death; and she asked for the glory of immortality. The Lord was asserting that He must stand arraigned before impious judges; but she, taking no note of that judgment, requested as of the judge: "Grant," she said, "that these my two sons may sit, one on the right hand, and the other on the left, in Thy glory." In the one case the passion is referred to, in the other the kingdom is understood. The Saviour was speaking of the cross, while she had in view the glory which admits no suffering. This woman, therefore, as I have already said, is worthy of our admiration, not merely for what she sought, but also for the occasion of her making the request.

She did indeed suffer, not merely as a pious person, but also as a woman. For, having been instructed by His words, she considered and believed that it would come to pass, that the kingdom of Christ should flourish in glory, and walk in its vastness throughout the world, and be increased by the preaching of piety. She understood, as was [in fact] the case, that He who appeared in a lowly guise had delivered and received every promise. I will inquire upon another occasion, when I come to treat upon this humility, whether the Lord rejected her petition concerning His kingdom. But she thought that the same confidence would not be possessed by her, when, at the appearance of the angels, He should be ministered to by the angels, and receive service from the entire heavenly host. Taking the Saviour, therefore, apart in a retired place, she earnestly desired of Him those things which transcend every human nature.
Clearly then Matthew leads one to understand martyrdom to be the 'baptism' referenced in Mark and it accomplishes this by negating the reference to 'baptism' altogether. How convenient! But we should never lose sight of the fact that 'baptism' was originally referenced in this narrative. What Matthew does is prevents us from seeing it wholesale.

Moreover Mark as it now stands in our canon makes explicit reference to baptism only in Mark 10:35. Only Secret Mark has the actual baptism (or at least hints at its existence). Those however who understand this section to be about a 'secret baptism' - even a heavenly ascent are heretics, heretics whom Irenaeus identifies as 'those of Mark':
It happens that their tradition respecting redemption(10) is invisible and incomprehensible, as being the mother of things which are incomprehensible and invisible; and on this account, since it is fluctuating, it is impossible simply and all at once to make known its nature, for every one of them hands it down just as his own inclination prompts. Thus there are as many schemes of "redemption" as there are teachers of these mystical opinions. And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith.

2. They maintain that those who have attained to perfect knowledge must of necessity be regenerated into that power which is above all. For it is otherwise impossible to find admittance within the Pleroma, since this [regeneration] it is which leads them down into the depths of Bythus. For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins, but the redemption brought in by that Christ who descended upon Him, was for perfection; and they allege that the former is animal, but the latter spiritual. And the baptism of John was proclaimed with a view to repentance, but the redemption by Jesus(11) was brought in for the sake of perfection. And to this He refers when He says, "And I have another baptism to be baptized with, and I hasten eagerly towards it."(12) Moreover, they affirm that the Lord added this redemption to the sons of Zebedee, when their mother asked that they might sit, the one on His right hand, and the other on His left, in His kingdom, saying, "Can ye be baptized with the baptism which I shall be baptized with?"(13) Paul, too, they declare, has often set forth, in express terms, the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; and this was the same which is handed down by them in so varied and discordant forms.

3. For some of them prepare a nuptial couch, and perform a sort of mystic rite (pronouncing certain expressions) with those who are being initiated, and affirm that it is a spiritual marriage which is celebrated by them, after the likeness of the conjunctions above. Others, again, lead them to a place where water is, and baptize them, with the utterance of these words, "Into the name of the unknown Father of the universe--into truth, the mother of all things--into Him who descended on Jesus--into union, and redemption, and communion with the powers." Others still repeat certain Hebrew words, in order the more thoroughly to bewilder those who are being initiated, as follows: "Basema, Chamosse, Baoenaora, Mistadia, Ruada, Kousta, Babaphor, Kalachthei."(1) The interpretation of these terms runs thus: "I invoke that which is above every power of the Father, which is called light, and good Spirit, and life, because Thou hast reigned in the body." Others, again, set forth the redemption thus: The name which is hidden from every deity, and dominion, and truth which Jesus of Nazareth was clothed with in the lives(2) of the light of Christ--of Christ, who lives by the Holy Ghost, for the angelic redemption. The name of restitution stands thus: Messia, Uphareg, Namempsoeman, Chaldoeaur, Mosomedoea, Acphranoe, Psaua, Jesus Nazaria.(3) The interpretation of these words is as follows: "I do not divide the Spirit of Christ, neither the heart nor the supercelestial power which is merciful; may I enjoy Thy name, O Saviour of truth!" Such are words of the initiators; but he who is initiated, replies, "I am established, and I am redeemed; I redeem my soul from this age (world), and from all things connected with it in the name of Iao, who redeemed his own soul into redemption in Christ who liveth." Then the bystanders add these words, "Peace be to all on whom this name rests." After this they anoint the initiated person with balsam; for they assert that this unguent is a type of that sweet odour which is above all things.

4. But there are some of them who assert that it is superfluous to bring persons to the water, but mixing oil and water together, they place this mixture on the heads of those who are to be initiated, with the use of some such expressions as we have already mentioned. And this they maintain to be the redemption. They, too, are accustomed to anoint with balsam. Others, however, reject all these practices, and maintain that the mystery of the unspeakable and invisible power ought not to be performed by visible and corruptible creatures, nor should that of those [beings] who are inconceivable, and incorporeal, and beyond the reach of sense, [be performed] by such as are the objects of sense, and possessed of a body. These hold that the knowledge of the unspeakable Greatness is itself perfect redemption. For since both defect and passion flowed from ignorance, the whole substance of what was thus formed is destroyed by knowledge; and therefore knowledge is the redemption of the inner man. This, however, is not of a corporeal nature, for the body is corruptible; nor is it animal, since the animal soul is the fruit of a defect, and is, as it were, the abode of the spirit. The redemption must therefore be of a spiritual nature; for they affirm that the inner and spiritual man is redeemed by means of knowledge, and that they, having acquired the knowledge of all things, stand thenceforth in need of nothing else. This, then, is the true redemption.

5. Others still there are who continue to redeem persons even up to the moment of death, by placing on their heads oil and water, or the pre-mentioned ointment with water, using at the same time the above-named invocations, that the persons referred to may become incapable of being seized or seen by the principalities and powers, and that their inner man may ascend on high in an invisible manner, as if their body were left among created things in this world, while their soul is sent forward to the Demiurge. And they instruct them, on their reaching the principalities and powers, to make use of these words: "I am a son from the Father--the Father who had a pre-existence, and a son in Him who is pre-existent. I have come to behold all things, both those which belong to myself and others, although, strictly speaking, they do not belong to others, but to Achamoth, who is female in nature, and made these things for herself. For I derive being from Him who is pre-existent, and I come again to my own place whence I went forth." And they affirm that, by saying these things, he escapes from the powers. He then advances to the companions of the Demiurge, and thus addresses them:--"I am a vessel more precious than the female who formed you. If your mother is ignorant of her own descent, I know myself, and am aware whence I am, and I call upon the incorruptible Sophia, who is in the Father, and is the mother of your mother, who has no father, nor any male consort; but a female springing from a female formed you, while ignorant of her own mother, and imagining that she alone existed; but I call upon her mother." And they declare, that when the companions of the Demiurge hear these words, they are greatly agitated, and upbraid their origin and the race of their mother. But he goes into his own place, having thrown [off] his chain, that is, his animal nature. These, then, are the particulars which have reached us respecting "redemption."(1) But since they differ so widely among themselves both as respects doctrine and tradition, and since those of them who are recognised as being most modern make it their effort daily to invent some new opinion, and to bring out what no one ever before thought of, it is a difficult matter to describe all their opinions.
Pretty convincing evidence IMHO that from ''Secret Mark' to canonical Mark to Matthew there is a systematic 'reworking' of the original meaning of the section - i.e. what it is all about.
“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

lsayre
Posts: 278
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

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

Post by lsayre » Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:57 pm

Did Irenaeus gain his knowledge of Gnostic rituals and practice through torturing them into confessions of their sworn secrets?

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10742
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Wed Mar 22, 2017 6:15 pm

Good question. There are definite signs of Irenaeus appealing to Valentinian or Marcosian sensibilities in his argumentation for (a) the canon being fourfold and (b) the "projection" of the Word from the Father. Hard to say.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 10742
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Wed Mar 22, 2017 6:24 pm

And the idea of an edited Markan text is demonstrated by Matthew. Matthew is "altered Mark" no less than Luke.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 10742
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:09 am

Another overlooked fact is that In Mark the tenses of the significant verbs are probably sufficient alone to indicate that Mark did not understand Jesus' language to refer to martyrdom, for Jesus is made to speak of the cup which "I am drinking" and the baptism with which "I am being baptized," both verbs being presents and probably progressive presents. Accordingly, the cup of which Jesus was thinking for himself, and the one which he predicted for James and John, was one which was to be drunk by living rather than by dying; if its outcome should prove to be death, that was merely incidental. The emphatic element in the language of Mark is that James and John must be prepared to do in the future what Jesus was doing at the time he was speaking; they must be prepared to live as he was living, whatever might be the result. https://books.google.com/books?id=93wRA ... 22&f=false It is interesting that Matthew changes the verb tense to allow for a change of meaning toward martyrdom. But originally Jesus is speaking in the present tense - suggesting clearly that Jesus has just done something in the present which James and John are reacting to, clearly the initiation obliquely referenced in Secret Mark. Matthew on the other hand has changed the verb so that - strangely - Mark 10:39 can fit with the prediction of Jesus death in Mark 10:32 - 34. Remember also that Matthew is said to be the first gospel by Irenaeus so that one might have argued from this assumption that Mark changed Matthew toward the mystery religion hypothesis and added the baptism reference ... but of course this is a false assumption and a false claim undoubtedly developed by Irenaeus. But doesn't this suggest the authenticity of Secret Mark? How else can all of this be explained?
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 10742
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Mar 23, 2017 8:31 am

The clearest proof that something was cut out of Mark:
32 They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. 33 “We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered (παραδοθήσεται = corresponding to the Hitpe'el ןובהיתי. The final clause of Daniel 7:25 reads: הדיב ןובהיתיו ןדע גלפו ןינדעו ןדע־דע - “And they shall be given into his hands for a time, times, and half a time" - rendered essentially verbatim in the LXX as παραδοθήσεται πάντα εἰς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ ἕως καιροῦ καὶ καιρῶν καὶ ἕως ἡμίσους καιροῦ. The notion of deliverance after the third day — as the Danielic prophecy indicates three and a half days, so too Mark's Jesus consistently prophesies resurrection after three days (μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας, 8:31; 9:31; 10:34) not on the third day, as we find in Matthew's revision) over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34 who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. After three days he will rise.”

35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.” 36 “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked. 37 They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.” 38 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “You have the power (δύνασθε) drink the cup I drink (πίνω) and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized (βαπτίζομαι)” 39 “We have the power (Δυνάμεθα)!” they answered. Jesus said to them, “The cup I drink (πίνω) you will drink (πίεσθε) and the baptism I am baptized (βαπτίζομαι) you will be baptized (βαπτισθήσεσθε), 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”
The two acts that are in the future are (a) Jesus's handing over and (b) James and John's drinking and baptism. Jesus drinks and is immersed in the present.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 10742
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:38 am

Another interesting observation:
And come up to him (αὐτῷ) James and John, the two sons of Zebedee. “Teacher,” they said to him (αὐτῷ), “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.” 36 And moreover he said to them (εἶπεν αὐτοῖς) “What do you want me to do for you?" 37 And they said to him (εἶπαν αὐτῷ), “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.” 38 And Jesus said to them (Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς) “You don’t know what you are asking." “You have the power drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized ” 39 And they said to him (εἶπεν αὐτοῖς) “We have the power!" Jesus said to them (Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς), “The cup I drink you will drink and the baptism I am baptized you will be baptized, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”
If you reconnect the 'missing piece' from the Secret Mark narrative you find something surprising:
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 straightway, 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.

And come up to him (αὐτῷ) James and John, the two sons of Zebedee. “Teacher,” they said to him (αὐτῷ), “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.” 36 And moreover he said to them (εἶπεν αὐτοῖς) “What do you want me to do for you?" 37 And they said to him (οἱ δὲ εἶπαν αὐτῷ), “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.” 38 And Jesus said to them (Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς) “You don’t know what you are asking." “You have the power to drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized ” 39 And they said to him (εἶπεν αὐτοῖς) “We have the power!" Jesus said to them (Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς), “The cup I drink you will drink and the baptism I am baptized you will be baptized, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”
The point here is that canonical Mark picks up with James and John coming up to 'him' (αὐτῷ) not 'Jesus.' Of course the name Jesus appears later. But the sudden demand for the 'teacher' to basically do whatever the subsequently ask from him. He (the anonymous teacher) responds "What do you want me to do for you." The fact that 'Jesus' appears in the next line is of course significant. And there are no known variants which maintain the anonymous αὐτῷ. But could these variants have existed at one time?

Indeed there are good reasons to read this conversation as occurring with someone other than Jesus. For instance:

1. the sudden emboldening of James and John. Up until now Jesus is recognized as an authority figure and no demands have been made by his underlings. Suddenly James and John (reacting to something apparently that has just transpired) hope to trap the 'him' (αὐτῷ) of the narrative to doing whatever the want. They ask to sit beside him on the throne(s). But notice he has already said he will grant them whatever they ask.
2. his further response "the baptism I am baptized ..." (and the cup I drink) is in the present tense. There is no depiction of Jesus being baptized in Mark at this point in the narrative not even in Secret Mark. The anonymous youth undergoes some sort of initiation which is presumed (probably correctly) to be another baptism. But otherwise the narrative is senseless as it stands now. The reference to 'I am baptized' and 'I drink' has no context in the existing narrative.
3. the context of being enthroned has to be related to the teaching of the mystery of the kingdom of God immediately present in the Secret Gospel. In canonical Mark there is of course the allusion to the kingdom of God earlier in the chapter (Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is[e] to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”) But this can't have carried over to the events of Mark 10:35 - 40. The most sensible explanation is that James and John are obliquely referencing to what has just transpired with regards to Jesus and the youth as part of the mystery of the kingdom of God. In other words, Mark doesn't actually reveal the sacred content of the mystery rite(s) but rather cleverly has James and John make reference to (1) that it is an enthronement ritual (2) that it involves drinking a cup and (3) that it involves baptism.
“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

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

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

Post by andrewcriddle » Sat Mar 25, 2017 7:17 am

Morton Smith in Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark discusses (pps 188-189) previous scholarship on abbreviation in Mark and mentions Hilgenfeld Das Markus-Evangelium 1850 Parker The Gospel before Mark 1953 and Vaganay Le Problème Synoptique 1954.

I've been looking at them: Vaganay does not seem relevant (although my academic French is only moderate).

Parker claims that there was a document K (a sort of proto-Matthew) used as a source together with Q by canonical Matthew and abridged and slightly revised to form canonical Mark (Luke used Mark and Q). K (as reconstructed by Parker) and Mark are basically the same in Mark 10:32 to the end of the chapter.
However Parker (pps 56-59) claims that ἤρξατο he began in Mark but not in the parallel in Matthew usually but not always represents an abridgment by Mark of K as shown by the Matthean parallel. Parker speculates that in Mark 6:34 And he began to teach them many things possibly both Mark and Matthew have omitted a passage from the source.
Now Mark 10:32 has And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him ἤρξατο he began is not in Matthew (or Luke) here. Although Parker does not draw this conclusion it would be plausible to argue from his principles that both Mark and Matthew are abbreviating their common source here.

Hilgenfeld Markus is online. Hilgenfeld claimed that canonical Mark is an abridgment of the Gospel of Peter. There doesn't seem anything in Hilgenfeld relevant to material omitted after Mark 10:34 (although my ability to read black-letter German is poor). However FWIW page 69 does have a discussion of the odd phrases in Mark 10:46 And they came to Jericho. And as he was leaving Jericho ... (which does prima facie read as if something has dropped out and Secret Mark inserts And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there and Jesus did not receive them), suggesting that Mark is combining material found in the parallels in Luke As he drew near to Jericho and Matthew As they were leaving Jericho.

I don't think the above is particularly impressive but it may possibly be of interest.

Andrew Criddle

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Sat Mar 25, 2017 10:45 am

.
It may be worth considering whether "Bethany" in Secret Mark could be one of the elephants in the room. In GMark Jesus is coming from Galilee (Mark 9:30), in chapter 10 in "the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan" and on the way to Jericho.

Post Reply