Do You Want To Know A Secret? The Greek Case For Secret Mark.

[Secret Alias]

Smith is going full apologetic here trying to cherry-pick bits he thinks support his historical Jesus did teach secret mystical baptism based on GMark/Secret Mark/Clement

You've brought up an interesting point. Others have noted it. If it isn't a baptism what is it? If it isn't a baptism Smith didn't compose the text. A similar use of nakedness is found in Clement's treatment of the high priest from what I remember. Clement also learned from Philo that the high priest disrobes before entering the holy of holies. Smith is fixated on Jesus being a historical human being. As such the only reason he can see why the youth disrobes is to be baptized (or alternatively something homosexual). The other possibility is that the youth represents some sort of antecedent for a new priestly line which functions in a parallel manner to the high priest - i.e. the priest disrobes before entering the Holy of Holies because God is presumed to be within. Something in the mystical understanding of Philo assumes that the priest = the Logos. Perhaps this is established like Moses where Moses enters the cloud and becomes divine (shines etc). Smith brings concepts from modern Christianity because he isn't comfortable with thinking about Jesus as God/a god. The context which introduces the discussion of the passage assumes that it was used for the manufacture of priests (= the catechumen being initiated). It may even be possible that the catechumen were baptized by the youth wasn't. A similar sort of divide is described by Irenaeus in Book 1 with respect to 'redemption' (with a specific allusion to the known material in Mark 10. Some baptized, some didn't.

[schillingklaus]

Pope Gregory I (not to be confused with Gregory of Nyssa or with Gregory of Nazianz) reported or introduced a formula to be pronounced by each priest before donning his stola for the impending celebration of the holy mass. Something like: Oh Lord, render unto me the robe of immortality which I have lost by the way of the prevarication of the first father. (the original sin committed by Adam)

[Secret Alias]

Goes back to Jewish/Samaritan sources.

[JoeWallack]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqEPrPa07XU

JW:
Chapter 11 Jesus' Relation to the Kingdom

All Judea, Jerusalem, and Transjordan went out to him[JtB], in crowds.

Again, now that Smith has his conclusion that historical Jesus gave historical secret
teachings baptism, his previous Skepticism goes out the window and he simply accepts
as Gospel (so to speak) anything from the Gospel that he thinks supports him.

Besides all this, he[JtB] started Christianity-a detail that probably went almost unnoticed
in his lifetime.

"started", "probably", "almost unnoticed". Way more verbs, adjectives and adverbs than evidence.

The story would seem to have come ultimately from Jesus himself

Everyone agrees that we have nothing Jesus wrote and it's generally agreed that we have nothing
written by anyone who knew Jesus. Yet Smith somehow knows that partly thanks to Secret Mark
Jesus is the source for JtB and not verses vice. Maybe everyone has it backwards and what we
should be looking for is more of Secret Mark that Smith kept hidden.


Joseph

" Repent all ye who lead sinful and adulterous lives. For if ye do not your tongue shall stick
to the ruhrr, ruhrr, ruhrr op yeh mfphoof." John the Baptist

The New Porphyry

[davidlau17]

Smith not only swings and misses but strikes out here. What's secret in GMark is the Passion/Resurrection. "Mark" makes a stylish ironic contrast to this that the Teachings/Healings, you know, Jesus' supposed public ministry, were highly public. Jesus does tell the demons to shut up. Did Smith think that was historical. The supposed healings that have resurrection parallels also have Jesus telling the witnesses to dummy up. But we can be certain (no need to qualify with "almost") that they were not historical. An exponentially better explanation for the supposed Secrets of GMark is that they were not historical. So in addition to Smith being blissfully unaware of specific stylish literary techniques of GMark he likewise appears to be unaware of much broader structural narrative style of GMark.

I think limiting the secrets of GMark to the Passion/Resurrection (or to miracles that relate to resurrection) is a bit too narrow. William Wrede's pointing out of Jesus' "Messianic Secret" seems to have some legitimacy to it. Jesus performed miracles openly, but he warned his followers not to tell others "who he was" or what the implications of his miracles may have been.

Mark 8:29-30 He asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Messiah.” And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him.

Mark 16:20 Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

[JoeWallack]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXydX9p_ZxA

Excurses - The Goodrich Man

GMark	GMatthew	Style	Commentary
8 17 And as he was going forth into the way,	19 15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.	1. Clearly defined beginning of story connected to change in location. 2. Location of moving. 3. Use of theological word "the way". 4. Repetition of theological word.	1. GMatthew change in location is connected to end of previous story. 2. GMatthew unclear if action is connected to movement. 3. GMatthew has exorcised "the way".

JW:
Our comparison of the parallel story of The Goodrich Man here will demonstrate that GMark has a highly sophisticated and contrived literary style that has been reduced in the editing process with the reduction likely proportional to length of time between. GMatthew, as likely closest to
GMark will have retained the most of GMark's style. I've never seen anyone suggest this but I think level of retained style is one of the
best available measures of dating. As always, considering that while GMatthew had a completely different objective than GMark from a
witness standpoint, that GMatthew still used GMark as a base suggests that GMark was the original Gospel narrative.

As the above observation will relate to this thread, as Secret Mark lacks most of this sophisticated literary style, this suggests that not
only was Secret Mark not written by "Mark" but there is some age difference between the two. In an irony that I think "Mark" would really
appreciate, Smith, like Carlson after him, stopped looking for evidence against his theory after making his conclusion.


Joseph

GOOD, adj. Sensible, madam, to the worth of this present writer. Alive, sir, to the advantages of letting him alone.

Is Palestinian Terrorism Good For Israel?

[schillingklaus]

Already 2 Corinthians 5 talks of a new house with which the believer will be dressed when the temporary (earthly) tent is destroyed. The believer longs to be dressed with a new heavely dwelling in order to avoid being found naked.

[JoeWallack]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co_BhTxgWys

Excurses - The Goodrich Man

GMark	GMatthew	Style	Commentary
10 17 And as he was going forth into the way,	19 15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.	1. Clearly defined beginning of story connected to change in location. 2. Location of moving. 3. Use of theological word "the way". 4. Repetition of theological word.	1. GMatthew change in location is connected to end of previous story. 2. GMatthew unclear if action is connected to movement. 3. GMatthew has exorcised "the way".
there ran one to him, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?	16 And behold, one came to him and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?	1. The extreme movement of running. 2. Extreme body movement of kneeling and theological significance. 3. Didactic form (question/answer). 4. Use of word (inherit) that parallels "wealth" context. 5. Use of trivial comment to make theological point ("good" teacher).	1. Exorcism of "running". 2. Exorcism of kneeling. 3. Less didactic form (said instead of asked). 4. Edit of "inherit". 5. GMatthew moves the "good" comment from Jesus to the commandments thus avoiding discounting/negative towards Jesus. 6. GMatthew retains the "good" word (so to speak) which is now unnecessary/trivial to GMatthew's context. As usual, "good" evidence (especially when it is observed over and over) that GMark is the source. 7. Christian Bible scholarship has traditionally spun (apologized) that GMark is a simpler version. But as we see here generally GMark is more sophisticated and detailed.

JW:
Our comparison of the parallel story of The Goodrich Man here will demonstrate that GMark has a highly sophisticated and contrived literary style that has been reduced in the editing process with the reduction likely proportional to length of time between. GMatthew, as likely closest to
GMark will have retained the most of GMark's style. I've never seen anyone suggest this but I think level of retained style is one of the
best available measures of dating. As always, considering that while GMatthew had a completely different objective than GMark from a
witness standpoint, that GMatthew still used GMark as a base suggests that GMark was the original Gospel narrative.

As the above observation will relate to this thread, as Secret Mark lacks most of this sophisticated literary style, this suggests that not
only was Secret Mark not written by "Mark" but there is some age difference between the two. In an irony that I think "Mark" would really
appreciate, Smith, like Carlson after him, stopped looking for evidence against his theory after making his conclusion.


Joseph

GOOD, adj. Sensible, madam, to the worth of this present writer. Alive, sir, to the advantages of letting him alone.

Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem

[JoeWallack]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc6DxygK6Og

Excurses - The Goodrich Man

GMark	GMatthew	Style	Commentary
10 17 And as he was going forth into the way,	19 15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.	1. Clearly defined beginning of story connected to change in location. 2. Location of moving. 3. Use of theological word "the way". 4. Repetition of theological word.	1. GMatthew change in location is connected to end of previous story. 2. GMatthew unclear if action is connected to movement. 3. GMatthew has exorcised "the way".
there ran one to him, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?	16 And behold, one came to him and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?	1. The extreme movement of running. 2. Extreme body movement of kneeling and theological significance. 3. Didactic form (question/answer). 4. Use of word (inherit) that parallels "wealth" context. 5. Use of trivial comment to make theological point ("good" teacher).	1. Exorcism of "running". 2. Exorcism of kneeling. 3. Less didactic form (said instead of asked). 4. Edit of "inherit". 5. GMatthew moves the "good" comment from Jesus to the commandments thus avoiding discounting/negative towards Jesus. 6. GMatthew retains the "good" word (so to speak) which is now unnecessary/trivial to GMatthew's context. As usual, "good" evidence (especially when it is observed over and over) that GMark is the source. 7. Christian Bible scholarship has traditionally spun (apologized) that GMark is a simpler version. But as we see here generally GMark is more sophisticated and detailed.
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good save one, [even] God.	17 And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good:	1. Consistent style of answering a question with a question. 2. Typical Markan usage of the negative for description (none is good). 3. Typical Markan usage of double negative (none good, not except).	1. Change of description to positive. 2. Exorcism of double negative.

JW:
Our comparison of the parallel story of The Goodrich Man here will demonstrate that GMark has a highly sophisticated and contrived literary style that has been reduced in the editing process with the reduction likely proportional to length of time between. GMatthew, as likely closest to
GMark will have retained the most of GMark's style. I've never seen anyone suggest this but I think level of retained style is one of the
best available measures of dating. As always, considering that while GMatthew had a completely different objective than GMark from a
witness standpoint, that GMatthew still used GMark as a base suggests that GMark was the original Gospel narrative.

As the above observation will relate to this thread, as Secret Mark lacks most of this sophisticated literary style, this suggests that not
only was Secret Mark not written by "Mark" but there is some age difference between the two. In an irony that I think "Mark" would really
appreciate, Smith, like Carlson after him, stopped looking for evidence against his theory after making his conclusion.


Joseph

GRAMMAR, n. A system of pitfalls thoughtfully prepared for the feet for the self-made man, along the path by which he advances to distinction.

Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem