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

[JoeWallack]

JW:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAVU3LNzsrw

GMark

Secret Mark

10 13 And they were bringing unto him little children, that he should touch them: and the disciples rebuked them1). 14 But when Jesus saw it, he was moved with indignation2), and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me; forbid them not: for to such belongeth the kingdom of God. 15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein3). 16 And he took them in his arms, and blessed them, laying his hands upon them4). 17 And as he was going forth into the way, there ran one to him, and kneeled to him5), and asked him, Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good save one, [even] God. 19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor thy father and mother. 20 And he said unto him, Teacher, all these things have I observed from my youth6). 21 And Jesus looking upon him loved him7), and said unto him, One thing thou lackest8): go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 22 But his countenance fell at the saying, and he went away sorrowful: for he was one that had great possessions. 23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

Secret Mark And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus5) and says to him, "Son of David, have mercy on me." But the disciples rebuked her1). And Jesus, being angered2), 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 youth6) was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand4). But the youth, looking upon him, loved him7) 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 do8) 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 God3). And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.[19]

Parallels
1)

2) Showing Jesus as angry/indignant is pretty Markan. At this point the question can at least be asked, what is the evidence that Morton Smith's level of understanding of GMark's themes was as high as the upper echelons of scholarship here?

3) I think "little" refers to Paul (paulus). GMark is written as what supposedly happened. It is anachronistically presented as not supposed to be understood in its own time by the characters there (ironically, including Jesus). Subsequently you have to let Paul (and not let the Disciples of Paul's time prevent/rebuke you from coming to Paul) teach you the mystery of the Kingdom of God. What KK said. Galilee (teaching/healing) is supposedly the history but Judea/Jerusalem is The Way/Entry/Salvation/Baalgo!, belief in Jesus' supposed passion. "Mystery" is a dominant Pauline word and "teaching at night" is just code for sleep/dreams/visions/revelations.

4)

5)

6)So we have two youths. One never finds The Way while the other does. What is the difference? Could it be something Jesus said like maybe in the next verse? Stay tombed.

7) KK is on The Way but not there yet. The Markan contrast is what you love, but the specific contrast is loving the material verses loving the spiritual (in this Greek case, Jesus). Jesus loving you will get you Healed/Taught but you have to love Jesus to get into The Kingdom of god. Secret Mark is ironically making the Secret less secret. A few logical possibilities here:

• 1. Default is to accept The Letter. Secret Mark was subsequently written by "Mark" to reduce the secret. As noted P45 appears to have been about
  1 chapter longer for GMark than canonical GMark with a lacunae at Chapter 10 where Secret Mark fits very well. P45 may have been Secret Mark.
  
  2. Someone who understood GMark may have subsequently written Secret Mark to make it less Secret.
  
  3. Secret Mark was just influenced by subsequent Christianity (orthodox) which flipped supposed evidence from negative (what not to do)/revelation to positive/supposed historical witness/evidence.

8)


Joseph

REVELATION, n. A famous book in which St. John the Divine concealed all that he knew. The revealing is done by the commentators, who know nothing.

The New Porphyry

[Ken Olson]

Joe,

Up thread you included the Lazarus story from John 11 as a parallel to the Secret Mark:

viewtopic.php?p=103342#p103342

And in another thread you discussed the different words for anger in the Greek:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3240&hilit=Angry+Young+Man

I think that if you want to make a really good investigation of the evidence, you have to include those things (John 11 and the Greek texts) in your discussion, not just a comparison of Mark 10 and Secret Mark in English (the different words for anger and rebuke among the three texts are important). Prima Facie, Secret Mark would appear to be a pre-Johannine version of the Lazarus story from John 11, so that story ought to be part of your examination. It could be that John is dependent on a version of Mark that contained Secret Mark, or John and Secret Mark have a common source, or someone who knew Mark and John wrote a version of the Lazarus story to look earlier/Markan. There are probably other possibilities as well, but I think you need to address the issue of the relationships among the three (in the Greek, at least in places), to have a really good case.

Best,

Ken

[JoeWallack]

Joe,

Up thread you included the Lazarus story from John 11 as a parallel to the Secret Mark:

viewtopic.php?p=103342#p103342

And in another thread you discussed the different words for anger in the Greek:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3240&hilit=Angry+Young+Man

I think that if you want to make a really good investigation of the evidence, you have to include those things (John 11 and the Greek texts) in your discussion, not just a comparison of Mark 10 and Secret Mark in English (the different words for anger and rebuke among the three texts are important). Prima Facie, Secret Mark would appear to be a pre-Johannine version of the Lazarus story from John 11, so that story ought to be part of your examination. It could be that John is dependent on a version of Mark that contained Secret Mark, or John and Secret Mark have a common source, or someone who knew Mark and John wrote a version of the Lazarus story to look earlier/Markan. There are probably other possibilities as well, but I think you need to address the issue of the relationships among the three (in the Greek, at least in places), to have a really good case.

Best,

Ken

JW:
Hmmm, Ken, maybe you are right. Maybe, instead of always trying to be the Shekinah of Snark, I should instead devote my energies to the scientific method of inquiry instead of primarily trying to entertain (especially myself). I could share information and really listen to others in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect designed to achieve a better conclusion as a group than any individual could achieve. Emphasis would be on evidence rather than conclusions. Rules and guidelines could be established for the group and research in specific areas could be assigned to those already possessing some talent in that specific discipline. Think of the time and effort that could be saved by organizing positive contribution thus avoiding all the time we waste here disagreeing, criticizing, attacking, ignoring, complaining fake naming...Naaah.

Sounds like a lot of work Ken. The above is just my speculation (only literary criticism - not going to prove anything). When I finish with the parallels above I just have Faith that it will suggest that the author of Secret Mark had a higher level of understanding of GMark than the extant evidence indicates Morton Smith had. Smith's appreciation of GMark seemed to stop at its Gnostic content, short of the literary sophistication of GMark. I will prophesize that in the future someone (maybe you) will subconsciously use the above as contributing to their scholarly article on the subject and I am fine with that and If I'm correct it will give me one more true prophecy than John the Baptist had in his entire career who Jesus called the greatest prophet of all time.


Joseph

MAGIC, n. An art of converting superstition into coin. There are other arts serving the same high purpose, but the discreet lexicographer does not name them.

http://thenewporphyry.blogspot.com/2021 ... times.html

[Ken Olson]

Hmmm, Ken, maybe you are right. Maybe, instead of always trying to be the Shekinah of Snark, I should instead devote my energies to the scientific method of inquiry instead of primarily trying to entertain (especially myself). I could share information and really listen to others in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect designed to achieve a better conclusion as a group than any individual could achieve. Emphasis would be on evidence rather than conclusions. Rules and guidelines could be established for the group and research in specific areas could be assigned to those already possessing some talent in that specific discipline. Think of the time and effort that could be saved by organizing positive contribution thus avoiding all the time we waste here disagreeing, criticizing, attacking, ignoring, complaining fake naming...Naaah.

Joe,

Well, you are more self-aware than some on this forum.

Best,

Ken

[JoeWallack]

Hmmm, Ken, maybe you are right. Maybe, instead of always trying to be the Shekinah of Snark, I should instead devote my energies to the scientific method of inquiry instead of primarily trying to entertain (especially myself). I could share information and really listen to others in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect designed to achieve a better conclusion as a group than any individual could achieve. Emphasis would be on evidence rather than conclusions. Rules and guidelines could be established for the group and research in specific areas could be assigned to those already possessing some talent in that specific discipline. Think of the time and effort that could be saved by organizing positive contribution thus avoiding all the time we waste here disagreeing, criticizing, attacking, ignoring, complaining fake naming...Naaah.

Joe,

Well, you are more self-aware than some on this forum.

Best,

Ken

JW:
[serious]I should say I enjoy the serious scholarship you bring here.[/serious]


Joseph

[Ken Olson]

[serious]I should say I enjoy the serious scholarship you bring here.[/serious]
Joseph

Thanks. It's nice to be appreciated. Here's some more (well, it would have to be in Greek to be really serous):

John 11.1: Now a certain man was ill, Laz′arus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Laz′arus was ill. 3 So the sisters sent to him, saying, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.” 4 But when Jesus heard it he said, “This illness is not unto death; it is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it.”

5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Laz′arus. 6 So when he heard that he was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was. 7 Then after this he said to the disciples, “Let us go into Judea again.” 8 The disciples said to him, “Rabbi, the Jews were but now seeking to stone you, and are you going there again?” 9 Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any one walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. 10 But if any one walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him.” 11 Thus he spoke, and then he said to them, “Our friend Laz′arus has fallen asleep, but I go to awake him out of sleep.” 12 The disciples said to him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.” 13 Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep. 14 Then Jesus told them plainly, “Laz′arus is dead; 15 and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.” 16 Thomas, called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”

17 Now when Jesus came, he found that Laz′arus had already been in the tomb four days. 18 Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles off, 19 and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to console them concerning their brother. 20 When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, while Mary sat in the house. 21 Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 And even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you.” 23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 24 Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” 27 She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world.”

28 When she had said this, she went and called her sister Mary, saying quietly, “The Teacher is here and is calling for you.” 29 And when she heard it, she rose quickly and went to him. 30 Now Jesus had not yet come to the village, but was still in the place where Martha had met him. 31 When the Jews who were with her in the house, consoling her, saw Mary rise quickly and go out, they followed her, supposing that she was going to the tomb to weep there. 32 Then Mary, when she came where Jesus was and saw him, fell at his feet, saying to him, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” 33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled; 34 and he said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to him, “Lord, come and see.” 35 Jesus wept. 36 So the Jews said, “See how he loved him!” 37 But some of them said, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?”

38 Then Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb; it was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. 39 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days.” 40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God?” 41 So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, “Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. 42 I knew that thou hearest me always, but I have said this on account of the people standing by, that they may believe that thou didst send me.” 43 When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, “Laz′arus, come out.” 44 The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with bandages, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”

I put the initial identification of Mary as the one who anointed Jesus in bold because it interacts with other texts in interesting ways.

First, of course, is John 12:

John 12.1 Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Laz′arus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 There they made him a supper; Martha served, and Laz′arus was one of those at table with him. 3 Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment. 4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was to betray him), said, 5 “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it. 7 Jesus said, “Let her alone, let her keep it for the day of my burial. 8 The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.”

Mark's version of the anointing is a little different, because instead of Judas alone rebuking the woman who anoints Jesus (who is anonymous in this text), there were other who were indignant and reproach her:

Mark 14.3: And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head. 4 But there were some who said to themselves indignantly, “Why was the ointment thus wasted? 5 For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor.” And they reproached her. 6 But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7 For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you will, you can do good to them; but you will not always have me. 8 She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burying. 9 And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.”

What's particularly interesting about this text, besides 'they reproached her' ('they', presumably being the disciples and 'her', the woman anointing Jesus, who is identified as Mary, the sister of the man Jesus raises from the dead in John) is that Bagster's Literal English Translation renders this 'they were indignant with her' the pertinent word being embrimasthai which is the same word found in John 11.33, 38, where the NRSV renders it 'deeply moved'. In his Anchor Bible Commentary on John, Raymond Brown suggests that the word normally implies an articulate expression of anger or a display of indignation (v.1 p. 425).

The point of all this is that many of the features you identify as Markan in Secret Mark because they have parallels in Mark 10 also have parallels in John 11. To be sure, one could argue that John knew a version of Mark that had Secret Mark in it and that's why those features are in John. One could also argue that Secret Mark and John had a common source or that someone composed Secret Mark knowing both Mark and John (which already had an angry Jesus in it).

Best,

Ken

NB: Edited to reflect the translation used. Greek-English Interlinear of Mark 14.5 and John 11.33:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/14-5.htm
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/11-33.htm

[StephenGoranson]

I, also, appreciate your mention, JW, of “Snark” (“Shekinah,” nevermind). Occasionally the snark has been so extreme that I did not know what you meant.

(Aside on snark: The New Yale Book of Quotations [2021, a much-revised edition of the 2006 ed.] includes 144 quotes from Ambrose Bierce (1842 to circa 1914[?]), so the editor, Fred Shapiro, certainly thought Bierce to be eminently quotable. But. The book also includes the following from H. P. Lovecraft, an author I had heard of, but am not familiar with, in a letter of 1928: “[On Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary] That sort of thing wears thin—for when one’s cynicism becomes perfect and absolute, there is no longer anything amusing in the stupidity and hypocrisy of the herd. It is all to be expected—what else _could_ human nature produce?—so irony annuls itself by means of its own victories!”)

Back to the OP. I also appreciate those who allow various possibilities concerning “Secret Mark.” Not attempting to hound out anyone who thinks differently. (Again, I miss Ben Smith, though I don’t know from him his reason for giving up here.) If I may repeat, Geoffrey Smith (U. Texas, Austin) persuaded me that “Secret Mark” was not written by Clement of Alexandria, but at a later time, sometime after Eusebius, despite Morton Smith’s lengthy and learned efforts to attribute it to Clement. Perhaps future research will determine more. For example, will the previously-mentioned book by G. Smith and B. Landau present, for its composition, a plausible post-Eusebius time but pre-M. Smith time? I hope to read their (delayed) book.

[Secret Alias]

Joe

Is it possible that instead of defending the authenticity of the document we could have a discussion about the existing canon? This is part of my aggravation. Let's be real for a moment. We have 3 'synoptic' documents (synoptic being a fancy way of saying that at least 2 of them are forgeries). Is that too snarky? So either Mark > Matthew > Luke or something like that. Then we have John - the mysterious figure of John - having access to Mark or some other source for the other forgeries structuring a narrative which happens to support Irenaeus's contention in Book 2 Against Heresies that Jesus was active doing whatever he was doing for more than one year (by the multiple mentions of Passovers).

If I was forced to veer off into the what did Morton Smith know and how did he know it I'd be talking about (a) Smith knowing that John used a synoptic text (pretty advanced for the 1950s) and (b) Markan scribal patterns (the anger of Jesus which seems to be reflected in Celsus). But I don't find going down these rabbit holes at all rewarding. One side says that anything is possible so the other says no it is limited to just this and so on.

Let's just stick to the figure of John and the relationship to Irenaeus's interest in making Jesus 49 on the Cross. The gospel of John doesn't support a specific age for Jesus. It just opens the door to 'many Passovers' + the closing words that "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." That at least opens the door for Irenaeus's Jesus crucified under Claudius. (Defense of the Apostolic Preaching).

I see John as the alleged 'canonizer' of the gospels, the one to whom knowledge of the innate correctness of the fourfold shape was given. If you'd like to discuss it, I can. But I don't think it is necessary. The chapter headings in John measure the three other forgeries, they make what 'appear' to be a ministry that fit within in a single year (and was held by prominent Christians to be a one year ministry e.g. Clement, Origen etc) and 'explain' how it was a many year ministry.

I think this explains John's role. Papias opened the door to a Mark gospel being first and 'corrected' by Matthew in some way. Mark's chronology was 'wrong' which in turn allows for multiple corrections. Luke of course and then John. So John represents the latest of a series of attempts to correct 'Mark' (whatever that gospel was). If there was a Secret Mark then we can presume that a 'Matthew' existed to correct it and then possibly (as I would have it) there was a 'false' Mark and 'false' Matthew developed alongside Luke in our canon to show John 'further correcting' the original errors of Mark which are no longer on display.

What do I mean by no longer on display? If there was a Secret Mark then Lazarus is a correction of that resurrection story both in terms of content and chronology. And then there is the second 'sort of gay' story that John corrects - the Centurion's slave. There's no doubt that the gay interpretation here too only exists in the pre-Johannine material. "This description [ἔντιμος] could express the usefulness of the slave to his master, but may also imply an emotional bond. Finally, sex between men and slaves is well known in the Roman military."

Smith doesn't mention this (as the gay theory wasn't really his central focus). I am not directing these comments at anyone other than Joe as the subject for another post.

[davidmartin]

Ken so are you saying that there is in John meanings that depend upon certain additional references that are lost to us to explain the text?
if that were the case then one can posit the existence of a primary exegesis to go along with John that ultimately leads one to a fresh and new interpretation but are we not in the realm of alternative understandings of ancient Christianity being a real historical phenomenon
and not just a modern day speculation? Is there anything new under the sun?

[StephenGoranson]

BTW, the great Oxford English Dictionary (online) has "snark, n." based on "Hunting of the Snark," a classic of cryptozoology (if ever there was one), but not yet the more recent sense.
(Such rules: I am directing this comment to anyone other than....?)