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

[Ken Olson]

The legendary Vorkosigan has an even better chiasm of the offending excerpt from GMark than I do:

Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark Chapter 10

While I have great respect for Michael Turton as a person, I've never quite grasped the chiasms he perceives to be in Mark. (Stephen Carlson, interestingly enough, has said that he thinks that Turton has seen something in Mark).

I see also that Yuri Kuchinsky of all people anticipated my point about the Rich Man not being young in Mark and Luke.

And who is offended by that excerpt?

Ken, the also legendary Ben Smith was equally skeptical about chiasms.
I think they are one of the best criteria of Internal evidence because they have scope.

What is scope? Explanatory power?

I believe there are chiasms that are intentionally used by authors of ancient texts. I might be able to come up with some examples if I tried. It's just that the bar for claiming to have found a chiasm in an ancient author's work is often set much too low.

Best,

Ken

[neilgodfrey]

It's just that the bar for claiming to have found a chiasm in an ancient author's work is often set much too low.

Indeed. Often one can find discrete words to link up in chiastic structures but such a pattern seems rather meaningless, clever or lucky perhaps but no meaning is advanced. When Michael finds such patterns all through the received text of Mark I feel he has undermined the case for such intentional and complex chiasms.

Some chiams could be quite extended -- I posted on one from Suetonius at https://vridar.org/2018/08/24/that-curi ... -writings/ -- but notice there that the bracketed words and phrases have meaningful relationships with each other. They are more than discrete words that have a common dictionary meaning but lack any point.

E.g.

a meaningless chiasm -- a chance arrangement:

....18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good save one, [even] God.

paired with

....27 Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for all
things are possible with God.

a meaningful chiasm -- a thematic point is being made (from Suetonius) to demonstrate commonalities between two emperors:

G. Use of power (6)
...H. canescere (8)
......I. Cruelty as administrator (9)
.........J. Ascent to power (10-11)
......I. saevitia, avaritia as emperor (12)
...H. Canus(12.3)
G. Abuse of power (14-15)

Too many of the chiasms Michael identifies are of the former type, in my opinion.

[schillingklaus]

Many "chiasms" are just cheap interpolations, often wirth repetition. This kind of interpolations is more evident in Acts, such as the passage where Paul serves the angry Jews as a wardrobe while they stone Saint Steve; so Loisy remarked that poor Steve was stoned twice, once before and once upon the appearance of Paul on the scene.

Some chiasms are characterized by reversed references to the Septuagint or Paul.

[Ken Olson]

JW:
Looks like a typical (so to speak) Markan chiasm here:

Verse	Summary
10 17 And as he was going forth into the way,	Beginning
there ran one to him, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?	Eternal life
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good save one, [even] God.	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 youth. 21 And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.	Following? The Law.
22 But his countenance fell at the saying, and he went away sorrowful: for he was one that had great possessions.	Rich
23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 24 And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through a needle`s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 26 And they were astonished exceedingly, saying unto him, Then who can be saved?	Rich
27 Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for all things are possible with God.	God
28 Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. 29 Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or lands, for my sake, and for the gospel`s sake,	Following? Jesus
30 but he shall receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life. 31 But many [that are] first shall be last; and the last first.	Eternal life
32 And they were on the way	Ending

Joe,

I've been looking at the chiastic arrangement you have schematized here and I have a few thoughts..

(1) I think the Kingdom of God should be at the center of the chiasm. Chiasm, or ring composition, is usually understood to have the central idea in, well, the center. And the threefold mention of the Kingdom of God is at the center rather than at the beginning or end of the pericope.

(2) I do not think Riches can be at the center, as that's not the central theme of the pericope or of Mark's gospel (as the Kingdom of God arguably is). I think Riches before the center might be juxtaposed to leaving all that and receiving a hundredfold after the the center (what you can do on your own vs. what God can do for you).

(3) I like where you have positioned the two mentions of God (not counting where the word occurs in the term Kingdom of God). Any thoughts on whether 'With men it is impossible, but not with God: for all things are possible with God,' sheds any light on the vexed question of why Jesus asks 'Why do you call me good?"

Best,

Ken

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

And Joseph asked a second time, "What evidence is there that Morton Smith had this level of understanding of GMark's literary style?"

I agree it’s a good argument in favor of authenticity. Therefore I said that it is a good fake.

I was once a bit impressed that Secret Mark used the word "ὀργισθεὶς" (angry) concerning Jesus, known only from the version of Mark 1:41 in Codex Bezae, and I found it interesting that the Mar Saba letter has a further western reading („And after the words, ‚And he comes [ἔρχεται] into Jericho‘, the secret Gospel adds only ...“). The preferred variant in Mark 10:46 is „they come (ἔρχονται)“. Things get particularly interesting when one knows that the GMark text used by Clement is close to Western text type.

How could a forger know that? But I found out – just for example – that Morton Smith knew a lot about that kind of stuff.

[Secret Alias]

Smith when transcribing the text said that the nomen sacrum ku was used in the text when it is plainly kou. Surely a first year university student could do a better job determining what was written let alone the man that supposedly forged the document. The argument for Morton Smith's forging the document is over. Even Tommy Wasserman acknowledged that after reading my paper. Complete nonsense. All it shows is that most of religious scholarship is motivated by very subjective arguments. So now we're on to this Eusebian forgery business. On and on it goes ...

[Secret Alias]

Scholars are naturally cautious. People waving their arms claiming there's a fire will always be believed by scholars. The other side keeps screaming "fire" when there isn't even any smoke. All to slow down acceptance. Same with this "Eusebian hypothesis." No scholar was ever the first guy to get lucky at a night club. Caution. Caution. Caution.

[JoeWallack]

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

Imho, his biggest flaw is the Johannine way of using Bethany. In GMark, Bethany only plays a role after the entry to Jerusalem, in GJohn only before the entry. In GJohn it is characterized as a rather friendly place where Lazarus, Martha and Mary reside, who are Jesus' best friends. In GMark, Bethany is characterized more as a miserable and desolate village with a leper and many poor, where Jesus gets hungry and faces internal opposition. The author of SM has taken the Johannine side here. He also gets into a real flow of narration in this episode, rather than confining himself to Mark's extremely concise and sketchy narrative style with narrow twists.

JW:
You may be right again:

11

1 And when they draw nigh unto Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he sendeth two of his disciples,
2 and saith unto them, Go your way into the village that is over against you: and straightway as ye enter into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon no man ever yet sat; loose him, and bring him.
3 And if any one say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye, The Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him back hither.
4 And they went away, and found a colt tied at the door without in the open street; and they loose him.
5 And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt?
6 And they said unto them even as Jesus had said: and they let them go.
7 And they bring the colt unto Jesus, and cast on him their garments; and he sat upon him.
8 And many spread their garments upon the way; and others branches, which they had cut from the fields.
9 And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, Hosanna; Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord:
10 Blessed [is] the kingdom that cometh, [the kingdom] of our father David: Hosanna in the highest.
11 And he entered into Jerusalem, into the temple; and when he had looked round about upon all things, it being now eventide, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.
12 And on the morrow, when they were come out from Bethany, he hungered.
13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find anything thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for it was not the season of figs.

"Bethany" sure sounds like transliteration for the Hebrew "house of figs" (spin!). So it sounds (so to speak) like it was placed (so to speak) here for literary style. Presumably Jews/Greeks/Christians pointed out that there was no Bethany near Jerusalem. Josephus makes no mention of Bethany. In typical fashion subsequent Christianity moved it away from where it wasn't supposed to be:

And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan

(and GJohn).


Joseph

Story
n. A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://thenewporphyry.blogspot.com/

[andrewcriddle]

Smith when transcribing the text said that the nomen sacrum ku was used in the text when it is plainly kou. Surely a first year university student could do a better job determining what was written let alone the man that supposedly forged the document. The argument for Morton Smith's forging the document is over. Even Tommy Wasserman acknowledged that after reading my paper. Complete nonsense. All it shows is that most of religious scholarship is motivated by very subjective arguments. So now we're on to this Eusebian forgery business. On and on it goes ...

I gave a speculative explanation of the use of ku and kou in the text at viewtopic.php?p=116572#p116572 If this weird possible reason for why there are three uses of kou and one of ku is correct then Morton Smith would not have chosen to emphasise it.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

I love you Andrew. But really? So we're assuming that there is a numerological motivation for Smith's deliberate misreporting in an academic monograph? Are there any attested examples of Smith behaving like this? Come on. Admit checkmate when it comes. I get this is a game. But the 'Morton Smith is the forger because Morton Smith is the forger' reasoning has its credible limits doesn't it? It wasn't just Smith. It was everyone up until I actually put the nomina sacra under a microscope (or a computer expansion of the digital images). Everyone went along with ku. Not just Smith. Your friend Carlson. All the detractors, all the apologists for Smith. Why? Because scholars are basically sloppy, lazy people who focus on what they want to focus on and ignore whatever stands in the way of that. Smith was interested in Jesus the Magician. No one went through the nomina sacra and checked Smith's assumptions - apparently not even Smith himself. If Smith forged the letter he'd have known it was kou rather than ku. End of story.