A 'Practical' Jesus Mythicism - 'Be a Mensch!'

[Secret Alias]

And really we have to wonder whether the original Hebrew in Genesis 32 really = 'wrestling' when it is found nowhere else in the Pentateuch or the Hebrew writings. Maybe it always meant seduce ...

[Secret Alias]

On the use of the terminology in place of 'cleaving' or desiring for union:

The Polish Hasidut of the Rebbe of Kotzk, R. Menahem Mendel Morgenstern (1787-1859), created something new: intellectual Torah study as a form of piety, in which the study itself purifies the soul, transforms the emotions, and leads to devekut and religious experience. Here the very act of studying the Talmud in all its technical legal aspects is an act of cleaving to God, with a concomitant emotional content. The Zohar's directive to "busy oneself with the Torah" (ishtadel be-oraita), or general devotion to Torah study, was reinterpreted in a teaching attributed to the Rebbe of Kotzk as requiring a specific emotional connection to Torah: One must desire Torah in the depths of the heart cleaving [davak] to Torah and God, and becoming one flesh with talmudic study. In Kotzker thought, the desire for Torah reflects the desire of one's Divine inner point for union with God. Torah study awakens the inner point and enables it to cleave to God. https://books.google.com/books?id=01rQK ... 22&f=false

But let's stop right there. The Rebbe of Kotzk wasn't inventing something new here. It's just that as time went on people gradually became less and less familiar with what words meant in Hebrew. The great medieval sages knew that ishtadel meant 'desire' or seduce. They found difficulty in the choice of terminology in the Targums for what Jacob was doing to the angel Eesh.

But look how the terminology was applied to the Torah. Now instead of desiring an anthropomorphic intermediary god 'Man' - 'to be with him' in the language of Secret Mark - now Jews substituted a book in place of the Man so we are supposed to 'desire' the Torah, cleave to the Torah instead of 'desire a Man,' cleave to a Man.

[Secret Alias]

More on 'desiring' the Torah in later Jewish mystics and the concept of 'religious mysteries':

On the phrase ve'ishtadel be'oraita, see R. Moshe de Leon, Book ofthe Pomegranate, ed.Wolfson, 47;Wolfson, “Female Imaging,” in id., Circle, 18–19;id., Through a Speculum, 378n184.At 2:27a, the purpose of exertion in Torah is to clarify the law. At 3:98b, the purpose is to learn God's ways. At 3:112a, it is to know God and God's mysteries through the way ofWisdom. Using a similar term, the Zohar (2:246b) praises “those who exert themselves in Wisdom [demishtadlei b'ḥokhm'ta] to look at the Glory of their Master.”This term can also be applied to rites and ceremonies (ishtadlu bepulḥani, de-ishtadlu bepulḥani), as at 3:159b.

The more I keep looking at the evidence - evidence which I am surprised no one, including Morton Smith, ever looked at - the more natural the whole scenario of Secret Mark is within the Jewish mystical tradition.

In later Jewish mysticism one desires the Torah and the desire for its Wisdom leads to a glimpse of the Glory of God. The original Christian formulation ignored the later interest in the Torah. One strove for union directly with God and witness his glory.

[Secret Alias]

More on the terminology in a Jewish religious discussion on the internet:

Yet, if "Your people are all righteous" (ibid. 60:21), how can one who belongs to the nation of the children of Jacob choose his own path in life? Rabban Gamliel, the son of R' Yehudah the Prince, provides us with an answer to this question: "He would say... nor do all who engage in much business becomes wise, and in a place where there are no men, strive to be a man" (Avot 2:5). Rashbatz (R' Shimon Duran), in his Mishnah commentary, "Magen Avot," explains the words of Rabban Gamliel as follows: "Nor do all who engage in much business becomes wise" - being engaged in business prevents a person from engaging himself in Torah "And in a place where there are no men, strive to be a man" - Onkelos translates the words "A man wrestled with him" thus: "A man strove [ve-ishtadel gavra] with him"... That is, in a place where there are no men to fill in the breach, to engage in communal needs, "strive" to be a man, even if it means neglecting the words of Torah... and the Sages say (Menachot 99): "Sometimes the neglect of Torah is its own foundation... "

Rashbatz, then, informs us that the Mishnah has in mind Jacob's struggle with the "man" according to Onkelos' Aramaic translation - "ve-ishtadel gavra." Rashi explains that the word "ve-ishtadel" in Aramaic can also mean 'enticed', so that the verse reads, "A man enticed him." However, we still have to clarify the meaning of this "enticement" Scripture speaks of.

According to the Rashbatz, a war was waged over a certain "man" among Jacob's offspring. Esau's minister told him that, inclined as he is to be a "man," he ought to part with Jacob's sons, all "angels," and cross over to the sons of Esau. Jacob, on the other hand, suggests that he remain a "man" within the nation of the Jacob's children. This struggle concludes with his being enticed to remain a "man" among Jacob's children.

The Mishnah teaches us to learn from Jacob's struggle that the only path to be rejected is that which leads to becoming a "man" of the sons of Esau. Yet, being "enticed" into becoming a "man" of the sons of Jacob can contain a measure of righteousness. Certainly priority goes to being an "angel" who diminishes business and increases Torah, but when the nation cries out for a helping hand and there are not enough "men" to tend to the task, Rabban Gamliel advises the "angel" to be enticed into leaving the study hall and becoming a "man" for the sake of the community.

In sum, we have seen that Jacob's tithe oath implied a bond with all that is sacred, and its practical expression would be achieved through "sitting" - the sort of sitting which involves Torah study. We further saw that the "small jars" and the "righteous whose property is dearer to them than their body" represent people who do not engage much in Torah but instead prefer to deal with the material, financial aspects of the nation of Israel. Finally, we have seen that the tales of the Sages evince a spirit of favorable judgment, and they teach us that our forefather Jacob understood the need to embrace such "righteous" people in order to bring about the redemption.

[Secret Alias]

I think from this discussion we have - in the absence of any real evidence (aside from ridiculous academic conspiracy theories) to suggest the discovery of the Letter to Theodore was a fake - clear evidence that it is entirely compatible with the Jewish mystical soil that Christianity developed from. Hardly surprising for a 'mystic' gospel.

[Secret Alias]

Irenaeus makes reference to the followers of Mark calling themselves 'maskilim' - "they maintain that Daniel also set forth the same thing when he begged of the angels explanations of the parables, as being himself ignorant of them. But the angel, hiding from him the great mystery of Bythus, said unto him, "Go thy way quickly, Daniel, for these sayings are closed up until those who have understanding do understand them, and those who are white be made white." Moreover, they vaunt themselves as being the white and the men of good understanding" (Adv Haer 1.19.2). Notice that Jewish mystical tradition connects the maskilim with those who have beheld the glory of God:

https://books.google.com/books?id=EYqu1 ... 22&f=false

[Secret Alias]

Ok this clinches it. ishtadel the Aramaic term that is used in the Targum to describe what Jacob was doing with God can mean fucking:

This is the Zohat's motif of Eve's neglect by Adam, as evinced in this remark:

Adam was created with two faces. ... He did not service [ishtadel] his wife, and she was not a helpmeet to him. [Eve] was on his side and they were united backtoback as so the man was alone. What did the Holy Blessed One do? He separated them and took the woman from him.26

The “backtoback” embrace is described as a source of sexual dysfunction, as a result of which Adam could not “service” [ishtadel] his wife.27 Later Lurianic interpretation would clarify that it was not the case that Adam wouldn't service his wife; rather, he couldn't do so ... https://books.google.com/books?id=9uoJC ... 22&f=false

[Secret Alias]

More sexual connotations for ishtadel:

It is possible that the Oral Torah corresponds to Malkhut, which is called Hekhal (palace). . . . And this is [the meaning of] what is written, "Whoever is engaged in Torah,” for the word engaged ('ishtaddel) for the most part connotes that one is occupied in detailed study (ine-'oseq be- 'iyyum) of the Oral Torah, and by means of this study one causes the unity of the Holy One, blessed be He, and the Shekhinah. Therefore one is "engaged in the palace of the Holy One, blessed be He, for the supernal palace of the Holy One, blessed be He" to unify her with her husband. https://books.google.com/books?id=VMuqK ... 22&f=false

[Secret Alias]

And that the experience of seeing the divine Ish (seen by Moses on Sinai) is behind the terminology here:

It is clear that the expression "those engaged in Torah" (de- mishtaddelei be-'oraitd') refers specifically to the mystics who study and interpret Torah according to the symbolic universe of theosophic kabbalah. The theosophic exegete, therefore, is the enlightened one, the maskil, who attains the level of Moses. It is thus no mere coincidence that the zoharic authorship places the following assertion in the mouth of R. Simeon: "'I have seen now what no man has seen since Moses ascended the second time to Mount Sinai, for I have seen the [sefirotic] faces illuminated like the light of the bright sun ... Moreover, I have known that my face is illuminated, but Moses did not know and did not consider."185 Or, again, according to a second utterance of R. Simeon, commenting on the premature death of three of the comrades in the Great Assembly, "Perhaps, God forfend, a decree of punishment has been given to us, for by our hands that that which was not revealed since Moses stood on Mount Sinai has been revealed."186 According to yet another zoharic passage, the scriptural account of Mosaic prophecy is applied to R. Simeon:

It has been been taught: "Do not come near a woman during her period of uncleanness to uncover her nakedness" (Lev. 18:19) R. Judah taught: The generation in which R. Simeon bar Yohai dwells is all righteous, all pious, all fearers of sin. The Presence dwells among them unlike other generations. Therefore these [esoteric] matters are made explicit and not hidden. In other generations this was not the case and matters pertaining to the supernal secrets could not be revealed, and those who knew them were afraid [to disclose them]. When R. Simeon communicated the secret of that verse [Lev. 18:19] the eyes of the comrades shed tears, and all that he said was revealed in their eyes, as it is written, "With him I speak mouth to mouth, plainly and not in riddles"

(Num. 12:8). https://books.google.com/books?id=FqKT7 ... 22&f=false

[Secret Alias]

So what did Clement really believe? Many still stand by the garbage arguments that Secret Mark is a fraud. But we've shown here that the starting point to this investigation - mistrust of homosexual-sounding imagery - is only based on an imperfect understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Let's approach things with an open mind. The Letter to Theodore says that a longer 'mystic' version of the gospel of Mark adds material which we have seen reworks the story of Jacob's wrestling with a 'man' who Clement says is Jesus.

Cool.

Mark chapter 10 was important enough to Clement that a homily on the material from Clement survives. In that discussion we see the clear connection between the end of the Question of the Rich Man which in Clement's Alexandrian community read:

And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he was rich, having great possessions. And Jesus looked round about, and saith to His disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! And the disciples were astonished 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! More easily shall a camel enter through the eye of a needle than a rich man into the kingdom of God. And they were astonished out of measure, and said, Who then can be saved? bend He, looking upon them, said, What is impossible with men is possible with God. For with God all things are possible.

Clement pays special attention to the last words here noting:

But the Lord replies, "Because what is impossible with men is possible with God." This again is full of great wisdom. For a man by himself achieves nothing (καθ' αὑτὸν ... ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὐδὲν ἀνύει) working and toiling at freedom from passion. But if he plainly shows himself very desirous and earnest about this, he attains it by the addition of the power of God (παρὰ θεοῦ δυνάμεως περιγίνεται). When the souls wish, God inspires them at the same time (βουλομέναις . . . ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὁ θεὸς συνεπιπνεῖ). But if they abandon their eagerness (προθυμίας), the spirit which is bestowed by God is also restrained (συνεστάλη). For to save the unwilling is the part of one exercising constraint (βιαζομένου); but to save the willing, that of one showing grace. Nor does the kingdom of heaven belong to sleepers and sluggards, "but forceful ones carry it off forcibly" (βιασταὶ ἁρπάζουσιν αὐτήν). For this alone is commendable violence, to force God (θεὸν βιάσασθαι), and take life from God by force. And He, knowing those who persevere firmly, or rather violently, yields and grants. For God delights in being vanquished in such things.

Therefore on hearing those words, the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and Himself the Saviour paid tribute, quickly seized and comprehended the saying. And what does he say? "Lo, we have left all and followed Thee? Now if by all he means his own property, he boasts of leaving four oboli perhaps in all, and forgets to show the kingdom of heaven to be their recompense. But if, casting away what we were now speaking of, the old mental possessions and soul diseases, they follow in the Master's footsteps, this now joins them to those who are to be enrolled in the heavens. For it is thus that one truly follows the Saviour, by aiming at sinlessness and at His perfection, and adorning and composing the soul before it as a mirror, and arranging everything in all respects similarly.

Note what Ferguson says about this section:

The rich man misunderstood Jesus. The disciples were disturbed precisely because they understood; they had given up their external possessions, but they had not given up their passions. "Salvation belongs to souls that are passionless and pure. We are back with the Stoics who claimed that their perfect sage was passionless. But Clement returns to the New Testament, as he always does, in maintaining that it is the power of God that makes salvation possible. But it needs activity from the seeker. Clement comments, "This is the only acceptable violence, to do violence to God, and take life from God by forcefulness" ... Clement has the story of Jacob's wrestling in mind (Gen. 32,24-32). God, he says, is glad to be beaten in that contest. Peter understood; he claimed that they had left all, referring not to trifling possessions but to diseased passions. Clement slightly contradicts what he has earlier said, but he is making a different point. This, he suggests, is what it really means to follow the Savior, to pursue his sinless perfection. Clement has a delightful and characteristic image. We are to use Jesus as a mirror, and dress up our soul by what we see there.

So if we look at the section which immediately precedes the lost (and rediscovered) addition in Secret Mark, Clement - who already identifies Jesus as the angel 'Man' who wrestled with Jacob - understands that Jesus tells the rich man something which would naturally explain the strange scene which follows.

The purpose of the homily is to explain how the rich man can have salvation. He notes against the Carpocrations - the same individuals who appear in the Letter to Theodore interestingly - that communism is not the necessary conclusion from the discourse of Jesus in Mark chapter 10. He stresses here that Jesus makes reference to the fact that nothing is impossible with God. What is he talking about? Salvation. How does he define 'salvation'? Union with the Savior, the 'power of God.' All that follows, as Ferguson notes is a seeming digression from the discussion of Mark 10 because Clement effectively says that when Jesus says 'nothing is impossible with God' he is telling the rich man that what took place between him (Jesus) and Jacob in Genesis 32:24, 25 is possible again for all men.

The end goal, as Clement notes, is self-restraint = asceticism. This was demonstrated by Jacob's wrestling with God which in many interpretations led to God castrating Jacob (removing the ligament in his thigh cf. Genesis 32:32). Indeed when Clement says that many have tried to attain freedom from passion by merely being alone, he is not only pointing to Jacob's status at the beginning of the wrestling narrative (= "Jacob was left alone" Gen 32:24) but he is noting that the wrestling with God led God to add something to Jacob via the Holy Spirit (viz. the 'power of God'). In other words, Jacob emerged from his encounter united with the God's power = Jesus).

This is what is hinted at by all the 'forceful' language which follows - the allusion to gospel saying "forceful ones carry it off forcibly" (βιασταὶ ἁρπάζουσιν αὐτήν). By this he understands that Jesus again alludes to the wrestling imagery in Genesis 32 and more importantly that the rich man is being prepared for the following scene still preserved in Secret Mark where he is initiated into the mysteries of the kingdom of God. Clement continues by saying "for this alone is commendable violence, to force God, and take life from God by force. And He, knowing those who persevere firmly, or rather violently, yields and grants. For God delights in being vanquished in such things" - in other words, as Jacob wrestled and overcame God, so must the Christian initiate.

What sense does any of this make if Clement knew nothing of Secret Mark? There is nothing in the surviving chapter of Mark which alludes to Genesis chapter 32. Why on earth would Clement make the connection with Jacob wrestling with Jesus in Genesis chapter 32 if he didn't know that a youth is described wrestling with him in the narrative that immediately follows?

So Clement takes great delight pointing out that Peter says that they are prepared for that encounter with the one who wrestled with Jacob by saying that they are in the proper initiated state now - i.e. leaving all family behind and being 'alone' waiting for Jesus. Not surprisingly then in the segue that follows it is said that the disciples were following Jesus and then one of them 'dead' is resurrected and prepared to wrestle with Jesus or as Clement says here:

they follow in the Master's footsteps, this now joins them to those who are to be enrolled in the heavens. For it is thus that one truly follows the Saviour, by aiming at sinlessness and at His perfection, and adorning and composing the soul before it as a mirror, and arranging everything in all respects similarly

Just as Jacob wrestled with the angel and takes his name as is henceforth called 'Israel' the end result of the narrative in 'fuller Mark' one must imagine is that the disciple becomes the mirror of Jesus and likely takes on his name (and probably is taken to be Jesus and crucified in his place).

Note that in his discussion of Genesis 32 and Jesus's wrestling with Jacob Clement - to continue the wrestling metaphor - says that Jacob was 'anointed' after his wrestling match. I can't help but think that this is taken to mean that he becomes an 'anointed one' (= Christ). Notice also that the LXX translates yashar (the generally supposed root of 'Israel' by ancient grammarians) with chrestos. Is this the origin of the idea, referenced by Irenaeus, of 'those who prefer Mark' (= Clement) "separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered." I suppose that this means that the one who emerged dead in Secret Mark were baptized and anointed with oil, ending up 'prepared' to take Jesus's place on the Cross. The 'baptism' was literally a drowning where the initiate 'violently' achieved union with Jesus experience death and rebirth as a living incarnation of Jesus.

So the question again is - is it likely that Clement in associating Jacob's wrestling with Jesus with the 'impossible' thing that God will do to save initiates into the mysteries of the kingdom God (Mark 10:26 - 31) doesn't know about the 'naked man with naked man' referenced in a lost letter allegedly written in his name linked to a longer mystical Gospel of Mark? Given the lack of any real evidence supporting forgery (other than a collective dislike or suspicion of modern homosexuality and its incompatibility with the principles of the Bible among those who promote such theories) I think it is likely that Clement is referencing Secret Mark in Quis Dives Salvatur. Why else make reference to Jacob wrestling with Jesus as an explanation of 'anything is possible with God'?