stephan huller

I was actually at a baptism today. A friend of my wife was having her daughter baptized. Heard the homily on Mark 10:17 - 31 (how fitting for someone interested in Secret Mark). The priest brought up how 'something seems to have been cut out of the narrative' because Jesus 'loves' but abandons the young man who asks him about eternal life.

In any event, the priest brought up an interesting point. How can the man declare "ταυτα παντα εφυλαξαμην εκ νεοτητος μου" all these I have kept from my youth with respect to the commandments? The Jews acknowledge 613 commandments. He is unlikely to have fulfilled 'be fruitful and multiply.' Moreover most of the 613 are directed at priests making his statement absurd.

Indeed the statement in 10:20 seems to be the continuation of the understanding a little earlier in the same chapter when Jesus is asked by the Pharisees:

It was Abraham Heschel who brought the understanding to me that the narrative clearly betrays a Sadducean understanding which must have belonged to Mark the evangelist.

The Sadducees preserved the original understanding (it is shared by the Samaritans to this day) that only the ten utterances or commandments came from heaven. They were inscribed on to the tablets with fire by the finger of God. As Heschel notes the rabbinic tradition says that this understanding was abandoned shortly after the fall of the temple because it was being used by the 'heretics' (= Marcionites) in their arguments against the Law.

This understanding however is critical to understand Mark's literary point of view. He clearly shares Jesus's sentiments. Jesus is merely a spokesman/sock puppet for Mark's literary purpose here which is to accuse the Pharisees of falling from the truth. Interesting Ptolemy still in the second century is reported by Epiphanius to acknowledge that some of the commandments were written by God, some by Moses and the rest by the elders. This is identical with the original Jewish tradition and demonstrates in my mind that the gnosic tradition is earlier than the orthodox POV.

But at this forum I would merely argue that Detering's position (and those who share it with him) that the gospel was written in the second century at the time of the Bar Kochba revolt simply doesn't fit this literary framework. The Sadducees had already disappeared. The only people holding on to this view were the Samaritans. This is indeed the most powerful follow up argument to the little apocalypse in chapter 13 of Mark that the text was written at the time of the destruction of the temple.

PhilosopherJay

Hi stephan huller,

It seems to me that the man Jesus is speaking to has the Sadducee point of view - following the written Ten commandment is all you have to do to get into heaven. Jesus is saying that this is not enough. He is taking the Pharisee point of view that one must obey the unwritten laws. In this case the idea is becoming a follower of Jesus gets you into heaven.

The passage makes two other points. It is nearly impossible for the rich to get into heaven and the opposite point that with God anything is possible.

The text here could very well have originated in the First century. However it seems to general to pinpoint a specific time frame. The idea that just following the Ten Commandments is enough to get you into heaven probably survived as a common enough idea into the Second century. Certainly Jesus suggesting that joining his cult was the way to get into heaven doesn't restrict it to the First century.

The second part is just a joke. Jesus appears to be attacking the rich and taking a strong stand against them, but then Jesus says that with God anything is possible. This negates the attack against the rich and turns it into a joke. That is appropriate in the First, Tenth, or Twentieth-first centuries.

It is my opinion that the original text here involved John the Baptist and this First century text was just rewritten in the Second century for Jesus.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

The short gMark was most likely written after the works of Josephus or after c 96 CE and even after Suetonius Life of Vespasian 115 CE.

Many characters and events in the short gMark are found only in "Antiquities of the Jews" c 93 CE and the "Life of Flavius Josephus" composed after c 96 CE. In gMark, Jesus cured blindness with spit and healed the lame by a touch which was done by the Emperor Vespasian in Suetonius "Life of Vespasian" c 115 CE.

1. In gMark the disciples and followers of Jesus were mariners and poor people of Galilee. See Mark 1.16-20

In the Life of Flavius Josephus Jesus was the leader of mariners and poor people of Galilee.

Life of Flavius Josephus 2. In gMark Three were crucified and Jesus survived or resurrected. See Mark 15.27

In Life of Flavius Josephus Three were crucified and one survived.

Life of Flavius Josephus 3. In gMark Jesus used spit to cure blindness. See Mark 8.23.

In Life of Vespasian by Suetonius the Emperor used spit to heal blindness.

Life of Vespasian 4. No manuscipt of gMark has ever been found and dated to the 1st century.

The abundance of evidence suggest gMark was most likely composed after c 115 CE.

stephan huller

But my point doesn't have anything to do with that. The identification of 'all of the commandments' as the Ten Utterances is reflective of the first century and it is done in such a natural, casual way most of us don't even notice it. If it was a second century text the allusion would have had to have been explained. The Pharisees also disappeared in the second century and their position (and that of the Sadducees for that matter) would have had to have been introduced to the audience much as Josephus does in his writings.

Again, those who argue that the gospel of Mark is written for Gentiles can only believe this because they don't recognize the subtle markings of provenance. The allusion to 'Moses writing this' is a statement which doesn't require explanation because the audience was presumed to be Jewish. So too 'all of the commandments.' I don't see how anyone can dispute this.

Sure I am aware of the arguments for a Gentile audience. But these have more to do with the language of the Greek text. What I am talking about is so fundamental to the narrative. That it wouldn't matter what language it was preserved. Mark chapter 10 couldn't possibly make sense to a Gentile. It was written for a late first century Jewish audience (or perhaps an audience of Gentile converts to Judaism = proselytes) who could still reference the traditional understanding of the ten utterances = commandments written by God/the rest = commandments written only on the authority of Moses.

If you are going to pursue the second century argument it could only have been written by Samaritans (who still preserve this understanding because of Marqe but even then Marqe wrote in the first century).

andrewcriddle

Mark 10:20 is a response to Jesus' list of commandments in 10:19. So the passage tells us more about Jesus' view of which commandments really matter than it does about the view held by the rich man.

(It may be significant that this list is apparently seen as unproblematic in Mark but in the parallel in Matthew there is an explicit discussion between Jesus and the rich young man as to which commandments should be followed. Possibly Matthew has rewritten the passage to reflect debates about how many commandments there are.)

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

Andrew

I am more of a Marcionite than I realize. Of course the Marcionite gospel is the earliest gospel and IMO the original Mark. According to Tertullian the list of commandments came from the person Jesus was speaking with rather than Jesus. He (rather than Jesus) said:

While I am sure you will not concede the Marcionite gospel is the original or even the original Mark (but see Philosophumena 7:18 for the fact this must have been claimed by the Marcionites), nevertheless it is one more argument in favor of the Marcionites being rooted in an archaic form of Judaism. The double reference shows the Marcionites were first and rooted in the first century along with their gospel.

Of course it is harder to explain why that Catholic priest read the passage the way he did. Maybe he too is a (secret) Marcionite.

Sheshbazzar

WHEN did JESUS, the son of Sapphias live?

WHEN did TITUS live?

WHAT is it that are you attemting to suggest with these quotations?



.

PhilosopherJay

Hi stephan huller,

I was going to note that the Sadducee Philosophy did not include heaven so the passage could not be relating the Sadducee Philosophy. However, I guess the term that the young man uses "αἰώνιος," which is translated as "eternal" would be more properly translated as "age long" or more concretely as "a long life." It would not be out of place for a Sadducee to ask for long life.

I was always under the impression that the Sadducee Philosophy called for strict enforcement of all Torah laws. What is the evidence that they had narrowed it down to the Ten Commandments?

Also, why are the first four commandments left out? Could that be because they would be offensive to non-Jews? The six or so commandments in the passage that are left are pretty universal.

Warmly,

JayRaskin

aa5874

I am showing that the author of gMark wrote AFTER Josephus and Suetonius or AFTER c 115 CE.

I am showing that the author of Mark used information in Jewish and Roman sources to manufacture his Jesus character and story line.

1. In gMark 6.27 it is claimed John the Baptist was executed by Herod.

Only In Antiquities of the Jews 18 composed c 93 CE it is claimed Herod executed John the Baptist.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.2 2. In gMark 14.64 it is claimed Jesus was condemned to be guilty of death of blasphemy after he went before the Sanhedrin.

In Antiquities of the Jews 20, the brother of one called Jesus was brought before the Sanhedrin and condemned to be guilty of death.

[Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 The Preponderance of evidence suggest that gMark was composed in the 2nd century or later.

stephan huller

the order of commandments is never consistent