It comes down to these lines:
And after six days Jesus told him what to do, 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 God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.
If this is just canonical Mark with a couple of additions then the lines which follow imply yet another baptism to follow:
Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask." "What do you want me to do for you?" he asked. They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory." "You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?" "We can," they answered. Jesus said to them, "You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared."
If you accept this scenario then you have to accept either (a) that LGM 1 is not a baptism reference or (b) there were many baptism in the gospel (both figurative ones and real water immersions) and (c) that John Mark cannot possibly be the neaniskos in LGM 1.
So let's try to sort out these categories even further.
If (a) is true and LGM 1 is NOT a baptism reference then their nudity can only be explained by a homosexual encounter between Jesus and his neaniskos (why else is nudity stressed?/why else does the neaniskos 'want to be' with Jesus?)
If (a) is true then (b) must also be true - i.e. Jesus was baptized by John, Jesus not only baptized the neaniskos but also refers to a future baptism of himself and the one(s) who will sit on the throne to his left and right. This is crazy and more of a revaluation than anyone has yet realized.
If (a) is true and we just add the standard lines of canonical Mark after LGM 1 one cannot hold that John Mark is the initiated neaniskos. After all he is told that he hasn't been prepared yet - implausible if he was just taught the mysteries of the kingdom of God. Moreover if John Mark isn't the neaniskos here then it seems improbable that he was also the neaniskos in Mark 14:52. It is well established in Coptic Christianity and other traditions that this figure is indeed John Mark. So Jesus is with a naked neaniskos in chapter 10 and again in chapter 14? Again this plays into those who argue that there is a homosexual undercurrent to the text which I don't think is true.
So instead of positing that this 'other gospel of Mark' had multiple baptisms and multiple naked neaniskos isn't it at least possible that Clement - that guy who tells Theodore that it is okay to lie in defense of Secret Mark - is deliberately presenting the Alexandrian autograph gospel of Mark as 'faithful' to the authoritative text Irenaeus says was deposited in Rome?
Again, as I have already demonstrated - isn't it more likely that it follows the Ephrem's Diatessaron in avoiding mention of a 'future baptism' of Jesus and the neaniskos in the material which immediately follows LGM 1?
Moreover, isn't it likely that the story of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1 - 10) immediately follows LGM 2 as this story appears in THE EXACT SAME PLACE in the existing Arabic Diatessaron:
And when Jesus entered and passed through Jericho, there was a man named Zacchaeus, rich, and chief of the publicans. And he desired to see Jesus who he was; and he was not able for the pressure of the crowd, because Zacchaeus was little of stature. And he hastened, and went before Jesus, and went up into an unripe fig tree to see Jesus: for he was to pass thus. And when Jesus came to that place, he saw him, and said unto him, Make haste, and come down, Zacchaeus: to-day I must be in thy house. And he hastened, and came down, and received him joyfully. And when they all saw, they murmured, and said, He hath gone in and lodged with a man that is a sinner. So Zacchaeus stood, and said unto Jesus, My Lord, now half of my possessions I give to the poor, and what I have unjustly taken from every man I give him fourfold. Jesus said unto him, To-day is salva- tion come to this house, because this man also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man came to seek and save the thing that was lost. And when Jesus went out of Jericho, he and his disciples, there came after him a great multitude. [Section XXXI:15f]
I will demonstrate in the next post that Clement clearly understands Zacchaeus to complete and explain the narrative from the Gospel of Mark in Can the Rich Man be Saved.
For the moment though I would just like to conclude by saying that Scott Brown's highly conservative opinion was exactly what was needed to defeat Stephen Carlson and those who tried to cast doubt on the authenticity of Morton Smith's discovery. The problem however is that these opponents have now forced us into an absurd position which doesn't allow us to make sense of the text.
I have said it time and time again - Secret Mark HAS TO BE related to the Diatessaron, not in the least because - I have noted before - a 'perfect gospel' above all has to be complete ...
If you are interested in reading how this observation fits within my greater understanding of the workings of Secret Mark WITHIN the contemporary Alexandrian Church please go here
If you want to read more about how Alexandrian Christianity was rooted in the Jewish traditions of Alexandria, Philo of Alexandria and more feel free to purchase my new book here
