Samaritanism, Exodus XIV and XV and the Context of Earliest Christianity

It is Christmas so I have tried to stay away from controversial subjects out of respect for the holidays. I have decided instead to continue copying John MacDonald's translation of 'the Words of Mark' (the Mimar Marqe) in order to show what I believe was THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT out of which the Gospel of Mark - 'secret' or otherwise developed.

I am quite aware that the 'Samaritan references' in the gospel NOW APPEAR in almost every other gospel BUT MARK.

I have however promised to avoid controversial subjects over the next two days but let's just say that the very concept of 'Secret Mark' necessarily suggests that our canonical text has 'things missing from it.' I have in previous posts demonstrated that our copies of Mark have had things 'taken away from them' when compared with the Gospel of Mark used at the time of Irenaeus.

The question of whether our 'Gospel of Mark' represents a pristine copy of the text known to the Church Fathers of even the late second century SHOULD HAVE BEEN SETTLED long ago.

No, it is clearly a 'shorter version' of the text known to Irenaeus. The authenticity of 'Secret Mark' has no bearing on this discussion other than to suggest that THERE WERE A VARIETY of lengths of the Gospel of Mark in the period.

It is worth noting that an editor of the Diatessaron clearly felt compelled to develop an acrostic to preserve the idea that 'Marqe' was associated with the longer text. What this actually means is up for debate but I chose to think that it suggests that Mark was originally MUCH LONGER than our present copies of the text.

Is it unthinkable that the Diatesaron itself derived from 'the longest' original Gospel of Mark?

No it is not unthinkable. It is only an UNPROVABLE assertion.

Because scholars are 'in the business' of proving things this argument is likely never to be taken up by 'serious academics.' HOWEVER THIS DOESN'T IN ITSELF MEAN THAT IT IS NOT TRUE. Again, what is provable is different from what is true.

Many scholars don't recognize that distinction.

Sometimes we discover that God abandons us in an insoluble predicament.

My way out of the 'insoluble predicament' is to take a 'round about' approach where I attempt to uncover the manner in which Christianity developed out of messianic traditions. Most scholars have sought to uncover the development out of Judaism and there are good reasons for doing this.

Nevertheless I have chosen to argue that 'Secret Mark' - the original longer gospel of Mark - and earliest Alexandrian Christianity was principally developed from Samaritan sources. There are of course methodological difficulties in proceeding with that argument. But again, it is an argument that has never before been attempted which at the very least suggests that it hasn't yet been disproved.

If I encourage a few people to take up an interest in the Samaritans and their tradition through my folly, I can't help but think I am doing the world some good.

Merry Christmas