κολοβοδάκτυλος

[Secret Alias]

Stupid theories. A distraction. Like much of what you've posted.

[Peter Kirby]

I recently read these remarks from Harnack, when looking at what he says about the Antitheses:

" ... who allege that Paul alone knew the truth and that to him the mystery was manifested by revelation ... To allege, then, that these men [the apostles] did not know the truth ... " The expression, .. They boast that they have the Gospel," which lrenaeus uses twice with reference to the Marcionites (III 11, 14), presupposes a critique of other gospels, just as the other expression .. peritiores apostolis" (IV 5 and elsewhere) presupposes a critique of the apostles. It is with respect to the drastic surgery that even the third Gospel required to make it fit the new doctrine that Tertullian's remark should be understood (IV 5; ANF JII, 350): "Why did not Marcion touch [the Gospels of John and Matthew]-either to amend them if they were adulterated, or to acknowledge them if they were uncorrupt? ... I will therefore advise his followers, that they either change these Gospels, however late to do so," etc.

When I read this, I noticed especially "Why did not Marcion touch [the Gospels of John and Matthew]" and that this sets up a contrast between the Marcionite gospel (not by a disciple of Jesus, like John and Matthew are said to have been) and these two.

But the author of Against Marcion quickly realizes that there's something "off" about the argument in the context of a four-way gospel debate. In a four-way gospel debate, there are two texts that are said to have been by disciples of Jesus (John and Matthew), and there are two texts that are said not to have been (Mark, companion of Peter, and Luke, companion of Paul). So the author attempts to bring one of the texts, Mark, back onto the other side, by saying it is really Peter's. This takes the form of a parenthetical comment, almost a footnote as it were (rendered that way below). But the point being made in the passage is that Luke is a disciple of Paul, not Paul; rhetorically it's not taking to task using only a gospel of the apostle Paul but rather using only a gospel of his disciple Luke. This means that Against Marcion, in its four gospel debate, takes a strange detour, inserting a parenthetical comment defending Mark as Peter's, recognizing the consequence of Luke as Paul's, then abandoning that consequence to criticize the selection of only Luke here.

That same authority of the apostolic churches will stand as witness also for the other gospels, which no less <than Mark's> we possess by their agency and according to their text—I mean John's and Matthew's.[1] And so concerning these also Marcion must be called to account, how it is that he has passed them over, and preferred to take his stand upon [Mark's], as though these too, no less than [Mark's], have not been in the churches since the beginning—indeed it is to be supposed that they have even greater claim to have been since the beginning, since they were earlier, as written by apostles, and established along with the churches. Otherwise, if the apostles published nothing, how can it have come about that their disciples published things instead, when they could not even have existed as disciples apart from some instruction by their masters? So then, since it is evident that these too existed in the churches, how is it that Marcion has not laid hands on them as well, either to correct if falsified, or to acknowledge if correct? For it is conceivable that any who were engaged in corrupting one gospel might have taken even greater interest in the corruption of gospels whose authenticity they knew had wider acceptance—false apostles for this very reason, that it was apostles they would be counterfeiting by this forgery.

[1] Though that which Mark produced is stated to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was. Luke's narrative also they usually attribute to Paul. It is permissible for the works which disciples published to be regarded as belonging to their masters.

What's more, though, is that a selection of Luke would not only be picking the non-apostolic text (what is remarked on); it would also be picking Luke over Mark. The passage doesn't discuss this aspect at all, though. It talks about using "Luke" instead of John and Matthew, which is not very natural in the context of a debate about four gospels.

As shown above, by substituting "Mark's" and pulling out the parenthetical comment, there is an argument above that would make plenty of sense in the context of a sort of three gospel debate: Mark, Matthew, and John.

In this sort of debate, Matthew and John would be defended as earlier because they were from apostles (which is what is said).

The reply to that argument is that the apostles published nothing, so Matthew and John were fake / falsifications (which is suggested).

Here we would have Marcion being criticized for "tak[ing] his stand upon [Mark's] gospel." If so, then at this early stage of the debate -- before even the introduction of the Gospel of Luke to the debate between Marcion and his opponents -- the gospel used by Marcion was associated with Mark.

[Secret Alias]

Notice that Mark and Luke are designated as "apostolikon" (apostolic) as if it were a negative term. Notice the attempt to redefine the pre-existent (Marcionite) terminology. Subtle. But it's there.

[Peter Kirby]

We must wonder: who does Μάρκος ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος describe, and who came up with this description?

(a) does this describe the author of "ἐν τῷ <κατὰ> Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ"?
(b) does this describe Μαρκίων or "Marcion's reputation as the abbreviator of a gospel"?
(c) both?

And if it describes an author of the gospel text, could Μάρκος ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος be a Marcionite reference against Mark?

for none of them is written in the gospel according to Mark

I am left wondering: none of what? None of the arguments? Why are we talking about Antitheses-style arguments either being in, or not being in, the gospel according to Mark? Is this simply a reference to the fact that the gospel didn't have such arguments because they were part of a separately attached Antitheses? Perhaps.

Let's try out the idea that there's more to it, seeing if it is a productive hypothesis. If there is more to it, then a few things are entailed: (a) gospel-like material that reads like Antitheses-style arguments, (b) the absence of such material in the gospel according to Mark, and (c) the presence of this material in other gospel texts. Tentatively (there are other possibilities), I would also suggest that the most obvious consequence would be that (d) Marcionites being able to recognize the strength of the retort because their gospel didn't have this material but their Antitheses text did.

Harnack writes that the "antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 provide the nearest parallel to these" from Marcion (Marcion: the gospel of the alien God, chapter 5, note 29). Harnack identifies a couple contradictions that are already in Matthew:

(viii) In the law it is said, ''An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth;' but the Lord, the Good, says in the gospel, "If anyone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also."	38 "You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."
(xxiv) In the law God (the creator of the world) says, "You shall love the one who loves you and hate your enemy." But our Lord, the Good One, says, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."	“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

In these cases, Matthew has phrasing that includes a contrast of what "you have heard that it was said" and what "I tell you."

According to my four points above: (a) this is gospel-like material that reads like Antitheses-style arguments, (b) such material is absent in the gospel according to Mark, and (c) this material is present in Matthew.

Would it also be true that (d) Marcionites would be able to recognize the strength of the retort, as if their gospel didn't have this material but their Antitheses text did? We can keep it as an open question as we continue to try to dive deeper into the meaning of this passage. Let's set it out again.

"When, therefore, Marcion, or any of his dogs, shall bay against the Demiurge, bringing forward arguments from the comparison of good and evil, they should be told that neither the apostle Paul nor 'short-measure' Mark reported these things — for none of them is written in the gospel according to Mark."
Ἐπειδὰν οὖν Μαρκίων ἢ τῶν ἐκείνου κυνῶν τις ὑλακτῇ κατὰ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ [dēmiourgôu], τοὺς ἐκ τῆς ἀντιπαραθέσεως ἀγαθοῦ καὶ κακοῦ προφέρων λόγους, δεῖ αὐτοῖ(ς) λέγειν ὅτι τούτους οὔτε Παῦλος ὁ ἀπόστολος οὔτε Μάρκος ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος ἀνήγγειλαν —τούτων γὰρ οὐδε<ὶς> ἐν τῷ <κατὰ> Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται

The reference is that "none of them" is written in canonical Mark. As we saw above, some of them (at least two) are written in Matthew. And, of course, in general they are written in the Antitheses, which is neither the Apostle nor the Gospel. The rhetorical power of the retort is that the Marcionites are advancing things that aren't in the gospel (the things in the Antitheses). Furthermore, some specificity is added to the retort by pointing out that none of them are in Mark, which must have been able to weigh on Marcionites somehow as potentially upsetting. So even if some of them could have been in a gospel (Matthew), that is a gospel that Marcionites spurn.

Were any of these antitheses in the gospel used by Marcionites? I would suggest so. Perhaps the absence of the contrasts with the law as it had been "heard" (Matthean antitheses) in the parallel passages of Luke can be understood partly as an attempt to avoid the interpretation given to these passages by Marcionites (whereas Matthew goes in a different direction and turns it into a commentary on the fulfillment of the law). These can be seen as two different redactional strategies in response to a text that was read in a Marcionite way, which would make more sense if this was in a gospel.

So we're in a situation where the Marcionites knew that some of their "comparisons" (antitheses) are in the gospel, which is associated with Mark, rather than with the apostles Matthew or John. At the same time, we're in a situation where there is also a form of Mark that is known to have none of them. In short, a situation where there were two different versions of Mark, one of them being the one accepted by the anti-Marcionites, another one being used among the Marcionites.

This is all before we come to the word ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος, which is the initial subject of this thread. In other words, even before considering the meaning of this word here, we have found reason to believe that this passage supports the idea, not only of the Marcionite gospel being most closely associated with Mark, but of there being two different known forms of this Mark.

[Peter Kirby]

I can't believe that no one has suggested this before.

κολοβοδάκτυλος means "truncated-length" (or "short-measured")

κολοβός = cut
δάκτυλος = measure

Bingo! Jewish scrolls measured by fingers. https://books.google.com/books?id=kesUE ... nt&f=false

The royal cubit, also known as pharaonic, was divided into 28 fingers (the finger was 18,75 mm wide) but has other partitions, for example the palm corresponded to 4 fingers and the fist to 6 fingers. The short cubit was instead divided into 24 fingers [1, 2].

Menachem 41b "The Gemara notes that Rav Pappa said: The handbreadth of the Torah is four fingerbreadths if measured by the thumb; six fingerbreadths if measured by the smallest finger; and five if measured by the third, i.e., the middle, finger."

Now I am finally in a position to comment on the word.

I think you're right, but the question becomes: who employed this word and why?

I would suggest that the Marcionites employed the word as a form of apology for why there are two different versions of Mark. The shorter version of Mark was made on a scroll that was too short. The more complete Gospel was written when Mark had access to a proper scroll length for the text. Both were from Mark, so the more complete Gospel could still be associated with Mark.

[Peter Kirby]

Remember also that if I read Papias correctly (or the fragment we have of Papias allegedly referencing "John") the contemporary world was entirely aware of the expansion of Mark and cheered it on

Thanks for mentioning this. Are we talking about C. E. Hill, "What Papias Said about John (and Luke)"?

IMO it looks to me like Papias could be writing when the gospels were three (Mark, Matthew, John) instead of four. Maybe part of the reason for indirect reference to prior tradition is a need to rework it to refer to four gospels.

Considering the possibility that the tradition behind E.H. 3.24 knew three gospels (but not Luke):

Nevertheless, of all the disciples of the Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity.

6. For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence.

7. And when Mark and [Matthew] had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The [two] Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry.

11. They say, therefore, that the apostle John, being asked to do it for this reason, gave in his Gospel an account of the period which had been omitted by the earlier evangelists, and of the deeds done by the Saviour during that period; that is, of those which were done before the imprisonment of the Baptist. And this is indicated by him, they say, in the following words: This beginning of miracles did Jesus; and again when he refers to the Baptist, in the midst of the deeds of Jesus, as still baptizing in Ænon near Salim; John 3:23 where he states the matter clearly in the words: For John was not yet cast into prison.

Eusebius comes to Luke later, unconnected to what the tradition says (suggesting that Papias had no story of Luke's composition):

14. These things may suffice, which we have said concerning the Gospel of John. The cause which led to the composition of the Gospel of Mark has been already stated by us.

15. But as for Luke, in the beginning of his Gospel, he states himself the reasons which led him to write it. He states that since many others had more rashly undertaken to compose a narrative of the events of which he had acquired perfect knowledge, he himself, feeling the necessity of freeing us from their uncertain opinions, delivered in his own Gospel an accurate account of those events in regard to which he had learned the full truth, being aided by his intimacy and his stay with Paul and by his acquaintance with the rest of the apostles.

Hill argues against this point, but not before noting that it is an obvious conclusion (pp. 625-626):

There is one thing standing in the way of this at the outset, and that is that after relating this account of Luke, Eusebius says, 'This much we ourselves (relate) on these matters, but at the proper time we will endeavour to explain by citation from the ancients what has been said on the point by others'. Thus it seems he is taking personal responsibility for the tradition he relates now on Luke.

This is consistent with the idea that Luke-Acts was written after Mark, John, and Matthew were already written.

[andrewcriddle]

I made a blog post on this hippolytus-on-marcion-and-mark I'm not sure if it's right but it may be of interest.

Andrew Criddle

[rgprice]

This has been a very interesting thread. But Peter's recent post was quite amazing. It leads me to think that Marcion's Antithesis is Q.

This would make total sense, because Q is so tightly integrated with Mark. This has always been my criticism. So much of Q fits so perfectly into the dialogue of Mark.

This would make sense if Q is Marcion's commentary on Mark, with sayings that Marcion is putting in the mouth of Jesus. And from this Marcion creates his Gospel, adding his teachings to Mark. So in fact, the Q material is mostly Marcionite.

And when you look at Q, much of it fits the nature of Marcionite theology.

Now, there are some parts of Q that stand out as different, like the Temptation of Jesus by Satan, but that's because this isn't same as other parts of Q. What is identified as "Q" really has multiple layers to it.

There is first the expansion of Mark by Marcion, and then there is proto-Luke, which builds on this. And Matthew derives from proto-Luke.

On another note, regarding the discussion of "κολοβοδάκτυλος means "truncated-length" (or "short-measured")", we should also keep in mind that it was widely recognized that Mark was missing its ending. So many people considered that the Gospel of Mark was itself truncated, with claims that the ending had been torn off, or that Mark died before he could finish it, or that it was on a separate scroll that got lost, etc. My own view is that the canonical Gospel of Mark was indeed copied from a longer Gospel, which may itself have been known as the Gospel of "Mark" and that the ending of this longer Gospel had Jesus revealing himself to Paul and may indeed have gone on into the story of Paul's ministry.

[Secret Alias]

Assuming there is some other version of this section in Corinthians I see this as confirming that the apostle knew two lengths of the story of Jesus (= the gospel). Ignore what they say about Paul not having a gospel. Listen to the general sense of the material:

For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written, 'What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him'— these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God."

Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ (= hence the shorter gospel). I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal. According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it (= his acceptance of many longer gospels) But let each one take heed how he builds on it. "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.

I've always read these words as if they pertain to a short and longer gospel written for audiences. Luke was even created with these words in my mind IMHO. The Marcionites accepted Paul as somehow the same as Mark. That's clear from the Philosophumena (it's the only it "works"). Perhaps Paul said the thing about "there having to be sects" in light of one expansion of his "short text."

[rgprice]

No.