Every time Paul mentions Mark, he also mentions Luke

[MrMacSon]

Alternatively, "Luke" was chosen as a pseudonym as a counter [to] the tradition of "Mark" being an associate of Paul and involved in writing his gospel ... And "Mark" had [his] association with Paul obscured by [a subsequently narrated] association with Peter.

• Snap.
  
  ie., I think this is a distinct (even if conspiratorial) possibility.
  
  And, as I proposed previously here,^ Mark could be Marcion or another Marcionite not that far removed from the development and collation of the Marcionite text collection ...

[MrMacSon]

fwiw
somewhat in relation to Eusebius's Eccl. hist. 3.39.15, attributed to Papias, but also independently;

Irenaeus Against Heresies III.1.1:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.

For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high, when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them]...and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us... the Gospel of God.

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... book3.html, and
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

cf. Eusebius Eccl. hist. III.39.15:

"Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely."

[MrMacSon]

Maybe Eusebius's Eccl. hist. III.39.16 - especially the first half - is accurate, viz.

But concerning Matthew he [Papias] writes as follows: "So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.

"the oracles" being the Marcionite gospel and the Gospel attributed to Mark, in part or in total, or somethings very similar to them ... and then " every one interpreted them as he was able" ...

[MrMacSon]

Irenaeus Against Heresies III.1.1:

... [the apostles]...preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us... the Gospel of God.

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... book3.html, and https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

cf. Eusebius Eccl. hist. III.39.15-16 on what Papias is said to have said:

"Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely."

But concerning Matthew he [Papias] writes as follows: "So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise.

One might wonder if Eusebius has taken that Irenaeus's commentary and falsely attributed it to Papias (& reframed it in doing so):

Eusebius asserts that "Peter...adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers," yet "Mark...was careful...not to omit any of the things which he had heard."

[RandyHelzerman]

• I kinda like the idea that 'Mark'/Marc is a rehabilitated Marcion/Markion

Same name really

(and that the-gospel-attributed-to-'Mark' is Marcionite, too)[/list]

If we can at all trust the fathers, and their claims that Marcion cut down the gospels, and didn't add anything....

....well, Marcion's gospel is staring us right in the face whenever we look at the synoptic gospels. It's all there, and always has been, we just don't quite know exactly which bits. But if you threw a dart at either Mark, Luke, or even Matthew, chances are you'd be hitting some part of the Evangelion as well.

See here https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonm ... ed-on-mark for a great argument that the Evangelion was squarely based on Mark.....most of Mark *is* in the Evangelion, which means, whoever wrote it it jibed with his theology.

[MrMacSon]

....well, Marcion's gospel is staring us right in the face whenever we look at the synoptic gospels. It's all there, and always has been, we just don't quite know exactly which bits. But if you threw a dart at either Mark, Luke, or even Matthew, chances are you'd be hitting some part of the Evangelion as well.

See here https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonm ... ed-on-mark for a great argument that the Evangelion was squarely based on Mark.....most of Mark *is* in the Evangelion, which means, whoever wrote it it jibed with his theology.

Cheers.
The main things I took away were:

... what is undeniable are the similarities between Marcion’s gospel of the Lord (Mcg) and the Gospel according to Mark ...

... the differences...between Mcg and Luke [make] Mcg looking much more like Mark than Luke.

https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonm ... ed-on-mark

This other commentary on another page is also noteworthy:

... with the exception of one name (Bethany), everything that is generally believed (on the basis of Markan priority) to be material that aLuke took from Mark, he could have equally have taken from Mcg instead, and perhaps he may never have actually seen Mark itself. These points all provide support for the view that not only is Mcg earlier than Luke, but that it is also earlier than Matthew, and that both aMatthew and aLuke knew and used either Mcg or perhaps a very similar Greek document from which Mcg was developed.

The evidence points to Mcg having been created by combining something consisting largely of edited versions of verses in Mark (close to the Lukan parallels; excluding The Great Omission) with some parts of the text that we refer to as Sondergut Luke.* It appears that the only synoptic gospel on which Mcg could depend is Mark, and that Mcg could be considered to be an ‘intermediate’ form, part way between Mark and what we see today as Luke.

https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonm ... ic-problem

• narrative elements that only appear in Luke(?) : if these are supposedly 'only in Luke,' but are in the Marcionite gospeltext (Mcg) but not Mark, then surely some of them could well have come from Marcion.

eta:

Abstract
The manifestation of Septuagint-influence in the Sondergut-Lukas
It has often been postulated that the Gospel of Luke was influenced by the Septuagint. In a recent study this was proven to be true when research on the language and style of the Gospel was conducted. It manifested a number of similarities between the Septuagint and the Gospel - especially within the source-material peculiar to Luke (Sondergut-Lukas). The childless-motif in Luke 1 and the last part of Jesus’ genealogy in Luke 3 are representative examples of this.

G. J. Steyn (1989) Die manifestering van Septuaginta-invloed in die Sondergut-Lukas, HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies | 45(4): p.864f https://hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/article/view/2336

Also
https://www.pimido.com/sciences-humaine ... 47236.html

[RandyHelzerman]

The main things I took away were:
... what is undeniable are the similarities between Marcion’s gospel of the Lord (Mcg) and the Gospel according to Mark

Your hunch that Mark may be a Marcionite gospel might very well be validated.

It's kind of exciting--once the Herr Professors can get past the natural aversion to saying that the canonical gospels were based on Christianity's most dangerous heretic, we are going to see a paradigm shift of major proportions.

[Peter Kirby]

It's kind of exciting--once the Herr Professors can get past the natural aversion to saying that the canonical gospels were based on Christianity's most dangerous heretic, we are going to see a paradigm shift of major proportions.

And if we've worked out our (alleged) psychological issues with it and are still wondering to what extent it's true?

[RandyHelzerman]

And if we've worked out our (alleged) psychological issues with it and are still wondering to what extent it's true?

What would be convincing evidence to you?

This reminds me of the old "sell me this pen" interviewing question. The correct answer is you're supposed to first ask, "what are you looking for in a pen? What don't you like about the pens you are currently using?" before launching into a description of the wonders of this pen when they are looking for a pencil

BTW, I wasn't even casting aspersions when I claimed that some researchers (and certainly, some funding agencies) would have to get over some religious qualms. Same thing had to happen for the Q hypothesis to be seriously entertained. Everybody starts out from somewhere.

So yeah, what would be a good argument? What would make a convincing case? What would it take to sell you this gospel?

[Peter Kirby]

And if we've worked out our (alleged) psychological issues with it and are still wondering to what extent it's true?

What would be convincing evidence to you?

This reminds me of the old "sell me this pen" interviewing question. The correct answer is you're supposed to first ask, "what are you looking for in a pen? What don't you like about the pens you are currently using?" before launching into a description of the wonders of this pen when they are looking for a pencil

BTW, I wasn't even casting aspersions when I claimed that some researchers (and certainly, some funding agencies) would have to get over some religious qualms. Same thing had to happen for the Q hypothesis to be seriously entertained. Everybody starts out from somewhere.

So yeah, what would be a good argument? What would make a convincing case? What would it take to sell you this gospel?

Here are arguments for the priority of Mark relative to Matthew and Luke:

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark-prior.html

What are the arguments pertaining to Evangelion?