Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and Mark?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
perseusomega9
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and Mark?

Post by perseusomega9 » Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:50 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:39 pm
perseusomega9 wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:34 pm
Mark is reworking a previous narrative story, incorporating the messianic secret motif to explain why jesus IS also the Israelite messiah AND son of god. adding the empty tomb concept whereas previous resurrection stories ran the gamut of heavenly ascension of the initiate to witnessing jesus direct acension. Things along those lines.
The highlighted portion is interesting. Can you expand on that?
Not even counting the charismatic detailed in the heresiologists, do not Paul and John see the Risen Jesus?

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7043
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and Mark?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:55 pm

perseusomega9 wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:50 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:39 pm
perseusomega9 wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:34 pm
Mark is reworking a previous narrative story, incorporating the messianic secret motif to explain why jesus IS also the Israelite messiah AND son of god. adding the empty tomb concept whereas previous resurrection stories ran the gamut of heavenly ascension of the initiate to witnessing jesus direct acension. Things along those lines.
The highlighted portion is interesting. Can you expand on that?
Not even counting the charismatic detailed in the heresiologists, do not Paul and John see the Risen Jesus?
Okay, sure, but I thought you were talking about gospels. I see now you were referring to stories, which do not have to be gospels.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7043
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and Mark?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:57 pm

perseusomega9 wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:50 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:39 pm
perseusomega9 wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:34 pm
Mark is reworking a previous narrative story, incorporating the messianic secret motif to explain why jesus IS also the Israelite messiah AND son of god. adding the empty tomb concept whereas previous resurrection stories ran the gamut of heavenly ascension of the initiate to witnessing jesus direct acension. Things along those lines.
The highlighted portion is interesting. Can you expand on that?
Not even counting the charismatic detailed in the heresiologists, do not Paul and John see the Risen Jesus?
I described a possibly early story line in which Jesus was taken up straight from the cross recently: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5639. I thought it might be the remnant of a concept which predated Paul.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11159
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and Mark?

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Nov 07, 2019 7:02 pm

I have no special difficulty in imagining that the proto-orthodox took over the term "apostolic" from Marcion and applied it to Mark and Luke instead of to a text.
Well like all things that you have to figure out 'between' the allegations of the Church Fathers it isn't just one thing. Let's start off with a few.

1. there are many letters of the apostles. It couldn't be that the Marcionites called 'the letters' = apostolikon. It would have been apostolikwn. At least according to my understanding if the gospel and the letters formed a kind of 'bible' or book THAT could be called the apostolikon. But a collection of letters = apostolikwn.
2. if they called 'the Bible' or New Testament apostolikon that would have made explicit that the apostle wrote the written gospel which is implicit in the various statements especially Origen. Of course the orthodox were fine saying the letters were 'of the apostle.' But the cornerstone of their idiotic worldview was that a braggart apostle - the second Moses sent from God - didn't write a new Law. This is obviously fishy. So that's where the unusual (even ridiculous) etymology of apostolikon comes in.
3. the orthodox weren't just making up an alternative definition of the original Marcionite term. They were trying to attack the strength of the Marcionites by saying that the two gospels closest related to the Marcionite gospel - Mark (Marcion's gospel in Refutation) and Luke (the Marcionite gospel in Against Heresies 1.27) - were called 'apostolic' because they were subordinates. Then Irenaeus/Tertullian acts puzzled when he asks why would Marcion have stolen Luke when Luke was 'apostolic' viz. of inferior status. But the system has already been rigged. The Marcionites say 'apostolic' (meaning from the apostle) and now the orthodox say 'inferior' - think Kerry's purple heart in the election against Bush.
4. also Irenaeus/Tertullian says something else which shows the secondary nature of the orthodox canon. He marvels that there is no superscription to their gospel (viz. 'according to ....'). Yet clearly kata here is a secondary development viz. only emerging with two or more 'gospels.' Interestingly Clement in to Theodore notes the same thing about the gospel of the Alexandrian community. He says that it has no superscription but is known to be (secretly) Mark.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11159
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and Mark?

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Nov 07, 2019 7:08 pm

The bottom line for me is that the idea that 'apostle' in a Biblical milieu can't be divorced from the pre-existent milieu. Apostle means one like Moses, the apostle of God, the evangelist of God. The orthodox tradition rolled over the roots of Christianity because they were appealing the message to ignoramuses.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7043
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and Mark?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Nov 07, 2019 7:19 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 7:08 pm
The bottom line for me is that the idea that 'apostle' in a Biblical milieu can't be divorced from the pre-existent milieu. Apostle means one like Moses, the apostle of God, the evangelist of God. The orthodox tradition rolled over the roots of Christianity because they were appealing the message to ignoramuses.
What is the earliest attestation for Moses being called the apostle"
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11159
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and Mark?

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Nov 07, 2019 10:43 pm

It's as old as the oldest Samaritan exegete Marqe. But its implicit in the number of times Exodus says God sent Moses. Every Samaritan tradition is rooted in the Pentateuch. It's also implicit in the Miriam and Aaron leprosy narrative used oddly to uphold Peter's apostlehood in the Clementines. While the word "apostle" isn't specifically mention the sense is still there:
Finally, then, it is written in the law, that God, being angry, said to Aaron and Miriam, 'If a prophet arise from amongst you, I shall make myself known to him through visions and dreams, but not so as to my servant Moses; because I shall speak to him in an outward appearance, and not through dreams, just as one will speak to his own friend.' You see how the statements of wrath are made through visions and dreams, but the statements to a friend are made face to face, in outward appearance, and not through riddles and visions and dreams, as to an enemy.

If, then, our Jesus appeared to you in a vision, made Himself known to you, and spoke to you, it was as one who is enraged with an adversary; and this is the reason why it was through visions and dreams, or through revelations that were from without, that He spoke to you. But can any one be rendered fit for instruction through apparitions? And if you will say, 'It is possible,' then I ask, 'Why did our teacher abide and discourse a whole year to those who were awake?' And how are we to believe your word, when you tell us that He appeared to you? And how did He appear to you, when you entertain opinions contrary to His teaching? But if you were seen and taught by Him, and became His apostle for a single hour, proclaim His utterances, interpret His sayings, love His apostles, contend not with me who companied with Him. For in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church, you now stand. If you were not opposed to me, you would not accuse me, and revile the truth proclaimed by me, in order that I may not be believed when I state what I myself have heard with my own ears from the Lord, as if I were evidently a person that was condemned and in bad repute. But if you say that I am condemned, you bring an accusation against God, who revealed the Christ to me, and you inveigh against Him who pronounced me blessed on account of the revelation. But if, indeed, you really wish to work in the cause of truth, learn first of all from us what we have learned from Him, and, becoming a disciple of the truth, become a fellow-worker with us.
Again, Moses was the only spokesman of God. Miriam and Aaron are struck with leprosy. Moses is more than a mere prophet. Paul and Peter are arguing over the title of apostle. Peter grants Simon the status of prophet. But Peter is something more. He is like Moses the apostle.
But if you were seen and taught by Him, and became His apostle for a single hour, proclaim His utterances, interpret His sayings, love His apostles, contend not with me who companied with Him
The issue seems to have been Paul's (Marcionite) claim to be THE Apostle, the ONLY apostle like Moses. Perhaps the dispute is whether Paul went to heaven and actually met Jesus or had a vision.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11159
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and Mark?

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:11 pm

Moses as apostle is in Hebrews. Meeks explains https://books.google.com/books?id=F5Y3A ... an&f=false
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11159
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and Mark?

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:21 pm

And remember the cause of the dispute is different in the SP
And Maryaam and Aahrron spoke about Mooshe because of THE BEAUTIFUL woman whom he had married. For he had married A BEAUTIFUL woman
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7043
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and Mark?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:22 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 10:43 pm
It's as old as the oldest Samaritan exegete Marqe. But its implicit in the number of times Exodus says God sent Moses.
This is what I thought. In that case, I sincerely doubt that early Christians ever had the idea that Moses was the only "sent one" or prophet of God. In the same way that, if anything, they expanded the number of scriptural texts to include works like 1 Enoch, some Wisdom books, and others (another trait they share with Qumran), so too they assumed that there had been many prophets sent by God (not just Moses, or not just Moses and his immediate successor Joshua), and that, in fact, in "these last days" prophecy was undergoing a renaissance, and any Jack or Jill with the spirit of God could prophesy.

In the Didache we can see that apostles and prophets are cut of the same cloth; an apostle is basically just an itinerant prophet:

Didache 11.3-6: 3 But concerning the apostles and prophets [τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν], do as the gospel decrees. 4 Let every apostle [πᾶς... ἀπόστολος] who comes to you be welcomed as the Lord. 5 But he should not remain more than a day. If he must, he may stay one more. But if he stays three days, he is a false prophet [ψευδοπροφήτης]. 6 When the apostle [ὁ ἀπόστολος] leaves he should take nothing except bread, until he arrives at his night’s lodging. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet [ψευδοπροφήτης].

Didache 13.1: 1 Every true prophet [προφήτης ἀληθινός] who wants to settle down with you deserves his food.

Thus the entire "parade of prophets" from the Hebrew scriptures opens up as subtext:

Exodus 3.13-15: 13 Then Moses said to God, “Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent [ἀπέσταλκεν] me to you.’ Now they may say to me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I say to them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am,” and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘“I am” has sent [ἀπέσταλκεν] me to you.’” 15 God, furthermore, said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent [ἀπέσταλκεν] me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial name to all generations.”

Isaiah 6.8: 8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send [ἀποστείλω], and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me [ἀπόστειλόν με]!”

Jeremiah 7.25: 25 “Since the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt until this day, I have sent you all My servants the prophets, daily rising early; and I sent [ἀπέστειλα] them.”

Jeremiah 14.14: 14 Then the Lord said to me, “The prophets are prophesying falsehood in My name. I have neither sent them [οὐκ ἀπέστειλα αὐτοὺς] nor commanded them nor spoken to them; they are prophesying to you a false vision, divination, futility and the deception of their own minds.”

Zechariah 2.9: 9 “For behold, I will wave My hand over them so that they will be plunder for their slaves. Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent [ἀπέσταλκεν] Me.”

This, I think, is fairly clearly the origin of the term "apostle" for early Christian missionaries. They were prophets sent by God. And this seems to me to be the case before even considering some of the most hamfisted references:

Luke 11.49-51: 49 “For this reason also the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send [ἀποστελῶ] to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, 50 so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the alt []ar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.’”

Matthew 23.34-36: 34 “Therefore, behold, I am sending [ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω] to you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.”

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply