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.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7214
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 12:22 pm

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:09 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:36 am
Proper "order" was a trope:
I would guess it was also a technical term among ancient historians as well as "accurately" and probably also "leaving out"
With all due qualifications about what might qualify as a "technical term," I agree. It was jargon meant to convey a certain feeling of trust or confidence in an ancient history.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7214
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and M

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:26 pm

perseusomega9 wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:33 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed May 24, 2017 1:27 pm
This idea also lies behind Stephen Carlson's translation of the verb προγεγράφθαι in Clement's comments (referred to above) as "published openly" (not "written beforehand"): Matthew and Luke were ready for publication, while Mark was still just a set of notes, handed out for the needs of Peter's audience.
(How far this early Christian impression of the gospel of Mark reflects the author's intentions is open for discussion, obviously.)
Markus Vinzent in Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels puts forth the argument that Markion had written an unpublished gospel of which later writers used as a template and was incorporated into published gospels/NT. It was at that point that Markion then published his Gospel with the Apostolikon and prefaced with the Antithesis.
I do tend to think that the Marcionite gospel did not precede the Lucan version in toto; rather, both Marcion and Luke modified a proto-gospel for their own purposes (with Luke probably having exercised the heavier hand in the redaction).

What I have an issue with is that Marcion himself was responsible for the proto-gospel (or the "unpublished version" in the above reconstruction). I suspect he was having to make do.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11384
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 3:46 pm

The best argument for Marcionite priority is the terrible arguments leveled against it. For instance the use of "apostolic" - originally meaning "belonging to THE apostle" - now used artificially to mean something like a sub-class of devotee, viz. follower of the apostles. It is clear what came first. But then to make Luke confess his secondary nature with 1.1 - 4. File this under too good to be true.
“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: 7214
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 4:58 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:46 pm
The best argument for Marcionite priority is the terrible arguments leveled against it. For instance the use of "apostolic" - originally meaning "belonging to THE apostle" - now used artificially to mean something like a sub-class of devotee, viz. follower of the apostles. It is clear what came first.
It seems pretty clear to me that "apostolic" was used as a way to make the likes of (John) Mark as close to an apostle as possible without actually calling him one.

No way was "apostolic man" used of an actual apostle first; such a man (whether Paul himself or one of the others) would simply be called an "apostle," obviously.

If this is what you meant by which came first, then I agree with you.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

perseusomega9
Posts: 576
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and M

Post by perseusomega9 » Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:01 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:26 pm
perseusomega9 wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:33 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed May 24, 2017 1:27 pm
This idea also lies behind Stephen Carlson's translation of the verb προγεγράφθαι in Clement's comments (referred to above) as "published openly" (not "written beforehand"): Matthew and Luke were ready for publication, while Mark was still just a set of notes, handed out for the needs of Peter's audience.
(How far this early Christian impression of the gospel of Mark reflects the author's intentions is open for discussion, obviously.)
Markus Vinzent in Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels puts forth the argument that Markion had written an unpublished gospel of which later writers used as a template and was incorporated into published gospels/NT. It was at that point that Markion then published his Gospel with the Apostolikon and prefaced with the Antithesis.
I do tend to think that the Marcionite gospel did not precede the Lucan version in toto; rather, both Marcion and Luke modified a proto-gospel for their own purposes (with Luke probably having exercised the heavier hand in the redaction).

What I have an issue with is that Marcion himself was responsible for the proto-gospel (or the "unpublished version" in the above reconstruction). I suspect he was having to make do.
But this reconstruction does mesh with Carlson's (sequencing), though I'm guessing they differ greatly in dating. I'm really seeing GMark as a first redaction of unpublished Markion. GLuke as a redaction to published Markion.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7214
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and M

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:03 pm

perseusomega9 wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:01 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:26 pm
perseusomega9 wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:33 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed May 24, 2017 1:27 pm
This idea also lies behind Stephen Carlson's translation of the verb προγεγράφθαι in Clement's comments (referred to above) as "published openly" (not "written beforehand"): Matthew and Luke were ready for publication, while Mark was still just a set of notes, handed out for the needs of Peter's audience.
(How far this early Christian impression of the gospel of Mark reflects the author's intentions is open for discussion, obviously.)
Markus Vinzent in Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels puts forth the argument that Markion had written an unpublished gospel of which later writers used as a template and was incorporated into published gospels/NT. It was at that point that Markion then published his Gospel with the Apostolikon and prefaced with the Antithesis.
I do tend to think that the Marcionite gospel did not precede the Lucan version in toto; rather, both Marcion and Luke modified a proto-gospel for their own purposes (with Luke probably having exercised the heavier hand in the redaction).

What I have an issue with is that Marcion himself was responsible for the proto-gospel (or the "unpublished version" in the above reconstruction). I suspect he was having to make do.
But this reconstruction does mesh with Carlson's (sequencing), though I'm guessing they differ greatly in dating. I'm really seeing GMark as a first redaction of unpublished Markion. GLuke as a redaction to published Markion.
That is a possible sequence. I am less sure than you are, it would seem, about the exact relationship of Mark to Marcion.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11384
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 5:08 pm

I mean the Marcionites used "apostolic" as adjective for the canon meaning " of" or "belonging to" the apostle (Paul). In the same way " apostolic" was used to describe a type of song sang when someone was leaving. Tertullian's Greek source claims it applied to Mark and Luke because each belonged to an apostle (Peter and Paul respectively).
“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

perseusomega9
Posts: 576
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 5:11 pm

No nativity, jesus just appears, anti disciple...did Markion have passii6n/resurrection narrative or did GMark add that in his redaction adding something like Crossan's Cross Gospel?

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7214
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 5:15 pm

perseusomega9 wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:11 pm
No nativity, jesus just appears, anti disciple...did Markion have passii6n/resurrection narrative or did GMark add that in his redaction adding something like Crossan's Cross Gospel?
On the other hand, "suddenly John." John the baptist appears, according to Tertullian, without introduction in the Marcionite gospel, whereas in Mark he is introduced properly. Was that just the published version of Marcion's gospel? Did the unpublished version introduce John more fittingly?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7214
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 5:19 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:08 pm
I mean the Marcionites used "apostolic" as adjective for the canon meaning " of" or "belonging to" the apostle (Paul). In the same way " apostolic" was used to describe a type of song sang when someone was leaving. Tertullian's Greek source claims it applied to Mark and Luke because each belonged to an apostle (Peter and Paul respectively).
Okay, that makes more sense.

But the two usages both seem unrelated enough that I am not sure why one would require the other to have appeared first.

Marcionites: "It is the apostle's body of epistolary work; it is, in other words, apostolic."
Proto-orthodox: "He is not an apostle, but he worked under an apostle; he is, in other words, apostolic."

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. But I am not sure why this supposition is logically necessary. Is there something else?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply