How Do Luke and John Know About Mary and Martha?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7860
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Do Luke and John Know About Mary and Martha?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Sep 11, 2017 2:42 pm

Let me reframe your question for people who like Marcion. Tertullian and later rescensions of Irenaeus's Adversus Haereses claim that Marcion falsified Luke. Fine. That's an argument. That's not a fact. But pretending that the gospel of Marcion was a version of Luke keeps everyone speaking about 'Luke' like it had some pre-existence before Irenaeus which in fact there is no strong evidence for that assertion. The actual evidence speaks of countless 'harmony gospels' each slightly different than the next where 'the canonical four' connected with the primal Tetrad in heaven is used to straighten out the mess. In other words, Irenaeus's THE 'four gospel set' only presents some neo-Pythagorean/Platonic 'solution' to the problem of rampant forgery in the first century of Christianity. Personally I can accept that there was rampant forgery at the beginning of Christianity rather than pretending that every reference to 'Luke' (from our POV) is in fact a reference to 'Luke.' What if there wasn't this 'idealized' - Platonized - solution to the simple solution described in such sources as Al-Jabbar - viz. the Christians just destroyed the credibility of their religion by rampant forgery? Why is that so hard to understand or accept. There were dozens of gospels, everyone was laughing at the Christians and their 'true word' until some Christian - probably Irenaeus the lover and master of cento poems - 'centonized' and rearranged the many gospels into four idealized 'types.' Why believe in the four? The Marcionites were one such negation of this theory. Clement is another. Justin another still and undoubtedly Tatian too. There are many, many others.
“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: 7860
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Do Luke and John Know About Mary and Martha?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Sep 11, 2017 2:49 pm

And the date of Clement doesn't really matter because he clearly connects with Tatian and Justin before him as 'harmony gospel' witnesses. It's like Irenaeus and possibly Polycarp are encircled by the older tradition.
“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: 7860
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Do Luke and John Know About Mary and Martha?

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:46 pm

Clear echoes of a Mark versus Matthew comparison at the heart of QDS:
"And Jesus answering said, Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall leave what is his own, parents, and children, and wealth, for My sake and the Gospel's, shall receive an hundredfold." But let neither this trouble you, nor the still harder saying delivered in another place in the words, "Whoso hateth not father, and mother, and children, and his own life besides, cannot be My disciple."
Matthew reads:
And everyone who has left (ἀφῆκεν) houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.
All of what follows in the chapter in QDS is an attempt to harmonize Mark's 'hate' with Matthew's 'leave.' The second saying only appears in Luke (and as such not in Matthew).
“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: 7860
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Do Luke and John Know About Mary and Martha?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:05 am

Interesting is Origen's parallel discussion in the Commentary on Matthew
If, therefore, someone left (ἀφῆκε) everything behind and followed Jesus, he will be furnished with those things said to Peter according to his question; but if not all things, but [only] the things introduced, such a one will receive (cf. Lk 18.30) many times as much and will inherit eternal life (ὁ τοιοῦτος πολλαπλασίονα λήψεται καὶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσει). One must understand from this, “And each one who left behind (ἀφῆκεν) brothers or sisters,” etc., that certain things have been said specifically (εἰδικῶς λελεγμένα) not comprehensively. Now any person would confess that what is presented here, even at the simple level of the text, is no contemptible word persuading someone to despise all fleshly relatives (τὸ πάσης σαρκικῆς συγγενείας καταφρονεῖν) and every possession (καὶ πάσης τῆς κτήσεως). But if indeed this admits of anagogy, someone may hesitate, but also give an account of what that would involve. Indeed it is clear according to the letter that many of those who believed in our Savior were hated by relatives (πολλοὶ τῶν πιστευσάντων εἰς τὸν σωτῆρα ἡμῶν ἐμισήθησαν ὑπὸ συγ γενῶν), and they chose to forsake them and each possession for the sake of inheriting eternal life (καὶ εἵλαντο τούτους καὶ πᾶσαν κτῆσιν καταλιπεῖν ὑπὲρ τοῦ κληρονομῆσαι τὴν αἰώνιον ζωήν), having been persuaded that each one who leaves behind brothers according to the flesh, sisters who are relatives only in body, parents of bodies, and children of flesh, and the fields in the accursed earth and the houses in it, and leaves behind [these things] for no other reason but for the sake of the name of Jesus, he will receive many times as much (πεισθέντες ὅτι πᾶς ὅστις ἀφῆκε τοὺς κατὰ σάρκα ἀδελφοὺς καὶ τὰς συγγενεῖς μόνῳ τῷ σώματι ἀδελφὰς καὶ γονεῖς τῶν σωμάτων καὶ τὰ τέκνα τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τοὺς ἐν τῇ ἐπικαταράτῳ γῇ ἀγροὺς καὶ τὰς ἐν αὐτῇ οἰκίας, καὶ ἀφῆκεν οὐ δι' ἄλλο τι ἀλλ' ἕνεκεν τοῦ ὀνό ματος Ἰησοῦ, πολλαπλασίονα λήψεται). For many times as much (πολλαπλασίονα) and (if it is necessary to name it as such) infinitely more times as much are spiritual things to somatic things, and so as to receive many times as much (πολλαπλασίονα), not in the present time (οὐκ ἐν προσκαίρῳ ζωῇ), but what happens in eternity (ἀλλ' ἐν αἰωνίῳ γενόμενος), he will inherit it. For, on the one hand, it is easy to explain the many times as much brothers and sisters (πολλαπλασίονας μὲν γὰρ ἀδελφοὺς καὶ ἀδελφὰς) which someone has left behind on account of the word of God. For indeed in this world many times as much are the brothers-according-to-the-faith than those who have been forsaken on account of unbelief by those who have believed. So also someone receives [as] “parents” all bishops who are free from censure and presbyters who are without reproach, in place of the other two he has forsaken. Similarly also children are all those having the stature of children. But how might one inherit many times more fields or houses than those he has forsaken? It is no longer possible to offer an interpretation similar [to the previous things], unless perhaps someone who has been pressed hard by scarcity commends this, which is not reasonable. Once one allegorizes fields and houses, it will be necessary to offer [an interpretation] in accordance with the [passage’s] sequence and the higher reality of these things.

There are, therefore (I think), among the holy and blessed powers “brothers” who have arrived “unto the perfect man” among
those who have advanced to “the measure of the stature of Christ” (Eph 4.13). “Sisters” are all those who are presented a pure virgin to Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11.2), not from men only (I think), but also from the rest of the powers. “Parents” may perhaps be those concerning whom it was said to Abraham, “You will depart to your fathers with peace, being nourished in good age” (Gen 15.15). But if they became fathers of others at some time (proportionate to these fathers), they will indeed receive many times as much children in a fashion similar to Abraham. Also, I think, you should understand the “many times as much fields and houses than those that are forsaken” in terms of the rest of the divine paradise, and the city of God, concerning which “glorious things
were spoken” (Ps 86.3), of which “God in the palaces is known, whenever he undertakes to help her” (Ps 47.4), so that one might say about those who inherit houses there, “Just as we have heard, so we have seen in the city of the Lord of powers, in the city of our God” (Ps 47.9), concerning which it is also said, “Divide up her palaces” (Ps 47.14). ^Blessed is it to inherit eternal life for these things, having an inheritance of such fields and such trees which are tended by God and houses of living stones (cf. 1 Pet 2.5), in which each one who has left behind brothers or sisters, and the rest, will rest.^ 52
What is so interesting about this is the fact that Origen - again in a supposed 'Commentary on Matthew' - is arguing over wording that appears only in Luke in our canonical four:
“Truly I tell you,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much (πολλαπλασίονα) in this age, and in the age to come eternal life.”
I am more and more convinced that Origen was originally arguing from a gospel harmony. It simply doesn't make sense to have the text exhibit these sort of arguments which have no place in a 'Matthew commentary-proper.'

Both Clement and Origen on the surface appear to be writing commentaries on parallel passages in Mark and Matthew but strangely focus their energies on other people who argue certain things from other texts without making specific mention often times of the texts they are using. Like right here for instance. Why doesn't Origen say 'according to Luke' anywhere? It would be expected wouldn't it? It certainly isn't Clement's gospel of Mark (which admittedly elsewhere does exhibit 'harmonized' attributes for Clement's text reads:
Whosoever shall leave what is his own, parents, and brethren, and possessions, for My sake and the Gospel's, shall receive an hundred-fold now in this world, lands, and possessions, and house, and brethren, with persecutions; and in the world to come is life everlasting. But many that are first shall be last, and the last first.
Indeed the very argument Origen lays forward makes it clear he is continuing an argument using his own 'Matthew' gospel - a 'harmonized' Matthew-gospel in the same way Clement's gospel of Mark is a 'harmonized Mark-gospel.'

Moreover Clement, as we have demonstrated, is making explicit reference not only to a harmonized Mark-gospel (viz. citing word for word 'Mark' in the opening chapters) but also implicitly referencing a 'harmonized Matthew-gospel' in the rest of the treatise as we have demonstrated. Isn't it worth noting then that the Arabic Diatessaron - a text that bears remarkable similarity to Clement's harmonized-Matthew elsewhere draws from Luke 18:29 - 30 during the rich man narrative:
Verily I say unto you, It is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of 2 heaven. And I say unto you also, that it is easier for a camel to enter the eye of 3 a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. And the disciples were wondering at these sayings. And Jesus answered and said unto them again, My children, how hard it is for those that rely on their possessions to enter the 4 kingdom of God! And those that were listening wondered more, and said amongst 5 themselves, being agitated, Who, thinkest thou, can be saved? And Jesus looked at them intently, and said unto them, With men this is not possible, but with God it is. 6 Arabic, it is possible for God to do everything. Simon Cephas said unto him, Lo, we have left everything, and followed thee; what is it, thinkest thou, that we 7 shall have? Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, Ye that have followed me, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also 8 shall sit on twelve thrones, and shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Verily I say unto you, No man leaveth houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or kinsfolk, or lands, because of the kingdom of God, or for my 9 sake, and the sake of my gospel, who shall not obtain many times as much in this time, and in the world to come inherit eternal life: and now in this time, houses, and brothers, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecution and in the world to come everlasting life . Many that are first shall be last, and that are last shall be first.
I remember sitting on an Alaska airlines flight years ago where I brought along Book 10 of the Schaff Patristic series (not the online version but the actual hard cover book) where Origen's Commentary on Matthew was in the back and the Diatessaron on the front and it struck me absolutely naively and innocently that Origen's commentary followed the Diatessaron. I think this is yet another example from a part of the book which hadn't been translated into the English at the time. Clement's reference to the harmonized-Matthew is yet another piece of evidence. I think Origen had in his hands his master Ammonius's lost harmony which must have been called 'according to Matthew.' Our version of the Commentary on Matthew was reshaped by Eusebius to make it seem less 'heretical' (as already Jerome insinuates). We see similar Eusebian reworking in Contra Celsum and other works (notably the Apology).
“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: 7860
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Do Luke and John Know About Mary and Martha?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Sep 18, 2017 9:00 am

I don't know if this has been noted before but Mark's preference for 'one hundred-fold' appears in my mind to be Biblically based. This is how the passage is normally translated:

So Abimelech charged all the people, saying, "He who touches this man or his wife shall surely be put to death." Now Isaac sowed in that land and reaped in the same year a hundredfold. And the LORD blessed him, and the man became rich, and continued to grow richer until he became very wealthy

מאה שערים = mea shearim = a hundred fold

But in the original Hebrew there is no specific words relating that Isaac was specifically 'wealthy.' Instead he is merely said to be 'greatened' by the Lord:

And Isaac sowed in that land, and found in the same year a hundredfold; and the LORD blessed him. And great (was) the man (וַיִּגְדַּל הָאִישׁ), and grew more and more until he became very great.

This is the basis to the gospel notion of planting hundredfold and reaping hundredfold. Clement elsewhere demonstrates that there was a mystical understanding centered on the number 100:
These chosen abodes, which are three, are indicated by the numbers in the gospel〛 the thirty, the sixty, the hundred. And the perfect inheritance belongs to those who attain to a perfect man, according to the image of the Lord.
Notice again the ambiguous way the Hebrew text refers to Isaac's 'greatening' - "and seeded (or 'sowed') Isaac in that land the same"
“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: 7860
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Do Luke and John Know About Mary and Martha?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Sep 18, 2017 10:46 am

There is a mystical tradition in Judaism associated with the word 100 (not the number 100) which has connection to the tradition of Mark.
The gemara says in the name of R. Meir: One must recite a hundred (מאה) blessings every day, as is written (Dvarim 10), And now Israel, what (מָ֚ה) does the Lord your God ask of you? (Tr. Menachot, page 43b)
The Hebrew word for “what” is מה mah and the word for 100 is מאה ,me'ah – almost the same word, but with the addition of the letter Aleph. Rashi explains that the gemara means to say that instead of mah, we should read it me'ah – and the verse will
then mean not "what does God ask of you," but rather, “100 [blessings] does God ask of you.” Compare that with the parable of the lost sheep being added to the ninety-nine and you see something very similar - albeit (in the manner typical of the followers of Mark) expressed in a manner suitable to the Greek language.
“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: 7860
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Do Luke and John Know About Mary and Martha?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:21 am

And perhaps this wasn't explained in detail enough in my original statement. It's not just that it 'is strange' that Origen focuses attention on 'many fold' in the Commentary on Matthew when this word only appears in Luke's account of the Rich Man narrative. Origen never once makes reference to Matthew's terminology (borrowed from Mark) - ἑκατονταπλασίονα.
“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: 7860
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Do Luke and John Know About Mary and Martha?

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:38 am

This is how Clement introduces his long citation of Mark in QDS:

For there is nothing like listening again to the very same statements, which till now in the Gospels were distressing you, hearing them as you did without examination, and erroneously through puerility:

οὐδὲν γὰρ οἷον αὐτῶν αὖθις ἀκοῦσαι τῶν ῥητῶν, ἅπερ ἡμᾶς ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις ἄχρι νῦν διετάρασσεν ἀβασανίστως καὶ διημαρτημένως ὑπὸ νηπιότητος ἀκροωμένους

The language here seems to have been influenced by Demosthenes - viz. "οὐδὲν γὰρ οἷον ἀκούειν αὐτοῦ τοῦ νόμου" and then a long citation from the law follows. Clement seems elsewhere to have been influenced by the same orator especially in his frequent use of 'philanthropia' https://books.google.com/books?id=igAuj ... ce&f=false

I think the echo of Demosthenes might help us understand the context of the homily. The words come from a speech that Demosthenes likely never gave but published later against Meidias, a wealthy Athenian, who publicly slapped Demosthenes, who was at the time a choregos at the Greater Dionysia. Meidias was a friend of Eubulus and supporter of the unsuccessful excursion in Euboea. He also was an old enemy of the orator, forcibly entering Demosthenes' house along with his brother Thrasylochus in 361 BC, in order to take possession of it. The oration Demosthenes made no resistance to Meidias' violation of the place and occasion, but after the festival, when at a special meeting of the Assembly, he entered a complaint against Meidias. The orator wrote the judicial speech Against Meidias, but he probably never pronounced it. He retired his accusation probably for political reasons although Aeschines maintained that Demosthenes received money to drop the case.

Against Meidias is regarded as one of the most intriguing forensic speeches to survive. It gives valuable information about Athenian law and festivals, and especially about the Greek concept of hubris (aggravated assault), which was regarded as a crime not only against the citizen or city but against society as a whole.

I think Clement may have given the homily as a defense of his own private property which the Alexandrian Church may have claimed as properly belonging to it. I think Clement and Origen (perhaps as a spokesman of the Church at this time) were locked in a battle for Clement's right to retain certain things as his own personal property which the Alexandrian Church - possibly under Demetrius argued properly belonged to them.
“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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ben C. Smith, Bernard Muller, DCHindley, Google [Bot], JoeWallack, John2, Kapyong, MrMacSon, Peter Kirby and 42 guests