The Gospel of Marcion Cannot Have Been Derived from the Gospel of Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Gospel of Marcion Cannot Have Been Derived from the Gospel of Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

But you can't just ignore Irenaeus's CHRONIC difficulties with truthfulness just because you like what he says. I want to remind you that:

1. Papias does not mention the gospel of Luke and John but rather only acknowledges that the orders of gospels written by Mark and Matthew can't be reconciled.
2. Irenaeus uses Papias as a witness - get this - for a system where four gospels 'perfectly agree.' How is that possible? Moreover Luke - a new gospel which Papias has no knowledge of - opens with an explicit statement which seems to suggest knowledge of Papias: “Many,” Luke tells us, “have attempted to compose an account of the events that have taken place in our midst(1.1). This information is provided in order to explain why Luke is here presenting his own account: inasmuch as (énslofinsp) many have already written, it seemed good to him to do likewise. For Luke the reference to earlier writings serves rhetorically to establish the significance of “the events that have taken place in our midst.” Luke cannot only mean that his writing follows a precedent set by others. The reference to predecessors serves to establish the significance of one's own work, and it cannot do so if the earlier work leaves nothing further to be said. According to Luke, “many have attempted to compose an account of the events that have taken place in our midst.” The verb (énexelpnoow) is used elsewhere for unsuccessful attempts. As Watson notes:
The question is why Luke thinks that earlier gospels are less than fully successful, while acknowledging that they derive from the authoritative testimony of apostolic eyewitnesses (Lk. 1.2). The answer may be that apostolic testimony reported individual events or sayings but provided no systematic, ordered account of Jesus' ministry in its entirety.16 That is Papias's problem with Mark: And this the Elder used to say: Mark, Peter's translator, wrote accurately what he remembered of the things said or done by the Lord, but not in order."
But what is interesting and my point here is that Irenaeus has alighted upon a new gospel - Luke - which seems to have the same concerns as Irenaeus himself - that is to 'straighten' the disagreements which exist between Matthew and Mark. Interestingly there are sections of Luke which follow Mark almost verbatim and then follows Matthew. Given that Irenaeus himself 'bends' Papias's testimony to allow for a fourfold harmony it seems incredible that 'Luke' has much the same interest. It should be obvious that I think that Irenaeus wrote or edited Luke. That he sets it as the Marcionite gospel is transparently 'fortunate' for up until now we have no reason to suspect that Marcion fit anywhere in Papias's plans. But clearly as we know from the Latin prologues that Papias made mention of Marcion and his gospel, there necessarily has to be some underlying connection between 'the gospel of Mark' known to Papias and Marcion.

Clearly Mark is removed as a source of 'heresy' (except in 3.11.7) and Marcion's falsification of Luke becomes the focus of Irenaeus's investigations. But how can Marcion stealing Luke make any sense of all in this scenario? Papias clearly says that Mark and Matthew don't agree. Luke wrote his gospel as a reaction against this difficulty. Why would Marcion have come along and stolen THAT gospel and corrupted it? If Watson's reading is correct, Mark's gospel stands first like Paul's gospel according to Marcion's understanding. A 'Jewish Christian' gospel then appeared afterwards with the attached accusation that it added 'Jewish things' to that gospel. The supporters of this second gospel - according to Watson's understanding - prefer it to Mark because it is 'in the correct order.' Why then did Luke have to come along and add his text to the mix? The obvious answer is that it served the purpose of saving Mark - Mark in the form preserved in the canon. Because Marcion's gospel is now entirely disassociated from Mark (except from the Philosophumena which derives from earlier traditions that what appears about the Marcionites in Against Heresies). That is the purpose of Luke. Luke affirms that Paul 'gave in for an hour' - that he accepted the gospel which had been established in Jerusalem. Luke is an affirmation that a harmony can be made between Matthew and Mark. That Papias's testimony is as Irenaeus construed it - the building blocks for a greater harmony of the gospels.

This is very creative. Ingenious. Whatever. But is it a truthful reading of Papias? Is it faithful to what Papias actually says? No. Irenaeus is a cunt. That's the bottom line.
“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
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Gospel of Marcion Cannot Have Been Derived from the Gospel of Mark

Post by John2 »

Irenaeus uses Papias as a witness - get this - for a system where four gospels 'perfectly agree.'

Where do you get this idea? I would guess from AH 3.1.1, and if so, while Irenaeus does appear to be dependent on Papias regarding Mark and Matthew there, he does not say that he got his information about Luke and John from Papias, and I don't see why it should be assumed that did, particularly because, as you note, Papias does not appear to have been aware of Luke and John (MacDonald persuades me that he was not, anyway).

In other words, I don't think Ireneaus was dependent on Papias for what he says about Luke and John in AH 3.1.1, and in any event he does not ascribe the fourfold gospel idea to him.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Gospel of Marcion Cannot Have Been Derived from the Gospel of Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

Where do you get this idea?
What that (a) Irenaeus uses Papias or that (b) Irenaeus says the four gospels agree? I think that you have no difficulty gleaning a single piece of evidence and ignoring the context which is what Irenaeus does. That's why this discussion doesn't phase you. As long as you get the sentence you want the paragraph which contextualizes the sentence is irrelevant.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Thu Mar 05, 2020 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“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
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Gospel of Marcion Cannot Have Been Derived from the Gospel of Mark

Post by John2 »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:55 pm
Where do you get this idea?
What that (a) Irenaeus uses Papias or that (b) the four gospels agree?

That there were four gospels that "perfectly agree." As I said, I do think Irenaeus used Papias for information about Mark and Matthew, but not for information about Luke and John.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Gospel of Marcion Cannot Have Been Derived from the Gospel of Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

As I said, I do think Irenaeus used Papias for information about Mark and Matthew, but not for information about Luke and John.
But if Papias came first and said that Mark and Matthew have difficulties how can Irenaeus use Papias's testimony in good conscience for a claim that not only Mark and Matthew but now Luke and John all perfectly agree. It's logically impossible.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Gospel of Marcion Cannot Have Been Derived from the Gospel of Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

In several places of Adv. Haer. 3 Irenaeus presents his view of the relationship of the four written Gospels to the one apostolic Gospel, to each other, and to various doctrinal issues. The first such presentation occurs in 3.1.1 (SC 211:20-24) where he treats the apostolicity of the four Gospels. The first part of the paragraph (SC 211:20.1—22.17) argues that each of the Apostles who imparted the one Gospel to the church first in worldwide preaching and then in Scriptures, possessed perfect knowledge from the Holy Spirit. This counters the heretics' charge that the Apostles preached prior to having perfect knowledge and removes their ground for postulating themselves as ones who improve the Apostles. Irenaeus teaches that the Spirit at his descent had revealed to the Apostles the perfect knowledge of the one Gospel so that they “together (or equally) and individually” (pariter et singuli) had the Gospel of God. https://books.google.com/books?id=5vRvC ... 22&f=false
How can you get to this worldview with Papias as your cornerstone? It is impossible. It's like reconciling participating in an all you can eat Brazilian barbecue as a strict vegetarian.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Thu Mar 05, 2020 8:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Gospel of Marcion Cannot Have Been Derived from the Gospel of Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

Papias's notion that Mark got it wrong necessarily precludes Mark participating in the Holy Spirit. He isn't an instrument of the 'divine economy.' We don't care about this matter because from our modern perception writing is a human endeavor. But this wasn't how the ancient understood it. It wasn't how Irenaeus understood how Matthew and Mark wrote their gospels. Papias clearly says that Mark wrote as a human being. Irenaeus necessarily claims Mark was an instrument of the Holy Spirit and that his gospel - as well as the other four - all fit together in one divine harmony. Papias necessarily sees Mark's arrangement as flawed. I don't know how you can't see that and aren't aware of the difficulty that using Papias poses for Irenaeus's system. It's as if you're just waiting it out until I lose my temper and say something insulting. Why not just be truthful instead and admit Irenaeus isn't being faithful to Papias's testimony.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Gospel of Marcion Cannot Have Been Derived from the Gospel of Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

I will try this one more time. Up until a century or two ago it was enough that 'something' was 'written.' Whether it was 'the Bible' or 'the Fathers' the fact that we had 'writings' which said 'things' settled the history of the Church. Eusebius's history was 'real history.' Josephus's history of the Jewish War was 'the history of the Jewish War.' We could just read what was written on the page and basically take whatever the Bible, Josephus, Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus and the rest wrote as fact. This plainly is not so any longer. The way these texts survived is problematic. They existed for perhaps centuries as subterranean texts. In the case of Josephus for instance we have no idea when they 'surfaced' as historical works. We aren't even sure who the first historical individuals were who used Josephus's history. In the case of Justus of Tiberias it is clear he wrote for a wide audience and was well regarded. He had no 'assistants' helping him out. Who this Josephus was is a matter of dispute.

In the case of Christian writings it is even worse. Writers like Irenaeus wrote one step removed from 'public writers' like Lucian and Celsus - men who ridiculed Christianity. In some form Irenaeus was responding to widespread mistrust of Christianity among the general population. He was, as Celsus implies, writing to 'correct' the Christianity that came before him. Irenaeus is the first exponent of the fourfold gospel that is the cornerstone of the surviving Christian religion. Celsus tells us this expansion of the gospel from one or two to three or four was as a result of men like himself ridiculing the religion. We get this in Hegesippus's comments about Marcellina as well. The name of the Lord is being blasphemed among the Gentiles because of the gnostics.

But to make pleasing the Gentiles the focus of your reform efforts is a strange development. How would one 'correct' the things promulgated in the early and mid second century? Clearly making them more Jewish is one step. It was the novelty of Christianity which brought the ire of Celsus. Celsus says that the Jews suffered from the Christians in the manner that the Egyptians suffered from the Israelites pointing out that the 'Logos' of Christianity (a double entendre between 'Jesus' and the logic of the religion) led to revolt. Irenaeus wanted to present a Christianity which was not revolutionary. One way of doing this was to suppose that it was faithful to its Jewish origins rather than combative against its mother religion. While you take the fruits of Irenaeus's reform efforts - i.e. the reporting on an early Jewish Christian sectarian group 'the Ebionites' - as something important, it sounds suspiciously like something which was being moved to the fore by the Church Father because it would present a 'positive' image of the religion to the Gentiles.

In other words, by showing and highlighting a form of the religion which stayed true to its 'Jewish roots' Christianity could avoid the charge of being an irrational revolt against authority. I am not sure I dispute that there ever were 'Jewish Christians.' I am just suspicious that Irenaeus's reporting was necessarily compromised by his purpose in writing Against Heresies. And this is where Papias comes in. You can't simply introduce two new gospels that your source has never heard of - Luke and John - and pretend that your newly fashioned fourfold gospel is part of an ancient tradition. If the fourfold gospel is new, then the tradition is new - the 'Catholic Church' or 'great church' as Celsus calls it was necessarily a new invention. This is why Papias reports disharmony between two gospels (Mark and Matthew) and years later Irenaeus sees harmony when the number of gospels is raised to four.

Irenaeus's fourfold gospel had no 'history.' It was a new invention. The individual gospels were undoubtedly altered to make them 'fit' and avoid the conflicts that Papias witnessed between Mark and Matthew. To this end, he needed to find a tradition which connected his new fourfold gospel to the apostles. Remember the Marcionites had Paul or whatever they called him writing a gospel outside of the Jerusalem church. The Jerusalem church seems to have been associated with Hegesippus's Outlines. Irenaeus and Tertullian somehow identify Luke as the written text (gospel) which Paul presented to Jerusalem Church and submitted (to their authority) for a while. Implicitly at least the gospel which Luke was compared to was Matthew. What has clearly happened here - if Watson's interpretation is accepted - is that Mark's primary rank (as the first gospel) has been bypassed and Matthew and Luke takes center stage. I can't help but see this necessarily implies that Mark was the gospel of the Marcionites (as the Philosophumena says).

But my point is that what Irenaeus is attempting to correct is Papias's witness of Marcionite primacy. Think about it.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Gospel of Marcion Cannot Have Been Derived from the Gospel of Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

And then there is other difficulty. The way Tertullian describes the beginning of the Marcionite gospel - and this goes back to the OP - the order is completely contradictory to what appears in Luke but also Mark and Matthew. Jesus descends from heaven to earth (most likely Jerusalem). Ephrem says Bethsaida. Luke's ordering of synagogue narratives in Nazareth and then Capernaum are inverted. Tertullian says the descent happens at Capernaum. Jesus heals the demoniac and then the stuff which precedes the healing in Luke comes after it and Jesus flies. Very little in the synoptics actually contradict one another. What we see in Luke actually contradicts the synoptic ordering (especially if Irenaeus and the Syriac fragments descent to Judea is factored in). But doesn't that make you suspicious that Luke is supposed to be the gospel of Marcion and the gospel of Marcion contradicts the synoptic ordering. It's almost as if the Marcionite gospel is the Mark that Papias says contradicts the ordering of Matthew, queen of the synoptics according to all standard orderings in antiquity. Notice also that Tertullian's Against Marcion pays special attention to improper ordering in the gospel of Marcion i.e. what is said when John appears suddenly:
From what direction does John make his appearance? Christ unexpected: John also unexpected. With Marcion all things are like that: with the Creator they have their own compact order.

Unde autem et Ioannes venit in medium? Subito Christus, subito et Ioannes. Sic sunt omnia apud Marcionem, quae suum et plenum habent ordinem apud creatorem. Sed de Ioanne cetera alibi. [11.4]
It is worth noting that Papias's interest in 'order' have a different sense in anti-Marcionite treatises - i.e. dispensation:
And indeed I do allow that one order did run its course in the old dispensation under the Creator,10 and that another is on its way in the new under Christ.

Atque adeo confiteor alium ordinem decucurrisse in veteri dispositione apud creatorem, alium in nova apud Christum.
and again:
You have now our answer to the Antitheses compendiously indicated by us. I pass on to give a proof of the Gospel38 ----not, to be sure, of Jewry, but of Pontus----having become meanwhile39 adulterated; and this shall indicate the order by which we proceed.

Habes nunc ad Antitheses expeditam a nobis responsionem. Transeo nunc ad evangelii, sane non Iudaici sed Pontici, interim adulterati demonstrationem, praestructuram ordinem quem aggredimur. [2.1]
The incorrect 'ordering' of Marcion's gospel is a sign of forgery:
In short, when Marcion laid hands on it, it then became diverse and hostile to the Gospels of the apostles. [7] I will therefore advise his followers, that they either change these Gospels, however late to do so, into a conformity with their own, whereby they may seem to be in agreement with the apostolic writings (for they are daily retouching their work, as daily they are convicted by us); or else that they blush for their master, who stands self-condemned134 either way----when once135 he hands on the truth of the gospel conscience smitten, or again136 subverts it by shameless tampering. Such are the summary arguments which we use, when we take up arms137 against heretics for the faith138 of the gospel, maintaining both that order of periods, which rules that a late date is the mark of forgers,139 and that authority of churches140 which lends support to the tradition of the apostles; because truth must needs precede the forgery, and proceed straight from those by whom it has been handed on.

Denique ubi manus illi Marcion intulit, tunc diversum et aemulum factum est apostolicis. [7] Igitur dabo consilium discipulis eius, ut aut et illa convertant, licet sero, ad formam sui, quo cum apostolicis convenire videantur (nam et cotidie reformant illud, prout a nobis cotidie revincuntur), aut erubescant de magistro utrobique traducto, cum evangelii veritatem nunc ex conscientia tramittit, nunc ex impudentia evertit. His fere compendiis utimur, cum de evangelii fide adversus haereticos expedimur, defendentibus et temporum ordinem posteritati falsariorum praescribentem, et auctoritatem ecclesiarum traditioni apostolorum patrocinantem, quia veritas falsum praecedat necesse est, et ab eis procedat a quibus tradita est. [5.6, 7]
The 'order' of his descent is problematic too. The synoptics of course have a dove come down but Marcion's gospel has Jesus himself descend:
In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius155 (for such is Marcion's proposition) he "came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum," of course meaning from the heaven of the Creator, to which he had previously descended from his own. What then had been his order for him to be described as first descending from his own heaven to the Creator's? For why should I abstain from censuring those parts of the statement which do not satisfy the requirement of an ordinary narrative, but always end in a falsehood? To be sure, our censure has been once for all expressed in the question, which we have already157 suggested: Whether, when descending through the Creator's domain, and indeed in hostility to him, he could possibly have been admitted by him, and by him been transmitted to the earth, which was equally his territory? [2] Now, however, I want also to know the remainder of his order down, assuming that he came down. For we must not be too nice in inquiring158 whether it is supposed that he was seen in any place. To come into view159 indicates160 a sudden unexpected glance, which for a moment fixed161 the eye upon the object that passed before the view, without staying. But when it happens that a descent has been effected, it is apparent, and comes under the notice of the eyes.162 Moreover, it takes account of fact, and thus obliges one to examine in what condition with what preparation,163 with how much violence or moderation, and further, at what time of the day or night, the descent was made; who, again, saw the descent, who reported it, who seriously avouched the fact, which certainly was not easy to be believed, even after the asseveration.

Ecquid2 ergo ordinis fuerat ut prius de suo caelo in creatoris descendens describeretur? Cur enim non et ista reprehendam quae non implent fidem ordinariae narrationis, deficientis in mendacio semper? Plane semel dicta sint per quae iam alibi retractavimus an descendens per creatorem, et quidem adversus ipsum, potuerit ab eo admitti et inde tramitti in terram aeque ipsius. [2] Nunc autem et reliquum ordinem descensionis expostulo, tenens descendisse illum. Viderit enim sicubi appamisse positum est. Apparere subitum ex inopinato sapit conspectum, qui semel impegerit oculos in id quod sine mora apparuit. Descendisse autem dum fit, videtur et subit3 oculos. De facto etiam ordinem facit, atque ita cogit exigere, quali habitu, quali suggestu, quonam impetu vel temperamento, etiam quo in tempore diei noctisve descenderit: praeterea quis viderit descendentem, quis retulerit, quis asseveraverit rem utique nec asseveranti facile credendam. [7.1,2]
Tertullian makes reference to the improper 'order' in the Marcionite gospel with respect to healing of the leper:
On the same principle occurs all the rest. So far as renouncing all human glory went, He forbade the man to publish abroad the cure; but so far as the honour of the law was concerned, He requested that the usual course should be followed: "Go, show thyself to the priest, and present the offering which Moses commanded."261 For the figurative signs of the law in its types He still would have observed, because of their prophetic import.

Secundum haec cetera quoque occurrunt. Quantum enim ad gloriae humanae aversionem pertinebat, vetuit eum divulgare, quantum autem ad tutelam legis, iussit ordinem impleri: Vade, ostende te sacerdoti, et offer mvmus quod praecepit Moyses ... [9.9]
The reference again to the improper 'order' in the Marcionite gospel with respect to John:
Unde autem et Ioannes venit in medium? Subito Christus, subito et Ioannes. Sic sunt omnia apud Marcionem, quae suum et plenum habent ordinem apud creatorem. Sed de Ioanne cetera alibi. Ad praesentes enim quosque articulos respondendum est. Nunc illud tuebor, ut demonstrem et Ioannem Christo et Christum Ioanni convenire, utique prophetae creatoris, qua Christum creatoris, atque ita erubescat haereticus, Ioannis ordinem frustra frustratus.
The author implores Marcion to learn 'the proper order of the prophets' which is missing from his gospel:
Certe evangelizat Sion et Hierusalem pacem et bona omnia, certe ascendit in montem et illic pernoctat in oratione et utique auditur a patre. Evolve igitur prophetas, et ordinem totum recognosce.

Surely to Sion He brings good tidings, and to Jerusalem peace and all blessings; He goes up into a mountain, and there spends a night in prayer,423 and He is indeed heard by the Father. Accordingly turn over the prophets, and learn therefrom His entire course.424 "Into the high mountain," says Isaiah, "get Thee up, who bringest good tidings to Sion; lift up Thy voice with strength, who bringest good tidings to Jerusalem." [13.1]
The allusion to the improper 'ordering' of Marcion's gospel appears almost always at the head of each section. So in the next chapter:
Venio nunc ad ordinarias sententias eius, per quas proprietatem doctrinae suae inducit, ad edictum, ut ita dixerim, Christi: Beati mendici (sic enim exigit interpretatio vocabuli quod in Graeco est), quoniam illorum est regnum dei.

I now come to those ordinary precepts of His, by means of which He adapts the peculiarity454 of His doctrine to what I may call His official proclamation as the Christ.455 "Blessed are the needy" (for no less than this is required for interpreting the word in the Greek,456 "because theirs is the kingdom of heaven."457 Now this very fact, that He begins with beatitudes, is characteristic of the Creator, who used no other voice than that of blessing either in the first fiat or the final dedication of the universe: for "my heart," says He, "hath indited a very good word." [14.1]
Later the author complains that the Marcionite emphasis of love of the stranger is out of proper order:
For what man will be able to bestow the love (which proceeds from knowledge of character,591 upon strangers? Since, however, the second step592 in charity is towards strangers, while the first is towards one's neighbours, the second step will belong to him to whom the first also belongs, more fitly than the second will belong to him who owned no first.593 Accordingly, the Creator, when following the course of nature, taught in the first instance kindness to neighbours,594 intending afterwards to enjoin it towards strangers; and when following the method of His dispensation, He limited charity first to the Jews, but afterwards extended it to the whole race of mankind. [16.11]
The menstrual flow of the sinful woman was wrongly interpreted by the Marcionites as being out of order:
She therefore, not without reason,765 interpreted for herself the law, as meaning that such things as are susceptible of defilement become defiled, but not so God, whom she knew for certain to be in Christ. But she recollected this also, that what came under the prohibition of the law766 was that ordinary and usual issue of blood which proceeds from natural functions every month, and in childbirth, not that which was the result of disordered health. Her case, however, was one of long abounding767 ill health, for which she knew that the succour of God's mercy was needed, and not the natural relief of time. [20.12]
The example of David provides the proper 'order' of Christ:
If you also turn to the fourth book, you will discover all this conduct790 of Christ [ordinem Christi] pursued by that man of God, who ordered ten791 barley loaves which had been given him to be distributed among the people; and when his servitor, after contrasting the large number of the persons with the small supply of the food, answered, "What, shall I set this before a hundred men? "he said again, "Give them, and they shall eat: for thus saith the Lord, They shall eat, and shall leave thereof, according to the word of the Lord."792 O Christ, even in Thy novelties Thou art old! [21.2]
He speaks of Christ of the fourfold gospel reflecting the order of the Creator:
But if he was in error here because of his previous erroneous opinion,857 then you may be sure that up to that very day no new divinity had been revealed by Christ, and that Peter had so far made no mistake, because hitherto Christ had revealed nothing of the kind; and that Christ accordingly was not to be regarded as belonging to any other than the Creator, whose entire dispensation858 he, in fact, here described

Quodsi ideo et hic erravit quia et supra, ergo certus es in illum diem quoque nullam novam divinitatem a Christo revelatam, et usque adhuc non errasse Petrum, Christo usque adhuc nihil eiusmodi revelante, et tamdiu non alterius deputandum Christum quam creatoris, cuius omnem et hic ordinem expressit. [22.6]
The true gospel is 'orderly' because it accepts apparently the 'order of prophecy.'
Lastly, you may discover the suitable times of the promise, if you read what precedes the passage: "Be strong, ye weak hands and ye feeble knees: then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear; then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall be articulate."981 When, therefore, He proclaimed the benefits of His cures, then also did He put the scorpions and the serpents under the feet of His saints----even He who had first received this power from the Father, in order to bestow it upon others and then manifested it forth conformably to the order of prophecy [et secundum ordinem praedicationis exhibuit]
When his disciples ask him how to pray the issue of 'order' is brought up again and the Marcionite emphasis on a 'new order':
If, however, he had already learned this, prove it. If you find nowhere any proof, let me tell you1048 that it was to the Creator that he asked for instruction in prayer, to whom John's disciples also used to pray. But, inasmuch as John had introduced some new order of prayer, this disciple had not improperly presumed to think that he ought also to ask of Christ whether they too must not (according to some special rule of their Master) pray, not indeed to another god, but in another manner. [Sed quia et Ioannes novum aliquem ordinem orationis induxerat, ideo hoc et a Christo discipulus eius expostulandum non immerito praesumpserat, ut et illi de proprio magistri sui instituto non alium, sed aliter, deum orarent]
and again a few sentences later:
Who shall suffer us not to be led into temptation? He before whom the tempter will never be able to tremble; or He who from the beginning has beforehand condemned1059 the angel tempter? If any one, with such an order [hoc ordine] invokes another god and not the Creator, he does not pray; he only blasphemes.
Again Marcion's lack of reference to the Old Testament marks the gospel as being improperly ordered:
(Now, I ask, ) after going through all this course of the Creator's order and prophecies, what there is in it which can possibly be assigned to him who has done all his work at one hasty stroke,1273 and possesses neither the Creator's order nor His dispensation in harmony with the parable? Or, again in what will consist his first invitation,1275 and what his admonition1276 at the second stage? Some at first would surely decline; others afterwards must have accepted."1277 But now he comes to invite both parties promiscuously out of the city,1278 out of the hedges,1279 contrary to the drift1280 of the parable.

Quid ex hoc ordine secundum dispositionem et praedicationes creatoris recensendo competere potest illi, cuius nec ordinem habet nec dispositionem ad parabolae conspirationem qui totum opus semel fecit? Aut quae erit prima vocatio eius, et quae secundo actu admonitio? Ante debent alii excusare, postea alii convenisse. Nunc autem pariter utramque partem invitare venit, de civitate, de sepibus, adversus speculum parabolae.
The point here is since we don't now know in what way Mark 'was not in the correct order' - couldn't it have been in the way Marcion's gospel was repeatedly said to be 'out of order' - i.e. out of order with the old testament?
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Gospel of Marcion Cannot Have Been Derived from the Gospel of Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

Papias writes of Mark that:
Μάρκος μέν, ερμηνευτής Πέτρου γενόμενος, όσα εμνημόνευσεν ακριβώς έγραψεν, ου μέντοι τάξει, τα υπό του χριστού ή λεχθέντα ή πραχθέντα, ούτε γάρ ήκουσε του κυρίου ούτε παρηκολούθησεν αυτώ ύστερον δέ, ως έφην, Πέτρω, ος προς τας χρείας εποιείτο τασ διδασκαλίας αλλ ' ουχ ώστερ σύνταξιν των κυριακών ποιούμενος λογίων
Could this mean that it wasn't properly contextualized theologically? That Mark suffered from the same incorrect 'order' that Marcion was accused of in the originally Greek text of Against Marcion? He heard things said by the Lord and then improperly contextualized them outside of the Old Testament. Look at what the Letter to Theodore says:
As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected.
Clearly Mark has recontextualized the saying of Jesus as he heard them in a 'new' mystery religion. But clearly something 'new' is opposed to what the anti-Marcionite literature wants - i.e. it to be firmly rooted in something old. Mark is necessarily saying - Jesus's sayings can be arranged 'this way' i.e. as a gateway to a new religion. This is problematic for 'conservatives' like Irenaeus and Tertullian who want it firmly connected back to something old. But where did Papias stand on this? My guess in some form with Irenaeus and Tertullian. The 'newness' of Mark's religion - a mystery religion assembled from bits and pieces preserved of Jesus's saying was necessarily problematic.

Papias says that Mark wrote οὐ τάξει. The limited minds of scholars have only been able to approach this in terms of chronology. That may be part of it too. But did Mark οὐ τάξει in terms of his contextualization of the sayings too? See Kok's discussion here - https://books.google.com/books?id=5-YcB ... ng&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
Post Reply