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.
John2
Posts: 3242
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 » Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:41 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:34 pm
And I don't think that "all the other gospels came into being because of the Hebrew gospel." Not even Papias says this.
The sentence in question is:
Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.
Whatever we decide Matthew wrote in Hebrew, it clearly implies a seminal influence of this text over everyone and everything else - except Mark which seems to have been written earlier, where Matthew was a response to what Mark wrote. Clearly Ehrman hits the nail on the head when he writes:
what he [Papias] actually says about Matthew and Mark are not true of our Matthew and Mark, and so either he is talking about *other* Gospels that he knows about (or has heard about) called Matthew and Mark, that do not correspond to our Matthew and Mark, or he simply is wrong.

I agree that what Papias says about the original Hebrew Matthew does not correspond with the NT Matthew, given that the NT Matthew is of course in Greek and not Hebrew, but I think it could correspond with translations that were made of it, in the sense that I think at least part of the NT Matthew incorporated at least one translation of the Hebrew Matthew (for the "double tradition").

I would need to see more that Ehrman says about what Papias says about Mark in order to know why he thinks it does "not correspond with" the NT Mark. I can't see the case he makes for it on his blog without paying for it.

https://ehrmanblog.org/papias-on-matthew-and-mark/


I'll give Ehrman's argument a fair shake if you can post it here though, but for now I am in agreement with Ben and Bauckham that it is not certain from Eusebius' citations of Papias that the latter said that the Hebrew Matthew was written in response to Mark, and I also agree with Ben that Papias' "logia" refers to sayings and doings, i.e., a "gospel" (which I think was the Hebrew Matthew used by Nazarene Christians).

But whichever was written first, I think Mark was independent of Matthew because it was based on Peter's teaching and thus didn't need the Hebrew Matthew (if the latter was written first) or any of its translations.

And I think translations of the Hebrew Matthew influenced not necessarily "everyone and everything else," just (parts of) the NT Matthew (at least the double tradition), and (parts of) Luke (Special Luke and the double tradition), and the Ebionite Matthew.
The move about is all we do.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11756
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 » Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:43 am

I agree that what Papias says about the original Hebrew Matthew does not correspond with the NT Matthew, given that the NT Matthew
This is the ONLY CONTRADICTION you acknowledge? Really? Again:

Papias presents a threefold development of literary material associated with 'the gospel'
(1) oracles of the Lord
(2) Mark's arrangement of the oracles of the Lord
(3) Matthew's subsequent correction of Mark's arrangement which was followed by everyone.
Irenaeus by contrast:
a. makes (1) and (3) indistinguishable
b. ignores step (2) and implicitly makes Mark one of the gospels which followed Matthew (implicitly)
c. contradicts the original (1) then (2) then (3) chronology of Papias to claim that Mark wrote after Matthew
d. seems to add the bit about Matthew being written in Hebrew when Matthew was clearly written in Greek and made up of Greek source material

but furthermore (and most telling):

e. by positing (a) - viz. that 'the oracles' and Matthew are one and the same - Irenaeus goes on to say that the heretics rearranging 'the oracles of the Lord'/Matthew he is using Papias to make the case for his fourfold gospel DIRECTLY - i.e. any gospel which contradicts Matthew's order is heretical.
This is fucking crazy and it's even crazier given all the other inconsistencies, lies, deception which appear in Irenaeus on other subjects that you can't see that Irenaeus contradicts Papias and misrepresented what he says.

But clearly - as I am attempting to show - the introduction of a gnostic named 'Mark' he seems to be attempting to get around Papias's statement that Mark contradicts the order of Matthew by laying the blame of the existence of a gnostic gospel of Mark on 'another Mark.'

It's Irenaeus who fucks up Papias's testimony for us. Because most scholars can't have two thoughts in their head at the same time. Irenaeus is using Papias to justify his fourfold gospel EVEN THOUGH PAPIAS DIDN'T ACKNOWLEDGE A FOURFOLD GOSPEL. WTF more do we have to know? He's trying to create a new 'thing' and Papias's statement about the orders of Mark and Matthew not agreeing is getting in the way. Hence the lies, misrepresentations and misinformation.
“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: 11756
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 » Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:49 am

And all of this leads to Secret Mark. Clement implies that the authorship of this text isn't clear. There is no superscript. Some say it is by Mark. Not only the Carpcratians but the Philosophumena also acknowledges a Marcionite gospel of Mark which has mystic (Empedoclean) bits added to it. But Clement clearly thinks there is a way around identifying it as the gospel of the evangelist Mark. Why? Why is that important to him? Well he says the Carpocratians say this or that. Fine. But also we see Irenaeus trying to do the same thing with respect to Papias's testimony. It was apparently an orthodox 'thing' to avoid identifying a gnostic gospel associated with 'Mark' as the gospel of Mark the evangelist. It was how 'orthodoxy' got off the ground. It was deemed necessary to get around the deadlock that Papias created with his testimony about the 'orders' of Mark and Matthew not agreeing and Mark's haphazard methodology (which Clement confirms in To Theodore as well).
“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: 11756
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 » Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:03 am

It is also worth noting that given the fact that Clement's description of Mark's gospel writing in To Theodore mirrors Papias's statement about Mark that:
i. ever since the previous 'pericope' about the little children the gospels are in a chronological harmony, since the first three Evangelists here unmistakably coincide for the first time after Luke 9 : 50.
ii. the harmony is shattered by Mark's addition about this bizarre story of the resurrection of the rich youth which could be argued to contradict what is implicit in Matthew
In other words, Clement is thinking about Papias and likely Irenaeus's concerns with Mark's additional things to 'oracles of the Lord,' while discussing this 'pericope.' It is patently obvious. Maybe not problems with the order of the gospel. But the idea that he added things which weren't in Matthew. Papias is on Clement's mind. Irenaeus can't argue that (a) the oracles of the Lord and Matthew are one and the same and (b) Mark borrowed from Matthew with the extra stories in Secret Mark.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:07 am, 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: 3242
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 » Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:07 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:39 am
But WHY do they appear that way to you? You never seem to ask that question.

Papias presents a threefold development of literary material associated with 'the gospel'
(1) oracles of the Lord
(2) Mark's arrangement of the oracles of the Lord
(3) Matthew's subsequent correction of Mark's arrangement which was followed by everyone.
Irenaeus by contrast:
a. makes (1) and (3) indistinguishable
b. ignores step (2) and implicitly makes Mark one of the gospels which followed Matthew (implicitly)
c. contradicts the original (1) then (2) then (3) chronology of Papias to claim that Mark wrote after Matthew
d. seems to add the bit about Matthew being written in Hebrew when Matthew was clearly written in Greek and made up of Greek source material

but furthermore (and most telling):

e. by positing (a) - viz. that 'the oracles' and Matthew are one and the same - says that the heretics rearranging 'the oracles of the Lord'/Matthew he is using Papias to make the case for his fourfold gospel DIRECTLY - i.e. any gospel which contradicts Matthew's order is heretical.
This is fucking crazy and it's even crazier given all the other inconsistencies, lies, deception which appear in Irenaeus on other subjects that you can't see that Irenaeus contradicts Papias and misrepresented what he says.

I've dealt with all that in this thread. I've said 1) that it is reasonable to suppose that Papias' "logia" means "gospel" (and that Irenaeus uses the term with this sense elsewhere), 2) that I think Papias had no issue with the "order" of Mark because it was due to Peter's teaching style (which he says Mark reflected "accurately"), and 3), that it is not certain from Eusebius' citations that Papias said that Matthew was written to "correct" Mark (as per Ben and Bauckham) or that the Hebrew Matthew and its translations were "followed by everyone."

And as far as I can tell, what Irenaeus says about Mark and Matthew is in keeping with what Clement says, which in turn (according to Eusebius) was in keeping with what Papias said. So in the big picture, even if (for the sake of discussion) Irenaeus is out of sync with Papias regarding Mark and Matthew, it doesn't really matter, because what Papias said (according to Eusebius) was in agreement with Clement. In other words, it wouldn't matter if Irenaeus "misrepresented" Papias because we can 1) understand that "logia" means "gospel" without Irenaeus, 2) not assume from Eusebius' citations that Papias said Matthew was written as a "correction" of Mark, and 3) bypass Irenaeus via Clement regarding what Papias said about Mark and Matthew.
Last edited by John2 on Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:15 am, edited 2 times in total.
The move about is all we do.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11756
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 » Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:08 am

that it is reasonable to suppose that Papias' "logia" means "gospel"
This is not reasonable. A chresmos or logion is something uttered by a prophet or soothsayer or God. I presented the manner in which Philo approaches the subject of logia. Logion means which "a short utterance” or short word not a fucking narrative gospel you complete idiot. It's not even worth discussing this with you. You have no sense of what the terminologies mean.
“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: 3242
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 » Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:14 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:08 am
that it is reasonable to suppose that Papias' "logia" means "gospel"
This is not reasonable. A chresmos or logion is something uttered by a prophet or soothsayer or God. I presented the manner in which Philo approaches the subject of logia.

And I think Edwards makes a good argument for understanding it (in this case) as "gospel," which I will cite again for the record.

... the term almost certainly refers to an organic whole, a volume, rather than a selection of sayings. The use of the term in early Christian literature confirms this sense. It occurs four times in the NT, twice in the sense of summarizing the OT revelation of God (Acts 7:38; Rom. 3:2), once in the sense of the gifts of divine proclamation (i.e., prophecy, teaching, admonition, 1 Pet. 4:11), and once summarizing the essentials of the Christian proclamation of salvation (Heb. 5:12). In 1 and 2 Clement [it] appears with reference to the revealed word of God (1 Clem. 13:6) or in the sense of "Gospel" (2 Clem. 13:3) or of the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (1 Clem. 53:1). In his Preface to Against Heresies and again in Against Heresies 1.8.1, Irenaeus employs [it] as a designation for the revelation of God in the canonical Gospels. In his Commentary on Matthew 5:13 and 9:13, Origen uses [it] likewise, and in his Homilies on Jeremiah 10:1 he uses it in reference to the entire OT. The most illuminating use of [it] is found in Polycarp. a contemporary of Papias, who uses the term for a complete Gospel containing the cross, resurrection, and last judgement. All of these texts employ [the term] with a more or less body of revelation as opposed to a specialized collection of sayings.

Papias himself provides the most important evidence for understanding [the term] in the sense of "Gospel." Immediately before his testimony to Matthew's Hebrew Gospel, Papias speaks of "ordering the material" of Mark. This material is specifically identified as both the words and deeds of Jesus. The words he uses for the ordering of the material are ... the exact words he uses immediately following in describing Mathew's Gospel. The terms refer to Mark's producing a Gospel and should be understood likewise with respect to Matthew in the same context.

Evidence elsewhere in Eusebius lends further support to this conclusion. Eusebius speaks of "the words of the Lord given by Aristion." Eusebius uses a different word for the "words"... of Aristion than he does in referring to Matthew's works ... as described by Papias ... Throughout his discussion of Matthew's literary achievements in Ecclesiastical History 3.24.5-13 and 6.14.5-7, Eusebius speaks only of a Gospel, not a collection of sayings.
The move about is all we do.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11756
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 » Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:19 am

I was quite excited when I heard about Edwards thesis but his knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic is a joke. He can't decide whether the gospel was written in Hebrew or Aramaic and makes massive errors in his treatment of material. Like Jerome’s quotation of the word mahar from the Lord’s Prayer. Edwards writes that mahar is Hebrew. Edwards has mistaken the Aramaic word and the particle in front of it for the Aramaic word. Fucking joke. Next. I have no idea how this thesis survived with shit like this. I have this running joke in my household when we watch athletes fuck up I exclaim 'I could do that.' I could have written this thesis.
“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: 11756
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 » Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:22 am

A logion or logia cannot describe a narrative gospel like canonical Matthew. Give me a fucking break. I don't care how many bad theses you cite. Case closed. "The Greek word logia in Papias's remarks is a term that normally refers to “sayings” or “oracles” and is not naturally attached to an entire narrative Gospel." https://books.google.com/books?id=U5rIP ... AHoECAQQAg Schleiermacher thought that Papias must have meant a collection of sayings rather than a narrative gospel, since the basic meaning of the term logia is "oracles." https://books.google.com/books?id=glLJb ... AXoECAYQAg The reason Edwards argues against the plain meaning of logion and logia is because it is absolutely essential to his thesis (a terribly written thesis at that). That's why you also fight valiantly against this windmill. Fuck off. I don't have time for this nonsense.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:28 am, 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: 3242
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 » Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:28 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:19 am
I was quite excited when I heard about Edwards thesis but his knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic is a joke. He can't decide whether the gospel was written in Hebrew or Aramaic and makes massive errors in his treatment of material. Like Jerome’s quotation of the word mahar from the Lord’s Prayer. Edwards writes that mahar is Hebrew. Edwards has mistaken the Aramaic word and the particle in front of it for the Aramaic word. Fucking joke. Next. I have no idea how this thesis survived with shit like this. I have this running joke in my household when we watch athletes fuck up I exclaim 'I could do that.' I could have written this thesis.

But we are talking about the meaning of logia, which is Greek.

And as I cited upthread, Edwards notes in his preface that:

For the most part, these sources [for the Hebrew Matthew] were written in Greek or Latin ... I have therefore sought to give each text a clear and faithful rendering in modern English; hence, unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own. For readers interested in consulting the originals and/or checking my English translation, the original Greek or Latin texts are cited in full in the footnotes. For the sake of convenience, all known references to the Hebrew Gospel are gathered in Appendix I, complete with original citations, English translation, and page references in parentheses where each citation is discussed in the text of this book.
The move about is all we do.

Post Reply