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 » Wed Mar 11, 2020 11:03 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.

McGrath points out this and other flaws in his review of Edwards' book yet still concludes:

I have been very critical, but I do not think undeservedly so, of problematic aspects of the treatment of matters of linguistics in the book. But I would not like those criticisms to detract from the author’s main thesis, which is that the patristic references to a Hebrew Gospel need to be taken more seriously in scholarly study of the Synoptic problem, and this lost source can plausibly be connected with Luke’s reference to “many” who wrote before him and his preservation of material that has not only a Semitic, but in places a Hebraic character. And so hopefully if nothing else, this volume will spark further discussion of the Hebrew Gospel and of the Semitisms in Luke. And so even if they echo many of the criticisms and reservations I have presented here, I nonetheless hope that many scholars interested in the New Testament Gospels will read James R. Edwards’ book The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition. If it contains much that can be criticized or that is unpersuasive, there is also much that is thought-provoking and worthy of serious consideration, not to mention much that is delightful and entertaining to read even if it doesn’t persuade. And so I encourage other scholars to read Edwards’ book, and hope that the coming years will see more attention devoted to the question of the Hewbrew Gospel.


https://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionp ... ition.html

As for mahar and Edwards' thesis, I think the use of Aramaic in the Hebrew Matthew wouldn't be any different than its use in the OT. The latter uses Hebrew and Aramaic but it is still called "the Hebrew Bible," so why couldn't the case be likewise for the Hebrew Matthew? Maybe parts of it, like the Lord's Prayer, were in Aramaic, in the same way that the OT is in Hebrew but also uses some Aramaic words and passages or that Mark is in Greek but also uses some Aramaic or Hebrew words.

And as Edwards notes, most of the sources for the Hebrew Matthew are in Greek and Latin.

And as for any other flaws in Edwards' book, if you like someone's thesis, it doesn't mean that you have to agree with everything the person says.
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 » Wed Mar 11, 2020 11:29 am

No. That's not it. This is a flaw so fundamental it questions the institution. If you don't get it let your friend Ben explain it to you. Because no matter what I say you are still adamant the sky is red.
“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 » Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:38 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 11:29 am
No. That's not it. This is a flaw so fundamental it questions the institution. If you don't get it let your friend Ben explain it to you. Because no matter what I say you are still adamant the sky is red.

The sky is red sometimes, just like logia sometimes means "gospel," like I and everyone who read Papias in antiquity thinks it does. But as the Fleetwood Mac song goes, "You can go your own way."
The move about is all we do.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7393
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:13 pm

John2 wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:31 am
As far as your line of thinking goes, I think it all boils down to what Irenaeus means by the "departure" of Peter and Paul in AH 3.1.1 regarding the composition of Mark. If it means to leave a place (as it normally does and which would be in keeping with 1 Clem. 5:6, EH 2.22.2, the Muratorian Canon and possibly Acts 28:30, according to Parry), then what Irenaeus says about the composition of Mark is in keeping with what Clement says (i.e., that Peter was alive), which in turn, according to Eusebius, was in keeping with what Papias said ("Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias").
The term ἔξοδος sure sounds more formal, more "last will and testament" to me in this context, especially given the tradition that Peter died in Rome. His "exodus" from Rome, for Irenaeus, I think, is his death. Compare Luke 9.31, 2 Peter 1.15, and Josephus, Antiquities 4.8.2 189.

But the course of the tradition makes perfect sense to me, at any rate. Papias (and other early tradents?) said that Mark composed based on Peter's teaching, but did not date the composition relative to Peter's lifetime. So later patristic writers had to guess or surmise. Some may have thought, "Well, if Peter was still alive, why did Mark not just ask him and get things in order that way? Peter must have been dead." Others may have wished to push the composition of the gospel back as far as possible, so as to keep the apostles still alive at the time.

So it seems to me.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

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 » Thu Mar 12, 2020 1:32 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:13 pm
John2 wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:31 am
As far as your line of thinking goes, I think it all boils down to what Irenaeus means by the "departure" of Peter and Paul in AH 3.1.1 regarding the composition of Mark. If it means to leave a place (as it normally does and which would be in keeping with 1 Clem. 5:6, EH 2.22.2, the Muratorian Canon and possibly Acts 28:30, according to Parry), then what Irenaeus says about the composition of Mark is in keeping with what Clement says (i.e., that Peter was alive), which in turn, according to Eusebius, was in keeping with what Papias said ("Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias").
The term ἔξοδος sure sounds more formal, more "last will and testament" to me in this context, especially given the tradition that Peter died in Rome. His "exodus" from Rome, for Irenaeus, I think, is his death. Compare Luke 9.31, 2 Peter 1.15, and Josephus, Antiquities 4.8.2 189.

But the course of the tradition makes perfect sense to me, at any rate. Papias (and other early tradents?) said that Mark composed based on Peter's teaching, but did not date the composition relative to Peter's lifetime. So later patristic writers had to guess or surmise. Some may have thought, "Well, if Peter was still alive, why did Mark not just ask him and get things in order that way? Peter must have been dead." Others may have wished to push the composition of the gospel back as far as possible, so as to keep the apostles still alive at the time.

So it seems to me.

Right. I should not have said that it "boils down" to the meaning of departure, since prior to that I had cited the following argument:

Even if “departed” means death it can still fit with the evidence. Mark wrote the gospel while Peter was still alive as a private edition. Peter found out about it and at first was neutral. Then Peter had a revelation and endorsed it. Before Mark could copy it and begin circulating it among the churches, Peter was martyred. Therefore, the gospel of Mark was published for the churches after Peter’s (and Paul’s) death.

It does appear to me that there were two editions of Mark, first a private one for certain people in Rome, and then a second one for all churches, so perhaps Peter had died before the second one was published. But there is at least a tradition that Paul had departed Rome after his arrest.
The move about is all we do.

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 » Thu Mar 12, 2020 2:10 pm

Ben wrote:
Papias (and other early tradents?) said that Mark composed based on Peter's teaching, but did not date the composition relative to Peter's lifetime. So later patristic writers had to guess or surmise. Some may have thought, "Well, if Peter was still alive, why did Mark not just ask him and get things in order that way? Peter must have been dead."

But as noted upthread (and now on another thread), Eusebius says in EH 2.15.1-2 that Papias was in agreement with Clement regarding the following information:

And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.

And they say that Peter — when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done — was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias.
The move about is all we do.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7393
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Mar 12, 2020 2:31 pm

John2 wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 2:10 pm
Ben wrote:
Papias (and other early tradents?) said that Mark composed based on Peter's teaching, but did not date the composition relative to Peter's lifetime. So later patristic writers had to guess or surmise. Some may have thought, "Well, if Peter was still alive, why did Mark not just ask him and get things in order that way? Peter must have been dead."

But as noted upthread (and now on another thread), Eusebius says in EH 2.15.1-2 that Papias was in agreement with Clement regarding the following information:

And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.

And they say that Peter — when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done — was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias.
I think that Eusebius is stretching the agreement as far as he possibly can. Unless he quotes Papias in this connection, we cannot rely on the details of the agreement.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

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 » Thu Mar 12, 2020 2:42 pm

I wrote much the same thing in the other thread. John, what bothers me about you is that you seize upon the harmony that Irenaeus claims existed in the early Church (and subsequently borrowed by Eusebius, Epiphanius and others). The reason you want to seize upon it is because Irenaeus made up a fable about a 'Jewish Church' which was basically orthodox and the rest (i.e. a Jewish gospel of Matthew). I get that this important to you. But we have to look into WHY Irenaeus makes up this myth. Why does the Church have to have a firm and explicit 'tradition' where Jesus speaks, Jewish 'apostles' and their disciples take note and firm documents are passed down to the present age? What does Celsus say? Celsus says that the nonsense Irenaeus fabricated was set up so to answer the ridicule of him and Lucian.
“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 » Thu Mar 12, 2020 3:36 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 2:31 pm

I think that Eusebius is stretching the agreement as far as he possibly can. Unless he quotes Papias in this connection, we cannot rely on the details of the agreement.

Well, as I wrote on another thread (and since Stephan and I are cross talking now I should probably leave this one):

I get that Church writers want things to agree, and perhaps that is the case here, but considering that Eusebius had Papias' writings and Clement's Outlines and we do not, I don't think his statement about Papias and Clement being in agreement about Mark should be lightly dismissed.

But sure, a quote would nicer, but what we have is the next best thing. And just so I understand you, do you think what is in Eusebius' citation is all that Papias said about Mark?
The move about is all we do.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7393
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Mar 12, 2020 3:53 pm

John2 wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 3:36 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 2:31 pm

I think that Eusebius is stretching the agreement as far as he possibly can. Unless he quotes Papias in this connection, we cannot rely on the details of the agreement.
Well, as I wrote on another thread (and since Stephan and I are cross talking now I should probably leave this one):
I get that Church writers want things to agree, and perhaps that is the case here, but considering that Eusebius had Papias' writings and Clement's Outlines and we do not, I don't think his statement about Papias and Clement being in agreement about Mark should be lightly dismissed.
But sure, a quote would nicer, but what we have is the next best thing.
The "next best thing" in a case like this counts for virtually zero in my estimation. The primary source is obviously Clement, and to say that Papias agrees with him does not tell us in which details he agrees. All of them? Most of them? Some of them? The most important one of them?
And just so I understand you, do you think what is in Eusebius' citation is all that Papias said about Mark?
Possibly. Not sure. But I cannot cite what I am not given, and I do not think that Eusebius' quotation of Clement gives me anything about Papias beyond what we already knew. Just because Clement averred that Mark wrote during Peter's lifetime does not mean that this is one of the details included in the alleged agreement.

I also think that, if Papias had said what Clement tells us, in those explicit details, Eusebius probably would have quoted him rather than Clement; that is his custom elsewhere; he rarely quotes someone quoting or summarizing someone else if he has the original quote to give us.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply