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 » Thu Mar 12, 2020 4:07 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
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.

Fair enough. But could we at least say that Eusebius' remark is at least "something" and "better than nothing" (instead of "virtually zero") and worth bearing in mind, if with a grain of salt, of course?
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 6:03 pm

And can we also say that it is at least possible that Papias and Clement were in agreement regarding everything that Eusbeius says was in the eighth book of Clement's Outlines? And that, since Eusebius at least says where he got the information (and thus it could have been checked), that Clement at least possibly/likely did say that there were two editions of Mark, one that Peter was at worst initially indifferent to (the private edition), and the other (public) one that he approved of?

If so, then where do you suppose Clement got this information if not from Papias? One option I've come across (though the source escapes me at the moment) is that Clement could have heard about this via Mark passing on the information when he was in Alexandria (in other words then, Clement could have heard it via oral tradition, even if it wasn't actually from Mark).

But bearing in mind what Eusebius says about (at least possibly all of) Clement's information being in agreement with Papias, we can't rule out Papias being his source, can we? My impression anyway is that at least whatever Papias said was in agreement with everything that Eusebius says Clement gave in "this account," though you do have fair reservations.


EH 2.15.2:
And they say that Peter — when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done [i.e., a private edition of Mark] — 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.
Last edited by John2 on Thu Mar 12, 2020 6:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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 6:32 pm

John2 wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 4:07 pm
Fair enough. But could we at least say that Eusebius' remark is at least "something" and "better than nothing" (instead of "virtually zero") and worth bearing in mind, if with a grain of salt, of course?
Worth bearing in mind, sure, just in case something else should come up suggesting that Papias himself dated the composition of Mark to Peter's lifetime.
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 7:38 pm

But could we at least say that Eusebius' remark is at least "something" and "better than nothing" (instead of "virtually zero") and worth bearing in mind, if with a grain of salt, of course?
No. Absolutely not. The Church Fathers are dishonest. I am sorry. I don't get this maybe these rabid partisans are telling us the truth about things. No they would justify lies in the name of God as truths.
“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 » Fri Mar 13, 2020 2:57 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 7:44 pm
Yes I was at work and remembered Watson's point incorrect. You've got me on that. But no it's possible or very unlikely that Eusebius is telling us the truth here. But why do you have to make the same point in two different threads? You seem to think that:
Eusebius is telling the truth about Irenaeus telling the truth about Papias telling us the truth about Mark.
I dispute this point. We're discussing this in another thread. I'd like to keep this about the point raised in the OP - namely that the referent in the second sentence cited above could be Mark. Could we keep your nonsense locked up in the other thread please?

I think that what Ireneaus says about Mark and Matthew appears to be derived in part and perhaps could be derived in its entirety from Papias and that his understanding of Papias' logia as "gospel" in the case of Matthew is quite reasonable.

And regarding what Eusebius says about what Clement said (about there being two editions of Mark, one private, one public, and that Peter was at worst initially indifferent to the first and approved of the second) being in agreement with Papias, I think that is plausible.

I get that Church writers wanted things to be in agreement, but Watson showed how Eusebius was more honest about information in Clement than Cassiodorus, so at least in that case Eusebius was forthcoming about something another writer wished to suppress.

And in the case of the passage from Clement that is said to be in agreement with Papias, since Eusebius at least says where the information could be found (i.e., in the eighth book of Clement's Outlines and Papias, and thus it could have been checked), and bearing in mind his apparent honesty with respect to the passage that Cassiodorus had glossed over, I don't think we should rule out the possibility that Eusebius is being truthful here.

He doesn't necessarily have to be though for me to think that it is plausible that Papias is reliable about Mark being a reflection of Peter's teaching style and Matthew being written in Hebrew and translated multiple times, and I think Papias' logia with respect to Matthew means "gospel," Irenaeus or no Irenaeus. And if Irenaeus or any other Church writer did not exist and all we had was the NT, I would think that Christianity has Jewish origins (specifically Fourth Philosophic). The only thing that would be different for me (in the scenario of only having the NT) is that I wouldn't necessarily think that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.

And to clarify, I don't think the NT Matthew was written in Hebrew or that Papias is saying that, but rather that Papias' Matthew was the Hebrew Matthew that was later said to have been used by the Nazarenes, and that the NT Matthew incorporated parts of one or more translations of it (in addition to Mark).

And you can dispute all of this, but nothing you have said has persuaded me to think otherwise, and to each their own then is my view.
Last edited by John2 on Fri Mar 13, 2020 6:57 pm, edited 4 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 » Fri Mar 13, 2020 3:13 pm

Okay Steven Avery
“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