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.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 763
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

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

Post by Jax » Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:49 am

I find myself wondering, Mark seems to have been added to as well as John and Luke. But what about Matthew? What is the general consensus concerning that text?

lsayre
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

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

Post by lsayre » Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:32 am

Jax wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:49 am
I find myself wondering, Mark seems to have been added to as well as John and Luke. But what about Matthew? What is the general consensus concerning that text?
If Matthew was written as a correction of Mark, then what would it matter if at some later date Matthew was additionally corrected? And if Mark itself was corrected, what would that tell us as to whether or not it came before Matthew?

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11467
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 » Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:12 am

I am particularly intrigued by the possibility that the 'logia of the Lord' arranged by Matthew somehow contained Johannine material. Whitelaw tackles the question here - https://books.google.com/books?id=_Z09A ... 22&f=false. But when you think about it there are precedents too. Epiphanius's odd statement that the Gospel of the Hebrews = the Diatessaron immediately comes to mind. What we have to get away from is the simple-minded understanding that our canonical gospel of Matthew existed in Hebrew in antiquity.
“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: 3186
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 » Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:36 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:37 am
John2 wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:24 am
Papias says that Matthew's arrangement of the oracles of the Lord is the source for Mark.
Does he?

EH 3.39.15-16:
This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.
Some people assume that Eusebius' quote about Matthew immediately followed upon his quote about Mark in Papias, and then they further assume that the "each" in the bit about Matthew includes Mark. This interpretation is not impossible, but it seems rather improbable to me, since (A) Eusebius gives no indication that the second part follows immediately upon the first and (B) the "so then" in the part about Matthew would have no logical reference back to anything in the part about Mark. At any rate, regardless of that, it is important to bear in mind that the interpretation in question is just that: an interpretation. It is not hard data.

I don't think Matthew used Mark as a source, only that it seems like it could be a possibility given the above citations. And I don't think Mark was one of the "each" that had translated/interpreted Matthew, since Papias says that Mark's source was Peter ("having become the interpreter of Peter … he followed Peter … he thus wrote some things as he remembered them … things which he had heard"), and I figure if Mark had also used Matthew as a source then Papias would have said so.
Everybody needs a home and deserves protection.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7266
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 » Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:10 am

John2 wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:36 am
I don't think Matthew used Mark as a source....
Do you mean our canonical Greek Matthew or the proposed Hebrew Matthew?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

John2
Posts: 3186
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 » Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:18 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 12:29 pm
And this is so annoying:
Papias is obviously not referring to the NT Matthew but to a Hebrew Matthew
YOU want to see it as canonical Matthew in Hebrew. But that's not at all clear from the context. If the text was written in Hebrew it would be attributed to Matthai. There were lots of texts in antiquity attributed to this name. Very annoying. Basically you believe and accept Irenaeus. You believe him with respect to Matthew, you believe him with respect to the Ebionites. But I've already shown that 'the oracles of the Lord' can't be canonical Matthew. It doesn't make sense in 1.8 where 'the oracles of the Lord' are CLEARLY Johannine. Even Papias's statement has John lurking in the background when you think about it. Similarly the methodology of 'corrupting' oracles from the Lord applies to every heretic's relationship with their supposed gospel. The heretic Mark corrupts the oracles of the Lord 1.13.4. Marcion corrupts the gospel of Mark this way in the Philosophumena. The notion of Matthew (= the oracles of the Lord) being behind all of the gospels but most notably John makes clear that Matthew's arrangement of the oracles of the Lord included Johannine material.

Notice how scholars have to deliberately 'change' the way they translate the Greek of 1.8 in order to explain away why Matthew's 'oracles of the Lord' are Johannine https://books.google.com/books?id=aXgQA ... us&f=false Again, someone should beat these manipulators to a pulp. Beware of all systematizers. Der Wille zum System ist ein Mangel an Rechtschaffenheit

I don't think the Hebrew Matthew was the same as the NT Matthew (I suspect the former wasn't combined with Mark like the latter was, for example). And I agree that that there were "lots of texts in antiquity attributed to his name," since Papias says so ("each one translated/interpreted them as he was able") and the Ebionites are said to have used a gospel they called Matthew. So I think there were at least three Matthews, the Hebrew one, the NT one, and the Ebionite one, and I gather that they had their differences.

I don't see what you mean about AH 1.8.[1?]. The expression is used twice there, and the first one looks to me like it refers to all of the NT gospels.

... they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions ...



Because in 1.8.2-5 Irenaeus goes on to mention the Valentinians' adaptations of Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul's letters, not just John.

... the following are some specimens of what they attempt to accommodate out of the Scriptures to their opinions …


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103108.htm



So I don't think Irenaeus is connecting these "oracles" only to Matthew or that he is saying that Matthew is the source "behind all of the gospels."

Regarding the second reference to "oracles" in AH 1.8.1, in your link Behr writes in footnote 4, "The reference in haer. 1.8.1 is to the writings we now speak of as the Old Testament …"

But regarding what Papias means by "oracles," I agree with Ben that it means sayings and doings.
Last edited by John2 on Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:31 am, edited 6 times in total.
Everybody needs a home and deserves protection.

John2
Posts: 3186
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 » Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:20 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:10 am
John2 wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:36 am
I don't think Matthew used Mark as a source....
Do you mean our canonical Greek Matthew or the proposed Hebrew Matthew?

The Hebrew Matthew that Papias mentions.
Everybody needs a home and deserves protection.

John2
Posts: 3186
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 » Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:28 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:12 am
I am particularly intrigued by the possibility that the 'logia of the Lord' arranged by Matthew somehow contained Johannine material. Whitelaw tackles the question here - https://books.google.com/books?id=_Z09A ... 22&f=false. But when you think about it there are precedents too. Epiphanius's odd statement that the Gospel of the Hebrews = the Diatessaron immediately comes to mind. What we have to get away from is the simple-minded understanding that our canonical gospel of Matthew existed in Hebrew in antiquity.

I'm inclined to agree with Hemphill regarding what Epiphanius says about the Diatessaron being "called by some the Gospel according to the Hebrews."

The fact is, that the Diatessaron ... was current in Syriac, and was known to be the work of a heretic; at the same time, and in an adjoining tract of country, the Hebrew Gospel was used by the heretical Nazarenes; and certain Greek=speaking people meeting the works in about the same locality, hearing of the heretical authorship of each, and noticing that both were written in oriental characters, which they could not read, hastily concluded that they were the same work, and reported it to Epiphanius.


https://books.google.com/books?id=MizCF ... us&f=false
Everybody needs a home and deserves protection.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11467
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 » Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:43 am

But then you should be able to see the problem emerging:

1. canonical Matthew

2. the Gospel according to the Hebrews

3. Matthew first 'arranging' the oracles of the Lord' into a Gospel in Hebrew

you have identified (1) and (3) as being the same. But clearly (2) and (3) have more overlaps if Epiphanius testimony is accepted. Irenaeus says that the 'oracles of the Lord' were falsified to make the Valentinian text of the gospel of John. It would seem that Matthew would need to have been responsible for writing canonical Matthew but also a table (like the diatessaron) which explained how the other gospels 'fit' with Matthew into an orderly arrangement.
“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
Jax
Posts: 763
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

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

Post by Jax » Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:16 pm

lsayre wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:32 am
Jax wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:49 am
I find myself wondering, Mark seems to have been added to as well as John and Luke. But what about Matthew? What is the general consensus concerning that text?
If Matthew was written as a correction of Mark, then what would it matter if at some later date Matthew was additionally corrected? And if Mark itself was corrected, what would that tell us as to whether or not it came before Matthew?
It seems to me that if Matthew was the most recent gospel it would likely be more in line with orthodoxy and less in need of being corrected.

Post Reply