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
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 » Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:26 am

But let's look at it another way. Irenaeus says that each of the four canonical gospels were associated with a specific CULTURE. Matthew 'Jewish' Mark 'docetic' Luke 'Marcionite' John 'Valentinian.' Matthew shouldn't be expected to have been completely 'orthodox' - whatever that was. The four as a set are the gospel. This is a concept that doesn't get explained well enough. You know when couples say that 'together we make a good team' or 'you complete me' (Jerry Maguire). Individually the gospels aren't perfect. As a set of four they are perfect.
“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

perseusomega9
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

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

Post by perseusomega9 » Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:16 am

Perhaps in the second - third century it was used as a consensus document. Everyone agreed to have it in their bible and were aligned with those churches that did, but didnt necessarily use each one in their liturgy.

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 » Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:35 am

I think - like the Mishnah - the fourfold was established as a range of 'acceptable readings.' Does anyone really think that the Mishnah was completely faithful to the halakhah of the various schools? Not really. The same is true for the gospel readings of the various sects.
“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: 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 » Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:16 pm

Another odd thing. Irenaeus in his discussion of the followers of Mark (AH 1.13f) makes mention of their interpretation of "an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish men, and of such as are ignorant of the Scriptures of truth."
Among other things, they bring forward that false and wicked story which relates that our Lord, when He was a boy learning His letters, on the teacher saying to Him, as is usual, "Pronounce Alpha," he replied, "Alpha." But when, again, the teacher bade Him say, "Beta," the Lord replied, "Do thou first tell me what Alpha is, and then I will tell thee what Beta is." This they expound as meaning that He alone knew the Unknown, which He revealed under its type Alpha. [unknown gospel but known to the Epistle to the Apostles as genuine]

Some passages, also, which occur in the Gospels, receive from them a colouring of the same kind, such as the answer which He gave His mother when He was twelve years of age: "Wist ye not that I must be about My Father's business?"[Luke 2:49] Thus, they say, He announced to them the Father of whom they were ignorant. On this account, also, He sent forth the disciples to the twelve tribes, that they might proclaim to them the unknown God. And to the person who said to Him, "Good Master," [Mark 10:17] He confessed that God who is truly good, saying, "Why callest thou Me good: there is One who is good, the Father in the heavens;" [Luke 18:18] and they assert that in this passage the AEons receive the name of heavens. Moreover, by His not replying to those who said to Him, "By what power doest Thou this?" [Matthew 21:23] but by a question on His own side, put them to utter confusion; by His thus not replying, according to their interpretation, He showed the unutterable nature of the Father. Moreover, when He said, "I have often desired to hear one of these words, and I had no one who could utter it," [?] they maintain, that by this expression "one" He set forth the one true God whom they knew not. Further, when, as He drew nigh to Jerusalem, He wept over it and said, "If thou hadst known, even thou, in this thy day, the things that belong unto thy peace, but they are hidden from thee," [Luke 19:42] by this word "hidden" He showed the abstruse nature of Bythus. And again, when He said, "Come unto Me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest, and learn of Me," [Matthew 11:28] He announced the Father of truth. For what they knew not, these men say that He promised to teach them.

3. But they adduce the following passage as the highest testimony, and, as it were, the very crown of their system:--"I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes. Even so, my Father; for so it seemed good in Thy sight. All things have been delivered to Me by My Father; and no one knoweth the Father but the Son, or the Son but the Father, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him." [Matthew 11:28] In these words they affirm that He clearly showed that the Father of truth, conjured into existence by them, was known to no one before His advent. And they desire to construe the passage as if teaching that the Maker and Framer [of the world] was always known by all, while the Lord spoke these words concerning the Father unknown to all, whom they now proclaim.
Irenaeus goes on to mention their citation of Mark 10:38. But the point is that the highlighted section makes clear that they aren't citing canonical Matthew, Mark, Luke and John but a harmony gospel.

So this is the closest example of what Irenaeus is talking about in 1.8. He says that they take 'the oracles of the Lord' and add false material which dealing with a group that should only have the gospel of John by his own standard.
“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: 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 » Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:15 am

Irenaeus's mention of 'gospel' in AH 1:

They (Valentinians) maintain that he is the centurion mentioned in the Gospel, who addressed the Saviour in these words: "For I also am one having soldiers and servants under my authority; and whatsoever I command they do." (AH 1.7.4)

They (Valentinians) also assert that by Anna, who is spoken of in the gospel(2) as a prophetess, and who, after living seven years with her husband, passed all the rest of her life in widowhood until she saw the Saviour, and recognised Him, and spoke of Him to all, was most plainly indicated Achamoth, who, having for a little while looked upon the Saviour with His associates, and dwelling all the rest of the time in the intermediate place, waited for Him till He should come again, and restore her to her proper consort. Her name, too, was indicated by the Saviour, when He said, "Yet wisdom is justified by her children." (1.8.1)

Some passages, also, which occur in the Gospels, receive from them (the Marcosians) a colouring of the same kind, such as the answer which He gave His mother when He was twelve years of age: (and then the harmony gospel follows) (1.20.1)

They (the Ebionites) use the Gospel according to Matthew only (1.26.1)

Besides this, he (Marcion) mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most dearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father. He likewise persuaded his disciples that he himself was more worthy of credit than are those apostles who have handed down the Gospel to us, furnishing them not with the Gospel, but merely a fragment of it. (1.26.1)
“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 » Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:57 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
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.

I would break it down this way. I suspect that:


1. The NT version of Matthew is the only one that was combined with Mark.

2. The NT Matthew, Ebionite Matthew and the Matthew-type text I think Luke used were translated and fashioned from the Hebrew Matthew that Papias mentions.

3. The Hebrew Matthew, NT Matthew, Ebionite Matthew and the Matthew-type text I think Luke used could all be labeled gospels "according to the Hebrews" (though I gather only the Hebrew and Ebionite versions were actually called that).

4. The Hebrew Matthew that Jerome translated and said was used by Nazarenes was the Hebrew Matthew that Papias mentions.


None of this can be proven, but this is the sense I make of the data we have.
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 » Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:25 pm

But your knowledge has nothing to do with any expertise or familiarity with Irenaeus's writing. It's just a result of making the evidence say what you want it to say
“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 » Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:20 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:25 pm
But your knowledge has nothing to do with any expertise or familiarity with Irenaeus's writing. It's just a result of making the evidence say what you want it to say

Irenaeus says that the Ebionites used only the gospel of Matthew. He doesn't appear to have seen their gospel and in any event doesn't cite it. But what little he says fits with what Epiphanius says, that the Ebionites used a gospel that they called Matthew, and since some of the citations he gives from it are similar to Luke, I suspect that Luke may have used a Matthew-type text that was similar to if not the same one that the Ebionites used to fashion their version of Matthew. I don't see how anything Irenaeus says affects this supposition.
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 » Thu Feb 06, 2020 2:58 pm

I don't believe I have to utter these words. IRENAEUS WAS ONE OF EPIPHANIUS'S SOURCES!!!! You make it sound as if these witnesses provide us with independent testimony in this respect.
I suspect that Luke may have used a Matthew-type text
This is plainly crazy as Mark and Luke show clear signs of agreement against Matthew. You claim Epiphanius supports this "only Matthew" position of Irenaeus but:
But the beginning of their Gospel is, “It came to pass in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, <in the high-priesthood of Caiaphas>, that <a certain> man, John <by name>, came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan, and he was said to be of the lineage of Aaron the priest, the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth, and all went out unto him.” …(Luke 1:5; Mark 1:4-5)
This suggests that Ebionites did not contain any text equivalent to the first two chapters of both Matthew and Luke, and this is confirmed by Epiphanius in section 14,3 (below). Your position is ridiculous. Again this is what Irenaeus says:
They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.
You're ignoring what the texts say to invent your new religion.
“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 » Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:23 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 2:58 pm
I don't believe I have to utter these words. IRENAEUS WAS ONE OF EPIPHANIUS'S SOURCES!!!! You make it sound as if these witnesses provide us with independent testimony in this respect.
I suspect that Luke may have used a Matthew-type text
This is plainly crazy as Mark and Luke show clear signs of agreement against Matthew. You claim Epiphanius supports this "only Matthew" position of Irenaeus but:
But the beginning of their Gospel is, “It came to pass in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, <in the high-priesthood of Caiaphas>, that <a certain> man, John <by name>, came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan, and he was said to be of the lineage of Aaron the priest, the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth, and all went out unto him.” …(Luke 1:5; Mark 1:4-5)
This suggests that Ebionites did not contain any text equivalent to the first two chapters of both Matthew and Luke, and this is confirmed by Epiphanius in section 14,3 (below). Your position is ridiculous. Again this is what Irenaeus says:
They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.
You're ignoring what the texts say to invent your new religion.


First, Epiphanius says that the Ebionites had mutilated and added things to Matthew, so the beginning of their gospel needn't align with the NT Matthew (or with any other version of Matthew). And there's nothing odd about that, since Luke does the same thing with Mark (and in my view also with a Matthew-type text).


Second, while the beginning of the Ebionite Matthew and Luke 1:5 mention John the Baptist and Herod, Lk. 1-5 does not mention the Jordan River, Lk. 1:5 and Mk. 1:4-5 do not mention Caiaphas, and only Luke and the Ebionite Matthew mention John's parents Zechariah and Elizabeth. If anything, the beginning of the Ebionite Matthew resembles Lk. 3:1-4 more to me, which in turn resembles Mt. 3:1-6.


Pan. 30.13.6 (citing from the Ebionite Matthew):

And the beginning of their Gospel runs:


It came to pass in the days of Herod the king of Judaea, when Caiaphas was high priest, that there came one, John by name, and baptized with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan. It was said of him that he was of the lineage of Aaron the priest, a son of Zacharias and Elisabeth: and all went out to him.



Lk. 1:5:
]In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah, and whose wife Elizabeth was a daughter of Aaron.



Mk. 1:4-5:

John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. People went out to him from all of Jerusalem and the countryside of Judea. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Luke 1 doesn't mention an adult John or his ministry at the Jordan River like Mark 1 does. And Mark 1 does not mention John's parents and priestly lineage or Caiaphas like Lk. 3:1-4 does.


Lk. 3:1-4:

… during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. He went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet ...

And Lk. 3:1-4 in turn resembles Mt. 3:1-6, since they both refer to an adult John and his minstry at the Jordan River (unlike Lk. 1:5):


In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah ... People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region around the Jordan. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

I suspect Mt. 3:1-6 does not mention Zechariah, Eizabeth and Caiaphas because it did not survive the editing process when the NT Matthew was combined with Mark but that it was in a Matthew-type text that Luke and the Ebionites edited.
Last edited by John2 on Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Everybody needs a home and deserves protection.

Post Reply