Marcionite agreements with Matthew against Luke?

[Secret Alias]

More from the horrible person. The whole person of 'Marcion' comes from Irenaeus (there is a story related to Papias and John and the dictation of the gospel of John but that's Irenaeus too). 'Marcion' appears in the place of Marcellina in Irenaeus's retelling of Hegesippus's encounter with a heretical Christian in Rome under Anicetus. Irenaeus had control of Justin's corpus (see the mention of the division of Coele-Syria that only existed at Irenaeus's time) and IMHO added the reference to Marcion in Justin to 'corroborate' his existence in Rome at the time of Anicetus where Justin was.

I don't know why Irenaeus is so intent on unleashing Marcion into the world and making him associated with Luke. I am not that smart. I have a suspicion it has something to do with a heretical text of Mark and Marcellina somehow deriving its origins from one of the female disciples of Mark mentioned in the account of 'Mark' in AH 1.13 - 21. There is a complexity with respect to Irenaeus which is difficult to unravel. All I can say is the kabbalah associated with 'Mark' is clearly Alexandrian and appears as orthodox mysticism in the writings of Clement of Alexandria in Book 6 of the Stromata. 'Mark' is thus Mark which would be a problem for Irenaeus as Papias concedes that Mark was the first gospel writer and Irenaeus does his best to manipulate and misrepresent Papias into making Matthew earlier than Mark. Luke simply becomes the gospel of the bad guys.

[rgprice]

If Irenaeus thought Marcion was a women it seems he would have said so to use it against her.

[Secret Alias]

The bottom line is that 'normal scholarship' likes to pretend that when developing an understanding of the gospel we are archaeologists and we can simply find 'pieces of evidence' which connect Mark to Matthew and Luke to Mark and Matthew or whatever. You know that we dig a bit here and 'uncover' a piece of evidence and dig over there and there's 'another piece of evidence.' It's all straight forward. IT'S NOT FUCKING STRAIGHTFORWARD. The mendacity of these people is beyond repair.

They act like we were handed four separate texts. We weren't handed four separate texts. We were handed a bundled collection. First point. And the collection is first 'argued on behalf of' by Irenaeus, someone who read Papias saying that Mark came first and took and manipulated Papias not only to argue for Matthew being first. That's an incontrovertible fact. Irenaeus misrepresents Papias to argue for Matthean priority.

Second we look at this canon and it is clear that the fourfold canon Irenaeus argues on behalf of happens also attest to Matthean priority. So clearly Irenaeus had a hand in developing the canon or was part of a 'secret society' devoted to not only misrepresenting Papias but using that misrepresentation to argue on behalf of a fourfold canon associated with John, the same John (or supposed same John) who is the source of Papias statement.

Then you can take it one step further. Not only is Irenaeus's misrepresentation of Papias the basis to his 'belief' that Matthew was first, not only is that 'belief' at the core of our canon's placement of Matthew first, but Irenaeus's misrepresentation of John as the spokesman for the 'true canon' extended to the formation of the gospel of John as the last and 'final word' gospel on the right hand column of four columns whose chapter headings were used by Irenaeus to provide 'proof' that Jesus's ministry was the foretold 'year of favor' which extended for many years rather than one calendar year as the heretics had it (see AH 2.22).

Indeed when you think about it, and this is rather complex and may take readers two or three attempts to make sense of this, the use of John to 'explain' the 'Lordly oracle' of Isaiah 61:1 and how it applied to the ministry of Jesus is the epitome of Papias's whole point about the superiority of Matthew over Mark. Papias says basically that Mark wrote the first gospel but it wasn't very good (or good enough) because it wasn't 'arranged' correctly. Matthew's was superior. Why? Because, as I have shown elsewhere it contextualized the 'Lordly oracles' said by Jesus when he was with the apostles (= the gospel) within the 'Lordly oracles' that Jesus said when he was with the Patriarchs (= the Law) and with the prophets.

But the contextualizing of Jesus's appearance in a synagogue at the beginning of the gospel reading Isaiah 61's 'year of favor' couldn't have been in Matthew. It was in Luke. The solution for how this 'Lordly oracle' (the reading of Isaiah 61) isn't properly contextualized by Luke at all (he just reports Jesus read the scripture). The contextualization actually occurs in the gospel of John where multiple Passovers are mentioned on the right most column of the four gospels. Thus what Irenaeus did was in fact (a) identify 'what Papias says John liked' i.e. the contextualization of 'things the Lord said with the apostles' in the 'things the Lord said in the Law and prophets' and (b) then applied that 'like' to a canon purportedly made by John and preserved by Irenaeus. I hope that makes sense.

[Secret Alias]

Do you see how we moved from:

1. Papias saying that John said that Mark was first
2. Papias saying that John said that Matthew was better because he contextualized one group of 'Lordly oracles' within another
3. Irenaeus identifying that 'like' or preference of John and making up a whole canon that worked by that principle

AND THEN FINALLY

4. how the Marcionites who OPPOSED this contextualizing of two groups of 'Lordly oracles' (one in the past and one in the present) where deemed to be 'anti-Jewish' merely because they stuck to what - in effect - Mark was identified as doing in the very beginning? In other words, they are by implication strict 'Markans' merely by their resistance to what Matthew 'added to Mark'?

Then you can see why the connection that Irenaeus made between the Marcionites and Luke was absolutely necessary because the Marcionites whoever they were would simply have said 'but Papias said Mark wrote the first gospel.'

[Secret Alias]

Even though the Marcionites aren't mentioned by Papias (in our known fragments) the things they were criticized for in Irenaeus and Tertullian (namely the refusal to contextualize the gospel in the OT) is in fact (i.e. the contextualizing of one group of 'Lordly oracles' within another) clearly identified as 'orthodoxy' by Papias and later Irenaeus. If you strip everything away it is immediately apparent the Marcionites are in fact 'Markans' because that's what Mark was in effect 'criticized for' by Papias. Mark didn't take the 'next step' that Matthew and John and Papias and Irenaeus and Tertullian did. That's why his gospel isn't 'arranged right.' Book Three of Against Marcion is clearly about this. The gospel of Mark is clearly the gospel of Marcion BY IMPLICATION. The Philosophumena (a different version or edition of Against Marcion) comes out and makes this explicit. But it's easy to figure this out with a little brain power.

[Secret Alias]

So:

1. Papias says the Gospel of Mark was first and then Judaizers added to that gospel WHICH MADE THE GOSPEL BETTER
2. Marcionites say their gospel was first and the Judaizers added to that gospel WHICH MADE THE GOSPEL WORSE

The Church Fathers (Irenaeus and Tertullian) use the story of Galatians 2 to say Paul was 'cool' with the additions (implicitly).

On THREE occasions the Church Fathers make clear that Mark 1:1 was the start of the Marcionite gospel (Tertullian, Origen and I forget who else). Philosophumena says Marcion = the gospel of Mark. THEREFORE it would seem like 'a' gospel of Mark was used by the Marcionites and then the Gospel of the Hebrews added to it.

If the Marcionites are telling the truth it would imply that the 'Antitheses' (Matthew 5:17 - ) were in Mark. Our canonical Mark doesn't have that. But the placement of this antinomian material in Matthew clearly underscores that our canon was falsified or made under false premises.

[Secret Alias]

Also look at Matthew's eunuch discussion. This was clearly in the Marcionite gospel and a version of it - not Matthew - is cited in Clement of Alexandria Stromata 3.

[mlinssen]

FFW beyond all the useless clutter to

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7703&p=119205#p119205

[Secret Alias]

You guys are like those wives abused by their husbands but won't leave their husbands. The canon is fake. Trying to figure things out AS IF Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have an independent pre-existence BEFORE being added to the other three in the fourfold canon is laughable. Like trying to figure out the real Superman.

[Ben C. Smith]

You guys are like those wives abused by your husbands but won't leave their husbands. The canon is fake.

I often feel the same way about you and Irenaeus.