Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and Mark?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and Mark?

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:04 am

This notion of superior Paul is in Hegemonius and shared by Mani. It floated at the fringes of the Empire in the third century after being driven out by Imperial persecutions. Paul a man who stood as a counter-Emperor, a man of authority, the very spokesman of the highest God. This HAD to be driven out because the Emperors were increasingly seeking to take over this role. We can also begin to see 'the apostle' at once be a gnostikos. Morton Smith's explanation for the terminology was Moses's experience at Sinai. The spokesman needs to be 'brought into acquaintance with knowledge' be made capable of knowledge in order to speak on behalf of it.
“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: 11208
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and Mark?

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:07 am

Hegemonius:

Mani: And Paul, too, who is held to be the most approved apostle with us, expresses himself to the same effect in one of his epistles, when he says: “For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a prevaricator.”1568 And in saying this he pronounces on them as Gentiles, because they were under the elements of the world,1569 before the fulness of faith came, believing then as they did in the law and the prophets.

Paul, who was an elect vessel and a called apostle, and who on that ground, while preaching the true doctrine, said: “Or seek ye a proof of that Christ who speaks in me?

Archelaus: The apostle himself, too, states the same thing in his first epistle, where he says: “According to the grace that is given to me of God, that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the Gospel of God" ... And it, is his wish to have to deal with1789 those who sought the proof of that Christ who spake in him, for this reason, that the Paraclete was in him: and as having obtained His gift of grace, and as being enriched with magnificent, honour,1790 he says: “For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And He said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee; for strength is made perfect in weakness.”1791 Again, that it was the Paraclete Himself who was in Paul, is indicated by our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospel, when He says: “If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray my Father, and He shall give you another Comforter.”1792 In these words He points to the Paraclete Himself, for He speaks of “another” Comforter. And hence we have given credit to Paul, and have hearkened to him when he says, “Or1793 seek ye a proof of Christ speaking in me?”1794 and when he expresses himself in similar terms, of which we have already spoken above.

Archelaus: And when the Galatians are minded to turn away from the Gospel, he says to them: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would turn you away1801 from the Gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which has been delivered to you, let him be accursed" ... And once more, in another place, he declares of himself that he was a minister of Christ more than all others,1806 as though after him none other was to be looked for at all; for he enjoins that not even an angel from heaven is thus to be received. And how, then, shall we credit the professions of this Manes, who comes from Persis,1807 and declares himself to be the Paraclete?

so also does the blessed Paul give us to understand our position when he uses these words: “That ye may be as lights in this world, holding the word of life for my glory against the day of Christ.” For the meaning of this saying is, that our Lord Jesus Christ, when He comes, will see that his doctrine has proved profitable in us, and that, finding that he, the apostle, has not run in vain, neither laboured in vain, He will bestow on him the crown of recompense.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
“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
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7104
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and Mark?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:12 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:01 am
But how can "I submitted to the authorities" be anything but a late, derivative attempt to make Paul subject to the Pillars?
I agree. I think the development swung like a pendulum. Thesis. Antithesis. Synthesis. First Paul saying I am superior to the apostles (the heretics understanding according to Prescription, Against Heresies and many other texts to Paul the lap dog (developed to appease those who opposed him in the anti-Marcionite communities) to a position which tried for something in between the two extremes. But Irenaeus's reading is the earliest in our tradition which means necessarily that whether we are Marcionists or whatever we have to speculate the existence of readings older than Irenaeus.
I think this statement is a bit misleading because this passage in Irenaeus is available only in the Latin, and we already know that the "submitted to them" reading was prevalent in the Latin West; it could derive, in other words, from the Latin translation and not from Irenaeus' original Greek. There are other spots, ones fortunately available in Greek, in which the Latin gives a different reading.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and Mark?

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:16 am

But Irenaeus's reading is picked up in Tertullian undoubtedly because Tertullian copied Book Four from an original Greek treatise written by Irenaeus. If you read the context of Book Four it can't be a later gloss. Paul submitting to the apostles is taken for granted in the commentary and the text is used as a proof text.
“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: 11208
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and Mark?

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:31 am

And implicitly at least Megethius implies that Paul knew of a written gospel and only one:

I will demonstrate elsewhere that the gospels are spurious. For the apostle says their is one gospel, but you (plural) say there are four

Ἐγὼ ἐλέγχω ἑτέρωθεν ὅτι φάλσα ἐστὶ τὰ εὐαγγέλια. λέγει γὰρ ὁ ἀπόστολος ἔν εὐαγγέλιον, ὑμεῖς δὲ τέσσαρα λέγετε.

Ego ostendo quia falsa sunt eungelia. Dict enim apostolus quia unum est euangelium, uos autem quantuor dicitis.

The frequent use of 'ὁ ἀπόστολος' as a blanket term for Paul has to be explained too. Clearly the title referred only to Paul or at least it was taken for granted as a stand alone title in various early Church Fathers (cf. Clement especially).
“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: 11208
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and Mark?

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:54 am

And if you think about it:

1. if 'the apostle' was a pre-existent term for Moses, Paul saying I am the apostle would be a confirmation that he was Moses redivivus. I am not sure he wanted to go that far.
2. the story that Simon Magus was Paul in the Clementines and his interest in the term 'apostle' necessarily takes on Samaritan themes given his Samaritan background. Some even see Paul present in Justin's account of Simon https://books.google.com/books?id=GU8gA ... 22&f=false
“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
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7104
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and Mark?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:18 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:16 am
But Irenaeus's reading is picked up in Tertullian undoubtedly because Tertullian copied Book Four from an original Greek treatise written by Irenaeus. If you read the context of Book Four it can't be a later gloss. Paul submitting to the apostles is taken for granted in the commentary and the text is used as a proof text.
Not a gloss. A variant reading. Happened all the time: scribes and even authors would insert their own more familiar text in place of the quoted text actually before them.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and Mark?

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:37 pm

Well all I can say is that Irenaeus is the first person to cite the material and he cites it against Marcion. Similarly Tertullian who is working from a manuscript originally written by Irenaeus explains the situation at Galatia by noting:
so that they were perverting the gospel, not by any such interpolation of scripture as to suggest that Christ belonged to the Creator, but by such a retention of the old rule of conduct as not to repudiate the Creator's law. So he says, On account of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ, that they might reduce us to bondage, we gave place by subjection not even for an hour. For let us pay attention to the meaning of his words, and the purpose of them, and <your> falsification of scripture will become evident. When he says first, But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised, and then proceeds, On account of false brethren unawares brought in, and what follows, he begins at once to render a reason for a contrary action, indicating for what purpose he did a thing he would neither have done nor have let it be known he had done, except for the previous occurrence of that on account of which he did do it. So then I would have you tell me, if those false brethren had not come in unawares to spy out their liberty, would they have given place to subjection? I think not. Then they did give place because there were people on whose account concession was advisable. For this was in keeping with faith unripe and still in doubt regarding the observance of the law, when even the apostle himself suspected he might have run, or might still be running, in vain. So there was cause to discountenance those false brethren who were spying upon Christian liberty, to prevent them from leading it astray into the bondage of Judaism before Paul learned that he had not run in vain, before those who were apostles before him gave him their right hands, before with their agreement he undertook the task of preaching among the gentiles. Of necessity therefore he gave place, for a time, and so also had sound reason for circumcising Timothy,a and bringing nazirites into the temple,b facts narrated in the Acts, and to this extent true, that they are in character with an apostle who professes that to the Jews he became a Jew that he might gain the Jews, and one living under the law for the sake of those who were living under the lawc—and so even for the sake of those brought in unawares—and lastly that he had become all things to all men, that he might gain them all. If these facts too require to be understood in this sense, neither can any man deny that Paul was a preacher of that God and that Christ, whose law, although he rejects it, yet he did now and again for circumstances' sake act on, but would have needed without hesitation to thrust out of his way if it had been a new god he had brought to light. Well it is therefore that Peter and James and John gave Paul their right hands, and made a compact about distribution of office, that Paul should go to the gentiles, and they to the circumcision: only that they should remember the poor—this too according to the law of that Creator who cherishes the poor and needy, as I have proved in my discussion of your gospel.
The first note - a subsequent editor corrected the variant reading. The context of the text is clearly that the Marcionites denied EVERYTHING said in Galatians but that the author understands that Paul was actively promoting a 'Judaized' agenda in this period of his life i.e. 'submitted before the authorities.' Of course I don't believe this reading. But it was the first orthodox reading no question about it. I think the whole section is a later addition. But one which swung wildly from Marcion to Irenaeus to a point in between.
“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
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7104
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and Mark?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:40 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:37 pm
Well all I can say is that Irenaeus is the first person to cite the material and he cites it against Marcion.
Okay, fair enough, but this is one of those cases in which it certainly looks like the Marcionites preserved the original reading, the one which fits in with the rest of Galatians 2. The reading in Irenaeus is certainly super useful against Marcion, and that may well be the point of it.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7104
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and Mark?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:43 pm

Ƿ45 has the negative version (οἷς οὐδὲ).
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply