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
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7043
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 7:42 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:20 pm
Variants in Galatians from Origen Commentary on Romans - "Yet Paul also says "My gospel which I proclaim among the Gentiles."
Romans 2.16: "my gospel" + Galatians 2.2: "the gospel which I preach among the gentiles" = "my gospel which I preach among the gentiles."
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11159
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 10:51 pm

I am just saying - maybe a Marcionite variant. Origen's patron was a 'former' Marcionite. During the Imperial persecutions in Alexandria being orthodox was like having a safe harbor in tempestuous seas.
“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: 11159
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Nov 09, 2019 8:34 am

On a separate note I have always been surprised at the paucity of references to Galatians chapter 2. In the Ante-Nicene period it basically comes down to three references in Tertullian (Books 1, 4 and 5) and Irenaeus Book 3. It is worth noting that by the time of the authorship of Ignatius's Tarsian epistle the negative allusion to subjection (i.e. not for an hour) is already established. So that is the basic time frame - c. 180 CE we did subjected ourselves for an hour to sometime in the third century we didn't.

We've looked at the Tertullian translations of Irenaeus's original references in Against Marcion. Irenaeus in Book Three of Against Heresies makes cites the positive - we did subject ourselves - as proof that Paul was not THE apostle:
With regard to those who allege that Paul alone knew the truth, and that to him the mystery was manifested by revelation, let Paul himself convict them, when he says, that one and the same God wrought in Peter for the apostolate of the circumcision, and in himself for the Gentiles. Peter, therefore, was an apostle of that very God whose was also Paul; and Him whom Peter preached as God among those of the circumcision, and likewise the Son of God, did Paul [declare] also among the Gentiles. For our Lord never came to save Paul alone, nor is God so limited in means, that He should have but one apostle who knew the dispensation of His Son. And again, when Paul says, "How beautiful are the feet of those bringing glad tidings of good things, and preaching the Gospel of peace," he shows clearly that it was not merely one, but there were many who used to preach the truth. And again, in the Epistle to the Corinthians, when he had recounted all those who had seen God after the resurrection, he says in continuation, "But whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed, " acknowledging as one and the same, the preaching of all those who saw God after the resurrection from the dead.
You can see immediately that not only is the citation of Galatians 2:5 the same as in Against Marcion but the consistent citation of 1 Cor 15:11 in both. As such they go back to the same author - Irenaeus.

The passages raise the clear reality that the Pauline epistles weren't just 'tweaked' but suffered from wholesale transformation. Paul was made to say that 'we' - i.e. me and the other apostles - when this was not in the original Marcionite text.
and by the very act of having divided their spheres of work had signified their agreement in the fellowship of the gospel: as he says in another place, Whether it were I or they, so we preach, Also, although he writes of how certain false brethren had crept in unawares, desiring to remove the Galatians to another gospel [AM 1.20]

for even if Marcion were a disciple, he is not above his master: and if Marcion were an apostle, Whether it were I, says Paul, or they, so we preach: and if Marcion were a prophet, even the spirits of the prophets have to be subject to the prophets, [AM 4.4]
Irenaeus and Tertullian share the same interest in this passage, use it in the same way, the unique 'affirmation' reading of Galatians 2:5 and are the only ones to openly discuss the meaning of Galatians chapter 2. I take from all of this that the passage was controversial in antiquity. Irenaeus brought the material forward to dispute the Marcionite notion that Paul opposed the Jews and Judaism and then subsequently it was not mentioned much if at all until the fourth century.
“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: 11159
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Nov 09, 2019 8:58 am

All we know about the Marcionite text was that Paul declared "even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!" and then a missing 'hole' until the discussion of the law and gospel at the end of chapter 2 and then what follows in chapter 3 etc. Irenaeus put the 'agreement' material with Acts but it was not in the Marcionite text. What was in the Marcionite Galatians? My guess is the gospel and law contrast in 2 Corinthians as we see implied in Origen's Commentary on Romans - https://books.google.com/books?id=g1w-s ... 22&f=false There are other 'blended' passages like that in Clement and other sources. The basic idea was that Marcion's contrast between the law and gospel derived from 2 Corinthians 2 and 3 being placed between Galatians 1 and the end of 2. As such it is unlikely that there was a 'Second' Corinthians before this excision.
“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

davidmartin
Posts: 118
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

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

Post by davidmartin » Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:49 pm

the likely reason Paul issues that curse in such strong terms is because he himself was being condemned in those same terms by others, ie the 'Peter' / 'James' brigade who he tussles with. Whatever mods got made to Paul's writings I think they were done *before* the widespread belief in hell found it's way into orthodoxy, because Paul never mentions it - and it was a doctrine of his opponents, this is no surprise
What did Marcion believe about hell? I don't know but i bet he didn't accept it, as Paul didn't and part of the marcionite thing was opposition to ideas like hell being adopted in the first place
The very impetus for Marcionism could have been the merger of Pauline and the 'Judaiser' churches and them rejecting this which i always thought could have occured between around 90 and whenever Acts got written, 110-120's? I bet the movement predated Marcion himself and he was just the later most recognisable figurehead

Post Reply