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

[Secret Alias]

Stop fucking wasting my time with this shit! This thesis should never have been written owing to the methodological problems at its core. A testimony to the disintegration of higher education.

[John2]

A logion or logia cannot describe a narrative gospel like canonical Matthew. Give me a fucking break. I don't care how many bad theses you cite. Case closed. "The Greek word logia in Papias's remarks is a term that normally refers to “sayings” or “oracles” and is not naturally attached to an entire narrative Gospel." https://books.google.com/books?id=U5rIP ... AHoECAQQAg Schleiermacher thought that Papias must have meant a collection of sayings rather than a narrative gospel, since the basic meaning of the term logia is "oracles." https://books.google.com/books?id=glLJb ... AXoECAYQAg The reason Edwards argues against the plain meaning of logion and logia is because it is absolutely essential to his thesis (a terribly written theses at that). That's why you fight against this windmill. Fuck off.

Ben is with me on this, as is Irenaeus himself, who, as Edwards notes, uses the term elsewhere with the sense of "gospel." I'm not saying that it doesn't have other meanings, but in this context I think it makes more sense to understand it as "gospel," Edwards or no Edwards.

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben is with me on this, as is Irenaeus himself, who, as Edwards notes, uses the term elsewhere with the sense of "gospel." I'm not saying that it doesn't have other meanings, but in this context I think it makes more sense to understand it as "gospel," Edwards or no Edwards.

I doubt that anybody had applied the actual term "gospel" to a narrative like Matthew or Mark yet in Papias' time. But by the time of Philo, at the latest, logia were essentially the same as "the scriptures," whatever those scriptures may be (words of God himself, narratives, poetry: you name it). The origins of a word and the eventual usage of a word are not (necessarily) the same thing.

[Secret Alias]

Another apologist for the Jew gospel and Jew Christianity bending the rules for a hobby horse (albeit an apologist whom I like and respect). Ask him about Edward's methodological errors. They are readily discernable and scandalous. I'd enjoy hearing Ben present (a) Philo's use of logion and (b) whether he thinks Irenaeus is a reliable witness in general.

[Ben C. Smith]

Another apologist for the Jew gospel and Jew Christianity bending the rules for a hobby horse....

You are being insufferable again. I will wait till the madness subsides before engaging further.

[Secret Alias]

You openly embrace ridiculous positions like taking seriously Hegesippus's claims about a Jerusalem Church and the family of Jesus from what I remember. But I also added I like you in spite of this. What do I have to say? Are you really claiming that every other NT scholars reads the material incorrectly? Come on. This is a minority position to say the least. λόγιον also means 'breastplate' in the LXX translation of Exodus. Maybe Papias is also talking about articles of clothing, that Mark and Matthew are reusing the clothing of the Lord. I think the natural reading is that there are a body of sayings which come from God or Jesus and Papias wrote a commentary on those sayings or oracles. I don't think it is reasonable to conclude - until I see evidence from Philo or otherwise - to suggest that Papias is talking about Matthew as if it existed before Mark. Irenaeus is influencing our reading of Papias.

[Secret Alias]

Warfield at least seems to imply an understanding of Philo's use of logion and logia which is compatible with what I just said https://books.google.com/books?id=PnfUA ... 22&f=false

In the following, the “ oracle ” is a “ word of God ” recorded in the Scriptures* * :

“ For he inquires whether the man is still coming hither, and the sacred oracle answers ( a-oKpivercu rd X oycov), ‘He is hidden among the stufi ’ (1 Sam. x. 22) ” (De Mujrat. Abrah., § 36, pp. 418 E).

“For after the wise man heard the oracle which being divinely given said (dec-iodevroc Xoyiov roiovrov) ‘ Thy reward is exceeding great ’ (Gen. xv. 1 ), he inquired, saying And yet who would not have been amazed at the dignity and greatness of him who delivered this oracle
(rot XPWPV dovvTog) ? ” ( Quis rer. div. her., § 1, pp. 481 D).

“And he (God) mentions the ministrations and services by which Abraham displayed his love to his master in the last sentence of the divine oracle given to his son ( aKpore/Hnov Xxryiov tov xpr/odivTor avrov -u> vlel) ( Quis rer. div. her. % 2, pp. 482 E). “To him (Abraham), then, being conscious of such a disposition, an oracular command suddenly comes (deff-ge-at XAyiov), which was never expected (Gen. xxii. 1) . . . . and without mentioning the oracular command (ro Xoyiov) to anyone . . . .” ( De Abrah., § 32, P., p. 373 E).

“[Moses] had appointed his brother high- priest in accordance with the will of God that had been declared unto him ( Kara ra xpV^evra X6yia ” ) ( De Vita Mo y sis, iii, 21, P., p. 569 D). “Moses .... being perplexed .... besought God to decide the question and to announce his decision to him by an oracular command {xPP c T MV)- And God listened to his entreaty and gave him an oracle (/. 6yiov -deom^ei) We must proceed to relate the oracular commands (Xdyia xpoadevra). He says .... (Num. ix. 10)” (De Vila Moysis, iii, 30, P., p. 687 D).

“And Balaam replied, All that I have hitherto uttered have been oracles and words of God (Xdyia nal XP’I^P 01 ), but what I am going to say are merely the suggestions of my own mind Why do you give counsel suggesting things contrary to the oracles of God (role xpvay*> is) experience ( Migrat . Abrah., 7 [i, 441]) Elsewhere he refers to the suggestions of the Spirit which was accustomed to commune with him unseen (De Somniis, ii, 38 [i, 692]) But he ascribed to the Biblical writers a fullness of this divine enthusiasm, and consequent infallibility of utterance, which he claimed
for no others.”

I see nothing in any of this which moves me over to your (forced) reading of Papias's words.

[Secret Alias]

Sorry, there may have been a Jewish gospel or whatever you want to call it but you can't get there by Papias, Irenaeus or canonical Matthew.

[Secret Alias]

Actually there's more and it might contradict my understanding. Hold on.

In the following, the “ oracle ” is a “ word of God ” recorded in the Scriptures* * :

“ For he inquires whether the man is still coming hither, and the sacred oracle answers ( a-oKpivercu rd X oycov), ‘He is hidden among the stufi ’ (1 Sam. x. 22) ” (De Mujrat. Abrah., § 36, pp. 418 E).

“For after the wise man heard the oracle which being divinely given said (dec-iodevroc Xoyiov roiovrov) ‘ Thy reward is exceeding great ’ (Gen. xv. 1 ), he inquired, saying And yet who would not have been amazed at the dignity and greatness of him who delivered this oracle
(rot XPWPV dovvTog) ? ” ( Quis rer. div. her., § 1, pp. 481 D).

“And he (God) mentions the ministrations and services by which Abraham displayed his love to his master in the last sentence of the divine oracle given to his son ( aKpore/Hnov Xxryiov tov xpr/odivTor avrov -u> vlel) ( Quis rer. div. her. % 2, pp. 482 E). “To him (Abraham), then, being conscious of such a disposition, an oracular command suddenly comes (deff-ge-at XAyiov), which was never expected (Gen. xxii. 1) . . . . and without mentioning the oracular command (ro Xoyiov) to anyone . . . .” ( De Abrah., § 32, P., p. 373 E).

“[Moses] had appointed his brother high- priest in accordance with the will of God that had been declared unto him ( Kara ra xpV^evra X6yia ” ) ( De Vita Mo y sis, iii, 21, P., p. 569 D). “Moses .... being perplexed .... besought God to decide the question and to announce his decision to him by an oracular command {xPP c T MV)- And God listened to his entreaty and gave him an oracle (/. 6yiov -deom^ei) We must proceed to relate the oracular commands (Xdyia xpoadevra). He says .... (Num. ix. 10)” (De Vila Moysis, iii, 30, P., p. 687 D).

“And Balaam replied, All that I have hitherto uttered have been oracles and words of God (Xdyia nal XP’I^P 01 ), but what I am going to say are merely the suggestions of my own mind Why do you give counsel suggesting things contrary to the oracles of God (role xpvay*> is) experience ( Migrat . Abrah., 7 [i, 441]) Elsewhere he refers to the suggestions of the Spirit which was accustomed to commune with him unseen (De Somniis, ii, 38 [i, 692])

But he ascribed to the Biblical writers a fullness of this divine enthusiasm, and consequent infallibility of utterance, which he claimed
for no others unless indeed that your counsels are inore powerful than his decrees (loyiuv) ? ” ( De Vita Moysis, i, 53, P., p. 647 D). “Was it not on this account that when


Cain fancied he had offered up a blameless sacrifice an oracle (Xoyinv) came to him? . . . And the oracle is as follows (to' dr loyidv kori roidvbe) (Gen. iv. 7)” {De Agricult., $ 29, M. i, 319).

“And a proof of this may be found in the oracular answer given by God (to thczic&iv /.oyiov) to the person who asked what name he
had : ‘I am that I am ’ ” (De Somniis, $ 40, M. 1, 655). “But when he became improved and was about to have his name changed, he then became a man born of God (av&puiroc dcod) according to the oracle that was delivered to him (/card to Xpw&iv avru 16yiov), ‘lam thy God ’ ” (De Gigant., \ 14, M. 1, 271).

“For which reason, a sacred inj unction to the following purport (bio nal Myiov ixppaih} tu co<j>L> Toiovde) ‘Go thou up to the Lord, thou and Aaron,’ etc. (Gen. xxiv. i). And the meaning of this injunction is as follows: ‘Go thou up, O soul’ ” (De Migrat. Abrah., $ 31, M. 1, 462).

“For which account an oracle of the all-merciful God has been given ( Ibyiov rov lieu xhov peor'uv yyepbrrjTog) full of gentleness, which shadows forth good hopes to those who love instruction in these times, ‘I will never leave thee nor forsake thee’ (Jos i. 5)” (De Confus. Ling., \ 32, M. i, 430).

“Do you not recollect the case of the soothsayer Balaam? He is represented as hearing the oracles of God ( \6yia Seov) and as having received
knowledge from the Most High, but what advantage did he reap from such hearing, and what good accrued to him from such knowledge?” (De Mat at. Ffomi-num, $ 37).

“ There are then a countless number of things well worthy of being displayed and demonstrated ; and among them one which was mentioned a little
while ago ; for the oracle (to 1 oyiov) calls the persou who was really his grandfather, the father of the practiser of virtue, and to him who was really his father it has not given any such title ; for it says, ‘ I am the Lord God of Abraham, thy Father ’ (Gen. xxviii. 41), ami in reality he was his grandfather, and, again, ‘ the God of Isaac, ’ not adding this time, ‘thy Father’ (Gen. xxviii. 13) (De Somniis, i, $ 27).

‘‘And there is something closely resembling this in the passage of Scripture (lit. the oracle: to xP’l^ev Aoyiov) concerning the High Priest (Lev. xvi. 17)” (De Somniis, ii, $ 34).

On the other hand, in the following instances, the reference is
distinctly to Scripture as such :

“And the following oracle given with respect to Enoch (to xPVd'Sev cttI ’E vux Ibyiov) proves this : ‘ Enoch pleased God and he was not found ’ (Gen. v. 24) ” (De Mutat. Mom., \ 4).

It is a portion of the narrative Scriptures which is thus adduced.

“ But let us stick to the subject before us and follow the Scripture (aKoAovd-i/o- arTff tu Aoyiu) and say that there is such a thing as wisdom existing, and that he who loves wisdom is wise ’’ (do.).

Here to Uywj is either Scripture in general, or, perhaps more probably, the passage previously under discussion and still in mind (Gen. v. 24). “ Aaprvpel Se poi loyiov to xP’P^ev kirl rov ’A (Spaap robe, 1 He came into the place of which the Lord God had told him ; and having looked up with his eyes, he saw the place afar off (Gen. xxii. 4) ’ ” (De Somniis, i, 11).

This narrative passage of Scripture is here cited as loyiov zb ■ (pr]ff9iv.

“ This is a boast of a great and magnanimous soul, to rise above all creation, and to overleap its boundaries and to cling to the great uncreated God above, according to his sacred commands (/card rdf 'tepac vxfn/yi/oeic) in which we are expressly enjoined ‘to cleave unto him’ (Deut. xxx. 20). Therefore he in requital bestows himself as their inheritance upon those who do cleave unto him and who serve him without intermission ; and the sacred Scripture (/6ytov) bears its testimony in behalf of these, when it says, ‘The Lord himself is his inheritance ’ (Deut. x. 9)’’ ( De Gongressu erud. grat ., \ 24, p. 443).

Here the anarthrous Mytov is probably to be understood of “ a passage of Scripture ” — viz., that about to be cited.

“ Moreover site (Consideration) confirmed this opinion of hers by the sacred scriptures (xpgatni f), one of which ran in this form (rid ycv roup Sc — without verb) (Deut. iv. 4) She also confirmed her statement by another passage in scripture of the following purport (erepij Tougde xp'/upv) (Deut. xxx. 15) .... and in another passage we read (/cod iv iripoic) (Deut. xxx. 20). And again this is what the Lord himself hath said .... (Lev. x. 3) .... as it is also said in the Psalms (Ps. cxiii. 25) .... but Cain, that shameless man, that parricide, is no-where spoken of in the Law (ovSapov -ijt; vnpodcotac) as dying : but there is an oracle delivered respecting him in such words as these (a/./ a kui /.dyiov cotiv h avrip xpyo&e v roiovro ): ‘ The Lord God put a mark upon Cain ’ (Gen. iv. 10) ” ( De Profug ., I 11, M. i, 555).

HerS it is questionable whether “ the Law ” (f t vogoHaola) is not broad enough to include all the passages mentioned — from Genesis, Leviticus and the Psalms — as it is elsewhere made to include Joshua {Be AJiyrat. Abrah ., § 32, M. i, 46-i. See Kyle : p. xix). At all events, whatever is in this vopo&eoia is a yprjcMv /.oyiov : the passage more particularly adduced being a narrative one.

“After the person who loves virtue seeks a goat by reason of his sins, but does not find one; for already as the sacred scripture tells us (<jf 6rf/xn to /oyiov), ‘It hath been burnt ’ (Lev. x. 16) .... Accordingly the scripture says (gr/civ ovv 6 Xpr/apdc) that Moses ‘ sought and sought again,’ a reason for repentance for his sins in mortal life .... on which account it is said iu the scripture (Sid /.rycrai) (Lev. xvi. 20)” ( De Profug ., \ 28, M. i, 569).

Here ™ /.oyiov seems to mean not so much a passage in Scripture as “Scripture” in the abstract: Lev. x. 16 not being previously quoted in this context. The same may be said of the reference of 6 ypr^poi in the next clause and of the simple teyezai lower down — the interest of the passage turning on the entire equivalence of the three modes of adducing Scripture.

“ This then is the beginning and preface of the prophecies of Moses under the influence of inspiration (rf/c iv&ovmaopob -pogi/relac M ui'oeeuc). After this he prophesied (dEffTrge/) .... about food .... being full of inspiration (f/r/dr/aaaf)- .... Some thiuking, perhaps, that what was said to them was not an oracle (oi) xP T i a l l0V C) But the father established the oracle by his prophet (to Myiov tov TTpotpr/rov) He gave a second instance of his prophetical inspiration in the oracle (/oyiov, anarthrous) which he delivered about the seventh day” (De Vit. Moysis, iii, 35 and 36).

“And the holy oracle that has been given (to xppvdcv ?.6ytov = “ the delivered oracle;” Ryle, “the utterance of the oracle”) will bear witness, which expressly says that he cried out loudly and betrayed clearly by his cries what he had suffered from the concrete evil, that is from the body ” ( Quod det. pot. insid., $ 14, M. I., 200).

Here the narrative in Gen. iv, somewhat broadly taken, including vers. 8 and 10, is called rd yp-r)<jdh 16-yiov.

“There is also something like this in the sacrel scriptures where the account of the creation of the universe is given and it is expressed more distinctly (ro irapaTr/ir/ciov mi iv role irepi rr/; rov navroe yEveaeuc "Xoyioie Kepiixerai ar/peuvSea- repov). For it is sa : d to the wicked man, l O thou man, that hast sinned; cease to sin’ (Gen. iv. 7)” {Be Sobriet., $ 10, M. 1, 400).

Here there is a formal citation of a portion of Scripture, viz., the portion “ concerning the creation of the universe,” which means, probably, the Book of Genesis (see Ryle’s Philo and Holy Scripture , p. xx); and this is cited as made up of “ declared oracles,” Iv rot? ypyafteTai Xoyim?. The Book of Genesis is thus to Philo a body of ypvjff&ivra h'ryia.

“And this is the meaning of the oracle recorded in Deuteronomy (Trap' o mt ?oyi6v tort roiovrov avayeypappivov iv Aevrepovophp), ‘ Behold I have pat before thy face life and death, good and evil ’ ” ( Quod Beus Immut., § 10, M. i, 280).

Here the “ oracle ” is a “ written ” thing ; and it is written in a well-known book of oracles, viz., in “ Deuteronomy,” the second book of the Law. This book, and of course the others like it, consists of written oracles.

“And the words of scripture show this, in which (b//Aol 6i to Mytov iv u) it is distinctly stated that ‘ they bath of them went together, and came to the plain which God had mentioned to them (Gen. xxii. 3)” (Be Migrat. Abrah ., $ 39, M. i, 462).

“And for this reason the following Scripture has been given to men (Sib 16yiov ixp//ad/] tolovSe), ‘Batura to the linl of thy father and to thy family, and I will be with thee’ (Gen. xxxi. 3) ” (Be Migrat. Abrah. $ 6, M. i, 440).

Here, though the words are spoken in the person of God, the generalized use of them seems to point to their Scriptural expression as the main point.

“ Moses chose to deliver each of the ten commandments (imarov &e<rnr'i£etv ru v dim Aoyiuv) iu such a form as if they were addressed not to many persons but to one” (Be Becem Oracul., Kepi rb>v Aina A oyiuv, \ 10).

“And the sacred scripture ( Idyiov , anarthrous) bears its testimony in behalf of this assertion, when it says : ‘ The Lord himself is his inheritance ’ (Deut. x. 9)” (Be Congr. Erud. Grat., % 24, M. i, 558).

“For there is a passage iu the word of God (loyiov yap iariv) that .... (Lev. xxvi. 3) ” (Be praem. et poen., % 17, M. ii, 424).

[Secret Alias]

Hmmm, It would not seem surprising to me that Philo consider God to have spoken in the written Torah. So that each sentence was a logion is not shocking in itself. In fact it would be expected. That Irenaeus speaks of the oracles of God being twisted by the heretics because they take a mosaic of a king and move each logion in such a way that the total picture changes into a fox or dog fits perfectly in that understanding being adapted for the gospel. In other words, the sentences of the written gospel are logia and they are shifted by the heretics into a cento gospel. But how about re-examining the information from Papias:

And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be fount in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]

Do you really think that Mark was understood to be remembering a written gospel - Matthew - and rearranging the sentences in an incorrect order? You really think that this is what Papias means by 'oracles of the Lord'? Why the emphasis on 'hearing'? The hearing of things Jesus said is core to Papias's worldview. It doesn't make sense to suppose that Papias means that Mark heard Matthew or sentences from Matthew. Papias clearly means Mark heard 'sayings' or 'sentences' or 'oracles' or 'words' from Jesus or about Jesus maybe, in the most general sense - oral traditions - rather than a written narrative gospel. Matthew later put the same building blocks - logia - in another arrangement which Papias implies is/are more faithful.