"At face value, Irenaeus' chronology yields Lukan priority"

[andrewcriddle]

I don't think that's the context. Instead they believed that Jesus only appeared to Paul, no one else, and from this revelation the gospel was received

According to most reconstruction's of Marcion's Gospel there are multiple post-resurrection appearances of Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

I am aware of the evidence and it is slight. Tertullian for one:

It is well also that the disciples' unbelief persisted, so that right to the end our claim should stand that to the disciples Christ Jesus had declared himself no other than the Christ of the prophets. For when two of them were on a journey, and the Lord had joined himself with them, while it did not appear that it was he himself, and he even pretended not to be aware of the things that had happened, they said, But we were thinking that he himself was the Redeemer of Israel, evidently Israel's, and the Creator's, Christ. To that extent had he never declared himself any other. Otherwise they would not have supposed him the Creator's: and when he was supposed to be the Creator's, he would not have tolerated this supposition about himself if he had not been who he was supposed to be. Otherwise he must be thought of as the author of error and a renegade from the truth: and this will not suit your description of him as a god supremely good. But not even after his resurrection did he show them that he was any different from him they said they thought him to be. It is true that he severely rebuked them: O fools, and slow of heart in not believing all the things which he spoke to you. In saying this he proves he belongs not to another god but to the same God. For the angels had said the same to the women: Remember the things he spoke to you in Galilee, saying that the Son of man must needs be delivered up, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And why 'must needs', except it was so written by God the Creator ? That is why he rebuked them, for being offended at his passion, and nothing more, and for being doubtful in the faith of the resurrection reported to them by the women, and for these reasons ceasing to believe that he was who they had trusted he had been. And so, since it was his wish to be believed to be that which they had trusted he was, he affirmed that he was who they had trusted he was, the Creator's Christ, the Redeemer of Israel. Now concerning the verity of his body, what could be clearer? When they were in doubt whether he were not a phantasm, or even supposed that he was a phantasm, he said to them Why are ye troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts ? Behold my hands and feet, that it is I myself: for a spirit hath not bones, as ye see me having. Now here Marcion, on purpose I believe, has abstained from crossing out of his gospel certain matters opposed to him, hoping that in view of these which he might have crossed out and has not, he may be thought not to have crossed out those which he has crossed out, or even to have crossed them out with good reason. But he is only sparing to statements which he proceeds to overturn by strange interpretation no less than by deletion. He will have it then that <the words> A spirit hath not bones as ye see me having, were so spoken as to be referred to the spirit, 'as ye see me having', meaning, not having bones, even as a spirit has not. And what sense would there be in such a round-about way of putting it, when he might have said quite plainly, For a spirit hath not bones, as ye see that I have not'? Why again did he offer his hands and feet for them to examine—and these members consist of bones—if he had no bones? Why does he add, And know that it is I myself, though of course they knew beforehand that he had a body? Or else, if he was in every respect a phantasm, why did he upbraid them for thinking him a phantasm? And yet, while they still believed not, he asked them for food, so as to show that he even had teeth.

And Epiphanius:

Scholion 77. He falsified what Christ said to Cleopas and the other disciples when he met them, 'O fools, and slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Ought not he to have suffered these things?' And instead of 'what the prophets have spoken,' he put, 'what I have said unto you.' But he is exposed, since 'When he broke the bread their eyes were opened and they knew him.'

(a) Elenchus 77. Tell me, Marcion, how was the breaking of the bread done? In appearance, or with a solid body actually at work? For when he arose from the dead he truly arose in his sacred body itself; therefore he truly broke the bread.
(b) But you have replaced, 'Is not this what the prophets have spoken?' Marcion, with, 'Is this not what I said unto you?'
(c) If he had told them,
'I said unto you,' they would surely have recognized him from the phrase,
'I said.' Why, then, is it at the breaking of the bread that scripture says,
'Their eyes were opened and they knew him and he vanished?'
(d) For it was fitting for him, since he was God and was transforming his body into a spiritual one, to show that it was a true body but that it vanished when he chose, since all things are possible to him.
(e) Even Elisha, in fact, who was a prophet and had received the grace from God, prayed God that his pursuers be smitten with blindness, and they were smitten and could not see him as he was.
(f) Moreover, in Sodom the angels concealed Lot’s door, and the Sodomites could not see it. Was Lot's door an apparition too, Marcion? But you are left with no reply. For he plainly broke the bread and distributed it to his disciples.

Scholion 78. 'Why are ye troubled? Behold my hands and my feet, for a spirit hath not bones as ye see me have.'

(a) Elenchus 78. Who can fail to laugh at the driveller who has foolishly dragged himself and the souls of others down to hell? If he had not acknowledged these words his imposture would be plausible, and his dupes would be pardonable.
(b) But now, since he acknowledged these texts and did not take them out, and his followers read them too, his sin and theirs remains and the fire is inescapable for him and them, since they have no excuse. For the Saviour has clearly taught that even after his resurrection he has bones and flesh, as he testified himself with the words, 'as ye see me have.'

Let's first note that the passages are strangely identical. How can it be coincidence that only two passages in all that material are cited by both Tertullian and Epiphanius. Clearly again their accounts derive from a (lost) common source.

[Secret Alias]

With regards to these 'signs' of a post-resurrection narrative let's admit that the figure of Clophas or Alphaeus is a corruption of מלפא teacher which comes from the root אַלְפֻ to teach. It is only in Samaritan letters that Kaf and Mem can be confused. So the Marcionite gospel need only have said that Jesus appeared to the 'teacher' (= Paul) and this was (deliberately) corrupted into Cleophas.

[Adam]

Back on page one Aug. 24 you got it right, Stephan,
When in response to TedM you wrote:

And alternatively you have to ask - now that the author has brought it up - can Irenaeus (who was intimately familiar with the Pauline canon) really mean that Luke wrote the gospel according to Paul AFTER Mark who wrote after Peter and Paul died? Really? Can this really be what Irenaeus is saying? Let's look at the passage again:

After their (Peter and Paul's) departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.

This is where scholars and pseudo-scholars make a mental 'trick' on themselves shifting from 'what Irenaeus means' to 'what internal evidence from the gospels tell us' when interpreting this statement. So Peter and Paul die in the 60s, Mark writes the gospel after that (late 60's/early 70s) and now we are to believe Irenaeus is telling us that Luke wrote after Mark wrote after the death of Paul and Peter? Really? That (i.e. that Irenaeus meant to say this not Luke being written after Mark) seems a little far fetched to me. To me Irenaeus could just as well be making an open-ended statement that Luke wrote in apostolic times. That's it. In other words, Luke is separate from the Matthew and then Mark statement which precedes Irenaeus's statement about Luke.

Yes, that's exactly the needed corrective, Stephan. Irenaeus is not giving us a chronology that Luke wrote after Paul died. (Not that some later edition of Luke may not have been written later, maybe even after Marcion as long as we accept the growing realization by most scholars that Marcion and canonical Luke both hinge upon an earlier text, most likely the one already known to Paul--probably missing Luke 1 and 2 and surely 1:1-4,) For all your smirking at David Flusser's a priori acceptance of Lindsey's theory of Lucan primacy, it's nevertheless clear to me that the Evolving Proto-Gospel got to the "pre-Luke" (probably a better term I now think than "Proto-Luke" that implies too much B. H. Streeter) before the additional material we find Mark and Matthew share and of course before the (possibly same strata, I tend to think) uniquely Matthaen material. To be sure, Lindsey goes too far to make Luke the source for the other two Synoptics, but his point is correct that GLuke 90% of we have it was written before either Matthew or Mark (they in turn sharing a common source, Proto-Matthew).

Why is Matthew first? It has long been noted that Irenaeus's statement is an unattributed reference to Papias. This would imply that Irenaeus's audience was familiar with Papias's statement and thus shared his preference (or perhaps exclusive devotion) to the gospel written by Matthew. Throughout the canon we get the sense that Paul is being introduced (or perhaps re-introduced or repackaged) as someone unlike the Paul of heresy. There is a sense that Paul is not a heretic. Learn more about him through Luke who is the true witness to his true beliefs. This would all imply the audience were 'Jewish Christians' (Christians with Jewish leanings) of some sort.

Yes, with the understanding that Papias's information about the writer Matthew applies not to our Matthew nor even a wholly Aramaic or Greek precursor, but to a mixed text of Proto-Matthew with both Aramaic and Greek portions or better yet, the underlying Proto-Gospel, for which a better case can be made for how much of it was Aramaic. Our GMatthew is too Greek to attribute easily to an Aramaic or even a mixed Aramaic/Greek text. Yes, it's the Proto-Gospel that was earlier used for pre-Luke per above.
Thank you Stephan. The subsequent 8 pages of argument between you and TedM did not produce more light than heat, though eventually you come to a possibly more-meaningful-than-anything-ever exposition of the "substance" of Marcion and his precursors (Docetists, not all-too-well hidden even in our canonical Luke) and successors. Maybe you have gone beyond Nicaea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, helped by you not having a dog in the fight.

[Al Franco]

Mr Secret Alias, I believe that Cleophas/Clophas is a big corruption, but not like you think.

I believe Cleophas never existed! Cleophas can be a Roman Catholic invention to hidden Jesus family.

See how this text we know very well is usually read:

"And by the cross were his mother, and his mother sister, Mary, the wife of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene" (John 19:25).

This can be a corruption. Let's try again:

"And by the cross were his mother, and his sister, Mary, the wife of CEPHAS, and Mary Magdalene."

Is not Cleophas, but Cephas. The text above shows Mary, Jesus sister. Mary of Cleophas never existed. She cannot be sister of Mary, mother of Jesus. Why would a Jewish father put the same name on two daughters?

Again: this Mary is probably one of the sisters of Jesus, who always accompanied him. The gospel of Philip testifies: "And there were three who walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and his sister, and Magdalene. His sister, his mother and his companion were each called Mary".

Richard Bauckhan, in is book "Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church", page 37, say that Jesus had a sister called Mary.

This Mary was Peter's wife. She was the mother of John Mark.

By coincidence, Peter, after being miraculously released from prison, went exactly to the house of Mary, mother of John Mark, an action suggests that his family lived in this house:

"When he knocked on the gate, a maid, called Rode, came to see who she was; recognizing Peter's voice, he was so happy that he didn't even let him in, but he ran back to announce that Peter was at the gate ” (Acts 12:13-15).

Peter's maid recognized his voice. The house belonged to Peter's family. Probably was the same house where Paul stayed for 15 days with Peter when he was in Jerusalem (Gl 1:18).

Peter was the father of John Mark (1 Peter 5:13). John Mark was not Peter's son in faith, but a legitimate son. The word son here (1 Peter 5:13) translated from Greek, is Huio. James was Huio of Zebedee (Mat 4:21), Jesus was Huio of Mary (Mar 6: 3), John the Baptist was Huio of Zacarias (Luc 3: 2), Bartimaeus was Huio of Timaeus (Mar 10:46), David was Huio of Jesse (Acts 13:22) and Peter was Huio of Jonah (João 1:42).

When Timothy said to have been children of Paul's faith in 1 Timothy 1:2, the term used is teknō. However, when the text means that Timothy was the son of a Jew in Acts: 16: 1 the term changes to Huio. It is the same word used to link John Mark to Peter in 1 Peter 5:13: "Your co-elected in Babylon greets you, as does my son (Huio) Mark".

Peter's wife accompanied him on his missionary trips (1 Cor 9: 5).

[Joseph D. L.]

Cleophas can be a Roman Catholic invention to hidden Jesus family.

To be fair I can see the logic at work. I just think it's more intuitive to see these things as evolutionary traditions. Does that mean there is a kernel of historic truth to them? I don't know. Scepticism and critical thinking must always be employed.

Example.

This Mary was Peter's wife. She was the mother of John Mark.

Peter was the father of John Mark (1 Peter 5:13). John Mark was not Peter's son in faith, but a legitimate son. The word son here (1 Peter 5:13) translated from Greek, is Huio.

When Timothy said to have been children of Paul's faith in 1 Timothy 1:2, the term used is teknō. However, when the text means that Timothy was the son of a Jew in Acts: 16: 1 the term changes to Huio. It is the same word used to link John Mark to Peter in 1 Peter 5:13: "Your co-elected in Babylon greets you, as does my son (Huio) Mark".

You have to consider the whens and the whys these texts were written too. I hate to throw the "but the scholars say..." card up, but these texts are highly questionable and so can not give us a full understanding as to what exactly their aims are. Combating heresies? Creating false histories? Both?

I see something like that and I just think "it's saying Marcion was a follower of Cerinthius," or "Leucius Charinus was Peter," or "John Mark and Cerinthus are the same." But I never think it's saying Simon Peter, Cephas, was the father of John Mark. I just don't buy the "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" "Jesus Dynasty" stuff, and I don't think early Christians did either.