Did Augustine credit Mark ending at 16:8 ?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Solo
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:10 am

Did Augustine credit Mark ending at 16:8 ?

Post by Solo »

A surprising find for me. Even though the AE (abrupt ending) of Mark was known in the old church and Eusebius acknowledges it (in Quaest. ad Marinum), there was TMK no authoritative pronouncement on it. Now, I have found a passage in Augustine's De Consensu Evangelistarum in which he appears to be saying that Mark did end abruptly.
De CE iii, 25: Quod autem dicit praecedet vos in Galilaeam; ibi eum videbitis sicut dixit vobis, videtur hoc sonare: quod Iesus non erat demonstraturus se discipulis post resurrectionem nisi in Galilaea; quam demonstrationem nunc ipse Marcus commemoravit; quod enim dixit mane prima sabbati apparuit Mariae Magdalene (...). Post haec duobus euntibus in villam, factum est in Ierusalem ipso die resurrectionis; deinde venit ad ultimam manifestationem, quam factam scimus in monte oliveti non longe a Ierusalem. Numquam igitur commemorat Marcus impletum quod ab Angelo praenuntiatum esse testatur. Matthaeus vero nullum alium locum omnino commemorat, ubi discipuli, postquam surrexit, viderint dominum, nisi in Galilaea, secundum Angeli praedicationem. Sed cum non sit expressum quando id futurum esset, utrum primum antequam alibi ab eis visus esset, idque ipsum quod discipulos Matthaeus dicit iisse in Galilaeam in montem, non exprimit diem nec narrandi ordinem; non adversatur quidem Matthaeus narrationibus ceterorum; sed dat eas intelligendi atque accipiendi locum. Verumtamen quod dominus non ibi primum se demonstraturus erat, sed in Galilaea, ubi postea visus est, se videndum mandavit, quemvis fidelem facit intentum ad quaerendum in quo mysterio dictum intelligatur.

By saying, "He will go before you into Galilee, there shall ye see Him, and He said unto you," he seems to imply, that Jesus would not shew Himself to His disciples after His Resurrection except in Galilee, which shewing of Himself Mark himself has not ['sec', ap. Aug. (?)] mentioned. For that which He has related, "Early the first day of the week He appeared to Mary Magdalene," and "after that to two of them as they walked and went into the country," we know took place in Jerusalem, on the very day of the resurrection; then he comes to His last manifestation, which we know was on the Mount of Olives, not far from Jerusalem. Mark therefore never relates the fulfilment of that which was foretold by the Angel; but Matthew does not mention any place at all, where the disciples saw the Lord after He arose, except Galilee, according to the Angel's prophecy. But since it is not set down when this happened, whether first, before He was seen any where else, and since the very place where Matthew says that He went into Galilee to the mountain, does not explain the day, or the order of the narration, Matthew does not oppose the account of the others, but assists in explaining and receiving them. But nevertheless, since the Lord was not first to shew Himself there, but sent [p. 339] word that He was to be seen in Galilee, where He was seen subsequently, it makes every faithful Christian on the look out, to find out in what mysterious sense it may be understood.


This is not a direct quote from Augustine but from Expositio in Marcum (in Catena Aurea) by Thomas Aquinas:
(http://dhspriory.org/thomas/CAMark.htm#16. ) My reading of it is that Augustine held Mark did not write the last twelve verses, and more or less conceded that the ending was harmonized. (This becomes apparent through the other notes on the chapter).
Does anoyne have anything interesting to say to this? I am writing a short digest on Mark's gospel reception through the ages, and would like to make sure I understand the issue of the major exegets' knowledge of this issue before writing nonsense. Much obliged.

Best,
Jiri
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Did Augustine credit Mark ending at 16:8 ?

Post by Stephan Huller »

I think 'anything interesting' is the key statement. I am on a discussion board with the great defender of the long ending James Snapp. I will post something over there and see for you what he says.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Did Augustine credit Mark ending at 16:8 ?

Post by JoeWallack »

Solo wrote:A surprising find for me. Even though the AE (abrupt ending) of Mark was known in the old church and Eusebius acknowledges it (in Quaest. ad Marinum), there was TMK no authoritative pronouncement on it. Now, I have found a passage in Augustine's De Consensu Evangelistarum in which he appears to be saying that Mark did end abruptly.
De CE iii, 25: Quod autem dicit praecedet vos in Galilaeam; ibi eum videbitis sicut dixit vobis, videtur hoc sonare: quod Iesus non erat demonstraturus se discipulis post resurrectionem nisi in Galilaea; quam demonstrationem nunc ipse Marcus commemoravit; quod enim dixit mane prima sabbati apparuit Mariae Magdalene (...). Post haec duobus euntibus in villam, factum est in Ierusalem ipso die resurrectionis; deinde venit ad ultimam manifestationem, quam factam scimus in monte oliveti non longe a Ierusalem. Numquam igitur commemorat Marcus impletum quod ab Angelo praenuntiatum esse testatur. Matthaeus vero nullum alium locum omnino commemorat, ubi discipuli, postquam surrexit, viderint dominum, nisi in Galilaea, secundum Angeli praedicationem. Sed cum non sit expressum quando id futurum esset, utrum primum antequam alibi ab eis visus esset, idque ipsum quod discipulos Matthaeus dicit iisse in Galilaeam in montem, non exprimit diem nec narrandi ordinem; non adversatur quidem Matthaeus narrationibus ceterorum; sed dat eas intelligendi atque accipiendi locum. Verumtamen quod dominus non ibi primum se demonstraturus erat, sed in Galilaea, ubi postea visus est, se videndum mandavit, quemvis fidelem facit intentum ad quaerendum in quo mysterio dictum intelligatur.

By saying, "He will go before you into Galilee, there shall ye see Him, and He said unto you," he seems to imply, that Jesus would not shew Himself to His disciples after His Resurrection except in Galilee, which shewing of Himself Mark himself has not ['sec', ap. Aug. (?)] mentioned. For that which He has related, "Early the first day of the week He appeared to Mary Magdalene," and "after that to two of them as they walked and went into the country," we know took place in Jerusalem, on the very day of the resurrection; then he comes to His last manifestation, which we know was on the Mount of Olives, not far from Jerusalem. Mark therefore never relates the fulfilment of that which was foretold by the Angel; but Matthew does not mention any place at all, where the disciples saw the Lord after He arose, except Galilee, according to the Angel's prophecy. But since it is not set down when this happened, whether first, before He was seen any where else, and since the very place where Matthew says that He went into Galilee to the mountain, does not explain the day, or the order of the narration, Matthew does not oppose the account of the others, but assists in explaining and receiving them. But nevertheless, since the Lord was not first to shew Himself there, but sent [p. 339] word that He was to be seen in Galilee, where He was seen subsequently, it makes every faithful Christian on the look out, to find out in what mysterious sense it may be understood.


This is not a direct quote from Augustine but from Expositio in Marcum (in Catena Aurea) by Thomas Aquinas:
(http://dhspriory.org/thomas/CAMark.htm#16. ) My reading of it is that Augustine held Mark did not write the last twelve verses, and more or less conceded that the ending was harmonized. (This becomes apparent through the other notes on the chapter).
Does anoyne have anything interesting to say to this? I am writing a short digest on Mark's gospel reception through the ages, and would like to make sure I understand the issue of the major exegets' knowledge of this issue before writing nonsense. Much obliged.

Best,
Jiri
JW:
Whaaa? Augustine is explicitly saying that "Mark" (author) wrote 16:9-20 (note that in the key Textual Criticism criterion of Direction of Change we have extant evidence that around this time the AE is being changed to the LE). Augustine's complaint is that 16:9-20 does not fulfill the critical Galilee predictions of 14:28 and 16:7. An Internal evidence fact acknowledged by everyone except for James Snapp and Harvey Dubish. Augustine is evidence for LE, not against.

By all means, let SH post away. The only one who'll get a better laugh than JS will be me.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Did Augustine credit Mark ending at 16:8 ?

Post by Stephan Huller »

Here is what Buck said in response (first from the group):

Augustine was under no delusion that Mark ended at v. 8. He quotes from v. 9 and v. 12, and alludes to vv. 15-19. This catena is not an argument for Mark ending at verse eight, but verse six.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Did Augustine credit Mark ending at 16:8 ?

Post by Stephan Huller »

I found the original work and it appears as if Augustine goes on to cite 16.12 as Buck suggests:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 7554,d.cGE

But I am not sure this is a proof against your discovery Jiri. The question is whether we can prove that these references are later additions.
Solo
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:10 am

Re: Did Augustine credit Mark ending at 16:8 ?

Post by Solo »

Stephan Huller wrote:I found the original work and it appears as if Augustine goes on to cite 16.12 as Buck suggests:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 7554,d.cGE

But I am not sure this is a proof against your discovery Jiri. The question is whether we can prove that these references are later additions.
JoeWallack wrote: JW:
Whaaa? Augustine is explicitly saying that "Mark" (author) wrote 16:9-20 (note that in the key Textual Criticism criterion of Direction of Change we have extant evidence that around this time the AE is being changed to the LE). Augustine's complaint is that 16:9-20 does not fulfill the critical Galilee predictions of 14:28 and 16:7. An Internal evidence fact acknowledged by everyone except for James Snapp and Harvey Dubish. Augustine is evidence for LE, not against.
...
Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Thanks, guys. My "discovery" is not that Augustine did not know the LE or that he did not accept Mark's longer canonical version. He quotes from it. My query is more to what he "knew" about the construction of it. Augustine TMK is the first exegete who studied the texts in depth and proclaimed direct textual dependence of one gospel on another. This, and correct me if I am wrong on this point, flew against all that the church believed in at the end of the 4th century. The fathers held that Mark composed his gospel at the knee of Peter (Jerome had Peter actually supervise Mark and authorize the publication of the gospel) and ran with it to Alexandria. The legend probably grew after Irenaeus, who does not insist on the connection, and says that Mark wrote after the death (exodos) of Peter and Paul. Curiously, Ireneaus provides testimony (AH 3.11.7) that Mark was used by the "separationist" heretics, and says that heretical opinion can be rectified "if they read [the gospel] with the love of truth". No mention of Peter. Augustine obviously argues with the sourcing via Peter, observing the "containment" of Mark's text in Matthew. Even though he does not overtly argue with the provisioning of the gospel from Peter's sermons , the implication of his being the "pedisequus" of Matthew, leaves little doubt as to what he thought and why he "passed the connection to Peter in silence" (the latter on the word of Brenda Deen Shildgen). So hence my query. Did he suspect the longer ending was furnished via Matthew and Luke ?

I am not really pushing any views on this, or at any rate, I will not be pushing them hard. I am content to infer from the bolded sentence in the quote that Augustine knew Mark did not intend to fulfil the angel's prophecy (as Joe says). The very interesting question that must have hit the bishop is why would Mark - if he was "following" Matthew - omit Matthew's mention of Galilee (28:15-16). Would not that be "abridging too far" the first gospel ? What motive could he possibly have in cutting out Matthew's punch line, the confirmation of Jesus fiability ?

Thanks again Stephan and Joe, much appreciated.

Best,
Jiri
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Did Augustine credit Mark ending at 16:8 ?

Post by Stephan Huller »

I am really quite busy today but Jiri I wouldn't give up on this discovery. There are certain anomalies in the Augustinian text which I can explain later. We should at least consider the possibility that the discussion involving the LE might have been a later interpolation given the context. For if you look carefully Augustine may well originally have been commenting from his preferred text - the Diatessaron. Compare the Commentary with the Diatessaron in this section:
Arabic Diatessaron - And Mary hastened, and came to Simon Cephas, and to that other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said unto them, They have taken our Lord from the sepulchre, and I 10 know not where they have laid him. John 20:3 And Simon went out, and that other disciple, 11 and came to the sepulchre. John 20:4 And they hastened both together: and that disciple 12 outran Simon, and came first to the sepulchre; John 20:5 and he looked down, and saw the 13 linen laid; but he went not in. John 20:6 And Simon came after him, and entered into the sepulchre, and saw the linen laid; John 20:7 and the scarf with which his head was bound was not with the linen, but wrapped and laid aside in a certain place. 15 John 20:8 Then entered that disciple which came first to the sepulchre, and saw, and believed. 16 John 20:9 And they knew not yet from the scriptures that the Messiah was to rise from among 17 the dead. John 20:10 And those two disciples went to their place.18 John 20:11 But Mary remained at the tomb weeping: and while she wept, she looked 19 down into the tomb; John 20:12 and she saw two angels sitting in white raiment, one of them toward his pillow, and the other toward his feet, where the body of Jesus had been 20 laid. John 20:13 And they said unto her, Woman, why do you weep? She said unto them, 21 They have taken my Lord, and I know not where they have left him. John 20:14 She said that, and turned behind her, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was 22 Jesus. John 20:15 Jesus said unto her, Woman, why do you weep? Whom do you seek? And she supposed him to be the gardener, and said, My lord, if you have taken him, 23 tell me where you have laid him, that I may go and take him. John 20:16 Jesus said unto her, Mary. She turned, and said unto him in Hebrew, Rabboni; which is, being 24 interpreted, Teacher. John 20:17 Jesus said unto her, Touch me not; for I have not ascended yet unto my Father: go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God. 25 Mark 16:9 And on the First-day on which he rose, he appeared first unto Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.
Keep in mind that the early Latin Harmonies differed here and there from the surviving Arabic text. Now look at the Commentary:
This being the case, therefore, let us, so far as the Lord may help us, take all these incidents, which took place about the time of the Lord’s resurrection, as they are brought before us in the statements of all the evangelists together, and let us arrange them in one connected narrative, which will exhibit them precisely as they may have actually occurred. It was in the early morning of the first day of the week, as all the evangelists are at one in attesting, that the women came to the sepulchre. By that time, all that is recorded by Matthew alone had already taken place; that is to say, in regard to the quaking of the earth, and the rolling away of the stone, and the terror of the guards, with which they were so stricken, that in some part they lay like dead men. Then, as John informs us, came Mary Magdalene, who unquestionably was surpassingly more ardent in her love than these other women1505 who had ministered to the Lord; so that it was not unreasonable in John to make mention of her alone, leaving those others unnamed, who, however, were along with her, as we gather from the reports given by others of the evangelists. She came accordingly; and when she saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre, without pausing to make any more minute investigation, and never doubting but that the body of Jesus had been removed from the tomb, she ran, as the same John states, and told the state of matters to Peter and to John himself. For John is himself that disciple whom Jesus loved. They then set out running to the sepulchre; and John, reaching the spot first, stooped down and saw the linen clothes lying, but he did not go within. But Peter followed up, and went into the sepulchre, and saw the linen clothes lie, and the napkin, which had been about His head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then John entered also, and saw in like manner, and believed what Mary had told him, namely, that the Lord had been taken away from the sepulchre. “For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping,”1506—that is to say, before the place in the rock in which the sepulchre was constructed, but at the same time within that space into which they had now entered; for there was a garden there, as the same John mentions.1507 Then they saw the angel sitting on the right side, upon the stone which was rolled away from the sepulchre; of which angel both Matthew and Mark discourse. “Then he said unto them, Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay: and go quickly, and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead; and, behold, He goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see Him: lo, I have told you.”1508 In Mark we also find a passage similar in tenor to the above. At these words, Mary, still weeping, bent down and looked forwards into the sepulchre, and beheld the two angels, who are introduced to us in John’s narrative, sitting in white raiment, one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been deposited. “They say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him.”1509 Here we are to suppose the angels to have risen up, so that they could be seen standing, as Luke states that they were seen, and then, according to the narrative of the same Luke, to have addressed the women, as they were afraid and bowed down their faces to the earth. The terms were these: “Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise. And they remembered His words.”1510 It was after this that, as we learn from John, “Mary turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing Him to be the gardener, saith unto Him, Sir, if thou have borne Him hence, tell me where thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto Him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”1511 Then she departed from the sepulchre, that is to say, from the ground where there was space for the garden in front of the stone which had been dug out. Along with her there were also those other women, who, as Mark tells us, were surprised with fear and trembling. And they told nothing to any one. At this point we next take up what Matthew has recorded in the following passage: “Behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail! And they came and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him.”1512 For thus we gather that, on coming to the sepulchre, they were twice addressed by the angels; and, again, that they were also twice addressed by the Lord Himself, namely, at the point at which Mary took Him to be the gardener, and a second time at present, when He meets them on the way, with a view to strengthen them by such a repetition, and to bring them out of their state of fear. “Then, accordingly, said He unto them, Be not afraid: go, tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.”1513 “Then came Mary Magdalene, and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these things unto her;”1514—not herself alone, however, but with her also those other women to whom Luke alludes when he says, “Which told these things unto the eleven disciples, and all the rest. And their words seemed to them like madness, and they believed them not.”1515 Mark also attests these facts; for, after telling us how the women went out from the sepulchre, trembling and amazed, and said nothing to any man, he subjoins the statement, that the Lord rose early the first day of the week, and appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils, and that she went and told them who had been with Him, as they mourned and wept, and that they, when they heard that He was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. 1516 It is further to be observed, that Matthew has also introduced a notice to the effect that, as the women who had seen and heard all these things were going away, there came likewise into the city some of the guards who had been lying like dead men, and that these persons reported to the chief priests all the things that were done, that is to say, those of them which they were themselves also in a position to observe. He tells us, moreover, that when they were assembled with the elders and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, and bade them say that His disciples came and stole Him away while they slept, promising at the same time to secure them against the governor, who had given those guards. Finally, he adds that they took the money, and did as they had been taught, and that this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.1517 Matthew 28:11b And some of those guards came to the city, and informed the chief priests of 27 [Arabic, p. 202] all that had happened. Matthew 28:12 And they assembled with the elders, and took 28 counsel; Matthew 28:13 and they gave money, not a little, to the guards, and said unto them, Say ye, His disciples came and stole him by night, while we were sleeping. 29 Matthew 28:14 And if the judge hear that, we will make a plea with him, and free you of blame. 30 Matthew 28:15 And they, when they took the money, did according to what they taught them. And this word spread among the Jews unto this day.
The list goes on and on. I have always said that New Testament scholars are often demonstrated to be complete numbskulls because they ignore the Diatessaron. The Commentary here IS NOT a step by step account about how 'Matthew, Mark, Luke and John' agree or something fucking moronic like that. It is a manipulated and reconstituted Commentary on the Diatessaron disguised as a systematic exposition to 'Matthew, Mark, Luke and John' and how they agree.

How does this help your thesis? Well the argument may not be what you want it to be but there can be absolutely no doubt that Augustine's original text was manipulated. In other words, where he originally had a Diatessaron before him (undoubtedly related to his Manichaean background) and commented on a specific one volume text, someone - perhaps Augustine in a later period or a student - systematically changed direct assumptions about a Diatessaron text to 'Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.' Perhaps this process took place over many stages but the bottom line is that someone assumed that Mark ended at 16:8 perhaps Augustine in that first draft and then later when the text was completely purged of its Diatessaron provenance assumed the Diatessaron references to the longer ending went back to Mark. But originally it is possible if not likely that Augustine used a Diatessaron and assumed that Mark as such had no LE.

If you are interested in Augustine's use of the Diatessaron see Petersen's excellent article on the subject as well as Baarda's reference to the flying Jesus in Augustine.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Did Augustine credit Mark ending at 16:8 ?

Post by Stephan Huller »

And FWIW I noticed the same phenomenon in Origen's Commentary on Matthew. The author is ostensibly writing a commentary on Matthew but the actual text is structured as a commentary on the Diatessaron which has been superficially reworked to read as if Origen is strangely interested in how the narrative is 'complemented' by things said in Mark, Luke and John. In other words, I strongly suspect that ancient writers had a habit of thinking in terms of the Diatessaron and this was later 'corrected' so as to read as if they thought in terms of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Solo
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:10 am

Re: Did Augustine credit Mark ending at 16:8 ?

Post by Solo »

Stephan Huller wrote:And FWIW I noticed the same phenomenon in Origen's Commentary on Matthew. The author is ostensibly writing a commentary on Matthew but the actual text is structured as a commentary on the Diatessaron which has been superficially reworked to read as if Origen is strangely interested in how the narrative is 'complemented' by things said in Mark, Luke and John. In other words, I strongly suspect that ancient writers had a habit of thinking in terms of the Diatessaron and this was later 'corrected' so as to read as if they thought in terms of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Yes, this is something that makes sense. The agreement between the gospels were considered a proof of their divine origin, in the patristic church and well into the modern era. And so the process of harmonizing them, or reading them as harmonized, would have been the most natural inclination for everyone who read them. Tatian harmonized the gospels before they had been individually identified. I am almost sure that most of the old scholars did not "see" there was even an issue in believing that Mark took the gospel down from Peter and, at the same time, that his gospel had verbatim (or nearly so) agreements with Matthew, even in the narrated text. It would not have occurred to them that this was impossible. The gospels were sacred objects and that meant that the left hand must not see what the right hand is doing. That is why I am so intrigued by Augustine. He thought that Mark copied Matthew - fair enough; it made sense on the data available to him. But then, if Mark knew Matthew how could he omit the rendez-vous in Galilee ?

At any rate, my focus really is on other things than the patristic witness. Two of the brightest stars, Origen and Jerome, confessed they had problems figuring out the texts. The church underwent dramatic development in the first few generations, and the later views of the origins of the movement are mostly legend and theological arguments with splinter groups. Pick out what you want from the pieces and fragments and call that "historical". I'll pick this: Mark was writing in the Levant, but the tradition about him "founding" his own "church" was probably genuine; he was a "therapon" evangelizing in Syria and Galilee. The digest of his low-Christology can be found in the opening two lines of "I am the Walrus" by the Beatles. I believe Mk 1:45 describes the founding of Mark's own rural colony (; for this reason Matthew omits the banishment, and Luke twists it). I already told you about my strong suspicion that the gospel was written by the figure who later became the inspiration for Simon Magus, and the later legend that this was Paul came from the knowledge that the first gospel was the gospel of Paul told allegorically. The association of Mark with Peter was invented to obscure that relationship and to place Mark (like his mentor) under the Jerusalem apostolate. That is in a nutshell what I will be preaching.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Did Augustine credit Mark ending at 16:8 ?

Post by Stephan Huller »

FWIW I think the history of the acceptance of the fourfold gospel is connected with Roman hegemony. We can already see the fourfold gospel tradition identified as a heresy in Marutha's anti-heretical treatise. It clearly comes from a Diatessaronic community (the Diatessaron was only replaced by the fourfold gospel in the fifth century in the lands of the East):
The heresy of the followers of Simon. This is this Simon concerning whom the members of this religion called him Sem'on and were saying about him that he is a son of God23. And calling him the secret power of the creator, and because be obeyed the Father who sent him for our redemption, his name was called Sem'on and named him Simon. Those of the movement of Simon made for themselves a gospel in four parts and they called it the Book of the Quarters (of the world). They are all sorcerers. A thread of scarlet and of the rose (color) they bind at the neck like the priests. The ancients plated the hair of their heads and were occupying themselves with incantations and strange affairs.
The arguments connected with Simon here are clearly those espoused by Irenaeus to justify the fourfold gospel in the late second century.
Post Reply