What is the evidence that the Simonians used Mark and not *Ev?

[Giuseppe]

Look at Thomas is a naive euphemism to say: look at visions, revelations, dreams, hallucinations, etc.

I am interested to the gospels.

I think that the logical implication by Roger Parvus's view has to be the following chronology:

short notes by Paul ---> wide Satornilian and Cerdonite interpolations in the epistles --> proto-Luke written by Cerdonites ---> Apostolikon by Marcion ---> proto-Mark written by Basilidians ----> Canonical edition of Paul

[Giuseppe]

One may use the priority of *Ev over the Canonical Gospels to conclude that the Apostolikon is more faithful to the original version of the Pauline epistles than the canonical corpus.

Or one may conclude, if he/she is already persuaded independently that the Apostolikon precedes the canonical corpus of the pauline epistles, that *Ev precedes the Canonical Gospels.

[RParvus]

My vote for authorship of proto-Mark would go to Basilides. But for the interpolation of Paul’s letters (with Saturnilian materials) and the authorship of proto-Luke I would vote for Cerdo.

Accordingly are you breaking the continuity between the interpolators of Paul's letters (with Saturnilian materials) and the Basilidian authors of proto-Mark insofar (A) the former preceded the latter and (B) accepted/fabricated proto-Luke rather than proto-Mark ?

I hesitate to tag Saturninus as the one messing around with Paul’s letters. He may have simply been the leader of a community of Simonians. I think it more likely that Cerdo was the one who padded out Paul’s bare-bones letters with Saturnilian materials and perhaps composed some parts himself. And Cerdo too, I suspect, put together proto-Luke (from proto-Mark, gMatthew, and who-knows-what else.)

Hard to say whether canonical Luke and sanitized versions of the Paulines had already been made by the time Marcion arrived in Rome. He of course rightly claimed that both contained interpolations, but it is unclear whether he was claiming the interpolations were already in existence before his arrival there or were made subsequently. In any case, my guess is that the gospel and Paulines that Marcion adopted were basically those produced by Cerdo.

[Giuseppe]

And Cerdo too, I suspect, put together proto-Luke (from proto-Mark, gMatthew, and who-knows-what else.)

Isn't it more logical, given your premises about how the pauline epistles evolved, that the first gospel was the same gospel in use among the first Christians who "padded out Paul’s bare-bones letters with Saturnilian materials and perhaps composed some parts himself", i.e. as yourself concede: proto-Luke ?

What did the Basilidians do while Cerdon was interpolating the epistles? Surely they weren't writing proto-Mark because the epistles were not still enough famous in order for them to base proto-Mark on the epistles.

[davidmartin]

always trying to bend over backwards to make the epistles come first!
absolutely no reason they should (as MLinssen has demonstrated)
the epistles better fit the gnostic milieu and the Chrestian phase is what was before, where Thomas comes from (which is in essence the saying source to the gospels)

so folk around the gnostic milieu, including the more Christian types, needed or wanted more of a historical story, where they get the sources for this? from the Chrestians and their Thomas and similar. These sources precede the epistles and obviously have their own ideas contra the folks in the gnostic milieu who were innovators, like "Paul". classic innovator, not originator

i'd trust the gospel of John more than any other NT text to find early stuff in
Chrestian sources -> John -> Ev -> Mark -> epistles -> Luke/Matthew -> Early 4 gospel canon (and final air brushing that makes the gospels look like they know the epistles, fooling most)

[RParvus]

And Cerdo too, I suspect, put together proto-Luke (from proto-Mark, gMatthew, and who-knows-what else.)

Isn't it more logical, given your premises about how the pauline epistles evolved, that the first gospel was the same gospel in use among the first Christians who "padded out Paul’s bare-bones letters with Saturnilian materials and perhaps composed some parts himself", i.e. as yourself concede: proto-Luke ?

What did the Basilidians do while Cerdon was interpolating the epistles? Surely they weren't writing proto-Mark because the epistles were not still enough famous in order for them to base proto-Mark on the epistles.

I think a Basilidean proto-Mark was earlier. And it may have been written primarily for entertainment purposes, i.e. for the entertainment of Simonians. I find it hard to believe that the Basilideans took seriously the idea that the Jewish Jesus was actually their Simon Megas. The Basilides who gave us the laughing Jesus was probably laughing the whole time he wrote proto-Mark. Did Basilides know of Cerdo’s work on the Pauline letters? Not necessarily. The overlap may just be due to common material and family resemblance. Both Basilides and Saturninus were said to be disciples of the Samaritan Menander.

The connection of Cerdo is with Saturninus of Antioch (according to Epiphanius). And with uninterpolated Luke and Paulines: “The Gospel of Luke alone, and that not entire, does he receive. Of the Apostle Paul he takes neither all the epistles, nor in their integrity. The Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse he rejects as false.” (Pseudo-Tertullian's “Against All Heresies”), So, although I think Cerdo knew and used proto-Mark, he decided to try his hand at turning it into something more extensive. His hand would be responsible, for instance, for all the favorable references to Samaria and Samaritans that still remain in the central section of canonical Luke.

[Giuseppe]

I think a Basilidean proto-Mark was earlier.

My perplexity with your view is that you are saying that Basilides wrote the first gospel after that Cerdon had expanded the pauline epistles (by adding Satornilian materials) and before that Marcion published them (with *Ev and the antithesis). How could Basilides have access to the pauline/cerdonite epistles if Marcion had not still published them?

I am assuming that you agree that Mark is based partially on the pauline/cerdonite epistles, hence Mark could be written only after that Marcion had published the epistles and given public access to them. But the problem is that when Marcion published the epistles, he had published also *Ev (proto-Luke) and the Antithesis. Hence a gospel (*Ev) existed before that Mark had access to the epistles in order to wrote the gospel of Mark.

[Giuseppe]

I see that you have already answered here to my question, by claiming that the Basilidean proto-Mark didn't know the pauline/cerdonite epistles:

Did Basilides know of Cerdo’s work on the Pauline letters? Not necessarily. The overlap may just be due to common material and family resemblance. Both Basilides and Saturninus were said to be disciples of the Samaritan Menander.

This a great changement of opinion by you, since you were famous, in my eyes, to have pointed out the work by Volkmar on Mark knowing the Pauline epistles (in their cerdonite/marcionite form):

Gustav Volkmar (1809-1893) has been referenced a few times in this blog but the most detailed synopsis of his views on the Gospel of Mark came from a post by Roger Parvus: A Simonian Origin for Christianity, Part 16: Mark as Allegory