Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

SA, above, in part:
"....the orthodox tradition itself serves as proof that entire traditions were built on forgeries of Mark. That in part is why I tend to accept the authenticity of To Theodore. It's "realer.""

What, and why, do you mean it's "realer."?

I tend to approach all ancient claims with a certain level of skepticism. For instance, I don’t believe that while Papias was alive, the Gospels of Luke or John even existed. Papias essentially claims that Mark was the earlier gospel but that Matthew was "truer" because it aligned more closely with the dominical logoi (the prophetic references to the messiah). This parallels what we see in the Marcionite interpretation of Galatians—that those behind Matthew copied, altered, and ultimately distorted Mark, which might very well have been the original gospel associated with Paul. Afterward, we see the creation of canonical Matthew, Luke, and John as forgeries derived from Mark.

The reference in To Theodore to an ancient forgery of Mark will likely be interpreted by you as a reflection of modern textual criticism, rather than recognizing the historical parallel to Papias’s testimony. But I see things differently. I believe there was an ur-Mark—an earlier version of Mark—and that both Matthew and Luke are refracted versions of this ur-Mark. A good example of this is the "Antitheses" found in Matthew 5:18 - whatever. Irenaeus seems to mention that the Marcionites appealed to these "Antitheses." It’s plausible that the Marcionite gospel had a "proto-Antitheses" an original version of Matthew 5:18ff. Canonical Matthew then "corrected" the Marcionite text and adds Matthew 5:17 at the head of the section as a deliberate anti-Marcionite response.

In Adversus Marcionem, Tertullian claims that Marcion added the "Antitheses" to his gospel, but here’s the key question—what gospel are these "Antitheses" missing from? The Gospel of Mark. Mark doesn’t have a Sermon on the Mount section. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where canonical Mark was crafted as an idealized “Marcionite gospel,” with features like no birth narrative, no Antitheses (to bolster claims that Marcion corrupted the text), and no post-resurrection narrative, since Marcion denied the resurrection.

This perspective aligns with the Philosophumena, which accuses Marcion of falsifying both Mark and the Pauline Epistles. The current edition of Adversus Marcionem seems to be built on an attack against the Marcionite gospel, initially from the standpoint of Matthew, with Luke later brought into the fold. But just because the Church Fathers accuse Marcion of this or that doesn’t make it true. What we do know for sure is that the only confirmed gospel forgeries we have originated from Mark, and these now hold a sacred place in the Christian canon.

To answer your question again. The only forgeries were Mark-based forgeries. There are no historical examples of Luke-based gospel forgeries.

The Marcionites also read Galatians 2 as the story of the creation of Matthew. Whatever way you turn it, Matthew is a Mark-based forgery. Turning to To Theodore, whether by incorporation of modern textual criticism or by being an ancient witness to the logic of Papias, To Theodore is reflecting what actually happened in antiquity. People were stealing Mark and forging copies from it. It's "realer" than the claims of Irenaeus. There is no evidence of a Lukan forgery. Open up your Bible. There are three - possibly four - examples of Mark-based forgeries.

Getting back to Peter's point, Luke 1:1-4 makes the whole story of Marcion forging Luke absolutely preposterous. Are we really supposed to believe that Marcion invented the Paul who spoke for Christ through the Spirit within him? Are we to imagine that Marcion stumbled upon a copy of Luke, which he supposedly "knew" had been commissioned by Paul, and then "ripped" out the first pages to prop up the Paul he "merely thought" was some cult leader establishing a separate messianic community? Meanwhile, Marcion supposedly "knew" Acts was true and that the Paul of Acts was the real one? It’s ridiculous. Luke was deliberately established as a "weak" gospel to counter Marcion's claims, not the other way around. The idea that Marcion forged it completely falls apart in light of the text itself.

Why, do you propose, Theodore-Letter-quote is not a "Mark-based forgery"?
(And "what actually happened" sounds like Leopold von Ranke.)

Similarly, the "we" sections in Acts—are we really supposed to believe that this sudden change in style was because Luke ingested hallucinogenic mushrooms or something? Or, more likely, was it the work of a later editor who wanted to emphasize the point Irenaeus made in Adversus Haereses chapters 15 and 16? Of course, it’s the latter. The emphasis here is purely secondary, with the editor trying to make it appear that this wasn’t just another pseudepigrapha written by some random guy in his basement. Instead, it’s presented as the account of someone who was a companion of the apostles themselves.

Why, do you propose, Theodore-Letter-quote is not a "Mark-based forgery"?

I think I addressed that by offering two possibilities—yours and my interpretation. Whether or not Morton Smith in 1958 was "keen" enough to jump on the "everything in the New Testament canon is a forgery" bandwagon, I think is disproved by my own experience. The idea that John is a Markan forgery seems like a novelty. Ken is educating people at the forum about it and we hear gasps and oohs and aahs so it's still new. The widespread acceptance of Matthew and Luke as Markan forgeries is more recent than 1958. Yes, scholars spoke in terms of dependence back then, but in this post-modern world, with religious allegiances fading, the notion that "everything" is a forgery of Mark is surely post-1958.

Moreover, the specific interpretation of Mark writing his gospel according to the chreia of Peter, with chreia being tools or parts of an educational program, like the one described in the Letter to Theodore, seems to be a post-1958 development. Burton Mack only gained widespread acceptance for his theories in the 1990s, at least from my perspective. I remember people on this forum struggling with the concept of chreia even in this decade. These are very complicated ideas, and for Morton Smith to have latched onto the theme of gospels as Markan forgeries and Papias’s notion of the Gospel of Mark being part of an educational program seems like a stretch. It seems more plausible to me that the text is an authentic ancient document.

I did not ask about "we" in Luke.
Why not consider the possibility that "Secret Mark" may be later?

Why not consider the possibility that "Secret Mark" may be later?

Why not entertain mountainman's theory about everything being created by Constantine?

You may be using "forgery" differently than some others.
If, say, Matthew or Luke or John knew Mark, that does not ipso facto mean their additions are forged.
Shelby Foote, and others, wrote more about the US Civil War than some earlier historians.

PS. mountainman is irrelevant here.