How Could the Gospel of Marcion NOT be Older?

[Secret Alias]

There has to be a backstory to (a) the sudden "gathering" of gospels into a set and (b) the acceptance of blatant forgery of Mark as part of that collection and associated with early Christianity (i.e. Papias's attitude toward the plagiarism of Matthew). It's not enough to read and imitate what experts say in order to support a particular ideology or idea. We have spend hours CONTEMPLATING what it all means. This is where we have an advantage over the experts. Look at this forum. SG is an expert on the Teacher of Righteousness. Ken is an expert on the TF. No question about this. The one thing that lies outside of that unquestioned expertise is "who are the or what are the Qumranites?" "who or what is Josephus?" We have a right to advance reasoned positions in the latter case. In the case of the former, we have to assume that they have read more and thought more about the problem then we have and with rigorous academic oversight. We have to bow our heads a little unless we can make reasoned arguments to the contrary (which most of us can't).

[Secret Alias]

Some indisputable facts IMHO based on the evidence I see.

None of the surviving gospel texts have an unquestionable claim to being the original gospel.
The Marcionite gospel, which the sect claimed was the original exemplar of all gospels, IN SOME WAY looked like a truncated version of Luke.
The canonical text of Mark IN SOME WAY looks like a truncated version of Luke.

Does that mean that the Marcionite gospel was canonical Mark. No it does not. But it means the idea for either canonical Mark or the Marcionite gospel could have come from this stated relationship with Luke. This is a vague "sameness" to the appearance of canonical Mark and the gospel of Marcion in relation to Luke and then the author of Luke mentions that he has expanded at some of his original sources (i.e. that he used source texts). It is an odd situation for so many texts to be related to others with the ascription of "short" or "little(r)." "Little" and "full" are part of the nexus of the development of the canonical gospel(s) surely.

[Secret Alias]

And when you really think about it we call the gospel of Mark "Mark" and the gospel of Matthew "Matthew" etc. This is done in a way where we speak of "Mark" now "saying" this or that or "Mathew" now "changing" this is or that or "adding" this or that. There is a undoubted personification of the text of each gospel which is unusual and developed I think from the four texts interacting in a very odd way.

[Secret Alias]

And you're aware that the earliest stumpfinger reference is in the Marcionite section where Marcion the castrated is referenced.

When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets) - for none of these things are written in the Gospel according to Mark (τούτων γὰρ οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται)

Clearly in my mind "οὔτε Μάρκος ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος ἀνήγγειλαν" = "τούτων γὰρ οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται." In other words, the short version of Mark is being identified as "Mark the stumpfinger." I also see FWIW a reference to the existence of a secret text in what follows.

The Greek:

Ἐπειδὰν οὖν Μαρκίων ἢ τῶν ἐκείνου κυνῶν τις ὑλακτῇ κατὰ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ, τοὺς ἐκ τῆς ἀντιπαραθέσεως ἀγαθοῦ καὶ κακοῦ προφέρων
λόγους, δεῖ αὐτοῖς λέγειν, ὅτι τούτους οὔτε Παῦλος ὁ ἀπόστολος οὔτε Μάρκος ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος ἀνήγγειλαν — τούτων γὰρ οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται —, ἀλλὰ Μέτωνος Ἀκραγαντῖνος, ὃν συλαγωγῶν μέχρι νῦν λανθάνειν ὑπελάμβανε τὴν διαταγὴν πάσης τῆς κατ αὐτὸν αἱρέσεως ἀπὸ τῆς Σικελίας εἰς τοὺς εὐαγγελικοὺς λόγους μεταφέρων αὐταῖς λέξεσι.

[rgprice]

My ask was very simple, adn maybe I'm just dense. You said:

However in an alternative version of Adversus Haereses the Gospel of Mark, not Luke, appears to be linked with Marcion

I took this to mean that you had evidence for an "alternative version of Adversus Haereses" in which Mark was linked with Marcion. Was this just something hypothetical you were throwing out there?

I was thinking that someone had quoted Irenaeus and had him saying something about Marcion and Mark or something along those lines. And if so that you would provide the quote of this material. Maybe this was all just a hypothetical thought experiment that I took too literally....

[Secret Alias]

Here it is:

When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Μάρκος ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος, announced such (tenets) - for none of these things are written in the Gospel according to Mark (τούτων γὰρ οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται)

Clearly in my mind "οὔτε Μάρκος ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος ἀνήγγειλαν" = "τούτων γὰρ οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται." In other words, the short version of Mark is being identified as "Mark the stumpfinger." I also see FWIW a reference to the existence of a secret text in what follows.

The Greek:

Ἐπειδὰν οὖν Μαρκίων ἢ τῶν ἐκείνου κυνῶν τις ὑλακτῇ κατὰ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ, τοὺς ἐκ τῆς ἀντιπαραθέσεως ἀγαθοῦ καὶ κακοῦ προφέρων
λόγους, δεῖ αὐτοῖς λέγειν, ὅτι τούτους οὔτε Παῦλος ὁ ἀπόστολος οὔτε Μάρκος ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος ἀνήγγειλαν — τούτων γὰρ οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται —, ἀλλὰ Μέτωνος Ἀκραγαντῖνος, ὃν συλαγωγῶν μέχρι νῦν λανθάνειν ὑπελάμβανε τὴν διαταγὴν πάσης τῆς κατ αὐτὸν αἱρέσεως ἀπὸ τῆς Σικελίας εἰς τοὺς εὐαγγελικοὺς λόγους μεταφέρων αὐταῖς λέξεσι.

[Secret Alias]

The presumption is either that the Marcionites used Μάρκος ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος (= the "short/redacted gospel of Mark") or THAT Mark is only permitted in the short form. What follows also assumes a secret form. Note λανθάνειν:

λανθάνω

to keep secret, escape notice, be hidden
Definition:
to be unnoticed; to escape the knowledge, or observation of a person, Acts 26:26; 2 Pet. 3:5, 8; absol. to be concealed or hidden, escape detection, Mk. 7:24; Lk. 8:47; with a participle of another verb, to be unconscious of an action while being the subject or object of it, Heb. 13:2*
Greek-English Concordance for λανθάνω

Mark 7:24 From there Jesus arose and went to the region of Tyre. He entered a house and wanted no one to know about it, yet he was not able to escape attention (lathein | λαθεῖν | aor act inf ).
Luke 8:47 Seeing that she (elathen | ἔλαθεν | aor act ind 3 sg) had (elathen | ἔλαθεν | aor act ind 3 sg) not escaped (elathen | ἔλαθεν | aor act ind 3 sg) notice (elathen | ἔλαθεν | aor act ind 3 sg), the woman stepped forward, trembling, and fell down before him. She declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him and how she had been healed at once.
Acts 26:26 For the king knows about these matters, and to him I am speaking boldly, for I am persuaded that none of these things has (lanthanein | λανθάνειν | pres act inf ) escaped (lanthanein | λανθάνειν | pres act inf ) his notice (lanthanein | λανθάνειν | pres act inf ), for this was not done in a corner.
Hebrews 13:2 Do not neglect hospitality to strangers, for by this means some have entertained (elathon | ἔλαθον | aor act ind 3 pl) angels without knowing it.
2 Peter 3:5 For in maintaining this, they overlook the fact (lanthanei | λανθάνει | pres act ind 3 sg) that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water.
2 Peter 3:8 But do (lanthanetō | λανθανέτω | pres act imperative 3 sg) not let (lanthanetō | λανθανέτω | pres act imperative 3 sg) this one thing escape (lanthanetō | λανθανέτω | pres act imperative 3 sg) your notice (lanthanetō | λανθανέτω | pres act imperative 3 sg), dear friends, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years are as a single day.

[Secret Alias]

Those who spent their lives attacking Secret Mark prevented us from seeing what the Philosophumena is clearly telling us. Only "short Mark" is permissible. By inference there was a "secret" Mark. Read what the Philosophumena is telling us.

1. it corrects Irenaeus's account of the Marcosians.
2. it corrects Irenaeus's account of the Marcionites.

The idea that Marcion is whoever Irenaeus and then Tertullian says they are is ridiculous. The fact that the author of the Philosophumena is willing on more than one occasion to "stand up" to Irenaeus is encouraging about his value as a source. The previous tradition of religious scholarship was happy just to be led by this pied piper as long as it made them feel certain enough to ignore what the various heretics were saying. Like the idea that the Sadducees don't believe in the Resurrection. Fucking nonsense. All Biblical traditions believed in the resurrection. Just because someone said something doesn't make it true.

[rgprice]

Here it is:

When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Μάρκος ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος, announced such (tenets) - for none of these things are written in the Gospel according to Mark (τούτων γὰρ οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται)

Clearly in my mind "οὔτε Μάρκος ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος ἀνήγγειλαν" = "τούτων γὰρ οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται." In other words, the short version of Mark is being identified as "Mark the stumpfinger." I also see FWIW a reference to the existence of a secret text in what follows.

I'm aware of this passage. You are saying that your interpretation of it is that passage is that Hippolytus believed that Marcion used the letters of Paul and the Gospel of Mark, and according to Hippolytus his version of those writings did not say the things that Marcion claimed they did. Essentially correct?

That is certainly a valid conclusion. I'm not sure its enough to overturn so many other statements that compare Marcion's Gospel to Luke. I don't necessarily disagree with the line of thinking, but there just doesn't seem to be enough evidence to support it.

[Secret Alias]

1. Don't think Hippolytus is the author.