Irenaeus, Origen, and Luke 3.7-9.

[Secret Alias]

I don't think that's it Peter. First of all, if the order was chronological the 'orthodox myth' as Trobisch notes, has clues scattered (deliberately) in the writings of Paul whereby Paul left items for Luke to gather together and publish after his death. Mark on the other hand seems to have been published in a slightly earlier period - at least theoretically again.

[Secret Alias]

Getting back to the section that Ben took a comprehensive look at. First of all that Origen is the first witness for something brings up the question of Eusebius's involvement in the preservation of material from Origen. It might not be Origen at all but Eusebius reworking Origen in a particularly 'orthodox' edition. Second of all, I really think we have to start looking at the reworking of material over and over again in Adversus Haereses. As is often noted Book One is really Justin's syntagma +++ - or a many times over reworking of something not written by Irenaeus. Book Three begins as many have noted as a reworking of the Papias statement cited by Eusebius regarding the different order between Matthew and Mark:

WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their 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. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Papias's point of course was that - whatever the 'oracles of the Lord' were - they were preserved in the original order while Mark was similar but ultimately preserved in the not so perfect order.

In my mind again Irenaeus writing Book Three with Papias in the background can't be underestimated in terms of its complexity. For it makes no sense whatsoever to layer on top of this rather controversial argument - viz. the difference of order mentioned by Papias doesn't extend to an inferiority with respect to the gospel according to Mark (surely this must have been Papias's original intimation) - that YET ANOTHER corruption existed with respect to a gospel WHOLLY UNMENTIONED by Papias - viz. Luke - yet another 'derivative gospel' i.e. Marcion's gospel. The fact that two passages appear side by side in Irenaeus's original commentary:

Matthew: The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough into smooth ways; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.

Mark: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God

would clearly have been used by Papias to argue again that Mark gets things in the wrong order. While Adversus Haereses here cites the words as belonging to 'the prophets' Adversus Haereses elsewhere IN THE SAME BOOK cites them as belonging to Isaiah - "But Mark began from the prophetic Spirit coming to men from on high, saying, "The beginning of the Gospel, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet." Clearly if Mark is understood to have cited Isaiah as saying what actually appears in Amos this would help Papias's argument that Mark has things in the wrong order.

But this is the very point. If you are trying to demonstrate that Matthew and Mark say the same thing I am not sure that comparing Matthew to Mark 1:1 is the right place to start. Moreover if we assume - I think correctly - that Luke wasn't originally mentioned in this tripartite gospel commentary the fact that Matthew is 'used' by the Ebionites and Mark by those who separate Jesus and Christ another interesting pattern emerges in Book Three. In between the two references which we can assume were related to Papias's depreciation of Mark in his Λογίων Κυριακῶν Ἐξήγησις (i.e. Adv Haer 1.1 and 9.1f) there is a long section which specifically references arguments which seem to be related to the aforementioned 'incorrect' reading of Mark done by the unnamed group in 1.11.7 viz. 'those who separate Jesus and Christ.'

Adversus Haereses goes out of its way to argue that the Father can be called 'Lord' and the Son 'God' (cf. Adv Haer 1.6.1,2):

Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool." Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies. Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord. And again, referring to the destruction of the Sodomites, the Scripture says, "Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven." For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness. And this [text following] does declare the same truth: "Thy throne, O God; is for ever and ever; the sceptre of Thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee." For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God-both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father. And again: "God stood in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods." He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. For she is the synagogue of God, which God-that is, the Son Himself-has gathered by Himself. Of whom He again speaks: "The God of gods, the Lord hath spoken, and hath called the earth." Who is meant by God? He of whom He has said, "God shall come openly, our God, and shall not keep silence; " that is, the Son, who came manifested to men who said, "I have openly appeared to those who seek Me not." But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, "I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High." To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the "adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father."

2. Wherefore, as I have already stated, no other is named as God, or is called Lord, except Him who is God and Lord of all, who also said to Moses, "I AM That I AM. And thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: He who is, hath sent me unto you; " and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who makes those that believe in His name the sons of God. And again, when the Son speaks to Moses, He says, "I am come down to deliver this people." For it is He who descended and ascended for the salvation of men. Therefore God has been declared through the Son, who is in the Father, and has the Father in Himself-He who is, the Father bearing witness to the Son, and the Son announcing the Father.-As also Esaias says, "I too am witness," he declares, "saith the Lord God, and the Son whom I have chosen, that ye may know, and believe, and understand that I am."

Why is this long argument that stretches between 1.1.1 and 1.9.1 and all that follows EVEN HERE AT ALL? What does the monarchy of God (i.e. that Father and Son are essentially one and not two) have to do with Matthew and Mark 'saying the same thing'? I can't help but think that the criticism of the community attached to Mark's gospel has something to do with this long, long, long (almost dreadfully boring and repetitious) section that extends from the citation of Hegesippus (1.3.1) and its apostolic succession list. Indeed the claim now that there are some who read Mark as if there are two powers (i.e. Jesus and Christ) doesn't have a parallel with respect to the Ebionites who simply 'use' Matthew. Again there is no inkling that Mark exists in a corrupted form. There are just some who understand the gospel to make reference to two separate powers and Adversus Haereses Book 3 structured around Papias (who preferred Matthew) takes an extended amount of time to argue against the idea of two separate powers. Coincidence? I don't think so. I think Book Three developed to a large degree from something which originally appeared in Papias's Λογίων Κυριακῶν Ἐξήγησις.

[Secret Alias]

Indeed let's be very honest again. If as everyone thinks Adv Haer 1.1.1 is derived from Papias and as we have suggested now Adv Haer's comparison of Matthew and Mark in 1.9.1 is also from Papias let's look at what is in between:

1.2.1 viva voce isn't as important as the Scriptures to determine the truth
1.3.1 appeal to Hegesippus's Roman apostolic succession list/Polycarp more reliable than the heretics
1.4.1 the preserved scriptures are like money in a bank/the barbarians don't need scriptures to know the truth
1.5.1 "the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel" to know there is one God not two
1.6.1 the Father can be called Lord/the Son can be called God/Moses met both Father and Son
1.7.1 2 Corinthians 4:5 "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not" cannot be used to argue for two powers
1.8.1 Matthew 6:14 "You can't have two masters" cannot be used to argue for two powers

1.2.1 oddly seems to sound like a refutation of Papias as Papias attached little value to scripture as compared with the viva voce. Of course the argument against the viva voce is couched in a refutation of the heresies now. But there seems to be a contradiction in 1.4.1 where it is said that the illiterate barbarians don't need scriptures to know the truth:

To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition ... [T]hose who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom

This seems to be an argument in favor of the viva voce. Indeed even the citation of the apostolic succession list fits within this anti-Scriptural POV. If Papias was interested in both what the witnesses of Jesus said and those who knew them, the interest in a living chain of witnesses - in this case a succession of Roman apostles of Peter and Paul - is compatible with this interest.

What is odd about the succession list of course is that Mark isn't explicitly mentioned anywhere. Mark is associated with Peter at the very beginning and end of this section where Papias is directly invoked:

1.1.1 After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter ...
1.10.1 Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative ...

But this emphasis as Mark with Peter doesn't fit into the argument that develops from Hegesippus where Rome is founded on the witness of Peter and Paul and (in Epiphanius's citation of Hegesippus at least) there are twin disciples of the twin founders of Rome viz Linus and Cletus:

In any case, the succession of the bishops at Rome runs in this order: Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus, whom I mentioned above, on the list.30 And no one need be surprised at my listing each of the items so exactly; precise information is always given in this way. (Panarion 27.6.7)

In the Clementine literature Clement is the beloved disciple of Peter. In Clement of Alexandria the gospel of Mark wrote for Peter is absolutely a Roman gospel, the pre-eminent Roman literary composition. Yet even Clement of Alexandria hesitates to state that this gospel was specifically 'Roman.' Peter doesn't approve or disapprove of the text. Could this all be reflective of a later Roman rejection of Mark initiated by Book Three of Adversus Haereses?

My point of course is that the succession list is used to further anti-Marcan agenda. If Mark was universally acknowledged to have written his gospel at Rome, this should have been the Roman Church's greatest pride. Instead Irenaeus who is apparently writing to a Roman audience in Book Three essentially introduces the Roman succession list as a substitute authority on behalf of the Papian idea that viva voce is superior to the scriptures. True, the succession list is a document but it is taken to be a documentation of 'living voice' authority in Rome. This is it's purpose.

1.4.1 then makes reference to a 'spiritual document' - i.e. the Roman succession list:

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

as part of an ongoing 'clandestine' argument against the gospel of Mark which I think may have been made by Papias or someone in his circle. Adversus Haereses has reshaped this 'viva voce' argument. The oracles of the Lord gathered by Matthew now is 'the canonical gospel of Matthew' which in turn was a narrative gospel like 'the canonical gospel of Mark.' I am not sure the argument in its original form was so understood. I think the new canonical gospel of Matthew was lengthened or 'straightened' into a narrative gospel to make it more like Mark. The gospel of Mark originally must have contained Q material used later by canonical Matthew (and later Luke). These narratives likely originally had to do with 'mysteries' which the neutered 'canonical' gospel of Mark (i.e. the shortened version) no longer had.

The issue was whether these mystery sayings (like Matthew 6.14) really pointed to two powers in heaven.

[andrewcriddle]

Papyrus 4 c 200 CE contains Luke 3:8-9 (there is a gap before verse 8)

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

I was reading Bauckham's understanding of Papias's testimony and it would very much figure into this tripartite gospel commentary I have proposed - https://books.google.com/books?id=qYfMD ... rk&f=false. Bauckham essentially argues that there were three gospels - Matthew, Mark and John where John was the preferred gospel text. Was there some underlying hostility between Mark and John which accounts for the Alogoi's apparent rejection of John? Interesting possibility but that would take us too far away from the original post.

[Ben C. Smith]

I was reading Bauckham's understanding of Papias's testimony and it would very much figure into this tripartite gospel commentary I have proposed - https://books.google.com/books?id=qYfMD ... rk&f=false. Bauckham essentially argues that there were three gospels - Matthew, Mark and John where John was the preferred gospel text. Was there some underlying hostility between Mark and John which accounts for the Alogoi's apparent rejection of John? Interesting possibility but that would take us too far away from the original post.

I have a thread on which such a discussion might well fit: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3227.

[Secret Alias]

Yes that was a great thread. I have started to isolate Bauckam's arguments for the three gospels of Papias in another thread (until I get distracted). But here is the entire book of Bauckam scanned if anyone wants to avoid gaps in Google Books preview - https://lecturanarrativadelabiblia.file ... nesses.pdf

[John T]

Have you considered the Q+/Papias Hypothesis?

The correct chronological order being: Logoi>Mark>Matt>Papias>Luke.

The Logoi (a.k.a. "Q") were a collection of sayings from Jesus that were later written down for prosperity by James the Just and his companions in Jerusalem.

I find many discrepancies can be solved by simply restoring James the Just to his proper place in the early church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q%2B/Papias_Hypothesis

[Ben C. Smith]

Have you considered the Q+/Papias Hypothesis?

The correct chronological order being: Logoi>Mark>Matt>Papias>Luke.

Yes, I have very much considered that order of composition. I have read MacDonald.

[Secret Alias]

by simply restoring James the Just to his proper place in the early church

Why is James historical but Peter not? If anything 'Jacob' is a more symbolic name than 'Simon.'