The Gospel of Marcion Cannot Have Been Derived from the Gospel of Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12398
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Gospel of Marcion Cannot Have Been Derived from the Gospel of Mark

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:24 pm

First, Epiphanius says that the Ebionites had mutilated and added things to Matthew, so the beginning of their gospel needn't align with the NT Matthew
But since he only cites the beginning and what he does cite doesn't agree with your thesis - pretty, pretty, pretty bad for your theory.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

John2
Posts: 3371
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Gospel of Marcion Cannot Have Been Derived from the Gospel of Mark

Post by John2 » Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:35 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:24 pm
First, Epiphanius says that the Ebionites had mutilated and added things to Matthew, so the beginning of their gospel needn't align with the NT Matthew
But since he only cites the beginning and what he does cite doesn't agree with your thesis - pretty, pretty, pretty bad for your theory.

Epiphanius cites more than just the beginning of the Ebionite Matthew, and the Ebionite Matthew and the Matthew-type text I think Luke used don't have to have been exactly the same as the NT Matthew in my view. I think they were all translated and fashioned from the Hebrew Matthew and all of them have been "mutilated" to suit the needs of particular groups. And in any event, as I said, to me the beginning of the Ebionite Matthew resembles Luke 3 and Matthew 3 more than it does Mark 1.

Edwards has a somewhat similar thesis in The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition and an article called The Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of Luke.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Vs9YX ... on&f=false


Scholarly consensus generally assumes that the Gospel of the Ebionites as preserved by Epiphanius is either a harmony of the Synoptic Gospels or excerpted mainly from Matthew. A synopsis of the texts, however, demonstrates that the Epiphanius quotations show stronger affinity with Luke than with Matthew or Mark. Indeed, the evidence suggests that Epiphanius's references to the Gospel of the Ebionites are not excerpted from Luke, but rather from a Greek translation of the elusive Hebrew Gospel attested by a number of church fathers, and thus one of the sources of Luke mentioned in the prologue of his Gospel.


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 7C9B7113B9

I think that Luke may have used two Greek translations of the Hebrew Matthew, one that was similar to the source for the Ebionite Matthew and another one that was similar to the source for the NT Matthew (perhaps before it had been combined with Mark), whether Luke was aware that they were both "Matthews" or not.
Last edited by John2 on Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12398
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Gospel of Marcion Cannot Have Been Derived from the Gospel of Mark

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:45 pm

EIsegesis
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

John2
Posts: 3371
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Gospel of Marcion Cannot Have Been Derived from the Gospel of Mark

Post by John2 » Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:43 pm

It seems no different to me than subscribing to the Farrer Hypothesis (as I do). It's more or less the Farrer Hypothesis plus one other version of Matthew.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12398
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Gospel of Marcion Cannot Have Been Derived from the Gospel of Mark

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:48 pm

The Ebionite gospel of Epiphanius DOES NOT agree with Irenaeus's blanket statement that the Ebionites use ONLY Matthew. Give me a fucking break. You're some kind of fanatic.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

John2
Posts: 3371
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Gospel of Marcion Cannot Have Been Derived from the Gospel of Mark

Post by John2 » Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:02 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:48 pm
The Ebionite gospel of Epiphanius DOES NOT agree with Irenaeus's blanket statement that the Ebionites use ONLY Matthew. Give me a fucking break. You're some kind of fanatic.

The Ebionites did only use a gospel they called Matthew. As I said above, Irenaeus does not appear to have seen the Ebionite Matthew and never cites it, so he may not have been aware of its differences.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12398
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Gospel of Marcion Cannot Have Been Derived from the Gospel of Mark

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:39 am

The Ebionites did only use a gospel they called Matthew. As I said above, Irenaeus does not appear to have seen the Ebionite Matthew and never cites it, so he may not have been aware of its differences.
But if Irenaeus's information is faulty or inaccurate about this bit of information that calls into question his entire report as it is only four lines long:
Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.
Let's break this down:
Those who are called Ebionites agree [with us and against the Carpocratians and the Cerinthians] that the world was made by God
Is this a fact? Surely if Irenaeus misrepresents what gospel the Ebionites used. This might be garbled info too. In fact, since it was agreed that 'Jews' worship the Creator of the world the Ebionites as Jewish-Christians thought this. No actual eyewitness reporting here.
but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates
Apparently it is a Jewish thing to conceive Jesus as a man. That's the bottom line. But again is Irenaeus simply drawing inferences based on his presuppositions about 'what Jews believed about Jesus' or is there any factual reporting going on? Not clear.
They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul
The two statements appear to be attached because of the myth found in Tertullian Against Marcion Book 4 and Irenaeus Book 3 13 - 16. In other words Galatians chapter 2 is taken to be a historical witness to the creation of something like Matthew if not Matthew. In other words, Paul says that he handed 'his' written gospel and the Jerusalem Church falsified that text to make their written gospel. If that story is historical then Irenaeus takes it that Paul's enemies a falsified gospel which roughly corresponds to Matthew albeit 'falsified.' The inference must be that Luke was Paul's gospel (presumably) and Matthew was the gospel of the Jerusalem community. The false gospel i.e. by those who crept in to the community is another gospel. But again all of this develops from inferences made from Irenaeus's presuppositions. Nothing in the way of actual evidence.
maintaining that he was an apostate from the law.
This again seems to be born out of a general sense of the struggle between Paul and the Jews. Not sure that there is any actual reporting about the Ebionites per se.
As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God
The same is true with this. I see ALL OF THIS information being derived from a general presupposition that Paul's enemies were Jews. There is an understanding from Hegesippus that there was a family of Jesus and they were the heads of the Jerusalem Church. That's an actual report in antiquity. Don't know to what degree Paul was mentioned in Hegesippus. I see ALL of Irenaeus's reporting originating from suppositions about Paul and his opposition to the Jews. No facts in any of this.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12398
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Gospel of Marcion Cannot Have Been Derived from the Gospel of Mark

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:50 am

If you acknowledge that Irenaeus's blanket statement about 'the Ebionites' using 'the Gospel according to Matthew and repudiating Paul' is inaccurate. I think you only do that because you 'like' Epiphanius's material better. Epiphanius is problematic but his report on the Ebionites proves that their gospel (whatever they are or were) is not Matthew. It can be inferred that Hegesippus rejected Paul (Photius, Bibliotheca 232). He could read Hebrew, was the spokesman for the alleged Jerusalem Church. Whether or not he explicitly mentions 'the Ebionites' - his Church is what the Ebionites were taken to have been. In the same way as Paul seems to have been defined negatively by Hegesippus, the term 'Ebionite' seems to have been a negative term applied to whatever community opposed Paul. Were the 'beggars' Jews? Did the Jews have 'beggardly' understanding? All of this is not clear. But the testimony of Irenaeus seems built upon gossip and second hand inference.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

John2
Posts: 3371
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Gospel of Marcion Cannot Have Been Derived from the Gospel of Mark

Post by John2 » Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:20 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:50 am
If you acknowledge that Irenaeus's blanket statement about 'the Ebionites' using 'the Gospel according to Matthew and repudiating Paul' is inaccurate. I think you only do that because you 'like' Epiphanius's material better. Epiphanius is problematic but his report on the Ebionites proves that their gospel (whatever they are or were) is not Matthew. It can be inferred that Hegesippus rejected Paul (Photius, Bibliotheca 232). He could read Hebrew, was the spokesman for the alleged Jerusalem Church. Whether or not he explicitly mentions 'the Ebionites' - his Church is what the Ebionites were taken to have been. In the same way as Paul seems to have been defined negatively by Hegesippus, the term 'Ebionite' seems to have been a negative term applied to whatever community opposed Paul. Were the 'beggars' Jews? Did the Jews have 'beggardly' understanding? All of this is not clear. But the testimony of Irenaeus seems built upon gossip and second hand inference.

The Ebionite Matthew cited by Epiphanius is not the NT Matthew, no, but as I said, it doesn't have to be. I suspect the NT Matthew was the only version that was combined with Mark, and Epiphanius says that the Ebionite Matthew was "mutilated and forged," for examples. And whatever Irenaeus says about the Ebionites and Matthew is undercut by Papias (who I date c. 100 CE, or in any event before Irenaeus), who says that there was a Hebrew Matthew with multiple translations (which I think Edwards makes a strong case for in his discussion of Papias on pages 2-10 in The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition).


https://books.google.com/books?id=Vs9YX ... rs&f=false


And I think all of the translations that were made of the Hebrew Matthew "mutilated" and added things to it in the same way the NT Matthew and Luke "mutilated" and added things to Mark, thus they were all different to some extent, yet they were all based on the Hebrew Matthew. And Edwards shows how the Ebionite Matthew and a Matthew-type text used by Luke were similar (with each, in my view, "mutilating" and adding things to it). One example of Luke using a Matthew-type text is Papias' reference to the woman accused of "many sins" in the gospel of Hebrews (aka Matthew):

Eusebius records a second though less celebrated testimony of Papias to a "Hebrew Gospel" at the end of [EH] book 3 … "The same writer [Papias] … has also set forth another account about a woman who was accused before the Lord of many sins, which is found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews" … [This] is often taken as a reference to the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53-8:12 … It cannot be concluded for certain, however, that Papias and John 8 refer to the same event. The woman in John 8 is referred to as a "woman caught in the act of adultery," whereas Papias refers to a woman "accused of many sins." On a formal lexical level, Papias' description is closer to the description of the woman in Luke 7:36-50, who was forgiven by Jesus of "many sins" ... That Papias's woman of "many sins" is not the same woman as the adulteress in John 8 is further suggested by the fact that Eusebius does not attribute the story to the Gospel of John but rather to "the Gospel according to the Hebrews" [aka Matthew].


https://books.google.com/books?id=Vs9YX ... ns&f=false

In other words, only Luke and the gospel of the Hebrews (aka Matthew) have/had an account of a woman "who was accused before the Lord of many sins," thus Luke arguably used (a translated version of) the gospel of the Hebrews (aka Matthew) as a source. And since there are examples where Luke and the Ebionite Matthew are similar (as Edwards notes), they both arguably used a similar source, i.e., a translation of the Hebrew Matthew (aka gospel of the Hebrews) that Papias mentions.

And I don't think Hegesippus rejected Paul. I think Hegesippus was rather using Mt. 13:16 ("blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear") to refute Gnostics who used 1 Cor. 2:9 ("What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard") to argue that Jesus was a phantom. I think Paul only appears to have been "defined negatively by Hegesippus" in Photius' citation of Gobar, but as I wrote on another thread the last time I looked into this, Gobar was:

... just being the dumb ass Photius says he is ("The work seems to have involved a lot of work without procuring a profit proportional to the great pain expended; it exhibits in fact more futile vanity than utility … And these opinions are not advanced either by logic or from the holy scriptures but uniquely, according to the author, from the citation of various Fathers of whom some advance the point of view of the church and others who reject it").

All Gobar saw (or understood) is that Paul (or whoever) said one thing and Hegesippus said the "opposite," all the while, as he himself says, "Hegesippus … in I do not know what context, says …" The context, then, is refuting Gnostics who were using the no eye/no ear passage to argue that Jesus was a phantom.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12398
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Gospel of Marcion Cannot Have Been Derived from the Gospel of Mark

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:02 am

The Ebionite Matthew cited by Epiphanius is not the NT Matthew, no, but as I said, it doesn't have to be.
It does if Irenaeus is going to be taken to be as a reliable source about 'Jewish Christianity'. Of course if you want to cherry pick sources to establish your own version of 'Jewish Christianity' to accord with your taste by all means, you can pretty much do whatever you want.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Post Reply