Ebionite Gospel and beginning of Luke

[Ben C. Smith]

But why does bad writing or bad arrangement need explanation?

Plain and simple bad writing requires no explanation. But some kinds of bad writing tend to betray sources, and that is the kind I am interested in.

I think Christians like Ben and Andrew have difficulty with the implications of Papias's testimony.

I am an atheist. Have not been a Christian since 2009. You have never even known me as a Christian.

[Secret Alias]

I have a tendency to flog a dead horse but ...

1. Papias says Mark is poorly arranged.
2. Papias says Matthew is better
3. Assuming Mark and Matthew are like our Mark and Matthew the genealogy is part of that better arrangement
4. Matthew's genealogy is rubbish and is like made up

5. The author of Against Marcion echoes Papias's arguments against with Mark for a Marcionite gospel which the Philosophumena strongly implies is Mark
6. John appears "suddenly" which means for the gospel is poorly arranged
7. Luke is an improvement over the gospel of Marcion because Luke is properly introduced and thus better arranged
8. But clearly better arrangement doesn't mean greater antiquity. Papias's testimony argues the opposite.
9. Celsus argues the same thing likely from knowledge texts no longer in our possession- i.e. Luke better answers "objections" but is late bullshit (to paraphrase)

[Ben C. Smith]

I have a tendency to flog a dead horse but ...

...let the flogging commence.

1. Papias says Mark is poorly arranged.

Yes.

2. Papias says Matthew is better

Kind of. Papias implies that the original Hebrew version of Matthew is better. He does not pay the Greek translations he mentions the same compliment.

3. Assuming Mark and Matthew are like our Mark and Matthew the genealogy is part of that better arrangement

I suspect that his Mark was something like our Mark. I do not make the same assumption about his Hebrew Matthew, which may not have even existed.

4. Matthew's genealogy is rubbish and is like made up

Yes.

The rest of your statements appear to conflate Marcion and Mark in a way that I find unpersuasive.

[Secret Alias]

But my argument isn't dependent on identifying Mark AS the gospel of Marcion.

1. Mark 'suddenly' introduces Jesus.
2. the gospel of Marcion 'suddenly' introduces John the Baptist.
3. But the 'sudden' introduction of the parents of John the Baptist ISN'T original because the Ebionites 'needs' to have background information on John's parents.

Maybe I am missing something. It is entirely possible. But I think that the argument for the Ebionite gospel's dependence on Luke is based on the premise that a badly arranged gospel derives its origins from a better arranged gospel because Holy Writ is supposed to be well-ordered. Again I might be missing something. Perhaps you can answer this - in what way is the Gospel of the Ebionites different than Mark's sudden introduction of Jesus and Marcion's sudden introduction of John the Baptist?

PS. Mark's borrowing from Josephus has a strange echo of the objection from Against Marcion regarding the 'suddenness' of the original introduction of John the Baptist.

[Ben C. Smith]

But my argument isn't dependent on identifying Mark AS the gospel of Marcion.

1. Mark 'suddenly' introduces Jesus.
2. the gospel of Marcion 'suddenly' introduces John the Baptist.

Then the gospel of the Ebionites 'needs' to have background information on John's parents. Maybe I am missing something. But I think that the argument for the Ebionite gospel's dependence on Luke is based on the premise that a badly arranged gospel derives its origins from a better arranged gospel because Holy Writ is supposed to be well-ordered. Again I might be missing something.

I am not sure you are so much missing something as adding something.

My point has nothing to do with Mark, and nothing directly to do with Marcion. My point is simply that, when an ancient author provides the female parentage, we are entitled to wonder why. That is it. Nothing fancy. Just pure common sense. The female line was considered irrelevant for the most part in antiquity, and a person was usually identified by his or her father, not by the mother, so when the mother is named, then something special may well be going on. Simple, clear, common sense principle.

Thus, when the Ebionite Gospel mentions Elizabeth as John's mother, we have to ask ourselves why that is. The analogy from the Matthean genealogy is just that, an analogy, but it is illuminating: those women (Rahab, Tamar, Ruth) are named in the genealogy almost certainly because of their stories (lots of scholarship on this point). So the easiest conclusion to draw is that the Ebionite Gospel mentions Elizabeth because it is aware of who she is, likely from a story about her, such as what we find in Luke 1. If there is some other plausible reason for her mention that I have skipped over, by all means, let me know.

Mark and Marcion do not figure into the mix at this point. It is all about what the Ebionite Gospel implies about its sources on its own merits.

[Secret Alias]

So you don't feel that Mark was badly written (introducing Jesus without background info), Marcion's gospel was badly written (introducing John the Baptist without background info) when we stumble upon the Ebionite gospel doing the same thing, it isn't an argument in favor of originality? How about this analogy - my first bichon had a hard time not peeing on the carpet, my second bichon had a hard time not peeing on the carpet, when I get my third bichon and the same thing happens, the correct answer is I am a bad dog owner?

[Ben C. Smith]

So you don't feel that Mark was badly written (introducing Jesus without background info), Marcion's gospel was badly written (introducing John the Baptist without background info) when we stumble upon the Ebionite gospel doing the same thing, it isn't an argument in favor of originality?

Mark introduces Jesus without background information because the Marcan readership already knows who Jesus is; Mark does the same with other figures, too, such as Moses, God, and Simon.

The Marcionite Gospel introduces John the Baptist without background information because it eliminated the Marcan baptism narrative altogether, and I think Peter Kirby is probably right when he surmises that this omission is part of the larger trend of minimizing the obvious implications of Jesus being baptized for the remission of sins.

The Ebionite Gospel does not introduce John without background information; it gives the patronymic. The matronymic is not a lack of background information; it is a surplus of background information.

I would not characterize what Mark does as bad writing. The Marcionite Gospel, however, may qualify in this respect. I am not sure "good" or "bad" writing is a binary choice I would apply to the Ebionite Gospel on this point.

[hakeem]

I am writing this on the fly but is your argument that the Gospel of Mark failure to mention Jesus's lineage because it is maternal?

No, my argument has nothing to do with what may or may not be absent from Mark. It has to do with what is present in the Gospel of the Ebionites, since that is the detail which bears explaining.

There was no Gospel of the Ebionites. According to Eusebius' Church History, the Ebionites only used the Gospel of the Hebrews.

[Giuseppe]

John the Baptist would have been introduced suddenly even in Mark, if only his author was less disturbed by Marcion:

1) The title of Marcion’s book on Jesus words and deeds, The Gospel, was adopted, but adapted with a shift of meaning from an angelic and wonderful message of the angelic Christ in Marcion to a message of a prophetic messanger who announces Jesus Christ in Mark.
2) Marcion’s criticism of the Jewish prophets and the serverance between Judaism and the Christian movement have been taken seriously, but counter-acted by the introduction of references to the Torah and the Prophets (Exodus, Malachi, Isaiah).
3) Marcion’s criticism of John the Baptist who was not more apprehensive than any of the other disciples (with the exception of Paul, of course!), and took offense at Christ, is introduced as the prophetic messanger of Christ.
4) John the Baptist himself is portrayed as a counter-Marcion (ascetic, preacher of repentance, baptism, remission of sins) who, however, builds the link between past, present and future.
5) That Mark’s anti-Marcion reading of The Gospel’s pericope on John the Baptist (Luke 7:18-23) was still present when John wrote, can be seen from the connection that John 1:19-23 makes between Mark 1:1-4 and this passage of The Gospel

http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/2011/ ... n.html?m=1

And still:

Of course, Christian readers who are so used to the Synoptics’ accounts of John the Baptist may no longer feel this strange character of a delayed opening. In contrast, if we ask the question, could Mark have added this passage to counter one of Marcion’s challenges, the answer is readily at hand. As shown in the previous paragraph, The Gospel incorporated a passage where it dealt with John the Baptist’s attitude to Jesus Christ. Very similar to the other disciples, the twelve and the 70 – he was curious and enquired who Jesus was, but despite all the deeds of Jesus, he did not trust and believe, but took offensive at Christ. Mark disputes this characterisation of the Baptist, by portraying him as the messanger and fore-runner of Jesus who not only prepares his ways and baptizes him, but who also captures all the typically Marcionite features: asceticism, the emphasis on repentance, baptism and the remission of sins, but without the renounciation of the Jewish past!

http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/2011/ ... n.html?m=1

What is more unexpected is not the sudden apparition of John in Mcn, but the delayed opening of Jesus in Mark.