Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 02-17-2008, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

How does one get one's head around a collection of gospels as contradictory as Matthew and Peter being lumped together as part of a single collection titled "Memoirs of the Apostles"?

I find extremely intrigung that up to today, the writings called Matthew, Mark and Luke are all actually still anonymous, just as Justin Martyr seems to indicate and these writings have been anonymous for the last 1800 years, nobody has ever claimed responsibilty or to be the author of any of these writings as far as I know.

So, how did Tertullian know who wrote what? And from where did he get the names?

The so called "Pauline epistles" as we have them today, make no claim to the authorship of the Synoptics. The Acts of the Apostles is also anonymous.

The word "Luke" is nowhere in the NT as a writer , there is no known history of a writer named "Luke". All that can be found are 3 isolated verses with the word "Luke"

Colossians 4.14,

Quote:

Luke, the beloved physician,....greet you.

2Timothy 4.11

Quote:

Only Luke is with me.....

Philemon 1.23-24

Quote:

There salute thee.......Lucas, my fellowlabourers

Where in the NT does an author identify himself as "Luke"?

But Tertullian wrote in Against Marcion 4.2

Quote:

.....Now of the authors we possess, Marcion SEEMS to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process.

What authors did Tertullian possess? Do any non-canonical writings have the word "Luke" as a writer of anything?

I can't find Luke. Who was he?

neilgodfrey · 02-18-2008, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The word "Luke" is nowhere in the NT as a writer , there is no known history of a writer named "Luke". All that can be found are 3 isolated verses with the word "Luke"

Colossians 4.14,

2Timothy 4.11

Philemon 1.23-24

Where in the NT does an author identify himself as "Luke"?

But Tertullian wrote in Against Marcion 4.2

Quote:

.....Now of the authors we possess, Marcion SEEMS to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process.

What authors did Tertullian possess? Do any non-canonical writings have the word "Luke" as a writer of anything?

I can't find Luke. Who was he?

Irenaeus is the first to link Luke with the gospel and Acts. I've discussed Hoffmann's suggestions for why the name of Luke was singled out here. -- Tried to post it here but formatting issues meant I would have to do more work to reproduce it than it might be worth.

Excerpts from the longer post here:

Quote:

Apparently some time between Justin and Irenaeus the gospels had acquired the names we use for them today. There is no known evidence to point to any other conclusion.

What is significant about the above passage from Irenaeus is that it relies exclusively on the Pastoral epistles and one passage from Colossians for the source and identity of the name of Luke, and he takes for granted that this is the same person responsible for Luke-Acts.

Irenaeus calls on no traditions or extra canonical sources for his assertions. If any were known to Irenaeus it is, as the old but still challenging argument goes, it is very difficult to imagine why he would have failed to use them.

Marcionites appear to have responded to Irenaeus’s claim by accusing their rivals of falsely attributing Luke’s name to their gospel’s title.

. . . . .

Hoffmann, Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk), argues that the companionship tradition of Luke was an orthodox creation to serve their anti-Marcionite purposes. (Discussed more fully in my earlier post.)

For Marcion the gospel was not something that was received but something revealed, and that to Paul alone. The true gospel was a revelation attributable to none other than Jesus Christ, not to any apostle. The role of the written gospel was not that of a “canonical” document set word for word in stone, but something that could be edited and corrected over time. Marcionism accordingly modified some of its teachings over the generations.

The prologue of “Luke” also emphasizes a very “unMarcionite” concept: what is believed among the faithful is not a revelation of Paul, and to be found in Paul’s writings alone, but something that is transmitted down a chain of “eye-witnesses and ministers” and via the written words of Luke. Luke’s preface claims the gospel has been “received” from the beginning after all. And it is the tradition of reception that must be guarded, not the revelation to Paul.

So the evidence is consistent with the name of Luke making its first appearance as the title of the gospel, as well as in the Pastoral letter claiming to be by Paul — see earlier post, in the context of a war with Marcionism.

The complete post is here.

Amaleq13 · 02-18-2008, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Apparently some time between Justin and Irenaeus the gospels had acquired the names we use for them today. There is no known evidence to point to any other conclusion.

What about Papias? Certainly not without problems but the rumors he shares about texts attributed to Mark and Matthew are evidence that points to another conclusion.

schilling.klaus · 02-18-2008, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Apparently some time between Justin and Irenaeus the gospels had acquired the names we use for them today. There is no known evidence to point to any other conclusion.

no, these gospels didn't exist yet when Justin Martyr wrote his scribbles.

Quote:

What about Papias? Certainly not without problems but the rumors he shares about texts attributed to Mark and Matthew are evidence that points to another conclusion.

Papias is just an Eusebian strawman, post Marcion and post Justin.

Klaus Schilling

Ben C Smith · 02-18-2008, 10:22 AM

Hi, Neil. I have been enjoying your recent blog posts on Marcion and such.

Some points to ponder about Justin and the ascription of the gospels or memoirs by name:

1. It has been said that Justin never identifies the memoirs by name, but that is not strictly true. In Dialogue 106.3 he mentions the memoirs of Peter. Now, it seems to me that there are two possibilities here. First, perhaps he means the gospel of Peter and the Boanerges detail given was present in the part of that gospel that we no longer have. Second, he may have meant the gospel of Mark under the assumption that, as per the Papian tradition, Mark was writing according to Peter in some way. In any case, he does seem to identify one of these memoirs with the apostle Peter by name.

2. Justin does not often differentiate between the different memoirs in this manner (indeed, the mention of Petrine memoirs may be the only time), but he does know that they are plural and that they are called gospels (plural), according to Apology 1.66.3.

3. So long as Justin calls them the apostolic memoirs in general instead of mentioning one of them by name, most of them (the Petrine being the exception) can remain either anonymous or collective in the same way that the Epistula Apostolorum or the Apostolic Constitutions are either anonymous or collective. But what if Justin attributes the memoirs to people other than the apostles? In Dialogue 103.8 Justin does just that, writing that the memoirs were written down by the apostles and by those who followed them. Interestingly, the detail in question in this instance is from the (western text of the) gospel of Luke. I am unsure exactly how far to press this. On the one hand, the statement does not name names, least of all the name of Luke. On the other hand, to specify that some of the memoirs derive from the followers of the apostles seems a bit too specific without knowing some names; how would one know that followers were responsible for some of them without knowing the names? Would the story circulate that gospel X was written by a follower, not by an apostle, but we are not sure which follower? And is it a mere coincidence that this information comes in conjunction with a text that comes from a gospel attributed to one of the followers? Did the later fathers read this line in Justin and make sure that the gospels were attributed both to apostles and to followers, and that the gospel immediately implied in context was one of the latter? Even if so, how did Justin himself come by the idea without knowing any names?

Ben.

andrewcriddle · 02-18-2008, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

1. It has been said that Justin never identifies the memoirs by name, but that is not strictly true. In Dialogue 106.3 he mentions the memoirs of Peter. Now, it seems to me that there are two possibilities here. First, perhaps he means the gospel of Peter and the Boanerges detail given was present in the part of that gospel that we no longer have. Second, he may have meant the gospel of Mark under the assumption that, as per the Papian tradition, Mark was writing according to Peter in some way. In any case, he does seem to identify one of these memoirs with the apostle Peter by name.

FWIW Pilhofer (according to Brown) suggests that Justin does mean the Gospel of Peter when he refers to the memoirs of Peter.

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith · 02-18-2008, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

FWIW Pilhofer (according to Brown) suggests that Justin does mean the Gospel of Peter when he refers to the memoirs of Peter.

I was pretty sure the idea had been kicked around before amongst scholars, but had no idea where and by whom. Thanks.

I admit I have in the past not given this possibility as much consideration as it probably deserves, but I also keep coming back to the speculation it involves, namely that the Boanerges detail was present in the gospel of Peter, whereas we do not have to speculate that this detail is contained in the gospel of Mark.

Ben.

aa5874 · 02-18-2008, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Hi, Neil. I have been enjoying your recent blog posts on Marcion and such.

Some points to ponder about Justin and the ascription of the gospels or memoirs by name:

1. It has been said that Justin never identifies the memoirs by name, but that is not strictly true. In Dialogue 106.3 he mentions the memoirs of Peter.

I cannot find any "memoirs of the apostles" named "memoirs of Peter" in Dialogue 106. Where did you find such a "memoir" with Peter's name?

Excerpts from "Dialogue with Trypho" 106

Quote:

...He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets, and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles. The words are the following: I will declare Thy name to my brethren, in the midst of the Church will I praise Thee......

These words appear to be from the anonymous writings called Hebrews 2.12

Quote:

Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

Excerpts of Dialogue 106

Quote:

And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder....

These events are recorded only in the anonymous writings called Mark 3.16-17

Quote:

And Simon he surnamed Peter; And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; he surnamed them Boanerges, which is The Sons of Thunder:.....

Excerpts from Dialogue 106

Quote:

....Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.

These events are recorded in the anonymous writings called Matthew 2.1-2

Quote:

....behold wise men came from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, where is he that is born King of the Jews, for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

After going through the entire Dialogue 106, I cannot find any "memoirs of the apostles" named "memoirs of Peter", all the memoirs refer to "anonymous" writings of gMatthew, gMark and Hebrews.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Now, it seems to me that there are two possibilities here. First, perhaps he means the gospel of Peter and the Boanerges detail given was present in the part of that gospel that we no longer have. Second, he may have meant the gospel of Mark under the assumption that, as per the Papian tradition, Mark was writing according to Peter in some way. In any case, he does seem to identify one of these memoirs with the apostle Peter by name.

No memoirs are identified to be of Peter in Dialogue 106, the memoirs are of Jesus in that chapter, 106.

And where did the name Mark come from? Mark is not mentioned anywhere as a writer in the NT. Eusebius in Church History claimed Mark was in Alexandria and converted many, even founding many Churches, but Eusebius erroneously labelled the Theraputae or Essenes as Christians indicating that Mark may also be a fictitious character. Philo wrote nothing about Mark, his Jesus, his Christian converts or Churches.

Amaleq13 · 02-18-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And where did the name Mark come from?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

...as per the Papian tradition, Mark was writing according to Peter in some way.

Ben C Smith · 02-18-2008, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

No memoirs are identified to be of Peter in Dialogue 106, the memoirs are of Jesus in that chapter, 106.

Are you asserting? Or are you asking?

To be clear, the ANF translation (with a capital H in the pronoun Him) is possible, but not probable. The nearest antecedent is Peter, not Jesus, and Peter as the source of a memoir is in agreement with the usual practice of Justin to call the memoirs apostolic (of the apostles), not dominical (of the Lord).

But you say my translations are suspect. So I give you Helmut Koester:

"His Memoirs" in this text must mean "Peter's Memoirs" (not "Christ's Memoirs").

And I give you Charles Hill:

The latter, he says, is written in 'his', that is, Peter's, memoirs.

And I could give you many, many more.

Ben.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-18-2008, 10:22 AM	#135
Ben C Smith Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Midwest Posts: 4,787	Hi, Neil. I have been enjoying your recent blog posts on Marcion and such. Some points to ponder about Justin and the ascription of the gospels or memoirs by name: 1. It has been said that Justin never identifies the memoirs by name, but that is not strictly true. In Dialogue 106.3 he mentions the memoirs of Peter. Now, it seems to me that there are two possibilities here. First, perhaps he means the gospel of Peter and the Boanerges detail given was present in the part of that gospel that we no longer have. Second, he may have meant the gospel of Mark under the assumption that, as per the Papian tradition, Mark was writing according to Peter in some way. In any case, he does seem to identify one of these memoirs with the apostle Peter by name. 2. Justin does not often differentiate between the different memoirs in this manner (indeed, the mention of Petrine memoirs may be the only time), but he does know that they are plural and that they are called gospels (plural), according to Apology 1.66.3. 3. So long as Justin calls them the apostolic memoirs in general instead of mentioning one of them by name, most of them (the Petrine being the exception) can remain either anonymous or collective in the same way that the Epistula Apostolorum or the Apostolic Constitutions are either anonymous or collective. But what if Justin attributes the memoirs to people other than the apostles? In Dialogue 103.8 Justin does just that, writing that the memoirs were written down by the apostles and by those who followed them. Interestingly, the detail in question in this instance is from the (western text of the) gospel of Luke. I am unsure exactly how far to press this. On the one hand, the statement does not name names, least of all the name of Luke. On the other hand, to specify that some of the memoirs derive from the followers of the apostles seems a bit too specific without knowing some names; how would one know that followers were responsible for some of them without knowing the names? Would the story circulate that gospel X was written by a follower, not by an apostle, but we are not sure which follower? And is it a mere coincidence that this information comes in conjunction with a text that comes from a gospel attributed to one of the followers? Did the later fathers read this line in Justin and make sure that the gospels were attributed both to apostles and to followers, and that the gospel immediately implied in context was one of the latter? Even if so, how did Justin himself come by the idea without knowing any names? Ben.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.