Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 09-19-2011, 06:15 PM

Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius mention this material which is paralleled in both canonical gospels immediately following the leper healing narrative:

Quote:

Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: “See that you don’t tell this to anyone ... Instead he went out and began to talk freely, spreading the news. As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in lonely places. Yet the people still came to him from everywhere. [Mark 1:43,45]

Variants for Mark 1:45

fanerws eis polin eiselqein A B K G D Q 0130 1 579 700 1241 1342 Byz a b f am cav hark; Bover HF HG Lach Merk NEB RV Treg UBS Vogels Weiss WHtxt
eis polin fanerws eiselqein C L 28 33 565 892 1071 2542; Soden Tisch WHmarg
fanerws eiselqein eis polin D ff2

Then Jesus ordered him, “Don’t tell anyone ... Yet the news about him spread all the more, so that crowds of people came to hear him and to be healed of their sicknesses. But Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed." [Luke 5:15,16]

stephan huller · 09-19-2011, 06:37 PM

Tertullian then repeats a statement which appears many times in Book Four. He claims Marcion explained the 'witness to the priests' associated with the healing of the lepers as an acceptance of the Law of Moses on Jesus's part 'out of kindness' for those who were in the habit of those who followed the Jewish religion. Whatever this means (it is unclear), the important thing for our purposes is the reference which follows that Marcion erased from the Catholic gospel a line which does not appear in Luke but now only in Matthew:

Quote:

Truly it makes no difference in what way he confirmed the law, whether as kind, or as disinterested, or as tolerant, or as inconstant, provided, Marcion, that I drive you from your position. So then he has commanded the law to be fulfilled: in whatever sense he gave this command, he can in the same sense have stated the principle, I am not come to destroy the law but to fulfil it. What good then did it do you to excise from the gospel a sentence which remains there still? You have admitted that he did for kindness' sake something which you deny that he said. So there is proof that he said it, because he did do it, and that it is you that have excised the Lord's words from the gospel, and not our people that have foisted them in. [AM 4.9]

'I am not come to destroy the Law ...' only appears in Matthew. It makes no sense if Against Marcion was originally comparing Marcion's gospel to the gospel of Luke to have made this statement. The only two gospels this saying appears in is Matthew and the Diatessaron. Yet most of the material that Tertullian cites comes from either Luke or Mark. The only way to make sense of this very, very curious statement is to accept that the original author was comparing Marcion's gospel to a Diatessaron and subsequently (cf. Against Marcion 1.1) the text was rewritten - not once but three times, to give it its present 'superficial' comparison between Marcion's gospel and Luke.

For those keeping track at home, this is no isolated 'mistake.' The reference appears over three times in Book Four, each time making it explicit that the original author thought Marcion 'erased' the saying from the original Catholic gospel he used to manufacture his heretical text:

Quote:

So then this also in the gospel remains valid, I am not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil. [AM 4.36]

Yet since both that locality and that function of enlightenment do according to the prophecy have their bearing upon Christ, we at once begin to discern that it was he of whom the prophecy was made, when he makes it clear on his first appearance that he is come not to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them. For Marcion has blotted this out as an interpolation. But in vain will he deny that Christ said in words a thing which he at once partly accomplished in act. For in the meanwhile he fulfilled the prophecy in respect of place. From heaven straightway into the synagogue. As the saying goes, let us get down to it: to your task, Marcion: remove even this from the gospel, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and, It is not <meet> to take away the children's bread and give it to dogs: for this gives the impression that Christ belongs to Israel. I have plenty of acts, if you take away his words. Take away Christ's sayings, and the facts will speak; See how he enters into the synagogue: surely to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. See how he offers the bread of his doctrine to the Israelites first: surely he is giving them preference as sons. See how as yet he gives others no share of it: surely he is passing them by, like dogs. Yet on whom would he have been more ready to bestow it than on strangers to the Creator, if he himself had not above all else belonged to the Creator? [AM 4.7]

In the last part of the second citation we see yet another passage which Tertullian or his source thinks Marcion 'erased' from 'the gospel.' Yet this time the material appears in both Matthew and Mark but importantly not Luke:

Quote:

He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” [Matt. 15.26,27]

“First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” [Mark 7.27,28]

More interesting still is the fact that the Clementine Literature identify the woman and the family referenced here as Salome, Berenice and her two boys. Even more interesting still is the fact that while Luke does not retain this story which Tertullian thinks Marcion removed from his gospel, Luke makes an additional reference to the youth who lived at this house where dogs were being fed from the table:

Quote:

longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. [Luke 16:21]

I can't believe this is all accidental. The only way any of this makes sense is if Tertullian's source used a Diatessaron (because he is aware of both the youth living in the bad house and then later dying and being resurrected in the Lazarus narrative).

Once again the evidence seems to point to the pre-existence of a 'super gospel' - an original 'Diatessaron' with stories now 'split up' into Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I will count this as the third example of the Marcion gospel 'agreeing' with Mark over Luke owing to the fact that Tertullian thinks that something from Mark or Matthew and which is not ever found in Luke was removed by Marcion.

stephan huller · 09-19-2011, 09:54 PM

There is very little to say about the next passage Luke 5.17-26. The material must be taken as existing in both Gospels. Tertullian (ch. 10.) alludes to the cure of the man with palsy : he quotes the command of Jesus, " Arise and take up thy bed," and the remark of the Pharisees "who will forgive sins but God alone?" and he discusses the right of Marcion to consider Jesus the Son of man : all which are clear indications of the existence of the passage. Epiphanius quotes "That ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins."

The best attempt at reconstructing the original Marcionite passage is provided by Markus Vinzent at his blog: http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/20...noptic_03.html

Quote:

The Apostle's starts off with 'and' (Καὶ) which remains present in all three synoptic authors. The Apostle's only has a simply 'it happened' (ἐγένετο) that introduces the Pharisees and teachers of law as the main targets of blame in this story who are confronted with him (αὐτὸς) who in the presence of them – they are shown like students who had come to listen and to sit with him rather than colleagues – was teaching (ἦν διδάσκων). The lessons, he is going to give, however, were not simply words, but words connected with the powerful deed of healing.

Different from The Apostle’s is the beginning in Mark: ‘In on one of those days, while he was teaching’, Mark writes Jesus ‘returned [again] into Capernaum’ (Mark 2:1). That Mark is broadening the text in his own version can still be recognized by his insertion of ‘again’ (πάλιν) which, therefore, is left out in Matthew. In The Apostle’s ‘there were Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting nearby (who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem), and the power of the Lord was with him to heal’. Astonishingly, in the opening of Mark, The Apostle’s assertion of the Lord’s power is no longer present, although this power clearly is the condition for the healing-story that is unfolding. Mark only retains the healing itself. Moreover, the fact that Jesus is teaching the Pharisees and teachers of the law (and added are the provenances of them, the entire country: Galilee, Judea, Jerusalem) - an important element in Marcion who wants to demonstrate the antithesis between Christ and the Law-teachers - is also missing in Mark.

Mark had good reasons for cutting off this first part, as it did not only lay blame with the Pharisees and law teachers, these were seen as representing the present crowed which, as one can see from the end of the story (v. 26), according to The Apostle’s were amazed, praised God, and, yet, ended in fearfully saying that they had seen paradoxical things (Εἴδομεν παράδοξα σήμερον). The goal of The Apostle’s teaching was to reveal the amazement, the praising of God, combined with fear and ending in non-belief of the crowed and their leaders.

Instead, when we look into how Mark deals with this Vorlage, we see a reversal of its content. The contrast between the teaching Jesus and the Pharisees and law teachers, the real raison d’être of the story, has gone. And accordingly has the end of the story been altered. The two elevating and positive elements were retained, namely the ecstatic experience and the praise of God, but both fear and unbelief have gone. The ‘paradox’ was watered down into a more general or neutral astonishment: ‘We have never seen anything like this!’ When Mark, following The Apostle’s, mentions Jesus’ discussion with ‘Scribes’ (Luke 5:21; Mark 2:6), these are introduced, as if some of them just happened to be at the scene (ἦσαν δέ τινες τῶν γραμματέων ἐκεῖ καθήμενοι), but the Scribes don’t take center-stage. Unlike as in The Apostle’s, it is not a public discussion which continues The Apostle’s introductory debate between Scribes and Pharisees (οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι), where the Scribes have now replaced the law teachers, but in Mark there are ‘some’ (τινες) random Jewish learned people who reflect by themselves (διαλογιζόμενοι* ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν) about an important theological detail, Jesus’ claim of forgiving sins. This theological reasoning, in Mark, becomes pointed to the Jewish God. Jesus’ blasphemy is not, as in The Apostle’s, that ‘God alone can forgive sins’ (ἁμαρτίας ἀφεῖναι εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ θεός), but so that nobody could mistakenly think of Marcion’s supreme God, Mark introduces ‘the single God’ who forgives sins (εἷς ὁ θεός). As we can see from Mark’s strategy, he smoothens the edges which were directed against the Pharisees and law teachers (Scribes). Already in Luke 4:32 we read The Apostle’s statement that Jesus’ teaching was authoritative (ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ ἦν ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ) – again, a firm view which was reduced in power in its parallel text in Mark and Matthew, where we read that ‘the people there were amazed by his teaching, because he taught them like one who had authority, not like the experts in the law’. Being ‘like one who had authority’ (ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων) is not the same as having authority, the introduction of ‘like’ is a significant downplay of Jesus’ power, hence Walter L. Liefeld’s remark that the author of Luke ‘stresses the authority of Jesus once more’ in Luke 5:17-26, in this Gospel which ‘is especially concerned … to clarify the original relationship between Christianity and Judaism and to show the reasons why the gospel had to break out of the confines of Judaism’, topics that are typically associated with Marcion.[1]

The following verses, Luke 5:22-3 (Mark 2:8-9) are difficult to place. If they had been present in The Apostle’s, they could have served Mark and given him the idea that the Scribes were first only thinking by themselves of their counter-argument. But, as this inner reflection was not present in The Apostle’s before, but a genuine introduction by Mark, it seems that there are good reasons that these verses were not part of The Apostle’s, hence there content originally fabricated by Mark and taken on board by both, Matthew and Luke. A similar case as with vv. 22-3 we can see with regards to v. 25. In v. 25 the author writes: ‘Immediately he stood up before them, picked up what he had been lying on, and went home, glorifying God’. This verse, unattested for The Apostle’s refers back to the bed on of the paralytic. Luke’s somehow awkward expression ‘what he had been lying on’ (ἄρας ἐφ᾿ ὃ κατέκειτο) is an alteration of Mark’s ‘low’[2] stretcher (τὸν κράβαττον) which already did not meet his style in the same pericope in Luke 5:19 where he had exchanged it for ‘bed’ (τῷ κλινιδίῳ), following The Apostle’s use which in 5:18 had used the ‘better-Greek’[3] term for ‘bed’ (κλίνη) and in 5:24 uses the diminutive form ‘small bed’ (τὸ κλινίδιόν). Not only the differences in terminology indicate different authors at work, Mark using here twice ‘stretcher’ (Mark 2:4.9) makes the link between two passages which both have parallels in Luke that are unattested in The Apostle’s. To Mark (but not to The Apostle’s) the detail was important that the paralytic was moved through the roof towards Jesus, it makes up the entire opening of the scene (Mark 2:1-4). If it, Luke only picked up the last bit that related to the stretcher – unattested in The Apostle’s, as said. And it is precisely this part to which Mark comes back in the parallel to the next Luke-passage that is unattested for The Apostle’s, Mark 2:9. And as with Mark’s last verse of the introduction which Luke picked up, Luke also includes this entire verse (Mark 2:9) and integrates it into his Vorlage, The Apostle’s. Another, a third time the bed is mentioned in this story, now towads the end of it. And again, the v. 25 is not attested for The Apostle’s, and Luke follows closely Mark, except that he replaces ‘stretcher’ (τὸν κράβαττον) this time with ‘what he had been lying on’ (ἄρας ἐφ᾿ ὃ κατέκειτο). In this way and with the additions from Mark the story in Luke is no longer focussed against the Pharisees and law teachers, but gains a narrative storyline in itself.

Let us also compare how Matthew deals with this Marcionite story. The pericope forms part of a series of healings around the see of Galilee, hence the idiosyncratic opening that uses elements of both The Apostle’s and Mark to fit the geography in the narrative: ‘After getting into a boat he crossed to the other side and came to his own town’ (Matth. 9:1). Like Mark, Matthew omits the anti-Pharisean and anti-Scribal opening section of The Apostle’s, but also leaves aside Mark’s side-track of the carrying of the paralytic through the roof. Instead he begins with The Apostle’s 5:18, the second verse of the story, and relies on its core narrative, also builds in Mark’s text and adds The Apostle’s proper Greek term for bed (κλίνη). As he skipped Mark’s narrative broadening of the opening, so does he leave aside the last verse of this opening (Mark 2:4) which was taken on board by Luke. Instead, he keeps closer to The Apostle’s. He continues, using now Mark as the dominant Vorlage, where Mark is parallel to The Apostle’s. Hence, Matthew accepts Mark where this text was backed up by the reassuring double tradition of The Apostle’s. Where these two sources disagree, as in Luke 5:21 and Mark 2:6, he keeps to the latter, simplifying the text. Similarly, he is cautious with Mark 2:8 (Luke 5:22-3) as this verse has no parallel backing in The Apostle’s, instead, he adds his own wordings. Luke, in turn, accepts this verse Matth. 9:7 and combines it with Mark 2:12 and creates Luke 5:25 as addition to The Apostle’s, emphasising the Lord’s praise. With regards the ending of the story (Matth. 9:8; Luke 5:26), Matthew must, again, have recognized the differences between his two sources, The Apostle’s and Mark. And in the same way as before, he relies on The Apostle’s first and foremost, keeps the balance between fear and praise, but continues to diminishes even further The Apostle’s claim of the paradoxical power of the Lord, by claiming that the Lord is being feared and praised because he ‘had given such authority to men’ (Matth. 9:8) – the Lord’s extraordinary status has gone.

Just to summarize: All three synoptic Gospel authors use The Apostle’s as their Vorlage, but deal with The Apostle’s it in different ways, although with the same goal – to reduce the paradoxical privilege of Jesus Christ and to remove the antithesis between him and the Pharisees and Scribes. Mark altered the storyline most drastically, Matthew keeps closer to The Apostle’s, but also sides with Mark, Luke keeps most of the wording of The Apostles, but adds what Mark and Matthew has written to balance the content.

ph2ter · 09-20-2011, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It is difficult then to say where the combined (1)(2)(3) narrative from the Marcionite gospel was actually located. The most likely possibility for me at least is that the leper narrative appeared right here - i.e. immediately after Jesus descent from heaven at Bethsaida (= Jerusalem), the ten lepers are most likely the disciples and only one from the ten thanks Jesus for healing him and Jesus cites Luke 21:13 "It will turn out as a testimony for you" - i.e. that his thanks for Jesus having saved him will turn out to be a testimony to his greatness.

In other words, this seems to be the Marcionite variant of the calling of the disciples. It is worth noting that Tertullian seems to imply the one leper is held in special reverence by the Marcionites. IMO he must represent the chosen disciple (= the beloved).

Your idea that the called disciples in the Marcionite variant are the healed lepers agrees with a strange sentence from the epistle of Barnabas:
"But when He chose His own apostles who where to preach His Gospel, [He did so from among those] who were sinners above all sin, that He might show He came "not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Leprosy is to the flesh the same as is sin to the soul. In the gospels, leprosy is a tangible manifestation of sin. So, the twelve sinners are the same with the twelve lepers.

Solo · 09-20-2011, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Ulrich Schmidt sent me Hermann Raschke's Werkstatt des Markus-Evangelisten a while back. I have never found the time to read it. My German sucks now. It gives me a headache to even read a few pages of von Harnack. Nevertheless it might be interesting to follow Raschke's argument to track the number of times that textual variants in Marcion agree with canonical Mark. I have never bought into the Irenaean argument that the Marcionite gospel was a corrupt version of Luke. Luke isn't even attested until quite late (probably with Irenaeus himself). To this end, I think the agreements of Marcion's gospel with the gospel of Mark (and especially western readings of Mark) might be interesting to track down.

There are all sorts of reasons why Mark would have been the logical choice for Marcion to champion over Luke. Whetever the Marcionite 'recension' of Luke actually was, the structure of the gospel would try to balance the Pauline 'pneumatic' and the Petrine 'psychic' perspectives, i.e. Mark and Matthew. Without the interposition, Luke does not make sense to me.

Now, why would Marcion be interested in 'polluting' his Paulinism with the twelve-apostles mantra if he knew Mark, which was clean Paulinist allegory ? The ur-Mark, I have had the strongest feeling did not mean the Twelve to be anything like 'twelve disciples' with Peter on top. If that was the case why were not all twelve on the mountain for the transfig ? Where would the "nine" get the demonstration of the Christ body in resurrection ?

The only concessions I can see Mark making to the Nazarenes, is to deploy the Son of Man designation, and more substantially, his Christ's embrace of the 'sinners' which goes beyond Paul. Paul did not distinguish yet between the sin and the sinner. Actually, I think the idea of the Saviour having a dinner with sinners would have made Paul go glossolalic. He was not exactly the 'forgiving' kind, something that Matthew brilliantly capitalized on.

This again may be subjective, but I see Luke giving in too much to Matthew 'on the front end', way too much for any Paulinist's liking. For example, he agrees to paint Judas as a traitor, which of course is not what Mark meant to do. Judas was not betraying Jesus of his free will, but as it was foretold (by Paul

). But Matthew of course had to have a spineless coward worse than Peter in his story. That Luke should have taken over - and even rapsodized - on Judas' treachery, is a caving in, which I have difficulty imagining would have had appeal to Marcion. No, I don't think Marcion would have chosen Luke over Mark, had he known both. I fully share your hunch.

Stephan, is there anything you can point me to, regards evidence of Mark being known to Marcion ? It seems hard to credit that he would not have known him. Anyone that criticized Harnack in substance for accepting Irenaeus' account ? Thanks in advance.

ETA: the university libraries in the city do not have the Raschke's book. I have just checked the catalogues on line.

Best,
Jiri

stephan huller · 09-20-2011, 10:30 AM

Hi Jiri,

Ratschke's book is the place to start. I have the scanned copy here somewhere. Just have to find it. Otherwise the obvious place to start is the fact that Marcion is clearly a subform of the Latin name Marcus. This is universally acknowledged. Either a nickname/diminutive or some other related form and this statement in the Philosophumena:

Quote:

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, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum. And (Marcion) despoiled this (philosopher), and imagined that up to the present would pass undetected his transference, under the same expressions, of the arrangement of his entire heresy from Sicily into the evangelical narratives. [Phil. 7.18]

Where did this understanding that Marcionites claimed to have the original Mark come from? Well it is hard to argue that the idea must have ultimately been derived from things said by the Marcionites. Yet did the author of the Philosophumena actually walk up to Marcionites and learn from them directly what their beliefs were? I don't think so. As the core of the information from the Philosophumena is derived from an early version of Irenaeus's book, I suspect that the author (who may or may not have been Hippolytus) could only (a) have derived the information from an earlier version of Irenaeus's work which didn't have the account of the Marcion corrupting Luke (AH 1.27) or (b) a version of Irenaeus which said that Marcion corrupted Mark.

It is very hard to believe that the author of the Philosophumena read in Irenaeus that Marcion corrupted Luke and then decided to develop his own theories about Marcion corrupting Mark. Like Ephrem, the author of the Philosophumena knows nothing at all about Marcion corrupting Luke. The argument about Marcion corrupting Luke was clearly added to Tertullian's Against Marcion. The core of that material assumes that Marcion corrupted a Diatessaron (and so the frequent claim from 'Tertullian' that Marcion erased things which were never in Luke). The source here was clearly a Syrian Christian (as can be seen by the order of the epistles in the Apostolikon).

While the idea that the author of the Philosophumena might have had a copy of Against Heresies which did not mention the Marcionites is appealing, it doesn't explain how Irenaeus could have introduced Marcion being rejected by Polycarp (AH 3.3) without explaining somewhere who Marcion was. It has to be admitted that none of the references to 'those of Marcion' in Book Two are very important. They could have been later glosses. But 'Marcion' is critical part of Book Three.

Just look at the order that the various heretics are implicitly associated with gospels at the beginning of Book Three in Irenaeus:

Quote:

And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus (John), at another in Marcion (Luke), at another in Cerinthus (Matthew), then afterwards in Basilides (Mark?) [AH 3.3]

Compare this with the 'proof' for the Catholic gospel being 'of four' by means of the vision of Ezekiel and the Revelation of John in chapter 9:

Quote:

For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father ... But that according to Luke, taking up [His] priestly character, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made ready the fatted calf ... For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for(10) the finding again of the younger son. Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man ... Mark, on the other hand, commences with the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men [AH 3.11.8]

They are identical and we have what appears to be an argument for an Alexandrian gospel of Mark associated with Basilides.

Yet there is another ordering of gospels which appears side by side this John, Luke, Matthew, Mark ordering. It is not the familiar Matthew, Mark, Luke, John ordering of our canon but Matthew, Luke, Mark, John which is witnessed in Against Heresies treatment of the gospels in chapters 9 - 11 culminating with the repetition of the order in this important statement of a longer version of Mark:

Quote:

For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those who (qui autem) separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. [AH 3.11.7]

The group associated with longer Mark is never named here but it is worth noting that the original John, Luke, Matthew, Mark ordering follows in chapter 8 (cited above).

I don't know what to make of this but von Harnack thinks that are Marcionites are referenced as the anonymous group which follows the reference to Marcion in chapter 11 section 7:

Quote:

For Marcion, rejecting the entire Gospel, yea rather, cutting himself off from the Gospel, boasts that he has part in the [blessings of] the Gospel. Others (alli) truly, in order that they might set frustrate the gift of the spirit which in recent times has been poured out upon humankind by the good pleasure of the father, do not admit that aspect [of the fourfold gospel] which is according to the gospel of John [AH 3.11.9]

If that is true than the same group of Marcionites must be identified with the anonymous group in chapter 11 section 7:

Quote:

But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those who (qui autem) separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark

If this is denied then the only other possible candidate is Basilides or that the Basilideans and the Marcionites shared a longer version of the gospel of Mark.

stephan huller · 09-20-2011, 07:23 PM

The call of Levi the publican (Luke 5. 27-32) is next spoken of by Tertullian (AM 4.11). He quotes the saying of Jesus that "a physician is not necessary to the well, but to those that are ill." Irenaeus quotes the above, as well as its continuation in verse 32, " I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance " (AH 3.5.2). The whole passage might be accepted as existing in both Gospels.

Since ph2ter (is that a clever way of spelling 'physics tutor'?) mentioned the Epistle of Barnabas in his last post let's note what the Alexandrian text says here:

Quote:

But when He chose His own apostles who where to preach His Gospel, [He did so from among those] who were sinners above all sin, that He might show He came "not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Yet this is very puzzling because neither in canonical Mark nor in canonical Luke are the apostles chosen yet. In neither Mark nor Luke is Levi (the figure being called here) counted among the apostles (the list of apostles in Mark chapter 3 is He appoints Simon, called Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, a second James, Thaddaeus, Simon whom Mark calls a Zealot, and lastly Judas Iscariot, the list of apostles in Luke chapter 6 is Simon whom he named Peter, his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor).

The point is that the gospel of the Epistle of Barnabas sounds more like the gospel of Clement of Alexandria in Quis Dives Salvetur (where Levi is identified as a figure of great importance).

stephan huller · 09-20-2011, 10:52 PM

I should have clarified that 'Levi' isn't mentioned by Clement but rather 'Matthew' his namesake in the parallel account of Mt 9:9 and Mt 10:3. Matthew is called into the circle of the Twelve by Jesus, but without identification of his background, in Mk 3:18, Lk 6:15 and Acts 1:13. The difficulty of course is that none of our canonical gospels 'equates' Matthew with Levi. The understanding that Levi and Matthew might have been different names of the same individual is understood when one places one canonical gospel beside another.

The odd thing of course is that Barnabas's statement that Jesus was calling his apostles when he declared I have come "not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" almost makes sense in the context of Matthew chapter 9:

Quote:

As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

The context generally seems to fit of course. Matthew is an apostle and Jesus declares to him [I have come] "not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" in some version of the texts. Yet what is difficult to comprehend is that Barnabas and Clement came from an Alexandrian tradition which identified Levi and Matthew as two different people http://books.google.com/books?id=KxY...page&q&f=false. Clement is our earliest witness to Barnabas. It is almost unfathomable that Barnabas would have originally made the connection between Levi and Matthew and Clement didn't know about it or thought differently.

Indeed Clement goes in a more incredible direction still and says that Matthew is one and the same with Zacchaeus, the figure who is only known from canonical Luke and the Marcionite gospel. In fact if you read Clement's argument carefully in the context of Quis Dives Salvetur it is impossible not to see that Zacchaeus appeared in his Alexandrian gospel of Mark. Indeed the whole point of Quis Dives Salvetur is to cite Mark 10:17 - 31 and then to 'explain' or imply that the lesson of the gospel is NOT that God commands Christians to be ritual communists but - because the same gospel narrative ultimately ends with Zacchaeus (and that God only expects people to keep personal wealth and use it for charity/to help others).

The point is that the rushed conclusion is to assume that Barnabas is merely citing Matthew, but Clement makes that highly doubtful. Surely Clement couldn't be so far removed from the Alexandrian culture which produced the Epistle of Barnabas that he would deny the possibility that Levi could be Matthew.

stephan huller · 09-21-2011, 12:54 AM

And with regards to the idea that the ten lepers were originally held to be ten disciples:

Quote:

But how can this Jew of Celsus escape the charge of falsehood, when he says that Jesus, "when on earth, gained over to himself only ten sailors and tax-gatherers of the most worthless character, and not even the whole of these?" [Against Celsus 2.46]

How could Celsus have gotten something as fundamental as the number of disciples completely wrong? It is worth noting that Irenaeus reports the Marcosians saw a parallel in "the ten sons of Jacob who were at first sent into Egypt to buy corn,* and the ten apostles to whom the Lord appeared after the resurrection." There are other examples of fixing the number of disciples at ten.

ph2ter · 09-21-2011, 01:22 AM

Zaccheus was according to Luke a chief tax collector.
In 1 Timothy 1 in the name of Paul it is written:
"12And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; 13Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 14And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 15This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. 16Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting."

Repeatedly, the apostle Paul is characterized as a sinner bigger than all the rest of apostles.

P.S.
ph2ter comes from *Dyeus Ph2ter, a chief Indo-European deity of thunder.

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

09-21-2011, 01:22 AM	#20
ph2ter Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Europe Posts: 219	Zaccheus was according to Luke a chief tax collector. In 1 Timothy 1 in the name of Paul it is written: "12And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; 13Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 14And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 15This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. 16Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting." Repeatedly, the apostle Paul is characterized as a sinner bigger than all the rest of apostles. P.S. ph2ter comes from *Dyeus Ph2ter, a chief Indo-European deity of thunder.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.