PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

Okay good, let us say that the reference at 4:11.7 is just a general statement that Marcion's texts are obviously refutable from their own use of Luke.

Look at Against Heresies 1:22.4

This is the exact project of Tertullian that this text announces. It is a project in the future to refute Marcion by using his own writings against him.

Perhaps it was just a passing daydream and the author was not serious. Look at 3:12.12, where the author mentions his intentions to carry out the project again.

This project is the same as Tertullian's in Against Marcion
It is not totally unknown for one writer to announce a project and another writer to carry it out. However, given that the identity of the project announcer is not revealed in the text, but only proposed by Eusebius over a century later, is it not more logical to assume in this case that the anti-Marcion Christian Heretic fighter who passionately announced a project of refuting Marcion through his own words was the precise man who carried it out. Was Marcion so powerful, that less than 30 years after he wrote, a Bishop in Gaul, at the Northern frontier of the Roman empire, felt the need to write an entire book against him, and a Presbyter from Carthage at the Southern frontier of the Roman Empire felt the need to write books against him nearly 30 years later. Then, miracle of miracles, these two extremely well educated men with a passionate desire to fight Marcionism in precisely the same style (refuting him by his own words) turn out to be the first two men in history to mention the four canonical gospels in their works. Might it not be reasonable to propose that we are talking about one man announcing and carrying out one project?

Incidentally the author of Against Heresies gives Marcion the date of 154-167, putting him under Anicetus (against Heresies 3:4.3)
Tertullian puts him under the Emperor Pious 138-161. (Against Marcion 119.2)
He writes, "Now, from Tiberius to Antoninus Pius, there are about 115 years and 6 1/2 months. Just such an interval do they place between Christ and Marcion"

Tiberius started his rule in 14 and Antoninus Pius in 138. Tertullian's text contains a mistake. It should be 125 years, not 115 years (from 14 to 138). If we assume that 125 years was originally in the text, or at least meant, than from the 15th year of Tiberius 28 C.E., (the date of Christ) we add 125 years and 6 1/2 months to get the year 154. Thus the two texts are not contradictory, They are both giving us the date of 154 for the beginning of Marcion's career. The fact that one gives the date by invoking the time of a religous leader and the other by invoking the time of a political leader show that they are complimentary.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Ben C Smith

I think that Irenaeus wished to publish a work against Marcion and either did not do so or it was lost too quickly to register anywhere.

If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that Eusebius took a draft or text from Tertullian and, modifying it in places, attributed it to Irenaeus as Against Heresies; Eusebius just did not notice or care about the bit where Tertullian promised to write Against Marcion, so did not expunge that part of the text, with the result that it now appears that Tertullian fulfilled a wish or promise that Irenaeus had made, when in reality it was Tertullian who both promised a work against Marcion and fulfilled that promise. Is that your argument?

Ben.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

Yes. That is what I am suggesting.

In considering this question, you might consider what M.T. Riley says in his dissertation on Tertullian's Adversus Valentinianus in comparing Tertullian work and the text of Against Heresies
http://www.tertullian.org/articles/r...troduction.htm


Irenaeus says (3:3.3) Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. This dates the work from 175-189. Riley dates Tertullian's Adv. Val. to after 207
If these dates are correct, it is easy to see why Tertullian should know everything that Irenaeus knows, it is harder to see why Irenaeus should be "practically the entire source of T's knowledge of the various heretical schools". Did the numerous Valentinian schools come out with nothing new in the 20-30 year period between the two texts?

Riley also notes:
In other words, the Adv. Val. is funny and Adv. Her. is more serious.
Now note that just as the author of Adv. Her announces he will do a work in the future dedicated solely to attacking Marcion, the author of Adv. Val announces that he will do a work in the future that is more serious:

Where is the serious work that Tertullian promises us here? Where is the work that will deliver the death blow to the Valentinians? If Ireanaeus has already given us a serious work 20-30 years before, why is he now giving us a silly work?

On the other hand, if we assume that Contra Haereses is that serious work from Tertullian, we understand both why there is no serious forthcoming work from Tertullian on the subject which he promises, and why there is no advance in knowledge from Adv. Val. to Adv. Haer. In fact, Adv. Haer. contains more knowledge. It is because Adv. Haer comes after and grows out of Adv. Val.

Now, we have to ask, if Tertullian did expand his own work circa 207, how do we get the date of 174-189 with the Eleutherius reference. Since Eusebius quotes it in his Church History, we may suppose that he himself placed it there. That a heretic in 207 first mentions the four gospels and apostolic church tradition does not help Eusebius' case for the continuity of the Roman Catholic Church one bit. That a Bishop from Gaul circa 180, a Bishop who sat on the knee of Polycarp who heard the Apostle John who leaned on the breast of Jesus, that does help.

Consider these two scenarios:

1. Tertullian writes Adv. Val. He promises a more serious work.
2. Tertullian soon fulfills his promise and writes Adv. Haer. which is more serious. In it he promises a work devoted to Marcion.
3.Tertullian fulfills his promise and writes Adv. Marc.

1.Irenaeus writes Adv. Haer. a serious work. He promises a work on Marcion. The work on Marcion never comes or disappears.
2. Tertullian writes Adv. Val., a work that is 20-30 years after Irenaeus, yet somehow contains less knowledge of Valentinian ideas than Irenaeus' work. He promises a more serious work, but the work never comes or disappears.
3. Tertullian writes the work against Marcion that Irenaeus promised.

In the first scenario Tertullian makes two promises and fulfills them. In the second scenario, Irenaeus makes a promise and doesn't fulfill it, Tertullian makes a promise, but doesn't fulfill it. Tertullian fulfills Irenaeus' promise.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

And he fulfilled the promise three times. Tertullian claimed that he has written 3 version of Against Marcion.

Tertullian in Against Marcion bk1,
So, there were three versions of Against Marcion by Tertullian being circulated at that time.

Ben C Smith

Okay, my problem with that is that Eusebius does notice this wish to write a work against Marcion. In book 5 of the History (sorry, I forget the exact reference and am not near my notes) he notes that Irenaeus promised a book against Marcion.

This is what makes your hypotheses seem so untenable to me. They often seem to ask Eusebius to create his own problems and never solve them; he explicitly notices that a work is promised in Against Heresies, but he does not list such a work amongst the texts of Irenaeus and both (A) leaves the promise in and (B) makes no attempt to make up the deficit. If he has as much control over these texts as you are making out, why not reattribute Against Marcion to Irenaeus? Why stop with (mis)attributing only Against Heresies from him?

Agreed.

This kind of ancient sourcing is so common in antiquity as to not even raise my eyebrows. There is absolutely nothing weird about Tertullian leaning on Irenaeus almost exclusively.

Yet Against Heresies hardly focuses on the Valentinians any more than on the other heresies. The fact that Against Heresies is not about the Valentinians in particular makes the step between 1 and 2 below something of a leap:

Let me remind you of another exchange we once had. Your view was that Eusebius interpolated stuff about Jesus and James both into Origen and into Josephus. In the Church History he listed three passages that are to be found in Josephus, yet in Josephus we find only two of those passages. In such a case, the entire lie perpetrated by Eusebius would absolutely depend upon his actually following through and inserting all three passages (and, once he has Josephus before him, why put down the pen after only two of the insertions?). When I pointed this out to you, you replied:

Yet here, in this present case, when absolutely nothing depends on either Irenaeus following through with a work against Marcion or Tertullian following through with a more complete work against the Valentinians, you insist that these proposed projects were carried out. Is there not some tension in your different approaches to these two matters?

Ben.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

Excellent criticisms. I will have to consider them more in detail tomorrow.

In the meantime consider this:

H.E. 4:24.3. And that Theophilus also, with the others, contended against them, is manifest from a certain discourse of no common merit written by him against Marcion. This work too, with the others of which we have spoken, has been preserved to the present day.

4.25. Philip who, as we learn from the words of Dionysius, was bishop of the parish of Gortyna, likewise wrote a most elaborate work against Marcion, as did also Irenæus and Modestus. The last named has exposed the error of the man more clearly than the rest to the view of all.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Ben C Smith

There are comments in the ANF series on History of the Church 4.25, where Eusebius does seem to be saying that Irenaeus did write against Marcion. I do not know exactly what to make of this statement. But it is certain in any case that Eusebius noticed the promise in Against Heresies.

As for Theophilus, yes, he is one of many who are said to have written against Marcion. The fellow from Sinope seems to have had a tremendous influence on the church of centuries 2 and 3. I have the works attributed to Theophilus listed on my Theophilus page; basically what I did was to scan Eusebius and Jerome for their lists of texts attributed to Theophilus. (Caution: The commentary on (or harmony of) the gospels and on the proverbs of Solomon is extremely dubious as a genuine work by Theophilus.)

Ben.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben
Eusebius is following a certain agenda that is appropriate for his time and place. He is not able to see all or even many of the possible interconnections between the hundreds of texts from the First, Second and Third centuries that he must have been dealing with. He never mentions Tertullian's "Against Marcion, although he mentions half a dozen other writers who wrote against Marcion. Is he trying to confuse people about the identity of who wrote "Against Marcion" or is he just unaware of its existence? The later possibility seems more likely.

I have been trying to figure out why in the first place he puts in the line at 5.8.9 "And he refers to Justin the Martyr, and to Ignatius, using testimonies also from their writings. Moreover, he promises to refute Marcion from his own writings, in a special work." Why is this line even here?

Eusebius has already told us in 4.25 that Irenaeus has written a book Against Marcion. Why, a book later in his History does he say that in "Against Heresies" Irenaeus intended to write a book against Marcion?

The line comes in a passage where Eusebius is describing Irenaeus' writings about the traditions concerning canonical books:

(5.8.1.) Since, in the beginning of this work, we promised to give, when needful, the words of the ancient presbyters and writers of the Church, in which they have declared those traditions which came down to them concerning the canonical books, and since Irenæus was one of them, we will now give his words and, first, what he says of the sacred Gospels:

Eusebius quotes us words from Irenaeus to show that he knew about the four gospel tradition, the Apocalypse of John, the First Epistle of John, and the First Epistle of Peter. He shows that Irenaeus considered the Shepherd and Wisdom of Solomon as holy scripture.

After the line about Justin, Ignatius and Marcion, he talks about Irenaeus' discussion of the Septuagint.

Basically, since the whole passage is about things Irenaeus considered holy scripture, the Justin, Ignatius and Marcion line only fits as things he does not consider holy scripture. Actually, the real point seems to be that he did not consider Marcion work as holy. Why are the names Justin and Ignatius dropped in?

My best guess is that if we do not have the names in the line, it appears that Irenaeus might have actually considered Marcion's writings as significant or in some way holy. In the chapter up to this point Eusebius has given examples of Irenaeus quoting writings and equating these writings with holy writ.

Let us say that Eusebius now suddenly says, "He promises to refute Marcion from his own writings, in a special work." The reader is left to think that perhaps he considers Marcion's work holy in some way because he is going to be quoting his writings. To prevent the inference that quotation equals holiness, Eusebius mentions that Irenaeus also quotes other writers of the Second century who are not holy -- "And he refers to Justin the Martyr, and to Ignatius, using testimonies also from their writings." In other words, He is reassuring us that just because he is using Marcion's words, that doesn't mean he thinks it is holy in any way.

Now, the question is why does he mention Marcion at all here. The answer is that he wants to show that Marcion is not one of the texts that Irenaeus considered as part of holy scripture.

He is simply not thinking of the line's relationship to Tertullian's Against Marcion.


Another important corollary question is why does he suddenly interrupt his historical narrative to give Irenaeus' relationship to scripture. In other words, why chapter eight there at all?

The reason is to back up the apostolic tradition in Papias.

Let us consider two possibilities. The text was forged/altered by Eusebius
and the text was actually in the original work by Papias. Let us consider the first one first.

Eusebius knows that repetition is the key to not only remembering, but believing. That is why he repeats the TF three times in three different works after altering the text in Josephus.

He is altering the text in Papias to give the gospel tradition. There is originally something there, but as the TF in a more derogatory form. Perhaps something about the written gospel tradition being entirely messed up and therefore undependable. That seems to be what should be there, based on Papias saying that he doesn't trust written text. Eusebius makes his corrections, but that leaves another problem. Papias says so many outlandish and ridiculous things that he is not a trustworthy witness. Even with the repairs, Papias discredits the gospel tradition as much as he credits it. Eusebius needs Ireneaus to step in and act as a trustworthy witness. Just as Eusebius makes Irenaeus a trustworthy witness for Polycarp, for the martyrs of Gaul, and for the peace of the Christian Church over the Easter/Passover issue, Eusebius makes Ireneaus the witness for the correct gospel tradition.

He needs to insert it also in Irenaeus and repeat it in the Church History to give the tradition credibility/caché. However, if he just says out of the blue that he is going to now give the four-gospel tradition that would be suspicious. So he says that he is going to give all the references to canonical traditions in Irenaeus.

On the other side, we can say that there is nothing unusual about Eusebius' actions. He has discovered the same tradition in both Papias and Ireneaus and he is simply bringing it to our attention. What else would you expect him to do ? Hide it?

Is there any further evidence to determine which is the course of production?

Notice what Eusebius says in bringing evidence for canonical usage outside the four gospels:

And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.

In the selection from chapter 8 two books later, we read

7. He states these things concerning the Apocalypse in the work referred to. He also mentions the first Epistle of John, taking many proofs from it, and likewise the first Epistle of Peter. And he not only knows, but also receives, The Shepherd, writing as follows:

He mentions quotations from the first Epistle of John and the first Epistle of Peter in the works of Papias and Irenaeus, but also mentions them using Hebrews and the Shepherd. This shows that he was not providing evidence for a specific canon going back to the apostles. Eusebius doesn't bother to give quotes to prove that Papias and Irenaeus knew 1 John and 1 Peter. He does provide the direct quotes to prove the four gospel tradition.

Why does Eusebius give quotes to prove the four gospel tradition and does not give direct quotes to prove the 1 John and 1 Peter tradition? possibly the epistle tradition was not in doubt and the four gospel tradition was. More likely it was less important to prove the epistle tradition than the four-gospel tradition.

Why may be pretty sure that Eusebius is telling the truth here about what he found regarding the epistle tradition. 1 John and 1 Peter are in circulation by the middle of the second century, but probably not any of the other epistles.

This has to be compared with what Eusebius tells us in 3.25
By including just the first epistles of Peter and John in Papias and Irenaeus, Eusebius is basically saying that the disputed writings -- James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John were not included in the canon in the Second century.

Notice also something else when we put the two traditions together:

Papias:

Irenaeus:

Notice that the information in Irenaeus is less than the information that we get in Papias. Papias already tells us that Matthew publishes in Hebrew and Mark is Peter's man. He adds that Luke is Peter's man, but that's from 1 Peter. The notion that John published in Asia is derived from another sentence that Eusebius finds in Papias
It seems that Irenaeus is getting his ideas about the gospel tradition directly and only from Papias. Eusebius seems to allude to this
Irenaeus has gone wrong in his millenial views due to Papias. Eusebius seems not to realize or know yet that Ireneaus also heard Polycarp. If he heard Polycarp and Polycarp disagreed with Papias, why should he adopt the views of Papias?

Also if Irenaeus heard Polycarp, how could it be that he knows nothing more than Papias about the four gospel tradition?

If we assume that Eusebius has faithfully related the tradition, we can say that around 150 C.E. Bishop Papias knew a very thin two gospel tradition of Mark and Matthew which reflected knowledge of a book by Mark containting a series of unconnected discourses in random order by the Christ and a gospel in Hebrew fulled with prophecies of the Christ attributed to Matthew. Bishop Ireneaus (circa 170-190) knew the same thin tradition and knew basically just the names of the authors of the other two gospels.

On the other hand, if Eusebius is creating the tradition, then Eusebius probably altered the information in Papias' two gospel tradition (perhaps just changing the names of the books, and interpolated the minimal facts about the four gospel tradition into Irenaeus.

Since Irenaeus could have used a better proof in disputing with his heretical opponents, I suspect that the second course of events is more likely to have happened.



Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Ben.[/QUOTE]

JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing with the Evidence concerning 1st vs. 2nd century Dating of the Canonical Gospels:

External:

1) Extant fragments of Gospel text

2nd century Direct evidence

Key evidence:

1) Earliest fragment is P52 mid-range date of c. 165

2) No other fragment with mid-range in 2nd century.

2) Church Father References

2nd century Direct evidence

Key evidence:

1) Irenaeus c. 180

Familiar with all 4 Canonical Gospels

2nd century Indirect evidence

2) Justin Martyr c. 155

Familiar with Synoptics

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

3) The Epistula Apostolorum c. 145

One paragraph on the Passion Narrative

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

4) 2 Clement c. 145

One sentence on the Passion Narrative

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

5) Marcion c. 135

Consists of a version of "Luke" Narrative but gives No Attribution

Evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

No Infancy Narrative

6) ARISTIDES c. 125

One sentence referring to Jesus' Death and one sentence referring to Jesus' Resurrection. No direct quotes from any Canonical Gospel.

7) Papias c. 125

Aware of written Sayings of Jesus by Peter/"Mark" and "Matthew"

No Evidence of "The Passion"

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

No Evidence of Infancy Narrative

No Evidence of Paul

8) Polycarp c. 125

Aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "The Cross"

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

No Evidence of Infancy Narrative

Evidence of Paul

CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

To All The Gods I've Loved Before

9) Ignatius - Ephesians c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Not aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "the Cross" and suffering of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

Aware of a few pieces of Infancy information.

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

Now on to the next Possibly/Probably Forged Epistle of Ignatius:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ans-hoole.html

JW:
Once again it's difficult to find much above that sounds Canonical that does not come Directly or indirectly from Paul. Therefore, I think it Likely that Ignatius here was not familiar with the Canonical Gospels and:

1) Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

2) Not Aware of specific Sayings of Jesus.

3) Aware of the Cross and suffering of Jesus.

4) No Evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

5) Refers to belief in "Birth" as important article of Faith.

6) Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

What's especially interesting here is that the author refers to "birth, the passion, and the resurrection which happened in the time of the governorship of Pontius Pilate" as Key Articles of Faith. We may be seeing the Development of the Gospel Narrative here:

1) Paul - provides basic and brief statements of Theology.

2) Subsequent Christian leaders expand 1) into Key parts of a supposedly HJ life, Birth, Passion, Resurrection.

3) Subsequent Christian leaders Require belief in 2) as Articles of Faith.

4) Gospel authors use 3) to create Narratives to X-pand.

Most importantly, as far as the Relationship between Ignatius here to the Original Gospel "Mark", note that not only does Ignatius show no good evidence of knowledge of "Mark" but Ignatius' Primary points, that the key to following Jesus is Obeying in Unison Christian Hierarchy, is exactly what "Mark's" Primary point, Don't follow Hierarchy, follow Jesus, is Reacting to. Note that "Mark" also makes it a point not to mention any "Birth" and goes out of The Way to show no Historical witness to the Passion or Resurrection (yes Ben, he shows characters that witnessed the Passion but never Explicitly says they told anyone and shows characters who were told of the resurrection but Explicitly says dummied up).



Joseph

"Statistics remind me too much of the 6 foot tall man who drowned in a river who's average depth was 3 feet." - Woody Hayes

The Necronomicon Of Christianity, From Eldritch Church Elders. Epiphanius' Panarion.

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

I just wanted to correct my last post where I talked about a two gospel tradition of Papias. The evidence I believe points towards only a single gospel.

In Church History (3.25), Eusebius gives us the state of the canon circa 315.
(http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm)

He gives the accepted books as the the Four Gospels, Acts, The Letters of Paul and the Apocalypse of John.

He then lists disputed works and a subcategory of disputed-rejected works. Interestingly, despite having place the Apocalypse of John in the accepted category, he places it in the subcategory of disputed-rejected works. This indicates that the accepted works category may include works that are actually disputed and even rejected by others within the Roman Catholic Church. It seems that we are not getting an official Churchwide opinion, but merely Eusebius' opinion on what are accepted and disputed books in the canon. He adds a fourth category of absurd and impious works that apparently have never been considered holy except by Heretics. Thus Eusebius gives us these categories:

1.Accepted

2.Disputed

2a.Disputed-Rejected

3.Absurd and Impious

He is naturally looking for confirmatory evidence within his sources. It is interesting that he only cites four sources for information regarding the canon and its creators: Bishop Papias, (3.39)Bishop Irenaeus (5.8), Clement of Alexandria (6.14), and Origen(6.25).

The information given in all four cases is suspicious and problematical. One would have expected many traditions and arguments over the writers of the gospels, but we get nothing but the barest of facts. In these cited texts, we do not find out, for example, where Mark was born, who his father was, if he was married, if he was Hebrew or Greek, if he liked to drink wine, how old he was when he wrote the gospel, or any of the most basic biographic facts or even fictions that we possess about other writers.

When we compare the information that we are given, it is obvious that Origen's information is derivative of Clement, Clement's information is derivative of Irenaeus and Irenaeus' information is derviative of Papias.

For example, Eusebius cites this from Origen regarding Matthew:

(6:25.4) The information from Clement that Eusebius cites is this:

(6.14.6)The information from Irenaeus:
(5.8.2).The information from Papias:
(3.39) Reversing and summarising we get:

1. Papias: Matthew wrote in Hebrew.
2. Irenaeus: Matthew wrote in Hebrew while Paul and Peter were in Rome.
3. Clement of Alexandria: The gospels with Geneologies were written first (Matthew and Luke were written first)
4. Origen: Matthew wrote in Hebrew, he wrote first, he was a publican and apostle.

Such measured growth where one small fact, easily derived from a casual glance at pertinent texts is added every 40 years or so is a freak of nature. It more closely resembles the writing of a single man done in a single morning or afternoon.

It seems much more likely that Eusebius spent a few hours interpolating all the facts he considered non-controversial about the gospel writers into the texts he was researching.

There is a small contradiction between Clement and Origen in that Clement places Luke before Mark and Origen places Mark before Luke, but that is just a trivial contradiction. It shows that it did not matter in the least to Eusebius whether Luke preceded Mark or Mark preceded Luke. Establishing some kind of chronology was all that was important to him.

While it seems probable, that Eusebius is simply inserting material into Irenaeus, Clement and Origen, this is not the case with Papias.

Here there is the quoted material:

In the case of the line "Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language", it is likely that the oracles are the oracles of Christ that are in the Apocalypse of John. So the original sentence read "John wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language."

This was evidence that the Apocalypse of John should be included among the accepted text. So Eusebius, being honest, put it in the category of accepted text. Unfortunately, the Roman Church had apparently placed it in the category of rejected texts. Eusebius instead of going against his Church, erased the word John from his copy of Papias and substituted the word Matthew. This weighed heavily on the heart of the poor, fundamentally honest man, and thus when writing his categories of the canon, he placed the Apocalypse in both the accepted and rejected categories, knowing in his heart that it should have been rejected, but also knowing the penalty for going against his Church.

This leaves us with Papias knowing only one gospel. He tells us that it is a sayings gospel that is apparently not in any order. This is certainly not the gospel of Mark. But what gospel is it?

The key here is the statement
"Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers," It is not Peter , but Paul who was known to adapt his teaching to the needs of his hearers. Therefore we may take it that the original text read "Luke having become the interpretor of Paul."

This is the reason that Eusebius confuses the second gospel and writes that Mark was the second gospel when interpolating into Clement of Alexandria, but writes that Luke was the second gospel when interpolating into Origen.
Again the interpolation that he makes into the text gets reflected in his giving dual and contradictory information regarding the interpolation later on.

However, we again have to be careful. Would Luke be known as the interpretor of Paul in the Second century? No, it was Marcion who was known as the interpretor of Paul in the Second century. The original reference would have been to him before Eusebius changed it. The single reference to the writer of a gospel that Eusebius found from the second century most likely read:
Warmly,

Philosopher Jay