andrewcriddle

There have recently been posts on various blogs about the version of Matthew 21:17 in the medieval Hebrew Gospel of Matthew .

The posts have been concerned with possible links between the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and Secret Mark. I think these links are unlikely but the addition and he was explaining to them the Kingdom of God is interesting.

Like a lot of the unusual readings in the Hebrew Goospel of Matthew it comes from the Latin (some Old Latin and some Vulgate). The Latin is et docebat eos de regno dei. See for example Matthew 21-17
and Dominican Missal The origin of this Latin addition to Mattthew 21:17 is unclear. Those who think that it is relevant to Secret Mark can believe (among other options) either that Secret Mark influenced the Latin of Matthew or that Morton Smith knew of the variant Latin reading of this verse.

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse

Interesting ... thank you!

stephan huller

I'm not sure what it means. it's sort of like taking individual lines from the diatessaron and arguing they go back to something. It's hard to know what's coincidence

outhouse

not only that scholarships are pretty divided on how the "kingdom of god" was preached because there are contradicting accounts in scripture.

stephan huller

I just want to make it clear. I think the parallel is significant but on its own it doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

andrewcriddle

I agree.

But I think the addition is interesting even if it has nothing to do with Secret Mark.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

Yes most certainly. I happen to think that 'teaching ... the kingdom of God' has something to do with what Philo, Clement and Origen called 'elementary studies.' If has something to do with Secret Mark my guess is that the 'kingdom of God' is 'the next step' beyond this five to eight year course (if Gregory Thaumaturgus and Eusebius's ambiguous reporting of the statement is used as a yardstick).

I also found the statement in Mark chapter four about Jesus teaching privately the kingdom of God relevant too:

Again he said, “What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it? 31 It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest of all seeds on earth. 32 Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds can perch in its shade.” 33 With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. 34 He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.

My interpretation of the Alexandrian 'elementary studies' (and I could be wrong) is that it focused on the Old Testament in order to get Gentiles upto speed as it were with Jewish knowledge. What I have seen of the Psalms homilies contradicts Nautin's assumptions about the nature of the instruction so we might have to rethink this. But Jesus was in a Jewish environment in chapter 4 referencing parables to an audience of Jews presumably. The private instruction about the kingdom of God might well represent the equivalent of 'secret wisdom' in 1 Corinthians chapter 2. In other words, mirroring the twofold division of instruction current in Caesarea (or Tyre if Epiphanius is to be believed).

I find Epiphanius's testimony about Origen most fascinating because it is so simple and straightforward as compared with Eusebius which doesn't make any sense at least with respect to chronology. According to Epiphanius's source Origen left Alexandria to Palestine and then appeared in Tyre where Ambrose was an imperial official who was a Marcionite. Origen stayed there 28 years and it was there that Ambrose gave Origen the stenographers to record his homilies when he was over sixty. In other words - and Alex Poulos if you are listening! - Origen wrote the Homilies material in Tyre (if Epiphanius is correct) likely around 135 - 141 CE rather than Caesarea. We should keep this in mind when we read the new material from Germany. In other words, does it support Origen being in Caesarea or Tyre. BTW I noticed that Epiphanius quotes from the Homilies on Psalm especially something Origen wrote on the first Psalm.

According to Epiphanius, Origen only became renowned in Alexandria during the persecutions of Decius and likely never set foot there after he left c. 215 CE.

Solo

FWIW, I regard 4:34 as a later insert which contradicts the 4:11-4:12 rule. If the audience in 4:10 includes the disciples (which I believe it did not originally, as the Twelve and "the inner group" of disciples were smashed together by Matthew and re-imported to Mark) then they were the ones unto whom it was given to know the secret of the kingdom. So there would be no need to explain anything. Note: 1) the strange echo from 4:33, χωρὶς δὲ παραβολῆς (without a parable), 2) the suspect stress δὲ τοῖς ἰδίοις μαθηταῖς, his own disciples. 3) How does 4:34 square with 4:13 which makes the understanding of all parables contingent on the ability to correctly understand 'this parable' ?, 4) The verb epilyō is a hapax in Mark.

Best,
Jiri

andrewcriddle

I'm beginning to think it may involve Tatian's Diatessaron.

The Arabic Diatessaron reads the Latin Codex Fuldensis is similar. i.e. Most of Luke 9:11 is inserted after Matthew 21:17.

Maybe the original Diatessaron had all of Luke 9:11 here reading This could have influenced the Latin text of Matthew.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

Yes that's a distinct possibility. Nevertheless this might make the argument of a connection with Secret Mark stronger not weaker. Look at the insertion in the second passage cited in to Theodore:

Notice also that Clement never says something like 'the rest of Mark follows.' Canonical Mark reads:

The Diatessaron inserts something in the exact same place as Secret Mark reads:

There are of course differences in the wording of what happened before he entered Jericho. Nevertheless it is odd and suggests a relationship of some sort.

I will have a look at what is written in Ephren and Aphraates.