MortalWombat

What's appalling is the conclusions you jump to after I post a simple link regarding Thucydides. Please tell us the quality of evidence that leads you to conclude that I was either criticizing Iranaeus or that I employ double standards.

jakejonesiv

I tend to agree with you. But a caveat is in order. But we mustn't forget that it is not stated plainly, but arrived at by inference. Elsewhere, Justin never refers to the Memoirs as something drawn up by just one author. So the "Memoirs of Him" could be an abbreviation of "Memoirs of His Apostles".


Thanks for the clarification. I feel better now.

It is easier to imagine that Justin attibuting the text to Mark, but he doesn't. That calls into question that Justin knew a text of Papias that named Mark as the author of the gospel in question.

Irenaeus. There were heretics hot-footing it around the empire with a docetic gospel called "The Gospel of Peter." The name was taken. (Some scholars suggest that Justin knew the heretical Gospel of Peter).

That's fair.


You are underestimating the eisegesisal genius of heretics.

Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith

If the heretics had to use eisegesis on Mark, then those same heretics probably did not write Mark.

I simply do not understand this. If Justin had the Papian tradition before him, and given that a memoir is not always self-composed, he had two names attached to this gospel. And it surprises you that he picked Peter over Mark to name?

1. Do we know for certain that Irenaeus knew the gospel of Peter? At about the same time that Irenaeus wrote in Lyons, Serapion seems only just aware of it in Asia.
2. Do we know for certain that the gospel of Peter was really docetic? But, if it was, it seems doubtful that Justin would quote it approvingly, does it not?
3. The name was taken? Assuming for the moment that Irenaeus knew the gospel of Peter, are you asking me to believe that Irenaeus allowed the name of Peter to stand on this text that he presumably regarded as heretical and intentionally demoted Peter from explicit authorship of a text that he regarded as canonical?

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Ben,

Thank you! This is terrific. You are a good man. :notworthy:

That's why I like your posts so much, you are always popping up with something I had not considered. :blush:

I have a question that I feel sure you can answer.
I looked up Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, chapter 4 on Early Church Fathers ccel.org. The translation there does mention the gospel of Mark
N/A
but I didn't see the passage that you quoted above.

Is there a reason for the omission?

Thanks again,

Jake Jones IV

S.C.Carlson

Yes, the ANF version has the censored edition of Victorinus (made by Jerome). The earlier, unexpurgated text had not yet been discovered by Haussleiter.

Stephen

aa5874

How was it known that the things Mark wrote down was 'not in order'? What document had the correct order and which book in the NT has the correct order?

jakejonesiv

Thank you!

Ben C Smith

Good question. The answer is debated. It may well be that the elder John (not John of Zebedee) was comparing the order of Mark with that of the gospel of John. Or it may be that, since the Greek words used are a quasi-technical term related to ancient book publication, the elder is saying that Mark, unlike other gospels, was not originally drawn up for open publication; it was still in the notes stage. I myself like to think it was both.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

GMark is full of purposeful ambiguities and secrets. Most often aMatthew and the catholic redactor of GLuke couldn't stand it, and changed things to make the story more tidy and orthodox.

The arguments that the Gospel of Peter was docetic are based on two statements,
“[Jesus] was silent, as having no pain” GPeter 4:10; and “My power, power, you have abandoned me” GPeter 5.19. Since both of these statements have non-Docetic interpretations, they are darn near perfect.

Ben, you are arguing that Justin and Irenaeus had exactly the same testimony of Papias in front of them, and yet each attributed it just the opposite of the other. Talk about having your cake and eating it too! But I am enjoying the fancy footwork.

If Justin knew it, then Ireneaus would have also. :huh: It is certain that Ireneaus knew of other gospels, since he had to invoke the four winds and other nonsense to keep the number down. And he does admit that each of the four gospels he advocates was found amenable to one heretic group or another. We like to think of things in neat boxes and clear lines, but this was not the case in Rome around the mid 2c. Marcion was accepted for awhile, along with his money, and Valentinius was darn near chosen as a Bishop. Tertullian, in Adversus Valentinianos iv . The lines are clear only after the fact, and after the winners are declared.

Justin may have known some version of the Gospel of Peter. Crossan seems to think so, but it is hard to say.

Justin never mentions Judas, and the Gospel of Peter apparently knows nothing of the betrayal by a member of the twelve, who are still intact after the crucifiction. "But we, the twelve disciples of the Lord, wept and were grieved: and each one, being grieved for that which was come to pass, departed to his home." Gopsel of Peter 14.

Both GPeter (1,2 cf 11) "And then Herod the king commandeth that the Lord be taken saying to them, What things soever I commanded you to do unto him, do" and Justin Dial with Trypho 104, "the death to which the synagogue of the wicked would condemn Him" state the the Jews actually ordered Jesus'death.

Jake

Gamera

No offense intended Mortal. I was responding more to spin's position.