My Next Monograph

I think my discovery that Irenaeus witnessed that the Gospel of Mark at one time had material common to Luke chapter ten and Matthew chapter 11 is worthy of an academic paper. Just look at the last few posts if you want to know the direction I am taking this. The truth is that I wrote a PATHETIC paper on the idea that Secret Mark MIGHT be related to the Diatessaron and sent it to David Brakke a year or two ago. I must have been high or something (which is miraculous because I don't drink, smoke or do any sort of drugs - not even cold medicine!).

In any event, the more I look at the relationship between canonical Mark and Matthew it is uncanny that Irenaeus should say that the sentence common to Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22 should have appeared in Mark. When I look in my ANCIENT copy of Gospel Parallels I see that these words end a massively long section where Matthew does not follow Mark.

Matthew follows Mark for the beginning of Matthew chapter nine through the healing of the paralytic (Mark 2:1 - 12), the call of the tax gatherer (Mark 2:13 - 17 although the texts identify him differently I think DELIBERATELY) and then finally the question about fasting (Mark 2:18 - 22).

It is utterly amazing that after THESE WORDS the texts strangely disagree with regards to order. The business about the woman suffering from her period (Matt 9:18 - 26 my wife could play her in a movie!) appears later in Mark and Luke. So too with regards to the two blind men healed (Matthew 9:27 - 31) which is rip off of the Jericho scene in the two other gospels and the healing of the dumb demoniac (Matt 9:32 - 34).

I have a very good reason to believe that the sending out of the twelve (Matt 9:35 - 10:16) was never present in the Marcionite gospel. It does not follow the order and the substance of either Mark or Luke so we can suspect that it may not have been original present in the Alexandrian text of Mark for the moment. It also contradicts the substance of the Diatessaron as we shall show in the next post.

The same can be said about ALL that follows the sending out of the twelve - i.e. the fate of the disciples (Matt 10:17 - 25), the exhortation to fearless martyrdom (Matt 10:26 - 33 which doesn't appear at all in Mark and in the wrong order in Luke), division in households (Matthew 10:54 - 56 again not in Mark and in the wrong place in Luke), the condition of discipleship (Matt 10:37 - 39 again not in Mark and in the wrong place in Luke).

Matthew's conclusion to the discourse (Matt 10:40 - 11:1) does not appear in either Mark or Luke.

Now I can't tell you whether or not ANY of this material was originally in Mark. I don't think so but I have to admit with the acknowledgement of Irenaeus' testimony coupled with the existence of Secret Mark everything is up for debate.

My guess however is that by the time we get to what follows - John's question to Jesus (Matt 11:2 - 6) there is an uncanny resemblance to the last place that Mark and Matthew agreed - i.e. the question about fasting (Matt 9:14 - 17; Mark 2:18 - 22). Tertullian MAKES EXPLICIT that this was the place where 'John' was introduced in the Marcionite gospel - i.e. there was no 'baptism by John' in that narrative.

At the very least I want the reader to look at the manner in which Matthew differs from Mark and Luke at this point. For Matthew at this point seems to actually represent the original reading saying merely:

Then the disciples of John came to him, saying "Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast." [Matt 9:14]

It is not that difficult to see that the ambiguity inherent in the statement about 'the bridegroom' which follows could well have led to the clumsiness reflected in the section which follows where 'disciples of John' ask "Are you he who is to come or shall we look to another." [Matt 11:2 - 6; Luke 7:18 - 25]

ALL the Church Fathers (Tertullian, Ephraim etc) testify to the fact that the Marcionites looked to the account of this material which appeared in their gospel AS PROVING THAT JESUS WAS SAYING HE WASN'T THE CHRIST, THAT THE ONE WHO WAS TO COME WOULD IMMEDIATELY AFTER HIM.

The whole section MUST have suffered from constant revision owing to the implication on Christian theology. The fact that Tertullian says that 'John' is introduced only here makes it highly probable in my mind that originally THE DISCIPLE JOHN was the one interacting with Jesus and later the references was transformed to THE DISCIPLES OF JOHN a change of only a few letters in Aramaic.

Notice that there is a clever emphasis throughout where - I believe Irenaeus - emphasizes 'John the Baptist' is the 'John' mentioned in the narrative i.e. -

"they [John's disciples] said "John the Baptist sent us ..." [Luke 7:20]
"there is no one greater than John the Baptist" [Matt 11:11]
"from the days of John the Baptist" [Matt 11:12]

It is stunning to notice how tentative the transformation of the original Marcionite narrative appears in retrospective. For Tertulian is quite right in saying that it makes no sense to introduce 'John the Baptist' so suddenly without the discussion of his missionary activity. The Marcionite gospel HAD TO REFLECT THE IDEA THAT 'JOHN' WAS 'THE DISCIPLE JOHN.'

Yet the editor of the fourfold canon does the clever thing and ERASE the appearance of the narrative from Mark and introduce parallel texts of Matthew and Luke WITH ALTERNATING identifications of 'John' as 'John the Baptist' in order TO SUGGEST the idea that the traditional Marcionite interpretation WAS WRONG.

We have noted elsewhere that Hippolytus and other Church Fathers make clear that contemporaries of theirs KNEW that canonical Mark was related to the original Marcionite text.

More to follow ...