Re: Naming of the synoptics
- On Sun, 5 Apr 1998, U. Schmid wrote:
> Below I am dealing with issues addressed by Yuri Kuchinski....
> The individual gospels had no attributions at all prior to theUlrich,
So are you saying here that the gospels were not named before they were
collected together? Or that the gospels were not attributed to apostles
before they were collected together?
This is not clear to me.
> 2. Concerning Papias and chronology:This already seems like an assumption that needs to be justified.
> If we assume that Papias did not invent the presbyter tradition,
> we have toIt seems quite possible to me that Papias may have been a part of a
> conclude that the tradition on Mark and Matthew is older than Papias.
"proto-orthodox" party that was trying to counter Marcion. They may well
have created or embellished the presbyter tradition. They may also have
created the first "proto-orthodox" canon.
> 3. Concerning Justin Martyr:This may well be. But Justin was of course writing later than Marcion. So
> (a) He usually calls the gospels Apomnemoneumata, once glossing this term
> with Euangelia (1 Apol 66.3). Thus he knows more than one gospel called
> "Euaggelion" _and_ related to apostolic traditions.
> (b) Once Justin refers to Peter's Apomnemoneumata (Dial. 106.2-3) giving
> evidence that he knows the Presbyter tradition related to the Gospel of
> Mark (c.f. Papias).
> (c) Once Justin refers to the Apomnemoneumata of the Apostles and of their
> followers (Dial. 103.8) giving evidence that he knows two different groups
> of written Gospels. One group was written by apostles (e.g., Matthew and
> John) and another group was written by followers of the apostles (e.g.,
> Mark and Luke).
> To me this fits well with the assumption that Justin knew the canonical
> gospels (he knew certainly the synoptics) under the names they are
> associated with.
the canon was there by his time.
> Besides, why should he quote one or all of them by name?That he didn't indicates that the tradition was still fluid even in his
> 4. Concerning Marcion:Agreed.
> (a) From the time of Irenaeus onward we not only find that Marcion was
> charged of having corrupted the gospel, but that he and his followers
> must have levelled this charge vigorously against the other side. It is
> very likely that Marcion himself started with these charges; see (b).
> (b) There was an elaborate Marcionite theory, certainly in some formBut it may be meaningful that he didn't seem to _name_ these "false
> going back to Marcion himself and extrapolated from Gal 2, concerning
> the sharp contrast between Paul and the followers of Jesus.
apostles". He was reticent about naming them. So he was quite careful and
diplomatic about what he said.
> In this view, the followers of Jesus not only fell off the true teachingI don't know if this is really so.
> of the Saviour, but they also confounded this teaching with all sorts of
> judaizing elements. This theory was especially directed against the
> written forms of the Saviours words
> and practically applied to theYes, he had a short version of Lk. But the question still remains, To what
> Gospel of Luke (or to a proto version of Luke) in order to regain the
> "original" gospel.
extent he was cutting things out rather than simply preserving an older
It is also quite possible that he was tampering with the gospel he
received from his father the bishop, or from Cerdo. But the orthodox were
also tampering with their gospels. Marcion may well have tampered less
than the orthodox did. At least this is the view of Alfred Loisy in his
BIRTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, 1948, p. 314ff. (Loisy is sure that the
Nativity prologue of Lk was added later, probably ca. the time of
> In Marcion's time and from his viewpoint there was noThis is not completely clear to me in the case of Lk. With other gospels,
> unaltered version of the "original" gospel available to him.
> Moreover, all the gospels available to him must have been firmly"Firmly"? Perhaps not. The canon was just firming up _because of him_. At
> connected to apostolic traditions.
least this is my view.
> (c) Why did Marcion choose Luke (or proto-Luke) for regaining theThis is plausible.
> "original" gospel? Luke was definitely not the only gospel Marcion knew,
> for there is evidence that he knew at least Matthew too. A strong case
> can be made that Luke was selected because it is the only gospel that
> has no apostolic tradition pointing to the followers of Jesus, but to
> Paul, Marcion's champion.
Loisy thinks Marcion may have chosen Lk because Lk was the main gospel
that was accepted by the community of Rome. And Marcion had the hopes of
becoming the Pope. He may have come close.
> Yet, even Luke was corrupted just as Paul'sWell, we are still not sure what he "corrupted" and what he may have
> letters from which interpolations had to be removed as well.
actually _preserved_ over against the "orthodox corruptions".
> To sum up: Marcion (Luke [Matthew]), Justin (Mark [Matthew, Luke,Attributions, yes, we basically agree here. But what about the naming of
> John]), and the presbyter tradition in Papias (Mark, Matthew) display
> only traditions directly or indirectly related to the known attributions
> of the gospels. The attribution of the synoptics at least is very likely
> to have happened before the time of Marcion.
gospels? Here you have not stated your position clearly as yet.
> To infer that the publishedAre you saying now that they were named before being assembled in the
> versions of the synoptics by that time already carried the titles known
> from the manuscript tradition ("Euaggelion kata...") is only a small and
> not very risky step.
canon? But this seems inconsistent with what you said in the beginning of
Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto || Webpage for those who think
they have heard of every biblical heresy:
The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian