BeDuhn's Greek Evangelion edition publicly archived

[maryhelena]

I think the word 'scandalized' is perhaps better in the Marcion text than 'offense'. So - I'm going to replace 'offense' in Klinghardt's version of the Marcion text and see how it then reads.

*7,17–23: John the Baptist Taking Offense and His Request 7,17 And this news about him spread throughout Judea, even to John the Baptist. 18 When he heard of his deeds, he was scandalized. And he summons two of his disciples, 19 {saying, “Go, say to him,} ‘Are you the one who comes, or shall we wait for another?’” 20 But when the men came to him, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to you, saying, ‘Are you the one who comes, or shall we to wait for another?’” 22 And he answered, saying to them, “Go and tell John what your eyes have seen and your ears have heard: the blind see again, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor are proclaimed good tidings. 23 And blessed are you, if you are not scandalized at me!”

Klinghardt, Matthias. The Oldest Gospel: A Missing Link in New Testament Scholarship (p. 32). Quiet Waters Publications. Kindle Edition.

(my additions and colouring)

John is scandalized because he hears that Jesus is reported to have done these deeds: ''the blind see again, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor are proclaimed good tidings.''

Apart from the possibility that as an OT prophet John was looking for a Davidic type messiah figure, a man of war, rather than a Joseph type, messiah figure, a Prince of Peace. (after all what OT prophet would be content to live under Roman occupation of the Holy Land of Israel.) John is scandalized because of the deeds attributed to Jesus. And why not ? John is not taking personal offense - he is simply perplexed, scandalized, by the reported deeds of Jesus. It's almost like someone telling a fanciful story - and you go ''Oh yeah,tell me another one!" - it's so over the top that your scandalized that anyone would have the nerve to claim such deeds.

-----------------

*7,24–28: The Instruction about John 7,24 When John’s messengers had gone, he began to speak to the crowds about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to behold? Perhaps a reed shaken by the wind? 25 Or what then did you go out to see? Perhaps a man covered in soft robes? See, those who live in festive clothing and in luxury are in the palaces! 26 What then did you go out to see? – Perhaps a prophet? Yes, I say to you, and even more than a prophet! For among those born of women there is no greater prophet than John the Baptist. 27 He is the one about whom it is written: ‘See, I am sending my messenger before your face who will prepare the way for you.’ 28 But the least in the kingdom is greater than he.”

Klinghardt, Matthias. The Oldest Gospel: A Missing Link in New Testament Scholarship (p. 32). Quiet Waters Publications. Kindle Edition.

Perhaps some negativity between the John fraction and the Jesus fraction, over the least in the kingdom being greater than John, - but I don't think the negativity would be due to John being scandalized over the deeds of Jesus. Perhaps a negativity would be more historically based than the gospel's theologically storytelling is concerned with.

[maryhelena]

Mark, any thoughts on the wording ''in the years of Pontius Pilate' ? I don't have any Greek so maybe I'm reading this wrong. Is this quote part of a 15th year of Tiberius statement - or does it stand alone?

Notes: page 128
Omission: Luke 1.1–2.52 Our sources unanimously report that the
Evangelion opened with wording corresponding to 3.1 in Luke.
<snip>
Pseudo-Ephrem A (1)
gives only the wording “in the years of Pontius Pilate.”

Jason D. BeDuhn: The First New Testament.

This whole Marcion issue, the 15th year of Tiberius, has led to the accusation of mutilating Luke. However, the gospel story has never been static - Luke, for instance, with his 15th year of Tiberius storyline, has moved the story along. i.e. other gospels, John, Mark and Matthew have only dated their Jesus stories to the time of Pilate. Leaving open the possibility of other dates for their Jesus and crucifixion stories under Pilate. Hence, one can't really argue that the 15th year of Tiberius was always the required date. (dating Pilate still a matter of some debate among scholars).

The Slavonic Josephus has it's Anointed One nativity story prior to the 15th year of Herod. The 15th year of Herod, the 15th year of Tiberius. Evidently the Jesus story timeline was not fixed - all that seems to be fixed - now - is the 15th year of Tiberius. But is this the date of the text in Marcion's procession ? I'm not suggesting that Marcion had the 15th year of Herod. The Jesus story moves along.......Somewhere along the transmission line the 15th year of Herod gets dropped. Did Marcion drop this date and simply have in the time of Pilate ? - This would, of course, place his text in line with the gospels of John, Mark and Matthew. i.e. a safe, uncontroversial setting prior to the gospel of Luke and it's 15 year of Tiberius.

Yes, the above quote from BeDuhn mentions that a number of sources support the 15th year of Tiberius. However, the text Marcion had was not immune to being updated by his later followers to fit in with Luke. Hence the long standing controversy over Marcion mutuliating Luke.

Any thoughts ?

Yep, its a bit like throwing that dead cat on the table - but the idea that the text of Marcion was itself updated to the 15th year of Tiberius could well provide some forward movement in the priority debate.
=============
added later

Philo, in The Embassy to Gaius, has a story re Agrippa linking Pilate to Tiberius. Tiberius is dated 14 c.e. to 37 c.e.

Mark, Matthew and John use only the time of Pilate. Consequently, is it not more in keeping with the text of Marcion being early that it would not contain the 15th year of Tiberius. Perhaps it said something like - in the time of Tiberius and Pilate. Adding the 15th year of Tiberius, as the year the Jesus figure came down to Capernaum, could be a later Marconite addition following the Lukan writer. Yep, difficult to establish of course - but the logic surely is that the 15th of Tiberius would not be part of an early gospel story.

The Lukan writer was only able to write his updated story because Josephus, in Antiquities, had been ambiguous in his dating of Pilate. (93/94 c.e.) Followers of Marcion, by updating a very early gospel to the 15th year of Tiberius, have done themselves short. For now - the whole mutilated Luke controversy was able to run....thus shortchanging the place this early gospel should have in the development of the NT.

Did Pontius Pilate serve two terms as governor of Judaea ?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11015

[Ken Olson]

The argument attributed to Megethius in the Adamantius Dialogue must pre-date Tertullian.

What could prevent Megethius from interpreting the same Matthew 11:2 (given the occurrence in both the passages of "prison" and "deeds of Christ") according to a marcionite interpretation?

Afterall, it was not only the orthodox Tertullian who indulged in an orthodox interpretation of a gospel held by the marcionites, but also a marcionite as Megethius coild well indulge in a marcionite interpretation of a gospel held by proto-catholics.

You are not engaging with my argument.

How is is that Tertullian is answering the Marcionite argument that John the Baptist, who was a prophet of God, would have recognized Jesus as the Christ of God, if in fact he were. Why would John need to ask? That is the argument Tertullian is responding to in Against Marcion 4.18.4-8. How could he be answering that Marcionite argument if that argument had not been made yet?

[Giuseppe]

The argument attributed to Megethius in the Adamantius Dialogue must pre-date Tertullian.

What could prevent Megethius from interpreting the same Matthew 11:2 (given the occurrence in both the passages of "prison" and "deeds of Christ") according to a marcionite interpretation?

Afterall, it was not only the orthodox Tertullian who indulged in an orthodox interpretation of a gospel held by the marcionites, but also a marcionite as Megethius coild well indulge in a marcionite interpretation of a gospel held by proto-catholics.

You are not engaging with my argument.

How is is that Tertullian is answering the Marcionite argument that John the Baptist, who was a prophet of God, would have recognized Jesus as the Christ of God, if in fact he were. Why would John need to ask? That is the argument Tertullian is responding to in Against Marcion 4.18.4-8. How could he be answering that Marcionite argument if that argument had not been made yet?

I agree with you that that argument (by Marcion) had been made before Tertullian, but it seems to me that a such argument, to be raised the first time, needed an explicit support on and by the Evangelion itself, since how otherwise can you explain the concession, by Tertullian's counter-argument, that John was indeed offended:

who would be so much greater than the prophet, because he would not have been offended at Christ, an infirmity which then lessened the greatness of John.

In short, given the two independent effects:

• 1) Marcion interpreted the scandal by John as result of the his moral opposition to the news of a new god

• 2) Tertullian interpreted the scandal by John as result only of the his mere human ignorance (hence Tertullian is also conceding here that the incipit of Luke was missing in *Ev)

....it seems to me that the cause of both was that a shared assumption by both Tertullian and Marcion is that *Ev had explicitly "John took offense".

Note that I am adding this argument to that already made here, not yet addressed by you.

[maryhelena]

I re-read the section in Klinghardt, and he doesn't seem to set up this dichotomy. Rather, he does not seem to consider the patristic evidence (Adamantius Gk/Lt and Tertullian) for "in prison" at all. Instead, he writes it off as a Matthean insertion in the span of one sentence (p. 645).

I've been rethinking the prison issue:

I'm beginning to think it's the other way around - that Matthew has copied Marcion re the prison issue (with the messengers sent to Jesus )

Matthew chapter 3

[13] Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
[14] But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
[15] And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
[16] And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
[17] And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

John, at the baptism of Jesus, saw a dove descending and a voice declaring Jesus as the beloved Son.

Matthew ch.11

[2] Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples,
[3] And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?
[4] Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see:
[5] The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.
[6] And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.

So - on Matthew's gospel John sending messengers from prison to ask Jesus if he was the one or should he wait for another - makes absolutely no sense after the baptism and the dove descending on Jesus i.e. John knows who Jesus is (re the narrative).

The Jesus in Marcion's text is not baptized by John - therefore has seen no sign from heaven to declare Jesus the son of god, the messiah, anointed figure. Hence is quite in order to seek some clarification, indication, from Jesus. It's the baptism dove and the voice from heaven that the Marcion John figure lacks.

Interestingly, although John's gospel does not have Jesus in the water - John (the baptist) still sees the dove and the voice when Jesus approaches.

John ch.1.

John ch.1.
[30] This is he of whom I said, `After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.'
[31] I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel."
[32] And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him.
[33] I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, `He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'
[34] And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God."

my colouring.

BeDuhn verse Klinghardt over the prison issue? Looks to me its BeDuhn - Marcion's text did not get the prison story from Matthew - Matthew got the prison story from Marcion's text. i.e. this narrative makes no sense in Matthew's gospel - all it does is suggest that Matthew knows the Marcion text.

===============
added later

If, re Klinghardt, the text in possession of Marcion, is the oldest gospel, then it had no reason to place it's John figure in prison. Hence, BeDuhn is reading Matthew into Marcion's text. The text of Marcion gives no reason why John is in prison - hence mention of prison in Marcion's text is an addition to that text.

Interestingly, the gospel of John has this strange statement:

3:24 For John was not yet cast into prison.

Again no reason given as to why John is in prison. Only later, with Matthew and the Herodias story, is a reason given as to why John is in prison. This is storyline development - suggesting that when the Marcion text was written - and gJohn for that matter - John had not been put in prison. Thus, in this case, Klinghardt's position is warranted.

[Irish1975]

This work has been accepted for consideration at JOHD and is now going through the peer-review process. While their metadata will filter into catalogs eventually via OA indices, I thought members of this forum might like to know how to access and catalog the pre-prints in advance. By way of making peer-review more public and transparent, we welcome feedback (preferably posted publicly) to correct errors/oversights.

Bilby, Mark; BeDuhn, Jason D., 2023, "BeDuhn’s Greek Reconstruction of Marcion’s Gospel", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/UQVGW6, Harvard Dataverse, V1

BeDuhn's Greek version, in my view, should now be considered the gold standard Greek edition of the Evangelion, far more reliable than Roth's minimalistic text or the overlong texts of Klinghardt and Nicolotti.

As you'll see, this includes both the UTF-8 txt datasets typical of other JOHD publications, but also a robust, carefully crafted and formatted Greek text with critical apparatus.

In The First New Testament (1s edition, 2013), BeDuhn makes the factual claim that none of the principal witnesses to the Evangelion attest any content that is not also found in canonical Luke:

Irenaeus indicates that the Evangelion was shorter than the text of Luke known to him, a difference he attributes to Marcion “removing all that is written [in Luke] respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most clearly confessing that the maker of this universe is his Father” (AH I 27.2). Tertullian similarly refers to Marcion’s text as ‘adulterated’ and ‘mutiliated’ compared to Luke, but does not bother to provide much information on the differences. Epiphanius likewise refers to Marcion cutting or altering the text, and supplies some of the details of these textual differences a century and a half after Tertullian, listing passages of varying length missing from Marcion’s text compared to that of Luke, at least those that Epiphanius would have liked to cite against Marcion’s views. None of these witnesses [sc. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius] mention any additional material in the Evangelion that was not also found in Luke.

The First New Testament, p. 67

This claim is contradicted by BeDuhn’s own reconstruction of 23:2, which includes Epiphanius’ attestation of a charge of destroying the law and prophets. He includes this content in both his 1st edition of the Evangelion, and in this newer online version.

In the notes to this verse (p. 190), however, BeDuhn downplays the credibility of Epiphanius’ attestation:

Epiphanius accuses Marcion of adding “and destroying the Law and the Prophets” in v.2, but the same reading is found in the majority of OL manuscripts, and was even carried over into the Vulgate, and it passed without comment in Tertullian; cf. Acts of Pilate 2 [?!!].

He should at least take a consistent position.

[Ken Olson]

This work has been accepted for consideration at JOHD and is now going through the peer-review process. While their metadata will filter into catalogs eventually via OA indices, I thought members of this forum might like to know how to access and catalog the pre-prints in advance. By way of making peer-review more public and transparent, we welcome feedback (preferably posted publicly) to correct errors/oversights.

Bilby, Mark; BeDuhn, Jason D., 2023, "BeDuhn’s Greek Reconstruction of Marcion’s Gospel", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/UQVGW6, Harvard Dataverse, V1

BeDuhn's Greek version, in my view, should now be considered the gold standard Greek edition of the Evangelion, far more reliable than Roth's minimalistic text or the overlong texts of Klinghardt and Nicolotti.

As you'll see, this includes both the UTF-8 txt datasets typical of other JOHD publications, but also a robust, carefully crafted and formatted Greek text with critical apparatus.

In The First New Testament (1s edition, 2013), BeDuhn makes the factual claim that none of the principal witnesses to the Evangelion attest any content that is not also found in canonical Luke:

Irenaeus indicates that the Evangelion was shorter than the text of Luke known to him, a difference he attributes to Marcion “removing all that is written [in Luke] respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most clearly confessing that the maker of this universe is his Father” (AH I 27.2). Tertullian similarly refers to Marcion’s text as ‘adulterated’ and ‘mutiliated’ compared to Luke, but does not bother to provide much information on the differences. Epiphanius likewise refers to Marcion cutting or altering the text, and supplies some of the details of these textual differences a century and a half after Tertullian, listing passages of varying length missing from Marcion’s text compared to that of Luke, at least those that Epiphanius would have liked to cite against Marcion’s views. None of these witnesses [sc. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius] mention any additional material in the Evangelion that was not also found in Luke.

The First New Testament, p. 67

This claim is contradicted by BeDuhn’s own reconstruction of 23:2, which includes Epiphanius’ attestation of a charge of destroying the law and prophets. He includes this content in both his 1st edition of the Evangelion, and in this newer online version.

In the notes to this verse (p. 190), however, BeDuhn downplays the credibility of Epiphanius’ attestation:

Epiphanius accuses Marcion of adding “and destroying the Law and the Prophets” in v.2, but the same reading is found in the majority of OL manuscripts, and was even carried over into the Vulgate, and it passed without comment in Tertullian; cf. Acts of Pilate 2 [?!!].

He should at least take a consistent position.

BeDuhn is taking a consistent position. He means there aren't any peculiarly Marcionite pericopes in the way there are peculiarly Matthean and peculiarly Lukan pericopes among the synoptic gospels. The example of 'and destroying the law and the prophets' in Evangelion/Luke 23.2 is not actually an exception to his claim because it is found in manuscripts of canonical Luke, so it's not peculiarly Marcionite by the definition BeDuhn is using. If there were, for example, a parable attested by Tetullian or Epiphanius that was not found in any manuscript of any canonical gospel, that would constitute a exception to BeDuhn's claim.

There is a possible exception in the Adamantius Dialogue:

MK. The Judaizers wrote this, "I did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it but Christ did not speak in this way. He says, "I did not come to fulfil the Law but to destroy it"' (Adamantius Dialogue 2.15 830d, Prettman translation 95).

Even here though, it might not constitute an exception: first, it is not positively attested that this reading was found in the Evangelion, and, second, it's a variant of Matt 5.17 (which is found in a canonical gospel) and is not really new, unparalleled material).

Best,

Ken

[vocesanticae]

Mark, any thoughts on the wording ''in the years of Pontius Pilate' ? I don't have any Greek so maybe I'm reading this wrong. Is this quote part of a 15th year of Tiberius statement - or does it stand alone?

My First Gospel LODLIB has a reconstruction and extensive footnote with quotation and translations of the many different attestations to Evangelion 3.1 + 4.31, including this phrase.

[maryhelena]

Mark, any thoughts on the wording ''in the years of Pontius Pilate' ? I don't have any Greek so maybe I'm reading this wrong. Is this quote part of a 15th year of Tiberius statement - or does it stand alone?

My First Gospel LODLIB has a reconstruction and extensive footnote with quotation and translations of the many different attestations to Evangelion 3.1 + 4.31, including this phrase.

The following text is taken from your First Gospel - albeit without the Greek words. (apologies for that but it's the result I'm after not the hard scholarship behind it..... )

102.Lk1 3.1a is attested (often together with Lk1 4.31) as the opening of Marcion's Gospel by nine witnesses in five languages. T: "Marcion posited a different Messiah who in the times of Tiberias was revealed by a formerly unknown god for the salvation of all nations, different from the one who was appointed to come from the creator god for the restitution of Judea" (Marc. 4.6.3; SC 456:90; Evans 274); "He sets him forth in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius descending into the city of Galilee, Capernaum" (Marc. 4.7.1; SC 456:92; Evans 274); "Yet now while maintaining that descent, I demand to know the rest of the order of that descent. In fact it matters not if somewhere the word 'appeared' is used. 'To appear' has the sense of a sudden sight of unexpected origin—one who puts eyes on it without delay at the same time that it appeared " (Marc. 4.7.2; SC 456:92, 94; Evans 276). E: "in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar" / ἐν τῷ (Pan. 42.11.5; GCS 31:107–108). Greek and Latin Adm: "during Tiberius Caesar, during the times of Pilate" (GCS 4:64; PTS 55:322) // "in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar in the times of Pilate" (Caspari 2.3; STA 1:29); "who never appeared before the times of Tiberius Caesar" (GCS 4:98; PTS 55:336) (Caspari 2.18; STA 1:43); "during Tiberius he descending appeared in Capernaum" (GCS 4:102; PTS 55:338) // "in the times of Tiberius he was first manifested in Capernaum" (Caspari 2.19; STA 1:45). Latin Irenaeus: "coming into Judea in the times of governor Pontius Pilate—who was a procurator of Tiberius Caesar—in human form manifested to those who were in Judea" (Haer. 1.27.2; FC 8.1:318); "Yet if Christ at that time started to exist when he made his arrival as a human and from the times of Tiberius Caesar the father remembered to provide for humans" (Haer. 4.6.2; FC 8.4:44). Latin Origen: "Some do not acknowledge him born of a virgin, but instead as a man of thirty years who appeared in Judea" (CPG 1464); PG 14:1304 [695C]). Hippolytus: "Marcion… <says> without a birth|beginning, 'in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar', he, 'having descended' from above" (Refut. 7.31.5; PTS 25:313). Jacob of Serugh: "For Marcion said, 'Our Lord was not born from a woman but rather stole the place of the maker, came down, and appeared first between Jerusalem and Jericho as a human being "through a pretense, through illusions, and in a likeness, for he did not have a body BL Add. 17215 fol. 30r; ET Forness 555–556, on which see note below). Armenian Pseudo-Ephrem: "Marcion writes in his book which they indeed named Proeuangelion, that is, translated into our language it is called 'Before the Gospels', and I have wondered how could there be a book of the Marcionites which they indeed named 'Before the Gospels', when his students hopefully think that the beginning of the divinity in which they believe appeared at those times, in the years of Pontius Pilate, at the time in which the Gospels were written" (Exposition of the Gospel 1; CSCO 291:1; ET CSCO 292:1; Armenian transcription courtesy of Cornelia Horn and Rob Phenix). The opening "in the fifteenth year of TiberiusCaesar" is confirmed by T, Hippolytus, E, and Latin Adm. This reading is consistent with Lk2 manuscripts, which only vary in whether to include the conjunction "now" E uniquely has a definite article and inverts "fifteenth" and "year". Elsewhere E refers to "fifteenth year of Tiberias Caesar" as the opening of Mark (!) (Pan. 51.6.12 in GCS 31:256; Pan. 51.19.2 in GCS 31:276) and in regard to the Manicheans (Pan. 66.50.5 in GCS 37:87; Pan. 66.78.1 in GCS 37:119). Irenaeus mentions "Tiberius Caesar", but no specific year. VKN do not restore any content after the reference to Caesar as likely. The upgrade "of the reign" is based on T using "of the reign" / principatus (clearly genitive), the verbatim Greek quotation by Hippolytus, "of the reign" and Lk2 mss. The correction "in the times" is based on "in the times" / temporibus in T and Latin Irenaeus (bis, for Pilate and for Tiberius). Greek Adm alternates: "during the times" of the… times" or "during" . Armenian Pseudo-Ephrem restates "in the years" and "at the time". In the early Postclassical Greek of the LXX and NT, * is commonly used as an historiographical marker of time, rather than (IDD 1.2). "Pontius Pilate" is confirmed by Latin Irenaeus, Armenian Pseudo-Ephrem, and all Lk2 mss. Greek and Latin Adm uniquely mention "Pilate" alone. The restoration by R ends at "Pilate" . The explicit restoration "of Judea", typically in connection to Pilate, is based on T, Latin Irenaeus (bis), Latin Origen, Jacob of Serugh, and the vast majority of Lk2 mss. B restored the participle "governing" / along with "Judea" Though maintained by almost all Lk2 mss (alt. "was guarding" / D), it is not warranted by the numerous patristic attestations. The explicit restoration of "he appeared" is based on the attestations of six witnesses across four languages: T, Greek and Latin Adm, Latin Origen, Jacob of Serugh, and Armenian Pseudo-Ephrem. See also the footnote on 4.31.

https://zenodo.org/record/7893881

my formatting and colouring.

So - where does all that leave the 15th year of Tiberius in regard to the text in Marcion's procession. ? At the very least it leaves the question open for debate. Well then, for myself, I'm going to run with the idea that the 15th year of Tiberius was a later 'update' to Marcion's gospel text - and see where that gets me to.....

Yep, I'm going to have to update a previous thread setting out a proposed order of the gospel stories. Viewing the 15th year of Tiberius as an 'update' to Marcion's gospel throws a very different light on it's place in gospel story development.
============

footnote:
This diversion into the synoptic problem is just that - a diversion for now - my primary interest remains with Josephus and how what he write has relevance for the gospel story. In the case of Marcion's text - that interests stems from the Josephan ambiguous dating of Pilate.

[Irish1975]

BeDuhn is taking a consistent position. He means there aren't any peculiarly Marcionite pericopes in the way there are peculiarly Matthean and peculiarly Lukan pericopes among the synoptic gospels. The example of 'and destroying the law and the prophets' in Evangelion/Luke 23.2 is not actually an exception to his claim because it is found in manuscripts of canonical Luke, so it's not peculiarly Marcionite by the definition BeDuhn is using. If there were, for example, a parable attested by Tetullian or Epiphanius that was not found in any manuscript of any canonical gospel, that would constitute a exception to BeDuhn's claim.

There are at least three ways to define «(canonical) Luke . »

1. Luke as represented in a modern bible
2. Luke as known to the patristic witnesses
3. Any content whatever of any ancient or medieval manuscript of Luke’s Gospel

It may be true that all provable content for the Evangelion is also found in Luke (3). I take it that was your point, but I don’t see that BeDuhn was saying that. In his book, he is specifically concerned with versions of Luke that were known to these patristic witnesses, as compared with what they report about the Evangelion:

Irenaeus indicates that the Evangelion was shorter than the text of Luke known to him, a difference he attributes to Marcion “removing all that is written [in Luke] respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most clearly confessing that the maker of this universe is his Father” (AH I 27.2). Tertullian similarly refers to Marcion’s text as ‘adulterated’ and ‘mutiliated’ compared to Luke, but does not bother to provide much information on the differences. Epiphanius likewise refers to Marcion cutting or altering the text, and supplies some of the details of these textual differences a century and a half after Tertullian, listing passages of varying length missing from Marcion’s text compared to that of Luke, at least those that Epiphanius would have liked to cite against Marcion’s views. None of these witnesses [sc. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius] mention any additional material in the Evangelion that was not also found in Luke.

Regardless of my finicky complaint, it is a fact worth emphasizing that Epiphanius alleges numerous times that Marcion « added » this or that to the text of Luke.

Many of these supplements that appear in a subset of ancient manuscripts of Luke are excluded in modern critical bibles—for the very reason that they are ascribed to the Marcionite text tradition. Even if they had been included in the « majority text, » as in the case of 9:55.