BeDuhn's Greek Evangelion edition publicly archived

[MrMacSon]

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

I can agree that (1) and (2) define canonical Luke (especially where (2) points to (1).

I think that things like —

Irenaeus indicates that the Evangelion was shorter than the text of Luke known to him

and

Epiphanius mention[s]...additional material in the Evangelion that was not also found in Luke.

— point to a "proto-Luke" that preceded a [Marcionite] Evangelion

(I'm not sure about (3))


As you say

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

Tertullian...refer[ring] to Marcion’s text as ‘adulterated’ and ‘mutilated’ compared to Luke

— is almost certainly gaslighting rhetoric

[MrMacSon]

Epiphanius alleges numerous times that Marcion « added » this or that to the text of Luke.

One has to wonder
if the Marcionite Evangelion(s) in Epiphanius's time was/were different to the version(s) in the Irenaeus-Tertullian period

[Irish1975]

Epiphanius alleges numerous times that Marcion « added » this or that to the text of Luke.

One has to wonder
if the Marcionite Evangelion(s) in Epiphanius's time was/were different to the version(s) in the Irenaeus-Tertullian period

Yes, it would be strange if their scriptures hadn’t evolved in the usual way.

[Jonas_Koenig]

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.

Hi Vocesanticae, I am wondering if there is an easy way to download one of these files and then upload it into Accordance. I would love to be able to put up BeDuhn's text and one of the Synoptic texts side-by-side.

[maryhelena]

Epiphanius alleges numerous times that Marcion « added » this or that to the text of Luke.

One has to wonder
if the Marcionite Evangelion(s) in Epiphanius's time was/were different to the version(s) in the Irenaeus-Tertullian period

Yes, it would be strange if their scriptures hadn’t evolved in the usual way.

If so - then perhaps the job of reconstruction of the Evangelion evolves far more that debates over what Marcion mutilated from Luke's gospel. In other words; as the canonical gospel story developed, so to did the Evangelion. Consequently, to get back to a bare bones Evangelion it would be necessary to removed from it ideas that belong to a later period.

First up would be removing the 15th year of Tiberius. Perhaps second would be to remove all references to John the Baptist. Maybe what's left would be a simple story of Jesus, his parables and his crucifixion. After all, if Klinghardt is right that the Evangelion is the oldest gospel (of a developing Jesus story) then the Evangelion would reflect a very basic storyline.

Thus, methinks this issue is more about what the Marcionites added to the Evangelion rather than the church 'fathers' claiming Marcion mutilated the gospel of Luke.

[vocesanticae]

Both canonical Luke and Marcion's Gospel evolved between the late 2nd century and 4th century, but the evidence points to an overarching stable form for both from the late 2nd century forward. The Tiberius tradition is commonplace and well-attested among several early sources. So are Baptist traditions regarding Jesus' message to John, as well as the absence of any baptism of Jesus (wherein Marcion's Gospel and the Gospel of John align on his non-baptism, and on his being anointed previously by a woman). There were clearly a few later additions, but these represent less than a handful of verses and less than 100 words altogether in a text that was likely around 7000-8000 words. Most of the changes--based on close comparison of Tertullian (as a relatively early source) and Epiphanius and Adamantius Dialogue (as relatively later sources)--are rewordings. Such rewordings can be highly significant, but quantitatively speaking, they are minimal.

[maryhelena]

Both canonical Luke and Marcion's Gospel evolved between the late 2nd century and 4th century, but the evidence points to an overarching stable form for both from the late 2nd century forward.

Both are attested at that time. I agree that probably the gospel of Luke was post Antiquities (93/94 c.e.) as it relied on Josephus for dating Pilate in Judaea in the 15th year of Tiberius. That said, that the gospel in procession of Marcion is dated post Antiquities is another question all together.

The Tiberius tradition is commonplace and well-attested among several early sources.

In an earlier post I quoted from https://zenodo.org/record/7893881. I did not find it such a cut and dry case that the 15th year of Tiberius was without question. Granted, by the time the church 'fathers' had contact with the Evangelion it probably already had that date added to it.

So are Baptist traditions regarding Jesus' message to John, as well as the absence of any baptism of Jesus (wherein Marcion's Gospel and the Gospel of John align on his non-baptism, and on his being anointed previously by a woman).

That the John the Baptist passaged were in the Evangelion at the time the church 'fathers' were dealing with it - says nothing about how the Evangelion looked prior to that time.

There were clearly a few later additions, but these represent less than a handful of verses and less than 100 words altogether in a text that was likely around 7000-8000 words. Most of the changes--based on close comparison of Tertullian (as a relatively early source) and Epiphanius and Adamantius Dialogue (as relatively later sources)--are rewordings. Such rewordings can be highly significant, but quantitatively speaking, they are minimal.

Perhaps the additions, for example of John the Baptist, would not raise an eyebrow - after all this figure became part of the gospel Jesus story. While the John figure has relevance to the gospel of John, the addition of a John story in the Evangelion has no relevance to it's storyline re it's miracle worker and parable teaching philosopher figure.

Dating Marcion and dating a manuscript are two very different things. That this manuscript underwent it's own additions or substructions would be par for the course in ancient gospel manuscripts. As I suggested above, it's not sufficient to simply propose that Marcion's Evangelion preceded the gospel of Luke - that Marcion did not mutilate Luke. The Jesus story is pre Antiquities and it's ambiguous dating of Pilate - evidenced by the Josephan TF (and no I don't believe Eusebius did a whole cloth interpolation...). One can even go a step back to the old Slavonic Josephus and it's wonder worker - a narrative now set alongside Josephus's War. (dated around 75 c.e.)

Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison: 46 (Arbeiten Zur Geschichte Des Antiken Judentums Und Des Urchri)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Josephus-Jewis ... d018483bf9

Perhaps, at the end of the day, it is Klinghardt that will push the Evangelion debate forward. Claiming the Evangelion to be the oldest gospel will undoubtedly be challenged by other scholars - but is that not always the way with intellectual progress......

[maryhelena]

A version of the Marcion Evangelion is attested in the 2nd century - and that this version had the 15th year of Tiberius.

1) No gospel prior to the gospel of Luke found a need to use this date. i.e. the Jesus story is set within the time of Tiberius and Pilate. The gospels of John, Matthew and Mark finding no need to specify a date. (the linkage of Pilate and Tiberius is attested by Philo). Consequently, the Lukan author is an outlier. Why did Luke do this ? An answer to that question might shed some light on why the 15th year of Tiberius is not a date that the Marcionities would, knowingly, be interested in using. Why then is it there in the Evangelion ? Did the Marcionits, naively, decide to update the gospel in their possession without considering why Luke was so keen on this date ?

2) Luke was not without motive in using the 15th year of Tiberius for his Jesus narrative. In that introduction of the 15th year of Tiberius he lists other rulers - among them Lysanias of Abilene - an historical figure that was long dead in the 15th year of Tiberius.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysanias

Lysanias was the ruler of a tetrarchy, centered on the town of Abila. This has been referred to by various names including Abilene, Chalcis and Iturea, from about 40-36 BC. Josephus is our main source for his life.

The father of Lysanias was Ptolemy, son of Mennaeus, who ruled the tetrarchy before him. Ptolemy was married to Alexandra, one of the sisters of Antigonus,[1] and he helped his brother-in-law during the latter's successful attempt to claim the throne of Judea in 40 BC with the military support of the Parthians. Ptolemy had previously supported Antigonus's unsuccessful attempt to take the throne of Judea in 42 BC.

Josephus says in The Jewish War that Lysanias offered the Parthian satrap Barzapharnes a thousand talents and 500 women to bring Antigonus back and raise him to the throne, after deposing Hyrcanus[2] though in his later work, the Jewish Antiquities, he says the offer was made by Antigonus.[3] In 33 BC Lysanias was put to death by Mark Antony for his Parthian sympathies, at the instigation of Cleopatra, who had eyes on his territories.[4]

In 40 b.c. Lysanias of Abilene was involved with Jewish history, in this case with the Hasmoneans. (he was killed, in 33 b.c., by the same Roman, Marc Antony, who had the last Hasmonean King and High priest killed) Lysanias of Abilene, 40 b.c. to the 15th year of Tiberius in 29/30 c.e. is around 70 years. From the 15th year of Tiberius there is around 7 years to the death of Tiberius and the removal of Pilate from Judaea in 37 bc. A linkage back 100 years to 63 b.c. and Hasmonean history. This is why the Lukan writers had an interest in the 15th year of Tiberius. Marcionites might well have sought to update their Evangelion to the 15th year of Tiberius - but they did so at their loss. For now their gospel would forever be associated with the gospel of Luke - and thus deemed to be a late rather than an early gospel.

3) As to the Evangelion and Capharnaum: Again,the Marcionites slipped up utilizing Luke's 15th year of Tiberius - Pilate had no control over Galilee during the 15th year of Tiberius.

Capharnaum has far more relevance, inview of the Evangelion's overall narrative of a miracle worker and parable teaching philosopher, to be looked upon as an ideal place, a Camelot, a Shangri-La La, an Arcadia.

8. The country also that lies over against this lake hath the same name of Gennesareth; its nature is wonderful as well as its beauty; its soil is so fruitful that all sorts of trees can grow upon it, and the inhabitants accordingly plant all sorts of trees there; for the temper of the air is so well mixed that it agrees very well with those several sorts, particularly walnuts, which require the coldest air, flourish there in vast plenty; there are palm trees also, which grow best in hot air; fig trees also and olives grow near them, which yet require an air that is more temperate. One may call this place the ambition of nature, where it forces those plants that are naturally enemies to one another to agree together: it is a happy contention of the seasons, as if every one of them laid claim to this country; for it not only nourishes different sorts of autumnal fruit beyond men’s expectation, but preserves them a great while; it supplies men with the principal fruits, with grapes and figs, continually, during ten months of the year, (11) and the rest of the fruits as they become ripe together through the whole year: for besides the good temperature of the air, it is also watered from a most fertile fountain. The people of the country call it Capharnaum. Some have thought it to be a vein of the Nile, because it produces the Coracin fish as well as that lake does which is near to Alexandria. The length of this country extends itself along the banks of this lake that bears the same name, for thirty furlongs, and is in breadth twenty, And this is the nature of that place.

Josephus: War book 3 ch.10

Capernaum a place of healing, a place that is the ambition of nature. Is this what the author of the Evangelion had in mind when having his Jesus descent to this utopian paradise ?

4) No early gospel narrative had need for the 15th year of Tiberius. The Lukan author did have need for this date - without it he would have been unable to link his gospel narrative to Hasmonean history. The Marcionites, seemingly, were upholding their negative 'evil god' theory of the OT. If they were aware of the full implications of the Lukan usage of the 15th year of Tiberius, it's backwords look to Jewish history - they would surely run a mile....

5) The above applies to the Marcionites and their theological theories. That said, as far as I can see, there is nothing in the Evangelion that can't be viewed as being part of the developing gospel narrative. Once the linkage of the Evangelion to the gospel of Luke - and to the dating for that gospel - the door is open to placing the Evangelion back to where it belongs - the original gospel narrative - as Klinghardt is attempting to demonstrate.

(Yep, I need to update an earlier thread of mine re the gospel order - hopefully within a few days.)
===========
Yes, the Lukan author could have arrived at the 15th year of Tiberius (as an important year in remembering Hasmonean history) without Josephus - but he needed, because of continuing the gospel narrative, to have Pilate in Judaea in that year. Josephus gave the Lukan writer a helping hand...
=============

Now for some dreaming......

[Giuseppe]

The Tiberius tradition is commonplace and well-attested among several early sources. So are Baptist traditions regarding Jesus' message to John, as well as the absence of any baptism of Jesus

Are you saying that in your solution of the Synoptic problem, with the Gospel of the Poor as first gospel, etc. the baptism of Jesus by John was introduced only after (and against) the Marcion's Evangelion ?

I read so:

Numerous passages that have long been incorrectly attributed to Q are removed, most notably the introduction of John the Baptist, the Baptism, and the Temptation.

But the following quote seems to assume by you that you think that the baptism of Jesus by John preceded the Marcion's Evangelion, since it was introduced by Mark and you seem to assume that Mark preceded *Ev: right?

In Qn, the first patrons of Joshua were women, and a woman (likely Miryam, i.e., the Mary later called Magdalene) is the one who anoints him as messiah through sexual congress. The early stratum of Mark (Mk1) later misogynistically undermined and displaced all of this by having Jesus baptized in the Jordan river by a man (John the Baptist) and affirmed as the "son of god" (the Davidic messiah) directly by god as a father figure through a heavenly portent.

https://zenodo.org/record/6215835

[maryhelena]

If the Evangelion is the oldest gospel, as suggested by Klinghardt, then a crucial question needs to be asked - why did it end up in the hands of the Marcoinites ? I think the simple answer is the statement about destroying the Law and the prophets. Matthew attempted to tone it down by using fullfill Instead of destroy.

Obviously, the Law became a major issue during the early years of the Christian movement. If the gospel writers had trouble with it (Luke dropping the charge) how much more so for early Christians. Easy option would be to ignore the difficult gospel - turn a blind eye while the heretics picked it up - and then blast away at their use of it.

=========
added later

I think that the Marcionites made a mistake in updating the Evangelion - copying the Lukan writer - to the 15th year of Tiberius and Pilate. I don't think the destroy, or re Klinghardt, dissolves, the Law and the prophets statement was a Marcionites interpolation (even though it obviously serves their interests). The question of the Law and the prophets was the fundamental issue of early Christianity - or maybe to be more precise - the fundamental issue for Jewish christians. It's so basic an issue that to deny it as being in the Evangelion - when arguing for the Evangelion being the original gospel narrative - would make no sense at all.

Christian history, as we all know, eventually set up it's own theology and church structures. In that context the Law and the prophets were displaced, being not necessary for Christians. So, historically speaking, the gospel Jesus figure, destroyed, dissolved, the necessity for Christians to uphold the Law and the prophets.

Practically speaking, while the Mosaic Law was not required for Christians - Law, as a natural necessity for humans to exist, could never be dissolved or destroyed. However, within a theological or philosophical context, the removal of the Mosaic Law for Jewish christians allowed the principle involved - that of a negativity between Jew and Greek - to be transfered, removed, to a purely philosophical, intellectual context. Indicating, of course, that whoever wrote the Evangelion was light years away from the early church fathers......