MrMacSon wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 1:29 pm
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 12:50 pm
Loisy's response to Couchoud concerning the two pericopes of material which are not attested in Luke:
Loisy - Reply - Bottom 379.png
Loisy - Reply - Top 380.png
Loisy's argument against Couchoud, to put it simply, is that the attestation for attributing these two pericopes to Marcion is insufficient.
Do any of the recent reconstructions of Marcion, such as Jason BeDuhn's, or Dieter Roth's, or Matthias Klinghardt's, include them? I can't recall that they do, but perhaps I overlooked something. Can anyone point to a reconstruction of the text of Marcion in the most recent generation of scholarship that does consider these pericopes to have been in the Marcion's Evangelion?
Best,
Ken
Alfred Loisy, 'Marcion's Gospel. A Reply',
Hibbert Journal 34 (1936): 378-387.
Couchoud only uses these two pericopes to say
there is no evidence of addition by Marcion, as highlighted. The point and the use of them is one of
the lesser of Couchoud's points in this article.
Couchoud's claim that there is no evidence that Marcion added the two non-Lukan pericopes he attributes to the Evangelion is not the only use he makes of them. He is making an argument against Harnack's reconstruction of the Evangelion, starting in the last paragraph on p. 265:
- Couchoud 265.png (148.17 KiB) Viewed 105 times
- Couchoud 266.png (204.01 KiB) Viewed 105 times
facts as those just quoted. The problem must be reconsidered from the beginning. [Couchoud p. 267]
MrMacSon wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2024 9:55 pm
... When an author wishes to re-model a text so as to conform to a given doctrine it is not often that he can accomplish his task with nothing but a pair of scissors to help him. It is much easier for him to use the glue-pot and stick additions into the text which he is at perfect liberty to compose for his own purpose. But this is a mere assumption.
Let us begin with the two incidents peculiar to Marcion, that is, those [in] which [additions] are not found in Luke. Are they consistent with the main part of the gospel?
The arrogant and much-resented request of the sons of Zebedee (the account of which shows these two apostles in a somewhat unfavourable light), has an exact parallel in an incident common to both Luke (ix. 52-55) and Marcion, where Zebedee's sons ask Jesus for permission to bring down fire from Heaven on the inhospitable Samaritan village, and receive from Jesus a severe rebuke. These two rebukes to James and John are both written in the same style and spirit. It is, therefore, very unlikely that Marcion made an addition.
The washing of feet is not found in Luke, but, curiously enough, the text common to Marcion and Luke contains an allusion to it. Actually, Jesus says (Luke xxii. 26-27 D.): "He that is chief let him be as he that doth serve, for whether is greater, he that sits at meat or he that serves ? ... But I am amongst you as he that serves."
From this it would appear that Luke has omitted the episode but retained the moral. There is, therefore, no evidence even here of any addition by Marcion.
On the first pericope, I think Loisy is misrepresenting Couchoud, ie. Couchoud does not claim that it "proves Marcion's gospel was independent' of Luke":
There is an implied argument in Couchoud's claim that the two pericopes are not additions by Marcion:
Premise 1: The two pericopes are in the text of the Evangelion
Premise 2: The two pericopes are not in the text of Luke
Premise 3: The two pericopes are not additions by Marcion
Conclusion: It follows that Luke must have omitted the two pericopes from his source (since Marcion did not add them) and Marcion therefore has the earlier form of the text.
Couchoud rejects premise 1. It cannot be shown that the two pericopes were in the Evangelion.
[I am discussing Couchoud's points (2) and (3) from page 266, but have reserved discussion of Couchoud's point (1) for another post on Marcion and Matt 5.17]
It's not clear what Loisy's point is there wrt Marcion and the second pericope (other than a Luke versus Matthew and Luke difference).
It is clear if you read what Couchoud wrote about the pericope on p. 266 (2): 'the Washing of the Feet is only found in John, not in Luke'. Couchoud is claiming there is a pericope which is shared by the Evangelion and John which is not in Luke. Loisy is saying that Couchoud does not have sufficient evidence to say there was such a pericope in the Evangelion.
- Loisy's claims that "Marcion himself suggested this gloss in the Antitheses" or that "he inserted the anecdote with the gloss added in the Evangelion" also misrepresent and miss Couchoud's point [of there being no evidence that Marcion added to Luke]; a point somewhat at odds with the general charge that Marcion removed from Luke, but Couchoud was making the point that it is more common to add, rather than remove.
Loisy is not misrepresenting Couchoud's point. He is saying that Couchoud's implication that Luke removed material from his source (which Couchoud takes to be the Evangelion or something very much like it) would require first that he show that the material was in the Evangelion in the first place, and the arguments he makes for that are insufficient (See my next comment below about the distinction between Marcion and Marcionites).
The point about the plausibility of writing or editing a gospel primarily by removing and reinterpreting material rather than adding new material is indeed a big issue and requires discussion, but is not relevant to Loisy's criticism of Couchoud here.
And it seems Loisy thought that Origen thought Marcion alluded to the sons of Zebedee pericope.
No, you missed the distinction between what Marcion himself may have written in the Evangelion and what later Marcionites may have written about Marcion.
Andrew Criddle and Peter Kirby have discussed the point here:
viewtopic.php?p=170465#p170465
Best,
Ken
NB: I would draw a distinction between the Evangelion's use of non-Lukan pericopes and the Evangelion's possible use of non-Lukan readings within Lukan pericopes. It does not appear to me that Couchoud and Loisy are making that distinction clearly.