Why did Marcion adopt the gospel of Luke?

[Adam]

C'mon, Stephan,
I see nothing wrong with saying some authority you remember for sure supports your position. What's wrong in this case is to cite someone whom everyone knows has a bias in favor of Marcion. Wasn't Marcionism basically his religion?

[maryhelena]

What are the general theories? In particular, why did he choose it instead of the earlier Mark?

OK - here is an idea that is, so to speak, out of the box.....

Early Christianity has two major players - Saul/Paul from Tarsus and Marcion from Sinop in Pontus. The consensus dating places Paul early and Marcion late. My suggestion is to reverse the order of these two figures. The Marcion or Marcionite tradition is early - thus their gospel would likely be gMark. The Paul tradition is late - thus gLuke would be the focus.

Yep, many questions would arise from this suggestion - but, methinks, other avenues for research are surely needed. To my mind, neither Marcion nor Paul are historical figures. Both these literary figures, while possibly reflecting two major figures in early christianity, are primarily symbols of two development stages in early christian history. The NT book of Acts has combined these two development stories, the early and the late history, into one story - the story of Saul/Paul. Early Marcion/Marcionism has been submerged into the later history of Saul/Paul. The later Saul/Paul story being backdated to the time frame of early Marcionism.

Thus: the Marcion/Marcionism early tradition = gMark. The Saul/Paul later tradition = gLuke. Both traditions or developments being combined via the pseudo-history of Acts. The 'great heretic' is not Marcion/Marcionism - the 'great heretic' is a post 70 c.e. - probably a post 93/94 c.e. (Antiquities) Paul.

(I have posted this idea on a number of FRDB threads. This is how I view things as of now... ..)

[lsayre]

I believe that it is only quite recently that Matthias Klinghardt has come to the conclusion that Marcion preceded Mark. In most of what can be found on the internet it appears that he is still of the opinion that Marcion built upon Mark as his base and only influenced Matthew and Luke.

[Peter Kirby]

Now back to gMarcion being the first gospel: it seems that thread is moving in that direction.

I don't believe it either.

Why don't we talk about Valentinus for a change? Or any of the other fascinating heretics? Is it only because they don't offer us the opportunity to 'rewrite the Bible', as it were?

I believe that it is only quite recently that Matthias Klinghardt has come to the conclusion that Marcion preceded Mark. In most of what can be found on the internet it appears that he is still of the opinion that Marcion built upon Mark as his base and only influenced Matthew and Luke.

With the caveat that it's common to think that "Marcion" didn't do this--the synoptic-like evangelist whose gospel Marcion selected for his one-gospel canon, out of all the synoptic-like gospels available, did this (+ possibly some editing from Marcion for the final result, but that is indeed the point of distinction and disagreement there).

Like a lot of authors (including synoptic-like gospel authors--think of the harmony often believed to be behind Justin Martyr's gospel use, or the very palpable scraps of papyrus that show up in Oxyrhynchus that look synoptic-ish but correspond to no canonical gospel), the name would be lost.

[Secret Alias]

Marcion is the ultimate "anti-establishment" position. VALENTINE (why do we keep calling him Valentinus) not so much. Valentine is like Madame Blavatsky. Pretentious. You can't start a revolution with Valentinism. Just a bunch of bored rich people. And besides Peter your job is to keep the site entertaining. Our job is to seek after the truth. Valentine leads nowhere especially in the context of the original post in this thread. It all comes down to Irenaeus vs Marcion. Those who search after Marcion are basically waiting for those who trust Irenaeus's inventions to die off. Then we take over. We gather together the first Monday in each month to plot our coup

[Peter Kirby]

My job? Should I start asking for a cover charge, then?

Valentinus is loopy and would work well with bored rich housewives, sure, but doesn't that say something about early Christianity as well?

[Michael BG]

Propositions that Marcion's Gospel preceded Luke have been around for quite a while -
...
Klinghardt has also suggested Marcion's Gospel preceded Matthew.

• Matthias Klinghardt (2008) 'The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion'
  • Novum Testamentum; 50(1):1-27. - full article: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B75F1hK ... edit?pli=1

I think Klinghardt wants his cake and eat it too. He says that Luke using Marcion can replace the theory that Luke used Matthew and the need for Q in the two source theory, then he writes “It is only in the first example (Jesus’ answer to the Baptist in Matt. 3:15) that Luke did not follow Mcn but Matthew” (p 13) and “it is clear that Luke did use Matthew. This is in particular true for the birth stories where the close parallels between Matthew and Luke have long been registered” (p 14) With regard to John the Baptist Klinghardt states that Marcion does not have anything about Jesus being baptisted by John or his temptation and Luke got his double tradition from Matthew.

[maryhelena]

Propositions that Marcion's Gospel preceded Luke have been around for quite a while -


Klinghardt has also suggested Marcion's Gospel preceded Matthew.

• Matthias Klinghardt (2008) 'The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion'
  • Novum Testamentum; 50(1):1-27. - full article:
    
    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B75F1hK ... edit?pli=1

Thanks for that link - finally got around to reading it...

• ''Finally, it is clear that this paper only intends to open the window for
  further discussion: I am fully aware that I am far from seeing all the
  implications and consequences of this suggestion, neither within the realm of
  the traditional issues of the synoptic problem nor the historical consequences
  that lie beyond it. But since this model provides a solution of the
  contentious issues of the present debate, it may help to break the deadlock
  in which the discussion of the synoptic problem seems to be caught for too
  long now.''

[/list][/list]

Replacing Q with the gospel of Marcion - sounds about right to me....

The interesting point that Klinghardt' reversal brings about is that there would be ''historical consequences'' for such a scenario. i.e. Marcion then gLuke rather than gLuke then Marcion.

Klinghardt has Marcion's gospel following gMark.

• ''Since I did not closely investigate the relation between Mark and
  Mcn, the direction of this relation (1) is, at this point of the discussion, a
  mere guess: Supposing that the influence runs from Mark to Mcn, the
  arrow (1) indicates that Mcn is an altered and enlarged re-edition of Mark''.

Now then, if one removes the Herodias/Philip/Herod Antipas story from gMark (viewing it as a later addition) and removes the John the Baptist JC baptism (viewing it as a later edition) I wonder if the gospel of Marcion could be an UrMark????? (interestingly, Slavonic Josephus has no JC baptism by JtB).

Thus, gLuke has not been corrupted by Marcion/Marcionism. Instead gLuke has used the gospel of Marcion as a source.

And the historical consequences of this reversal of the Luke/Marcion debate? Marcion/Marcionism is, re Klinghardt, linked to gMark. gMark usually dated pre 70 c.e. James Crossley going so far as to suggest somewhere around 40 c.e. This early dating for gMark puts into question the usual dating for Marcion/Marcionism i.e. post 100 c.e.

The dating for the NT Paul is questionable. Some scholars running with Acts and others assigning later dates. An early Marcion/Marcionism and a late NT Paul is clearly something that would produce a systematic shift in understanding the early developments of Christianity.

A suggestion: The NT Paul, the 'Paul' development in early Christianity is late - probably post 93/94 c.e. (post Antiquities). The story in Acts has amalgamated two separate developments into the story of Saul/Paul and placed it's story pre 70 c.e. Two developments condensed, by Acts, into one story of Christian origins. A Jewish story and a Christian story. Methinks we jettison our search for early christian origins if we allow the later Paul story to trump the earlier Marcion/Marcionism story.

Marcionism may well have sought to further Jewish theology as in seeking to further a 'heresy'. But it is 'Paul' who was the apostate. One movement sought an internal theological development. The other movement sought a break with the past. Marcionism, being still alive during the later Pauline development, would eventually be submerged into it or be condemned by the victorious Pauline fraction.

Yep, something like that.....

[MrMacSon]

The interesting point that Klinghardt' reversal brings about is that there would be ''historical consequences'' for such a scenario. i.e. Marcion then gLuke; rather than gLuke then Marcion.

Klinghardt has Marcion's gospel following gMark.

• ''Since I did not closely investigate the relation between Mark and Mcn,
  the direction of this relation (1) is, at this point of the discussion, a mere guess:
  Supposing that the influence runs from Mark to Mcn, thearrow (1) indicates that
  Mcn is an altered and enlarged re-edition of Mark''.

Now then, if one removes the Herodias/Philip/Herod Antipas story from gMark (viewing it as a later addition) and removes the John the Baptist JC baptism (viewing it as a later edition) I wonder if the gospel of Marcion could be an UrMark????? (interestingly, Slavonic Josephus has no JC baptism by JtB).

• ...

And the historical consequences of this reversal of the Luke/Marcion debate? Marcion/Marcionism is, re Klinghardt, linked to gMark. gMark usually dated pre 70 c.e. James Crossley going so far as to suggest somewhere around 40 c.e. This early dating for gMark puts into question the usual dating for Marcion/Marcionism i.e. post 100 c.e.

Yes, someone else has, on this site, recently linked Marcion/Marcionism to gMark or urMark.

interestingly, Slavonic Josephus has no JC baptism by JtB.

non-Slavonic Josephus doesn't have JC baptism by JtB,either? - Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119

The dating for the NT Paul is questionable. Some scholars running with Acts and others assigning later dates. An early Marcion/Marcionism and a late NT Paul is clearly something that would produce a systematic shift in understanding the early developments of Christianity.

Yep.

A

suggestion: The NT Paul, the 'Paul' development in early Christianity is late - probably post 93/94 c.e. (post Antiquities). The story in Acts has amalgamated two separate developments into the story of Saul/Paul and placed it's story pre 70 c.e. Two developments condensed, by Acts, into one story of Christian origins. A Jewish story and a Christian story. Methinks we jettison our search for early christian origins if we allow the [later] Paul story to trump the earlier Marcion/Marcionism story.

[Michael BG]

Klinghardt states (p 16) that he believes that “Thy kingdom come” in Luke 11:2 is not the original text but “Thy Holy Spirit come” as in Marcion is the original. It has been suggested that Marcion was influenced by Luke 11:13b – “how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" Some Church Fathers have “Thy Holy Spirit come upon us and cleanse us” but it has been suggested this is a change influenced by baptism. Klinghardt must assume that the current version agreed by scholars is because Luke was changed to match Matthew. My own opinion is that it is more likely that a request for God’s Kingdom to come, which has been long delayed has been changed to a request for the Holy Spirit, which is promised for Christians now by Marcion.

Klinghardt lists 13 parallels of Luke and Matthew (p 17-18) and states that “only four are unattested for Mcn (numbers 1, 7, 8,and 12)”. From this he concludes “The overall picture confirms not only Luke’s direct dependence on Mcn but also demonstrates that Matthew collected the material for the composition of the Sermon on the Mount from different places in Mcn.” Again I disagree, it only demonstrates that this is a possibility but not that it the most likely.

Klinghardt then (p 19) discusses the minor agreement of Luke and Matthew against Mark “Who is it that struck you?" (Mk 14:65, Mt 26:67, Lk 22:64). He seems to dismiss the idea that Matthew has gained this from Luke, but earlier was happy to see Luke changed to agree with Matthew. It should be noted that Matthew does not have “they also blindfolded him” (v 64), which is Luke’s rendering of Mark’s idea that they put a hood over his whole face.

Klinghardt then (p 20) discusses Mk 3:31-5, Mt 12:46-50, Lk 8:19-20, where he states that both Matthew and Luke do not have “and his sisters” of Mk 3:31. However Mark does not have “and his sisters” in verse 31. And only some texts have “and your sisters” in Mk 3:32. However Matthew does have “and sisters” in 12:50 to match Mk 3:35. He implies that Matthew and Luke both have “standing outside” and Mark doesn’t. However Mark does have it in verse 31.

He mentions (p 20) the change from “after three days” of Mk 8:31 to “on the third day” of Mt 16:21, Lk 9:22. It seems that they both have “and third day to-be-roused” (καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐγερθῆναι). Mark has “and after three days to-rise (καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστῆναι). Matthew has a similar phrase at 17:23 where he has changed Mark’s “after three days he will rise” (μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστήσεται) in Mk 9:31 to “and the third day he-will-be-roused” (καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐγερθήσεται), but Luke doesn’t have any day reference at 9:44. Matthew has “and the third day he-will-be-roused” (καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐγερθήσεται) again at Mt 20:19 where Mark has “and after three days he-will-be-rising” (καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστήσεται) in 10:34 and Luke has “and the day the third he-will-be-rising” (καὶ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ ἀναστήσεται) in 18:33. It can be seen clearly from the Greek that Luke has day and third in a different order and a different Greek word is used for “he will be raised”. Mark uses nearly the same term three times. Matthew changes them every time including a different word for “raised”. Luke changes them by firstly having the same phrase as Matthew, secondly not having it at all and thirdly changing the three to third but keeping the Marcan word for raised. It is possible to conclude that the Lucan version at 9.22 has been changed to agree with the word change of Matthew, especially if the scribe has just finished copying Matthew. We are left with thinking of reasons why Luke and Matthew might have changed “after three days” to “the third day”. It is possible that each separately made the change in light of the empty tomb story in Mark. Mark has Jesus executed on Friday let’s call it day one and raised on Sunday let’s call it day three. It does not seem outside the realm of possibilities that each changed them to make the predictions accurate with the empty tomb story.

Klinghardt does give a clear example where he states that Matthew and Luke agree, but Marcion doesn’t – Mk 9:19, Mt 17:17, Lk 9:41, where both Matthew and Luke have added “and perverse” between Mark’s “faithless” and “generation”. And concludes that Luke used Matthew.

I am not sure what the inclusion of Marcion brings to the theory that Luke used Mark and Matthew because Klinghardt still has Luke using both Mark and Matthew.

He also has Matthew using Marcion and suggests that Matthew has edited Marcion because he has rejected the Marcion version of the “L” story of the woman anointing Jesus (7:36-50) for Mark’s (14:3-9) in Mt 26:6-13. He states this explains why there are other “omissions” because Matthew preferred Mark to Marcion. Of course if Matthew did not use either Marcion or Luke this would explain why these are not in Matthew.

Klinghardt just ignores any discussion of where the version in Matthew is generally accepted as older than the version in Luke. I think the Matthean version is closer to the older version than Luke’s in:
Healing of the Centurion’s Servant (Mt 8:5-13, Lk 7:1-10)
Discipleship and leaving home ties (Mt 8:18-22, Lk 9:57-60)
The list of herbs (“mint and dill and cumin”) in the Woes to the Pharisees (Mt 23:23, Lk 11:42)
And the “whitewash tombs” in the Woes (Mt 23:27 Lk 11:44) – for both of these woes I think it is generally accepted that Matthew has the better translation from the Aramaic and Luke’s is a mistranslation.

While it seems that Luke has the older version with his “egg and scorpion” (Lk 11:12), Matthew has the older version with his “fish and serpent” (Mt 7:9a, 10).

Klinghardt accepts that Marcion didn’t include the sayings about Nineveh, the Queen of the South and Solomon (Lk 11:30-32), while having the part about Jonah in Mk 8:11-12 which seems to be in Mt 16:1, 4. It seems to me that both Mt 12:38-42 and Lk 11:29-32 are from “Q”. In my opinion the older tradition is partly in Matthew and partly in Luke and when I last considered this section I concluded that the Q version was:

[38] They said to him, "Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you."
[29] / [39] "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah.
[30] For as Jonah became a sign to the men of Nin'eveh, so will the Son of man be to this generation.
[31] The queen of the South will arise at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them; for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.
[32] The men of Nin'eveh will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.

Therefore the last three verses Luke has the older version. Which is I think not a position that Klinghardt’s theory can explain.

Klinghardt writes, “When I discussed this model with my students, they immediately responded that it was too complicated to be convincing (which was somewhat discouraging at the moment).”

And finally I am left disagreeing with Klinghardt when he concludes “this model provides a solution of the contentious issues of the present debate”.