Why did Marcion adopt the gospel of Luke?

[Michael BG]

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

I'm sure that there are many instances where Klinghardt can be called out by critics - as all proposed solutions to the synoptic problem have been. From my perspective, from reading the Klinghardt article, he has offered an avenue for further research by his inclusion of the gospel of Marcion in the synoptic debate.

While Klinghardt' Marcion scenario places Marcion' gospel prior to gLuke that is not it's only significance - it's the historical questions that arise. Questions dealing directly with Marcion and the NT figure of Paul:

Thank you for commenting favourably on my comment.

It is my understanding that Mk 13 can be used to assert that Mark was most likely written after 41 CE and before about 75 CE. The 41 CE date comes from Mark using a document written about the time that the Emperor Gaius Caligula wanted to erect a statue of himself as a god in the Temple. The 75 CE date is because Mark does not use the same language as Josephus (writing in about 75 CE) to describe the fall of Jerusalem.

One of the reasons that Paul’s authentic letters are dated earlier than Mark is because Paul believes that Jesus Christ and the general resurrection will come in his lifetime. Mark retains much of this tradition, but hints at its delay, while both Matthew and Luke have a delayed Parousia. As it is generally accepted that Marcion has the same wording as huge parts of Luke this must also date Marcion after Paul and Mark with a delayed Parousia.

[maryhelena]

to maryhelena,
I do not have a clue on what you are talking about, except you are rejecting Acts.

I'm not rejecting Acts. What I am rejecting is the literal reading of Acts i.e. a literal interpretation of the story contained in Acts.

There is no way that the story contained in Acts can be verified historically. Taking Acts on trust, that it is really a factual account of early christian history, is unwarranted.

No, Bernard, what it all means is that there are two very specific developments in early christianity - a Marcionite and a Pauline development. One development followed on from the other utilizing written sources from the earlier development. The debate is over which came first - the Marcionite or the Pauline. When that debate is settled then one can begin to debate who wrote what.....

So what came first, BTW?

Cordially, Bernard

What came first? In the context of early christian history Marcionism came first. Paul, as the story in Acts relates, came late to the developing christian movement. The debate is over how late was the Pauline development. The chronology in Acts is part of an origin story of early christian history - a condensed version. It's chronology is tied to a biblical 40 year framework. Acts is not an historical, not a chronological, account of the development of early Christianity.

[maryhelena]

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

I'm sure that there are many instances where Klinghardt can be called out by critics - as all proposed solutions to the synoptic problem have been. From my perspective, from reading the Klinghardt article, he has offered an avenue for further research by his inclusion of the gospel of Marcion in the synoptic debate.

While Klinghardt' Marcion scenario places Marcion' gospel prior to gLuke that is not it's only significance - it's the historical questions that arise. Questions dealing directly with Marcion and the NT figure of Paul:

Thank you for commenting favourably on my comment.

It is my understanding that Mk 13 can be used to assert that Mark was most likely written after 41 CE and before about 75 CE. The 41 CE date comes from Mark using a document written about the time that the Emperor Gaius Caligula wanted to erect a statue of himself as a god in the Temple. The 75 CE date is because Mark does not use the same language as Josephus (writing in about 75 CE) to describe the fall of Jerusalem.

Mk 13 is apocalyptic boilerplate. Interpreting such things is anyone's game.....

One of the reasons that Paul’s authentic letters are dated earlier than Mark is because Paul believes that Jesus Christ and the general resurrection will come in his lifetime. Mark retains much of this tradition, but hints at its delay, while both Matthew and Luke have a delayed Parousia. As it is generally accepted that Marcion has the same wording as huge parts of Luke this must also date Marcion after Paul and Mark with a delayed Parousia.

What people believed, what theology they entertained, is of no great concern in my investigation of early christian origins. Hence, what Paul believed, or what is interpreted as what Paul believed, is of little value for an historical investigation. The big issue is Paul himself. Was Paul historical or ahistorical?

• PAUL: THE PENNY FINALLY DROPS
  
  Like Hebrew narrative, the epistles are
  reticent. And composite. And repetitive. And, standing out
  from the list: like Hebrew narrative, the epistles are
  historicized fiction.
  
  Historicized fiction.
  
  A mass of data had suddenly fallen into place.
  What hit me was that the entire narrative regarding Paul,
  everything the thirteen epistles say about him or imply-about his life,
  his work and travels, his character, his sending and receiving of letters,
  his readers and his relationship to them-all of that was historicized fiction.
  It was fiction, meaning that the figure of Paul was a work of imagination,
  but this figure had been historicized-presented in a way that made it look like history,
  history like, 'fiction made to resemble the uncertainties of life in history'.
  
  Thomas Brodie: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus.

[Peter Kirby]

Justin Martyr: First Apologia (to Antoninus Pius)

And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator.

Marcion alive when First Apologia written? (Antoninus Pius 138 - 161 c.e.) If an earlier, 1st century, date for the figure of Marcion is entertained, then this dating by Justin would have to be viewed in relation to the teaching of Marcion being 'alive', still causing trouble, and not the figure of Marcion.

Maybe, but that is not logical, because that is not what Justin says at all. Justin says that Marcion is alive at the time.

[Michael BG]

It is my understanding that Mk 13 can be used to assert that Mark was most likely written after 41 CE and before about 75 CE. The 41 CE date comes from Mark using a document written about the time that the Emperor Gaius Caligula wanted to erect a statue of himself as a god in the Temple. The 75 CE date is because Mark does not use the same language as Josephus (writing in about 75 CE) to describe the fall of Jerusalem.

Mk 13 is apocalyptic boilerplate. Interpreting such things is anyone's game.....

One of the reasons that Paul’s authentic letters are dated earlier than Mark is because Paul believes that Jesus Christ and the general resurrection will come in his lifetime. Mark retains much of this tradition, but hints at its delay, while both Matthew and Luke have a delayed Parousia. As it is generally accepted that Marcion has the same wording as huge parts of Luke this must also date Marcion after Paul and Mark with a delayed Parousia.

What people believed, what theology they entertained, is of no great concern in my investigation of early christian origins. Hence, what Paul believed, or what is interpreted as what Paul believed, is of little value for an historical investigation. The big issue is Paul himself. Was Paul historical or ahistorical?
...
the epistles are historicized fiction.

I think it is unfortunate that you dismiss a textual discussion of Mk 13 as a means of assisting in the dating of Mark and a discussion of the theology of the writers of Paul’s letters, Mark, Matthew, Luke and Marcion to assist in their dating relative to each other. I do wonder what evidence you use to date any of these texts as you seem to just make assertions rather than present any evidence. I am interested in having evidence presented that I can consider (as I considered Klinghardt) so I can change what I think about these issues.

[maryhelena]

It is my understanding that Mk 13 can be used to assert that Mark was most likely written after 41 CE and before about 75 CE. The 41 CE date comes from Mark using a document written about the time that the Emperor Gaius Caligula wanted to erect a statue of himself as a god in the Temple. The 75 CE date is because Mark does not use the same language as Josephus (writing in about 75 CE) to describe the fall of Jerusalem.

Mk 13 is apocalyptic boilerplate. Interpreting such things is anyone's game.....

One of the reasons that Paul’s authentic letters are dated earlier than Mark is because Paul believes that Jesus Christ and the general resurrection will come in his lifetime. Mark retains much of this tradition, but hints at its delay, while both Matthew and Luke have a delayed Parousia. As it is generally accepted that Marcion has the same wording as huge parts of Luke this must also date Marcion after Paul and Mark with a delayed Parousia.

What people believed, what theology they entertained, is of no great concern in my investigation of early christian origins. Hence, what Paul believed, or what is interpreted as what Paul believed, is of little value for an historical investigation. The big issue is Paul himself. Was Paul historical or ahistorical?
...
the epistles are historicized fiction.

I think it is unfortunate that you dismiss a textual discussion of Mk 13 as a means of assisting in the dating of Mark and a discussion of the theology of the writers of Paul’s letters, Mark, Matthew, Luke and Marcion to assist in their dating relative to each other. I do wonder what evidence you use to date any of these texts as you seem to just make assertions rather than present any evidence. I am interested in having evidence presented that I can consider (as I considered Klinghardt) so I can change what I think about these issues.

I'm interested in history not theology, nor apocalyptic. I don't think either is an avenue that can produce any worthwhile forward movement in the search for early christian origins.

Evidence? If only there were such......

What we have is the NT story. We either take that story literally or we take it as a retelling of history through the medium of symbolism, allegory or mythology. A retelling of history that has been done through a prophetic lens. The sort of thing that produced the Hebrew scriptures. History as salvation history; history as interpreted as having meaning for those doing the interpretation. It is the history that is behind the story that is important for searching for early christian origins. What was that history and what was it within that history that the NT writers found to be meaningful.

As to dating NT writings - all that is being dated are copies of copies. Dating a copy says nothing about the age or origin of the story the copy is recording.

As to Klinghardt - he is saying that Marcion used gMark rather than gLuke. i.e. the Marconite writings were prior to gLuke. gLuke is usually dated as the last of the synoptic gospels - probably as late as Antiquities. That scenario would date Marcion/Marcionism prior to the usual dating for this movement.
How early and how an early date for Marcion/Marcionism would reflect on the NT dating for Paul - a dating that is itself open to question - is where debate and research is needed.

[Michael BG]

I think you have misunderstood what I wrote. I am trying to get you to discuss the dating of the texts. This is part of discussing Christian origins as it is from the Christian tradition that these texts arose and were valued. When the dating of Genesis is discussed the nature of the text is recognised, but textual criticism is still used to assist in the dating of the text. When Daniel (an apocalyptic document) is dated, the text is used to date it to between 167 and 164 BCE. We are not dating copies of copies, we are discussing dating the texts from what is in them. To talk about discussing the extant copies does little to get us close to when the texts were written, but sometimes might provide a cut-off date when it can be stated clearly the text had been written by.

As I have demonstrated Klinghardt’s theory that Luke used Marcion is weak. Also on page 22 Klinghardt writes, “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.” Klinghardt does not provide any evidence for this guess. The order of Marcion being the same as Luke and following Mark and including the same redaction to Mark as Luke, does nothing to prove that Marcion used Mark and not Luke. He would need to provide examples of Marcion following Mark when Luke does not to bring his guess within the scope of possibilities.

Of course I may have misunderstood what you have written and you may only be saying “wouldn’t it be interesting if Marcion was not based on Luke and was earlier than Luke, but I have no idea if this is true. Wouldn’t it be great, that even after 134 years when first proposed by Charles B. Waite, if someone would do more work on it.”

[maryhelena]

I think you have misunderstood what I wrote. I am trying to get you to discuss the dating of the texts. This is part of discussing Christian origins as it is from the Christian tradition that these texts arose and were valued.

I think I made my position clear:

As to dating NT writings - all that is being dated are copies of copies. Dating a copy says nothing about the age or origin of the story the copy is recording.

Discussing Christian origins is a historical question. Dating texts relates to the history of the text - not to the story the texts contain. It is the story that is paramount not the manuscript that contains the story. Which gospel came first is not a matter of dating a manuscript. It is story development that can shed light on that. Sure, the various gospels have been edited, updated, etc - with the result that arguments over which gospel was first are still being made. Adding later material to an older gospel can cause problems - not just of dating a manuscript the story is recorded in - but of causing problems re the development of the story itself. What to do? Stick with attempts to date the manuscripts - a position that is subject to change with any new manuscript discovery - or attempt to discern the development of the story itself. My money is on the story itself not the manuscripts that contain the story....it's the message not the messenger that is of fundamental importance....

When the dating of Genesis is discussed the nature of the text is recognised, but textual criticism is still used to assist in the dating of the text. When Daniel (an apocalyptic document) is dated, the text is used to date it to between 167 and 164 BCE. We are not dating copies of copies, we are discussing dating the texts from what is in them. To talk about discussing the extant copies does little to get us close to when the texts were written, but sometimes might provide a cut-off date when it can be stated clearly the text had been written by.

Sure, one can make an interpretation of Daniel's apocalyptic text and allow ones interpretation of this apocalyptic text to date the manuscript. Tomorrow another apocalyptic interpretation could well produce a different dating scenario. Seems a bit like putting that tail on the donkey when blindfolded....All fun and games without any relevance for historical research...

As I have demonstrated Klinghardt’s theory that Luke used Marcion is weak. Also on page 22 Klinghardt writes, “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.” Klinghardt does not provide any evidence for this guess. The order of Marcion being the same as Luke and following Mark and including the same redaction to Mark as Luke, does nothing to prove that Marcion used Mark and not Luke. He would need to provide examples of Marcion following Mark when Luke does not to bring his guess within the scope of possibilities.

Like all solutions to the synoptic problem Klinghardt' suggestion is open to debate - take ones pick of those on offer, run with it to see how far it goes....

Of course I may have misunderstood what you have written and you may only be saying “wouldn’t it be interesting if Marcion was not based on Luke and was earlier than Luke, but I have no idea if this is true. Wouldn’t it be great, that even after 134 years when first proposed by Charles B. Waite, if someone would do more work on it.”

Yep, it really would be great if scholarly attention was given to Klinghardt's suggestion

Christ myth theory

• The beginnings of the formal denial of the existence of Jesus can be traced to late 18th-century France, and the works of Constantin François Chassebœuf de Volney and Charles-François Dupuis. Volney and Dupuis argued that Christianity was an amalgamation of various ancient mythologies and that Jesus was a totally mythical character.

So, because the debate has not been resolved, the ahistoricists/mythicists should close up shop and go home.......

[maryhelena]

Marcion' gospel the source of gMark?

Just found this via google:

• When I did invite Matthias Klinghardt to give a paper at a Marcion seminar at the 2011 International Conference on Patristic Studies, Oxford, he repeated his view which he had published before, namely that he believed Mark to be the oldest Gospel, from which the others, including Mcn (his short cut for Marcion’s Gospel – although maintaining that this text has not been written or even redacted, but only used by Marcion). Now that he has done the reconstruction of Mcn (his reconstruction is announced to be published in due course), he has corrected is older view and takes Mcn to be the source even of Mark.
  
  http://markusvinzent.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... nizer.html

Klinghardt' book has been published - unfortunately, in German....

Das älteste Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen Evangelien Band I: Untersuchung | Band II: Rekonstruktion, ÜberSetzung, Varianten (German) Perfect Paperback – Mar 2015
by Matthias Klinghardt (Author)

• Description
  The meticulous comparison between the Gospel, which was located in Marcion's "Bible", and the canonical Gospel of Luke is the basis of this study. Its main thesis is that this "Marcionite" Gospel is no editing of Luke's Gospel, but its main source.
  This results in a revision of key assumptions of the New Testament scholarship in the 19th and 20th centuries resulted: The Marcion and other on the 2nd. Century rezipierte Gospel is the oldest depiction of Jesus and his fate. It was based on all the other Gospels, and was edited by them in different ways. The literary relationships between the Gospels, therefore, find a different explanation than the current models, especially the "two-source theory". Because of this oldest gospel has acted on the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, it is also responsible for a large part of the variations in the gospel tradition. For textual criticism thus provides a plausible explanation for the origin of editorial variants.
  The methodological synopsis of text, editing and tradition History confirms the thesis that the New Testament is an output from the mid-2nd century.
  
  https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/books/detail/- ... um/5248129

[Adam]

Marcion' gospel the source of gMark?

Just found this via google:
Klinghardt' book has been published - unfortunately, in German....
https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/books/detail/- ... um/5248129[/list]

FORTUNATELY, only in German.
I read Klinghardt's acclaimed article and didn't believe any of it worth discussing.
For English speakers who can read German, they're hopefully sophisticated enough to discern whether any of his book was worth publishing.
For German speakers, unfortunately....