Marcion's Gospel

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 3307
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by John2 » Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:18 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:11 pm
John2 wrote:
Wed Jan 01, 2020 2:24 pm
Regarding the idea of Marcion's version of Luke having priority over the NT Luke, while I can accept that there could have been more than one version of Luke, I suspect that they were originally all more or less from the same time period and like the NT Luke, and I still have the impression that Marcion altered the version he had access to more or less like Church writers say.
Marcion's gospel (or the gospel tagged as Marcionite by the usual patristic suspects) apparently lacked, based on external evidence, chapters 1-2. Luke itself apparently lacked, based on internal evidence, chapters 1-2, as well. That Luke was written with these two chapters originally and then Marcion sheared them off all of his own accord, as the church fathers would have it, seems very unlikely to me. Rather, either the two chapters had not yet been added in Marcion's time or he excised them from his own version precisely in order to line up with what he knew or thought to be earlier editions.

The other (admittedly smaller) indications of Marcionite priority are also awaiting explanation, to my eye.

Moreover, the Lucan prologue seems to me to be explicitly combining or reconciling different textual traditions; that one of those traditions should have been the one that Marcion inherited and (re)published ought not to come as a surprise.

All of this to say: I think that Marcion altering what he found more or less like the church fathers say is one of the least probable options on the table. That he made alterations to anything he may have found is more than fair; everybody else seems to have made alterations of their own, so why not Marcion, too? But that he made the alterations attributed to him by the church fathers is quite another matter; no way was Marcion solely and originally responsible for the removal of Luke 1-2, for example.

Well, I can live without chapters 1 and 2 being original, and I had them in mind when I said "more or less." So to clarify what I mean by "more or less," I mean that I think Luke, in all its versions from the get-go, presented Jesus like the NT Luke does (and like Mark and Matthew do), i.e., as an OT-based Messiah with an OT God.
Look at the sky, look at the river, isn't it good? Winding, finding places to go.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7471
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Jan 01, 2020 5:05 pm

John2 wrote:
Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:18 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:11 pm
John2 wrote:
Wed Jan 01, 2020 2:24 pm
Regarding the idea of Marcion's version of Luke having priority over the NT Luke, while I can accept that there could have been more than one version of Luke, I suspect that they were originally all more or less from the same time period and like the NT Luke, and I still have the impression that Marcion altered the version he had access to more or less like Church writers say.
Marcion's gospel (or the gospel tagged as Marcionite by the usual patristic suspects) apparently lacked, based on external evidence, chapters 1-2. Luke itself apparently lacked, based on internal evidence, chapters 1-2, as well. That Luke was written with these two chapters originally and then Marcion sheared them off all of his own accord, as the church fathers would have it, seems very unlikely to me. Rather, either the two chapters had not yet been added in Marcion's time or he excised them from his own version precisely in order to line up with what he knew or thought to be earlier editions.

The other (admittedly smaller) indications of Marcionite priority are also awaiting explanation, to my eye.

Moreover, the Lucan prologue seems to me to be explicitly combining or reconciling different textual traditions; that one of those traditions should have been the one that Marcion inherited and (re)published ought not to come as a surprise.

All of this to say: I think that Marcion altering what he found more or less like the church fathers say is one of the least probable options on the table. That he made alterations to anything he may have found is more than fair; everybody else seems to have made alterations of their own, so why not Marcion, too? But that he made the alterations attributed to him by the church fathers is quite another matter; no way was Marcion solely and originally responsible for the removal of Luke 1-2, for example.

Well, I can live without chapters 1 and 2 being original, and I had them in mind when I said "more or less." So to clarify what I mean by "more or less," I mean that I think Luke, in all its versions from the get-go, presented Jesus like the NT Luke does (and like Mark and Matthew do), i.e., as an OT-based Messiah with an OT God.
Thanks for explaining. That makes a lot more sense to me than how I originally interpreted your comments.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3320
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by Bernard Muller » Wed Jan 01, 2020 6:26 pm

Marcion's gospel also did not have Ch. 3 (except part of Lk 3:1) and Ch. 4 up to Lk 4:31. That shows Marcion could eliminate huge chunks of Luke's gospel.
Of course Marcion had many very good reasons not to include these chunks. BTW, part of Lk 1-2 were commented upon by Basilides and Valentinus at about the same time Marcion's gospel made its appearance.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7471
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Jan 01, 2020 6:49 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Wed Jan 01, 2020 6:26 pm
Marcion's gospel also did not have Ch. 3 (except part of Lk 3:1) and Ch. 4 up to Lk 4:31. That shows Marcion could eliminate huge chunks of Luke's gospel.
I agree that parts of chapter 3 were probably eliminated by Marcion; other parts were possibly not there to begin with. Whether or not Marcion could have eliminated sections of the gospel and whether or not he did so in any given case are two very different things.
Of course Marcion had many very good reasons not to include these chunks. BTW, part of Lk 1-2 were commented upon by Basilides and Valentinus at about the same time Marcion's gospel made its appearance.
And yet chapters 1-2 are clearly, on internal grounds, additions to a story line, introduced by 3.1-2, which originally lacked them.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1804
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by andrewcriddle » Thu Jan 02, 2020 1:57 am

MrMacSon wrote:
Mon Dec 30, 2019 9:50 pm
andrewcriddle wrote:
Mon Dec 30, 2019 5:42 am
MrMacSon wrote:
Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:58 pm
andrewcriddle wrote:
Mon Dec 23, 2019 1:38 am
perseusomega9 wrote:
Sat Dec 21, 2019 6:10 am
But why even mention that at all? Mentioning Paul sure, given the tradition of Markion and Paul, but why even bring up gMark unless their was a connection in the tradition?
I made a suggestion of a possible explanation here

Basically Hippolytus is arguing:
i/ The Gospel tradition which Hippolytus, (but apparently not Marcion), attributes to Luke derives from Mark and Paul.
ii/ Marcion’s doctrine cannot be derived from Mark and Paul.
iii/ Therefore, Marcion’s doctrine cannot be regarded as a legitimate version of the Lukan Gospel tradition.

Andrew Criddle
I agree with premises (i) and (ii), but I cannot agree that (ii) is a conclusion or even logically follows from them.
IF all legitimate Lukan traditions derive from Mark and Paul, AND Marcion's doctrine does not derive from Mark and Pau, THEN Marcion's doctrine is not a legitimate Lukan tradition.

Andrew Criddle

"IF" ...

What do you mean by "legitimate Lukan tradition/s" ?? [Traditional perceptions and assertions about the supposed 'Lukan priority tradition' ?? ]

What are your understanding and perceptions of the propositions and arguments of Joseph B Tyson, Jason Beduhn, Markus Vinzent, and Matthias Klinghardt: that the-gospel-attributed-to-Marcion has priority?
I'm explaining what I think may have been Hippolytus' argument. IF Hippolytus believed that authentic Luke derived from Mark and Paul and Hippolytus believed that Marcion's Gospel did not derive from Mark and Paul then Hippolytus would on these premises be entitled to reject Marcion's Gospel as an authentic version of Luke.

As to what I myself hold:

I'm reasonably confident that Mark is earlier than either canonical Luke or Marcion's Gospel and both canonical Luke and Marcion's Gospel have used (directly or indirectly) Mark as a source.

I think it probable that Marcion's Gospel is an edition by Marcion of an earlier gospel similar to canonical Luke but without chapters 1 and 2. (I will call this earlier gospel which I believe Marcion used preMcn)

I am reasonably confident that canonical Luke (with chapters 1 and 2) is older than Marcion.

I am deeply uncertain as to the relation of canonical Luke to preMcn. Possibly canonical Luke is a later edition of preMcn by the same author.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1804
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by andrewcriddle » Thu Jan 02, 2020 2:13 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Mon Dec 30, 2019 8:35 am
That's too complicated Andrew. Can you simplify it a little more?
Hippoltyus claims that Marcion's teaching does not derive from Paul or Mark.
One possible explanation is that Hippolytus knew a tradition that Luke derives from Paul and Mark AND Hippolytus regarded Marcion's Gospel as a version of Luke. If so then in order for Marcion's Gospel to be authentic it would have to derive from Mark and or Paul. Hence the claim by Hippolytus that Marcion's teaching does not derive from Paul or Mark amounts to a denial that Marcion's gospel is based on authentic Christian tradition. (Hippolytus suggests (implausibly) that Marcion's doctrine actually derives from Empedocles.)

The main problem IMO with this explanation of Hippolytus is that although modern scholars are convinced that Luke used Mark, there is no explicit evidence that anyone in the early church realised this.

Andrew Criddle

perseusomega9
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by perseusomega9 » Thu Jan 02, 2020 5:21 am

I'm sure 'Luke' knew

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3320
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by Bernard Muller » Thu Jan 02, 2020 9:34 am

to Ben,
And yet chapters 1-2 are clearly, on internal grounds, additions to a story line, introduced 3.1-2, which originally lacked them.
Yes they are. But it makes more sense if Ch 1-2 was written after gMark got known to a community which valued women and accepted the Jewishness of Jesus. Then after Q & Josephus' Wars got known, gLuke was written (following the concise format of gMark), incorporating Ch 1-2 intact (because already known by Luke's community).
Could Ch 1-2 be written after some proto gLuke was known? Hardly so. In that case, the author would have composed Ch 1-2 very much shorter and without details in order to make it fit the gospel genre shown in gMark and some proto-gLuke.
which originally lacked them
How can you be so affirmative considering the evidence for that (and for the existence of proto-gLuke) is lacking?

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7471
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Jan 02, 2020 10:54 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Thu Jan 02, 2020 9:34 am
to Ben,
And yet chapters 1-2 are clearly, on internal grounds, additions to a story line, introduced 3.1-2, which originally lacked them.
Yes they are. But it makes more sense if Ch 1-2 was written after gMark got known to a community which valued women and accepted the Jewishness of Jesus. Then after Q & Josephus' Wars got known, gLuke was written (following the concise format of gMark), incorporating Ch 1-2 intact (because already known by Luke's community).
The highlighted part does not work for me. Luke 3-24 was not composed in continuation of Luke 1-2, because Luke 3.24 has its own excellent introduction (3.1-2), introduces John by his patronymic as if he had not been introduced before in the narrative, and seems to be ignorant of the relationship between Jesus and John from chapters 1-2. Thus, Luke 3-24 originally stood without Luke 1-2; the evidence is not bidirectional.
Could Ch 1-2 be written after some proto gLuke was known? Hardly so. In that case, the author would have composed Ch 1-2 very much shorter and without details in order to make it fit the gospel genre shown in gMark and some proto-gLuke.
I disagree. Luke 1-2 could have been its own gospel text, standing alone. It ends exactly where the infancy gospel of Thomas ends, for example. The infancy gospels have their own logic and development.
which originally lacked them
How can you be so affirmative considering the evidence for that (and for the existence of proto-gLuke) is lacking? [/quote]

See above. Luke 3-24 was written in ignorance of the introduction provided by Luke 1-2. (I am not specifying which was written first historically; I am not sure about that; I am specifying only that Luke 3-24 was ignorant of Luke 1-2, and therefore stood alone from Luke 1-2, at least for a time.)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3320
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by Bernard Muller » Thu Jan 02, 2020 4:00 pm

to Ben,
The highlighted part does not work for me. Luke 3-24 was not composed in continuation of Luke 1-2, because Luke 3.24 has its own excellent introduction (3.1-2), introduces John by his patronymic as if he had not been introduced before in the narrative, and seems to be ignorant of the relationship between Jesus and John from chapters 1-2. Thus, Luke 3-24 originally stood without Luke 1-2; the evidence is not bidirectional.
Frankly, I don't see what you are trying to express. Are you sure Lk 3:24 is the correct verse for your point? or are you talking about Lk 3:3-24? I will assume you meant Lk 3:3-24 from now on.
I also made the point that Luke 1-2 was composed in total ignorance of Luke's gospel which was written afterwards.
Why would Lk 3:3-24 mention the relationship (again!) between Jesus and John as per Lk 1-2?
And John being mentioned by his patronymic (as son of Zacharias) in Lk 3:2 was the simplest way to identify that "John" as the same one as the one in Lk 1, one full chapter before, as a reminder.
I disagree. Luke 1-2 could have been its own gospel text, standing alone. It ends exactly where the infancy gospel of Thomas ends, for example. The infancy gospels have their own logic and development.

I agree with you that Luke 1-2 was its own gospel text, standing alone. Bringing the infancy gospels, written much later, is irrelevant.

Again, I don't see why Lk 3:3-24 was ignorant of Lk 1. As a matter of fact, Lk3:3-24 has John as the son of Zacharias, as in Lk 1. That's not ignorance.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Post Reply