A Proposal that the Longer Ending of Mark is Dependent on the Gospel of Luke

[Secret Alias]

Someone who spends a lot of time on their own buttressing an arbitrary opinion.

[Bernard Muller]

Hi Ben,

The trouble is that all of these suggestions is possible. We have no direct evidence for any of them (just external patristic rumors and internal directional indications), and the probabilities we are slicing are very fine.

The writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian & Epiphanius about gMarcion do not state patristic rumors.
That Marcion truncated gLuke (and Pauline epistles) is also supported by the internal evidence:
http://historical-jesus.info/53.html
http://historical-jesus.info/73.html
And your evidence is rather not existing concerning the making of Mk 16:9-20 (from parts of a thesis by MacDonald based on quasi- nothing)
As for gMarcion being derived from this proto-Luke, that's pure fancy, more so when proto-Luke is not evidenced to the slightest.
Yes, I would say the possibilities you are slicing are very fine, and not based on solid evidence. That's not my case.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Hi Ben,

The trouble is that all of these suggestions is possible. We have no direct evidence for any of them (just external patristic rumors and internal directional indications), and the probabilities we are slicing are very fine.

The writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian & Epiphanius about gMarcion do not state patristic rumors.

What are you talking about? Do you have a patristic testimony in hand which is not a patristic rumor? None of them has direct knowledge of which gospel came first.

[Bernard Muller]

Hi Ben,

What are you talking about? Do you have a patristic testimony in hand which is not a patristic rumor? None of them has direct knowledge of which gospel came first.

I was not dealing with that when I wrote about the threesome. I brought them about the issue of Marcion truncating (& modifying) parts of Luke (and the Pauline epistles), which can be evidenced.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Hi Ben,

What are you talking about? Do you have a patristic testimony in hand which is not a patristic rumor? None of them has direct knowledge of which gospel came first.

I was not dealing with that when I wrote about the threesome. I brought them about the issue of Marcion truncating (& modifying) parts of Luke (and the Pauline epistles), which can be evidenced.

Cordially, Bernard

Exactly. None of those three has direct information about Marcion truncating Luke. The (proto-)orthodox accused Marcion of doing so, but (according to Tertullian) Marcionites leveled the reverse accusation at the (proto-)orthodox: to wit, that they had augmented the Marcionite gospel.

It is not as if I simply believe the Marcionites, either. The whole affair washes out to "we said, they said." It is all rumor and assumption, unless you have a direct testimony to the contrary.

[Secret Alias]

And there are clear examples which contradict the 'cutting' narrative. The opening scene of the Marcionite gospel - seems to have arranged the material in an expansive way (i.e. reordering the two synagogue narratives in Nazareth and Capernaum in Luke, the flying Jesus references etc). The changing of name from Capernaum to Bethsaida as reported in Ephrem is another. The inclusion of material from Matthew (i.e. the antitheses, the reference to the blessedness of eunuchs etc). The accusation that Marcion 'cut' like a beaver (a Latin play on words between castrate and beaver) seems to be behind the emphasis on Marcion cutting, thus a stylistic choice rather than a factual one.

[Bernard Muller]

Hi Ben.

Exactly. None of those three has direct information about Marcion truncating Luke. The (proto-)orthodox accused Marcion of doing so, but (according to Tertullian) Marcionites leveled the reverse accusation at the (proto-)orthodox: to wit, that they had augmented the Marcionite gospel.

Internal evidence about Marcion truncating gLuke:
http://historical-jesus.info/53.html

About Marcion not working from the initial writings of Paul, but from later edited texts of Romans and 1 & 2 Corinthians:
http://historical-jesus.info/73.html

Marcion truncating Luke ... but (according to Tertullian) Marcionites leveled the reverse accusation at the (proto-)orthodox: to wit, that they had augmented the Marcionite gospel

That's very predictable: propaganda answered by counter propaganda. For me, that's meaningless about providing any information.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Hi Ben.

Exactly. None of those three has direct information about Marcion truncating Luke. The (proto-)orthodox accused Marcion of doing so, but (according to Tertullian) Marcionites leveled the reverse accusation at the (proto-)orthodox: to wit, that they had augmented the Marcionite gospel.

Internal evidence about Marcion truncating gLuke:
http://historical-jesus.info/53.html

Yes, I am aware (as you know) of your internal evidence. I even gave you at least one piece of it. You are supporting my contention that internal evidence is really all we have.

About Marcion not working from the initial writings of Paul, but from later edited texts of Romans and 1 & 2 Corinthians:
http://historical-jesus.info/73.html

More internal evidence, some of it very good.

Marcion truncating Luke ... but (according to Tertullian) Marcionites leveled the reverse accusation at the (proto-)orthodox: to wit, that they had augmented the Marcionite gospel

That's very predictable: propaganda answered by counter propaganda. For me, that's meaningless about providing any information.

Cordially, Bernard

Yes, that is exactly my point. You are handing me the keys to the kingdom. The propaganda, which is the only external evidence we have, is worthless. Of course the orthodox said Marcion cut into an existing gospel; of course the Marcionites said that the orthodox augmented it. "We said, they said." Nothing but rumors and assumptions on both sides. All we are left with is internal evidence.

[Bernard Muller]

Hi Ben,

Yes, I am aware (as you know) of your internal evidence. I even gave you at least one piece of it. You are supporting my contention that internal evidence is really all we have.

The internal evidence supports what Irenaeus, Tertullian and Epiphanius thought about Marcion's gospel: Marcion truncated Luke after reading (and even studying) it. Furthermore Tertullian and Epiphanius read Marcion's gospel.
The patristic conclusion and the relevant internal evidence should be considered together.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Hi Ben,

Yes, I am aware (as you know) of your internal evidence. I even gave you at least one piece of it. You are supporting my contention that internal evidence is really all we have.

The internal evidence supports what Irenaeus, Tertullian and Epiphanius thought about Marcion's gospel: Marcion truncated Luke after reading (and even studying) it. Furthermore Tertullian and Epiphanius read Marcion's gospel.
The patristic conclusion and the relevant internal evidence should be considered together.

This is demonstrably illogical. If the internal evidence, to your eye, pointed in the other direction, then you would have to consider the Marcionites' conclusion together with your internal evidence. In other words, neither the patristic nor the Marcionite testimony means a thing on its own; our assessment is completely dependent upon what the internal evidence suggests.