I am sympathetic to this project, as I've also wondered whether Justin might not have knowledge of canonical Luke, for similar reasons. I still have some notes.
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:58 pm
Besides the infancy narrative in Luke 1-2, which is reflected quite often in Justin Martyr, what passages does Justin quote or allude to which would reflect what we know as (chapters 3-24 of) canonical Luke over and against the Marcionite Gospel?
PS 2: Justin referring to something which we find in canonical Luke but which remains unattested in either direction for Marcion will not help a lot, either. It really needs to be something that we have good reason to think was not in Marcion but which we find in Luke.
We should include serious investigation of passages that are often argued not to have been in the "Marcionite Gospel," for some kind of good reason, even if there isn't explicit attestation of their absence from that text. If it seemed a probable conclusion when we didn't have this specific hypothesis in mind, as we do now, the judgment back then is likely to be a more sober and less tendentious assessment of how good the reasoning was.
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:58 pmAlso, evidence based on what one thinks
must or
must not have appeared in Marcion's Gospel, based on Marcionite theology, will do me no good, either.
Some arguments are based on what Tertullian and Epiphanius were
claiming to be Marcionite theology (and so would probably cite against it). This point is a bit independent of what the actual Marcionite theology was.
Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:49 pm
Justin references Luke 22:44, which is a likely (but not explicit) shorter reading.
For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, `If it be possible, let this cup pass: '
Notes on this verse as a shorter reading (BeDuhn,
The First New Testament):
Luke 22:42-44 - "Luke 22.42-44 is unattested for the Evangelion and appears to have been absent from P69. Verses 22.43-44 would have been useful for Epiphanius or Tertullian in making a point of Jesus' physicality. They are lacking in many Greek manuscripts, including P75, along with the SSyr, the SCopt, OL ms f, and were stricken out by the first corrector of the Gk ms Sinaiticus. But no other witness to Luke lacks v. 42 except P69, which may be crucial in identifying it as a fragment of the Evangelion." (p. 188)
"Unattested either way for Marcion"? I'm not completely comfortable with dismissing this that easily.
This one is complicated by concerns over authorship, but it can also be mentioned:
An alleged fragment of Justin references Luke 24:32, which is a likely (but not explicit) shorter reading.
Fragments of the Lost Work of Justin on the Resurrection (?)
Why did He rise in the flesh in which He suffered, unless to show the resurrection of the flesh? And wishing to confirm this, when His disciples did not know whether to believe He had truly risen in the body, and were looking upon Him and doubting, He said to them, "Ye have not yet faith, see that it is I; "
Luke 24:27 - "Luke 24.27-29 is unattested. Verse 27 would surely have been commented upon by Tertullian or Epiphanius if they found it in Marcion's text. It is somewhat surprising that Epiphanius does not note the textual variance. The same verse is likewise lacking in Gk ms 1313 (possibly due to haplography), and goes unmentioned in Ephrem, Comm. Diat. Some of the content of vv. 28-29 was probably present, since it is needed to advance the narrative to a meal setting." (p. 196)
Luke 24:32 - "Luke 24.32 is unattested for the Evangelion. It is coordinated to v. 27, also unattested for the Evangelion, and would certainly have been cited by our sources if it appeared. It is not mentioned in Ephrem, Comm. Diat." (p. 196)
Andrew makes an interesting point here:
andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:15 am
The allusion to Luke 3:21-22
For this devil, when [Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, at the time when the voice spake to Him, ‘Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten Thee,’ is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him,
is specifically Western Lukan (and non-Marcionite). Matthew Mark and most manuscripts of Luke read
with thee I am well pleased instead of
this day have I begotten thee,
Andrew Criddle
You mention that it's also found in the Gospel of the Ebionites:
The highlighted portion, however, is very interesting. That is a famous textual variant from Luke (refer to Psalm 2.7) which is not found in Matthew or Mark. It is also, however, found in the Gospel of the Ebionites. Nevertheless, this reference is definitely one I need to examine.
There are a couple possible references to Luke 3:23 and following.
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:57 am
Luke 3:23 is in reference to Dialogue with Trypho 88
for even at His birth He was in possession of His power; and as He grew up like all other men, by using the fitting means, He assigned its own [requirements] to each development, and was sustained by all kinds of nourishment, and waited for thirty years, more or less, [τριάκοντα ἔτη ἢ πλείονα ἢ καὶ ἐλάσσονα] until John appeared before Him as the herald of His approach, and preceded Him in the way of baptism, as I have already shown.
Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about [ὡσεὶ] thirty [τριάκοντα] years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli
Only Luke mentions that Jesus was thirty years of age. Both Justin and Luke qualify this figure somehow ("about", "more or less"). This seems like it really is a point of contact between the Gospel of Luke and Justin.
My notes have this as an explicit shorter reading:
Luke 3:21-38 - Marc. 4.7.1-6, Pan. 42.11.4-5
To be fair: The statement about Jesus being 'about thirty' could definitely be in the Gospel used by Marcion. It has the ring of authenticity in my opinion. Much is made of the fact that Jesus had the age of 30, which becomes associated with the number of aeons. It's the geneaology that is absent, not necessarily this phrase in Luke 3:23.
This is the most promising reference so far!
The vagueness is almost antithetical to the Gospel of Luke's redactional aims: is the same author who gave us "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, while Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness" really content to shrug and say that Jesus was "about thirty"?
Not sure, but the gimmick of qualifying a numerical figure with "about" (ὡσεί) is pretty common in Luke-Acts (refer also to Luke 9.14, 28; 22.41, 59; 23.44; Acts 1.15; 2.41; 10.3; 19.7).
Interesting. Let me know if you find anything further on this.
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:57 am
Luke 3:38 is in reference to Dialogue with Trypho 100
He said then that He was the Son of man, either because of His birth by the Virgin, who was, as I said, of the family of David and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham; or because Adam was the father both of Himself and of those who have been first enumerated from whom Mary derives her descent. For we know that the fathers of women are the fathers likewise of those children whom their daughters bear.
If this is an early reference to an interpretation of Luke 3:23 - "being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli" - as actually presenting the genealogy of Mary, then this would be an additional reference of Justin to Luke 3:23 and following. Unless there's another enumeration of the descent of Mary that Justin has in mind? (Hard to be sure, really, with various apocryphal infancy gospels and a book actually titled "Descent of Mary.")
This one bears looking more closely into, as well.
Hmm. I didn't really think much of it, but let me know if you find anything further.
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:57 am
Trypho 50 is possibly referring to Luke 24:27:
And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
But I'm not so sure.
Unattested either way for Marcion.
Here are the notes on Luke 24:27-29, from BeDuhn:
Luke 24:27 - "Luke 24.27-29 is unattested. Verse 27 would surely have been commented upon by Tertullian or Epiphanius if they found it in Marcion's text. It is somewhat surprising that Epiphanius does not note the textual variance. The same verse is likewise lacking in Gk ms 1313 (possibly due to haplography), and goes unmentioned in Ephrem, Comm. Diat. Some of the content of vv. 28-29 was probably present, since it is needed to advance the narrative to a meal setting." (p. 196)
This also has to be taken more seriously as something that is likely absent from the text referenced by Tertullian and Epiphanius.
So far, to my mind, these are the references that require some further consideration:
Luke 3:22 textual variant (this day have I begotten Thee) // Trypho 103
Luke 3:23 (about 30) // Trypho 88
Luke 3:38 (descent of Mary) // Trypho 100
Luke 22:44 (bloody sweat) // Trypho 103
Luke 24:27 (beginning with Moses and all the Prophets) // Trypho 50
Luke 24:32 (see that it is I) // On the Resurrection (?), fragment 9
At this point, it might be helpful to ask you to elaborate a bit on the hypothesis you're proposing. It might help clarify how we are to treat the passages (Luke 22:44, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32) that are often argued to be absent from the text of the gospel used by Marcion.