Marcion's Gospel

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by John2 »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:07 pm Sorry in my car. 3.12.12

Thanks. I'll take a look at it and get back to you later. I'm about to call it a day now.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:30 pm So thus far, Justin, Hegesippus (even though he doesn't say much in the excerpts we have) and Irenaeus don't seem like a bad start, and I think the latter was at least in a position to have access to or know about Marcion's writings (directly and/or via Justin or Hegesippus or whoever else), and he does claim to have known of them. And I can understand if Marcion's gospel seemed like an altered gospel of Luke to him (and/or his sources) even if, to judge from later writers, it contained bits of Mark or Matthew, since those overlaps can be explained by Luke (in all its versions) using Mark (and possibly a version of Matthew) from the get go and Marcion adding bits from other gospels and whatever else he thought supported his point of view (similar to the gospel of Thomas).
What do you think Marcion added to his gospel from Matthew or Mark?

(Usually the assertion is that some of the fathers accuse Marcion of deleting things from Luke which we find only in Matthew or Mark.)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by Secret Alias »

Philosophumena 7.18
When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum. And (Marcion) despoiled this (philosopher), and imagined that up to the present would pass undetected his transference, under the same expressions, of the arrangement of his entire heresy from Sicily into the evangelical narratives. For bear with me, O Marcion: as you have instituted a comparison of what is good and evil, I also to-day will institute a comparison following up your own tenets, as you suppose them to be.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by John2 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:39 pm
John2 wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:30 pm So thus far, Justin, Hegesippus (even though he doesn't say much in the excerpts we have) and Irenaeus don't seem like a bad start, and I think the latter was at least in a position to have access to or know about Marcion's writings (directly and/or via Justin or Hegesippus or whoever else), and he does claim to have known of them. And I can understand if Marcion's gospel seemed like an altered gospel of Luke to him (and/or his sources) even if, to judge from later writers, it contained bits of Mark or Matthew, since those overlaps can be explained by Luke (in all its versions) using Mark (and possibly a version of Matthew) from the get go and Marcion adding bits from other gospels and whatever else he thought supported his point of view (similar to the gospel of Thomas).
What do you think Marcion added to his gospel from Matthew or Mark?

Regarding Mark, I don't know. I was going by what you said when I asked you if there were any Markan overlaps in "proto-Luke":

There are Marcan overlaps, at the very least. ETA: I do not have a firm answer to the question of whether it was this proto-Luke or whether it was Mark that came first. Also, I do not cleanly equate this proto-Luke with Marcion's gospel; I imagine Marcion made changes, too.

But if Marcion's gospel was sans Mark, then fine. And if it was aans Matthew, even better. If this is the case, I would suppose that Marcion only added his own stuff to "proto-Luke" then.

(Usually the assertion is that some of the fathers accuse Marcion of deleting things from Luke which we find only in Matthew or Mark.)



Well, that's a tricky problem then, isn't it? I will need to take a look at the sources before venturing an opinion about that. What are they, again?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 3:09 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:39 pm
John2 wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:30 pm So thus far, Justin, Hegesippus (even though he doesn't say much in the excerpts we have) and Irenaeus don't seem like a bad start, and I think the latter was at least in a position to have access to or know about Marcion's writings (directly and/or via Justin or Hegesippus or whoever else), and he does claim to have known of them. And I can understand if Marcion's gospel seemed like an altered gospel of Luke to him (and/or his sources) even if, to judge from later writers, it contained bits of Mark or Matthew, since those overlaps can be explained by Luke (in all its versions) using Mark (and possibly a version of Matthew) from the get go and Marcion adding bits from other gospels and whatever else he thought supported his point of view (similar to the gospel of Thomas).
What do you think Marcion added to his gospel from Matthew or Mark?
Regarding Mark, I don't know. I was going by what you said when I asked you if there were any Markan overlaps in "proto-Luke":
There are Marcan overlaps, at the very least. ETA: I do not have a firm answer to the question of whether it was this proto-Luke or whether it was Mark that came first. Also, I do not cleanly equate this proto-Luke with Marcion's gospel; I imagine Marcion made changes, too.
But if Marcion's gospel was sans Mark, then fine.
I think two very different things are being confused here.

As best as we can tell, Marcion's gospel has overlaps with the gospel of Mark, but most of these are only because the canonical gospel of Luke has overlaps with Mark and Marcion's gospel contains some of those portions of Luke which overlap Mark. This is not at all the same thing as suggesting that Marcion's gospel has elements of Mark which our canonical Luke lacks.
And if it was sans Matthew, even better. If this is the case, I would suppose that Marcion only added his own stuff to "proto-Luke" then.
Same deal as with Mark. Our canonical Luke overlaps with Matthew sometimes, and some of those overlaps are attested for Marcion's gospel. But that is not the same thing as suggesting that Marcion added bits from Matthew (unattested in our Luke) into his version of Luke.
(Usually the assertion is that some of the fathers accuse Marcion of deleting things from Luke which we find only in Matthew or Mark.)


Well, that's a tricky problem then, isn't it? I will need to take a look at the sources before venturing an opinion about that. What are they, again?
Stephan has a huge list on his blog. This list includes bits of Mark and Matthew (not found in our canonical Luke) which, according to Stephan, are attested for the Marcionite gospel. It also includes those instances of the church fathers accusing Marcion of cutting things out of Luke which we currently find only in other sources, and not in Luke.

Many of the examples are easy to explain. (Stephan himself admitted a long time ago that he was casting the net out as far as possible.) Others are not so easy to explain. I started to analyze a few of the seemingly more solid ones a long time ago on this forum. I dismantled to my own satisfaction the notion that Tertullian accuses Marcion of deleting Matthew 5.17 from his gospel (but apparently not to Stephan's satisfaction, since that is still a go-to example for him). Some may simply be a matter of Tertullian or Epiphanius possessing a text of Luke which had been harmonized toward Matthew. But others still stand, at least for now.

The whole affair is rather tricky. Marcion being accused of cutting things out from Luke which we currently find, say, only in Matthew is a bit like me assuring you that the banana muffins I just made have no crocodile meat. You may be reassured that my muffins have no crocodile meat, but you may also come out convinced that I have no clue what a banana muffin is supposed to be.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by Secret Alias »

Since my name was brought up let me say this (and hope that I am succinct). I see Irenaeus develops two basic lines of attack against Marcion:

1. Marcion knew the four gospels but 'chose' only Luke. His 'choice' made him a heretic
2. Marcion falsified Luke in order to make his own gospel. That falsification made him a bad person.

With (1) you can see why Irenaeus and Tertullian cite Matthew against Marcion for instance:
Vain, too, is [the effort of] Marcion and his followers when they [seek to] exclude Abraham from the inheritance, to whom the Spirit through many men, and now by Paul, bears witness, that "he believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness."(14) And the Lord in the first place, indeed, by raising up children to him from the stones, and making his seed as the stars of heaven, saying, "They shall come from the east and from the west, from the north and from the south, and shall recline with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven;" and then again by saying to the Jews, "When ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of heaven, but you yourselves cast out." This, then, is a clear point, that those who disallow his salvation, and frame the idea of another God besides Him who made the promise to Abraham, are outside the kingdom of God, and are disinherited from [the gift of] incorruption, setting at naught and blaspheming God, who introduces, through Jesus Christ, Abraham to the kingdom of heaven, and his seed, that is, the Church, upon which also is conferred the adoption and the inheritance promised to Abraham. (AH 4.8.1)
and again with the apparent identification of Matthew 5 as related to or identified as the antitheses:
And that the Lord did not abrogate the natural [precepts] of the law, by which man is justified, which also those who were justified by faith, and who pleased God, did observe previous to the giving of the law, but that He extended and fulfilled them, is shown from His words. "For," He remarks, "it has been said to them of old time, Do not commit adultery. But I say unto you, That every one who hath looked upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And again: "It has been said, Thou shalt not kill. But I say unto you, Every one who is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment. And, "It hath been said, Thou shalt not forswear thyself. But I say unto you, Swear not at all; but let your conversation be, Yea, yea, and Nay, nay."(5) And other statements of a like nature. For all these do not contain or imply an opposition to and an overturning of the [precepts] of the past, as Marcion's followers do strenuously maintain; but [they exhibit] a fulfilling and an extension of them, as He does Himself declare: "Unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." For what meant the excess referred to? In the first place, [we must] believe not only in the Father, but also in His Son now revealed; for He it is who leads man into fellowship and unity with God. In the next place, [we must] not only say, but we must do; for they said, but did not. And [we must] not only abstain from evil deeds, but even from the desires after them. Now He did not teach us these things as being opposed to the law, but as fulfilling the law, and implanting in us the varied righteousness of the law. That would have been contrary to the law, if He had commanded His disciples to do anything which the law had prohibited. But this which He did command--namely, not only to abstain from things forbidden by the law, but even from longing after them--is not contrary to [the law], as I have remarked, neither is it the utterance of one destroying the law, but of one fulfilling, extending, and affording greater scope to it. (AH 4.13.1)
If Marcion chose only Luke then it stands to reason that Irenaeus and Tertullian would be justified in accusing him of 'cutting out' things Matthew. Odd that the same argument is never made for Mark. At the end of the day we have to come to terms with Schelling's approach to simply assume that Irenaeus and Tertullian made up the 'cuts' from Luke that Marcion was presumed to have made. What is the evidence that any of this is real when in reality Epiphanius and Tertullian don't even agree on what cuts or alterations or even what passages are 'in' the Marcionite gospel? Is it wrong to be skeptical - and even - doubt Irenaeus, Tertullian and Epiphanius?

I think there was a Marcionite gospel. I think it resembled Luke in some respects (the Flying Jesus narrative only works with Luke). But do I believe or am I willing to let the Church Fathers shepherd me to the truth about Marcion or the Marcionite gospel? No. I don't trust them or what they say.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by robert j »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 4:16 pm
But do I believe or am I willing to let the Church Fathers shepherd me to the truth about Marcion or the Marcionite gospel? No. I don't trust them or what they say.
Hear, hear.

The Inimitable Mr. T

In the first place, how arrogantly do the Marcionites build up their stupid system, bringing forward a new god, as if we were ashamed of the old one. (Tertullian, Adv Marc 1.8)

Yeah, after all, he only flooded the earth just that one time.


The dead bodies of their parents they cut up with their sheep, and devour at their feasts. (Tertullian, Adv Marc 1.1)

Pass the lamb chops – a BBQ in Pontus, the home of Marcion.


My original tract, as too hurriedly composed, I had subsequently superseded by a fuller treatise. This latter I lost, before it was completely published, by the fraud of a person who was then a brother, but became afterwards an apostate. He, as it happened, had transcribed a portion of it, full of mistakes, and then published it. The necessity thus arose for an amended work …. (Tertullian, Adv Marc 1.1)

Maybe the dog ate it.


This present text, therefore, of my work--which is the third as superseding the second, but henceforward to be considered the first instead of the third--renders a preface necessary to this issue of the tract itself that no reader may be perplexed … (Tertullian, Adv Marc 1.1).

Thanks for clearing that up Mr. T.

robert j
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by Secret Alias »

Another point that may interest people. I can't find one specific example of Tertullian saying Marcion cut a particular passage from Luke. Which is odd because in 4.3 he makes reference to 'a deluge' of falsifications the Marcionite apparently pointed to. What he does is present a smattering of passages from Luke - mostly in order - and preface the exercise by saying that he will figure out the material that Marcion left in Luke from his deletions ... but then never mentions a single deletion.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by John2 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 3:39 pm
As best as we can tell, Marcion's gospel has overlaps with the gospel of Mark, but most of these are only because the canonical gospel of Luke has overlaps with Mark and Marcion's gospel contains some of those portions of Luke which overlap Mark.



Well, okay then, that was my original impression regarding your answer to my question about whether there were Markan elements in "proto-Luke."

This is not at all the same thing as suggesting that Marcion's gospel has elements of Mark which our canonical Luke lacks.

I don't know what Markan elements may have been in Marcion's gospel, so I'm certainly not suggesting anything beyond what I assume was in all versions of Luke from the get go.

Same deal [for Matthew] as with Mark. Our canonical Luke overlaps with Matthew sometimes, and some of those overlaps are attested for Marcion's gospel. But that is not the same thing as suggesting that Marcion added bits from Matthew (unattested in our Luke) into his version of Luke.

Then my response to this is the same as the above. I could thus live with the idea of Marcion only adding non-NT stuff to his gospel.
Last edited by John2 on Fri Dec 13, 2019 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2099
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by Charles Wilson »

robert j wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 4:53 pm The dead bodies of their parents they cut up with their sheep, and devour at their feasts. (Tertullian, Adv Marc 1.1)
Pass the lamb chops – a BBQ in Pontus, the home of Marcion.
Funny you should quote that, robert j:

Tacitus, Histories, Book 3:

"Accordingly he [Anicetus] raised in the name of Vitellius the tribes that border on Pontus, bribed a number of very needy adventurers by the hope of plunder, and, at the head of a force by no means contemptible, made a sudden attack on the old and famous city of Trapezus, founded by the Greeks on the farthest shore of the Pontus. There he destroyed a cohort, once a part of the royal contingent... Anicetus also set fire to the fleet, and, as the sea was not guarded, escaped...The matter attracted the attention of Vespasian, and induced him to dispatch some veterans from the legions under Virdius Geminus, a tried soldier. Finding the enemy in disorder and dispersed in the eager pursuit of plunder, he attacked them, and drove them to their ships. Hastily fitting out a fleet of Liburnian ships he pursued Anicetus, and overtook him at the mouth of the river Cohibus, where he was protected by the king of the Sedochezi, whose alliance he had secured by a sum of money and other presents. This prince at first endeavoured to protect the suppliant by a threat of hostilities; when, however, the choice was presented to him between war and the profit to be derived from treachery, he consented, with the characteristic perfidy of barbarians, to the destruction of Anicetus, and delivered up the refugees. So ended this servile war.

BTW, this Section is ALL OVER ACTS, believe me when I tell ya'.
Post Reply