Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posteriority?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12241
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Aug 27, 2015 1:18 pm

I am pulling out of this conversation. Bye.
“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

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12241
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:49 pm

I am sorry I could resist posting this while working on another thread. A clear example of Tertullian USING HIS TEXT RATHER THAN MARCION'S TEXT for most of his 'commentary.' I know it sounds crazy. After all y'all want him to be 'unlocking the exact details' of the Marcionite text. But I've got news for you - ain't so. We see near the end of Book Four:
It is well also that the disciples' unbelief persisted, so that right to the end our claim should stand that to the disciples Christ Jesus had declared himself no other than the Christ of the prophets. For when two of them were on a journey, and the Lord had joined himself with them, while it did not appear that it was he himself, and he even pretended not to be aware of the things that had happened, they said, But we were thinking that he himself was the Redeemer of Israel, evidently Israel's, and the Creator's, Christ. To that extent had he never declared himself any other. Otherwise they would not have supposed him the Creator's: and when he was supposed to be the Creator's, he would not have tolerated this supposition about himself if he had not been who he was supposed to be. Otherwise he must be thought of as the author of error and a renegade from the truth: and this will not suit your description of him as a god supremely good.
So we as the readers of this account would naturally assume that the Marcionite text doesn't differ at all from our own. It would be natural to assume - given that Tertullian is such a wonderful scholar, consistently providing us with the exact evidence from the Marcionite canon - that in the Marcionite text Jesus says what we have in Luke:
He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.


But Epiphanius tells us something we would never have guessed from Tertullian's use of Luke - the Marcionite text had something different:
But you (Marcion) have replaced, 'Is not this what the prophets have spoken?' Marcion, with, 'Is this not what I said unto you?'
So now we find ourselves at an impass. Clearly Tertullian is not using the Marcionite text to develop his arguments. He often cites from Luke or whatever text he had before him. But clearly Epiphanius isn't the end of the story. It can't simply be a simple change of words. All of vv 26 and 27 too have to be expunged. But now we go beyond what our sources tell us and where do you stop finding 'unmentioned' corrections of text? How do we have any confidence in anything Tertullian tells us is 'in' the Marcionite text when in fact it is demonstrable that he simply used the Catholic gospels most of the time.
“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

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7634
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:54 pm

Another possible indicator of Marcionite priority over Luke is the apparent anonymity of the former compared to the title of the latter. Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.2.3a:

Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert the very body.

As Mark Goodacre points out in his Dating Game series:

The more blatant signs, though, of the relative lateness of John and Thomas lie in their attempts at authorial self-representation. Where earlier Gospels like Mark and Matthew are anonymous and avoid attempting to project an authorial presence to lend authority to their work, the author of the Fourth Gospel makes claims to have been present, most notably in 19.35 and of course 21.24, “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and wrote them down (καὶ ὁ γράψας ταῦτα). We know that his testimony is true,” similar in style and literary function to the Incipit of Thomas, “These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.” .... There is a trajectory among these early Christian texts, from the absence of authorial self-representation in Mark and Matthew, to hints in Luke and Acts (with the first person found in Luke 1.1-4 as well as in the “we” passages in Acts), to the marked but nevertheless still unnamed authorial presence in John, to the explicit self-representation of Didymos Judas Thomas in its Gospel’s Incipit, a naming that also leads the reader to pay special attention to Thomas 13.

Perhaps Marcion had reasons for not giving his gospel a good apostolic title like the canonical four (and many others); but maybe it is more likely that his gospel hailed from the days before those titles gained currency; his gospel persisted in its anonymity while others were gaining attributions left and right.

SInce Marcion and Luke are interconnected in some special way, it also seems to me to be a bit of a coincidence that Luke, a purported companion to Paul, should be the choice of gospel text; if Marcion followed canonical Luke and chose Luke to mutilate rather than Matthew or Mark or John or whatnot, then it seems odd that it would have nothing to do with the name of Luke. Yet, if it did have something to do with the name of Luke, why not retain the name? Why strip the name off of it?

Again, maybe Marcion had his reasons. But, on the other hand, maybe the trajectory is simple: Marcion actually chose his gospel, some kind of anonymous proto-Luke simply because he was familiar with it, perhaps from Pontus. The Catholics took his gospel and turned it into canonical Luke precisely in order to counter Marcion. This trajectory follows the pattern outlined by Goodacre above (from anonymous to named) and also explains why the Marcionite gospel would be associated with a companion of Paul while still remaining anonymous: the anonymity came first, and the name of Luke was attached later.

(Bernard, I know you will not agree with any of the indicators I have posted recently, since they lean toward Marcionite priority; but do you know of any other examples for Marcionite posteriority? You have given 2 so far, I think, and I have added 1. But, if there are more, I would love to have them.)

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

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

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Bernard Muller » Thu Aug 27, 2015 8:29 pm

To Ben,
(Bernard, I know you will not agree with any of the indicators I have posted recently, since they lean toward Marcionite priority; but do you know of any other examples for Marcionite posteriority? You have given 2 so far, I think, and I have added 1. But, if there are more, I would love to have them.)
I revised my blog post on the topic http://historical-jesus.info/53.html. I even quoted you. I hope you don't mind. If you do, I can paraphrase your quote. And I got 2 arguments relative to the epistles http://historical-jesus.info/73.html.

All these arguments are mostly or totally independent of: if gMarcion is witnessed to have changes or deletions which can be explained by Marcion stated beliefs, then that means Marcion worked from gLuke, even if Marcionism would explain the differences between gLuke and gMarcion. But even the later can be justified as a method to affirm the posteriority of gMarcion, because Tertullian in AM defined Marcion's Christian tenets through Marcion's own Antitheses before analyzing the Evangelion, which would avoid the argument: we know Marcion's teaching through his Evangelion and the Evangelion tells about Marcion's teaching (a circular argument). Instead: we know Marcion's teaching through his Antitheses and the Evangelion reflects the Antitheses and gLuke (not a circular argument).

And gLuke theology and christology is not much different of the ones of gMatthew (except for the level of Judaism in them). So I do not see why gLuke should be considered a reaction to gMarcion, when gMatthew is not.

I think we have enough evidence gLuke was written in the first century, which would make Marcion copying on gLuke: http://historical-jesus.info/62.html.
BTW, gMatthew, better than gLuke, can be dated 1st century (http://historical-jesus.info/53.html).
And Q as a separate document and "Luke" not knowing gMatthew: http://historical-jesus.info/q.html and even the complete gMark (the great omission http://historical-jesus.info/appf.html).
All of that add up support to the posteriority of gMarcion. And I did not develop these web pages in order to prove the posteriority of gMarcion.

You might think 5 arguments drawn from the Evangelion are not enough, but certainly Marcion did not want to give indication his gospel was written late (as for the other synoptic authors) and certainly not later than gLuke.

By the way, I found all your arguments for posteriority of gLuke very weak.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:12 pm, edited 5 times in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7634
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Aug 27, 2015 8:44 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:To Ben,
(Bernard, I know you will not agree with any of the indicators I have posted recently, since they lean toward Marcionite priority; but do you know of any other examples for Marcionite posteriority? You have given 2 so far, I think, and I have added 1. But, if there are more, I would love to have them.)
I revised my blog post on the topic http://historical-jesus.info/53.html. I even quoted you. I hope you don't mind. If you do, I can paraphrase your quote.
No problem. You can keep it. All of this is highly contingent and in the earliest of stages.
And I got 2 arguments relative to the epistles http://historical-jesus.info/73.html.
Thanks. I will be looking at the epistles soonish, but independently, since it is possible for Marcion to be completely derivative in one area but original in another.
All these arguments are mostly or totally independent of: if gMarcion is witnessed to have changes or deletions which can be explained by Marcion stated beliefs, then that means Marcion worked from gLuke.
Good, good.
Of course I think we have enough evidence gLuke was written in the first century, which would make Marcion copying on gLuke: http://historical-jesus.info/62.html.
And Q as a separate document and "Luke" not knowing gMatthew: http://historical-jesus.info/q.html and even the complete gMark (the great omission http://historical-jesus.info/62.html).
All factors to be considered, to be sure.
All of that add up. And I did not develop these website pages in order to prove the posteriority of gMarcion.
Understood.
By the way, I found all your arguments for posteriority of gLuke very weak.
But of course. :D

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

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

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Bernard Muller » Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:51 pm

To Ben,
I added up more arguments on my previous post. Please consider them too. Good night!

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

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Luukee! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do

Post by JoeWallack » Fri Aug 28, 2015 9:57 am

JW:
@Ben, By an Act of Providence, legendary Textual Critic Bart Ehrman has recently finished a series of posts arguing that Luke 22:44
And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became as it were great drops of blood falling down upon the ground. (ASV)
is an orthodox addition with the purpose of countering Docetics like Marcion.

Summary of Ehrman's argument:
  • 1) Style = There is a clear Chiasm for Jesus' related prayer here without the offending verse.

    2) Context Change = GMark's context here is Jesus distress. GLuke changes the context of the same story to prayer delivering from temptation.

    3) Manuscript = Good support for omission.

    4) Tone = The source GMark, has a tone of Jesus distress. GLuke has exorcised every other indication of distress in the story.

    5) Theme = The Verse goes against GLuke's theme as compared to GMark of presenting Jesus as calm and in control.

    6) Transmission Motivation = Three Patristics of the second century, Justin, Irenaeus and Hippolytus, cite the offending verse against Docetics like Marcion.
Spot on evidence for purposes of this Thread. Orthodox Christianity citing as evidence, against Docetics like Marcion, in their version of GLuke verses here likely not in the original GLuke.

The related general but speculative observation is that this helps explain the lack of early Manuscripts. Orthodox Christianity preferred the later orthodized versions and destroyed/censored/did not maintain/had no interest in the earlier versions.

Another general observation Ben, I note with interest/amusement the extreme contrast between your posts and Huller's. You are long on evidence, short on conclusions and he who is not to be singly named is the opposite. His only secret is how his supposed evidence supports his conclusions and just like GMark's Jesus who is presented as not being all in regarding The Messianic Secret, how SA's evidence supports his conclusions seems to be a secret to him as well.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

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

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri Aug 28, 2015 10:38 am

By an Act of Providence, legendary Textual Critic Bart Ehrman has recently finished a series of posts arguing that Luke 22:44
And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became as it were great drops of blood falling down upon the ground. (ASV)
is an orthodox addition with the purpose of countering Docetics like Marcion.
I certainly agree with that.

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

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7634
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Luukee! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:01 am

JoeWallack wrote:JW:
@Ben, By an Act of Providence, legendary Textual Critic Bart Ehrman has recently finished a series of posts arguing that Luke 22:44
And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became as it were great drops of blood falling down upon the ground. (ASV)
is an orthodox addition with the purpose of countering Docetics like Marcion.

Summary of Ehrman's argument:
  • 1) Style = There is a clear Chiasm for Jesus' related prayer here without the offending verse.

    2) Context Change = GMark's context here is Jesus distress. GLuke changes the context of the same story to prayer delivering from temptation.

    3) Manuscript = Good support for omission.

    4) Tone = The source GMark, has a tone of Jesus distress. GLuke has exorcised every other indication of distress in the story.

    5) Theme = The Verse goes against GLuke's theme as compared to GMark of presenting Jesus as calm and in control.

    6) Transmission Motivation = Three Patristics of the second century, Justin, Irenaeus and Hippolytus, cite the offending verse against Docetics like Marcion.
Spot on evidence for purposes of this Thread. Orthodox Christianity citing as evidence, against Docetics like Marcion, in their version of GLuke verses here likely not in the original GLuke.
Thanks, Joe. I totally agree that the bloody sweat is an addition to the text, and agree that it was almost certainly aimed at the docetics.

In other news, I just moments ago received Jason BeDuhn's book, The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon (huzzah! Amazon took its sweet time getting it to me), and of course the first thing I checked was his reconstruction of Luke 21.30 in the Marcionite text, in which he retains both the mention of "fruit" and the third person plural that Tertullian offers and Roth accepts: "people know that the summer is near." He also points out in his notes that several manuscripts (including D, as I pointed out) retain the generic third person of that verb over and against the second person "you", though in the passive voice, without a subject.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7634
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:14 am

I also have Two Shipwrecked Gospels by Dennis R. MacDonald, in which he argues that our canonical Luke-Acts was composed after and made some use of Papias. Between the arguments concerning Papias in MacDonald and those concerning Marcion in various others, I have to admit that it is looking more and more to me like Luke-Acts (the version with Luke 1-2, including the Lucan prologue) postdates both Papias and Marcion. I am still sifting through the arguments, and of course this conclusion does not mean that all or even most of the materials that make up Luke-Acts postdate Papias and Marcion, but the position has some definite benefits and explanatory power.

(And no, Bernard, I am not ignoring your dating of Luke to late century I; all in good time.)

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply