The Antitheses and the origin of Luke

[Peter Kirby]

I think Tertullian's language would suggest that Marcion did not name the interpolated gospel as Luke in the Antitheses:

For if the Gospel, said to be Luke's which is current among us (we shall see whether it be also current with Marcion), is the very one which, as Marcion argues in his Antitheses, was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism,

I agree about not naming Luke, but I'm also not sure that Marcion is identifying just one gospel text as interpolated (as in the phrase "the interpolated gospel").

I always tended to think that the accusation was made against some things we see in Matthew (without naming Matthew). I'm not explicitly arguing this right now but I do think that Marcion objected to things said in Matthew, including: "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill" (in some form). I would suggest that this is something that Marcion identified as a Judaic interpolation in the Antitheses. This accusation from Marcion in the Antitheses filtered down into several references on the point.

If so, the originator of this argument in Against Marcion seems overzealous to connect Luke with Marcion's gospel because it passes over the references to interpolations that are in Matthew and argues specifically, nonetheless, that Marcion is talking about the text of Luke.

Tertullian's language didn't persuade me that Marcion knew about Luke when he wrote the Antitheses, but what did was the idea that Luke was relatively early (primarily based on the Basilides reference).

As a result, I came to the idea that Marcion knew not only about Matthew but also about Luke.

I would consider that Marcion believed "the Gospel" to be singular, and that Marcion when he says that "the Gospel" was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism, he is referring to the true and genuine Gospel - the one he uses. He's not calling out a particular different text at that point with the phrase "the Gospel."

Origen's reference also supports (mildly) the idea that Marcion's Antitheses didn't name names.

[RandyHelzerman]

You're forgetting Origen,

You are too kind in assuming that I've read enough Origin to forget some of it

But from what I *do* know about Origen, that is very strange. I mean, there's probably nobody before or since him who cared more about gathering versions and enumerating the variations, and AFAIK he isn't shy about mentioning apocryphal gospels.

Thanks for the other references.

I think Tertullian's language would suggest that Marcion did not name the interpolated gospel as Luke in the Antitheses:

For if the Gospel, said to be Luke's which is current among us (we shall see whether it be also current with Marcion), is the very one which, as Marcion argues in his Antitheses, was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism,

I agree about not naming Luke, but I'm also not sure that Marcion is identifying just one gospel text as interpolated (as in the phrase "the interpolated gospel").

I'm a big fan of Tertullian, and despite all of his florid rhetoric, I think he argues in good faith. But--like a good lawyer--he *will* go right up to the line of being disingenuous. There is a line he will not cross, but he still has a very definite list of things he wants the jury to believe, and he's ok with having the jury jump to a conclusion which he really hasn't proven.

This quote is a great example of that. He very clearly wants to frame the discussion such that we jump to the conclusion that Marcion admits in his antitheses that he cut down the gospel of Luke. Tantamount to a signed confession that he mutilated a gospel which has apostolic authority! But Tertullian quite deftly leaves open to himself the ability to plausibly deny that he said any such thing.

e.g. when he says "the gospel said to be Luke's among us" I hear him saying when he is cross-examined "No, your honor, I never claimed that Luke actually wrote this gospel...I merely said that some people *say* that is written by Luke....."

When he says "the very one which, as Marcion argues in his antithesis" I hear him saying, "No, your honor, I never claimed that *Marcion* called this gospel 'Luke'. Its just that people are asking whether the gospel that Marcion admits to cutting down was the very gospel written by Luke, who sat at the feet of Paul himself..."

When he says "was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism" I hear him saying "No, your honor, I never claimed that Marcion actually cut down a gospel, I just said he argued that the gospel which people are saying is Luke's, was interpolated by Judaizers. An accusation which, due to the recent Bar Kochva revolt, evokes very negative stereotypes ..."

Can anybody read this in Latin? Is it any less defeasible than the english translation is?

[Peter Kirby]

You're forgetting Origen,

You are too kind in assuming that I've read enough Origin to forget some of it

But from what I *do* know about Origen, that is very strange. I mean, there's probably nobody before or since him who cared more about gathering versions and enumerating the variations, and AFAIK he isn't shy about mentioning apocryphal gospels.

I'm not sure I understand what is very strange.

[Peter Kirby]

The thread with Origen's quote is here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11986

[RandyHelzerman]

I'm not sure I understand what is very strange.

Perhaps nothing. Its just that textual variations was something which irked Origin:

The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 15.14 as quoted in Bruce M. Metzger, "Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament manuscripts," in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey, ed. J Neville Birdsall and Robert W. Thomson (Freiburg: Herder, 1968), 78—79; reference from Erhman, 223._

So I wouldn't have been surprised if he wan't irked enough by the variation between Luke and the Evangelion to at least mention it somewhere,

EDIT: wait, what? Origin actually *did* accuse Marcion of removing stuff from "the gospels"....just not specifically from Luke??
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11986

[Peter Kirby]

I'm not sure I understand what is very strange.

Perhaps nothing. Its just that textual variations was something which irked Origin:

The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 15.14 as quoted in Bruce M. Metzger, "Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament manuscripts," in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey, ed. J Neville Birdsall and Robert W. Thomson (Freiburg: Herder, 1968), 78—79; reference from Erhman, 223._

So I wouldn't have been surprised if he wan't irked enough by the variation between Luke and the Evangelion to at least mention it somewhere,

EDIT: wait, what? Origin actually *did* accuse Marcion of removing stuff from "the gospels"....just not specifically from Luke??
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11986

Yeah I figured you weren't reading completely.

[Peter Kirby]

But Origen's reference was unknown before the 21st century manuscript discovery.

Accidents of preservation are always the first and foremost consideration about what someone "didn't" say.