back to the drawing board? the missing sondergut Marcion

[Peter Kirby]

As some know, I have been exploring the idea that Marcion's gospel wasn't nearly as close to a twin of Luke as people think. And since people often think it's a pretty close twin in most respects, that's low hanging fruit really. The evidence prompting a re-evaluation on this point includes the Matthew // Mark parallels. On that basis, we can also reasonably think about whether Irenaeus / Tertullian / Epiphanius tradition doesn't give us a neutral portrait in the way it attempts to link up Luke and Marcion's gospel so closely.

However:

- this doesn't necessarily involve the hypothesis that Marcion's gospel preceded Luke (it could still be post-Luke)
- this doesn't necessarily involve the existence of much "sondergut Marcion"

Most people seem to focus on the priority question, but I don't honestly find the priority of Marcion or Luke to be make-or-break. There are some advantages for my approach that could arise from a profile of Marcion as author. The more I can know about the author's editorial habits, the more that I can attempt to piece together how they worked and would have worked. In this way, authorship by Marcion could add additional criteria for recovering *Ev.

What interests me, though, is the interaction of these two points. A critical juncture in attempting to talk about Marcion's gospel is how much material would have been written uniquely in this text and how much was shared with other gospel texts.

But if we take these two points, we get these combinations (posterior = after all three synoptics, prior = not):

(1) Marcion posterior and not much sondergut Marcion
(2) Marcion posterior and considerable sondergut Marcion
(3) Marcion prior and and not much sondergut Marcion
(4) Marcion prior and considerable sondergut Marcion

With these considerations:

(1) This sounds like what Ian Mills is coming up with, regarding the textual critic / scissors-and-paste Marcion. There are certainly parallels to this kind of thing, such as Tatian's harmony. Might I have to go back to the drawing board here and take this route?

(2) There are several questions that persist for me here. FIrst, if Marcion otherwise was relatively conservative in his approach to texts (cf. Pauline letters), this seems doubtful. Second, if his most bitter opponents got wind of this, why don't any crow about it? Third, if any other peripheral witnesses ever had any kind of information like this about the text, why don't we hear much about it?

(3) This allows for some material to be original to the text but also reflected in the synoptic gospels. There are certainly parallels to this kind of thing, such as the gospel of Mark. In terms of determining the text, this might provide the most 'controlled' approach to doing so, since it involves the avoidance of otherwise-unattested material and the recombination of synoptic material according to some source hypothesis. The main point of departure with (1) is just what someone's opinion is on literary dependencies.

(4) Same problems as (2), basically, except without the first question. Still the second and third questions.

So my question is: Does the evidence best support (1)/(3), or is there some good reason to suggest (2)/(4) here?

[Peter Kirby]

One reason that I haven't already just gone with (1)/(3) is that I'm not sure we have a good catalog of non-Luke that could be in Marcion's gospel. Prior scholarship generally takes the Gospel of Luke as a "map in hand" with which to discover the context of references to Marcion's gospel. That's usually okay for Mark // Matthew // Luke material, but otherwise it has its shortcomings.

Just looking into Ian Mill's Academia.edu page turns up that he thinks he finds a piece of non-Luke Marcion material that is also found in the Longer Ending of Mark:

https://www.academia.edu/25622842/Marci ... s_Handout_

The element is called "disciples disbelieve" (continued disbelief) and is supposedly attested in Adv Marc. 24.33-35 and Pan. 4.43.3-4 and in Mark 16:13b but not in Luke.

Of course throwing the Longer Ending of Mark into the mix expands the set of documents in the 'synoptic problem' here by another one (since it's not Mark). Who knows what the answer to that puzzle is?

But still the question is about the author of Marcion's gospel. What were they doing?

Conservative cut and paste? Or creative rewriting, which could add some new material?

Gospel harmonist? Or synoptic-like author?

[Peter Kirby]

Maybe Marcion's gospel really is just a mashup of synoptic verses, almost nothing original, and that's that.

Any objections?

[StephenGoranson]

It may be that Marcion's main historical consequence was in proposing a canon, that in part, but not by itself, helped prompt others to (slowly) expedite an alternate canon.
It may well be that Marcion had no new verses, maybe mostly just Luke.

[Secret Alias]

The one thing we can be sure. The one thing. Marcion thought Paul wrote a gospel which began with Mark 1:1. Other than that, it's all up for grabs.

[Secret Alias]

Friedrich Nietzsche, often criticized what he saw as the dangers of excessive systematization in thought and philosophy. Nietzsche's warning about "systemizers" primarily revolves around his critique of philosophers and thinkers who try to fit the world into rigid, all-encompassing systems. This critique is evident in several of his works, including "Beyond Good and Evil" and "Twilight of the Idols." In "Twilight of the Idols," Nietzsche explicitly states:

"I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity."

This is the enemy. Irenaeus provides a system and we are willing systematizers.

[Peter Kirby]

Marcion thought Paul wrote a gospel which began with Mark 1:1.

That's interesting. I'm down for the idea that Marcion thought Paul wrote a gospel, although I might introduce the variant here that Marcion considered Mark to be Paul's amenuensis for the gospel.

But did it start with "the beginning of the gospel of Christ Jesus"?

[Secret Alias]

Come on. We both know. Whenever Paul's "my gospel" is mentioned half the time Mark 1:1 follows.

[Peter Kirby]

Friedrich Nietzsche, often criticized what he saw as the dangers of excessive systematization in thought and philosophy. Nietzsche's warning about "systemizers" primarily revolves around his critique of philosophers and thinkers who try to fit the world into rigid, all-encompassing systems. This critique is evident in several of his works, including "Beyond Good and Evil" and "Twilight of the Idols." In "Twilight of the Idols," Nietzsche explicitly states:

"I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity."

This is the enemy. Irenaeus provides a system and we are willing systematizers.

Idle thought: what would a Nietzschean book on Christian origins look like? Would it say anything? Could it say anything?

[Peter Kirby]

Come on. We both know. Whenever Paul's "my gospel" is mentioned half the time Mark 1:1 follows.

Alright, it makes sense, but I am also unsure if it's other people like Origen quoting it because that's their "Mark."