Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

[outhouse]

From this website

Stevan Davies


A date for Luke-Acts in the 90s of the first century or first decade of the second would account for all the evidence, including the alleged use of Josephus and the apparent authorship by a sometime companion of Paul. If Luke did not use Josephus, a date in the 80s is permissible

Taking this into account

Most experts date the composition of the combined work to around 80-90 AD, although some suggest 90-110,[17] and there is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.[8]

You would need to provide credible details of what exactly was revised. I do not doubt revisions took place, only the details of which remain unsubstantiated.

[outhouse]

REALITY is, do we know that Marcion redacted any other text besides the Lukan material? Did he have a habit of redacting text to meet his theological needs. ????


From this website

Paul, with his focus on free grace, was by far Marcion's favorite Apostle. As a result, he rejected the writings attributed to all the other Apostles and relied on forms of Luke's Gospel and ten Pauline epistles that he redacted.

[outhouse]

DID Marcion have a theological motive to redact Lukan text??? Pretty much exactly what we see removed to.

[Secret Alias]

Let's move to Holmes's translation to see if we can find any better evidence to determine whether T used the true or falsified against M. Book Four begins:

Every opinion and the whole scheme of the impious and sacrilegious Marcion we now bring to the test of that very Gospel which, by his process of interpolation, he has made his own. To encourage a belief of this Gospel he has actually4 devised for it a sort of dower, in a work composed of contrary statements set in opposition, thence entitled Antitheses, and compiled with a view to such a severance of the law from the gospel as should divide the Deity into two, nay, diverse, gods----one for each Instrument, or Testament as it is more usual to call it; that by such means he might also patronize belief in "the Gospel according to the Antitheses." These, however, I would have attacked in special combat, hand to hand; that is to say, I would have encountered singly the several devices of the Pontic heretic, if it were not much more convenient to refute them in and with that very gospel to which they contribute their support. Although it is so easy to meet them at once with a peremptory demurrer,8 yet, in order that I may both make them admissible in argument, and account them valid expressions of opinion, and even contend that they make for our side, that so there may be all the redder shame for the blindness of their author, we have now drawn out some antitheses of our own in opposition to Marcion. [4.1.1, 2]

Omnem sententiam et omnem paraturam impii atque sacrilegi Marcionis ad ipsum iam evangelium eius provocamus quod interpolando suum fecit. Et ut fidem instrueret, dotem quandam commentatus est illi, opus ex contrarietatum oppositionibus Antitheses cognominatum et ad separationem legis et evangelii coactum, qua duos deos dividens, proinde diversos, alterum alterius instrumenti, vel, quod magis usui est dicere, testamenti, ut exinde evangelio quoque secundum Antitheses credendo patrocinaretur. [2] Sed et istas proprio congressu cominus, id est per singulas iniectiones Pontici, cecidissem, si non multo opportunius in ipso et cum ipso evangelio cui procurant retunderentur; quamquam tam facile est praescriptive occurrere, et quidem ut accepto eas faciam, ut rato habeam, ut nobiscum facere dicam, quo magis de caecitate auctoris sui erubescant, nostrae iam antitheses adversus Marcionem.

Call me stupid but the only texts of M that T ever claims to have in his possession are (a) the Antitheses and (b) some letter which demonstrates Marcion held the Catholic faith. The whole reason the Antitheses are brought up is because it is at least something which demonstrates the Marcionite faith. The gospel of M is by contrast "hidden" and by T's own admission, not well known.

[Secret Alias]

Evans translation of the intro:

Every sentence, indeed the whole structure, arising from Marcion's impiety and profanity, I now challenge in terms of that gospel which he has by manipulation made his own. Besides that, to work up credence for it he has contrived a sort of dowry, a
work entitled Antitheses because of its juxtaposition of opposites, a work strained into making such a division between the Law and the Gospel as thereby to make two separate gods, opposite to each other, one belonging to one instrument (or, as it is more usual to say, testament), one to the other, and thus lend its patronage to faith in another gospel, that according to the Antitheses. Now I might have demolished those antitheses by a specially directed hand-to-hand attack, taking each of the statements of the man of Pontus one by one, except that it was much more convenient to refute them both in and along with that gospel which they serve: although it is perfectly easy to take action against them by counter-claim,1 even accepting them as admissible, accounting them valid, and alleging that they support my argument, that so they may be put to shame for the blindness of their author, having now become my antitheses against Marcion.

[Secret Alias]

This is a key sentence:

Omnem sententiam et omnem paraturam impii atque sacrilegi Marcionis ad ipsum iam evangelium eius provocamus quod interpolando suum fecit.

Evans - Every sentence, indeed the whole structure, arising from Marcion's impiety and profanity, I now challenge in terms of that gospel which he has by manipulation made his own.

Holmes - Every opinion and the whole scheme of the impious and sacrilegious Marcion we now bring to the test of that very Gospel which, by his process of interpolation, he has made his own.

T is going to "provoke" (provocamus) the version of Luke that M made his own by ultimately attacking the Antitheses. But why? If he had the corrupted gospel it would have been far more useful to demonstrate all the passages that M corrupted.

[Secret Alias]

It is noteworthy that T's "provoking" of the gospel is a running theme in the book. In chapter 6, immediately before the study of Luke begins he declares:

Sed alium iam hinc inimus gradum, ipsum, ut professi sumus, evangelium Marcionis provocantes, sic quoque probaturi adulteratum.

Holmes - But we now advance a step further on, and challenge (as we promised to do) the very Gospel of Marcion, with the intention of thus proving that it has been adulterated.

Evans - I now advance a step further, while I call to account, as I have promised, Marcion's gospel in his own version of it, with the design, even so, of proving it adulterated.

We gain some insight into T's use of the term later in the same book. T says the comparing of Jesus's disciples and John's disciples in Luke 5 is anot her "provocation":

Si enim nihil omnino administrasset Ioannes, secundum Esaiam vociferator in solitudinem et praeparator viarum dominicarum per denuntiationem et laudationem paenitentiae, si non etiam ipsum inter ceteros tinxisset, nemo discipulos Christi manducantes et bibentes ad formam discipulorum Ioannis assidue ieiunantium et orantium provocasset, quia, si qua diversitas staret inter Christum et Ioannem et gregem utriusque, nulla esset comparationis exactio, vacaret provocationis intentio.

For if there had been no ministry of John at all----"the voice," as Isaiah calls him, "of one crying in the wilderness," and the preparer of the ways of the Lord by denunciation and recommendation of repentance; if, too, he had not baptized (Christ) Himself341 along with others, nobody could have challenged the disciples of Christ, as they ate and drank, to a comparison with the disciples of John, who were constantly fasting and praying; because, if there existed any diversity342 between Christ and John, and their followers respectively, no exact comparison would be possible, nor would there be a single point where it could be challenged. [11.5]

[Secret Alias]

Again a little later:

But even if, as being not the Christ of the Jews, He displayed a hatred against the Jews' most solemn day, He was only professedly following381 the Creator, as being His Christ, in this very hatred of the Sabbath; for He exclaims by the mouth of Isaiah: "Your new moons and your Sabbaths my soul hateth."382 Now, in whatever sense these words were spoken, we know that an abrupt defence must, in a subject of this sort, be used in answer to an abrupt challenge. (Sed et haec quoquo modo dicta sint, scimus adhibendam tamen in hac specie etiam abruptam defensionem adversus abruptam provocationem) [12.5]

Here the act of challenging or provoking does not require actual knowledge or understanding of the thing being challenged. T clearly uses the term to mean something like "public challenge."

[Secret Alias]

I think T was "publicly challenging" M's gospel without actually having the text in front of him. He has M's Antitheses and he has Luke. These two texts alone form the basis to his public challenge.

[Secret Alias]

More

"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged; condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned; forgive, and ye shall be forgiven; give, and it shall be given unto you: good measure, pressed down, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye measure withal, it shall be measured to you again."639 As it seems to me, this passage announces a retribution proportioned to the merits (Ut opinor, haec retributionem pro meritis provocatam sonant) [17.9]

Jesus "provokes" the menstruating woman:

"For I perceive that virtue is gone out of me." What says our heretic? Could Christ have known the person? And why did He speak as if He were ignorant? Why? Surely it was to challenge her faith, and to try her fear (Ut confessionem certe provocaret, ut timorem probaret). [20.8]

This is another interesting example. Jesus's question "who has touched me" is a similar "provocation" to T's own.