"The
latest issue of New Testament Studies [Volume 63 - Issue 2 - April 2017] contains a collection of brief essays on the topic of Marcion's Gospel...
- Marcion's Gospel and the New Testament: Catalyst or Consequence? pp. 318-323
Matthias Klinghardt
Marcion's Gospel and the New Testament: Catalyst or Consequence? pp. 324-9
Jason Beduhn
Marcion's Gospel and the New Testament: Catalyst or Consequence? pp. 329-334
Judith Lieu
"Matthias Klinghardt and Jason BeDuhn both argue
against the charge leveled by Marcion's patristic opponents that Marcion redacted a form of Luke's Gospel,
asserting to the contrary
that Marcion's Gospel preceded both Marcion and Luke and was in fact the earliest Gospel written [This is different from the view of Markus Vinzent, who thinks that Marcion himself actually wrote the earliest Gospel: for a critical interaction with Vinzent's book, see
[Dieter Roth's March 2015 comments
] here]."
"In the present article, Klinghardt summarizes his work, arguing that
- "in almost every single instance the direction of the editorial process runs from the Marcionite Gospel to Luke. Some passages - such as the beginning of the gospel or the account of the Last Supper - confirm this editorial direction beyond any doubt. True, there are indeed a few examples where the editorial process could run in either direction, but none of these examples requires, or even suggests, a reversal of the Marcionite priority. (319)"
"How do the other Gospels - especially Matthew and Mark - fit into the picture?
- "The most obvious consequence of the priority of the Marcionite Gospel over Luke relates to the Synoptic Problem: when taking this 'pre-Lukan' gospel into account, the model of the inter-gospel relations changes profoundly. Most remarkably, this model disposes of the need for 'Q': the Two-Source Theory becomes entirely redundant, and the other models in discussion - such as the Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre hypothesis or the Neo-Griesbach Theory - are irrelevant. (320)"
Klinghardt suggests that the Marcionite Gospel is first, on which Mark depended. Matthew used both Mark and the Marcionite Gospel. John used the previous three, and Luke used all the previous four.
"The search for the 'historical Jesus', therefore, becomes a completely different, if not an impossible, task" (321).
"although it is not impossible that a gospel existed before the middle of the second century, there is simply not even the slightest shred of evidence for any written gospel prior to that time" (322).
Klinghardt notes that many of the readings attributed to Marcion's Gospel show up as variant readings in the textual tradition of Luke, leading him to conclude that "this gospel was not the arbitrary product of a mean-spirited heretic but, quite simply and obviously, an older text utilised by many, including Marcion himself. And that text was, quite simply and obviously, edited by Luke" (322).
BeDuhn
- Once we ... objectively examine the texts of the two gospels, it becomes immediately clear that Marcion's Gospel cannot be an ideologically motivated redaction of Luke, for the simple reason that the two gospels are practically identical in ideology. (324)
...BeDuhn sees Luke as a Marcionite-neutral redaction of the Marcionite Gospel, which perhaps took place prior to Marcion. He says: "...it could even be suggested that Luke is a second edition of Marcion's Gospel by the same author." BeDuhn also thinks that the Two-Source hypothesis
may be correct, once Luke is replaced in the equation with the Marcionite Gospel and the reconstruction of Q proceeds along these new lines.
... in this article [BeDun] offers an interesting discussion of the divergent concepts of the collection of books promoted by Marcion and his opponents. He does seem to assume that Marcion had a clearly defined canon.
Lieu
In this article she argues that our complete ignorance of Marcion and his Gospel from any source other than his opponents should make us cautious.
- It is, therefore, misleading to suppose that Marcion's Gospel has survived and is available for comparative analysis, as one might with the canonical gospels. Although attempts to reconstruct Marcion's Gospel multiply, claims to achieve any precision must be treated with considerable scepticism. (330)
[
Elsewhere she judges rather positively Roth's work.]
.
