Marcion, 2nd Century Bad Boy -- Could It Be True?

[Peter Kirby]

If I can summarize your arguments, then, you are concerned about:

(1) The omission of Mk 6:47-8:27a in canonical Luke -- how is it that canonical Luke omits this, if its author knew Matthew or a copy of Mark which had it? (As background, you explain that you believe it resulted from a copy of Mark missing the section, which might explain "early Luke" but not then also canonical Luke.)

(2) How is it that canonical Luke knew about the Gospel of Matthew, if he did? You believe that the author of canonical Luke did not know Matthew.

(3) How do you reconcile this with the existence of "Q"? For you believe you have good arguments for the existence of "Q."

At least two of these arguments hinge on questions regarding the behavior and motivations of the author of canonical Luke, and the third argument (pro-"Q") may also contain several elements involving questions on the writing of canonical Luke, embedded in the form of "arguments for Q."

It's not completely clear which "arguments for Q" are believed to be effective in this context and which aren't, given that the page with the "arguments for Q" doesn't specifically engage the questions we are asking about here. The page has been linked, but the "arguments for Q" haven't been examined for how cogent they are. It would of course be helpful to highlight which points are believed to "stick," explicitly here on the forum.

(There's a lot of plainly irrelevant material, as the page itself claims to have a slightly different purpose and emphasis: "This page is about demonstrating that the Q source, as (a) document(s), was put together after GMark was known and before GMatthew & GLuke were written." The most difficult part, though, is that it is written against "Farrer's hypothesis," which is not the hypothesis being considered here. It presents several "arguments against 'Q' extracted from GMatthew," where these "Q" passages are undifferentiated, on account of the fact that it is Farrer being considered as the alternative.)

Since we seem concerned with discovering the intent behind the author of a canonical Luke, as it relates to the synoptic problem issues raised, some desiderata for consideration of these topics, then, is a better delineation of:

(1) The scope of the differences of canonical Luke from the Evangelion, especially for the purposes of how we'd have to understand the former as a revision of the latter, as this is required to inquire into the motives of the author and his changes.

(2) A catalogue of the agreements within canonical Luke, against the Evangelion, in favor of Mark and of Matthew, so as to have a better summary of the way in which the author would have been using those two texts.

(3) A redaction-critical study of how the author of canonical Luke (and, presumably, of Acts) uses his sources.

I welcome further exploration here; we still have a lot of work to do.

[Peter Kirby]

I think the start of the Marcionite Gospel had far less disagreement with the opening of Mark than is presented in the theory you are remarking on.

When I evaluate Mark's first 20 verses, I see Marcion's Gospel is only missing a baker's dozen of the verses.

Mark 1:1 is simply the versification of the proto-Gospel title.

Mark verses 1:16-20 do appear in Marcion/Luke 5:1-11.

This appears to be a response to (the poorly chosen wording of):

...the author of the Evangelion has omitted Mark 1:1-20 and begun at Mark 1:21...

...Notice that by omitting Mark 1:1-20, the author would also cut off all the earlier references to John:...

As to why Mark 1:1-20 could end up on the cutting room floor, one possibility is to consider that the other canonical gospels also appeared to struggle with the baptism of Jesus by John and what is implied thereby. ...

This was just written the wrong way, rather than being intended to provide a "theory" that Mark 1:16-20 didn't show up in Marcion/Luke 5:1-11. Whether they did or didn't (and I would agree, it looks like they did) wasn't the point of my post.

The 2nd half of Mark 1:2, Malachi 3:1, is a Markan addition, not something Marcion dropped.

This kind of thing is also possible, and also orthogonal to the point I was making.

[Bernard Muller]

to Peter,

(1) The omission of Mk 6:47-8:27a in canonical Luke -- how is it that canonical Luke omits this, if its author knew Matthew or a copy of Mark which had it? (As background, you explain that you believe it resulted from a copy of Mark missing the section, which might explain "early Luke" but not then also canonical Luke.)

Early Luke (EL) is unproven (or at least less proven than Q).

According to your theory, & without Q:
That EL (which would become gMarcion much later) would have been written after gMark & before gMatthew, that is around 80 CE, according to my dating of the two canonical gospels. So EL (& not gMark) would become later the main basis for gLuke. And "Matthew" would have picked up from EL all the (later considered) Q material available from EL (and only that) because the main basis for gMatthew is still gMark. Then "Matthew" would have added material (such as 3:7b-9 & 12, 4:3-4a & 5-11a) also later considered part of Q because borrowed by "Luke".

Of course there is no evidence for an early EL or a Christian community adopting Marcion's beliefs so early. And this is very odd because (at least) two gospels authors would have known it, so that EL would have been popular then.

(2) How is it that canonical Luke knew about the Gospel of Matthew, if he did? You believe that the author of canonical Luke did not know Matthew.

"Luke" knowing about gMatthew was, as I understood, according to your theory. That's why I commented on that. If "Luke" did not know about gMatthew, from where would she get Mt3:7b-9 & 12, 4:3-4a & 5-11a? Certainly not from EL.

(3) How do you reconcile this with the existence of "Q"? For you believe you have good arguments for the existence of "Q."

Your theory, as I understand it, does not need Q, which you declared being just an assumption. Of course, with the existence of Q, "Luke" did not have to know about gMatthew (but the author of EL had to know about (most) of Q).

It's not completely clear which "arguments for Q" are believed to be effective in this context and which aren't, given that the page with the "arguments for Q" doesn't specifically engage the questions we are asking about here. The page has been linked, but the "arguments for Q" haven't been examined for how cogent they are. It would of course be helpful to highlight which points are believed to "stick," explicitly here on the forum.

(There's a lot of plainly irrelevant material, as the page itself claims to have a slightly different purpose and emphasis: "This page is about demonstrating that the Q source, as (a) document(s), was put together after GMark was known and before GMatthew & GLuke were written." The most difficult part, though, is that it is written against "Farrer's hypothesis," which is not the hypothesis being considered here. It presents several "arguments against 'Q' extracted from GMatthew," where these "Q" passages are undifferentiated, on account of the fact that it is Farrer being considered as the alternative.)

My webpage on Q is all encompassing and shows some of its sources, its evolution, sometimes a reconstruction of the original from the two different versions, etc. That webpage also shows evidence that "Luke" did not know about gMatthew (which seems to me part of your theory), that part of Q was translated from Aramaic, that Luke's community had greater respect for Q than the one of "Matthew". All these things and more are linked together.

(1) The scope of the differences of canonical Luke from the Evangelion, especially for the purposes of how we'd have to understand the former as a revision of the latter, as this is required to inquire into the motives of the author and his changes.

We know very little about that evangelion, except it appears to be a truncated & modified version of gLuke for three "fathers" of the Church.
Tertullian, in book 4 of AM, is more intent to propagate his christian beliefs and criticized the ones of the Marcionites than commenting strictly on gMarcion. Epiphanius stated a lot of "falsifications but rarely provided accurate data on gMarcion.
We cannot really reconstruct the exact wording of gMarcion, and even less the one for that hypothetical early Luke.
The motives of Marcion are very clear about revising gLuke. And Marcion's doctrines are known through Irenaeus AH and the three first books of Tertullian's AM, and both authors explained them without saying they got that by studying Marcion's gospel & Pauline epistles. That means they probably knew that from other Marcionite writings (such as the Antitheses) or, even more likely, through ex-Marcionites.
And apparently, Marcion's gospels and Marcion's rendition of the 10 Pauline epistles take in account Marcion's doctrines. So everything fits.

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

Based on this additional post, then, these are some things that you are concerned about:

(1) The omission of Mk 6:47-8:27a in canonical Luke -- how is it that canonical Luke omits this, if its author knew Matthew or a copy of Mark which had it? (As background, you explain that you believe it resulted from a copy of Mark missing the section, which might explain "early Luke" but not then also canonical Luke.)

(2) How is it that canonical Luke knew about the Gospel of Matthew, as it is according to the synoptic problem solution suggested in this thread? You believe that the author of canonical Luke did not know Matthew.

(3) How do you reconcile this with the existence of "Q"? For you believe you have good arguments for the existence of "Q." In addition to your claim that the author of canonical Luke did not know Matthew, you draw attention to your claims that "part of Q was translated from Aramaic" and "Luke's community had greater respect for Q" than Matthew. You do not draw attention to any other "arguments for Q" in this context, although you do want us to know you have a "webpage on Q" that is "all encompassing." If you think of anything else specifically that is imagined to be relevant, feel free to point it out.

(4) You believe the Gospel of Matthew is early (ca. AD 80), you believe that Marcion is not that early, and you believe that the text of the Evangelion proves that the author held to a particularly Marcionite point of view. Based on these three beliefs, you write: "Of course there is no evidence for an early EL or a Christian community adoptinging Marcion's beliefs so early. And this is very odd because (at least) two gospels authors would have known it, so that EL would have been popular then."

(5) Lastly, you have stated that you think that the Apostolikon and that the Evangelion appear to you as having been edited by Marcion, because you believe that is the most logical explanation, since you think it makes sense to say that the canonical texts had been edited to produce the Apostolikon and Evangelion, as you think they look as they should according to the idea of a Marcionite revision. And so you say: "The motives of Marcion are very clear about revising gLuke. And Marcion's doctrines are known through Irenaeus AH and the three first books of Tertullian's AM, and both authors explained them without saying they got that by studying Marcion's gospel & Pauline epistles. That means they probably knew that from other Marcionite writings (such as the Antitheses) or, even more likely, through ex-Marcionites. And apparently, Marcion's gospels and Marcion's rendition of the 10 Pauline epistles take in account Marcion's doctrines. So everything fits."

Please let me know if you believe you know anything else that might be helpful here.

[Bernard Muller]

to Peter,

Please let me know if you believe you know anything else that might be helpful here.

Yes, that's about it. But I do not like "believe you know" which makes me look like I got knowledge from faith.
I did considerable research on the matter and what I "believe you know" is the conclusion of my studies.
About the dating of gMatthew: http://historical-jesus.info/57.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

These resources from Ben C. Smith should be helpful for those who are interested in further investigation of the topic:

• Evangelion (part of a gospel series)
• Apostolikon (part of an epistle series)

It's also possible to locate Roth's book in electronic format (but BeDuhn may require a hard copy). Thesis online too.

For another view, see: Stephan Huller

David Inglis has a fairly thorough online exploration of the gospel, from a synoptic problem perspective: Compared with Luke.

Markus Vincent's blog has a few posts that may be of interest: 1, 2, 3.

There are also a number of posts regarding the topic of Marcion on Vridar.

And a few other posts online are relevant, including: this, this, this, and this.