There is No Actual REAL Evidence Marcion Ever Falsified Luke

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

There is No Actual REAL Evidence Marcion Ever Falsified Luke

Post by Secret Alias »

The claim that the Marcionite gospel was somehow developed from or related to Luke is one of the cornerstones of Patristic exegesis. Yet neither Irenaeus nor Tertullian provides any proof for this assertion and in fact a careful reading of Against Marcion reveals the exact opposite – namely that any time interpolare, adulerato, emando, erado, detraho and the like are used in the context of textual criticism it involves one of the following scenarios – (a) a Marcionite claim of alteration to their gospel of Paul by the pseudo-apostolic 'pillars' of Jerusalem (b) a charge against Marcion that he altered Matthew (c) a charge against Marcion of corrupting Mark or (d) a general statement of Marcion falsifying gospels or scripture or the like. Against Marcion certainly claims that the Marcionite gospel is a corrupt form of Luke. But Patristic sources say lots of crazy things. One would surely expect at least one explicit example of an alteration that Marcion made to Luke. The fact that no evidence is ever brought forward to back up this claim should make us wonder if this is because Luke is in fact a gospel developed against Marcion rather than the other way around.

The earliest possible mention of Marcion is preserved in the anti-Marcionite prologue to John. Papias is referenced in relation to a tradition that John condemned Marcion for heresy. It could suggest that Papias knew both Marcion and a claim that John opposed him. Given that Patristic evidence has little in the way of credibility or truthfulness, it could just be Irenaeus or someone like Irenaeus making this claim about Papias and/or John. Against Heresies misrepresents Papias’s statement about John, the gospel of Mark and the gospel of Matthew that made its way into Eusebius’s Church History. Irenaeus expands the report in Papias to claim that John himself authored a gospel. More importantly he implies that John was part of an apostolic– undoubtedly the very ‘pillars’ mentioned in Galatians chapter 2 – effort which ‘brought together’ [contulerunt] the four gospels which now make up our New Testament canon.

Papias knows nothing about this ‘textual collection drive.’ In Eusebius’s citation John the elder – not John the apostle – just so happens to be talking about the differences between the gospel of Mark and the gospel of Matthew. By the time Against Heresies got hold of the passage it became the cornerstone of the building of the apostolic Church. The development of this myth was specifically designed to address a clear problem which emerges in Papias – Mark came before Matthew. The Philosophumena, a heretical treatise related to but ultimately quite different from Against Heresies – infers that the gospel of Mark was the Marcionite gospel. If somehow the gospel of Mark was the text which the pillars received in Galatians chapter 2 and the gospel of Matthew resulted from the various emendations which these ‘Judaizers’ made to the text, it is not difficult to see why Irenaeus would want to invent to introduce another ‘gospel’ to obscure the parallels between Papias and Marcion with respect to their understanding of apostolic history.

Without Luke there is a neat simplicity in apostolic history – Paul opposed the Jerusalem Church. Paul claimed that his gospel was first and Papias agrees in the very manner that Peter in the Clementine confirms that “he who was among those born of woman (Simon aka ‘Paul’) came first; then he who was among the sons of men came second. It were possible, following this order, to perceive to what series Simon belongs, who came before me to the Gentiles, and to which I belong who have come after him, and have come in upon him as light upon darkness, as knowledge upon ignorance, as healing upon disease.” The whole world makes a whole lot of sense until Luke, the Acts of the Apostles and John come along to turn things on their heads.

The only reason scholars accept Irenaeus’s version of apostolic history is because modern orthodoxy develops from his claims. Against Heresies doesn’t cite any actual evidence when it makes the claim that Marcion:
mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most dearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father. He likewise persuaded his disciples that he himself was more worthy of credit than are those apostles who have handed down the Gospel to us, furnishing them not with the Gospel, but merely a fragment of it.
Irenaeus initiates an understanding – perpetuated by Tertullian – where Marcion is understood to have had access to all four gospels but only chose Luke. This element of ‘choice’ might have something to do with the origin of the Christian understanding of ‘heresy.’

I want to stress again that all the while he and Tertullian promote this understanding of Luke as the inseparable witness to Paul, the Marcionites held fast to the understanding that Galatians confirmed a break between Paul and the Jerusalem Church and Matthew was a falsified version of Paul’s gospel. Luke was needed to basically take out Papias as a witness for the prosecution – namely that ‘yes Matthew was a reworking of Mark.’ By making Luke Paul’s gospel Irenaeus sets up a different understanding of what happened with the synoptic gospels. Marcion came along a century after these events and – according to the fable - took the gospel of Luke falsifying it to reflect his own ideas about another god beside the Creator and a separation between the Law and Gospel a reality. Yet the story obviously breaks down as Paul has a connection to these same ideas in the Clementine Literature and the Acts of Peter. It is only the inherited belief of scholars in Luke, Luke’s ‘inseparability’ from Paul and the Acts of the Apostles which keeps the rather flimsy claims of Irenaeus alive.

Much of this has already been noted by Baur among others. What I’d like to do in this paper is point out the complete lack of evidence presented by Irenaeus for the claim that the Marcionite gospel is a corrupt version of Luke. The evidence better fits a situation where Irenaeus established four gospels, one for each of the principal heresies and Luke was molded into the Marcionite counter-gospel. In Book Three we get as close to anything resembling a proof text where he writes that “Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains.” Of course, Irenaeus is still making an unsubstantiated accusation against Marcion. There is nothing related which proves that Marcionite falsified Luke. Nevertheless the argumentation so resembles statements found in Tertullian’s Against Marcion that it is difficult not to accept that Irenaeus’s Against Marcion was a previous version of the surviving Latin text.

The idea that Irenaeus lays behind a text of Tertullian already has a precedent – Against the Valentinians is a text of Tertullian in name only. It is plagiarized sometimes word for word from the first twelve chapters of Against Heresies. A similar situation exists with respect to Book Three of Against Marcion and an earlier treatise of Justin preserved in Against the Jews. The point now is that not only does the methodology of Against Marcion Book Four so resembles the plan for Irenaeus’s Against Marcion but Tertullian himself acknowledges this present text as the third version of a lost original exemplar with at least of these three texts being attributed to a different author. So it is that when he says:
Every sentence, indeed the whole structure, arising from Marcion's impiety and profanity, I now challenge in terms of that gospel [Luke] which he has by manipulation made his own.
Too little attention is paid to the strange methodology acknowledged here coming down to basically ‘I will use Luke against Marcion because that’s the original source for his text.’ The case for Marcion forging Luke is sidestepped completely. The echo of Irenaeus’s circular logic in Against Heresies - “Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved … from those [passages] which he still retains” – is unmistakable.

This isn’t to say of course that there isn’t a charge of ‘interpolation’ of a gospel. The point of this paper is to note that it isn’t made for Luke. Luke is simply brought forward to ‘confirm’ that Marcion’s gospel derives from Luke and – strangely – earlier material arguing Marcion falsified Matthew in particular or a gospel like Matthew is left standing. I will make the case that the four gospels were developed after the first edition of Against Marcion. The first edition here went back to Justin who used something resembling a Matthew-like gospel-harmony but which did not contain the Matthean Antitheses. Justin made the case that Marcion falsified his gospel by adding ‘the Antitheses’ and then Irenaeus in the second edition of Against Heresies simply reworked the original material in Greek to reflect a four gospel system. He rearranged Justin’s lost work (which he references in Book Four interestingly enough) and – importantly – organized the fourfold canon according to points Justin developed against Marcion including, most significantly, the placement of the contentious ‘Antitheses’ in Matthew.

To understand the situation we have to go back to Papias. Papias preserved something that John said about Mark being the first gospel but lacking order and Matthew being an improvement over Mark. From that germinal seed, it was imagined – or ‘envisioned’ - that John supervised a gospel canon – a collection of gospels which together formed a ‘rule’ and that not only did John write a gospel but that another gospel – Luke – was the key to hold the fourfold form of the text together. Each one of these gospels, it was presumed, had a heresy associated with it. Matthew had the so-called ‘Ebionites,’ John the Valentinians and of course Luke the Marcionites. But now that we see that Against Marcion likely only identified Luke as the gospel of the Marcionites in later versions of its development the fact that the Philosophumena – itself one of many ‘alternative versions’ of Irenaeus’s heresiological tome – identifies the gospel of Mark as the Marcionite gospel becomes extremely significant. It reinforces the understanding that a Matthew-like was likely the gospel the original gospel of the author of version 1 of Against Marcion.

We can see this understanding reflected in the first line of Against Marcion preserving undoubtedly the original sense of a Matthew-based Marcionite corruption argument:
Whatever in times past we have wrought in opposition to Marcion, is from the present moment no longer to be accounted of [Si quid retro gestum est nobis adversus Marcionem, iam hinc viderit]
In other words, The author counts three versions of Against Marcion floating around in antiquity. The first is the ur-text, ‘that which he wrote in times past,’ the second is one which was stolen by someone who became an apostate, the third is the present text which not only differs from ‘version 2’ but strangely also ‘version 1.’ We can be certain that one of the changes that emerged from version 1 to either 2 or 3 was the introduction of the ‘Marcion’s gospel is a version of Luke’ argument. How do we know this? We need only go back to the core argument that Marcion falsified an ‘apostolic gospel’ original belonging to the author’s Christian community.

This is the topsy turvy battle that rages throughout Against Marcion and Against Heresies and goes back to the statement from Galatians about Paul presenting his gospel to the pillars of the Jerusalem church. Both the author and the Marcionites acknowledged that this was a written gospel. But strangely both Irenaeus and Tertullian’s text of Galatians has a corruption whereby Paul said that he did submit to the authority of the Jerusalem Church – meaning that he willingly submitted to their changes to his gospel. Our text and the Marcionite text of Galatians has Paul has he did not submit to their authority – meaning that he opposed their editorial changes to his text. We can imagine that for at least a few generations the battle was over whether or not Paul consented to the changes made by the pillars of Jerusalem. But it was Irenaeus’s genius to change the nature of the debate by inventing Luke as the gospel of Paul.

The Marcionites of course said that the written gospel was by Paul’s own hand. The original draft of Against Marcion necessarily understood that the gospel of the community of the pillars of Jerusalem was necessarily a version of Paul’s gospel which he willingly submitted to James and Peter. This situation sounds uncannily similar to Papias’s statements about Matthew being a corrected version of Mark – one which made up for the deficiencies of the original. In other words, even without having the Marcionite gospel before us we can see a situation where Mark was the Marcionite gospel. Yet the very manner in which Against Marcion Book Four has come down to us betrays the fact that Luke was unknown to the author of version 1. Marcion is always identified as a ‘gospel falsifier’ but never with respect to Luke. The only mention of gospel ‘interpolation,’ ‘falsification,’ ‘adulteration,’ ‘taking out’ passages takes place with respect to non-Lukan gospels specifically Matthew and on one occasion Mark.

I want to pay very close attention to the words Tertullian uses. In the end we will see that like Irenaeus before him he provides absolutely no evidence for the textual manipulation of Luke. At the very beginning we hear a summary which reads:
You have there my short and sharp answer to the Antitheses. I pass on next to show how his gospel—certainly not Judaic but Pontic—is in places adulterated [adulterati] [4.2.1]
Again, there is no mention of specific adulterations made to Luke. Then in what follows again in the next chapter, we read:
If however the gospel which the apostles brought together [contulerunt] with Paul's was beyond reproach, and they were rebuked only for inconsistency of conduct, and yet false apostles have falsified [interpolaverunt] the truth of their gospels, and from them our copies are derived, what can have become of that genuine apostles' document which has suffered from adulterators [apostolorum instrumentum quod adulteros]—that document which gave light to Paul, and from him to Luke? Or if it has been completely de- stroyed, so wiped out by a flood of falsifiers as though by some deluge, then not even Marcion has a true one. Or if that is to be the true one, if that is the apostles', which Marcion alone possesses, then how is it that that which is not of the apostles, but is ascribed to Luke, is in agreement with ours? Or if that which Marcion has in use is not at once to be attributed to Luke because it does agree with ours—though they allege ours is falsified in respect of its title—then it does belong to the apostles. And in that case ours too, which is in agreement with that other, no less belongs to the apostles, even if it too is falsified (adulterato) in its title. [4.3]
Once again there is no reference to any specific alterations to Luke. Instead Against Marcion goes back to Galatians chapter 2 to debate whether any of this supports the Marcionite contention that Paul’s gospel was stolen and manipulated by the Jerusalem Church.

The Marcionites claim to have Paul’s original gospel written by the apostle himself. Irenaeus developed a counter-story where Luke was ‘inseparable’ from Paul in other words, we don’t need to have a tradition of Paul ourselves we need only trust what Luke says. But again interpolare here does not apply to Marcionite treatment of Luke. Instead it is clearly part of a binary choice being set up between the Marcionite gospel and a Matthew-like text:
So we must pull away at the rope of contention, swaying with equal effort to the one side or the other. I say that mine is true: Marcion makes that claim for his. I say that Marcion's is falsified (adulteratum): Marcion says the same of mine. Who shall decide between us? … If that gospel which among us is ascribed to Luke—we shall see <later> whether it is <accepted by> Marcion—if that is the same that Marcion by his Antitheses accuses of having been falsified [interpolatum] by the upholders of Judaism with a view to its being so combined in one body with the law and the prophets that they might also pretend that Christ had that origin, evidently he could only have brought accusation against something he had found there already. [4.4]
I will argue that the reference to Luke was added later by the second or third revision. But the important thing to see again is that the situation in Galatians is what is being debated, the Marcionites saying that Paul condemned Peter for falsifying his written gospel.

As we go through all the explicit mentions of ‘falsification’ or literary ‘corruption’ we should never lose sight again of the fact that there is never any reference to any ‘interpolation’ of Luke by Marcion. In the next chapter we read:
No one passes censure on things afterwards to be, when he does not know they are afterwards to be. Correction [Emendatio] does not come before fault. As corrector [Emendator] apparently of a gospel which from the times of Tiberius to those of Antoninus had suffered subversion, Marcion comes to light, first and alone, after Christ had waited for him all that time, repenting of having been in a hurry to send forth apostles without Marcion to protect them. And yet heresy, which is always in this manner correcting [emendat] the gospels, and so corrupting them, is the effect of human temerity, not of divine authority … And so, by making these corrections [emendat], he assures us of two things—that ours came first, for he is correcting [emendans] what he has found there already, and that that other came later which he has put together out of his corrections [emendatione] of ours, and so made into a new thing of his own. [4.4]
There is clearly an accusation of Marcion ‘emending’ a gospel, but no specific charge related to that gospel being the gospel of Luke nor any evidence supporting this contention put forth. It is only stated that the Marcionites using Galatians as their frame of reference identify the Jerusalem church as having stolen and falsified their gospel. All that follows from Tertullian is little more than a ‘I know you are but what am I’ exercise.

So what are we left with? The only thing that either Tertullian or Irenaeus actually say is that Marcion is a falsifier and Marcion’s gospel is Luke. He makes an assertion based on these two claims that Marcion ‘must have’ falsified Luke without ever citing a specific falsification. This is explicit in the next chapter of Book Four:
So then, since it is evident that these (gospels) too existed in the churches, how is it that Marcion has not laid hands on them as well, either to correct if falsified (aut emendanda si adulterata), or to acknowledge if correct? For it is conceivable that any who were engaged in corrupting one gospel might have taken even greater interest in the corruption of gospels whose authenticity they knew had wider acceptance—false apostles for this very reason, that it was apostles they would be counterfeiting by this forgery. The more then Marcion might have corrected things which would have needed correction (emendasset quae fuissent emendanda) if they had been corrupt, the more he has in fact certified that those have not been corrupted which he has not thought it necessary to correct (non fuisse corrupta quae non putavit emendanda). So he did correct (emendavit) the one he thought was corrupt. Yet even this he had no right to correct: because it was not corrupt. For if the apostolic gospels have come down to us in their integrity, while the gospel of Luke, in the form in which we have it, is in such agreement with the standard of those others that it is retained in the churches along with them, it is at once evident that Luke's also came down in integrity until Marcion's act of sacrilege. In fact it was only when Marcion laid hands upon it, that it became different from the apostolic gospels, and in opposition to them. [4.5]
This is as close as Tertullian ever comes to providing any actual evidence for Marcion’s emendation of Luke – he simply makes a general charge both for Luke’s inseparability from Paul and Marcion’s corruption. But no actual textual evidence. The only examples of ‘interpolation’ or ‘alteration’ come from the other gospels – Matthew and Mark.

The case against ‘the Antitheses’ is a perfect case in point. While many have tried to imagine it as a credal statement ‘fixed’ to the front of the canon, others have rightly noted it is simply a more radical version of the Matthean Antitheses (Matthew 5:18 – 44):
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 [adulteratum]. Certainly the whole of the work he has done, including the prefixing of his Antitheses, he directs to the one purpose of setting up opposition between the Old Testament and the New, and thereby putting his Christ in separation from the Creator, as belonging to another god, and having no connection with the law and the prophets. Certainly that is why he has expunged [erasit] all the things that oppose his view, that are in accord with the Creator, on the plea that they have been woven in by his partisans; but has retained those that accord with his opinion. These it is we shall call to account, with these we shall grapple, to see if they will favour my case, not his, to see if they will put a check on Marcion's pretensions. Then it will become clear that these things have been expunged [erasa] by the same disease of heretical blindness by which the others have been retained. Such will be the purpose and plan of my treatise, on those precise terms which have been agreed by both parties. [4.6.2]
Tertullian says he is advancing toward demonstrating that Marcion has ‘fixed’ the Antitheses. To be certain that might imply that he had a version of Luke which he fixed parts of Matthew on to. But I will contend that this isn’t what is being suggested here.

The original author clearly did not accept Marcion’s version of the Antitheses. But as we shall see this is clearly a battle over the specific contextualization of Matthew’s Antitheses. It has nothing to do with a corruption of Luke.
He (Jesus) makes it clear on his first appearance that he is come not to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them (Matt 5:17). For Marcion has blotted this out as an interpolation (ut additum erasit). But in vain will he deny that Christ said in words a thing which he at once partly accomplished in act. For in the meanwhile he fulfilled the prophecy in respect of place. From heaven straightway into the synagogue. As the saying goes, let us get down to it: to your task, Marcion: remove ( aufer ) even this from the gospel, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and, It is not <meet> to take away (auferre) the children's bread and give it to dogs:c for this gives the impression that Christ belongs to Israel. I have plenty of acts, if you take away his words. Take away (Detrahe) Christ's sayings, and the facts will speak
All previous commentators seem ‘puzzled’ by the consistent Matthean references without noticing that all adulteration, interpolation, erasure, take away refences to gospel passages inevitably involved non-Lukan and more often than not Matthean material. The reason for this should be obvious – the deepest layer of the text – the one which corresponds to the first version of Against Marcion – had nothing whatsoever to do with the charge that Marcion falsified Luke.
So then he has commanded the law to be fulfilled: in whatever sense he gave this command, he can in the same sense have stated the principle, I am not come to destroy the law but to fulfil it. What good then did it do you to excise from the gospel a sentence which remains there still? [Quid ergo tibi fuit de evangelio erasisse quod salvum est?] You have admitted that he did for kindness' sake something which you deny that he said. So there is proof that he said it, because he did do it, and that it is you that have excised the Lord's words from the gospel, and not our people that have foisted them in [et te potius vocem domini de evangelio eradicasse quam nostros iniecisse]
Again this situation confirms that the first version of Against Marcion knew nothing about Luke and only referenced Marcionite excision from Matthew.

This pattern as we have noted continues through the rest of the document whenever the topic of interpolation comes up. For instance Marcion ‘taking out’ something appears throughout chapter 17 but as always it is a change made to Matthew. So we read:
Because, he continues, he is kind unto the unthankful and evil. Well done, Marcion. Cleverly enough have you deprived [detraxisti] him of rain and sunshine, that he might not be taken for the Creator. Yet who is this kind one, who has never been heard of until now? How could he be kind when from him had proceeded no good gifts of this sort of kindness with which <he had acted> who gave us the loan of sunshine and showers without expectation of any return from the human race? This the Creator has done, who in return for all his liberality in works of nature even until now bears with men while they pay their debt of thanks- giving more readily to idols than to himself. [4.17.6]
The ‘rain and sunshine’ that Marcion has ‘taken out’ of his gospel only makes sense if the author originally argued that Marcion cut things out of Matthew:
Matthew 5:44 – 45 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Luke 6:35-36 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
Of course once modern apologists hear that Marcion prefers Lukan readings to Matthew they completely forget the focus of the first few chapters where it says that Marcion corrupted the author’s gospel and Marcion was a bad guy.

A little later in the same chapter Marcion is condemned for not preserving Matthew once again:
He will himself be found to give a better explanation of the character of that fire when he proceeds, Suppose ye that I am come to send peace on earth? I tell you, Nay: but division. The book says, A sword: but Marcion corrects (emendat ) it, as though division were not the function of a sword. So then, as he has not come for peace, by fire he means the fire of overthrow. Like battle, like fire: like sword, like flame: neither of them proper for <your> lord [4.17]
Evans tries to pass this off as “a lapse of memory” because “the sword comes from Matt. 10: 34; Luke 12: 53 has 'division.’” But this totally ignores that Marcion is only said to have ‘interpolated,’ ‘erased,’ ‘left out’ or whatever else passages from gospels other than Luke. Indeed when Tertullian ridicules Marcion for the way his disciple Apelles allegedly started his own when Jesus said “a disciple is not above his master” (Matthew 10:24) the statement here fits the pattern of the rest of the work – “I am surprised that in this alone Marcion's adulterating (adulterium) hand lost its cunning.” [4.17.12] Given the context of all the other statements it is clear that Matthew and not Luke is meant here.

A similar statement in 43:7 makes clear that there are no references to Marcion interpolating Luke:
Now Marcion was unwilling to expunge from his Gospel some statements which even made against him----I suspect, on purpose, to have it in his power from the passages which he did not suppress, when he could have done so, either to deny that he had expunged anything, or else to justify his suppressions, if he made any. But he spares only such passages as he can subvert quite as well by explaining them away as by expunging them from the text. Thus, in the passage before us, he would have the words, "A spirit hath not bones, as ye see me have," so transposed, as to mean, "A spirit, such as ye see me to be, hath not bones; "that is to say, it is not the nature of a spirit to have bones. But what need of so tortuous a construction, when He might have simply said, "A spirit hath not bones, even as you observe that I have not?"
In short Against Marcion develops from the understanding that Marcion falsified, corrected, interpolated a gospel like Matthew rather than Luke. To argue otherwise is to ignore what Against Marcion actually says and act instead as a protector of the reputation of the Church Fathers. Because it becomes manifestly obvious that the Marcion falsified Luke understanding is a complete lie.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: There is No Actual REAL Evidence Marcion Ever Falsified Luke

Post by Secret Alias »

Even though Marcion's gospel clearly does not reference most if not all the material before the middle of chapter 4 of Luke, the author of Against Marcion does not mention any of the material as excised or missing.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: There is No Actual REAL Evidence Marcion Ever Falsified Luke

Post by Secret Alias »

Holmes's edition finds only one Lukan reference in Against Marcion Book 4 before "in the 15th of Tiberias Jesus came down to Capernaum.' Another measure:

Luke 1, 1 - 4 2 § 4 (p.548, l.27) BP1
Luke 1, 2 - 4 2 § 4 (p.548, l.27) BP1
Luke 1, 27 - 5 1 § 6 (p.664, l.7) BP1
Luke 1, 31 - 4 7 § 11 (p.555, l.23) BP1
Luke 1, 35 - 4 7 § 11 (p.555, l.22) BP1, 5 9 § 8 (p.690, l.22) BP1
Luke 1, 51 - 5 12 § 8 (p.701, l.10) BP1
Luke 1, 52 - 4 28 § 11 (p.623, l.12) BP1, 5 12 § 8 (p.701, l.10) BP1
Luke 2, 1 - 4 7 § 7 (p.554, l.12) BP1, 4 19 § 10 (p.593, l.5) BP1, 4 36 § 8 (p.645, l.19) BP1
Luke 2, 4 - 4 36 § 9 (p.645, l.2) BP1
Luke 2, 7 - 4 2 § 2 (p.547, l.15) BP1, 4 7 § 7 (p.554, l.12) BP1, 5 9 § 7 (p.690, l.13) BP1
Luke 2, 8 - 5 9 § 7 (p.690, l.10) BP1, 5 9 § 7 (p.690, l.12) BP1
Luke 2, 15 - 5 9 § 7 (p.690, l.12) BP1
Luke 2, 21 - 4 7 § 7 (p.554, l.14) BP1
Luke 2, 32 - 4 9 § 6 (p.559, l.27) BP1, 4 11 § 1 (p.565, l.7) BP1
Luke 3, 1 - 1 15 § 1 (p.456, l.14) BP1, 1 15 § 6 (p.457, l.23) BP1, 1 19 § 2 (p.459, l.7) BP1, 1 22 § 10 (p.465, l.19) BP1, 4 6 § 3 (p.552, l.26) BP1
Luke 3, 3 - 4 11 § 5 (p.566, l.2) BP1
Luke 3, 4 - 4 18 § 7 (p.590, l.22 - P) BP1, 5 3 § 8 (p.670, l.25) BP1
Luke 3, 5 - 5 3 § 8 (p.670, l.25) BP1
Luke 3, 19 - 4 34 § 8 (p.637, l.20) BP1
Luke 3, 20 - 4 34 § 8 (p.637, l.20) BP1
Luke 4, 14 - 4 8 § 2 (p.556, l.7) BP1
Luke 4, 23 - 4 8 § 2 (p.556, l.8) BP1
Luke 4, 27 - 4 9 § 6 (p.559, l.23) BP1, 4 35 § 6 (p.640, l.5) BP1
Luke 4, 29 - 4 8 § 2 (p.557, l.9) BP1
Luke 4, 30 - 4 8 § 2 (p.556, l.7) BP1, 4 8 § 3 (p.557, l.13) BP1
Luke 4, 31 - 4 7 § 1 (p.553, l.14 - *) BP1, 4 7 § 5 (p.554, l.25) BP1, 4 7 § 7 (p.554, l.10) BP1
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: There is No Actual REAL Evidence Marcion Ever Falsified Luke

Post by Jax »

Do you feel, Esse, that the gMark that we now have is a later adaptation of gMarcion or is gMarcion a later version of gMark? A proto gLuke based on gMark?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: There is No Actual REAL Evidence Marcion Ever Falsified Luke

Post by Secret Alias »

Interesting question. Here's what I notice from the list:

Luke 1, 1 - 4 2 § 4 (p.548, l.27) BP1
Luke 1, 2 - 4 2 § 4 (p.548, l.27) BP1
But we prefer to join issue on every point; nor shall we leave unnoticed what may fairly be understood to be on our side. Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process. Luke, however, was not an apostle, but only an apostolic man; not a master, but a disciple, and so inferior to a master----at least as far subsequent to him as the apostle whom he followed (and that, no doubt, was Paul61 ) was subsequent to the others; so that, had Marcion even published his Gospel in the name of St. Paul himself, the single authority of the document,62 destitute of all support from preceding authorities, would not be a sufficient basis for our faith.
In other words, the fact that the Marcionite gospel - like early manuscripts of Mark - had no attribution of authorship is the only 'proof' of corruption. The same charge shows up with 'to the Laodiceans' in Book Five. Isn't it strange though that Tertullian will point to a missing 'name' but not three chapters of material at the very beginning of Luke! Seems downright bizarre unless there was a shorter version of Luke circulating in early Christian antiquity.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: There is No Actual REAL Evidence Marcion Ever Falsified Luke

Post by Secret Alias »

Luke 1, 27 - 5 1 § 6 (p.664, l.7) BP1

Then, again, in Saul's conduct towards David, exhibited first in violent persecution of him, and then in remorse and reparation,27 on his receiving from him good for evil, we have nothing else than an anticipation28 of Paul in Saul----belonging, too, as they did, to the same tribe----and of Jesus in David, from whom He descended according to the Virgin's genealogy. Should you, however, disapprove of these types, the Acts of the Apostles, at all events, have handed down to me this career of Paul, which you must not refuse to accept. Thence I demonstrate that from a persecutor he became "an apostle, not of men, neither by man; "32 thence am I led to believe the Apostle himself; thence do I find reason for rejecting your defence of him, and for bearing fearlessly your taunt. "Then you deny the Apostle Paul." I do not calumniate him whom I defend. I deny him, to compel you to the proof of him.

Luke 1, 31 - 4 7 § 11 (p.555, l.23) BP1

Simply that he went into the synagogue, and did nothing even in word against the Creator? As therefore he could not by any means acknowledge him, whom he was ignorant of, to be Jesus and the Holy One of God; so did he acknowledge Him whom he knew (to be both). For he remembered how that the prophet had prophesied of "the Holy One" of God, and how that God's name of "Jesus" was in the son of Nun.186 These facts he had also received from the angel, according to our Gospel: "Wherefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called the Holy One, the Son of God; "188 and, "Thou shalt call his name Jesus."

5 9 § 8 (p.690, l.22) BP1

Perhaps, too, there was a mystic purpose in Christ's being born at night, destined, as He was, to be the light of the truth amidst the dark shadows of ignorance. Nor, again, would God have said, "I have begotten Thee," except to His true Son. For although He says of all the people (Israel), "I have begotten children," yet He added not "from the womb." Now, why should He have added so superfluously this phrase "from the womb" (as if there could be any doubt about any one's having been born from the womb), unless the Holy Ghost had wished the words to be with especial care418 understood of Christ? "I have begotten Thee from the womb," that is to say, from a womb only, without a man's seed, making it a condition of a fleshly body419 that it should come out of a womb. What is here added (in the Psalm), "Thou art a priest for ever,"420 relates to (Christ) Himself. Hezekiah was no priest; and even if he had been one, he would not have been a priest for ever. "After the order," says He, "of Melchizedek."

Luke 1, 51, 52 - 5 12 § 8 (p.701, l.10) BP1

But because He did not directly defend389 His disciples, but excuses them; because He interposes human want, as if deprecating censure; because He maintains the honour of the Sabbath as a day which is to be free from gloom rather than from work;390 because he puts David and his companions on a level with His own disciples in their fault and their extenuation; because He is pleased to endorse391 the Creator's indulgence:392 because He is Himself good according to His example----is He therefore alien from the Creator?

Luke 1, 52 - 4 28 § 11 (p.623, l.12) BP1,

I think that we have already, in another passage,1163 sufficiently shown that the glory of riches is condemned by our God, "who putteth down the mighty from their throne, and exalts the poor from the dunghill."1164 From Him, therefore, will proceed the parable of the rich man, who flattered himself about the increase of his fields, and to Whom God said: "Thou fool, this night shall they require thy soul of thee; then whose shall those things be which thou hast provided? "1165 It was just in the like manner that the king Hezekiah heard from Isaiah the sad doom of his kingdom, when he gloried, before the envoys of Babylon,1166 in his treasures and the deposits of his precious things.1167

Luke 2, 1 - 4 7 § 7 (p.554, l.12) BP1,

And yet how could He have been admitted into the synagogue----one so abruptly appearing,175 so unknown; one, of whom no one had as yet been apprised of His tribe, His nation, His family, and lastly, His enrolment in the census of Augustus----that most faithful witness of the Lord's nativity, kept in the archives of Rome? They certainly would have remembered, if they did not know Him to be circumcised, that He must not be admitted into their most holy places. And even if He had the general right of entering176 the synagogue (like other Jews), yet the function of giving instruction was allowed only to a man who was extremely well known, and examined and tried, and for some time invested with the privilege after experience duly attested elsewhere. But "they were all astonished at His doctrine." Of course they were; "for, says (St. Luke), "His word was with power177 ----not because He taught in opposition to the law and the prophets. No doubt, His divine discourse178 gave forth both power and grace, building up rather than pulling down the substance of the law and the prophets.

4 19 § 10 (p.593, l.5) BP1,

For tell me now, does a mother live on contemporaneously720 with her sons in every case? Have all sons brothers born for them?721 May a man rather not have fathers and sisters (living), or even no relatives at all? But there is historical proof722 that at this very time723 a census had been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus,724 which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ. Such a method of testing the point had therefore no consistency whatever in it and they "who were standing without" were really "His mother and His brethren." It remains for us to examine His meaning when He resorts to non-literal725 words, saying "Who is my mother or my brethren? "It seems as if His language amounted to a denial of His family and His birth; but it arose actually from the absolute nature of the case, and the conditional sense in which His words were to be explained.726

4 36 § 8 (p.645, l.19) BP1

The Jewish nation was from its beginning so carefully divided into tribes and clans, and families and houses, that no man could very well have been ignorant of his descent----even from the recent assessments of Augustus, which were still probably extant at this time.1455 But the Jesus of Marcion (although there could be no doubt of a person's having been born, who was seen to be a man), as being unborn, could not, of course, have possessed any public testimonial1456 of his descent, but was to be regarded as one of that obscure class of whom nothing was in any way known.

Luke 2, 4 - 4 36 § 9 (p.645, l.2) BP1

Why then did the blind man, on hearing that He was passing by, exclaim, "Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me? "1457 unless he was considered, in no uncertain manner,1458 to be the Son of David (in other words, to belong to David's family) through his mother and his brethren, who at some time or other had been made known to him by public notoriety? "Those, however, who went before rebuked the blind man, that he should hold his peace."1459 And properly enough; because he was very noisy, not because he was wrong about the son of David Else you must show me, that those who rebuked him were aware that Jesus was not the Son of David, in order that they may be supposed to have had this reason for imposing silence on the blind man.

Luke 2, 7 - "and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them." 4 2 § 2 (p.547, l.15) BP1,

Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil47 faith into us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards.48 These all start with the same principles of the faith,49 so far as relates to the one only God the Creator and His Christ, how that He was born of the Virgin, and came to fulfil50 the law and the prophets. Never mind51 if there does occur some variation in the order of their narratives, provided that there be agreement in the essential matter52 of the faith, in which there is disagreement with Marcion.

4 7 § 7 (p.554, l.12) BP1, 5 9 § 7 (p.690, l.13) BP1 Luke 2, 8 - 5 9 § 7 (p.690, l.10) BP1, 5 9 § 7 (p.690, l.12) BP1
Luke 2, 15 - 5 9 § 7 (p.690, l.12) BP1

It is necessary for me to lay claim to those Scriptures which the Jews endeavour to deprive us of, and to show that they sustain my view. Now they say that this Psalm407 was a chant in honour of Hezekiah,408 because "he went up to the house of the Lord,"409 and God turned back and removed his enemies. Therefore, (as they further hold, ) those other words, "Before the morning star did I beget thee from the womb,"410 are applicable to Hezekiah, and to the birth of Hezekiah. We on our side411 have published Gospels (to the credibility of which we have to thank412 them413 for having given some confirmation, indeed, already in so great a subject414 ); and these declare that the Lord was born at night, that so it might be "before the morning star," as is evident both from the star especially, and from the testimony of the angel, who at night announced to the shepherds that Christ had at that moment been born,415 and again from the place of the birth, for it is towards night that persons arrive at the (eastern)" inn."

Luke 2, 21 - 4 7 § 7 (p.554, l.14) BP1
Luke 2, 32 - 4 9 § 6 (p.559, l.27) BP1, 4 11 § 1 (p.565, l.7) BP1
Luke 3, 1 - 1 15 § 1 (p.456, l.14) BP1, 1 15 § 6 (p.457, l.23) BP1, 1 19 § 2 (p.459, l.7) BP1, 1 22 § 10 (p.465, l.19) BP1, 4 6 § 3 (p.552, l.26) BP1
Luke 3, 3 - 4 11 § 5 (p.566, l.2) BP1
Luke 3, 4 - 4 18 § 7 (p.590, l.22 - P) BP1, 5 3 § 8 (p.670, l.25) BP1
Luke 3, 5 - 5 3 § 8 (p.670, l.25) BP1
Luke 3, 19 - 4 34 § 8 (p.637, l.20) BP1
Luke 3, 20 - 4 34 § 8 (p.637, l.20) BP1
Luke 4, 14 - 4 8 § 2 (p.556, l.7) BP1
Luke 4, 23 - 4 8 § 2 (p.556, l.8) BP1
Luke 4, 27 - 4 9 § 6 (p.559, l.23) BP1, 4 35 § 6 (p.640, l.5) BP1
Luke 4, 29 - 4 8 § 2 (p.557, l.9) BP1
Luke 4, 30 - 4 8 § 2 (p.556, l.7) BP1, 4 8 § 3 (p.557, l.13) BP1
Luke 4, 31 - 4 7 § 1 (p.553, l.14 - *) BP1, 4 7 § 5 (p.554, l.25) BP1, 4 7 § 7 (p.554, l.10) BP1
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: There is No Actual REAL Evidence Marcion Ever Falsified Luke

Post by Secret Alias »

So here's the difficulty in Book Four of Against Marcion.

1. Canonical Luke has three chapters of information basically before Jesus 'comes down' to Capernaum.
2. The author of Against Marcion says he will show Marcion falsified 'his' (i.e. the author's) gospel.
3. Against Marcion ignores the fact that three chapters before Jesus 'comes down' to Capernaum are missing from Marcion's gospel concentrating almost all of its accusations of 'falsification,' 'interpolation,' 'adultery' etc on Matthew 5:17 - 44.

The author doesn't even say so much as Marcion 'cut' the birth narrative. Indeed he says Marcion was a forger, manipulating the text of the gospel but never Luke. The author says 'here is an instance where Marcion left something in the gospel. "Why are ye troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; for a spirit hath not bones, as ye see me have."

The fact that Against Marcion begins with an acknowledgement that there are three different versions of the treatise in circulation and one by another 'brother' who became an apostate is extremely important. It implies that the interest in Luke was later than the original text. It is as if the third author decided 'hey if we take this literary battle over whether or not the Matthean Antitheses are antinomian we come out looking bad. So let's re-contextualize the debate over the 'Antitheses' in a text which has the author claim 'everyone' acknowledges that the Marcionite gospel looked like Luke. This would mean that the 'third draft' of Against Marcion was written at a much later period than the 'first draft.'

It is surprising the manner in which the author continues to throw out statements like 'Marcion falsified the gospel' and 'everyone knows the gospel of Marcion resembles Luke' without bringing the two together - i.e. Marcion falsified Luke. His underlying point seems to be that the gospel of Marcion simply is Luke without the superscript 'KATA LOUKAN.' This means that Against Marcion is really a battle over the origins of Luke. Here is what everyone has missed. No one had ever seen Luke before Irenaeus. Not even Papias. The reputation of Marcion was as a forger. I think Against Marcion was introducing Luke as the Marcionite gospel because it was generally acknowledged that Marcion's vitriol directed against Matthew or a Matthew-like gospel was effective. The Marcionite gospel must have enjoyed a great reputation.

By saying 'here's the gospel that Marcion claimed for his own' - i.e. Luke - the author (Irenaeus) was at once introducing 'the gospel of Marcion' as an apostolic text. It becomes remarkably similar to the alleged 'letter' than the author had in his possession which showed Marcion was at one time orthodox. The Marcionites must have claim that their gospel was Mark or a version of Mark. The Marcionite debate with Justin or whomever was at the core of Against Marcion must have lined up with Papias's statements about the relationship between Mark and Matthew and the exegesis of Galatians 2 whereby two written gospels one 'authentic' and primary and the other corrupt and spurious developed from the apostle's encounter with the pillars. Luke was just thrown out there to distract from the generational debate over whether Mark or Matthew was better.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: There is No Actual REAL Evidence Marcion Ever Falsified Luke

Post by Secret Alias »

All references to Luke in Book Four - 19 in total across 40+ chapters. Notice they are confined to one section of the treatise, four chapters in total i.e. 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5. Doesn't that strike you as odd? By contrast Origen's Commentaries mention the names 'John' and 'Matthew' throughout.
In short, from among the apostles the faith is introduced to us by John and by Matthew, while from among apostolic men Luke and Mark give it renewal, <all of them> beginning with the same rules <of belief>, as far as relates to the one only God, the Creator, and to his Christ, born of a virgin, the fulfilment of the law and the prophets. It matters not that the arrangement of their narratives varies, so long as there is agreement on the essentials of the faith—and on these they show no agreement with Marcion. [4.2]

For out of those authors whom we possess, Marcion is seen to have chosen Luke as the one to mutilate.2 Now Luke was not an apostle but an apostolic man, not a master but a disciple, in any case less than his master, and assuredly even more of lesser account as being the follower of a later apostle, Paul, to be sure [ibid]

If he therefore who gave the light to Luke chose to have his predecessors' authority for his faith as well as his preaching, much more must I require for Luke's gospel the authority which was necessary for the gospel of his master. [ibid]

It is another matter if in Marcion's opinion the Christian religion, with its sacred content, begins with the discipleship of Luke. However, as it was on its course even before that, it certainly possessed an authoritative structure by means of which it reached even to Luke: and so with the support of its evidence Luke also can find acceptance. But Marcion has got hold of Paul's epistle to the Galatians, in which he rebukes even the apostles themselves for not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, and accuses also certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of Christ [4.3]

If however the gospel which the apostles compared with Paul's was beyond reproach, and they were rebuked only for inconsistency of conduct, and yet false apostles have falsified the truth of their gospels, and from them our copies are derived, what can have become of that genuine apostles' document which has suffered from adulterators—that document which gave light to Paul, and from him to Luke? Or if it has been completely destroyed, so wiped out by a flood of falsifiers as though by some deluge, then not even Marcion has a true one. Or if that is to be the true one, if that is the apostles', which Marcion alone possesses, then how is it that that which is not of the apostles, but is ascribed to Luke, is in agreement with ours? Or if that which Marcion has in use is not at once to be attributed to Luke because it does agree with ours—though they allege ours is falsified in respect of its title—then it does belong to the apostles. And in that case ours too, which is in agreement with that other, no less belongs to the apostles, even if it too is falsified in its title. [ibid]

So then meanwhile, as concerns the gospel of Luke, seeing that the use of it shared between us and Marcion becomes an arbiter of the truth, our version of it is to such an extent older than Marcion that Marcion himself once believed it. [4.4]

If that gospel which among us is ascribed to Luke—we shall see <later> whether it is <accepted by> Marcion—if that is the same that Marcion by
his Antitheses accuses of having been falsified by the upholders of Judaism with a view to its being so combined in one body with the law and the prophets that they might also pretend that Christ had that origin, evidently he could only have brought accusation against something he had found there already. [ibid]

So I affirm that among them— and I am not now speaking only of apostolic churches, but of all those which are in alliance with them in the fellowship of the mystery—that gospel of Luke which we at this moment retain has stood firm since its earliest publication, whereas Marcion's is to most people not even known, and by those to whom it is known is also by the same reason condemned. [4.5]

Luke's narrative also they usually attribute to Paul. It is permissible for the works which disciples published to be regarded as belonging to their masters. And so concerning these also Marcion must be called to account, how it is that he has passed them over, and preferred to take his stand upon Luke's, as though these too, no less than Luke's, have not been in the churches since the beginning—indeed it is to be supposed that they have even greater claim to have been since the beginning, since they were earlier, as written by apostles, and established along with the churches. [ibid]

For if the apostolic gospels have come down to us in their integrity, while the gospel of Luke, in the form in which we have it, is in such agreement with the standard of those others that it is retained in the churches along with them, it is at once evident that Luke's also came down in integrity until Marcion's act of sacrilege. In fact it was only when Marcion laid hands upon it, that it became different from the apostolic gospels, and in opposition to them. [ibid]
This is perhaps the strongest evidence that third revisionist only added the references to Luke later. He was lazy. It was too much work to completely 'rewrite' the treatise. That is why undoubtedly the text retains the anti-Matthean 'corruptions' references and has several unexpected allusions to Matthew. Too lazy to completely revise the treatise. He just added a clump of Luke references at the beginning and likely organized the material according to the order of Luke. But overall too lazy to carry out a full scale revision.
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: There is No Actual REAL Evidence Marcion Ever Falsified Luke

Post by arnoldo »

FWIW, Papyrus 69 ommission of Luke 22:42-44 is interpreted by some as evidence Marcion redacted Luke.
Luke 22.43.44.png
Luke 22.43.44.png (56.93 KiB) Viewed 3560 times
source.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: There is No Actual REAL Evidence Marcion Ever Falsified Luke

Post by Jax »

I wonder, are we looking at the problem the wrong way around? Say you have a Gospel, lets call it gA, then you have gA added to by someone else and it becomes gA+. Now, lets call gA+ gMark. Would not the original Gospel gA now be a smaller version of gMark or "little Mark" or gMarcion?

Here is what I propose. First there was a Gospel gA, we will call it ur-gLuke. Then it becomes gA+ and we will call that gMark. gMark is further added to and becomes ur-gMatthew. The original writer of gA complains that gMark (gA+) and ur-gMatthew are Judaized versions of his original Gospel.

Later, someone responding to another Gospel, gJohn for instance, takes gMark (gA+) which is mostly ur-Luke and a part of what became gMatthew, and writes another Gospel we will call gLuke. gLuke also uses parts of ur-gMatthew.

ur-gMatthew gets an update using parts of gLuke and becomes the Gospel according to Matthew (gMatthew) that we know today.

Finally, gLuke gets a birth narrative like gMatthew and becomes the gLuke that we now know.

So.....

1: ur-Luke (gA or gMarcion)

2: gMark (gA+)

3: ur-gMatthew

4: gLuke

5: gMatthew

6: gLuke with a birth narrative

Just a rough draft but you get the picture.
Post Reply