The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon / by Jason David BeDuhn (2013, pp 84-85)
B. The Schwegler Hypothesis
At the opposite end of the spectrum of opinion from the Patristic Hypothesis stands the second theory about the relationship between the Evangelion and canonical Luke, namely, the Schwegler Hypothesis, according to which Luke derives from the Evangelion as a post-Marcion editorial reaction.
This is the position taken in the twentieth century by Paul-Louis Couchoud62 and John Townsend,63 and in the current century by Matthias Klinghardt.64
In addition to pointing out weaknesses in the Patristic Hypothesis, all three build their positive case on isolated signs of secondary redaction in Luke. These signs include:
(1) the greater length of Luke, in the context of the general tendency of ancient redactors to expand earlier texts,
(2) chapters 1-2 of Luke, which explicitly copy the vocabulary and [085] style of the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) in contrast to anything found in the rest of the gospel,65
(3) other inconsistencies between these chapters and the rest of the gospel, including the depictions and importance of Mary and John the Baptist,
(4) indications of narrative disruption in chapter 4 of Luke compared to the Evangelion, including the notorious anachronism of Jesus referring to deeds he had done in Capharnaum at a point in the narrative before he has gone to Capharnaum,66 and
(5) evidence in Luke but not in the Evangelion suggesting a relatively late place in the development of gospel literature.67
62. "Is Marcion's Gospel One of the Synoptics?"
63. "The Date of Luke-Acts."
64. "Markion vs. Lukas."
65. On this subject, see Minear, "Luke's Use of the Birth Stories." While arguing for the unity of these chapters with the rest of Luke-Acts, Minear summarizes a great deal of the evidence that casts doubt on the likelihood of such unity; see especially the preponderance of "characteristic" Lukan style and vocabulary in chapters 1-2 rather than distributed evenly through Luke (114-16), and the contrasting attitudes towards Mary in the early and later parts of the gospel (128). Alfred Loisy, "Marcion's Gospel: A Reply," while highly critical of Couchoud's overall argument, acknowledges the validity of his observations regarding chapters 1-2 of Luke, and accepts the possibility of a proto-Luke lacking the birth and infancy stories; he considers Marcion's removal of them from an already expanded canonical Luke to be a lucky guess of amateur textual criticism on his part (381). Bruce, "Some Thoughts on the Beginning of the New Testament Canon," 44, similarly embraces an earlier form of Luke lacking the first two chapters, while cautioning against a simple identification of Marcion's Evangelion with this possible proto-Luke Vorlage.
66. "According to Marcion, Jesus began his ministry at Capernaum; according to Luke, at Nazareth; but by a curious oversight, Luke, who had hitherto made no mention of Capernaum, describes how Jesus imagines the men of Nazareth saying to Him, 'Whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country' (iv.28). Now, up till then, nothing had happened in Capernaum. This negligence on the part of Luke clearly indicates that the order, Capernaum before Nazareth, as found in Marcion, is the original one" (Couchoud, "Is Marcion's Gospel One of the Synoptics?" 269). By the Schwegler Hypothesis, an anti-Marcionite motive to highlight Nazareth as Jesus' human, Jewish hometown prompted the rearrangement, inadvertently creating the awkward aporia. Loisy sought to account for the anomaly in Luke by the displacement of the Nazareth narrative to a much earlier place in the narrative than where it is found in Luke's source, Mark (Loisy, "Marcion's Gospel: A Reply," 381), failing to notice that the telltale reference to things "done in Capernaum" is not found in Mark, but is distinct to the Lukan version of the episode. His other suggested explanations (381-82) are even less persuasive.
67. Including such things as the Prologue's reference to many (polloi) previous gospel writers (with its critical tone, perhaps intended to [352] include the Evangelion itself), and signs of dependence on Matthew and perhaps John. While a number of modern scholars take the latter evidence as relevant for the initial composition of Luke, proponents of the Schwegler Hypothesis suggest that it was introduced at a secondary stage of redaction, since it is largely absent from the Evangelion. Couchoud, for instance, notes that two distinct kinds of literary relationship to Matthew can be identified in Luke. The first sort consists of loose parallelism with considerable grammatical independence, which Couchoud and Klinghardt ("The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem") attribute to Matthew's dependence on the Evangelion (cf. West Jr., "A Primitive Version of Luke," and Sturdy, Redrawing the Boundaries, 42-48), but which could be explained also, and probably better, by common dependence on Q in accord with the two-source hypothesis. The second sort of material showing a literary relationship of Luke to Matthew consists of nearly verbatim duplication, which Couchoud attributes to direct use of Matthew by the later redactor who developed the Evangelion into Luke (273ff.). François Bovon, in his commentary on Luke, has identified a considerable number of what he regards as secondary harmonizations of the text to Matthew.
Couchoud, Paul-Louis. The Creation of Christ: An Outline of the Beginnings of Christianity. Vol. 2. Trans. C. Bradlaugh Bonner. London: Watts & Co., 1939 [Le mystère de Jésus. Paris: Rieder, 1924].
Townsend, John. "The Date of Luke-Acts." Pp. 47-62 in Charles H. Talbert, Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar. New York: Crossroad, 1984.
Klinghardt, Matthias. "The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion." Novum Testamentum 50 (2008) 1-27. "Markion vs. Lukas: Plädoyer für die Wiederaufnahme eines alten Falles." NTS (52 (2006) 484-513.
Minear, Paul S. "Luke's Use of the Birth Stories." Pp. 111-30 in Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays presented in honor of Paul Schubert. Ed. Keck & Martyn. London: SPCK, 1968.
