The Marcionite text then most certainly is not a Diatessaron type, but rather Luke in an earlier form.
Nonsense. Tertullian (or rather a Latin translation of Irenaeus's reworking of a Syriac source; Irenaeus = Tertullian's source) is the basis for the corrupt Luke claims but at the same time the text of Against Marcion inevitably makes dozens of allusions to Marcionite corruptions of material not found in Luke. It's as if Irenaeus (later loosely translated by Tertullian) hurriedly 'corrected' an anti-Marcionite text written by a Diatessaron user. I am not the only one to notice this. Andrew attributes it to the use of Justin. That works just as well. My employment of the terminology of 'Diatessaron' is deliberately vague (so as not to rely on coining new terminology like 'super gospel' or loaded terminology like 'harmony'). Above all else I hate pretension.
Prove it. Show examples.
Asserting something to be true does not make it so. If you make a claim you need to back it up with hard work and solid examples. This is not High School.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Stuart wrote:
The confusion with respect to seeming presence in Marcion of verses from Matthew arises from the expectation that the Marcionite text should conform always to the Lucan form, and that Luke is not significantly different, simply expanded. But this is not the case, Luke’s editorial hand extended both large (new verses) and small (changed wording). A simple example of this is found in the favorite Lucan word παραχρῆμα which replaced some instances of εὐθὺς / εὐθέως in places of double and triple tradition (compare Luke 4:39 vs Mark 1:31, Luke 8:44 & Luke 8:47 vs Mark 5:29, Luke 18:43 vs Mark 10:52, Luke 22:60 vs Mark 14:72). There is no theological impact at all, simply a stylistic preference of the Lucan editor found throughout Luke-Acts and nowhere else (excepting one independent parable in Matthew) and not at all in Marcion (as indeed is the case with nearly all instances of Lucan favorite words). And the change was no uniform, rather occasional leaving the original form in some places (see Luke 5:13, 6:49, 12:36, 12:54, 14:5, 17:7, 21:9). What this shows is the Lucan redactor not only made large additions, such as the first three chapters, but also made editorial adjustments throughout the text, sometimes of a theological nature, sometimes merely stylistic preference. The Marcionite text then most certainly is not a Diatessaron type, but rather Luke in an earlier form.
Several people have proposed that Marcion's 'gospel' pre-dates Luke's: Charles B. Waite in the late 19th century in History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two-Hundred; John Knox in Marcion and the New Testament (1942), & more recently, Joseph B Tyson (2006) Marcion and Luke-Acts: a defining struggle.
Joseph B Tyson (Marcion and Luke-Acts: a defining struggle) also makes a case for Acts also being a response to Marcion (rather than Marcion's gospel using part of Luke or being a rewrite of Luke).
Since you have demonstrated yourself to be familiar with all (or most all) the issues you should be well acquainted with Tertullian's frequent citation of Matthew - not only accusing Marcion of cutting out bits from Matthew but also treating Matthew (and Mark) as relevant to his discussion of Marcionite exegesis AND have commented many times that this forum is already filled with my speculative inquires I didn't think it necessary to rehash material that has been repeated over and over again by me and by others.
Williams made reference to the situation in his article and it has been the subject of many (mostly casual references) of other writers. Yet given the nature of scholarship no one to my knowledge has ever tackled the problematic issue or developed a reasonable explanation for the habit which extends far beyond Tertullian. Indeed virtually ANY anti-Marcionite reference makes reference to the phenomenon. Casey made it the subject of his paper and floated the idea of an 'Marcionite Diatessaron' in his paper. But again, the difficulty is of course that it became something of a 'party line' owing to the influence of Irenaeus that 'Marcion corrupted Luke.' For scholars to simply flip this over and say that Marcion had the 'original Luke' is typical of this unimaginative and ultimately cowardly lot.
Irenaeus was lying about the Marcionites and their 'use of Luke.' After all he was introducing Luke to the world so he needed a 'point of origin.' What he decided upon IMO is the idea that Paul had a companion (previously unknown) and added bits and pieces ('clues' as Trobisch refers to them) in the various corrupted letters of Paul so as to establish - by means of a trail of breadcrumbs essentially THE POSSIBILITY of the existence of Luke as the first 'canonical' authority of Paul).
What was before this garbage is anyone's guess but given Justin's use of a 'harmonized gospel' and the affinity between Justin and Marcion (beyond the superficial bits added to his corpus where he allegedly 'hates' Marcion) makes the Marcionite use of a similar gospel highly probable in my mind.
But again this can't be proved. It's an assumption (you might say 'assertion') but it is based on a parallel trail of breadcrumbs albeit NOT DELIBERATELY PLACED for us to follow like the garbage about Luke. In the end the choice before us are two trails of breadcrumbs one deliberate and contrived the other accidental owing to the survival of lost treatises related to Marcion. It is the decision of each of us to decide which path to follow. But in the end we have to remember it all comes down to moldy 1700 year old literary breadcrumbs ...
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
My suspicion is that the textual tampering was going on from all parties. Marcion's gospel was probably his redacted version of an earlier form of Luke.
E.g.
Mark + Q (or traditional 'Jesus logia') + Matthew (?) = Proto-Luke
Secret Alias wrote:
... the influence of Irenaeus that 'Marcion corrupted Luke.' For scholars to simply flip this over and say that Marcion had the 'original Luke' is typical of this unimaginative and ultimately cowardly lot.
Irenaeus was lying about the Marcionites and their 'use of Luke.' After all he was introducing Luke to the world so he needed a 'point of origin.' What he decided upon IMO is the idea that Paul had a companion (previously unknown) and added bits and pieces ('clues' as Trobisch refers to them) in the various corrupted letters of Paul so as to establish - by means of a trail of breadcrumbs essentially - THE POSSIBILITY of the existence of Luke as the first 'canonical' authority of Paul.
What was before this garbage is anyone's guess but, given Justin's use of a 'harmonized gospel', and the affinity between Justin and Marcion (beyond the superficial bits added to his corpus where he allegedly 'hates' Marcion), ... the Marcionite use of a similar gospel [is] highly probable, in my mind.
But again this can't be proved. It's an assumption (you might say 'assertion'), but it is based on a parallel trail of breadcrumbs, albeit NOT DELIBERATELY PLACED, for us to follow; like the garbage about Luke. In the end the choice before us are two trails of breadcrumbs: one deliberate and contrived; the other accidental owing to the survival of lost treatises related to Marcion. It is the decision of each of us to decide which path to follow. But in the end we have to remember it all comes down to moldy 1700 year old literary breadcrumbs ...
It's more that assertion, and more than assumption; it's fairly cogent commentary ie. a cogent inductive argument.
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 1)
The apostles did not commence to preach the Gospel, or to place anything on record until they were endowed with the gifts and power of the Holy Spirit. They preached one God alone, Maker of heaven and earth.
1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had 'perfect knowledge': they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
1. But that this Luke was inseparable from Paul, and his fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he himself clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so by the truth itself. For he says that when Barnabas, and John who was called Mark, had parted company from Paul, and sailed to Cyprus, we came to Troas; Acts 16:8, etc. and when Paul had beheld in a dream a man of Macedonia, saying, Come into Macedonia, Paul, and help us, immediately, he says, we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, understanding that the Lord had called us to preach the Gospel unto them. Therefore, sailing from Troas, we directed our ship's course towards Samothracia ...
As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing, so that he cannot be convicted of falsehood or boastfulness, because all these [particulars] proved both that he was senior to all those who now teach otherwise, and that he was not ignorant of the truth. That he was not merely a follower, but also a fellow-labourer of the apostles, but especially of Paul, Paul has himself declared also in the Epistles, saying: Demas has forsaken me, ... and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. 2 Timothy 4:10-11 From this he shows that he was always attached to and inseparable from him. And again he says, in the Epistle to the Colossians: Luke, the beloved physician, greets you. Colossians 4:14 But surely if Luke, who always preached in company with Paul, and is called by him the beloved, and with him performed the work of an evangelist, and was entrusted to hand down to us a Gospel, learned nothing different from him (Paul), as has been pointed out from his words, how can these men, who were never attached to Paul, boast that they have learned hidden and unspeakable mysteries?
2. ... Thus did the apostles simply, and without respect of persons, deliver to all what they had themselves learned from the Lord. Thus also does Luke, without respect of persons, deliver to us what he had learned from them, as he has himself testified, saying,
"Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word." Luke 1:2 (KJV)
The Gospel according to Luke exhibits several differences from the other Synoptic Gospels. For instance, Luke is the only Gospel to have a sequel, the Acts of the Apostles ... [hence] Luke-Acts. Another difference between Luke and the other Synoptics is the prologue (1:1-4). Luke's prologue can also be called an exordium, which is a literary device that was also used by other Greek writers. There is a striking similarity between the structure of Josephus' Against Apion and Luke-Acts. [1] Not only does the prologue enable readers to better understand the purpose of the Gospel, but it also makes the destination clear. https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/luke.cfm
Luke 1 (KJV)
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Luke 1 then goes on to narrate the story of the priest Zacharias, in the days of Herod, king of Judea, who's barren wife Elizabeth is 'made with child' called John " ... and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. 16 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. 17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. ...
26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. ... 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:"
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 14), continued -
3. ... All things of the following kind we have known through Luke alone (and numerous actions of the Lord we have learned through him, which also all [the Evangelists] notice): the multitude of fishes which Peter's companions enclosed, when at the Lord's command they cast the nets; Luke 5 the woman who had suffered for eighteen years, and was healed on the Sabbath day; Luke 13 the man who had the dropsy, whom the Lord made whole on the Sabbath, and how He did defend Himself for having performed an act of healing on that day; how He taught His disciples not to aspire to the uppermost rooms; how we should invite the poor and feeble, who cannot recompense us; the man who knocked during the night to obtain loaves, and did obtain them, because of the urgency of his importunity; Luke 11 how, when [our Lord] was sitting at meat with a Pharisee, a woman that was a sinner kissed His feet, and anointed them with ointment, with what the Lord said to Simon on her behalf concerning the two debtors; Luke 7 also about the parable of that rich man who stored up the goods which had accrued to him, to whom it was also said, In this night they shall demand your soul from you; whose then shall those things be which you have prepared? Luke 12:20 and similar to this, that of the rich man, who was clothed in purple and who fared sumptuously, and the indigent Lazarus; Luke 16 also the answer which He gave to His disciples when they said, Increase our faith; Luke 17:5 also His conversation with Zaccheus the publican; Luke 19 also about the Pharisee and the publican, who were praying in the temple at the same time; Luke 18 also the ten lepers, whom He cleansed in the way simultaneously; Luke 17 also how He ordered the lame and the blind to be gathered to the wedding from the lanes and streets; Luke 18 also the parable of the judge who feared not God, whom the widow's importunity led to avenge her cause; Luke 13 and about the fig-tree in the vineyard which produced no fruit. There are also many other particulars to be found mentioned by Luke alone, which are made use of by both Marcion and Valentinus. And besides all these, [he records] what [Christ] said to His disciples in the way, after the resurrection, and how they recognised Him in the breaking of bread. Luke 24
4. It follows then, as of course, that these men must either receive the rest of his narrative, or else reject these parts also. For no persons of common sense can permit them to receive some things recounted by Luke as being true, and to set others aside, as if he had not known the truth. And if indeed Marcion's followers reject these, they will then possess no Gospel; for, curtailing that according to Luke, as I have said already, they boast in having the Gospel [in what remains]. But the followers of Valentinus must give up their utterly vain talk; for they have taken from that [Gospel] many occasions for their own speculations, to put an evil interpretation upon what he has well said. If, on the other hand, they feel compelled to receive the remaining portions also, then, by studying the perfect Gospel, and the doctrine of the apostles, they will find it necessary to repent, that they may be saved from the danger [to which they are exposed].
@Stuart thank you very much for the detailed and thorough reply! Someone with your expertise and familiarity with the issues was exactly what I was hoping to find here. I am now exploring the points you make and we'll see where I end up!
@Secret Alias thanks for all the contributions to this thread. I also appreciate hearing opposing viewpoints from the traditional/mainstream establishments.
Secret Alias wrote:Williams made reference to the situation in his article and it has been the subject of many (mostly casual references) of other writers. Yet given the nature of scholarship no one to my knowledge has ever tackled the problematic issue or developed a reasonable explanation for the habit which extends far beyond Tertullian.
What do you think of the proposals at the Tricky Texts site? Do you think that the Mark-->Marcion-->Mathew/Luke evolution doesn't go far enough to explain gMarcion's connections with gMatt (the ones which seem strange on the view of it as a corruption of gLuke)? Or do you think gMarcion predates even gMark? There's a whole lot of great info over at that site so if you're not familiar with it I'd strongly recommend checking it out.
I have my own view of order. I started to write a response outlining it and saw I was quickly over one thousand words and not even halfway done. I may make a blog post about it (been on my "to do" list for a few months) where I can defend it properly. For here I can only outline it with the understanding that I will not defend it rigorously. So I'll label it "speculation" which is perhaps selling short the work I have done, and give a brief outline of my working hypothesis without explanation:
Proto Gospel P
variants of P form, one I call L and another which fused two versions (one long, one short) I'll call M appear
note: variants likely local versions, which developed possibly from local need, otherwise simply time and distance
* Marcion written (L was it's base) to put out a "correct" gospel; It's Marcion who introduces with 15th year of Tiberius
* Matthew written (M used as a base) to correct Marcionite gospel, put forward proto-orthodox theology
* John (pre-Catholic version) written to counter Matthew, puts forward Gnostic type theology (not at all Marcionite)
* Mark written using two proto-Gospels (L + M) , very little editorial material, sequence of proto-gospels fully preserved
* Luke written, from Marcion as base, using Matthew and other sources (Ebionite, Mark), to counter Marcion and correct Matthew, putting forward a proto-orthodox theology that looks rather Adoptionist.
Catholic layers added to the Canonical, varying from miniscule or even none (Mark) to substantial (John).
There is no Q. That vanishes in a Marcionite set of sayings, then built on by Matthew sayings, then imported into Luke.
I just noticed that is Western order except reversing Mark and Luke (interesting). Mark is a mystery to me. His thin editorial layer is Catholic, but what sort is hard to tease out. My only guess is that the same request which Luke followed to present a true story was the motivation. Luke conflated the various published gospels, while Mark went back to the two main prototypes and conflated them; in effect two very different interpretations of the Theopolis request for the true story.
Frankly the model I fancy, or that of Markus Vinzent, or Farrar or Kirby or anybody else should not drive your work. The model I came up with is only after playing with every other order out there, and then junking them in favor of a model derived under the premise that every book was written in response to a challenge or a need. Then I looked at which responded to which. The mechanics do the rest of the model building. (I like that I don't need any mysterious unknown first century communities or any rupture from Judaism to explain any verse in the NT. I dislike that everything before the Bar Kokhba revolt is effectively prehistoric, that is before the literature, making it impossible for me to comment on what happened without wildly speculating ... so I focus on 2nd century Christians)
Don't ask me to defend it. Its merely an opinion from my observational point of view.
Last edited by Stuart on Sun Jul 12, 2015 11:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
* Q-lite written as non-christian (anti-religious) mystical teachings and instructions to a mystic mission for traveling missionaries with Jesus as their realized Master.
* aMark writes the first syncretic religious narrative at a time when Q-lite was still being preserved as a separate document.
* aMatthew is dissatisfied with Mark and rewrites Mark from a more Jewish-Christian perspective and merges Q into the narrative thereby destroying much of the original ideological content and cohesion of Q-lite.
* aMarcion opposes Jewish orientation of Matthew and writes the 'Gospel of the Lord' (proto-Luke) plus the so-called "letters of Paul" to support his ideological stance. He takes material from Mark, Q-lite as well as Matthew and like aMatthew destroys much of the original ideological content and cohesion of Q-lite. The part of the double tradition in Marcion/Luke that did not originate in Q-lite was edited into Marcion/Luke from Matthew.
* proto-orthodox aLuke opposes Marcion's Gospel of the Lord and Pauline letters and rewrites them, creating Luke and editing and supplementing the letters. He also writes and adds the Acts of the Apostles, further adjusting the role of Paul while condemning Marcion's gospel view as heretic.
