Message

Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.

Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Postby andrewcriddle » Sat Mar 19, 2016 5:46 am

This is a possible argument for the priority of the Gospel of Luke over Marcion's Gospel. I'm not sure how strong it is.

Marcion's Gospel almost certainly omitted Luke 19:29-46 (The entry of Jesus into Jerusalem on a donkey).

If the passage in canonical Luke is a later (2nd century CE) addition to a Gospel which originally lacked it, then this is presumably an interpolation to conform the Gospel to the "orthodox" or "proto-orthodox" account. If so then Matthew, which from early on became the standard authoritative Gospel, would almost certainly have been used as a basis for correcting Marcion's Gospel. However the passage in canonical Luke agrees on the whole with Mark rather than Matthew, (it lacks the explicit citation of Zechariah the mention of two animals etc).

Since the passage in canonical Luke agrees with Mark and not Matthew, it is part of the original form of the Gospel and not a later interpolation. Therefore canonical Luke is prior to the Gospel of Marcion.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Advertisements

by »

 

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Postby Ben C. Smith » Sat Mar 19, 2016 6:09 am

andrewcriddle wrote:This is a possible argument for the priority of the Gospel of Luke over Marcion's Gospel. I'm not sure how strong it is.

Marcion's Gospel almost certainly omitted Luke 19:29-46 (The entry of Jesus into Jerusalem on a donkey).

If the passage in canonical Luke is a later (2nd century CE) addition to a Gospel which originally lacked it, then this is presumably an interpolation to conform the Gospel to the "orthodox" or "proto-orthodox" account. If so then Matthew, which from early on became the standard authoritative Gospel, would almost certainly have been used as a basis for correcting Marcion's Gospel. However the passage in canonical Luke agrees on the whole with Mark rather than Matthew, (it lacks the explicit citation of Zechariah the mention of two animals etc).

Since the passage in canonical Luke agrees with Mark and not Matthew, it is part of the original form of the Gospel and not a later interpolation. Therefore canonical Luke is prior to the Gospel of Marcion.


Similarly, Luke 18.31-33 appears to have been absent from Marcion, and verses 32-33a are closer to Mark than to Matthew, although in verse 33b Luke shares "on the third day" with Matthew against Mark's "after three days" (typical synoptic problem stuff; nothing is clear cut). And Luke 3.21-22, the baptism of Jesus, appears to have been absent from Marcion, and Luke shares with Mark the direct address, "You are my beloved son," against Matthew's "This is my beloved son."

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
 
Posts: 3216
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Postby andrewcriddle » Sat Mar 19, 2016 7:06 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
andrewcriddle wrote:This is a possible argument for the priority of the Gospel of Luke over Marcion's Gospel. I'm not sure how strong it is.

Marcion's Gospel almost certainly omitted Luke 19:29-46 (The entry of Jesus into Jerusalem on a donkey).

If the passage in canonical Luke is a later (2nd century CE) addition to a Gospel which originally lacked it, then this is presumably an interpolation to conform the Gospel to the "orthodox" or "proto-orthodox" account. If so then Matthew, which from early on became the standard authoritative Gospel, would almost certainly have been used as a basis for correcting Marcion's Gospel. However the passage in canonical Luke agrees on the whole with Mark rather than Matthew, (it lacks the explicit citation of Zechariah the mention of two animals etc).

Since the passage in canonical Luke agrees with Mark and not Matthew, it is part of the original form of the Gospel and not a later interpolation. Therefore canonical Luke is prior to the Gospel of Marcion.


Similarly, Luke 18.31-33 appears to have been absent from Marcion, and verses 32-33a are closer to Mark than to Matthew, although in verse 33b Luke shares "on the third day" with Matthew against Mark's "after three days" (typical synoptic problem stuff; nothing is clear cut). And Luke 3.21-22, the baptism of Jesus, appears to have been absent from Marcion, and Luke shares with Mark the direct address, "You are my beloved son," against Matthew's "This is my beloved son."

Ben.

FWIW Many manuscripts of Mark 10:34 read "on the third day" although this is probably a harmonization.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Postby Ben C. Smith » Sat Mar 19, 2016 7:24 am

andrewcriddle wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:
andrewcriddle wrote:This is a possible argument for the priority of the Gospel of Luke over Marcion's Gospel. I'm not sure how strong it is.

Marcion's Gospel almost certainly omitted Luke 19:29-46 (The entry of Jesus into Jerusalem on a donkey).

If the passage in canonical Luke is a later (2nd century CE) addition to a Gospel which originally lacked it, then this is presumably an interpolation to conform the Gospel to the "orthodox" or "proto-orthodox" account. If so then Matthew, which from early on became the standard authoritative Gospel, would almost certainly have been used as a basis for correcting Marcion's Gospel. However the passage in canonical Luke agrees on the whole with Mark rather than Matthew, (it lacks the explicit citation of Zechariah the mention of two animals etc).

Since the passage in canonical Luke agrees with Mark and not Matthew, it is part of the original form of the Gospel and not a later interpolation. Therefore canonical Luke is prior to the Gospel of Marcion.


Similarly, Luke 18.31-33 appears to have been absent from Marcion, and verses 32-33a are closer to Mark than to Matthew, although in verse 33b Luke shares "on the third day" with Matthew against Mark's "after three days" (typical synoptic problem stuff; nothing is clear cut). And Luke 3.21-22, the baptism of Jesus, appears to have been absent from Marcion, and Luke shares with Mark the direct address, "You are my beloved son," against Matthew's "This is my beloved son."

Ben.

FWIW Many manuscripts of Mark 10:34 read "on the third day" although this is probably a harmonization.


I do think that is a harmonization, yes.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
 
Posts: 3216
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Postby outhouse » Sat Mar 19, 2016 7:57 am

andrewcriddle wrote:If so then Matthew, which from early on became the standard authoritative Gospel,



Andrew Criddle



It was never authoritative early on. It ended up being the most popular though. That's the reason it is first in the NT.
outhouse
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Postby Bernard Muller » Sat Mar 19, 2016 8:03 am

I think I have stronger points showing gLuke was prior to gMarcion:
http://historical-jesus.info/53.html (see point 2, 3 & 4)

Any comments?

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
 
Posts: 2483
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Postby Giuseppe » Sat Mar 19, 2016 10:31 pm

However the passage in canonical Luke agrees on the whole with Mark rather than Matthew

Your argument is strong insofar it's assumed that Mark is not a gospel liked by proto-catholics. But there is evidence that Ireneus did like Mark, despite of fact that that Gospel was used by ''heretics'' according to Ireneus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
 
Posts: 1895
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italia

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Postby Giuseppe » Sun Mar 20, 2016 1:22 am

@Bernard
2) Lk 16:17 "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail." NKJV
gMarcion "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, ... than one tittle of my [Jesus] words to fail." http://www.gnosis.org/library/marcion/Gospel4.html

Comment by Ben C. Smith: "Marcion apparently has "one tittle of my (Jesus') words", yet a "tittle" (Greek κεραία) is a written mark, a stroke or a serif on certain letters. Such a term makes far more sense when applied to the law, which had been written for centuries, than it does applied to Jesus' own (as yet unwritten) words while he is still speaking them."

But we know that Marcion was selling his Gospel as New Testament replacing entirely all the previous scriptures. The use of 'tittle' fits well for that goal: the ''scriptures'' of Jesus (really: words) are in antithesis with the old (physical) scriptures.

@Bernard
3) Lk 21:32 "... this generation will not pass away till all has taken place." RSV
gMarcion: "... The heaven and the earth shall in no wise pass away, till all things be accomplished." http://www.gnosis.org/library/marcion/Gospel5.html


Marcionite apocalypticism cannot fail by definition: if the god of Jesus isn't the creator of this world, then the fate of this world is indifferent for him (after the crucifixion). Therefore the prophecy of the marcionite Jesus is fully fulfilled: at least until the death of Jesus (his true and only goal in this world), 'the heaven and the earth will not pass away.' A contradiction arises when the prophecy is referred to parusia on this world: that prophecy becomes clearly failed in the eyes of the same first proponents of it, but they put it on Jesus to make him more a Jewish prophet (claiming justice in this world within short time) and so virtually an anti-marcionite prophet.


4) Lk 5:33 "And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?"
Tertullian's 'Against Marcion', IV, 11: "Whence, too, does John come upon the scene? Christ, suddenly; and just as suddenly, John! After this fashion occur all things in Marcion's system."


The antithesis is evident behind the common rapid appearance of both John and Jesus: although both make a short 'Toccata and Fugue' on Earth, Jesus is far superior to John, the latter being the last prophet of Demiurge and therefore no in need of presentation.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
 
Posts: 1895
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italia

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Postby andrewcriddle » Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:04 am

outhouse wrote:
andrewcriddle wrote:If so then Matthew, which from early on became the standard authoritative Gospel,



Andrew Criddle



It was never authoritative early on. It ended up being the most popular though. That's the reason it is first in the NT.

Justin in the Dialogue with Trypho says:
"And that expression, 'binding his foal to the vine, and the ass's foal to the vine tendril,' was a declaring beforehand both of the works wrought by Him at His first advent, and also of that belief in Him which the nations would repose. For they were like an unharnessed foal, which was not bearing a yoke on its neck, until this Christ came, and sent His disciples to instruct them; and they bore the yoke of His word, and yielded the neck to endure all[hardships], for the sake of the good things promised by Himself, and expected by them. And truly our Lord Jesus Christ, when He intended to go into Jerusalem, requested His disciples to bring Him a certain ass, along with its foal, which was bound in an entrance of a village called Bethphage; and having seated Himself on it, He entered into Jerusalem. And as this was done by Him in the manner in which it was prophesied in precise terms that it would be done by the Christ, and as the fulfilment was recognised, it became a clear proof that He was the Christ. And though all this happened and is proved from Scripture, you are still hard-hearted. Nay, it was prophesied by Zechariah, one of the twelve[prophets], that such would take place, in the following words: 'Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion; shout, and declare, daughter of Jerusalem; behold, thy King shall come to thee, righteous, bringing salvation, meek, and lowly, riding on an ass, and the foal of an ass.' Now, that the Spirit of prophecy, as well as the patriarch Jacob, mentioned both an ass and its foal, which would be used by Him; and, further, that He, as I previously said, requested His disciples to bring both beasts;[this fact] was a prediction that you of the synagogue, along with the Gentiles, would believe in Him. For as the unharnessed colt was a symbol of the Gentiles even so the harnessed ass was a symbol of your nation. For you possess the law which was imposed[upon you] by the prophets.


Indicates that Justin used Matthew's account of the entry into Jerusalem.

IF Canonical Luke is contemporary with (or later than) Justin it would have followed Matthew here.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Postby outhouse » Thu Mar 24, 2016 8:49 am

andrewcriddle wrote:
Indicates that Justin used Matthew's account of the entry into Jerusalem.



Andrew Criddle


But your not refuting my comment in any way.


Basically your speaking over my statement to prove your original point, I may or may not have a problem with.
outhouse
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Advertisement

by »

 

Next

Return to Christian Texts and History

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], GakuseiDon, Ulan, Yahoo [Bot] and 39 guests