A Consistent Editorial Tendency In Marcion's Use of Luke?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1348
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

A Consistent Editorial Tendency In Marcion's Use of Luke?

Post by Ken Olson »

One of the main arguments against the theory that Marcion created the Evangelion by making ideologically motivated subtractions from Luke is that for every position of Marcion used to explain an omission from the text of Luke, there any number of passages in the Evangelion that share the idea of the omitted passage and thus are in tension with Marcion’s own position:

This is stated clearly by Jason BeDuhn:

The place and significance of Marcion’s Gospel in the formation of New Testament literature has been obscured by the persistence of what I call the Patristic Hypothesis about its origin, namely, the idea first put forward by Irenaeus and Tertullian that Marcion created it by means of ideologically motivated editorial subtractions from Luke. [BeDuhn, Marcion’s Gospel and the New Testament: Catalyst or Consequence, NTS 63 (2015) 324]

Once we break with such assumptions and objectively examine the texts of the two gospels, it becomes immediately clear that Marcion’s Gospel cannot be an ideologically motivated redaction of Luke, for the simple reason that the two gospels are practically identical in ideology. For every position of Marcion cited to explain an omission in the text of his gospel, the latter contains any number of passages sharing the idea of the omitted passage, and in tension with Marcion’s own position. [BeDuhn, Catalyst, 324]

Close analysis of the content of Marcion’s Gospel, therefore, makes it evident that this gospel, in the words of Judith Lieu, ‘is in many ways neutral: It can only have served to inspire and support [Marcion’s] system to the extent that he interpreted it’. [BeDuhn, Catalyst, 324, citing Lieu, Marcion and the Making of a Heretic (2015) 209].

It has to be allowed that it is true that for many of the positions Marcion held (or is believed to have held) there are other passages attested to be in the Evangelion that are either in serious tension with them or outright contradict them. It is also true that the Evangelion may appear neutral. This need not surprise us. If Marcion did indeed create the Evangelion primarily by removing material from Luke, it is always possible to read the words in the sense they have in Luke, though the sense they had for Marcion may be different (as Lieu acknowledges). We should also bear in mind that Marcion circulated the Evangelion together with the Antitheses, which may have played a large role in shaping how Marcion intended the Evangelion to be understood.

I intend to show in this post, however, that BeDuhn’s claim is wrong and there is indeed one idea in Luke that Marcion consistently removed and that there is no passage attested to be present in the Evangelion that contradicts it. Further, this idea is found in the Pauline letters as well but Marcion has consistently removed it so that it does not appear in the Apostolikon. The idea is that Jesus was born on earth as a human being and had Jewish ancestors and family.

Tertullians quotes Marcion and understands him as saying otherwise:

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (for such is Marcion's proposition) he came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum, of course meaning from the heaven of the Creator, to which he had previously descended from his own. What then had been his course, for him to be described as first descending from his own heaven to the Creator's? (Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.7.1).

For Marcion, Jesus was a heavenly being who descended to the earthly world at Capernaum in Galilee in the fifteenth year of Tiberius. He had no terrestrial existence before that time. He had no earthly ancestors, no earthy relatives, and was not born and did not grow up on earth. There are no passages in the Apostolikon or the Evangelion that say otherwise.

THE APOSTOLIKON

The following passages that assume an earthly lineage or earthly relatives for Jesus are unattested in the Apostolikon [following Jason BeDuhn, The First New Testament (2013) 201-319]:

Gal. 1.19: But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.

Gal. 3.16: Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many; but, referring to one, “And to your offspring,” which is Christ.

Gal. 4.4: But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,

Rom 1.3 the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh

Rom 9.5: They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5 to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.

Rom 15.12: and further Isaiah says, “The root of Jesse shall come, he who rises to rule the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles hope.”

1 Cor. 9.5 5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

EVANGELION


The Evangelion lacks the first two chapters of Luke describing Jesus’ birth and infancy.

The Evangelion also lacks the material from third chapter of Luke. Luke 3.1-22 contains the John the Baptist material and the account of Jesus’ baptism. This may have been omitted (except for 3.1 a, which is placed immediately before Jesus’ descent to Capernaum in 4.31) both because it is set before the descent into Capernaum and because it is difficult to see why a being who had himself descended from heaven should need the holy spirit to descend from heaven onto him before beginning his mission.

The Evangelion lacks the genealogy in Luke 3.23-28 because Jesus had no terrestrial lineage, though, as has often been pointed out, it’s not made explicit in Luke why the lineage of Joseph would be pertinent to Jesus.

In Luke 4, the Temptation (vv 1-14) and the summary of Jesus initial activity in Galilee (vv 14-15) are both omitted, perhaps simply because they are set before Jesus arrival on earth in 4.31 and had no special interest for Marcion as inaugurations to Jesus’ mission on earth. Jesus descended to earth ready to go.

The Rejection at Nazareth of Nazareth in Luke 4.16-30 is an interesting case. If Marcion wanted to use it at all, he would have to place it after Jesus descended to earth at Capernaum in 4.31-37, so that’s what he did. Notably, the parts of the pericope ‘where he had been brought up’ and “Is not this Joseph’s son?” are not attested to be present in the Evangelion. BeDuhn includes neither in his reconstruction of the Evangelion. Klinghardt retains the latter in his, not because it is attested to be there, but because he thinks the Evangelion was the source for the other gospels which all have questions about Jesus’ family in theri versions of the Rejection at Nazareth.

POSSIBLE EXCEPTIONS THAT ARE NOT REALLY EXCEPTIONS

Luke 8.19-21: 19 Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him for the crowd. 20 And he was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you.” 21 But he said to them, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.”

Epiphanius, Scholion 12: “He did not have, “His mother and his brethren,” but only, “Thy mother and thy brethren.”’ (The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book I (Sects 1-46), translated by Frank Williams (2e 2009) p. 304.

Epiphanius attests to the absence of Luke 8.19, in which the narrator refers to Jesus’ mother and brothers, but had the quotation of other people referring to Jesus’ mother and brothers. Jesus’ response ceratinly does not concede that those people were indeed his mother and brothers.

Luke 11.27:As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!” 28 But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Jesus response does not concede that the woman’s assumption that he had a terrestrial mother who gave birth to him and nursed him is true.

Parenthetically, I think Luke 11.27-28 is Lukan redaction (see Mark Goodacre, Thomas and the Synoptics (2012) 97-108). It is a substitution for Mark 3.31-35, which Luke has already used in its Markan location at Luke 8.19-21 (quoted above). In Mark, the saying about Jesus’ mother and brothers follows the Beelezebul pericope (Mark 3.22-30), for which Luke chooses to follow the expanded Matthean version (Matt 12.22- 32, 43-45) at Luke 11.14-26. When Luke finds the story about Jesus’ True Kindred in Matt 12.46-50, following the Return of the Unclean Spirit in Matt 12.43-45), Luke gives his own version of the Unclean Spirit in Luke 11.24-26, but then recasts the Markan mother and brothers saying in Luke in different language to avoid repetition in Luke 11.27-28. It is the same message as Mark 3.31-35, but expressed in different language (i.e., a substitution).

Luke 18.38 The blind beggar calls out to Jesus ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’

This is again and outsider’ claim that Jesus is not said to have accepted. Indeed, he later problematizes the term Son of David (as in the synoptics:

Luke 20.41 41 But he said to them, “How can they say that the Christ is David’s son? 42 For David himself says in the Book of Psalms,‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, 43 till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet.’ 44 David thus calls him Lord; so how is he his son?”

Best,

Ken

PS I grant that it is still possible for Marcionite priorists to contend that Marcion’s gospel was originally about a heavenly being who descended to earth and the canonical evangelists (and Paulin editors) subsequently added the material that gave Jesus an earthly lineage and family and existence before his descent to Capernaum. But I think BeDuhn’s claim that there would be no consistent editorial tendency in Marcion’s use of Luke and that the two gospels ‘are practically identical in ideology’ is untenable.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8567
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: A Consistent Editorial Tendency In Marcion's Use of Luke?

Post by Peter Kirby »

You know it's going to be a good post. Thanks, Ken! I look forward to working through this.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8567
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: A Consistent Editorial Tendency In Marcion's Use of Luke?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Ken Olson wrote: Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:19 pm But I think BeDuhn’s claim that there would be no consistent editorial tendency in Marcion’s use of Luke and that the two gospels ‘are practically identical in ideology’ is untenable.
I agree with you (and do not agree with BeDuhn's claims here).

If *Ev used Luke, or vice-versa, then this is one example of an editorial tendency showing a different theology.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8567
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: A Consistent Editorial Tendency In Marcion's Use of Luke?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Ken Olson wrote: Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:19 pm I grant that it is still possible for Marcionite priorists to contend that Marcion’s gospel was originally about a heavenly being who descended to earth and the canonical evangelists (and Paulin editors) subsequently added the material that gave Jesus an earthly lineage and family and existence before his descent to Capernaum.
With apologies to their adherents (since the word 'absolute' also has other connotations), we could call this position "Absolute Marcionite Priority" and the opposite position "Absolute Canonical Priority." On the former position, *Ev is earlier than and a possible source behind all the canonical gospels (including the first synoptic, typically Mark), and every reading of Paul in the Marcionite canon presents an earlier form of the text. On the latter position, *Ev is later than and derivative to the canonical gospels (especially Luke), and every reading of Paul (witnessed exclusively) in the Marcionite canon presents a later form of the text.

These topics are of vital concern to many on the forum, including me, and it would invite unnecessary misunderstanding for me to attempt to present a hasty or incomplete idea of the relevant considerations. So I will just present this without any attempt to justify it, simply as a reminder that there are other hypotheses than these two. It is just mentioned as a possibility.

We can agree with "Marcionite priorists" that the letters of Paul could have received anti-Marcionite interpolations. At the same time, we can agree with the opposite position that the letters of Paul could have received pro-Marcionite deletions. If so, this would be a "mixed" set of both kinds of textual modifications.

*Ev -> Mk -> Lk is a possibility, Mk -> *Ev -> Lk is a possibility, and Mk -> Lk -> *Ev is a possibility.

This is just to say, "hey, these possibilities exist, and I'm trying to see how well they pan out."
Secret Alias
Posts: 18820
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A Consistent Editorial Tendency In Marcion's Use of Luke?

Post by Secret Alias »

The idea is that Jesus was born on earth as a human being and had Jewish ancestors and family.
I know where you are coming from. But Jacob of Serugh and the Flying Jesus. There is this other Marcionite gospel that you wouldn't know existed from Tertullian. Adversus Marcionem isn't about Marcion. It's an argument for Luke.

But I know where you're coming from. "Many will say I am the Christ, don't believe them." Has a similar problem. It sounds reactionary. Or the Marcionite reading of Bar Timaeus. It seems to imply someone thought Jesus was a son of David before Marcion denied it with his redaction (only when the blind beggar call Jesus "Lord" is his sight restored).

You can read this as if people thought Jesus was the Christ and a son of David and the editors of our canon did. But I think it was social satire. The thing in the background is the Jewish messianic expectation of 70 CE. Mark or whoever wrote the ur-gospel of Marcion was using Jesus to laugh at Jewish messianic expectation.

So too all the answering questions of Jesus having a mother. The Qumran expectation was that a heavenly being would arrive on the messianic Jubilee which was the gospel. The Jewish rabble altered the original expectation to fit the coming of a mortal man.

The editors of our canon were clever. Mark wrote about mystical truths. Matthew according to Papias made Mark's truth conform with the dominical logoi (= Jewish rabble expectation regarding a mortal man). The Marcionites accused Matthew of "Judaizing" the true gospel. The editors of our canon made truth somewhere between Marcion and Papias.

You can literally see our canon grow from the arguments behind Adversus Marcionem.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 13899
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: A Consistent Editorial Tendency In Marcion's Use of Luke?

Post by Giuseppe »

Ken Olson wrote: Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:19 pm but Marcion has consistently removed it so that it does not appear in the Apostolikon. The idea is that Jesus was born on earth as a human being and had Jewish ancestors and family.
As a mythicist, i.e. one who thinks that in Paul a crucifixion in lower heavens (outer space) is meant, my reading stops here.

Since I have not read the rest of the your post, I raise a question:
where do you think canonical Luke has derived the idea that the 'word of God' (an euphemism for spirit) 'descended on John' the same day in *Ev the celestial being Jesus descended already adult on the earth?

The canonical Luke priority is simply unable to answer to this question.

ADDENDA: not only the canonical Luke priority can't answer to this question, but it can't even say that Marcion derived the idea of a descent of Jesus from heaven by simply removing the 'word of God' and 'John the Baptist' from the scene and replacing them with the idea of Jesus descending from heaven. A such theological claim (the descent already adult from heaven) couldn't be derived from an accidental replacement ("remove the descent on John and replace it with the descent of Jesus").
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8567
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: A Consistent Editorial Tendency In Marcion's Use of Luke?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Ken Olson wrote: Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:19 pm For Marcion, Jesus was a heavenly being who descended to the earthly world at Capernaum in Galilee in the fifteenth year of Tiberius. He had no terrestrial existence before that time. He had no earthly ancestors, no earthy relatives, and was not born and did not grow up on earth. There are no passages in the Apostolikon or the Evangelion that say otherwise.
You go on to note a couple possible exceptions that aren't, including what may seem like redaction based on Mark, which reaffirms the idea of Mark 3:31-35 (“Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”):
Ken Olson wrote: Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:19 pmLuke 11.27:As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!” 28 But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Jesus response does not concede that the woman’s assumption that he had a terrestrial mother who gave birth to him and nursed him is true.

Parenthetically, I think Luke 11.27-28 is Lukan redaction (see Mark Goodacre, Thomas and the Synoptics (2012) 97-108). It is a substitution for Mark 3.31-35, which Luke has already used in its Markan location at Luke 8.19-21 (quoted above). In Mark, the saying about Jesus’ mother and brothers follows the Beelezebul pericope (Mark 3.22-30), for which Luke chooses to follow the expanded Matthean version (Matt 12.22- 32, 43-45) at Luke 11.14-26. When Luke finds the story about Jesus’ True Kindred in Matt 12.46-50, following the Return of the Unclean Spirit in Matt 12.43-45), Luke gives his own version of the Unclean Spirit in Luke 11.24-26, but then recasts the Markan mother and brothers saying in Luke in different language to avoid repetition in Luke 11.27-28. It is the same message as Mark 3.31-35, but expressed in different language (i.e., a substitution).
In this context, this passage might also be mentioned (Lk 23:28-29):

28 But Jesus, turning to them, said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, don’t weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For behold, the days are coming in which they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.’

And this parallel to both in Thomas 79 (not that I have any particular theory on Thomas here):

A woman from the crowd said to Him, "Blessed are the womb which bore You and the breasts which nourished You." He said to her, "Blessed are those who have heard the word of the Father and have truly kept it. For there will be days when you will say, 'Blessed are the womb which has not conceived and the breasts which have not given milk.'"

You rightly go on to mention this text, which is simply parallel to the same passage in Mark:
Ken Olson wrote: Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:19 pmPOSSIBLE EXCEPTIONS THAT ARE NOT REALLY EXCEPTIONS

Luke 8.19-21: 19 Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him for the crowd. 20 And he was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you.” 21 But he said to them, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.”

Epiphanius, Scholion 12: “He did not have, “His mother and his brethren,” but only, “Thy mother and thy brethren.”’ (The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book I (Sects 1-46), translated by Frank Williams (2e 2009) p. 304.

Epiphanius attests to the absence of Luke 8.19, in which the narrator refers to Jesus’ mother and brothers, but had the quotation of other people referring to Jesus’ mother and brothers. Jesus’ response ceratinly does not concede that those people were indeed his mother and brothers.
I present this relevant synopsis:
Peter Kirby wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2023 9:47 pm ... A double dagger (‡) indicates verses attested as missing by Epiphanius, according to Roth. ...

Mark Luke Matthew Thomas Epiphanius - Attestations
3.31 ‡ And his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him. 8.19 ‡ Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him for the crowd. 12.46 ‡ While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. Pan. 42.11.6(12). He did not have, “His mother and his brethren,” but only, “Thy mother and thy brethren.”
3.32 And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you." 8.20 And he was told, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you." 99 The disciples said to Him, "Your brothers and Your mother are standing outside." ... Pan. 42.11.6(12). He did not have, “His mother and his brethren,” but only, “Thy mother and thy brethren.”
3.34 And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 3.35 Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother." 8.21 But he said to them, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it." 12.49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 12.50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother." 99 ... He said to them, "Those here who do the will of My Father are My brothers and My mother. It is they who will enter the Kingdom of My Father."

In the spirit of presenting at least three different possibilities here:

(a) *Ev redacted Mark's story by removing Mk 3:31 but using Mk 3:32 to remove the direct implication that Jesus had family, and *Ev emphasized an interpretation of the message of Mk 3:34 by telling a similar story also now found in Lk 11:27-28. (Lk posteriority)

(b) *Ev redacted Luke's story by removing Lk 8:19. *Ev retold a story first found in Lk 11:27-28. (*Ev posteriority)

(c) Mk redacted *Ev's story by adding Mk 3:31, and Luke but not Mark or Matthew retold *Ev's story in Lk 11:27-28. (*Ev priority)

It would be a worthy topic, although not the focus of the OP, to consider these passages in terms of looking at what may seem more likely to be the direction of literary dependence.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8567
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: A Consistent Editorial Tendency In Marcion's Use of Luke?

Post by Peter Kirby »

This synopsis can be improved by not limiting it to Epiphanius.

Mark Luke Matthew Thomas Attestation
3.31 ‡ And his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him. 8.19 ‡ Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him for the crowd. 12.46 ‡ While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. Pan. 42.11.6(12). He did not have, “His mother and his brethren,” but only, “Thy mother and thy brethren.”
3.32 And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you." 8.20 And he was told, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you." 99 The disciples said to Him, "Your brothers and Your mother are standing outside." ... Ephrem, Commentary on the Diatessaron 11.9. Marcion said: "By these words [cf. Lk 11:27] they tempted him, to find out if he was truly born. The same would be true for the words: 'Behold, your mother and brothers are seeking you.'"
3.33 And he replied, "Who are my mother and my brothers?" 12.48 But he replied to the man who told him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" AM 4.19. He himself, they say, affirms that he has not been born when he says, "Who is my mother and who are my brethren?"
3.34 And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 3.35 Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother." 8.21 But he said to them, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it." 12.49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 12.50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother." 99 ... He said to them, "Those here who do the will of My Father are My brothers and My mother. It is they who will enter the Kingdom of My Father." AM 4.19. And therefore, when to the previous question, "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?" He added the answer "None but they who hear my words and do them," ...

I have previously written:
Peter Kirby wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 2:01 pm Here's a clear example of how gMarcion has a literary relationship with gMark or gMatthew (pg 361).

https://www.tertullian.org/articles/eva ... k4_eng.htm
He himself, they say, affirms that he has not been born when he says, "Who is my mother and who are my brethren?" In this way heretics are always, by their theories, wresting plain and simple expressions in any direction they please, or else, on supposition of simplicity, giving a general meaning to expressions based on special conditions and particular reasons, as on the present occasion.

And in a footnote to this translation:

Cf. de carne Christi 7, in controversy with Apelles. The question, 'Who is my mother and my brethren?', not recorded by St. Luke, was taken over by Marcion from Matt. 12: 48 and Mark 3: 33.

Here are these versions in the RSV for the synoptics:

Mark Luke Matthew
3.31 And his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him. 3.32 And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you." 3.33 And he replied, "Who are my mother and my brothers?" 3.34 And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 3.35 Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother." 8.19 Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him for the crowd. 8.20 And he was told, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you." 8.21 But he said to them, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it." 12.46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him 12.47 [omitted] 12.48 But he replied to the man who told him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" 12.49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 12.50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother."

Of these three, gLuke is the most distant because it omits the question quoted in the controversy as well as the stark declaration from Jesus ("Here are my mother and my brothers!"). All of these texts have a reference in the authorial voice to "his mothers and his brothers," which is natural for an author who considered them such but also destroys the argument before it can get off the ground. If we have a text like gMarcion and if its author did not have a belief in Jesus having a true mother or brothers, then it could have been removed by way of redaction. So we can suggest that gMarcion looked like Mark but without verse 31.

3.32 And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you." 3.33 And he replied, "Who are my mother and my brothers?" 3.34 And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 3.35 Whoever does the will of God [Tert. hears my words and does them] is my brother, and sister, and mother."

With the reply to the question about the will of God/my Father or doing "my words" (and not the "word of God" as in Luke 8:21 with its stronger overtones of scriptural association) and with the omission of the authorial admission of a true family (Luke 8:19 // Mark 3:31 // Matthew 12:46), the argument of Apelles would not be absurd, given his text of the Gospel. If the omission of verse 47 in gMatthew is correct, then gMark seems closest to gMarcion here, since gMark has both the question in response and the ambiguous third person address to Jesus, one or the other dropped by gLuke and gMatthew.

This particular example doesn't prove that gMarcion isn't posterior to all three synoptics, but that's not my point here. My point is that gMarcion has a literary relationship with gMark or gMatthew because its material is in those gospels but not gLuke at times. Likewise, the controversies reflect that and don't support the idea that it's just gLuke with subtractions.
It is also interesting that the story assumes that people would claim to be brothers and mother of Jesus. This is fully expected in the context of Mark (or another synoptic gospel), in agreement with other traditions that Jesus had brothers (and, likewise, a mother). It is not expected in the context of a story where Jesus descended from heaven and therefore did not have a family at all. In such an unexpected context, nothing here explains why people would have mistakenly assumed themselves to be family of a Jesus who never had a mother or relatives at all, and nothing is commented on for *Ev in that respect. These considerations indicate in favor of viewing the *Ev story as being constructed with redaction from a synoptic gospel (which could have been Mark). If so, then the presence of an element in the *Ev story that is in Matthew and Mark (but not Luke) implies that *Ev used Mark or Matthew. This is consistent with a development in the order Mk -> *Ev -> Lk.

It is still possible to contend that *Ev used Luke in addition to Mark or Matthew. But "the theory that Marcion created the Evangelion by making ideologically motivated subtractions from Luke" may be untenable.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1348
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: A Consistent Editorial Tendency In Marcion's Use of Luke?

Post by Ken Olson »

Peter Kirby wrote: Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:30 pm It is still possible to contend that *Ev used Luke in addition to Mark or Matthew. But "the theory that Marcion created the Evangelion by making ideologically motivated subtractions from Luke" may be untenable.
Peter,

If I am following you so far, your argument is:

(1) 'Who is my mother and who are my brethren' is not in Luke and therefore must have come from Matt 12.48 or Mark 3.33 (or they got it from the Evangelion).

(2) This would make the suggestion that Marcion created the Evangelion [simply] by making ideologically motivated subtractions from Luke untenable, as he would have to be taking material from Matthew and or Mark as well.

While I don't have any global objection to the theory that Marcion might have taken material for the Evangelion from Matthew or Mark on occasion, in this case I wonder how strong the case for including 'Who is my mother and who are my brothers'/' in the Evangelion is.

Tertullian AM 4.17

We come now to the standing argument of all those who bring into controversy our Lord's nativity. He himself, they say, affirms that he has not been born when he says, Who is my mother and who are my brethren? In this way heretics are always, by their theories, wresting plain and simple expressions in any direction they please, or else, on supposition of simplicity, giving a general meaning to expressions based on special conditions and particular reasons, as on the
present occasion.

Couldn't Tertullian be saying that heretics contend that the saying in Matt 12.48 proves that Jesus had not been born, without any implication that the question was in the Evangelion?

Best,

Ken
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8567
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: A Consistent Editorial Tendency In Marcion's Use of Luke?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Ken Olson wrote: Wed Apr 03, 2024 4:12 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:30 pm It is still possible to contend that *Ev used Luke in addition to Mark or Matthew. But "the theory that Marcion created the Evangelion by making ideologically motivated subtractions from Luke" may be untenable.
Peter,

If I am following you so far, your argument is:

(1) 'Who is my mother and who are my brethren' is not in Luke and therefore must have come from Matt 12.48 or Mark 3.33 (or they got it from the Evangelion).

(2) This would make the suggestion that Marcion created the Evangelion [simply] by making ideologically motivated subtractions from Luke untenable, as he would have to be taking material from Matthew and or Mark as well.

While I don't have any global objection to the theory that Marcion might have taken material for the Evangelion from Matthew or Mark on occasion, in this case I wonder how strong the case for including 'Who is my mother and who are my brothers'/' in the Evangelion is.

Tertullian AM 4.17

We come now to the standing argument of all those who bring into controversy our Lord's nativity. He himself, they say, affirms that he has not been born when he says, Who is my mother and who are my brethren? In this way heretics are always, by their theories, wresting plain and simple expressions in any direction they please, or else, on supposition of simplicity, giving a general meaning to expressions based on special conditions and particular reasons, as on the
present occasion.

Couldn't Tertullian be saying that heretics contend that the saying in Matt 12.48 proves that Jesus had not been born, without any implication that the question was in the Evangelion?
Understanding what is present in *Ev isn't easy. However, as a point of methodology, no I would not assign any gospel material that Marcionites argue on the basis of to anything other than their own gospel. They're known to have rejected the other gospels. They accepted only one gospel. So I do take it as implied that the material is in *Ev.
Post Reply