A Basic Objection to BeDuhn’s “Semler Hypothesis”

[Irish1975]

It goes without saying that all conservative and liberal (i.e. conventional) interpreters of Galatians will balk at this interpretation--

The capital assertion of the apostle in the opening of Galatians is that his (the apostle's) true Gospel was vouchsafed to him (the apostle) not kata anthropon, not "according to so-and-so," but "through a revelation (apocalypsis) of Jesus Christ." The plain meaning of this testimony (which again, appears at the head of Marcion's Apostolikon, since Galatians appears there as the first epistle) is that the story propagated by "the defenders of Judaism," of a good news about Jesus Christ handed down by human-to-human tradition, oral or written, was a "falsification." (A falsification of what? we should ask.) Certain false apostles had perverted the true Gospel, which had come to the apostle by revelation, not kata anthropon. Marcion’s model of revelation was spiritual rather than pseudo-historical.

Of course our extant text of Galatians all but compels a reading of "the gospel message" in Gal 1:11 that confines it to Paul's supposedly merely practical convinctions about Torah observance and its relaxation. But that's a canonical, redacted, corrupted reading of the text. The original Marcionite meaning was something far more dramatic, as indicated by the rhetorical intensity.

Not that the abolition of the Law was anything minor. But the rage of Galatians 1--which Brodie makes a good case as being a midrash of Jeremiah, and not any authentic episode in the life of "Paul"--has got to have a deeper meaning. We have to at least entertain that it was about the theft and corruption of Marcion's gospel and his scriptures.

[andrewcriddle]

FWIW and IMHO it seems plausible that the there was a Gospel text prior to Marcion's Gospel similar to our Luke which Marcion edited and abbreviated. However this proto-Luke has been mildly edited on the basis of Matthew to produce our canonical Luke. A number of the minor agreements between Matthew and canonical Luke are a result of this editing.

Andrewq Criddle

[Secret Alias]

All of this assumes that Tertullian's witness is accurate which it isn't. Tertullian is doing what Irenaeus did before him, arguing against Marcion from what he says are the portions of Luke that Marcion retained. Who engages in such a nonsensical methodology? It's like a prosecutor saying "you stole all the money from the bank, the money in your wallet is from the money stolen at the bank" without proving that the money in the man's wallet matched any of the bills taken from the bank? Sheer lunacy.

[Secret Alias]

And the accusations of forgery or manipulation are so confused that even Epiphanius can't figure out what Tertullian (or Irenaeus) is saying. Look at the healing of the leper and tell me what exactly is being said. What is the excision? Epiphanius cites Matthew and then say Marcion changed it to "to you" I think. When I read Tertullian I think he's saying something is different but won't say exactly what it is. Similarly with the allusion to Isa 8.23, 9.1 in chapter 7. Is it a citation of Matthew? Is it something the author came up with on the top of his head? And what is it that is being argued was "cut" from Luke? If it's Matthew 5:17 (strange enough) but then the same verse comes up again in the healing of the leper narrative with a reference to something being cut again. Tertullian's point seems to be in each case that Matthew 5:17 proves that Jesus wasn't against the Law. If it's not Matthew 5:17 then the thing being cut is Matthew 4:14 - 15 and Matthew 8:4 which is insane in a treatise that is supposed to have cutting things out of Luke as its premise.

The scholarship on Marcion is at the outer fringes of the humanities. Anyone studying this material knows there is no clear answer. But they pretend it is clear, ignoring the obvious difficulties, just to have something to write about.

When Morton Smith went to the monastery in the 80s the monks didn't like him because they thought he was trying to make a name for himself. They thought devotion to the Scriptures should be an exercise in modesty and humility. Not so with most scholars. It's dishonest personality peddling. They should force doctoral candidates to strap into a lie detector and ask them "is what you are saying true? Do you actually believe what you are selling?" Most would be disqualified in an instant.

[mbuckley3]

I don’t see a meaningful alternative to these 2 possibilities. Either way, the conjecture championed by BeDuhn makes no difference, and is not useful to the study of our two extant Gospels. There is no escaping the essential question, so profoundly and passionately pursued by Klinghardt, whether Luke edited Marcion or Marcion edited Luke. It’s an either/or, with no plausible third alternative. Or so it seems to me, if the above argument is sound.

Back to the OP, and pp.78ff of BeDuhn.

For BeDuhn also, the 'Semler Hypothesis' is irrelevant to deciding whether Luke expanded Marcion, or Marcion epitomised Luke; in his case, because his reading of the evidence suggests that the two texts are not directly related.

According to his (any ?) reconstruction, the Evangelion is contaminated by Mattheanisms. He asserts that these are different to the contaminations evident in texts of canonical Luke, and so point to a common ancestor independently used (but how ?!).. So p.88 :

"Setting aside the difficult issue of omissions versus interpolations, what about the remaining content that Luke and the Evangelion have in common ? It is here that perhaps decisive evidence comes forward. The Evangelion and Luke often switch places when it comes to harmonization to other gospels. Sometimes Luke appears to have a more independent text, while the Evangelion's has been conformed to Matthew's wording; at other times, the situation is reversed, and the Evangelion has the more independent text, and Luke's shows harmonization to Matthew. This surprising evidence suggests that both texts were equally and independently subjected to harmonizing influence. It cannot be shown that either duplicates the secondary harmonizations of the other."

If this analysis is accepted, there is of course an alternative to positing a proto-Luke as the explanation. Markus Vinzent, a great advocate of Klinghardt's reconstruction of the Evangelion, currently regards it as the version of Marcion's gospel published after the gospels which plagiarised his original (self-penned) draft, and so took some account of them; (that original draft he reckons probably irrecoverable).

This theory is more economical (no hypothetical document), but is still unsatisfactory, at least in regard to persuading the majority that the priority of the Evangelion is key to unlocking the synoptic problem.

[mlinssen]

The solution to the SP is much, much, much more unsatisfactory than that

And the document most certainly is not hypothetical - we have and hold it in whole

[rgprice]

I don't care for Vinzent's argument at all. It seems almost ludicrous, like just fudging it.

I think a "proto-Luke" makes sense. If Matthew and Canonical Luke both derive from a "proto-Luke", along with Marcion's Gospel, then it seems that this can account for everything.

This idea that they all got ahold of each others texts in the classroom together sounds like a crazy fantasy. It's like an absurd postulation to salvage an obviously flawed thesis. Why Vinzent thinks this is a reasonable proposal I don't know.

A pertinent question is: Why would two anti-Marcionite writers use Marcion's Gospel as the basis for their Gospels?

I think it makes far more sense that the two anti-Marcionite writers would have gone back to what they viewed as the original story that Marcion inaccurately derived his story from.

And I also agree that Marcion didn't edit or write his Gospel. He must have simply adopted an existing work, since, as BeDuhn and Tyson point out, much of what was in Marcion's Gospel was easily interpreted against him. Certainly if one wanted to write a story that explicitly advocated Marcion's supposed views, a much stronger story could have been produced. Even the re-constructions of Marcion's Gospel yield a text that is merely open to alternative interpretations, it is by no means a text that screams out the theology of Marcion.

[Irish1975]

For BeDuhn also, the 'Semler Hypothesis' is irrelevant to deciding whether Luke expanded Marcion, or Marcion epitomised Luke; in his case, because his reading of the evidence suggests that the two texts are not directly related.

According to his (any ?) reconstruction, the Evangelion is contaminated by Mattheanisms. He asserts that these are different to the contaminations evident in texts of canonical Luke, and so point to a common ancestor independently used (but how ?!).

So p.88 : "Setting aside the difficult issue of omissions versus interpolations, what about the remaining content that Luke and the Evangelion have in common ? It is here that perhaps decisive evidence comes forward. The Evangelion and Luke often switch places when it comes to harmonization to other gospels. Sometimes Luke appears to have a more independent text, while the Evangelion's has been conformed to Matthew's wording; at other times, the situation is reversed, and the Evangelion has the more independent text, and Luke's shows harmonization to Matthew. This surprising evidence suggests that both texts were equally and independently subjected to harmonizing influence. It cannot be shown that either duplicates the secondary harmonizations of the other."

BeDuhn’s analysis is unpersuasive. What the evidence “suggests” to him is not the only possible explanation.

If both texts had been “equally and independently subjected to harmonizing influence,” wouldn’t the comparison of their relationship with Matthew’s text show a more random pattern? The pattern of alternating similarity to Matthew suggests, in other words, a systematic plan rather than the more random effects we should expect from “independent influence.” We have to consider a plan that would have been aware not only of the Luke-Marcion relationship (in whichever editorial direction), but of the Matthew-Luke as well as the the Marcion-Matthew relationships. Evidence of a systematic pattern suggests a systematic editioral scheme. But this is the Trobisch/Klinghardt thesis about Luke: that he was more or less directly connected to the architect of the catholic edition. “Luke” could have influenced how his Gospel was shaped in relation to both Marcion and Matthew.

[mlinssen]

For BeDuhn also, the 'Semler Hypothesis' is irrelevant to deciding whether Luke expanded Marcion, or Marcion epitomised Luke; in his case, because his reading of the evidence suggests that the two texts are not directly related.

According to his (any ?) reconstruction, the Evangelion is contaminated by Mattheanisms. He asserts that these are different to the contaminations evident in texts of canonical Luke, and so point to a common ancestor independently used (but how ?!).

So p.88 : "Setting aside the difficult issue of omissions versus interpolations, what about the remaining content that Luke and the Evangelion have in common ? It is here that perhaps decisive evidence comes forward. The Evangelion and Luke often switch places when it comes to harmonization to other gospels. Sometimes Luke appears to have a more independent text, while the Evangelion's has been conformed to Matthew's wording; at other times, the situation is reversed, and the Evangelion has the more independent text, and Luke's shows harmonization to Matthew. This surprising evidence suggests that both texts were equally and independently subjected to harmonizing influence. It cannot be shown that either duplicates the secondary harmonizations of the other."

BeDuhn’s analysis is unpersuasive. What the evidence “suggests” to him is not the only possible explanation.

If both texts had been “equally and independently subjected to harmonizing influence,” wouldn’t the comparison of their relationship with Matthew’s text show a more random pattern? The pattern of alternating similarity to Matthew suggests, in other words, a systematic plan rather than the more random effects we should expect from “independent influence.” We have to consider a plan that would have been aware not only of the Luke-Marcion relationship (in whichever editorial direction), but of the Matthew-Luke as well as the the Marcion-Matthew relationships. Evidence of a systematic pattern suggests a systematic editioral scheme. But this is the Trobisch/Klinghardt thesis about Luke: that he was more or less directly connected to the architect of the catholic edition. “Luke” could have influenced how his Gospel was shaped in relation to both Marcion and Matthew.

I still see no objection to my LukeMatthew as a single editorial to Mark, yet looking at the quoting circus around and against "Marcion", it seems like it was a work in progress, which contradicts everything that we have found.
Naturally the FF don't t want to disclose *Ev unless it suits them, and perhaps they purposely mix Luke and Matthew when they want to make up Marcionite material - but then again they should quote either Luke or Matthew when they cite either of those two, and the odd thing is that they verbatim quote a mix of both, which is absolutely impossible

Did they have the Diatessaron instead? I mean either they quote from memory and couldn't possibly attain the verbatim level that they have, or they cite from a text that is neither Luke nor Matthew

[Irish1975]

I still see no objection to my LukeMatthew as a single editorial to Mark, yet looking at the quoting circus around and against "Marcion", it seems like it was a work in progress, which contradicts everything that we have found.
Naturally the FF don't t want to disclose *Ev unless it suits them, and perhaps they purposely mix Luke and Matthew when they want to make up Marcionite material - but then again they should quote either Luke or Matthew when they cite either of those two, and the odd thing is that they verbatim quote a mix of both, which is absolutely impossible

Did they have the Diatessaron instead? I mean either they quote from memory and couldn't possibly attain the verbatim level that they have, or they cite from a text that is neither Luke nor Matthew

It "seems impossible" only under the assumption--always taken for granted, never justified--that these were separate, "independent" texts, brought together only long after their separate composition.