While I'm at it, I discerned some approximate statistics from one of Klinghardt's lists in The Oldest Gospel. It's about the wording of their quotes from gMarcion (as Klinghardt sees them) and when they agree with Mark or Matthew instead of Luke.
Matthean
Markan
Tertullian
14
6
Epiphanius
3
6
I make two inferences from this:
(1) This doesn't seem random. The chi-square test is significant at <0.1.
(2) The quotes from Epiphanius are more likely to be accurate. This is both because (a) conformity in inaccurate citation to Mark is far less likely than conformity in inaccurate citation to Matthew and (b) Epiphanius expresses more concern with the actual words of the text anyway.
Remember, these are the quotes that Klinghardt detects in Tertullian of gMarcion. It's not the stuff that Klinghardt doesn't see as quoting gMarcion. So, however Klinghardt is finding these quotes in Tertullian, they don't always seem that reliable as to the exact words of gMarcion.
Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 8:03 pm
It remains an open question for me about whether (a) all claims of omission in gMarcion come from another Against Marcion and (b) all claims of presence in gMarcion come from another Against Marcion or possibly Antitheses.
Come to think of it, some of the omission claims can come from passsages of Antitheses where Marcion says the Gospel was falsified. So there is a parallel question in both cases, of whether the omission/presence claims all came from another Against Marcion or Antitheses.
In his discussion on the woe of Luke 6:26, Tertullian suggests also a third possible source, i.e. arguments with other Marcionites (pg. 331):
There are others indeed who admit the word involves cursing, but will have it that Christ uttered the word Woe not as proceeding strictly from his own judgement, but because the word woe comes from the Creator, and he wished to set before them the Creator's severity, and so give greater commendation to his own tolerance previously in the beatitudes.
If Irenaeus actually wrote his Against Marcion (and there is no reason not to think he didn't) then since Epiphanius was devoted to Irenaeus the parallels between Tertullian and Epiphanius would be explained.
Irenaeus speaks of the Antitheses (i.e. Matthew 5:17 - 44) as if they were in Marcion's gospel. This would explain why Matthew 5:17 is the single most common Marcionite gospel scripture. It is referenced over 15 times in relation to Marcion in Against Marcion alone.
I agree with the weight of your evidence. I also believe it has another interpretation. If "Antitheses" was an actual affixed but separate text from Marcion (and I'm struggling to understand how it isn't), then this could still suggest that some form of Matthew 5:17-44 were in the Gospel, being a natural part of the Gospel and used only as a subset of a longer text of the Antitheses.
Therefore, there's this long part of what's now Matthew that is in gMarcion. This either means gMarcion was a source to both canonical Matthew and canonical Luke (where I'm landing), or some hypothesis where gMarcion was an adaptation of both Matthew and Luke (where I'm not).
I'm in fact just coming to this part of Against Marcion (pg 338):
Admittedly Christ teaches a new degree of forbearance, when he puts restraint on that retaliation for injury which the Creator permitted by demanding an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth [Matthew 5:38]: for he on the contrary orders us rather to offer the other cheek [Matthew 5:39], and in addition to the coat to let go of the cloak also [Matthew 5:40].
This falls in the same order of this passage from Luke, which, however, does not have a parallel to Matthew 5:38:
“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either
Tertullian has taken a Marcionite argument that had something to do with what we see in Matthew 5:38 and transposed it here, to the parallel in Luke. The whole passage that follows from Tertullian is a discussion of "the demand of tooth for tooth and eye for eye in return for an injury." This leaves two options:
(1) The Antitheses is the source of this, in which case the Antitheses were incorporated into canonical Matthew.
(2) The Gospel is the ultimate source of this (mediated through one of Tertullian's sources), in which case the Gospel is more than a reduced form of Luke and contains verses that are now found in canonical Matthew.
I believe you're arguing for (1). I am considering (2).
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:07 pm
1. the opening words of Against Marcion says clearly the text was written and rewritten 3 times by multiple authors.
2. go back to (1)
There is no magic bullet that explains everything.
I view it as being written 3 times by one author (and once extracted by someone other than Tertullian), the first time as books 1+3, the second time as books 1+2+3, the third time in five books. I know we don't agree, but I read all the first 3 books recently (and am now in the fourth), and that's how I read it. I also can of course see the influence of sources, such as Justin in book 3 and an earlier Greek Against Marcion in book 4.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:09 pm
How can Matthew 5:17 - 47 NOT be Marcionite? It is the single most Marcionite thing in the gospel and its not in Luke.
I think it's in the Gospel used by Marcion.
But I also believe there's all kinds of shades of belief that could produce Matthew 5:17-47, and I'm not yet sure what the relationship is between the beliefs of the author who produced the Gospel used by Marcion.. and then Marcion himself. As for Marcion himself, so far I consider that he did write a text that he titled Antitheses, and I see it as containing more than just some form of Matthew 5:17-47.
Irenaeus AH 4:13 And that the Lord did not abrogate the natural [precepts] of the law, by which man(2) is justified, which also those who were justified by faith, and who pleased God, did observe previous to the giving of the law, but that He extended and fulfilled them, is shown from His words. "For," He remarks, "it has been said to them of old time, Do not commit adultery. But I say unto you, That every one who hath looked upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."(3) And again: "It has been said, Thou shalt not kill. But I say unto you, Every one who is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment."(4) And, "It hath been said, Thou shalt not forswear thyself. But I say unto you, Swear not at all; but let your conversation be, Yea, yea, and Nay, nay."(5) And other statements of a like nature. For all these do not contain or imply an opposition to and an overturning of the [precepts] of the past, as Marcion's followers do strenuously maintain; but [they exhibit] a fulfilling and an extension of them, as He does Himself declare: "Unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."(6) For what meant the excess referred to? In the first place, [we must] believe not only in the Father, but also in His Son now revealed; for He it is who leads man into fellowship and unity with God. In the next place, [we must] not only say, but we must do; for they said, but did not. And [we must] not only abstain from evil deeds, but even from the desires after them. Now He did not teach us these things as being opposed to the law, but as fulfilling the law, and implanting in us the varied righteousness of the law. That would have been contrary to the law, if He had commanded His disciples to do anything which the law had prohibited. But this which He did command--namely, not only to abstain from things forbidden by the law, but even from longing after them--is not contrary to [the law], as I have remarked, neither is it the utterance of one destroying the law, but of one fulfilling, extending, and affording greater scope to it.
Take the gospel [or the evangelicon] of Marcion, and you will presently see at the very beginning a proof of their impudence. For they have left out our Lord's genealogy from and Abraham. And if you proceed a little farther, you will see another instance of their wickedness, in altering our Lord's words. "I came not," says he, "to destroy the law or the prophets." But they have ' made it thus: " Think ye, that I came to fulfil the law or the prophets? I am come to destroy, ' not to fulfil.'" [Isidore of Pelusium (Ep., 1, 371]
For Marcion, Matthew 5:17 was proof that the Torah ['Law'] had been done away with the coming of [Jesus] and replaced it with grace. According to Marcion's interpretation of Matthew 5:17, Jesus said: “Think not that I have come to fulfill the Law but to abolish it." Today, most theologians agree that Marcion was a Heretic, who changed the original meaning of Scripture. The British scholar E. C. Blackman tells us that Marcion changed the meaning of Matthew 5:17 by “inverting the order of the clauses so as to give exactly an opposite sense." [Richard Rhoades, Faith of Ages p. 3]
Schaff says that Marcion rewrote Matthew 5:17 to say, “I am come not to fulfill the law and the prophets, but to destroy them. [Randy Colver Heroes and Heretics in the Early Church p. 32]
A well-attested verbal difference between the Gospel of Marcion and canonical Luke is in Gos. Mar. 16:17. Marcion's gospel apparently read: "But it is easier for heaven and earth to go away than for one of my words to fall.""2 In canonical Luke at this point we have: "It is easier for heaven and earth to go away, than for one stroke of the Torah to fall" (Luke 16:17). Later, however, canonical Luke and Marcion seem to agree on wording that supports Marcion's reading: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my word remains forever" (Gos. Mar. 21:33 = Luke 21:33: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away"). For Marcion it is Jesus' words that are eternal; canonical Luke has two sayings, one supporting the eternality of Torah and one in agreement with Marcion." [Joseph Tyson, Marcion. p.45]
