Marcion, 2nd Century Bad Boy -- Could It Be True?

[Peter Kirby]

To Peter,
Yes, you are probably right about that "synagogue of the Jews". And I have to make change to my blog post.
I am glad about your comments on the two last chapters of Romans. Can I extensively quote you on the relevant blog post?

Sure, I'd be honored.

[Peter Kirby]

While there does exist an argument for the secondary nature of the two chapters (e.g. here and here and here and here), which may be stronger yet, I will put off on pressing it for now.

To be clear, one of those links is to Harry Gamble's book. He may be summarizing others' arguments for the secondary nature of Romans 15-16, but overall he defends those two chapters as original. Your conclusions in your post are, if I recall Gamble's arguments at least somewhat aright (it has been years since I read the book), compatible with his.

Thanks. I didn't get much past the first few pages that I linked. Good to know.

[Ulan]

There is no mention of "gospels" anyway, so there isn't even anything about the canonical gospels which you could believe in the first place.

It is clear that Irenaeus endorsed four gospels (the four canonical ones) and not a single Gospel (such as a Diatessaron). So by "Gospel" he meant these four ones.

Cordially, Bernard

Your claim went further than that. You here say that when Irenaeus says "gospel", he automatically means all four together. From this you go to the next step that Marcion must have understood the word "gospel" in exactly the same way, as we are dealing with an alleged statement from Marcion, told by Irenaeus. Your next assumption from this is that this must automatically mean that Marcion knew all four gospels. That's stretched rather thin.

[perseusomega9]

From this you go to the next step that Marcion must have understood the word "gospel" in exactly the same way, as we are dealing with an alleged statement from Marcion, told by Irenaeus.

That's too simple of a chain. From the quote provided by Bernard (and assuming Justin's anti-Marcionite tract was incorporated by Irenaeus*), Justin heard, from a disciple of Marcion, that Marcion said the thing recorded by Justin and passed on in surviving form by Irenaeus.




*which Bernard agrees to.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ulan,
About "Marcion knew all four gospels", on that web page and linked other ones, I discussed the dating of the gospels (71-105 CE): http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

(3)
Here are some relevant verses of the synoptics using the ESV version and then Tertullian:

Triple Tradition

Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

Matthew 5:17-19

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 11:11-15

11 Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. 13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, 14 and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. 15 He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

Canonical Luke 16:16-17

Luke 16:16 The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it.
Luke 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void.

Against Marcion 4.33

I can now find out why Marcion's god remained all
those long ages in hiding. He was waiting, I suspect, until he
should learn all these things from the Creator. So he learned them,
right down to the time of John, and then after that came forth
to announce the kingdom of God, saying, The law and the prophets
were until John, since which time the kingdom of God is announced. As
though we too did not know that John has been set as a sort of
dividing-line between old things and new, a line at which Judaism
should cease and Christianity should begin—not however that
by the action of any alien power there came about this cessation
of the law and the prophets, and the inception of that gospel
in which is the kingdom of God, Christ himself. For if, as
I have proved, it was the Creator who prophesied that old
things would pass away and new things take their place; and if
John is set forth as the forerunner who prepares the ways of
that Lord who will bring in the gospel and proclaim the king-
dom of God, and from the fact that John is now come, this must
be that Christ who was to come after John as forerunner; and if
old things have come to an end, and new things have begun, with
John as the point of division: then that which conforms to the
Creator's ordinance will not be so unexpected as to amount to
proof that the kingdom of God takes its origin from every imagin-
able source except the sunset of the law and the prophets upon
John, and the daybreak that came after. So then let heaven and
earth pass away, as have the law and the prophets, more quickly
than one tittle of the words of the Lord : for Isaiah says, The word
of our God abideth for ever. For Christ, who is the Word and Spirit
of the Creator, had in Isaiah so long before prophesied of John
as the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of
the Lord, and as one who was to come for this end, that the
sequence of law and prophets should from that time cease—by
being fulfilled, not by being destroyed—and that the kingdom
of God should be proclaimed by Christ: which is why he appended
the statement that it would be easier for the heavenly bodies than
for his words to pass away, so affirming that this too which he
had spoken of John had not passed into abeyance.

The first question we need to ask is: what was the text of the Evangelion (the "Gospel" used by Marcion) here, as best as we can determine? There are essentially four options that I have seen presented or considered (when compared to the text of canonical Luke):

1. "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to pass away." (no change)
2. "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of my words to pass away." (change to τῶν λόγων μου)
3. "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one of my words to pass away." (change and drop κεραίαν)
4. "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for my words to pass away." (change and drop μίαν κεραίαν)

Option (1) is well-attested, since it is the text of canonical Luke, which is generally an option to consider; however, most are persuaded that the two references in Tertullian here point to something different.

Option (2) is not directly attested but, rather, arises from a combination of the two different references in Tertullian. The first reference is to "one tittle of the words of the Lord," which has "one tittle" and "the words of the Lord" (which works well for Tertullian's argument, since it carries at least a double meaning of scripture, and Tertullian goes on to argue that Christ is the Word of the Creator, etc.) but not literally "my words" (which could have more radical connotations).

Option (3) is not directly attested. It lies halfway between the other two change options. By dropping the "tittle" that some find incongruous beside "my words," then, it operates by the very same argument that has been made that such a text is implausible-sounding, one might suggest that the text (which, again, is not attested) is also not the most plausible-sounding reconstruction either.

Option (4) is directly attested. With the obvious switch of pronoun case, it is the text of the second reference from Tertullian ('than for his words to pass away"). One could also say that it is indirectly supported, to the extent that it is paralleled by Mark 13:31 and Luke 21:33 ("my words will not pass away").

Other than the fact that options (2)-(3) are relatively-speculative hybrids without direct support, and other than the fact that their origin (being bastards of the imagination) might help explain why some have found them to be implausible-sounding, further considerations compel me.

It is critical to pay attention to the way in which Tertullian is using the texts in the context of his argument. In the first reference, Tertullian is doing his job: he is taking the Gospel used by his opponent, and he is showing that even by their words this Gospel actually agrees with the doctrines of theirs. Accordingly, it is Tertullian who waves the magic wand and transforms the phrase "my words" into the phrase (and this is an allusion, so it is not a deception) "one tittle of the words of the Lord" fitting his elaboration of the argument that Christ is the Word of the Creator and, as prophesied in Isaiah, "the word of our God abideth forever." And that Tertullian is doing this, can be further seen by the fact that it is only at the second reference that Tertullian actually attributes the words to Jesus: "which is why he appended the statement that..." Meanwhile, the earlier bit was Tertullian's direct statement: "So then let ... for Isaiah says ..." And so the second reference should carry more weight for establishing the wording of the Gospel. And, of course, while Tertullian in the second part chose to vary his speech and refer to "heavenly bodies," which is his prerogative, it is also not until the second reference that the words of Jesus are properly set up by the words "it would be easier," which is another tell that Tertullian is hewing closer to the "statement" of the Jesus in this Gospel here.

So, while anyone can disagree or doubt, by careful consideration I am left with the best option of "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for my words to pass away." I see no real evidence specifically for either of options (2) or (3) -- an argument which breaks down further, for (2), if someone is then going to say that such a hypothetical reconstruction is implausible-sounding, since nothing forced one's hand to make it such and such -- and in the case of (1) it seems unlikely from the emphasis of these two references in Tertullian. The next-most-likely option, I suppose, is (3), since it differs only slightly from (4) anyway; there is no conclusive way to decide between options (3) and (4).

Once the problem of establishing the text is considered carefully, we can ask what "synoptic problem" considerations there are here, where the Evangelion is one of the elements in the expanded synoptic problem (and such does not preclude the opinion it is strictly posterior to them all).

There are several facts to consider:

(1) The element of "heaven and earth to pass away" is found in the triple tradition (Mark 13:31 // Matthew 24:35 // Luke 21:33).

(2) We need new terms to describe two different "double tradition" phenomena: Matthew // Evangelion and Matthew // Canonical Luke. I will call them the "Apocryphal Double Tradition" and the "Canonical Double Tradition," to try to find some neutral-sounding terms.

So Matthew 5:17-19 // Luke 16:16-17 would be good evidence for the Canonical Double Tradition, since they both have "one dot of the Law to become void" and "heaven and earth to pass away" elements. But when looking at it from the perspective of the Apocryphal Double Tradition, this connection is tenuous, since the only shared element is "heaven and earth to pass away," something already found in the triple tradition.

(3) Matthew 11:11-15 // Luke 16:16-17 is good evidence for both the Canonical Double Tradition and for the Apocryphal Double Tradition. We are on relatively safe ground, here, in saying that the first version of "Luke" (whichever it is) had this parallel with Matthew.

Before deciding, let's look at it from the perspective of the "2 Source Theory," the "Farrer Theory," and the "Markan Priority with Early Luke Theory."

On the 2 Source Theory, an earlier text "Q" had the substance of Luke 16:16-17. The Gospel of Luke simply imported it, without making any great changes (although some of the wording may be better preserved in Matthew). The Gospel of Matthew split it up. The author of Matthew took the key phrase and found it to be perfectly suited to his preamble to the Sermon on the Mount, so he smoothly incorporated it verbatim into the argument:

Matthew 5:17-19

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Then, on the 2ST, the rest of it was worked into Matthew 11:11-15. (And, on the 2ST, the author of Evangelion changed Luke.)

On the Farrer Theory with canonical Luke's priority, the Gospel of Matthew originally had the separate elements in Matthew 5:17-19 and Matthew 11:11-15, and it was Luke who figured out how to fuse them into Luke 16:16-17 -- then, the author of apocryphal Luke altered the element that came from Matthew 5:17-19, so that its dependence was no longer apparent. On the Farrer Theory with apocryphal Luke's priority, the author of apocryphal Luke used Matthew 11:11-15.

On the "Markan Priority with Early Luke Theory," this is the sequence:

(a) Early Luke (apocryphal Luke) creates the apocryphal Luke 16:16-17 passage; it appears to snub the law.
(b) Matthew created 5:17-19 (the "tittle of the law," etc., fits perfectly here).
(c) Matthew took apocryphal Luke 16:16-17 and created Matthew 11:11-15 (neither of which have the "tittle of the law" bit here).
(d) Canonical Luke modifies Luke 16:16-17 to subvert the original intention of the passage; he inserts a phrase borrowed from Matthew 5.

So we can ask questions here:

(a) Does the passage in apocryphal Luke 16 have good internal consistency and no trace of depending on another?
(b) Does the passage in Matthew 5 have good internal consistency and no trace of depending on another?
(c) Does Matthew 11 make good sense as a reworking of apocryphal Luke 16?
(d) Does canonical Luke 16 have good internal consistency and no trace of depending on another (whether as originally placed in "Q" or as originally placed in "Luke"), or is it something else?

(a) Let's look at apocryphal Luke 16 here.

Take mind at the outset that I don't believe this was a Marcionite text; Tertullian presents lots of reasons for believing that it isn't (that's sort of the whole point for him, and sometimes Tertullian does strike paydirt). Nor do I believe it is a version of Luke; Tertullian says that the Gospel is assigned no author. Rather, I suggest it is roughly as anti-nomian as the Gospel of Mark itself. It's pretty safe just to call it a synoptic-style gospel and go from there.

Rebuke
14 The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him. 15 And he said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God."

His Authority
16 "The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it. 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for my words to pass away. 18 Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."

Parable on Reversals, Wealth, and the Fate of Those with Only the Law
19 "There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. ..."

The first and last associate the Pharisees with a love of money and has Jesus rebuke them; within is a statement on his own authority. The statement is that the "law and the prophets" continued until John, but now "the kingdom of God" is preached for "everyone" to break their way into it. Then, with the law and prophets ceased, it is stated that "my words" will not pass away, invoking a kind of divine authority. Then, as the one whose word lasts forever, this is demonstrated when a new word is given, something contrary to the law of Moses: divorce is always forbidden.

Well, it works.

(b) Matthew 5 clearly does have internal consistency, and the real question is why we'd assume it was anything other than a seamless composition of the author. Both the Farrer Theory and Markan Priority with Early Luke allow the Gospel of Matthew to stand as its own text here. Of the three, the 2ST demurs, but only by some kind of coincidence where the right phrase that was needed just happened to be found in Q (=Luke 16:16-17), while the rest of it (minus that phrase) ended up somewhere else in the Gospel of Matthew. Sure, it's possible, but it's a weakness of the theory (and an argument for the alternatives).

(c) The nice thing about considering apocryphal Luke 16 to be the source of Matthew 11 is that it is no longer necessary to believe that Matthew had found precisely the parts he needed and split them between the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount and here. Instead, it's a single use of the text. Since it absolutely makes sense that the author of Matthew would want to subvert the anti-nomian elements of his source (just as he also does with Mark as needed), this is a strength of the hypothesis.

(d) The canonical text of Luke 16 here does not have good internal consistency, regardless of whether we want to embed it in a "Q" or believe it to be the concoction of a Gospel with another name. In either case, it is precisely the distinctive part of the canonical text that still stands in tension with the remaining points expressed in the adjacent verses. Verse 16 says that the Law and the Prophets were until John, but not we have the kingdom of God preached. Verse 18 presents words of Jesus that contradict the old Law. These adjacent verses restrict and contradict the Law. Unlike the apocryphal version, where verse 17 confirms the authority of new words (his words), the canonical version attempts to neutralize the idea surrounding it by upholding the Law -- not just in the time before John, but even so it is easier that "the heavens and earth pass away." The sense is Matthew's; the location is canonical Luke; the vorlage is apocryphal Luke.

It's not really surprising, then, that we find this argument presented by BeDuhn and Tyson:

Jason BeDuhn, The First New Testament (2013), p. 172

The latter reading seems to contradict the immediately preceding verse, where it is said that the Law was in effect only until John, while the former reading has a close parallel in 21.33.

Joseph B. Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (2006), p. 118.

... [T]he Gospel of Marcion at this point [Luke 16:17] had: "But it is easier for heaven and earth to go away than for one of my words to fall." Canonical Luke, however, reads: "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped" ... In its canonical context, Luke 16:17 presents difficulties, since the previous verse maintained that the age of Torah and prophets had concluded with John the Baptist. Further, a similar saying in Luke 21:33, probably drawn from Mark, upholds the Marcionite position and affirms it is Jesus' words that are eternal: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away" ... In Luke 16:17 the canonical author probably has altered an earlier saying of Jesus in order to make an anti-Marcionite claim about Torah.

It just makes the most natural sense of the data we have available to us.

Against this, we have the following contentions:

"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." [Ben C. Smith, at the time]

This is a good point (and understandable, working from some such rendition), except that the text of the apocryphal Luke (i.e. Evangelion, i.e. "Marcion's" gospel) needs to be proven to be "one tittle of my words" for this argument to work. There's nothing to support this specific reading. And indeed the argument itself undermines the bare speculation that this is the reading, so that the whole line of attack collapses into a pile of straw.

A similar saying is in gMatthew 5:18, and therefore would be part of Q; and in it, the tittle is about the Law, as it is in Lk 16:17. So "Luke", most likely, followed the Q saying and did not make a correction on gMarcion.

This is nothing more than a statement and elaboration of position, rather than an argument. Consider the whole hypothesis that the apocryphal Luke might be prior to the canonical one to be a referendum on "Q." You can't assume "Q" and the text of "Q" to argue against it; you are arguing against a different synoptic solution entirely, making your conclusion one that is contained in your premises (a conventional 2 Source Theory). Saying that if Luke followed Q, then Luke didn't follow gMarcion, is practically tautological. But it is not evidence.

The so-called difficulties in gLuke are probably due to "Luke" being true to what she read from Q.

"Q" is an assumption and a quite nearly circular one in the context of a discussion over which synoptic problem solution to follow (and whether it might involve an early Luke that is best attested through the references to a gospel used by Marcion). Moreover, these very real difficulties are just as real in "Q."

Furthermore, "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, ... than one tittle of my [Jesus] words to fail." is what is reported to be in the Marcionite gospel, not "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away".

Such confidence is not based on a careful examination of the extant primary literature on the subject. The whole question isn't examined in this response, nor is it properly considered on the original page. Instead, there is simply a link to an online secondary reference: a web page compiled online at http://www.gnosis.org/library/marcion/Gospel4.html. It's been proposed by actual scholars as well, but the other three options above are also on the table. We need to accept them or eliminate them based on the evidence, not on modern authorities, if we want our arguments to stand.

Furthermore the wording in gLuke makes a lot of sense and avoids the problem in gMarcion, which is explained by Marcion's well documented aversion to the Law (of Moses).

Again, the "problem" of "the wording" in gMarcion relies on pressing a hypothetical reading that is in no way established, only to tear it down at the same time as being absurd; a very fine line to walk indeed. There are better readings, with fewer "problems" and better support from the ancient witness.

The "wording" in the Gospel of Luke dodges this phantom bullet, but it's really just the wording of the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5, where the theory that the law has been fulfilled, not destroyed, is explained and expounded upon. It has absolutely nothing to do with the context here in Luke 16, except to the extent that it is subverting the surrounding context and importing the Matthean concept to make the sense less evident. As it stands in canonical Luke, it makes a lot of sense as an anti-Marcionite revision. The original text isn't necessarily "Marcionite," but (as shown by verse 16) it shares a general anti-nomian view that was certainly not unique to Marcion. After all, the phrase found here in apocryphal Luke is essentially the exact same thing found first in the Gospel of Mark. So there is no way to tie the phrase specifically to Marcion; only, rather, to a text adopted for use in the churches that Marcion evangelized.

At least this should explain the original argument, provide the comments that I owe you on your arguments, and explain why I am not persuaded by them. I hope it is of interest (for you, and in general, for the forum) to dive into some of these matters a bit more deeply.

In another post, I should cover the fourth and fifth arguments, from the same web page.

[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." [Ben C. Smith, at the time]

This is a good point (and understandable, working from some such rendition), except that the text of the apocryphal Luke (i.e. Evangelion, i.e. "Marcion's" gospel) needs to be proven to be "one tittle of my words" for this argument to work. There's nothing to support this specific reading. And indeed the argument itself undermines the bare speculation that this is the reading, so that the whole line of attack collapses into a pile of straw.

Agreed. Your line of reasoning against "one tittle of my words" forming part of the text of the Evangelion is, pending a counter from Bernard (or others), very convincing. The line as found in Tertullian still screams its relative lateness from the page; but, as the specific wording can now be seen as Tertullianic, that makes perfect sense, because Tertullian is relatively later than all of the relevant gospel texts.

[Peter Kirby]

(4)
Against Marcion 4.39

He had begun by saying that these things
must needs be—things so frightful, so horrible—your god supremely
good—certainly things foretold by the prophets and the law:
and so he was not destroying the law and the prophets, for he
affirms that those things must needs be accomplished which they
had foretold. And now he adds that heaven and earth shall not
pass away unless all things be fulfilled. What things are these?
If the things which are from the Creator, quite rightly will the
elements await the fulfilment of their Lord's proceedings: if the
things which are from that god supremely good, I doubt if heaven
and earth will await the accomplishment of things which the
opponent has decided on. If the Creator is going to bear with this,
he is not a jealous god. So then, let earth and heaven pass away:
for so their own Lord has determined. Provided that his word
abide for ever: for so Isaiah has foretold it will.

David Inglis writes (Luke 21):

A little later Tertullian writes that “He further declares that heaven and earth shall not pass away till all things be fulfilled.” This could be taken as a mis-quote of vv. 21:32-33, but it might instead be simply summarizing the main point of these two verses. ... We also have no word from Epiphanius regarding this text, which suggests that Tertullian is paraphrasing vv. 21:32-33 here.

In addition, it can be seen from Tertullian's line of argument that the words "this generation" simply had no use for Tertullian; imagine if they were there:

And now he adds that heaven and earth [this generation?] shall not pass away unless all things be fulfilled. What things are these [=all things that are fulfilled]? If the things [fulfilled] which are from the Creator, quite rightly will the elements [=heaven and earth] await the fulfilment of their Lord's proceedings: if the things which are from that god supremely good, I doubt if heaven and earth will await the accomplishment of things which the opponent has decided on.

Tertullian wants it to say that heaven and earth will not pass away unless all things are fulfilled, because this is the conditional statement that Tertullian needs to make his argument stick that the fulfillment of the words are something that "the elements" (heaven and earth) will stick around for, not making the words of Christ a lie (thus proving collusion between Jesus and the Creator). So we can see that the exact wording of the text of the Gospel was not useful to Tertullian, for the purposes of his argument:

32 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all has taken place. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

The second sentence just does not have the conditional logic that Tertullian needs to latch upon in order to make his case that Jesus and the Creator are in cahoots. On the other hand, by telescoping the two verses down to a single phrase, Tertullian's argument can proceed effectively.

There is also the possibility that Tertullian is influenced here by a reading in the Latin version with which he was familiar, since the extant Old Latin manuscript (e) of the African type has here the word "heaven" (caelum) rather than "this generation." Being familiar with such a reading would make it even easier for Tertullian to slip into arguing this way.

Accordingly, Roth writes (The Text of Marcion's Gospel, p. 257):

V. 32 presents another significant difficulty in that it is not clear whether 4.39.18 should be understood as an adaptation of only v. 32, or if Tertullian has conflated elements from v. 33 with v. 32. Harnack, following Zahn, believed the former and that Marcion had tendentiously replaced ἡ γενεὰ ἅυτη with ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ. This view, however, though possible cannot be proved with certainty.

And Roth provides this footnote, mentioning scholars who find that the text of the Evangelion was not any different here (p. 257 n. 380):

Braun (trans.), Contre Marcion iv, 492 refers to both vv. 32 and 33 in the note at the end of Tertullian’s statement. Ritschl, Das Evangelium Marcions, 44 and Hilgenfeld, Kritische Untersuchungen, 431 also thought Tertullian had conflated the verses and that Marcion’s text read as Luke does. Also, it is worth noting the reading transiet caelum istut in e.

It doesn't seem as though we can actually show that there was any difference in the text of the Evangelion here, so we can refrain from developing any further argument over which reading is earlier. Apparently this lectio difficilior may have been in the triple tradition and in the Evangelion also, while the one who could have loosely referenced it with suitable adjustment may have been Tertullian, for the purpose of his rhetorical scheme, which required the "elements" (in heaven and earth) to be the thing which will not pass away until all is fulfilled. This becomes even more understandable when we notice that Tertullian could have been influenced by an Old Latin reading prevalent in the African churches that agrees with Tertullian's reference.

For these reasons, I am not persuaded by this attempt to supply the reading "heaven and earth" at this point in the Evangelion here, and so I can't subscribe to the argument that follows. For the argument to work, the reading it depends on must first be established as correct.

I will take up the fifth argument in another post. Again, I hope that these posts explain my point of view and make it clear why I don't find these arguments persuasive, and I hope they are of general interest here on the forum.

[Bernard Muller]

Essentially, the rule is:
If Tertullian uses a phrase which looks to be a distortion of what appear in gLuke (but is not declared to be a quote from Marcion's evangelion), even if it is most agreeable to Marcion, it is probably not a phrase concocted by Marcion (more so if that phrase is also agreeable to Tertullian).
I agree with that. I always have been bothered that this kind of phrases in Tertullian's writings were attributed as being from Marcion's evangelion. But it seems that almost everybody assumed that. I am guilty to follow the bandwagon and not explore my suspicions.
That would apply to my second argument for the Pauline epistles and my two first ones on the gospel.

You put a lot of work on this matter, Peter.

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

(5)
Against Marcion, 4.11

From what direction does John make his appearance?
Christ unexpected: John also unexpected. With Marcion all
things are like that: with the Creator they have their own com-
pact order. The rest about John later, since it is best to answer
each separate point as it arises. At present I shall make it my
purpose to show both that John is in accord with Christ and
Christ in accord with John, the Creator's Christ with the Creator's
prophet, that so the heretic may be put to shame at having to no
advantage made John's work of no advantage. For if John's work
had been utterly without effect when, as Isaiah says, he cried
aloud in the wilderness as preparer of the ways of the Lord by
the demanding and commending of repentance, and if he had
not along with the others baptized Christ himself, no one could
have challenged Christ's disciples for eating and drinking, or
referred them to the example of John's disciples who were assi-
dous in fasting and prayer: because if any opposition had stood
between Christ and John, and between the followers of each,
there could have been no demand for imitation, and the force
of the challenge would have been lost.

Epiphanius, Panarion, 1.3.42

11:4 At the very beginning he excised everything Luke had originally composed—his 'inasmuch as many have taken in hand,' and so forth, and the material about Elizabeth and the angel's announcement to Mary the Virgin; about John and Zacharias and the birth at Bethlehem; the genealogy and the story of the baptism.
11:5 All this he cut out and turned his back on, and made this the beginning of the Gospel, 'In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar,' and so on.

The Gospel of Mark has the following references to "John" the Baptist, by name.

Mark 1:4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 1:6 Now John was clothed with camel's hair and wore a leather belt around his waist and ate locusts and wild honey.
Mark 1:9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
Mark 1:14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God,
Mark 2:18 Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. And people came and said to him, “Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?”

Here we find the passage of interest (Mark 2:18). It is paralleled by Luke 5:33.

And they said to him, “The disciples of John fast often and offer prayers, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink.”

The Gospel of Mark delays the identification using the words "John the Baptist" until after this point.

Mark 6:14-27 King Herod heard of it, for Jesus' name had become known. Some said, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead. That is why these miraculous powers are at work in him.” ... And she went out and said to her mother, “For what should I ask?” And she said, “The head of John the Baptist.” ... And she came in immediately with haste to the king and asked, saying, “I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter.” ...

Mark 8:28 And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.”

And there are other, later references in Mark to just "John."

The idea under evaluation or criticism here -- at least, the one whose plausibility should be argued against for the point to be made -- is whether it's plausible that the Evangelion was a synoptic gospel based on the Gospel of Mark. This Evangelion begins this way, according to Jason BeDuhn (The First New Testament, p. 99):

In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, when Pilate was governing Judea, Jesus came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee. And he was teaching them in the synagogue, and they were amazed at his teaching, because his speech was (delivered) authoritatively. ...

Accordingly, on such a hypothesis, the author of the Evangelion has omitted Mark 1:1-20 and begun at Mark 1:21, after supplying some context. By the way, we need not necessarily interpret this (without further evidence) as being an endorsement of any particular christological ideas. The passage is not radically opposed to Mark's own, "In those days Jesus came from [Nazareth of] Galilee." While it doesn't specify where Jesus came from, making it ambiguous, we must separate what the Gospel actually says from the interpretation which has been made of it, which can be tendentious. We should be careful in distinguishing whether some ideas are espoused in the text of this Gospel and whether they were interpreted as being there (note that I am not ruling out that they might be the same, only mentioning that it must be considered consciously that these are separate things).

Notice that by omitting Mark 1:1-20, the author would also cut off all the earlier references to John:

Mark 1:4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 1:6 Now John was clothed with camel's hair and wore a leather belt around his waist and ate locusts and wild honey.
Mark 1:9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
Mark 1:14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God,
Mark 2:18 Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. And people came and said to him, “Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?”

And, if the author is following the Gospel of Mark, this explains both the reference in the apocryphal Gospel (Mark 2:18 // Luke 5:33) without further introduction, as well as showing where the author gets one of the later "John the Baptist" references from (Mark 8:28 // Luke 9:19).

There are three other references (at least, in some manuscripts) to "John the Baptist" in the Gospel of Luke: Luke 7:20, Luke 7:28, and Luke 7:33. Luke 7:20 and Luke 7:33 are not attested, so it is not clear whether the Evangelion referred to "the Baptist" at such locations. Luke 7:28 is attested, but it doesn't appear that the Evangelion had "John the Baptist" here.

Against Marcion, 4.18

Greater indeed is he than all that are born of women: but the reason why he is less than the least in the kingdom of God is not that there is a kingdom of one of the gods in which every least person is greater than John, and a John of another god who is greater than all born of women.

Panarion, 1.3.42, scholion 8

Hence he says, 'He that is less in the kingdom is greater than he.' Chronologically, counting from his birth in the flesh, he was six months 'less' than John; but as John's God he was plainly 'greater' in the kingdom

So we don't have any clear evidence that the Evangelion depended on the Gospel of Luke for the later mentions of "John the Baptist." (Of course, agreements on this matter could be explained more than one way, but the general trend of finding that the Evangelion may often be much closer to Mark than it is to Luke is of interest, I think. By itself, in this individual instance, it doesn't really prove anything, of course.)

On the other hand, Luke 9:19 (// Mark 8:28) does appear to be attested. Here, though, in the following verse, it appears to be lacking the minor agreements of Matthew and canonical Luke against Mark. Jason BeDuhn writes (The First New Testament, p. 149):

In v. 20 the Evangelion apparently read "But whom are you saying I am," omitting "that" before "I am" (a reading found in only one other Greek manuscript); likewise, it h ad "You are the Christos" without the additional qualification "of God" (Tertullian, Marc. 4.21.6; 4.22.6; 4.34.16; Adamantius), as do also the SSyr and CSyr and OL ms a, in line with the text of Mark 8.29, and so lacking another of the "minor agreements" with Matthew found in most witnesses to Luke.

As to why Mark 1:1-20 could end up on the cutting room floor, one possibility is to consider that the other canonical gospels also appeared to struggle with the baptism of Jesus by John and what is implied thereby. The Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke deal with the problem in various ways. The Gospel of Luke even appears to agree with the Evangelion in neglecting to narrate the baptism of Jesus by John, as does the Gospel of John for that matter. So the Evangelion appears to stand within a general tradition of omitting or down-playing the idea of the baptism of Jesus by John. Beyond this, we can mention that the Evangelion has its own purposes and its own emphases, which appear to be best served by starting with the story in Capernaum.

The upshot here is that we can easily explain the references to John in the Evangelion as a phenomenon of the reworking of the Gospel of Mark.

If Mark 2:18 // Luke 5:33 is evidence that the Evangelion has dropped some earlier references to John in its source, this counts against the extreme view on one side that the Evangelion is the very first gospel. However, it doesn't answer the question: which gospel is the Evangelion working from?

So I cannot conclude, on the basis of this argument, that the Evangelion is relying on the Gospel of Luke. It is just as easily explained by the hypothesis that the Evangelion is relying on the Gospel of Mark. Thus, it doesn't really tell which is correct.