What was Marcion's Gospel?

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

What was Marcion's Gospel?

Poll runs till Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:05 am

Post-Luke, Similar to Luke
4
27%
Pre-Luke, Similar to Luke
5
33%
Pre-Mark, Similar to Luke
4
27%
Proto-Mark or Similar to Mark
2
13%
Proto-Matthew or Similar to Matthew
0
No votes
Proto-Diatessaron, Similar to a Gospel Harmony
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 15

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5603
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: What was Marcion's Gospel?

Post by Peter Kirby »

davidmartin wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 1:26 am
Ken Olson wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 6:11 am
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 5:14 am There is a long section of Luke that is almost entirely absent from Mark, starting from Luke 9:51.

The comments of Tertullian and especially Epiphanius tend to imply that the text contained the section... in that they cover the section.
Peter,

I have never heard this before. Can you cite the places where Tertullian and Epiphanius imply that the text [of Luke or Marcion?] contain Mark's Bethsaida section/Luke's great omission? Or have I misunderstood what you are saying?

If we consider that section to be absent from Marcion's Gospel, then we would conclude that Tertullian and Epiphanius are highly unreliable as guides to the exact text of Marcion's Gospel. Tertullian himself seldom claims to have pointed out any differences between the canonical text and Marcion's, so it would be possible that Tertullian would be commenting on a form of the Gospel of Luke of which he was aware, with only second-hand knowledge of the special features of Marcion's Gospel, such as that famous opening line. Epiphanius would have to be considered a bit of a liar, having gathered his notes at second hand from other literature and inventing the idea that he had compared the texts themselves.

Most work on Marcion's Gospel is based on the presupposition of accuracy from Epiphanius & Tertullian and a text that is very much like Luke.
If we can't reconstruct Marcion's Gospel from Epiphanius and Tertullian's testimony, how can we reconstruct it? If we don't use Tertullian or Epiphanius, don't we just have to say we don't know what Marcion's gospel looked like?

Thanks

Ken
But do those extra verses in Luke add anything substantive? Theologically, historically, in terms of relation to prophecy or any other meaningful point
What i'm asking is if this proto-Luke really differs in a meaningful way from Mark
If the answer is, that a Luke without the birth narrative doesn't have any meaningful difference to Mark the question is why would an earlier Luke have ever been written?
If it were simply to update the style, freshen it. That's an answer sure, it might not need a grand point of difference, the motivations could be trivial
Or there could be some difference lurking to separate it from a church that favoured Mark
That's the stuff that interests me I guess not so much the minutiae of it, although it could be that minutiae that are all important
The Gospel of Mark is characterized, in part, by its omission of the double tradition. The Jesus in the Gospel of Mark is often unfamiliar to readers exactly because of what's left out, leaving a more mysterious figure, speaking in parables, teaching a messianic secret, and doing miracles. There's no Lord's Prayer, nothing like the beatitudes, very little advice for how to live, other than abandoning everything for Jesus.

Your question is basically whether the difference between the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Mark is "anything substantive," other than the birth narrative. Yes, I believe the differences are not just surface deep and that they relate to the very substance of those gospels.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: What was Marcion's Gospel?

Post by mlinssen »

Irish1975 wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 6:33 am
mlinssen wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 10:23 am Q is entirely made up, its existence as well as its content
It depends what you mean by “entirely made up.” The Q theorists drew from canonical material, so to that extent it wasn’t “made up.” The problem with Q is that we have no ancient witnesses to the fact of its existence, right? It would be one thing if Eusebius or Jerome had mentioned a Logia Gospel or something like it, but we don’t (so I am told). All we can rely on are 19th/20th century Questers and their hypotheses about how the Gospels must have been produced. Scholars were highly confident about those hypotheses until they weren’t.

Some kind of anthology of the best scholarship on the Marcionite Gospel would be a useful thing.
There is a solid reason why such was never mentioned by our beloved fathers, of course. There is one single and very simple reason why someone would never talk about a particular book while he had published a book himself

That is, of course, as long as it is still possible to not mention said book - with regards to Marcion that apparently was not the case

When I said that the content of Q is entirely made up, I meant that what we have "restored" now is hodgepodge arbitrary wishful thinking and then some. But it was inevitable that it turned out that way, although biblical academic would have desired a lot more "Geewsus" in it

There is of course, indeed, a sayings source underlying all of the NT, including Paul
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: What was Marcion's Gospel?

Post by mlinssen »

Peter Kirby wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 12:36 pm
davidmartin wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 1:26 am That's the stuff that interests me I guess not so much the minutiae of it, although it could be that minutiae that are all important
The Gospel of Mark is characterized, in part, by its omission of the double tradition. The Jesus in the Gospel of Mark is often unfamiliar to readers exactly because of what's left out, leaving a more mysterious figure, speaking in parables, teaching a messianic secret, and doing miracles. There's no Lord's Prayer, nothing like the beatitudes, very little advice for how to live, other than abandoning everything for Jesus.

Your question is basically whether the difference between the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Mark is "anything substantive," other than the birth narrative. Yes, I believe the differences are not just surface deep and that they relate to the very substance of those gospels.
Interestingly, when it comes to Thomas, all that Mark has is also present in Luke:

Mark has only a handful of logia that haven't been adopted by Luke or Matthew. They won't be repeated here, for reasons that will become clear during this very small chapter. As there are no copies of these verses that I suspected to be inspired by Thomas yet didn't count, the verdict is easy.
As stated before, Mark 15:21 could refer to logion 42 - the passer-by phrase, but it's dubious and very thin.
Mark 6:31 (the deserted place where to find rest) could refer to logion 60f but it's equally thin, and besides Mark there are no takers. The deserted place itself is used by Luke while referring to the place where Jesus feeds 5,000, and by Matthew to refer to the place where Jesus feeds 4,000. It is a perfect pretext for being in need of a miracle in order to feed thousands, as there is nowhere else to get food from, and as such it is merely likely that logion 60 is used to include on this occasion. There is also little to nothing to gain by copying this part of the logion, certainly not without putting it to use.
Mark 6:50 then? That is when Jesus shows himself walking on the sea and tells the disciples to not be afraid - I am afraid that is equally as thin and hard to trace back to Thomas' last part of 37b.
Mark 8:11 is where the Pharisees are testing Jesus and seeking a sign - that could be 51a or 113a where the disciples pose the same question to Jesus; but it is so common to test a Messiah and seek a sign from him that it is impossible to build any case.
So, apart from these four supposedly copied logia, Luke and Matthew incorporated all of Mark that he copied from Thomas.

I have gone over Ben's Marcion a few times now, just reading the bold blue, and it is pristinely Thomasine really. All Father stuff, a bit of God here and there. The reversing of Father and Son in Luke 10:22 is so in place! The paternoster is very basic and not even theological - I'm back home now so can finally whip out the laptop

I'd need to see where Mark shares Thomas with only Matthew and verify whether that's not in Marcion
davidmartin
Posts: 799
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: What was Marcion's Gospel?

Post by davidmartin »

Peter Kirby wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 12:36 pm
davidmartin wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 1:26 am
Ken Olson wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 6:11 am
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 5:14 am There is a long section of Luke that is almost entirely absent from Mark, starting from Luke 9:51.

The comments of Tertullian and especially Epiphanius tend to imply that the text contained the section... in that they cover the section.
Peter,

I have never heard this before. Can you cite the places where Tertullian and Epiphanius imply that the text [of Luke or Marcion?] contain Mark's Bethsaida section/Luke's great omission? Or have I misunderstood what you are saying?

If we consider that section to be absent from Marcion's Gospel, then we would conclude that Tertullian and Epiphanius are highly unreliable as guides to the exact text of Marcion's Gospel. Tertullian himself seldom claims to have pointed out any differences between the canonical text and Marcion's, so it would be possible that Tertullian would be commenting on a form of the Gospel of Luke of which he was aware, with only second-hand knowledge of the special features of Marcion's Gospel, such as that famous opening line. Epiphanius would have to be considered a bit of a liar, having gathered his notes at second hand from other literature and inventing the idea that he had compared the texts themselves.

Most work on Marcion's Gospel is based on the presupposition of accuracy from Epiphanius & Tertullian and a text that is very much like Luke.
If we can't reconstruct Marcion's Gospel from Epiphanius and Tertullian's testimony, how can we reconstruct it? If we don't use Tertullian or Epiphanius, don't we just have to say we don't know what Marcion's gospel looked like?

Thanks

Ken
But do those extra verses in Luke add anything substantive? Theologically, historically, in terms of relation to prophecy or any other meaningful point
What i'm asking is if this proto-Luke really differs in a meaningful way from Mark
If the answer is, that a Luke without the birth narrative doesn't have any meaningful difference to Mark the question is why would an earlier Luke have ever been written?
If it were simply to update the style, freshen it. That's an answer sure, it might not need a grand point of difference, the motivations could be trivial
Or there could be some difference lurking to separate it from a church that favoured Mark
That's the stuff that interests me I guess not so much the minutiae of it, although it could be that minutiae that are all important
The Gospel of Mark is characterized, in part, by its omission of the double tradition. The Jesus in the Gospel of Mark is often unfamiliar to readers exactly because of what's left out, leaving a more mysterious figure, speaking in parables, teaching a messianic secret, and doing miracles. There's no Lord's Prayer, nothing like the beatitudes, very little advice for how to live, other than abandoning everything for Jesus.

Your question is basically whether the difference between the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Mark is "anything substantive," other than the birth narrative. Yes, I believe the differences are not just surface deep and that they relate to the very substance of those gospels.
Thanks that's exactly what i was trying to get to
So you're suggesting maybe Luke represents a refinement of Mark that is more suitable, i count that as substantive
Any major difference (or additional information) around Christology, connection to prophecy or Paul's gospel would be illuminating
But it's also true to say Mark and a proto-Luke are very similar too, similar enough that I had to ask the question

My point is there should be clues in this area that relate back to the Marcion gospel
It strikes me that everyone focuses on Marcion's notorious doctrines but at the end of the day he promoted Paul and in other ways was perfectly orthodox.
Was Marcion the first to attach a gospel to Paul's writings?
Mark would also serve that purpose pretty well
I'm just curious what the differences between Mark and a proposed proto-Luke tell us, what do they mean? that's what I want to know
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Thomasine material in Mark that Luke didn't copy from Marcion ;-)

Post by mlinssen »

The title is hilarious of course, likely the most pretentious one ever (just wait a bit and it will be considered blatantly evident) but it's easy to find this way.
I've gone through my 72 logia and there is just a bit in Mark that looks an awful lot like Thomas yet can't be found in Luke - best case scenario that is because it was in some proto-gospel but "Luke" didn't like it, worst case scenario that is because it wasn't present in Marcion so it must have come from elsewhere.
Working thesis or assumption still is that Thomas is the source to everything, but that Marcion turned it into something religion-ish and that it was Marcionite material that served as a basis for all, or at least most, of Christianity

Needless to say, we don't have Marcion - and I think that people who quote from the restored Q should be berated, fired, ridiculed or in any other way be confronted with the fact that they literally cite something that is non existent.
However... we most certainly have verbatim material from Marcion, and quite an awful lot even. I will never not say to always completely distrust any Church father, but this is the best we can do. And whereas I have a very great suspicion that e.g. Origen's alleged quotation of Celsus from the alleged Heavenly Dialogues "Oh lord many around cistern yet nothing in the well and so forth" is bogus, and likely meant only to distort and sow uncertainties, what we have here is in a sense completely reliable. Bear with me

"No I didn't say that you're a fat fuck! I said that you have bad luck"

The best I can come up with, it's early.
There are a few observations here:
  1. The speaker most certainly has said something to the audience
  2. He said either one of the two sentences - although there's the incredibly small likelihood that he said something else and is lying about the lying
  3. It is highly likely that indeed he said the first thing and not the latter. The criterion of embarassment applies here, one of the very, very few occasions that it actually does (baptising Jesus was just a screw up by Mark and "written history" after that, although Mattew doth protest and John completely omits it. Nonetheless, brainless apologists keep using it as an example of said criterion. But I digress)
So, while we weren't there, we can make some intelligent guesses that go a very long way. But that is not precisely the scenario that we have, what we have is Tertullian and Epiphanius alleging that Marcion said something instead of Marcion refuting what was refuted by them.
  • That means that (1) applies: no need to say that Marcion didn't say something that allegedly turned Luke stuff upside down if such weren't the case, or served no purpose.
  • That means that (2) likely applies: they will lie on occasions as that is the Church father pattern and practice (and purpose, because all of it is about professing preposterous propaganda) but I'm guesstimating a 60-40 / 80-20 that their statements about Marcion usually are in the ballpark. I know, that is vairly (a lovely combination of very and fairly) vague, and just wishful thinking really - mathematically seen it's 50-50 of course.
  • That means that it is impossible to state anything about (3)
So we end up with (1) and (2) - that is more than enough for me to go on

There are four occasions on which Mark has Thomasine material that isn't in Luke, and neither in Marcion. Matthew shares some of it some of the times, but that's it - and the question poses itself: where did Mark get this from?
With another 36 logia copied from Thomas (or indirectly via Marcion, which I still have to check) these 4 are guaranteed to not come from Luke but I counted none of them in my paper so it's exactly 10% of them all, if one were to count them.
But it's a start

Berean Interlinear, the Thomas translation is from my as of yet unpublished v1.8

A) Mark 4:26-29 (Two logia)

26 Καὶ (And) ἔλεγεν (He was saying), “Οὕτως (Thus) ἐστὶν (is) ἡ (the) βασιλεία (kingdom) τοῦ (-) Θεοῦ (of God), ὡς (as) ἄνθρωπος (a man) βάλῃ (should cast) τὸν (the) σπόρον (seed) ἐπὶ (upon) τῆς (the) γῆς (earth),
27 καὶ (and) καθεύδῃ (should sleep) καὶ (and) ἐγείρηται (rise) νύκτα (night) καὶ (and) ἡμέραν (day), καὶ (and) ὁ (the) σπόρος (seed) βλαστᾷ (should sprout) καὶ (and) μηκύνηται (grow); ὡς (how) οὐκ (not) οἶδεν (knows) αὐτός (he).
28 αὐτομάτη (Of itself), ἡ (the) γῆ (earth) καρποφορεῖ (brings forth fruit)— πρῶτον (first) χόρτον (a plant), εἶτα* (then) στάχυν (an ear), εἶτα* (then) πλήρης (full) σῖτον* (grain) ἐν (in) τῷ (the) στάχυϊ (ear).
29 ὅταν (When) δὲ (then) παραδοῖ (offers itself) ὁ (the) καρπός (fruit), εὐθὺς (immediately) ἀποστέλλει (he sends) τὸ (the) δρέπανον (sickle), ὅτι (for) παρέστηκεν (has come) ὁ (the) θερισμός (harvest).”


Thomas logion 21 (partial): after-that the Fruit split did he come immediately his sickle in his(F) hand

The fruit and the sickle combined with the 'immediately' is what does it and establishes reasonable doubt. Karpos is the Greek loanword in Thomas, the rest is plain Coptic

Thomas logion 57 (partial): a(n) human has/ve he therein [dop] a(n) seed good did his enemy come within the(F) night did he throw-sow [dop] a(n) Zizanion upon the seed good

The night, the seed, and the not knowing have a remote likeness to Thomas. Matthew 13:24-30 has the real deal and as such shares the mysterious Zizanion only with Thomas - but naturally, because he's a thick-headed fool, he makes it plural as its symbolic meaning is far above his paygrade. That, on a side note

B) Mark 6:31 (partial)

31 καὶ (And) λέγει (He said) αὐτοῖς (to them), “Δεῦτε (Come) ὑμεῖς (you) αὐτοὶ (yourselves) κατ’ (apart) ἰδίαν (own) εἰς (to) ἔρημον (a solitary) τόπον (place), καὶ (and) ἀναπαύσασθε (rest) ὀλίγον (a little).”


Thomas logion 60 (partial): yourselves likewise you(PL) seek-after a(n) Place you(PL) inward a(n) Repose in-order-that Shan't! you(PL) come-to-be [al] Corpse and they eat you(PL)
ⲛ̄ⲧⲱⲧⲛ̄ ϩⲱⲧ` ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ̄ ϣⲓⲛⲉ ⲛ̄ⲥⲁ ⲟⲩ ⲧⲟⲡⲟⲥ ⲛⲏ ⲧⲛ̄ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉ ⲩ ⲁⲛⲁⲡⲁⲩⲥⲓⲥ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲁⲥ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉ ⲧⲛ̄ ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲙ̄ ⲡⲧⲱⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ ⲥⲉ ⲟⲩⲱⲙ` ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ̄

Mark turns Thomas' noun (anapausis) into a verb, and makes this a perfect verbatim copy in disguise

C) Mark 9:43-47

43 Καὶ (And) ἐὰν (if) σκανδαλίζῃ* (should cause to stumble) σε (you) ἡ (the) χείρ (hand) σου (of you), ἀπόκοψον (cut off) αὐτήν (it); καλόν (better) ἐστίν (it is) σε (for ou) κυλλὸν (crippled) εἰσελθεῖν (to enter) εἰς (into) τὴν (-) ζωὴν (life), ἢ (than) τὰς (-) δύο (two) χεῖρας (hands) ἔχοντα (having), ἀπελθεῖν (to go away) εἰς (into) τὴν (-) γέενναν (hell), εἰς (into) τὸ (the) πῦρ (fire) τὸ (-) ἄσβεστον (unquenchable). c
45 καὶ (And) ἐὰν (if) ὁ (the) πούς (foot) σου (of you) σκανδαλίζῃ (should cause to stumble) σε (you), ἀπόκοψον (cut off) αὐτόν (it); καλόν (better) ἐστίν (it is) σε (for you) εἰσελθεῖν (to enter) εἰς (into) τὴν (-) ζωὴν (life) χωλὸν (lame), ἢ (than) τοὺς (the) δύο (two) πόδας (feet) ἔχοντα (having), βληθῆναι (to be cast) εἰς (into) τὴν (-) γέενναν (hell). d
47 καὶ (And) ἐὰν (if) ὁ (the) ὀφθαλμός (eye) σου (of you) σκανδαλίζῃ (should cause to stumble) σε (you), ἔκβαλε (cast out) αὐτόν (it); καλόν (better) σέ (for you) ἐστιν (it is) μονόφθαλμον (with one eye) εἰσελθεῖν (to enter) εἰς (into) τὴν (the) βασιλείαν (kingdom) τοῦ (-) Θεοῦ (of God), ἢ (than) δύο (two) ὀφθαλμοὺς (eyes) ἔχοντα (having) βληθῆναι (to be cast) εἰς (into) τὴν (-) γέενναν (hell),
48 ὅπου (where) ‘Ὁ (the) σκώληξ (worm) αὐτῶν (of them) οὐ (not) τελευτᾷ (dies), καὶ (and) τὸ (the) πῦρ (fire) οὐ (not) σβέννυται (is quenched).’ e


Thomas logion 22 (partial): Whenever if you(PL) "should" make-be the two one
and if you(PL) "should" make-be the inner-part in.the.manner of the part outside and the part outside in.the.manner of the inner-part
and the part of the(F) heaven in.the.manner of the part of the ground and
So-that you(PL) will make-be [dop] the.male reign-of(F) woman to that-one one single in-order-that Shan't! the.male make-be male and the(F) woman make-be woman
Whenever if you(PL) "should" make-be [dop] some(PL) eye to the place of a(n) eye
and a(n) hand to the place of a(n) hand
and feet to the place of feet
a(n) Image to the place of a(n) Image
Then you(PL) will go-inward to the(F) reign-of(F) king

Well, another remote copy. Yet the body parts and the 'one' versus 'two' establish reasonable doubt here; this can't be a coincidence

D) Mark 15:21

21 Καὶ (And) ἀγγαρεύουσιν (they compel), παράγοντά (passing by) τινα (one), Σίμωνα (Simon) Κυρηναῖον (of Cyrene), ἐρχόμενον (coming) ἀπ’ (from) ἀγροῦ (the country), τὸν (the) πατέρα (father) Ἀλεξάνδρου (of Alexander) καὶ (and) Ῥούφου (Rufus), ἵνα (that) ἄρῃ (he might carry) τὸν (the) σταυρὸν (cross) αὐτοῦ (of Him).


Thomas logion 42: said IS : come-to-be you(PL) make-be Pass-by
ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲓ̄ⲥ̄ ϫⲉ ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲉ ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ ⲣ̄ ⲡⲁⲣⲁⲅⲉ

There's a bit of passing-by going on in the NT, yet while Luke has this scene, he doesn't have the word. On a metaphysical level Jesus does come into (a new) being after his death, but I'll gladly admit that this a very remote copy if at all - but it must be mentioned as a possible Thomas parallel not in Luke (or Marcion)

That's all folks!
So far, this is all of the material in Mark, from Thomas, which is not in Luke, and not attested for in Marcion. None of these are verbatim copies or even fair copies, some of you will discard all of them I think

Did Mark get this from a proto-Luke, or a proto-Marcion? Possibly, but the material didn't make it into Luke

What's next? To establish how much of Luke is in Marcion, but that is for another day.
Logion 57 is a pivotal one though, as it is absent in Luke, only has a ghost image at best in Mark, and a quite verbatim copy in Matthew

Score so far: that means that everything that Mark has and which has parallels with Thomas, is present in Luke - save these 4. For a change I'm going to state it neutrally.
Possibility that Mark did not use another source than what Luke used: very high (imagination and creativity don't count towards "sources")
Last edited by mlinssen on Tue May 18, 2021 2:52 am, edited 2 times in total.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 396
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: What was Marcion's Gospel?

Post by StephenGoranson »

I was not attempting in that (May 17) comment to shed light on Marcion. I was merely suggesting that not everyone, maybe not even all “Christians” in that time, necessarily had a high regard for the “Old Testament.” If “supercessionism” as a word was coined much later, so was, say, “homosexuality,” though both, if I may suggest, existed before those labels.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 396
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: What was Marcion's Gospel?

Post by StephenGoranson »

Attempting an analogy, less to try to persuade than to try it out as an analogy, mutatis mutandis.
Maybe (?) not all early Buddhists had great appreciation of Brahmin or Ksatriya of Vedic teaching(s) and practice(s)--or to use what may be later or outsider terms, Hinduism or Hindutva or then-current-"religion" or similar names.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: What was Marcion's Gospel?

Post by mlinssen »

StephenGoranson wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 2:56 am Attempting an analogy, less to try to persuade than to try it out as an analogy, mutatis mutandis.
Maybe (?) not all early Buddhists had great appreciation of Brahmin or Ksatriya of Vedic teaching(s) and practice(s)--or to use what may be later or outsider terms, Hinduism or Hindutva or then-current-"religion" or similar names.
Likely not all indeed. Would Marcion then be a counter to what a Jesus said?
Or would the current gospels?
davidmartin
Posts: 799
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: What was Marcion's Gospel?

Post by davidmartin »

Marcion would have no desire to be a Thomas fanboy. Marcion clearly asserted himself as proclaiming the true gospel (stand in line Marcion there's a queue). If he distributed his own gospel it would have been to further promote his agenda and separate himself from other gospels. The re-writing of it into Luke is literally the embracing of Marcionite Christians back into the fold and they can keep their favoured gospel after it's fixed, the same goes for John and Matthew. what Ireneaous does is deny any origins in these four to sectarian reasons and state it was the divine plan all along
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: What was Marcion's Gospel?

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 4:09 am Marcion would have no desire to be a Thomas fanboy. Marcion clearly asserted himself as proclaiming the true gospel (stand in line Marcion there's a queue). If he distributed his own gospel it would have been to further promote his agenda and separate himself from other gospels. The re-writing of it into Luke is literally the embracing of Marcionite Christians back into the fold and they can keep their favoured gospel after it's fixed, the same goes for John and Matthew. what Ireneaous does is deny any origins in these four to sectarian reasons and state it was the divine plan all along
It was his own gospel, there's nothing of Thomas in it.
In essence there's no difference in Marcion creating a gospel out of Thomas and the canonicals copying that, than Mark creating his gospel out of Thomas

Marcion is Luke, there's no rewriting at all but some adding and dropping of stuff. There was no fold to be embraced back into, if Marcion started it all.
Let me spell out it once again, I'll make a picture for you
Post Reply