I am persuaded by the theory that Luke is an expansion/rescension of Marcion's Gospel rather than Marcion being an edited version of Luke. The latter doesn't really make much sense and is supported by no evidence but the accusations of hostile opponents who themselves were in no position to know which came first.
To me it looks like the entirety of Luke-Acts went through some considerable ecclesiastical editing (even Bart Ehrman thinks Luke's Nativity, at least, was added later) in the 2nd Century, largely with the goal of sanitizing Paul (something which itself could have only been a direct response to Marcionism) , and that this makes far more sense than Marcion cutting stuff out of Paul he didn't like. Why would Marcion even *like* Paul or hold him up as an authority if Marcion didn't think Paul agreed with him?
What was Marcion's Gospel?
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:59 pm
- Location: Twin Cities, MN
-
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm
Re: What was Marcion's Gospel?
that makes sense
sort of in the sense that if only Paul understood Jesus then only Marcion understands Paul?
the day will never come when someone doesn't use an authority that doesn't quite agree with the author's own message!!
in my view one of the things Paul does that helps Marcion is that Paul doesn't really quote any messianic prophecies out of the hebrew scriptures, such as you'd find in Mark and elsewhere. Paul's scriptural quotes are mostly moralistic and used to justify his own gospel etc. Paul's obvious attachment to the Jewish God might not be as obvious as it looks in the context of those polytheistic times. Maybe one slight difference in something would inspire folk to view a deity as a different God whereas we wouldn't today generally do that?
and likewise Paul doesn't have to totally agreed with Marcion for Marcion to hold him up as an authorityDiogenes the Cynic wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:07 pm Why would Marcion even *like* Paul or hold him up as an authority if Marcion didn't think Paul agreed with him?
sort of in the sense that if only Paul understood Jesus then only Marcion understands Paul?
the day will never come when someone doesn't use an authority that doesn't quite agree with the author's own message!!
in my view one of the things Paul does that helps Marcion is that Paul doesn't really quote any messianic prophecies out of the hebrew scriptures, such as you'd find in Mark and elsewhere. Paul's scriptural quotes are mostly moralistic and used to justify his own gospel etc. Paul's obvious attachment to the Jewish God might not be as obvious as it looks in the context of those polytheistic times. Maybe one slight difference in something would inspire folk to view a deity as a different God whereas we wouldn't today generally do that?
Re: What was Marcion's Gospel?
You have only the Church Fathers to sustain the emphasised part, I reckon?Diogenes the Cynic wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:07 pm I am persuaded by the theory that Luke is an expansion/rescension of Marcion's Gospel rather than Marcion being an edited version of Luke. The latter doesn't really make much sense and is supported by no evidence but the accusations of hostile opponents who themselves were in no position to know which came first.
To me it looks like the entirety of Luke-Acts went through some considerable ecclesiastical editing (even Bart Ehrman thinks Luke's Nativity, at least, was added later) in the 2nd Century, largely with the goal of sanitizing Paul (something which itself could have only been a direct response to Marcionism) , and that this makes far more sense than Marcion cutting stuff out of Paul he didn't like. Why would Marcion even *like* Paul or hold him up as an authority if Marcion didn't think Paul agreed with him?
I agree with it being very impossible to refute someone and something by taking an existing writing and only remove from it
Marcion ended at Mark 15:39 - no ressurection
Following on my latest developments: Thomas is a satyr play, and so is the Jesus story in the NT:
.
The cowardly disciples fleeing, the denying of Jesus: the ending of Mark really was at 15:39 initially, but then the women were put in the spotlight in order to belittle them.
It would fit really, the story ends with all focus on Jesus, and it ends with his death, and one last praise
Perhaps (proto-?)Marcion ended at 15:39 and Mark added until 16:8?
Why is the case against Marcion solely based on Luke? Granted, he holds by far the most and most verbatim copies of Thomas, and he clearly is the closest to Thomas of all.
Was Mark the first gospel, or perhaps not, and was he indeed a bit of an executive summary, a compromise to all parties involved?
If my theory is correct and if Marcion created the narrative by wrapping it around Thomas, then Luke would have given rise to the first polemics, fights and disagreements - because he was the first plagiarism by the "Church".
So either Luke was, and Mark is a watered down version indeed, but then we'd need a real business opportunity for the latter.
Or he wasn't, and then the question is where Mark came from, and the likely assumption must be that he came prior to Marcion - and then there's the possibility that both drew from a third text, or the inevitable conclusion is that Marcion copied Mark. Yet I don't find really exciting differences between Mark and Luke... but I'm not really observant there, I guess
There is much information extant about satyr plays. For instance, all evidence points to their following a predictable scenario: the rowdy satyrs intrude upon a standard myth, stir up comic havoc, nearly disrupt its set course, but in the end the traditional resolution of the myth is preserved and the satyrs head off for another jolly adventure
.
The cowardly disciples fleeing, the denying of Jesus: the ending of Mark really was at 15:39 initially, but then the women were put in the spotlight in order to belittle them.
It would fit really, the story ends with all focus on Jesus, and it ends with his death, and one last praise
Perhaps (proto-?)Marcion ended at 15:39 and Mark added until 16:8?
Why is the case against Marcion solely based on Luke? Granted, he holds by far the most and most verbatim copies of Thomas, and he clearly is the closest to Thomas of all.
Was Mark the first gospel, or perhaps not, and was he indeed a bit of an executive summary, a compromise to all parties involved?
If my theory is correct and if Marcion created the narrative by wrapping it around Thomas, then Luke would have given rise to the first polemics, fights and disagreements - because he was the first plagiarism by the "Church".
So either Luke was, and Mark is a watered down version indeed, but then we'd need a real business opportunity for the latter.
Or he wasn't, and then the question is where Mark came from, and the likely assumption must be that he came prior to Marcion - and then there's the possibility that both drew from a third text, or the inevitable conclusion is that Marcion copied Mark. Yet I don't find really exciting differences between Mark and Luke... but I'm not really observant there, I guess