Irish1975 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:36 am
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:25 pm
It's been a while since I studied Marcion so maybe you can remind me of the evidence that the catholic editors were copying Marcion re the "gospel" part of the "title".
BeDuhn cites the investigations of von Harnack and Koester in support of the thesis that Marcion was the first to use
Evangelion as "the title of a specific textual account of Jesus' life" (p. 65).
BeDuhn as you point out writes on page 65:
Marcion used the term evangelion to describe the narrative of Jesus included in his canon. Evangelion1 was a term used in both political and religious contexts to refer to a proclamation or manifesto of the actions of an individual of power, whether divine or human, that brought benefit to those hearing it. It was a term that had been adopted by the earliest Greek-speaking Christians, such as Paul and Mark, to refer to the overall message connected to the mission of Jesus. Adolf von Harnack suggested that Marcion may have been the first to transfer this abstract use of the term to the title of a specific textual account of Jesus' life,2 and the more systematic investigation of Helmut Koester strongly supports this hypothesis.3
1. Tertullian, Marc. 4.2; Epiphanius, Pan. 42.10; Adam 1.8.
2. Harnack, Marcion, E24,149 n. 3.
3. Koester, "From Kerygma to Written Gospels"; cf. Ancient Christian Gospels, 37. Cf. Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel, 144-48.
But that's where I am reminded I ran into a dead-end some years back and do so again re the assertion that Marcion used the term "evangelion" for what we take to be his version of the "Gospel kata Luke". Maybe Marcion did use the term as a title for his narrative of Jesus but the sources are not explicit.
Tertullian, Marc. 4.2
Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert the very body.
Let's add Marc. 4.3.2 (cited by Hoffmann when he writes "The Marcionites of Tertullian's day maintained that canonical Luke was "falsified in respect of its title" and that their own gospel "was not to be attributed to Luke", p. 140)
Or else, again, if that which Marcion uses is not to be attributed to Luke simply because it does agree with ours (which, of course, is, also adulterated in its title), then it is the work of apostles. Our Gospel, therefore, which is in agreement with it, is equally the work of apostles, but also adulterated in its title.
Epiphanius Pan 42:10
Some years ago, to find what falsehood this Marcion had invented and what his silly teaching was, I took up his very books which he had mutilated, his so-called Gospel and Apostolic Canon.
Adam 1:8
MEG (the Marcionite). I will prove that the Gospel is one.
AD. Who is the writer of this Gospel which you said is one? MEG. Christ.
AD. Did the Lord Himself write that He was crucified, and rose on the third day? Docs He write in this way?
MEG. The Apostle Paul added that.
In all the sources cited it sounds as if the Catholic author is imputing his own assumption that the word "gospel" is applicable to the supposed counterpart to the Gospel of Luke.
Then when we check the Harnack citation, we read
Marcion did not allow himself to be frightened off; over against the old books, the law and the prophets, he placed the new books, the book of the gospel,3 and the letters of Paul.
3. Marcion was, to our knowledge, the first to call a book “the Gospel" and to identify a book with the gospel. Before Marcion, the gospel was seen as a message, which, along with other things, was recorded in books.
But again I am left wondering. No source is given for this claim in the English translation, at least not that I have seen. Have I missed it?
So on to Koester:
From Kerygma to Written Gospels, p. 376
There is no evidence that anyone before Marcion called a gospel writing εΰαγγέλνον.2 But all reports about Marcion agree that he called his revised edition of Luke 'εΰαγγέλιον’.3 This is the first instance in which a Christian used the term as a title of a written document.
2 The evidence assembled by Hengel (Evangelienuberschriften) to demonstrate the early use of this title for the canonical gospels consists exclusively of materials from the second half, or even the very last decades, of the second century. Hengel simply projects these data back into the beginning of the second century and assumes that no changes took place in the course of the century. For a critique of Hengel's thesis, see Bovon, 'The Synoptic Gospels', especially p. 23.
3 Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott (reprint: Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960) 184*.
So with the Harnack reference it looks like we are getting somewhere at last. 184* turns out to be 165* and 166* in the 1921 edition available in archive.org:
- harnack-titel.jpg (41.11 KiB) Viewed 1625 times
And that's all there is! Harnack simply asserts that the title was "most likely" εΰαγγέλιον even though every text I've ever read that addresses the subject of titles in this sort of literature tells me assigning a title to a work was the exception rather than the rule. Why assume any title at all in Marcion's original text? All the discussions about titles of gospels in early Christian literature that I read lead me to believe that the ones we have began with the "orthodox" church's attempts to impose some sort of bibliographical control over the texts.
To translate,
It probably read as simple as that [i.e. Gospel]. This follows from the fact that
(1) Tertullian (IV, 2) expressly says that Marcion did not give his Gospel an author's name, not even that of Paul,
(2) The Marcionite Megethius, when asked who the author of the Gospel was, replied, "Christ", but cornered, claimed Paul to be the author (See Adam Dial 1.8 above)
(3) the Marcionite Mark names Christ as author ....
(4) Epiphanius (Haer 42, 10....) remarks that he had the two books of Marcion in his hand.
I don't see how it logically follows that the word "Gospel" should be used as a title from any of those 4 facts. (The Megethius quote is, of course, Origen's script, not the Marcionite's.)
But who is that "Marcionite Mark" in point 3? That may lead to me having to do a backflip.
To complete the citation check, here is Koester's
Ancient Christian Gospels, p. 37
A positive effect of Marcion’s challenge in the writings of Justin Martyr is the adoption of the concept of a written gospel and the departure from the oral tradition. Justin agrees with Marcion: reliable traditions of the church must be preserved in written records.
and Kelber, 144-148, does not discuss Marcion at all but is entirely devoted to the meaning of the word gospel in the Pauline lit.
Irish1975 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:36 am
The catholic NT was published in reaction to Marcion. The NT titles are editorial additions to works that did not originally bear them (Justin, etc.). Given the unusual character of these titles, and their almost unvarying form and arrangement in the manuscripts, it seems safe to infer that the Catholic editors were correcting Marcion by imitation.
I don't feel as safe as you do. Everything points to the catholic usage of the word gospel being applied retrospectively to Marcion's text both as to descriptive meaning and (unusual for works generally prior to the later second century catholic church labelling of different texts) as a title. It's a hypothesis, not a fact, -- a "probably" (wahrscheinlich) in Harnack's words that does not appear to logically follow from the facts he cites and that would appear to go against the general literary custom.
This is not the main point of your initial query, I know, but I am wanting to take this opportunity to refresh my own sense of what's what.