The Gospel of Luke as a Late Second Century "Trojan Horse"

[Secret Alias]

I see parallels between the invention of the story of Carpocrates stealing Mark and (what I see as) the counter-story of Marcion stealing Luke (which was a forgery of Mark). But I have tried not to talk about to Theodore as much because it just degenerates into Page Six.

[Peter Kirby]

I see parallels between the invention of the story of Carpocrates stealing Mark and (what I see as) the counter-story of Marcion stealing Luke (which was a forgery of Mark). But I have tried not to talk about to Theodore as much because it just degenerates into Page Six.

I almost brought it up to ask whether an authentic Theodore would indicate that Secret Mark and canonical Mark were similar texts based on Clement's testimony, but I see what you mean, and I will try not to.

[Secret Alias]

I mean I will say this. When we examine the authenticity of To Theodore with a similar level of conditional acceptance that some scholars apply to other ancient texts, it brings to mind an interesting parallel between Marcion supposedly "stealing" and falsifying Luke and the idea of Carpocrates tampering with Mark. Irenaeus’s account (later picked up and elaborated by Tertullian) leaves some things unclear. It’s like asking, why would anyone break into a store just to steal a fake Gucci watch? It reminds me of that Sherlock Holmes story with the broken Napoleon busts—at least there, the busts held a hidden gem. But the notion that Marcion would steal something like a copy of a copy or a forgery doesn’t add up. It seems rooted in the stereotype of “foolish heretics,” much like the irrational myths people have used to demonize groups throughout history, such as Trump’s comments about Haitians. It’s as if the Church Fathers wanted us to believe that heresy was inherently irrational, which they clearly found some satisfaction in promoting.

[Secret Alias]

In my opinion, it’s evident that early Christian writers like Tertullian delighted in portraying heretics as thieves who not only stole manuscripts but also corrupted them. Take this quote from Adversus Marcionem where he writes, "fraude tunc fratris, dehinc apostatati, amisi, qui forte descripserat quaedam mendosissime et exhibuit frequentiae." Tertullian claims that his manuscript was stolen and poorly copied by an apostate. This idea of heretics like Marcion "stealing" and corrupting texts seems like a convenient way to paint them as deceptive and unreliable. It’s almost like the Church Fathers enjoyed telling these stories to bolster their own authority, portraying heretics as irrational figures who couldn't handle the truth properly. This theme of manuscript theft seems to reinforce the notion of heresy being inherently flawed and corrupt.

But the irony that Adversus Marcionem, a text which is purportedly an analysis of Marcion's stealing and falsifying of Luke, was itself stolen, copied and forged is strangely rarely recognized by scholars of Marcionism.

[Peter Kirby]

Origen's version makes sense to me. Upon seeing what interpolations had been wrought upon the gospels, Marcion commissioned scholars to remove the material that had corrupted the gospels and to give "The Gospel" once again its purity. Marcion's editors then weren't even wrong in their assumption that Matthew and Luke had corrupted the Gospel, as in a very real way, they had - in the way that they used Mark. Similarly, with respect to Paul's letters, some modern scholars agree with the imputed choices that Marcion's editors made to remove things from Paul's letters - they think that these Marcionite shorter readings correspond to passages that were indeed interpolated. Attempting to restore the original from a tainted copy was an established trope and something that people really did try to do. What else indeed can you do when there is a hidden gem to recover that has been covered with a thick patina of fraud? Either you give up or you get to work. According to Origen, Marcion got to work, trying to restore the lost original.

[Peter Kirby]

In this context, Origen had just suggested a conjectural emendation of his own.

https://alexpoulos.com/2019/08/28/text- ... -on-ps-77/

So we see that the devil plots against the scriptures, but we must not, therefore, rashly resort to correcting the text. For Marcion suffered from something of this sort in supposing that the scriptures were in error and that the devil had brought about additions. So he entrusted himself with the task of correcting the scripture. In so doing, he cut out from the foundations necessary parts of the gospels, like the birth of the savior, and countless others, like the visions and prophecies, and necessary parts of the apostle.

[Secret Alias]

I can see how Origen's account fits into a broader tradition of attempting to recover an original, uncorrupted gospel. The idea that Marcion recognized interpolations and sought to purify the Gospel is plausible, especially considering that textual corruption was a well-known issue even in early Christianity. Marcion’s editorial choices, viewed through this lens, appear as an earnest effort to strip away what he saw as later additions that distorted the core message of Jesus and Paul.

However, the challenge comes when we consider Marcion's supposed focus on Luke. If Marcion's aim was to restore the pure, original gospel, why would he rely so heavily on Luke, a gospel that—according to many—was itself a secondary, expanded version based on Mark? It creates a paradox: on the one hand, Marcion is portrayed as seeking to restore the original gospel, yet he begins with a text (Luke) that many scholars, both ancient and modern, believe was shaped and influenced by prior gospels, including Mark. This reliance on Luke seems to contradict the goal of recovering the pure "gospel of Paul."

Moreover, if Marcion's scholars were removing interpolations to restore the original from Paul's letters, why then would they accept a narrative gospel that isn't explicitly Pauline, but traditionally associated with Luke, an alleged companion of Paul (Marcionites denied Luke was a gospel writer or companion of Paul)? This creates a tension in the Marcionite position: they would be purging Paul's letters of corruptions, yet simultaneously preserving and modifying a gospel attributed to someone who, by Marcion’s standards, wasn’t an apostolic authority like Paul.

This seems to suggest that Marcion wasn’t merely restoring an original but was also reshaping the narrative to fit his theological framework. Marcion’s editors may have believed they were doing essential work, but it complicates the claim that Marcion’s "Gospel" was a recovery of something pure when it was dependent on a gospel already shaped by multiple sources. Hence, the notion that Marcion accepted Luke alone as the "gospel" introduces a degree of contradiction—especially if he saw Paul as the sole bearer of the truth.

[Peter Kirby]

I can see how Origen's account fits into a broader tradition of attempting to recover an original, uncorrupted gospel. The idea that Marcion recognized interpolations and sought to purify the Gospel is plausible, especially considering that textual corruption was a well-known issue even in early Christianity. Marcion’s editorial choices, viewed through this lens, appear as an earnest effort to strip away what he saw as later additions that distorted the core message of Jesus and Paul.

However, the challenge comes when we consider Marcion's supposed focus on Luke. If Marcion's aim was to restore the pure, original gospel, why would he rely so heavily on Luke, a gospel that—according to many—was itself a secondary, expanded version based on Mark? It creates a paradox: on the one hand, Marcion is portrayed as seeking to restore the original gospel, yet he begins with a text (Luke) that many scholars, both ancient and modern, believe was shaped and influenced by prior gospels, including Mark. This reliance on Luke seems to contradict the goal of recovering the pure "gospel of Paul."

Moreover, if Marcion's scholars were removing interpolations to restore the original from Paul's letters, why then would they accept a narrative gospel that isn't explicitly Pauline, but traditionally associated with Luke, a companion of Paul? This creates a tension in the Marcionite position: they would be purging Paul's letters of corruptions, yet simultaneously preserving and modifying a gospel attributed to someone who, by Marcion’s standards, wasn’t an apostolic authority like Paul.

This seems to suggest that Marcion wasn’t merely restoring an original but was also reshaping the narrative to fit his theological framework. Marcion’s editors may have believed they were doing essential work, but it complicates the claim that Marcion’s "Gospel" was a recovery of something pure when it was dependent on a gospel already shaped by multiple sources. Hence, the notion that Marcion accepted Luke alone as the "gospel" introduces a degree of contradiction—especially if he saw Paul as the sole bearer of the truth.

I think I agree with the point that Marcion didn't rely so heavily on Luke? Already in Origen, we see a recognition that Marcion would have made use of "the gospels," not just Luke.

Was Marcion attempting to recover Secret Mark?

[Secret Alias]

You know who is going to get triggered so let's drop that.

Just for clarity, we don't always have to find a middle ground on these issues. When it comes to the idea that "someone" stole a gospel and manipulated it to fit a particular doctrinal agenda, the evidence is right in front of us with the canon of Irenaeus. The way Matthew, Luke, and Mark are bundled together shows that this kind of manipulation happened on the orthodox side. While the orthodox accused Marcion of forging Luke, the canon itself aligns with To Theodore in that the historical forgery began with Mark, not Luke. There’s no solid evidence of a historical tradition based on a forged version of Luke. On the other hand, the orthodox tradition itself serves as proof that entire traditions were built on forgeries of Mark. That in part is why I tend to accept the authenticity of To Theodore. It's "realer."

[Peter Kirby]

Marcion's quest to recover the Gospel could be based on the fact of the orthodox corruption.