Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

(For evidence as to Marcion's Gospel text see the excellent thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765)

It is generally held that Marcion omitted not only the baptism of Jesus but the earlier passage about John the Baptist Luke 3:2-20

the word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness. 3 He came into all the region around the Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for remission of sins. 4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make ready the way of the Lord. Make his paths straight. 5 Every valley will be filled. Every mountain and hill will be brought low. The crooked will become straight, and the rough ways smooth. 6 All flesh will see God’s salvation.’ ” 7 He said therefore to the multitudes who went out to be baptized by him, “You offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore produce fruits worthy of repentance, and don’t begin to say among yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father;’ for I tell you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones! 9 Even now the ax also lies at the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doesn’t produce good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire.” 10 The multitudes asked him, “What then must we do?” 11 He answered them, “He who has two coats, let him give to him who has none. He who has food, let him do likewise.” 12 Tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him, “Teacher, what must we do?” 13 He said to them, “Collect no more than that which is appointed to you.” 14 Soldiers also asked him, saying, “What about us? What must we do?” He said to them, “Extort from no one by violence, neither accuse anyone wrongfully. Be content with your wages.” 15 As the people were in expectation, and all men reasoned in their hearts concerning John, whether perhaps he was the Christ, 16 John answered them all, “I indeed baptize you with water, but he comes who is mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to loosen. He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire, 17 whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor, and will gather the wheat into his barn; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” 18 Then with many other exhortations he preached good news to the people, 19 but Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias, his brother’s wife, and for all the evil things which Herod had done, 20 added this also to them all, that he shut up John in prison.

Roth says Even though there is no direct attestation of the omission of these verses, there is an indirect indication that 3:2-22 [sic should be 3:2-20] was missing as an implication of Tertullian’s comments in Marc. 4.11.4.
Most reconstructions of Marcion's Gospel simply omit these verses.
Tertullian's comments are

[4] Whence, too, does John come upon the scene? Christ, suddenly; and just as suddenly, John! After this fashion occur all things in Marcion's system. They have their own special and plenary course in the Creator's dispensation. Of John, however, what else I have to say will be found in another passage. To the several points which now come before us an answer must be given. This, then, I will take care to do ----demonstrate that, reciprocally, John is suitable to Christ, and Christ to Joan, the latter, of course, as a prophet of the Creator, just as the former is the Creator's Christ; and so the heretic may blush at frustrating, to his own frustration, the mission of John the Baptist. [5] For if there had been no ministry of John at all----"the voice," as Isaiah calls him, "of one crying in the wilderness," and the preparer of the ways of the Lord by denunciation and recommendation of repentance; if, too, he had not baptized (Christ) Himself along with others, nobody could have challenged the disciples of Christ, as they ate and drank, to a comparison with the disciples of John, who were constantly fasting and praying; because, if there existed any diversity between Christ and John, and their followers respectively, no exact comparison would be possible, nor would there be a single point where it could be challenged. [6] For nobody would feel surprise, and nobody would be perplexed, although there should arise rival predictions of a diverse deity, which should also mutually differ about modes of conduct, having a prior difference about the authorities upon which they were based. Therefore Christ belonged to John, and John to Christ; while both belonged to the Creator, and both were of the law and the prophets, preachers and masters. Else Christ would have rejected the discipline of John, as of the rival god, and would also have defended the disciples, as very properly pursuing a different walk, because consecrated to the service of another and contrary deity. But as it is, while modestly giving a reason why "the children of the bridegroom are unable to fast during the time the bridegroom is with them," but promising that "they should afterwards fast, when the bridegroom was taken away from them," He neither defended the disciples, (but rather excused them, as if they had not been blamed without some reason), nor rejected the discipline of John, but rather allowed it, referring it to the time of John, although destining it for His own time. Otherwise His purpose would have been to reject it, and to defend its opponents, if He had not Himself already belonged to it as then in force.

IF it is correct that Marcion omitted 3:2-20 then Tertullian's argument seems a good one and strongly implies that Marcion's Gospel has omitted an explanation of who John the Baptist was which was present in an earlier form of the tradition. In principle this does not require the priority of canonical Luke over Marcion's Gospel. Marcion's Gospel could derive directly from (say) Mark but omit the ministry of John which is subsequently added in canonical Luke on the basis of Matthew.

However Marcion's Gospel seems to have included this passage about John not found in Mark

7:18 The disciples of John told him about all these things. John, in prison, calling to himself two of his disciples, 19 sent them to Jesus, saying, “Go and ask him, ‘Are you the one who is coming, or should we look for another?’” 20 When the men had come to him, they said, “John the Baptizer has sent us to you, saying, ‘Are you he who comes, or should we look for another?’” 21 In that hour he cured many of diseases and plagues and evil spirits; and to many who were blind he gave sight. 22 Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John the things which you have seen and heard: that the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. 23 Blessed is he who finds no occasion for stumbling in me.” 24 When John’s messengers had departed, he began to tell the multitudes about John, “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? 25 But what did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft clothing? Behold, those who are gorgeously dressed, and live delicately, are in kings’ courts. 26 But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and much more than a prophet. 27 This is he of whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.’ 28 “For I tell you, among those who are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptizer, yet he who is least in God’s Kingdom is greater than he.”

Assuming that it is unlikely that the addition of this material and the loss of the passage about the ministry of John happened at the same time; this means that Marcion's Gospel is based upon a post-Markan Gospel resembling canonical Luke.

How good an argument is the above ?

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote:(For evidence as to Marcion's Gospel text see the excellent thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765)

It is generally held that Marcion omitted not only the baptism of Jesus but the earlier passage about John the Baptist Luke 3:2-20

the word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness. 3 He came into all the region around the Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for remission of sins. 4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make ready the way of the Lord. Make his paths straight. 5 Every valley will be filled. Every mountain and hill will be brought low. The crooked will become straight, and the rough ways smooth. 6 All flesh will see God’s salvation.’ ” 7 He said therefore to the multitudes who went out to be baptized by him, “You offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore produce fruits worthy of repentance, and don’t begin to say among yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father;’ for I tell you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones! 9 Even now the ax also lies at the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doesn’t produce good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire.” 10 The multitudes asked him, “What then must we do?” 11 He answered them, “He who has two coats, let him give to him who has none. He who has food, let him do likewise.” 12 Tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him, “Teacher, what must we do?” 13 He said to them, “Collect no more than that which is appointed to you.” 14 Soldiers also asked him, saying, “What about us? What must we do?” He said to them, “Extort from no one by violence, neither accuse anyone wrongfully. Be content with your wages.” 15 As the people were in expectation, and all men reasoned in their hearts concerning John, whether perhaps he was the Christ, 16 John answered them all, “I indeed baptize you with water, but he comes who is mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to loosen. He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire, 17 whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor, and will gather the wheat into his barn; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” 18 Then with many other exhortations he preached good news to the people, 19 but Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias, his brother’s wife, and for all the evil things which Herod had done, 20 added this also to them all, that he shut up John in prison.

Roth says Even though there is no direct attestation of the omission of these verses, there is an indirect indication that 3:2-22 [sic should be 3:2-20] was missing as an implication of Tertullian’s comments in Marc. 4.11.4.
Most reconstructions of Marcion's Gospel simply omit these verses.
Tertullian's comments are

[4] Whence, too, does John come upon the scene? Christ, suddenly; and just as suddenly, John! After this fashion occur all things in Marcion's system. They have their own special and plenary course in the Creator's dispensation. Of John, however, what else I have to say will be found in another passage. To the several points which now come before us an answer must be given. This, then, I will take care to do ----demonstrate that, reciprocally, John is suitable to Christ, and Christ to Joan, the latter, of course, as a prophet of the Creator, just as the former is the Creator's Christ; and so the heretic may blush at frustrating, to his own frustration, the mission of John the Baptist. [5] For if there had been no ministry of John at all----"the voice," as Isaiah calls him, "of one crying in the wilderness," and the preparer of the ways of the Lord by denunciation and recommendation of repentance; if, too, he had not baptized (Christ) Himself along with others, nobody could have challenged the disciples of Christ, as they ate and drank, to a comparison with the disciples of John, who were constantly fasting and praying; because, if there existed any diversity between Christ and John, and their followers respectively, no exact comparison would be possible, nor would there be a single point where it could be challenged. [6] For nobody would feel surprise, and nobody would be perplexed, although there should arise rival predictions of a diverse deity, which should also mutually differ about modes of conduct, having a prior difference about the authorities upon which they were based. Therefore Christ belonged to John, and John to Christ; while both belonged to the Creator, and both were of the law and the prophets, preachers and masters. Else Christ would have rejected the discipline of John, as of the rival god, and would also have defended the disciples, as very properly pursuing a different walk, because consecrated to the service of another and contrary deity. But as it is, while modestly giving a reason why "the children of the bridegroom are unable to fast during the time the bridegroom is with them," but promising that "they should afterwards fast, when the bridegroom was taken away from them," He neither defended the disciples, (but rather excused them, as if they had not been blamed without some reason), nor rejected the discipline of John, but rather allowed it, referring it to the time of John, although destining it for His own time. Otherwise His purpose would have been to reject it, and to defend its opponents, if He had not Himself already belonged to it as then in force.

IF it is correct that Marcion omitted 3:2-20 then Tertullian's argument seems a good one and strongly implies that Marcion's Gospel has omitted an explanation of who John the Baptist was which was present in an earlier form of the tradition. In principle this does not require the priority of canonical Luke over Marcion's Gospel. Marcion's Gospel could derive directly from (say) Mark but omit the ministry of John which is subsequently added in canonical Luke on the basis of Matthew.

However Marcion's Gospel seems to have included this passage about John not found in Mark

7:18 The disciples of John told him about all these things. John, in prison, calling to himself two of his disciples, 19 sent them to Jesus, saying, “Go and ask him, ‘Are you the one who is coming, or should we look for another?’” 20 When the men had come to him, they said, “John the Baptizer has sent us to you, saying, ‘Are you he who comes, or should we look for another?’” 21 In that hour he cured many of diseases and plagues and evil spirits; and to many who were blind he gave sight. 22 Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John the things which you have seen and heard: that the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. 23 Blessed is he who finds no occasion for stumbling in me.” 24 When John’s messengers had departed, he began to tell the multitudes about John, “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? 25 But what did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft clothing? Behold, those who are gorgeously dressed, and live delicately, are in kings’ courts. 26 But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and much more than a prophet. 27 This is he of whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.’ 28 “For I tell you, among those who are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptizer, yet he who is least in God’s Kingdom is greater than he.”

Assuming that it is unlikely that the addition of this material and the loss of the passage about the ministry of John happened at the same time; this means that Marcion's Gospel is based upon a post-Markan Gospel resembling canonical Luke.

How good an argument is the above ?

It resembles the argument I made here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1770&p=39456#p39456, though of course you flesh the concept out more than I did. I think you make a good point about Marcion including that Luke 7 pericope about John.

While Tertullian's arguments for Lucan priority and Marcionite posteriority usually leave me quite unimpressed, this one seems to me to actually have some merit, and is able to lead to other observations like these.

I don't find this argument so strong as Andrew thinks.

For the simple reason that I read Luke 7:18-19 (where Mcn introduces the first time John the Baptist) :

And the disciples of John told him of all these things.

And John, calling unto him two of his disciples, sent them to Jesus asking, “Art thou He that should come, or look we for another?”

When the men had come unto Him, they said, “John the Baptist hath sent us unto thee, asking, ‘Art thou He that should come, or look we for another?’”

In verse 7:21 I read ''John THE BAPTIST'' and know about the existence of DISCIPLES of John. The minimal knowledge of who is John is already all found:
1) he has disciples.
2) he is a man who baptizes.

To these two minimal points, Mcn does add verse 7:26 :

But what went ye out to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet.

3) John is a very special prophet.

Note that in Josephus alone we cannot know that John is a prophet. From Josephus the reader can know about John only that he is a baptizer and has followers against Herod. Period.

The point that John is a ''prophet'' is a Christian invention. The minimal info about the link 'John/Prophet'' is already found in Mcn.

Frankly, all this story (or 'rumor') about John is in my view a strong argument in support of Mcn priority.

Again as the only one in this discussion that has chemically altered his brain in the hope of receiving magical abilities to 'see new things' in texts and other places please allow me the opportunity to address some of your points.

1. why isn't it possible that Mark was edited from a longer (secret) gospel - the canonical gospel which already demonstrates itself to have been trimmed down. And it is not just Morton Smith's discovery. Irenaeus knows passages as being in Mark which now do not appear there either.
2. but more importantly look at Tertullian's words closely:

For if there had been no ministry of John at all----"the voice," as Isaiah calls him, "of one crying in the wilderness," and the preparer of the ways of the Lord by denunciation and recommendation of repentance; if, too, he had not baptized (Christ) Himself along with others, nobody could have challenged the disciples of Christ, as they ate and drank, to a comparison with the disciples of John, who were constantly fasting and praying

Tertullian doesn't say that the passage is in the Marcionite gospel. A careful distinction has to be made here. His argument is entirely theoretical here.

Andrew both you and I acknowledge that the surviving anti-Marcionite treatise was likely developed from an original which used a 'harmony' gospel (for lack of a better term). Let's call that 'the alpha text.' That original author knows that Marcion 'removed' things found in his gospel which for us appear as if they came from Matthew. However layered on top of this original text is a later text likely edited by Irenaeus. Let's call that 'the beta text' whose author - among other things:

a) rewrote the treatise as if it was referencing Luke throughout rather than a 'super gospel'
b) transformed the ordering of the gospel passages to accord with Luke
c) changed the focus of various narratives to more consistent anti-Marcionite message (there is only one god not two, the Creator, Jesus is clearly the Christ prophesied by the Old Testament etc)

In this case as I have demonstrated before the original focus of the material in the section you've cited was that of the Marcionite habit of fasting on the Sabbath reported in Epiphanius. Christianity was understood by the Marcionites to have been aimed at 'the (Jewish) proselytes" (Adv Marc 3.2). The individual who did the most to establish large number of forcibly converted Jews to the region was John Hyrcanus. This is the proper context of the passage - 'John' is likely John Hyrcanus whose followers understood any form of cooking to be work on the Sabbath. These are the same 'disciples of John' who ask Jesus if he is the one to come.

I have attempted in previous threads to tease out the original interest of the passage for the present moment it is enough to say that if this was the focus of the 'alpha text' layered on top of this is clearly the Luke-based commentary of the beta text. Notice that unlike previous strong and certain statements about what Marcion 'cut' this statement is much weaker and is put forward as a theoretical statement of excision:

Note also a crucial difference between the relationship between John and Jesus in Mcn and the relationship between John and Jesus in our canonical Gospels.

In our canonical Gospels, John is in special intimacy with Jesus. He sees Jesus face to face. A private and direct relationship, without intermediaries (in Luke are their mothers, which is the same), from the first moment.

In Mcn, John is telling to Jesus only via intermediaries (his disciples), and Jesus proclaims John as 'more than a prophet' in front of a crowd (not, and never, face to face with John).

This is a problem for Mark, usually so precise in hiding the true identity of Jesus just to who is waiting the messiah. Therefore, because Mark does not want to hide Jesus to John (and vice versa), Mark is merely hiding to John the descent of the dove on Jesus'head (betraying marcionite influence: John sees Jesus, but only in part and not with the eyes of the faith).

andrewcriddle wrote:(For evidence as to Marcion's Gospel text see the excellent thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765)

It is generally held that Marcion omitted not only the baptism of Jesus but the earlier passage about John the Baptist Luke 3:2-20

...

Roth says Even though there is no direct attestation of the omission of these verses, there is an indirect indication that 3:2-22 [sic should be 3:2-20] was missing as an implication of Tertullian’s comments in Marc. 4.11.4.
Most reconstructions of Marcion's Gospel simply omit these verses.

...

IF it is correct that Marcion omitted [Luke] 3:2-20 then Tertullian's argument seems a good one and strongly implies that Marcion's Gospel has omitted an explanation of who John the Baptist was which was present in an earlier form of the tradition. In principle this does not require the priority of canonical Luke over Marcion's Gospel. Marcion's Gospel could derive directly from (say) Mark but omit the ministry of John which is subsequently added in canonical Luke on the basis of Matthew.

However Marcion's Gospel seems to have included this passage about John not found in Mark [7:18-28] ...

Assuming that it is unlikely that the addition of this material and the loss of the passage about the ministry of John happened at the same time; this means that Marcion's Gospel is based upon a post-Markan Gospel resembling canonical Luke.

How good an argument is the above?

It is hard to judge, as we really know so little about the manner by which Marcion actually presented his POV. One may infer that Marcion did so in his Antithesis. Unfortunately this document has not been preserved except as a few citations or allusions by opponents. He certainly cites passages where Jesus and Paul state things that can be contrasted against passages in the Judean scriptures, to show that the Judean God was not the same as the kind of deity he believed Jesus and Paul expounded about.

In the process of making his case, Marcion cites passages from the Gospel(s) and Paul which he believed referred to a supreme "Unknown" God, to contrast to passages about the Judean God. These NT passages appear to have been confined to the Gospel of Luke (and possibly Matthew) and the letters of Paul to individual churches and the personal letter to Philemon. From these citations, Tertullian and his heresy hunting successors could reconstruct which books Marcion felt contained material relevant to his thesis.

However, Marcion also seems to have contended that the distinctly Christian books of the NT had been corrupted by Judean ideas, and that this process needed to be reversed to bring back Jesus' & Paul's "real" teachings. He even presents a case for this to the Christian bishops and presbyters of Rome. This charge of NT corruption may NOT have been presented in his Antithesis, but was perhaps presented in a separate document that could have been later appended to it. In so doing, he may NOT have followed the same tactic as he did in the Antithesis, contrasting Jesus' & Paul's teachings & actions against OTHER passages in the NT documents he had access to. In fact, he may not have attempted to publish his own NT (a "gospel" and Paul's letters in redacted form), but some of his followers may have done so.

So, Tertullian and other heresy hunters may have latched onto such a lack of contrasts between conflicting passages in the Gospel(s) and Paul's letters in order to make their rebuttals to Marcion's positions. This does not mean Marcion published his own versions of these books (although he might have, we just don't know), but that the heresy hunters assumed he MUST have, based on passages they read in the Antithesis. Epiphanius even goes so far as to propose the order of the books in his hypothetical Pauline canon.

It is all so very confused and difficult to pick apart.

DCH

Secret Alias wrote:Again as the only one in this discussion that has chemically altered his brain in the hope of receiving magical abilities to 'see new things' in texts and other places

OT: Interesting assumption and revelation.

Joke

Secret Alias wrote:... as the only one in this discussion that has chemically altered his brain in the hope of receiving magical abilities to 'see new things' ...

… having been caught up to the third heaven … up into paradise … for if I should desire to boast … with these surpassingly great revelations … (2 Corinthians 12:2-7)

Secret Alias wrote: 1. why isn't it possible that Mark was edited from a longer (secret) gospel - the canonical gospel which already demonstrates itself to have been trimmed down. And it is not just Morton Smith's discovery. Irenaeus knows passages as being in Mark which now do not appear there either.

I question the relevance of your post at this point, SA. Eager to find proof that a Proto-Matthew existed that was later abridged to (and confused with) the Gospel of Mark, I researched Irenaeus's Against Heretics and found in Book 3, Chapter 10:
"Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God" "
Now this is quite obviously from the tail end of the Gospel of Mark, specifically an earlier ending than any we now know of. While this does make fools of so many scholars who blithely assert that Mark 16:8 was the original intended ending of Mark, it by means indicates that our Mark (in spite of my protestations) is an abridgment of an earlier version. It just means that Irenaeus had a more complete Gospel of Mark and that this ending comported most closely not with my own preferred theories of similarity with Matthew 28 nor even less John 21, but Luke-Acts. This supports Luke being very early and/or Marcion being very early, a very early text underlying Mark and Luke (which fortunately does agree with what I have been saying most recently and have always suspected). Matthew is a less reliable text.