Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Can anyone answer whether there has there been a detailed study of the parallels between the double tradition (ie Q) and gMarcion, and how those parallels play in terms of source theories?

As everyone knows, there are Q verses where Matthew seems to preserve the more original form of a saying, and others where Luke seems to preserve the more original form. I am interested, for example, in whether there are any Q-derived verses where Luke and Marcion are in lock-step, but where Matthew appears to preserve the more original form of the saying. Do any such verses exist, and if so, what are the implications for the various Marcion-related source theories?

For the record, I don't hold to any particular source theory -- I am not convinced of the need for Q, and I am not convinced of Markan priority. Most likely, in my opinion, there are multiple lost primary sources that were subject to constant revision (and in some cases translation from Semitic to Greek), and the canonical gospels represent a collage of those sources at some snapshot point in their development.

We have precious few "ipsissima verba" of "gMarcion," making such comparisons difficult to be sure.

There is as yet no consensus. Only very recently has the concept of Marcionite Priority actually been examined in depth as a possibility requiring in depth examination of the consequences with regard to the Synoptic and indeed all the Gospel development. Markus Vinzent, King's College London, is somebody has has started to look at the relationship seriously. Two issues that he found he had to tackle were the prototype gospel and the relationship with the Synoptic Gospels. I think his theory is incorrect - that Marcion's original was pinched and then the three canonical were written then Marcion's revised one in response- but it's a good start and I'm glad to see somebody academia start to take up the issue seriously. Additionally Vinzent's mating of Patristic and Critical Biblical Studies together is a good development.

While there is no complete consensus, two basic points are mostly in agreement with Marcionite priority

1. there was at least one prototype Gospel before Marcion's
- Vinzent has this the "stolen" unpublished first version
- IMO there were multiple versions lying around, which were revised locally and eventually formed two versions that underlie the Synoptic
- IMO further Marcion's Gospel itself was built on a prototype Gospel
2. Quelle is non existent
- elements of the double tradition are of three primary sources: 1) Marcion 2) Matthew 3) later Luke revision

My own opinion is the Gospel, the collection of the Apostle, and the Antithesis, all originated from the need for evangelizing material in the heretical camp, which rejected the Jewish Scriptures. The Catholic texts I believe grew out of the counter evangelizing mission, which found it necessary to match the new scriptures put forward by the heretics as supplementary and supportive of their positive with respect to the OT. John *the first layers) grew in response to Matthew, which itself was a response to Marcion. But this is my opinion, that all the texts had reasons for being created, and that they were in response to internal competition.

All the texts evolved from the first publishing, definitely Matthew, John, and the Marcionite Antithesis. This makes it very difficult to unravel. The further back you unravel the text the less certainty you are correct. My biggest beef with scholarship is the lack of systemic unraveling of layers, working from the last backwards, explaining the layer and then moving to the next; too many straw house theories from skipping the hard work.

Again the takeaways from Marcionite priority: there are still prototype gospels, and Q is not real. The advantages of Marcionite priority is the texts can be studied with respect to known and well documented communities - at least in terms of the outlines of their theologies - of the 2nd century, as opposed to 1st century communities which are scholarly fictions (hey make one that fits your personal theory) that left no literary trace.