Marcionite agreements with Matthew against Luke?

[Ken Olson]

If we assume that there never was any version of Luke with the question, then it would be more reasonable to assume that Matthew is following Mark. Yet, if Luke doesn't have the question, then it would still be true that Marcion couldn't be a redaction of Luke.

I'm not following what's at stake in the word redaction here. If Marcion has agreements with Matthew (or Mark?) against Luke, then it couldn't be based solely on Luke, but instead we must allow that the author was influenced by some other sources or sources in some way. Is the argument that we shouldn't use the word redaction to describe Marcion if he knew other sources, or is the idea that it is actually unlikely that Marcion is based primarily on Luke, but may have been influenced by other sources as well.

N.B. I'm using Marcion both as a synonym for the Evangelion and as a name for the author/editor of that document without necessarily implying that person was the bishop Marcion who used the Evangelion.

Also, as far as I know "redaction" is a modern term of convenience with no strict definition and not actually a specific literary form such as an epitome.

[rgprice]

I'm not following what's at stake in the word redaction here. If Marcion has agreements with Matthew (or Mark?) against Luke, then it couldn't be based solely on Luke, but instead we must allow that the author was influenced by some other sources or sources in some way. Is the argument that we shouldn't use the word redaction to describe Marcion if he knew other sources, or is the idea that it is actually unlikely that Marcion is based primarily on Luke, but may have been influenced by other sources as well.

Also, as far as I know "redaction" is a modern term of convenience with no strict definition and not actually a specific literary form such as an epitome.

No, I'm suggesting that Matthew copied from Marcion, not that Marcion also knew Matthew.

If Matthew and Luke both copied from Marcion then we would expect to find situations were Matthew copied some parts that Luke didn't copy. However, it seems that Joseph Tyson suggests that Luke is not so much "copied from" Marcion, but rather that Luke is basically Marcion with a few additions. If that's true, then its possible there wouldn't be much that is missing from Luke but present in both Marcion and Matthew, because Luke has basically 100% of Marcion.

[mlinssen]

FFW to viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7703&p=119167#p119167

[rgprice]

So here is one that isn't necessarily the type of issue I was talking about at first. The Capernaum issue.

Mark 1:
9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
...
21 They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. 22 The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law.

Mark 6:
1 Jesus left there and went to his hometown [Nazareth ], accompanied by his disciples. 2 When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed.
...
4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.” 5 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6 He was amazed at their lack of faith.

Matthew 4:
12 When Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, he withdrew to Galilee. 13 Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali
...
Matthew 13:
53 When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. 54 Coming to his hometown [Nazareth], he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. 55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him.

But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.”

Luke 4:
16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom.
...
23 Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’”

24 “Truly I tell you,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown.
...
31 Then he went down to Capernaum, a town in Galilee, and on the Sabbath he taught the people. 32 They were amazed at his teaching, because his words had authority.

Marcion:
31 He came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee. He was teaching them on the Sabbath day in the synagogue, 32 but they were all astonished at his teaching, for his word was with authority.

16 He came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. He entered, as was his custom, into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read.
...
23 He said to them, “Doubtless you will tell me this parable, ‘Physician, heal yourself! Whatever we have heard done at Capernaum, do also here in your hometown.’”

In Mark, Jesus simply goes to Capernaum, then later he goes to Nazareth where he says that prophets have no honor in their home town.

In Matthew, Jesus goes to Nazareth then to Capernaum, then later back to Nazareth where he says that prophets have no honor in their home town.

In Marcion, Jesus goes to Capernaum, then goes soon to Nazareth, where he says that prophets have no honor in their home town and refers to his miracles at Capernaum.

In Luke, Jesus goes to Nazareth first, following Matthew, and deliverers the line about prophets having no honor in their home town and refers to his miracles at Capernaum, but he hasn't been to Capernaum yet. He goes to Capernaum next.

This is fairly easy to explain if Luke is using both Matthew and Marcion, trying to blend them together, but makes a mistake and doesn't notice the error he's made.

Marcion has relocated the statement from Mark about prophets having no honor in their hometown much earlier in the story. Matthew sees this, but chooses to follow Mark. Luke is now working from Marcion, Matthew and Mark. Luke is mostly just adding to Marcion and making a few minor adjustments to harmonize Marcion with Mark and Matthew.

When Luke gets to the part in Marcion about prophets having no honor in their home town, he sees that Matthew claims Jesus went to Nazareth first, then to Capernaum. So Luke tries to correct Marcion to have Jesus go to Nazareth first. He them repositions the Nazareth material from Marcion to follow Matthew, but doesn't notice that now Jesus references Capernaum out of order. This is, actually, one of many editorial blunders in the works of Luke/Acts.

Is there any other explanation for this that makes any more sense?

[perseusomega9]

Marcion has relocated the statement from Mark about prophets having no honor in their hometown much earlier in the story.

So is this still Markan priority?

[mlinssen]

Not really, it's indeed one of the goof-ups. Perhaps Bernard can shed some light on it though

[hakeem]

So here is one that isn't necessarily the type of issue I was talking about at first. The Capernaum issue.

Mark 1:
9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
...
21 They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. 22 The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law.

Mark 6:
1 Jesus left there and went to his hometown [Nazareth ], accompanied by his disciples. 2 When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed.
...
4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.” 5 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6 He was amazed at their lack of faith.

Matthew 4:
12 When Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, he withdrew to Galilee. 13 Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali
...
Matthew 13:
53 When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. 54 Coming to his hometown [Nazareth], he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. 55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him.

But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.”

Luke 4:
16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom.
...
23 Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’”

24 “Truly I tell you,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown.
...
31 Then he went down to Capernaum, a town in Galilee, and on the Sabbath he taught the people. 32 They were amazed at his teaching, because his words had authority.

Marcion:
31 He came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee. He was teaching them on the Sabbath day in the synagogue, 32 but they were all astonished at his teaching, for his word was with authority.

16 He came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. He entered, as was his custom, into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read.
...
23 He said to them, “Doubtless you will tell me this parable, ‘Physician, heal yourself! Whatever we have heard done at Capernaum, do also here in your hometown.’”

In Mark, Jesus simply goes to Capernaum, then later he goes to Nazareth where he says that prophets have no honor in their home town.

In Matthew, Jesus goes to Nazareth then to Capernaum, then later back to Nazareth where he says that prophets have no honor in their home town.

In Marcion, Jesus goes to Capernaum, then goes soon to Nazareth, where he says that prophets have no honor in their home town and refers to his miracles at Capernaum.

In Luke, Jesus goes to Nazareth first, following Matthew, and deliverers the line about prophets having no honor in their home town and refers to his miracles at Capernaum, but he hasn't been to Capernaum yet. He goes to Capernaum next.

This is fairly easy to explain if Luke is using both Matthew and Marcion, trying to blend them together, but makes a mistake and doesn't notice the error he's made.

Marcion has relocated the statement from Mark about prophets having no honor in their hometown much earlier in the story. Matthew sees this, but chooses to follow Mark. Luke is now working from Marcion, Matthew and Mark. Luke is mostly just adding to Marcion and making a few minor adjustments to harmonize Marcion with Mark and Matthew.

When Luke gets to the part in Marcion about prophets having no honor in their home town, he sees that Matthew claims Jesus went to Nazareth first, then to Capernaum. So Luke tries to correct Marcion to have Jesus go to Nazareth first. He them repositions the Nazareth material from Marcion to follow Matthew, but doesn't notice that now Jesus references Capernaum out of order. This is, actually, one of many editorial blunders in the works of Luke/Acts.

Is there any other explanation for this that makes any more sense?

The author of gLuke could not have used the teachings of Marcion to manufacture his Jesus story. Marcion lived in the 2nd century and knew nothing at all about any character living in the time of Tiberius.

The author of gLuke used gMark and gMatthew or their sources as is evident with multiple word for word references from those Gospels.

No manuscript of the Gospel of Marcion has ever been found.

[rgprice]

There is another similar ordering issue in Luke, with entering into Simon's house.

Luke 4:
38 Jesus left the synagogue and went to the home of Simon. Now Simon’s mother-in-law was suffering from a high fever, and they asked Jesus to help her. 39 So he bent over her and rebuked the fever, and it left her. She got up at once and began to wait on them.
...
Luke 5:
5 Once while Jesus was standing beside the lake of Gennesaret, and the crowd was pressing in on him to hear the word of God, 2 he saw two boats there at the shore of the lake; the fishermen had gone out of them and were washing their nets. 3 He got into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, and asked him to put out a little way from the shore. Then he sat down and taught the crowds from the boat.
...
8 But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man!” 9 For he and all who were with him were amazed at the catch of fish that they had taken; 10 and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. Then Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching people.” 11 When they had brought their boats to shore, they left everything and followed him.

Marcion's Gospel doesn't have Luke 4:38 at all, but also therefore doesn't have an issue with being out of order. This would argue in favor of this material being added to Luke after Marcion, in light of Matthew or Mark.

So, this seems to be stacking up in favor of Marcion > proto-Luke rather than proto-Luke > Marcion.

[Ben C. Smith]

Marcion's Gospel doesn't have Luke 4:38 at all, but also therefore doesn't have an issue with being out of order.

This is misleading. Luke 4.38 is not attested as either absent or present. We do not know without specific argumentation whether it was in the Marcionite gospel or not.

[Secret Alias]

I know my presence in most discussions isn't welcomed. I like to think of myself as a modern Socrates but most people just think I am horrible. But I can't bear to hear these discussions about the so-called 'Marcionite gospel.' To me, they seem like watching a child play with a razor blade.

Tertullian's citations from the Pauline corpus (of which 'the Marcionite gospel' would be a subset) is inevitably strange. Look at his citation of 1 Cor 7:7 (or some related text). He says Paul declares:

"But I desire all to persevere in my example ( qui nos ad exemplum sui hortatur) "

Now this comes in the treatise to his wife so it's not a citation of 'Marcionite scripture.' But the idea that 'all the citations in Against Marcion are from the Marcionite canon' is just downright stupid. But because this stupidity is perpetuated with people with PhD's the stupidity is taken seriously.

My point is - Tertullian's Pauline corpus was strange. He and Irenaeus have the bit about 'only for an hour' I submitted to the authorities in Jerusalem. Is that a Marcionite variant? Well, if you say everything in Against Marcion is a citation of the Marcionite corpus, you have to be consistent and say 'it must be the Marcionite canon.' But this consistency is stupid because the Marcionites wouldn't have had Paul say this. He is for them 'the Apostle' a second Moses, so the idea that the one and only apostle would submit to the Jerusalem authorities clearly comes from a later orthodox canon rather than the Marcionite one.

But if you admit that not everything in Against Marcion is actually a citation from the Marcionite canon you have to ask - well, how much is from the Marcionite canon? My answer is very little or none. You see, I say you have to look at Irenaeus's statement about HIS Against Marcion and see that it was designed along the lines of 'Marcionite took our canon and corrupted it so I will show the true canon in order that you see the original from which he corrupted.' That doesn't make a lot of sense if you are engaged in serious scholarship but why suppose that Irenaeus was engaged in serious scholarship. There are signs that Tertullian used Irenaeus. There are signs that Tertullian's Against Marcion is an adapted version of Irenaeus's Against Marcion. But the real issue is that Tertullian's Pauline corpus is strange so you can't, can't, can't, can't say that 'because his citations are strange it must be Marcionite citations.' Not that simple.