neilgodfrey

This as you say assumes the original Marcionite Luke was directly using Mark. And at first blush it does come across as implausible.

Mark is my favourite problem when thinking about Marcion and I don't know how it fits in to the picture. Despite Mark's anti-twelve polemic, this gospel is at core alien to Marcionite thought, as you imply. The non-Marcionite elements are built in to the plot and literary structure in Mark, not just add-ons one might argue are a later insertion.

But if Mark is seen as a polemic against the Twelve, then we can think there was some narrative already in existence about them. Polemic reacts to what is already out there.

So I think of two possibilities:

A Marcionite evangelist is drawing in part from Mark, which is in large part alien to Marcionite thought. (John Baptist role throughout, Jewish Scripture prophecies and fulfilments, adoptionism, . . .)

Mark is composed as a new gospel afresh, agreeing with only some aspects of Marcionite thought.

The later orthodox redactor of Marcion's Luke was also the one who wrote Acts. The agenda was both anti-Marcionite and catholic. It drew on "many" who had written before, including Mark and John.

neilgodfrey

In addition to what has already been contributed here re 1 Tim 6.20, Hoffmann (Marcion: On the Restitution (or via: amazon.co.uk) . . .) also sees little reason to think this passage is a veiled allusion to Marcion's Antithesis. He places this reference in the context of a constellation of scattered references to myths, genealogies, babblings, unlearned questions, and so-called knowledge -- all of which "are polemical conventions and do not add up to a heresy of a certain genre." (p.291 -- he is citing here R.J. Karris, 'The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epistles', JBL 92 (1973).

I've compiled notes from Hoffmann's discussion of the Pastoral Epistles apparent relationship to the Marcionite error here (formatting prohibits posting anything more than the link here) -- though Hoffmann does not address Couchard's argument directly.

neilgodfrey

For what it's worth I question the chronological significance attributed to the classification of words found among the apologists. How confident can we be that the vocabulary of Marcionites would have reflected that of the apologists? Similarly, the chronological argument re more developed church organization seems to me to be overlooking the relatively less structured organization of Marcion's churches that was one of the problems the apologists had with Marcionism.

TedM

I agree that one must be careful when comparing two different authors on the basis of words. I have a different vocabulary than many people I know due to my different family environment and perhaps locations I've lived in, and educational background, and who knows what else...so comparing different authors should be expected to produce different results.

For that reason however, it seems to me that a comparison of passages within the same work MIGHT provide something of value IF alleged interpolations turn out to significantly differ from the rest of the material.

ted

schilling.klaus

the vocabulary in the Catholic interpolations differs of course severely from the Marcionite vocabulary, such as more hapaxlegomena and stuff, as shown by H. Detering in the case of Romans. But this has nothing to do with different centuries.

Klaus Schilling

TedM

Thanks Klaus. I haven't read about this, so this is right on point and if/when I get the inclination I will look into this. Can you provide a link to some examples he gives?

ted

Casper

Excellent thread, Ted, thanks for outlining it. Lots of things here I've wondered about but didn't know how to address.

I have always especially been interested in applications of the synoptic question which review a possible role of Marcion. It seems that Marcion could fit in to various ideas supporting a two-source hypothisi (I'll call them the "Q" based theories) as well as modifications of Farrer. I know it becomes circular in some respect.

Ben C Smith

I do not think that the term gnosis is actually the primary reason for suspecting that 1 Timothy 6.20 is a reference to Marcion. The main reason I have seen is that the Greek word for antitheses (the title of the Marcionite work) is in this verse (it is the Greek word that underlies what one translation on this thread rendered as opposing arguments). The Greek could be read as avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the antitheses of what is falsely called knowledge.

This is not as direct as it would be if it read avoiding the book by Marcion called the Antitheses. But it is more direct than relying simply on the phrase knowledge falsely so called (which subsequent churchmen, virtually one and all, appear to have applied to what we would call the Gnostics).

Ben.

andrewcriddle

Could you clarify which is possibility one and which is possibility two ?
I'm not quite clear.

IF you are suggesting that possibly Marcion's Luke had no significant parallels to Mark and that it was only with the orthodox redaction of Luke that Mark was used, then there are problems.

Some scholars have suggested an early form of Luke (proto-Luke) without the Marcan based passages, the Markan passages being added in a later revision. However, from what we know of Marcion's Luke it wasn't proto-Luke in that sense, it contained far too much Markan type material.

Andrew Criddle

TedM

Thanks for the information Ben. I see the greek word isn't found elsewhere in the NT either.

I plan to continue this thread as time permits, but it will be a slow development.

Klaus, would you be able to some data/links regarding the vocabulary of the alleged interpolated Pauline texts?

Also, anyone here have the reconstructed Marcion "Romans"?

ted