stephan huller

This was first suggested about five years ago by Claire Clivaz (C. Clivaz, 'The Angel and the Sweat Like "Drops of Blood" Lk 22:43-44). It has been flatly rejected by Peter Head whom I respect immensely (http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.b...anuscript.html) But I am starting to come around to the idea that Clivaz might be correct.

Clivaz makes the following points (summary by Peter Head):

1.P69 lacks Luke 22.42-45a
2.This reflects a 'conscious omission' since 22.42-45a is a logical narrative unit
3.Jesus' request that the cup pass from him (v42) was the most shocking element in the Gethsemane story (for ancient readers, as seen in Celsus; Porphyry, Origen)
4.Celsus argued that some Christians had corrupted the text of the Gospels in order to evade the criticisms of opponents (Contra Celsum II.27 with specific reference to this passage)
5.This could mean that scribes were omitting material from the Gethsemane account.
6.'This strategy of "negating the objections" by omission would be practical only in a type of Christianity that preserved a single gospel, as did Marcion.' (p. 429).
7.Nothing of Luke 22.42-44 is attested in Marcion's Euaggelion (an argument from the silence of Tertullian and Epiphanius, with the authoritative support of Harnack)
8.The omission of v42 is congruent with Marcionite Christology
9.At Luke 22.61 in P69 Peter (not Jesus) is looking. This avoids any suggestion that Jesus is paying attention to Peter and is coherent with Marcion's avoidance of anything that could magnify Peter's status.

I think the missing verses are not accidental. But I am in fact more intrigued - if the text turns out to be heretical - by the implication of what's on the other side of the fragment - i.e. where Peter is confronted about being a member of the Christian sect.

My main line of argument would be that Head and others (= Schmid) place too much emphasis on what the Church Fathers say the composition of the Marcionite gospel looked like. I think this is what is lurking in the background of Head's objection. It is as if the Marcionite gospel is what Tertullian and Epiphanius say is wrong with the gospel which is nonsense.

Vorkosigan

Is there an English translation of both sides?

Duvduv

Don't these people consider it strange that the writings attributed to someone named Justin Martyr, who allegedly lived at the time and in the same city as Marcion makes no mention of any Luke, or any texts held by Marcion or his followers at all? Doesn't this bother anyone?
Looking for a second century Marcion is just grasping at straws.

DCHindley

As far as I know, Justin was a gentile from Flavia Neapolis in Judea, who later moved to Rome. Marcion was from Sinope in Pontus, who later moved to Rome.

Should either of these men be expected to be intimately familiar with the doctrines and literature popular with all the different associations among the estimated 50-90 million people who lived there or nearby?

DCH

Duvduv

Well, considering that "Justin Martyr" mentions this bogeyman named Marcion, one should assume that he something about what Marcion taught or believed specifically, and what books concerning the Christ he was involved with.

stephan huller

As always I completely fail to understand the objections of the fourth century conspiracy theorists. How does it follow that because Justin mentions Marcion but not Luke that Marcion is proved a fiction?

Duvduv

That's just one piece of the argument. But a good one as far as I am concerned. Others being that there is no empirical evidence for any Marcionites, Marcionite leaders, communities, or a Marcion himself in the 2nd century. But if you want to take the church's word for it, be my guest.

DCHindley

There may be Sikhs living down the road, or Sunni/Shiite Muslims, or Buddhists, or Hindus, or Wiccans, or Druids, even Animists, whose existence and alleged relationships to Christianity (the religion I grew up with) I may have heard something about and even commented upon publically, but that doesn't mean I am accurately informed about whatever little I have heard about them.

Ethnocentrism is a sociological term for the tendency of heterogeneous groups (not necessarily ethnic groups in the modern sense) to think the world revolves around them and them alone. All other POV are invariably WRONG, and our own POVs are invariably RIGHT, and so we can get away with the most incredible simplifications and assumptions about the beliefs and practices of others.

Just like pagans thought Christians were haters of mankind because everyone knew we were cannibals who ate babies during orgies, or in the case of the Egyptian rebellion even Jews, pagans were convinced that Jews roasted pagan captives and ate their flesh. You and I both know these are highly unlikely things to have happened historically, but pagans believed them because all Barbarians were WRONG and EVIL, just like Justin knew that Marcion had ignorantly cut up Christian literature.

The mooowwwweeerrr calls, "Mow with me! Choose me to mow with!" And the grass will grow to the size of haystacks, and the grass catcher will catch 1,000 bushels of clippings ...

DCH

ficino

Interesting fragment and idea. Stephan, do you know what Peter Head's criteria are for judging a hypothesis "plausible?" Cf. his last sentence:

"In conclusion I think the suggestion that P69 is a manuscript of Marcion’s Gospel is a very clever idea which is however not proven and not the most plausible context for making sense of this fascinating manuscript."

I think I recall that on another thread recently, Spin argued that appeals to plausibility in historical argument collapse into subjective considerations. Is there a methodologically sound piece of work that "plausible" can do in an explanatory scheme in historical research? (Sorry if this verges on hijacking the thread; I'm willing to start a new one if it is that.)

stephan huller

Duv You are like the proverbial starving man claiming he can remain 'objective' in front of a grilled steak and corn on the cob. If you would actually read the material you would see that the material in P69 almost perfectly fits what the Church Fathers said was done within the Marcionite gospel. In this text two and a half lines are 'missing' when compared to the same section in the Gospel of Luke. The material that is missing would be offensive to the Marcionites who are consistently accused of removing material from Luke quite specifically - material that has to do with making Jesus look weak and human and needing food and drink. If you could just get your xxxx out from your xxx you would see that whether or not the Marcionites were specifically responsible for this 'change' to Luke, the text of P69 seems 'Marcionite' in its 'alteration.' The major stumbling block for scholars is that the Church Fathers don't specifically mention these alterations - but that's a terribly weak objection in my estimation.