Ben C Smith

I am interested in collecting arguments concerning the following propositions:

Pro: The nonextant gospel known as the Marcionite gospel came later than and both used and modified the extant gospel known as the gospel of Luke.

Con: The extant gospel known as the gospel of Luke came later than and both used and modified the nonextant gospel known as the Marcionite gospel.

I would like to keep the arguments separately numbered according to whether they are pro or con. To be clear, the pro side of the debate basically supports the traditional view that Marcion took what we know as Luke and (tendentiously) abbreviated it; the con side of the debate basically reverses this, arguing that what we know as Luke was created by taking the Marcionite gospel and (tendentiously) expanding it.

Please make each argument stand on its own. On the one side of the debate, you yourself may think that Luke copied from Matthew, but your argument vis-ê-vis Luke and Marcion would not be complete simply by arguing that Matthew postdates Marcion; you would also have to argue (openly) that Luke postdates Matthew, as well. On the other side of the debate, you yourself may think that Irenaeus is a great source of information about Marcion, but you would have to demonstrate how he was able to get the relationship between Luke and Marcion in particular correct (trace the tradition, as it were), since (according to Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.4.1-4) the accusations of alteration went both ways.

To get the ball rolling, here are two arguments, one for each side:

Pro 1: The gospel of Luke appears (by the prologues especially) to have the same author as the book of the Acts of the Apostles, the second half of which bears several passages called the we passages; these passages imply that Acts was written by a sometime companion of Paul, and a contemporary of Paul cannot very well have survived past the time of Marcion. Therefore, Acts was written before Marcion, and, because of the common authorship, so was Luke.

Con 1: The gospel of Luke appears (by the prologues especially) to have the same author as the book of the Acts of the Apostles, and the Acts appears to claim authorship by a companion of Paul. By the time Luke was written, other gospel narratives had already been composed (according to the prologue), and that Marcion would choose Luke to use as his gospel would seem natural, given the profound Marcionite respect for Paul. Yet we must face the fact that (according to Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.2.3) the Marcionite gospel had no name attached to it, and (again according to Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.2.7) Marcion rejected the Acts. Why would Marcion choose a gospel based on its authorship by a companion of the great Paul, and yet simultaneously suppress the fact of that authorship? It seems more natural that the gospel began without the name of Luke, which was added after the time of Marcion.

Finally, kindly note that, while I have not necessarily referenced easy NT passages in the arguments above, I have definitely referenced patristic passages. Please do likewise; give your sources.

Many thanks in advance.

Ben.

Solitary Man

This is still a "pro" argument - the title "Kata Loukon" is not necessarily vital to the Gospel of Luke, and may have been added regardless whether it came before or after Marcionite Gospel.

Ben C Smith

What about Acts and the we passages? Did they influence Marcion in his decision to select Luke over the other gospels? If not, that is at least a coincidence to examine; if so, why did he then reject Acts? Did the connection between Acts and Luke come before Marcion or after?

Thanks.

Ben.

Solitary Man

This can only be mere speculation, but the total irrelevance of Acts, and perhaps its late dating (it can be dated late) could have influenced Marcion to abandon it. Peter Kirby once ran some statistical tests which showed that the author of Luke was probably not the author of acts. It was all on Ebla, way back in the day, and so I don't know what came of it.

hatsoff

I never saw the "we" passages as supporting eyewitness authorship. We pretty much know that Luke borrowed/plagiarized from at least two other Gospels. The "we" passages look like they came from a third such source document.

Ben C Smith

How would borrowing from gospels about Jesus impeach the author being an eyewitness of Paul, who himself was not even an eyewitness of Jesus?

Ben.

hatsoff

Well, I ask myself why the "we" passages should be so awkward, alternating back and forth between first and third person, and with no mention of who that first person is. The most natural explanation, it seems to me, is that the "we" passages correspond to Luke's copying of a first-person source text. The borrowing from the Gospels in GLuke, as well as the introduction to that text, sets a precedent which makes the existence of a "we" passages source more plausible.

Of course, that's just speculation on my part. Nobody knows with any certainty who wrote Luke-Acts, much less how it was written.

Ben C Smith

I guess I do not find them awkward at all. Theophilus surely does not need to be told who the author is; the author simply uses the first person for events he participated in, but the third person for events he did not participate in.

I agree that it is an explanation (indeed, it is one I am attracted to myself); I dispute that it is the most natural explanation.

...is exactly what we would expect of someone who witnessed only Paul, never Jesus himself.

Ben.

spamandham

No they don't. They indicate that the author was following a standard formula used for fiction at the time, which was to use the personal plural in all discussions related to sea travel, as shown by Vernon K. Robbins in "By Land and by Sea: The We-Passages and ancient Sea-Voyages" (per RM Price in The Pre-Nicene New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk), pg 605 of 2006 hardback edition).

Further, passages such as Acts 15:7 - a gross anachronism that is simply undeniable by any but the worst apologist - demonstrate that at least that portion of Acts is a MUCH later fabrication.

dog-on

Since Luke/Acts are not mentioned until the late 2nd century, by which time Marcion is supposedly quite dead, I go with Con...