Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roland · 07-22-2004, 08:53 AM

The common belief among scholars is that, in making his own "official" gospel, Marcion took Luke and pared it down, leaving in only those parts that fit into his own theology.

But in his book "History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred," Charles B. Waite argues that Marcion actually came first and that Luke expanded on his work. Waite makes the case based on the principle that, when two or more works cover the same basic material, the shorter version is more likely to be the earliest (the odd thing here, though, is that Waite also claims Luke precedes Mark which seems to contradict his thesis). Waite devotes an entire chapter to demonstrating how, he believes at least, the Marcion version is the more primitive and, therefore, most likely the earlier work.

I realize that Waite wrote a long time ago and that his ideas may have been superceded by more recent discoveries in Bible scholarship.

Any ideas on this theory?

jbernier · 07-22-2004, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

The common belief among scholars is that, in making his own "official" gospel, Marcion took Luke and pared it down, leaving in only those parts that fit into his own theology.

But in his book "History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred," Charles B. Waite argues that Marcion actually came first and that Luke expanded on his work. Waite makes the case based on the principle that, when two or more works cover the same basic material, the shorter version is more likely to be the earliest (the odd thing here, though, is that Waite also claims Luke precedes Mark which seems to contradict his thesis). Waite devotes an entire chapter to demonstrating how, he believes at least, the Marcion version is the more primitive and, therefore, most likely the earlier work.

I realize that Waite wrote a long time ago and that his ideas may have been superceded by more recent discoveries in Bible scholarship.

Any ideas on this theory?

I think that it is problematic. I find it strange that a gospel produced by the "arch-heretic" of early orthodoxy would become a major source for what would become one of the four canonical gospels. Also, it is based upon a presupposition that shorter is earlier; however, this presupposition cannot be applied as an absolute rule.

I would, however, be inclined to agree that the relationship between Marcion's gospel and Luke's gospel are much more complex than Ireneaus would have us think (it is Irenaeus who tells us that Marcion pared down Luke's gospel). I suspect that that Marcion did so much par down Luke's gospel as much as he was familiar with one of the non-Markan sources which Luke used (or perhaps aware of variant of Luke itself). Either way I think it fair to say that there was probably more fluidity in the texts in the time of Marcion than that of Irenaeus c. 50 years later, so that such textual creativity was more accepted. By Irenaeus a process of standardization had set in which was aimed at excluding variants to the "standard" versions of the texts.

Vinnie · 07-22-2004, 10:45 AM

"Shorter is more primitive" are the imaginative writings of scholars with too much time on their hands and probably nothing better to do.

As I wrote and quoted in my discussion of forms in ssection 4 of my paper on Mark:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/mark.html

2. Form critics operated under the assumption that the synoptic material changed under regulated ways and governed laws. No such law have been clearly established and when we evaluate the rules of transmission form-critics employ, none of them tend to hold up. As E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies wrote:

Quote:

A comparison of the quotations of Jesus' sayings in the second- and third-century literature with the synoptic versions does not reveal that the sayings tended to become longer and more detailed, or shorter and less detailed. Individual retellers might expand or abbreviate, might elaborate or epitomize. There are no general laws about length and detail. . . [T]he view that the material tended to be 'smoothed' has no more support than does the opposite view, that it tended to become more complex." [1]

It is also pointed out that Matthew streamlines some of Mark's parable accounts. As John Meier writes,

Quote:

"It is no means invariably true in the Gospel tradition that the shorter text is earlier than and independent of the longer text containing the same material. Matthew usually shortens and streamlines Mark's miracle stories, but he is no less dependent on Mark for all the brevity. In fact, it is quite possible that a tradition may not develop along a straight line of shorter to longer or longer to shorter, but may meander back and forth." [2]

Shorter is not necessarily earlier. There are no universal or established laws of tradition redarding this that have been accepted by scholars.

Vinnie

quartodeciman · 07-22-2004, 11:49 AM

What are the chances that multiple versions quickly written out on flaky (but cheap and easy to get from Egypt) papyrus abounded in those days, so that almost noone actually saw complete texts of the gospels?

I read somewhere that the Marcion affair was instrumental in waking the church up to the need for complete and authoritative versions.

Vorkosigan · 07-22-2004, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quartodeciman

What are the chances that multiple versions quickly written out on flaky (but cheap and easy to get from Egypt) papyrus abounded in those days, so that almost noone actually saw complete texts of the gospels?

I read somewhere that the Marcion affair was instrumental in waking the church up to the need for complete and authoritative versions.

Yes, Chris Price has an article on that at PKirby's website www.didjesusexist.com

Vorkosigan

Yuri Kuchinsky · 07-23-2004, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

"Shorter is more primitive" are the imaginative writings of scholars with too much time on their hands and probably nothing better to do.

As I wrote and quoted in my discussion of forms in ssection 4 of my paper on Mark:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/mark.html

2. Form critics operated under the assumption that the synoptic material changed under regulated ways and governed laws. No such law have been clearly established and when we evaluate the rules of transmission form-critics employ, none of them tend to hold up. As E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies wrote:

"A comparison of the quotations of Jesus' sayings in the second- and
third-century literature with the synoptic versions does not reveal
that the sayings tended to become longer and more detailed, or
shorter and less detailed. Individual retellers might expand or
abbreviate, might elaborate or epitomize. There are no general laws
about length and detail. . . [T]he view that the material tended to be
'smoothed' has no more support than does the opposite view, that it
tended to become more complex." [1]

Hi, Vinnie,

This quote from Sanders and Davies is also quite useful in refuting some of the typical criticisms of the KJV/Byzantine text.

It is often alleged that the Byz text is longer, more detailed, and more 'smoothed'. While these things may indeed be true to some extent, this doesn't prove that it's a later text.

I agree that such criteria are generally quite problematic in establishing the relative age of a text.

All the best,

Yuri

Casper · 08-03-2004, 01:15 AM

Could they have been contemporaries? No need for one to predate the other.

(I'm talking about the historical Marcion and the author(s) of early gLuke)

nzarh · 08-12-2004, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

I realize that Waite wrote a long time ago and that his ideas may have been superceded by more recent discoveries in Bible scholarship.

Any ideas on this theory?

One of Waite's own sources, Cassels' Supernatural Religion, gives a good summary of the Luke/Marcion debate of the late 19th century, finally concluding (contrary to Waite) that "Luke" did precede Marcion.

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/fre...s/sr/p2c07.htm

Quote:

...In the earlier editions of this work [Supernatural Religion], we contended that the theory that Marcion's Gospel was a mutilated form of our third Synoptic [i.e. Luke] had not been established, and that more probably it was an earlier work, from which our Gospel might have been elaborated. Since the sixth edition of this work was completed, however, a very able examination of Marcion's Gospel has been made by Dr. Sanday, which has convinced us that our earlier hypothesis is untenable; that the portions of our third Synoptic excluded from Marcion's Gospel were really written by the same pen which composed the mass of the work, and, consequently, that our third Synoptic existed in his time, and was substantially in the hands of Marcion. This conviction is mainly the result of the linguistic analysis, sufficiently indicated by Dr. Sanday and, since, exhaustively carried out for ourselves. We still consider the argument based upon the dogmatic views of Marcion, which has hitherto been almost exclusively relied on, quite inconclusive by itself; but the linguistic test, applied practically for the first time in this controversy by Dr. Sanday, must, we think, prove irresistible to all who are familiar with the comparatively limited vocabulary of New Testament writers. Throughout the omitted sections peculiarities of language and expression abound which clearly distinguish the general composer of the third Gospel, and it is, consequently, not possible reasonably to maintain that these sections are additions subsequently made by a different hand, which seems to be the only legitimate course open to those who would deny that Marcion's Gospel originally contained them...

Sanday's book, The Gospels in the Second Century, is online here: http://www.gutenberg.net/etext/10955

07-22-2004, 08:53 AM	#1
Roland Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: California Posts: 748	Could Marcion Have Predated Luke? The common belief among scholars is that, in making his own "official" gospel, Marcion took Luke and pared it down, leaving in only those parts that fit into his own theology. But in his book "History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred," Charles B. Waite argues that Marcion actually came first and that Luke expanded on his work. Waite makes the case based on the principle that, when two or more works cover the same basic material, the shorter version is more likely to be the earliest (the odd thing here, though, is that Waite also claims Luke precedes Mark which seems to contradict his thesis). Waite devotes an entire chapter to demonstrating how, he believes at least, the Marcion version is the more primitive and, therefore, most likely the earlier work. I realize that Waite wrote a long time ago and that his ideas may have been superceded by more recent discoveries in Bible scholarship. Any ideas on this theory?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-22-2004, 11:49 AM	#4
quartodeciman Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: US Posts: 245	What are the chances that multiple versions quickly written out on flaky (but cheap and easy to get from Egypt) papyrus abounded in those days, so that almost noone actually saw complete texts of the gospels? I read somewhere that the Marcion affair was instrumental in waking the church up to the need for complete and authoritative versions.

08-03-2004, 01:15 AM	#7
Casper Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 430	Could they have been contemporaries? No need for one to predate the other. (I'm talking about the historical Marcion and the author(s) of early gLuke)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.