Ben C Smith

I do not think, for reasons already given, that Marcion attributed his gospel to Paul.

Oh, surely you have! The fathers call the two Marcionite foundational texts the apostolikon (the apostle) and the evangelion (the gospel). I think it is regularly assumed (rightly or wrongly) that these names derive from Marcion.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Which is why I called it a precursor to our present infancy gospels.

Personally, I think Luke used Matthew. Maybe other texts, too, but at least Matthew.

The LXX?

What?

Ben.

the_cave

The Slavonic Josephus, of course!

Ben C Smith

Ha.

What does the Slavonic have from the birth narratives?

Ben.

andrewcriddle

Assume FTSOA that Marcion knew of Matthew Mark and Luke in something like their present forms, (but not John). Assume that Marcion believes that the Gospel texts as found in his day have been corrupted by Judaizers and it is his mission to restore them. In that case he is almost bound IMO to use Luke as the basis for his purified Gospel text. It would be much more difficult to expurgate Matthew or Mark and end up with something acceptable in Marcion's eyes.

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

Can you be more specific? It would not seem too difficult to me to adjust Mark; it already looks almost adoptionist in some ways, with no nativity, and not even any resurrection appearances (in its shorter form) to commission the Judaizing apostles.

Ben.

andrewcriddle

Hi Ben

I'll try and give a fuller answer later, but my immediate response is that, although I agree that Mark can be read in an adoptionist way, I don't think that would have appealed to Marcion. I don't regard Marcion as an adoptionist.

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

I think there were differences between Marcionism and adoptionism, to be sure, but it seems to me that adoptionism would not be hard to turn to his favor.

But I will await your fuller treatment.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I just ran into an interesting site on Marcion for the first time. Who is Frank Reitzenstein?

Ben.

neilgodfrey

What the fathers called it, yes. But that's not what I said. (Talking past each other once again, ah dear.)

To repeat: For Marcion/ites the gospel was not a written text with a narrative about the one who brought the gospel. The gospel derived from Paul alone after the demise of Jesus and failure of his Twelve. (The narrative was subject to revisions in the light of growing understandings of the gospel, over time.)

I'm only tossing this in because it is a basic bit of understanding about Marcionism that was missing from the OP options, and if anyone's interested in following it up it's discussed in the major works, the most recent one I read and recall most clearly in respect to this being Hoffmann. I am traveling again and snatching odd moments in between airports so have no opportunity or interest in getting into a debate myself. Just mentioning it for anyone interested in following it up.

Neil