DCHindley

Tertullian seems to be saying that the Gospel of Matthew was written by a direct disciple of Jesus, Mark by a follower of a direct disciple (Peter), and Luke had clearly stated that he had drawn from earlier Gospels, presumably those two, thus preserving a tradition that could be traced back to Jesus. He complained that "if" the Marcionites attributed this Gospel to Paul, it could not be traced back to Jesus.

I had mentioned circularity earlier, and this is where it comes in. The authorship of Matthew and Mark are not claimed in the Gospels carrying their name, but the names are attributed to them by Church tradition, and Tertullian admits that. Tertullian dismisses any claim that the Marcionite Gospel can be Paul's gospel on the basis that Paul left no Gospel according to his own Church's tradition. So he is saying that he only accepts his own Church's tradition, not Marcionite tradition, even though IMHO neither Church nor Marcionite attributions carry any greater weight than the other. Well, THAT settles things ... yup.

As an alternative, Tertullian expresses his opinion that it is a mutilated version of Luke, and he could be right. He's read it, I haven't. I might agree with you that Marcion could have based his version on an early version of Luke (a proto-Luke), but there is no independent literary evidence that Luke, or any of the received Gospels, existed in any other form than we have them. Internally, I know Fr Brown proposed John had several redactional levels, and Matt is said to be compiled from Mark, M and possibly Q, while Luke is said to be composed either of Mark, L and also possibly Q, or from Mark & Matt.

Is this a round about way to ask whether the Goulder hypothesis has any bearing on the matter of Marcion's Gospel?

DCH

andrewcriddle

Attempt at fuller answer. (A lot of what follows is IMO.)

Although Marcion's Gospel seems to be an expurgated version of something like our Luke, this does not seem to be how Marcion regarded it (He called it the Gospel not the Gospel according to Luke) Marcion's Gospel is intended to be the authentic words and deeds of Jesus, a critical reconstruction of the Historical Christ. IE Marcion's Gospel , (unlike John according to 20:30-31), is not intended to be a small part of the material about Jesus, selected to make a specific theological point.

Now Marcion's Gospel clearly omitted some of the Markan material in Luke. Hence, if Marcion had used Mark as his basis, he would have ended up with something substantially shorter than our Mark. However, Marcion's Gospel purports to contain most of the genuine material about Jesus. (It is intended to replace the collections of Jesus material used by the proto-orthodox.) An abbreviated version of Mark just does not qualify. It is too short, too selective and omits too much widely known material which cannot plausibly be regarded as interpolation by Judaizers.

If Marcion is attempting to replace the plurality of contaminated and interpolated traditions about Jesus with a critically sifted authentic version, then Luke provides a basis for the attempt in a way which Mark does not.


Andrew Criddle

the_cave

It contains an expanded version of Mt 2. It apparently includes insertions from Malalas--I'm getting my hands on a copy of Malalas to have a look. Curiously, it included Matthew 3:13-16a (according to the Leeming et al edition), but then relates the rest of the Slaughter of the Innocents in a unique manner, and does not use Matthew again for that story, either before or after. I do need to note that, at least according to Meshcherskij, there is technically no material about either Jesus or his birth that is not drawn from Malalas.

Likewise curiously, the Slavonic Josephus also contains an earlier passage that is thematically related to Mt 1, though it contains no direct quotations from it. The priests lament the absence of the Messiah in the face of Herod. A priest named Ananus then tells them the prophecy of Daniel, and they attempt to determine the year when the Messiah will arrive (there is some confusion in the texts here on what the date was), akin perhaps to the genealogies presented at the beginning of Mt. (There is also an odd little anecdote added about a priest named Levi and the murder of the priests by Herod.)

It's at least suggestive, though perhaps not much more than that.

the_cave

Is there anything shared by canonical Mk and Lk that is not present in Marcion gospel? I once poked through Tertullian a bit to try and figure this out, but I can't remember the results. Because, if not, do we need Mk at all in order to explain Lk? (Or, if there is shared Mk-Lk material not present in Marcion, then that tells us something, doesn't it?)

Alexp

As a total, though enthusiastic novice on this subject, I wonder if it isn't possible that Luke (in its present form) isn't an expanded version of Marcion?

Is there any evidence that Tertullian knew Luke before Marcion assembled his canon?

aa5874

There are the "memoirs of the apostles" that were known in the 2nd century, an untitled document that contained passages found only in Matthew, Mark Luke and John.

Justin Martyr quoted over 50 passages from the "memoirs" of which about 15 passages appear to be similar to the canonised Luke.

And there is the "Diatessaron" by Tatian which contain MANY hundreds of passages found inthe canonised Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, yet the Diatessaron did not name any apostle or any other person as the original authors.

It is interesting to note that Tertullian make no mention of the memoirs or the Diatesseron even at times when Tertullian claims he is quoting from canonised Luke he is actually quoting from passages that appear in canonised Matthew.

Now, Tertullian claimed Marcion produced two Gods, if this is so, I cannot find passages in gLuke that would support a two-God system.

Based on Justin's memoirs and Tatian's Diatessaron, it would seem that whatever Marcion may have written it was not from any Gospel that was specifically called Luke, since there is no indication that an author was known as Luke before Irenaeus sometime after Marcion died.

DCHindley

From The Young Jerk (I kid you not) webpage:

The Young Jerk is the initiative of Frank Reitzenstein Bsc. Grad Dip Ed. Post. Grad. Dip. Appl. Sc.
Frank was offered a scholarship to do a Phd in Physics, but decided that he had enough of school because there was enough learning, but a lack of intuitive thinking applied to problems crying out for answers.
Nowhere is this more true than in the field of medicine, where medical research uncovers so many miracle cures, yet they take decades to be seriously applied to cases of real need.
Frank initially put his energy into promoting the Nobel Prize winning benefits of arginine in virtually eliminating the circulatory problems from which half the people in the western world eventually die. It is such a cheap simple solution - its only drawback being that arginine tastes awful!
Recently Frank has expanded his operation to the US, selling 3000 products from his warehouse in Kansas. His margins are extremely low as you will find when you shop around.
Frank can be contacted by email
mailto:sales@theyoungjerk.com
Frank runs a webhosting business, is webmaster, database programmer, graphic artist and salesman. He is currently expanding into publishing paperbacks with a focus on the history of Christianity.
You can email Frank any time as he loves chatting about health problems, and their many solutions.
http://www.theyoungjerk.com/aboutus.html

I think the Isu Chrestos thing is a peculiar position originating with Daniel Jon Mahar, who publishes an online translation called To The Galatians.

"One such creative liberty [he plainly states he makes] is the name for the Marcionite Savior, "Isu Chrestos" - "Isu" derived on the designation of Syrian Marcionites, the spelling for "Chrestos" (=the Good one ) derived from an ancient inscription to a Marcionite synagogue."

http://www.geocities.com/athens/itha...EGalatians.PDF

Frank Reitzenstein's book appears to be fairly derivitive, offering nothing original. Care for an herbal tea? Gincko? <g>

DCH

andrewcriddle

There is a reconstruction here of the Gospel of Marcion
It lacks towards the end of the gospel Luke 22:49-51 = Mark 14:47; Luke 21:21-22 = Mark 13:14b-16; Luke 20:37-38 = Mark 12:26-27; Luke 20:9-18 = Mark 12:1-11; Luke19:29-46 = Mark 11:1-10 + 15-17; Luke 18:31-34 = Mark 10:32b-34.
(evidence Epiphanius Panarion)

At the beginning it lacks any reference to Jesus being baptized by John and being 40 days in the wilderness.

There doesn't seem much omitted material after the beginning and before the end that is found in both Luke and Mark.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Now, once option 3 makes more sense to you than option 2, you have perhaps inadvertently implied that Tertullian does NOT make much sense to you with respect to Marcion and Luke.

Tertullian's claim that Marcion copied Luke, [option 2], indeed does not make much sense.

Now, in order to show that option 3 also does not make much sense, it must first be known or to get a description of Marcion's Jesus and His Divine Father.

What really was Marcion preaching about his Jesus and His Divine Father?

Tertullian does not make much sense, so perhaps Justin Martyr and Irenaeus can be used.

First Apology So it is very clear from Justin that Marcion does NOT need the God of the Jews, the God of the Jewish Scritures, the God in Genesis is not Marcion's God.

It is also very clear the Marcion's Jesus does NOT need any predictions from the prophets, Marcion does not need Isaiah 7.14, none of the prophets.

First Apology It is clear Marcion has another God and another son.

Now the God of the Gospels is the God of the Jews.

Marcion has another God.

The Jesus of the the Gospels is the son of the God of the Jews.

Marcion preaches another Son.

Marcion does NOT need the Gospels.


Option 3 does not make much sense. Whether there are Gospels named or unnamed, once they contain the God of the Jews, the son of the God of the Jews or any predictions of the prophets that worship the God of the Jews, then Marcion does NOT need those Gospels.

Marcion preaches another God and another Son.

Marcion's Jesus does not need the conception story, the birth story, the baptism, the transfiguration, the trial, crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension stories.

Marcion does not need Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, the memoirs or the Diatesseron, they all are about the God of the Jews, the son of the God the Jews and his prophets.

Option 3 does not make much sense, just like Tertullian.

There must be another unexamined option that makes sense.

the_cave

There you have it--if Luke is relying on Marcion, then where is he getting this Markan information from? (Often verse-for-verse)? Luke must at least have another source--if he was using Marcion, then he at least also has another version of Mk. If he was not using Marcion, then both he and Marcion must have used some sort of proto-Lk.

If the former, then how does Marcion relate to Mt and Mk? If the latter, then how does proto-Lk relate to Mt and Mk?

Any way you slice it, it is ridiculous to claim that Marcion was the first gospel.