Geetarmoore

I've been reading stuff about this lately, and I'm starting to believe that it is plausible that Marcion's 'Luke', rather than being an edited version of Luke, was the original version....

I know there are some scholars who argue (for what I can see seem to be good reasons) for the priority of Luke. Since it seems that the canonical Gospels appear in the literary record quite late (150-180), couldn't it make sense that Marcion's Gospel was the basis for Luke, which in turn was the basis for the other gospels?

I'm interested in your opinions.

Thanks.

Malachi151

I don't think so, there is a lot of evidence against this. I haven't seen any arguments for it, but I'd be glad to look at it.

For one thing, we aren't even sure what Marcion's Gospel was. I think all we have are some theoretical reconstructions.

Secondly, the evidence for the priority of Mark is, IMO, absolutely overwhelming.

There are many passages in the canonical Luke that are clearly derived from GMark, but which could not have been derived in GMark from GLuke.

The whole issue also goes back to the Synoptic Problem, which can really only be solved with GMark as the first from which GLuke and GMatthew are both derived.

More than anything though, is the fact that GMark is so cohesive and contains so many clear literary allusion that are lost or mangled in the other Gospels that are derived from it.

Now it could be that Marcion's "Luke" came before the Gospel Luke, but that Marcion's Luke was still also derived from the Gospel of Mark, that is possible, but I don't see it being the first of all the Gospels.

fta

Old thread on this topic