Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 09-19-2011, 10:39 AM

Ulrich Schmidt sent me Hermann Raschke's Werkstatt des Markus-Evangelisten a while back. I have never found the time to read it. My German sucks now. It gives me a headache to even read a few pages of von Harnack. Nevertheless it might be interesting to follow Raschke's argument to track the number of times that textual variants in Marcion agree with canonical Mark. I have never bought into the Irenaean argument that the Marcionite gospel was a corrupt version of Luke. Luke isn't even attested until quite late (probably with Irenaeus himself). To this end, I think the agreements of Marcion's gospel with the gospel of Mark (and especially western readings of Mark) might be interesting to track down.

Here's what Robert Price says about the connection between Marcion and Mark in his Pre-Nicene New Testament:

Quote:

We may also note the clear Marcionite tendency of the gospel, with its unremittingly scathing portrayal of the disciples of Jesus as utter failures to carry on the Christian legacy. Indeed, it is not unlikely the subsequent choice of the ascription "Mark" reflects the name of Marcion, the early-to-mid second century champion of Paulinism. (p. 70)

After discussing the connection and confusion between the New Testament characters Simon Peter and Simon Magus, Price clarifies this suggestion of a Marcionite derivation for the gospel of Mark:

Quote:

This need not mean that Marcion the Paulinist was himself the author of the present gospel, but it very likely does preserve the memory of the Marcionite/Gnostic milieu in which it was written. A better candidate for authorship would be Basilides, a Gnostic who claimed to be the disciple of Glaukias, interpreter of Simon Peter, unless this too was a confusion with Simon Magus/Paul. (p. 70)

Of course the proper starting point for this discussion should be the fact that the Philosophumena makes explicit that Marcionites must have claimed that they possessed the true gospel of Mark (Phil. 7.18).

It might be interesting to start compiling a list of agreements of the Marcionite gospel with Mark starting with the 'sign of Jonah' erasure:

Quote:

The saying about Jonah the prophet has been falsified; Marcion had, “This generation, no sign shall be given it.” But he did not have the passages about Nineveh, the queen of the south, and Solomon.

Also Tertullian seems to emphasize the same situation:

Quote:

He (= Jesus) too is changeable, variable, capricious, teaching one thing, doing another: he tells them to give to everyone that asks, but himself gives no sign to those who do ask. [AM 4.27]

Mark 8:11 reads:

Quote:

He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it.”

dog-on · 09-19-2011, 10:53 AM

I think the idea of Mark being the Marcionite gospel, pre redaction of course, is a very interesting possibility.

stephan huller · 09-19-2011, 11:02 AM

Another point I put in the other thread is that the Markan idea that 'no sign will be given to this generation' is very Marcionite. The messiah of the OT is supposed to give signs. The Samaritans for instance establish a 'rule' of at least two of three signs - (from memory) 1. the rediscovery of the vessels of the sanctuary, 2. production of the heavenly manna and 3. the rod of Moses. It is absolutely inconceivable that any messiah could appear and claim to be the one predicted by Moses and fail to produce a sign.

dog-on · 09-19-2011, 11:18 AM

Until Matt added that star, of course...

stephan huller · 09-19-2011, 11:28 AM

Another example of the gospel of Marcion agreeing with Mark:

Quote:

"And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath."

Mark 2:28:

Quote:

So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.

and Matthew too.

stephan huller · 09-19-2011, 01:13 PM

It goes without saying as I go through Epiphanius's list that the Marcionite gospel agrees with Gospel of Mark in that both do not have the genealogy, the virgin birth etc. The Gospel of Luke and the Marcionite gospel both identify the 'in the fifteenth year of Tiberius.' Nevertheless it is curious that Mark doesn't actually have a date. It seems highly dubious and represents a taking away from Mark rather than an addition. Clement of Alexandria has a variant of Luke 3 (even though the manuscripts of the Stromata reference it as 'according to Luke' I think it is representative of a common Alexandrian/Marcionite reading).

stephan huller · 09-19-2011, 01:42 PM

The next saying in Epiphanius demonstrates that our readings are clearly subsequent to Marcion's. Let us start with what appears in our Luke:

Quote:

καὶ αὐτὸς παρήγγειλεν αὐτῷ μηδενὶ εἰπεῖν, ἀλλὰ ἀπελθὼν δεῖξον σεαυτὸν τῷ ἱερεῖ καὶ προσένεγκε περὶ τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ σου καθὼς προσέταξεν Μωϋσῆς εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς.

And he charged him to tell no man but go and shew thyself to the priest and offer for thy cleansing according as Moses commanded for a testimony unto them

Instead of "εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς" the Marcionite gospel read "unto you."

There is no known variant like this in Mark or Luke in this place but Luke 21:13 does have:

Quote:

ἀποβήσεται ὑμῖν εἰς μαρτύριον.

It shall turn for you a testimony

apobesetai * B D 579; (NEB) RV Tisch UBS Weiss WH
apobesetai de 2 A K L W G D Q Y 0102 1 13 33 565 700 892 1241 1424 Byz vg sin cur pesh hark; Bover HF HG Lach Merk Soden [Treg] Vogels
apobesetai gar c ff2 i l r1

Yet we should notice that Tertullian's reading is actually a verbatim citation of Matthew 8:4 not Luke. Matthew 8:4 reads:

Quote:

καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ὅρα μηδενὶ εἴπῃς, ἀλλὰ ὕπαγε σεαυτὸν δεῖξον τῷ ἱερεῖ καὶ προσένεγκον τὸ δῶρον ὸ προσέταξεν Μωΰσῆς εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς.

Tertullian's gospel read:

Quote:

As far as concerned avoidance of human glory, he told him to tell no man: as concerned the observance of the law, he ordered the proper course to be followed: Go, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift which Moses commanded. Knowing that the law was in the form of prophecy, he was safeguarding its figurative regulations even in his own mirrored images of them, which indicated that a man who has been a sinner, as soon as he is cleansed by the word of God, is bound to offer in the temple a sacrifice to God, which means prayer and giving of thanks in the church through Christ Jesus, the universal high priest of the Father. This is why he added, That it may be to you for a testimony—no doubt by which he testified that he did not destroy the law but fulfilled it, a testimony that it was he and no other of whom it was foretold that he would take upon him their diseases and sicknesses [AM 4:9]

So Tertullian's gospel actually agreed with the Marcionite text in terms of the 'as a testimony unto you' but disagreed with 'the gift' (τὸ δῶρον) which Epiphanius explicitly says 'Marcion removed' (Scholion and Refutation 1):

Quote:

Even if you remove the word, "gift," it will be evident, from the word, "offer," that he is speaking of a gift.

The point then is that we have to keep in mind that Tertullian's text is not Luke. It is a version of Matthew that has the reading 'a testimony unto you' instead of 'a testimony onto you.' I think that text was an early Diatessaron. Yet all that matters is that Tertullian shares Marcion's ending but

Quote:

ostende te sacerdoti, et offer munus quod praecepit Moyses

Our 'unto them' was a change away from the earlier gospels of Tertullian and Marcion. I have a hunch the passage was not even about the law regarding healing leprosy in the Marcionite gospel.

Iskander · 09-19-2011, 01:51 PM

How Many Times Does the Gospel of Marcion Agree With Mark Against Luke?

As many times as Marcion wanted to copy from them.[ or him]

Marcion is dead and he is only a myth.

stephan huller · 09-19-2011, 03:29 PM

The next passage in Tertullian presents a very interesting difficulty for it reinforces once again that the Marcionite gospel was very unlike any canonical gospel. In the middle of the discussion of healing of the leper Tertullian references Naaman the Syrian even though the passage appears a few chapters later in Luke. In this case the reference is only an allusion. There is no direct quotation of the material in chapter 9 of Book Four of Against Marcion. What is really eye opening is that we also see Tertullian directly cite the Naaman the Syrian reference in his discussion of the healing of the ten lepers in his treatment of chapter 17 of Luke. Epiphanius has this to say about the latter passage:

Quote:

When the ten lepers met him. Marcion excised a great deal and wrote, "He sent them away, saying, Show yourselves unto the priests," and yet he made a substitution and said, "Many lepers were in the days of Elisha the prophet, and none was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian."

Elenchus 48. Even here the Lord calls Elisha a prophet, and says he performs the deeds which Elisha, equally, had done before him — in refutation of Marcion and all who make light of God's prophets.

Here are the three passages as they appear in Luke:

Quote:

1. Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’” “Truly I tell you,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown. I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.” [Luke 4.23 - 27]

2. While Jesus was in one of the towns, a man came along who was covered with leprosy. When he saw Jesus, he fell with his face to the ground and begged him, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean." Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” And immediately the leprosy left him. Then Jesus ordered him, “Don’t tell anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.” [Luke 5:12 - 14]

3. Now on his way to Jerusalem, Jesus traveled along the border between Samaria and Galilee. As he was going into a village, ten men who had leprosy met him. They stood at a distance and called out in a loud voice, “Jesus, Master, have pity on us!” When he saw them, he said, “Go, show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went, they were cleansed. One of them, when he saw he was healed, came back, praising God in a loud voice. He threw himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him—and he was a Samaritan. Jesus asked, “Were not all ten cleansed? Where are the other nine? 18 Has no one returned to give praise to God except this foreigner?” Then he said to him, “Rise and go; your faith has made you well.” [Luke 17:11 - 19]

The point here is that (1) appears just before (2) in Luke, but Epiphanius makes clear that (3) is greatly altered and incorporates (1) whereas in Tertullian both the discussions of (2) and (3) reference (1). IMO opinion there are enough internal similarities so as to see (2) and (3) as parts of a lost original narrative that included (1) within it. I don't know who actually split the narrative apart but clearly only (2) is common to all the synoptics.

It should be noted that (1) has clearly been adapted now to strengthen the claim that Jesus had a hometown - i.e. Nazareth. It has long been noted that Ephrem says that in the Marcionite gospel the city here is Bethsaida rather than Nazareth (= Jerusalem) and that (1) did not appear here originally given that the material is all used to support the claim that Jesus had a hometown (i.e. that he wasn't the Marcion god who landed on earth from outer space).

It is difficult then to say where the combined (1)(2)(3) narrative from the Marcionite gospel was actually located. The most likely possibility for me at least is that the leper narrative appeared right here - i.e. immediately after Jesus descent from heaven at Bethsaida (= Jerusalem), the ten lepers are most likely the disciples and only one from the ten thanks Jesus for healing him and Jesus cites Luke 21:13 "It will turn out as a testimony for you" - i.e. that his thanks for Jesus having saved him will turn out to be a testimony to his greatness.

In other words, this seems to be the Marcionite variant of the calling of the disciples. It is worth noting that Tertullian seems to imply the one leper is held in special reverence by the Marcionites. IMO he must represent the chosen disciple (= the beloved).

Vorkosigan · 09-19-2011, 05:49 PM

Excellent post and topic. But it seems intuitively obvious that Marcion's Ur-gospel was an early version of Mark, not Luke. I think the later belief that Marcion had an early version of Luke is just a garbled understanding of how Luke is mostly sourced from Mark and Q. Luke can't have been an original gospel on its own, it is derivative. Hence, Marcion must have had a version of Mark.

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

09-19-2011, 10:53 AM	#2
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	I think the idea of Mark being the Marcionite gospel, pre redaction of course, is a very interesting possibility.

09-19-2011, 11:02 AM	#3
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Another point I put in the other thread is that the Markan idea that 'no sign will be given to this generation' is very Marcionite. The messiah of the OT is supposed to give signs. The Samaritans for instance establish a 'rule' of at least two of three signs - (from memory) 1. the rediscovery of the vessels of the sanctuary, 2. production of the heavenly manna and 3. the rod of Moses. It is absolutely inconceivable that any messiah could appear and claim to be the one predicted by Moses and fail to produce a sign.

09-19-2011, 11:18 AM	#4
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Until Matt added that star, of course...

09-19-2011, 01:13 PM	#6
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It goes without saying as I go through Epiphanius's list that the Marcionite gospel agrees with Gospel of Mark in that both do not have the genealogy, the virgin birth etc. The Gospel of Luke and the Marcionite gospel both identify the 'in the fifteenth year of Tiberius.' Nevertheless it is curious that Mark doesn't actually have a date. It seems highly dubious and represents a taking away from Mark rather than an addition. Clement of Alexandria has a variant of Luke 3 (even though the manuscripts of the Stromata reference it as 'according to Luke' I think it is representative of a common Alexandrian/Marcionite reading).

09-19-2011, 01:51 PM	#8
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	How Many Times Does the Gospel of Marcion Agree With Mark Against Luke? As many times as Marcion wanted to copy from them.[ or him] Marcion is dead and he is only a myth.

09-19-2011, 05:49 PM	#10
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Excellent post and topic. But it seems intuitively obvious that Marcion's Ur-gospel was an early version of Mark, not Luke. I think the later belief that Marcion had an early version of Luke is just a garbled understanding of how Luke is mostly sourced from Mark and Q. Luke can't have been an original gospel on its own, it is derivative. Hence, Marcion must have had a version of Mark.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.