Ben C Smith

In another thread I recently floated the hypothesis that Marcion and the canonical gospel of Luke both drew upon a proto-gospel (call it proto-Luke, if you will). Some of the criticisms of this hypothesis on that thread did not seem very apt (for example, assuming that such a proto-gospel would have to have either survived to our modern day or been quoted by some of the fathers), but other criticisms brought up interesting issues.

D. C. Hindley, for instance, observed:

This is an important and relevant point. If Marcion really did butcher the epistles, then we have prima facie reason to believe that he may have done the same with the canonical gospel of Luke.

But David continues later in that same post:

It is certain that the epistle to the Romans existed in antiquity in two different forms. Harry Gamble, in The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans (or via: amazon.co.uk), demonstrates this amply; one of the versions lacked chapter 15, along with other changes. So it is indeed possible that Marcion discovered this shorter form and got the idea that the longer form, and probably all the other Pauline epistles, too, had been interpolated, and just reverse edited his little heart out.

A possible glitch in this hypothesis is that, while Gamble has strongly demonstrated the existence of these two forms of Romans, his argument that Marcion himself was not responsible for the shorter form is (almost necessarily, as a subpoint) not quite as powerful. I tend to agree with Gamble on this (and with Ulrich Schmid; thanks to David for the link), but, because the attested shorter version of Romans does not alter the theology of the letter as a whole very much if at all, I am not altogether certain that this is enough of a spark for the whole Marcionite enterprise.

But what I am wondering in this thread is whether there may be another (possibly parallel) explanation for the Marcionite scissors, anyway. What if, along the lines of my hypothesis on that other thread, Marcion discovered both versions of the gospel (as well as possibly the Roman epistle), and on that basis decided that excision was necessary in other texts?

I have quoted this passage before, but here is Tertullian again in Against Marcion 4.4.4 (kind of rolls off the tongue, does it not?):

Si enim id evangelium quod Lucae refertur penes nos, viderimus an et penes Marcionem, ipsum est quod Marcion per antitheses suas arguit ut interpolatum a protectoribus Iudaismi ad concorporationem legis et prophetarum, qua etiam Christum inde confingerent, utique non potuisset arguere nisi quod invenerat.

If that gospel which among us is ascribed to Luke, and we shall see whether it is [accepted by] Marcion, if that is the same that Marcion by his Antitheses accuses of having been interpolated by the upholders of Judaism so as to be incorporated with the law and the prophets that they might also pretend that Christ had that origin, evidently he could only have brought accusation against something he had found there already.

According to Tertullian, Marcion was not merely excising objectionable passages from a gospel of Luke; he had accused those whom he called Judaizers or upholders of Judaism of interpolating certain passages, and he was restoring the text. (This is why Marcion is sometimes called a textual critic.)

On what basis did Marcion make this accusation? Was it merely the presence of objectionable material? Perhaps. But what I am suggesting instead is that perhaps Marcion held in his hand two different gospel texts; one of these was the canonical gospel of Luke pretty much as we know it today (which is pretty heavy on the law and prophets stuff; refer to Luke 1.70; 2.22, 23; 5.14; 10.26; 13.15; 16.16, 29, 31; 20.28; 24.25, 27, for example), and the other was a proto-Luke (which presumably was pretty light on the law and prophets stuff).

Such a scenario could easily have inspired Marcion on his quest to restore texts. If he also happened to find two different versions of Romans, this would only add to his incentive, and would confirm both his suspicions that the texts had been doctored and his resolve that they should be restored.

What do you think?

Ben.

DCHindley

Ben,

While this is a somewhat different matter than the one you propose to investigate, look at the way that the faction responsible for the Clementine Homilies discussed true and falsehood in (Jewish) scripture:

2.38 -- Corruption of the Law.

[Peter, to Clement:] "For the Scriptures have had joined to them many falsehoods against God on this account. The prophet Moses having by the order of God delivered the law, with the explanations, to certain chosen men, some seventy in number, in order that they also might instruct such of the people as chose, after a little the written law had added to it certain falsehoods contrary to the law of God, who made the heaven and the earth, and all things in them; the wicked one having dared to work this for some righteous purpose.

"And this took place in reason and judgment, that those might be convicted who should dare to listen to the things written against God, and those who, through love towards Him, should not only disbelieve the things spoken against Him, but should not even endure to hear them at all, even if they should happen to be true, judging it much safer to incur danger with respect to religious faith, than to live with an evil conscience on account of blasphemous words."

2.39 -- Tactics.

"Simon, therefore, as I learn, intends to come into public, and to speak of those chapters against God that are added to the Scriptures, for the sake of temptation, that he may seduce as many wretched ones as he can from the love of God.

"For we do not wish to say in public that these chapters are added to the Bible, since we should thereby perplex the unlearned multitudes, and so accomplish the purpose of this wicked Simon. For they not having yet the power of discerning, would flee from us as impious; or, as if not only the blasphemous chapters were false, they would even withdraw from the word.

"Wherefore we are under a necessity of assenting to the false chapters, and putting questions in return to him concerning them, to draw him into a strait, and to give in private an explanation of the chapters that are spoken against God to the well-disposed after a trial of their faith; and of this there is but one way, and that a brief one. It is this."

2.40 -- Preliminary Instruction.

"Everything that is spoken or written against God is false. But that we say this truly, not only for the sake of reputation, but for the sake of truth, I shall convince you when my discourse has proceeded a little further. Whence you, my most beloved Clement, ought not to be sorry at Simon's having interposed a day between this and the discussion.

"For today, before the discussion, you shall be instructed concerning the chapters added to the Scriptures; and then in the discussion concerning the only one and good God, the Maker also of the world, you ought not to be distracted. But in the discussion you will even wonder how impious men, overlooking the multitudes of things that are spoken in the Scriptures for God, and looking at those that are spoken against Him, gladly bring these forward; and thus the hearers, by reason of ignorance, believing the things against God, become outcasts from His kingdom.

The author's crowd fancied themselves as adroit interpreters of the law, not only able to discern the true from the false passages described above, but also able to cleverly deliver discourse about them to the admittedly ignorant multitude, in such a way as not to admit the scriptures contain falsehoods while poking fun at their opponents.

Like Simon is there said to have done with the Law of Moses, Marcion openly identified passages (in his case in the NT scriptures) which he believed were false. Obviously the authors of the Homilies did not think this a wise course WRT the Law. If there were proto-orthodox Christians who thought the received NT (e.g., Luke or the letters of Paul) contained "falsehoods" I'd be surprised.

I would suggest that if passages were added by the proto-orthodox, Marcion may have thought they were added, maybe even quite sincerely, to "improve" them for the edification of the publisher's intended audience (i.e., one that had become Judaized), something which he believed was wrong to have done. Marcion had his own way of discerning true from false, and reversed engineered the end product to get at truth as he saw it.

What, biblical critics don't do that today?!? <g>

DCH

S.C.Carlson

John Muddiman of Oxford in his commentary on Ephesians (or via: amazon.co.uk) thinks that Ephesians is an expansion of an original Laodiceans. Marcion discovered a copy of Laodiceans (or, ceteris paribus, Ephesians) and realized that the latter was an expansion of the former. This gave Marcion that the rest of the epistles and gospel were interpolated as well.

Stephen