Oct 14View Source
I have now written all I can think of regarding Marcion’s gospel [Mcn], and, in particular, how it impacts the synoptic problem. In the 8 years I have spent looking into the relationship between Mcn and Lk, I have not been able to find ANY textual evidence to support the opinions of Tertullian, Epiphanius, etc. that Mcn was created by Marcion taking Lk and removing approximately 25% of the text, while adding virtually nothing. Instead, all the textual evidence points in the other direction, i.e. that Mcn came before Lk (and looks very much like an early version of Lk), and it was NOT Marcion who created it, although he did ‘promote’ and make use of it. I put myself firmly in the same camp as Klinghardt here (http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/10.1163/156853608x257527) , who finds that Mcn predates both Mt and Lk:
“First, the general picture confirms the critical arguments brought forward from both sides against their respective counterparts. On the one hand, “Q” is, indeed, “dispensable.” The inclusion of Mcn avoids the methodological weakness of the 2DH with regard to the minor agreements and the hypothetical character of “Q”: Compared to “Q”, Mcn is clearly less “hypothetical”, even though its text must be critically reconstructed from the sources and even though its place within the maze of the synoptic problem requires careful assessment. On the other hand, the basic observations that led to the hypothesis of “Q” in the first place, i.e. the bidirectional influence within the double tradition, are equally confirmed. The postulate of a single dependence of Luke on Matthew (or of Matthew on Luke) oversimplifies the complexities of the inter-synoptic relations. But it is neither possible nor necessary to establish such a single dependence. Instead, the inclusion of the “proto-Lukan” gospel which was used by Marcion easily explains the ambiguity of the material.”
My arguments WRT the synoptic problem can be found here https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/marcion/did-mcg-or-mt-come-first, although for anyone who dismisses out of hand the idea of Mcn being earlier than Lk I would urge you to at least look at the summary of my analysis of Mcn, as suggested at the beginning of the page linked above. I’m fully aware that this position is very much in the minority, but I would nevertheless welcome any comments, criticisms, suggestions, flaws in my logic, etc. relating to my analysis.
David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA