Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [Synoptic-L] Marcion & Luke

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    David: Naturally, I would point out my own work here https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/marcion, even though it is (still!) not yet quite
    Message 1 of 12 , Jun 5, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      David: Naturally, I would point out my own work here https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/marcion, even though it is (still!) not yet quite finished. However, most of the summary is available here https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/marcion/summary , and I’m more than happy to share my conclusions with you off-list if you would like (they’re just not ready for prime-time yet). Also, you might get something you haven’t seen from my references page here https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/marcion/references . The most recent ‘survey’ I’ve seen is the one by Roth that you already have in your list.

      It seems to me that there are still two main ‘camps’ regarding Marcion: 1) Everyone’s opinion is that Marcion was a heretic, so evaluating what was in both his gospel and his Pauline collection has to be undertaken with this in mind (e.g. No-one quotes or mentions this verse in Marcion’s gospel, but he wouldn’t have liked it so it must not have been present), and 2) Does the actual evidence support the view that Marcion was a heretic, or was he perhaps just an early non-mainstream (Alpha?) ‘Christian’ who’s views didn’t agree with the establishment? For what it’s worth, I’m firmly in camp 2), and for my money Klinghardt (The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion) is the best recent read.

      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



      From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Mealand
      Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 2:44 AM
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Marcion & Luke

      Has anyone got a thorough list of recent and fairly recent stuff on Luke & Marcion? It is not something I have chased up in detail, but a quick look comes up with a dozen or so items. Maybe one of these offers a recent survey of the relevant literature?

      David M.

      ------------list in rough descending order of date---

      The text of the Lord's Prayer in Marcion's gospel, Roth, Dieter T.. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, 103 no 1 2012, p 47-63.

      Marcion's Gospel and Luke: the history of research in current debate, Roth, Dieter T.. Journal of Biblical Literature, 127 no 3 Fall 2008, p 513-527.

      Marcion's Christology and its possible influence on Codex Bezae, Carter, Timothy L.. Journal of Theological Studies, ns 61 pt 2 O 2010, p 550-582.

      Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle Tyson, Joseph B. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2006 pp. xii + 192.

      Dieter T. Roth, review of Joseph B. Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle, Review of Biblical Literature [http://www.bookreviews.org] (2008).

      "Gesetz" bei Markion und Lukas, Klinghardt, Matthias. Source: Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im Neuen Testament, p 99-128. Göttingen : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2006

      Der Schluss des Lukasevangeliums bei Marcion, Vinzent, Markus. Marcion und seine kirchengeschichtliche Wirkung, p 79-94. Berlin ; New York : Walter de Gruyter, 2002

      Gilles Quispel, "Marcion and the text of the New Testament," Vigiliae Christianae 52.4 (1998): 349-360.

      Johan Chistiaan Beker, "The Christologies and anthropologies of Paul, Luke-Acts and Marcion," Martinus C. De Boer, ed., From Jesus to John: Essays on the New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 84. Sheffield, 1993. 174-182.

      David Bundy, "The Anti-Marcionite Commentary on the Lucan Parables (Pseudo-Ephrem A)," Muséon 103 (1990): 111-123.

      Peter M. Head, "The Foreign God and the Sudden Christ: Theology and Christology in Marcion's Gospel Redaction," Tyndale Bulletin 44.2 (1993): 307-321.

      The Latin text of Luke in Marcion and Tertullian, Higgins, A J B.. Vigiliae christianae, 5 no 1 Ja 1951, p 1-42

      John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament (1942)

      A more general bibliography on Marcion by R. Bradshaw is here:
      http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/marcion.php

      -----------------------------------------
      David Mealand, University of Edinburgh



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David Mealand
      Thanks for the links to the refs, David. Up till now I had just been looking at your decisions for each shorter passage, but at this stage thought I had better
      Message 2 of 12 , Jun 6, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks for the links to the refs, David.
        Up till now I had just been looking at your
        decisions for each shorter passage, but at
        this stage thought I had better switch to a
        more serious update on bibliography for
        the larger picture.

        David M.


        ---------
        David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


        --
        The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
        Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
      • David Inglis
        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
        Message 3 of 12 , Oct 14, 2013
        • 0 Attachment

          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

          https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home

           

        • E Bruce Brooks
          David I s final Marcion report is welcome, but to me also troublesome. I begin by asking a few more questions. 1. I take it that the schema is: (1) Marcion
          Message 4 of 12 , Oct 14, 2013
          • 0 Attachment

            David I’s final Marcion report is welcome, but to me also troublesome. I begin by asking a few more questions.

             

            1. I take it that the schema is: (1) Marcion > (2) Luke, and presumably (3) Acts.

             

            2. What date (or dates) is here presumed for canonical Luke?

             

            3. What part do Marcion’s Epistles play in this? Are they pre-Pauline?

             

            4. Do Marcion’s seeming excisions to the Epistles actually correspond to passages which can be analyzed as post-Pauline irenic interpolations? If so, they may at least be relatively less corrupt versions. Does 1 Cor 13 appear? Goes Galatians 5:13-6:10? Romans 1:18-2:29? If not, then these are uncorrupted versions. If so, they are post-Pauline.

             

            Bruce

             

          • David Inglis
            Replies to Bruce s questions below: From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of E Bruce Brooks Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013
            Message 5 of 12 , Oct 14, 2013
            • 0 Attachment

              Replies to Bruce’s questions below:

               

              From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of E Bruce Brooks
              Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 5:12 PM
              To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Marcion's gospel - Summarizing my analysis
               

              David I’s final Marcion report is welcome, but to me also troublesome. I begin by asking a few more questions. 

              1. I take it that the schema is: (1) Marcion > (2) Luke, and presumably (3) Acts.

              I would say that Marcion’s gospel > both Mt and Lk, and Mt > Lk, with Acts and the final additions to Lk (e.g. the very beginning and end) appearing at the same time.   

              2. What date (or dates) is here presumed for canonical Luke?

              I don’t know, but most likely 2nd C (although the first version of Lk was 1st C)..  

              3. What part do Marcion’s Epistles play in this? Are they pre-Pauline?

              I don’t know, as I haven’t analyzed them yet, but I can say that the evidence that Marcion created ‘his’ epistles is just as weak as for his gospel.

              4. Do Marcion’s seeming excisions to the Epistles actually correspond to passages which can be analyzed as post-Pauline irenic interpolations? If so, they may at least be relatively less corrupt versions. Does 1 Cor 13 appear? Goes Galatians 5:13-6:10? Romans 1:18-2:29? If not, then these are uncorrupted versions. If so, they are post-Pauline.

              I’ll let you know. Soon, I hope, but the evidence from Tertullian and Epiphanius is even less clear than it is for the gospel.

              Bruce

            • David Inglis
              Bruce asked: Do Marcion s seeming excisions to the Epistles actually correspond to passages which can be analyzed as post-Pauline irenic interpolations? If
              Message 6 of 12 , Oct 16, 2013
              • 0 Attachment

                Bruce asked: “Do Marcion’s seeming excisions to the Epistles actually correspond to passages which can be analyzed as post-Pauline irenic interpolations? If so, they may at least be relatively less corrupt versions. Does 1 Cor 13 appear? Goes Galatians 5:13-6:10? Romans 1:18-2:29?”

                I do not have any good answer yet, but I will say that the text of Marcion’s versions of the Paulines is much less certain than that of Luke’s gospel. The big problem is that although Tertullian and Epiphanius almost never disagree as to the content of Marcion’s gospel (although often Epiphanius comments where Tertullian does not), there are some major disagreements re. the Paulines, to the point where it seems that either Tertullian and Epiphanius saw significantly different versions of Marcion’s copies, or (more likely, in my opinion) they saw significantly different copies of the Paulines themselves. For example:

                1 Thes:  Epiphanius: “Since Marcion has a distorted version of everything …  I cite nothing from it.” Tertullian refers to a few verses, but does not suggest that anything is different in Marcion’s version.

                2 Thes: Epiphanius: “Since Second Thessalonians … has likewise been distorted by Marcion himself, again I cite nothing from it.” Tertullian notes just 2 differences.

                Phm: Epiphanius: “In any case I cite nothing from this Epistle, Philemon, since Marcion has it in a completely distorted form.” Tertullian: “To this epistle alone did its brevity avail to protect it against the falsifying hands of Marcion.”

                Although I have not yet gone through the other Paulines in detail wrt Marcion, it does appear to me that what we have here is very similar to what we see with Marcion’s gospel: Epiphanius notes many more differences than Tertullian, and I suspect that further analysis will show that this is due to Tertullian and Epiphanius seeing different versions of the Paulines.

                David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                 

              • E Bruce Brooks
                To: Synoptic In Response To: David Inglis On: Marcion s Apostolikon I have a further thought about Marcion s texts, having in the meantime looked into BeDuhn s
                Message 7 of 12 , Oct 20, 2013
                • 0 Attachment

                  To: Synoptic

                  In Response To: David Inglis

                  On: Marcion’s Apostolikon

                   

                  I have a further thought about Marcion’s texts, having in the meantime looked into BeDuhn’s “The First New Testament.” It is not related to the interpolations in the Paulines, though it seems that some of those were in place for Marcion (as David says, it is difficult to interpret the Tertullian/Epiphanius remarks, or especially their lack of remarks).

                   

                  But to judge simply on the contents, Marcion has seen a much augmented version of Paul’s letters, which doubtless included the interpolations, some of which were surely due to the first editors.

                   

                  First, Colossians is included. This is an inauthentic letter, probably written by the editor of the first Pauline corpus, with the intention of prefacing the others, bringing the total number of churches addressed to the requisite symbolic Seven (1/2 Cor count as one), and adding new and somewhat Gnostic doctrine to the body of received, and now official, Pauline teachings. Then Marcion has not seen the individual letters; he has at earliest seen them as first collected.

                   

                  Second, and much worse, Ephesians is included (as “Laodiceans”). This is not only inauthentic, it is a later (if by common consent very wonderful) remake of Colossians. So we are in the next phase after the original Pauline edition. We are in the second Pauline edition.

                   

                  Also 2 Thess, so Marcion is not merely seeing the first Pauline edition, nor solely the second (Ephesians belongs to the same line of development as Colossians), but is also aware of this originally independent venture coming off of 1 Thess (but aware, as recent work seems to show, of more than 1 Thess, including Romans, and so also later than, and aware of, the first Pauline edition). When 2 Thess made it into the combined Pauline edition, I cannot presently suggest. But since Marcion does not include the Pastorals, another independent enterprise, he probably did not know 2 Thess separately, but more likely through the 3rd Pauline edition, which for reasons of its own, included 2 Thess.

                   

                  Now, if Marcion knows and accepts Ephesians, what does that prove chronologically? I find convincing the following sequence (based on the work of the Oxford Committee of 1905, plus Mitton’s Ephesians commentary, and a couple other things): 1 Clement (96) knows of Ephesians, and Ephesians in turn knows of Acts, including what I have called Acts II (15:36 to end), and specifically Paul’s dramatic farewell to the elders of Ephesus, a passage which would have obvious attractions for anyone inventing a Letter to the Ephesians).

                   

                  Like the Gospel of John at several places (and Martyn’s work on this point, as Smith says in his preface to the 3ed, seems to stand the test of time), Acts II appears to respond to the newly rewritten Twelfth Benediction, designed to smoke covert Christians out of synagogue worship, then the probable date of Acts II (or the whole of Acts-Luke, for those who want a single date for it) is shortly after c85. Then we have this sequence:

                   

                  Birkat ha-Minim c85

                  Acts-Luke (or, in my view, only its final phase, Acts II /Luke C)

                  and The Gospel of John, in this same slot

                  Ephesians

                  1 Clement, c96

                   

                  I would be inclined to put Acts-Luke and John soon after c85, since they seem to be highly aware of it, and to have reacting to it as prominent in their agendas.  Then Ephesians comes between, say, c87 and c96. Shall we tentatively split the difference? That would give us c91 for Ephesians.

                   

                  Where this gets us is that the Pauline writings available to Marcion were those in existence in the Nineties. Since this was during or before the probable young manhood of Marcion, it makes sense that this was what he knew, and thus what he had to operate on. The same is probably true of the Acts-Luke material.

                   

                  With the Epistles, we cannot say that out in Sinope Marcion had only the first collection of Pauline letters, because he shows himself aware of the second, and indeed third, collection of Pauline letters. Then it is probably equally doubtful to posit his knowledge only of the first version of Luke (my Luke A), and not any subsequent version. It might have been, but on the strength of the Epistle showing, it seems not to have been.

                   

                  So I come out.

                   

                  Bruce

                   

                  E Bruce Brooks

                  Warring States Project

                  University of Massachusetts at Amherst

                   

                • David Inglis
                  Bruce wrote: Then it is probably equally doubtful to posit his knowledge only of the first version of Luke (my Luke A), and not any subsequent version. I
                  Message 8 of 12 , Oct 20, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment

                    Bruce wrote:  Then it is probably equally doubtful to posit his knowledge only of the first version of Luke (my Luke A), and not any subsequent version.    

                     

                    I don’t know that anyone is positing the above. We know that Marcion knew a later version of Luke AS WELL as the version that he promotes as his “Gospel of the Lord,” because in Adv. Marcion IV ch 4 Tertullian writes: “I say that my Gospel is the true one; Marcion, that his is. I affirm that Marcion’s Gospel is adulterated; Marcion, that mine is.” In other words, Marcion acknowledged the existence of what we know as Lk, but considered it to be an ‘adulterated’ (and so later) version of his, which (depending on how it came into Marcion’s hands) could pre-date Marcion himself.

                     

                    David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                  • David Inglis
                    Bruce, below you state; 1 Clement (96) knows of Ephesians, and Ephesians in turn knows of Acts. As I find the arguments for the late (i.e. 2C) dating of Acts
                    Message 9 of 12 , Oct 21, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment

                      Bruce, below you state; “1 Clement (96) knows of Ephesians, and Ephesians in turn knows of Acts.” As I find the arguments for the late (i.e. 2C) dating of Acts by Tyson (Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle) convincing, could you please explain why it could not be the case that Acts knows of Ephesians instead.

                      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                       

                      From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of E Bruce Brooks
                      Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2013 11:12 AM
                      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Marcion's gospel - Summarizing my analysis

                       

                        To: Synoptic

                      In Response To: David Inglis

                      On: Marcion’s Apostolikon 

                      I have a further thought about Marcion’s texts, having in the meantime looked into BeDuhn’s “The First New Testament.” It is not related to the interpolations in the Paulines, though it seems that some of those were in place for Marcion (as David says, it is difficult to interpret the Tertullian/Epiphanius remarks, or especially their lack of remarks). 

                      But to judge simply on the contents, Marcion has seen a much augmented version of Paul’s letters, which doubtless included the interpolations, some of which were surely due to the first editors. 

                      First, Colossians is included. This is an inauthentic letter, probably written by the editor of the first Pauline corpus, with the intention of prefacing the others, bringing the total number of churches addressed to the requisite symbolic Seven (1/2 Cor count as one), and adding new and somewhat Gnostic doctrine to the body of received, and now official, Pauline teachings. Then Marcion has not seen the individual letters; he has at earliest seen them as first collected. 

                      Second, and much worse, Ephesians is included (as “Laodiceans”). This is not only inauthentic, it is a later (if by common consent very wonderful) remake of Colossians. So we are in the next phase after the original Pauline edition. We are in the second Pauline edition. 

                      Also 2 Thess, so Marcion is not merely seeing the first Pauline edition, nor solely the second (Ephesians belongs to the same line of development as Colossians), but is also aware of this originally independent venture coming off of 1 Thess (but aware, as recent work seems to show, of more than 1 Thess, including Romans, and so also later than, and aware of, the first Pauline edition). When 2 Thess made it into the combined Pauline edition, I cannot presently suggest. But since Marcion does not include the Pastorals, another independent enterprise, he probably did not know 2 Thess separately, but more likely through the 3rd Pauline edition, which for reasons of its own, included 2 Thess. 

                      Now, if Marcion knows and accepts Ephesians, what does that prove chronologically? I find convincing the following sequence (based on the work of the Oxford Committee of 1905, plus Mitton’s Ephesians commentary, and a couple other things): 1 Clement (96) knows of Ephesians, and Ephesians in turn knows of Acts, including what I have called Acts II (15:36 to end), and specifically Paul’s dramatic farewell to the elders of Ephesus, a passage which would have obvious attractions for anyone inventing a Letter to the Ephesians).  

                      Like the Gospel of John at several places (and Martyn’s work on this point, as Smith says in his preface to the 3ed, seems to stand the test of time), Acts II appears to respond to the newly rewritten Twelfth Benediction, designed to smoke covert Christians out of synagogue worship, then the probable date of Acts II (or the whole of Acts-Luke, for those who want a single date for it) is shortly after c85. Then we have this sequence: 

                      Birkat ha-Minim c85

                      Acts-Luke (or, in my view, only its final phase, Acts II /Luke C)

                      and The Gospel of John, in this same slot

                      Ephesians

                      1 Clement, c96 

                      I would be inclined to put Acts-Luke and John soon after c85, since they seem to be highly aware of it, and to have reacting to it as prominent in their agendas.  Then Ephesians comes between, say, c87 and c96. Shall we tentatively split the difference? That would give us c91 for Ephesians. 

                      Where this gets us is that the Pauline writings available to Marcion were those in existence in the Nineties. Since this was during or before the probable young manhood of Marcion, it makes sense that this was what he knew, and thus what he had to operate on. The same is probably true of the Acts-Luke material. 

                      With the Epistles, we cannot say that out in Sinope Marcion had only the first collection of Pauline letters, because he shows himself aware of the second, and indeed third, collection of Pauline letters. Then it is probably equally doubtful to posit his knowledge only of the first version of Luke (my Luke A), and not any subsequent version. It might have been, but on the strength of the Epistle showing, it seems not to have been. 

                      So I come out. 

                      Bruce 

                      E Bruce Brooks

                      Warring States Project

                      University of Massachusetts at Amherst

                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.