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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Marcion & Luke

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.