8135RE: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel
- Oct 24, 2013
Tom: Taking your second point first, Marcion was not accused of circulating a cut-down version of Lk, but of actually creating the cut-down version by ‘adulterating’ canonical Lk. Instead, I (and others) are the ones suggesting that Marcion circulated a different, earlier, cut-down version of Lk. My example designation ‘LkA’ may suggest the earliest version of Lk, but I’m quite happy with suggesting that Marcion’s gospel was LkB, created by editing LkA. The reality is that we know (to a large extent) the content of Marcion’s gospel, and we know the content of canonical Lk, but we don’t have any information regarding even earlier versions, how many there were, or what their content might have been.
It is, of course, true that there MIGHT have been a version of Lk prior to Marcion’s version that contained all of Lk 1-3, or indeed, might have contained additional material that is in neither Marcion’s version nor canonical Lk, but that seems to me to be pure speculation, and hence not worth spending time over. With regard to who was more trustworthy, I don’t distrust either Marcion or Tertullian. What I do believe is that Tertullian (and Irenaeus, with his insistence that there could be only 4 gospels) were a product of their time, and could not remotely accept (like plenty of Christians still today) that the gospels might have existed in different versions. Given that, what else could they say about the gospel that Marcion was promoting, except that he must have created it?
David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
It does seem to me that you are conflating two propositions: that Marcion had access to a different (and maybe earlier) Luke text from that transmitted as canonical Luke; and that Tertullian and Irenaeus were mistaken in accusing Marcion of circulating a cut-down version of Luke. Marcion's gospel could as easily be a cut-down version of your hypothetical Luke(A), as of canonical Luke. Hence, even if we suppose that Marcion had access to a Luke(A), that is no reason to suppose that Luke(A) must have lacked chapters 1, 2 & 3 before Marcion did his business on it. Can you suggest any independent evidence to support your view that Marcion is trustworthy in his account of his method, and Tertullian is not?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "David Inglis" <davidinglis2@...> wrote:
> I have not anywhere suggested that Marcion was the source of Lukeâ€™s Gospel, not do I believe it. What I (and others) are suggesting is that Marcion had access to a shorter version of Lk that pre-dates canonical Lk (e.g. LkA), and promoted that is being the â€˜originalâ€™ version of that gospel. How, when, and where, Marcion came across it is of course unknown.
> David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>