_recto_Luke_22%2c_41-48.jpg)
| Part ofa series on |
| New Testament apocrypha |
|---|
 |
|
 Christianity portal |
TheGospel of Marcion, called by its adherents theGospel of the Lord, or more commonly theGospel, was a text used by the mid-2nd-century Christian teacherMarcion of Sinope to the exclusion of the othergospels. The majority of scholars agree that this gospel was a later revised version of theGospel of Luke,[2] though several involved arguments forMarcion priority have been put forward in recent years.[3][4][5][6][7]
There are debates as to whether several verses of Marcion's gospel are attested firsthand in a manuscript inPapyrus 69, a hypothesis proposed by Claire Clivaz and put into practice by Jason BeDuhn.[1][3] Thorough, meticulous, yet highly divergent reconstructions of much or all of the content of the Gospel of Marcion have been made by several scholars, includingAugust Hahn (1832),[8]Theodor Zahn (1892),Adolf von Harnack (1921),[9] Kenji Tsutsui (1992),Jason BeDuhn (2013),[3] Dieter T. Roth (2015),[10]Matthias Klinghardt (2015/2020, 2021),[4] and Andrea Nicolotti (2019).[7]
Reconstructions of the text of Marcion's Gospel make careful use of second-hand quotations and paraphrases to the text as found in anti-Marcionite writings byorthodoxChristian apologists, especiallyTertullian,Epiphanius, theDialogue of Adamantius. Of these secondary witnesses, Tertullian contributes the most material and references, Epiphanius the second most, and theDialogue of Adamantius the third most.[11]
Like theGospel of Mark, Marcion's gospel lacked any nativity story. Luke's account of the baptism of Jesus was also absent. The gospel began, roughly, as follows:
In the fifteenth year ofTiberius Caesar,Pontius Pilate being governor ofJudea, Jesus descended intoCapernaum, a city in Galilee, and was teaching on the Sabbath days.[12][13] (cf.Luke 3:1a,4:31)
Other Lukan passages that did not appear in Marcion's gospel include the parables of theGood Samaritan and theProdigal Son.[14]: 170
While Marcionpreached that the God who had sent Jesus Christ was an entirely new, alien god, distinct from the God who had created the world,[15]: 2 this view was not explicitly taught in Marcion's gospel.[14]: 169 The Gospel of Marcion is, however, much more amenable to a Marcionite interpretation than the canonical Gospel of Luke, because it lacks many of the passages in Luke that explicitly link Jesus with Judaism, such as the parallel birth narratives ofJohn the Baptist and Jesus inLuke 1–2.[citation needed]
There are three main hypotheses concerning the relationship between the gospel of Marcion and the gospel of Luke:[16]
1. Marcion's Evangelion derives from Luke by a process of reduction (The Patristic Hypothesis).
2. Luke derives from Marcion's Evangelion by a process of expansion (TheSchwegler Hypothesis).
3. Marcion's Evangelion and Luke are both independent developments of a common proto-gospel (TheSemler Hypothesis).
The proto-orthodox and orthodoxChurch Fathers maintained that Marcion edited Luke to fit his owntheology,Marcionism, and modern scholars such as Metzger, Ehrman, and Roth have maintained this as well.[17][18] The late 2nd-century writerTertullian stated that Marcion, "expunged [from the Gospel of Luke] all the things that oppose his view... but retained those things that accord with his opinion".[19]
According to this view, Marcion eliminated the first two chapters of Luke concerning thenativity, and began his gospel atCapernaum making modifications to the remainder suitable toMarcionism. The differences in the texts below are interpreted by advocates of this hypothesis as evidence of Marcion editing Luke to omit the HebrewProphets and to better support a dualistic view of the earth as evil.
| Luke | Marcion's Gospel |
|---|---|
| O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken (24:25) | O foolish and hard of heart to believe in all thatI have told you (24:25) |
| They began to accuse him, saying, 'We found this man perverting our nation' (23:2) | They began to accuse him, saying, 'We found this man perverting our nation [...]and destroying the law and the prophets.' (23:2) |
| I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth (10:21) | I thank you, heavenly Father... (10:21) |
Late 19th- and early 20th-century theologianAdolf von Harnack, in agreement with the traditional account of Marcion as revisionist, theorized that Marcion believed there could be only one true gospel, all others being fabrications by pro-Jewish elements, determined to sustain worship ofYahweh; and that the true gospel was given directly toPaul the Apostle by Christ himself, but was later corrupted by those same elements who also corrupted thePauline epistles. In this understanding, Marcion saw the attribution of this gospel toLuke the Evangelist as a fabrication, so he began what he saw as a restoration of the original gospel as given to Paul.[20] Harnack wrote that:
For this task he did not appeal to a divine revelation, any special instruction, nor to a pneumatic assistance [...] From this it immediately follows that for his purifications of the text – and this is usually overlooked – he neither could claim nor did claim absolute certainty.[20]
A "long line of scholars" have rejected the traditional view that the Gospel of Marcion was a revision of the Gospel of Luke, and instead argued that it reflects an early version of Luke later expanded into its canonical form.[21] These scholars see a consistent pattern running in the opposite direction, that Marcion's Gospel usually attests simpler, earlier textual traditions than corresponding content in canonical Luke both at the micro- and macro-level. The following examples (all attested by Greek witnesses to the Gospel of Marcion) illustrate this point of view.
| Canonical Luke | Marcion's Gospel |
|---|---|
| Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven; for that is whattheir fathers did to the prophets. (6:23) | Your fathers have done the same already to the prophets. (6:23)[4]: 1288 |
| O faithlessand perverse generation, how long will Ibe with you and endure you? (9:41) | Faithless generation! How long must I put up with you? (9:41)[4] |
| That slave who knewwhat his master wanted, but did notprepare himself or dowhat was wanted, will receive a severe beating. (12:47) | For the slave who knew yet did not act will be flogged many times (12:47)[22] |
Scholars who reject the Patristic hypothesis defend either of the two hypotheses. One group argues that both gospels are independent redactions of a "proto-Luke", with Marcion's text being closer to the original proto-Luke. This position is called theSemler hypothesis after the name of its creator,Johann Salomo Semler. This position has been supported by scholars such as Josias F.C. Loeffler,[23] Johann E.C. Schmidt,[24] Leonhard Bertholdt,[25]Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, John Knox,[15]: 110 Karl Reinhold Köstlin, Joseph B. Tyson,[26] andJason BeDuhn.[21][27] The other group argues that the Gospel of Luke is a later redaction of the Gospel of Marcion that significantly revised and expanded it. This position is called theSchwegler hypothesis after its creatorAlbert Schwegler.[28] This position has been supported by scholars such asAlbrecht Ritschl,[29]Ferdinand Christian Baur,[30]Paul-Louis Couchoud, Georges Ory, John Townsend,R. Joseph Hoffman,[31]Matthias Klinghardt,[21]Markus Vinzent,[32][33][34] andDavid Trobisch.[35]
Several arguments have been put forward in favor of those two latter views.
Firstly, there are many passages found in reconstructions of Marcion's gospel (based on comments of his detractors) that seem to contradict Marcion's own theology, which would be unexpected if Marcion was simply removing passages from Luke with which he did not agree.Matthias Klinghardt (in 2008)[36] and Jason BeDuhn (in 2012)[37] have both made this argument in detail.
Secondly, Marcion is attested to have claimed that the gospel he used was original and that the canonical Luke was a falsification.[38]: 8 The accusations of alteration are therefore mutual.
Thirdly, John Knox[15] andJoseph Tyson[39] (both using Harnack's edition), and more recently Daniel A. Smith[40] (using Roth's edition), have all put forth statistical analyses showing that Lukan single traditions are disproportionately lacking in the Gospel of Marcion, while double and triple traditions are disproportionately present. They argue that this result makes sense if canonical Luke added new material to Marcion's gospel or its source, but that it is unlikely if Marcion removed material from Luke.
There are more nuanced variations and combinations of these hypotheses. Knox and Tyson, for example, follow the Semler hypothesis in general, but still posit with the Patristic hypothesis that Marcion removed some passages. Pier Angelo Gramaglia, in his critical translation of Klinghardt's edition, concurs with the overall direction of the Semler and Schwegler hypotheses, but has argued on philological grounds that the Gospel of Marcion and Luke are two successive editions by the same editor.[6] Like several 19th century scholars, Knox, Tyson, Vinzent, and Klinghardt have extended the Schwegler hypothesis to include the canonicalBook of Acts, arguing that it is an anti-Marcionite work.[41][5][4]
Judith Lieu argues that Marcion had access and edited a work extremely similar to the Canonical Gospel of Luke, though this older work would have lacked certain passages. As such the currently extant Gospel of Luke would have appeared after the Gospel of Marcion.[42]
In 2008, Matthias Klinghardt proposed that Marcion's gospel was based on theGospel of Mark, that theGospel of Matthew was an expansion of the Gospel of Mark with reference to the Gospel of Marcion, and that the Gospel of Luke was an expansion of the Gospel of Marcion with reference to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. In Klinghardt's view, this model elegantly accounts for the double tradition— material shared by Matthew and Luke, but not Mark— without appealing to purely hypothetical documents, such as theQ source.[38]: 21–22, 26 In his 2015 book, Klinghardt changed his opinion compared to his 2008 article. In his 2015 book, he considers that thegospel of Marcion precedes and influenced the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John).[43]
In his 2013 book, BeDuhn argued that understanding Marcion's Gospel as the first two source gospel, drawing on Q and Mark, resolves many of the problems of the traditional Q hypothesis, including its narrative introduction and the minor agreements.[44] Pier Angelo Gramaglia, in his 2017 critical commentary on Klinghardt's reconstruction, made an extended argument that Marcion's Gospel is a two-source gospel, making use of Mark and Q, while canonical Luke builds on Marcion's Gospel in part from a secondary appropriation of Q material.[6] Research from 2018 suggests that the Gospel of Marcion may have been the originaltwo-source gospel based on Q and Mark.[45]
In his 2014 bookMarcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels,Markus Vinzent considers, like Klinghardt, that the gospel of Marcion precedes the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). He believes that the Gospel of Marcion influenced the four gospels. Vinzent differs with both BeDuhn and Klinghardt in that he believes the Gospel of Marcion was written directly by Marcion: Marcion's gospel was first written as a draft not meant for publication which was plagiarized by the four canonical gospels; this plagiarism angered Marcion who saw the purpose of his text distorted and made him publish his gospel along with a preface (theAntithesis) and 10 letters of Paul.[32][48][34]
The Marcion priority also implies a model of the late dating of the New Testament Gospels to the 2nd century – a thesis that goes back toDavid Trobisch, who, in 1996 in hishabilitation thesis accepted inHeidelberg,[49] presented the conception or thesis of an early, uniform final editing of theNew Testament canon in the 2nd century.[50]
According to late second- and early third-century fathers, Marcion (who was active in Rome in probably the 140s) produced a version of Luke's Gospel shorn of material that he found to be doctrinally unacceptable. For the most part, critical scholarship has been content to affirm these patristic reports.
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)Tertullian, Epiphanius, and other ancient witnesses, all of whom knew and accepted the same Gospel of Luke we know, felt not the slightest doubt that the "heretic" had shortened and "mutilated" the canonical Gospel; and on the other hand, there is every indication that the Marcionites denied this charge and accused the more conservative churches of having falsified and corrupted the true Gospel which they alone possessed in its purity. These claims are precisely what we would have expected from the two rival camps, and neither set of them deserves much consideration.
The main argument against the traditional view of Luke's priority to [Marcion] relies on the lack of consequence of his redaction: Marcion presumably had theological reasons for the alterations in "his" gospel which implies that he pursued an editorial concept. This, however, cannot be detected. On the contrary, all the major ancient sources give an account of Marcion's text, because they specifically intend to refute himon the ground of his own gospel. Therefore, Tertullian concludes his treatment of [Marcion]: "I am sorry for you, Marcion: your labour has been in vain. Even in your gospel Christ Jesus is mine" ([Tert.Adv. Marc.] 4.43.9).
Die Ausgangsthese einer Edition des Neuen Testaments im 2. Jh. ist nicht neu. Sie geht auf David Trobisch zurück, der schon vor 20 Jahren herausgearbeitet hatte, dass die 27 Einzelschriften des NT nicht in einem längeren, anonymen Sammlungs- und Ausscheidungsprozess zu einer literarischen (und theologischen) Einheit zusammengewachsen sind. 1 Diese Einheit sei vielmehr das Produkt einer einmaligen, historisch in der Mitte des 2. Jh. zu verortenden Edition. Diese Ausgabe trug bereits den Titel „Neues Testament" (η῾ καινη` διαθη´ κη) und war von vornherein als zweiter Teil einer christlichen Bibel, also mit dem Blick auf das „Alte Testament" konzipiert. [The initial thesis of an edition of the New Testament in the 2nd century is not new. It goes back to David Trobisch, who had already worked out 20 years ago that the 27 individual writings of the NT did not grow together into a literary (and theological) unit through a long, anonymous process of collection and elimination. Rather, this unity is the product of a unique edition that can be historically located in the middle of the 2nd century. This edition already had the title "New Testament" (η῾ καινη` διαθη´ κη) and was conceived from the outset as the second part of a Christian Bible, i.e. with the "Old Testament" in mind.]
