Though perhaps the present decade has not yet reached the amount of scholarly output found in the debates on marcions gospel in german scholarship of the 1840s and 1850s, we are well on our way!
Schwegler all proposed that marcion preceded the canonical gospels (particularly luke) and not the other way around.
Though it is true that the reconstruction of the entirety of marcions gospel only appears in my above-mentioned monograph (word count restrictions precluded my doctoral thesis from dealing with all of the sources and reconstructing all the verses of marcions gospel), my dissertation provided a textual commentary on every verse attested by tertullian precisely in order then to reconstruct every verse attested only by tertullian.
.Specialists in patristics (such as matthias klinghardt and markus vinzent) are now confirming, once again, what skeptics proposed long ago: that marcions gospel was not an abridgment of the gospel of lukeas the church fathers insisted and as harnack thundered in 1920.
In a forthcoming review of vinzents monograph in the journal of theological studies i noted that it is important to take vinzents voice into account within the contemporary discussions of marcions gospel, and that he has provided the reader with a helpful collection of many of the relevant ancient and modern sources for scholarship on marcions gospel and the synoptic gospels.
Idea that marcion had some role in the first stage of gospel formation has been long suspectedbut it has also been, all along, extraordinarily frightening to the tradition after all, marcion was an arch-heretic.
Marcion and the dating of the synoptic gospels
Empirically-oriented scholars have long known that, in some way, marcions gospel must be critically implicated in the genesis of the canonical gospels.
264-72 he offers marcions gospel, luke, mark, and matthew in parallel columns in order to argue that marcion is the key factor for the innersynoptic relation (p.
So-called synoptic problem can be defined as the search for the literary and redactional relationship between the three (obviously) extensively related synoptic gospelsmark, matthew, and luke.
Apart from all the other problems i have with vinzents volume, a fundamental one is that if we are going to debate the place of marcions gospel in early christianity, we must first debate the reconstruction of marcions gospel.
First, though vinzent clearly seems aware of the history of scholarship on marcions gospel and the reconstructions of marcions gospel in greek by, e.
. dissertation as providing a textcritical commentary on marcions gospel, on the basis of which one can establish, at least to some extent, the greek text, yet he does not give us the text itself.
Markus vinzent marcion and the dating of the synoptic gospels
Roth, marcions gospel and luke: the history of research in current debate, journal of biblical literature 127 (2008): 513-27.
Rather, it is all but certain today that the contrary was the case: lukes gospel was an expansion of marcions evangelion.
Did aquila have a serious disagreement with paul but acts kept his name alongside his wifes to cover up a serious rift in the pauline/marcion camp.
If vinzent is correct, then he would put to bed tuckett, kloppenborg, goodacre and all.
In this case, we may wonder if marcion was the pejorative name assigned to that heretic by the roman church.
Essentially, this is for several reasons: (1) no gospel is mentioned (much less attested) before the time of marcion; (2) the prevalent view that marcions gospel was nothing more than an abridgment of lukes gospel has now been discredited (see below); and (3) it is becoming increasingly clear that marcionite readings are more primitive than the parallels found in the various synoptic gospels.
But if marcions gospel truly did come first, then the tradition would have had no compunction denying this, saying it was a forgery/abridgment, and belittling it: little (i.
(lwh: given the stir created by markus vinzents recent book on marcion, iinvited dieter roth to give a guest blog-posting on the book.
Thus, any involvement of marcion with the genesis of the canonical gospels has been subtly (and also not so subtly) put to one side.
. markus vinzent (kings college, london)by gospel is meant a combination of sayings (logia, oracles, similes) with narratives.
Dieter has just published a full critical reconstruction of the text of marcions gospel, and is far better qualified than i to provide comment on the subject.
I readily admit that i was initially attracted to the study of marcions gospel due to interest in the questions that vinzent is also interested in, including the relationship between marcions gospel and canonical luke, i quickly became convinced that before any of these issues can be discussed on a sound basis, significant attention must once again be given to the actual text of marcions gospel.
.Placing marcions gospel before the canonical ones, of course, also has astounding chronological implications: the new testament gospels (including mark) must be redated no earlier than the middle decades of the second century ce!
Which is: before we can judge the relationship of marcions gospel to luke, we first must have a critical text established for marcions gospel!
We, pastors, usually have to read about theories like vinzents in the media, usually hyped as if true, without qualification.
When i first read this sentence, i was fully agreeing with vinzent until he got to codex bezae.
This article:Marcion and the dating of the synoptic gospels , written by markus vinzent, page 1 of 1.
In fact, the reconstruction of marcions gospel-text as evidenced in tertullian is one of the main contributions of the dissertation.
Think this article is pushing peas around a plate and not getting to the meat and potatoes of vinzents thesis.
In any case, it seems that all references to the heretic marcion are from hostile catholic literature.
%d bloggers like this:(LWH: Given the stir created by Markus Vinzent's recent book on Marcion, Iinvited Dieter Roth to give a guest blog-posting on the book.
240) became famous: that the gospel of marcion is nothing else than what the primitive church judged it to be, namely, a falsified luke, there is no need to spend one word on it.
Though there have been occasional exceptions in the history of research, generally verses in marcions gospel have been referred to with the number of the corresponding text in luke, much as is done in modern q studies.
The problem is that this is a planned work of vinzents that has not been published!
Nor, as highlighted above, do i find his attempts to invoke marcions gospel to be established on a critical or cogent reconstruction of marcions gospel.
After all, the scholarly community has long known of the existence of a gospel of marcion, but even today the standard scholarly reference (schneemelchers the new testament apocrypha) does not mention the gospel of marcion.
There was a marcion conference in dresden recently and it seems marcion priority is gaining support, even a consensus, according to david trobisch (among marcion specialists).
, vinzent states, the gospel and [marcions] apostolikon (of ten pauline letters) can be recovered only partially from glimpses that are given by his opponents, unearthed from their writings (primarily tertullian, epiphanius, adamantius [pseudo-origen?
Im getting at in all this is the possibility that marcion of sinope (or of pontus) may have borne another name in antiquity.
, if marcions was the earliest gospel, and the others were reliant on it, this would have implications for the argument that the stories of the gospels reflect the life of an actual person called jesus in first century palestine.