Now, a careful look
at his lists will strike any reader, as one discovers something that even
Henderson has not seen: Despite the various parallels, all five texts, even in
these selected verses, are in many places and elements at variants, but, then,
there are several verses, where all, or almost all these witnesses converge and
are either much closer than in all the other selected verses or even literally identical.
The list of these peculiar verses follows here:
|
Gospel of Peter
|
Matthew
|
Mark
|
Luke
|
John
|
Marcion
|
|
2:2.5
|
27:26b
|
15:15
|
23:25b
|
19:16
|
19:25b
|
|
2:3
|
27:57-8
|
15:42-4
|
23:50-2
|
19:38
|
19:50-2
|
|
3:7
|
27:28
|
15:17a
|
23:11
|
19:2b
|
19:11
|
|
4:10
|
27:38
|
15:26
|
23:38
|
19:19
|
19:38
|
|
4:12
|
27:35
|
15:24
|
23:34b
|
19:23
|
19:34b
|
|
5:15
|
27:45
|
15:33
|
23:44
|
-
|
19:44
|
|
5:19
|
27:50
|
15:37
|
23:46b
|
19:30b
|
19:46b
|
|
5:22
|
27:45
|
15:33
|
23:44
|
-
|
19:44
|
|
5:23
|
27:58.57
|
15:43.45.43a
|
23:52.50.51
|
19:38
|
19:52.50.51
|
|
5:24
|
27:59-60a
|
15:46a
|
23:53
|
19:40-1
|
19:53
|
|
9:35-6;
12:50
|
28:1-2;
26:12
|
14:8;
16:2.5
|
24:1.4
|
19:40;
20:1a.12
|
20.1-2
|
|
13:55
|
-
|
16:5
|
24:3
|
20:11
|
20:3
|
|
13:56-7
|
28:5-6.8
|
16:6.8
|
24:5-6a.9
|
20:2.13a
|
20:3-5
|
As one can see from the last row which we have
added here to Henderson’s columns all (!) these verses correspond with verses
that are attested for the Gospel of Marcion. Conversely, and this is as
important as the positive evidence, without exception the literal parallelism
between the five witnesses stops where Marcion’s text is inexistent. The same
cannot be said for either Mark, Luke, Matthew or John. When
Marcion is missing, there are at best the one or the other of these witnesses
parallel to each other (as, for example, in GP 1:1 and Matth. 27:24, or GP 1:5 and John
19:31a). This is even true for the relation between GP and Luke. A marvellous example is GP 4:13 and Luke 23:39-43. In this case, we know from Epiph., Pan. 42.11.6(72) that the last verse is
certainly missing in Marcion’s Gospel, but also the immediate verses before are
not attested for it, unsurprisingly, there is nothing but a faint relation between
Luke and GP, and, correctly, none of
the other witnesses is listed by Henderson. A same phenomenon exists in GP 8:28
and Luke 23:48. There is only a
slight parallel between these two texts (sthvqh), but none of the other witnesses is listed
– and no surprise to us that this verse is not attested for Marcion. Henderson’s
entire synopsis number 3 only lists parallels between GP 8:29-9:34 and Matth. 27:60b-66 (with one short
parallel in Mark 15:46b), as there is
no John, no Luke, we cannot provide Marcion. Similarly indicative is GP 5:24a
// Matth. 27:59-60a // Mark 15:46a // Luke 23:53 // John
19:40-2 // Marcion 19:53 – the only
parts were all witnesses agree is not what we read in Matthew, or Mark or John as these all have variances in
surplus, but only the short text that is provided by Luke = Marcion = (almost
identical with) GP.
If
Mark had been the source of our
Synoptics (and therefore to Marcion, had he copied Luke), why does none of the witnesses follow Mark 16:1 – but all have Mark
16:2 parallel? The verse is attested for Marcion. Why did they not follow Mark 16:3-4, but only pick up Mark 16:5 again? Why, if Luke followed Mark, did he – like the other witnesses pick up exactly and only these
verses of Mark 16:2.5, but jumped
over verses 16:3-4? When we look at Marcion, only he produces exactly these
verses as a continuous text (Marcion 20:1-2) which are present as parallels in
all 5 other witnesses. If Mark were
the source of these witnesses, they would either have needed to know each other
or are dependent of one of the others, as it would be a sheer impossibility
that all four independent witnesses, having left out the first verse in Mark, pick all the second verse up, all
leave aside verses three and four, and all pick up again verse five of Mark. When we add Marcion’s Gospel – the
explanation is simple. All witnesses, including Mark have integrated the one source Marcion, hence the parallelism
in exactly these verses which were present in Marcion. Whether they copied the
verses directly or through intermediaries would need further detailed studies,
but the comparison speaks strongly in favour of Marcion as their common source.
By the way, the same phenomenon can be seen with the following verses in Luke 24:3-6a.9 which are attested in
Marcion and, therefore, have parallels in the other four witnesses, not,
however Luke 24:8 which is missing in
Marcion.
This comparison may
suffice to indicate that in a further study of a Synoptic commentary, a
detailed comparison of Marcion as part of the Synoptic tradition has to be
and will be undertaken.
Now that's a very interesting theory you propose; if I understand it aright, you are suggesting that perhaps Marcion's gospel was a or the source for the four canonical gospels. So, questions for you:
ReplyDelete1) John the Presbyter (quoted in Papias) clearly designates the Gospel of Mark as the work of John Mark, relying heavily on his recollections of Peter's oral reminiscences, but, as scholars agree, relying on other sources too. Are you suggesting that Marcion's was one of these other sources? And the Presbyter is by universal account the author (amanuensis) of the Gospel of John; are you suggesting that Marcion was a source for that gospel as well?
2) Since, obviously, Marcion was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus's life, on what previous material or oral source would you suggest he based his gospel, if not (as most scholars agree) on the Gospel of Luke?
3) If then some source other than Luke was Marcion's source, why could that not be a source for Mark in conjunction with JM's recollections of Peter's oral reminiscences? Such a source would explain the phenomena you delineate above.
4) How do you deal with the dating, which has Marcion born around 85 and not producing his gospel until, at the very earliest (and this is really stretching possibilities!), in the late 110s? We have today fragments of the four canonicals dating from around the time that Marcion was writing his gospel; there is such a preponderance of fact supporting their composition BEFORE Marcion composed his gospel that I have trouble considering your theory that it was a source or the four canonicals.
Dear James David,
ReplyDeletethanks so much for this comment and your questions. Here preliminary attempts (a more detailed answer is attempted in the new book 'Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels', Peeters 2014):
1) John the Presbyter - yes, I believe that Marcion's Gospel was one of these other sources and that he was a source for that gospel as well?
2) What previous material or oral source did Marcion use? This is a very good question. The Gospel of Luke was a revision of Marcion's, but as Marcion diligently collected the Letters of Paul, we can rightly assume that he also gathered sayings and perhaps also narratives about the Lord. And yet - as any gifted writer - we also may assume that he composed many of the narratives, if he was mainly able to find oracles. It is one of the astonishing facts - much ridiculed or played down by many NT scholars - that prior to Marcion there is NOT ONE SINGLE gospel narrative found in any of the sources which we have, even if one dates all disputed apostolic writings early (Ignatius, 1Clement, Hermas, Barnabas, all NT epistles, Revelation ...).
3) Marcion, I assume, did not have one source, but perhaps only sayings of the Lord and perhaps, some historical data and narratives. On those, Mark could also have drawn, without doubt, but the similarity to Marcion's Gospel suggests some sort of literary relation between the two. The comparison (as shown above with the Synoptics and the Gospel of Peter) indicates that not Marcion depended on Mark, but the other way around, Mark on Marcion. Perhaps, Mark can also have had some recollections by JMs of Peter's oral reminiscences.
4) Marcion seems to have produced his Gospel only after the second Jewish war, hence after 135 AD. Against your position ('We have today fragments of the four canonicals dating from around the time that Marcion was writing his gospel') scholarship today does not have any fragment from the time prior to Marcion, no papyri, no narrative - the only elements we encounter are some sayings, and none - if they are included at all - of them are of the same form as we have them in the canonical Gospels.
Maybe Marcion's Gospel is his edit of the 'Ur-Gospel' that has been posited from time to time?
ReplyDeleteHave you considered the possibility that the Gospel of Peter actually was the Marcionite Gospel? Those early churches that made use of the Gospel of Peter only re-named it from the Gospel of the Lord to the Gospel of Peter as a way to preserve it so that it would hopefully not get destroyed by the enemies of Marcionism.
ReplyDelete