Michael Goulder - Mesmerizing 'a conservative profession'

Having just finished reading Michael Goulder's autobiography Five Stones and as Sling, I feel sad that at the time when we met regularly in Birmingham for our 'open end' seminar, touring around colleague's homes and indulging in food for thought and real food and wine, I had not yet developed the questions on the early history of the Gospels. And although I am not sure what kind of advise and insights Michael would have given me, I am sure he would have been witty, and sympathetic to the idea that from a different angle, somebody had picked up his idea that Q was an unnecessary hypothesis. Now that he is nor more with us, I have to listen to what he has left us - an enormous legacy and a treasure of sharp arguments and observations, and, overall, the encouragement that we should not be satisfied with ideas of dwarves, but also the inspiration, not to fight or defend old walls of Troy (those will always be like Hector), instead, come up with theories that are less complex and more convincing.
The book has also taught me another lesson: The further stones are thrown, the longer they take to come down. Michael's criticism of Q and his idea that Luke depends on Matthew is, in the meantime, well positioned and certainly not less popular than the old Two-Sources-Hypothesis. And yet, his conclusion sounds sceptical of the NT scholarship: 'I have called this book Five Stones and a Sling, but the contest in which I have been engaged is less simple than David's with Goliath. Scholars who have assumed a position over many years do not quickly recant it and publicly admit their error; nor can a novel hypothesis expect to carry the day at once in a conservative profession. It may be particularly difficult to shift opinion over texts which are fundamental to the faith of the critic. With time scholars came to treat sympathetically my arguments for the evangelists' creativity: their freedom to create Nativity stories out of Old Testament types, and their ability to create or develop parables in line with their own stylistic and doctrinal concerns. They have been less willing to accept Matthew and Luke as embroiderers of earlier Gospel traditions, because there is a hankering after putative lost sources and oral traditions which would take us back to the historical Jesus. The Q hypothesis has been part of the "assured results of scholarship" for more than a century, and despite my aggressive campaigning against it, it is still the standard teaching in most universities.'
And yet, I think, Michael has and is mesmerizing the profession, and is certainly a stimulation to go further.

The Gospel's biographical and historical nature vs the Gospels as allegories

Dear Giuseppe,

as with your other questions and doubts, you always hit an important problem which allows me to develop things a bit further.

With regard to your observation that Mark is allegorical, and even more so is Matthew (although I would need to understand which parts you find allegorical, as there are certainly sections which are and others which are less), here is how I see it:

As Luke is the closest copy of Marcion’s Gospel, and Marcion’s Gospel is biographical in its basic structure (although it omits the birth and youth of its protagonist) – very similar to the geo- and historiographical structure of Marcion’s collection of Paul’s letters –, it is no surprise that Luke like Marcion’s Gospel is the one that sounds most biographical.

Yet, despite the straight copying of Marcion’s Gospel by Luke, Luke has altered many features of Marcion’s Gospel – by introducing a birth and youth story of Jesus, emphasising him as Lord, making the many links to his Jewish lineage and Davidian heritage and more. And yet, you are right, the biographical character it preserved, and even tried to strengthen through those additions. As Marcion’s biographical nature of his Gospel was antithetical, meaning that through biography and history, Marcion wanted to point out the non receptive nature of history and the incomprehensiveness of the Jewish people for the transcendent and unknown God and his Messiah, Luke counters this programme by his emphasis on history.

Mark, in contrast, deviates more in wording from Marcion’s Gospel, yet, he chooses a different approach to counter Marcion’s Gospel by, like Luke, adopting certain features, others than Luke. For Mark, the Gospel of Marcion disentangled Jesus from the Prophets, hence, Mark starts with making this link. He had less issue with Marcion’s criticism of history, on the contrary, Mark even emphasises the hidden and mysterious character of Jesus – therefore, he even pushes Marcion’s message more into this direction, something you call allegorical.

Matthew in his turn, picks up Marcion’s Gospel (presumably before Luke and after Mark) and is the one who extends Marcion’s Gospel with the birth story, underlines the historicity, but not as in Marcion, to dispute history as such. Instead, he turns Marcion’s antithetical relation between Jesus and the Jews (especially the leading groups, people and institutions) into an anti-Jewish position.

Hence, if you adopt my new dating of Mcn being first (but note – I am giving up the idea of straight dependencies of the Gospels, as I see only Mcn’s draft being the first Gospel, while his published version with the Antitheses has clearly known and read the canonical Gospels), I would rather think that we don’t see a straight move, but that a history critical historical biography (Mcn) created different responses, more allegorical ones (to save the mysterious – Mark, to save Jesus as heir of Israel – Matthew), and a more historical one (Luke with added Acts to also accomodate and position Marcion’s collection of Paul’s letters).

 

What is the relation between Mark, 'canonizer of Paul', and Marcion's Gospel?

In his comment to one of my blogs, Giuseppe noted, as follows:

The strongest doubt is shortly: if the Gospel of Mark, being proto-orthodox (in your view), is anti-Marcionite, then why Mark is so pro-Paul just as I would expect instead from the Gospel of Marcion? Why does Mark look so marcionite in his denigration of 12 disciples & Peter? For example, Tom Dykstra says that the author of that Gospel “deliberately created a literary Jesus whose words and actions parallel the words and actions of Paul” (“Mark, Canonizer of Paul,” p. 149).


Besides, Mark is shorter than other Gospels.
Why Mark presents the story of the healing of the blind man of Bethsaida while the other gospels didn't have that episode? I see in that episode a midrash from Judges 9:8-15: There the trees allude to riotous people of Israel.

The blind man sees ”men as trees walking”, and soon after Jesus rebukes Peter (”vade retro satana”) ”seeing his disciples”(Mark 8:33), then Jesus and the blind man see the same thing: blind people that want a king-messiah for themselves (you can see the allusion to Judges 9 about seditious trees).

The miracle in two steps to regain the sight is parallel to the process in two steps to identify Jesus as Christ by Peter & co (Mark 8:27-30).

In this way, the blind man becomes more close to God (and more similar to Jesus) than the same disciples, the true blind men of allegory (who has a name, is indeed blind, and who is anonymous, sees better). All this would make more easily the same point of Marcion's Gospel: Paul is the unique true Apostle. How do you explain all this?

Very Thanks for a satisfactory reply to all these questions!

Dear Giuseppe,

Thanks for your enlightening questions on some issues I had not thought about before. Let me start with your strongest doubt. This is based on the common perspective which I tried to correct in my Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels (Leuven, 2014) that the early responses to Marcion, including the later canonical Gospels, are anti-Marcionite in the sense of them regarding Marcion’s text heretical. If they had regarded it as heretical, they would not have used it. Yet, we have to differentiate. On the old synoptic model, scholars assume that Matthew and Luke have used Mark – although they all admit that the way Matthew and Luke make use of Mark by rewriting him, re-ordering the material, leaving things aside, adding others, poor Mark would certainly not have recognised, let alone endorse these aemulationes of his own work. Was Matthew and Luke anti-Mark? In some sense certainly yes, they did not simply subscribe to his text, yet, on the other side, they adopted it and made it their own.

When I did invite Matthias Klinghardt to give a paper at a Marcion seminar at the 2011 International Conference on Patristic Studies, Oxford, he repeated his view which he had published before, namely that he believed Mark to be the oldest Gospel, from which the others, including Mcn (his short cut for Marcion’s Gospel – although maintaining that this text has not been written or even redacted, but only used by Marcion). Now that he has done the reconstruction of Mcn (his reconstruction is announced to be published in due course), he has corrected is older view and takes Mcn to be the source even of Mark.

My view is that Marcion’s Gospel, like that of Mark in the early dating theory, was regarded as both – attractive and contentious. It was good enough to be borrowed, used, adapted and corrected. With the adoption, however, the original impacted on those who copied the text, even if they heavily re-wrote it. This we can see with the Pauline influence that has always been noticed in Luke. Thanks, also for drawing my attention to Tom Dykstra, Mark, Canonizer of Paul. His book does not only show (against earlier works like that of Martin Werner of 1923) that Mark is indebted to Paul, but, what he has not spelled out, Mark goes beyond Paul, specifically in areas where – in my view – he is dependent on Marcion (such as his criticism of Peter, see Dykstra, 119ff). And you are right, he might even have taken Marcion’s criticism of Peter a step further, you indicate the relation between the healing of the blind man of Bethsaida with the following pericope of Jesus rebuking Peter. Mark, however, is also deviating from Marcion’s position, particularly in altering Marcion’s antithetical position to an interaction between Jesus and Judaism that ‘presents Jesus as a rabbi among rabbis’, as By Robert McFarlane ‘The Gospel of Mark and Judaism’ put it: ‘the interactions between Jesus and the others concerns establishing his way as the legitimate reading of the Torah. In this sense it must be said that Mark can not be characterised by anti-Judaism. Rather, Mark appears to have the qualities of a sectarian group, seeking to establish a new interpretation of Torah.’ Hence, it is no surprise that you are rightly reminded of a midrash from Judges 9:8-15 and make the connection to the story about Peter. As often in Marcion’s Gospel, the weak, the ill, the marginal and the excluded people are closer than any of the disciples, especially than Peter. and, as in Marcion, Paul is the unique true Apostle.

Put the other way around and follow the traditional model – why, if Marcion’s copied Mark on this, did he leave out the story of Bethany which would be so close to his chest? The opposite can be easily shown that Mark redacts Marcion’s Gospel and gets rid of the antithesis of Christianity and Judaism, although he still shows and maintains a number of other Marcionite features.

Marcion and the story of Nain (Luke 7:11-7 par.) and 1Kings 17:17-24

Dear Giuseppe,
thanks for these sharp observations and for the questions (see below). The assumption that Marcion could not have written a text which is so midrashic and makes use of and is a parallel to an OT storyt (I would not call it a mistake) is based on two pre-qualifications which Sebastian Moll and myself have tried to challenge. Whereas Moll's major thesis in his 'The Arch-heretic Marcion' (Tuebingen, 2010) is that Marcion did not dismiss the OT, but used it constantly as the contrast against which he read his NT - I have taken a slightly different view, although I think, in this respect, Moll is right.
First, we have to start with Tertullian who raises the same question as you - why does Marcion use all these OT names (like Jesus, Son of Man ...), and all those OT stories (David, the prophets) to explain that his Jesus has nothing to do with the OT, the prophets, Israel. If his Jesus came out of the blue, why then bother with the Jewish heritage? This question, however, does not get at the bottom of what Marcion was trying to achieve, and reads him through the glasses of Justin and Irenaeus who have developed Marcion's antithesis into a substituting anti-Judaism.
As I have tried to show in my article on 'Marcion the Jew' (available on academia.edu), Marcion, as rightly observed by Moll, is obsessed with the Jewish Scriptures. He is anything but unfamiliar with them. On the contrary, he has a very good knowledge of them, sees their strength (they are a reliable witness to the Creator - but as such, they do not convey any insights into the transcendant God and his Messiah), takes them literally (which does not exclude that he also understood the allegories, for example, the warfare allegories which lead towards a rebellious messianism in the form of Bar Kokhba), and quotes them extensively in his Antitheses, and also makes use of them in the Gospel, similar to Paul in his letters.
The particular passage in Luke 7 is a case in point. Here, Marcion (in the opening, Luke, however, harmonises the text even more with 1Kings, see the deviation of D in Nestle-Aland) constructs an anti-thetical story to that of the Prophet Elijah. In 1Kings the woman is frightened of the Prophet and accuses him to have come to punish her for her bad deeds and therefore to kill her son, and the prophet passes these accusatikons on to the God of Israel (1Kings 17:18-20). In contrast, there is no word about bad deeds in Marcion's story (Luke 17:11-7 par.). This Jesus has mercy and asks the mother 'do not cry'. Jesus does not wrestle with God, does neither accuse him of being a murderer, nor does he need to ask God to bring the son back to life. Jesus simply acts and rescues the son and gives him back to his mother. Even the reaction of the people is put as an antithesis. While in 1Kings the mother confesses Elija to be a man of God, in Marcion's story there is no word about the mother, instead, it is said that 'all' (which includes the son's mother) were taken by fear. Or in other words: the people do not understand such non-demanding mercy, a God of love. When Tertullian points out the last statement of this pericope that the people praised God that he has taken care of his people and send a 'great Prophet' - he rightly asked, who God here is. Tertullian understood that in Marcion's story it was the transcendant God, not the Creator, who was meant to have acted in this story and that he has shown through Jesus that he cares about his people. But when Tertullian adds that this message does not differ from that of the prophets (and he had already Elijah in mind), he misses out that Marcion had constructed this pericope in stark contrast to that of Elijah. While in Elijah people praise a God and his prophet who have to be feared, in Marcion the people fear the ones whom they praise.
If I am not mistaken with my 'Marcion the Jew', Marcion derives (as already Harnack assumed) from a Jewish proselyte family, hence he knew not only the Jewish Scriptures in and out, he also had a good knowledge of phariseic and early rabbinic traditions. His own work of the Gospel-writing, therefore, was something like a bringing together of older traditions, redacted in a highly sophisticated, almost cynical way (we have a similar approach in the Gospel of Jude) which shows the inconsistencies of the Jewish Scriptures and provides the basis for the need of a 'New Testament' to match the novelty of revelation of the unknown God.

Tatian's Diatessaron, the set of Gospels and Marcion

Question:
Even if one dates Tatian's Diatessaron quite late (170s?) it still seems to presuppose an already established gospel tradition - as in a body of four gospels quite 'set'- since it sits in a (beginning?) tradition of harmonising, so the 'next stage' so to speak is already embarked on, namely producing gospel harmonies. How would you look at that, would the 30-odd years between the production of the gospel texts (going by your dating) and the Diatessaron be 'enough' to be able to speak of an 'established' or 'set' gospel tradition (as in the 4 written gospels)? Or how would you approach this?

My answer:
Tatian sees himself a pupil of Justin, his master whom he calls 'the most admirable' (Tat., Or. 18, see also Iren., Adv. haer. I 28,1), yet, as Justin had also a close relation (not purely adversative) to Marcion, it is no surprise that Tatian was said to have - like Marcion - 'done away with the law, as originating from another God' (Clem. Alex., Strom. III 82,1-3), and shared with Marcion his passion for asceticism and encratism.
That he knew the 'set' of the four gospels is no wonder, therefore, as he must have known Marcion's New Testament and also his Antitheses, in which Marcion had put together this set. Marcion had criticised precisely those four aemulationes (or copies) that he knew of and where published even before he had published his own version. These were those gospels which, as he says (according to Tertullian) were credited to apostles and pupils of apostles, Matthew, John, Luke and Mark. The most interesting of these Gospels of course was Luke, as this Gospel was such a close re-writing of Marcion with most of the wording of Marcion simply been copied, slightly re-arranged, and especially broadened at the beginning and end of the Gospel. Tatian then takes these four attempts (if the title Diatessaron is original, as the Syriac title only indicates that his own gospel is  'ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܡܚܠܛܐ' [Ewangeliyôn Damhalltê] = 'Gospel of the Mixed' while the others are 'ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܡܦܪܫܐ' [Evangelion de Mepharreshe] = 'Gospel of the separated'), and produces a harmony that is different from these 'separated' ones. His own is not an anti-Marcion gospel, but different from the separated ones, he produces no counter-text, but one that harmonises the existing ones (whereby he must have seen Marcion/Luke still as one Gospel, if Diatessaron - 'through the four' is original). The Syriac title ('Gospel of the Mixed) still preserves Marcion's criticism of those 'separated' ones being anti-gospels. Tatian seems to have used not Luke, as we have it, but still a version which was based more closely even on Marcion's Gospel, as many Marcionite readings can still be found in Ephraem's commentary on the Diatessaron. As a result, I take from this that the set of four which is being displayed in Tatian reflects and underpins, indeed, the process which took its outset from Marcion.

My inaugural lecture on Marcion and the beginnings of Christianity life

Only now has my attention been drawn by Martin Willis to a posting by King's College where my inaugural lecture can be viewed online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFB-8CM4UIY
At present I prepare the text in an updated version for publication.
 

Eckhart's biblical exegesis - his preface I to his book of expositions

‘In the beginning God created heaven and earth’. The third principal part of the Three-Part Work, namely the Work of Commentaries, begins here.
By way of preface it should be noted beforehand that I have gone through the Old and the New Testament in order, from outset to end, and I have written down whatever came to me then and whatever I remembered I said about the interpretation of these passages at any time. Not to be long-winded, I have taken care to abbreviate or to omit completely most of it, especially so that the better and more useful interpretations that the saints and venerable teachers, particularly Brother Thomas, have written are not neglected. On a few occasions I decided merely to note where their interpretations are to be found. Sometimes I thought that they should be briefly discussed. Let us begin with the words ‘In the beginning’. The opening of this book Genesis is widely dealt with by Augustine, especially in Super Genesim ad litteram and Super Genesim contra Manichaeos and in the three final books of the Confessions. And also by Ambrosius and Basil in his Hexaemeron. Also by Rabbi Moises [Maimonides], especially book II, chapter 31. Also Thomas [STh] p[art] I q[uestions] 45,45,46 and 47, and later there q[uestions] 65 to 74 inclusively.[1]

Although a short preface, it is highly informative, as it is written, like any good introduction, retrospectively, not only after Eckhart had finished his work of going ‘through the Old and the New Testament in order, from outset to end’, but rather like a review of a longer period of him having worked through and written about the Scriptures, and also lectured about ‘the interpretation of these passages’. Eckhart is not a glossator of glosses. Despite him using readings of others, the saints, venerable teachers and ‘particularly Brother Thomas’, he takes the liberty of giving his own views. Or put more radically, even with his own teachings he does not want to be ‘long-winded’, but presents them in abbreviated form and leaves aside ‘most of it’, a pity for the Eckhart readers of today, but on the other side a challenge to take what he left us with and deduce from it, what was important to him. That he wants to cut short his own explanations so that those of others ‘are not neglected’ is a captatio, as he carries on that ‘on a few occasions’ he ‘decided’ that he should ‘briefly’ discuss the interpretations of them.

As before, he emphasises brevity as a key feature of his approach – and this at the beginning of a compendium of commentaries which cover hundreds of printed pages in over three volumes of the critical edition, while probably some of his works have even gone lost. At the end he gives the most important reference works which start with those of Augustine and two more patristic fathers (Ambrose and Basil), then he also adds the Jewish thinker Moses Maimonides, and eventually Thomas Aquinas. That this prologue opens with the Biblical verse from Gen. 1:1 shows that already with the prologue, Eckhart took Scriptures serious and that his emphasis on brevity is more than a rhetorical device. He begins with the Scriptures’ beginning, ‘in the beginning’, instead of referring in this prologue to any of the known verses that others often have used for their introductions, principia or introitus (like Bar. 3:37; 4:1; Ps. 93:12; Eccli. 24:33).[2] Such opening is more than simply copying the first verse of Genesis, it aligns the interpreter with God, the creator of heaven and earth, and makes him part of God’s creating process. Such process is dynamically understood, yet no long-windedness, but where almost everything can be omitted, where everything can be abbreviated, as everything takes place ‘in the beginning’. As with God himself who creates ‘heaven and earth’ ‘in the beginning’, in the principium, within the principium,[3] a creative act of everything within one moment of a single ‘now’, Eckhart’s interpretation is given ‘in the beginning’, hence, the Biblical verse frames the preface, it opens and closes it, and the preface is his first interpretation of this opening Biblical verse: ‘in principio etc.’

---

[1] Eckhart, Prol. in op. exp. I (LW I 183,1-11): ‘'In principio creavit deus caelum et terram'. Operis tripartiti pars tertia principalis, opus scilicet expositionum, incipit. Ubi prooemialiter praenotandum quod transcurrendo secundum ordinem vetus et novum testamentum ab exordio usque ad finem ea, quae pro tunc se offerebant et quae me dixisse aliquando circa expositiones auctoritatum memoriae occurrebant, annotavi. Prolixitatem tamen vitans plurima breviare curavi aut penitus omittere. Sane ne meliora et utiliora circa expositiones huiusmodi, quae vel sancti vel venerabiles doctores, praecipue frater Thomas scripsit, neglecta viderentur, interdum, licet raro, loca ubi talia invenientur ab iisdem exposita, notare hic volui et quandoque etiam succincte tangenda iudicavi. Exordium hoc scripturae Genesis tractat Augustinus diffuse, specialiter Super Genesim ad litteram et Super Genesim contra Manichaeos et in tribus ultimis libris Confessionum. Item Ambrosius et Basilius in suis Hexaemeron. Item Rabbi Moyses l. II c. 31 specialiter. Item Thomas p. I q. 44, 45, 46 et 47, item post ibidem q. 65 usque ad 74 inclusive. Incipiamus ergo et dicamus: In principio etc.’ (trans. by McGuinn, altered).

[2] See A. Sulavik, ‘Principia and Introitus in Thirteenth Century Biblical Exegesis with Related Texts’ (2004), 274-8.

[3] See C. Wojtulewicz, Meister Eckhart on the Principle (2015).

The Didache and the early dating of Matthew (and the other later canonical Gospels)

The fundamental problem, as I see it with the Didache, is given by the fact that we are still missing a major critical edition. All that we have got (SC, FC ...) are editiones minores.

These pretend to give a text which, in fact, is only mirroring fourth century recensions of a text. As all editors admit, the existing recensions that we have are so divergent that an editio maior would need to put side by side the various recensions so that one can recognise the differences and variations (much as we have it now with Aristides). So to the question of origin and date of the Didache one would first need to establish the relation between the various recensions to dating and locating of them, before one moves into hypotheseis about the potential earlier versions. The strong differences between the recensions underline, indeed, that this text was heavily revised, being a non-authored, partly catechetical, liturgical, practical, juridicial document which, as one can see from the reuse in the Apostolic Constitutions, has been seen as a building block for further use.

The question of the right text has an enormous bearing, for example, on the discussion I have with many New Testament scholars. When they point to the use of Matthew in the Didache, they refer amongst others to what scholarship calls the 'gospel insertion' (SC Did 1,3-6) which is almost entirely taken from Matthew 5 (Luke 6 par.) - yet this first 'Christian' part is present in H,CA,O,G, but is missing in KO,E and L, neither is there a parallel in Barn. 18-20, and therefore left out of the edition of the Did. by Klaus Wengst, for example. B. Layton has already pointed out that the Didache, as we have it (also with this insertion), is a harmonised version, where Matthew and Luke have contaminated the text of the Didache. The main argument against this text passage as part of the earlier version of the Didache is that there cannot be given a reason why the KO would have left out from the Didache this passage which sounds most Christian.

Now, on such difficult grounds, a careful dating (locating not yet possible in my eyes) is given by Wengst: Terminus post quem is Matthew, terminus ante quem is Clement of Alexandria. As Wengst assumes an early dating of Matthew, he opts for the beginning of the 2nd century - but here comes the circular argument, as the Didache is being taken by the same scholars as the hook for the early dating of Matthew. As a result, we only know of a relative dating (which is even more dubious, as we do not know to what extent our versions that all date from the fourth century and later, are harmonised versions): Didache after Matthew and before Clement. In addition, as the Didache assumes already a certain separation between Jews and Christians and seems to be prior to Justin (all with huge caveats reg. text basis), it seems that anything that claims a date earlier than the mid second century is loaded with the burden of a heavy hypothesis. The Didache can certainly not provide the basis for a first century dating of Matthew and the other Gospels.

Meister Eckhart joking

Working on a new monograph Eckhart's Bible which is based on the finished first fascicle (the Bible-index, created and annotated by Loris Sturlese and me, one of the reasons why over the past weeks I could not post any blog) of the Indices to Meister Eckhart's critical edition (Kohlhammer, Stuttgart) (to be published early 2015), I came across a wonderful joke which shows Eckhart criticising an abbot who had little knowledge of the Old and the New Testament:

... The two corns of the abbot’s mitre represent the two testaments which the abbot should know in his head, while the two lappets that hang down on the shoulders signify the fulfilment of both testaments by following the mandates. A certain person [Eckhart himself, it seems], however, who was asked about the meaning by a certain officer of the kings who saw somebody with little knowledge in both testaments celebrating under a pontifical mitre, answered that the two corns signified, as stated before, the two testaments, but that the lappets of the mitre signified that he knew neither of them, according to that verse from Jer. 12: ‘You are close to their mouth, but far away from their kidneys’.[1]

---

[1] Eckhart, In Ex. n. 258 (LW II 207,3-11): ‘Quod autem hic dicitur de pectusculo et armo dextro, congruit quod in mitra pontificali duo cornua significant duo testamenta in capite per cognitionem, duae vero dependentiae descendentes ad scapulas significant utriusque testamenti impletionem per mandatorum operationem. Quidam tamen, requisitus a quodam ex regibus, `qui´ cum videret quendam celebrantem sub mitra pontificali parum scientem in utroque testamento, respondit quod duo cornua significabant quidem, ut prius, duo testamenta, dependentiae vero a mitra significabant quod neutra sciebat, secundum illud Ier. 12: 'prope es tu ori eorum, et longe a renibus eorum'’; see Innocentius III, De sacro altaris mysterio I c. 60 (PL 217,796: ‘mitra pontificis scientiam utriusque testamenti significat, nam duo cornua sunt testamenta, duae fimbriae spiritus et littera.’

Jesus versus John the Baptist and Simon Peter - or the heroization of Jesus the Mega-Prophet

Let me explicate the heroization of the Mega-Prophet Jesus in Marcion’s Gospel, compared to the versions we have in Luke, in a sequence of a few pericopes. The reconstruction of Marcion's Gospeltext follows closely that of the forthcoming major monograph by Matthias Klinghardt, Das aelteste Evangelium. It is all the more important for me to work with his textual reconstruction, as this has been done without presuming (or finally denying) Marcion's authorship of the reconstructed Gospel:

 

7:1 After Jesus had finished these words, he entered Capernaum. 7:2 A centurion there had a slave who was highly regarded, but who was sick and at the point of death. 7:3 When the centurion heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders to him, asking him to come and heal his slave. 7:4 When they came to Jesus, they urged him earnestly, “He is worthy to have you do this for him, 7:5 because he loves our nation, and even built our synagogue.” 7:6 So Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to say to him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. 7:7 Instead, say the word, and my servant must be healed. 7:8 For I too am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me. I say to this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 7:9 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him. He turned and said to the crowd that followed him, “Amen, I tell you, by nobody in Israel have I found such faith!” 7:10 So when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave well. 7:11 Soon afterward                    Jesus went to a town called Nain, and his disciples and a large crowd went with him. 7:12 It happened as he approached the town gate, a man who had died was being carried out, the only son of his mother (who was a widow), and a large crowd from the town was with her. 7:13 When the Lord saw her, he had compassion for her and said to her, “Do not weep.” 7:14 Then he came up and touched the bier, and those who carried it stood still. He said, “Young man, I say to you, get up!” 7:15 So the dead man sat up and began to speak, and Jesus gave him back to his mother. 7:16 Fear seized them all, and they began to glorify God, saying, “A great prophet has come forth among us!” and “God has come to help his people!” 7:17 This report about Jesus circulated throughout Judea and to John the Baptist who, having heard his works was scandalized. 7:18 And he called two of his disciples 7:19 and sent them to him to ask, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?” 7:20 When the men came to him, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?’”       7:22 And he answered them, “Go tell John what your ees have seen and your ears heard: The blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news proclaimed to them. 7:23 Blessed is anyone who is not scandalized by me.” 7:24 When John’s messengers had gone, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? 7:25 What did you go out to see? A man dressed in fancy clothes? Look, those who wear fancy clothes and live in luxury walk in kings’ courts! 7:26 What did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet, that among those born of women no one is greater than John, the Baptist. 7:27 This is the one about whom it is written, ‘Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.’ 7:28 Amen I tell you, however, the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he is.”   7:36 Now one of the Pharisees asked Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. 7:37 Then when a woman of that town, who was a sinner,                       7:38 stood behind him at his feet,           she                          wet his feet with her tears                     and anointed them with       perfumed oil. 7:39 Now when Simon Peter said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner.” 7:40 So Jesus answered him, “Peter, Simon, I have something to say to you.” He replied, “Say it, Teacher.” 7:44 Then, turning toward the woman, he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? she has wet my feet with her tears       and has anointed my feet with perfumed oil. 7:47 Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, are forgiven, thus she loved much.”                   7:48 Then he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” 7:49 But those who were at the table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” 7:50 He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

7,1 Καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ταῦτα τὰ ῥήματα λαλῶν ἦλθεν εἰς Καϕαρναούμ. 2 ῾Εκατοντάρχου δέ τινος παῖς κακῶς ἔχων ἤμελλεν τελευτᾶν, ὃς ἦν αὐτῷ τίμιος. 3 ἀκούσας δὲ περὶ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἀπέστειλεν πρεσβυτέρους τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων, ἐρωτῶν αὐτὸν ὅπως ἐλθὼν διασώσῃ τὸν δοῦλον αὐτοῦ. 4 οἱ δὲ παραγενόμενοι πρὸς τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ἠρώτων αὐτὸν σπουδαίως, λέγοντες ὅτι ῎Αξιός ἐστιν ᾧ παρέξῃ τοῦτο, 5 ἀγαπᾷ γὰρ τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν καὶ τὴν συναγωγὴν αὐτὸς ᾠκοδόμησεν ἡμῖν. 6 ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐπορεύετο σὺν αὐτοῖς. ἤδη δὲ αὐτοῦ οὐ μακρὰν ἀπέχοντος ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας ἔπεμψεν ϕίλους. ὁ ἑκατοντάρχης λέγων αὐτῷ, Κύριε, μὴ σκύλλου, οὐ γὰρ ἱκανός εἰμι ἵνα ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην μου εἰσέλθῃς·                                                7 ἀλλὰ εἰπὲ λόγῳ, καὶ ἰαθήτω ὁ παῖς μου. 8 καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν τασσόμενος, ἔχων ὑπ’ ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας, καὶ λέγω τούτῳ, Πορεύθητι, καὶ πορεύεται, καὶ ἄλλῳ, ῎Ερχου, καὶ ἔρχεται, καὶ τῷ δούλῳ μου, Ποίησον τοῦτο, καὶ ποιεῖ. 9 ἀκούσας δὲ ταῦτα ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐθαύμασεν αὐτόν, καὶ στραϕεὶς τῷ ἀκολουθοῦντι αὐτῷ ὄχλῳ εἶπεν, Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, παρʼ οὐδενὶ †τοιαύτην† πίστιν ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ εὗρον. 10 καὶ ὑποστρέψαντες εἰς τὸν οἶκον οἱ πεμϕθέντες δοῦλοι εὗρον τὸν ὑγιαίνοντα.7,11 Καὶ τῇ ἑξῆς ἐπορεύθη εἰς πόλιν καλουμένην Ναΐν, <καὶ συνεπορεύοντο αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ὄχλος πολύς?> 12 ἐγένετο δὲ ὡς ἤγγισεν τῇ πύλῃ τῆς πόλεως, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐξεκομίζετο τεθνηκὼς μονογενὴς υἱὸς τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ χήρα οὖσῃ καὶ πολὺς ὄχλος τὴς πόλεως συνεληλύθει σὺν αὐτῇ. 13 καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὴν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐσπλαγχνίσθη ἐπ’ αὐτῇ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ, Μὴ κλαῖε. 14 καὶ προσελθὼν ἥψατο τῆς σοροῦ, οἱ δὲ βαστάζοντες ἔστησαν, καὶ εἶπεν, Νεανίσκε, νεανίσκε, σοὶ λέγω, ἐγέρθητι. 15 καὶ ἀνεκάθισεν ὁ νεκρὸς καὶ ἤρξατο λαλεῖν, καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ. 16 ἔλαβεν δὲ ϕόβος πάντας, καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν θεὸν λέγοντες ὅτι Μέγας προϕήτης προῆλθεν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐπεσκέψατο ὁ θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ. 7,17 καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὁ λόγος οὗτος ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ περὶ αὐτοῦ μέχρι ᾿Ιωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ 18 ὃς <ἀκούσας τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ ἐσκανδαλίσθῃ?> καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος δύο τινὰς τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ 19 {λέγει· πορευθέντες εἴπατε αὐτῷ,} Σὺ εἶ ὃς ἔρχεις ἢ ἕτερον προσδοκῶμεν; 20 παραγενόμενοι δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ ἄνδρες εἶπαν, ᾿Ιωάννης ὁ βαπτιστὴς ἀπέστειλεν ἡμᾶς πρὸς σὲ λέγων, Σὺ εἶ ὃς ἔρχεις ἢ ἕτερον προσδοκῶμεν; 22 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Πορευθέντες εἴπατε ᾿Ιωάννῃ ἃ εἶδον ὑμῶν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ καὶ ἃ ἤκουσαν ὑμῶν τὰ ὤτα·                     τυϕλοὶ ἀναβλέπουσιν, χωλοὶ περιπατοῦσιν, λεπροὶ καθαρίζονται καὶ κωϕοὶ ἀκούουσιν, νεκροὶ ἐγείρονται,  πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται· 23καὶ μακάριος <εἶ? ἐάν?> μὴ σκανδαλισθῇς ἐν ἐμοί. 7,24 ᾿Απελθόντων δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων ᾿Ιωάννου ἤρξατο λέγειν πρὸς τοὺς ὄχλους περὶ ᾿Ιωάννου, Τί ἐξήλθατε θεάσασθαι εἰς τὴν ἔρημον; κάλαμον ὑπὸ ἀνέμου σαλευόμενον; 25 ἀλλὰ τί ἐξήλθατε ἰδεῖν; ἄνθρωπον ἐν μαλακοῖς ἱματίοις ἠμϕιεσμένον; ἰδοὺ οἱ ἐν ἱματισμῷ ἐνδόξῳ καὶ τρυϕῇ διάγοντες ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις εἰσίν 26 ἀλλὰ τί ἐξήλθατε ἰδεῖν; προϕήτην; ναί, λέγω ὑμῖν, καὶ περισσότερον προϕήτου, ↑ὅτι οὐδεὶς μείζων ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν προφήτης Ἰωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ.↓ 27 †αὐτός† ἐστιν περὶ οὗ γέγραπται, ᾿Ιδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου.                  28 Ἀμήν, λέγω ὑμῖν, ὁ δὲ μικρότερος ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ μείζων αὐτοῦ ἐστιν. 7,36 ᾿Ηρώτα δέ τις αὐτὸν τῶν Φαρισαίων ἵνα ϕάγῃ μετ’ αὐτοῦ· καὶ εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Φαρισαίου κατεκλίθη. 37 καὶ ἰδοὺ γυνὴ <ἐν τῇ πόλει?> ἁμαρτωλός                               38 στᾶσα ὀπίσω παρὰ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ,                        τοῖς δάκρυσιν ἔβρεξε τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ                                                                  καὶ ἤλειϕεν τῷ μύρῳ. 39 ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ {Σίμων <Πέτρος?>} εἶπεν ἐν ἑαυτῷ λέγων, Οὗτος εἰ ἦν προϕήτης, ἐγίνωσκεν ἂν τίς καὶ ποταπὴ ἡ γυνὴ ἥτις ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἁμαρτωλός ἐστιν. 40 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς τὸν Πέτρον, Σίμων, ἔχω σοί τι εἰπεῖν. ὁ δέ, Διδάσκαλε, εἰπέ, ϕησίν.                                                 44 καὶ στραϕεὶς πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα τῷ Σίμωνι ἔϕη, Βλέπεις ταύτην τὴν γυναῖκα;                           αὕτη τοῖς δάκρυσιν ἔβρεξέν τοὺς πόδας μου, καὶ ἤλειψεν καὶ κατεϕίλει. 47 οὗ χάριν λέγω σοι, ἀϕέωνται αἱ ἁμαρτίαι αὐτῆς αἱ πολλαί, ὅτι ἠγάπησεν πολύ·                                        48 εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῇ, ᾿Αϕέωνταί σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι. 49 καὶ ἤρξαντο οἱ συνανακείμενοι λέγειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, Τίς οὗτός ἐστιν ὃς καὶ ἁμαρτίας ἀϕίησιν; 50 εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα, ῾Η πίστις σου σὲ σέσωκεν· πορεύου εἰς εἰρήνην.

1Ἐπειδὴ ἐπλήρωσεν πάντα τὰ ῥήματα αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς ἀκοὰς τοῦ λαοῦ, εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναούμ. 2Ἑκατοντάρχου δέ τινος δοῦλος κακῶς ἔχων ἤμελλεν τελευτᾶν, ὃς ἦν αὐτῷ ἔντιμος. 3ἀκούσας δὲ περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὐτὸν πρεσβυτέρους τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ἐρωτῶν αὐτὸν ὅπως ἐλθὼν διασώσῃ τὸν δοῦλον αὐτοῦ. 4οἱ δὲ παραγενόμενοι πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν παρεκάλουν αὐτὸν σπουδαίως, λέγοντες ὅτι Ἄξιός ἐστιν ᾧ παρέξῃ τοῦτο, 5ἀγαπᾷ γὰρ τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν καὶ τὴν συναγωγὴν αὐτὸς ᾠκοδόμησεν ἡμῖν. 6ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐπορεύετο σὺν αὐτοῖς. ἤδη δὲ αὐτοῦ οὐ μακρὰν ἀπέχοντος ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας ἔπεμψεν φίλους ὁ ἑκατοντάρχης λέγων αὐτῷ, Κύριε, μὴ σκύλλου, οὐ γὰρ ἱκανός εἰμι ἵνα ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην μου εἰσέλθῃς: 7διὸ οὐδὲ ἐμαυτὸν ἠξίωσα πρὸς σὲ ἐλθεῖν: ἀλλὰ εἰπὲ λόγῳ, καὶ ἰαθήτω ὁ παῖς μου. 8καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν τασσόμενος, ἔχων ὑπ' ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας, καὶ λέγω τούτῳ, Πορεύθητι, καὶ πορεύεται, καὶ ἄλλῳ, Ἔρχου, καὶ ἔρχεται, καὶ τῷ δούλῳ μου, Ποίησον τοῦτο, καὶ ποιεῖ. 9ἀκούσας δὲ ταῦτα ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐθαύμασεν αὐτόν, καὶ στραφεὶς τῷ ἀκολουθοῦντι αὐτῷ ὄχλῳ εἶπεν, Λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ τοσαύτην πίστιν εὗρον. 10καὶ ὑποστρέψαντες εἰς τὸν οἶκον οἱ πεμφθέντες εὗρον τὸν δοῦλον ὑγιαίνοντα. 11Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἑξῆς ἐπορεύθη εἰς πόλιν καλουμένην Ναΐν, καὶ συνεπορεύοντο αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ὄχλος πολύς. 12ὡς δὲ ἤγγισεν τῇ πύλῃ τῆς πόλεως, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐξεκομίζετο τεθνηκὼς μονογενὴς υἱὸς τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὐτὴ ἦν χήρα, καὶ ὄχλος τῆς πόλεως ἱκανὸς ἦν σὺν αὐτῇ. 13καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὴν ὁ κύριος ἐσπλαγχνίσθη ἐπ' αὐτῇ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ, Μὴ κλαῖε. 14καὶ προσελθὼν ἥψατο τῆς σοροῦ, οἱ δὲ βαστάζοντες ἔστησαν, καὶ εἶπεν, Νεανίσκε, σοὶ λέγω, ἐγέρθητι. 15καὶ ἀνεκάθισεν ὁ νεκρὸς καὶ ἤρξατο λαλεῖν, καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ. 16ἔλαβεν δὲ φόβος πάντας, καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν θεὸν λέγοντες ὅτι Προφήτης μέγας ἠγέρθη ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ὅτι Ἐπεσκέψατο ὁ θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ. 17καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὁ λόγος οὗτος ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ πάσῃ τῇ περιχώρῳ. 18Καὶ ἀπήγγειλαν Ἰωάννῃ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ περὶ πάντων τούτων. καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος δύο τινὰς τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ὁ Ἰωάννης 19ἔπεμψεν πρὸς τὸν κύριον λέγων, Σὺ εἶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἢ ἄλλον προσδοκῶμεν; 20παραγενόμενοι δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ ἄνδρες εἶπαν, Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτιστὴς ἀπέστειλεν ἡμᾶς πρὸς σὲ λέγων, Σὺ εἶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἢ ἄλλον προσδοκῶμεν; 21ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐθεράπευσεν πολλοὺς ἀπὸ νόσων καὶ μαστίγων καὶ πνευμάτων πονηρῶν, καὶ τυφλοῖς πολλοῖς ἐχαρίσατο βλέπειν. 22καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Πορευθέντες ἀπαγγείλατε Ἰωάννῃ ἃ εἴδετε καὶ ἠκούσατε:           τυφλοὶ ἀναβλέπουσιν, χωλοὶ περιπατοῦσιν, λεπροὶ καθαρίζονται καὶ κωφοὶ ἀκούουσιν, νεκροὶ ἐγείρονται, πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται: 23καὶ μακάριός ἐστιν ὃς ἐὰν μὴ σκανδαλισθῇ ἐν ἐμοί. 24Ἀπελθόντων δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων Ἰωάννου ἤρξατο λέγειν πρὸς τοὺς ὄχλους περὶ Ἰωάννου, Τί ἐξήλθατε εἰς τὴν ἔρημον θεάσασθαι; κάλαμον ὑπὸ ἀνέμου σαλευόμενον; 25ἀλλὰ τί ἐξήλθατε ἰδεῖν; ἄνθρωπον ἐν μαλακοῖς ἱματίοις ἠμφιεσμένον; ἰδοὺ οἱ ἐν ἱματισμῷ ἐνδόξῳ καὶ τρυφῇ ὑπάρχοντες ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις εἰσίν. 26ἀλλὰ τί ἐξήλθατε ἰδεῖν; προφήτην; ναί, λέγω ὑμῖν, καὶ περισσότερον προφήτου.                       27οὗτός ἐστιν περὶ οὗ γέγραπται, Ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου ἔμπροσθέν σου. 28λέγω ὑμῖν, μείζων ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν Ἰωάννου οὐδείς ἐστιν: ὁ δὲ μικρότερος ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ μείζων αὐτοῦ ἐστιν. 29{Καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἀκούσας καὶ οἱ τελῶναι ἐδικαίωσαν τὸν θεόν, βαπτισθέντες τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου: 30οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ οἱ νομικοὶ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἠθέτησαν εἰς ἑαυτούς, μὴ βαπτισθέντες ὑπ' αὐτοῦ.} 31Τίνι οὖν ὁμοιώσω τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης, καὶ τίνι εἰσὶν ὅμοιοι; 32ὅμοιοί εἰσιν παιδίοις τοῖς ἐν ἀγορᾷ καθημένοις καὶ προσφωνοῦσιν ἀλλήλοις, ἃ λέγει, Ηὐλήσαμεν ὑμῖν καὶ οὐκ ὠρχήσασθε: ἐθρηνήσαμεν καὶ οὐκ ἐκλαύσατε. 33ἐλήλυθεν γὰρ Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτιστὴς μὴ ἐσθίων ἄρτον μήτε πίνων οἶνον, καὶ λέγετε, Δαιμόνιον ἔχει: 34ἐλήλυθεν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων, καὶ λέγετε, Ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος φάγος καὶ οἰνοπότης, φίλος τελωνῶν καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν. 35καὶ ἐδικαιώθη ἡ σοφία ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς. 36Ἠρώτα δέ τις αὐτὸν τῶν Φαρισαίων ἵνα φάγῃ μετ' αὐτοῦ: καὶ εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Φαρισαίου κατεκλίθη. 37καὶ ἰδοὺ γυνὴ ἥτις ἦν ἐν τῇ πόλει ἁμαρτωλός, καὶ ἐπιγνοῦσα ὅτι κατάκειται ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ τοῦ Φαρισαίου, κομίσασα ἀλάβαστρον μύρου 38καὶ στᾶσα ὀπίσω παρὰ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ κλαίουσα, τοῖς δάκρυσιν ἤρξατο βρέχειν τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ καὶ ταῖς θριξὶν τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτῆς ἐξέμασσεν, καὶ κατεφίλει τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤλειφεν τῷ μύρῳ. 39ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Φαρισαῖος ὁ καλέσας αὐτὸν εἶπεν ἐν ἑαυτῷ λέγων, Οὗτος εἰ ἦν προφήτης, ἐγίνωσκεν ἂν τίς καὶ ποταπὴ ἡ γυνὴ ἥτις ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἁμαρτωλός ἐστιν. 40καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτόν, Σίμων, ἔχω σοί τι εἰπεῖν. ὁ δέ, Διδάσκαλε, εἰπέ, φησίν. 41δύο χρεοφειλέται ἦσαν δανιστῇ τινι: ὁ εἷς ὤφειλεν δηνάρια πεντακόσια, ὁ δὲ ἕτερος πεντήκοντα. 42μὴ ἐχόντων αὐτῶν ἀποδοῦναι ἀμφοτέροις ἐχαρίσατο. τίς οὖν αὐτῶν πλεῖον ἀγαπήσει αὐτόν; 43ἀποκριθεὶς Σίμων εἶπεν, Ὑπολαμβάνω ὅτι ᾧ τὸ πλεῖον ἐχαρίσατο. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Ὀρθῶς ἔκρινας. 44καὶ στραφεὶς πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα τῷ Σίμωνι ἔφη, Βλέπεις ταύτην τὴν γυναῖκα; εἰσῆλθόν σου εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν, ὕδωρ μοι ἐπὶ πόδας οὐκ ἔδωκας: αὕτη δὲ τοῖς δάκρυσιν ἔβρεξέν μου τοὺς πόδας καὶ ταῖς θριξὶν αὐτῆς ἐξέμαξεν. 45φίλημά μοι οὐκ ἔδωκας: αὕτη δὲ ἀφ' ἧς εἰσῆλθον οὐ διέλιπεν καταφιλοῦσά μου τοὺς πόδας. 46ἐλαίῳ τὴν κεφαλήν μου οὐκ ἤλειψας: αὕτη δὲ μύρῳ ἤλειψεν τοὺς πόδας μου. 47οὗ χάριν λέγω σοι, ἀφέωνται αἱ ἁμαρτίαι αὐτῆς αἱ πολλαί, ὅτι ἠγάπησεν πολύ: ᾧ δὲ ὀλίγον ἀφίεται, ὀλίγον ἀγαπᾷ. 48εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῇ, Ἀφέωνταί σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι. 49καὶ ἤρξαντο οἱ συνανακείμενοι λέγειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, Τίς οὗτός ἐστιν ὃς καὶ ἁμαρτίας ἀφίησιν; 50εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα, Ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε: πορεύου εἰς εἰρήνην.

7:1 After Jesus had finished teaching all this to the people, he entered Capernaum. 7:2 A centurion there had a slave who was highly regarded, but who was sick and at the point of death. 7:3 When the centurion heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders to him, asking him to come and heal his slave. 7:4 When they came to Jesus, they urged him earnestly, “He is worthy to have you do this for him, 7:5 because he loves our nation, and even built our synagogue.” 7:6 So Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to say to him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. 7:7 That is why I did not presume to come to you. Instead, say the word, and my servant must be healed. 7:8 For I too am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me. I say to this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 7:9 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him. He turned and said to the crowd that followed him, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith!” 7:10 So when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave well. 7:11 Soon afterward Jesus went to a town called Nain, and his disciples and a large crowd went with him. 7:12 As he approached the town gate, a man who had died was being carried out, the only son of his mother (who was a widow), and a large crowd from the town was with her. 7:13 When the Lord saw her, he had compassion for her and said to her, “Do not weep.” 7:14 Then he came up and touched the bier, and those who carried it stood still. He said, “Young man, I say to you, get up!” 7:15 So the dead man sat up and began to speak, and Jesus gave him back to his mother. 7:16 Fear seized them all, and they began to glorify God, saying, “A great prophet has risen among us!” and “God has come to help his people!” 7:17 This report about Jesus circulated throughout Judea and all the surrounding country. 7:18 John’s disciples informed him about all these things. So John called two of his disciples 7:19 and sent them to the Lord to ask, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?” 7:20 When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?’” 7:21 At that very time Jesus cured many people of diseases, sicknesses, and evil spirits, and granted sight to many who were blind. 7:22 So he answered them, “Go tell John what you have seen and heard: The blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news proclaimed to them. 7:23 Blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me.” 7:24 When John’s messengers had gone, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? 7:25 What did you go out to see? A man dressed in fancy clothes? Look, those who wear fancy clothes and live in luxury are in kings’ courts! 7:26 What did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.                   7:27 This is the one about whom it is written, ‘Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.’ 7:28 I tell you, among those born of women no one is greater than John. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he is.” 7:29 (Now all the people who heard this, even the tax collectors, acknowledged God’s justice, because they had been baptized with John’s baptism. 7:30 However, the Pharisees and the experts in religious law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.) 7:31 “To what then should I compare the people of this generation, and what are they like? 7:32 They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling out to one another, ‘We played the flute for you, yet you did not dance; we wailed in mourning, yet you did not weep.’ 7:33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon!’ 7:34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him, a glutton and a drunk, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ 7:35 But wisdom is vindicated by all her children.” 7:36 Now one of the Pharisees asked Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. 7:37 Then when a woman of that town, who was a sinner, learned that Jesus was dining at the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfumed oil. 7:38 As she stood behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. She wiped them with her hair, kissed them, and anointed them with the perfumed oil. 7:39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner.” 7:40 So Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” He replied, “Say it, Teacher.” 7:41 “A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed him five hundred silver coins, and the other fifty. 7:42 When they could not pay, he canceled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?” 7:43 Simon answered, “I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled.” Jesus said to him, “You have judged rightly.” 7:44 Then, turning toward the woman, he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house. You gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 7:45 You gave me no kiss of greeting, but from the time I entered she has not stopped kissing my feet. 7:46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with perfumed oil. 7:47 Therefore I tell you, her sins, which were many, are forgiven, thus she loved much; but the one who is forgiven little loves little.” 7:48 Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” 7:49 But those who were at the table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” 7:50 He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

 

Using this sample text, we can highlight a) the Marcionite character of this sequence of pericopes, and b) the cautious and non-circularity in the reconstruction of this text which is not based on the assumption to produce a typically Marcionite text, but rather follows the evidence of our manuscripts.

 

Let me begin with the first topic, the typical Marcionite character of this sequence of pericopes. We will find two main strands of heroizing Jesus as the one who is not understood and accepted by anybody, except by Proselites, like the Roman officers, or by tax officials, widows, handicapped, people with diseases and sinners. In our case here, we are dealing first with a centurion, then a widow, then a Pharisee and a female sinner who are contrasted with John (and his pupils) on the one side and Jesus’ pupils on the other side, especially Simon Peter. In contrast, Luke has removed precisely these sharp Marcionite contours of the pericope by preserving Jesus’ forgiving the sinner, but turning the story into a hierarchizing of forgiveness.

Marcion first: The line of stories begins with Jesus entering a centurion’s house. Of course, he is not just a centurion, but painted as somebody who was close to the Jewish community (one of the reasons for getting in contact with Jesus). He is praised by the Jewish elders who were sent by the centurion to ask for Jesus and they tell us that the centurion is a lover of the Jewish ethnos and has even financed the building of the Synagogue. And, indeed, the centurion believes in the power of Jesus, as he compares him dealing with diseases, as he is in command with his soldiers. Jesus’ reaction is prompt, and he tells the crowd that ‘by nobody in Israel’ has he found such faith – a clear message that supports ‘Jewish-lovers’ or, as they are sometimes called, ‘god-fearers’, in the Jewish community and contrasts it with the lack of faith ‘in Israel’. Precisely here, Luke felt the need to correct Mcn, stating no longer that Jesus found ‘by nobody’ such faith in Israel, but asserting that he did ‘not even’ (οὐδὲ) find such faith in Israel, meaning neither inside, nor outside of Israel. Luke has removed Jesus’ preference for the ‘Jewish-lovers’ and individualized the story to the one off case of this centurion.

After the healing of the near-dead slave of the centurion, Jesus, his disciples and the crowd enter Nain and this time they are faced with a corps of a dead man, ‘the only son of his mother’, ‘a widow’. Even more powerful than before, Jesus raises the son and gives him back to his mother. As a reaction – the crowd is seized by fear, yet also glorify God, stating that ‘a great Prophet has come forth’ and that ‘God has come to help his people’, the strongest acknowledgement of Jesus being a Μέγας προϕήτης in this Gospel by the crowd and the disciples. Yet, in Mcn, this statement serves to contrast Jesus, the mega-prophet, with John, the Baptist – and here, we find the second correction of Luke who diverts the line of the story away from this confrontation. Without highlighting all the details of difference between Mcn and Luke (for example, the change from ‘Jesus’ to ‘Lord’ in Luke), the first major alteration is that Luke removed the bridge between the previous pericope with the raising of the boy of Nain and the new one of the encounter with John’s pupils, where Mcn introduces John the Baptist as the one who ‘having heard his [Jesus’] works, was scandalized’. Having cut out this strong characterization of John, Luke, however, lost the framing of the entire story, as Jesus’ blessing at the end of the debate with John’s pupils in his address to John’s and his own disciples, comes back to the opening: ‘Blessed is anyone who is not scandalized by me’. Having said this, and once John’s messangers had left, Jesus details this rebuke of John even further, by admonishing the crowd who may have searched for a prophet, and he does not deny that John the Baptist was a prophet, even the greatest ‘born of women’, but he adds that ‘the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he is’. Again, without elaborating here on it – it is important to know that throughout the second century, Marcion was known to have contrasted Jesus with John the Baptist and, as his Gospel stated (Luke 16:16 par.), as is still known in Justin and Irenaeus, that the Law and the Prophets ended with John the Baptist: ‘The law and the prophets existed until John; since then, the kingdom of God has been proclaimed. Therefore, heaven and earth will pass away easier than one tiny stroke of a letter of the Lord’. As Justin rightly understood and Irenaeus reports, the law that ‘originated with Moses’, was ‘terminated with John by necessity’ (Iren., Adv. haer. IV 4). The new edict of the Lord, however, was more robust than heaven and earth could ever be. And yet, again, in this instance, Luke turns Marcion upside down, in replacing ‘the Lord’ and making Jesus say that heaven and earth will pass away easier than one tiny stroke of a letter of the Law’. It, therefore, comes with no surprise that Luke adds the verses 7:29-35 to the pericope that we discussed before, in order to endorse and vindicate wisdom, the Baptist, by criticizing the criticism of John, putting him on par with the criticisms voiced against Jesus and blaming the Pharisees: ‘Now all the people who heard this, even the tax collectors, acknowledged God’s justice, because they had been baptized with John’s baptism. 7:30 However, the Pharisees and the experts in religious law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John... 7:33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon!’ 7:34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, „Look at him, a glutton and a drunk, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!“’

With the blame of Pharisees, introduced by Luke into this pericope, he prepares already the turnaround of the next pericope, in which Marcion had taken up Jesus’ own disciples in the person of Simon Peter who constantly misunderstands his teacher. This time,

as Matthias Klinghardt has rightly recognized, the Pharisee with his house are only the stage and later on does not play any longer a role in Mcn. In the house, the story of the female sinner who wets his feet and anoints him evolves. And Simon Peter picks up the topic of the two stories before with his statement, full of doubt: ‘If this man were a prophet, he woul know who and what kind of woman this is’? In Jesus’ reply, he does not blame – as in Luke’s version, the Pharisee is being blamed –, but explain, the one who has loved much has received the forgiveness of many sins. Yet, the response of the disciples and the people sitting with Jesus on the table are worry and questioning: ‘Who is this?’

As with the distraction of the criticism of John, turning it to the Pharisee, so does Luke also avoid the criticism of the disciples and Peter by remodelling the story quite drastically. The questioning protagonist is the Pharisee and one is surprised to read that his name ‘Simon’ is introduced late in the story. Moreover, a full blown contrast between the acting of the sinner and that of the Pharisee is being introduced – although the added simile of the ‘credior’ is more than awkward, as it does not elaborate on the contrast, but introduces a hierarchy of forgiveness (bigger debt cancelling ...).

In sum: First, the entire sequence not only displays entirely a theology for which Marcion is known (and sometimes blamed) already in the second century, the text is also more coherent, stringent and a fascinating insight into a clear narrative where Jesus is the one who acts against expectations, remains misunderstood by Israel, the crowd, John’s and Jesus’ own disciples. Second, if one had reconstructed the last pericope on the basis of Marcion’s theology, one would have added the contrasting statements that in Luke set the sinner against the Pharisee, sharpening Jesus’ reaction against Simon Peter. However, as Matthias Klinghardt shows from the manuscript evidence, only the parts of the verses which are attested for Marcion’s Gospel (Luke 7:44b.45b) display the usual variants in a series of Bible manuscripts, especially the Latin tradition (aur b f l q r^l a d e ff²), while the others do not.