Having attended the recent conference on 'The New Testament and its Text in the 2nd Century'
(Dresden 5.–7. März 2015), for the first time, I have understood the importance and impact of the so-called canonical redaction and edition of the New Testament (suggested first by David Trobisch a few years ago, and picked up by Matthias Klinghardt). Until now, I have largely overlooked this potentially extremely important piece in the jigsaw of the development of the canon, simply because it did not jump to my eyes from the sources. However, as so often, one does not catch indications, if one does not know what to look for. So, over the next weeks, I will particularly look out for what the sources tell us about this edition. That the NT did not flow somehow out of communities into what more or less without conscious, editorial direction ended up to be a collection, has always been my suspicion. Now, however, I have become more convinced that the first conscious collection of a gospel and the 10 Pauline letters by Marcion, together with his preface, the Antitheses, was followed by that other today called canonical redaction and edition of the NT, presumably done sometime during the 160s.
(Dresden 5.–7. März 2015), for the first time, I have understood the importance and impact of the so-called canonical redaction and edition of the New Testament (suggested first by David Trobisch a few years ago, and picked up by Matthias Klinghardt). Until now, I have largely overlooked this potentially extremely important piece in the jigsaw of the development of the canon, simply because it did not jump to my eyes from the sources. However, as so often, one does not catch indications, if one does not know what to look for. So, over the next weeks, I will particularly look out for what the sources tell us about this edition. That the NT did not flow somehow out of communities into what more or less without conscious, editorial direction ended up to be a collection, has always been my suspicion. Now, however, I have become more convinced that the first conscious collection of a gospel and the 10 Pauline letters by Marcion, together with his preface, the Antitheses, was followed by that other today called canonical redaction and edition of the NT, presumably done sometime during the 160s.
For a while I was puzzled that scholars today assumed that Marcion had not written much, if anything (except his preface, the Antitheses, and a letter) at all. And yet, the fathers unanimously talk about his writings in the plural. Irenaeus calls up 'scriptis' of Marcion (I 27), Epiphanius speaks about syntagmata of him, Ephrem knows of works of Marcion, and the anonymous Syriac author gives us even a quote of the opening of his 'Pro-Gospel' (Harnack correctly attributing this text to Marcion's Antitheses). Hence, if Marcion had not written anything at all, or only a preface and a letter, the fathers would be misled and inform us incorrectly. Hence, I think, when Tertullian calls Marcion the evangelizator or Gospel-writer, together with his preface and his letter, this fits the evidence better.
More important even is with regards the question of the NT collection above that Marcion in his Antitheses not only criticised the Gospel of Luke (Tertullian never speaks of Marcion using another protogospel), but, as Tertullian reports, with reference to Galatians also 'on this ground Marcion strives hard to overthrow the credit of those gospels which are the apostles' own and are published under their names, or even the names of apostolic men, with the intention no doubt of conferring on his own gospel the repute which he takes away from those others. ' (Tert., Adv. Marc. IV 3,2; Trans. Evans)
Without doubt, Tertullian reckons Marcion's Gospel to be his own as much as the others are owned by first the apostles (obviously Matthew and John) and 'the apostolic men' (Mark and Luke). Hence, according to Tertullian, Marcion knew of these four gospels when he criticised those in his work and accused them of being copies of his own. This also means that the four gospels existed at the time when Marcion published his own New Testament with his preface (= Antitheses), his gospel and his collection of 10 Pauline Letters. What he did not know, however (contrary to Harnack, 79), was a collection of those four gospels. Quite the opposite seems to be the case, and it seems that Marcion himself grouped these four texts, as they may either have been the earliest copies of his own, or from the copies that have been made, these four sounded the most closely resembling his own gospel-text, hence, there was need for Marcion to mention these Gospels with their presumed authors and to discredit these.
This, then, gives as the very first and only existing early evidence, why precisely those four gospels were ever brought together. And it seems to me that only in reaction to Marcion's discrediting of the four, exactly those four and no others were then defended by later authors like Irenaeus. Prior to Irenaeus, however, a full editorial enterprise had started. Justin or Justin's pupil Tatian have started to edit these four texts into what became known as Diatessaron, Theophilus of Antioch seems to have created his own Gospel-harmony, and, if David Trobisch is correct, the Carpos, mentioned in 2Tim. 4:13 (= Polycarpos of Smyrna, see D. Trobisch, 'Who published the New Testament', Free Inquiry 28 [2007/8] 30-3) seems to have built on Marcion's 'New Testament', but brought many more of the 27 writings into this same collection which, therefore, bore the same title, but gave credit to more than just one Gospel and 10 Pauline letters, and also was linked to what Marcion called (and rejected as) 'Old Testament'.
Here also a short version for the German Readers:
Ich habe zum erstenmal die Tragweite der Bedeutung der kanonischen Redaktion begriffen, die mir bislang aus den Texten so nicht entgegengeleuchtet hat. Doch in sie werde ich mich jetzt hinein vertiefen. Das einzige, was mich erstaunt, ist die Tatsache, dass die Redaktion als solche in keiner uns erhaltenen Quelle einen Niedergeschlag gefunden haben soll. Doch muss ich mich danach jetzt einmal erst auf die Suche machen, denn oft liest man Dinge nicht, von denen man vorher nicht recht gewusst hat.
In dieser Hinsicht auch nur eine kleine Lesefrucht zur frueheren Frage der Verfasserschaft Markions. Mir war immer schon aufgefallen, dass im Gegensatz zur modernen Forschung die Vaeter immer von einer Mehrzahl von Werken ausgegangen sind, die Markion selbst verfasst hatte. Irenaeus nennte 'scriptis' des Markion (I 27), Epiphanius spricht von syntagmata Markions, auch Ephraem nennt Schriften Markions und der von mir zitierte anonyme syrische Autor, der sogar den Eroeffnungspassus zitiert, ordnet diesen dem 'Proevangelium' zu, ein Text, der von Harnack wohl zurecht der Eroeffnung der Antithesen zugeordnet wird. Wenn Markion nichts anderes als die Antithesen als Vorwort einer Sammlung fremder Texte (und einen Brief) geschrieben haette, waeren die Angaben der Vaeter allesamt unverstaendlich bzw. falsch. Gerade nach unserer Tagung ist es mir jedenfalls noch viel plausibler, dass es gar kein anderes 'Proevangelium' gegeben hat als dasjenige, das die Antithesen einleiten, naemlich das des Markion, das dann als Proevangelium fuer die anderen Evangelien diente.
Bei der gesamten Tagung haben alle Anwesenden nur vom Evangelium des zweiten Jahrhunderts gesprochen, wo im ersten Jahrhundert haette denn ein solcher Text ueberhaupt seinen Platz. Eine Rolle spielt er jedenfalls nicht. Anders die Paulusbriefe (wenn auch in der Vorform, wie sie noch Markion vorlagen).
Und zur Frage, was dem Markion vorlag. In den Antithesen (so auch Harnack) kritisiert Markion nicht nur das Lukasevangelium (von einem aelteren Evangelium ist bei Tertullian nie die Rede), sondern mit Bezug auf den Galaterbrief (in den Antithesen?) heisst es: 'Hierauf stützt er sich, um die Stellung der Evangelien zu erschüttern, die recht eigentlich solche sind und unter dem Namen der Apostel oder auch apostolischer Männer ausgegeben wurden, und so die Glaubwürdigkeit, die er ihnen genommen, seinem Evangelium zuzuwenden.' (Uebers. BKV).
Demnach haben, wie Harnack richtig gesehen, Markion bei seiner Publikationsversion Matth., Joh., Markus und Lukas vorgelegen. Nicht richtig aber ist Harnack, wenn er hierin bereits eine 'autoritative Sammlung' dieser Schriften sah. M.E. hat erst Markion durch seine Kritik gerade an diesen, seiner Schrift am naechsten gekommenen Plagiate die Grundlage gelegt, auf der dann zur Verteidigung gerade dieser vier von ihm inkriminierten Schriften die Sammlung des NT angelegt und mit all den anderen Schriften abgesichert wurde. Die Tatsache der Inkriminierung der vier Evangelien durch Markion ist m.E. die erste und einzige bisher greifbare auessere Begruendung fuer die Zusammenstellung gerade dieser 4 Texte.
