Continuing from previous post on Klinghardt’s recent article:
(this post will read like nonsense if we assume Marcion’s gospel was mutilation of Luke’s as asserted by Tertullian, but that assumption is addressed in other posts in my Marcion archive, including in part the previous post on Klinghardt’s article)
Marcion and the Matthean additions to the Triple Tradition not found in Luke
If Luke is dependent on Matthew (without Q) one must explain why Luke omitted
- John’s objection to Jesus (Matt 3.15)
- Jesus’ answer to the Pharisees (Matt. 12.5-7)
- The full quotation of Isaiah 6:9-10 (Matt. 13.14-17)
- Peter walking on water (Matt. 14.28-31)
- Peter’s confession and beatitude (Matt. 16.16-19)
- Love command in reply to rich young man (Matt. 19. 19b)
- Pilate’s wife’s dream and washing hands (Matt. 27.19, 24)
Kloppenborg rightly says that some of these would have fit well Luke’s editorial purposes.
Klinghardt notes the negative framing of this objection, resting at it does on the assumption of Q, which is also a constructed from another negative set of arguments – and argues that the inclusion of Marcion’s gospel into the equation “allows for a positive and convincing argument”.
Is there support for the hypothesis that Luke followed Marcion’s gospel in the places where we find the above Matthean additions to Mark missing? Klinghardt writes: “All but one of these examples are reported to be part of Mcn [Marcion’s gospel], which allows for a positive check:”
Jesus’ answer to the Pharisees (Matt. 12.5-7)
Matthew’s material is missing from Luke, but Luke’s version is said to be found in Marcion’s text.
Epiphanius (Panar. 42.11.6) also read our Luke 6:3-4 in Marcion.
The full quotation of Isaiah 6:9-10 (Matt. 13.14-17)
Tertullian’s quotes from Marcion’s equivalent of Luke 8:2-4, 8 (4.19.1-2) and 8:16-17, 18 (4.19.3-4, 5) are enough for us to reasonably infer that Marcion also quoted Isaiah as it appears in our Luke.
Peter walking on water (Matt. 14.28-31)
This scene of Matthew’s belongs to that non-section of Luke known as the Great Omission — where Luke omits all material from Mark 6:45-8:26. This same section was also “omitted” from Marcion’s gospel. But more pertinently for Klinghardt’s case, the Lukan verses “bracketing” this Great Omission, Luke 9:17 and 9:18, also appear in succession in Marcion’s gospel:
Tertullian, 4.21.4, 6
Thus K concludes that Luke followed Marcion’s text here.
Peter’s confession and beatitude (Matt. 16.16-19)
Again Tertullian tells us that Marcion also contained these two verses together. (4.21.6)
Tertullian says that in Marcion’s gospel Peter merely said, “You are Christ” (also Adamantius, Dial. 2.13: the Christ). Luke 9:20 says “Christ of God”, which is much closer to Marcion’s form than Matthew’s “You are the Christ, the son of the living God.”
The exception clause for divorce (Matt. 19:9b)
Tertullian needs this exception clause to make his argument but cannot find it in neither Marcion nor Luke (16:18), and must resort to Matthew for it. Tertullian gives special attention to this section of Marcion (4.33.7, 9; 4.34.1-2) and complains that Marcion did not hand down the truth of this doctrine.
Love command in reply to rich young man (Matt. 19. 19b)
The episode of Jesus’ exchange is one of the best attested texts in Marcion’s gospel since it contains Jesus’ explicit statement about God the father. Adamantius (Dial. 2:17) quotes Jesus’ answer in Marcion extensively. Marcion, like Luke, has only the list of commandments that must be obeyed. Only Matthew adds the love command.
Pilate’s wife’s dream and washing hands (Matt. 27.19, 24)
There is no information that Marcion included these scenes.
John’s objection to Jesus (Matt 3.15)
Marcion therefore did not include a baptism scene at all. Luke therefore copied Matthew here. But Matthew’s interpretation of fulfilling all righteousness in the act was far from Luke’s theological bent, so this passage would have been omitted. (Klinghardt, p.13)
No need for Q to explain these Lukan omissions. They create no problem if Luke was following Marcion.
Hope to cover K’s treatment of the special Matthew material etc in future post . . . .
Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)
- Jewish Origin of the “Word Became Flesh” / 2 … (Charbonnel: Jésus-Christ, Sublime Figure de Papier) - 2021-04-12 10:30:06 GMT+0000
- The Jewish Origins of the Word Becoming Flesh / 1 (Charbonnel: Jésus-Christ, Sublime Figure de Papier) - 2021-04-09 10:17:03 GMT+0000
- “If I were an Australian journalist, I would jump at this.” - 2021-04-06 08:33:34 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!