Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms

MARCION'S "GOSPEL OF THE LORD" OR THE "GOSPEL OF LUKE"...WHICH CAME FIRST?

The question of priority, as between the "gospel of Marcion" and the later "gospel of Luke", is one of the most interesting and intriguing stories we find in the history of New Testament studies.

From the commencement of the third, down to the beginning of the present century, it has been fashionable to accuse Marcion of corrupting the Gospel of Luke; the emphatic and oft-repeated assertions of Tertullian and Epiphanius to that effect, having been deemed sufficient authority.

Bishop Marsh was one of the first to do Marcion justice. He said there was no proof that Marcion used Luke's Gospel at all [Notes to Michaelis, vol.3, pt. 2, p. 160]. Since then, many of the most intelligent German critics have come to the same conclusion; namely that is was not Marcion who corrupted the gospel tradition but Rome who refuted it by creating a later gospel tradition of their own which they presented in 180 C.E. to the world in the names of deceased apostles and Paul.

Baring-Gould also says: "Marcion was too conscientious and earnest a man, wilfully to corrupt a gospel "[Lost and Hostile Gospels, p.241].

It would seem from the sources consulted that it is not a stretch of the imagination to see that the Church of Sinope, where Marcion formerly resided, had been furnished by Paul with a collection of the records of the life and teaching of Christ; that Marcion thus obtained his gospel, and brought it to Rome [Ibid.].

Now we need to pay close attention to what some scholars admit. Again: "Marcion's Gospel contained a different arrangement of the narrative, from the canonical Luke, and was without many passages which it is not possible to believe he wilfully excluded," [Ibid p. 242]. Once I came to understand Marcion, Gnosticism, Marcion's unique brand of Gnostic theology then it became relatively easily to understand that key omissions in Marcion's collection of apostolic written tradition and Pauline written tradition could only be blamed upon the lack of existence of such writings in his day. No good reason can be found as to why Marcion would have not strengthened his position and theological arguments against the Jews and literalist Roman positions other than the fact that such passages did not exist at that time. They will be invented later by the Holy Roman Forgery Mill.

This becomes painfully evident when one contrast Marcion's New Testament with the later Roman Second New Testament and these omissions and additions compared line upon line. I was consistently shocked to see such passages omitted in Marcion's First New Testament which theologically would have supported his arguments against the Jews let along the "literalistic" Roman Church which mysteriously appear some 40 years later in the Roman refutation of Marcion's First New Testament. For the life of me I could not ever understand why key passages that would support and bolster Marcion's theological points from both apostolic tradition and Pauline tradition would be omitted by Marcion if they had existed when he collected all the Pauline writings and apostolic traditions existing in his day.

Baring-Gould in his Lost and Hostile Gospels afterward speaks of differences of arrangement in Marcion's gospel which are unaccountable on the theory that Marcion corrupted Luke, and says that Marcion's Gospel was without several passages which apparently favor his views.[Ibid, p.243].

Canon Westcott is equally explicit in acquitting Marcion from the accusation made against him by the early fathers of the church. He says: "Tertullian and Epiphanius agree in affirming that Marcion altered the text of the books which he received, to suit his own views; and they quote many various readings in support of the assertion. Those which they cite from the epistles, are certainly insufficient to prove the point; and on the contrary, they go to show that Marcion preserved without alteration, the text which he found in his manuscript. Of the seven readings noticed by Epiphanius, (in the epistles), only two are unsupported by other authority: and it is altogether unlikely that Marcion changed other passages, when, as Epiphanius himself shows, he left untouched those which are most directly opposed to his system." -[Canon Westcott, History of the Canon, p.284].

Answer for yourself: Does it stand to reason that Marcion would leave passages in his collection of written apostolic tradition and the Pauline epistles which opposed what he believed and taught but yet omitted key passages that supported this Gnostic theology if they existed in the documents he collected?

Don't underestimate the hatred of the Church Father for anything opposed to what they considered "orthodoxy." Such hatred for truth and any that opposed the strict mind control of Rome would be branded a "heretic." Marcion is a perfect example of one who taught what the earliest Christians held to be true and dear; that "the Christ" was a "Divine Concept" within all mankind; exemplified in a theophany, Jesus, who was sent from Heaven. For Marcion his Christ was not a fleshly person as Rome would maintain later. Such hatred by Rome will ultimately result in myriads of persecutions that will in the end slaughter over 18,000,000 believers during the Dark Ages that opposed the Mother Roman Church in one form or another.

Some writers still persist in repeating the old slander. But the more candid and intelligent opinion of Westcott and Baring-Gould, is supported by Semler, Griesbach, Loeffler, Schmidt, Schleiermacher, Hahn, and many other scholars. Simply said the hatred of such reputed Church Fathers like Tertullian and Epiphanius caused a slander of not only Marcion and the faith of the earliest Christians but was the impetus for the literary corruption of the First New Testament where these earliest concepts and religious beliefs about "the Christ" have been lost to all but those with the necessary knowledge to know better; few possess it.

These writers, perceiving how little reliance is to be placed upon the statements of the fathers, in matters of critical exegesis, or of authorship, or upon their assertions concerning the heretics, have examined carefully the text of Marcion, and finding the statements of Tertullian and Epiphanius unsupported by internal evidence, have rejected them altogether.

WHICH WAS FIRST WRITTEN...MARCION'S GOSPEL OR THE GOSPEL OF LUKE WE HAVE TODAY?

Let us now see if we cannot ascertain with reasonable certainty which was first written; the Gospel of Luke or the Gospel of Marcion. The question of priority, in this case, is closely connected with that of brevity.

The first three chapters of Luke were entirely wanting in Marcion, except the opening clause in the third chapter, which was the commencement of the Gospel of Marcion: "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar." The balance of the first chapter of Marcion is contained with some variations in the fourth of Luke. About half that chapter is wanting entirely, in Marcion.

After passing this, the different chapters of the two gospels correspond, the 2nd of Marcion with the 5th of Luke, the 3rd of Marcion with the 6th of Luke, and so on.

The Gospel of Luke is the most copious throughout. The number of verses in Luke in excess of those in Marcion, is as follows: In chapter 7, seven verses: in ch. 8, one; in ch. 11, ten; in ch. 12, three; in ch. 13, seventeen; in ch. 14, five; in ch. 15, twenty-two; in ch. 18, four; in ch. 19, twenty; in ch. 20, twelve; in ch. 21, three; in ch. 22, thirteen; in ch. 23, one, and in ch. 24, four: a total 122 verses in Luke which are not in Marcion's earliest "gospel." To this add the excess of 23 verses in the 4th chapter of Luke, and we have altogether 145 verses, or more than three average chapters. Add the first three chapters of Luke, which are entirely wanting in Marcion, and the result is, more than six chapters, or more than one-fourth of the entire Gospel of Luke, wanting in Marcion.

Answer for yourself: Did Rome just happen to find these "missing gospel passages" or were then invented to counter what the earliest Christians believed about "the Christ" and Rome used creative license in the names of supposed Apostolic followers of Jesus to change what they did not want to accept? THINK

When you begin to see just what "theologically" the earliest Christians believed about "the Christ"; namely that it is a Divine Concept among and within all mankind and not just one historical person as we have been led to believe, then you should see that these "key" added sections to Marcion's earliest "gospel" are intended to present such "literal-human" theology as imposed upon "the Christ." Take a look back again as what we have shown and see that these added portions to Marcion's gospel are about a human birth, human infancy, etc.; a human being presented as the "one" and only "Christ." Again this is totally against the earliest concepts of "the Christ" [logos] as handed down since time began and which was also believed by the earliest Christians.

But this is not all. In a number of places, the verses of Marcion are shorter. Then, again, two or more verses of Luke are contained, in substance, in one of Marcion, and in one place, nine verses of Luke in two of Marcion. This phenomena is called "the Law of Accretion" whereby words or sentences are added later thereby enlarging a prior piece of literature. In other words the New Testament gets larger and more volumious after Marcion's collection of it as it existed in his day.

LUKE AND MARCION COMPARED

Leaving out of view, for the present the wholesale accumulation of matter, aggregating 315 verses, the law of accretion will be well illustrated by those cases where one or more verses in Marcion are found swollen into several in Luke, or where a single passage has additions. They are as follows:

1.

The difference is important. According to Matthew, the parents of Jesus, when they returned from Egypt, being warned of God in a dream, turned aside, (they were going to Bethlehem or Jerusalem,) into the parts of Galilee, that a certain prophecy might be fulfilled. The language does not imply that Nazareth was their residence; all the more strange since many believe the messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, the city of David.

The theory of the author of Luke was, that Nazareth was their residence. Accordingly, in this passage, which, though followed in Mark, has no parallel in Matthew; Jesus is addressed as "of Nazareth," a phrase not in Marcion. Yet the writer of the Gospel of Luke totally disagrees.

II.

A corresponding variation will be found in

These are probably interpolations, made for the purpose of establishing Nazareth as the birth-place of Jesus. Again we now know that Marcion and the earliest Gnostic Christians understood "the Christ" entirely different from the way we have been instructed by Roman and Protestant theology. Rome will counter Marcion's First New Testament by given "flesh" to this "Christ" as if "the Christ" was flesh and bone. We see this again perfectly as "being brought up" would indicate a rearing instead of a descent from Heaven as Marcion and others believed. Marcion's Gospel of the Lord began with: "1. In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, 2. [Pontius Pilatus being the Governor of Judea' Jesus came down to Capernaum, a city in Galilee, and was...

We see clearly the "descent" of the Heavenly Logos, the Gnostic Redeemer from heaven. This Gnostic Savior had no fleshly body but was a pure Spiritual apparition among men. Thus we find no mention in the earliest New Testament of a fleshly Jesus as "the Christ." We find no infancy narratives or any of the events we normally associate with the Christmas story. Again we need to understand that these parts of the Second New Testament only surface after 180 C.E. with the influence and work of Irenaeus as he counters Marcion's First New Testament with one from Rome's "literalism."

III.

There is no reason why Marcion, who had not rejected the miracles of Christ, should omit the closing sentence. It is more probable that it was added in Luke, to give expression to a very natural inference on the part of the writer, as to the object of the multitude in pressing forward toward Jesus, and seeking to touch him. Again we see the emphasis upon "touching flesh" inserted into the later editing of Marcion's New Testament.

There is no parallel in the other gospels.

IV.

Lest you think that the risen Christ could not "eat" and that by "eating" then one had to have a fleshly body let me remind you that Christ said: Luke 22:18 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. (KJV) It would seem that in a "resurrected" spiritual state, which the Gnostic Christians understood "the Christ," eating was possible in some sort of way. This not make it mandatory that the Jesus of Marcion had to possess flesh.

V.

JESUS AND THE SINFUL WOMAN.

This touching incident, simply and beautifully told in the sixteen Greek words of Marcion, is spun out, by the author of Luke, into more than three times the number of words, with no improvement in the story.

The washing of the feet of Jesus, which in Marcion is left as a figurative expression, denoting the great grief of the woman, is stated in Luke as an actual fact. while weeping, "she began to wash his feet with tears." Then, having washed them, she must needs "wipe them with the hairs of her head."

There can be but little doubt, that Marcion was first written, and that the author of Luke drew upon his imagination in filling up the text.

Again, there is a similar variation, in the following reference to the same transaction:

VI.

The use here, by Jesus himself, of the figurative expression, "she hath washed my feet with tears," misled the author of Luke into conceiving, and hence expressing, a literal and complete washing of feet, followed by wiping them in the manner described.

This account is not in the other canonical gospels. It is simply a question between Marcion and Luke.

VII.

JESUS REBUKING THE STORM.

The language of Marcion, as given by Epiphanius, is highly elliptical. It was probably preceded by some sentence having reference to the storm. The text of the synoptics is more copious; especially Mark, in which a pillow is provided for the head of Jesus.

VIII.

HEALING OF THE WOMAN

If these accounts come from a common manuscript, it had passed through many hands, before reaching the author of Luke.

IX, X.

XI, XII, XIII, XlV.

The word aioion, (eternal,) was inserted by the author of Luke, to make more clear the meaning of Marcion.

The argument of Tertullian, (adv. Mar. 4.25), that Marcion struck out aionion, so that the question might be confined to this life, is weak and untenable. Again Tertullian has not been fair in his analysis of Marcion and misleads his readers; needless to say centuries of Christians who read his works.

XV, XVI, XVII.

The last passage illustrates, throughout, the prevailing practice of verbal accumulation. The language of Jesus, "I say unto you," becomes, when it reaches the author of Luke, "I say unto you, my friends;" "Be not afraid of them that kill the body," becomes, "Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that, have no more that they can do;" etc. The "fish story" of Marcion is becoming longer as time passes and with Rome's additions to the First New Testament.

XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI.

Again the later "writing" of Luke's Gospel in response to Marcion's earliest Gospel of the Lord should be evident to all by now.

XXIV, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX.

The account in Marcion, besides being shorter, is the more natural. Being struck from behind, or by a stranger, Jesus was called upon to tell who struck him. It was an impulsive action. But the author of Luke has the Jews deliberately blindfold Jesus, before striking him.

XXXI.

These dying words of Jesus are not in either of the other three canonical gospels. They may have been taken by the author of Luke from the Acts of Pilate, or from a later version of the manuscript used by Marcion.

XXXII.

XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV, XXXVI.

THE OTHER SIDE

We will now give the cases where the text of Marcion is the more copious:

I.

MARCION, 5.20. LUKE, 8.21.

According to Volkmar, (though not in the schedule or scholion of Epiphanius), in this verse, after the words, "And he answered and said unto them," is the question, "Who are my mother and my brethren?" Balance of the Verse, same as in Luke.

Volkmar may have taken some of his Variations from the "Dialogues," etc., attributed to Origen, to which he appears to have given too much attention.

II, III, IV, V, VI.

Here are six cases in Marcion, against thirty-six in Luke; or 35 new words in Marcion, to 660 in Luke. If to these we add 315 verses of Luke which are not in Marcion in any form, we have a ratio of 1 to 230.

The strength of the argument, then, based upon the principle of accretion, would be 230 to 1, that the Gospel of Marcion was first written.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ORDER OF ARRANGEMENT OF GOSPEL MATERIALS?

But there is other evidence of priority. The Gospel of Marcion is more simple and natural, not only in the mode of expression, but in the order of arrangement.

In the fourth chapter of Luke, Jesus is represented as being tempted in the wilderness, immediately after his baptism; thence he returned into Galilee, and came to Nazareth; [Luke, 4. 16]; where his public ministry commenced. Now pay attention! But though commencing, at Nazareth, he is made to refer [v. 23], to works which he had done at Capernaum; a place to which he goes, afterward ;[v. 31.]

Answer for yourself: How can this be? This is out of order; somebody got it wrong and most likely miscopied an earlier manuscript from Marcion in the rewriting of the later New Testament. This means that an earlier copy, the copies of Marcion's collection, were as scholars tell us used by later writers of the gospels where they added much to them in their attempt to refute what the Gnostic Christians believed about "the Christ."

In Marcion, on the contrary, his public ministry commenced at Capernaum; [Marcion, 1. 1]; whence, [v.10], he came to Nazareth, and preached; and here, in the natural order, [v.13], he refers to the works done at Capernaum.

This accords with the Gospel of Matthew, which represents that Jesus did not commence preaching until after he had taken up his residence in Capernaum. [Matt. 4. 13 to 17.] Mark follows Luke.

Matthew and Marcion were probably from a common manuscript.

In the Gospel of John, Jesus is represented as performing his first miracle in Cana of Galilee, after which he went down to Capernaum. [John 2. 11, 12.] This, therefore, is confirmatory of Marcion and that the writer of Luke again gets this wrong! No Holy Spirit here!

It is probable that in Luke, the manuscripts were put together out of their natural order, and that this disorder was followed in Mark. It was the opinion of Griesbach that the author of Mark had before him the whole of the present Gospel of Luke. Schleiermacher thinks he had some of the manuscripts which comprise the Gospel of Luke [ Schleiermacher on Luke, p.91].

At the same time, the fact that nearly every word of Marcion is in Luke, besides much additional matter, is strongly suggestive of the theory, that the author of Luke had before him, besides other material, the Gospel of Marcion entire. On the supposition that Marcion was last written, it is difficult to conceive why he should have excluded so large a part of the Gospel of Luke, especially as it is now conceded that it was not done for dogmatic purposes. On the other hand, if Luke was written last, the accumulations were in accordance with the spirit of the age, and the practice of the times. Besides, it was necessary to have a gospel different from that of Marcion, who was a heretic. There is no satisfactory evidence that Marcion had seen either of the canonical gospels, or had even heard of them.

The first two chapters of Luke were wanting in the gospels of the first century. Rome would later have to created a body for "the Christ" if Jesus was to be their incarnated and fleshly "Christ."

Heb 10:5 5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: (KJV)

There is a big problem with this if you look at the Hebrew from which this supposed quote is taken. Again we find forgery in the New Testament as Psm. 40:6-8 says nothing of the sort.

6 ¶ (40:7) Sacrifice and meal-offering Thou hast no delight in; mine ears hast Thou opened; burnt-offering and sin-offering hast Thou not required.

Greater lies have never been told as we have before us a prime example of Roman creative theology as they purposefully misquote the Psalms whereby incarnational theology to give "the Christ" a fleshly body is made out of a passage declaring how God had opened the ears of mankind in order for them to please Him through learning and living of the Torah and His Commandments.

The first two chapters of Luke were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes, about A.D. 125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A.D. 145. They first appeared in the the Gospel of Luke following Irenaeus' Second New Testament in 180 C.E.

Answer for yourself: Then is it not fair to say that early Church Fathers have misrepresented and deceitfully discredited Marcion's "Gospel of the Lord" and added much to the later "Gospel of Luke" and presented it to the world as if written by Luke when it was not?

Answer for yourself: What accounts in the Gospel of Luke are pure fabrications created on purpose to further the Roman agenda of changing the earliest concepts of "the Christ" which were symbolic, metaphoric, and allegorical into a "literal" interpretation as if "the Christ" was a human and that human was according to the Roman Gospel Jesus of Nazareth?

Again we must not get confused as God anoints His servants but such different levels of anointing must not cause us to fail to see the forgery presented before us whereby "the Christ" was make an exclusive human being when in fact we all possess "the Christ." Yeshua was used by God in tremendous ways and the Jewish Messiah was to have and possess "this Christ" as well but the understanding of this must not blind us to the exclusiveness imposed upon Jesus in the New Testament and the forgery of events that accompany such literary creationism for the theological agendas of Rome.

Let us now turn to examine what various scholars have to say about the Roman forgery of the First New Testament as we see what they have to say about the continual falsification of these documents down through