I recently saw a lecture from King’s College ,where Bart has lectured himself, by professor Markus Vinzent on Marcion of Sinope. Among some of the theories by him and others is that the synoptics were all pseudopigraphies of Marcion’s Gospel. Then I read some of Tertullian”s “Against Marcion” and there does seem to be some very interesting options to how everything “may have” came together in the 1-2 centuries. I’m just curious to anyone of more study on this sub-topic than I as to what they think, especially Dr. Ehrman. I definetley understand his interest in the very earliest christianity. For those that aren’t familiar with Marcion’s ideology, please read an overview from Wikipedia or likewise, very interesting stuff.
If you’re interested in Marcion, I highly recommend Jason DeBuhn’s ** you do not have permission to see this link **. In addition a great description of Marcion’s life and theology, it has reconstructed texts of Marcion’s corpus (something similar to Luke and Pauline epistles). One really interesting thing is that Marcion’s gospel seems to lack Luke 1-2, lending credence to the idea that Luke 1-2 may not have been present in some original version of Luke, which also makes sense with the somewhat weird structure of Luke (it has a genealogy in chapter 3, kind of in the middle of everything, rather than in the beginning like Matthew.)
Unfortunately I think the synoptic problem makes it unlikely that the new testament gospels were derivatives of Marcion’s gospel. Most scholars think that Mark was the base text of the other gospels, not Luke, and Marcion’s text seems to be most directly related to Luke. DeBuhn and other have suggested, however, that the idea of a ‘cannon’ was Marcion’s creation, and that perhaps the New Testament as a cannon (not our current cannon, but a proto-orthodox one) was created to compete against Marcion’s.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)