In order to reconstruct the text of Marcion’s gospel, it is not only necessary to give the patristic witnesses (Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Adamantius) a more critical and cautious assessment than Harnack did. Beyond that, the primary goal must be the solution of the one basic methodological problem that has been neglected almost completely for the last 150 years: Is Marcion’s text a re-edition of canonical Luke which was altered by the heretic for theological reasons (as most scholars believe)? Or is Luke the enlarged re-edition of an older, pre-canonical gospel that was received and used among many others by Marcion?
Understandably, the methodological requirements for a reconstruction depend completely on this basic decision. The presentation, a “Werkstattbericht” from a reconstruction, argues for the last alternative, assuming that Marcion did not “create” his gospel but simply received what was available to him: the oldest, pre-canonical gospel. The evolving model of literary dependency between Marcion’s gospel and Luke does not only contribute to a more detailed reconstruction of Marcion’s text, but also opens important methodological insights for other areas of research, such as the literary relations among the gospels and the textual history of the NT.
"In order to reconstruct the text of Marcion’s gospel, it is not only necessary to give the patristic witnesses (Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Adamantius) a more critical and cautious assessment than Harnack did."
ReplyDeleteYeah right. Marcion's gospel can't be reconstructed. The patristic sources themselves weren't looking at Marcion's gospel but were themselves looking at a reconstruction attempt. All you can reconstruct is an ancient reconstruction. Marcion's gospel was completely lost in the 180s. What Tertullian (your earliest patristic source for reconstruction) was commenting on in 208-210 was itself a reconstruction.