Among Peter Kirby's later posts concerns Marcion's New Testament. Which NT is, like Martin Luther's NT, an exercise in preference. But not always of revision. We're tonight Beyond Zebra, Zebra being Romans 14:23 per Marcion apud Origen.
As I read the full Romans (English translation), I don't see much that Marcion would efface. That the Church should support "the poor in Jerusalem" is something that John Crossan might flag, as specific to Paul's time with no relevance to Marcion's. On the other hand - as noted even by his opponent Tertullian - Marcion allowed copious Pauline material as didn't help the mature Marcionite theology.
As, indeed, perhaps-Marcion-contemporary Luke was not allowing. Crossan is clear that Luke refused the early Christian definition of "the Poor" as James defined them. (Or as Matthew might define them...) We are all, I hope, aware of Luke's propensity to pound Peter into a Pauline mould.
As to Romans' ending looking toward a visit to Spain - does Luke's own text reach that far? I don't see it. 1 Clement assumes Paul went that far pace this guy.
Kirby further points out that Tertullian didn't quibble Marcion on the last two chapters of Romans. Tertullian's own (Latin) copy perhaps lacked them. Again: my blog does not question the present text of Romans as a first-century production. But we might at least ask about the texts in the middle second-century.
Was "Marcion's New Testament" actually Marcion's? - or did Marcion inherit Luke's edition of the Epistles, simply developing his thought from that?
For stopping Paul's letter short, Luke has a motive which Marcion does not have: the Advent / Parousia of the Holy Spirit, from the Temple Mount to the Seven Hills. Paul's hope was for Spain. This hope was not Luke's hope; wasn't Marcion's either, obviously, but Marcion didn't care. Just like Tertullian didn't care. But Luke cared.
No comments:
Post a Comment