To continue the Marcion theme, lately the Westar lads like BeDuhn have pointed out some skips in Tertullian's argument. Tertullian goes line by line through Marcion's gospel, pointing out where his gospel differs from Luke's. Tertullian's Contra IV.25 deals up to Luke 10:27 and .26 just... talks Luke 11:1. IV.32 talks about the lost sheep and the lost silver-coin which is Luke 15:1-10 and then .33 goes to Luke 16:11f. Tertullian and Marcion agree not to talk about the Helpful Samaritan nor about the Prodigal Son. Epiphanius, for his Scholion 42, reports positively that Marcion "falsified" the Prodigal Son narrative.
Does Marcion have reason to omit these parables?
Maybe Tertullian and Marcion, both schismatics at heart, agree that the Prodigal Son is a problematic for a community rife with apostates. The Prodigal Son posed, further, a proof-text for the Prophets as sent from the same Father as sent Christ. Except... both Marcion and Tertullian own the lost sheep and the lost coin; so, from the Prodigal Son, why wouldn't Marcion just delete that one line that offended him?
This looks like Tertullian and Marcion own, together, copies of Luke which omit the Prodigal Son. Just like they owned a copy as didn't have the First Stone (which is now, mostly, in John 7-8).
On the other hand the Samaritan should be up both mens' alley as supporting non-Jews against Jews. And you'd think Epiphanius would notice its omission. Roth prefers to punt on this one: it is currently-unattested in Marcion's gospel, which is not proof of absence.
No comments:
Post a Comment