Gospel of Marcion#Semler hypothesis and Schwegler hypothesis

Reconstructions of the text of Marcion's Gospel make careful use of second-hand quotations and paraphrases to the text as found in anti-Marcionite writings by orthodox Christian apologists, especially Tertullian, Epiphanius, the Dialogue of Adamantius. Of these secondary witnesses, Tertullian contributes the most material and references, Epiphanius the second most, and the Dialogue of Adamantius the third most.{{cite book | last=Roth | first=Dieter T. | date=2015-01-08 | chapter=Epiphanius as a source | pages=270–346 | doi=10.1163/9789004282377_007 | chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hNYuBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA270 | title=The text of Marcion's Gospel | publisher=Brill | publication-place=Leiden | isbn=978-90-04-24520-4 | language=en | series=New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents | volume=49}}

Like the Gospel of Mark, Marcion's gospel lacked any nativity story. Luke's account of the baptism of Jesus was also absent. The gospel began, roughly, as follows:{{blockquote| In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, Jesus descended into Capernaum, a city in Galilee, and was teaching on the Sabbath days.{{cite book | author=Tertullian | title=Adversus Marcionem | at=4.7.1}}{{cite book | author=Epiphanius | title=Panarion | at=42.11.4}} (cf. Luke 3:1a, {{bibleverse-nb|Luke|4:31|KJV}})}}

Other Lukan passages that did not appear in Marcion's gospel include the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son.{{cite journal| last1=BeDuhn| first1=Jason David| author-link1=Jason BeDuhn| title=The New Marcion| journal=Forum| volume=3| issue=Fall 2015| pages=163–179| url=http://www.westarinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Forum-42-Challenging-Common-Conceptions-of-Early-Christianity.pdf| access-date=2019-05-25| archive-date=2019-05-25| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190525073815/http://www.westarinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Forum-42-Challenging-Common-Conceptions-of-Early-Christianity.pdf| url-status=dead}}{{rp|170}}

While Marcion preached that the God who had sent Jesus Christ was an entirely new, alien god, distinct from the God who had created the world,{{cite book | last=Knox | first=John | date=1942 | title=Marcion and the New Testament: An essay in the early history of the canon | publication-place=Chicago | publisher=Chicago University Press | isbn=978-0-598-89060-3}}{{rp|2}} this view was not explicitly taught in Marcion's gospel.{{rp|169}} The Gospel of Marcion is, however, much more amenable to a Marcionite interpretation than the canonical Gospel of Luke, because it lacks many of the passages in Luke that explicitly link Jesus with Judaism, such as the parallel birth narratives of John the Baptist and Jesus in Luke 1–2.{{Citation needed|date=January 2023|reason=uncited, NOR + anachronism, see Shaye J.D. Cohen 1999 The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties University of California Press. Chapter 3 specifically the conclusion cited at Judaism#Etymology for current majority view.}}

There are three main hypotheses concerning the relationship between the gospel of Marcion and the gospel of Luke:{{Cite book | last=BeDuhn | first=Jason David | title=The first New Testament: Marcion's scriptural canon | year=2013 | isbn=978-1-59815-131-2 | pages=79 | chapter=The Evangelion | publisher=Polebridge Press | oclc=857141226}}

{{Blockquote|text=1. Marcion's Evangelion derives from Luke by a process of reduction (The Patristic Hypothesis).

2. Luke derives from Marcion's Evangelion by a process of expansion (The Schwegler Hypothesis).

3. Marcion's Evangelion and Luke are both independent developments of a common proto-gospel (The Semler Hypothesis).}}

The proto-orthodox and orthodox Church Fathers maintained that Marcion edited Luke to fit his own theology, Marcionism, and modern scholars such as Metzger, Ehrman, and Roth have maintained this as well.{{cite book | last=Ehrman | first=Bart | url=https://archive.org/details/lostchristianiti00ehrm | title=Lost Christianities | publisher=Oxford University Press | year=2003 | publication-place=New York | pages=[https://archive.org/details/lostchristianiti00ehrm/page/108 108] | isbn=978-0-19-514183-2 | quote=Tertullian, Epiphanius, and other ancient witnesses, all of whom knew and accepted the same Gospel of Luke we know, felt not the slightest doubt that the "heretic" had shortened and "mutilated" the canonical Gospel; and on the other hand, there is every indication that the Marcionites denied this charge and accused the more conservative churches of having falsified and corrupted the true Gospel which they alone possessed in its purity. These claims are precisely what we would have expected from the two rival camps, and neither set of them deserves much consideration. | author-link=Bart Ehrman | url-access=registration}}{{cite book | last=Metzger | first=Bruce | title=The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origins, Developments and Significance | date=1989 | publisher=Clarendon Press | edition=2nd | publication-place=Oxford | pages=92–99 | chapter=IV. Influences Bearing on the Development of the New Testament | author-link=Bruce M. Metzger | orig-year=1987}} The late 2nd-century writer Tertullian stated that Marcion, "expunged [from the Gospel of Luke] all the things that oppose his view... but retained those things that accord with his opinion".{{cite book |author=Tertullian | title=Adversus Marcionem | at=4.6.2}}

According to this view, Marcion eliminated the first two chapters of Luke concerning the nativity, and began his gospel at Capernaum making modifications to the remainder suitable to Marcionism. The differences in the texts below are interpreted by advocates of this hypothesis as evidence of Marcion editing Luke to omit the Hebrew Prophets and to better support a dualistic view of the earth as evil.

Late 19th- and early 20th-century theologian Adolf von Harnack, in agreement with the traditional account of Marcion as revisionist, theorized that Marcion believed there could be only one true gospel, all others being fabrications by pro-Jewish elements, determined to sustain worship of Yahweh; and that the true gospel was given directly to Paul the Apostle by Christ himself, but was later corrupted by those same elements who also corrupted the Pauline epistles. In this understanding, Marcion saw the attribution of this gospel to Luke the Evangelist as a fabrication, so he began what he saw as a restoration of the original gospel as given to Paul.{{cite book | last=von Harnack | first=Adolf | translator-last1=Steely | translator-first1=John E. | translator-last2=Bierma | translator-first2=Lyle D. | date=1990 | title=Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God | publication-place=Durham, North Carolina | publisher=Labrynth Press | isbn=978-0-939464-16-6 | url=https://archive.org/details/marciongospeloft00harn}} A translation of {{cite book | last=von Harnack | first=Adolf | date=1924 | title=Marcion: das Evangelium vom fremden Gott, eine Monographie zur Geschichte der Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche | trans-title=Marcion: the gospel of the alien God: A monograph on the history of the foundation of the Catholic Church | edition=2nd | publication-place=Leipzig | publisher=J. C. Hinrichs | language=de | url=https://archive.org/details/AdolfHarnack.MarcionDasEvangeliumVomFremdenGott}} Republished as {{cite book | last=von Harnack | first=Adolf | translator-last1=Steely | translator-first1=John E. | translator-last2=Bierma | translator-first2=Lyle D. | year=2007 | title=Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God | publication-place=Eugene, Oregon | publisher=Wipf & Stock | isbn=978-1-55635-703-9 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1ixKAwAAQBAJ}} Harnack wrote that:{{blockquote|For this task he did not appeal to a divine revelation, any special instruction, nor to a pneumatic assistance [...] From this it immediately follows that for his purifications of the text – and this is usually overlooked – he neither could claim nor did claim absolute certainty.}}

A "long line of scholars" have rejected the traditional view that the Gospel of Marcion was a revision of the Gospel of Luke, and instead argued that it reflects an early version of Luke later expanded into its canonical form.{{Cite book | last=BeDuhn | first=Jason David | title=The first New Testament: Marcion's scriptural canon | year=2013 | isbn=978-1-59815-131-2 | pages=78–79, 346–347 | chapter=The Evangelion | publisher=Polebridge Press | oclc=857141226}} These scholars see a consistent pattern running in the opposite direction, that Marcion's Gospel usually attests simpler, earlier textual traditions than corresponding content in canonical Luke both at the micro- and macro-level. The following examples (all attested by Greek witnesses to the Gospel of Marcion) illustrate this point of view.

Scholars who reject the Patristic hypothesis defend either of the two hypotheses. One group argues that both gospels are independent redactions of a "proto-Luke", with Marcion's text being closer to the original proto-Luke. This position is called the Semler hypothesis after the name of its creator, Johann Salomo Semler. This position has been supported by scholars such as Josias F.C. Loeffler,{{cite book | last1=Löffler | first1=Josias Friedrich Christian | date=1788 | title=Marcionem Paulli epistolas et Lucae evangelium adulterasse dubitatur | trans-title=It is doubtful that Marcion adulterated Paul's letters and Luke's gospel | publisher=Christian Ludwig Apitz | language=la | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6wBZAAAAcAAJ}} Republished as {{cite journal | last1=Löffler | first1=Josias Friedrich Christian | author-mask=1 | date=1794 | title=Marcionem Paulli epistolas et Lucae evangelium adulterasse dubitatur | journal=Commentationes Theologicae | volume=1 | pages=180–218 | language=la | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=868OAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA180}} Johann E.C. Schmidt,{{cite journal | last=Schmidt | first=Johann Ernst Christian | date=1796 | title=Ueber das ächte Evangelium des Lucas, eine Vermuthung | journal=Magazin für Religionsphilosophie, Exegese und Kirchengeschichte | volume=5 | pages=468–520}} Leonhard Bertholdt,{{cite book | last=Bertholdt | first=Leonhard | year=1813 | title=Historisch-kritische Einleitung in sämmtliche kanonische und apokryphische Schriften des alten und neuen Testaments | trans-title=Historical-critical introduction to all canonical and apocryphal writings of the Old and New Testaments | publication-place=Erlangen | publisher=Johann Jacob Palm | language=de}} 5 volumes. Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, John Knox,{{r|Knox 1942|p=110}} Karl Reinhold Köstlin, Joseph B. Tyson,{{Cite book | last=Tyson | first=Joseph B. | title=Marcion and Luke-Acts : a defining struggle | date=2006 | publisher=University of South Carolina Press | isbn=1-57003-650-0 | publication-place=Columbia, SC | oclc=67383634}} and Jason BeDuhn.{{Cite book | last=BeDuhn | first=Jason David | title=The first New Testament: Marcion's scriptural canon | year=2013 | isbn=978-1-59815-131-2 | pages=78–79 | chapter=The Evangelion | publisher=Polebridge Press | oclc=857141226}} The other group argues that the Gospel of Luke is a later redaction of the Gospel of Marcion that significantly revised and expanded it. This position is called the Schwegler hypothesis after its creator Albert Schwegler.Albert Schwegler, Das nachapostolische Zeitalter in den Hauptmomenten seiner Entwicklung, 2 vol. (Tübingen: Fues., 1846) This position has been supported by scholars such as Albrecht Ritschl,{{cite book | last=Ritschl | first=Albrecht | year=1846 | title=Das Evangelium Marcions und das kanonische Evangelium des Lucas: eine kritische Untersuchung | trans-title=The Gospel of Marcion and the canonical Gospel of Luke: A critical study | publication-place=Tübingen | publisher=Osiander | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EQ9NAAAAcAAJ | language=de | access-date=2 April 2024 | page=}} Ferdinand Christian Baur,{{cite book | last=Baur | first=Ferdinand Christian | year=1847 | title=Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien, ihr Verhältnis zu einander, ihren Charakter und Ursprung | trans-title=Critical studies of the canonical Gospels, their relationship to one another, their character and origin | publication-place=Tübingen | publisher=Ludwig Friedrich Fues | language=de | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=B5kCAAAAQAAJ}} Paul-Louis Couchoud, Georges Ory, John Townsend, R. Joseph Hoffman,{{Cite book | last=Hoffmann | first=R. Joseph | title=Marcion, on the restitution of Christianity: An essay on the development of radical Paulinist theology in the second century | date=1984 | publisher=Scholars Press | isbn=0-89130-638-2 | oclc=926802543}} Matthias Klinghardt, Markus Vinzent,{{Cite journal | last=Vinzent | first=Markus | date=2015 | title=Marcion's Gospel and the beginnings of early Christianity | url=https://www.academia.edu/31939279 | journal=Annali di Storia dell'esegesi | language=en | volume=32 | issue=1 | pages=55–87 | via=Academia.edu}}{{Cite journal | last=BeDuhn | first=Jason David | date=2015 | title=Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels, written by Markus Vinzent | journal=Vigiliae Christianae | language=en | volume=69 | issue=4 | pages=452–457 | doi=10.1163/15700720-12301234 | issn=1570-0720}}{{Cite web | last=Vinzent | first=Markus | date=2016-11-24 | title=I am in the process of reading your book 'Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels' ... | url=http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/2016/11/i-am-in-process-of-reading-your-book.html | access-date=2020-09-05 | website=Markus Vinzent's Blog}} and David Trobisch.{{cite book | last=Trobisch | first=David | year=2018 | title=Das Neue Testament und sein Text im 2.Jahrhundert | trans-title=The New Testament and its text in the second century | isbn=978-3-7720-8640-3 | editor1-last=Heilmann | editor1-first=Jan | series=Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter | volume=61 | publication-place=Tübingen | publisher=Narr Francke Attempto Verlag | pages=171–172 | chapter=The Gospel According to John in the light of Marcion's Gospelbook | editor2-last=Klinghardt | editor2-first=Matthias | language=de | chapter-url=https://www.academia.edu/38237734}}

Several arguments have been put forward in favor of those two latter views.

Firstly, there are many passages found in reconstructions of Marcion's gospel (based on comments of his detractors) that seem to contradict Marcion's own theology, which would be unexpected if Marcion was simply removing passages from Luke with which he did not agree. Matthias Klinghardt (in 2008){{Cite journal | last=Klinghardt | first=Matthias | date=2008 | title=The Marcionite Gospel and the synoptic problem: A new suggestion | journal=Novum Testamentum | volume=50 | issue=1 | pages=1–27 | doi=10.1163/156853608X257527 | jstor=25442581 | issn=0048-1009 | quote=The main argument against the traditional view of Luke’s priority to [Marcion] relies on the lack of consequence of his redaction: Marcion presumably had theological reasons for the alterations in "his" gospel which implies that he pursued an editorial concept. This, however, cannot be detected. On the contrary, all the major ancient sources give an account of Marcion’s text, because they specifically intend to refute him on the ground of his own gospel. Therefore, Tertullian concludes his treatment of [Marcion]: "I am sorry for you, Marcion: your labour has been in vain. Even in your gospel Christ Jesus is mine" ([Tert. Adv. Marc.] 4.43.9).}} and Jason BeDuhn (in 2012){{cite journal | first=Jason David | last=BeDuhn | title=The myth of Marcion as redactor: The evidence of 'Marcion's' Gospel against an assumed Marcionite redaction | journal=Annali di Storia dell'esegesi | volume=29 | number=1 | date=2012 | pages=21–48 | issn=1120-4001 | language=en | url=https://www.academia.edu/107485673}} have both made this argument in detail.

Secondly, Marcion is attested to have claimed that the gospel he used was original and that the canonical Luke was a falsification.{{cite journal | last=Klinghardt | first=Matthias | date=2008 | title=The Marcionite Gospel and the synoptic problem: A new suggestion | journal=Novum Testamentum | volume=50 | issue=1 | pages=1–27 | doi=10.1163/156853608X257527 | jstor=25442581}}{{rp|8}} The accusations of alteration are therefore mutual.

Thirdly, John Knox{{r|Knox 1942}} and Joseph Tyson{{cite book | last=Tyson | first=Joseph | title=Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle | date=2006 | publisher=University of South Carolina Press | isbn=978-1570036507}} (both using Harnack's edition), and more recently Daniel A. Smith{{cite book | last=Smith | first=Daniel A. | date=December 3, 2018 | chapter=Marcion's gospel and the synoptics: Proposals and problems | pages=129–174 | doi=10.1515/9783110542349-008 | editor-last1=Verheyden | editor-first1=Joseph | editor-last2=Nicklas | editor-first2=Tobias | editor-last3=Schröter | editor-first3=Jens | title=Gospels and Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Experiments in Reception | publication-place=Berlin | publisher=De Gruyter | series=Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft | volume=235 | isbn=978-3-11-054081-9 | oclc=1019604896 | issn=0171-6441 | chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FzCGDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT138}} (using Roth's edition), have all put forth statistical analyses showing that Lukan single traditions are disproportionately lacking in the Gospel of Marcion, while double and triple traditions are disproportionately present. They argue that this result makes sense if canonical Luke added new material to Marcion's gospel or its source, but that it is unlikely if Marcion removed material from Luke.

There are more nuanced variations and combinations of these hypotheses. Knox and Tyson, for example, follow the Semler hypothesis in general, but still posit with the Patristic hypothesis that Marcion removed some passages. Pier Angelo Gramaglia, in his critical translation of Klinghardt's edition, concurs with the overall direction of the Semler and Schwegler hypotheses, but has argued on philological grounds that the Gospel of Marcion and Luke are two successive editions by the same editor.{{cite book | last=Gramaglia | first=Pier Angelo | others=Matthias Klinghardt | date=2017-09-27 | title=Marcione e il Vangelo (di Luca) : un confronto con Matthias Klinghardt | trans-title=Marcion and the Gospel (of Luke): A dialogue with Matthias Klinghardt | edition=1st | publication-place=Torino | publisher=Accademia University Press | language=it | isbn=978-88-99982-37-9 | oclc=1264710161 | url=https://archive.org/details/GramagliaMarcioneEIlVangeloDiLuca}} Like several 19th century scholars, Knox, Tyson, Vinzent, and Klinghardt have extended the Schwegler hypothesis to include the canonical Book of Acts, arguing that it is an anti-Marcionite work.{{Cite book | last=BeDuhn | first=Jason David | title=The first New Testament: Marcion's scriptural canon | year=2013 | isbn=978-1-59815-131-2 | pages=90–91 | chapter=The Evangelion | publisher=Polebridge Press | oclc=857141226}}

Judith Lieu argues that Marcion had access and edited a work extremely similar to the Canonical Gospel of Luke, though this older work would have lacked certain passages. As such the currently extant Gospel of Luke would have appeared after the Gospel of Marcion. {{cite book |last= Lieu |first= Judith |author-link= Judith Lieu |title= Marcion and the Making of a Heretic: God and Scripture in the Second Century |date= 26 March 2015 |publisher= Cambridge University Press |page= 209 |isbn= 978-1107029040}}

{{See also|Marcan priority}}

In 2008, Matthias Klinghardt proposed that Marcion's gospel was based on the Gospel of Mark, that the Gospel of Matthew was an expansion of the Gospel of Mark with reference to the Gospel of Marcion, and that the Gospel of Luke was an expansion of the Gospel of Marcion with reference to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. In Klinghardt's view, this model elegantly accounts for the double tradition— material shared by Matthew and Luke, but not Mark— without appealing to purely hypothetical documents, such as the Q source.{{rp|21–22, 26}} In his 2015 book, Klinghardt changed his opinion compared to his 2008 article. In his 2015 book, he considers that the gospel of Marcion precedes and influenced the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John).{{cite book | last=Klinghardt | first=Matthias | date=2015-03-25 | chapter=Vom ältesten Evangelium zum kanonischen Vier-Evangelienbuch: Eine überlieferungsgeschichtliche Skizze | trans-chapter=From the oldest gospel to the canonical books of the four gospels: A historical sketch | title=Das älteste Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen Evangelien: Band I: Untersuchung | trans-title=The oldest gospel and the formation of the canonical gospels: Volume I: Investigation | publisher=Narr Francke Attempto Verlag | language=de | isbn=978-3-7720-5549-2 | issn=0939-5199 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bk94DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA190 | pages=190–231}}

In his 2013 book, BeDuhn argued that understanding Marcion's Gospel as the first two source gospel, drawing on Q and Mark, resolves many of the problems of the traditional Q hypothesis, including its narrative introduction and the minor agreements. {{Cite book | last=BeDuhn | first=Jason David | title=The first New Testament: Marcion's scriptural canon | year=2013 | isbn=978-1-59815-131-2 | pages=93–96 | chapter=The Evangelion | publisher=Polebridge Press | oclc=857141226}} Pier Angelo Gramaglia, in his 2017 critical commentary on Klinghardt's reconstruction, made an extended argument that Marcion's Gospel is a two-source gospel, making use of Mark and Q, while canonical Luke builds on Marcion's Gospel in part from a secondary appropriation of Q material. Research from 2018 suggests that the Gospel of Marcion may have been the original two-source gospel based on Q and Mark.{{cite book | last=Bilby | first=Mark G. | date=2018-10-05 | chapter=First Dionysian gospel: Imitational and redactional layers in Luke and John | pages=49–68 | editor-last=Bilby | editor-first=Mark G. | editor-last2=Kochenash | editor-first2=Michael | editor-last3=Froelich | editor-first3=Margaret | title=Classical Greek models of the Gospels and Acts: Studies in mimesis criticism | publication-place=Claremont, CA | publisher=Claremont Press | series=Claremont studies in New Testament & Christian origins | isbn=978-1-946230-18-8}}

{{Main articles|Priority of the Gospel of Marcion}}

File:Klinghardt's_Marcion_hypothesis_-_four_canonical_gospels.svg

In his 2014 book Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels, Markus Vinzent considers, like Klinghardt, that the gospel of Marcion precedes the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). He believes that the Gospel of Marcion influenced the four gospels. Vinzent differs with both BeDuhn and Klinghardt in that he believes the Gospel of Marcion was written directly by Marcion: Marcion's gospel was first written as a draft not meant for publication which was plagiarized by the four canonical gospels; this plagiarism angered Marcion who saw the purpose of his text distorted and made him publish his gospel along with a preface (the Antithesis) and 10 letters of Paul.{{Cite journal | last=BeDuhn | first=Jason David | date=2015-09-16 | title=Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels, written by Markus Vinzent | url=https://brill.com/view/journals/vc/69/4/article-p452_7.xml | journal=Vigiliae Christianae | language=en | volume=69 | issue=4 | pages=452–457 | doi=10.1163/15700720-12301234 | issn=1570-0720}}

The Marcion priority also implies a model of the late dating of the New Testament Gospels to the 2nd century – a thesis that goes back to David Trobisch, who, in 1996 in his habilitation thesis accepted in Heidelberg,{{cite book | last=Trobisch | first=David | title=Die Endredaktion des Neuen Testaments : eine Untersuchung zur Entstehung der christlichen Bibel | publisher=Universitätsverlag | publication-place=Freiburg, Schweiz | date=1996 | isbn=3-7278-1075-0 | oclc=35782011 | language=de | author-link=David Trobisch}} presented the conception or thesis of an early, uniform final editing of the New Testament canon in the 2nd century.{{cite book | last1=Heilmann | first1=Jan | last2=Klinghardt | first2=Matthias | year=2018 | chapter=Eine Einführung | trans-chapter=An introduction | chapter-url=https://content.e-bookshelf.de/media/reading/L-10727137-a2fdb3e152.pdf | editor1-last=Heilmann | editor1-first=Jan | editor2-last=Klinghardt | editor2-first=Matthias | title=Das Neue Testament und sein Text im 2.Jahrhundert | trans-title=The New Testament and its text in the second century | publisher=Narr Francke Attempto Verlag | isbn=978-3-7720-8640-3 | series=Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter | volume=61 | publication-place=Tübingen | page=9 | quote=Die Ausgangsthese einer Edition des Neuen Testaments im 2. Jh. ist nicht neu. Sie geht auf David Trobisch zurück, der schon vor 20 Jahren herausgearbeitet hatte, dass die 27 Einzelschriften des NT nicht in einem längeren, anonymen Sammlungs- und Ausscheidungsprozess zu einer literarischen (und theologischen) Einheit zusammengewachsen sind. 1 Diese Einheit sei vielmehr das Produkt einer einmaligen, historisch in der Mitte des 2. Jh. zu verortenden Edition. Diese Ausgabe trug bereits den Titel „Neues Testament“ (η῾ καινη` διαθη´ κη) und war von vornherein als zweiter Teil einer christlichen Bibel, also mit dem Blick auf das „Alte Testament“ konzipiert. [The initial thesis of an edition of the New Testament in the 2nd century is not new. It goes back to David Trobisch, who had already worked out 20 years ago that the 27 individual writings of the NT did not grow together into a literary (and theological) unit through a long, anonymous process of collection and elimination. Rather, this unity is the product of a unique edition that can be historically located in the middle of the 2nd century. This edition already had the title “New Testament” (η῾ καινη` διαθη´ κη) and was conceived from the outset as the second part of a Christian Bible, i.e. with the "Old Testament" in mind.]}}

• List of Gospels
• Marcion hypothesis

{{-}}

{{reflist}}

• [http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/Marcionite_Bible.htm The Marcionite Research Library]: contains a full text in English with hyperlinks to the reconstruction sources.
• {{cite book | url=https://archive.org/details/firstnewtestamen0000bedu | first=Jason David | last=BeDuhn | title=The first New Testament: Marcion's scriptural canon| date=2013 | publisher=Polebridge Press | isbn=978-1-59815-131-2 }}: a full modern English reconstruction available for checkout at the Open Library

• G.R.S. Mead, [https://archive.today/20121130122725/www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library/meadmarcion.htm Fragments of a Faith Forgotten (London and Benares, 1900; 3rd edition 1931)]: pp. 241– 249 Introduction to Marcion
• {{cite book | last=Burkitt | first=Francis Crawford | chapter=Marcion, or Christianity without history | pages=289–323 | title=The Gospel History and Its Transmission | edition=1st | publication-place=Edinburgh | publisher=T. & T. Clark | series=Jowett lectures | year=1906 | url=https://archive.org/details/gospelhistoryits0000fcra_p3u9/page/289 }} [https://archive.org/details/gospelhistoryits0000burk/page/289 5th edition] (1925) [https://web.archive.org/web/20160702123839/http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AA/Burkitt-Marcion.html HTML]
• {{cite book | url=https://archive.org/details/historyofchristi00waitrich | date=1881 | title=History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two-Hundred | first=Charles Burlingame | last=Waite | publication-place=Chicago | publisher=C. V. Waite & Company}} It includes a chapter where he compares Marcion and Luke
• {{cite book | last=Tyson | first=Joseph B. | title=Marcion and Luke-Acts: A defining struggle | publisher=University of South Carolina Press | year=2006 | isbn=978-1-57003-650-7 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MU2U08v6aq0C}} A case in favor of the view that the canonical Luke-Acts duo is a response to Marcion. Tyson also recounts the history of scholarly studies on Marcion up to 2006.

{{Gospel of Luke}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Marcion}}

Category:2nd-century Christian texts

Category:Apocryphal Gospels

Category:Gnostic Gospels

Category:Gospel of Luke

Category:Marcionism