Marking Mark’s Opening Verses

I was conversing with a Calvinist friend recently about the opening verses of the Gospel of Mark. As I was putting together my thoughts, it struck me again just how insecure the opening verses are for what is almost certainly the oldest surviving of the canonical gospels. Within just the first four verses there are at least two common textual variants, a misquote of the Old Testament, and a claim that contradicts a contemporary historical source.

Mark 1:1-4
1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God. 2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way. 3 The voice of one crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.’” 4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins…

Above is how the text currently stands, as translated from the reconstructed Greek by the Nestle-Aland team (which serves for the basis of most English translations – the NIV, NRSV, NLT, etc.)

In verse 1, the title “Son of God” is missing in at least two of the earliest surviving attestations of the text, leaving some question as to whether or not it should be considered part of the earliest attainable form of the gospel’s opening. The phrase is missing from what is probably the earliest scrap of Mark 1:1, that being the amulet P. Oxyrhynchus LXXVI 5073 of the late 3rd / early 4th centuries, and from Codex Sinaiticus of the 4th century. The phrase is included in most of the other major survived sources. Opinions vary among textual experts.

Image result for Oxyrhynchus LXXVI 5073 ^P. Oxyrhynchus LXXVI 5073 (c.late 3rd / early 4th century)

In verse 2, the text purports to quote “what is written in Isaiah the prophet”. However the following quotation actually comes from Malachi 3:1. Doh! When one isn’t hindered by an unnecessary presupposition of Biblical inerrancy (as my Calvinist friend seems compelled to presuppose) it requires no interpretive strain to see this as just another minor gaff on the author’s behalf (of which there are several others in the gospel [1]). Later scribes reproducing the verse also regularly saw the problem and many attempted to fix the text to read “as it is written in the prophets” (or variations).

In verse 4, the text describes John the Baptist as “proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins”. This oddly contradicts what the great ancient-Jewish historian Josephus says about John the Baptist – that John was *not* baptizing for the purpose of forgiveness of sins. Josephus: “For immersion in water, it was clear to [John the Baptist], could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body…” (Antiquities of the Jews, 18.5.2). [Further, the chronology of Josephus’ description of John the Baptist appears to disagree with the chronology of Mark’s. Josephus places his brief narrative of the baptist several pericopes after having talked about Pilate’s dismissal, etc.]

Given this, I don’t see any way how we can ever know whether the ritual provided by historical John the Baptist was intended for the forgiveness of sins or not. It’s Josephus’ word vs. the Gospel of Mark’s word – both sources written at roughly the same period (late 1st century). One might see Josephus as having the the advantage in that he was a native Hebrew / Aramaic speaker who lived in pre-war Israel, like the Baptist himself. The same can’t be said for the Gospel of Mark, being composed in a foreign language and probably from outside of Israel with no guarantee of having been written prior to the war. On the other hand, one might see the Gospel of Mark having the advantage on the basis that his movement appears to have indirectly sprung from John the Baptist’s movement (at least in some sense) whereas Josephus was an outsider of the movement who simply commented on it. So who knows?! The point is not so much to argue that the Gospel of Mark is necessarily wrong, only that it highlights that the gospels do not always agree with contemporary historical sources (despite that I am regularly told otherwise by believers).

I predict that most evangelicals will respond with a “well what does it matter?!” kind of response. Well, it doesn’t matter to me beyond fun little historical curiosities. But I think even these little issues should matter to those who believe the autographs of these texts were inerrantly inspired by a divine being when we don’t know precisely what the autographs said in places and when they contradict contemporary alternate historical sources. On the other hand, if this is all just a human production, it is not surprising at all to find that the opening verses of what is probably the earliest surviving gospel are littered with textual and historical eyebrow-raisers. The gospel genre is off to a flying start!

The Case Against Luke 1-2

This essay seeks to argue the case that Luke 1:5-2:52 is an insertion into the Gospel of Luke and not original to it.

The Virgin Birth: A Late Narrative
Thematically, Luke 1:5-2:52 seems to fit better alongside legendary 2nd century ‘Infancy Gospel’ narratives, such as the Infancy Gospel of James and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, in which there was something of a fad for stories about Mary, Joseph and boy-Jesus. In 1:44, the unborn John the Baptist, still in his mother’s womb, kicks for joy merely for being in the near presence of the Virgin Mary, who responds by breaking out into liturgical-sounding poetry/song.

If the Virgin Birth was an early tradition, it is odd that it isn’t mentioned more in roughly-contemporary (e.g. John c.90-110CE) and clearly earlier texts (Paul c.50sCE, and Mark c.70sCE). Each of these authors would have had good reason to recall it in their writings. While it is mentioned in Matthew (c.80-100CE), Church Fathers tell us of other Christian sects that had versions of Matthew that also omitted the virgin birth story and believed Jesus to be the natural offspring of Mary and Joseph.

A Notable Change of Linguistic Style
Linguistically, 1:5-2:52 differs from the rest of Luke-Acts also. To quote scholar Craig Blomberg: “Abruptly, with 1:5, Luke adopts a very Semitic form of Greek writing. From chapter 3 on, he uses standard koiné, though with a bit more literary artistry than the other evangelists, but not as elegantly as the preface or as Hebraic in style as the rest of [chapters 1-2]” (“Jesus and the Gospels: Introduction and Survey”, p.202).

Attestation of the Chapters Missing from Early Manuscripts
Church Fathers Irenaeus and Tertullian attest to the existence of versions of Luke that must have been in prominent circulation by c.150CE that did not include chapters 1-2. These were found in Marcionite churches. Is it just a coincidence that these are the very chapters that differ thematically and stylistically? Of course Irenaeus and Tertullian say that these chapters had been edited out by the holders of these gospels, but they don’t provide compelling evidence and argument. It’s their word against the word of the Marcionites. To quote scholar Jason BeDuhn: “[criticism by the Church Fathers that Marcion edited out Luke 1-2] was at best a guess on their part, and it cannot be given any weight as history just on their word” (“The First New Testament: Marcion’s Scriptural Canon”, p.69/70)

The Virgin Birth Missing through the Rest of Luke-Acts
The virgin birth (and any other significant content from 1:5-2:52) is never recalled or alluded to again in Luke-Acts after chapter 2 – even in places where we might expect to find it such as further scenes with Mary the mother of Jesus – e.g. she is never referred to as “the Virgin Mary” nor is it referenced again in the long summarizing speeches by Stephen, Peter and Paul who recall earlier events of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. Did they just forget to mention that Jesus was born of a virgin? Is it just a coincidence that this missing piece of information happens to be the same information that was also found missing in the alternative circulating versions of Luke, that when told in the canonical counterpart differs thematically and linguistically to the rest of canonical Luke-Acts?

Chapter 3 as the Original Introduction of Luke’s Gospel
The beginning of Chapter 3 reads like the beginning of a bios-history / gospel: “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea… ” etc., and is shortly followed by Jesus’s baptism and genealogy, etc. From the canonical point of view, it seems an odd place to insert Jesus’s genealogy – at the point of his adult baptism and after he has already “grown in wisdom and divine favor” (2:52) instead of at his conception or birth where genealogies would normally be placed. Indeed, one has to question the relevance and coherency of a genealogy that traces Jesus’s lineage through his father’s side if Jesus did not have a human father as is stated in chapters 1-2. Of course none of this would be odd if the gospel that underpinned Luke originally began at Chapter 3 – right at the point where the gospel sinks back into standard koiné style, and where we know other early versions started, and where the silence of further allusion to the virgin birth begins. Is this just all coincidence?

Baptismal Oddities Solved
The hypothesis that an earlier form of Luke did not include chapters 1-2 solves several other oddities within Luke-Acts’s surrounding John the Baptist and his baptism of Jesus. Firstly, John the Baptist is reintroduced in Luke 3:2 as if for the first time: “the word of God came to John son of Zechariah”, despite John having already recognized Jesus in the womb (1:44). There have been no other ‘Johns’ mentioned yet that would require this kind of formal distinction, and Luke 3:24 betrays no knowledge of the detailed events and family connections between Jesus and John in Luke 1-2. Secondly, Acts 1:22 has Peter refer to “the beginning” of “the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us” as Jesus’s baptism, not his birth nor maturity. And thirdly, there are textual variants in the surviving manuscripts of Luke 3 over what the voice from heaven said at Jesus’s baptism (3:22). Some manuscripts read “You are my Son, the Beloved. With you I am well pleased”, while others read “You are my Son. Today I have begotten you” (thus making it a quotation of Psalm 2:7). If the latter is the original saying, as is supported by many textual critics, this raises the question of why Jesus needs to be “begotten” further after already having been born of a virgin untainted from inheriting sin nature and already having obtained an increase in “wisdom and divine favor” (2:52). Similarly, the action of the Holy Spirit descending upon Jesus from above seems unnecessary. Again, all of this can be explained if chapters 1-2 are a later add-on.

Further Oddities Explained…
Furthermore on the version of Luke that circulated in Marcionite churches: The Church Fathers indicate that it more or less began with 3:1 and jumped straight to 4:31, skipping over (among other things) the story of Jesus’s rejection at Nazareth. If this is how an earlier form of the gospel once stood, this would actually prevent a further little oddity found within canonical Luke. In the canonical version, Jesus mocks the Nazareth synagogue attendees by suggesting they will want to see a miracle sign like the ones they have heard he performed in Capernaum (4:23). But at this point in canonical Luke, Jesus hasn’t performed any miracles in Capernaum yet. The miracles he performs in Capernaum occur AFTER these verses (4:31-41). If the Nazareth episode (4:16-30) wasn’t part of the gospel (as the Church Fathers attest was the case for the Marcionite version) then there is no oddity. It seems to me that the oddity was created unintentionally by a careless splicing together of sources. The redactor wants to have Jesus’s ministry expand from Nazareth (Jesus’s home town) to Capernaum, to Jerusalem, and ultimately to the rest of the world. However in constructing it this way, by splicing in a miracle narrative that references Jesus’s earlier Capernaum deeds before he even goes to Capernaum, he makes a little error that gives us a hint of the underlying redactional processes.

Once more, is this just another coincidence that the Marcionite version of Luke doesn’t have these textual oddities that seem to be the result of a careless splicing together of several sources?

Conclusion
I think when one takes all these factors in tandem, a fuzzy but distinguishable conclusion begins to rise to the surface – that Luke 1:5-2:52 is not original and has probably been added to a proto-Luke gospel that initially started at 3:1. I should also add that this is also not a denialist fringe view only held by a handful of amateur skeptics, but one that is held by many respectable scholars teaching in prestigious universities around the Western World. Bart Ehrman (Univ. North Carolina), Jason BeDuhn (Univ. Northern Arizona), David Trobisch (Univ. Heidelberg/Yale), are some names that subscribe to this view.

Relevant Quotes from Scholars:

“Granted that the birth material [of Luke 1-2] had an origin and transmission different from the stories of Jesus’s ministry, how did the evangelist proceed in joining birth material to the story of the ministry? Did he begin writing with the birth stories, or did he begin with the account of the ministry and, as an afterthought, prefix the birth stories? [The] evidence points in [the latter] direction. Although there have been occasional attempts to join the infancy story to the next two chapters, so that a continuous narrative-unit of the Gospel would extend from 1:5 to 4:15, the solemn beginning of the ministry in 3:1-2 could well have served as the original opening of the Lukan Gospel. Support for this is found not only in the fact that Mark and John open the Gospel story with the events surrounding the baptism of Jesus, but also in the reference to this baptism by John the Baptist as a beginning in Acts 1:22 (the latter passage suggests that the infancy narrative may have been prefixed to the Gospel after the Book of Acts was completed). The placing of the genealogy in the third chapter of Luke makes more sense if that had been done before an infancy narrative had been prefixed. As was true also with Matthew’s Gospel, none of the Lukan infancy narrative has had major influence on the body of the Gospel, so that, if the first two chapters had been lost, we could never have suspected their existence.”

– Raymond E. Brown: “The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary of the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke: Updated Edition”, 1993, p.239-240

“Luke 3:1 opens with an elaborate chronological statement: “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was … the word of the Lord came to John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness”. This surely reads as if it was originally written as the opening section of a book. The impression is strengthened by the curious position of the genealogy of our Lord (3:23). If this had been inserted by the last editor of the Gospel, we should have expected to find it, like the genealogy in Matthew, somewhere in chapters 1 or 2 in connection with the account of the Birth and Infancy. If, however, it was originally inserted in a book which only began with Luke 3:1, its position is explained – for it occurs immediately after the first mention of the name of Jesus.”

– Burnett Hillman Streeter: “The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins”, 1924, p.209

Regarding Luke 1:5:2-52:

“Nowhere is the variety of the ‘narrative tradition’ more apparent, for here we find, not self-contained stories, but a continuous narrative, and yet a narrative which is very different in form from the Passion Story. … The section itself … suggests that Luke 1:5-2:52 is a literary composition of no mean order which ought to be treated as inspired poetry rather than as sober prose … If the Galilean material is so fragmentary, how was it that Luke was able to write a continuous account of events thirty years earlier still? There is no satisfactory answer to this question except the conclusion that the Birth Stories are a literary compilation. … All indications are that it was composed at a relatively late date. This follows at once if Proto-Luke began with 3:1 – the Preaching of John, the Baptism and the Genealogy. It is also implied if the section is a literary composition. Activity of this kind is hard to understand unless it belongs to [a time post-70CE]”

– Vincent Taylor: “The Formation of the Gospel Tradition: Eight Lectures”, 1964, p.159-160

“[Editorial] clumsiness is demonstrated strikingly in Luke [between the Virgin Birth narrative and the genealogy] … We are obviously confronted by a process in the development of an idea, the gradual magnification of Jesus, in which a prior layer of tradition has actually been pried up by the wedge of another, later tradition, and instead of replacing it has simply been juxtaposed … [Luke’s] impressive enumeration of Jesus’s forefathers is marred at the very outset by the incomprehensible interpolation of a parenthetical phrase: “Jesus, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph”, and so on. This simple-minded “as was supposed” cancels the whole point of the lengthy genealogy, which is then given in detail anyhow! The editors who copied out the list establishing Jesus in the Jewish line of royal success were evidently active in a milieu that believed in the *later story of the Virgin Birth*. They simply inserted the parenthetical phrase to cancel what which would otherwise be normally conveyed by the presence of the genealogy – the perfect natural sonship of Jesus”

– Joel Carmichael, “The Death of Jesus”, 1964, p.53

On how textual discrepancies in the manuscripts might further indicate that 3:1 was the original beginning:

“If Luke 3 *began* this Gospel, then the placement of the genealogy makes perfect sense – especially if the words spoken by God from heaven are a quotation of Psalm 2:7, as [I’ve proposed elsewhere], “You are my son; today I have begotten you.” In that case, the Gospel begins by providing a dating for the events it is about to narrate, it opens with an account of Jesus’ baptism by John (as in Mark’s Gospel), that account ends with God indicating that this is the day on which he has “given birth to” (or “begotten”) Jesus, and then the author launches directly into the genealogy of Jesus’ birth. If that’s the case, there is no longer a problem with the voice of God at the baptism indicating that this is the moment at which he has “begotten” Jesus. He did not make Jesus his son at his birth (as indicated in 1:35 – a verse that was not originally in the Gospel) but at his baptism.”

– Bart Ehrman, “Arguments that Luke Originally Did Not Have the Virgin Birth”, blogpost, 22/10/2015.

“Without texts of the Gospel of Marcion or the pre-Marcionite edition of Luke, contentions about the composition of canonical Luke cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Any hypothesis is just that. But hypotheses carry conviction in the degree to which they answer questions and solve problems. In my judgment more problems are solved and fewer new ones created by a theory that understands canonical Luke to be the end of a rather long process of composition.

The first stage in this process would be the composition of a pre-Marcionite gospel. It probably began with Luke 3:1, and it would have contained material its author obtained, assuming the two-document hypothesis of synoptic relationship, from Mark and Q. This gospel probably also contained a brief narrative of Jesus’ resurrection, perhaps similar to what is now in Mark 16:1-8. Some material from the Lukan Sondergut was also used, but this early text almost certainly did not have the preface of the infancy narratives that now stand at the beginning of canonical Luke, and it probably did not contain the narratives of Jesus’ postresurrection appearances that we find in Luke 24. Without being precise about its actual contents, we may think of the pre-Marcionite gospel as similar to our Luke 3-23. This text, coming after Mark and before Marcion, probably dotes from ca. 70-90 C.E.

The second stage would be the composition of the Gospel of Marcion. This gospel as probably based on the pre-Marcionite gospel but with significant omissions, and so Marcion’s opponents could claim that he had “mutilated” the Gospel of Luke. We cannot be certain when this text first appeared, but a date of ca. 115-120 C.E. would probably not be far off the mark.

The third stage would be the composition of canonical Luke. This gospel was almost certainly based on the pre-Marcionite gospel, but its author added a number of new pericopes. He appended a preface (Luke 1:5-2:52); he rewrote the Markan story of the empty tomb (Luke 24:1-11) and added the postresurrection narratives (Luke 24:13-53). Undoubtedly this author also worked through his source and gave it his own stamp, thus creating the sense of literary unity that the work has. One of the purposes of this author was to publish a gospel that would clearly and forcefully respond to the claims of the Marcionites. The author of canonical Luke was also the author of Acts, and it is likely that he brought out the complete work about 120-125 C.E., just when Marcion’s views were becoming widely known. The author of these volumes almost certainly did not make use of Marcion’s gospel, which may well have appeared at about the same time. The work as a whole, Luke-Acts as we know it, surely served as a formidable anti-Marcionite text.”

– Joseph B. Tyson, “Marcion and Luke-Acts”, 2006, p.119-120

“It would not surprise me that the first two chapters [of Luke-Acts] take an anti-Marcionite view. In the first two chapters, Jewish piety is terrific. There is reference to John the Baptist’s circumcision, to Jesus’ circumcision, to people going to the Temple and making offerings. It looks like Old Testament wonderland! It’s fabulous! And you don’t see much of that particular view of Jewish piety, that particular view of the Temple and ritual in the rest of [Luke-Acts]. Everything in the first two chapters rings an anti-Marcionite bell. […] I put [the bulk of Luke] to probably the 90sCE, [and] I put Acts in the early second century. By the same author”

– Amy-Jill Levine, “Trinities Podcast Episode 236”, 2018.

John 21 is Probably Not Original to the Gospel

John 21 is probably not original to the fourth gospel. It is likely an addition to a text that initially ended at John 20:31. In this post, I’d like to highlight the significant reasons for why I think so.

To begin with, I’d like first to remind my readers that interpolations, additions, redactions, forgeries, verisimilitudes, stitchings together of earlier and free-floating traditions, and other textual shenanigans etc., were not at all uncommon in the practice of early Christian textual production and reproduction. To see this, one only has to observe the way the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatesseron redact and interpolate over the canonical traditions. Or observe the way the Gospels of Matthew and Luke redact Mark, or the way the pericopes of John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20 were probably added to their respective gospels at a later time (as they are missing in some of the earliest manuscripts). Similarly, we can read the longer version of Acts of the Apostles that contains some ~10% more material, or read up on disputes between Marcion and his opponents over accusations and denials of textual tampering vs. restoring etc. The point is simple: Such stuff was going on, and as such, we have a proof of concept before looking closer at John 21.

Let’s get to the meat now…

1) Most obviously, and I think this is the strongest point, is that the ending of John 20:30-31 reads just like a conclusion. It makes little sense to write a sentence indicating that “Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book” only to follow on with further miracles in the presence of his disciples in the book and a further almost identical concluding sentence (21:25). Even highly conservative scholars can see this. Take R. C. Lenski’s response in his classic commentary as a common response: “It is quite impossible to regard the last two verses of chapter 20 as anything but the formal and proper conclusion of John’s gospel. The impression made on us is that, when John penned or dictated these final verses, he intended to add nothing further.” (‘The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel’, p.1399). Lenski of course still accepts John 21 as “scripture”, and an actual memory traceable to the Beloved Disciple. But he can still see the writing on the wall – John 21 has been added to something that likely originally concluded at John 20:31. (For what it’s worth, many scholars suspect 20:30-31 was the original ending to the hypothetical ‘Signs Source’)

2) Many words, expressions, and literary peculiarities are found for the first and only time in John 21 compared with the rest of the gospel. C.K. Barrett identifies some 28 greek words in John 21 that are only found in that chapter. Of course, as Barrett admits, many of these words may just be coincidental and subject specific, but he also points out that about 1/3 of them are quite surprising when other more common Johannine words and phrases could have been used for the same effect. Barrett concludes his discussion on the chapter’s literary peculiarities by saying: “Consequently, it seems necessary to detach the whole of chapter 21 from the main body of the gospel” (‘The Gospel According to St. John’).

3) John 21 confuses the sequence of the narrative. After the mission of Mary Magdalene to announce the resurrection and the subsequent mission of the disciples (20:18-23), why do the disciples return from Jerusalem to Galilee and to their former occupations, seemingly somewhat bored by the present situation (21:2-3)? There is an obtuseness among the disciples that makes little sense of the joy, the mission, and the receiving of the Holy Spirit of 20:19-23. After having twice seen Jesus in the upper room (20:19-23, 26-29) why do they fail to recognise him when he appears for the third time (21:14)?

4) The narrative of John 21 shows a concern for the community, its mission, and authority within the community that exceeds the interest shown in these questions throughout John 1:1-20:31. For example, one of its main objectives seems to be to address the accusation that Jesus had predicted that the Beloved Disciple wouldn’t die before Jesus’ return (something that looks to me the kind of thing Jesus predicts in Mark 13). It looks awfully like the author/s of chapter 21 were aware the Beloved Disciple had in fact died. If the beloved disciple was in any sense responsible for some proportion of the text of the Gospel of John, then clearly this part wasn’t, indicating addition of some sort. And once we admit “addition”, then the question of what constitutes “original” naturally follows.

(Some wording and phrasing of Points 3 & 4 above I have borrowed from Francis J. Moloney’s ‘Sacra Pagina’ commentary, p.545)

5) There exists possible manuscript attestation to a circulating chapter-21-less gospel. The manuscript P66 completes chapter 20 and leaves a significant chunk of blank space before starting chapter 21 on the following page. This is an irregular practice for the rest of this manuscript, elsewhere showing no desire to begin new pericopes on fresh pages. See Brent Nongbri’s blog: https://brentnongbri.com/2018/10/24/p-bodmer-ii-as-evidence/

Similarly, according to G. Schenke, in 2006 a 4th century Sahidic papyrus manuscript (Bodleian MS. Copt.e.150(P)) came to light that may end at 20:31. One side of this single-leaf fragment consists of John 20:30-31 with a large space under it, having no subscription. J. B. Lightfoot and Raymond Brown also refer to a 5^th century Syriac manuscript in which chapter 21 is omitted, although I suspect they are talking about the same manuscript as Schenke, only prior to its publication.

6) Possible church father attestation to a missing John 21. Tertullian, writing around the same time as our earliest manuscript attestation to John 21 (P66, c.200CE), makes a comment in his ‘Against Praxeas’ that seems to imply his version of the gospel concluded at 20:31. Tertullian: “And wherefore does this conclusion of the gospel affirm that these things were written unless it is that you might believe, it says, that Jesus Christ is the son of God?”. That is the conclusion of 20:31. Not anything from chapter 21. Of course the obvious blow against this argument is that in another book, Tertullian seems aware of the tradition now found in John 21 that the disciple John should not have died prior to the second coming. However Tertullian gives us no indication that he is aware of that tradition from the Gospel of John. He may have known it from a free-floating tradition, or the second (third? fourth?) edition of the gospel. For a further discussion on this point, see Benen C. Smith’s article: http://www.textexcavation.com/tertullianjohnappendix.html.

So, considering all these reasons combined – particularly points 2-5 – this is why I think John 21 is not “original”. Of course each point may have possible alternative explanations to maintain the chapter’s status as “original”, however when taken cumulatively, I think the case against it is a strong one. I think there once existed a source that concluded with 20:30-31, and that chapter 21 was added onto that at a later time. How early or late that was I have no idea – almost certainly no later than 200CE, but I suspect a bit earlier. But how early is early enough to be considered “original”? Shouldn’t any addition be considered “not original”? Or at the very least it should raise the question of what should or should not count as “original”.

Even if, as I suspect, many evangelical readers will not find these arguments convincing, my hope is that they at least consider the possibility of addition in light of what we know about interpolation and redaction in early Christianity (both within and outside of the canon) and the ancient world in general for that matter. I hope they can see that there is at least some reason to doubt. I hope they can see that it is at least plausible and not at all an unreasonable hypothesis. And if that is the case, then the question becomes what it means for the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy if one can see the high plausibility that parts of “the Bible” as it stands today, may not be original?

Marcion’s Gospel Did Not Precede Mark

Did Marcion’s Gospel precede Mark? No. How can we know?

I wrote the following on another forum some time ago while in a discussion about how Marcion’s Gospel fits into the ‘Synoptic Problem’.

In a nutshell, the ‘Synoptic Problem’ is essentially the question of the chronology of synoptic traditions – who wrote first, who copied who, who changed what, and why, etc. The synoptic traditions include the many shared scenes, parables and sayings, etc., that are found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, Marcion’s Gospel and, to a lesser extent, the Gospel of Thomas.

It is generally understood that Marcion’s Gospel post-dates Mark. One of the reasons it is fairly assessed that Luke borrowed from Mark is the observation that, when comparing Mark and Luke’s shared material, the direction of redaction (edits, corrections, expansions, etc.) tends to favor the direction of Luke altering Mark rather than the other way around. These edits, corrections and expansions also turn up in Marcion’s Gospel. How can this be if Marcion’s Gospel preceded Mark?

Here are some examples:

(references to the text of Marcion’s gospel come from Jason BeDuhn’s reconstruction in “The First New Testament: Marcion’s Scriptural Canon”)

1. Mark 2:25-26 vs. Luke/Marcion 6:3-4. Mark incorrectly states Abiathar was the high priest at the time of King David. Luke corrects this by simply omitting the passage, and this correction seemingly turns up in Marcion’s Gospel also.

2. Mark 3:1-6 vs. Luke/Marcion 6:11
While about to heal the man with the withered hand, Pharisees watch Jesus to see whether he would cure on the Sabbath in order to find an accusation against him. Luke adds a detail to Mark’s story that Jesus was fully aware of their sinister intentions. This addition is found also in Marcion’s Gospel.

3. Mark 4:35-41 vs. Luke/Marcion 8:22-25
In Mark’s ‘Stilling of the Storm’ pericope, it is after the storm arrives that the narrator fills in the detail that Jesus was asleep. Luke moves this detail earlier, so the reader knows before the storm arrives that Jesus is asleep, thus adding to the tension and narrative flow. Marcion’s Gospel also follows this redaction.

4. Mark 6:35-44 vs. Luke/Marcion 9:14.
In telling the ‘Feeding of the 5,000′ story, Mark has the narrator tell us the total number of people right at the end of the story, after the miracle has occurred (verse 44). Luke instead tells us the number prior to the miracle. Marcion’s Gospel follows this redaction.

5. Mark 14:3-9 vs. Luke/Marcion 7:36-50.
In Mark, Jesus’ anointing by the woman with the alabaster jar occurs at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper. The woman pours the oil over Jesus’ head. She is promptly scolded by some for wasting expensive oil, but Jesus sticks up for her. Luke makes drastic changes. The event occurs in a different location, at the house of a Pharisee, and the woman anoints Jesus’ feet, sheds tears and kisses his feet, and Jesus forgives her sins. It is certainly a much more potent scene in Luke. Marcion’s Gospel also follows these changes.

6. Mark 4:21 vs. Luke/Marcion 8:16
Luke clarifies Mark’s Jesus’s lamp metaphor by adding the detail that the reason why lamps should be put on a lampstand, instead of under a bed, is so people who enter the room may see the light. This addition turns up in Marcion’s Gospel also.

7. Mark 5:1-20 vs. Luke/Marcion 8:26-39.
Luke cleans up Mark’s pericope of the Gerasene demoniac by altering the description of the possessed man as “having demons” (multiple) as opposed to Mark’s “with an unclean spirit” (singular), and Luke further clarifies that the lead demon’s name, “Legion”, refers to the fact that “many demons had entered” the possessed man (rather than Mark’s clunky “because we are many”). These alterations and additions turn up in Marcion’s Gospel also.

8. Mark 16:5 vs. Luke/Marcion 24:4.
At the empty tomb, Mark only has the women meet one “young man in white clothes”. Luke expands this to “two men in dazzling clothes”. This expansion is also found in Marcion’s Gospel.

9. Marcion’s Gospel also contains many expansions not found in Mark but only elsewhere found in the Gospel of Luke. A hypothesis that Mark post-dates Marcion’s Gospel surely has trouble explaining why Mark forgot to mention all these memorable scenes:

– the temporal declaration – “in the fifteeth year of Tiberius…”, etc. (3:1)
– Jesus being asked in the Nazareth synagogue to do the things he did in Capernaum and getting thrown out (4:23, 29)
– the ‘woes’ to the rich and full (6:24-26)
– the raising of the widow’s son (7:11-17)
– the Samaritan villagers and the rebuking of James and John (9:51-56)
– the parable of the friend at midnight (11:5-8)
– the blessing of Jesus’ mother’s womb and breasts from the woman in the crowd (11:27-28)
– the parable of the slave’s wages (12:47-48)
– the parable of the unjust manager (16:1-13)
– the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (16:19-31)
– the parable of the widow and the unjust judge (18:1-8)
– the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (18:9-14)
– the story of Zacchaeus (19:1-10)
– the healing of the crippled woman (13:10-17)
– the healing of the 10 lepers near Samaria (17:11-19)
– the accusation at the trial that Jesus had encouraged people not to pay Roman taxes (23:2)
– the additional trial by Herod (23:7)
– the Passion sayings, “Father, forgive them because they do not know what they are doing” and “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit”
– the Road to Emmaus story (24:13-35)

Given all this, it’s clear enough that the Gospel of Mark preceded Marcion’s Gospel, regardless where Luke fits in all this (pre- or post- Marcion*). It’s no surprise that theories involving Mark copying from Marcion have not taken hold.

*My view on this is that there was a Proto-Luke that began at Chapter 3 that both Luke and Marcion drew on and redacted as they saw fit