Are They Serious? A Text Called "Jesus's Gospel" is More Recent than a "Gospel According to" So and So

The idea that Marcion's gospel, known simply as "the Gospel" or "the Gospel of Jesus Christ," could be a derivative of the canonical Gospels—particularly Mark—is puzzling. This concept is akin to suggesting that a foundational text explicitly attributed to Jesus himself could be a mere adaptation of a later, less authoritative text.

The Big Mac Analogy

Imagine this scenario: Ronald McDonald is widely recognized as the creator of the Big Mac. If someone writes "How to Make a Big Mac by Ronald McDonald," it directly attributes the creation process to him. On the other hand, a book titled "John Smith on the Story of How Ronald McDonald Made the First Big Mac" clearly is subsequent and derivative, offering a third-party account of the creation story. Applying this analogy to the gospels, a text directly attributed to Jesus (or his closest followers) should logically precede those attributed to later authors who were not eyewitnesses.

Marcion's Gospel: The Original "Gospel of Jesus"

Marcion's gospel, often referred to simply as "the Gospel of the Lord" or "the Gospel of Jesus," lacks any authorial ascription to a human figure, distinguishing it significantly from the canonical gospels, which are attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Tertullian and Epiphanius note that Marcion's gospel did not bear an author's name, which implies a claim to direct and primary authority—an original source of Jesus's teachings.

Canonical Gospels as Later Forgeries

The canonical gospels of Matthew and Luke are widely recognized as later, heavily redacted texts that incorporate elements to support specific theological agendas. This has led many scholars to re-evaluate the authenticity and primacy of these texts, especially in light of the possibility that earlier texts, like Marcion's gospel, may have existed.

Evidence of Marcionite Primacy

1. Paul's Gospel: References to Paul's "my gospel" in the New Testament suggest a singular, authoritative text directly linked to his teachings. Some scholars argue that this gospel aligns more closely with Marcion's text than with the canonical Luke.

2. Tertullian and Epiphanius: These early church fathers accuse Marcion of editing an existing gospel, but their polemics must be scrutinized critically. They were motivated to discredit Marcion's teachings and affirm the orthodox position, potentially leading to biased or inaccurate representations of Marcion's text.

3. Absence of Authorial Ascription: Marcion's gospel's lack of an author's name contrasts sharply with the canonical "according to" gospels. This distinction suggests a more original, foundational status for Marcion's text.

Re-Evaluating the Orthodox Narrative

The traditional view, which holds that the canonical gospels are the authentic accounts of Jesus's life and teachings, is increasingly challenged by modern scholarship. The orthodox tradition has been shown to involve significant redaction and forgery, particularly in the creation of Matthew and Luke. This recognition demands a re-evaluation of the authenticity and primacy of the canonical texts.

Conclusion: The Original Gospel

The notion that Marcion's gospel could be a derivative of the canonical gospels is, upon closer examination, quite implausible. The attributes of Marcion's gospel suggest it is closer to the original teachings of Jesus, unencumbered by later theological redactions. As such, the scholarly approach to understanding the origins of the New Testament canon must prioritize an unbiased evaluation of all available texts, recognizing the possibility that the earliest and most authentic accounts of Jesus's life and teachings may lie outside the traditional fourfold gospel canon.