How Could the Gospel of Marcion NOT Be Older?

The Gospel of Marcion has long intrigued scholars due to its controversial origins and the claims surrounding its precedence over other canonical gospels. The debate hinges on various historical claims, textual evidence, and interpretations that challenge conventional understandings of early Christian texts.

The Orthodox Claim

Third-century orthodox Christians originally posited that:

1. Before Marcion, there was a recognized fourfold gospel canon.
2. Marcion, associated with Rome, knew these four gospels but chose Luke and allegedly "falsified" it.
3. Justin Martyr supposedly knew Marcion and wrote against him.
4. Marcion’s "falsification" of Luke was only addressed by Irenaeus at the turn of the third century.

However, several points complicate this narrative:

1. An alternative version of Irenaeus's Adversus Haereses links Marcion with the Gospel of Mark instead of Luke.
2. The Marcionite interpretation of Galatians suggests that Paul’s gospel was falsified by the Jerusalem Church, which aligns more closely with the Gospel of Hebrews identified with Matthew, not Luke.
3. Hegesippus, chronicler of the Jerusalem Church tradition, used the Gospel of Hebrews in Syriac.
4. Papias, in the early second century, inferred that Mark was the first gospel, later improved by Matthew.

The Marcionite Controversy

Marcion’s gospel, according to some early accounts, might not be the canonical Luke but rather a text similar to Mark:

1. Papias's identification of Mark as the first gospel, "Judaized" by Matthew, aligns with the Marcionite view of a corrupted gospel.
2. The assertion that Marcion falsified Luke may be a later development aimed at reconciling divided communities or discrediting Marcion’s shorter gospel version.

The Philosophumena Evidence

The Philosophumena or Refutation of All Heresies, a third-century text attributed to Hippolytus of Rome, provides further insight:

1. This text suggests that Marcion used Mark, not Luke.
2. It is universally acknowledged that the author revised Irenaeus’s account, purging negative comments and potentially correcting the gospel attribution based on better information.

The Problem with Marcion

Marcion’s historicity faces significant challenges:

1. Skeptics dismiss Marcion due to the lack of direct evidence beyond third and fourth-hand testimonies.
2. The debate often involves picking and choosing evidence, leading to biased conclusions.

Reconciling the Data

To make sense of the conflicting accounts:

1. Recognize that early Christianity was not monolithic but a tapestry of diverse beliefs and texts.
2. Accept that multiple gospel versions likely coexisted, leading to the development of new texts like Luke.
3. Understand that accusations of gospel "falsification" might reflect theological disputes rather than historical fact.

Conclusion

The Gospel of Marcion, whether derived from Mark or Luke, reflects the complex and contentious nature of early Christian textual history. The variations in accounts and the evolving narrative suggest a dynamic process of gospel formation, influenced by theological, geographical, and political factors. By critically examining these sources, we gain a deeper appreciation for the intricate and often contested development of the New Testament canon.