Of course, I have already noted that Lk 17:5-6 may not have been in Marcion at all (Knox puts it in his category C, "uncertain")--in which case, Luke (=the author of canonical GLk) was the first to combine the separate Markan and Q sayings about moving the mountain into the single saying in Lk 17. In that case, we have to explain why Marcion would have left it out--especially if he found it twice, once in each source.
But then we have almost the same problem under the traditional understanding that Marcion edited Luke. We not only have to explain why Luke combined the two sayings into one, but we also have to explain why Marcion would have left it out.
And, if we instead assume that Marcion did not leave it out, and that Tertullian just didn't happen to mention it, that solves the problem for Marcionic priority just as much as it does for Lukan priority. So I am not very concerned about whether there is an obvious answer to the question of why Marcion wouldn't have included what we now know as Lk 17:5-6.
I can at least suggest, however, why Marcion would have left out the Markan version (in Mk 11:22-23 but not in the parallel location in Luke, during Passover week). The best reason why Marcion left out the Markan version is because he rearranges the Jerusalem timeline. No longer does Jesus enter Jerusalem triumphantly, only to have a look around, then leave again, returning the next day to cleanse the temple. Instead, Luke's Jesus doesn't even enter the city during the trimphal entry; instead, he descends from the Mount of Olives and weeps over the city. He only enters it the next day. (Luke/Marcion's triumphal entry is actually a triumphal descent from the Mount of Olives; this is an intriguing clue about how Luke/Marcion's sources and his vision of Jesus, but we'll leave this alone right now.)
So, the saying about moving mountains gets thrown out along with the two fig tree incidents. (Whereas Matthew made a different choice: he conflated the first fig tree incident into the second one.) Marcion dispensed with the fig tree altogether in order to streamline and rationalize the narrative.
As for Lk 17:5-6, we can at least note a few intriguing facts:
1) It is not located immediately after the healing of the epileptic boy, as in GMt, but rather towards the end of the Lukan Great Interpolation, amidst some sayings material found in Mt 18. (In GLk, the epileptic boy is healed all the way back in Lk 9.) But then, for Lk 17:5-6, the Lukan author jumps back to Mt 17:20 for the parallel (especially in the Bezan version), then resumes with material similar to Mt 18. Clearly something more than simple transcription from one gospel to another is going on here.
2) None of the Lukan sayings about moving mountains or uprooting trees and plants is mentioned in Tertullian. This a little puzzling for any hypothesis about the origins of Marcion's gospel.
2) GTh also has two versions of this saying; this may explain why both Q and GMk each have at least one version (and Q, of course, may have had two, if GMk was a source for Q).
So this remains an odd synoptic puzzle, but it is no more a puzzle for my hypothesis than for any other.
No comments:
Post a Comment