Marcion’s Gospel and the Resurrected Jesus of Canonical Luke 24
New reconstructions of Marcion’s Gospel, which are considerably more sophisticated than past attempts, allow more certainty when comparing Marcion’s text with canonical Luke. This essay examines the presentations of the resurrected Jesus in canonical Luke and Marcion’s Gospel, with a particular focu...
| Published in: | Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
De Gruyter
2017
|
| In: |
Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum
|
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Luke
/ Marcion, Sinopensis, Gospel
/ Jesus Christus
/ Resurrection
|
| IxTheo Classification: | BF Gnosticism HC New Testament KAB Church history 30-500; early Christianity NBF Christology |
| Further subjects: | B
Marcion
Luke
Ignatius
resurrection
flesh
spirit
phantom
|
| Online Access: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (Verlag) |
| Summary: | New reconstructions of Marcion’s Gospel, which are considerably more sophisticated than past attempts, allow more certainty when comparing Marcion’s text with canonical Luke. This essay examines the presentations of the resurrected Jesus in canonical Luke and Marcion’s Gospel, with a particular focus on the text-critical problems in Luke 24 (especially the shorter Western readings) and on the distinctive ways the two texts theorize Jesus’ risen bodily presence (especially the terms φάντασμα and πνεῦμα, and σάρξ and ὀστέα). Parallel evidence from the letters of Ignatius indicates that the emphasis on touching Jesus, who has risen in a flesh-and-bones body (as in Luke 24:36–43), does not reveal a specifically anti-docetic or anti-Marcionite agenda, but rather was an attempt to restrict apostolic authorization to the Twelve and their successors. These examinations provide suggestive, though admittedly not conclusive, evidence that Marcion’s Gospel is the earlier text and canonical Luke the later text, particularly given the problems identifying a coherent editorial agenda on Marcion’s part (assuming the priority of canonical Luke). |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1612-961X |
| Contains: | In: Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1515/zac-2017-0003 |