Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:25:01.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Was Canonical Luke written in the Second Century?—A Continuing Discussion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Leland Edward Wilshire
Leland Edward Wilshire
Affiliation:
(Campbell, Minn., U.S.A.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The American scholar John Knox is noted for his defence of the thesis that the canonical gospel of Luke reached its final form after it had passed through the hands of the heretic Marcion in the second century. This thesis, hinted at by the scholar Semler in the eighteenth century and argued by F. C. Baur in the nineteenth century, was again stated by John Knox in an article in 1939 and in a book, Marcion and the New Testament, in 1942..

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , April 1974 , pp. 246 - 253
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 246 note 1 John, Knox, ‘On the Vocabulary of Marcion's Gospel’, Journal of Biblical Literature LVIII (1939), 193–201;Google ScholarJohn, Knox, Marcion and the New Testament (Chicago, 1942).Google Scholar

page 246 note 2 Ibid. pp. 88–113. Cf.William, Sanday, ‘Marcion's Gospel’, Fortnightly Review XXIII (1875), 855–73;Google ScholarWilliam, Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century (London, 1876).Google Scholar

page 246 note 3 John, Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, p. 166.Google Scholar

page 246 note 4 John, Knox, ‘Acts and the Pauline Letter Corpus’, in Studies in Luke–Acts, Essays presented in honor of Paul Schubert, Keck, Leander E. and Martyn, J. Louis, eds. (Nashville, 1966), p. 287.Google Scholar

page 246 note 5 For one reason or another, the reviewers of the book have not challenged Knox's own linguistic evidence. Cf. reviews by Cadbury, Henry J., Journal of Biblical Literature LXII (1943), 126;Google ScholarStonehouse, N. B., Westminster Theological Journal VI (1943), 95;Google ScholarJohnson, Sherman E., Anglican Theological Review xxv (1943), 232,Google Scholar and Blackman, E. C.. Marcion and His Influence (London, 1948), p. 40.Google Scholar

page 247 note 1 John, Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, p. 98.Google Scholar

page 247 note 2 Ibid.

page 247 note 3 Ibid. pp. 105–6.

page 247 note 4 Ibid. pp. 109–10.

page 247 note 5 Ibid. p. 110.

page 249 note 1 Casey, Robert P., ‘The Armenian Marcionites and the Diatessaron’, Journal of Biblical Literature LVII (1938), 185–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 249 note 2 Merrill C. Tenney, in his unpublished doctoral dissertation, indicated that on statistical grounds those quotations from Luke in Tertullian which are derived, presumably directly, from Marcion's gospel differ from the Old Latin in not much higher degree than do those passages which Tertullian quotes presumably from his own orthodox Luke. Cf. Cadbury, Henry J., Journal of Biblical Literature LXII (1943), 127.Google Scholar

page 249 note 3 Johnson, Sherman E., Anglican Theological Review xxv (1943), 232.Google Scholar

page 250 note 1 Evans, E., ‘Tertullian's Commentary on the Marcionite Gospel’, Studia Evangelica, Kurt, Aland and others, eds. (Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1959), pp. 699–705.Google Scholar

page 251 note 1 Paul-Louis, Couchoud, ‘Is Marcion's Gospel one of the Synoptics?’ Hibbert Journal (1936), p. 270Google Scholar

page 251 note 2 Alfred, Loisy, ‘Marcion's Gospel’, Hibbert Journal (1936), p. 383.Google Scholar