I have reported only the Mills's claim that Basilidians and Valentinians adopted canonical Luke and then I have made 2 + 2 from my memory: Basilidians and Valentinians were known for their separationism. Hence it is obvious, quasi a tautology, that a docetist would have adopted *Ev.
Really I believe that the first verse of *Ev is docetism.
Ian Mills's "external evidence" that Luke preceded Marcion
Re: Ian Mills's "external evidence" that Luke preceded Marcion
5.5.1 Basilides of Alexandria
Basilides of Alexandria is the earliest, easily datable author who knew and used Luke.50 Jerome’s Latin translation of Eusebius’ Chronicon reports that Basilides lingered (commoratur) in Alexandria until 132 CE.51 Since the heresiologists agree that he was a predecessor of Valentinus (e.g. Irenaeus A.H. 24.1; Epiphanius 1.31.21), Basilides’ tenure must have begun some decades earlier.52 Basilides is, in any case, Marcion’s predecessor. It is significant evidence for the present inquiry, therefore, that Basilides’ corpus reflects knowledge of Luke in its non-Marcionite form.
Hegemonius’ Acts of Archelaus (67) quotes from Basilides’ Exegetica in order to demonstrate that his heretical opponent Manes was influenced by earlier heretics. Eusebius describes Basilides’ Exegetica as “about the gospel” (E.H. 4.7.6).53 Accordingly, Hegemonius’ quotation of the thirteenth volume invokes the Parable of Dives and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). Basilides, thus, appeals to the parable of Lazarus and Dives in order to explain the origin of some malignant “nature.”55 This Lukan parable is not found in Matthew, Mark, or John. The parable is, however, found in Marcion’s gospel. Hegemonius citation of the Exegetica, therefore, shows only that Basilides knew some form of the third gospel. Two other testimonia will demonstrate that Basilides’ knew this gospel in its non-Marcionite 'shape.'
Clement of Alexandria and the Hippolytan Refutator furnish evidence that Basilides knew non-Marcionite Luke decades before the advent of Marcion. Clement reports that the followers of Basilides celebrate Jesus’ baptism. They disagree amongst themselves, according to Clement, about the exact day on which Jesus was baptized. Important for our purposes, however, Clement reports that the Basilideans all agreed about the year of Jesus’ baptism.
Clement, Stromata 1.21.146
- And those from Basilides also celebrate the day of his [i.e. Jesus’] baptism, passing the night before <in> readings. They say it was on the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar on the fifteenth day of the month of Tubi – or alternatively some say on the eleventh of this month.
Finally, the pseudo-Hippolytan Refutation of All Heresies provides the most valuable testimony to Basilides’ use of Luke. The writings of Basilides and the Basilideans are quoted extensively in the Refutation (5.8-16)
- This, [Basilides] says, is what was stated: “‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you’ – that which came from the Sonship through the boundary of the Spirit upon the Ogdoad and Hebdomad, unto Mary. ‘And the power of the Most High will overshadow you’ – the ‘power’ of discernment (which came) from the height above (through) the Demiurge, unto creation, which is of the Son” (Refutation of All Heresies 7.26.9).
Taken together, the Acts of Archelaus, Clement of Alexandria, and the pseudo-Hippolytan Refutation of All Heresies provide compelling evidence that Basilides knew and used Luke in its non-Marcionite form. These testimonia include two direct citations of Basilides’ exegesis and a discussion of Basilidean liturgy. The third gospel as it is preserved in the entire manuscript tradition —in contrast to Marcion’s gospel— is multiply attested for Basilides in Alexandria decades before Marcion.
50 Andrew Gregory and Winrich Löhr reach the same conclusion. My argument here closely follows Gregory. Andrew Gregory, The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period Before Irenaeus: Looking for Luke in the Second Century (Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 77–80; von Winrich Alfried Löhr, Basilides und seine Schule: eine Studie zur Theologie- und Kirchengeschichte des zweiten Jahrhunderts, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 83 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 325–26.
51 The Armenian gives 133, instead. Löhr, Basilides und seine Schule, 35.
50 This information does not fit well with Clement’s claim that Marcion was an old man during the lifetime of Basilides and Valentinus (Clement Stromata 7.17). Clement then dates Simon and Peter latest of all. Clearly, Clement is confused.
https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/server/a ... 61/content
x Could Luke have used Basilides rather than vice-versa?
Andrew Gregory, The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period Before Irenaeus: Looking for Luke in the Second Century, Mohr Siebeck, 2003; 77–80:
(underlining and highlights added here)
4.5 The Gospel of Basilides108
Basilides was a Christian philosopher who appears to have been active in Alexandria in the second quarter of the second century.
Origen claims that Basilides dared to write a Gospel and to give it his own name,109 and Ambrose reproduces this tradition.110 Eusebius, citing a lost work of Agrippa Castor, which he describes as a most powerful refutation of Basilides, states that Basilides compiled 24 books on the gospel.111 The latter may be a commentary on the former, but the nature and contents of Basilides' Gospel is unclear.112 Some of the extant fragments of Basilides appear to be from unknown works rather than from a commentary; other fragments appear to be from commentaries on letters later considered canonical, which may mean either that Basilides wrote commentaries on texts in addition to "the gospel", or that his twenty four books on the gospel ranged widely and that this may reflect a wide understanding of the term "gospel" by Basilides.
Basilides' Gospel may 'presuppose' Luke or at least L-tradition, but it is very difficult to give any comprehensive account of this work, or to be sure of which traditions from the school of Basilides may go back to Basilides himself. Three passages are of particular importance in assessing the possible evidence for Basilides' use of Luke: fragments in the Acts of Archelaus and Clement of Alexandria, and one testimony in Hippolytus to Basilides' apparent use of Luke.
108 for introduction and bibliography, se Peuch-Blatz; Löhr 1996
109 Homilies on Luke 1
110 Exposition on Luke 1.2
111 Eccl. hist. 4.7.7
112 For cautionary comments on what may be inferred from our limited knowledge of the content and nature of Basilides Gospel, see Peuch-Blatz 1991: 397-9; Campenhausen 1967: 139 ...
4.5.1 Hegemonius, Acts of Archelaus 67.1
The Acts of Archelaus is an account of a disputation between one Archelaus and the heresiarch Manes. The text is extant in a latin translation which has been attributed to Hegemonius, who was probably active in the fourth century. There are also Greek fragments quoted by Epiphanius.
Hegemonius' latin translation claims that, in book 13 of his commentary, Basilides113 expounds the parable of the rich man and the poor man, an apparent reference to the parable of Lazarus and the rich man that appears in single-tradition in Luke: "per parabolam divitis et pauperis naturam sine radice et sine loco rebus supervenientem unde pullaverit indicat".114
There is no reason to dispute this statement, nor the likelihood that the reference is to the parable found in Luke 16, but it is important not to draw too much from it. The parable falls in single-tradition in the central section of Luke, and it is possible that Basilides may have known this parable or a similar one independently of its place in Luke. If Orbe is correct that the parable is used to explain a dualistic understanding of reality115 — the rich man is representing light, and the poor man darkness — then its exegesis and application by Basilides seems far removed from its context in Luke. It is difficult to understand the apparent explanation of the parable. As Löhr remarks, it is difficult to see the connection between Luke 16:19—31 and Basilides' interest in the problem of the origin of evil.116 Yet these difficulties in themselves neither strengthen nor weaken the possibility that Basilides may have drawn the parable either from Luke or from tradition shared with Luke; they serve only to emphasise that Basilides' possible use of Luke, if such it is, is very different from the use to which it has been put by others.
Puech conjectures that the expression "natura sine radice" "might perhaps be inspired by Lk. 8: 13", although he allows that a similar expression is found in triple-tradition.117 Thus this expression adds little to the evidence for Basilides' use of Luke. No Lukan redaction may be identified securely in this statement that Basilides used a parable known today in gospel tradition only in Luke, so this evidence alone is insufficient to demonstrate Basilides' use of Luke.
113 Layton (1987: 417n.1) argues that the Basilides referred to in this text is not Basilides the Christian philosopher but rather Basilides the Preacher, whose account of Persian dualist theology Hegemonius quotes.
114 Acts of Archelaus 67.5
117 1991: p.398
4.5.2 'Hippolytus', Refutation 7.26.9
[The Refutation's] account of Basilides' system stands in some tension to the account found in Irenaeus, refers to Basilides' citation of a saying identical to Luke 1:35 as the grounds for his belief that the light which had passed down from the Ogdoad to Hebdomad came to rest on the son of the Hebdomad, Jesus Son of Mary. Jesus caught this light and was enlightened by it, and 'Hippolytus' presents this aspect of Basilides' cosmology as an exposition of the words of Gabriel to Mary. "The Holy Spirit which shall come upon you" refers to that which passed from the Sonhood through the Boundary Spirit into the Ogdoad and Hebdomad down to Mary; "and the Power of the Most High shall overshadow you" refers to the power of the anointing/Christ from the height of the Demiurge on high to the creation which is of the Son.
Prima facie, there is a strong case that here Basilides cites the words of Gabriel recorded in Luke 1:35 and therefore Luke. Nevertheless, the case is not proven. Basilides' use of the content of an angelic revelation quite apart from any reference to its context is perfectly consistent with his cosmology and hermeneutics, but there remains the case that these words may have been known to him other than through Luke. It is possible that this saying may have circulated independently, possibly in a source on which Luke also drew. Certainly there are parallels between its content and traditional christological material in Romans 1:3-4.
Therefore, although the simplest and most natural reading of this evidence is that 'Hippolytus' testifies to Basilides' use of Luke, nevertheless other explanations are possible.
4.5.3 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.146.1—3
Clement introduces a brief reference to the custom of the followers of Basilides who observe the day of Jesus baptism as a festival, having spent the previous night in reading. They say that the baptism took place on the 15th day of the month Tubi in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. This reference to the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar as the date of Jesus' baptism and the beginning of his public ministry is also found in Luke 3:1, and it is for this reason that the followers of Basilides appear to be using Luke.
Two problems present themselves before this may be considered evidence of Basilides' 'own' reception of Luke. First, it is not clear that this chronological information presupposes the use of Luke. Such information may stem from independent tradition concerning Jesus, although a case can be made that such historical colouring is a redactional interest of Luke. Clement certainly associated this information with Luke, for prior to his statement that the followers of Basilides date the baptism of Jesus to the 15th day he has referred explicitly to Luke as the source for this information, and he has drawn also on Luke for other information. Nevertheless, Clement does not explicitly claim that the followers of Basilides drew this information from Luke, although the context suggests that this inference might be made. Second, Clement is explicit that it is the followers of Basilides who give the date of Jesus baptism as the fifteenth day of the month of Tubi in the fifteenth year; this information may have come to them from Basilides Gospel, or it may have entered their school tradition at a later point.
Consequently, only a cautious conclusion may be drawn as to whether Basilides is 'a witness to the reception of' Luke. Löhr notes that the evidence of the Acts of Archelaus together with that of Clement means that "Die Hypothese einer auf dem Lukasevangelium basierenden Evangelienrezension besitzt ... eine gewisse Plausibilitat",118 and the evidence of Hippolytus may help to strengthen this hypothesis. If the hypothesis is accepted, it need not mean either that Basilides' use of Luke was exclusive,a as apparently was Marcion's,b or that he knew it under that name. However, it would mean that Luke was known in Alexandria in the second quarter of the second century, the same period at which Luke — or a text very like Luke — appears to have been used by Marcion and Justin in Rome.
118 Löhr 1996: 329.
https://www.google.com.au/books/edition ... =en&gbpv=1
a What does it matter whether "Basilides' use of Luke was exclusive" nor not??
b Huh? In what way would Marcion's "use of Luke" have been exclusive (if Marcion had 'used' Luke)?
eta
Mills' n.10 (p.237):
... Basilides and Tatian had ten and eleven letter collections, respectively. On the existence of this ten letter collection before Marcion, see Ulrich Schmid, Marcion und sein Apostolos: Rekonstruktion und historische Einordnung der marcionitischen Paulusbriefausgabe, Arbeiten
zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung, Bd. 25 (Berlin ; New York: De Gruyter, 1995), 284–308.
zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung, Bd. 25 (Berlin ; New York: De Gruyter, 1995), 284–308.
Re: Ian Mills's "external evidence" that Luke preceded Marcion
MrMacSon wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 10:45 pm
Andrew Gregory, The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period Before Irenaeus: Looking for Luke in the Second Century, Mohr Siebeck, 2003; 77–80:
4.5.1 Hegemonius, Acts of Archelaus 67.1
The Acts of Archelaus is an account of a disputation between one Archelaus and the heresiarch Manes. The text is extant in a latin translation which has been attributed to Hegemonius, who was probably active in the fourth century. There are also Greek fragments quoted by Epiphanius.
Hegemonius' latin translation claims that, in book 13 of his commentary, Basilides113 expounds the parable of the rich man and the poor man, an apparent reference to the parable of Lazarus and the rich man that appears in single-tradition in Luke: "per parabolam divitis et pauperis naturam sine radice et sine loco rebus supervenientem unde pullaverit indicat".114
There is no reason to dispute this statement, nor the likelihood that the reference is to the parable found in Luke 16, but it is important not to draw too much from it. The parable falls in single-tradition in the central section of Luke, and it is possible that Basilides may have known this parable or a similar one independently of its place in Luke. If Orbe is correct that the parable is used to explain a dualistic understanding of reality115 — the rich man is representing light, and the poor man darkness — then its exegesis and application by Basilides seems far removed from its context in Luke. It is difficult to understand the apparent explanation of the parable. As Löhr remarks, it is difficult to see the connection between Luke 16:19—31 and Basilides' interest in the problem of the origin of evil.116 Yet these difficulties in themselves neither strengthen nor weaken the possibility that Basilides may have drawn the parable either from Luke or from tradition shared with Luke; they serve only to emphasise that Basilides' possible use of Luke, if such it is, is very different from the use to which it has been put by others.
Puech conjectures that the expression "natura sine radice" "might perhaps be inspired by Lk. 8: 13", although he allows that a similar expression is found in triple-tradition.117 Thus this expression adds little to the evidence for Basilides' use of Luke. No Lukan redaction may be identified securely in this statement that Basilides used a parable known today in gospel tradition only in Luke, so this evidence alone is insufficient to demonstrate Basilides' use of Luke.
4.5.2 'Hippolytus', Refutation 7.26.9
[The Refutation's] account of Basilides' system stands in some tension to the account found in Irenaeus, refers to Basilides' citation of a saying identical to Luke 1:35 as the grounds for his belief that the light which had passed down from the Ogdoad to Hebdomad came to rest on the son of the Hebdomad, Jesus Son of Mary. Jesus caught this light and was enlightened by it, and 'Hippolytus' presents this aspect of Basilides' cosmology as an exposition of the words of Gabriel to Mary. "The Holy Spirit which shall come upon you" refers to that which passed from the Sonhood through the Boundary Spirit into the Ogdoad and Hebdomad down to Mary; "and the Power of the Most High shall overshadow you" refers to the power of the anointing/Christ from the height of the Demiurge on high to the creation which is of the Son.
Prima facie, there is a strong case that here Basilides cites the words of Gabriel recorded in Luke 1:35 and therefore Luke. Nevertheless, the case is not proven. Basilides' use of the content of an angelic revelation quite apart from any reference to its context is perfectly consistent with his cosmology and hermeneutics, but there remains the case that these words may have been known to him other than through Luke. It is possible that this saying may have circulated independently, possibly in a source on which Luke also drew. Certainly there are parallels between its content and traditional christological material in Romans 1:3-4.
Therefore, although the simplest and most natural reading of this evidence is that 'Hippolytus' testifies to Basilides' use of Luke, nevertheless other explanations are possible.
4.5.3 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.146.1—3
Clement introduces a brief reference to the custom of the followers of Basilides who observe the day of Jesus baptism as a festival, having spent the previous night in reading. They say that the baptism took place on the 15th day of the month Tubi in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. This reference to the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar as the date of Jesus' baptism and the beginning of his public ministry is also found in Luke 3:1, and it is for this reason that the followers of Basilides appear to be using Luke.
Two problems present themselves before this may be considered evidence of Basilides' 'own' reception of Luke. First, it is not clear that this chronological information presupposes the use of Luke. Such information may stem from independent tradition concerning Jesus, although a case can be made that such historical colouring is a redactional interest of Luke. Clement certainly associated this information with Luke, for prior to his statement that the followers of Basilides date the baptism of Jesus to the 15th day he has referred explicitly to Luke as the source for this information, and he has drawn also on Luke for other information. Nevertheless, Clement does not explicitly claim that the followers of Basilides drew this information from Luke, although the context suggests that this inference might be made. Second, Clement is explicit that it is the followers of Basilides who give the date of Jesus baptism as the fifteenth day of the month of Tubi in the fifteenth year; this information may have come to them from Basilides Gospel, or it may have entered their school tradition at a later point.
Consequently, only a cautious conclusion may be drawn as to whether Basilides is 'a witness to the reception of' Luke. Löhr notes that the evidence of the Acts of Archelaus together with that of Clement means that "Die Hypothese einer auf dem Lukasevangelium basierenden Evangelienrezension besitzt ... eine gewisse Plausibilitat",118 and the evidence of Hippolytus may help to strengthen this hypothesis. If the hypothesis is accepted, it need not mean either that Basilides' use of Luke was exclusive, as apparently was Marcion's, or that he knew it under that name. However, it would mean that Luke was known in Alexandria in the second quarter of the second century, the same period at which Luke — or a text very like Luke — appears to have been used by Marcion and Justin in Rome.
https://www.google.com.au/books/edition ... =en&gbpv=1
I deal with these three cases here:
viewtopic.php?p=169178#p169178
I think Andrew Gregory is being overly cautious in his hesitation to identify the text which Basilides is exegeting in the given passages from his Exegetica.
4.5.1 Hegemonius, Acts of Archelaus 67.1
The Lukan parable commonly called the Parable of the Rich Man (or Dives) and Lazarus (Luke 16.19-31) is a parable and mentions a Rich one and a Poor one at its beginning. Gregory suggests it is possible that Basilides knew the parable form a source other than Luke (i.e., Basilides and Luke shared an otherwise unknown common source), or that it refers to a different parable with common characteristics, but he doesn't know of such a parable, but again he doesn't present any candidates, he's just saying it's possible.
That Basilides' exegesis and application of the parable is very different from what we would expect if he were writing an historical-critical exegesis of Luke is to be expected because we know Basilides was not writing an historical-critical exegesis and did not care about preserving the original intention of the author. That he takes what's in Luke an uses it to talk about something Luke wasn't talking about is what we would expect. Look at the various uses of allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament in patristic writers, especially Origen, for comparison (or perhaps Philo, as Basilides is based in Alexandria and writing in the century following him) .
Gregory doesn't present a strong case against Basilides use of the Lukan text, he just observes alternatives are possible if we hypothesize lost, otherwise unknown sources which share characteristics as the Lukan text.
ETA: Marcion's Evangelion is a known source other than Luke from which Basilides could have taken the parable, as I allow in the linked post: 'The passage could also come from Marcion’s Evangelion, for which it is attested by Tertullian Against Heresies 4.34'.
4.5.2 'Hippolytus', Refutation 7.26.9
Gregory's case is similar, but even weaker. In this case, Basilides quotes the exact words of Luke, interspersed with his own comments, three times. In this case, I think Gregory would have to assume the existence of a common source from which Luke copied exactly and Basilides also copied. The passage from Romans is irrelevant because it does not contain these exact same words. It's just a similar topos or genre. So, yes, again it's possible that Basilides quotes a work which has the exact same words as Luke, but wasn't Luke, but it is unnecessary to hypothesize such a source because he presents no case for why we should not think Basilides used Luke.
He is correct to say: "here is a strong case that here Basilides cites the words of Gabriel recorded in Luke 1:35".
4.5.3 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.146.1—3
In this case, I think Gregory is correct to allow that the wording of the passage allows that "it may have entered their school tradition at a later point", as I said in my discussion of the passage in the linked post.
Best,
Ken
Re: Ian Mills's "external evidence" that Luke preceded Marcion
I don't find Mills' case convincing, regarding widespread use of canonical Luke prior to Marcion. Unfortunately the sources we have to work from are what they are, but they can hardly be said to be definitive. Necessarily, most of Mills cites is from the 3rd century or later. Even if Clement says that Basilides (or his current followers) comment on some given passage, it is simply impossible to know really when such a commentary was produced.
Citations of various parts of Luke from Luke 3 to 23 are one thing. But supposed citations of Luke 1-2 are something else. As for Justin's use of Luke 1-2, yeah, I've known that and that can be explained and doesn't show that this material was pre-Marcionite.
Valentinian's use of Luke 1-2 is also explainable as post-Marcionite.
But he also cites this:
Firstly, I find this in Refutation 7.14, not 7.26.
About this Mills writes:
There are multiple problems here. Of course, "the Refutiator" is writing in the 3rd century, so who knows what this person is referencing or where the commentary he is writing about really came from? Secondly, it is evident that Luke 1-2 is a later addition to an existing work and that Luke 1-2 is reactionary. Luke 1-2 is all about what a wonderful mother Mary is, yet the name Mary never appears in the Gospel again after Luke 2 and all we hear about the mother of Jesus is the scene in which Jesus rudely denounces his family in Luke 8. The birth story in Luke goes on and on about the presence of Jesus in the womb of Mary, which appears designed to counter claims that Jesus "appeared" and was actually unborn.
For example:
Not only was Jesus "in the womb", but his presence in the womb was confirmed by John's recognition of him from his own mother's womb. All of this womb talk appears to be in opposition to docetic claims that Jesus "appeared" and was not actually born from the womb. For example, as we read in Ascension of Isaiah.
Now, if the writer of Luke 1-2 is crafting a narrative for the purpose of countering the claims of docetists and the like, how do we know that the writer of this narrative has not also incorporated elements from Basilides? This writer is clearly appropriating ideas from other sources, which is evidence throughout. This writer, like all of the other Gospel writers, is engaging in appropriation and re-framing, where they take passages from one source and then change the wording to provide a different meaning. That's what all of the Gospels do, even the first! They are all exercises in appropriation and recontextualization. So again, how do we know that it was not the writer of Luke 1-2 who was reframing the words of Basilides as opposed to the other way around?
Afterall, Mills left out the beginning of the passage from Refutation, which says:
So, according to "the Refutiator", Basilides claimed that these words were a revelation to him. Why would be claim that if it were part of a circulating Gospel? How do we know then that it was not the writer of Luke was was appropriating Basilides and putting his words into a context that counter's the meaning given to them by Basilides? Afterall we have to acknowledge here that one of these two is doing just that.
Either Basilides is appropriating Luke and giving the words of Luke a different meaning or vice versa. And Luke 1-2 appears to be a narrative tacked on to the beginning of an existing Gospel, which is designed to counter the claims of various "Gnostic" type claims about the origins of Jesus. It appears specifically designed to counter the teachings of those like Basilides, Marcion, Valentinus, Menander, etc.
Citations of various parts of Luke from Luke 3 to 23 are one thing. But supposed citations of Luke 1-2 are something else. As for Justin's use of Luke 1-2, yeah, I've known that and that can be explained and doesn't show that this material was pre-Marcionite.
Valentinian's use of Luke 1-2 is also explainable as post-Marcionite.
But he also cites this:
This, [Basilides] says, is what was stated: “‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you’ – that which came from the Sonship through the boundary of the Spirit upon the Ogdoad and Hebdomad, unto Mary. ‘And the power of the Most High will overshadow you’ – the ‘power’ of discernment (which came) from the height above (through) the Demiurge, unto creation, which is of the Son” (Refutation of All Heresies 7.26.9).
Firstly, I find this in Refutation 7.14, not 7.26.
About this Mills writes:
The Refutator provides Basilides’ commentary on the Lukan nativity. Both the lemma and Basilides’ interpretation depend on the phrasing of Luke 1:35. That is, Basilides’ “power” (δὺναμις) descending from “the height above” (ἀπὸ τῆς ἀκρωρείας ἄνωθεν) is a transparent rendering of Luke’s “power of the most high” (δύναμις ὑψίστου). This is a uniquely Lukan passage not found in Marcion’s gospel.
There are multiple problems here. Of course, "the Refutiator" is writing in the 3rd century, so who knows what this person is referencing or where the commentary he is writing about really came from? Secondly, it is evident that Luke 1-2 is a later addition to an existing work and that Luke 1-2 is reactionary. Luke 1-2 is all about what a wonderful mother Mary is, yet the name Mary never appears in the Gospel again after Luke 2 and all we hear about the mother of Jesus is the scene in which Jesus rudely denounces his family in Luke 8. The birth story in Luke goes on and on about the presence of Jesus in the womb of Mary, which appears designed to counter claims that Jesus "appeared" and was actually unborn.
For example:
Luke 1:30 The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;
...
39 Now at this time Mary arose and went in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah, 40 and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? 44 For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.”
...
Luke 2:21 And when eight days had passed, before His circumcision, His name was then called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.
22 And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”), 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”
...
39 Now at this time Mary arose and went in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah, 40 and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? 44 For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.”
...
Luke 2:21 And when eight days had passed, before His circumcision, His name was then called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.
22 And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”), 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”
Not only was Jesus "in the womb", but his presence in the womb was confirmed by John's recognition of him from his own mother's womb. All of this womb talk appears to be in opposition to docetic claims that Jesus "appeared" and was not actually born from the womb. For example, as we read in Ascension of Isaiah.
5. And he did not approach Mary, but kept her as a holy virgin, though with child.
6. And he did not live with her for two months.
7. And after two months of days while Joseph was in his house, and Mary his wife, but both alone.
8. It came to pass that when they were alone that Mary straight-way looked with her eyes and saw a small babe, and she was astonished.
9. And after she had been astonished, her womb was found as formerly before she had conceived.
10. And when her husband Joseph said unto her: "What has astonished thee?" his eyes were opened and he saw the infant and praised God, because into his portion God had come.
11. And a voice came to them: "Tell this vision to no one."
6. And he did not live with her for two months.
7. And after two months of days while Joseph was in his house, and Mary his wife, but both alone.
8. It came to pass that when they were alone that Mary straight-way looked with her eyes and saw a small babe, and she was astonished.
9. And after she had been astonished, her womb was found as formerly before she had conceived.
10. And when her husband Joseph said unto her: "What has astonished thee?" his eyes were opened and he saw the infant and praised God, because into his portion God had come.
11. And a voice came to them: "Tell this vision to no one."
Now, if the writer of Luke 1-2 is crafting a narrative for the purpose of countering the claims of docetists and the like, how do we know that the writer of this narrative has not also incorporated elements from Basilides? This writer is clearly appropriating ideas from other sources, which is evidence throughout. This writer, like all of the other Gospel writers, is engaging in appropriation and re-framing, where they take passages from one source and then change the wording to provide a different meaning. That's what all of the Gospels do, even the first! They are all exercises in appropriation and recontextualization. So again, how do we know that it was not the writer of Luke 1-2 who was reframing the words of Basilides as opposed to the other way around?
Afterall, Mills left out the beginning of the passage from Refutation, which says:
Now this (mystery) was not made known to previous generations, as he says, it has been written, By revelation was made known unto me the mystery; and, I have heard inexpressible words which it is not possible for man to declare. The light, (therefore,) which came down from the Ogdoad above to the Son of the Hebdomad, descended from the Hebdomad upon Jesus the son of Mary, and he had radiance imparted to him by being illuminated with the light that shone upon him. This, he says, is that which has been declared: The Holy Spirit will come upon you, (meaning) that which proceeded from the Sonship through the conterminous spirit upon the Ogdoad and Hebdomad, as far as Mary; and the power of the Highest will overshadow you,...
So, according to "the Refutiator", Basilides claimed that these words were a revelation to him. Why would be claim that if it were part of a circulating Gospel? How do we know then that it was not the writer of Luke was was appropriating Basilides and putting his words into a context that counter's the meaning given to them by Basilides? Afterall we have to acknowledge here that one of these two is doing just that.
Either Basilides is appropriating Luke and giving the words of Luke a different meaning or vice versa. And Luke 1-2 appears to be a narrative tacked on to the beginning of an existing Gospel, which is designed to counter the claims of various "Gnostic" type claims about the origins of Jesus. It appears specifically designed to counter the teachings of those like Basilides, Marcion, Valentinus, Menander, etc.
Re: Ian Mills's "external evidence" that Luke preceded Marcion
Then you are not using Litwa's recent edition of the text, which has it in 7.26 (pp. 528-30):rgprice wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 4:48 am I don't find Mills' case convincing ...
But he also cites this:This, [Basilides] says, is what was stated: “‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you’ – that which came from the Sonship through the boundary of the Spirit upon the Ogdoad and Hebdomad, unto Mary. ‘And the power of the Most High will overshadow you’ – the ‘power’ of discernment (which came) from the height above (through) the Demiurge, unto creation, which is of the Son” (Refutation of All Heresies 7.26.9).
Firstly, I find this in Refutation 7.14, not 7.26.
9. The scripture refers to this, he claims, by saying,
Holy Spirit will come upon you.
This refers to the light that traveled from the Sonship, passing through
the Spirit at the boundary to the Ogdoad and Hebdomad, until it reached
Mary. And power of the Most High will overshadow you.99
This refers to the power of differentiation, namely, the Son that descends
from the heights above through the Artificer as far as creation
[Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies (2016) M. David Litwa, ed. and trans].
Holy Spirit will come upon you.
This refers to the light that traveled from the Sonship, passing through
the Spirit at the boundary to the Ogdoad and Hebdomad, until it reached
Mary. And power of the Most High will overshadow you.99
This refers to the power of differentiation, namely, the Son that descends
from the heights above through the Artificer as far as creation
[Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies (2016) M. David Litwa, ed. and trans].
Mills gives the Greek is in a footnote on the same page as the quotation (Mills, Rewriting, 252), along with the note he is following Litwa's Greek text. I suspect the translation is Mills' own, as he is not using Litwa's. In any event, he gives the location correctly.
61 τοῦτό ἐστι, φησί, τὸ εἰρημένον· «Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ», τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς υἱότητος διὰ τοῦ
μεθορίου Πνεύματος ἐπὶ τὴν Όγδοάδα καὶ τὴν Ἑβδομάδα διελθὸν μέχρι τῆς Μαρίας, «καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου
ἐπισκιάσει σοι,» ἡ δὺναμις τῆς κρίσεως, ἀπὸ τῆς ἀκρωρείας ἄνωθεν <διὰ> τοῦ δημιουργοῦ μέχρι τῆς κτίσεως, ὅ ἐστι
τοῦ (ὑι)οῦ. I adopt here David Litwa’s text in preference to Marcovich since the former employs fewer conjectures.
Their reconstruction of the text itself only differs in Marcovich’s printing of τοῦ Ἰ(ησ)οῦ for Litwa’s τοῦ (ὑι)οῦ.
μεθορίου Πνεύματος ἐπὶ τὴν Όγδοάδα καὶ τὴν Ἑβδομάδα διελθὸν μέχρι τῆς Μαρίας, «καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου
ἐπισκιάσει σοι,» ἡ δὺναμις τῆς κρίσεως, ἀπὸ τῆς ἀκρωρείας ἄνωθεν <διὰ> τοῦ δημιουργοῦ μέχρι τῆς κτίσεως, ὅ ἐστι
τοῦ (ὑι)οῦ. I adopt here David Litwa’s text in preference to Marcovich since the former employs fewer conjectures.
Their reconstruction of the text itself only differs in Marcovich’s printing of τοῦ Ἰ(ησ)οῦ for Litwa’s τοῦ (ὑι)οῦ.
Re: Ian Mills's "external evidence" that Luke preceded Marcion
I do not think your theory that Luke 1.35 may be dependent on Basilides makes good sense of the data from Refutation of All Heresies 6.35.2-4 (Litwa 430-431):rgprice wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 4:48 am Now, if the writer of Luke 1-2 is crafting a narrative for the purpose of countering the claims of docetists and the like, how do we know that the writer of this narrative has not also incorporated elements from Basilides? This writer is clearly appropriating ideas from other sources, which is evidence throughout. This writer, like all of the other Gospel writers, is engaging in appropriation and re-framing, where they take passages from one source and then change the wording to provide a different meaning. That's what all of the Gospels do, even the first! They are all exercises in appropriation and recontextualization. So again, how do we know that it was not the writer of Luke 1-2 who was reframing the words of Basilides as opposed to the other way around?
[Snip]
Either Basilides is appropriating Luke and giving the words of Luke a different meaning or vice versa. And Luke 1-2 appears to be a narrative tacked on to the beginning of an existing Gospel, which is designed to counter the claims of various "Gnostic" type claims about the origins of Jesus. It appears specifically designed to counter the teachings of those like Basilides, Marcion, Valentinus, Menander, etc.
3. ὁπότε οὖν ἔδει ἀρθῆναι τὸ κάλυμ<μ>α καὶ ὀφθῆναι ταῦτα τὰ μυστήρια,
γεγέν<ν>ηται ὁ Ἰησοῦς διὰ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον· «πνεῦμα
ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ»—πνεῦμα ἔστιν ἡ Σοφία—, «καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου
ἐπισκιάσει σοι»—ὕψιστος ἔστιν ὁ δημιουργός·—«διὸ τὸ γεννώμενον ἐκ σοῦ
ἅγιον κληθήσεται». 4. γεγέν<ν>ηται γὰρ οὐκ ἀπὸ ὑψίστου μόνου, ὥσπερ οἱ
κατὰ τὸν Ἀδὰμ κτισθέντες ἀπὸ μόνου ἐκτίσθησαν τοῦ ὑψίστου—τουτέστι
[τῆς Σοφίας καὶ] τοῦ δημιουργοῦ. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς, «ὁ καινὸς ἄνθρωπος», [ὁ] ἀπὸ
Πνεύματος ἁγίου—τουτέστι τῆς Σοφίας καὶ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ—, ἵνα τὴν μὲν
πλάσιν καὶ κατασκευὴν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ ὁ δημιουργὸς καταρτίσῃ, τὴν δὲ
οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα παράσχῃ τὸ ἅγιον, καὶ γένηται λόγος ἐπουράνιος ἀπὸ
τῆς Ὀγδοάδος, γεν<ν>ηθεὶς διὰ Μαρίας.
3. Now when it became necessary for the veil to be removed, and these
mysteries to be seen, Jesus was born from Mary the virgin, according to
what is said: “Holy Spirit will come upon you”—the Spirit being Wisdom—
“and power of the Most High will overshadow you”—the “Most High”
being the Artificer. “Consequently what is born from you will be called
holy.”181 4. Jesus was born not from the Most High alone, like people created
according to the model of Adam were created from the Most High or
Artificer. Rather, Jesus, “the new human being,” was born from the Holy
Spirit—that is, from Wisdom and the Artificer.182 Accordingly, the Artificer
fit together the mold and structure of his body, while the Holy Spirit
supplied his substance. Thus arose a heavenly Word from the Ogdoad,
born through Mary.
γεγέν<ν>ηται ὁ Ἰησοῦς διὰ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον· «πνεῦμα
ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ»—πνεῦμα ἔστιν ἡ Σοφία—, «καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου
ἐπισκιάσει σοι»—ὕψιστος ἔστιν ὁ δημιουργός·—«διὸ τὸ γεννώμενον ἐκ σοῦ
ἅγιον κληθήσεται». 4. γεγέν<ν>ηται γὰρ οὐκ ἀπὸ ὑψίστου μόνου, ὥσπερ οἱ
κατὰ τὸν Ἀδὰμ κτισθέντες ἀπὸ μόνου ἐκτίσθησαν τοῦ ὑψίστου—τουτέστι
[τῆς Σοφίας καὶ] τοῦ δημιουργοῦ. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς, «ὁ καινὸς ἄνθρωπος», [ὁ] ἀπὸ
Πνεύματος ἁγίου—τουτέστι τῆς Σοφίας καὶ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ—, ἵνα τὴν μὲν
πλάσιν καὶ κατασκευὴν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ ὁ δημιουργὸς καταρτίσῃ, τὴν δὲ
οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα παράσχῃ τὸ ἅγιον, καὶ γένηται λόγος ἐπουράνιος ἀπὸ
τῆς Ὀγδοάδος, γεν<ν>ηθεὶς διὰ Μαρίας.
3. Now when it became necessary for the veil to be removed, and these
mysteries to be seen, Jesus was born from Mary the virgin, according to
what is said: “Holy Spirit will come upon you”—the Spirit being Wisdom—
“and power of the Most High will overshadow you”—the “Most High”
being the Artificer. “Consequently what is born from you will be called
holy.”181 4. Jesus was born not from the Most High alone, like people created
according to the model of Adam were created from the Most High or
Artificer. Rather, Jesus, “the new human being,” was born from the Holy
Spirit—that is, from Wisdom and the Artificer.182 Accordingly, the Artificer
fit together the mold and structure of his body, while the Holy Spirit
supplied his substance. Thus arose a heavenly Word from the Ogdoad,
born through Mary.
The Refutation is purportedly quoting from Basilides work called the Exegetica as an example of his exegesis. We have three direct quotations form Luke 1.35 interspersed with Basilides' comments.
Luke 1.35 SBL
καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἄγγελος εἶπεν αὐτῇ·
Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ,
καὶ δύναμις Ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι·
διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κληθήσεται, υἱὸς θεοῦ·
Luke 1.35 RSV:
And the angel said to her,
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you;
therefore the child to be born[a] will be called holy,
the Son of God.
Footnotes
[a]Luke 1:35 Other ancient authorities add of you
καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἄγγελος εἶπεν αὐτῇ·
Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ,
καὶ δύναμις Ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι·
διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κληθήσεται, υἱὸς θεοῦ·
Luke 1.35 RSV:
And the angel said to her,
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you;
therefore the child to be born[a] will be called holy,
the Son of God.
Footnotes
[a]Luke 1:35 Other ancient authorities add of you
On your theory, Basilides would be relating a revelation given to him and interspersing it with his own comment, and Luke came along later and took only the revelation and left out the comment when composing Luke 1.35.
It makes far more sense to think Basilides is providing exegesis of the text of Luke 1.35, especially since his work is called the Exegetica.
Best,
Ken
-
Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8622
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: Ian Mills's "external evidence" that Luke preceded Marcion
If we had solid dates for Basilides and for when he wrote the Exegetica and also for the reported events of Marcion's life, especially the arrival in Rome and the break with the Roman church, it would take us far. But I think our dates are pretty soft and no one is likely to abandon a favored source theory based on contestable dates.Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 2:14 pmI'm also ready to accept this, and I'm curious where we can go with it.
According to Jerome’s translation of Eusebius Chronicle, in the first year of the 228th Olympiad (132 or 133 CE), ‘Basilides the heresiarch lingers in Alexandria, from whom come the Gnostics’ (Basilides haeresiarches in Alexandria commoratur a quo Gnostici). The word commoratur (‘lingering’ or ‘tarrying’) suggests that Basilides was an old man who had, from the perspective of the author, past his prime but had not yet died (and was the founder of Gnosticism).
IF we took it that the date of Basilides as accurate AND assume that he had already written the Exegetica at that point, it would establish that canonical Luke (with an infancy narrative) was written before c. 130 CE.
IF we also accepted the traditional date of Marcion's arrival of Rome AND his break with the Roman church in 144 CE, then that would have been after Luke was already circulating.
This would not affect Klinghardt's overall thesis greatly, as he think the Evangelion was already in circulation before Marcion arrived in Rome.
It would affect Vinzent's thesis that Marcion wrote the Evangelion greatly IF he accepted the proposed dating of Basilides and the Exgetica and of Marcion's arrival in Rome AMD the additional thesis that Marcion wrote the Evangelion in Rome (I have Vinzent's book Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic gospels, but have not read it yet). Vinzent is perhaps unlikely to accept all of those things.
However, while dating Luke before Basilides would not render either Klinghardt's or Vinzent's theories of the priority of the Evangelion impossible, it would necessitate them changing some of heir stated opinions on the dating of the synoptics.
Klingardt:
'Vinzent correctly points out that no viable attestation exists for the existence of the Gospels before the time of Marcion (i.e., before 144 C.E.). The observation was relevant already for the timeline of the pre-canonical gospels when determining the terminus ante quem (cf. p. 368ff). The first testimonial for the existence of the Gospels in general is Justin's witness. [Oldest Gospel 1.397).
Klinghardt:
Even without Vinzent's thesis of Marcion's authorship of the oldest Gospel, the pre-canonical Gospels quite plausibly emerged no earlier than the second half of the 130's CE (also) in reaction to the (second) Jewish rising. [Oldest Gospel 1.404).
If we accept that Luke was written by c. 130 CE AND that canonical Luke shows knowledge of Mark's gospel, then at least two of the synoptics are earlier than the timeframe that Klinghardt and Vinzent propose. They can still make their hypotheses work (actually K's theory is not much affected), perhaps by pushing Marcion earlier than the traditional dating that Klinghardt, at least, seems to accept, or by allowing a very narrow window between Evangelion, Mark, and Luke.
Best,
Ken
-
Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8622
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: Ian Mills's "external evidence" that Luke preceded Marcion
It may be interesting to mention Papias also in this connection. Remarks about Papias generally place him in the reign of Trajan. Most of the references occur in a context that is early in the reign of Trajan (such as 100 CE or 106 CE).
https://peterkirby.com/putting-papias-in-order.html
(A) (1) Irenaeus and others record that John the Theologian and Apostle survived until the times of Trajan; after which Papias of Hierapolis and Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, both of whom heard him, became well known.
-Eusebius of Caesarea, Chronicon 220th Olympiad/100AD
(A) (2) In the third year of the reign of the emperor mentioned above [Trajan], Clement committed the episcopal government of the church of Rome to Evarestus, and departed this life after he had superintended the teaching of the divine word nine years in all. But when Symeon also had died in the manner described, a certain Jew by the name of Justus succeeded to the episcopal throne in Jerusalem. He was one of the many thousands of the circumcision who at that time believed in Christ. At that time Polycarp, a disciple of the apostles, was a man of eminence in Asia, having been entrusted with the episcopate of the church of Smyrna by those who had seen and heard the Lord. And at the same time Papias, bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many.
-Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 3.34.1-3.36.2
(A) (3) Bishop Irenaeus writes that John the Apostle survived all the way to the time of Trajan: after whom his notable disciples were Papias, Bishop of Hieropolis, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Ignatius of Antioch.
-Jerome, Chronicon 220th Olympiad [100AD]
(A) (4) Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who was a disciple of John the Divine, and a companion of Polycarp, wrote five books of Oracles of the Lord, wherein, when giving a list of the Apostles, after Peter and John, Philip and Thomas and Irenaeus wrote that John the Apostle remained until the times of Trajen, after whom were Papias Bishop of Heirapolis, Polycarp of Smyrna and Ignatius of Antioch.
-Prosper of Aquitania, Epitome of Chronicles Section 550 [106AD]
-Eusebius of Caesarea, Chronicon 220th Olympiad/100AD
(A) (2) In the third year of the reign of the emperor mentioned above [Trajan], Clement committed the episcopal government of the church of Rome to Evarestus, and departed this life after he had superintended the teaching of the divine word nine years in all. But when Symeon also had died in the manner described, a certain Jew by the name of Justus succeeded to the episcopal throne in Jerusalem. He was one of the many thousands of the circumcision who at that time believed in Christ. At that time Polycarp, a disciple of the apostles, was a man of eminence in Asia, having been entrusted with the episcopate of the church of Smyrna by those who had seen and heard the Lord. And at the same time Papias, bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many.
-Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 3.34.1-3.36.2
(A) (3) Bishop Irenaeus writes that John the Apostle survived all the way to the time of Trajan: after whom his notable disciples were Papias, Bishop of Hieropolis, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Ignatius of Antioch.
-Jerome, Chronicon 220th Olympiad [100AD]
(A) (4) Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who was a disciple of John the Divine, and a companion of Polycarp, wrote five books of Oracles of the Lord, wherein, when giving a list of the Apostles, after Peter and John, Philip and Thomas and Irenaeus wrote that John the Apostle remained until the times of Trajen, after whom were Papias Bishop of Heirapolis, Polycarp of Smyrna and Ignatius of Antioch.
-Prosper of Aquitania, Epitome of Chronicles Section 550 [106AD]
According to this notice (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 140):
It is notable that Eusebius, in spite of his desire to discredit Papias, still places him as early as the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117); and although later dates (e.g., A.D. 130-140) have often been suggested by modern scholars, Bartlet's date for Papias' literary activity of about A.D. 100 has recently gained support (Schoedel 1967: 91-92; Kortner 1983: 89-94, 167-72, 225-26).
Let's say that we use a date of 110 CE for the work composed by Papias and a date of 130 CE for the work composed by Basilides. Then we would have attestation in 110 CE for "Matthew" and "Mark" as gospel writers (in Papias). And we would have attestation in 130 CE for the gospel of Luke (by Basilides).
Hypothetically, Papias could have mentioned Luke in a way that Eusebius doesn't quote (but I doubt that - the argument that Papias knew John seems better on the other hand). Some might be able to perceive an argument from silence here in favor of viewing Luke as having been composed between 110 CE (or the date of Papias) and 130 CE (or the date of Basilides). Openness to this argument of course would depend on several things, such as a willingness to work through the references to Papias instead of rejecting them outright, a willingness to consider the references in Papias as indications of knowing gospels similar to a form known to us, a willingness to view Luke and Acts as compositions of the second century, and a willingness to consider synoptic problem solutions where Luke had used Matthew and Mark. But for those who aren't necessarily opposed to the argument, they may find here some level of indication for the idea that Luke (ca. 110-130) was the last of the synoptic gospels (and, perhaps, also that John preceded Luke).