The ascension in the epistle of Barnabas.

[DCHindley]

Barnabas 15.9 (translation by B. Ehrman in the Loeb edition):

Therefore also we celebrate the eighth day with gladness, for on it Jesus arose from the dead, and appeared, and ascended into heaven [ἐν ᾗ καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ φανερωθεὶς ἀνέβη εἰς οὐρανοίς].

Granted that the eighth day is (actually) the first day of the week, Sunday, does this verse not suggest knowledge of (the tradition behind) Luke 24, in which the ascension appears to take place later on the same day as the resurrection, but ignorance of (the tradition behind) Acts 1, in which there is a delay of 40 days between the resurrection and the ascension?

Ben.

I thought I had seen it in one of the Ignatian epistles I was analyzing recently. It was in the longer Greek form of Ignatius to the Magnesians, chapter 11.1, whatever that may be worth. However, it is well to note that the words and/or grammatical forms are quite different than what we see in the epistle of Barnabas. Also, Barnabas appears to be a bit fuller in the description of the Lord's ascension, adding that he φανερωθεὶς "manifestly" ascended into heaven. In Ignatius this is part of his three mysteries (the birth, death & resurrection of the Lord) hidden from the prince of this world, so it does not need to be manifest for all to see.

Ign Magnesians 11.1 long Greek	English	Barnabas 15.9	English
καὶ ἀποθανόντι	He also died,	n/a	n/a
καὶ ἀναστάντι	and rose again,	ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν	arose from the dead,
n/a	n/a	καὶ φανερωθεὶς	and appeared,
καὶ ἀνελθόντι εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς	and ascended into the heavens	ἀνέβη εἰς οὐρανοίς	and ascended into (the) heaven(s)

[Ben C. Smith]

I thought I had seen it in one of the Ignatian epistles I was analyzing recently. It was in the longer Greek form of Ignatius to the Magnesians, chapter 11.1, whatever that may be worth. However, it is well to note that the words and/or grammatical forms are quite different than what we see in the epistle of Barnabas. Also, Barnabas appears to be a bit fuller in the description of the Lord's ascension, adding that he φανερωθεὶς "manifestly" ascended into heaven. In Ignatius this is part of his three mysteries (the birth, death & resurrection of the Lord) hidden from the prince of this world, so it does not need to be manifest for all to see.

Good one. The statements in Barnabas and in the shorter Greek version of Ignatius already sound like minicreeds; the statement in the longer Greek version of Ignatius has nothing "mini" about it: it is a fully fleshed-out creed. What follows comes from your own PDF file, David, but reformatted a bit:

Shorter Greek	Shorter English	Longer Greek	Longer English
11.1 Tαῦτα δέ, ἀγαπητοί μου, οὐκ ἐπεὶ ἔγνων τινὰς ἐξ ὑμῶν οὕτως ἔχοντας, ἀλλ' ὡς μικρότερος ὑμῶν θέλω προφυλάσσεσθαι ὑμᾶς, μὴ ἐμπεσεῖν εἰς τὰ ἄγκιστρα τῆς κενοδοξίας, ἀλλὰ πεπληροφορῆσθαι ἐν τῇ γεννήσει καὶ τῷ πάθει καὶ τῇ ἀναστάσει τῇ γενομένῃ ἐν καιρῷ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Ποντίου Πιλάτου· πραχθέντα ἀληθῶς καὶ βεβαίως ὑπὸ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν, ἧς ἐκτραπῆναι μηδενὶ ὑμῶν γένοιτο.	11.1 These things, my beloved, not that I know any of you to be in such a state; but, as less than any of you, I desire to guard you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that ye attain to full assurance in regard to the birth, and passion, and resurrection which took place in the time of the government of Pontius Pilate, being truly and certainly accomplished by Jesus Christ, who is our hope, from which may no one of you ever be turned aside.	11.1 Tαῦτα δέ, ἀγαπητοί μου, οὐκ ἐπέγνων τινὰς ἐξ ὑμῶν οὕτως ἔχοντας, ἀλλ' ὡς μικρότερος ὑμῶν θέλω προφυλάσσεσθαι ὑμᾶς, μὴ ἐμπεσεῖν εἰς τὰ ἄγκιστρα τῆς κενοδοξίας, ἀλλὰ πεπληροφορῆσθαι ἐν Χριστῷ, τῷ πρὸ πάντων μὲν αἰώνων γεννηθέντι παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, γεννωμένῳ δὲ ὕστερον ἐκ Mαρίας τῆς παρθένου δίχα ὁμιλίας ἀνδρός, καὶ πολιτευσαμένῳ ὁσίως καὶ πᾶσαν νόσον καὶ μαλακίαν θεραπεύσαντι ἐν τῷ λαῷ καὶ σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα ποιήσαντι ἐπ' εὐεργεσίᾳ ἀνθρώπων, καὶ τοῖς ἐξοκείλασιν εἰς πολυθεΐαν τὸν ἕνα καὶ μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καταγγείλαντι, τὸν ἑαυτοῦ πατέρα, καὶ τὸ πάθος ὑποστάντι καὶ πρὸς τῶν χριστοκτόνων Ἰουδαίων ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου ἡγεμόνος καὶ Ἡρóδου βασιλέως καὶ σταυρὸν ὑπομείναντι καὶ ἀποθανόντι καὶ ἀναστάντι καὶ ἀνελθόντι εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς πρὸς τὸν ἀποστείλαντα καὶ καθεσθέντι ἐν δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐρχομένῳ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων μετὰ δόξης πατρικῆς, κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς καὶ ἀποδοῦναι ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ. ταῦτα ὁ γνοὺς ἐν πληροφορίᾳ καὶ πιστεύσας μακάριος· ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ ὑμεῖς φιλόθεοι καὶ φιλόχριστοί ἐστε ἐν πληροφορίᾳ τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν, ἧς ἐκτραπῆναι μηδενὶ ἡμῶν γένηται.	11.1 These things, my beloved, not that I know any of you to be in such a state; but, as less than any of you, I desire to guard you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that you may rather attain to a full assurance in Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man. He also lived a holy life, and healed every kind of sickness and disease among the people, and wrought signs and wonders for the benefit of men; and to those who had fallen into the error of polytheism He made known the one and only true God, His Father, and underwent the passion and at the hands of the Christkilling Jews, under Pontius Pilate the governor and Herod the king, endured the cross . He also died, and rose again, and ascended into the heavens to Him that sent Him, and is sat down at His right hand, and shall come at the end of the world, with His Father's glory, to judge the living and the dead, and to render to every one according to his works. He who knows these things with a full assurance, and believes them, is happy; even as ye are now the lovers of God and of Christ, in the full assurance of our hope, from which may no one of us ever be turned aside!

Speaking of which, David, when can we expect the next Ignatian installment?

Ben.

[DCHindley]

David, when can we expect the next Ignatian installment?

Ben.

Working on Trallians as we speak.

Had a family event last week, so didn't have time then. Otherwise, I hope to do one a week, although I'll skip the Greek letters attributed to him that do not have a short form.

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

Wow, I did not see this response the first time. I saw your second response, and took it from there, but this one completely escaped me....

many of the texts in question are layered, with layers upon layers upon layers.

What is your evidence?
For me the Didache, gJohn and Revelation are very much layered.

Okay, I think I agree with all three of those. My evidence in other cases is... case by case, obviously.

1 & 2 Corinthians are actually, for each, a combination of three letters. The same for Philippians.

I tend to agree.

Initially, gMark did not have the empty tomb passage and the two reappearances of Christ in gMatthew were added at the beginning of the 2nd century by two different interpolators.

I have been working on a proto-Mark hypothesis which lacks the empty tomb story, as well. There are several clues, including the way the women are introduced so late in the game. This, then, would be yet another layered document.

And of course, most of the early Christians texts have been interpolated (for example: 1 Cor 15: 3-11).
However I do not see these "layers upon layers upon layers" on most early Christian texts.

Three canonical gospels, an apocalypse, a church order, at least three Pauline epistles... you are off to a good start! To return to my original point, only one of those layered texts appears as a layered text in your graphics.

Also, it is amazing that you do not see Luke as layered. Amazing. It has more clues to its layering than either Matthew or Mark.

And that may be what Luke has done with the "times of the gentiles." Even though "all things" are to be accomplished within a generation, the "times of the gentiles" intervene in such a way as to leave open the possibility that only the beginning of that period will fall within the time limit.

Yes, you said it.

And... that makes dating the canonical gospel of Luke based on this verse hazardous....

It is also possible that Luke himself interpreted the generation symbolically somehow, or perhaps as Jerome later interpreted it: to mean the whole race of the Jews. (Likewise, it is possible that the millennium in Revelation 20.6 is purely symbolic somehow, as well, and does not literally indicate the passage of a thousand years of time between the events of chapters 4-19 and those of chapters 21-22.)

"whole race of the Jews"? Only Christian apologists can write that non-sense.

What are you talking about? I am talking about how ancient Christians may have interpreted the phrase once its plain, primary meaning became a problem. I am not talking about how I interpret it.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

I have been working on a proto-Mark hypothesis which lacks the empty tomb story, as well. There are several clues, including the way the women are introduced so late in the game. This, then, would be yet another layered document.

My analysis is right here: http://historical-jesus.info/79.html

Three canonical gospels, an apocalypse, a church order, at least three Pauline epistles... you are off to a good start! To return to my original point, only one of those layered texts appears as a layered text in your graphics.

What you call "layers", I call them interpolations, or editing (combining), or reshuffling.
I found interpolations also in 1 Thessalonians, Galatians & Romans & 1&2 Corinthians & Philipians.

Also, it is amazing that you do not see Luke as layered. Amazing. It has more clues to its layering than either Matthew or Mark.

I could not find evidence that Lk 1-2 was not in the original gLuke. However I consider Lk 1-2 as probably written before the gospel, as a separate document (likely by the same author) to complement gMark. Later that text, & Q, & gMark were used when redacting gLuke.
I know the visit to Nazareth in gLuke is very problematic, but the relocating of it might have been done by the same author, in order to show why Jesus did not base his "ministry" in Nazareth, where his family lived, among his own people. So the relocation in front.

And... that makes dating the canonical gospel of Luke based on this verse hazardous....

I did not base the dating of gLuke on that verse, which is useless for dating it:
http://historical-jesus.info/79.html

Every time I declared interpolations, editing & reshuffling, I fully explained why (with several points) on my website.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

I have been working on a proto-Mark hypothesis which lacks the empty tomb story, as well. There are several clues, including the way the women are introduced so late in the game. This, then, would be yet another layered document.

My analysis is right here: http://historical-jesus.info/79.html

Before I respond to the rest, I notice this in big letters:

Note: From Dominic Crossan, THE HISTORICAL JESUS, THE LIFE OF A MEDITERRANEAN PEASANT, Part III "Brokerless Kingdom", Chapter 15 "Resurrection and Authority", Page 415:
"My proposal is that the original version of Mark's gospel ended with the centurion's confession in 15:39".

Okay, but do you accept his main argument for ending the gospel at 15.39??

What you call "layers", I call them interpolations, or editing (combining), or reshuffling.
I found interpolations also in 1 Thessalonians, Galatians & Romans & 1&2 Corinthians & Philipians.

This is getting into a semantic area. For me, ideally, there is a publication date for a text in which that text starts to circulate both with a title and the name of the author attached somehow. Before that date, all changes to the text are authorial, and one might call them reshuffling, redacting, or editing. After that date, if the author does some of the same, that is creating a new edition of the text. Also after that date, if someone else does that sort of thing and passes the text off as if it came that way from the original author's pen, it is interpolation. If someone copies much of the text, with editing and such, and then publishes the new creation as his or her own, that is borrowing or plagiarism.

But all of that is only the ideal. The reality may well come down to anonymous, untitled (or variously titled) texts getting added to and subtracted from(A) by the same author, (B) by people in his or her circle, and (C) by complete strangers in unpatterned, unplanned textual stages. At some point it becomes difficult to tell one activity from the other.

Also, it is amazing that you do not see Luke as layered. Amazing. It has more clues to its layering than either Matthew or Mark.

I could not find evidence that Lk 1-2 was not in the original gLuke. However I consider Lk 1-2 as probably written before the gospel, as a separate document (likely by the same author) to complement gMark. Later that text, & Q, & gMark were used when redacting gLuke.

If Luke 1-2 was once a separate document, then Luke is, in my terminology, layered. And that also may have a bearing on what is being dated when we notice that Basilides quotes Luke 1-2.

I know the visit to Nazareth in gLuke is very problematic, but the relocating of it might have been done by the same author, in order to show why Jesus did not base his "ministry" in Nazareth, where his family lived, among his own people. So the relocation in front.

Did the same author who relocated the incident also add the bit about the miracles done in Capernaum (4.23)? It is not like he got that line from Mark or something, apparently. It was added.

And... that makes dating the canonical gospel of Luke based on this verse hazardous....

I did not base the dating of gLuke on that verse, which is useless for dating it:
http://historical-jesus.info/79.html

The verse I meant was Luke 21.32. Luke 21.24 may be there to facilitate a reinterpretation of that verse.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Before I respond to the rest, I notice this in big letters:

Note: From Dominic Crossan, THE HISTORICAL JESUS, THE LIFE OF A MEDITERRANEAN PEASANT, Part III "Brokerless Kingdom", Chapter 15 "Resurrection and Authority", Page 415:
"My proposal is that the original version of Mark's gospel ended with the centurion's confession in 15:39".

Okay, but do you accept his main argument for ending the gospel at 15.39??

Crossan thinks the original GMark was the secret Mark. I don't. For me the secret Mark is the result of additions on the canonical Mark, and that later gospel, when ending at 15:39, is the original.
We both agree that the original Mark was ending at 15:39. I explained why. Crossan did not, but surmised the author of gMark was inspired about writing the empty tomb passage by the mention of a tomb, a young man & three women (& other speculations) in the secret Mark. I do not buy his arguments.
But we still agree that the original Mark ended at 15:39, for reasons I explained, but Crossan did not justify (he only argued for the alleged addition in gMark).

But all of that is only the ideal. The reality may well come down to anonymous, untitled (or variously titled) texts getting added to and subtracted from(A) by the same author, (B) by people in his or her circle, and (C) by complete strangers in unpatterned, unplanned textual stages. At some point it becomes difficult to tell one activity from the other.

Right, but we still have to find strong justifications for each of these additions or subtractions.

If Luke 1-2 was once a separate document, then Luke is, in my terminology, layered.

Only if Lk 1-2 was not in the original gospel. And you can add, gLuke is also layered because it uses Q (if you think Q was also a separate document). And why stop here, and not include gMark and Josephus in the layering of gLuke?
Personally, I think "layered" or "layers" are not the proper words for describing later interpolations, editing & reshuffling by whoever on original texts. Also these two words are not adequate about source documents (or part of them) included in an original text.

And that also may have a bearing on what is being dated when we notice that Basilides quotes Luke 1-2.

I don't know what you mean by that.

Did the same author who relocated the incident also add the bit about the miracles done in Capernaum (4.23)? It is not like he got that line from Mark or something, apparently. It was added.

I have no problem concerning the bit about the miracles done in Capernaum. Because that's a duplication of what is written in gMark, I think it was original to gLuke. The problem lies in the mention of miracles at Capernaum in the visit to Nazara, before they are narrated to occur.
Who was the stupid person who did that? the original author or an interpolator?
Since, it was necessary that Jesus was known to have performed miracles before he went to Nazara, in order to sustain the story of Jesus in his hometown, why did the author not mention Jesus performing healing miracles on his way home, from the lower Jordan river?

The verse I meant was Luke 21.32. Luke 21.24 may be there to facilitate a reinterpretation of that verse.

Why do you mean by that?

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

Before I respond to the rest, I notice this in big letters:

Note: From Dominic Crossan, THE HISTORICAL JESUS, THE LIFE OF A MEDITERRANEAN PEASANT, Part III "Brokerless Kingdom", Chapter 15 "Resurrection and Authority", Page 415:
"My proposal is that the original version of Mark's gospel ended with the centurion's confession in 15:39".

Okay, but do you accept his main argument for ending the gospel at 15.39??

Crossan thinks the original GMark was the secret Mark. I don't. For me the secret Mark is the result of additions on the canonical Mark, and that later gospel, when ending at 15:39, is the original.
We both agree that the original Mark was ending at 15:39. I explained why. Crossan did not, but surmised the author of gMark was inspired about writing the empty tomb passage by the mention of a tomb, a young man & three women (& other speculations) in the secret Mark.

That is his main argument. If the burial narrative was created as a pastiche from the Secret Mark pericope, then it did not exist in Secret Mark. So Crossan did explain why; you just do not buy his explanation.

But all of that is only the ideal. The reality may well come down to anonymous, untitled (or variously titled) texts getting added to and subtracted from(A) by the same author, (B) by people in his or her circle, and (C) by complete strangers in unpatterned, unplanned textual stages. At some point it becomes difficult to tell one activity from the other.

Right, but we still have to find strong justifications for each of these additions or subtractions.

Of course.

Setting aside the semantic issues ("layered")....

And that also may have a bearing on what is being dated when we notice that Basilides quotes Luke 1-2.

I don't know what you mean by that.

I mean that when you say things like "Basilides knew about gLuke" because of a quote from Luke 1-2, you temporarily forget that Luke 1-2 was once a separate document. What you should say instead is that Basilides knew at least part of the Lucan infancy narrative:

- Basilides knew about GLuke:
Chapter XIV "This, he [Basilides] says, is that which has been declared: "The Holy Spirit will come upon thee," 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 thee," [bolded italics as in Lk1:35]" ....
Valentinus (120-160) also knew about Luke's gospel, according to Irenaeus 'Against Heresies' III, XIV, 3-4 and Hippolytus of Rome, in 'Refutation of all heresies', book VI:
Chapter XXX "[Valentinus says] Jesus was born of Mary the virgin, according to the declaration, "The Holy Ghost will come upon thee"--Sophia is the Spirit--"and the power of the Highest will overshadow thee"--the Highest is the Demiurge,--"wherefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy."" (bolded italics as in Lk1:35) <<

Did the same author who relocated the incident also add the bit about the miracles done in Capernaum (4.23)? It is not like he got that line from Mark or something, apparently. It was added.

I have no problem concerning the bit about the miracles done in Capernaum. Because that's a duplication of what is written in gMark, I think it was original to gLuke. The problem lies in the mention of miracles at Capernaum in the visit to Nazara, before they are narrated to occur.

Yes. the whole point is that Luke 4.23 is not a duplication of anything in Mark.

Who was the stupid person who did that? the original author or an interpolator?
Since, it was necessary that Jesus was known to have performed miracles before he went to Nazara, in order to sustain the story of Jesus in his hometown, why did the author not mention Jesus performing healing miracles on his way home, from the lower Jordan river?

My answer is simple:

• Proto-Luke had the order Capernaum -> Nazareth and also the line now present in 4.23.
• Marcion edited proto-Luke and kept the order Capernaum -> Nazareth. (Whether he also kept 4.23 is unclear.)
• Canonical Luke edited proto-Luke and changed the order to Nazareth -> Capernaum, docilely reproducing 4.23, as well.

The verse I meant was Luke 21.32. Luke 21.24 may be there to facilitate a reinterpretation of that verse.

Why do you mean by that?

I mean that finding the Marcan phrase "this generation shall not pass away until..." in Luke, implying that Jesus is a false prophet unless that generation is still alive, does not necessarily help us date Luke (just like finding "so you also" in Marcion, implying that Jesus is a false prophet unless there are disciples still alive, does not necessarily help us date the Marcionite gospel), since the "times of the gentiles" may be there to facilitate a reinterpretation of the generational prediction (just like "heaven and earth shall not pass away except..." is a reinterpretation of the generational prediction in Marcion.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

That is his main argument. If the burial narrative was created as a pastiche from the Secret Mark pericope, then it did not exist in Secret Mark. So Crossan did explain why; you just do not buy his explanation.

But that still does not explain why, according to Crossan, the original gospel ended at Lk 15:39.

I mean that when you say things like "Basilides knew about gLuke" because of a quote from Luke 1-2, you temporarily forget that Luke 1-2 was once a separate document. What you should say instead is that Basilides knew at least part of the Lucan infancy narrative:

Bernard Muller wrote:

- Basilides knew about GLuke:
Chapter XIV "This, he [Basilides] says, is that which has been declared: "The Holy Spirit will come upon thee," 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 thee," [bolded italics as in Lk1:35]" ....
Valentinus (120-160) also knew about Luke's gospel, according to Irenaeus 'Against Heresies' III, XIV, 3-4 and Hippolytus of Rome, in 'Refutation of all heresies', book VI:
Chapter XXX "[Valentinus says] Jesus was born of Mary the virgin, according to the declaration, "The Holy Ghost will come upon thee"--Sophia is the Spirit--"and the power of the Highest will overshadow thee"--the Highest is the Demiurge,--"wherefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy."" (bolded italics as in Lk1:35) <<

But I wrote, in front of what you quoted me:
>> According to Hippolytus of Rome, in 'Refutation of all heresies', book VII:
Chapter XV "... all the events in our Lord's life occurred, according to them [Basilidians], in the same manner as they have been described in the Gospels." (which would imply Basilides knew about a few gospels, as can be confirmed next, from the same book) <<
I see no reason why Basilides would not be quoting from gLuke about something in Lk 1-2.

Yes. the whole point is that Luke 4.23 is not a duplication of anything in Mark.

Yes, that's true. But if the visit to Capernaum (as per Lk 4:31-40) was added later, the one who allegedly added it would be stupid, considering Lk 4:23.

My answer is simple:

Proto-Luke had the order Capernaum -> Nazareth and also the line now present in 4.23.
Marcion edited proto-Luke and kept the order Capernaum -> Nazareth. (Whether he also kept 4.23 is unclear.)
Canonical Luke edited proto-Luke and changed the order to Nazareth -> Capernaum, docilely reproducing 4.23, as well.

First you assume the existence of a proto-Luke, second you assume "canonical Luke" edited proto-Luke and changed the order (which would create some stupid non-sense). And then, you do not want to accept the possibility that Marcion "corrected" gLuke in that regard.

I mean that finding the Marcan phrase "this generation shall not pass away until..." in Luke, implying that Jesus is a false prophet unless that generation is still alive, does not necessarily help us date Luke (just like finding "so you also" in Marcion, implying that Jesus is a false prophet unless there are disciples still alive, does not necessarily help us date the Marcionite gospel), since the "times of the gentiles" may be there to facilitate a reinterpretation of the generational prediction (just like "heaven and earth shall not pass away except..." is a reinterpretation of the generational prediction in Marcion.

Yes, the Marcan phrase that is quoted in gLuke does put that gospel in the first century, as does Lk 9:27 "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.", as does "John" being influenced by gLuke during the writing of gJohn.
My position on "so you also" is that "Mark" had Jesus, out of character, talking to Christians of the early 70's (that's option 1) or option 2, talking to his disciples Peter, Andrew, John & James (when those were not believed to have died yet, despite some rumors). And "Luke" and "Matthew" repeated that, either blindly for option 1, or, for option 2, stretching a bit the normal longevity of the disciples (and disbelieving any "rumors" about their death).
As for Marcion, he copied blindly "so you also", making Jesus a false prophet.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

That is his main argument. If the burial narrative was created as a pastiche from the Secret Mark pericope, then it did not exist in Secret Mark. So Crossan did explain why; you just do not buy his explanation.

But that still does not explain why, according to Crossan, the original gospel ended at Lk 15:39.

Then I do not know what you mean by the word "explanation".

But I wrote, in front of what you quoted me:
>> According to Hippolytus of Rome, in 'Refutation of all heresies', book VII:
Chapter XV "... all the events in our Lord's life occurred, according to them [Basilidians], in the same manner as they have been described in the Gospels." (which would imply Basilides knew about a few gospels, as can be confirmed next, from the same book) <<
I see no reason why Basilides would not be quoting from gLuke about something in Lk 1-2.

That is Hippolytus summarizing Basilides. Of course Hippolytus is going to assume that any gospel parallel Basilides gives is going to have come from the canonical gospels. Of course.

My answer is simple:

First you assume the existence of a proto-Luke, second you assume "canonical Luke" edited proto-Luke and changed the order (which would create some stupid non-sense). And then, you do not want to accept the possibility that Marcion "corrected" gLuke in that regard.

First, it is not an assumption; it is an hypothesis, based on the text, to be further tested. If I said that you were assuming that John was written in layers partly before and partly after Luke came along, you would protest that you give reasons for your view. Well... same here.

Second, it looks pretty certain that the order got changed. The "stupid nonsense" amounts to a single verse, without which there would be no problem. A lot of the indicators you yourself use to indicate copying or borrowing or direction of dependence is of the same variety.

Third, "you do not want to accept the possibility" is mindreading, and I do not think you have that ability. I do accept the possibility that Marcion corrected Luke. I have said several times now that one example is not enough; any one example may simply be a bad turn of phrase that a later writer corrected (and the same can be said for many, if not most, of the indicators that you call upon, as well); what I am looking for is a pattern, several dovetailing bits of evidence.

I mean that finding the Marcan phrase "this generation shall not pass away until..." in Luke, implying that Jesus is a false prophet unless that generation is still alive, does not necessarily help us date Luke (just like finding "so you also" in Marcion, implying that Jesus is a false prophet unless there are disciples still alive, does not necessarily help us date the Marcionite gospel), since the "times of the gentiles" may be there to facilitate a reinterpretation of the generational prediction (just like "heaven and earth shall not pass away except..." is a reinterpretation of the generational prediction in Marcion.

Yes, the Marcan phrase that is quoted in gLuke does put that gospel in the first century, as does Lk 9:27 "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.", as does "John" being influenced by gLuke during the writing of gJohn.
My position on "so you also" is that "Mark" had Jesus, out of character, talking to Christians of the early 70's (that's option 1) or option 2, talking to his disciples Peter, Andrew, John & James (when those were not believed to have died yet, despite some rumors). And "Luke" and "Matthew" repeated that, either blindly for option 1, or, for option 2, stretching a bit the normal longevity of the disciples (and disbelieving any "rumors" about their death).
As for Marcion, he copied blindly "so you also", making Jesus a false prophet.

It does not appear that you understood what I was saying in this regard.

Ben.