Bernard Muller wrote:Those listening to Jesus are his own disciples with him on the mount of olives then.
May I ask you: Do you think Marcion initiated that verse, sometimes around 130 CE, when these disciples would be dead, well before from "these things" "the kingdom of God is nigh at hand"?
No, not at all. I am not arguing for Marcionite priority.
Does not make any sense. What about your unevidenced proto-Luke, that Marcion would have copied or revived.
To make sense, that alleged gospel would have to be written in the first century, most probably before 70, when these disciples would still be alive.
Are you entertaining that idea?
Yes, of course. The proto-Luke in question would be early. (I am not certain that before or after 70 is an issue in particular on this point, but yes... early.)
Another example is the spot where the gospel begins. It seems likely that some version of Luke actually began at 3.1, since the birth narratives are of a different character than the rest of the book and 3.1 makes a fine beginning for a gospel. Well, that is where Marcion begins. (It is also, by the way, where the Ebionite gospel apparently began.)
I thought I covered that with my third argument (from
http://historical-jesus.info/53.html):
>> 4) Lk 5:33
"And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?"
Tertullian's 'Against Marcion', IV, 11:
"Whence, too, does John come upon the scene? Christ, suddenly; and just as suddenly, John! After this fashion occur all things in Marcion's system."
No, that is a different issue. One does not need Luke 1-2 to introduce John. Luke 3 does just fine.
Yes, but according to Tertullian (from the quote above and
"In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (for such is Marcion's proposition) he "came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum,"" (AM 4.7.1), Luke 3, with its several mentions of John the Baptist, was not in gMarcion.
I agree. I have always agreed that the Marcionite gospel appears, on our best evidence, to introduce John rather suddenly; it was even my idea, if you recall!
But where the gospel that Marcion adopted started, the choices being (A) the infancy narratives and (B) Luke 3.1, is a different issue, because both Luke 1-2 and Luke 3 introduce John just fine. In other words, Marcion could have omitted all mention of John from Luke 3 without ever even having heard of Luke 1-2.
Actually, on this thread
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765#p39307, I wonder why everything before Lk 4:41, except for 3:1a and maybe 4:14-15 is not in red, according to Tertullian's aforementioned remark, and also that one
"In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (for such is Marcion's proposition) he "came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum,"" (AM 4.7.1).
Because Dieter T. Roth is extremely conservative about what he counts as a true omission. But, if you read the notes, you will find this comment from him: "Even though there is no direct attestation of the omission of these verses, there is an indirect indication that 3:2-22 was missing as an implication of Tertullian’s comments in
Marc. 4.11.4."
Yes, extremely conservative, but still, 3:2-22 should be shown in red. The criterion of indirect indication should have been incorporated in Roth's analysis.
It was: in the notes.
Primitive? Why not corrected by Marcion?
Sure. Why not? And why not see "tittle of my words" as an awkward yet primitive expression that Luke corrected?
Why not see Lk 16:17 as copied from Q? But I agree you have a point here which I need to consider further, maybe to the point of eliminating the argument altogether. BUT if "Luke" corrected on gMarcion, that means that Q and/or gMatthew were generated after gMarcion, because Q and/or gMatthew (5:18) also made a similar correction. Or "Luke" knew about gMatthew which made the correction first, or "Matthew" knew about gLuke which made the correction first. There is a lot to swallow here.
Again, I am not arguing for Marcionite priority. I think that Marcion published a gospel early in century II sometime, not before. So I do not think that the
body of Luke, at any rate (Luke 1-2 may be a different matter, and I reserve the right to suspect that certain parts of the body are also post- and/or anti-Marcionite) necessarily corrected the gospel of Marcion; rather, it drew from the same gospel that Marcion himself drew upon. (I am, by the way, speaking as if this is exactly what I think, when in reality my views are still in formation on the topic. Just go with it for the sake of argument, at least.)
I do not think you are seeing what is happening with those church fathers. Read them very, very closely and you will notice that they have no actual tradition at all that Marcion mutilated Luke. None. They are getting their information the same way you are getting it, by comparing the texts, just like Tertullian explicitly tells us. Nor do they have any tradition that Luke, companion of Paul, composed the gospel and the acts. None. They are getting their information the same way you are getting it; Irenaeus has a text with "we" passages which lines up with a gospel with a matching prologue, and is arriving at the identity of Luke by exegesis.
The church fathers were also getting information about Marcionism from contemporary Marcionites (or more likely ex-Marcionites). Reading and comparing texts were a separate enterprise confirming the beliefs of Marcionites and Marcion. About an earlier tradition that Marcion mutilated Luke, that's an argument from silence.
No, in the case of Tertullian, it is better than an argument from silence. He explicitly says that the accusations of forgery flew in both directions, Marcion claiming that the Catholics had done it and the Catholics claiming that Marcion had done it, and he explicitly says that there is only one way to decide who is right: to look at which one corrupted the doctrine of the other, since one cannot corrupt what one does not already have in hand. This is an exegetical argument, and it is, according to Tertullian himself, the only argument that can be made. Granted, he fills it out a bit more, supplementing it, as it were, but the supplements are exegetical in nature, and depend on his reading (for example) the
Antitheses; in each case, Tertullian's argument is not without rival. The only tradition he points to is that Marcion once made a donation to the Roman church; Tertullian takes this to mean that he once agreed with the Catholic church and then fell away from the truth into heresy. But any fool can list alternative and equally plausible explanations for this account that do not involve Marcion having deliberately corrupted canonical Luke.
Tertullian was certain gLuke preceded gMarcion, even if he did not give any proof, and the gospel was not named before Irenaeus' times: "Luke's Gospel also has come down to us in like integrity until the sacrilegious treatment of Marcion. In short, when Marcion laid hands on it, it then became diverse and hostile to the Gospels of the apostles." (AM 4.5)
What is Tertullian basing this belief (that canonical Luke had remained unchanged from apostolic times until Marcion got his dirty hands on it) on? If his case is based on facts, where are the facts?
Irenaeus the same. And of course, internal and external evidence confirm gLuke was written in the first century.
Internal evidence suggests that
parts of Luke were written in the first century.
What is the evidence for the existence of a proto-Luke?
According to Tertullian, Marcion claimed that there was a gospel that the Catholics corrupted into canonical Luke. That would be a proto-Luke. On the Marcionite side of the evidence, it remains, at least theoretically, an open question whether (A) Marcion was claiming that his gospel owed its very existence to Marcion himself or (B) Marcion was claiming that the gospel was an already extant text. I do not think Tertullian gives us enough to decide on that score. So we get the following picture:
According to Tertullian: Canonical Luke -> Marcionite Gospel
According to Marcion: Marcionite Gospel -> canonical Luke ~OR~ Primitive Gospel -> Marcionite Republication of Primitive Gospel -> Canonical Luke
In both of the Marcionite cases, there is a proto-Luke. There is no evidence for the existence of proto-Luke
only if you choose to listen only to what Irenaeus and Tertullian say and not to what Marcion says.
Ben.
