Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

to outhouse,

Its sort of proselytizing your favorite arguments.

I am not trying to convert anyone, just sharing what I found out on the matter. My presentation was about 3 arguments in favor of priority of gLuke over gMarcion. That's it. Fairly neutral, no pressure to accept them.
Even if I was "proselytizing', I would not be the only one on this forum.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote: Even if I was "proselytizing', I would not be the only one on this forum.

Cordially, Bernard

Agreed bud.

And I am glad you follow academia

to outhouse,

And I am glad you follow academia

What do you mean by that? Would it be because I occasionally quote scholars, such as Crossan?
I do not follow academia. It just happens whenever I know of a scholar who would support my viewpoint on one matter, I may quote him/her. My reconstruction has been mostly independent of scholarly studies, and, as far as I know, that reconstruction is very different of any other one on HJ from an academic or otherwise.

Cordially, Bernard

Ben, please accept my apologies. I don’t know why I was attributing your work to DCHindley.

Giuseppe, I hope you don’t mind if I press you a bit. I think we can agree that Paul had a good opinion of himself and therefore where Paul is modest or self-effacing there is always a case to be made for an interpolation, but this is not the case with 1 Cor 9:5, where Paul is claiming to be have the same rights as the rest of the apostles, Peter and the “brothers of the Lords”. Don’t you agree?

Bernard, I find your examples of Lk 16:17, 21:32 and 5:33 as good evidence that it is unlikely that Luke used Marcion, but rather that Marcion is editing Luke. I also think Gal 4:22-26 could be a good example, but I found your presentation of the case not as clear as I would prefer (this just might be me).

Bernard, I find your examples of Lk 16:17, 21:32 and 5:33 as good evidence that it is unlikely that Luke used Marcion, but rather that Marcion is editing Luke. I also think Gal 4:22-26 could be a good example, but I found your presentation of the case not as clear as I would prefer (this just might be me).

Thank you Michael BG.

Cordially, Bernard

Michael BG wrote:Ben, please accept my apologies. I don’t know why I was attributing your work to DCHindley.

No problem at all.

Bernard, I find your examples of Lk 16:17, 21:32 and 5:33 as good evidence that it is unlikely that Luke used Marcion, but rather that Marcion is editing Luke. I also think Gal 4:22-26 could be a good example, but I found your presentation of the case not as clear as I would prefer (this just might be me).

I too find those examples suggestive in that direction. However, to be fair, I sometimes find the opposite direction to be the case. If both directions turned out to be valid, then it would suggest that both Luke and Marcion drew upon a common source, a proto-Luke or some such, each making his own changes to it along the way.

One example is the "so you also" of Luke 21.29-31. Bernard and I debated that one for a while, but I am still quite convinced that it trends in the direction Marcion -> Luke.

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.)

Finally, Luke 4.23 famously has Jesus say, "No doubt you will quote this proverb to Me, 'Physician, heal yourself! Whatever we heard was done at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well'" (NASB). Yet at this point in Luke nothing of Jesus having previously been to Capernaum, let alone having done anything noteworthy there, has been narrated. Luke has both added this line (neither Matthew nor Mark have it) to the Nazareth pericope and moved it so far forward in his gospel that the line he added no longer makes much sense. This suggests a two-stage process: (1) this line was added when the pericope originally stood at a different point in the narrative, parallel perhaps to the Marcan or Matthean position; and (2) later the pericope was moved forward to where the added line no longer works. But the Marcionite gospel has Capernaum before Nazareth, the more primitive order, as it were.

Ben.

Michael BG wrote: Giuseppe, I hope you don’t mind if I press you a bit. I think we can agree that Paul had a good opinion of himself and therefore where Paul is modest or self-effacing there is always a case to be made for an interpolation, but this is not the case with 1 Cor 9:5, where Paul is claiming to be have the same rights as the rest of the apostles, Peter and the “brothers of the Lords”. Don’t you agree?

I would disagree because Paul is made a 'human, very human' man, a wailing man, because in his contingent 'existential' misery of the moment he claims the equalizer with the other apostles and not instead a supremacy over all the other apostles.

Note that after 1 Cor 9:5, strangely after he complained so much, what does Paul?

But I have not used any of these rights. [the rights mentioned above] And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me, for I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast. For when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!
(1 Cor 9:15-16)

He is somewhat softened by claiming for himself celibacy and thus restoring DE FACTO the original status quo, the previous power relations that see him less than Peter and the brothers of the Lord.
The point is just this: a realistic angered wailing Paul may still sound genuine, but even a realistic, angered Paul does the game of the proto-catholics eager to lower him from the high peaks to which heretics had raised their apostle.

Bernard Muller wrote:to outhouse,

And I am glad you follow academia

What do you mean by that? Would it be because I occasionally quote scholars, such as Crossan?
I do not follow academia. It just happens whenever I know of a scholar who would support my viewpoint on one matter, I may quote him/her. My reconstruction has been mostly independent of scholarly studies, and, as far as I know, that reconstruction is very different of any other one on HJ from an academic or otherwise.

Cordially, Bernard

I didn't say you followed academia 100%

I didn't say you had to even be aware what academia teaches or know that your fallowing.


BUT your views are not to far off the typical academic teachings on the subject, where do you think your different on a HJ? Many academic opinions exist all different on the man.

to Ben,

One example is the "so you also" of Luke 21.29-31. Bernard and I debated that one for a while, but I am still quite convinced that it trends in the direction Marcion -> Luke.

May I ask you: Who do you think the "you" in "so you also" stands for in gLuke, and the corresponding passages in gMark, gMatthew & gMarcion?

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."

"Luke" thoroughly introduced John, son of Zechariah, in chapter 1, and in chapter 3, described him as a very popular baptizer & preacher (therefore with his own disciples). So the mention of disciples of John in 5:33 is of no surprise.
However, as noticed by Tertullian, the sudden appearance of disciples of a "John" in gMarcion 5:33, with no further identification, is a sure clue Marcion was working from a gospel (gLuke) and truncated it (eliminating all occurrences of John the Baptist before Lk 5:33). And all other canonical gospels described John at their beginning, well before Jesus starts his public life. <<

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).

Finally, Luke 4.23 famously has Jesus say, "No doubt you will quote this proverb to Me, 'Physician, heal yourself! Whatever we heard was done at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well'" (NASB). Yet at this point in Luke nothing of Jesus having previously been to Capernaum, let alone having done anything noteworthy there, has been narrated. Luke has both added this line (neither Matthew nor Mark have it) to the Nazareth pericope and moved it so far forward in his gospel that the line he added no longer makes much sense. This suggests a two-stage process: (1) this line was added when the pericope originally stood at a different point in the narrative, parallel perhaps to the Marcan or Matthean position; and (2) later the pericope was moved forward to where the added line no longer works. But the Marcionite gospel has Capernaum before Nazareth, the more primitive order, as it were.

Primitive? Why not corrected by Marcion?

Then of course, for the priority of gLuke, we have the testimonies of Irenaeus, Tertullian & Epiphanius. That must count for something.

And they are signs, through internal & external evidence, that gLuke was written in the 1st century:
http://historical-jesus.info/53.html

Cordially, Bernard

where do you think your different on a HJ?

http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html
http://historical-jesus.info/

I want to spell out a few features of the HJ I reconstructed:
He was poor and uneducated (more & more scholars now accept that, but probably not the majority),
He was not "itinerant", very little of a preacher and not a teacher (most scholars see him as itinerant and as a teacher).
He did not used parables (even some atheists would accept he did).
His prophetic message was simplistic and "borrowed" in part.
John the Baptist's ministry was very short (a few months) and happened in the first half of 27 AD.
Jesus' short-lived fame was due mostly because he was credited to heal a few. That started by accident in Capernaum. Therefore Jesus was not a real healer, rather an accidental one.
After the exit of John the Baptist (arrest & execution), some activist Jews based in Jerusalem, started to consider him as a replacement of (or possessed by) JtB, the later having been rumored to be Christ (anointed one to rule over the Kingdom when it comes on earth).
Jesus was arrested probably the same day of his "disturbance" in the temple. No trials.
He was crucified as a deterrent around the Passover of 28 AD as "King of the Jews" (intended as a mocking sign but later interpreted "seriously", which started the development of some Christian beliefs among Jews).
Both "ministries" of Jesus & JtB happened in a short window of time, when Roman rule had become weak temporarily, between two events during the beginning of Pilate's rule, as described in Josephus' Wars & Antiquities.

That's the essential. I do not think any scholars come close of my overall viewpoint about HJ. Of course, all the above is justified, with a large amount of evidence, on my website.

Cordially, Bernard