Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 11:22 am
rgprice wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:17 am
@Ken
Again, can you demonstrate that canonical Luke harmonized proto-Luke with Matthew in particular cases? Or distinguish between the contents of Proto-Luke and Canonical Luke?
Yes, but I'm not going to go into extensive detail here.
But you could if you wanted to?
Yeah, it's in the book I'm working on, with plenty of detail.
So we have Mark, which has a a baptism scene, then Marcion's gospel, which is dependent on Mark and omitted it, and a hypothetical proto-Luke which restored the baptism? How do you know Marcion's gospel didn't omit the baptism and other early material from Luke, if it omitted the baptism and temptation from Mark?
Its possible that the sequence is Mark > proto-Luke > Marcion instead of Mark > Marcion > proto-Luke. If the scenario is Mark > proto-Luke then Marcion, Matthew and Luke are all derived from proto-Luke, with Marcion removing some material from proto-Luke. But there are reasons to think that proto-Luke was built on top of Marcion.
What does "anti-Marcionite in nature" mean? Doesn't Mark already have stuff that's anti-Marcionite in nature, like Jesus' mother and brothers and sisters? It does not seem that any material not congenial to Marcion would have to be explained as a reaction against Marcion on your assumptions.
And can you demonstrate that Matthew made his whole birth story on the basis of the genealogy from proto-Luke (is that the same genealogy as in canonical Luke?), because I'm really curious about that.
Matthew is far more overtly anti-Marcionite than Mark. Mark isn't actually anti-Marcionite at all, it just has a few elements that don't fit Marcionism, but they aren't developed in an anti-Marcionite way. The birth narrative of Matthew is overtly anti-Marcionite. In addition, Matthew constantly emphasizes how Jesus fulfilled prophecy, in contradiction to Marcion's claim that the Jewish scriptures had no knowledge of Jesus.
I like the Luke using Matthew part. It sounds like you may consider Luke 4.16-31, 4:38, and 5:5-11 to be your strongest cases. Why don't you start with demonstrating those?
I do in the book.
Are there no contradictions within Marcion's gospel? Tertullian seemed to think the Evangelion contradicted Marcion's theology, but maybe you're talking about internal tensions within the document. Are there none within the Evangelion?
Evangelion contains things that may contradict Marcion's theology, but it doesn't contain internal contradictions as far as I have seen. When I say contradiction I mean like Luke 1-2 are all about how great Mary is, then Luke 3-23 never mentions her, only one time talking about how Jesus rejected his mother. Its clear that Luke 1-2 is not written by the same person who wrote 3-23, and that whoever wrote Luke 1-2 didn't put much effort into modifying Luke 3-23. My theory is that this was the case because the person who wrote Like 1-2 & 24 was focused on Acts of the Apostles, and didn't have much time to put into his Gospel, so he just added bookends to it and did a minor gloss of the rest. I also think there was a time factor involved, with Luke being written pretty quickly shortly after Marcion's Gospel was popularized.
Do you want to pick three of these things and show how it demonstrates Marcion must be earlier than canonical Luke? Or maybe just start with one.
I would but, right now I'm focusing on my book and kind of want and keep some of those details for that. Plus I'm still in the process of refining the case. But anyway, I think you get the idea.
My main point is, this problem doesn't have to be solved in a single step, and there is growing support for the case that Luke was produced in 2 or 3 stages. Those multiple stages explain why it is that sometimes it appear that Luke is more primitive than Matthew and vice versa. It's because that literally is the case.