Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posteriority?

[Secret Alias]

And what are the odds that the best arguments for Marcionite priority are presented in a thrice corrected book whose sole purpose is to demonstrate Marcionite posteriority? So you are settling the question of which came first based on the hope that the three editors of Adv Marc and Epiphanius are honest brokers and decided to 'play fair' with the evidence? How do you arrive at a fair opinion about the role of Jews in late nineteenth/early 20th century Europe writing two thousand years after the fact and using only Mein Kampf and the Protocols of Zion as the basis to your understanding? What safe guards are in place to arrive at a fair result? I think the whole point of this exercise is merely to act the part of arbiter in some debate. Like a play exercise in school. Fine. Go on pretending.

[Secret Alias]

I am pulling out of this conversation. Bye.

[Secret Alias]

I am sorry I could resist posting this while working on another thread. A clear example of Tertullian USING HIS TEXT RATHER THAN MARCION'S TEXT for most of his 'commentary.' I know it sounds crazy. After all y'all want him to be 'unlocking the exact details' of the Marcionite text. But I've got news for you - ain't so. We see near the end of Book Four:

It is well also that the disciples' unbelief persisted, so that right to the end our claim should stand that to the disciples Christ Jesus had declared himself no other than the Christ of the prophets. For when two of them were on a journey, and the Lord had joined himself with them, while it did not appear that it was he himself, and he even pretended not to be aware of the things that had happened, they said, But we were thinking that he himself was the Redeemer of Israel, evidently Israel's, and the Creator's, Christ. To that extent had he never declared himself any other. Otherwise they would not have supposed him the Creator's: and when he was supposed to be the Creator's, he would not have tolerated this supposition about himself if he had not been who he was supposed to be. Otherwise he must be thought of as the author of error and a renegade from the truth: and this will not suit your description of him as a god supremely good.

So we as the readers of this account would naturally assume that the Marcionite text doesn't differ at all from our own. It would be natural to assume - given that Tertullian is such a wonderful scholar, consistently providing us with the exact evidence from the Marcionite canon - that in the Marcionite text Jesus says what we have in Luke:

He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

But Epiphanius tells us something we would never have guessed from Tertullian's use of Luke - the Marcionite text had something different:

But you (Marcion) have replaced, 'Is not this what the prophets have spoken?' Marcion, with, 'Is this not what I said unto you?'

So now we find ourselves at an impass. Clearly Tertullian is not using the Marcionite text to develop his arguments. He often cites from Luke or whatever text he had before him. But clearly Epiphanius isn't the end of the story. It can't simply be a simple change of words. All of vv 26 and 27 too have to be expunged. But now we go beyond what our sources tell us and where do you stop finding 'unmentioned' corrections of text? How do we have any confidence in anything Tertullian tells us is 'in' the Marcionite text when in fact it is demonstrable that he simply used the Catholic gospels most of the time.

[JoeWallack]

JW:
@Ben, By an Act of Providence, legendary Textual Critic Bart Ehrman has recently finished a series of posts arguing that Luke 22:44

And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became as it were great drops of blood falling down upon the ground. (ASV)

is an orthodox addition with the purpose of countering Docetics like Marcion.

Summary of Ehrman's argument:

• 1) Style = There is a clear Chiasm for Jesus' related prayer here without the offending verse.
  
  2) Context Change = GMark's context here is Jesus distress. GLuke changes the context of the same story to prayer delivering from temptation.
  
  3) Manuscript = Good support for omission.
  
  4) Tone = The source GMark, has a tone of Jesus distress. GLuke has exorcised every other indication of distress in the story.
  
  5) Theme = The Verse goes against GLuke's theme as compared to GMark of presenting Jesus as calm and in control.
  
  6) Transmission Motivation = Three Patristics of the second century, Justin, Irenaeus and Hippolytus, cite the offending verse against Docetics like Marcion.

Spot on evidence for purposes of this Thread. Orthodox Christianity citing as evidence, against Docetics like Marcion, in their version of GLuke verses here likely not in the original GLuke.

The related general but speculative observation is that this helps explain the lack of early Manuscripts. Orthodox Christianity preferred the later orthodized versions and destroyed/censored/did not maintain/had no interest in the earlier versions.

Another general observation Ben, I note with interest/amusement the extreme contrast between your posts and Huller's. You are long on evidence, short on conclusions and he who is not to be singly named is the opposite. His only secret is how his supposed evidence supports his conclusions and just like GMark's Jesus who is presented as not being all in regarding The Messianic Secret, how SA's evidence supports his conclusions seems to be a secret to him as well.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Bernard Muller]

By an Act of Providence, legendary Textual Critic Bart Ehrman has recently finished a series of posts arguing that Luke 22:44

And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became as it were great drops of blood falling down upon the ground. (ASV)

is an orthodox addition with the purpose of countering Docetics like Marcion.

I certainly agree with that.

Cordially, Bernard

[maryhelena]

Good point. I too tend to think that Luke-Acts postdates Josephus.

Yes, the author of Luke-Acts knew about Josephus, but only his 'Wars', and not his 'Antiquities':
http://historical-jesus.info/58.html
http://historical-jesus.info/59.html

Cordially, Bernard

Both gMark and gMatthew have Herodias married to Philip prior to a marriage to Herod/Antipas. This marriage is upheld by material in Slavonic Josephus.

(Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison
H. Leeming (Editor), K. Leeming (Editor) page 259.)

gLuke drops the name of Philip as a previous husband of Herodias. Why? Antiquities tells a different story....that indicates to me that the author of gLuke was aware of Antiquities and followed Josephus in his update of the gMark and gMatthew Herodias story.

[maryhelena]

At that point, none of the canonical gospels were considered "scripture", and a reader/hearer could feel that some facts in them could be wrong, that is, if s/he were even aware of this fact.

Consequently, the lack of the husband's name in gLuke does not prove borrowing from Josephus' Antiquities, but only that s/he may have thought the name was different than the Philip of Mark/Matthew. Alternately, the author of gLuke could have been aware of traditions in which the husband of this Herodias had a different name.

All we can say for sure is that s/he just wasn't sure it was Philip.

Sure, one can make many assumptions...

So - the writer/writers of gLuke decided that the authors of gMark and gMatthew had got their Herodian history wrong in regard to a husband of Herodias? gMark and gMatthew telling their Herodias and Philip marriage story for x number of years without anyone throwing the history book at them? Only with the arrival of Antiquities, around 93/94 c.e., could the Herodian history of gMark and gMatthew be questioned. Or, contrary, of course, the Herodian history of Josephus could be questioned...

Actually, the far more interesting question is not why did gLuke drop the mention of Philip being a husband of Herodias - but why did Josephus write that it was a daughter of Herodias that was married to Philip?

Nikos Kokkinos has questioned the Herodian history given by Josephus in Antiquities. Kokkinos gives Herodias three marriages. Herod III, Philip and Antipas. Thereby rejecting the Antiquities story about the daughter of Herodias, Salome, being married to Philip.

• Nikos Kokkinos: The Herodian Dynasty.
  
  
  The stubborn insistence of many theologians on referring to Herod III as 'Herod-Philip' is without any value. No such person existed - he is an illusion created to account for an apparent contradiction between the Synoptic Gospels and Josephus. The reference to 'Philip' in Mark, Matthew and Luke is inevitably to Philip the Tetrarch. (page 223).
  
  According to Ant.18.137, Philip married Salome III. But this does not seem to be right. For him to able do that he should have stayed celibate up to the age of at least 40 - uniquely among the Herods. (Salome could not have married before c. CE 13). From other evidence we may actually deduce that Philip's wife (during the first three decades of the Christian Era) was Salome III's mother, Herodias I, who had divorced her first husband, Herod III, and later also resorted to marrying Antipas after the death of Philip. (page 237).

The facts as we have them still stand. gMark and gMatthew have Herodias married to Philip - as does material in Slavonic Josephus. Antiquities tells a different story about Herodias. gLuke chose to drop the mention of Philip in connection to Herodias. Thus allowing Antiquities to influence his 'update' of the gMark and gMatthew Herodias and Philip story: Failure to name the brother from whom Herod Antipas took Herodias....Prior to Antiquities there would be no reason for the writer/writers of gLuke to fail to follow gMark and gMatthew in their Herodian history.

[Secret Alias]

In other words he's willing to accept that Marcion more faithfully preserved the anonymous character of the text but still nevertheless altered the text substantively whereas the orthodox merely added the title. Hmmm. One would think under that scenario the prologue become more problematic (the Marcionites couldn't have thought the text was written by god/Christ). The prologue necessarily suppose the author wasn't writing anonymously either. So it can't be just the title at issue. It's the title and the prologue. It seems Andrew's making a rather desperate and unlikely defense of Lukan primacy here. You can't have it both ways. Both parties then altered the text and how do you fairly choose between them? The only reason Andrew sides with Lukan primacy is because he believes in the tradition associated with it. There's no other plausible for siding with one dirty pig (in this scenario) over the other

[Adam]

From the point of view of the priority of Luke-Acts.
Marcion was required as part of his agenda to delete the first few chapters of Luke from his gospel and disconnect it from Acts. This would automatically remove the hints of authorship which we find in canonical Luke-Acts.
Andrew Criddle

Here again I part company with my orthodox friend in this forum.
As you are aware, Andrew (even though you have refused any comment upon it),
My Thesis is that there are seven written eyewitness accounts included in (but edited and redacted later) in the four gospels.
Your point does not fit in. No eyewitness wrote about the Annunciation to Mary, the Birth of Jesus, the Temple visit, nor the genealogies. Thus by my Thesis these were added later by someone who was not an eyewitness. And everyone agrees, because at best if Luke (or whomever) contacted the Virgin Mary, still her eyewitness account (if it was directly from her) was not WRITTEN by an eyewitness.
So I oppose you on this point as well now. You take tradition over biblical evidence.

[maryhelena]

to John2,

In my view, Bernard's theory notwithstanding, Luke wrote after the Antiquities and imitates this work from the preface on down to Acts. (A thought that comes to mind after reading Bernard's idea that Luke only knew the Jewish War is that Theudas is only mentioned in the Antiquities outside of Acts, and the reference to Theophilus in the prefaces of Luke and Acts looks like an imitation of Josephus' dedication in the prefaces of the Antiquities and then a second book, Against Apion, to Epaphroditus.)

About Theudas in Acts, I have that webpage:
http://historical-jesus.info/59.html
About the order of Theudas & Judas of Galilee in 'Acts of apostles' as reversed of the one in Josephus' Antiquities
If "Luke" had 'Antiquities': a) Atomistic tunnel vision and total ignorance of the context would be required to make the error. b) Significant differences between the two versions of Theudas' story would not appear.

About "Luke" not knowing about Antiquities:
http://historical-jesus.info/58.html
The author of 'Acts of the apostles' ("Luke") knew about Josephus' Wars but not his 'Antiquities of the Jews': a smoking gun.
This is one case which demonstrates 'Wars' but (despite the appearances!) not 'Antiquities' was known by the author of 'Acts'. There are other cases which show the same.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard, methinks it's unwise to place historical trust in the writer of Acts.

• Deriving history from Acts is an enterprise fraught with
  difficulty. I firmly maintain that Luke the Historian has very little
  to wear and have striven to demonstrate the point, but I shall not
  close without acknowledging my admiration (and even envy) for the
  splendid outfit worn by Luke the author. In that costume lurk
  mysteries galore, and because of it the story of Christian origins is more
  mysterious than ever.
  ...........
  
  When was Acts written? Scholarly consensus has dated Luke and
  Acts at c. 85, with a dwindling number who place the work in the
  60s and a larger minority who prefer the last decade of the first century.
  The consensus date is a convenient compromise that seems to
  demand little proof. I have argued elsewhere at considerable length
  that Acts belongs to the second decade of the second century (c.
  1 15).4 The author's use of Paul's letters and his probable knowledge
  of the Antiquities of ]osephus rule out a date before 100.
  ........
  
  2) Luke had access to some of the writings of *Josephus, in particular
  the last books of his Antiquities. That hypothesis also solves far
  more problems than it creates. Both of these proposals presume that
  Luke did not use these resources as a responsible modern researcher
  would, but selectively, sometimes carelessly, and for limited purposes.
  These techniques may offend modern sensibilities, but they conform
  to the general practice of ancient writers.
  ........
  
  In the face of these advantages
  some may wonder why the claims that Luke made use of Josephus
  and Pauline letters have been quite out of favor for the last eighty
  years. The major reason is, of course, history. If Luke did have these
  resources at his disposal, he would, as a proper historian, have written
  a different account. The presupposition to this incomplete syllogism
  is that Luke was an historian who should have made the kind of use
  of Paul and Josephus that a contemporary historian would make.
  That presupposition is invalid.
  
  Richard I. Pervo: The Mystery of Acts.

The same advise can be offered re Josephus. Don't place historical trust in the writings of Josephus unless one has outside corroboration of people and events this writer relates. i.e. one cannot argue that Josephus got the order of Theudas and Judas the Galilean correct and the writer of Acts got the order wrong. There is no historical evidence to support Josephus or the writer of Acts in their accounts of Theudas and Judas the Galilean.