Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posteriority?

[Ben C. Smith]

IMHO the original version of Luke-Acts was anonymous.

It may have been attributed to Luke on the basis of the "we" passages in Acts and the mentions of Luke in Paul's epistles.

Ah, I see what you are saying now. So you would say that the (eventually) canonical version got named after Luke only after Marcion had adopted it as an anonymous gospel and taken his shears to it.

Ben.

This may be of interest reception of luke

Thanks. I have put that book on my list to check out.

[John2]

That's an interesting looking book, Andrew, and I look forward to checking it out more. This is all new territory for me to explore. I've never seen enough "there" (as Stephen puts it) to make anything of what exactly Marcion's gospel was and how it relates to Luke, but I haven't looked deeply at the issue before either and it's interesting to think about it.

Thus far the witnesses (or critics) of Marcion's gospel remind me of the witnesses (and critics) of the Jewish Christian gospel(s). While the whole of the latter are uncertain and citations of it (them) are few and vary from canonical gospels, one gets the impression that it (they) had (or were believed to have had) some kind of connection to the gospel of Matthew.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/ ... james.html

I get the same impression of these citations of (or attacks against) Marcion's gospel. Whatever its provenance and variants may have been, it smelled like a variant of Luke to the Church fathers.

Now, this doesn't mean that their conjectures were right, of course, but I don't see any good reason yet for thinking it could be otherwise. 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.)

So, to me this means Luke and Acts were written no earlier than c. 100 CE, and it is interesting to try and see where it starts to pop up after this, and to judge from the citations (or perhaps critiques) of it I've seen so far, Marcion's gospel looks like a (somewhat later) variant of it (as is the orthodox version too, of course). Maybe this or that word or verse in it could be a witness to the earliest version before the orthodox got their hands on it, but in any event the original version can't be earlier than c. 100 C and uses Josephus and Mark (and maybe even Matthew), and appears to have an agenda of smoothing over the differences between Pauline and Jewish Christians, so how useful can it really be for finding out what early Christianity was really like even if we did have the original?

[Bernard Muller]

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 Muller]

About the quote from Pervo,

The author's use of Paul's letters

I answered that here: http://historical-jesus.info/75.html
and also here: http://historical-jesus.info/76.html (also against a second century dating of Acts)
I addressed the other points (none of them I agree with Pervo):
(http://historical-jesus.info/58.html (Against "Luke" knowing Josephus' Antiquities)
http://historical-jesus.info/63.html (dating of Acts)
http://historical-jesus.info/64.html (ditto)

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

I am aware of the problem. But there are some connections between Lk 1-2 and the rest: Lk 1:80 with Lk 3:2, and then, of course, "Zechariah" (not appearing in other gospels). I do not see why or where more should be expected.

Zechariah is a genuine connection. John being in the wilderness and like Elijah, however, is gossamer, since it may simply come from shared knowledge of Mark (or Matthew), or even of other sources, be they written or oral.

Just want to get all possible connections between Luke 1-2 and the rest of Luke on record:

1. Both parts call John the son of Zechariah (as Bernard points out).
2. Both parts locate John in the wilderness (again as per Bernard).
3. Both parts agree that Jesus was reared, but not born, in Nazareth (see Luke 4.16).
4. Both parts seem to agree that Joseph was not Jesus' biological father (see Luke 3.23, "as was supposed").

Only #1, however, is information unique to Luke. #2-4 are found in other sources.

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

In addition to Luke-Acts possibly drawing on Josephus, reacting to Marcion, and depending on Papias, it seems possible that the parallelism between Peter and Paul in Acts might have been inspired by Plutarch's Parallel Lives.

Ben.

[andrewcriddle]

1. ............
2. Both parts agree that John was reared, but not born, in Nazareth (see Luke 4.16).
   ......................................
   .

Do you mean Jesus ?

Andrew Criddle

[Ben C. Smith]

1. ............
2. Both parts agree that John was reared, but not born, in Nazareth (see Luke 4.16).
   ......................................
   .

Do you mean Jesus ?

Andrew Criddle

Yes. Thanks. I fixed it.

Ben.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Personally, I am not interested to solve the Marcionite problem. But I think a good case can be made if one solves the following problem.

It seems to me that Mark has a strict theme that the metaphor of “trees” always refers to Israel, to the Jewish people as a whole and to the Jewish authorities. When Mark talks about the faith of individuals, he always uses metaphors of grain, other small plants and other agricultural terms, of the leaven and the bread.

This is not the case in Matthew, Luke and Marcion. These three Gospels use the metaphor of the tree also for the faith of the individuals. (In Luke and Matthew it starts when John declares, that “the axe is laid to the root of the trees”.)

I think, if one can detect, who has made the change (maybe: Who used the metaphor “tree” for the individuals most often and consistently?) will have a good chance to know the first corrector of Mark.

[MrMacSon]

This is not the case in Matthew, Luke and Marcion. These three Gospels use the metaphor of the tree also for the faith of the individuals. (In Luke and Matthew it starts when John declares “the axe is laid to the root of the trees”.)

What word is used for root?