Re: Marcion's Gospel
Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2020 5:16 pm
No, I mean chapters 3-24 of Luke. (Not every single verse, obviously: I am just excluding chapters 1-2 in a general way from the main body.)Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Thu Jan 02, 2020 4:00 pm to Ben,Frankly, I don't see what you are trying to express. Are you sure Lk 3:24 is the correct verse for your point? or are you talking about Lk 3:3-24? I will assume you meant Lk 3:3-24 from now on.The highlighted part does not work for me. Luke 3-24 was not composed in continuation of Luke 1-2, because Luke 3.24 has its own excellent introduction (3.1-2), introduces John by his patronymic as if he had not been introduced before in the narrative, and seems to be ignorant of the relationship between Jesus and John from chapters 1-2. Thus, Luke 3-24 originally stood without Luke 1-2; the evidence is not bidirectional.
That is probably also true. Chapters 1-2 and chapters 3-24 probably hail from the same area, but neither used the other as it was being composed. They are independent.I also made the point that Luke 1-2 was composed in total ignorance of Luke's gospel which was written afterwards.
What I am saying is that chapters 3-24 appear to be ignorant that they are cousins and that John actually recognized Jesus even in the womb. Luke 7.19, for example, comes as a bit of a surprise.Why would Lk 3:3-24 mention the relationship (again!) between Jesus and John as per Lk 1-2?
John is not named with a patronymic like that even in Luke 5.33, two full chapters after Luke 3, and with John the apostle intervening as another man with whom he could be confused! Introducing him afresh in 3.2 is simply unnecessary and strange.And John being mentioned by his patronymic (as son of Zacharias) in Lk 3:2 was the simplest way to identify that "John" as the same one as the one in Lk 1, one full chapter before, as a reminder.
Same tradition or area of influence. People probably knew John's patronymic and used it at will. It is the sort of information that would most naturally be readily available in a culture in which patronymics were the single most common means of identification.Again, I don't see why Lk 3:3-24 was ignorant of Lk 1. As a matter of fact, Lk 3:3-24 has John as the son of Zacharias, as in Lk 1. That's not ignorance.