I've never heard of your prototype theory, nor does it become clear what you think that it was and how it came into existence.Stuart wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 12:35 amAs Dan Ackroyd would say to Jane Curtain's Joan Face character, "Jane you ignorant slut."mlinssen wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:45 pmAmongst all your assertions, you don't provide even one viable alternative to*EvStuart wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 12:15 pmThe Marcionites were but one of many antinomon sects.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:45 pm Any gospel that blames the Jews is pushing the Marcionite needle. There are other considerations namely the Flying Jesus passages
Nor do you pay attention to the fact that *Ev demonstrably is a source text to Luke, and highly likely all the Synoptics
[youtube]https://youtu.be/c91XUyg9iWM?list=PLeY_ ... 9d0-r&t=54[/youtube]
The Marcionite gospel is the base document of Luke. But it's not the first gospel form. In my view, if you paid attention to what I've proposed for half a decade or more, you'd know that I think a prototype synoptic circulated, with some locale variances leading to slightly different content and form (miracle of time and distance between communities) which was the base document (in different forms) for the Synoptic gospels. Two main different forms, one with a doublet section common to Matthew and Mark; and one without that section common to Mark and Marcionite/Luke.
I am not in the camp of those who give priority to the Marcionites. Even the Paul in their collection is arguing against rival sects, plural. What I give credit to the Marcionites was the innovation of using what we call the gospel to evangelize. It was obviously successful enough that rival sects immediately went about the same strategy, with some writing their own gospel.
The contradictions in the Marcionite text indicate not primacy, rather a sect that had developed a hermeneutical to harmonize the contents, even developing a strategy of sometimes reading text literally and other times spiritually (see Megethius' statement on the matter in DA 1.7), in order to make it all conform. This strongly indicates the text was not from a single strain of teaching, but a hodgepodge that went into the writings.
Overall, the evidence, IMO, strongly points toward a significant incubation time for Christianity to develop, rather than springing from a single source here and a single splinter there. How else can one explain why there are so many sects (schools of teaching) the very first minute Christianity erupts? (Frankly that alone should rule out an Imperial conspiracy.)
You shouldn't conflate the texts that we have with the hearsay from Josephus, nor the dogmatic dating to Christian origins
I agree with your incubation time, and 150 years seems round and about. The alleged sects obviously lead nowhere near Christianity, as none of their content comes even close to what got thrown in there
There most certainly are no contradictions at all in *Ev, but I'd be happy to have you name some