Relationship of gLuke, gMarcion and Acts

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
gmx
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Relationship of gLuke, gMarcion and Acts

Post by gmx »

In the Wikipedia page on the authorship of Luke-Acts, the following quote from Udo Schnelle is provided to assert common authorship of Luke and Acts.
the extensive linguistic and theological agreements and cross-references between the Gospel of Luke and the Acts indicate that both works derive from the same author
Obviously this is a simplistic view, and many critics believe there are multiple layers of addition, revision and interpolation involved in both Luke and Acts. But I wanted to ignore that for the moment.

If there are extensive linguistic and theological agreements and cross-references between Luke and Acts, what I have been wondering is how much of the gLuke side of those Luke-Acts parallels existed verbatim in gMarcion ? And consequently, what impact does that have on our understanding of priority ?

Or conversely, do the linguistic and theological agreements in Luke-Acts exclusively relate to content or wording that is only found in gLuke, and not in gMarcion ?
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Relationship of gLuke, gMarcion and Acts

Post by andrewcriddle »

IIUC and IMS there are particularly clear linguistic links between Acts and the birth stories in Luke which were not present in Marcion's Gospel. (On the other hand there would still be clear verbal affinities between Luke and Acts even without the birth narratives.)

Andrew Criddle
rgprice
Posts: 2060
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Relationship of gLuke, gMarcion and Acts

Post by rgprice »

My view is that Luke 1, 2 & 24 were written by a different person than the rest of Luke. Yes, there are clear affinities between Luke 1, 2 & 24 and Acts, but that's it. I laugh at anyone who claims that Luke is a unity. It very clearly and obviously is not. If Luke is not a unity, then Luke & Acts cannot be a unity. Acts also shares distinct parallels with the Gospel of Mark that are not present in Luke. And of course Mark and Luke share parallels, so of course there will be similarities. I'm also quite certain, unlike many, that the "we passages" in Acts do in fact come from a separate source. There are distinct differences between them and the rest of the material. I think the "we passages" are part of an earlier narrative about Paul. This is speculative, but I suspect that the "we passage" narrative preceded any of the Gospels and that the writer of the Gospel of Mark also knew the "we passage" narrative, from which he derived his Jesus narrative.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Relationship of gLuke, gMarcion and Acts

Post by gryan »

rgprice wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 4:01 am My view is that Luke 1, 2 & 24 were written by a different person than the rest of Luke. Yes, there are clear affinities between Luke 1, 2 & 24 and Acts, but that's it. I laugh at anyone who claims that Luke is a unity. It very clearly and obviously is not. If Luke is not a unity, then Luke & Acts cannot be a unity. Acts also shares distinct parallels with the Gospel of Mark that are not present in Luke. And of course Mark and Luke share parallels, so of course there will be similarities. I'm also quite certain, unlike many, that the "we passages" in Acts do in fact come from a separate source. There are distinct differences between them and the rest of the material. I think the "we passages" are part of an earlier narrative about Paul. This is speculative, but I suspect that the "we passage" narrative preceded any of the Gospels and that the writer of the Gospel of Mark also knew the "we passage" narrative, from which he derived his Jesus narrative.
Re: Acts and Mark

Could you give specific examples to support your claims highlighted above? (I'm drawing a complete blank on what you might be referring to.)
rgprice
Posts: 2060
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Relationship of gLuke, gMarcion and Acts

Post by rgprice »

@gryan

I can't find my listing of all the parallels between Acts and the Gospels as the moment, which is unfortunate because I really need that. I'll have to keep looking.

At any rate.

Mark 1:1 is “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ.” I take this as the actual title of the original work.

Philippians 4:15: "the beginning of the good news when I went forth from Macedonia."

The first "we passage": Acts 16:10 "When he had seen the vision, we immediately sought to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them."

The beginning of the Gospel of Mark is aligned with the beginning of "we narrative" in Acts.

Acts 16:11-15, they go to Lydia's house. In Mark they go to Peter's house.

Acts 16:16-19: Casting out the spirit from the slave girl. Mark 5:6-16: Casting out the unclean spirit. In both cases, Jesus/Paul are said to be agents of "the Most High God". The only places in the NT where this term is used. This scene does also exist in Luke, so we can't conclude that the writer wasn't working from Luke here. Yet I propose that the writer of Mark was working from the "we narrative". The Gospel scene is far more dramatic than the scene from Acts.

In the Gospel narrative, Jesus sails back and fourth across the "Sea of Galilee" six times. This is obviously gratuitous. In Acts, all within the "we passages", Paul sails back and fourth across the Aegean Sea in a way that makes much more sense.

Mark 10:32-34: Jesus will be "handed over to the Gentiles", to be killed.

Acts 21:10-13: Paul will be "handed over to the Gentiles", (to be saved). (we passage).

(Yes, this scene also exists in Luke)

Now, in Acts 21 it doesn't say that Paul will be saved, but it also doesn't say that he will be killed and indeed Paul is ultimately saved by the Gentiles.

I argue that anyone following the Gospels here wouldn't have had Paul saved by the Gentiles. Yet we can understand why a Gospel writer would not have had Jesus saved by the Gentiles (obviously).

Note that the saving of Paul by the Gentiles also exists in the "we passages", where he sails to Rome and lives out a happy life preaching the gospel.

Following the prediction that Paul would be handed to the Gentiles, he meets with James. The meeting begins in first person, but the narration changes to third-person mid-way into the scene.

In Mark, following the prediction of his death, Jesus meets with James, whom he denounces, with a reference to Paul.

Mark:
32 Now they were on the road going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking on ahead of them; and they were amazed, and those who followed were fearful. And again He took the twelve aside and began to tell them what was going to happen to Him, 33 saying, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and will hand Him over to the Gentiles. 34 And they will mock Him and spit on Him, and flog Him and kill Him; and three days later He will rise from the dead.”

35 James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, came up to Jesus, saying to Him, “Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask of You.” 36 And He said to them, “What do you want Me to do for you?” 37 They said to Him, “Grant that we may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left, in Your glory.” ...

... 43 But it is not this way among you; rather, whoever wants to become prominent among you shall be your servant; 44 and whoever wants to be first among you shall be slave of all.

Acts (first-person narration is highlighted)
11 And he came to us and took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, “This is what the Holy Spirit says: ‘In this way the Jews in Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and hand him over to the Gentiles.’” 12 When we had heard this, we as well as the local residents began begging him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul replied, “What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 14 And since he would not be persuaded, we became quiet, remarking, “The will of the Lord be done!”

15 After these days we got ready and started on our way up to Jerusalem. 16 Some of the disciples from Caesarea also came with us, taking us to Mnason of Cyprus, a disciple of long standing with whom we were to stay.

17 After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us gladly. 18 And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
19 After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard about them, they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.

22 So what is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore, do as we tell you: we have four men who have a vow upon themselves; 24 take them along and purify yourself together with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and then everyone will know that there is nothing to what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also conform, keeping the Law. 25 But regarding the Gentiles who have believed, we sent a letter, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and what is strangled, and from sexual immorality.” 26 Then Paul took along the men, and the next day, after purifying himself together with them, he went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.

What I propose here is that the writer of Acts was using the "we narrative", but then abandoned it when it came to the content of the meeting with James, because the writer of Acts was presenting Paul as subordinate to James and as a follower of the Law. However, in Mark, the writer of Mark was following the "we narrative", in which Paul actually subordinated James. In Mark, Jesus subordinates James in the name of Paul using the reference to 1 Corinthians 9:19: “For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them.” Note that no Judaizing statements are made in all of the first-person narration, but often the break from first to third person coincides with an introduction of Judaizing.

Acts 22:
12 “A certain Ananias, who was a devout man according to the law and well spoken of by all the Jews living there, 13 came to me; and standing beside me, he said, ‘Brother Saul, regain your sight!’ In that very hour I regained my sight and saw him. 14 Then he said, ‘The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear his own voice; 15 for you will be his witness to all the world of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.’

Appears to be part of a pre-Gospel narrative. Why would Paul be chosen to "see the Righteous One and to hear his own voice"? He had just been on earth a few years prior and hand chosen twelve disciples according to the Gospels. Aren't THEY the ones that he chose? No, this is part of a pre-Gospel narrative in which ONLY Paul had been chosen to see adn hear the Lord.

Then of course we have Mark 11 and Acts 22. Jesus enters the temple and the priests threaten to seize him. Paul enters the temple and is indeed seized. (not a "we passage")

Then we have the trial Paul in Acts, along with the trial of Jesus in the Gospels.

The trial of Paul in Acts is a butchered mess. The scene is has clearly been redacted from a different source and mutilated in the process. The scene does not follow the Gospel pattern in the least. No charges are presented again Paul, he is just struck for no reason, etc. From the Acts Seminar:

The first subsection is among the most bewildering scenes in the book of Acts. Paul begins to defend himself but is struck on orders of the high priest (Acts 23:1–2). Luke gives the reader no clue as to the reason for Ananias’ action. Paul has not said anything approaching blasphemy, nor has he insulted the high priest. But Paul’s outburst in 23:3 appears to be over the top. In it he accuses the high priest of violating the law, although no law is cited. But these questions pale into insignificance when compared with Paul’s statement in 23:5. When told that he has cursed the high priest, Paul says that he did not know the presiding officer at the Sanhedrin was the high priest. He issues something short of an apology, quoting Scripture to condemn his own actions. It is difficult to accept Paul’s denial about the high priest. We learned in 9:1–2 that he had been commissioned by the high priest to search out Jesus believers, and in just the previous speech he claimed that the high priest, and indeed the entire Jewish council, could support the fact that he once persecuted these believers (see 22:5). Of course some time has passed between the persecuting activity of Paul and the present hearing, and it is possible that Luke understands that the present occupant of this office is a different one. But this is not noted in the text (see also 4:6, where the high priest is given a similar name—Annas). There have been numerous attempts to illuminate this passage, but the problems remain.

My contention is that this scene is a severe redaction from the "we narrative", in which the original charges laid out against Paul were removed by the writer of Luke. This is because the charges were the very things that were addressed in meeting with James in Acts 21. The writer of Luke took the actual narrative about Paul and turned it around. He had the charges against him "dropped" but still had to go through with the trial. The result is a mess. But Mark was following the original and in Mark charges are presented against Jesus. Of course, they aren't the same charges that were presented against Paul.

Then, of course Paul is handed over to the Gentiles, but Paul is saved by the Gentiles. The prediction that Paul would handed to the Gentiles occurred in the "we passages" and as well, Paul's escape under the custody of the Gentiles is also a part of the "we passages". Then we get to the end. Interestingly, we again are met with the phenomenon that the first-person passages contain no Judaizing statements, and the transition from first-person to third-person narration coincides with a transition to the use of Judaizing statements. In the first-person account of the voyage to Rome there are plenty of opportunities for references to the Torah or other Jewish references, but none are made. Indeed, no references to Judaism are made in any way from Acts 27:1 to Acts 28:16. Then, immediately upon the change in narration at Acts 28:17, Jews are introduced and we hear Paul talking about the Law and Prophets, with quotes from scripture. It again appears that the first-person passages come from a separate source, with specifically anti-Marcionite material being added by the third-person narrator.

From the section about this in the current draft of the book I'm working:

"What the ending of Acts reflects, rather, is a conception of Paul’s ministry that fits into a pre-Gospel context. Prior to the writing of the Gospels, which promoted the idea that Christians were persecuted merely for being Christians, the persecution of Paul was tied to the Jews because Paul opposed circumcision. The Gentiles were seen as favorable welcomers of Paul  a safe harbor for him. So, it may well be that the writer of Acts of the Apostles ended his story with Paul happily preaching in Rome because that’s the ending that existed in the source he was following. Paul’s life was threatened by the Jews, but Paul was saved by the Gentiles. The idea that Paul would have been killed by the emperor of Rome simply for being a Christian is nothing more than a later Christian fantasy.

Regardless, there are multiple features of the Pauline section of Acts of the Apostles that seem best explained as a product of the writer having used a prior legendary narrative about Paul, in which Paul travels from Troas to Macedonia to Ephesus to Jerusalem. In this narrative Paul’s potential death in Jerusalem and rescue by the Gentiles is foretold. Paul stands trial before the Sanhedrin for his preaching against circumcision and the law (not for being a follower of Jesus). The trial of Paul seems short and disjointed, likely because the part of the trial that dealt with Paul’s preaching against circumcision was removed. Instead, the writer of Acts addresses that issue by having Paul “correct” this misunderstanding by subordinating himself to James. Under threat of eminent death at the hands of the Jews, Paul is then whisked away by the Romans and transported safely to Rome, where he spreads his gospel to the world. Given the fact that Paul’s letter to the Romans is likely the last authentic writing produced by him. I suspect that Paul actually met some untimely end in Jerusalem. That Paul was saved by the Gentiles or ever went to Rome was itself a fantasy."

It is my contention that, regardless of whether the writer of Mark used a specific written narrative about Paul that corresponds to the "we narrative" in Acts, the fact is that prior to the writing of any Gospel account of Jesus, there would have been a known narrative about Paul, which, if nothing else, could have been pieced together from the Pauline letters. That narrative would have been that Paul was an itinerant preacher whose ministry began "among the nations". Paul faced persecution and doubt. Paul had contentious interactions with Peter, James and John. Paul knew he faced peril in going to Jerusalem, yet Paul set himself on a path to Jerusalem anyway. Paul faced trials brought against him by Jews.

We do not really know Paul's ultimate fate, but if we can go by the Pauline letters at all, it would seem that Paul's last known writing indicated that he was going to go to Jerusalem (Romans 15:26), but we never hear from him after that. It is entirely possible that Paul stood trial and was killed in Jerusalem. Clearly Paul never made it to Rome, as we have no writings from him in Rome. It is also possible that Paul never even existed, but even if that is the case, one could piece together the outline above from the letters in his name. (Prior, of course, to the fabrication of the Pastorals).
gmx
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Re: Relationship of gLuke, gMarcion and Acts

Post by gmx »

@rgprice

That's a very interesting post. Thank you.

I have also preferred that the we passages denote an earlier source, as it conforms to the author's stated methodology of "researching everything from the beginning". The knock on that argument is why the author didn't harmonise the use of first or third person in the process. Maybe time/cost factors.

I found the Mark-Acts parallels to be less convincing, but it is an interesting idea and worthy of a post in it's own right, if you locate your analysis.

From the perspective of my OP, it is less concerned with whether Luke-Acts is a unity, although there might be implications as a result of the question.

My question of course is naively conceived, but it was intended to uncover a formula of this nature (or potentially multiple of them):

1. Grammatical construction A is particularly Lukan, occurring some high percentage of times in Luke-Acts, and very rarely in the rest of the NT.
2. Grammatical construction A is found in verses x, y and z in Luke, of which x and y are assumed to be present verbatim in gMarcion.

Now it may be that candidate A's can be found but not in material common to Marcion and Luke (as you suggest), or perhaps none can be found at all.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Relationship of gLuke, gMarcion and Acts

Post by gryan »

rgprice wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 9:34 am @gryan

I can't find my listing of all the parallels between Acts and the Gospels as the moment, which is unfortunate because I really need that. I'll have to keep looking.

At any rate.

Mark 1:1 is “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ.” I take this as the actual title of the original work.

Philippians 4:15: "the beginning of the good news when I went forth from Macedonia."

The first "we passage": Acts 16:10 "When he had seen the vision, we immediately sought to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them."

The beginning of the Gospel of Mark is aligned with the beginning of "we narrative" in Acts.

Acts 16:11-15, they go to Lydia's house. In Mark they go to Peter's house.

Acts 16:16-19: Casting out the spirit from the slave girl. Mark 5:6-16: Casting out the unclean spirit. In both cases, Jesus/Paul are said to be agents of "the Most High God". The only places in the NT where this term is used. This scene does also exist in Luke, so we can't conclude that the writer wasn't working from Luke here. Yet I propose that the writer of Mark was working from the "we narrative". The Gospel scene is far more dramatic than the scene from Acts.

In the Gospel narrative, Jesus sails back and fourth across the "Sea of Galilee" six times. This is obviously gratuitous. In Acts, all within the "we passages", Paul sails back and fourth across the Aegean Sea in a way that makes much more sense.

Mark 10:32-34: Jesus will be "handed over to the Gentiles", to be killed.

Acts 21:10-13: Paul will be "handed over to the Gentiles", (to be saved). (we passage).

(Yes, this scene also exists in Luke)

Now, in Acts 21 it doesn't say that Paul will be saved, but it also doesn't say that he will be killed and indeed Paul is ultimately saved by the Gentiles.

I argue that anyone following the Gospels here wouldn't have had Paul saved by the Gentiles. Yet we can understand why a Gospel writer would not have had Jesus saved by the Gentiles (obviously).

Note that the saving of Paul by the Gentiles also exists in the "we passages", where he sails to Rome and lives out a happy life preaching the gospel.

Following the prediction that Paul would be handed to the Gentiles, he meets with James. The meeting begins in first person, but the narration changes to third-person mid-way into the scene.

In Mark, following the prediction of his death, Jesus meets with James, whom he denounces, with a reference to Paul.

Mark:
32 Now they were on the road going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking on ahead of them; and they were amazed, and those who followed were fearful. And again He took the twelve aside and began to tell them what was going to happen to Him, 33 saying, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and will hand Him over to the Gentiles. 34 And they will mock Him and spit on Him, and flog Him and kill Him; and three days later He will rise from the dead.”

35 James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, came up to Jesus, saying to Him, “Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask of You.” 36 And He said to them, “What do you want Me to do for you?” 37 They said to Him, “Grant that we may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left, in Your glory.” ...

... 43 But it is not this way among you; rather, whoever wants to become prominent among you shall be your servant; 44 and whoever wants to be first among you shall be slave of all.

Acts (first-person narration is highlighted)
11 And he came to us and took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, “This is what the Holy Spirit says: ‘In this way the Jews in Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and hand him over to the Gentiles.’” 12 When we had heard this, we as well as the local residents began begging him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul replied, “What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 14 And since he would not be persuaded, we became quiet, remarking, “The will of the Lord be done!”

15 After these days we got ready and started on our way up to Jerusalem. 16 Some of the disciples from Caesarea also came with us, taking us to Mnason of Cyprus, a disciple of long standing with whom we were to stay.

17 After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us gladly. 18 And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
19 After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard about them, they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.

22 So what is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore, do as we tell you: we have four men who have a vow upon themselves; 24 take them along and purify yourself together with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and then everyone will know that there is nothing to what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also conform, keeping the Law. 25 But regarding the Gentiles who have believed, we sent a letter, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and what is strangled, and from sexual immorality.” 26 Then Paul took along the men, and the next day, after purifying himself together with them, he went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.

What I propose here is that the writer of Acts was using the "we narrative", but then abandoned it when it came to the content of the meeting with James, because the writer of Acts was presenting Paul as subordinate to James and as a follower of the Law. However, in Mark, the writer of Mark was following the "we narrative", in which Paul actually subordinated James. In Mark, Jesus subordinates James in the name of Paul using the reference to 1 Corinthians 9:19: “For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them.” Note that no Judaizing statements are made in all of the first-person narration, but often the break from first to third person coincides with an introduction of Judaizing.

Acts 22:
12 “A certain Ananias, who was a devout man according to the law and well spoken of by all the Jews living there, 13 came to me; and standing beside me, he said, ‘Brother Saul, regain your sight!’ In that very hour I regained my sight and saw him. 14 Then he said, ‘The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear his own voice; 15 for you will be his witness to all the world of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.’

Appears to be part of a pre-Gospel narrative. Why would Paul be chosen to "see the Righteous One and to hear his own voice"? He had just been on earth a few years prior and hand chosen twelve disciples according to the Gospels. Aren't THEY the ones that he chose? No, this is part of a pre-Gospel narrative in which ONLY Paul had been chosen to see adn hear the Lord.

Then of course we have Mark 11 and Acts 22. Jesus enters the temple and the priests threaten to seize him. Paul enters the temple and is indeed seized. (not a "we passage")

Then we have the trial Paul in Acts, along with the trial of Jesus in the Gospels.

The trial of Paul in Acts is a butchered mess. The scene is has clearly been redacted from a different source and mutilated in the process. The scene does not follow the Gospel pattern in the least. No charges are presented again Paul, he is just struck for no reason, etc. From the Acts Seminar:

The first subsection is among the most bewildering scenes in the book of Acts. Paul begins to defend himself but is struck on orders of the high priest (Acts 23:1–2). Luke gives the reader no clue as to the reason for Ananias’ action. Paul has not said anything approaching blasphemy, nor has he insulted the high priest. But Paul’s outburst in 23:3 appears to be over the top. In it he accuses the high priest of violating the law, although no law is cited. But these questions pale into insignificance when compared with Paul’s statement in 23:5. When told that he has cursed the high priest, Paul says that he did not know the presiding officer at the Sanhedrin was the high priest. He issues something short of an apology, quoting Scripture to condemn his own actions. It is difficult to accept Paul’s denial about the high priest. We learned in 9:1–2 that he had been commissioned by the high priest to search out Jesus believers, and in just the previous speech he claimed that the high priest, and indeed the entire Jewish council, could support the fact that he once persecuted these believers (see 22:5). Of course some time has passed between the persecuting activity of Paul and the present hearing, and it is possible that Luke understands that the present occupant of this office is a different one. But this is not noted in the text (see also 4:6, where the high priest is given a similar name—Annas). There have been numerous attempts to illuminate this passage, but the problems remain.

My contention is that this scene is a severe redaction from the "we narrative", in which the original charges laid out against Paul were removed by the writer of Luke. This is because the charges were the very things that were addressed in meeting with James in Acts 21. The writer of Luke took the actual narrative about Paul and turned it around. He had the charges against him "dropped" but still had to go through with the trial. The result is a mess. But Mark was following the original and in Mark charges are presented against Jesus. Of course, they aren't the same charges that were presented against Paul.

Then, of course Paul is handed over to the Gentiles, but Paul is saved by the Gentiles. The prediction that Paul would handed to the Gentiles occurred in the "we passages" and as well, Paul's escape under the custody of the Gentiles is also a part of the "we passages". Then we get to the end. Interestingly, we again are met with the phenomenon that the first-person passages contain no Judaizing statements, and the transition from first-person to third-person narration coincides with a transition to the use of Judaizing statements. In the first-person account of the voyage to Rome there are plenty of opportunities for references to the Torah or other Jewish references, but none are made. Indeed, no references to Judaism are made in any way from Acts 27:1 to Acts 28:16. Then, immediately upon the change in narration at Acts 28:17, Jews are introduced and we hear Paul talking about the Law and Prophets, with quotes from scripture. It again appears that the first-person passages come from a separate source, with specifically anti-Marcionite material being added by the third-person narrator.

From the section about this in the current draft of the book I'm working:

"What the ending of Acts reflects, rather, is a conception of Paul’s ministry that fits into a pre-Gospel context. Prior to the writing of the Gospels, which promoted the idea that Christians were persecuted merely for being Christians, the persecution of Paul was tied to the Jews because Paul opposed circumcision. The Gentiles were seen as favorable welcomers of Paul  a safe harbor for him. So, it may well be that the writer of Acts of the Apostles ended his story with Paul happily preaching in Rome because that’s the ending that existed in the source he was following. Paul’s life was threatened by the Jews, but Paul was saved by the Gentiles. The idea that Paul would have been killed by the emperor of Rome simply for being a Christian is nothing more than a later Christian fantasy.

Regardless, there are multiple features of the Pauline section of Acts of the Apostles that seem best explained as a product of the writer having used a prior legendary narrative about Paul, in which Paul travels from Troas to Macedonia to Ephesus to Jerusalem. In this narrative Paul’s potential death in Jerusalem and rescue by the Gentiles is foretold. Paul stands trial before the Sanhedrin for his preaching against circumcision and the law (not for being a follower of Jesus). The trial of Paul seems short and disjointed, likely because the part of the trial that dealt with Paul’s preaching against circumcision was removed. Instead, the writer of Acts addresses that issue by having Paul “correct” this misunderstanding by subordinating himself to James. Under threat of eminent death at the hands of the Jews, Paul is then whisked away by the Romans and transported safely to Rome, where he spreads his gospel to the world. Given the fact that Paul’s letter to the Romans is likely the last authentic writing produced by him. I suspect that Paul actually met some untimely end in Jerusalem. That Paul was saved by the Gentiles or ever went to Rome was itself a fantasy."

It is my contention that, regardless of whether the writer of Mark used a specific written narrative about Paul that corresponds to the "we narrative" in Acts, the fact is that prior to the writing of any Gospel account of Jesus, there would have been a known narrative about Paul, which, if nothing else, could have been pieced together from the Pauline letters. That narrative would have been that Paul was an itinerant preacher whose ministry began "among the nations". Paul faced persecution and doubt. Paul had contentious interactions with Peter, James and John. Paul knew he faced peril in going to Jerusalem, yet Paul set himself on a path to Jerusalem anyway. Paul faced trials brought against him by Jews.

We do not really know Paul's ultimate fate, but if we can go by the Pauline letters at all, it would seem that Paul's last known writing indicated that he was going to go to Jerusalem (Romans 15:26), but we never hear from him after that. It is entirely possible that Paul stood trial and was killed in Jerusalem. Clearly Paul never made it to Rome, as we have no writings from him in Rome. It is also possible that Paul never even existed, but even if that is the case, one could piece together the outline above from the letters in his name. (Prior, of course, to the fabrication of the Pastorals).
This is all new to me. Thanks so much!

So, before there was a Luke+Acts, there was a Mark+"we" document. I wonder if Matt was written the goal of replacing both with a Matt+Acts.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Relationship of gLuke, gMarcion and Acts

Post by Ken Olson »

The Journal of Greco-Roman Judaism and Christianity has started posting downloadable articles for it's 2022 volume. This paper may be of interest:

Michael Kok - Justin Martyr and the Authorship of Luke's Gospel - JGRChJ 18 2022

http://www.jgrchj.net/volume18/?page=volume18

Just found it this morning, so I haven't read it yet, but it does discuss Marcion (52 mentions).

Best,

Ken
rgprice
Posts: 2060
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Relationship of gLuke, gMarcion and Acts

Post by rgprice »

gryan wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 5:59 am This is all new to me. Thanks so much!

So, before there was a Luke-Acts, there was a Mark-"we" document
Well, that's "a" working hypothesis of mine. I'm stilling working through several ideas. Unfortunately, many of them assume lost works, which I have long been skeptical of, but the more I study the material the more it seems to me that the material we have is several generations old, having already undergone many revisions.

One of my current views is that some narrative like what we read in Ascension of Isaiah (Vision of Isaiah) was likely at the root of what came to be "Jesus" worship. It seems to me that the writer of the original version of the Pauline letters must have known of some account very similar to Vision of Isaiah. The figure that "Paul" worshiped was a figure like the one of VoI, who descended through the heavens to be crucified as a means of defeating Belial.

I postulate that the reputation of Paul was significant and that narratives were written about him before any of the Gospels were written.

I conjecture that the "we passages" in Acts are derived from such a narrative. The writer was attempting to assume the identity of the writer of the original Pauline narrative, and thus they preserved the original first-person narration of the source.

There are striking parallels between the "we passages" and the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark also contains many references to the Pauline letters.

Thus, I conclude that the writer of "original Mark" based his Jesus character on Paul himself. It is admitted that the narrative about Paul in Acts can be reconstructed from the Pauline letters (though of course with instances of intentional subversion, such as the writer of Acts making Paul subordinate to Peter and putting Paul's words into Peter's mouth, etc.) The fact is that the narrative about Paul in Acts is essentially identical to the Gospel story of Jesus, particularly the Gospel of Mark. So who copied from who? Obviously most people, upon recognizing this, assume that the writer of Acts copied from the Gospel accounts. After all, they supposedly wrote the Gospel of Luke. But the key is the "we passages" and the specific parallels contained within them.

For example the account of the casting out of the unclean spirit. It is clear that there is a literary relationship between the Gerasene demoniac scene in Mark and the casting out of the spirit from the slave girl in Acts. But in Mark this scene is extremely dramatic - one of the most dramatic scenes in Mark. In Acts the scene is very mundane. Would the writer of Acts really have taken the dramatic Gospel scene and converted it to such a mundane scene for his story? It is generally viewed that writers deriving scenes from sources make them more dramatic in their story than they were in the original. Why would the writer of Acts draw a clear parallel to Jesus with this scene, but then make it so incredibly mundane (casting a spirit out of an "annoying girl" vs a raging demoniac)?

But look, fundamentally, the story of Paul, which can be presumed from just the seven "authentic" Pauline letters alone, is the story of an itinerant preacher, whose ministry beings in outlying Gentile territory. Paul interacts with Peter, James and John, who consider themselves leaders. Paul has disputes with Peter, James and John and does not consider them to be good leaders. Paul is misunderstood and frequently needs to explain himself and repeat his lessons to followers who cannot grasp his teachings. Paul is harassed and threated by Jews and faces trials and imprisonment. Paul made plans to travel to Jerusalem, though we never hear of what happened to Paul in Jerusalem.

No mention is made in the Pauline letters of Paul sailing around on the sea, yet it could perhaps be assumed by his various destinations. Yet in the "we passages" sea voyages of Paul are recounted in abundance.

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus begins his ministry in the outlying territory of Galilee "of the nations". Jesus' main interactions are with Peter, James and John, with whom is frequently has disputes. Jesus clearly does not consider them good leaders. Jesus is misunderstood and frequently needs to explain himself and repeat his lessons to followers who cannot grasp his teachings. Jesus makes six gratuitous sea voyages in his route from Galilee to Jerusalem. (Yes, there is theological symbolism in these voyages, but they are still gratuitous.) Jesus is harassed by Jews and faces trail in Jerusalem, where he is killed.

It is possible that the parallels between Acts 16-23 and the Gospel of Mark are due to the writer of Acts basing his story on the Gospel narrative, that's true. But I think there are enough pieces of evidence to suggest that the relationship really goes the other way around, at least in part.

If so, it would likely mean that the Gospel story of Jesus is based on accounts of the life of Paul, and that subsequent stories of the life of Paul were likewise based on the Gospel accounts of Jesus, a sort of circular reference situation. The writer of Acts may have been patterning his story about Paul on the Gospel story of Jesus, but in the process he may have used an existing story about Paul that had actually inspired the Gospel story to begin with.

I think its possible that the writer of Mark knew of the Vision of Isaiah narrative, had the Pauline letters in hand, and a the "we passage" narrative about Paul in hand when he wrote his story.

Now the question is: Is it possible that such a story about Paul could have made it into the hand of the writer of Acts, without otherwise being testified to?
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Relationship of gLuke, gMarcion and Acts

Post by gryan »

@ rgprice

Confession: I have not read one word of the Vision of Isaiah narrative as yet. But I've started to look into it.
I see that, according to the Wikipedia page on Ascension of Isaiah, the second part of the book (chapters 6–11) is referred to as the Vision of Isaiah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_of_Isaiah


I think the importance of viewing Paul as Christlike (Gal 4:14) has been very underappreciated in traditional readings of the NT. I think you are onto something here inasmuch as the narrative of the "we" passages of Acts, if as ancient as you suggest (and I am not inclined to disagree), may have influenced the narrative portrait of Jesus in Mark!

For the record, my Master of Arts in Theological studies thesis (1991) was a study of the narrative portrayal of Paul as a wonder-worker in Acts.
Post Reply