Thomas L. Brodie would agree with the priority of *Ev

[Giuseppe]

The originality of Thomas Brodie is that he:

• 1) argued for the priority of proto-Luke;

• 2) argued for Luke-Acts postdating the Fourth Gospel;

• 3) argued for Matthew using both proto-Luke and Mark.

Each of these points is argued also by M. Klinghardt but only thanks to Marcion entering directly on the stage.

Hence I wonder how could Brodie be a precursor of Klinghardt without never mentioning Marcion at all?

It is for me a real enigma, since for me proto-Luke (*Ev) acquires all its value and meaning only by seeing it strictly connected with the Marcionite propaganda. Translated: seeing how much anti-marcionite are Mark, Matthew and Luke-Acts in comparison to *Ev.

[JarekS]

The originality of Thomas Brodie is that he:

• 1) argued for the priority of proto-Luke;

• 2) argued for Luke-Acts postdating the Fourth Gospel;

• 3) argued for Matthew using both proto-Luke and Mark.

Each of these points is argued also by M. Klinghardt but only thanks to Marcion entering directly on the stage.

Hence I wonder how could Brodie be a precursor of Klinghardt without never mentioning Marcion at all?

It is for me a real enigma, since for me proto-Luke (*Ev) acquires all its value and meaning only by seeing it strictly connected with the Marcionite propaganda. Translated: seeing how much anti-marcionite are Mark, Matthew and Luke-Acts in comparison to *Ev.

The question is would he agree with the claim that *Ev is by a different ghostwriter than Luke

[Giuseppe]

The question is would he agree with the claim that *Ev is by a different ghostwriter than Luke

I assume that you mean for "Luke" the name of an author who considered YHWH as supreme god.
Even if *Ev was written by a such "Luke" (as Brodie probably assumes), the point remains that Marcion (i.e. a hater of YHWH) used *Ev and the incipit of *Ev to argue that Jesus descended already adult from a different god.

With the birth stories introduced in Matthew and Canonical Luke to confute Marcion on this point.

[JarekS]

The question is would he agree with the claim that *Ev is by a different ghostwriter than Luke

I assume that you mean for "Luke" the name of an author who considered YHWH as supreme god.
Even if *Ev was written by a such "Luke" (as Brodie probably assumes), the point remains that Marcion (i.e. a hater of YHWH) used *Ev and the incipit of *Ev to argue that Jesus descended already adult from a different god.

With the birth stories introduced in Matthew and Canonical Luke to confute Marcion on this point.

Klinghardt claims that the author of *Ev is a different person than the author of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. Brodie claims that *Ev, Luke, and Acts are the works of one writer

[Giuseppe]

The question is would he agree with the claim that *Ev is by a different ghostwriter than Luke

I assume that you mean for "Luke" the name of an author who considered YHWH as supreme god.
Even if *Ev was written by a such "Luke" (as Brodie probably assumes), the point remains that Marcion (i.e. a hater of YHWH) used *Ev and the incipit of *Ev to argue that Jesus descended already adult from a different god.

With the birth stories introduced in Matthew and Canonical Luke to confute Marcion on this point.

Klinghardt claims that the author of *Ev is a different person than the author of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. Brodie claims that *Ev, Luke, and Acts are the works of one writer

Are you sure? Brodie thinks that the author of canonical Acts is not the same writer who fabricated *Ev (proto-Luke):

A series of sayings in the Gospel of Matthew (Matt. 5 and 11 — beatitudes, antitheses, revelatory cry . . .)
were a distillation of Deuteronomy
and to a lesser extent, Sirach

Early epistles, following the tone of Matthew’s “sayings/logia”,
also drew upon the Septuagint (e.g. 1 Corinthians’ use of the Pentateuch, esp Deuteronomy)

An early form of Luke-Acts, Proto-Luke,
modelled on the Elijah-Elisha narrative,
also drawing upon Deuteronomy (other scholars first discerned this),
and 1 Corinthians

The Gospel of Mark,
drawing upon Proto-Luke,
some epistles (e.g. 1 Peter)
and Septuagint (also the Elijah-Elisha narrative)

Gospel of Matthew is completed in its current form, using
the earlier kernel of sayings (see above)
the Gospel of Mark,
and with further input from Deuteronomy,
and probably Tobit,
and Romans.

The Gospel of John,
using Matthew,
Mark
and Proto-Luke

Canonical Luke-Acts,
making use of Matthew,
Mark,
Proto-Luke,
John,
Deuteronomy,
and epics such as the Aeneid
and Josephus.

https://vridar.org/2013/07/13/making-of ... ict-falls/

I may be wrong if there is evidence that for Brodie the birth story is original in proto-Luke.

[JarekS]

Otherwise. Klinghardt claims that *Ev is the only homogeneous gospel. I'll have to check in on Brodie

[Giuseppe]

I have checked, and yes, you are right, Brodie follows the impossible idea of a proto-gospel with the absurd and too much puerile birth story and infancy narrative:

The central thesis of this volume is as follows. Within Luke-Acts is a stream of texts
a total of about 25 chapters-with a distinctive relationship to the Septuagint/LXX, so distinctive that that it is reasonable to conclude that these chapters once existed alone, as a first short version of Luke-Acts. This short version falls into eight sections:2
1. Jesus' infancy narrative (Lk. 1-2).
2. Jesus' early ministry (3.1-4.22a [except 3.7-9; 4.1-13]; 7.1-8.3).
3. Jesus' journey to Jerusalem (9.51-10.20; 16.1-9, 19-31; 17.11-18.8; 19.1-10).
4. Jesus' death and resurrection (chs. 22-24 [except 22.31-65]).
5. The church's beginnings (Acts 1.1-2.42).
6. The church's early ministry (2.43-5.42).
7. The church's move away from Jerusalem (6.1-9.30).
8. The church's transformation, integrating the Gentiles (9.31-15.35).

(Birth of the New Testament, p. 84 )

A sufficient reason to archive all the books of Brodie, in my view.

A book without any occurrence of "Marcion" is destined for pulping.

[MrMacSon]

I have checked, and yes, you are right, Brodie follows the impossible idea of a proto-gospel with the absurd and too much puerile birth story and infancy narrative ...

(Birth of the New Testament, p. 84)

A sufficient reason to archive all the books of Brodie, in my view.

A book without any occurrence of "Marcion" is destined for pulping.

Brodie wrote Birthing before the renewed interest in Marcion, ie. before or as Joseph B Tyson was writing his book, Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle, also published in 2006.

I'm still interested in considering what Brodie has said on the pre-Lukan-to-canonical-Luke spectrum, such as use of the Elijah-Elisha narrative therein, so would simply ignore #1, thus:

The central thesis of this volume is as follows. Within Luke-Acts is a stream of texts a total of about 25 chapters-with a distinctive relationship to the Septuagint/LXX, so distinctive that that it is reasonable to conclude that these chapters once existed alone, as a first short version of Luke-Acts. This short version falls into eight sections:

1. Jesus' infancy narrative (Lk. 1-2).
2. Jesus' early ministry (3.1-4.22a [except 3.7-9; 4.1-13]; 7.1-8.3).
3. Jesus' journey to Jerusalem (9.51-10.20; 16.1-9, 19-31; 17.11-18.8; 19.1-10).
4. Jesus' death and resurrection (chs. 22-24 [except 22.31-65]).
5. The church's beginnings (Acts 1.1-2.42).
6. The church's early ministry (2.43-5.42).
7. The church's move away from Jerusalem (6.1-9.30).
8. The church's transformation, integrating the Gentiles (9.31-15.35).

(Birth of the New Testament, p. 84)

Brodie notes in footnote #12, page 88, that

A varied theory of Proto-Luke began with the observation that, if the Markan material is removed from Luke's gospel (especially from Luke's Passion Narrative), [the]^a account [ie. Luke minus Mark] still forms an essentially complete gospel, [ie.] before using Mark ....

1. Brodie refers here to 'Luke' as if 'Luke' wrote the proto-gospel, but that would seem unlikely if, as some propose, there were many authors over many years developing such pre-canonical texts (and at least a few versions of each of them)

"one may say that the author[s] [of Proto-Luke] 'conceived of this work as the continuation of the LXX...[as the] fulfilment of the promises of the Old Testament' [quoting Stirling 1992: 363] ...

" ... the author[s] of Proto-Luke were not bound by one or two particular modes of reworking sources; not bound, for instance, to the near-verbatim methods sometimes used later by canonical Matthew and canonical Luke when they incorporated Mark ...

"Details about how Proto-Luke used some Septuagint texts are given in the episode-by-episode analysis (in Part III of this volume). The analysis is not complete, but it is sufficient to indicate a strong systemic connection ..." [p.89]

It'd be interesting to compare what Brodie says with a moderate reconstruction of *Ev, such as BeDuhn's or Bilby's (rather than with Klinghardt's Luke-leaning version)

From the start of Chapter 11, p.97:

"Proto-Luke, despite breaking some ground, still belongs significant to an old genre found in the Elijah-Elisha narrative: comprising two parts, a mix of history and biography, and strongly prophetic ... Proto-Luke expanded that framework...especially in light of the 'Christain experience'."

His point about some tropes in the Elijah-Elisha narrative being reversed is interesting, eg.

"The Eijah-Elisha narrative subtly leads towards an emphasis on the temple (2 Kgs 11-12), but Luke-Acts leads away from it." [p.85]

He concludes, p.106:

"The unity of 'Proto-Luke' is not that of a gospel but of a document which stands halfway between OT narrative and the gospels ...

"The overall effect of [what Brodie thinks constitutes 'Proto-Luke'] is to portray Jesus as being like Elijah: a divine prophet, but more so - more divine, and more human. The unity of this portrait of Jesus does not correspond to that found in the later Luke, but, in comparison with the [OT] portrait of Elijah, has its own integrity."

fwiw, Birthing is available online here:

1. https://www.google.com.au/books/edition ... =en&gbpv=1, and
2. https://archive.org/details/birthingofnewtes0000brod