Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

If the Gospel of Luke represents multiple stages of composition, is there a definable difference in style between the Lukan and proto-Lukan pericopes? Obviously, Luke 1-2 has been identified by some as a later addition. For those who are familiar with this subject, do you know how Luke 4:1-13 has been treated in such studies? That is, has that passage been considered part of the proto-Lukan layer or has it been considered the work of the final redactor?

gmx wrote:For those who are familiar with this subject, do you know how Luke 4:1-13 has been treated in such studies? That is, has that passage been considered part of the proto-Lukan layer or has it been considered the work of the final redactor?

Proto-Luke has several permutations.

For some, proto-Luke consisted of L and Q material (which would include Luke 4.1-13), to which Marcan material was added later, and then finally the infancy chapters. This theory is seldom argued for today, but you can read one of its most basic formulations (perhaps even its inaugural formulation) here: http://www.katapi.org.uk/4Gospels/Ch8.htm.

For others, proto-Luke consisted, quite oppositely, of mainly Marcan material supplemented by some L and/or Q material, to which more L and/or Q material was eventually added, along with some pericope shuffling (to account for the Nazareth inconsistency in Luke 4.23, for example), to form another edition. The birth narratives are also added on at some point in this process. I do not recall in which layer the temptation pericope tends to fall here.

Then there is the Marcionite approach, which either takes the Marcionite gospel more seriously than usual in reconstructing the history of Luke or makes the Marcionite gospel out to be essentially the same as proto-Luke. The temptation narrative would not tend to be part of proto-Luke in these kinds of theories, since the Marcionite gospel apparently lacked it.

And there are other approaches, as well. Thomas Brodie has one which uses Elijah/Elisha material to identify proto-Luke, for example, but I am so far only passingly familiar with his reconstruction. And there is an approach which speaks of a Luke written before Matthew was written, followed by a Luke written after Matthew was written and using it as a supplement.

Hope this helps a bit.

Thanks Ben. Informative as ever. I have been considering the validity of a methodology for determining the direction of dependence / redaction between Luke and Marcion. It is essentially to assess Lukan pericopae assumed to be absent in Marcion in terms of their Lukan-ness (for example, using Hawkins list of characteristic words / phrases), and compare against pericopae known to be common between the two. If the Luke-specific pericopae were found to be significantly more or less Lukan than shared / common pericopae, then that should indicate that Luke is derivative, and vice versa if the degree of Lukan-ness is largely consistent across the two sets. Do you see major holes in that approach?

gmx wrote:Thanks Ben. Informative as ever. I have been considering the validity of a methodology for determining the direction of dependence / redaction between Luke and Marcion.

Take a number and stand in line.

It is essentially to assess Lukan pericopae assumed to be absent in Marcion in terms of their Lukan-ness (for example, using Hawkins list of characteristic words / phrases), and compare against pericopae known to be common between the two. If the Luke-specific pericopae were found to be significantly more or less Lukan than shared / common pericopae, then that should indicate that Luke is derivative, and vice versa if the degree of Lukan-ness is largely consistent across the two sets. Do you see major holes in that approach?

What would happen to Marcionite pericopae if Luke rewrote a lot of them in his own words? Would they look Lucan to you?

Ben C. Smith wrote:What would happen to Marcionite pericopae if Luke rewrote a lot of them in his own words? Would they look Lucan to you?

Perhaps I have overestimated the extent of verbatim text of Marcion that has been preserved in the heresiologists. The methodology is perhaps still rescuable by attempting to locate obvious Lucanisms in the verbatim quotes, or prove the absence of obvious Lucanisms in such quotes?

gmx wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:What would happen to Marcionite pericopae if Luke rewrote a lot of them in his own words? Would they look Lucan to you?

Perhaps I have overestimated the extent of verbatim text of Marcion that has been preserved in the heresiologists. The methodology is perhaps still rescuable by attempting to locate obvious Lucanisms in the verbatim quotes, or prove the absence of obvious Lucanisms in such quotes?

Your first sentence strikes at the main obstacle: verbatim quotes of Marcion are fairly rare, and the ones we have are often suspect or problematic. I am not saying it is impossible; but it is not straightforward.

You may also like BeDuhn's book, The First New Testament where he attempts a minimal reconstruction of the Evangelion and Apostolikon. His end notes are quite informative and I've noticed in many places that phrases that are absent or unattested in Marcion seem to have textual "noise" in the manuscript record.