FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-23-2013, 10:21 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default The Opening Words of the Judaizing and Marcionite Gospels Are Both Found in Luke

There is an odd similarity in the stark opening of the (assumed) Marcionite gospel and that of the Judaizing community. According to Eusebius:

Quote:
They falsify the genealogical tables in Matthew's Gospel and make its opening, as I said, 'It came to pass in the days of Herod, king of Judea, in the high-priesthood of Caiaphas, that a certain man, John by name, came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan' and so on [Epiphanius 30]
But as Clement - and I think - Ephrem notes, the Gospel of Luke originally began:

Quote:
And in the fifteenth year, in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias ... and Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old ...[Strom 1.21]
I just find it interesting that both 'beginnings' of these gospels are now found in Luke. First Luke 1:5

Quote:
In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah ...
Then Luke 3:1

Quote:
In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar ...
How is it possible to believe that the community of the Gospel of the Ebionites and the Marcionites stole from a common source? The more likely possibility has to be that Luke 'sucked up' material from two different gospel sources. Isn't that what Luke says at the very beginning?
stephan huller is offline  
Old 03-25-2013, 03:19 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 927
Default

to Stephan,
Quote:
They falsify the genealogical tables in Matthew's Gospel and make its opening, as I said, 'It came to pass in the days of Herod, king of Judea, in the high-priesthood of Caiaphas, that a certain man, John by name, came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan' and so on [Epiphanius 30]
A big mistake: there was no king of Judea during the high priesthood of Caiaphas. But they got the name right for the high priest, Caiaphas, and only him (which could have been sourced from gMatthew or Josephus' Antiquities).
Quote:
... the gospel of Luke originally began:
Quote:
And in the fifteenth year, in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias ... and Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old ...[Strom 1.21]
I just find it interesting that both 'beginnings' of these gospels are now found in Luke. First Luke 1:5
Quote:
Quote:
In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah ...
Then Luke 3:1
Quote:
Quote:
In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar ...
Clement did not say the gospel of Luke began that way (in Strom 1.21), just that it is written (in gLuke). And Clement might have snipped a chunk (3:1b-2a) because it was not necessary in order to make his point. So I do not see any problem with that.

However the assumed gospel of the Ebionites (or to the Hebrews) seems to me another mashup.

Cordially, Bernard
Bernard Muller is offline  
Old 03-25-2013, 04:01 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Quote:
A big mistake: there was no king of Judea during the high priesthood of Caiaphas. But they got the name right for the high priest, Caiaphas, and only him (which could have been sourced from gMatthew or Josephus' Antiquities).
But I've noted before that there is a consistent 'confusion' (= disagreement) between all our ancient witnesses and what we assume to be reality with respect to Herod. Celsus identifies 'the tetrarch Herod' to have been the ruler during the slaughter of the infants in Bethlehem. This is by no means the only such reference. As I demonstrated in a previous post, there is no argument outside of a dogmatic fixation on Josephus to solve all the problems in our sources. For instance - no coin ever identifies Herod as 'the king of Jews.' I noticed the reference to 'king Herod' too. I don't know how to explain it outside - as I just noted - to make Josephus the arbiter of all things ancient, something I don't think anyone should do given the disagreement in all our sources outside of him.
stephan huller is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:54 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.