Adam

I'm slogging through academic journals and FRDB threads relating to dating of Luke-Acts, whether Josephus or Marcion affected the texts. In the meantime, anyone care to comment on ideas that just occurred to me?

Marcion's gospel is usually conceded to be some version of gLuke, but some suggest gMark is also a good candidate. Markus Vinzent even seems to say that Marcion's text underlies the Synoptic tradition. If there was that much influence, how about we consider whether Marcion dropped off the ending from gMark as altogether too bodily? Catholics objected and added in Mark 16:9-20 with its synopsis of the Resurrection accounts from the other three gospels. Less radically, had the earliest ending of gMark (presumably like gMathew 28:9-20) early on been lost and replaced by the current Mark 16:9-20, but Marcion objected, called them on it, and got the spurious verses removed from the better texts?

It's usually believed that Marcion's Luke did not contain the Infancy Narrative in the first two chapters. There's some evidence it did not contain Luke 24 either, the Resurrection. Yet the style of Luke 24 is Semitic in the style of the Special Luke (L) passages in Luke 3 to 23, so there again might Marcion have dropped off the original ending? (Paralleling with the preceding paragraph, the latter explanation would be stronger, as absent the already earlier replaced ending, Marcion would have had no case to persuade anyone to drop Luke 24 from their texts.)

And a similar matter: I think it's rather cheeky of Theodore Weeden in his review of Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (see thread Academic Journal Access)
"Polemics as a Case for Dissent: A Response to Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses"
to accuse Luke of lying about eyewitnessing. By presupposing Form Criticism and oral tradition, of course, if gLuke really had to be dated to Tyson's 120 CE or so, no eyewitnesses would have survived for Luke to consult. However, by my thesis in Gospel Eyewitnesses, there were four written eyewitness accounts available to him, whether he wrote in 6o CE (as I say) or whenever. The Prologue Luke 1:1-4 seems to speak of written accounts handed down from eyewitnesses. The problem for Christians is that if a late date for Luke-Acts turns out to be necessary, then it would seems necessary to rely on my written eyewitness thesis for refuge. Maybe my thesis is not supererogatory (to displease New Atheists), but essential for defense of Christianity?

Duvduv

Well, Adam, since nothing exists of the writings attributed to Marcion, and all that is known about him is from the biased reports of church writers, how do you know what he had or did not have, and why would anyone take at fact and face value whatever is stated by biased apologists of the emerging Byzantine church? Are their statements simply correct by definition?

stephan huller

of course "it is believed" that there wasnt an infancy narrative. jesus wasn't human for the marcionites

Duvduv

It is a bit humorous that people accept as a given whatever is stated by the old biased church apologists about whatever group for which there is no independent confirmation of their alleged existence at all.

Whether it's "Marcionites" (where, who, what writings did they leave over) or the so-called communities of "followers" of each of the individual gospels, i.e. the "Johannine community" (WHAT Johannine community, where, who?) or the "Matthean community" or whatever.
More sand castles..........

Adam

Also interesting is that Western Non-Interpolations are concentrated in Luke 24. The verses are 3, 6, 12, 36, 40, 51 and 52. (From Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts, p. 160.) All these seem particularly offensive to Marcionites. Instead of omitting the whole final chapter they may have omitted just those verses. Alternately, the canonical text when adding back Luke 24 may have added those verses to refute Marcionism.

Either way it would seem Marcionism felt little need to eliminate bodily images of Jesus pre-Resurrection except the famous "sweat...like great drops of blood" (Luke 22:43-44), but maybe that's an argument that the proto-orthodox added those verses to refute Marcionism.

I wouldn't think that even Marcion would have ended a gospel at the end of Luke 23. Luke 24 without the offending verses would seem better.

Vorkosigan

It's obvious Luke is lying. Had he eyewitnesses, there would be no need to copy Mark and expand certain passages midrashically.

stephan huller

And from what I remember Tyson brings forward arguments why the first few chapters of Luke weren't original.

stephan huller

If we are going to try and understand 'Marcion' we have to start with Irenaeus who is the first to say anything important about him (I am not sure that Justin's references weren't added later). Irenaeus speaks about a divided Marcionite gospel. I think this means there were two texts to the Marcionite tradition.

Adam

We just can't communicate, you and I, can we? Yes, I was obliquely referring to you in your post I found in my search here today (probably on "Marcion, Authentic Transmitter or Mutilator?") in which you cannot conceive of Luke having sources. You and spin are now aware I list Luke's eyewitness sources as q1, q2, L, the Passion Narrative (and/or their combined form in Proto-Luke) and most of gMark, but you guys just stand pat that you can't possibly be wrong. I don't deny Luke consulted some other eyewitnesses directly, but only to supplement the written texts he had. And if he wrote considerably later, he would have had no choice but to copy written texts. As Luke said in the prologue, he used what was handed down to him by eyewitnesses, and that's true whether he wrote in 60 or 120 CE, it's just that the latter would prove the eyewitnesses were written records (unless Luke were indeed lying).

Adam

Proto-Luke is rarely thought to include Luke 1 and 2. They are very Hebraic, however, so whenever they were added they cannot be dismissed automatically. However, I've never counted them as among my sources written by eyewitnesses. They're in the same lesser category for me as the passages in Matthew and Mark that are not in the gLUke.