Adam

Presumably you mean Proto-Luke and Mark through 16:8.

Another possibility is the Passion Narrative counted separately from the rest of the text of Proto-Luke. That's the way I look upon the Jerusalem church as practicing. They had already had the Passion Narrative (written from the first by John Mark). When Simon of Cleopas wrote Proto-Luke he simply stopped when he reached where the Passion Narrative already gave the rest. (This explains why scholars eventually shied away from the Proto-Luke theory, when they found that the rules they made did not work for the Passion Narrative--yet they knew that Proto-Luke could not stop without reaching it.)

stephan huller

i just deal with what Irenaeus says on his own and what he says through Tertullian

Vorkosigan

Not when i go with evidence and methodology and you offer an ideological fantasy

Adam

Your Form Criticism is well recognized now as a failed methodology. I just go where the textual analysis leads me, no fantasy to it. My advantage over you is that I always was a contrarian, and the once-dominant Form Criticism
was one of the "givens" I saw no more reality in than the Emperor's New Clothes.

aa5874

Wait a minute!!! Didn't you claim you DISCOVERED that Irenaeus is or likely to be a 3rd century source??

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...-reign-of.html

Duvduv

The bottom line is that biased heresiologists are ultimately UNRELIABLE to tell us anything about their bogeyman Marcion since there is NOTHING at all in any texts to corroborate their claims about him, some of which make absolutely no sense at all in context, as I have mentioned before.