Yuri Kuchinsky

Ben, people who wrote the gospels were not Professors engaged in "objective scholarship", trying to outsmart each other in parsing the rules of formal composition -- who can be the most abstruse and irrelevant... First and foremost, those folks were spreading the faith. They went by what works, what is impressive and marvellous.



From this perspective, Jesus thought it important to do this Big Miracle, the Second Feeding of the Multitudes. But Luke says, ah, forget it...

So Jesus says it's important, but Luke says it's unimportant, "Let's cut it out". Luke is bigger than Jesus?

Can't you see a problem here?

Yuri.

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
My biblical webpage is online again,
http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

the_cave

Ben--I'll PM you.

Ben C Smith

No. The second feeding seems a great candidate for trimming to me. Sorry.

I think you could perhaps get more mileage out of the walking on water.

Ben.

Vincent Guilbaud

Though I won't go so far as aa5874 who seems to dismiss most of Christian records,
I much agree with him on this thread.

- Problem 1:
What can we deduct from a theory based entirely on an apologetic text
written by an established unreliable author against an arch ennemy ?

Thus, I have difficulties to consider a Proto-Luke as a viable hypothesis.

Plus, I found it cumbersome as it complexifies the problem
and creates more difficulties than resolving any.

(I also agree with renassault against Ben that there is a big difference with Q,
since if it has existed, it was written in the 50s in a very rural and poor region
where literacy was almost non-existent; while 100 years later,
Proto-Luke had much more chance to be quoted
among Christian apologists and philosophers in big cities of the Roman Empire)

- Problem 2:
What did this hypothetical record would have contained?

To some extent, there was surely a kind of 'proto Luke',
(as there was a 'proto Mark', 'Matthew' and 'John').
Indeed, the 1st version of Luke was certainly different than the one we have currently.
Differences between the extant manuscripts are already a good evidence for this,
see 'Misquoting Jesus' by B.Ehrman.
Did this Proro Luke contained the Birth of Jesus, Temptations stories, Baptism, Apparitions...?
...

******************** Here is my timelime ********************

1 - Pauline Epistles

2 - Gospels

3 - Marcion created his canon by editing the Epistles and producing his own Gospel

4 - 'Catholic Church' created its canon by editing Epistles and Gospels (though maybe less(?) than Marcion)
and producing Acts to glue the whole

*********************************************

Of course the motivations of Marcion and the 'catholic church' had nothing to do with historical truth.
They were theological and ideological in order to create a powerful new sect that can deceive people.
And frankly, they have succeeded above anyone could have imagined at that time.

renassault

True that there have been lost texts that were popular throughout antiquity. However the fact that we know of them proves their popularity, where this proto-Luke is entirely speculative except as you say from a reference by Tertullian in which Marcion alleges this against the author of Luke, which is the only thing he can do in order to validate his gospel, and is most likely speculative on his part due to what he has perceived as a corruption of the "true Pauline Gospel." The fact that both Luke's Gospel and Marcion's were so widespread amongst their respective groups guarantees that the proto-Luke would have been referred to somewhere.

aa5874

What part of Dialogue with Trypho sounds like Romans 9-11? You need to be very specific so that I can follow you. I am not really dealing with sounds, I am looking for passages that are word for word similar to both Justin and the epistles.

There are passages that are word for word very similar to the gospels in the memoirs, but I cannot find anywhere in the writings of Justin any word for word passages similar to any single passage in the epistles.

neilgodfrey

I'm not mentioning anything new or controversial. The passages within Dialogue/Trypho that echo Paul's epistles are discussed and referenced often enough in the literature about Justin Martyr. I don't have my library with me that would enable me to look up many of the references quickly, but anyone reading D.Trypho cannot fail to recognize the echoes. If you tried to be a little more agreeable when I try to be agreeable with you I'd find the time to look them up on the net for you. I'm interested in discussion and exploration, but not at all in debate and scoring points.

Neil Godfrey

aa5874

I think there is some mis-understanding. I do not research the church writings for people to agree or disagree with me. My conclusions or analysis are not directly dependent upon other scholars.

Now, you must show me those passages that you claim echo Paul's epistles. I just cannot proceed without hard information.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Oh, well, Ben, then perhaps you see yourself as bigger than Jesus? :notworthy:

The basic principle here is that, during that period, it's a lot easier to see how things were being added up to the narrative, than to understand how and why they could be deleted.

The general tendency was to keep adding things up.

Best,

Yuri.
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
My biblical webpage is online again,
http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

Yuri Kuchinsky

As I mentioned before, Irenaeus had no motive to lie about a thing like this...

Lots of assumptions here...

And it was quoted. Such as repeatedly by Justin.

Well, then we agree! :wave:

There's a lot more evidence for proto-Lk than there is for Q.

Regards,

Yuri.