CX

The Marcion thread got me thinking about the infancy narratives in GMt & GLk. Prior to the codices of the 4th century the only MSS attestation for the infancy narrative in GLk is a fragmentary account in P4 which dates to the third century. For GMt, 2 papyrii (P1 & P70) attest to the infancy narrative in that gospel. In terms of early patristic evidence, Tatian, Irenaeus, & Justin Martyr seem to be aware of one or both infancy narratives to some degree, but only Justin Martyr is contemporaneous with Marcion's publication of The Gospel of the Lord. In essence we have very little in the way of evidence to decide whether Marcion was using a shorter version of GLk or whether he was excising large portions of the longer orthodox version. What say you all? Is there evidence I'm leaving out? Does this make a compelling case for either position? I'm inclined to think, since the infancy narratives are not present in the earliest gospel, nor in GJn that they were a later legendary accretion especially given that GMt and GLk do not agree.

lpetrich

Though Matthew and Luke do have rather gross differences, there is one thing on which they agree:

They try to have it both ways as to Jesus Christ's ancestry.

They both contain genealogies that trace JC's mother's husband Joseph back to King David, and if Joseph is JC's biological father, that means that JC has Davidic descent, as a Messiah ought to.

And they both claim that JC's biological father is really the Xtian God, which somewhat defeats the point of listing those genealogies.

Vorkosigan

Didn't Brown write on this topic? I seem to recall a point-by-point comparison.....

CX, what stylistic evidence would indicate that Luke did not write the IN in his gospel?

Peter Kirby

You can see where the church fathers quote from Luke here:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/

You can see a reconstruction of Marcion's gospel here:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Itha...7/Gospel1.html

best,
Peter Kirby