Gospel priority

[Giuseppe]

I do not think you have established either of the premises in (1) or (2)

if Luke disturbed himself to report the circumcision of the child Jesus, then he did so in reaction to Marcion rather than in reaction to Mark (where it is assumed that Jesus was born by a Jewish woman and that he was therefore circumcised).

[Ken Olson]

If Luke is writing a birth narrative, and on the Farrer theory a second generation birth narrative after Matthew's, why should we suppose that every detail in it, or that particular detail from Luke 2.21 (with a back reference to 1.31) is a reaction to Marcion?

[Giuseppe]

I don't understand your question. It is clear to me that if the birth story in Luke is recognized as anti-marcionite, then by logical extension also the birth story in Matthew is anti-marcionite, beyond the chronological order between canonical Luke and Matthew.

Marcion is the only prominent figure, associated with a gospel, who denied both the humanity of Jesus and the circumcision of Jesus. Separationists who adopted Mark accepted willingly the humanity and the circumcision of the human recipient but not the provenance of the divine possessor from YHWH. Hence, Marcion is the probable polemical target of a gospel insisting on the birth and/or on the circumcision of the Jesus.

[Ken Olson]

I don't understand your question. It is clear to me that if the birth story in Luke is recognized as anti-marcionite, then by logical extension also the birth story in Matthew is anti-marcionite, beyond the chronological order between canonical Luke and Matthew.

Marcion is the only prominent figure, associated with a gospel, who denied both the humanity of Jesus and the circumcision of Jesus. Separationists who adopted Mark accepted willingly the humanity and the circumcision of the human recipient but not the provenance of the divine possessor from YHWH. Hence, Marcion is the probable polemical target of a gospel insisting on the birth and/or on the circumcision of the Jesus.

The thing I have underlined/highighted is the thing you are supposed to be proving. Here you seem to be arguing that the circumcision should be taken as anti-Marcionite if the birth story in Luke is first recognized as anti-Marcionite. But if we already knew the birth story in Luke is an anti-Marcionte reaction, we wouldn't need to discuss the circumcision at all.

What I want to know is why we must accept that the birth narrative in Luke is a reaction to Marcion in the first place.

[Giuseppe]

What I want to know is why we must accept that the birth narrative in Luke is a reaction to Marcion in the first place.

because the presence of the circumcision story in canonical Luke makes it more probable that canonical Luke is a reaction against Marcion, and not a reaction against the adoptionist interpretation implied in Mark (where the circumcision is implicit and the adoption is relatively explicit).

Hence before I prove easily that the circumcision in Luke is against Marcion, then I conclude that also the birth story in Luke is against Marcion, and finally I conclude that also in Matthew the birth story is against Marcion.

[Peter Kirby]

I regard the conclusion favorably enough, Giuseppe, but "prove" and "must" are such strong words.

Literary dependence arguments often prove to be difficult to find (sound ones anyway). Alternative interpretations must be considered. Finding things that can't be interpreted in more than one way is, at least, rare.

[Ken Olson]

What I want to know is why we must accept that the birth narrative in Luke is a reaction to Marcion in the first place.

because the presence of the circumcision story in canonical Luke makes it more probable that canonical Luke is a reaction against Marcion, and not a reaction against the adoptionist interpretation implied in Mark (where the circumcision is implicit and the adoption is relatively explicit).

Hence before I prove easily that the circumcision in Luke is against Marcion, then I conclude that also the birth story in Luke is against Marcion, and finally I conclude that also in Matthew the birth story is against Marcion.

I think you've elided the difference between more probable and probable here. You haven't shown that we need to think the birth narrative is probably anti-Marcionite and the fact that you can fit the verse about cirumcision in under that interpretation too does not really shift the needle in any significant way.

You could say that the fact that the infancy narratives deal a lot with fulfillment of the God of Israel' promises to israel in the OT make it *more probable* that they are anti-Marcionite because the Marcionites would not have wanted to add that material. But 'unlikely to have originated with Marcionites' (as we understand them from the church fathers) and 'likely to have originated with anti-Marcionites' are different things.

[Ken Olson]

I regard the conclusion favorably enough, Giuseppe, but "prove" and "must" are such strong words.

Literary dependence arguments often prove to be difficult to find (sound ones anyway). Alternative interpretations must be considered. Finding things that can't be interpreted in more than one way is, at least, rare.

Yes. I think my major objection to what Giuseppe claimed was: 'Goodacre is approving the thesis of one who believes that Marcion falsified Luke. Which alone proves my point on the not-scientific reluctance to place *Ev before Matthew and Luke, a reluctance that, in long terms, can only throw a bad light on the same Markan priority.'

That Marcionite priorists can interpret the evidence according to the theory of Marcionit priority I do not doubt. That this amounts to proof or that opposing opinions are not-scientific i doubt very much.

ETA: I forgot this bit:

sure sure, but at a given price: to swallow the idea that a gospel with a frivolous and childish birth story could precede *Ev.

It is a case of mere human stupidity, if not of intellectual dishonesty.

I think that the claim goes far beyond what Giuseppe can actually demonstrate.

[Giuseppe]

the fact that you can fit the verse about cirumcision in under that interpretation too does not really shift the needle in any significant way.

I have introduced the circumcision in the equation to prove that, if a reaction by canonical Luke has to be, then it was not against the adoptionism in Mark but against the marcionism in *Ev.

It seems to me that the Farrer Theory assumes that the birth story in Matthew and canonical Luke is a reaction against the adoptionism read in Mark.
I have simply proposed a more probable target of the reaction, by mentioning the circumcision.

If you want to confute the conclusion, then you have to deny the premise and claim that canonical Luke is not against Mark nor against Marcion, that there is none reaction at all, which is the solution less probable.

[Ken Olson]

the fact that you can fit the verse about cirumcision in under that interpretation too does not really shift the needle in any significant way.

I have introduced the circumcision in the equation to prove that, if a reaction by canonical Luke has to be, then it was not against the adoptionism in Mark but against the marcionism in *Ev.

It seems to me that the Farrer Theory assumes that the birth story in Matthew and canonical Luke is a reaction against the adoptionism read in Mark.
I have simply proposed a more probable target of the reaction, by mentioning the circumcision.

If you want to confute the conclusion, then you have to deny the premise and claim that canonical Luke is not against Mark nor against Marcion, that there is none reaction at all, which is the solution less probable.

Let me back up a moment. I think Luke knew Mark as *the* gospel when Matthew later came into his hands. He recognized that Matthew might well replace Mark as *the gospel*, and didn't want that and thought he could do better. I don't think any of the evangelists that were later gathered into the four gospel canon meant for his work to be read alongside other gospels which had equal authority. I think they all thought they were writing *the* authoritative gospel.

So I think Luke is writing in reaction to Matthew and saw the advantage in including an infancy narrative, as Matthew had.

I do not grant that you have proposed a more probable target.