The Antitheses and the origin of Luke

[Peter Kirby]

But to simplify the idea in the OP, the first connection between Marcion and Luke could have been that Marcion called Luke a fake and knew that Luke was a fake because it was recent and a fake. This is the "Marcion shot first" theory.

[Secret Alias]

Other repeated Matthean references in Adversus Marcionem:

Matthieu 1, 23 (2)

3 12 § 2 (p.523, l.11) BP1
3 20 § 6 (p.535, l.9) BP1

Matthieu 2, 11 (2)

3 13 § 6 (p.525, l.16) BP1
3 13 § 8 (p.525, l.8) BP1

Matthieu 5, 45 (4)

2 17 § 1 (p.494, l.7) BP1
2 17 § 1 (p.494, l.9 - *) BP1
4 17 § 6 (p.586, l.23) BP1
4 36 § 3 (p.643, l.13) BP1

Matthieu 11, 27 (2)

2 27 § 4 (p.506, l.22) BP1
4 25 § 10 (p.612, l.2) BP1

Matthieu 12, 7 (2)

4 17 § 8 (p.587, l.12) BP1
4 27 § 3 (p.619, l.23) BP1

Matthieu 15, 9 (2)

4 27 § 7 (p.620, l.4) BP1
5 14 § 8 (p.706, l.24) BP1

Matthieu 15, 14 (2)

3 7 § 1 (p.516, l.7) BP1
4 17 § 11 (p.587, l.2) BP1

Matthieu 16, 14 (2)

3 16 § 1 (p.528, l.13) BP1
4 19 § 9 (p.593, l.27) BP1

Matthieu 19, 6 (2)

4 34 § 2 (p.635, l.15) BP1
4 34 § 6 (p.636, l.3) BP1

Matthieu 24, 5 (2)

4 39 § 2 (p.651, l.22) BP1
5 1 § 3 (p.664, l.15) BP1

Matthieu 25, 41 (2)

1 27 § 2 (p.471, l.14) BP1
1 27 § 6 (p.471, l.11) BP1

Multiple references to Mark:

Marc 1, 12 (2)

3 7 § 6 (p.517, l.23) BP1
5 6 § 7 (p.680, l.1) BP1

Marc 1, 13 (2)

3 7 § 6 (p.517, l.23) BP1
5 6 § 7 (p.680, l.1) BP1

Marc 3, 16 (2)

4 13 § 5 (p.573, l.5) BP1
5 1 § 1 (p.663, l.25) BP1

Multiple references to Luke

Luc 1, 35 (2)

4 7 § 11 (p.555, l.22) BP1
5 9 § 8 (p.690, l.22) BP1

Luc 1, 52 (2)

4 28 § 11 (p.623, l.12) BP1
5 12 § 8 (p.701, l.10) BP1

Luc 2, 1 (3)

4 7 § 7 (p.554, l.12) BP1
4 19 § 10 (p.593, l.5) BP1
4 36 § 8 (p.645, l.19) BP1

Luc 2, 7 (3)

4 2 § 2 (p.547, l.15) BP1
4 7 § 7 (p.554, l.12) BP1
5 9 § 7 (p.690, l.13) BP1

Luc 2, 8 (2)

5 9 § 7 (p.690, l.10) BP1
5 9 § 7 (p.690, l.12) BP1

Luc 2, 32 (2)

4 9 § 6 (p.559, l.27) BP1

Luc 3, 1 (5)

1 15 § 1 (p.456, l.14) BP1
1 15 § 6 (p.457, l.23) BP1
1 19 § 2 (p.459, l.7) BP1
1 22 § 10 (p.465, l.19) BP1
4 6 § 3 (p.552, l.26) BP1

Luc 3, 4 (2)

4 18 § 7 (p.590, l.22 - P) BP1
5 3 § 8 (p.670, l.25) BP1

Luc 4, 27 (2)

4 9 § 6 (p.559, l.23) BP1
4 35 § 6 (p.640, l.5) BP1
4 11 § 1 (p.565, l.7) BP1

Luc 4, 30 (2)

4 8 § 2 (p.556, l.7) BP1
4 8 § 3 (p.557, l.13) BP1

Luc 4, 31 (3)

4 7 § 1 (p.553, l.14 - *) BP1
4 7 § 5 (p.554, l.25) BP1
4 7 § 7 (p.554, l.10) BP1

Luc 4, 32 (2)

4 7 § 7 (p.554, l.18) BP1
4 7 § 8 (p.555, l.23) BP1

Luc 4, 34 (4)

4 7 § 9 (p.555, l.7) BP1
4 7 § 12 (p.555, l.26) BP1
4 8 § 1 (p.556, l.25) BP1
5 6 § 7 (p.680, l.3) BP1

Luc 4, 41 (3)

4 8 § 5 (p.557, l.28) BP1
4 8 § 7 (p.558, l.16) BP1
4 20 § 6 (p.595, l.21) BP1

Luc 5, 13 (2)

4 9 § 4 (p.559, l.8) BP1
4 9 § 7 (p.560, l.7) BP1

Luc 5, 14 (7)

4 9 § 3 (p.559, l.26) BP1
4 9 § 9 (p.560, l.25) BP1
4 9 § 10 (p.560, l.7 - *) BP1
4 9 § 10 (p.561, l.10) BP1
4 9 § 13 (p.561, l.26) BP1
4 9 § 15 (p.561, l.9 - *) BP1
4 35 § 8 (p.641, l.27) BP1

Luc 5, 21 (3)

4 10 § 1 (p.562, l.21) BP1
4 10 § 13 (p.564, l.5) BP1
4 10 § 13 (p.564, l.7) BP1

Luc 5, 24 (3)

4 10 § 1 (p.562, l.20) BP1
4 12 § 15 (p.572, l.22) BP1
5 10 § 9 (p.693, l.28) BP1

Luc 5, 26 (2)

4 10 § 1 (p.562, l.13) BP1
4 10 § 13 (p.564, l.5) BP1

Luc 5, 33 (2)

4 11 § 3 (p.566, l.21) BP1
4 11 § 5 (p.566, l.4) BP1

Luc 5, 34 (2)

4 11 § 6 (p.566, l.16) BP1
4 11 § 8 (p.567, l.15) BP1

Luc 5, 35 (3)

4 11 § 3 (p.566, l.21) BP1
4 11 § 6 (p.566, l.16) BP1
4 11 § 8 (p.567, l.15) BP1

Luc 5, 36 (2)

4 11 § 9 (p.567, l.17) BP1
4 11 § 10 (p.568, l.1) BP1

Luc 6, 1 (6)

4 12 § 1 (p.568, l.22) BP1
4 12 § 3 (p.569, l.14) BP1
4 12 § 5 (p.569, l.2) BP1
4 12 § 5 (p.569, l.6 - *) BP1
4 12 § 7 (p.570, l.19) BP1
4 12 § 14 (p.571, l.6) BP1

Luc 6, 3 (2)

4 12 § 5 (p.570, l.9) BP1
4 12 § 8 (p.570, l.24) BP1

Luc 6, 4 (2)

4 12 § 5 (p.570, l.9) BP1
4 12 § 8 (p.570, l.24) BP1

Luc 6, 5 (7)

4 12 § 1 (p.568, l.22) BP1
4 12 § 3 (p.569, l.14) BP1
4 12 § 5 (p.569, l.2) BP1
4 12 § 5 (p.569, l.6 - *) BP1
4 12 § 7 (p.570, l.19) BP1
4 12 § 11 (p.571, l.20) BP1
4 12 § 14 (p.571, l.6) BP1

Luc 6, 12 (3)

4 13 § 1 (p.572, l.25) BP1
4 13 § 2 (p.572, l.9) BP1
4 13 § 3 (p.572, l.15) BP1

Luc 6, 20 (4)

4 14 § 1 (p.574, l.2) BP1
4 14 § 9 (p.575, l.5) BP1
4 14 § 13 (p.576, l.7) BP1
4 15 § 7 (p.578, l.2) BP1

Luc 6, 21 (4)

4 14 § 9 (p.575, l.2) BP1
4 14 § 10 (p.575, l.17) BP1
4 14 § 11 (p.576, l.22) BP1
4 14 § 13 (p.576, l.9) BP1

Luc 6, 22 (2)

4 14 § 14 (p.576, l.16) BP1
4 14 § 16 (p.577, l.3) BP1

Luc 6, 23 (2)

4 15 § 1 (p.577, l.12) BP1
4 39 § 9 (p.652, l.22) BP1

Luc 6, 24 (6)

4 15 § 3 (p.577, l.1) BP1
4 15 § 6 (p.578, l.25) BP1
4 15 § 8 (p.578, l.10) BP1
4 15 § 8 (p.579, l.19) BP1
4 15 § 10 (p.579, l.14) BP1
4 15 § 11 (p.580, l.19) BP1

Luc 6, 27 (4)

1 23 § 3 (p.465, l.2) BP1
4 16 § 1 (p.581, l.13) BP1
4 16 § 1 (p.581, l.20) BP1
4 16 § 6 (p.582, l.9) BP1

Luc 6, 28 (3)

4 16 § 1 (p.581, l.13) BP1
4 16 § 1 (p.581, l.20) BP1
4 16 § 6 (p.582, l.9) BP1

Luc 6, 29 (4)

4 16 § 2 (p.581, l.24) BP1
4 16 § 4 (p.582, l.10) BP1
4 16 § 5 (p.582, l.23) BP1
4 16 § 6 (p.582, l.8) BP1

Luc 6, 30 (2)

4 16 § 8 (p.583, l.21) BP1
4 16 § 10 (p.583, l.6) BP1

Luc 6, 31 (2)

4 16 § 13 (p.584, l.2) BP1
4 16 § 16 (p.585, l.5) BP1

Luc 6, 35 (2)

4 17 § 4 (p.585, l.9) BP1
4 17 § 6 (p.586, l.21) BP1

Luc 6, 40 (4)

1 14 § 3 (p.455, l.24) BP1
4 4 § 5 (p.550, l.1) BP1
4 9 § 8 (p.560, l.14) BP1
4 17 § 11 (p.587, l.3) BP1

Luc 6, 43 (3)

1 2 § 1 (p.443, l.18) BP1
2 4 § 2 (p.478, l.21) BP1
4 17 § 11 (p.587, l.7) BP1

Luc 7, 19 (2)

4 18 § 5 (p.590, l.27) BP1
4 18 § 7 (p.590, l.21) BP1

Luc 7, 23 (3)

4 18 § 5 (p.589, l.19) BP1
4 18 § 6 (p.590, l.7) BP1
4 18 § 8 (p.591, l.12) BP1

Luc 7, 27 (3)

4 18 § 4 (p.589, l.16) BP1
4 18 § 7 (p.590, l.16) BP1
4 33 § 8 (p.634, l.9) BP1

Luc 7, 50 (2)

4 18 § 9 (p.591, l.13) BP1
4 18 § 9 (p.591, l.20) BP1

Luc 8, 18 (3)

2 2 § 6 (p.476, l.21) BP1
4 19 § 3 (p.592, l.13) BP1
4 37 § 4 (p.647, l.28) BP1

Luc 8, 20 (4)

4 19 § 7 (p.592, l.9) BP1
4 19 § 8 (p.593, l.21) BP1
4 19 § 10 (p.593, l.9) BP1
4 36 § 9 (p.645, l.3) BP1

Luc 8, 28 (2)

4 20 § 5 (p.595, l.11) BP1
4 20 § 7 (p.595, l.1) BP1

Luc 8, 43 (2)

3 8 § 4 (p.518, l.16) BP1
4 20 § 7 (p.596, l.5) BP1

Luc 8, 44 (3)

3 8 § 4 (p.518, l.16) BP1
4 20 § 11 (p.596, l.5) BP1
4 20 § 13 (p.597, l.20) BP1

Luc 8, 48 (3)

4 20 § 7 (p.596, l.5) BP1
4 20 § 9 (p.596, l.18) BP1
4 20 § 13 (p.597, l.18) BP1

Luc 9, 13 (2)

4 21 § 3 (p.598, l.18) BP1
4 21 § 5 (p.598, l.1) BP1

Luc 9, 17 (2)

4 21 § 2 (p.598, l.15) BP1
4 21 § 4 (p.598, l.20) BP1

Luc 9, 22 (2)

4 21 § 6 (p.598, l.7) BP1
4 21 § 7 (p.598, l.18) BP1

Luc 9, 24 (2)

4 21 § 8 (p.599, l.25) BP1
4 21 § 9 (p.599, l.13) BP1

Luc 9, 26 (2)

4 21 § 10 (p.599, l.17) BP1
4 21 § 12 (p.600, l.13) BP1

Luc 9, 28 (2)

4 22 § 1 (p.600, l.24) BP1
4 22 § 7 (p.602, l.19) BP1

Luc 9, 30 (3)

4 22 § 2 (p.601, l.4) BP1
4 22 § 12 (p.603, l.2) BP1
4 22 § 16 (p.604, l.10) BP1

Luc 9, 31 (2)

4 22 § 2 (p.601, l.5) BP1
4 22 § 12 (p.603, l.2) BP1

Luc 9, 33 (2)

4 22 § 4 (p.601, l.23) BP1
4 22 § 12 (p.603, l.12) BP1

Luc 9, 34 (2)

4 22 § 7 (p.602, l.2) BP1
4 22 § 13 (p.603, l.18) BP1

Luc 9, 35 (6)

4 22 § 1 (p.600, l.27) BP1
4 22 § 9 (p.602, l.7) BP1
4 22 § 10 (p.603, l.22) BP1
4 22 § 12 (p.603, l.10) BP1
4 34 § 15 (p.638, l.6) BP1
4 34 § 16 (p.639, l.12) BP1

Luc 10, 7 (2)

4 21 § 1 (p.597, l.5) BP1
4 24 § 4 (p.608, l.23) BP1

Luc 10, 19 (2)

4 24 § 9 (p.609, l.12) BP1
4 24 § 12 (p.610, l.13) BP1

Luc 10, 21 (4)

4 25 § 3 (p.611, l.8) BP1
4 25 § 5 (p.611, l.25) BP1
4 25 § 14 (p.613, l.9) BP1
4 26 § 6 (p.615, l.6) BP1

Luc 10, 22 (3)

4 25 § 7 (p.611, l.8) BP1
4 25 § 10 (p.612, l.1) BP1
4 25 § 11 (p.612, l.14) BP1

Luc 10, 25 (4)

4 19 § 7 (p.592, l.16) BP1
4 25 § 14 (p.613, l.11) BP1
4 25 § 14 (p.613, l.12 - *) BP1
4 25 § 18 (p.614, l.19) BP1

Luc 10, 27 (2)

4 25 § 14 (p.613, l.15) BP1
5 8 § 10 (p.687, l.2) BP1

Luc 11, 2 (3)

4 26 § 3 (p.615, l.17) BP1
4 26 § 4 (p.615, l.22) BP1

Luc 11, 5 (2)

4 26 § 7 (p.616, l.19) BP1
4 26 § 8 (p.616, l.26) BP1
4 36 § 2 (p.643, l.8) BP1

Luc 11, 8 (2)

4 26 § 7 (p.616, l.19) BP1
4 26 § 9 (p.616, l.4) BP1

Luc 11, 10 (3)

4 26 § 5 (p.615, l.4) BP1
4 26 § 6 (p.616, l.9) BP1
4 27 § 1 (p.618, l.3) BP1

[rgprice]

If Luke (in "canonical form") was written pre-130, then Marcion probably did know about Luke and Acts.

If Luke was still written recently enough in the second century, Marcion could have known that.

A conclusion that Luke ripped off the gospel with "interpolations" didn't really require much comparison, since that was the way that Marcion viewed the other gospels including Matthew.

An allegation against Luke in particular could be explained because it was the most recent synoptic.

Of course, the OP also mentions the "Marcion never knew about Luke" idea (i.e. number 2, which I also used to think... and rejects it). And the OP mentions the "all these gospels are older" idea (3), in which case Marcion had no special knowledge about Luke.

But what if Marcion was around when Luke and Acts were being composed?

The problem is "proto-Luke". There appears to be at least 3 Gospels in the mix here: *Ev, proto-Luke, canonical Luke.

So its possible that Marcion knew proto-Luke, but not canonical Luke, and also that later proto-orthodox Christians conflated canonical Luke with proto-Luke.

In other words, maybe Marcion knew proto-Luke and made comments about proto-Luke. Then people like Origen and Tertullian assumed comments that Marcion made about proto-Luke were made in relation to canonical Luke.

And I would say it is possible that *Ev was redacted from proto-Luke and that the redaction of *Ev from proto-Luke was later believed to be a redaction of *Ev from canonical Luke.

[Peter Kirby]

There's always another 'possible' hypothetical. How is this (so far undefined) "proto-Luke" a better hypothesis?

[rgprice]

There's always another 'possible' hypothetical. How is this (so far undefined) "proto-Luke" a better hypothesis?

Proto-Luke is pretty well defined. Proto-Luke would be basically Luke 3-23ish (about half of 24).

When you look at Luke 3, much of Luke 3 is not present in *Ev. Either *Ev was derived from removing material from what we call Luke 3, or someone added that material to *Ev, or Luke 3 and *Ev are derived from a common source, etc.

But its pretty obvious that Luke 1 & 2 are additions to a Gospel that began with Luke 3:1. That's why the genealogy is in Luke 3, because Luke 3 was originally the beginning of the story.

I think proto-Luke is pretty clear.

[Peter Kirby]

Alright, then I still tend to think Basilides is best explained as knowing Luke.

3) There is a third text in which Basilides appears to be commenting on the text of Luke, which is found in (Pseudo) Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, given here with David Litwa’s translation:

ὁπότε οὖν ἔδει ἀρθῆναι τὸ κάλυμ<μ>α καὶ ὀφθῆναι ταῦτα τὰ μυστήρια,
γεγέν<ν>ηται ὁ Ἰησοῦς διὰ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον· «πνεῦμα
ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ»—πνεῦμα ἔστιν ἡ Σοφία—, «καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου
ἐπισκιάσει σοι»—ὕψιστος ἔστιν ὁ δημιουργός·—«διὸ τὸ γεννώμενον ἐκ σοῦ
ἅγιον κληθήσεται». 4. γεγέν<ν>ηται γὰρ οὐκ ἀπὸ ὑψίστου μόνου, ὥσπερ οἱ
κατὰ τὸν Ἀδὰμ κτισθέντες ἀπὸ μόνου ἐκτίσθησαν τοῦ ὑψίστου—τουτέστι
[τῆς Σοφίας καὶ] τοῦ δημιουργοῦ. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς, «ὁ καινὸς ἄνθρωπος», [ὁ] ἀπὸ
Πνεύματος ἁγίου—τουτέστι τῆς Σοφίας καὶ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ—, ἵνα τὴν μὲν
πλάσιν καὶ κατασκευὴν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ ὁ δημιουργὸς καταρτίσῃ, τὴν δὲ
οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα παράσχῃ τὸ ἅγιον, καὶ γένηται λόγος ἐπουράνιος ἀπὸ
τῆς Ὀγδοάδος, γεν<ν>ηθεὶς διὰ Μαρίας.

Now when it became necessary for the veil to be removed, and these mysteries to be seen, Jesus was born from Mary the virgin, according to what is said: “Holy Spirit will come upon you”—the Spirit being Wisdom—“and power of the Most High will overshadow you”—the “Most High” being the Artificer. “Consequently what is born from you will be called holy.”181 4. Jesus was born not from the Most High alone, like people created according to the model of Adam were created from the Most High or Artificer. Rather, Jesus, “the new human being,” was born from the Holy Spirit—that is, from Wisdom and the Artificer.182 Accordingly, the Artificer fit together the mold and structure of his body, while the Holy Spirit supplied his substance. Thus arose a heavenly Word from the Ogdoad,
born through Mary. [Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies 6.35.3, ed. and trans. David Litwa,p. 431]

As Litwa notes in his footnotes, this text would appear to be an interpretation of Luke 1.35. There are three quotations of Luke, ‘Holy Spirit will come upon you’, ‘and power of the Most High will overshadow you’ and ‘consequently you will be called holy’, interspersed with Basilides’ comments.

And I'm still not clear on what renders proto-Luke more than just a possible hypothesis.

[Peter Kirby]

But its pretty obvious that Luke 1 & 2 are additions

This can be explained as part of Luke's expansion of *Ev and the other gospels.

The Luke 3 stuff (apart from a bit of Luke 3:1) can be additionally from this same author.

[rgprice]

But its pretty obvious that Luke 1 & 2 are additions

This can be explained as part of Luke's expansion of *Ev and the other gospels.

The Luke 3 stuff (apart from a bit of Luke 3:1) can be additionally from this same author.

Could be, but its relationship to the birth narrative is very strange. The birth narrative focuses on Mary and is all about Mary, but then this genealogy doesn't even mention Mary. But yes, it is a possibility. This is the proposal that Luke is derived from *Ev, but this leaves us with the complication that Matthew and Luke share parallels that are not present in *Ev. So that has to be explained. Thsi can be explained as Matthew and Luke both using a proto-Luke.

[Ken Olson]

Alright, then I still tend to think Basilides is best explained as knowing Luke.

3) There is a third text in which Basilides appears to be commenting on the text of Luke, which is found in (Pseudo) Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, given here with David Litwa’s translation:

ὁπότε οὖν ἔδει ἀρθῆναι τὸ κάλυμ<μ>α καὶ ὀφθῆναι ταῦτα τὰ μυστήρια,
γεγέν<ν>ηται ὁ Ἰησοῦς διὰ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον· «πνεῦμα
ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ»—πνεῦμα ἔστιν ἡ Σοφία—, «καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου
ἐπισκιάσει σοι»—ὕψιστος ἔστιν ὁ δημιουργός·—«διὸ τὸ γεννώμενον ἐκ σοῦ
ἅγιον κληθήσεται». 4. γεγέν<ν>ηται γὰρ οὐκ ἀπὸ ὑψίστου μόνου, ὥσπερ οἱ
κατὰ τὸν Ἀδὰμ κτισθέντες ἀπὸ μόνου ἐκτίσθησαν τοῦ ὑψίστου—τουτέστι
[τῆς Σοφίας καὶ] τοῦ δημιουργοῦ. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς, «ὁ καινὸς ἄνθρωπος», [ὁ] ἀπὸ
Πνεύματος ἁγίου—τουτέστι τῆς Σοφίας καὶ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ—, ἵνα τὴν μὲν
πλάσιν καὶ κατασκευὴν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ ὁ δημιουργὸς καταρτίσῃ, τὴν δὲ
οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα παράσχῃ τὸ ἅγιον, καὶ γένηται λόγος ἐπουράνιος ἀπὸ
τῆς Ὀγδοάδος, γεν<ν>ηθεὶς διὰ Μαρίας.

Now when it became necessary for the veil to be removed, and these mysteries to be seen, Jesus was born from Mary the virgin, according to what is said: “Holy Spirit will come upon you”—the Spirit being Wisdom—“and power of the Most High will overshadow you”—the “Most High” being the Artificer. “Consequently what is born from you will be called holy.”181 4. Jesus was born not from the Most High alone, like people created according to the model of Adam were created from the Most High or Artificer. Rather, Jesus, “the new human being,” was born from the Holy Spirit—that is, from Wisdom and the Artificer.182 Accordingly, the Artificer fit together the mold and structure of his body, while the Holy Spirit supplied his substance. Thus arose a heavenly Word from the Ogdoad,
born through Mary. [Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies 6.35.3, ed. and trans. David Litwa,p. 431]

As Litwa notes in his footnotes, this text would appear to be an interpretation of Luke 1.35. There are three quotations of Luke, ‘Holy Spirit will come upon you’, ‘and power of the Most High will overshadow you’ and ‘consequently you will be called holy’, interspersed with Basilides’ comments.

And I'm still not clear on what renders proto-Luke more than just a possible hypothesis.

Thanks for quoting this, Peter.

I want to raise the question of how much time passed between the publication of Luke and the time Basilides quoted it in the Exgetica. Basilides is neither simply quoting Luke nor using it as raw material for his own retelling of stories from Luke. He is writing an exegetical commentary on the textof Luke here. He quotes a short section of Luke verbatim, then gives his interpretive comment on the quoted text, then quotes the next section of Luke verbatim, etc.

This type of commentary is usually written on texts that had attained a high degree of authority in a particular community, not texts that were just recently published. I don't really know how long it might have taken Luke to become an authoritative text, but it seems to me it would be more than just a year or three.

Best,

Ken

[rgprice]

Alright, then I still tend to think Basilides is best explained as knowing Luke.

And I'm still not clear on what renders proto-Luke more than just a possible hypothesis.

I addressed the issue of Basilides somewhere, but I can't find it. I think my point was that these comments about Basilides are come from a much later source. The implications are way too tenuous. Someone 100-200 years later said that Basilides said something, and we don't even really know for sure when Basilides lived, if what was begin quoted as having been said "by Basilides" was actually said "by Basilides, etc., etc. We don't know exactly what text whoever wrote this may have been using, how it relates to canonical Luke, etc., etc. This is just assumptions stacked on top of assumptions.