Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posteriority?

[Ben C. Smith]

This is not the case in Matthew, Luke and Marcion. These three Gospels use the metaphor of the tree also for the faith of the individuals. (In Luke and Matthew it starts when John declares “the axe is laid to the root of the trees”.)

What word is used for root?

Matthew 3.10	Luke 3.9
10 ἤδη δὲ ἡ ἀξίνη πρὸς τὴν ῥίζαν τῶν δένδρων κεῖται· πᾶν οὖν δένδρον μὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλὸν ἐκκόπτεται καὶ εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται.	9 ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἡ ἀξίνη πρὸς τὴν ῥίζαν τῶν δένδρων κεῖται· πᾶν οὖν δένδρον μὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλὸν ἐκκόπτεται καὶ εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται.
10 But already the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree, therefore, not making good fruit is cut off and cast into the fire.	9 But already the axe is also laid to the root of the trees. Every tree, therefore, not making good fruit is cut off and cast into the fire.

This is the Greek word that gives us the English term rhizome.

Ben.

[Michael BG]

With regard to Lk 21:29-33

Is it possible that the whole section is based on Luke or an earlier version that is lost? The Marcion editor may have edited the Luke’s verse 32, or could have been in a lost earlier version? If we accept that Luke used Mark, then to provide a strong case that Marcion used Luke we need to find examples of Marcion including Luke’s redaction of Mark. Luke has “all the trees” and so does Marcion but Mark does not. Luke has “Kingdom of God is near” but Mark does not, but Marcion has edited Luke’s redaction into “God’s Kingdom is near” (no longer at the doors or gates). Therefore it is clear that Marcion includes Lucan redaction of Mark and can only be based on an earlier text if Luke didn’t use Mark.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

However, we find a somewhat unusual situation when we come to Matthew 24.32-34 = Mark 13.28-30 = Luke 21.29-31. These three parallel passages are laid out in the following table, alongside the Marcionite version of the same passage, for comparison:

Matthew 24.32-34 (NASB).	Mark 13.28-30 (NASB).	Luke 21.29-31 (NASB).	Luke 21.29-31 (Marcion).
32 “Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know [γινώσκετε] that summer is near; 33 so, you too [οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς], when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I say to you, this generation [ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη] will not pass away until all these things take place.	28 “Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know [γινώσκετε] that summer is near. 29 Even so, you too [οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς], when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. 30 Truly I say to you, this generation [ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη] will not pass away until all these things take place.	29 Then He told them a parable: “Behold the fig tree and all the trees; 30 as soon as they put forth leaves, you see it and know [γινώσκετε] for yourselves that summer is now near. 31 So you also [οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς], when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near. 32 Truly I say to you, this generation [ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη] will not pass away until all things take place.	29 {He told them} a parable. “See the fig tree and all the trees. 30 When they are budding forth fruit, men know [γινώσκουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι] that the summer is nearing. 31 Even so you also [οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς], when you see these things happening, know that God’s Kingdom is near. 32 ...the heaven and the earth [ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ] will not pass away except all things be accomplished.

The close verbal similarities are indicative of the usual textual interrelationships amongst the synoptic gospels. In this case, however, to what is the emphatic you also comparing itself in the preceding material? The previous line affirms that you know that summer is near; it seems quite redundant to now emphatically say: "So you also recognize that he is at the door." You is awkwardly being compared to you. (The "also" might be explained as leading to a new action required of the readers: you read fig trees just fine, so now you ought also to read the signs of the times. But the emphatic ὑμεῖς does not easily yield to this explanation.)

The Marcionite version, however, has miscellaneous men (humans) as the subject of the previous clause, and after such a construction the emphatic you also makes perfect sense: just as men read the signs of the times, so you also should read the signs of the times. It looks to me as if the Marcionite gospel preserves the more original wording of this saying; at some point in the transmission, the miscellaneous "men" who know about fig trees was changed into "you" knowing about fig trees, with the result that the emphatic you also of the next verse now looks out of place. This points to the priority of the gospel that Marcion published, edited, or created with respect to the synoptics.

I think that the "summer" looks out of place in Matthew, Luke and Marcion

Matthew 21:19	Mark 11:13	Luke 13:6	Marcion
And seeing a fig tree by the wayside, he went to it and found nothing on it but only leaves. And he said to it ...	And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.	A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. And he said to the vinedresser,	omitted

[Ben C. Smith]

With regard to Lk 21:29-33

Is it possible that the whole section is based on Luke or an earlier version that is lost? The Marcion editor may have edited the Luke’s verse 32, or could have been in a lost earlier version?

What I suspect, and what I am presenting those verses as evidence for, is that there is a lost earlier version of Luke - a proto-Luke of some kind, if you will - which Marcion edited into the Marcionite version and somebody else edited into the canonical version. In the process, both editors made separate and different changes.

If we accept that Luke used Mark, then to provide a strong case that Marcion used Luke we need to find examples of Marcion including Luke’s redaction of Mark. Luke has “all the trees” and so does Marcion but Mark does not. Luke has “Kingdom of God is near” but Mark does not, but Marcion has edited Luke’s redaction into “God’s Kingdom is near” (no longer at the doors or gates).

This process begins to be problematic. You are basically comparing our extant Luke to our extant Mark, mentally removing whatever is found in Mark, and calling what is left Lucan redaction, correct? So, because Luke has "all the trees" but Mark does not, "all the trees" must be Lucan redaction, correct?

But imagine, if you will, that we did not possess the gospel of Mark. (Matthew swallowed Mark nearly whole to the extent where I think that this actually came somewhat close to happening!) You are looking at Luke 4.38 and comparing it to Matthew 8.14: Luke has changed Peter to Simon, and has added a clause in which Jesus is asked about the his sick mother-in-law. Those must be Lucan redaction... except that they are not; they actually come from Mark. Because you do not have Mark in hand, however, you have no way of knowing that they come from Mark.

In other words, the only way you can tell what is and what is not Lucan redaction is to assume that we already have all the texts, extant and in hand, relevant to the matter at hand. But in this case the very question happens to be: is there a lost text standing behind Marcion and canonical Luke? One cannot logically use data gleaned on the assumption that no lost text matters to try to answer this question.

This observation leads to the natural response to your final assertion:

Therefore it is clear that Marcion includes Lucan redaction of Mark and can only be based on an earlier text if Luke didn’t use Mark.

All is equally explained if proto-Luke used Mark. Let us assume this FTSOA, and also that both Marcion and canonical Luke used proto-Luke. Here are Marcion and canonical Luke, with a hypothetical proto-Luke in the middle for comparison:

Canonical Luke	Proto-Luke	Marcionite Gospel
29 He told them a parable. “See the fig tree and all the trees. 30 When they are already budding, you see it and know by your own selves that the summer is already near. 31 Even so you also, when you see these things happening, know that God’s Kingdom is near. 32 Most certainly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all things are accomplished.	He told them a parable. “See the fig tree and all the trees. 30 When they are budding, men see it and know that the summer is near. 31 Even so you also, when you see these things happening, know that God’s Kingdom is near. 32 This generation will not pass away until all things are accomplished.	29 He told them a parable. “See the fig tree and all the trees. 30 When they are budding forth fruit, men know that the summer is nearing. 31 Even so you also, when you see these things happening, know that God’s Kingdom is near. 32 Heaven and earth will not pass away except all things be accomplished.

Additions to our hypothetical proto-Luke are underlined, while changes in wording are italicized. The two key changes under discussion are highlighted.

This hypothetical scenario explains both Bernard's observation about "heaven and earth" (versus "this generation") and my observation about "so also you" following a third-person better than a second-person construction.

It also keeps intact the assumption that somebody redacted Mark; but that somebody was proto-Luke, not canonical Luke. (We do not even have to make that assumption, since one might go back and argue that Mark redacted proto-Luke and canonical Luke conflated both Mark and proto-Luke. But never mind that; that is not my argument. I am simply saying that arguing from redactional material requires knowing that what we have is truly redactional, and lost texts can throw a wrench in those works.)

I am arguing that the conflicting indicators of priority (sometimes Marcion looks more primitive, sometimes canonical Luke) argue for a scenario similar to this.

Ben.

[Peter Kirby]

In diagram form:



To the extent that we can evaluate this, we can look at the complete triple claim (and what we assume to be more-plausible predictions of the model) and/or go after one or both points explained by the hypothesis (which were treated as convincing and reliable information leading to the hypothesis explaining them):

1) What is the supposed Deutero-Mark text?

a) Why did Deutero-Mark change Mark this way? Is it convincing, in particulars and in total?
b) Why did Evangelion change Deutero-Mark this way? Is it convincing, in particulars and in total?
c) Why did Luke change Deutero-Mark this way? Is it convincing, in particulars and in total?

2) Is the initial basis for suggesting the hypothesis sound? Is that which it is invoked to explain, true in the first place?

a) Are there convincing instances where elements of the extant Luke appear to be derived from the extant Evangelion?
b) Are there convincing instances where elements of the extant Evangelion appear to be derived from the extant Luke?

3) Lastly, we can ask whether any other hypothesis answers such queries about their implications and value as explanations any better.

[Michael BG]

With regard to Lk 21:29-33

Therefore it is clear that Marcion includes Lucan redaction of Mark and can only be based on an earlier text if Luke didn’t use Mark.

All is equally explained if proto-Luke used Mark. Let us assume this FTSOA, and also that both Marcion and canonical Luke used proto-Luke.

But this doesn’t contradict what I wrote. If you assume that Luke did not use Mark then you can easily assume that there is another gospel behind both Marcion and Luke say Proto-Luke-Marcion. My argument was based on the assumption that Luke used Mark and therefore Luke edits Mark and if these edits appear in Marcion then Marcion is based on Luke.

If you assume that Proto-Luke-Marcion used Mark and then both Marcion and Luke used it, then you are left with a Q like document. For whenever Marcion and Luke disagree either one of them has the earlier version or both have changed the earlier version and you can weigh the evidence on each one, much as scholars do with Q, finding sometimes Luke has the older tradition and sometimes Matthew or in this case Marcion.

So by rejecting an appeal to Mark you wish me to ignore it, but I find this difficult. If you are assuming Mark is a source for Proto-Luke-Marcion then we know that Mark is most likely to have the earlier tradition.

We can see that the Marcion text or its predecessor has edited the older Marcan tradition by
changing “you know” to “men know” adding “all the trees” and “the Kingdom of God is near” (no longer at the doors or gates) and editing the last two verses of Mark from “[30] Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place. [31] Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (RSV) to “32 [-32b] Verily I say unto you, The heaven and the earth shall in no wise pass away, till all things be accomplished
33 The heaven and the earth shall pass away: but my words shall in no wise pass away.” (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... cion5.html) assuming both are there.

(I found two translations of Marcion but both do not have “men” in verse 29. I have gone back to your text and found this:

“Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.39.16: [16] In summa ipsius parabolae considera exempluna. Aspice ficum et arbores omnes: cum fructum protulerint, intellegunt homines aestatem appropinquasse; sic et vos cum videritis haec fieri, scitote in proximo esse regnum dei. Si enim fructificationes arbuscularum signum aestivo tempori praestant, antecedendo illud, proinde conflictationes orbis signum praenotant regni, praecedendo illud. Omne autem signum eius est <cuius et> res cuius est signum, et omni rei ab eo imponitur signum cuius est res. / [16] Reflect, in short, on the picture presented in the parable: "Behold the fig-tree, and all the trees; when they produce their fruit, men know that summer is at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is very near." Now, if the fructification of the common trees be an antecedent sign of the approach of summer, so in like manner do the great conflicts of the world indicate the arrival of that kingdom which they precede. But every sign is His, to whom belong the thing of which it is the sign; and to everything is appointed its sign by Him to whom the thing belongs.”

Is the Latin “intellegunt homines aestatem appropinquass”?

Can this be translated as “know men summer come near”

Which you translate as “men know that the summer is nearing” and I would translate as “men know that summer is coming near”.)

Have you considered that “men” is here because Luke has it earlier? Luke has (Lk 21:26 RSV) “men fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.” The whole verse is not in Mark. (I remember reading in a book by David Catchpole that in John’s gospel the officer’s son caught his fever from Peter’s mother-in-law in Matthew.) Marcion may have moved “men” from here or used it twice.

[Ben C. Smith]

But this doesn’t contradict what I wrote. If you assume that Luke did not use Mark then you can easily assume that there is another gospel behind both Marcion and Luke say Proto-Luke-Marcion. My argument was based on the assumption that Luke used Mark and therefore Luke edits Mark and if these edits appear in Marcion then Marcion is based on Luke.

I do not think I fully understood the thrust of what you were trying to say before. It now seems like you are arguing that, if "men" is the more primitive version of the verse, then that makes the Marcionite gospel (or the proto-gospel that Marcion adopted) more primitive on this point than all of them: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And yes, that is a consequence of the argument that has to be dealt with at some point.

If you assume that Proto-Luke-Marcion used Mark and then both Marcion and Luke used it, then you are left with a Q like document. For whenever Marcion and Luke disagree either one of them has the earlier version or both have changed the earlier version and you can weigh the evidence on each one, much as scholars do with Q, finding sometimes Luke has the older tradition and sometimes Matthew or in this case Marcion.

Sure. Arguments for or about any nonextant proto-text hypothesized as a source for 2+ extant texts are going to bear some resemblances to arguments for or about Q.

(I found two translations of Marcion but both do not have “men” in verse 29. I have gone back to your text and found this:

“Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.39.16: [16] In summa ipsius parabolae considera exempluna. Aspice ficum et arbores omnes: cum fructum protulerint, intellegunt homines aestatem appropinquasse; sic et vos cum videritis haec fieri, scitote in proximo esse regnum dei. Si enim fructificationes arbuscularum signum aestivo tempori praestant, antecedendo illud, proinde conflictationes orbis signum praenotant regni, praecedendo illud. Omne autem signum eius est <cuius et> res cuius est signum, et omni rei ab eo imponitur signum cuius est res. / [16] Reflect, in short, on the picture presented in the parable: "Behold the fig-tree, and all the trees; when they produce their fruit, men know that summer is at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is very near." Now, if the fructification of the common trees be an antecedent sign of the approach of summer, so in like manner do the great conflicts of the world indicate the arrival of that kingdom which they precede. But every sign is His, to whom belong the thing of which it is the sign; and to everything is appointed its sign by Him to whom the thing belongs.”

Is the Latin “intellegunt homines aestatem appropinquasse”?

Can this be translated as “know men summer come near”

Woodenly, yes. (It is okay to rearrange the words to their more standard order in the target language and still call it a translation.)

Which you translate as “men know that the summer is nearing” and I would translate as “men know that summer is coming near”.)

Have you considered that “men” is here because Luke has it earlier? Luke has (Lk 21:26 RSV) “men fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.” The whole verse is not in Mark. (I remember reading in a book by David Catchpole that in John’s gospel the officer’s son caught his fever from Peter’s mother-in-law in Matthew.) Marcion may have moved “men” from here or used it twice.

I doubt there is any connection there. The men in 21.26 are specific men: those who are witnessing the end. The men in 21.30 in the Marcionite version are generic: anyone who uses plants to follow the seasons.

Ben.

[Michael BG]

With reference to Mark and the Proto-Luke-Marcion, do you concede that as it used Mark, it added “men” and therefore “men” is not an older tradition that the “you” of Mark?

When quoting from the Greek I often do it in what you call as “woodenly” before rearranging and adding English grammar not in the text, which is what I did with the Latin. I think it is helpful as often the English translation in Bibles can move away from the literal foreign language.)

I doubt there is any connection there. The men in 21.26 are specific men: those who are witnessing the end. The men in 21.30 in the Marcionite version are generic: anyone who uses plants to follow the seasons.

Ben.

I can agree with you that “men” in 21:30 are generic men as in humans generally, but isn’t Luke still talking about the “signs” seen by humankind? Mark and Luke both have “they” as in those alive at the time of the end in 21:27, but Luke in verse 25 is talking about “signs” unlike Mark and then has “And then” in verse 27 meaning after the period of time in verse 26. Verse 27 is the end of time and verse 26 is before the end of time.

I think that to present a case against the idea of a Proto-Luke-Marcion, I need to look at where Marcion deviates from Luke and consider if there might be a case for the Marcion version to be earlier than Luke and if there is provide another reason why Marcion appears older.

I can’t see any benefit to a case against a Proto-Luke-Marcion from discussing where it might have started or Lk 4:23.

I think the first difference in wording is at Luke 4:31-34

“[31] And he went down to Caper'na-um, a city of Galilee. And he was teaching them on the sabbath;
[32] and they were astonished at his teaching, for his word was with authority.
[33] And in the synagogue there was a man who had the spirit of an unclean demon; and he cried out with a loud voice,
[34] "Ah! What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God."
[35] But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent, and come out of him!" And when the demon had thrown him down in the midst, he came out of him, having done him no harm.”

I think your reconstruction of Marcion is:

"31 He came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee. He was teaching (them) in the synagogue, 32 but they were all astonished at his teaching, for his word was with authority. 34! what have we to do with you, Jesus ~of Nazareth~? Have you come to destroy us? I know you who you are: the Holy One of God!” 35 Jesus rebuked him,"

There is nothing of significance in Marcion which isn’t in Luke. Therefore I think the Lucan version is likely what would have been in the Proto-Luke-Marcion if it existed. Do you agree?

[Ben C. Smith]

With reference to Mark and the Proto-Luke-Marcion, do you concede that as it used Mark, it added “men” and therefore “men” is not an older tradition that the “you” of Mark?

No, not at all. I mean, that may very well be the case, but I am not conceding it or committing to it in any way, since it looks to me like "men" is the original reading, no matter which texts are involved. If at the end of a long investigation I find that this is the only indication, or one of the only indications, of Marcion having a more primitive reading than Mark, then I will indeed probably surrender it as a fluke. Any one single directional observation like this may be a fluke. But in collecting them for analysis I have to call each one what it appears to be, and "men" appears to be more original than "you" (that is, it is easy to explain why "men" was changed to "you" - basically for the stronger effect I described and gave parallels to in another post - but not easy to explain why an author freely composing would write "you" in this context, as a contrast for yet another "you").

While I am pretty convinced that canonical Luke drew either from canonical Mark or from something very much like it, I am not so certain about what we might find out about our hypothetical proto-Luke. So all avenues have to be left open until the data are in.

Also, it has long been the custom to compare the synoptic three with each other, only those three, until all the patterns align and pronouncements are made about who copied from whom and what is tradition and what is redaction and so forth, and only then to look outside of those three gospels at all the other gospel texts to see how they might fit into the pattern. So we find a verse in the Didache (only one, as it happens) that very much looks like a verse in Luke as opposed to a verse in Matthew or Mark, and the automatic conclusion is that the Didache copied this verse from Luke. Why? Because it was already decided, in the only three gospels phase of the investigation, that Luke added that verse to his reworking of Mark; therefore it is Lucan redaction; the Didache contains this Lucan redaction; therefore the Didache knew Luke.

I think this approach is all wrong. I think that all of the gospel texts, as well as texts with gospel details, that might qualify as early ought to be considered together before pronouncements are made about the various interrelationships and the traditional or redactional status of individual units.

When quoting from the Greek I often do it in what you call as “woodenly” before rearranging and adding English grammar not in the text, which is what I did with the Latin. I think it is helpful as often the English translation in Bibles can move away from the literal foreign language.)

My translations are often a bit wooden, so to speak, precisely in order to catch the wording of the Greek.

I can agree with you that “men” in 21:30 are generic men as in humans generally, but isn’t Luke still talking about the “signs” seen by humankind? Mark and Luke both have “they” as in those alive at the time of the end in 21:27, but Luke in verse 25 is talking about “signs” unlike Mark and then has “And then” in verse 27 meaning after the period of time in verse 26. Verse 27 is the end of time and verse 26 is before the end of time.

Sidebar: That Greek word τότε does not have to mean "then" in the sense of "after"; it can mean "then" in the sense of "at that time", simultaneously. I have seen some weird arguments mounted by people who insist that τότε has to signal the next thing in line.

Thing is, none of your observations take away from the awkwardness of saying that "you" already do something, and then "so also you" should do something else.

I can’t see any benefit to a case against a Proto-Luke-Marcion from discussing where it might have started or Lk 4:23.

The argument is simply that Luke itself (canonical Luke) looks like it once started at 3.1. It is an observation that has been made countless times in the history of critical scholarship. So... might not Marcion have been based on a version that lacked Luke 1-2? By definition, that version would be a kind of proto-Luke.

I think the first difference in wording is at Luke 4:31-34

“[31] And he went down to Caper'na-um, a city of Galilee. And he was teaching them on the sabbath;
[32] and they were astonished at his teaching, for his word was with authority.
[33] And in the synagogue there was a man who had the spirit of an unclean demon; and he cried out with a loud voice,
[34] "Ah! What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God."
[35] But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent, and come out of him!" And when the demon had thrown him down in the midst, he came out of him, having done him no harm.”

I think your reconstruction of Marcion is:

"31 He came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee. He was teaching (them) in the synagogue, 32 but they were all astonished at his teaching, for his word was with authority. 34! what have we to do with you, Jesus ~of Nazareth~? Have you come to destroy us? I know you who you are: the Holy One of God!” 35 Jesus rebuked him,"

There is nothing of significance in Marcion which isn’t in Luke. Therefore I think the Lucan version is likely what would have been in the Proto-Luke-Marcion if it existed. Do you agree?

Maybe. The unattested verses are just that: unattested. We have no direct way of knowing whether the unattested verses were in the Marcionite gospel or not.

Ben.

[Michael BG]

With reference to Mark and the Proto-Luke-Marcion, do you concede that as it used Mark, it added “men” and therefore “men” is not an older tradition that the “you” of Mark?

No, not at all. I mean, that may very well be the case, but I am not conceding it or committing to it in any way, since it looks to me like "men" is the original reading, no matter which texts are involved. If at the end of a long investigation I find that this is the only indication, or one of the only indications, of Marcion having a more primitive reading than Mark, then I will indeed probably surrender it as a fluke. Any one single directional observation like this may be a fluke. But in collecting them for analysis I have to call each one what it appears to be, and "men" appears to be more original than "you" (that is, it is easy to explain why "men" was changed to "you" - basically for the stronger effect I described and gave parallels to in another post - but not easy to explain why an author freely composing would write "you" in this context, as a contrast for yet another "you").

OK.

I can agree with you that “men” in 21:30 are generic men as in humans generally, but isn’t Luke still talking about the “signs” seen by humankind? Mark and Luke both have “they” as in those alive at the time of the end in 21:27, but Luke in verse 25 is talking about “signs” unlike Mark and then has “And then” in verse 27 meaning after the period of time in verse 26. Verse 27 is the end of time and verse 26 is before the end of time.

Sidebar: That Greek word τότε does not have to mean "then" in the sense of "after"; it can mean "then" in the sense of "at that time", simultaneously. I have seen some weird arguments mounted by people who insist that τότε has to signal the next thing in line.

When you say “does not have to mean” are you saying it can be translated as "then" in the sense of "after"?

It seems odd to translate those verses as:

“And there will be signs … men fainting etc. at that which is coming … And “at that time” they will see the Son of Man”. This would mean that the Son of Man will come at the same time as the signs are seen.

Thing is, none of your observations take away from the awkwardness of saying that "you" already do something, and then "so also you" should do something else.

I can’t see any benefit to a case against a Proto-Luke-Marcion from discussing where it might have started or Lk 4:23.

The argument is simply that Luke itself (canonical Luke) looks like it once started at 3.1. It is an observation that has been made countless times in the history of critical scholarship. So... might not Marcion have been based on a version that lacked Luke 1-2? By definition, that version would be a kind of proto-Luke.

Why would I want to discuss “οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς”, which is in Mark and Luke? It is not a Marcion variation and cannot be used as evidence of older tradition.

How does a “might” prove either way what was in Proto-Luke-Marcion? And even if I provide evidence that Luke’s resurrection stories fit with his birth narratives how would that disprove a Proto-Luke-Marcion?

The unattested verses are just that: unattested. We have no direct way of knowing whether the unattested verses were in the Marcionite gospel or not.

We can only discuss what we have.

I think the next difference is Lk 5:24 (RSV)

‘But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" -- he said to the man who was paralyzed -- "I say to you, rise, take up your bed and go home."’

For Marcion you have:

“But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins(,) arise, and take up your mat.”

“κλινιδιον” the word Luke has, could be translated as “little couch”. Mark has “κραβαττον”, which is normally translated as pallet. Strongs says “probably of foreign origin”. Matthew has “κλινην”, which means “couch”. Tertullian seems to have “Exsurge, et tolle dicturi erant,” (Rise, and take up he said to be) – “He said, Rise and take up to live”. So where is the couch or bed or mat? Is it assumed?

I expected that Tertullian was using a word that came from Mark’s pallet. Matthew uses “κλινην” in Mt 9:2 as does Luke in 5:18.

Mark is the earlier tradition and we just do not know what Marcion had here.