Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posteriority?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 3308
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by John2 » Fri Aug 28, 2015 1:43 pm

Ben wrote:

"Between the arguments concerning Papias in MacDonald and those concerning Marcion in various others, I have to admit that it is looking more and more to me like Luke-Acts (the version with Luke 1-2, including the Lucan prologue) postdates both Papias and Marcion. I am still sifting through the arguments, and of course this conclusion does not mean that all or even most of the materials that make up Luke-Acts postdate Papias and Marcion, but the position has some definite benefits and explanatory power."

I'm not into Marcion but I'm following this discussion with interest. One thing that comes to mind concerning Stephen's idea that Marcion was Jewish is Cerinthus. While we have less information about him than we do about Marcion and he was earlier than Marcion, Church fathers mention his connection (real or imagined) to Jewish Christians and attack him for this. So I'm thinking if there was even a hint of a connection between Marcion and Jewish Christianity (or Judaism) someone would have likewise said something about it.

The biggest thing that comes to mind though is Luke's use of Josephus, which I consider bedrock for the dating and structure of Luke and Acts. It would seem weird if there was an original Luke without the prologue given that its reference to Theophilus (ala Josephus' Epaphroditus) is a key component of Luke's use of Josephus that is echoed in Acts 1:1 ("The former treatise I made, O Theophilus ...").
Last edited by John2 on Fri Aug 28, 2015 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Look at the sky, look at the river, isn't it good? Winding, finding places to go.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3320
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri Aug 28, 2015 1:51 pm

to Ben,
It looks to me Dennis R. MacDonald is trying to be trendy and attempting to fuse long-time accepted ideas with new ones: gLuke late, therefore after Marcion and "Luke knew about gMatthew also.
And I wonder what "Luke" would borrow from Papias.
Of course, DRM thinks the logias of Matthew in Papias' writing refer to Matthew's gospel. I think he is wrong here.
By definition of Q, "Mark" did not know about it, but the Q authors knew about gMark, so "Matthew, so "Luke" (but only gMark minus the great omission).
By the way Ben, since you make a point to buy expensive books, why don't you read my website also?
More so the pages on "Q" http://historical-jesus.info/q.html,
the great omission http://historical-jesus.info/appf.html,
dating the gospels http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html (with a part about Papias).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7505
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Aug 28, 2015 2:59 pm

John2 wrote:I'm not into Marcion but I'm following this discussion with interest. One thing that comes to mind concerning Stephen's idea that Marcion was Jewish is Cerinthus. While we have less information about him than we do about Marcion and he was earlier than Marcion, Church fathers mention his connection (real or imagined) to Jewish Christians and attack him for this. So I'm thinking if there was even a hint of a connection between Marcion and Jewish Christianity (or Judaism) someone would have likewise said something about it.
I am still thinking about the possible connection of Marcion to Judaism. Not sure on any of that yet.
The biggest thing that comes to mind though is Luke's use of Josephus, which I consider bedrock for the dating and structure of Luke and Acts. It would seem weird if there was an original Luke without the prologue given that its reference to Theophilus (ala Josephus' Epaphroditus) is a key component of Luke's use of Josephus that is echoed in Acts 1:1 ("The former treatise I made, O Theophilus ...").
Good point. I too tend to think that Luke-Acts postdates Josephus.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7505
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Aug 28, 2015 3:12 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:It looks to me Dennis R. MacDonald is trying to be trendy and attempting to fuse long-time accepted ideas with new ones: gLuke late, therefore after Marcion and Luke knew about gMatthew also.
Trendy? That sounds like a psychoanalytic ad hominem. To be perfectly predictable, I honestly do not care whether he is being trendy or not; I care about how well his arguments explain the data.
And I wonder what "Luke" would borrow from Papias.
The death of Judas, for one thing. The type of preface he uses, for another. But I have not even finished reading the entire book yet, so I do not want to get into all of that here and now.
Of course, DRM thinks the logias of Matthew in Papias' writing refer to Matthew's gospel. I think he is wrong here.
That is not what he thinks at all. Matthew is Matthew. The logia are what he calls The Logoi of Jesus, or Q+. Wikipedia has an article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q%2B/Papias_Hypothesis. It includes a chart.
By definition of Q, "Mark" did not know about it, but the Q authors knew about gMark, so "Matthew, so "Luke" (but only gMark minus the great omission).
That is indeed the original definition of Q, but MacDonald calls his hypothetical document Q+, which is different. Even if you hate the lingo, the arguments that lie below it may still have merit.
By the way Ben, since you make a point to buy expensive books, why don't you read my website also?
More so the pages on "Q" http://historical-jesus.info/q.html,
the great omission http://historical-jesus.info/appf.html,
dating the gospels http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html (with a part about Papias).
I have already read (most of) the second and third of your links. Just because I write things that disagree with you on dating or on the formation of the synoptic gospels does not mean I have not read your arguments; it simply means that I disagree with your arguments. (You should be somewhat used to that by now ;).)

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3320
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:56 pm

to Ben,
The death of Judas, for one thing.
Papias:
"Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out."
Acts:
"Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood."


Here, I think that Papias was trying, as an apologist, to explain the death of Judas, as told by 'Acts': how could someone, even very fat, can have his bowels gushed out by just falling on the ground?
Papias brought a solution, but rather awkward & introducing more problems: Judas got stuck and was crushed by a chariot.
How could someone be so wide, and a chariot so fast on a narrow trail?
But that looks like a typical apologist explanation for a "difficult" passage and suggesting that 'Acts' (& therefore gLuke) was written before Papias' times.

The direction here is a lot more likely 'Acts' => Papias than the reverse.
That is not what he thinks at all. Matthew is Matthew. The logia are what he calls The Logoi of Jesus, or Q+. Wikipedia has an article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q%2B/Papias_Hypothesis. It includes a chart.
I bothered to inquire before I wrote my previous post and therefore I already knew about MacDonald's ideas, which are not like mine.

You still should read my piece on Q.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3320
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri Aug 28, 2015 8:38 pm

Good point. I too tend to think that Luke-Acts postdates Josephus.
Yes, the author of Luke-Acts knew about Josephus, but only his 'Wars', and not his 'Antiquities':
http://historical-jesus.info/58.html
http://historical-jesus.info/59.html

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7505
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Aug 28, 2015 8:51 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Good point. I too tend to think that Luke-Acts postdates Josephus.
Yes, the author of Luke-Acts knew about Josephus, but only his 'Wars', and not his 'Antiquities':
http://historical-jesus.info/58.html
http://historical-jesus.info/59.html
Yes, I am aware of your arguments in that arena. Thanks. One issue at a time here. :)

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1814
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by andrewcriddle » Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:05 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:Another possible indicator of Marcionite priority over Luke is the apparent anonymity of the former compared to the title of the latter. Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.2.3a:

Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert the very body.

As Mark Goodacre points out in his Dating Game series:

The more blatant signs, though, of the relative lateness of John and Thomas lie in their attempts at authorial self-representation. Where earlier Gospels like Mark and Matthew are anonymous and avoid attempting to project an authorial presence to lend authority to their work, the author of the Fourth Gospel makes claims to have been present, most notably in 19.35 and of course 21.24, “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and wrote them down (καὶ ὁ γράψας ταῦτα). We know that his testimony is true,” similar in style and literary function to the Incipit of Thomas, “These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.” .... There is a trajectory among these early Christian texts, from the absence of authorial self-representation in Mark and Matthew, to hints in Luke and Acts (with the first person found in Luke 1.1-4 as well as in the “we” passages in Acts), to the marked but nevertheless still unnamed authorial presence in John, to the explicit self-representation of Didymos Judas Thomas in its Gospel’s Incipit, a naming that also leads the reader to pay special attention to Thomas 13.

Perhaps Marcion had reasons for not giving his gospel a good apostolic title like the canonical four (and many others); but maybe it is more likely that his gospel hailed from the days before those titles gained currency; his gospel persisted in its anonymity while others were gaining attributions left and right.

SInce Marcion and Luke are interconnected in some special way, it also seems to me to be a bit of a coincidence that Luke, a purported companion to Paul, should be the choice of gospel text; if Marcion followed canonical Luke and chose Luke to mutilate rather than Matthew or Mark or John or whatnot, then it seems odd that it would have nothing to do with the name of Luke. Yet, if it did have something to do with the name of Luke, why not retain the name? Why strip the name off of it?

Again, maybe Marcion had his reasons. But, on the other hand, maybe the trajectory is simple: Marcion actually chose his gospel, some kind of anonymous proto-Luke simply because he was familiar with it, perhaps from Pontus. The Catholics took his gospel and turned it into canonical Luke precisely in order to counter Marcion. This trajectory follows the pattern outlined by Goodacre above (from anonymous to named) and also explains why the Marcionite gospel would be associated with a companion of Paul while still remaining anonymous: the anonymity came first, and the name of Luke was attached later.

(Bernard, I know you will not agree with any of the indicators I have posted recently, since they lean toward Marcionite priority; but do you know of any other examples for Marcionite posteriority? You have given 2 so far, I think, and I have added 1. But, if there are more, I would love to have them.)

Ben.
From the point of view of the priority of Luke-Acts.

Marcion was required as part of his agenda to delete the first few chapters of Luke from his gospel and disconnect it from Acts. This would automatically remove the hints of authorship which we find in canonical Luke-Acts.

Andrew Criddle

maryhelena
Posts: 1585
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by maryhelena » Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:26 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Good point. I too tend to think that Luke-Acts postdates Josephus.
Yes, the author of Luke-Acts knew about Josephus, but only his 'Wars', and not his 'Antiquities':
http://historical-jesus.info/58.html
http://historical-jesus.info/59.html

Cordially, Bernard
Both gMark and gMatthew have Herodias married to Philip prior to a marriage to Herod/Antipas. This marriage is upheld by material in Slavonic Josephus.

(Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison
H. Leeming (Editor), K. Leeming (Editor) page 259.)

gLuke drops the name of Philip as a previous husband of Herodias. Why? Antiquities tells a different story....that indicates to me that the author of gLuke was aware of Antiquities and followed Josephus in his update of the gMark and gMatthew Herodias story.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2815
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by DCHindley » Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:47 am

maryhelena wrote:
Bernard Muller wrote:
Ben wrote:Good point. I too tend to think that Luke-Acts postdates Josephus.
Yes, the author of Luke-Acts knew about Josephus, but only his 'Wars', and not his 'Antiquities':
http://historical-jesus.info/58.html
http://historical-jesus.info/59.html
Both gMark and gMatthew have Herodias married to Philip prior to a marriage to Herod/Antipas.
[...]
gLuke drops the name of Philip as a previous husband of Herodias. Why? Antiquities tells a different story....that indicates to me that the author of gLuke was aware of Antiquities and followed Josephus in his update of the gMark and gMatthew Herodias story.
At that point, none of the canonical gospels were considered "scripture", and a reader/hearer could feel that some facts in them could be wrong, that is, if s/he were even aware of this fact.

Consequently, the lack of the husband's name in gLuke does not prove borrowing from Josephus' Antiquities, but only that s/he may have thought the name was different than the Philip of Mark/Matthew. Alternately, the author of gLuke could have been aware of traditions in which the husband of this Herodias had a different name.

All we can say for sure is that s/he just wasn't sure it was Philip.

:goodmorning:

Post Reply