This is a response to old posts by Ben but I'm starting a new thread.
The Ebionite Gospel according to Epiphanius began
It came to pass in the days of Herod the king of Judaea <when Caiaphas was high priest> that there came <a certain man> John <by name>, baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan, who was said to be of the lineage of Aaron the priest, child of Zecharias and Elisabeth, and all went out unto him.
This clearly parallels Luke chapter 3 and has been taken as evidence for a version of Luke that began with chapter 3 similar to Marcion's version.
However the idea that John's parents were Zecharias and Elisabeth must derive ultimately from Luke chapter 1. Hence the Gospel of the Ebionites ultimately bears witness to a Luke containing chapter 1 and does not provide additional evidence to Marcion for the omission of chapters 1 and 2.
If the gospel of Mark can introduce Jesus without a pedigree why should we expect any more for minor supporting characters like John's parents? By your logic the brevity of Mark is an argument for Mark's dependence on Matthew.
andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 8:23 amHowever the idea that John's parents were Zecharias and Elisabeth must derive ultimately from Luke chapter 1. Hence the Gospel of the Ebionites ultimately bears witness to a Luke containing chapter 1 and does not provide additional evidence to Marcion for the omission of chapters 1 and 2.
I agree with your first sentence but not necessarily with your second.
Yes, something like Luke 1 (or 1-2) must have inspired the notice of John's parentage; and the rare inclusion of the mother probably signals some degree of importance on her part, which is what we find in the Lucan infancy narrative.
No, I am not sure that the Ebionite witnesses to a unified gospel of Luke. Of all the potential additions to gospel texts, Luke 1-2 seems like one of the most likely to have existed on its own before having been integrated with the gospel. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas demonstrates that the scene of Jesus at the Temple is a fitting end for an infancy gospel.
Something like Luke 1-2 having originally stood on its own would explain both (A) its somewhat early mentions by Basilides and the Gospel of the Ebionites and (B) the roughhewn nature of its connection to the rest of Luke.
So I would not count the Gospel of the Ebionites as evidence of knowledge of Luke 3-24 without knowledge of Luke 1-2, but I also would not tend to count it as a witness for a unified Gospel of Luke.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 8:44 am
If the gospel of Mark can introduce Jesus without a pedigree why should we expect any more for minor supporting characters like John's parents? By your logic the brevity of Mark is an argument for Mark's dependence on Matthew.
The inclusion of the mother in a genealogical notice is pretty rare; when the Matthean genealogy does it, we are able to trace the probable reason for it back to the specific stories of Ruth and the other women listed. Likewise, the mention of Elizabeth for John is, to my mind, best explained by some story in which she plays an important role, and Luke 1 is the easiest explanation we could reach for.
I am writing this on the fly but is your argument that the Gospel of Mark failure to mention Jesus's lineage because it is maternal? So the author of Mark deliberately did not include it because it was embarrassing. That's possible I guess but by no means conclusive. Moreover if the other gospels copied Mark or knew of Mark they likely didn't have these alleged 'liner notes.' They only had the precedent of not including background information and I might add Papias's claim that Mark was incomplete or incorrectly arranged rather than the whole ben Stada business. Bad or incomplete writing had a precedent.
I also draw the readers attention to Against Marcion's complaint that this gospel was 'poorly arranged' because it suddenly introduced John. So suddenly introducing things and poor arrangement had lots of precedent in the early Christian tradition.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Sat Mar 20, 2021 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
From my notes, here is my most recent set of reasons to consider Luke 1-2 as an addition to the Gospel of Luke:
The synchronism at Luke 3.1-2 makes a very good beginning for a gospel text, and at least two other gospel texts, that of Marcion and that of the Ebionites, apparently begin at the same point, and with a very similar synchronism. That of Marcion synchronizes Jesus with Pontius Pilate and Tiberius Caesar; that of the Ebionites synchronizes Jesus with Herod the king of Judea and Caiaphas the high priest.
In Luke 3.2, John the Baptist is introduced with a patronymic ("son of Zacharias") as if for the first time in the gospel. There have been no other Johns mentioned yet that would require this kind of distinction, and Luke 3-24 betrays no knowledge of the detailed events and family connections between Jesus and John in Luke 1-2, not to mention John having already recognized Jesus in the womb in 1.39-45.
The style of Luke 1-2 differs from that of Luke 3-24, with a high Septuagintal tenor throughout, Mary bursting into song at 1.46-55, Zacharias delivering a prophetic oracle at 1.67-79, and righteous Simeon doing something similar at 2.27-32. Even the angels get into the act in 2.13-14. These songs or poems are so distinctive that each one of them has been given an official name based on its opening words (the Magnificat, the Benedictus, the Gloria in Excelsis, and the Nunc Dimittis). Nothing quite like them occurs elsewhere in the gospel of Luke.
Speaking of Simeon, he tells Mary that a sword will pierce her soul at Luke 2.35, which sounds to me very much like an allusion to her anguish at Jesus' death, as implied in John 19.25b-27 and made perfectly explicit in at least one version of the Acts of Pilate. Yet the gospel of Luke lacks any mention of Mary at the cross. Some scholars have suggested that Simeon is referring, rather, to the family divisions characterized precisely as a sword at Matthew 10.34-36, but the version recorded in Luke 12.51-53 speaks of division instead of a sword, thus obscuring the connection if there were any! Thus, the two most obvious referents to the saying at Luke 2.35 find no landing place in Luke 3-24, implying that Luke 1-2 is its own independent unit.
It is somewhat surprising to find the Holy Spirit inspiring people so often in Luke 1-2, namely at 1.15, 41, 67; 2.25, before the Spirit was poured out on people other than Jesus at the feast of Pentecost in Acts 2.1-4, suggesting that Luke 1-2 is independent of what is happening both in Luke 3-24, in which the Holy Spirit is promised to Jesus' followers (3.16; 11.13; 12.12) but not yet said to have been granted to them, and in the book of Acts.
This appearance of independent unity is strengthened by the observation that the infancy gospel of Thomas at 19.1-5 comes to a close at exactly the same narrative spot as Luke 2.41-52 does: at the visit to Jerusalem followed by a notice that Jesus grew in wisdom and stature.
The Lucan genealogy is positioned in the gospel, not during the infancy narrative as one might expect, but rather after the baptism, at 3.23-38. Now, it is possible that Luke may be following the pattern of Exodus 6.14-27, in which Moses' genealogy is given just before he launches his career. However, in most instances in scripture the genealogy of a person leads up to his birth and career, as we find in Matthew 1.1-17, and it seems likely that the genealogy was located in Luke by necessity, the infancy narrative not yet having been prefixed to it.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 10:29 am
I am writing this on the fly but is your argument that the Gospel of Mark failure to mention Jesus's lineage because it is maternal?
No, my argument has nothing to do with what may or may not be absent from Mark. It has to do with what is present in the Gospel of the Ebionites, since that is the detail which bears explaining.
But why does bad writing or bad arrangement need explanation? Why go beyond that? Eif even Papias acknowledges the original evangelists were bad writers. I think Christians like Ben and Andrew have difficulty with the implications of Papias's testimony. If the texts are holy writ, as Nietzsche wrote, why didn't God learn to write better? Mark was poorly arranged. The Gospel of Marcion was poorly arranged (assuming it was a separate text). Why then should we be surprised if the Ebionite gospel - possibly Papias's own gospel - was an improvement but still poorly arranged. The organizer of our canon felt even this gospel needed improvement when he made Matthew or the canonical four. Luke is not earlier than the late second century.
andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 8:23 am
This is a response to old posts by Ben but I'm starting a new thread.
The Ebionite Gospel according to Epiphanius began
It came to pass in the days of Herod the king of Judaea <when Caiaphas was high priest> that there came <a certain man> John <by name>, baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan, who was said to be of the lineage of Aaron the priest, child of Zecharias and Elisabeth, and all went out unto him.
This clearly parallels Luke chapter 3 and has been taken as evidence for a version of Luke that began with chapter 3 similar to Marcion's version.
However the idea that John's parents were Zecharias and Elisabeth must derive ultimately from Luke chapter 1. Hence the Gospel of the Ebionites ultimately bears witness to a Luke containing chapter 1 and does not provide additional evidence to Marcion for the omission of chapters 1 and 2.
Andrew Criddle
Epiphanius is not a credible writer. He claimed that Ebion was the leader of the Ebionites when there was no such person. Eusebius in "Church History" explained the word "Ebionites" is the name given to the poor among the Hebrews.
Church History 3. 27.6
Wherefore, in consequence of such a course they received the name of Ebionites, which signified the poverty of their understanding. For this is the name by which a poor man is called among the Hebrews.
It must also be noted that in Eusebius' Church History it is claimed the Ebionites used ONLY the Gospel of the Hebrews.
Eusebius' Church History 3.27.4.
These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law; and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account of the rest.
Based on Church History the Ebionites would not have been referring to gLuke but ONLY to the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
I agree with Ben on this, but there are actually many possibilities. Luke 1-2 could be dependent on the Ebionite Gospel, or on a common tradition. As Ben says, Luke 1-2 could have stood on its own, or something like it. I do think that Luke 1-2 is dependent on Matthew, but who know how exactly it all came together.
Hence the Gospel of the Ebionites ultimately bears witness to a Luke containing chapter 1 and does not provide additional evidence to Marcion for the omission of chapters 1 and 2.
I'm not sure why this really means. If the Ebionite Gospel was written after gLuke, then what's the issue? As far as I know, the only evidence of the Ebionite Gospel comes form a 4th century work.
I guess the question is, could Luke 3 with a mention of Zechariah exist without Luke 1-2? I don't see why not. To me it could be that Luke 1-2 borrows Zechariah from Luke 3. I wouldn't necessarily think that, but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible.
