Michael BG wrote: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.