rgprice wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:17 am
@Ken
Again, can you demonstrate that canonical Luke harmonized proto-Luke with Matthew in particular cases? Or distinguish between the contents of Proto-Luke and Canonical Luke?
Yes, but I'm not going to go into extensive detail here.
But you could if you wanted to?
I'll explain the outline of it.
Anyone can make an outline of a viable source theory. Stephen Carlson outlines some of the major source theories here:
http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-pr ... tions.html
Unfortunately, the link to his 1,488 viable synoptic theories appears to be down.
Lots of people hold minority views on the correct solution to the synoptic problem and think that the reason it hasn't been solved yet is that other people have not yet realized their solution is correct. (I know, I'm one of them).
The devil is in the details. This is one of those "show your work to get full credit" situations.
We start with the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel used by Marcion was derived from Mark. From Marcion's Gospel proto-Luke was derived, which mostly just modifies what we now see as Luke 3 & 4. This was the addition of the genealogy to Marcion's Gospel, along with the baptism of Jesus, etc.
So we have Mark, which has a a baptism scene, then Marcion's gospel, which is dependent on Mark and omitted it, and a hypothetical proto-Luke which restored the baptism? How do you know Marcion's gospel didn't omit the baptism and other early material from Luke, if it omitted the baptism and temptation from Mark?
Matthew makes use of proto-Luke and Mark. So proto-Luke is almost the same as Marcion's Gospel, with some additional material to what we call Luke 3 & 4. The additional material was anti-Marcionite in nature, hence the genealogy, etc. Matthew saw this and thought it a good idea to make a full fledged counter to Marcion's Gospel taking ideas from proto-Luke and harmonizing them with Mark. Matthew made his whole own birth story derived from the genealogy in proto-Luke.
What does "anti-Marcionite in nature" mean? Doesn't Mark already have stuff that's anti-Marcionite in nature, like Jesus' mother and brothers and sisters? It does not seem that any material not congenial to Marcion would have to be explained as a reaction against Marcion on your assumptions.
And can you demonstrate that Matthew made his whole birth story on the basis of the genealogy from proto-Luke (is that the same genealogy as in canonical Luke?), because I'm really curious about that.
Then Luke came along, he had probably read Matthew and got the idea of a counter Gospel from him, and he also wanted to make an anti-Marcionite work, comprised of both a counter Gospel and a counter to Marcion's Apostolikon, i.e. Acts. Essentially a counter narrative about Jesus and a counter narrative about Paul. So "Luke" takes proto-Luke and adds his own birth narrative to it, along with his own ending. But Luke hardly touched the main body of proto-Luke. Yet, what he did touch left some distinctive markers. In Luke 4 he made two editing errors when he tried to harmonize proto-Luke with Matthew, getting scenes out of sequence. Luke 4:16-31 contains a mix-up where Luke tried to harmonize but then left other details out of order. Luke 4:38 has a similar problem in relation to Luke 5:5-11.
I like the Luke using Matthew part. It sounds like you may consider Luke 4.16-31, 4:38, and 5:5-11 to be your strongest cases. Why don't you start with demonstrating those?
You can see pretty plainly see that Luke was written in 3 stages.
Well, I *think* I can see that, but the stages are Mark, then Matthew, then Luke.
Those stages are the original Gospel of Marcion, then proto-Luke, then Canonical Luke. The layers are quite detectable and distinct, containing contradictions with one another.
Well, the differences between Marcion's Evangelion and canonical Luke are quite detectable, if you accept Beduhn's or Roth's reconstructed text; the differences between either of them and your hypothetical proto-Luke (which is vastly different from B.H. Streeter's proto-Luke) are less clear.
Are there no contradictions within Marcion's gospel? Tertullian seemed to think the Evangelion contradicted Marcion's theology, but maybe you're talking about internal tensions within the document. Are there none within the Evangelion?
Proto-Luke 3 & 4 contradicts the main body of Luke, which is actually Marcion's Gospel. Canonical Luke 1-2 & 24 contain contradictions with Luke 3-23 and a marked difference in style. Just look at the issue of John "son of Zechariah" / "the Baptist". The final editor of Luke wasn't very careful and actually made quite a few blunders and left many contradictory passages in place.
Do you want to pick three of these things and show how it demonstrates Marcion must be earlier than canonical Luke? Or maybe just start with one.
Best,
Ken