Ian Mills's "external evidence" that Luke preceded Marcion

[Giuseppe]

also Klinghardt assumes that canonical Luke knew Matthew so I am not opposed to the idea.

If we accept also that canonical Luke knew and used Matthew, then that places all three synoptic gospels before c. 130 CE.

why? Are you aware that Vinzent argues that the 5 gospels (*Ev plus the canonicals) were written in less than a month in Rome, so eluding entirely the question about a strict chronological sequence (apart the identity of the first gospel).

Note that you have quoted me in a context where the my intention is the confutation of the idea that Luke had derived the idea of inventing an infancy narrative from Matthew.

In more general terms, the elephant in the room (a very apt expression in this case) supporting the *Ev's priority over Matthew is the presence of the birth story in Matthew. The birth story is too much connected with the interpolated bit in Galatians 4:4, "born by woman, born under the law". It is a blatant anti-marcionite interpolation and the mere recognition of it as such makes the *Ev's priority over Matthew infinitely more probable than the vice versa.

You may always reply by saying that the expression "born by woman, born under the law" is genuinely pauline, but frankly I am not interested in even evaluating a such hypothesis, because the its implicit corollary is that there are not interpolations at all in the pauline epistles (if even the bit of Gal 4:4 is considered genuine).

Note that if Geza Vermes accused the hymn to Philippians of being a marcionite docetic interpolation, then I am justified in thinking that, assuming the authenticity of the hymn, the earliest belief was in the form of U : descent already adult, death, ascent. A birth story for Jesus is by definition a late addition.

[Ken Olson]

also Klinghardt assumes that canonical Luke knew Matthew so I am not opposed to the idea.

If we accept also that canonical Luke knew and used Matthew, then that places all three synoptic gospels before c. 130 CE.

why? Are you aware that Vinzent argues that the 5 gospels (*Ev plus the canonicals) were written in less than a month in Rome, so eluding entirely the question about a strict chronological sequence (apart the identity of the first gospel).

No, I was not Could you give a citation for where Vinzent argues this? I'd like to read if for myself.

Note that you have quoted me in a context where the my intention is the confutation of the idea that Luke had derived the idea of inventing an infancy narrative from Matthew.

Yes, but the context in which you or Klinghardt say that canonical Luke knew Matthew is irrelevant to the fact that this means we must date Matthew before canonical Luke.

In more general terms, the elephant in the room (a very apt expression in this case) supporting the *Ev's priority over Matthew is the presence of the birth story in Matthew. The birth story is too much connected with the interpolated bit in Galatians 4:4, "born by woman, born under the law". It is a blatant anti-marcionite interpolation and the mere recognition of it as such makes the *Ev's priority over Matthew infinitely more probable than the vice versa.

I do not accept your implied claim that the only plausible explanation of Gal 4.4 and the birth (and infancy) narrative in Matthew is that they are anti-Marcionite, nor that the anti-Marcionite explanation is clearly the best explanation.

You may always reply by saying that the expression "born by woman, born under the law" is genuinely pauline, but frankly I am not interested in even evaluating a such hypothesis, because the its implicit corollary is that there are not interpolations at all in the pauline epistles (if even the bit of Gal 4:4 is considered genuine).

It is perfectly possible to believe Gal 4.4 is authentic and still believe there are interpolations in the Pauline epistles. I do, and so does Geza Vermes (citation below). If I were not interested in evaluating hypotheses I thought were pretty clearly wrong, I would interact with this forum far less than I do. But you are certainly free not to engage with anything you don't want to.

Note that if Geza Vermes accused the hymn to Philippians of being a marcionite docetic interpolation, then I am justified in thinking that, assuming the authenticity of the hymn, the earliest belief was in the form of U : descent already adult, death, ascent. A birth story for Jesus is by definition a late addition.

I'm aware that Vermes argues that the hymn in Philippians 2.6-11 is a second century interpolation on (Changing Faces of Jesus, 2000, 377-378), but I don't know where he says anything about it being Marcionite or docetic. Are those his words or yours? Vermes argues:

The expressions 'in the form of God', 'grasping equality from God',
and 'emptying himself' echo mythological concepts familiar from the
Gospel of John and from later heretical Gnostic speculation. If so,
chronologically they point to the early second century AD rather than
the age of Paul. The hymn makes much better sense if it is taken as an
existing liturgical composition inserted into the letter to the Philippians
not by Paul himself but by a later editor. The fact that this poem
can be removed without spoiling the general meaning' of the chapter
strongly favours the theory of its post-Pauline origin [Vermes, Faces, 78-79.

Vermes' argument is that Paul could not have had a high christology because high christologies did not exist until later. Therefore passages in Paul that indicate a high christology are later interpolations. It's a pretty dogmatic argument.

It seems that we've been over this ground about the birth stories before. I think writers could add birth story material (as Matt and Luke do with Mark) or they could omit to use it (as does John, whom I hold to have known Matt and Luke). Birth stories are not a unidirectional indicator, nor are they necessarily anti-Marcionite.

Best,

Ken

[rgprice]

I agree that the birth stories are late additions. I think this really be beyond question at this point. I have come around to the idea that the first Gospel was simply ambiguous about the origins of Jesus, but likely inferred that he was indeed a person, not that he descended from heaven. But it was open to such an assumption. But for sure teh narratives about him being born to Mary are certainly late.

I do think that the genealogy in Luke precedes Matthew and existed prior to any birth story.

But its also quite clear that with Matthew, someone choose to re-write everything from beginning to end, creating a consistent narrative from the birth to the resurrection. But with Luke the birth story is just tacked on to the beginning of an entirely different narrative and they don't really even go together. There are so many disjunctions in Luke and contradictions because the whole story was not re-written, it was just crudely modified. And the exact same thing happens in Acts, where the writer just crudely appropriates the prior narrative about Paul's ministry leaving whole parts of the original narrative in tact and then adding new material that doesn't even fit well with the old material.

So that canonical Luke is a late composite composition is beyond obvious.

[Sinouhe]

I think at present there are more that agree with Goodacre that Luke used Matthew than argue the reverse (Matthean Poteriority Hypothesis or MPH) that Matthew used Luke, though the number arguing for Matthean posteriority has grown considerably in the last decade or so. I think I could could appeal to more authorities than you could, but the appeal to authority is not a sound form of argument.

True

[Giuseppe]

No, I was not Could you give a citation for where Vinzent argues this? I'd like to read if for myself.

This diagram is rather exhaustive (see in particular the dates):

It is taken from here.

It is perfectly possible to believe Gal 4.4 is authentic and still believe there are interpolations in the Pauline epistles.

I don't talk about mere interpolations. I doubt that you can find in Paul a more self-evident anti-marcionite interpolation than the bit of Galatians 4:4 "born by woman, born under the law".

I do, and so does Geza Vermes (citation below).

I am sure that you don't see nothing of particularly anti-marcionite among the same interpolations identified by you in the epistles. Because otherwise you would have slready given to me reason on all the line about Galatians 4:4 and, by logical extension, about Matthean posteriority compared to *Ev.

If I were not interested in evaluating hypotheses I thought were pretty clearly wrong, I would interact with this forum far less than I do. But you are certainly free not to engage with anything you don't want to.

sorry, I have made clear from long time that the birth story in a gospel is a veritable "boulder around the neck" that prevents in the bud any its legitimate claim to priority over *Ev. I am always interested to discussions concerning the relation between Mark and *Ev, at any case.

Are those his words or yours? Vermes argues:

The expressions 'in the form of God', 'grasping equality from God', and 'emptying himself' echo mythological concepts familiar from the
Gospel of John and from later heretical Gnostic speculation. If so, chronologically they point to the early second century AD rather than the age of Paul. The hymn makes much better sense if it is taken as an existing liturgical composition inserted into the letter to the Philippians not by Paul himself but by a later editor. The fact that this poem can be removed without spoiling the general meaning' of the chapter strongly favours the theory of its post-Pauline origin [Vermes, Faces, 78-79.

yes, it is. Note the reference to the "concepts familiar from the Gospel of John" (about which I follow Joseph Turmel in considering its first layer a marcionite Gospel, which is inter alia the reason of the absence of a birth story in it).

[Ken Olson]

[

Are those his words or yours? Vermes argues:

The expressions 'in the form of God', 'grasping equality from God', and 'emptying himself' echo mythological concepts familiar from the
Gospel of John and from later heretical Gnostic speculation. If so, chronologically they point to the early second century AD rather than the age of Paul. The hymn makes much better sense if it is taken as an existing liturgical composition inserted into the letter to the Philippians not by Paul himself but by a later editor. The fact that this poem can be removed without spoiling the general meaning' of the chapter strongly favours the theory of its post-Pauline origin [Vermes, Faces, 78-79.

yes, it is. Note the reference to the "concepts familiar from the Gospel of John" (about which I follow Joseph Turmel in considering its first layer a marcionite Gospel, which is inter alia the reason of the absence of a birth story in it).

If I am understanding you correctly, the words Marcionite and docetic are yours, not Vermes's, but since Vermes said 'mythological concepts from the Gospel of John' you understand that this would imply that these concepts were Marcionite and docetic because you consider John a Marcionite and docetic gospel. Is that right?

[Giuseppe]

Is that right?

Exactly. See the Turmel's case for considering marcionite proto-John here and here.

[Ken Olson]

Is that right?

Exactly.

Thank you. I think I understand how Marcion understood the Evangelion much better now.

Best,

Ken