Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posteriority?

[Ben C. Smith]

Another point in favor of Marcionite priority, I think, is the infancy narrative in Luke. Not only is Luke 3.1 a fine way to start a gospel, as has been noted numerous times over the years, but John the baptist is introduced in Luke 3.2 as if for the first time: "the word of God came to John son of Zechariah". 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. A proto-Luke lacking chapters 1-2 and beginning with 3.1 has been proposed many times.

And, of course, the Marcionite gospel begins with Luke 3.1. So could the Marcionite gospel itself be proto-Luke? Well, it also skips the baptism, with the effect that John himself seems to come on the scene rather suddenly in Marcion, as the subject of an inquiry in Luke 5.33; so suddenly, in fact, as to draw criticism from Tertullian in Against Marcion 4.11.4: "Whence, too, does John come upon the scene? Christ, suddenly; and just as suddenly, John!" So this particular point seems to go in favor of Marcionite posteriority.

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

I covered this either in the OP or in an ensuing post. Your observation would explain the kai; what it fails to explain is the emphatic pronoun humeis.

I do not know where you addressed that.

I wrote in the OP:

The "also" might be explained as leading to a new action required of the readers: you read fig trees just fine, so now you ought also to read the signs of the times. But the emphatic ὑμεῖς does not easily yield to this explanation.

But I want to make another point: I looked at your OP and "men" appears here:
Reflect, in short, on the picture presented in the parable: "Behold the fig-tree, and all the trees; when they produce their fruit, men know that summer is at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is very near." Now, if the fructification of the common trees be an antecedent sign of the approach of summer, so in like manner do the great conflicts of the world indicate the arrival of that kingdom which they precede.
I am not sure Tertullian extracted that saying from gMarcion.

Sure looks like a quote to me. The translator even has quotation marks.

However, certainly, there is no guarantee that this was the wording of the Marcionite gospel. If it is not, then obviously this example is void. Most of any reconstruction of the Marcionite gospel is derived from this kind of evidence, however. Tertullian seldom claims to be giving the exact reading, and Epiphanius does so only about 78 times, many of those being omissions, not actual text.

So sure, Bernard. Tertullian may not be reproducing Marcion very exactly here; that may be all there is to it, and case closed. On the other hand, it just seems unlikely to me that someone, composing freely, would come up with you followed by so also you, which means that. And that would mean that somebody managed to reproduce what appears to probably be the original form of the text, with miscellaneous humans (or at least third-person others) followed by so also you. Was it Marcion? Was it Tertullian? Or was there a gospel text which was actually written in the expected way to begin with?

Furthermore, if you disregard this level of evidence for the Marcionite text, you also probably lose passages like Luke 16.17, on which you have based certain arguments (http://historical-jesus.info/53.html). Tertullian does not clearly state he is quoting the Evangelion there, either. This is a game of finesse.

He probably paraphrased the saying & made some changes, having fruits being "shoot forth"....

I doubt the fruits are Tertullianic paraphrase; τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῶν is a Western reading of this verse (codex Bezae, for example), and the Marcionite gospel bears many other affinities to the Western text.

So either Tertullian is paraphrasing carelessly (and replacing a "you" by "men"), or Marcion made a stupid mistake by having all other trees producing fruits, a mistake not done in gLuke (it has only "shoot forth" with no mention of fruits).
I would opt for the first option: why would Marcion write "all other trees, when they produce their fruit"?

I think you are taking this bit way too literally and scientifically. I believe there is a sense in which all trees are at least regarded as bearing fruit, or in which fruit and trees naturally go together in pithy sayings. (Even grains are called fruit.) "For each tree is known by its own fruit" (Luke 6.44), for example. Each tree? Even though not all trees bear what we scientifically regard as fruit? Is that a stupid mistake, too? See also Matthew 3.10 - Luke 3.9; Matthew 7.17, 19; Matthew 7.18 = Luke 6.43; and Matthew 12.33, none of which seem to take into account that not all trees bear fruit.

Also, I want to point out another reconstruction of gMarcion does not agree with you on that passage:
29 And he spake to them a parable;
Behold the fig tree, and all the trees;
30 When they already shoot forth,
ye see it, and know your own selves
that summer is already near.
31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass,
know ye that the kingdom of God is near.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... cion5.html

Does it not appear to you that this reconstruction has simply copied that part of Luke without reflection? Or can you find evidence for this reading in Tertullian?

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

There have been no other Johns mentioned yet that would require this kind of distinction,

But John, son of Zechariah, appears in chapter 1 and I do not see any issue about "Luke" informing his/her audience two chapters later that the "John" in the wilderness as a hermit around 30 years later is the son of Zechariah.
But I agree that only "John" in 3:2 would have been enough but there is no harm into making things clear.
Of course, you know that some parts of the nativity story in GLuke were quoted by Basilides (120-140) and Valentinus (120-160).
Extracted from http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html:
>> According to Hippolytus of Rome, in 'Refutation of all heresies', book VII:
Chapter XV "... all the events in our Lord's life occurred, according to them [Basilidians], in the same manner as they have been described in the Gospels." (which would imply Basilides knew about a few gospels, as can be confirmed next, from the same book)
- Basilides knew about GJohn:
Chapter X "The seed of the cosmical system was generated, he [Basilides] says, from nonentities; the word which was spoken, "Let there be light." And this, he [Basilides] says, is that which has been stated in the Gospels: "He was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."[words in italics are as in Jn1:9]" and
Chapter XV "And that each thing, says [Basilides], has its own particular times, the Saviour is a sufficient [witness] when He observes, "Mine hour is not yet come." [words in italics are as in Jn2:4]"
- Basilides knew about GLuke:
Chapter XIV "This, he [Basilides] says, is that which has been declared: "The Holy Spirit will come upon thee," that which proceeded from the Sonship through the conterminous spirit upon the Ogdoad and Hebdomad, as far as Mary; "and the power of the Highest will overshadow thee," [bolded italics as in Lk1:35]"
- Basilides knew about GMatthew:
Chapter XV "And the Magi [afford similar testimony] when they gaze wistfully upon the star [according to Mt2:1-2,9-10]. For [Jesus] Himself was, he [Basilides] says, mentally preconceived at the time of the generation of the stars,"
Valentinus (120-160) also knew about Luke's gospel, according to Irenaeus 'Against Heresies' III, XIV, 3-4 and Hippolytus of Rome, in 'Refutation of all heresies', book VI:
Chapter XXX "[Valentinus says] Jesus was born of Mary the virgin, according to the declaration, "The Holy Ghost will come upon thee"--Sophia is the Spirit--"and the power of the Highest will overshadow thee"--the Highest is the Demiurge,--"wherefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy."" (bolded italics as in Lk1:35) <<

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Just posting these for convenience:

From Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.39.16: In summa ipsius parabolae considera exempluna. Aspice ficum et arbores omnes: cum fructum protulerint, intellegunt homines aestatem appropinquasse; sic et vos cum videritis haec fieri, scitote in proximo esse regnum dei. / Reflect, in short, on the picture presented in the parable: Behold the fig-tree, and all the trees; when they produce their fruit, men know that summer is at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is very near.

Luke 21.29b-30 in codex Bezae (D), according to Bibleworks 9: Εἴδετε τὴν συκῆν καὶ πάντα τὰ δένδρα· ὅταν προβάλωσιν τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῶν γεινώσκεται ἤδη ὅτι ἐγγὺς ἤδη τὸ θέρος ἐστίν. [The word προβάλωσιν is an apt correction of προβάσωσιν, the first sigma of which is still visible under the lambda.]

Ben.

ETA: Struck out a word in my transcription from Bezae. The extra ἤδη was redundant, to be sure, but I had not noticed the dots above the first one, which would, I think, indicate correction by removal.

[Ben C. Smith]

But I agree that only "John" in 3:2 would have been enough but there is no harm into making things clear.

Okay, and I can agree with that; but does not the conjunction of what would make a good first mention of John in Luke 3.2 with what would make a good beginning to the gospel in Luke 3.1, along with the lack of carryover information from chapters 1-2 into 3-24, make you suspect that there was a proto-Luke which originally began at 3.1?

Of course, you know that some parts of the nativity story in GLuke were quoted by Basilides (120-140) and Valentinus (120-160).

Yes, I am aware of patristic quotes of heretics quoting from the Lucan infancy narrative. And I agree that they should be reckoned with in an overall reconstruction. But right now I am focusing on certain internal data that seem to cut both ways.

Also, a lot of the dates we have for the heretics are subject to reevaluation, I think. But that is a topic for another time.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Just posting these for convenience:

From Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.39.16: In summa ipsius parabolae considera exempluna. Aspice ficum et arbores omnes: cum fructum protulerint, intellegunt homines aestatem appropinquasse; sic et vos cum videritis haec fieri, scitote in proximo esse regnum dei. / Reflect, in short, on the picture presented in the parable: Behold the fig-tree, and all the trees; when they produce their fruit, men know that summer is at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is very near.

Luke 21.29b-30 in codex Bezae (D), according to Bibleworks 9: Εἴδετε τὴν συκῆν καὶ πάντα τὰ δένδρα· ὅταν προβάλωσιν τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῶν γεινώσκεται ἤδη ὅτι ἐγγὺς ἤδη τὸ θέρος ἐστίν. [The word προβάλωσιν is an apt correction of προβάσωσιν, the first sigma of which is still visible under the lambda.]

There is another problem: most fruit trees in temperate or mediterranean climate produce their fruits in the summer, not when the summer is approaching. It is then obvious that "fruit" was added later. "fruit" could not have been in any original gospel copied by Marcion, or "Luke". It looks "fruit" (in 21:30) appears first in Tertullian AM. BTW, gMark & gMatthew specify "leaves".

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

There is another problem: most fruit trees in temperate or mediterranean climate produce their fruits in the summer, not when the summer is approaching. It is then obvious that "fruit" was added later. "fruit" could not have been in any original gospel copied by Marcion, or "Luke". It looks "fruit" (in 21:30) appears first in Tertullian AM. BTW, gMark & gMatthew specify "leaves".

I am not following the logic. If it is a mistake to suggest that temperate or Mediterranean fruit trees produce fruit right before summer begins, why must it be Tertullian's mistake? He lived in a Mediterranean climate, too.

Bear in mind that D is far from the only Western textual witness to fruits. Dieter T. Roth writes on page 242 of his thesis: "The opening words in Harnack’s reconstruction follow the reading of D and d, though numerous other potential witnesses to the “Western” text, including OL manuscripts and Syriac witnesses, also explicitly state that 'fruit' is brought forth."

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

I am not following the logic. If it is a mistake to suggest that temperate or Mediterranean fruit trees produce fruit right before summer begins, why must it be Tertullian's mistake? He lived in a Mediterranean climate, too.

Bear in mind that D is far from the only Western textual witness to fruits. Dieter T. Roth writes on page 242 of his thesis: "The opening words in Harnack’s reconstruction follow the reading of D and d, though numerous other potential witnesses to the “Western” text, including OL manuscripts and Syriac witnesses, also explicitly state that 'fruit' is brought forth."

Tertullian, D, d, OL, Syriac, all of that point to a late introduction of "fruit" in Lk21:30 in some manuscripts (which does not make sense in view that most fruit trees produce their fruit well into the summer).
And then, gMark & gMatthew which, through internal & external evidence, I consider resolutely written in the 1st century, have no "and all the trees" and "fruit", but instead specify "leaves" for the fig tree. No mistake here.
Tertullian's mistake? Possibly, but we cannot be sure. Anyway the "fruit" in 21:30 is first known to us through Tertullian's writings (early third century) within "the picture presented in the parable". So he has to be a prime suspect.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Another point in favor of Marcionite priority, I think, is the infancy narrative in Luke. Not only is Luke 3.1 a fine way to start a gospel, as has been noted numerous times over the years, but John the baptist is introduced in Luke 3.2 as if for the first time: "the word of God came to John son of Zechariah". 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. A proto-Luke lacking chapters 1-2 and beginning with 3.1 has been proposed many times.

I am aware of the problem. But there are some connections between Lk 1-2 and the rest: Lk 1:80 with Lk 3:2, and then, of course, "Zechariah" (not appearing in other gospels). I do not see why or where more should be expected.
Actually, I think Lk 1-2 is likely to have been composed before the rest of gLuke, as a complement to gMark, and by the same person, in view of the strong feminism in both parts. Then Lk 1-2 was incorporated to Lk 3-24 soon after, when the author decided to write her own gospel.

And, of course, the Marcionite gospel begins with Luke 3.1. So could the Marcionite gospel itself be proto-Luke? Well, it also skips the baptism, with the effect that John himself seems to come on the scene rather suddenly in Marcion, as the subject of an inquiry in Luke 5.33; so suddenly, in fact, as to draw criticism from Tertullian in Against Marcion 4.11.4: "Whence, too, does John come upon the scene? Christ, suddenly; and just as suddenly, John!" So this particular point seems to go in favor of Marcionite posteriority.

Very strong argument indeed in favor of Marcionite posteriority. I will be including that in one of my blog post.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Okay, and I can agree with that; but does not the conjunction of what would make a good first mention of John in Luke 3.2 with what would make a good beginning to the gospel in Luke 3.1, along with the lack of carryover information from chapters 1-2 into 3-24, make you suspect that there was a proto-Luke which originally began at 3.1?

I addressed that in my previous postings. And I showed there are some carryovers between Lk 1-2 and the rest.

Cordially, Bernard