The author of Luke-Acts has a response to Marcion. The author would accept Marcion’s hero Paul without the theology of his epistles. To do so the author replaced Marcion’s canon with a two-volume work of his own. He merely expanded Marcion’s gospel with added traditions, but he rejected entirely the Pauline epistles as theologically unacceptable.
John T. Townsend, “The Dating of Luke-Acts” … in Charles Talbert (ed.), “Luke-Acts: new Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar” (1984) p. 56-58
= = =
People have come to accept that the gospel of Luke partially comes from Q.
Bart, would you agree with John T. Townsend that the gospel of Luke partially comes from Marcion’s gospel? If not, why?
Bart, given your review of The First New Testament: Marcion’s Scriptural Canon by Jason D. BeDuhn, you have read Marcion’s gospel, does Marcion’s gospel partially come from Q?
Steefen said
The author of Luke-Acts has a response to Marcion. The author would accept Marcion’s hero Paul without the theology of his epistles. To do so the author replaced Marcion’s canon with a two-volume work of his own. He merely expanded Marcion’s gospel with added traditions, but he rejected entirely the Pauline epistles as theologically unacceptable.John T. Townsend, “The Dating of Luke-Acts” … in Charles Talbert (ed.), “Luke-Acts: new Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar” (1984) p. 56-58
= = =
People have come to accept that the gospel of Luke partially comes from Q.
Bart, would you agree with John T. Townsend that the gospel of Luke partially comes from Marcion’s gospel? If not, why?
Bart, given your review of The First New Testament: Marcion’s Scriptural Canon by Jason D. BeDuhn, you have read Marcion’s gospel, does Marcion’s gospel partially come from Q?
Bart did not answer the question. He did reply that it is very difficult to date Marcion’s work before the 140s.
Wikipedia
Marcion of Sinope 85 to 160 AD
Bart D.E.
“Luke is almost certainly not that late.”
Steefen
I do not know how much of Q is in Marcion’s gospel (the question asked).
I do not know if Marcion’s gospel is >= 51% Luke.
John Townsend has given us more than one thing to think about.
With enough of Marcion’s gospel being Luke, Marcion’s gospel is not an original work,
so, there can be Luke, 1st Edition before Marcion’s gospel and Luke 2nd Edition after Marcion’s gospel.
Conservatively: Marcion edited Luke’s gospel.
Back in 2015, Luke’s Acts of the Apostles had a date range from 80-150.
Luke should be faulted for rewriting Paul’s biographical information in Paul’s authentic letters.
Townsend does not deserve to be judged in error for saying Luke rejected parts of Paul.
Luke cannot even consult history to put Judah/Judas of Galilee (6 CE) before Theudas (44-46 CE).
Luke can take from Paul’s legacy to strengthen his version of the apostles after the gospels end.
Bart
I completely disagree with that view and it has gotten almost no traction among scholars. One reason: it is very difficult to date Marcion’s work prior to the 140s, and Luke is almost certainly not that late.
Steefen
Wikipedia
Marcion of Sinope 85 to 160 AD
Bart D.E.
“Luke is almost certainly not that late (140s AD).”
Steefen
I do not know how much of Q is in Marcion’s gospel (the question asked).
I do not know if Marcion’s gospel is greater than or equal to 51% Luke.
John Townsend has given us more than one thing to think about.
With enough of Marcion’s gospel being Luke, Marcion’s gospel probably is not an original work.
Probably Marcion edited Luke’s gospel if there wasn’t a First Edition Luke followed by a Second Edition Luke.
Back in 2015, Luke’s Acts of the Apostles had a date range from 80-150.
Townsend does not deserve to be judged in error for saying Luke rejected parts of Paul.
Luke should be faulted for (decades later) rewriting Paul’s biographical information in Paul’s authentic letters. Luke can take from Paul’s legacy to strengthen his version of the apostles after the gospels end. Luke cannot even consult history to put Judah/Judas of Galilee (6 CE) before Theudas (44-46 CE).
In fact, I’ve even helped you to find the page numbers in a book by Steve Mason that you yourself own, when you said it did not discuss Acts.
Steefen said
…
I don’t see anything by Steve Mason on Acts of the Apostles. I even brought up his name from the title of the book I have, “Josephus and the New Testament.”
Robert said
If you have this book, read pages 185-229 (1st edition), 251-295 (2nd edition): “Josephus and Luke-Acts,” and you will see his reasons for thinking that Luke may have been dependent upon Josephus.
Provide a date for what you are bringing it up.
Do the math from then to the date of this thread.
Besides, you had your chance to bring that up before I declined to accept your fault advice to write to Steve Mason and tell him Stephen got a grade of zero, F, Fail for suggesting the video he did suggest.The content of that video is in this thread and Mason’s content is about Acts not the gospel of Luke: Judas of Galilee of the tax revolt of 6CE and Theudas are not in the gospel of Luke.
bnxzbnxzmkzx’/l
Robert, you could corrected Stephen:
Steefen is correct, the video clearly points to the evidence Mason is using in the interview. That evidence is about Acts, but if you want to bring up Mason, bring up his book, not his video.
And instead of wasting time, just get to the point. Mason dates gospel of Luke later because
Reason 1
Reason 2
Reason 3
or however many reasons he has.
I am not impressed with the reason: Josephus and author of Acts mention 1) Judas of the tax revolt 6 C.E. and 2) decades later, Theudas, because author of Acts does not follow historical chronology.
Since Robert wants me to message Steve Mason …
My reply to the video [Derel/MythVision and Steve Mason]:
** you do not have permission to see this link ** Talk begins on best evidence used for hypothesis. “Was Josephus a source for Luke/Acts?” Striking overlaps/similarities in Josephus, Luke/Acts.
That evidence is Judas of the tax revolt 6 C.E., Theudas, The Egyptian Prophet, and sicarii.
That evidence is in Acts not in gospel of Luke.
Conclusion: the hypothesis should be Josephus is a source for Acts, specifically.
Just because we have come to accept the author/s of gospel of Luke and Acts are the same does not mean we do not need gospel of Luke evidence to show Josephus is not just in Acts but in the gospel as well. If you are going to say the Testimonium Flavianum is the Josephus part in gospel of Luke, confirm that is the extent of the evidence, please.
The Hypothesis should be Josephus is a source for Gospel of Luke only because of the Testimonium Flavianum and Josephus is a source for Acts because of Judas of the tax revolt 6 CE, Theudas, The Egyptian Prophet, and sicarii.
And please explain why Luke cannot get the chronology of history correct with Judas and Theudas.
Robert said
Steefen said
… If you are going to say the Testimonium Flavianum is the Josephus part in gospel of Luke, confirm that is the extent of the evidence, please. The Hypothesis should be Josephus is a source for Gospel of Luke only because of the Testimonium Flavianum ...No scholars think Luke is dependent upon Josephus because of the Testamonium Flavianum. You’re in the extreme minority in thinking that the entirety of the Testamonium is authentic to Josephus (if you still think that). Do you still think that Josephus and his colleagues may have written some of the gospels and letters of Paul? Or, alternatively, that Paul used some of Josephus biography as his own? Or that Paul and Josephus might have been shipwrecked together? This is another part of Acts sometimes said to be dependent upon Josephus.
Look how ridiculous: 1) you cannot admit Stephen’s recommendation does not have an explanation why Gospel of Luke should be dated after Gospel of John; 2) you cannot finish a thought without jumping into an attack on a forum member based on flawed reading comprehension. I am not in the extreme minority at all because your reading comprehension is poor. Everyone can see: If you are saying the TF is the Josephus part in gospel of Luke.
Finish the thought:
Luke is dependent upon Josephus because …
= = =
You haven’t finished the thought.
Stephen hasn’t finished the thought:
Steve Mason says Luke should be dated after gospel of John because as you will see in the video the reasons are: …
Stephen said
** you do not have permission to see this link ** with Steve Mason, a Josephus expert who favors the later date for Luke.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy and cKeeney
Luke was written later in the 120s [after 90-95 CE which is usually given for the dating of Gospel of John]?
Bart D.E.
Yes, it’s an increasingly popular view.
The basic reason scholars are moving that direction is that they’re becoming convinced that when Acts mentions events also discussed by Josephus, it appears (or might appear) that Luke is *dependent* on Josephus’s account.
I don’t buy it, but frankly I haven’t dug deeply enough into the issue, and need to do so.
Stephen’s addition
Here is an interview with Steve Mason, a Josephus expert who favors the later date for Luke.
Steefen
Oh, Stephen is bringing value to the thread. Bart said he needs to dig deeply into the issue, but Steve Mason has already dug deeply into the matter.
Thank you, Stephen!
Stephen’s addition
but the interview does not explain why he favors the later date for gospel of Luke.
Steefen
Then your contribution does not add more value to what Bart has already said.
Acts was written in the year or after 120.
Scholars are dragging the dating of gospel of Luke with Acts to the year 120 or after?
Bart does not buy it.
Here’s the form of the flawed argument.
Harper Lee wrote To Kill a Mockingbird, published in 1960.
Harper Lee wrote Go Set a Watchman, published in 2015.
Harper Lee is the author of Mockingbird/Watchman.
Literary scholars date Mockingbird/Watchman to 2015, regardless that Mockingbird was published in 1960.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)