The author of Luke-Acts borrowing from Josephus is a central theme of ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
For a summary of Mason’s argument, I will rather reluctantly use ** you do not have permission to see this link **:
Generic Parallels
(which do not prove anything in themselves but add to or support the firmer evidence)
- Both L and J are self-described and organized as histories.
- Both L and J are written in Hellenistic Greek (a literary Koinê).
- Both L and J write “from an apologetic stance, using their histories to support a thesis” (e.g. by blaming “the bad Jews” for every calamity, and conveying the notion that the “good Jews,” and in L’s case that means the Christians, deserve respect)
- Both L and J were “heavily influenced by Jewish scripture and tradition.”
- Both L and J open with a conventional historian’s preface
- Both L and J appear in two parts: J begins with the “most important” event in history (the Jewish War) and follows by looking into previous Jewish history to explain the war’s significance (with the JA); L begins with his own ‘most important’ event (the appearance of God on Earth and his act of salvation for all mankind), and follows by looking into subsequent Christian history to explain Christ’s significance (with Acts) [** you do not have permission to see this link **].
- Both L and JA are dedicated to a patron, one who is depicted as particularly interested in the real truth about their history (Christianity on the one hand, Judaism on the other), and regarded as the motivation for writing in the first place: Theophilus in the former case (a name that is not uncommon, but could also be a literary invention–it means “Friend of God” [** you do not have permission to see this link **].
- Both Acts and J engage the same historical conventions of speech-creation [** you do not have permission to see this link **].
- Both L and J emphasize the antiquity and respectability of their religion and tie it to the revered and renowned religious center of Jerusalem [** you do not have permission to see this link **].
Story Parallels
(some of which afford firm evidence of borrowing, some not)
“More than any other Gospel writer, Luke includes references to the non-Christian world of affairs. Almost every incident of this kind that he mentions turns up somewhere in Josephus’ narratives.” – Mason, p. 205
Among these stories or facts (and Mason only mentions some of many) are:
- The census under Quirinius (Luke 3:1; JW 2.117-8, JA 18.1-8).
The census under Quirinius is notable for three reasons. First, Josephus uses the census as a key linchpin in his story, the beginning of the wicked faction of Jews that would bring down Judaea (and the temple), whereas Luke transvalues this message by making this census the linchpin for God’s salvation for the world, namely the birth of Christ (which also would result in destruction of the temple) [** you do not have permission to see this link **].
Second, no other author did or was even likely to have seen this census as particularly noteworthy–Josephus alone uses it as an excuse for him to introduce his villains, a group that scholars doubt existed as a unified faction–and therefore it is perhaps more than coincidence that it should appear as a key event elsewhere, even more so since only Josephus, precisely because of his apologetic aim, associates the census with Judas the Galilean, and thus it is peculiar that Luke should do so as well.
Third, Matthew does not mention anything about it in his account of the nativity, thus one is left to wonder where Luke learned of it. Given the first two points, the answer could be that Luke borrowed the idea from Josephus, and therefore it probably does not come from any genuine tradition about Jesus. Finally, it is most unlikely that Josephus got the information from Luke, for Josephus provides much more detailed, and more correct information (e.g. he knows exactly when and why the census happened, that the census was only of Judaea, not the whole world, etc.), such that it is far more likely that Luke was drawing upon and simplifying Josephus than that Josephus was expanding on Luke [** you do not have permission to see this link **].
- The same three rebel leaders: Judas the Galilean–even specifically connected with the census (Acts 5:37; JW 2.117-8, JA 18.1-8); Theudas (Acts 5:36; JA 20.97); and “The Egyptian” (Acts 21:38; JW 2.261-3, JA 20.171).
It seems quite a remarkable coincidence that Luke should even mention these men at all (no other Christian author does), and that he names only three rebel leaders, and that all three are the very same men named by Josephus–even though Josephus says there were numerous such men (JW 2.259-264; JA 20.160-9, 20.188) and he only singled out these three especially for particular reasons of his own. In fact, to use only the rather generic nick-name “The Egyptian,” instead of, or without, an actual name of any kind (there were millions of Egyptians, and certainly thousands in Judaea at any given time), though explicable as an affectation of one author, seems a little strange when two authors repeat the same idiom.
It also makes sense for Luke to draw these three men from Josephus: since Josephus was writing for a Roman audience, if the Romans knew any Jewish rebels, it would be these three men. Just as Josephus named them as examples of what good Jews are not, Luke names them specifically as examples of what the Christians are not–and as the latter two were specifically painted by Josephus as religious figures, messianic prophets, similar to Jesus, it would have behooved Luke to disassociate Jesus with these men, recently popularized to Romans by Josephus as villains. Similarly with Judas, who was a military rebel, very much the opposite of Jesus, the peaceful religious reformer. Notice, for example, how Luke greatly downplays Jesus’ use of violence in clearing the temple, and emphasizes in its place his role as teacher: compare Luke 19:45-8 with Mark 11:15-8, Matthew 21:12-6, and John 2:13-6.
Finally, Luke makes errors in his use of these men that has a curious basis in the text of Josephus. When luke brings up Theudas and Judas in the same speech, he reverses the correct order, having Theudas appear first, even though that does not fit what Josephus reports–indeed, Josephus places Theudas as much as fifteen years after the dramatic time in which Luke even has him mentioned. That Luke should be forced to use a rebel leader before his time is best explained by the fact that he needed someone to mention, and Josephus, his likely source, only details three distinct movements (though he goes into the rebel relatives of Judas, they are all associated with Judas). And when Josephus mentions Theudas, he immediately follows with a description of the fate of the sons of Judas (JA 20.97-102) and uses the occasion to recap the actions of Judas himself (associating him with the census, as Acts does). Thus, that Luke should repeat this very same incorrect sequence, which makes sense in Josephus but not in Acts, is a signature of borrowing. Further evidence is afforded here by similar vocabulary: both use the words aphistêmi “incited” and laos “the people.”
Luke’s use of the Egyptian is also telling: Luke has him leading the sicarii, assassins, into the desert. But this does not make sense, since the sicarii operated by assassination under the concealment of urban crowds, not in the wilds. Moreover, Josephus does not link the Egyptian with them, though he does mention both in exactly the same place (cf. JW 2.258-61, JA 20.167-9), and in fact also mentions there other figures who led people into the desert, even though the Egyptian led them to the Mount of Olives. As Mason puts it (p. 212):
This is clearly part of [Josephus’] literary artistry. How did Luke, then, come to associate the Egyptian, incorrectly, with the sicarii? If he did so independently of Josephus, the coincidence is remarkable. It is even more remarkable because sicarii is a Latin term for assassins. Josephus seems to have been the first to borrow this word and make it a technical term for the Jewish rebels in his Greek narrative.
That Luke should use the same word, and similarly conflate the Egyptian with the other impostors mentioned by Josephus in the very same passage as leading people into the desert , further signifies borrowing–that exactly these mistakes should be made is incredible if not the result of drawing (albeit carelessly) on Josephus.
- The death of Agrippa I as God’s vengeance for accepting praise as a god (Acts 12:21-3; JA 19.343-52)
Although Luke puts this event in a different location and changes other details of the story, there is a strange similarity that suggests borrowing: Josephus connects the divine praise with the putting on of a brilliant robe, whereas Luke mentions putting on a robe before the praise, but without making the connection explicit–one wonders why the donning of the robe is mentioned by Luke at all, if he was not thinking of this story in Josephus.
- The association of Agrippa II with Berenice (Acts 25:13, 25:23, 26:30; JA 20.145)
Whereas Josephus hints at an incestuous affair between them, and Agrippa II’s other profligate tendencies, there is no explanation given by Luke for mentioning Berenice at all, and from his account one would think that Agrippa II is an honorable, disciplined observer of Jewish customs. But if a reader knows the details of Josephus, the entire scene of Paul before Agrippa II becomes comic sarcasm. It seems plausible that Luke intended it this way, and therefore may have gotten the idea from Josephus (see Mason pp. 96-100).
- The association of Felix with Drusilla (Acts 24:24-6; JA 20.143)
Josephus reports that Drusilla the Jew was seduced and abandoned her husband, the king of Emessa, to marry Felix. Acts puts the two together in a way that makes more sense if this account in Josephus is understood, especially considering Josephus’ portrayal of Felix as notoriously cruel to the Jews. For when Felix and Drusilla visit Paul in jail, Paul discusses “justice, self-control, and coming judgement,” at which Felix is terrified for some unexplained reason. As Mason puts it, “Why these themes in particular, and not the resurrection of Jesus or faith in Christ, which dominate the book elsewhere?” (p. 114). And why did Paul’s subject scare him? This could be answered by the fact that Josephus’ accounts of Felix and Drusilla were spreading, and were in the mind of Luke when he wrote of this encounter.
- Felix sending priests, “excellent men,” to Rome for trial on petty charges (Life 13)
Could this have been Luke’s pretext or model for having the same thing happen to Paul?
- Mention of Lysanias, tetrarch of Abilene (Luke 3:1; JW 2.215, 2.247, JA 19.275)
- The parable of the hated king sounds a lot like Josephus on Herod (Luke 19:12-27; JW 1.282-5)
- Similarities in the description of the siege of Jerusalem (including mention of slaughtered children: Luke 19:43-4; JW 6)
- Mention of a famine in the reign of Claudius (Acts 11:28-9; JA 3.320, 20:51-3, 20.101)
- Pilate’s attack on Galileans in L sounds like Pilate’s attack on Samaritans at Gerizim (Luke 13:1; JA 18.85-7)
Religion as Philosophy
Mason concludes with one overriding similarity of tactic between L and J that is unlikely to have been independently devised: both very cleverly paint their religions as respectable Graeco-Jewish philosophical schools. Some of these features:
- L begins by asserting that Christian teachings were “handed down” (paradidômi) by eye-witnesses of Jesus, just as J emphasizes that Jewish teachings were “handed down” (paradidômi) by Moses, and by the fathers of Pharisees. In both cases, the authors are drawing on Greek ideas of handing down succession in philosophical schools. Thus, both L and J are portraying their religion as traditional and philosophical (though the concept also has precedents in Paul).
- L and J use the word “secure” (asphaleia) in describing their concept of truth, a philosophical concept for factual and ethical truth.
- L’s emphasis, far greater than in any other NT text, on the virtues of poverty and the sins of hypocrisy and wealth, are all standard philosophical themes (in Stoic and Epicurean thought especially, but also in Platonic and Cynic ideals). Josephus also engages in similar discussions of the three schools of Judaism. Compare Luke 2:7, 2:16, 2:24, 3:10-14, 4:18, 6:20-6, 12:13-21, 14:1-14, 16:14, 16:19-31, 18:1-14 (and Acts 2:44-5, 4:32-5) with comparable passages in other Gospels, if any, and it becomes clear that Luke has this philosophical message more in mind than anyone [** you do not have permission to see this link **].
- L is the only Christian author to use the concept of free and frank speech, identified and praised in philosophy as parrhêsia (Acts 2:29, 4:29, 4:31, 28:31).
- L follows J in calling the Jewish sects (including Christianity) philosophical schools, haireseis, a term that would later take on a negative meaning among Christians as “heresy” (Acts 5:17, 15:5, 26:5; on Christianity as a hairesis: 24:5, 24:14-5, 28:22). We know of no other author but Josephus to have done this–it is a creative feature of his own apologetic program and therefore likely his own idea.
- L calls the Pharisees the “most precise school” (Acts 26:5), yet no one else but Josephus uses this idiom (JW 1.110, 2.162; JA 17.41; Life 189).
Finally, L curiously never mentions the third school, the Essenes. Yet Josephus praised them above all. They also happened to be much like Christians in many respects. Mason advances the hypothesis that Luke intended the Christians to take the place of the Essenes–and certainly wanted to avoid competing with them–so that Christianity would appear to Roman readers as this very third school: the most like Greek philosophy, the most like Christianity, and the most praised by Josephus. We lack the data necessary to prove or refute this hypothesis, but it is worth considering in light of all the evidence so far. It certainly fits.
Conclusion
Luke almost certainly knew and drew upon the works of Josephus (or else an amazing series of coincidences remains in want of an explanation), and therefore Luke and Acts were written at the end of the 1st century, or perhaps the beginning of the 2nd. This also results in the realization that almost every famous person, institution, place or event mentioned in L that can be checked against other sources is also found in Josephus, so that efforts to prove the veracity of L by appealing to these checks is cut short by the fact that he appears to have gotten all this information from Josephus, and simply cut-and-pasted it into his own “history” in order to give his story an air of authenticity and realism. He could thus, for all we know, have been writing historical fiction–using real characters and places, and putting them in fictional situations, all dressed up as history–history with a message, and an apologetic purpose. We thus cannot really know what in L is true or false with regard to the origins of Christianity or the actions of early Christians, since these particular details are the most prone to manipulation for didactic, symbolic, politico-ecclesiastical and apologetic reasons, and have very little if any external corroboration (and no external corroboration from a non-Christian).
What are people’s thoughts? If the author of Luke-Acts borrowed from Josephus, then we can safely push Luke-Acts into the Second Century.
I’ll give arguments against this hypothesis in a later post.
The first problem with the argument that the author of Luke-Acts borrowed from Josephus is that work of Josephus with the most overlapping material with Luke’s Gospel is the latter work, Antiquities of the Jews, which he completed in the 13th year of the reign of Domitian (circa 93 or 94 AD). Said plainly, if Luke the Evangelist borrowed from Josephus, he would have borrowed chiefly from Antiquities of the Jews, and he would have been unlikely to have access to that work until the final years of the First Century …. meaning Luke’s Gospel could not have been completed until around the turn of the Century at the very earliest.
Can Luke’s Gospel be dated to 100 AD (or even later)? While arguments have been made in favor of a late dating, there are two major problems:
First is Marcion. The heterodoxic philosopher compiled the earliest known canon of the books which would later contribute toward the New Testament. The only “gospel” accepted by Marcion was an abridged version of Luke’s Gospel, which dates to no later than circa 145 AD. Without getting into an extended discussion of Marcion’s philosophy and why he chose a version of Luke’s Gospel for his canon, it is important to note that Marcion was born circa 85 AD into a family of Christian clergy; his father was a Christian bishop in Turkey. Marcion would certainly have been familiar with the Christian texts available in his youth and during his life, and would have known whether the Gospel of Luke suddenly appeared later in his adult life. In other words, it’s highly unlikely that Marcion would have used a version of Luke’s Gospel as the foundation of his sect had it only been published during his adulthood. Indeed, it’s unlikely Marcion would have found Luke’s Gospel to be authoritative if it had not pre-existed his birth — something he would have easily known from his family members.
Second is 1 Timothy. Putting entirely aside the question of whether 1 Timothy is an authentic Pauline epistle — that question is irrelevant for this point — what is clear is that 1 Timothy was in circulation in the early part of the Second Century and quotes directly from the Gospel of Luke (10:7), referring to the passage as “scripture.” So, whether 1 Timothy was an authentic Pauline epistle or a forgery, what is clear is that it was written with the author’s knowledge of Luke’s Gospel, which he deemed to be “Scripture.” This places the dating of Luke’s Gospel well in advance of — at least one, and possible multiple, generations prior to — the composition of 1 Timothy.
So when should we date 1 Timothy? Perhaps the best way to place a boundary on the latest date comes from Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians. Polycarp was a prominent Church elder of the Second Century, who was born around the time of the Destruction of the Temple. Polycarp quoted Pauline epistles liberally in his writing and includes a quote from 1 Timothy in his epistle to the Philippians (4:1). That epistle may date as late as 140 AD (though it likely dates earlier); but what’s important is that Polycarp had been alive since 69 AD and was in a much better position to spot a late forgery. Said another way, even if 1 Timothy is a forgery, it is almost certainly a First Century forgery.
So, by dating 1 Timothy, which refers to Luke’s Gospel as “Scripture,” to the First Century, and by inferring from Marcion’s treatment of Luke’s Gospel as authoritative, it becomes very difficult to date Luke’s Gospel later than the 80s AD, and certainly not later than Antiquities of the Jews.
Thus, unless Luke the Evangelist had access to a copy of a proto- Antiquities of the Jews, it appears highly unlike that Luke’s Gospel borrowed from that work.
But that is not to say the two work don’t share some interesting similarities, which I will discuss in a later post.
vergari
- The death of Agrippa I as God’s vengeance for accepting praise as a god (** you do not have permission to see this link **; JA 19.343-52)
Although Luke puts this event in a different location and changes other details of the story, there is a strange similarity that suggests borrowing: Josephus connects the divine praise with the putting on of a brilliant robe, whereas Luke mentions putting on a robe before the praise, but without making the connection explicit–one wonders why the donning of the robe is mentioned by Luke at all, if he was not thinking of this story in Josephus.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy: Which Sad Calamity Has Caused God to Turn His Face Away?
Luke 9:29
As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed,
and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning.
Luke does not need to borrow from Josephus for the death of Agrippa I in Acts. What happened has legs. How Agrippa I took ill and died has legs. What was probably on Agrippa I’s mind was: Emperor Claudius is going to have me killed for meeting with neighboring kings without letting his governor of Syria representative approve that meeting. So, he goes to the games in honor of Claudius and gives his swan song speech honoring the birthday of his friend, Emperor Claudius.
Luke 9:29 is what I thought of, if there is an Agrippa I – Jesus connection–in addition to Rome giving the death penalty to a devout Jew which Agrippa I was.
If Josephus is writing an accurate historical account then Luke gets some facts wrong in their shared material. Eg – the egyptian leading 4,000 secarii, or placing Theudas before Judas.
This actually counts as evidence against Luke reading Josephus. Had he read Josephus he would have got these facts correct.
One argument against this is would be sloppiness on the part of Luke. But this would negate the whole argument of Luke carefully basing the structure of his gospel on Josephus.
Robert said
vergari said
… an abridged version of Luke’s Gospel …
Or an earlier, shorter version of Luke.
Marcion using an unabridged proto-Luke is certainly possible. It makes for a rather difficult explanation though.
If there was a shorter proto-Luke in circulation in 140, when does the Luke we have go into circulation?
By 170, Tatian is using our version of Luke to do the heavy lifting in his Diatessaron. Tatian was alive and in his late youth during the Marcion controversy. He certainly would have known about Marcion’s gospel. If our version of Luke was circulating at the same time that an earlier, shorter version of Luke was popular (or, even worse, didn’t go into circulation until after Marcion’s excommunication), it’s very difficult to believe that Tatian would have considered a new, augmented version of Luke to be authoritative.
brenmcg said
If Josephus is writing an accurate historical account then Luke gets some facts wrong in their shared material. Eg – the egyptian leading 4,000 secarii, or placing Theudas before Judas.This actually counts as evidence against Luke reading Josephus. Had he read Josephus he would have got these facts correct.
One argument against this is would be sloppiness on the part of Luke. But this would negate the whole argument of Luke carefully basing the structure of his gospel on Josephus.
I think the salient point here is that Luke and Josephus differ on some of their basic facts. It’s highly possible both got certain things wrong. The matters Luke has been wrong about have been discussed many times. But Josephus (like Luke) is also clearly using multiple sources — and contains internal contradictions in his own accounts.
Robert said
vergari said
Marcion using an unabridged proto-Luke is certainly possible. It makes for a rather difficult explanation though.
If there was a shorter proto-Luke in circulation in 140, when does the Luke we have go into circulation?
By 170, Tatian is using our version of Luke to do the heavy lifting in his Diatessaron. Tatian was alive and in his late youth during the Marcion controversy. He certainly would have known about Marcion’s gospel. If our version of Luke was circulating at the same time that an earlier, shorter version of Luke was popular (or, even worse, didn’t go into circulation until after Marcion’s excommunication), it’s very difficult to believe that Tatian would have considered a new, augmented version of Luke to be authoritative.
An earlier proto-Luke version could have circulated separately from the later edition. Personally, I’ve never been a fan of proto-Luke hypotheses, but it is, as you say, certainly a possibility. And let’s not forget that Lk 10,7 is a Q verse so it might have circulated separately or have been part of a proto-Luke version.
Yes, Luke 10:7 is part of the shared material with Matthew at Matthew 10:10. They are thematically derived from Deuteronomy 24.14-15. But the Greek in Luke 10:7 is a perfect match for 1 Timothy 5:18; Matthew 10:10 isn’t.
So could there be a proto- Luke with Luke 10:7 that was then cited by the writer of 1 Timothy 5:18 as scripture? Sure, it’s possible. But it’s a highly inelegant solution that causes more problems than it solves.
vergari said
I think the salient point here is that Luke and Josephus differ on some of their basic facts. It’s highly possible both got certain things wrong. The matters Luke has been wrong about have been discussed many times. But Josephus (like Luke) is also clearly using multiple sources — and contains internal contradictions in his own accounts.
Yes but if they are both using multiple sources the force of argument that Luke is using Josephus is lost. Any similarities between them could just indicate use of the same source.
brenmcg said
vergari said
I think the salient point here is that Luke and Josephus differ on some of their basic facts. It’s highly possible both got certain things wrong. The matters Luke has been wrong about have been discussed many times. But Josephus (like Luke) is also clearly using multiple sources — and contains internal contradictions in his own accounts.
Yes but if they are both using multiple sources the force of argument that Luke is using Josephus is lost. Any similarities between them could just indicate use of the same source.
I tend to agree with this. I’ll have a longer post about it.
How about… proto-Luke was written 80ish but, what? Pseudo-Luke? Deutero-Luke? wrote in the early second century. Proto-Luke did NOT know Matthew but Deutero-Luke did. Acts was part of the latter composition. Proto-Luke was an Adoptionist. Deutero-Luke was the better known Incarnationist.
Was too!
Stephen said
How about… proto-Luke was written 80ish but, what? Pseudo-Luke? Deutero-Luke? wrote in the early second century. Proto-Luke did NOT know Matthew but Deutero-Luke did. Acts was part of the latter composition. Proto-Luke was an Adoptionist. Deutero-Luke was the better known Incarnationist.Was too!
So what is the best case for a proto-Luke written in the 80s — if Acts was only part of the later composition? Does this proto-Luke help solve any problems?
So what is the best case for a proto-Luke written in the 80s — if Acts was only part of the later composition? Does this proto-Luke help solve any problems?
Well this was not an entirely serious proposal – I’m sure Prof Ehrman could probably punch some holes in it – but I’m willing to continue my speculation. As Robert indicated it makes sense of the fact that Chapter 3 looks awfully lot like the beginning of a gospel heavily dependent on Mark, and yes the “Q” material would have been known by proto-Luke. (Of course this would not preclude changes made by a second author familiar with Matthew.) Perhaps in the intro when the author mentions others who have written accounts of Jesus maybe he means proto-Luke as well!
But the clues aren’t all textual. There is a definite tension within the narrative between a detectable Adoptionist Christology and the explicit Incarnational Christology of the famous nativity narrative. Now it may be that this tension is implicit in all the First Century NT texts – even John cannot escape having the human Jesus referring to the Father as someone greater than and distinguished from himself. But we can at least contemplate an earlier Adoptionist proto-Luke, following Mark, and a later Incarnationist, following Matthew.
Anyone interested might also want to investigate Prof Ehrman’s extensive discussion of Luke 3:22 in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.
Robert said
It does help make sense of the differences of style between Luke Chapters 1-2 and the rest of the gospel as well as the strange placement of his genealogy. Bart’s posted about this a few times (eg, ** you do not have permission to see this link **). I’ve never been fully convinced by this, but it also helps explain Marcion’s shorter version of Luke.
Took a look; I wasn’t very familiar with this hypothesis.
The issue here as applied to Marcion is that the proto-Luke hypothesis has Luke originally starting with Luke 3, which is the Baptism by John; but that is also missing from Marcion’s gospel.
So, even if there was a proto-Luke that was missing Luke 1 & 2, that still doesn’t help us with the Marcion gospel redaction issue.
Stephen said
So what is the best case for a proto-Luke written in the 80s — if Acts was only part of the later composition? Does this proto-Luke help solve any problems?Well this was not an entirely serious proposal – I’m sure Prof Ehrman could probably punch some holes in it – but I’m willing to continue my speculation. As Robert indicated it makes sense of the fact that Chapter 3 looks awfully lot like the beginning of a gospel heavily dependent on Mark, and yes the “Q” material would have been known by proto-Luke. (Of course this would not preclude changes made by a second author familiar with Matthew.) Perhaps in the intro when the author mentions others who have written accounts of Jesus maybe he means proto-Luke as well!
But the clues aren’t all textual. There is a definite tension within the narrative between a detectable Adoptionist Christology and the explicit Incarnational Christology of the famous nativity narrative. Now it may be that this tension is implicit in all the First Century NT texts – even John cannot escape having the human Jesus referring to the Father as someone greater than and distinguished from himself. But we can at least contemplate an earlier Adoptionist proto-Luke, following Mark, and a later Incarnationist, following Matthew.
Anyone interested might also want to investigate Prof Ehrman’s extensive discussion of Luke 3:22 in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.
It’s an interesting hypothesis. I do think, though, that one of the issues with hypotheses which seek to multiply entities (here, like Q, proposing a text without any manuscript or patristic evidence) is that the hypothetical entity can almost act without limits, since there is complete silence as to evidence about it, including silence as to negative evidence. I’m just weary of proposed hypotheses such as this which are essentially impossible to disapprove and have zero expectations of ever being proved correct.
As to Marcion, as I indicated in my post above, proto-Luke does nothing for us, since the entire crux of the proto-Luke hypothesis is based on proto-Luke starting at Luke 3 with the John and Baptism to mirror Mark 1. But Marcion’s gospel, even though it includes the first few words of Lauke 3:1, does not include the Baptism. So where does that leave us? Certainly not with proto-Luke doing anything to explain the Marcion gospel.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert