I’m not really up to speed on this material, but I have been reading up on the Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis. It seems that there is some very compelling evidence in its favor (e.g, ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
I would add to the above that, long before encountering the MPH, while I found Goodacre’s arguments, based on fatigue, that Matthew copied Mark extremely compelling, and I was open to doing away with Q (the minor agreements bother me), I found his analogous arguments for Luke copying Matthew based on alleged fatigue quite weak and altogether unconvincing.
I’m receptive to the idea that there was a proto-Luke (likely the base of Marcion’s Evangelion) that was based on Mark and that was used by Matthew as a supplement to Mark.
But that raises questions: How would that proto-Luke relate to Acts? If Luke shows knowledge of Jospehus, does that push the timeline for proto-Luke (and Acts) back?
My exposure to this theory has mainly been from its supporters; are there (other) serious arguments against it?
What is the status questionis on MPH? I understand it has only been seriously advocated in the literature over the last decade or so. Do those with their finger on the pulse of scholarship see it gaining ground, or is it generally dismissed as a fringe theory, and if so, why?
How would that proto-Luke relate to Acts? If Luke shows knowledge of Jospehus, does that push the timeline for proto-Luke (and Acts) back?
My understanding from scholars currently studying Marcion, mainly Kloppenberg, BeDuhn, Vinzent, and Litwa, is that Marcion’s gospel bears no relation to Acts. There is, in fact, a disinclination to call Marcion’s gospel proto-Luke. The preference is to consider Marcion’s gospel as an ur text. Canonical Luke is a redaction of this text, and Acts accompanies the redaction.
Josephus finished writing in the mid 90s. I think the evidence of Luke/Acts’ reliance on Josephus is convincing, but that would only necessarily push Luke/Acts to sometime after the mid 90s, although perhaps a gap of at least 10 years after Josephus is more likely.
When you put these things together you have the ur text with an unknown date of composition, but probably late 1st century, and an early to mid 2nd century composition of Luke/Acts. Luke/Acts could have already existed when Marcion went to Rome around 135, or it could have been finalized and published after Marcion arrived. I haven’t seen any compelling arguments on that question either way.
A question that I have not seen addressed is whether early references to Luke in the Patristic writings are clearly references to the Lukan redaction or could actually be references to an earlier text. One possible solution could be whether the reference is to some portion of Luke that Maricon’s opponents claim he cut out of Luke. On the other hand, if all the references are to portions common to Luke and Marcion’s text, it would be difficult to determine which version of the text the Patristic writer(s) are using as a source.
I express no opinion of your main question of Matthean posteriority, or on whether Marcion’s gospel is the text which the Synoptics used as their main source.
I’m not entirely convinced by the evidence that Luke copies Josephus (as far as I know it), though I do take it seriously. I’d regard it as suggestive but not conclusive.
I suppose some relevant questions are:
When do we get the first quotations unambiguously from canonical-Luke (not proto-Luke) or Acts (as you also ask)? Surely someone has done that work.
Do the arguments ascribing Acts to the author of canonical Luke, fail when taken in reference to proto-Luke (such as we can reconstruct it)? I’d thought that the reconstructed proto-Luke was basically verbatim copied by canonical Luke, aside from the verses later added into canonical Luke), and that the argument for Luke and Acts sharing an author came down largely to style. So I’d have thought–assuming those arguments actually are good (I haven’t studied them), that they would equally apply to proto-Luke. I mean, if 80% of canonical Luke is copied directly from proto-Luke without significant alteration, and if we know that Luke and Acts shared an author based on a distinctively Lucan style, I’d have thought it would follow that proto-Luke and Acts would need to share an author.
I apologize, but I don’t understand the argument that what you are calling proto-Luke and Acts would need to share an author. All versions of Luke could exist independently of Acts. The claim is not that the final redactor of canonical Luke took a pre-existing form of Acts and modified it too. The claim is that this final redactor created Acts as part of his effort to provide a “well-ordered account,” which, in the case of Acts, attempts to smooth over conflicts that we know existed between Christ followers in the period.
Of course we also have to acknowledge the possibility that canonical Luke and Acts had different authors, but that would, I think, be contrary to the consensus on that issue.
You might the think that scholars would have investigated the issue of early extra-biblical references to “Luke” but I haven’t seen it, nor have I heard the question being discussed. I will ask one the the scholars I mentioned above about this and report back … if you’re interested.
I apologize, but I don’t understand the argument that what you are calling proto-Luke and Acts would need to share an author.
My understanding (which could be very far off) is that, first, canonical Luke and proto-Luke are almost verbatim identical for long sections. Canonical Luke adds a verse here or there and adds a few sections, like the infancy narrative. But for big chunks of the gospel they are practically identical.
My understanding is, second, that canonical Luke and Acts are ascribed to the same author based largely on their sharing a distinctively lucan style.
So, if my first understanding is right, and significant chucks of both proto-Luke and canonical Luke are practically identical, I’d expect any distinctively Lucan style to be found already in proto-Luke. And if my second understanding is right, that Acts and canonical Luke are thought to be by the same author because they share a distinctively Lucan style, then I’d think it likely that the same argument would then show that proto-Luke shares that style with Acts, which is therefore likely by the author of proto-Luke.
I have only a cursory familiarity with any of this, so either of those understandings could be wrong.
It sounds like you are suggesting that the distinctively lucan style that justifies identifying the authors of canonical Luke and Acts isn’t present in proto-Luke and that proto-Luke differs more from canonical Luke than I’d thought.
I will ask one the the scholars I mentioned above about this and report back … if you’re interested.
I would certainly be interested and grateful to hear any report.
I put the question of the possibility of Patristic references to Marcion’s gospel to David Litwa. He responded that it was extremely unlikely. According to him, by the time of Iraneus and Tertullian when we start getting clear references to particular gospels, Marcion’s text was known as separate and these authors would not have quoted from it except in contrast to the accepted gospels.
In something else Litwa put out today he mentioned that Tertullian seems to critique Marcion from a Matthean perspective, which is interesting.
I also did some separate research and found that there is a chapter entitled The Gospel of Luke in the Apolistic Fathers in a book called Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers published by Oxford University Press in 2005. The blurb I see indicates that the scope of this chapter is 1 Clement through Iraneus, but I can’t access the actual text without a pretty substantial cash outlay.
I made a mistake in my first post on this thread. I referred to Kloppenberg as a scholar working in this area. I actually meant to refer to Klinghardt. I apologize for the error.
I put the question of the possibility of Patristic references to Marcion’s gospel to David Litwa. He responded that it was extremely unlikely. According to him, by the time of Iraneus and Tertullian when we start getting clear references to particular gospels, Marcion’s text was known as separate and these authors would not have quoted from it except in contrast to the accepted gospels.
I’m not sure I quite follow his answer. Is the point that we don’t really have any direct attestation of or clear quotations from the Gospel of Luke until the mid to late 2nd century, by which point there is a clear distinction between canonical Luke and the Marcion’s gospel, so there is no possibility of confusion? He he says anything about the first time we see references to Acts?
I’ve snagged the book–Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers–and I’ll look over the chapter later tonight to see if it offers any hints.
Is the point that we don’t really have any direct attestation of or clear quotations from the Gospel of Luke until the mid to late 2nd century, by which point there is a clear distinction between canonical Luke and the Marcion’s gospel, so there is no possibility of confusion?
I had the same question, but decided not to ask the follow up today. Instead I did some independent research which led to that book chapter.
I didn’t ask him about Acts at all. Since nothing we know of ties Marcion to anything other than a gospel and a collection of Paul’s letters (and his Antithesis, which did no survive), there would be no reason for the interested scholars to look at Acts.
I didn’t ask him about Acts at all. Since nothing we know of ties Marcion to anything other than a gospel and a collection of Paul’s letters (and his Antithesis, which did no survive), there would be no reason for the interested scholars to look at Acts.
I asked about Acts simply because it would help us nail down a terminus ante quem for canonical Luke. I suppose it is unlikely that we have anything early enough to really be helpful on that front, but the thinking was something along the lines of: If canonical Luke uses writings of Josephus that weren’t published until the late 90’s, but we have canonical Luke or Acts being referred to as though it was a known text already around 100, then we have a troublingly tight timeline. On the other hand, if we don’t have any unambiguous reference to canonical Luke or Acts until 190, then we have a huge window in which it could have been written.
Litwa posted a new video today called “Before Luke Became Luke.” It deals with Marcion’s gospel, non-biblical references to canonical Luke and the possible redaction of Marcion’s gospel into canonical Luke. It also discusses a proto-Acts that (1) is not associated with Marcion, and (2) was developed into canonical Acts, probably by the same redactor who produced canonical Luke. I thought you might find it worth a listen.
Interesting that he places proto-Luke around 100 and pushes canonical Luke back sometime after 150. That seems quite late.
It seems he wants to place canonical Luke so late because opponents of Marcion earlier than Irenaeus (e.g., Justin Martyr) don’t raise any issue about the gospel he used, from which Litwa draws the conclusion that those earlier opponents didn’t know canonical Luke. An interesting argument, but as he notes, there is a problem in that Justin does know Luke’s infancy narrative; which Litwa gets around by suggesting Justin knew the source that canonical Luke would later use to construct that narrative.
This ties into the caveat he gave us at the beginning of the video: We don’t know what the gospels looked like prior to the third century, so we can’t assume that passages from earlier authors that seem to quote or allude to them are actually quoting the books we have; they could just as well be quoting some earlier source that would later be used by the book we have.
It’s very interesting, but I’m not sure what to make of it. He’s challenging some fairly basic assumptions, but I’m not sure he’s wrong.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert