In a seminar, Prof Claudio Gianotto (university of Turin) says that he agrees entirely with prof Klinghardt about Luke corrupting Marcion and not vice versa.
He says that he is not persuaded at all about the second part of the thesis of Klinghardt (that all the other Gospels, even Mark, is based on Mcn).
He refers that Klinghardt told him that if he accepts the first part of the his thesis (that Luke falsified Mcn) then he should accept also the second (that Mcn is the Earliest Gospel) in virtue of the application of the same metholodogy in the proof.
He says that, even before the his reading of Klinghardt, he was persuaded in pushing the gospels in II CE by the reading of this article of prof Pier Franco Beatrice (who says that the Earliest Gospels were two, and not one).
I don't like his reason to do so: to give more time for the 'oral tradition' to develop all that so great material.
If Jesus is mythical, I think, he could be euehmerized even only a day after the death of Paul.
Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
1 post • Page 1 of 1