2018 Klinghardt books (& some commentary on Markus Vinzent's ideas)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5738
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

2018 Klinghardt books (& some commentary on Markus Vinzent's ideas)

Post by MrMacSon » Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:31 pm

Das Neue Testament und sein Text im 2. Jahrhundert (Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (TANZ) 61)* (German Edition); by Jan Heilmann (Editor),‎ Matthias Klinghardt (Editor), Narr Francke Attempto Verlag, January 2018.
  • 'The New Testament and Its Text in the 2nd Century: (Texts and Works in the New Testament Age)'

Amazon description & a slightly modified google translation -

Das Neue Testament ist das Ergebnis einer einheitlichen Redaktion in der Mitte des 2. Jahrhunderts. Die Beiträge dieses Bandes greifen diese These von David Trobisch auf und fragen, was sie für das Neue Testament, für seinen Text und für die neutestamentliche Theologie bedeutet.

Wie lässt sich die These einer Endredaktion kritisieren, differenzieren, weiterdenken?

Was besagt sie für die Datierung der neutestamentlichen Texte, welchen Einfluss hat sie auf die Vorstellungen zum gottesdienstlichen Gebrauch?


In welchem Verhältnis steht die Endredaktion zu der Schriftensammlung, die für Marcion bezeugt ist?

Welche Konsequenzen ergeben sich daraus für die Textkritik?

Wie müssen die Varianten beurteilt, wie die frühe Geschichte der Textüberlieferung verstanden werden?

Welche theologischen Implikationen hat die These der Endredaktion?


Die Beiträge des Bandes machen das große Potential der Endredaktionsthese deutlich und zeigen, dass die Diskussion noch ganz am Anfang steht.

https://www.amazon.com/Testament-Jahrhu ... 675&sr=1-6
The New Testament is the result of a unified editorial staff in the middle of the 2nd century [...] this volume take up the thesis of David Trobisch and asks what it means for the New Testament, for its text, and for New Testament theology.

How can the thesis of an editorial office be differentiated, criticized, [and] thought [about] further?

 What does [this] mean for the dating of the New Testament texts, what influence does [this] have on ideas for the worship service?

What is the relationship between the final editorial and the collection of writings attested to Marcion?

What are the consequences for textual criticism?

How should the variants be judged, how the early history of the textual tradition be understood?

Which theological implications does the thesis of the final editing have?

The contributions of the volume make clear the great potential of the final editorial thesis and show that the discussion is still at the very beginning.




The Oldest Gospel: Klinghardt Edition, Quiet Waters Publications, July 2018
by Matthias Klinghardt (Contributor),‎ Stephen Trobisch (Translator),‎ David Trobisch (Preface)

This gospel was first published by Marcion of Sinope as part of a collection that also contained ten letters of Paul. Its title was simply "Gospel," suggesting to readers of the collection that it was the gospel of which Paul spoke in his letter to the Galatians (Gal 1:6-9). Marcion moved from Asia Minor to Rome by the year 144. He insisted that someone had used the anonymous book to create the "Gospel According to Luke."

No manuscripts of the full text are known to have survived. Tertullian of Carthage, Epiphanius of Salamis, the author of the Dialogues of Adamantius, and several others, however, wrote extensively about this gospel. Their quotes and detailed descriptions preserved much of the text.

Throughout the centuries, many attempts of reconstructing this gospel were undertaken, but none* with the painstakingly detailed effort of Matthias Klinghardt, Professor of New Testament at the Technical University of Dresden, Germany. Klinghardt's 2015 reconstruction is presented here for the first time in an English translation. This gospel is presumed to be older than the canonical Four-Gospel book.

https://www.amazon.com/Oldest-Gospel-Kl ... Klinghardt
  • some may well dispute that. Dieter Roth's reconstruction is likely to be held in v. high regard. And there have been other reconstructions this decade: BeDuhn, Vinzent (though criticised for poor documentation of it in his 2014 book, Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels); and perhaps Moll and others
Last edited by MrMacSon on Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5738
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Das Neue Testament und sein Text im 2. Jahrhundert

Post by MrMacSon » Sat Nov 10, 2018 4:52 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:31 pm
Das Neue Testament und sein Text im 2. Jahrhundert (Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (TANZ) 61)* (German Edition); by Jan Heilmann (Editor),‎ Matthias Klinghardt (Editor), Narr Francke Attempto Verlag, January 2018.
  • 'The New Testament and Its Text in the 2nd Century: (Texts and Works in the New Testament Age)'

Forward/Vorwort
This anthology is based on a conference that took place in March 2015 at the TU Dresden on "The New Testament and its text in the 2nd century" ... Most of the contributions are based on the presentations given at this meeting; [An] article by Wolfgang Grünstäudl is based on a lecture given at the TU Dresden in June 2013.


the Table of Contents (as it appears in the book is in the left column ie. with some English; & translated into English in the RHS) -

Vorwort

Das Neue Testament und sein Text im 2. Jh.

1 Die Kanonische Ausgabe und die Kanonische Redaktion
1.1 Forschungsobjekt
1.1 Die editio princeps des Neuen Testaments
1.2 Die Kanonische Redaktion der Evangelien
1.3 Die Kanonische Redaktion und der Text des Neuen Testaments

2 Fragen und Aufgaben
2.1 Textkritik und Textgeschichte
2.2 Die Kanonische Ausgabe und ihre Vorgeschichte

3 Beiträge


Die These einer editio princeps des Neuen Testaments im Spiegel der Forschungsdiskussion der letzten zwei Jahrzehnte

1 Methodische Anfragen an die Auswertung des Handschriftenbefundes

2 Sozial- und kirchengeschichtliche Argumente
2.1 Die Kodexform habe schon vor einer mutmaßlichen Herausgabe der editio princeps für christliche Schriften Anwendung gefunden.
2.2 Im 2. Jh. sei es vor allem unter ökonomischen und technischen Gesichtspunkten noch nicht möglich gewesen, die neutestamentlichen Schriften in einem Kodex bzw. in einer „Vollbibel“ unterzubringen.
2.3 Die These Trobischs stünde im Widerspruch zu den Quellen (z. B. Irenäus, Canon Muratori, Origenes, Euseb), die eine Diskussion über die kanonische Geltung neutestamentlicher Schriften belegten.
2.4 Die These Trobischs widerspreche „dem entscheidenden Movens [der Sammlung von neutestamentlichen Schriften bzw. des Kanonisierungsprozesses], die liturgische Lesung im Gottesdienst!“
2.5 Die Theorie Trobischs setze ein viel höheres Niveau von Strukturierung und Zentralisierung voraus als im zweiten Jh. vorhanden.

3 Kritik an fehlender historischer Kontextualisierung
4 Das Problem der katholischen Briefsammlung
5 Schluss und Fazit


Geschätzt und bezweifelt. Der zweite Petrusbrief im kanongeschichtlichen Paradigmenstreit

1 Der zweite Petrusbrief als Marker einer dynamischen Entwicklung
2 Der zweite Petrusbrief als Zentralelement einer gezielten Publikation
2.1 Methodologische Grundentscheidungen
2.2 Kodexform
2.3 Nomina Sacra
2.4 Titel
2.5 Die Reihenfolgen der Einzelschriften
3 Der zweite Petrusbrief als Knotenpunkt eines intertextuellen Netzwerks
4 Zusammenfassung und Ausblick



No Liturgical Need for a Gospel in the Second Century

1 Questions and Presuppositions
2 Celebrations of Liturgies of the Word
3 Liturgical Functions of the Gospels in the Gospels and in 1 Corinthians?
4 A Liturgy of the Word in Justin’s Congregation?
5 Celebrations of Torah in Judaism
6 Conclusions

Christian Manuscripts from Egypt to the Times of Constantine
1
2
3 The earliest Christian manscripts

Marcion in der Turing-Galaxie
Einleitung
1 Zur Medialität des Textbegriffs
2 Digitale Analyseansätze in der Erforschung der neutestamentlichen Textgeschichte
3 Digitale Erschließung der Frühgeschichte des neutestamentlichen Textes
Conclusio


Varianten in der Textüberlieferung des Johannesevangeliums

1 Textkritische Varianten im Johannesevangelium im Rahmen des Dresdner Modells
2 Der Auserwählte oder der Sohn Gottes in Joh 1,34
3 Joh 13,27 und der Verräter
4 Der Beiname von Judas im Johannesevangelium als Beleg für die besondere Relevanz des Textes in D
5 Mahl und Nachfolge in Joh 21 ─ die Relevanz von ἀκολουθοῦντα in Vers 20
6 Schlussüberlegungen

The Gospel According to John in the Light of Marcion's Gospelbook

1 Literary-Critical Assessment: The Gospel According to John as an Edited Version of the Manuscript of the Beloved Disciple
2 Redactional-Critical Assessment: Gospel According to John in the light of Marcion’s Gospel Summary


Methodological Assumptions in the Reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel (Mcn). The Example of the Lord's Prayer [M. Vinzent]

1 The first Trajectory – or Markan/ Q Priority, the Two-Sources Hypothesis and the Posteriority of Mcn

1.1 Markan/ Q Priority and the Two-Sources Hypothesis
1.2 The Markan/ Q Priority, the Two-Sources Hypothesis and the Posteriority of Mcn as Framework for its Reconstruction

2 The Priority of Mcn in the Synoptics

3 Which text of the Lord’s Prayer? Different frameworks and their results

3.1 The Lord's Prayer in Mcn following the Markan/ Q Priority and the Two-Sources Hypothesis
3.2 The Lord's Prayer in Mcn based on the Priority of Mcn in the Synoptics
Sections 1-10.

3.3 The Lord's Prayer in Mcn based on the Priority of Mcn and Mcn being written by Marcion

The frame of the pericope:
Section 1: ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς
Section 3: the additional ἐλθέτω σου ἡ βασιλεία

3.4 Early reception of the Lord's Prayer

4 The Lord’s Prayer in Mcn


Abraham als Element der Kanonischen Redaktion

1 Abraham in der Marcionitischen und in der Kanonischen Ausgabe

1.1 Abraham in der marcionitischen Ausgabe
1.2 Abraham in der Kanonischen Ausgabe

2 Abrahamskindschaft

2.1 Abrahamskindschaft in der marcionitischen Ausgabe
2.2 Abrahamskindschaft in der Kanonischen Ausgabe
a. Nutzlosigkeit der Abrahamskindschaft ohne Ausweis der Würdigkeit
b. Verlierbarkeit der Abrahamskindschaft
c. Erworbene Abrahamskindschaft
d. Zusammenfassung

3 Abrahams Glaube und seine Werke der Gerechtigkeit

3.1 Zum Verhältnis von Jakobus und Paulus
3.2 Unpaulinisches bei Paulus: Glaube und Werke
3.3 Glaube und Werke bei Jakobus und Paulus: Ein inszeniertes Missverständnis

4 Einige Ergebnisse
a. Abraham im Neuen Testament
b. Textualität und Selbstreferentialität der Überlieferung


Kanonische Ausgabe und neutestamentliche Theologie

1 Zum profil der textgeschichtlichen these
2 Kanonische Ausgabe und kanonische Auslegung
3 Kanon und historisch-kritische Hermeneutik
4 Der „Sinnüberschuss“ der Einzelschriften in der Kanonischen Ausgabe
5 Kanonische Ausgabe, historischer Jesus und Altes Testament
6 Fazit

Literaturverzeichnis

Die Autoren
Foreword

The New Testament and Its Text in the 2nd Century

1 The Canonical Edition and the Canonical Editorship
1.1 Research Item
1.1 The principal edition of the New Testament
1.2 The Canonical Editors of the Gospels
1.3 The Canonical Editing and the New Testament Text

2 Questions and Tasks
2.1 Text Criticism and Textual History
2.2 The Canonical Edition and its Prehistory

3 Contributions


The thesis of a 'principal edition' of the New Testament in the light of the research discussion of the last two decades

1 Methodical inquiries for the evaluation of the manuscript findings

2 Social and church history arguments
2.1 The codex form already has a presumed editing of editio princeps for christian scriptures [...]
2.2 In the 2nd century AD, it was still not possible to accommodate the New Testament writings in a codex or in a "full Bible", especially from an economic and technical point of view.
2.3 The thesis of Trobisch would contradict the sources (eg. Irenaeus, Canon Muratori, Origen, Eusebius) which prov[ided] a discussion on the canonical validity of New Testament writings.
2.4 The thesis of Trobisch contradicts "the decisive Movens [the collection of New Testament writings or the canonization process], the liturgical reading in worship!"
2.5 The theory of Troy presupposes a much higher level of structuring and centralization than was available in the second century.

3 Criticism of Missing Historical Contextualization
4 The Problem of Catholic Briefs
5 Conclusion and Conclusion


Appreciated and doubted. The second Epistle of Peter in the canonical paradigm dispute

1 The 2nd Epistle of Peter as a marker of dynamic development
2 The 2nd Epistle of Peter as the central element of a targeted publication
2.1 Basic Methodological Decisions
2.2 Code form
2.3 Nomina Sacra
2.4 Title
2.5 The order of the individual writings
3 The second Epistle of Peter as a node of an intertextual network
4 Summary and Outlook



No Liturgical Need for a Gospel in the Second Century

1 Questions and Presuppositions
2 Celebrations of Liturgies of the Word
3 Liturgical Functions of the Gospels in the Gospels and in 1 Corinthians?
4 A Liturgy of the Word in Justin’s Congregation?
5 Celebrations of Torah in Judaism
6 Conclusions

Christian Manuscripts from Egypt to the Times of Constantine
1
2
3 The earliest Christian manscripts

Marcion in the Turing galaxy
Introduction
1 On the mediality of the text concept
2 Digital analysis approaches in the study of the New Testament textual history
3 Digital development of the early history of the New Testament text
Conclusion


Variants in the textual tradition of the Gospel of John

1 Text-critical variants in the Gospel of John in the context of the Dresdner model
2 The chosen one or the Son of God in Joh 1:34
3 John 13:27 and the traitor
4 The nickname of Judas in John's Gospel as proof of the special relevance of the text in D
5 Mass and Succession in Jn 21 ─ the relevance of ἀκολουθοῦντα in verse 20
6 Final considerations

The Gospel [of] John in the Light of Marcion's Gospelbook

1 Literary-Critical Assessment: The Gospel [of] John as an Edited Version of the Manuscript of the Beloved Disciple
2 Redactional-Critical Assessment: Gospel According to John in the light of Marcion’s Gospel Summary


Methodological Assumptions in the Reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel (Mcn). The Example of the Lord's Prayer [M. Vinzent]

1 The first Trajectory – or Markan/ Q Priority, the Two-Sources Hypothesis and the Posteriority of Mcn

1.1 Markan/ Q Priority and the Two-Sources Hypothesis
1.2 The Markan/ Q Priority, the Two-Sources Hypothesis and the Posteriority of Mcn as Framework for its Reconstruction

2 The Priority of Mcn in the Synoptics

3 Which text of the Lord’s Prayer? Different frameworks and their results

3.1 The Lord's Prayer in Mcn following the Markan/ Q Priority and the Two-Sources Hypothesis
3.2 The Lord's Prayer in Mcn based on the Priority of Mcn in the Synoptics
Sections 1-10.

3.3 The Lord's Prayer in Mcn based on the Priority of Mcn and Mcn being written by Marcion

The frame of the pericope:
Section 1: ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς
Section 3: the additional ἐλθέτω σου ἡ βασιλεία

3.4 Early reception of the Lord's Prayer

4 The Lord’s Prayer in Mcn


Abraham as an element of the Canonical Editorship

1 Abraham in the Marcionite and Canonical Editions

1.1 Abraham in the Marcionite edition
1.2 Abraham in the Canonical Edition

2 Abrahamic discipline

2.1 Abrahamic fellowship in the Marcionite edition
2.2 Abrahamhood in the Canonical Edition
a. Uselessness of the Abrahamic Church without proof of worthiness
b. Loss of Abrahamic Childhood
c. Acquired Abrahamhood
d. Summary

3 Abraham's faith and his works of justice

3.1 The relationship between James and Paul
3.2 [nonPaulinist(?)] in Paul: faith and works
3.3 Faith and Works in James and Paul: A Staged Misunderstanding

4 Some results
a. Abraham in the New Testament
b. Textuality and self-referentiality of the tradition


Canonical edition and New Testament theology

1 About the profile of the text-historical thesis
2 Canonical edition and canonical interpretation
3 Canon and historical-critical hermeneutics
4 The "surplus of meaning" of the individual writings in the canonical edition
5 Canonical Edition, Historical Jesus and Old Testament
6 Conclusion

Bibliography

The Authors

Last edited by MrMacSon on Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5932
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 2018 Klinghardt books

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:50 am

MrMacSon wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:31 pm
The Oldest Gospel: Klinghardt Edition, Quiet Waters Publications, July 2018
by Matthias Klinghardt (Contributor),‎ Stephen Trobisch (Translator),‎ David Trobisch (Preface)

This gospel was first published by Marcion of Sinope as part of a collection that also contained ten letters of Paul. Its title was simply "Gospel," suggesting to readers of the collection that it was the gospel of which Paul spoke in his letter to the Galatians (Gal 1:6-9). Marcion moved from Asia Minor to Rome by the year 144. He insisted that someone had used the anonymous book to create the "Gospel According to Luke."

No manuscripts of the full text are known to have survived. Tertullian of Carthage, Epiphanius of Salamis, the author of the Dialogues of Adamantius, and several others, however, wrote extensively about this gospel. Their quotes and detailed descriptions preserved much of the text.

Throughout the centuries, many attempts of reconstructing this gospel were undertaken, but none* with the painstakingly detailed effort of Matthias Klinghardt, Professor of New Testament at the Technical University of Dresden, Germany. Klinghardt's 2015 reconstruction is presented here for the first time in an English translation. This gospel is presumed to be older than the canonical Four-Gospel book.

https://www.amazon.com/Oldest-Gospel-Kl ... Klinghardt
Thanks for the link. I had some free Amazon points and went ahead and ordered this book, which arrived just today. Now I can compare BeDuhn, Roth, and Klinghardt, for whatever that might be worth.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5738
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Markus Vinzent & Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels

Post by MrMacSon » Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:19 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:50 am
Thanks for the link. I had some free Amazon points and went ahead and ordered this book, which arrived just today. Now I can compare BeDuhn, Roth, and Klinghardt, for whatever that might be worth.
You're welcome Ben.

I went to a university library yesterday and read the start of Vinzent's Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels, 2014. He alludes to Roth's 2009 PhD but not BeDuhn's 2013 The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon, probably b/c he had submitted his Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels manuscript without knowing about or without having had a chance to read BeDuhn's book beforehand. Vinzent said his intention with Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels was not to reproduce Marcion's gospel there, but discuss aspects around it as a start to combining New Testament scholarship and Patristic scholarship (which he claimed no-one had really done before). I'm not sure Vinzent now intends to reproduce Marcion's gospel (based on what other books he says he is working on).

The point of all that is he may not need to, with BeDuhn, Roth, and Klinghardt having done so since, and that is likely all that needs to be done for the present.

One of the criticisms I have seen of Vinzent's Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels, 2014, is that where he did provide parts of his then reconstructions of Marcion's gospels he did not document them properly ie. he did not align them fully with Luke, but of course he said at the beginning that was not his intention with that book (so it seems to be an obscure point on which to denigrate the whole book).

What I have read so far is a comprehensive commentary about all the many patristic references to Marcion. He made the point that "As far as we know no other teacher in the history of the Church until Martin Luther received during his life time (and continuing after his death) a comparable literary response" and cites others who made the same point, including E.C. Blackman, Marcion (1948), Ehrman (in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 1993, 22011; 216), S. Fernández, 'Salvácion', 2001), and Judith Lieu (in 'The Enduring Legacy of Pan-Marcionism', 2013).

Vinzent notes that Irenaeus documents Justin Martyr's To Marcion and that it points to either a conversation with or a reply to Marcion in a theological debate rather than heresiological polemic against him in that early scenario.

Vinzent thinks there are indications that Justin knew Paul through Marcion but rejected Marcion's apparent reverence for Paul's theology (or aspects of it, at least).

So accurate recounts about Marcion's positions and texts will be important for ongoing dissection of interactions between early NT theology, and the patristics and BeDuhn, Roth, and Klinghardt are likely to help that.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:42 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5932
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 2018 Klinghardt books

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:53 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:19 pm
Vinzent thinks there are indications that Justin knew Paul through Marcion but rejected Marcion's apparent reverence for Paul's theology (or aspects of it, at least).
Yes, more work definitely needs to be done on Paul and Justin Martyr. On the one hand, Justin seems to take after Papias in some ways, and there is very little indication that Papias knew or revered Paul; and of course Justin himself never refers to Paul in his extant works, preferring the "memoirs of the apostles" (= gospel texts) and the apocalypse of John. On the other, however, Justin reacted to Marcion and therefore pretty much had to have interacted with the Pauline writings; furthermore, Seth Ehorn and others have argued that Justin knows some of the Hebrew scriptures in a Greek form which betrays intimate knowledge of Pauline quotations of scripture.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

perseusomega9
Posts: 443
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: 2018 Klinghardt books

Post by perseusomega9 » Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:49 pm

Could it be that the Epistolarian hadn't received the name Paul yet at the time of Justin?

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5738
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Markus Vinzent's 'Marcion & the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels'

Post by MrMacSon » Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:42 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:53 pm
MrMacSon wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:19 pm
Vinzent thinks there are indications that Justin knew Paul through Marcion but rejected Marcion's apparent reverence for Paul's theology (or aspects of it, at least).
Yes, more work definitely needs to be done on Paul and Justin Martyr. On the one hand, Justin seems to take after Papias in some ways, and there is very little indication that Papias knew or revered Paul; and of course Justin himself never refers to Paul in his extant works, preferring the "memoirs of the apostles" (= gospel texts) and the apocalypse of John. On the other, however, Justin reacted to Marcion and therefore pretty much had to have interacted with the Pauline writings; furthermore, Seth Ehorn and others have argued that Justin knows some of the Hebrew scriptures in a Greek form which betrays intimate knowledge of Pauline quotations of scripture.

Vincent refers to Tertullian's report of Marcion's reading of 2 Cor.12:4 (at Adv. Marc. V 12,8) to say Marcion used 2 Cor.12:4 to infer Paul's elevation into the paradise of God: to Marcion Paul had met the Lord himself, 'the Saviour [who] had appeared on earth in the angelic flesh of the Risen'.

Vinzent uses Irenaeus' commentary about Justin at Adv. Haer. IV 6,2 to say -

.
Justin ''reject[ed] this core reading of Marcion [of 2 Cor.12:4.] and counter-argue[d] that even if Marcion's reading of Paul were correct and the Lord had announced 'any other than He who is our framer, maker, and nourisher', he would not have believed the Lord himself. That Justin insists that his faith 'is steadfast', hence he could not have been shaken even by the Lord himself, underlines that Marcion's prooftext, Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians, must have made an impression on readers. Justin's sceptical position in our fragment [Iren. Adv. Haer. IV 6,2] may also explain why, despite him writing to (and later against) Marcion, and therefore having had knowledge of Paul's letters, in his extant work he never refers to either Paul or his letters. Justin adds his theological statement that his 'love to the Father [is] immovable, god bestowing both [faith and love] upon us' as if the addressee (Marcion!) was still regarded by Justin as belonging to the same community ('upon us') and as if Justin was still hoping to find a susceptible Marcion."

Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels, 2014, p.11

Vinzent refers to Eusebius saying that Papias did not include Paul among the elder authorities from whom he claimed to have received his information about the disciples of the Lord [Hist. eccl. III 39,4], and -

.
[Papias] reports that the Twelve had 'to make up for the traitor Judas', a story known from Acts which indirectly excludes Paul from being an Apostle.65

Papias not mentioning Paul, who is to Marcion the authority and the sole Apostle,66 his insistence upon a distance between the Lord and any author of written accounts, and his avoidance of using Marcion's newly created catchwords (Gospel, Old and New Testament), all contribute to an anti-Marcionite profile.67

... Papias displays further anti-Marcionite features. Irenaeus report[ed] that Papias refer[red] to a Lord's saying that interprets Gen. 27:28f. with reference to Gen 49:12,68 and hence interpret[ed] the Dominical Oracles on the basis of the Jewish Torah.


Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels, 2014, p.13.


65 According to Euseb. Hist. eccl. III 39,10; see Acts 1:17-25.

66 We should not forget that to...the ship-owner and mariner Marcion, the term apostle had another connotation, as it derives from the ship trade where it can mean 'ship', 'expedition', 'passport', and 'deliver note', see W. Schmithals, Apostelamt (1961), 85.

67 See Papias Hier., Frg. 4. 7 (... cum se in praefatione adserat non varias opinones sequi, sed apostolos habere auctores) (100, 12: 106 Hübner/Kürzinger/Siegert).

68 See Iren. Adv. Haer. V 33,3-4.
.

Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:37 pm, edited 7 times in total.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5738
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 2018 Klinghardt books

Post by MrMacSon » Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:56 pm

perseusomega9 wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:49 pm
Could it be that the Epistolarian hadn't received the name Paul yet at the time of Justin?
I wondered that too, when reading Vinzent.

Although there seems to be a lot of 'reading between the lines' and thus speculation, it would also seem worthwhile giving Vinzent's propositions the light of day, particularly as all these characters might have overlapped and interacted more than has been considered in the past (and it seems other scholars have not yet been prepared to give Vinzent's propositions a good airing).

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5932
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 2018 Klinghardt books

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:11 pm

perseusomega9 wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:49 pm
Could it be that the Epistolarian hadn't received the name Paul yet at the time of Justin?
How far would this go toward explaining the degree of contact we find between Justin and Paul? That Pauline influence seems limited mainly to scriptural quotations seems weird no matter what name the epistles may or may not have borne at the time, right? Or perhaps there is more contact than that and I have forgotten it or was never aware of it.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5738
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 2018 Klinghardt books

Post by MrMacSon » Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:22 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:11 pm
... That Pauline influence seems limited mainly to scriptural quotations seems weird no matter what name the epistles may or may not have borne at the time, right? ...
edited:
I wonder if some or even many of the 'scriptural quotations' in [early] patristic commentaries are coincidences (or even if some passages that appear in patristic texts contributed to biblical and extra-biblical epistles and gospels).

Post Reply