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

[MrMacSon]

MrMacSon,

I do think that many folks, even Barbara Aland, have somewhat misrepresented Klinghardt's position when they say that Marcion created this ur-Gospel.* Maybe it is because it is reconstructed almost entirely from church fathers polemic against Marcion's Gospel, and that some of the canonical Gospels may have included wording meant to refute Marcion.

DCH

* So says a German language review by Jan Heilmann of Aland's article that collectively reviewed the positions of Vinzent, Roth & Klinghardt in the November 2016 issue of Theologische Literaturzeitung (ThLZ). I read it by using the translate feature of Google Chrome (Google Toolbar and Google Translate no longer seem work in IE 11):
https://enipolatio.hypotheses.org/673

My translation says Heilmann says (italics mine) "Aland only presents the model for Gospel creation presented by Klinghardt".

Then

her critical remarks relate above all to those reconstruction decisions which Klinghardt based solely on the critical textual testimony in Hss. [w]ith so-called "Western text" and for which there are no indications among the heresiologists can be found. At the same time, Aland "regrets these too blank a criticism for lack of space and hopes for a conversation." (1230)

I'm not sure what Hss. is; perhaps heresiologists texts.

I presume "regrets too blank a criticism"" is a mis-translation for 'too bland a criticism' as in not being able to fully discuss the issues, rather than get stuck into Klinghardt (and perhaps everyone not fully discussing the issues [with each other, and] b/c of the truncated format of papers in general, as per an early paragraph by Heilmann and the last paragraph -

The review provides a concise summary and instructive overview of the methodology and theses of the three monographs, and evaluates them constructively and critically in the awareness of the limitations of space.
-------------------
With her criticism, Aland has indeed hit a sore point in the reconstruction of Klinghardt, which, however, concerns only individual reconstruction decisions, but not the historical-historical model as a whole, which has been developed on the basis of the heresiologically proven text passages. The three papers and their dissimilar findings, as well as Aland's discussion, suggest that a reopening of the conversation about the significance of the testified gospel for Marcion's birth to the New Testament and early church history is indeed very important and provides new, fruitful research perspectives can.

And Aland had previously said about BeDuhn and Roth's books -

The study by M. Vinzent (late dating of the Gospels after 150, Marcion as the author of the Gospel) challenges Aland that the uncertainty of dating the earliest references to the Gospels certainly does not support late dating. She describes Vincent's model of Gospel creation as an "extreme solution," where she sees merit in having "drawn attention to an urgent question and offered the source material to be considered in a clear-sighted manner" (1227).

To D. Roth's reconstruction, which is a minimal solution and offers only the text passages of the "Marcionite gospel" attested by the heresiologists (implicitly assuming Luke's priority), Aland acknowledges the accuracy of the analysis of the material offered by Tertullian.  She regrets, however, that "issues relating to the reception history of the Gospels are so rigorously suppressed" (1228), but adds that this was probably necessary for the work to be done.

[Ulan]

My translation says Heilmann says (italics mine) "Aland only presents the model for Gospel creation presented by Klinghardt".

In German, flexible word order allows for stressing a specific meaning. Here it is stressed that Aland doesn't go much past a simple description of Klinghardt's position and, because of the sheer volume of Klinghardt's work, she had to restrict herself to criticism of the parts she found most problematic (or in other words: it sounds more negative than it is meant).

I'm not sure what Hss. is; perhaps heresiologists texts.

It's the equivalent of English mss., manuscripts.

[MrMacSon]

.. Here it is stressed that Aland doesn't go much past a simple description of Klinghardt's position and, because of the sheer volume of Klinghardt's work, she had to restrict herself to criticism of the parts she found most problematic (or in other words: it sounds more negative than it is meant).

• Cheers Ulan. That was my impression, too.

I'm not sure what Hss. is; perhaps heresiologists texts.

It's the equivalent of English mss., manuscripts.

• Cheers.

[MrMacSon]

---

---

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."

https://www.amazon.com/Oldest-Gospel-Kl ... Klinghardt

I have just received this book in paperback. It is simply an English story-book manual version of Klinghardt's reconstruction of the Gospel of Marcion with an addition table at the back of the named 'Pericopes shared with the Gospel According to Luke' and the numbers of the chapters and verses in Luke they align with, and the page nos. in Kinghardt's manual. But the purpose of this post is not to complain ...

It is (1) to point out that the Amazon web-page blurb cited in part above is from the Preface by David Trobisch and (2) the reference to the Gospel of Marcion being the gospel of which Paul spoke of in Galatians 1:6-9. At first I wondered if Trobisch was inferring that Paul was active in the time of Marcion (and perhaps that Paul only knew of this Mcn gospel because it had been published with his letter collection).

Then I wondered if Trobisch was referring to the Mcn gospel as the different or 'other' [heretical] gospel (v. 6, and vv. 8 and 9, respectively; as in the NKJV).

Then, thirdly, I realised Trobisch was probably referring to this Mcn gospel as having been available to Paul (and likely a traditional 30s to 50s AD Paul). Which would beg the question: Why is there no other reference to this Mcn gospel before Marcion?

There are possible allusions to three Mcn/Luke passages in 1 Clement -

• a composite of Luke 6:36-38, Matt. 5:7 and Matt. 7:2 in 1 Clement chap. 13;

• an allusion to Luke 8:5 in 1 Clement chap. 24; and

• a composite quotation of Luke 17:1-2 and Matthew 26:24 in 1 Clement chap. 46.

Thomas L Brodie, however, does not include any of these Luke passages -- 6.36-38, 8:5; or 17:1-2 -- in his 'Proto-Luke'.