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.
perseusomega9
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: 2018 Klinghardt books

Post by perseusomega9 » Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:09 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
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.
I know what you're saying but loosely recalling something BeDuhn said to the effect regarding Marcion and the Gospel vs Luke vs heresiologist commentary being nothing more than Marcion being a textual witness to an earlier (and unstable form) of what became Luke. The back and forth bickering and arguing over who killed who (Monty Python reference) is somewhat rooted in that rather than intense polemicical editing.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5748
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 2018 Klinghardt books

Post by MrMacSon » Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:49 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
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.

This webpage-article is interesting (reproduced here as translated by Chrome, and modified slightly by me for what I think is better syntax) -

.
Published on 06/11/2018 by Daniel Dalke

Comparison of the reconstructions of Mcn by Roth and Klinghardt -

Dieter T. Roth and Matthias Klinghardt each presented a reconstruction of the Marcionite gospel in 2015. However, both pursue different goals, assume different methodological prerequisites and apply different criteria when creating the reconstruction. The results of the comparison of both reconstructions will be summarized here.

Comparison of the methodology
Roth's approach is very positivistic and methodically very narrow. He wants to create a text that offers with the highest possible probability exactly what can be reconstructed from the sources. He examines in particular the three main sources Adversus Marcionem of Tertullian, the Panarion (Adversus haereses) of Epiphanius and the Adamantius dialogue to find out what they actually cite from the Marcionite gospel. His central method is the analysis of citation habits [of] the respective church fathers, with the help of which Roth also wants to explain contradictory testimonies of the heresiologists. History of speculation and considerations should expressly play no role in his approach. On the one hand, this concerns an alleged theology of Marcion, on the other hand, he does not want to commit himself in the processing direction between Lk and Mcn. Nevertheless, Roth also draws on the handwriting tradition of the LK to dissolve contradictions between the heresiological papers.

Klinghardt's goal goes beyond the actual reconstruction: He is on the search for a solution to the synoptic problem as well as for an answer to the question of the processing direction between Lk and Mcn. To this end, he relates textual criticism and the history of lore to each other and develops a comprehensive historical model. The reconstruction of the Marcionite gospel takes on a control and proof function. The decision in favor of the Mcn priority at Klinghardt is the basis for all further considerations. Consequently, an alleged Marcionite theology does not matter to him either. Rather, the methodological criterion is that of editorial coherence and the phenomenon of interference [is] a central importance too. The latter allows Klinghardt not only to use the heresiological sources for the reconstruction, but also to refer to the entire manuscript tradition of the Lk and to establish presumed Marcionite readings from this. The manuscripts of the so-called "Western Text" play a special role here.

Criticism is to be practiced at both theoretical approaches. Roth's central criterion can only be applied in its entirety to Tertullian, since only with him "multiple citation" can be used as comparison texts. Furthermore, it remains unclear which methodological considerations allow Roth to refer to the manuscript tradition of the LK, if he expressly wants to favor any processing direction. For Klinghardt it is above all the phenomenon of interference, which from my point of view requires further explanation. Prerequisites and conditions as well as concrete ideas for this process are not sufficiently available, but are necessary for the understanding and plausibility of Klinghardt's approach.

Comparison of the text of the reconstructions
The reconstructions of Roth and Klinghardt initially differ in the textual content. Roth reconstructs only parts of the text attested by the Fathers of the Church. The result is a positivist, fragmentary text. He assigns the text fragments to different probability categories. Klinghardt's methodical preconditions, on the other hand, allow him to reconstruct texts in places where the Church Fathers are silent. His reconstruction thus represents a continuous text. Within this text, however, he indicates whether the text is also based on heresiological testimonies or only on the manuscript tradition of the Lk. So, in principle, Roth offers nothing that could not be found in Klinghardt's reconstruction.

A closer comparison shows that the reconstructions agree only in a quarter of this text attested by the Fathers of the Church. In over 80% of the verses, which are heresiologically unconfirmed and for which Roth therefore does not reconstruct a text, Klinghardt ascertains from the Lucan manuscript tradition in Mcn probably existing text. On the whole, both reconstructions in witnessed, missing, undated, and probably non-existent texts are consistent in only 38% of the verses.

Dealing with contradictory testimonies
Roth's argumentation shows that the criterion of citation habits [is] often unable to resolve contradictions. Roth then draws on the Lucan manuscript tradition and often decides in the reconstruction of the Mcn for that heresiologically testified variant, to which the manuscripts of the Lk have the largest equivalent. This approach seems to me to be a methodological "no-go" in its flatness. For what methodological assumption leads him to this consideration, remains completely unclear. If Roth actually decides not to define the processing direction between Lk and Mcn, then a reconstruction decision based on Lk manuscripts is simply incomprehensible. For reasons of logic, it must therefore be assumed that Roth - unconsciously or consciously - decides on one processing direction: Either he follows the Mcn's priority and the insight that Marcionite readings have found their way into Lk manuscripts through interference, or he follows the Lk priority, in which the correspondences with the manuscripts are based on the template Marcion used. However, it can not be concluded with certainty from which reconstruction process Roth decides which direction of machining Roth ultimately chooses. He himself leaves the reader in the dark about his methodological requirements.

Klinghardt's reconstruction decisions with contradictory testimonies are based essentially on the observation that the witnesses of the "Western Text" significantly often pass on Marcionite readings. Therefore, he often decides in contradictions for the variant that is supported by these textual witnesses. However, if the "Western" witnesses also contradict one another, then Klinghardt's methodical rule of thumb applies, according to which the reading which deviates furthest from the canonical text can best be regarded as the original one. This rule of thumb is embedded in the historical model of the Mcn Priority, This also correlates with the assumption of interference in the testimonies of the Fathers of the Church. Klinghardt plausibilizes his decisions as far as possible in addition to historical-historical and editorial-critical considerations.


The comparison has shown that the differences in the reconstructions are not primarily the result of different interpretations of sources, but that they are based on the methodological presuppositions that Roth and Klinghardt each make. Especially when considering the contradictory testimonies, it becomes apparent that a decision on the question of the processing direction between Lk and Mcn is necessary for a meaningful reconstruction of the Mcn - and must be taken by Roth himself.


Klinghardt , Matthias: The oldest gospel and the genesis of the canonical gospels. Volume I and II. Tübingen 2015.

Roth , Dieter T .: The Text of Marcion's Gospel. Suffering 2015.


https://enipolatio.hypotheses.org/1025#more-1025



Jan Heilmann said 13/06/2018 :

Thank you for this insightful comparison. How exactly does the 38% match come about? Is it the comparison of reconstructed verses, of literal correspondence ...? How big is the intersection between Roth and Klinghardt in places where they both reconstruct text?
.

Daniel Dalke
said on 13/06/2018 :

In the basic assignment of the verses in the categories "witnessed", "missing testifies" or "unconfirmed" both reconstructions agree: starting from 1151 verses for Lk - in about 93% of the verses (for 463 verses both testify text, 249 verses both denote as missing, and [for] 357 both verses characterize as 'undigested'). However, this high quota only suggests an apparent match. ... the textual content attested by the Fathers of the Church is interpreted very differently by both, so that the reconstructed text only exactly (literally) agrees in about a quarter (!) of the verses. Klinghardt also offers probably existing passages within the unvoiced text. In over 80% of the verses, both of which mark as unimpaired, Klinghardt reconstructs 'unofficial but probable' text. Again, this is perceived as a difference in the reconstructions. Considering all these differences, starting from 1151 verses for Lk, 38% of the[ir] reconstructions agree (for 104 verses both offer exactly the same attested text, 249 verses both denote as missing, and [for] 87 verses both characterize as unconfirmed, where Klinghardt also does not accept any text that is likely to be present).
.


User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2543
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Post by DCHindley » Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:58 pm

I just received my copy of The Oldest Gospel: Reconstructed by Matthias Klinghardt (2018) and it really isn't very helpful. There is nothing at all to support the choice of passages, summarized in an appendix.

Since the Preface was written by David Trobisch, and Translation was by Stephen Trobisch (his son?), it has clearly made an impression on the Trobish clan.

I found a German language summary of Klinghardt's book here:
https://www.booklooker.de/B%C3%BCcher/M ... edc8e1b471

I'm thinking this may be the publisher's description. It appears to be written in high quality German as Google Translate (through Chrome, as GT in IE 11 no longer functions) results in a pretty clear text. The publishers present this as, of course, groundbreaking stuff.

The books description, Google translated, is as follows:
Volume I: The oldest gospel is the Gospel, which was received in the 2nd century by Marcion and others. The exact reconstruction of this text as well as the proof that all canonical Gospels are dependent on it [GT had returned "him" but I don't think the singular would be used for "Marcion and others"], allow essential insights into important fields of New Testament science: The Genesis and transmission history of the Gospels, the New Testament textual history, the emergence of the canonical edition of the New Testament and the History of Christianity in the 2nd century. Volume 1 contains the study that determines the relationship between Luke and the oldest gospel, as well as a model for the evolution of the Gospels through to the canonical Four Gospels Book.

Volume II: The reconstruction of the oldest gospel forms the basis of the study of the canonical gospel tradition from the oldest version to the canonical Four Gospels Book. Volume 2 contains the meticulous reconstruction of this Gospel with the establishment of the text, the distortion of the witnesses and the readings. In the explanation each individual reconstruction decision is explained in detail and the transmission path of individual logia and pericopes is traced. This reconstruction is supplemented by a translation as well as a list of those variants of the canonical Gospel of Luke, which touch on the text of the oldest gospel.
I underlined the key phrase above. If I am reading this correctly, Klinghardt thinks that "Marcion and others" had received this previously existing gospel, and that this gospel subsequently became the ur-Gospel that served as "a model for the evolution of the Four Gospels Book." That is a far cry from what has been appearing in this thread previously, to wit, that Marcion created this gospel and the Four (or three synoptic) Gospels are derived from it. This is much closer to my understanding of Trobish's & BeDuhn's positions.

The last paragraph of the Preface to the 2018 English Translation says:

"[Kilingardt's] reconstruction is presented here for the first time in an English translation. I hope that readers will form their own opinions about a gospel presumed to be older than the canonical Four-Gospel book."

While I believe that translations must get the permission of copyright holders, I get the sense that Trobisch is not entirely convinced of Klinghardt's reconstruction, but hopes to further the discussion.

As I know MrMacSon and Ben have read copies of the translation, what do you think if the Translation?

DCH

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10062
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:06 pm

I never claimed that my ideas were Klinghardt's.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2543
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Post by DCHindley » Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:24 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:06 pm
I never claimed that my ideas were Klinghardt's.
To whom were you responding to?

If to me, I was referring to MrMacSon's posts on the subject of Klinghardt's 2015 book as well as on Beduhn. To me, he seemed to be saying that he believed that the consensus is centering on Marcion creating a gospel that was later revised by the author of Luke (maybe others).

Feel free to believe as you will about the origin of Klinghardt's ur-Gospel (i.e., that it is Jewish) used by Marcion and others, but your position was not the focus of my post.

DCH

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10062
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:12 pm

This
That is a far cry from what has been appearing in this thread previously, to wit, that Marcion created this gospel and the Four (or three synoptic) Gospels are derived from it.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5748
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

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

Post by MrMacSon » Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:52 pm

DCHindley wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:58 pm

I just received my copy of The Oldest Gospel: Reconstructed by Matthias Klinghardt (2018) and it really isn't very helpful. There is nothing at all to support the choice of passages, summarized in an appendix.

Since the Preface was written by David Trobisch, and Translation was by Stephen Trobisch (his son?), it has clearly made an impression on the Trobish clan.

< . . . snip . . .>

The last paragraph of the Preface to the 2018 English Translation says:

"[Kilingardt's] reconstruction is presented here for the first time in an English translation. I hope that readers will form their own opinions about a gospel presumed to be older than the canonical Four-Gospel book."

While I believe that translations must get the permission of copyright holders, I get the sense that Trobisch is not entirely convinced of Klinghardt's reconstruction, but hopes to further the discussion.

As I know MrMacSon and Ben have read copies of the translation, what do you think if the Translation?

DCH

Cheers, DCH. I have ordered it and am awaiting its arrival (Interestingly, I ordered it from Amazon two weeks ago, but it's coming from Wordery who do not give any indication of tracking. I emailed inquiring where it might be, but just got a reply saying it was too late to cancel the order; lol. They did say I could inquire about their returns policy :eh: ).


The translated text you provided is about Klinghardt's 2015 two-volume tome in German - ie. Das älteste Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen Evangelien -
DCHindley wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:58 pm

I found a German language summary of Klinghardt's book here: https://www.booklooker.de/B%C3%BCcher/M ... edc8e1b471

I'm thinking this may be the publisher's description. It appears to be written in high quality German as Google Translate results in a pretty clear text. The publishers present this as, of course, groundbreaking stuff.

The books description, Google translated, is as follows:
Volume I: The oldest gospel is the Gospel, which was received in the 2nd century by Marcion and others. The exact reconstruction of this text as well as the proof that all canonical Gospels are dependent on it [GT had returned "him" but I don't think the singular would be used for "Marcion and others"], allow essential insights into important fields of New Testament science: The Genesis and transmission history of the Gospels, the New Testament textual history, the emergence of the canonical edition of the New Testament and the History of Christianity in the 2nd century. Volume 1 contains the study that determines the relationship between Luke and the oldest gospel, as well as a model for the evolution of the Gospels through to the canonical Four Gospels Book.

Volume II: The reconstruction of the oldest gospel forms the basis of the study of the canonical gospel tradition from the oldest version to the canonical Four Gospels Book. Volume 2 contains the meticulous reconstruction of this Gospel with the establishment of the text, the distortion of the witnesses and the readings. In the explanation each individual reconstruction decision is explained in detail and the transmission path of individual logia and pericopes is traced. This reconstruction is supplemented by a translation as well as a list of those variants of the canonical Gospel of Luke, which touch on the text of the oldest gospel.
I underlined the key phrase above. If I am reading this correctly, Klinghardt thinks that "Marcion and others" had received this previously existing gospel, and that this gospel subsequently became the ur-Gospel that served as "a model for the evolution of the Four Gospels Book." That is a far cry from what has been appearing in this thread previously, to wit, that Marcion created this gospel and the Four (or three synoptic) Gospels are derived from it. This is much closer to my understanding of Trobish's & BeDuhn's positions.

I get the impression that, back in 2015, when Klinghardt published Das älteste Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen Evangelien, there was an intention to publish it in English, but there has since been a compromise and The Oldest Gospel: Klinghardt Edition, Quiet Waters Publications, July 2018, is a shortened result.

I have just received BeDuhn's 2013 The First New Testament and have read bits of it, as well as some articles by him available online eg. here. I am eventually going to provide a summary of BeDuhn's position about 'Marcion's Gospel' (which is why I read the online articles). I think, from what I've read so far, that BeDuhn's view is similar to Klinghardt's position ie. that "Marcion [+/- others]" had received a previously existing gospel. I think BeDuhn doesn't have anything to say about the genesis of the synoptic gospels other than being pretty adamant that the gospel that Marcion had had to have preceded Luke, and it is only Klinghardt and Markus Vinzent that speculate about genesis of the canonical gospels other than Luke.

I'm thinking (at this stage) that Klinghardt's proposals for the development of the canonical gospels (see http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 246#p94246, based on Roth, 2018) follows what Thomas Brodie outlines in The Birthing of the New Testament, 2004, (without reference to a 'proto-Luke', and without referring to the Elijah-Elisha narrative of 1 and 2 Kings, as Brodie proposes). Later, The Birthing of the New Testament has a diagram that puts Matthew in between Mark and John, as Klinghadt is said to do (by Roth, 2018) cf. the diagram in his 'General Summary' preface, as per the very next post in that thread).

It's interesting how disparate the whole field is: Brodie's Birthing (20040 does not list Trobisch in his bibliography, and BeDuhn's 2013 book lists Trobisch's 1994 Paul's Letter Collection but not his The First Edition of the New Testament; nor Brodie's Birthing. I am also going to read Trobisch's The First Edition of the New Testament.

Having said all that, a preliminary read of Vinzent's discussion of Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and other patristic fathers in Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels (2014) suggests it's pretty in-depth so may be more insightful than these other books in terms of providing information about the background of the development and evolution of the synpotics.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5748
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

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

Post by MrMacSon » Thu Dec 06, 2018 8:25 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:12 pm
This
DCHindley wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:58 pm
That is a far cry from what has been appearing in this thread previously, to wit, that Marcion created this gospel and the Four (or three synoptic) Gospels are derived from it.
DCH may have got that impression from other posts I've done in other threads. So far, I have discerned the only person who thinks "Marcion created this gospel and the Four (or three synoptic) Gospels...derived from it" is Markus Vinzent. And Vinzent thinks
(i) there was first a draft of said 'Marcion's Gospel', which (ii) the other gospel writers used to write their gospels; and (iii) that Marcion then wrote another (second?) edition of his gospel.

At least some of BeDuhn's commentaries suggest he thinks what Tertullian talks about is not Marcion's actual theology - eg. http://www.westarinstitute.org/wp-conte ... arcion.pdf, cited in part below - but I haven't yet fully gleaned why BeDuhn implies that; and, as can be seen from the article cited in part below, BeDuhn wonders if Marcion was a collector or even just a receiver of texts -

eta -
.
The New Marcion

Rethinking the ”Arch-Heretic”

Jason BeDuhn

... we consequently need to reverse the historical relationship that has been imagined between Marcion and the Evangelion and Apostolikon: thinking of Marcion not as their editor, but as their reader, interpreter, and canonizer. We can no longer look upon these texts as the editorial outcome of Marcion’s ideology, but rather must consider them to be the textual basis from which that ideology arose, by the same selective and creative reading by which other Christianities arose around Marcion on the basis of similar textual (and, before Marcion, predominantly oral) resources.

I do not come to this proposal arbitrarily, but do so in the face of a major historical problem. Because the fact is that, if Marcion is responsible for these texts as their editor, then we will be forced to question everything we think we know about his theology, and dismiss nearly everything his opponents claim about it. In their contents, the Evangelion and Apostolikon do not reflect a “Marcionite” world-view and retain elements directly at odds with what is reported of Marcionite teaching.

On the other hand, there would be nothing at all out of the ordinary for a man of Marcion’s time to accept the authority of texts he had no hand in crafting, and simply interpret them in accord with his distinctive views. We have ample examples of the latter among Marcion’s contemporaries and later Christian leaders. Of course, we must be prepared as well to rethink Marcion’s ideology as his enemies report it; but that is not the issue here. Instead, by dispensing with the myth of Marcion as a “mutilator” of biblical texts and placing the origin of the Evangelion and Apostolikon in their true historical setting before Marcion canonized them, we are able to refocus attention on those things we can be sure Marcion actually did: shift Christian authority from a personal to a textual basis through the creation of the first Christian scriptural canon.

Marcion as a Receiver—not a Redactor—of Texts

Those opposed to Marcion, including groups ancestral to later Christian orthodoxy, produced a string of writings against him, his teachings, and his NT—more than against any other rival form of Christianity prior to the fourth century christological and Manichaean controversies.3 These polemical writings report a number of specifics about Marcion’s theology, of which the core appear to be three: (1) he believed that the God of Jesus was a different, higher, deity than the creator God of the Jewish religion; (2) he believed that Jesus was a divine being who came to earth to invite people to the blessed realm of this higher God; and, (3) he believed that the exit from this earth did not involve either physical resurrection or judgment (other characterizations of his views may be largely deductions on the part of anti-Marcionite writers based on these three positions). None of these three core beliefs are reflected in any obvious way in the Evangelion or Apostolikon. More to the point, given the accusation made by some (not all) critics that he “mutilated” these texts in order to make them conform to his views,4 they contain explicit references to God as creator, to Jesus as a human being, and to physical resurrection and judgment. Something appears to be amiss.

... Tertullian, writing three generations after Marcion, assumed that he had taken an already existing set of Christian scriptures, matching the set in use in Tertullian’s community, and had rejected some of them, while retaining only those suited to his heresy. But we are able to recognize immediately the anachronism in Tertullian’s assumption, which wrongfully superimposes the state of the Christian scriptures in his own time onto Marcion’s.5

BeDuhn, JD (2015) The New Marcion: Rethinking the ”Arch-Heretic”, ForumWestar Institute's Academic Journal
.


User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2543
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Post by DCHindley » Fri Dec 07, 2018 5:03 am

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
Last edited by DCHindley on Fri Dec 07, 2018 8:45 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2543
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Post by DCHindley » Fri Dec 07, 2018 8:42 am

MrMacSon wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:52 pm
I [too] have ordered it and am awaiting its arrival (Interestingly, I ordered it from Amazon two weeks ago, but it's coming from Wordery who do not give any indication of tracking. I emailed inquiring where it might be, but just got a reply saying it was too late to cancel the order; lol. They did say I could inquire about their returns policy :eh:


The idea of a hardbound book for just $17.00 US attracted me to order it. The shipping was something like $4.00!

I ordered mine 11/18 and I got a shipping confirmation 11/19, estimating it would come before 12/3. It arrived 12/6. The shipping box said it was processed at a "fulfillment center."

Since the publisher is in Missouri USA, I cannot even begin to guess whether it had to be shipped to you by overseas mail or DHL package delivery svc. That is, unless there is a "fulfillment center" in your neck of the woods. :cheers:

DCH

Post Reply