BeDuhn's & Klinghardt's solutions to the Synoptic Problem

[MrMacSon]

What he [Roth] means is that [Vinzent] has not published (or possibly even finished) the legwork yet. He based arguments on his own reconstruction without actually giving his reconstruction and its various arguments in favor.

Roth could and should criticize what Vinzent says is 'Marcion's Gospel' before he criticises Vinzent's use of it. But he doesn't.

How on earth can he? The text has not been published, so neither Roth nor anybody else can evaluate the arguments that went into that particular reconstruction!

Vinzent's reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel is all through Vinzent's Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels, 2014 - it's most of the book.

[Ben C. Smith]

What he [Roth] means is that [Vinzent] has not published (or possibly even finished) the legwork yet. He based arguments on his own reconstruction without actually giving his reconstruction and its various arguments in favor.

Roth could and should criticize what Vinzent says is 'Marcion's Gospel' before he criticises Vinzent's use of it. But he doesn't.

How on earth can he? The text has not been published, so neither Roth nor anybody else can evaluate the arguments that went into that particular reconstruction!

Vinzent's reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel is all through Vinzent's Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels, 2014 - it's most of the book.

Yes, Roth's criticism points out that Vinzent uses his own version of the text, from his unpublished research. That is the point, because the logic behind his version of the text is not given, and that is what is at issue. If Roth disagrees that an element which Vinzent includes really was present in Marcion's text, for example, based on his own published research, he will want to look at the arguments which Vinzent mounts for its inclusion. Any scholar would. I would too. But that is impossible, because the reconstructed text and attendant arguments have yet to be published.

[MrMacSon]

... If Roth disagrees that an element which Vinzent includes really was present in Marcion's text, for example, based on his own published research ...

.. then Roth should outline that the textual issues he has, rather than nit-pick about numbering systems.

There would seem to be enough of Vinzent's reconstruction in his book to do that.

Roth has been sniping for 3 yrs now, without addressing the synoptic-dating issue, just the side issues. Vinzent has tried to address it before -

< . . snip . . >

Dieter Roth, then, points out that I introduced in my monograph a new chapter and verse numbering of Marcion's Gospel, born out of the idea, of course, than as soon as this Gospel is no longer taken as an abbreviation, it does not make sense or would be even a contradiction, if it were numbered according to the Gospel of Luke. Why would any other Gospel, even if it is synoptically close to another be numbered according to that one? Yet, I have to admit, since I have read Matthias Klinghardt's two volumes, Das älteste Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen Evangelien (Tübingen, 2015), simply for reasons of easier referencing, I have given up my own numbering and will revert in my forthcoming commentary of Marcion's Gospel to the standard numbering, even though, Marcion's Gospel will then open with chapter 3, vers 16 - that is ok, as long, as everybody knows, I do not mean by this, that Marcion has omitted more than two chapters, but that, in my view, Luke had added the text before.

When Roth carries on criticising that I give on pp. 264-72 an example of my reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel without giving the details for its sources, he is, of course, right, and I will deliver that in conjunction with the forthcoming commentary.

Then, however, comes another important remark which will bring us back to the question of methodological aprioris. Roth states:

'One further problem highlights a methodological issue in reconstructing Marcion’s Gospel. On p. 275, Vinzent offers an (English) reading of Luke 5:36-39 in Marcion’s Gospel. This parable is clearly attested for Marcion’s Gospel, but, in my view, the precise wording cannot be reconstructed. Vinzent’s focus, however, is on 5:39, which (as some others have done before him) Vinzent argues was not present in Marcion’s Gospel, but was added by Luke as an anti-Marcionite reading. The problem is, however, that 5:39 is unattested for Marcion’s Gospel. That is to say, no source makes any mention of either its presence or its absence. As Ulrich Schmid already pointed out in a 2003 article (“How Can We Access Second Century Gospel Texts? The Cases of Marcion and Tatian,” in Christian-B. Amphoux and J. Keith Elliott (eds), The New Testament Text in Early Christianity/Le texte du Nouveau Testament au debut du christianisme [Lausanne, 2003], 139-50, 143), arguments positing the absence of 5:39 in Marcion’s Gospel are “simply creating positive evidence (in this very case positive negative evidence) out of no evidence at all”.'

This is a nice, rhetorical statement by Ulrich Schmid, uncritically followed by Roth, but as with all well sounding rhetoric, we have to check whether we have to agree with it. A simple look into Adamantius, Dial. II 16 proves that this version is attested for Marcion's Gospel - and therefore to speak of 5:39 as unattested makes no sense. The same version is also given by Codex Bezae (D), a further support to what has been said above about the nature and quality of this codex as a potential source for Marcion's Gospel (although, of course, not all readings in this codex are reflections of Marcion's text). Therefore, for very good reasons, did I present the text with this version (as does now Matthias Klinghardt, Das älteste Evangelium [2015], 502) as Marcion's Gospel text, all the more that this text (unlike the one given by Luke) makes perfect sense to the entire story (a comparison with other NT manuscript evidence lends support to the importance of this reading of 5:39). Hence, we find the next 'proof' not for my idiosyncratic misreading or misquoting of sources, but for an oversight and not detailed enough attention to the sources by earlier scholarship and the reviewer who followed it.

http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/2015/ ... ng-of.html

[MrMacSon]

It seems Vinzent has worked from Klinghardt's textual reconstruction of Marcion's 'Gospeltext' since mid 2014, and maybe before -

Let me explicate the heroization of the Mega-Prophet Jesus in Marcion’s Gospel, compared to the versions we have in Luke, in a sequence of a few pericopes. The reconstruction of Marcion's Gospeltext follows closely that of the forthcoming major monograph by Matthias Klinghardt, Das aelteste Evangelium. It is all the more important for me to work with his textual reconstruction, as this has been done without presuming (or finally denying) Marcion's authorship of the reconstructed Gospel:

http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/2014/ ... simon.html

[Ben C. Smith]

... If Roth disagrees that an element which Vinzent includes really was present in Marcion's text, for example, based on his own published research ...

.. then Roth should outline that the textual issues he has, rather than nit-pick about numbering systems.

What nitpicking? Using a proprietary numbering system without giving the full reference text makes it difficult to find the correct spot in the standard texts (including that of canonical Luke). That is not a nitpick. That is a legitimate point. I myself find it difficult to navigate some of MacDonald's arguments about Papias, precisely because he uses his own numbering system instead of any of the standard Papian artifices from collections of the apostolic fathers; and that is after he published the relevant book about it! Here, with Vinzent doing it before publishing the reference work, it is even harder.

You are way off on your own beam here. Roth's critique was not even very heavy; it was as objective as it gets. It almost feels like you have taken something personally on Vinzent's behalf.

[Ulan]

I think all those complaints look like valid scientific criticisms. I would also dismiss conclusions that are impossible to follow even for an expert on the same field. We will see whether Roth changes his judgement after Vinzent has done the legwork.

Vinzent has done the leg work: as Roth says on that page (in my previous post^^), "he provides lengthy citations from Marcion's gospel ..".

What he means is that he has not published (or possibly even finished) the legwork yet. He based arguments on his own reconstruction without actually giving his reconstruction and its various arguments in favor.

Roth could and should criticize what Vinzent says is 'Marcion's Gospel' before he criticises Vinzent's use of it. But he doesn't.

How on earth can he? The text has not been published, so neither Roth nor anybody else can evaluate the arguments that went into that particular reconstruction!

Yes, this is what I meant.

If anyone thinks Roth sounds annoyed by Vinzent's approach, then I can understand why Roth would be annoyed. Even Vinzent himself admits that some of the criticism is fair in that quote three posts up:

"When Roth carries on criticising that I give on pp. 264-72 an example of my reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel without giving the details for its sources, he is, of course, right, and I will deliver that in conjunction with the forthcoming commentary."

Wasn't there also some contention over the point that Vinzent may have added words to some verses, with nobody knowing where he got these from? Anyway, after that "forthcoming commentary" sees the light, this struggle over formal issues will hopefully come to an end and shift to what we are all interested in, the textual questions.

[MrMacSon]

Vinzent's Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels is not about a reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel at all.

The arguments in the book do not depend on a reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel (and Vinzent shies away from discussing any proto-Luke).

The book is about tying together what a range of patristic fathers say about Marcion (a lot of it surprisingly quite favourable, especially by Irenaeus), especially in relation to Valentinus and a Ptolemy, and what various people say about the possible origins and developments of the books of the NT, as the basis for an argument why the synoptics date to the time of Marcion.

(I was wrong to place any emphasis on 'what Vinzent says is Marcion's Gospel' or ''Vinzent's citations from Marcion's gospel'', and it unnecessary for anyone else to do so, too)

[Ben C. Smith]

I think all those complaints look like valid scientific criticisms. I would also dismiss conclusions that are impossible to follow even for an expert on the same field. We will see whether Roth changes his judgement after Vinzent has done the legwork.

Vinzent has done the leg work: as Roth says on that page (in my previous post^^), "he provides lengthy citations from Marcion's gospel ..".

What he means is that he has not published (or possibly even finished) the legwork yet. He based arguments on his own reconstruction without actually giving his reconstruction and its various arguments in favor.

Roth could and should criticize what Vinzent says is 'Marcion's Gospel' before he criticises Vinzent's use of it. But he doesn't.

How on earth can he? The text has not been published, so neither Roth nor anybody else can evaluate the arguments that went into that particular reconstruction!

Yes, this is what I meant.

Clear writers are easy to read, even when they are not being as clear as usual.

If anyone thinks Roth sounds annoyed by Vinzent's approach, then I can understand why Roth would be annoyed. Even Vinzent himself admits that some of the criticism is fair in that quote three posts up:

"When Roth carries on criticising that I give on pp. 264-72 an example of my reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel without giving the details for its sources, he is, of course, right, and I will deliver that in conjunction with the forthcoming commentary."

Good point.

Wasn't there also some contention over the point that Vinzent may have added words to some verses, with nobody knowing where he got these from?

That does sound familiar, though even if I have the correct issue in mind the details are fully gone by now. I would have to refresh my memory.

Anyway, after that "forthcoming commentary" sees the light, this struggle over formal issues will hopefully come to an end and shift to what we are all interested in, the textual questions.

Amen to that.

[andrewcriddle]

On a general point.

I think we should distinguish between two claims.
A/ the plausible claim that Marcion's Gospel is a very early witness to the text of Luke, a text which was in flux in the second century and hence Marcion's Gospel may at many points preserve the original text which has been altered in canonical Luke.
B/ The less plausible claim that Marcion's Gospel is the original of Luke, which claim IMO has serious problems. (e.g. I am reasonably convinced that Marcion's Gospel was deliberately edited to disconnect Jesus from John the Baptist.)

Andrew Criddle

[Ben C. Smith]

On a general point.

I think we should distinguish between two claims.
A/ the plausible claim that Marcion's Gospel is a very early witness to the text of Luke, a text which was in flux in the second century and hence Marcion's Gospel may at many points preserve the original text which has been altered in canonical Luke.
B/ The less plausible claim that Marcion's Gospel is the original of Luke, which claim IMO has serious problems. (e.g. I am reasonably convinced that Marcion's Gospel was deliberately edited to disconnect Jesus from John the Baptist.)

Andrew Criddle

I agree that these two claims ought to be distinguished. But there is another possibility: that both canonical Luke and the Evangelion are early witnesses to a shared source.