'The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels', Klinghardt

[rgprice]

to rgprice,

Matthew and Luke are both dependent on a longer version of the Gospel of Mark in which the Q material was introduced.

How do you reconcile the above quote with the one below? It seems to me if one is right, the other has to be wrong.

I agree that both Matthew and Luke are derived from Marcion's Gospel

Cordially, Bernard

Why would that be? Marcion's Gospel is the longer version of Mark with the Q material in it.

[Bernard Muller]

to rgprice,

Why would that be? Marcion's Gospel is the longer version of Mark with the Q material in it.

So you have "longer version of gMark with Q material in it"--> Marcion's gospel-->gLuke & gMatthew.
But gMatthew knew about the so-called Bethsaida gospel (at Mt14:24-16:13a) from gMark (at Mk6:47-Mk8:27a), which is not in gMarcion & gLuke.
So "longer version of gMark with Q material in it"-->Marcion's gospel-->gLuke & gMatthew
And
"longer version of gMark with Q material in it"-->gMatthew
And,
for gLuke":
"longer version of gMark with Q material in it" but without Mk6:47-Mk8:27a-->Marcion's gospel-->gLuke.

Conclusion: The alleged "longer version of gMark with Q material in it" was not the same as seen by Marcion & "Luke" and by "Matthew".
Of course, the simplest solution would be Marcion copied on gLuke (with "Luke" getting her Q material from a document "Quelle", because gMarcion does not have all the Q items showing in both gLuke & gMatthew).
And "Luke" did not know about gMatthew because the so-called Bethsaida is in gMatthew but not in gLuke (and gMarcion).

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

to rgprice,

Why would that be? Marcion's Gospel is the longer version of Mark with the Q material in it.

So you have "longer version of gMark with Q material in it"--> Marcion's gospel-->gLuke & gMatthew.

Bernard, rg posted this a few days ago

Mark > Marcion > proto-Luke. GJohn is derived from Marcion, and Matthew and Luke are both derived from proto-Luke.
Luke is a harmonization between proto-Luke and GMatthew.

• eta: so Mark > Marcion > proto-Luke -> Matthew (and protoLuke->) Luke. and Mark->Marcion->GJohn

[Bernard Muller]

to MrMacSon,

Mark > Marcion > proto-Luke. GJohn is derived from Marcion, and Matthew and Luke are both derived from proto-Luke.

That's quite different of what he wrote to me (no proto-Luke after Marcion but before gMarcion "the longer version of Mark with the Q material in it" relacing plain gMark).

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

That's quite different of what he wrote to me

Not really, Bernard.

Marcion's Gospel is the longer version of Mark with the Q material in it = Mark + [some] Q_material >>> GMarcion

And there were like at least two editions of the gospels attributed to Marcion

[Irish1975]

Klinghardt’s book has been out for a little while. Has anyone studied Volume 1? Is it the great work of our time, or not worth the price?

[Sinouhe]

The gospel of Marcion being the first gospel is a seducing idea but Marcion was anti-jewish and didn't like the OT.
Then why can we read multiple references and midrash of the OT in his gospel ?

[Giuseppe]

Klinghardt’s book has been out for a little while. Has anyone studied Volume 1? Is it the great work of our time, or not worth the price?

a relative limit is the fact that the author will talk about the theological reasons behind the gospel X being a reaction against Mcn in a next book. Hence until now he have talked only about technical arguments.

As to Mark versus Marcion, I have exposed already what is in short his argument against Markan priority (the Mark's complexity is built on the separated items found in Mcn). I think that only theological arguments can resolve the dilemma: under the Mark's priority, why Marcion corrupted Mark? Under the Mcn's priority, why Mark corrupted Mcn?

[MrMacSon]

The gospel of Marcion being the first gospel is a seducing idea but Marcion was anti-jewish and didn't like the OT.
Then why can we read multiple references and midrash of the OT in his gospel ?

I've seen scholars say Marcion was not anti-Jewish (or anti-Semitic) but was just against the idea the Jewish god was the supreme God

[Sinouhe]

The gospel of Marcion being the first gospel is a seducing idea but Marcion was anti-jewish and didn't like the OT.
Then why can we read multiple references and midrash of the OT in his gospel ?

I've seen scholars say Marcion was not anti-Jewish (or anti-Semitic) but was just against the idea the Jewish god was the supreme God

But we have passages from his gospel which remove clearly references to the prophets and not OT friendly :

483F613F-4AFE-4836-954C-93CE248CE365.jpeg (202.09 KiB) Viewed 1567 times

While in the same time, marcion contain some allusions to the prophets and the OT :

Midrash from Jonah

8846CF3C-2CAC-4479-A936-5928EFC7E42F.jpeg (308.23 KiB) Viewed 1567 times

Midrash from Elijah/Elishah

624A21A0-257F-4B21-9C10-F0EF970AC6B6.jpeg (378.68 KiB) Viewed 1567 times

Midrash from Psalm 22

624A21A0-257F-4B21-9C10-F0EF970AC6B6.jpeg (378.68 KiB) Viewed 1567 times

It still contains a huge amount of allusions to the OT so if it was the first gospel, it was composed by an expert in jewish texts.
So it contradicts the passages which remove the references to the prophets.

I don’t know, for me this gospel is not really coherent.
And if Marcion is the first. it would be difficult to explain why the church added some jewish elements to the gospels to judaize Jesus and his story when pagans christians were already the norm in the second century.