I will think about it.Stuart wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:37 am The key on the Baptism is it's relationship to the Source of Authority parable. The entire purpose of Jesus responding when asked where his authority comes from is to show that his authority derives from John's baptism of him, the source that brought the spirit to descend upon him. To deny Jesus' authority would be to deny John's.
for Klinghardt, Mcn is not a Marcionite gospel, meaning that Marcion didn't corrupt it. I have abandoned definitively the idea that Marcionites would have removed from their gospel something that could disturb them. Marcion could be a "conservative protector" of the Oldest Gospel, even against his theological interests.In the Marcionite gospel this is nonsense. But there it stands (AM 4.38), an example of editorial fatigue, or perhaps the author didn't recognize that the passage's message was dependent upon John's baptism of Jesus.
this accusation against Klinghardt doesn't hold more. Klinghardt confirms that he will write about 'the role sectarianism had in developing the gospels' in a next book, since now he has confined himself deliberately to literary questions only.Klinghardt in my view has it backwards, because he doesn't recognize the role sectarianism had in developing the gospels. So instead of tendentious motivations he is looking for a general Catholic evolutionary line of development. My view is that the proliferation of gospels is the result of intense sectarian competition in the mid-2nd century and that Catholicism developed later on through the synthesis of some of these sects (the triumph of ecclesiastical politics), and is only present in the later layers of the gospels.
In this, in nuce, yourself are a Klinghardt without knowing it. By saying so, de facto, you are adding not new knowledge about what preceded Mcn.As for order, my view is we started with a synoptic prototype, which developed as something of a snowball.
For me, the discussion ends by recognizing that Mark doesn't precede Mcn. Period.
It may appear as a drastic decision, but I insist: what new knowledge do you introduce, when you say that:
- a synoptic prototype started it all
- this synoptic prototype was not Mark
this your claim makes you a full member of the Klinghardt's school of thought.
Mark can be anywhere in the order from the time of the Marcionite gospel until Luke is written to replace the Marcionite.