Klinghardt and the Question about Fasting

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Klinghardt and the Question about Fasting

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 11:50 am You use "Mark" and "Matthew" as if they were real people editing gospels that were later "faithfully gathered" by the orthodox.
Some here speak of "Matscher" Klinghardt as if he were a real scholar.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Klinghardt and the Question about Fasting

Post by Secret Alias »

Stupid arguments. Creativity seemed to be dead in German football too.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Klinghardt and the Question about Fasting

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 1:08 pmCreativity seemed to be dead in German football too.
Only the men. The women are awesome ;)
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The full content of and context to Klinghardt and the Question about Fasting

Post by mlinssen »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 11:16 am
Giuseppe wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 6:33 am
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 5:56 am

Finally, Matthew states explicitly that the questioners were the disciples of John. As you know, it is then „strictly forbidden“ for conservative scholars to assume anything else for Mark. It is only permissible that the Pharisees are there in addition. ;)
Why should we think that we are more able than Matthew in interpreting Mark? Or, put otherwise: what was the point by Matthew in eclipsing an alternative identity for 'they' ?

For example: I can understand very well why Matthew changes "John and James sons of Zebedee" in "the mother of John and James sons of Zebedee", in the episode of the request of the first places: in this case embarrassment is introduced as the motive, embarrassment for the negative portrayal of the Pillars made by Mark. But why should "Matthew" (author) be embarrassed by anonymous people being the questioners?
We're nowhere near as capable of interpreting Mark as Matthew was. But Matthew did not interpret Mark, but frequently reinterpreted him, which is particularly evident in Matthew 12:30 versus Mark 9:40.

While I'm thinking about your question, I want to ask you one too. In Mark 2:18 the questioners also mention the "disciples of the Pharisees", which is striking because in the introduction of the verse it is spoken of the Pharisees themselves and not of their disciples. These "disciples of the Pharisees" are not mentioned anywhere else in the NT. Their existence is therefore only an assertion in the statement of the questioners. Many German scholars have dismissed this as nonsense. There may have been disciples of Hillel, but certainly no "disciples of the Pharisees" just as little as "disciples of Forza Italia" or "disciples of the Fratelli d'Italia". Younger Pharisees were Pharisees themselves, but not their "disciples".

Matthew omitted the term "disciples of the Pharisees." I take that as a good indication that German scholarship is right and that Mark created something here. But interestingly, Luke takes the middle position. He says the "disciples of John" likewise "those of the Pharisees". That's neither fish nor fowl. It looks a little like Luke gets the point of why Matthew avoided the term, but still wants to make use of Mark's idea for himself (whatever the idea was). This brings the Farrar-Goulder theory into play. And then the question would be: why does Luke make it even clearer than Mark (and in contrast to Matthew) that the questioners were anonymous people?

Luke 5:33
(BSB)
Then they said to Him, “John’s disciples and those of the Pharisees frequently fast and pray, but Yours keep on eating and drinking.”
(CopSahHorner)
ⲛ̅ⲧⲟⲟⲩ ⲇⲉ ⲡⲉϫⲁⲩ ⲛⲁϥ ϫⲉ. ⲙ̅ⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ ⲛ̅ⲓ̈ⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ ⲥⲉⲛⲏⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ ⲛ̅ϩⲁϩ ⲛ̅ⲥⲟⲡ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲥⲉϣⲗⲏⲗ ⲛ̅ⲧⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲙ̅ⲛⲁⲛⲉⲫⲁⲣⲓⲥⲁⲓⲟⲥ. ⲛⲟⲩⲕ ⲇⲉ ⲟⲩⲱⲙ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲥⲉⲥⲱ.
(THGNT)
οἱ δὲ εἶπαν πρὸς αὐτόν· οἱ μαθηταὶ Ἰωάννου νηστεύουσιν πυκνὰ καὶ δεήσεις ποιοῦνται, ὁμοίως καὶ οἱ τῶν Φαρισαίων, οἱ δὲ σοὶ ἐσθίουσιν καὶ πίνουσιν.

Most interestingly, Coptic Luke has no disciples of the Pharisees, only the Pharisees

ⲛ̅ⲧⲟⲟⲩ ⲇⲉ ⲡⲉϫⲁⲩ ⲛⲁϥ ϫⲉ. ⲙ̅ⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ ⲛ̅ⲓ̈ⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ ⲥⲉⲛⲏⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ ⲛ̅ϩⲁϩ ⲛ̅ⲥⲟⲡ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲥⲉϣⲗⲏⲗ ⲛ̅ⲧⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲙ̅ⲛⲁⲛⲉⲫⲁⲣⲓⲥⲁⲓⲟⲥ. ⲛⲟⲩⲕ ⲇⲉ ⲟⲩⲱⲙ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲥⲉⲥⲱ.

They however said-they to-him namely. The-disciples of-John they-fast many times and they-pray likewise with-the-Pharisees. Yours however eat and drink

Do note that Luke includes the word pray yet didn't utilise it any further; a remnant from Thomas that certainly was present in *Ev as well - a little fatigue there from the Lukan redactor/ Matthew
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Klinghardt and the Question about Fasting

Post by Irish1975 »

Ken Olson wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 11:01 am If Klinghardt's argument regarding this pericope is hardly even a marginal component of his argument for the priority of the Evangelion (and I agree with that assessment), for what pericope does he present a strong argument? Can you cite maybe his three best cases, or maybe start with just one, outline his argument, or at least cite the pericope he addresses and give the page numbers from The Oldest Gospel where he addresses it?

The reason we are addressing this pericope is that it's the one Giuseppe pointe to when asked for K.'s best cases, though (1) Klinghardt does not make the case Giuseppe attributed to him regarding the question about fasting and (2) Klinghardt's actual case on the question about fasting is, in your words, 'hardly even a marginal component of his argument'.

So, to repeat, what are his strongest cases?

Best,

Ken

PS - I am working on a post on K''s case, taken over from M. Vinzent, on the introduction to the Lord's Praer being directed against John's disciples, and if and when I finish that, I may get to John's questions to Jesus in Luke/Wv 7.
Working on it. Especially important for Klinghardt is the opening Capharnaum/Nazara episode, compared with Luke’s version. Also, the few “additions” by Marcion, as alleged by the witnesses. Klinghardt takes Trobisch’s thesis of the Canonical “First” Edition very seriously, and it plays a role in his argument that must not be overlooked. With a lot of Marcion scholars (BeDuhn, eg), I notice a complete unwillingness to engage with the Trobisch thesis or its potentional signficance for Gospel studies.

Do you have access to volume 1, which contains the theoretical portion before the reconstruction/commentary?
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Klinghardt and the Question about Fasting

Post by Ken Olson »

Irish1975 wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 1:49 pm Do you have access to volume 1, which contains the theoretical portion before the reconstruction/commentary?
I do.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Klinghardt and the Question about Fasting

Post by Giuseppe »

Indeed I don't find, personally, a strong argument apart the Argument From the Earliest Rivalry with John the Baptist.

The reason is that the case of Klinghardt remains more or less what he had drafted in his original article of 2008, only more elaborated:
  • 1) Marcion precedes Luke (easy proof, only apologists deny it so I don't care about them)
  • 2) the source Q is therefore reduced to Marcion
  • 3) therefore the Mark's dependance on the source Q is really Mark's dependance on Marcion.
The last point assumes that Mark is based on Q too, fitting the views of the numerous group of scholars, as MacDonald, who argue for a such relation between Mark and Q.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Klinghardt and the Question about Fasting

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 9:35 pm Indeed I don't find, personally, a strong argument apart the Argument From the Earliest Rivalry with John the Baptist.

The reason is that the case of Klinghardt remains more or less what he had drafted in his original article of 2008, only more elaborated:
  • 1) Marcion precedes Luke (easy proof, only apologists deny it so I don't care about them)
  • 2) the source Q is therefore reduced to Marcion
  • 3) therefore the Mark's dependance on the source Q is really Mark's dependance on Marcion.
The last point assumes that Mark is based on Q too, fitting the views of the numerous group of scholars, as MacDonald, who argue for a such relation between Mark and Q.
Agreed almost fully, yet the nuance is as follows:

- *Ev is the Quelle to all of Christianity
- Thomas is the Quelle to all of Chrestianity

It is very plausible, in the light of the fantastic and miraculous turn-around provided by Mark, that he decided to not take everything from *Ev - why would he? No plagiarist copies his source wholesale, that is preposterous - yet Matthew sees himself forced to redact all of *Ev into Luke because those damn Chrestians just keep persisting that the Christian gospel is only a faint shadow of the real deal

Look at what Mark achieved:

1. he added all the Judaisation;
2. he undid all the anti-Judaims that could be undone by redirecting it into the Pharisees
3. he invented the entire concept of this pseudo-Messiah who was predicted via pseudo-prophecies
4. he even revives the extremely dead IS by inventing the resurrection
5. and he cunningly circumvents the fact that no one - naturally - knew nothing (I'm being a Mark here) of it all by
a. coming up with the Messianic Secret
b. blaming the Thomasine / *Evian women of not telling anyone that IS rose from the dead

In the light of all that, it is out of the question that he would take from *Ev more than necessary - and I don't see any Romans grabbing Coptic Thomas to add an extra source to the two already present for LukeMatthew, namely Mark and *Ev. When we look at Justin who still rambles about the virgin bloodline and the birth in a cave, it is obvious that no LukeMatthew existed at that point yet that likely other texts did.
Don't froget that Mark had *Ev as well as the Tanakh as his source, with the Tanakh likely in Hebrew or a bad Greek translation of his own that later became the norm for all of Christianity

It really is inhuman to expect Mark to have "Q" as additional source, and only Matthew betrays knowledge of it with his Q&D 13:44-48 that rams through 3 logia in a row, merely upping the score: there are 57 Thomasine parallels with Klinghardt's *Ev and 61 with canonical Luke - and the very best evidence for there being no need for any Q is precisely that

But yeah, once more, with feeling:

- *Ev is the Quelle to all of Christianity
- Thomas is the Quelle to all of Chrestianity
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Klinghardt and the Question about Fasting

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Irish1975 wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 6:26 am All agree that Mark’s version of the fasting question is inept.

Exegetes of every persuasion, including Klinghardt, float various possibilities to explain Mark’s ineptitude.
As laypersons we can see it that way. But among scholars? As a scholar you can have almost any opinion on a problem that you can justify in a comprehensible way. But you must know that there is a problem! - especially if you want to draw any further conclusions ("The poor guy didn't realize that his conclusions were built on sand.") The thing isn't that Klinghardt has a different view than others, it's that he didn't know that there were other views.

I don't see the many (!) other scholarly opinions as being so weighty, but above all the Bible translations. You can find under the link thirty-one bible translations of Mark 2:18. Thirteen of them specifically state: „some people came“ or „people came“. All translations use a punctuation mark to make it clear that the action ends there and begins anew with the clause „and they came“. It's the same with the German translations.

I find that pretty dubious. He wrote thousands of pages, but seems to have given little thought to the details.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 11:09 am
In Mark, there are "they". Robert Gundry (Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, Chapters 1 - 8, 2000, p. 131f.) who loves such ambiguity, has discussed three possibilities:

- the questioners are the disciples of John and the Pharisees, mentioned in Mark 2:18
- the questioners are anonymous people
- the questioners are the scribes of the Pharisees, mentioned in Mark 2:16

I will come back to that and look at the reasons for each option.
Moulton (A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. IV, 1976, p. 12) judged the wording in Mark 2:18 as an "impersonal plural" typical of Mark, which - like the LXX - reflects a Semitism.
Moulton.jpg
Moulton.jpg (133.96 KiB) Viewed 381 times


Scholars who viewed the questioners as anonymous people were (among many others)
Bratcher/Nida, A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of Mark, 1961, p. 91
R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, 2002, p. 138
Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8, Commentary, 2002, p. 233
Robert Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, 1 - 8, 2000, p. 131f.

in Germany
Rudolf Pech, Das Markusevangelium, Bd. 1, 1989, S. 171, Anm. 2
Walter Schmithals, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 1986, S. 174f.
Dieter Lührmann, Das Markusevangelium, 1987, S. 62f.

Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Klinghardt and the Question about Fasting

Post by Giuseppe »

For "strong argument" I mean the argument, so well resumed by Ken above, about Ev* preserving a more old description of the cold distance and rivalry between Jesus and John.

That Argument is Strong since it captures not only all the episodes concerning Jesus and John (+ disciples) found in *Ev and in Mark, not only the interpolation of the baptism episode in the incipit of Mark, but also, what is not less important, the fact reiterated again and again by Klinghardt, of the substantial difference between the two incipits:
  • in *Ev, the alien Jesus is recognized as divine the first time only by demons
  • in Mark the pious Jew Jesus is recognized as divine the first time directly by god, and by the god of the Jews.
Note the contrast, the antithesis:
  • in the first case an alien, in the second case a man,
  • in the first case the only recognizer is the demon, in the second case the only recognizer is YHWh himself.
NOTA BENE: I am resuming Klinghardt here, nothing of my. Even if those are the kind of arguments I love and I would like to hear when comparing two gospels between them to decide on the priority.
Post Reply