Klinghardt and the Question about Fasting

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Klinghardt and the Question about Fasting

Post by Giuseppe »

Now I quote the full Argument from Earliest Rivalry with John the Baptist directly from Klinghardt's only words. It is found in page 368:

2. Similarly, the John-the-Baptist tradition. *Ev mentions John the Baptist several times, but his biographical and theological knowledge is comparatively small. *Ev knows John's name, he knows that he was a 'baptizer' (*7,17), that he had disciples (*11,1), and that he was beheaded by 'King' Herod (*9,7-9). Furthermore, *Ev knows John the Baptist as a prophetic proclaimer of the law and the prophets (*16,16), and he knows about John the Baptist's query (*7,17-23) as well as Jesus' subsequent judgement of him (*7,24-28). However, *Ev displays a noticeable distance between John the Baptist and Jesus (*7,18.23). In*Ev, the baptizer took offence at Jesus (*7,18; formulation is uncertain), which is why Jesus blesses him only under the condition that he 'takes no offense at me' (*7,23, according to Epiphanius). That distance is hardly conceivable for the later stages of the tradition from *Mark to Luke. Jesus and John meet previously in connection with their baptism accounts (Mark 1,2-11; Matt 3,1-17; John 1,19-34; Luke 3,1-22) where they present John's positive witness of Jesus, which John even integrated into the prologue (John 1,6-8-15). The origin of this positive witness lies in Jesus' judgement, authenticating that john the Baptist is 'more than a prophet' (*7,26) while simultaneously distinguishing him from 'the least in the kingdom of God' (*7,24-28). This ambivalent witness was preserved in the successive tradition.

This means, *Ev knows John and knows that he was a baptizer. [The information is found also in Jos., Ant. XVIII 116-119] All further information about him is missing in*Ev and inserted in later stages of the tradition history. From the brief comment about the execution by Herod, pre-canonical *Mark extricated his detention (Mark 6,17 || Matt 4,12 || Luke 3,19f) as well as the account of his execution urged by Herodias (Mark 6,18-29). Belonging to the successive tradition since *Mark is above all: Jesus' baptism by John; John's repentance sermon; his proclamation of the one who is 'more powerful' coming after him to baptize with fire and the spirit; the identification of John with Elijah; and the existence of John's disciples in the apostolic time. In that successive attribution, the ambivalence of Jesus' judgment of John the baptist is still preserved. Mark adopted the proclamation of the 'more powerful' into the account of the baptism activity (Mark 1,7f || Matt 3,11). Matthew, furthermore, integrated Jesus' superiority into the baptism account through John the Baptist's refusal to baptize Jesus (Matt 3,14f). John pointedly expressed the differentiated judgment of the activity thorugh characterizing John as a witness who 'testifies to the light', but who himself 'was not the light' (John 1,7f). Luke, finally, gives this differentiated characterization the broadest expanse thorugh harmonizing the birth accounts (Luke 1f) and thorugh the meeting of Elizabeth and Mary (Luke 1,36-45). The baptism account of John's disciples in Ephesus (Acts 19,2-7) exemplifies that the superiority of Jesus over John, or of the Christians over John's disciples, is rooted in the baptism's various effects.

(The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels, p. 368, my bold, original cursive)

In my view, the entire price of the book is found in this page, but surely I am an idiot in ignoring the rest.

Note how Klinghardt finds a trace of the earliest rivalry survived in Mark 1:7:

And this was his message: “After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie

Image
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: Thu May 25, 2023 12:58 am Now I quote the full Argument from Earliest Rivalry with John the Baptist directly from Klinghardt's only words. It is found in page 368:

2. Similarly, the John-the-Baptist tradition. *Ev mentions John the Baptist several times, but his biographical and theological knowledge is comparatively small. *Ev knows John's name, he knows that he was a 'baptizer' (*7,17), that he had disciples (*11,1), and that he was beheaded by 'King' Herod (*9,7-9). Furthermore, *Ev knows John the Baptist as a prophetic proclaimer of the law and the prophets (*16,16), and he knows about John the Baptist's query (*7,17-23) as well as Jesus' subsequent judgement of him (*7,24-28). However, *Ev displays a noticeable distance between John the Baptist and Jesus (*7,18.23). In*Ev, the baptizer took offence at Jesus (*7,18; formulation is uncertain), which is why Jesus blesses him only under the condition that he 'takes no offense at me' (*7,23, according to Epiphanius). That distance is hardly conceivable for the later stages of the tradition from *Mark to Luke. Jesus and John meet previously in connection with their baptism accounts (Mark 1,2-11; Matt 3,1-17; John 1,19-34; Luke 3,1-22) where they present John's positive witness of Jesus, which John even integrated into the prologue (John 1,6-8-15). The origin of this positive witness lies in Jesus' judgement, authenticating that john the Baptist is 'more than a prophet' (*7,26) while simultaneously distinguishing him from 'the least in the kingdom of God' (*7,24-28). This ambivalent witness was preserved in the successive tradition.

This means, *Ev knows John and knows that he was a baptizer. [The information is found also in Jos., Ant. XVIII 116-119] All further information about him is missing in*Ev and inserted in later stages of the tradition history. From the brief comment about the execution by Herod, pre-canonical *Mark extricated his detention (Mark 6,17 || Matt 4,12 || Luke 3,19f) as well as the account of his execution urged by Herodias (Mark 6,18-29). Belonging to the successive tradition since *Mark is above all: Jesus' baptism by John; John's repentance sermon; his proclamation of the one who is 'more powerful' coming after him to baptize with fire and the spirit; the identification of John with Elijah; and the existence of John's disciples in the apostolic time. In that successive attribution, the ambivalence of Jesus' judgment of John the baptist is still preserved. Mark adopted the proclamation of the 'more powerful' into the account of the baptism activity (Mark 1,7f || Matt 3,11). Matthew, furthermore, integrated Jesus' superiority into the baptism account through John the Baptist's refusal to baptize Jesus (Matt 3,14f). John pointedly expressed the differentiated judgment of the activity thorugh characterizing John as a witness who 'testifies to the light', but who himself 'was not the light' (John 1,7f). Luke, finally, gives this differentiated characterization the broadest expanse thorugh harmonizing the birth accounts (Luke 1f) and thorugh the meeting of Elizabeth and Mary (Luke 1,36-45). The baptism account of John's disciples in Ephesus (Acts 19,2-7) exemplifies that the superiority of Jesus over John, or of the Christians over John's disciples, is rooted in the baptism's various effects.

(The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels, p. 368, my bold, original cursive)

In my view, the entire price of the book is found in this page, but surely I am an idiot in ignoring the rest.

Note how Klinghardt finds a trace of the earliest rivalry survived in Mark 1:7:

And this was his message: “After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie

Image
Agreed almost entirely

This means, *Ev knows John and knows that he was a baptizer.

That's presumptuous, the name alone is enough for that

From the brief comment about the execution by Herod, pre-canonical *Mark extricated his detention (Mark 6,17 || Matt 4,12 || Luke 3,19f) as well as the account of his execution urged by Herodias (Mark 6,18-29).

Exactly. The last is a verbatim copy of Esther 5:3/6 / 7:1, with the enraged king hanging Haman in the latter ff

Luke, finally, gives this differentiated characterization the broadest expanse thorugh harmonizing the birth accounts (Luke 1f) and thorugh the meeting of Elizabeth and Mary (Luke 1,36-45).

Klinghardt doesn't recognise that all of Luke is mainly directed towards the audience of *Ev, twisting their story into the new form of Christianity

And the million dollar question is: regardless of who copied who (, Ken et al), what was the motive behind the complete redaction of a complete gospel?
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 »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 12:23 am
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 12:15 am

To clarify, it must be said that this is again not an argument by Klinghardt.
Really? How do you explain otherwise the Klinghardt's use of the espression "critical distance" to describe the relation between Jesus and John in *Ev ?

...by including this positive portrait of John before his request, they countered the critical distance of John towards Jesus displayed by *Ev. Therefore, Matthew and Luke erased the reference of John taking offence at Jesus, and Mark (perhaps for that reason) passed over that account entirely.

What I have only added, and recognized as coming from me and from none other, is the question:
Are you meaning that you don't see the same 'critical distance' in action between the John's disciples and Jesus's disciples, in the episode of the fasting question ?
I said that to "protect" Klinghardt. And it's correct.

The quote is not part of a passage in which Klinghardt wants to prove GMarcion's priority. On the contrary, it follows about 10 pages in which Klinghardt undertakes to reconstruct the text of GMarcion 7:17-23. He struggles with each verse, judging the quotes in Tertullian, Epiphanius, etc., and the different textual variants in Luke. In his reconstruction he assumes the priority of Marcion to be true. Then he looks back and explains why that particular pericope is significant.
The meaning of reconstructing *7,17-23 lies chiefly in …

The subsequent considerations contain thoughts from which one can draw an argument (e.g. regarding Luke), but also supposed conclusions that were already present in his premises (e.g. regarding Mark).
The meaning of reconstructing *7,17-23 lies chiefly in outlining the contours of the emergence of the John the Baptist tradition. It has been noted for some time [22] that John's request — even more so in Luke than in Matthew — does not fit seamlessly into the respectively obtained literary image of John. In Luke, the pericope neither resolves the proclamation that the 'one who is more powerful' would come after John (Luke 3, 16), nor does the extensive syncrisis of the Lukan stories of Jesus' birth match the apparent distance between John and Jesus in the canonical version, especially not the anticipated leaping for joy of the unborn John (Luke 1,41.44). That discrepancy goes back essentially to Matthew and Luke who upheld the tradition of Jesus being baptized by John as it originated from Mark; by including this positive portrait of John before his request, they countered the critical distance of John towards Jesus displayed by *Ev. Therefore, Matthew and Luke erased the reference of John taking offence at Jesus, and Mark (perhaps for that reason) passed over that account entirely.


Klinghardt did not discuss the question of whether Mark passed over the passage or whether Marcion added this passage to the Markan material. He assumed from the beginning that GMarcion is the oldest gospel, so the question never arose for him.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1281
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Klinghardt and the Question about Fasting

Post by Ken Olson »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 3:49 am Klinghardt did not discuss the question of whether Mark passed over the passage or whether Marcion added this passage to the Markan material. He assumed from the beginning that GMarcion is the oldest gospel, so the question never arose for him.
You raise an interesting point that we might look at more broadly. Here is a list of passages attested in the Evangelion (at least in BeDuhn's edition), which have no parallel in Mark. On Klinghardt's theory, these would be passages in the Evangelion which Mark omitted (given with their Lukan locations):

7.11b-15 Jesus raises the widows son of Nain
7.36-47 A sinful woman forgiven
11.5b-8 Parable of the persistent friend
12.16b-20 Parable of the rich fool
12.35-38 Parable of the doorkeeper
13.10-17b Healing on the Sabbath
14, 12-14 Parable of the choice of place at table
14, 16-26 Parable of the great dinner
15.4-6 Parable of the lost sheep
15.8-9 Parable of the lost coin
16.1b-8 Parable of the dishonest manager
16.19-31 Parable of the rich man and Lazarus
17.12-1818.2-8a Ten lepers healed, Samaritan thankful
18.2-8a Parable of the unjust judge
18.10-14a Parable of the Pharisee and the publican
19.2-10 Zachaeus repents

This is by no means a complete list. It is taken from Robert Van Voorst's list of L passages in Jesus Outside the New Testament (140-141), and does not include double tradition passages such as, for example, the Lord's Prayer.

Does anyone know if Klinghardt addresses the topic of Markan omissions from the Evangelion, and if so, can you cite where he addresses the topic?

Best,

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

Re: Klinghardt and the Question about Fasting

Post by Giuseppe »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 3:49 am The quote is not part of a passage in which Klinghardt wants to prove GMarcion's priority.
ok but what about the more long quote (p. 368, see my post above) I have taken from the first tome (not from the second, where your objection applies since the entire second tome is a commentary of Gospel passages)? Do you concede that at least there he uses John the Baptist as Argument against Markan priority?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Klinghardt and the Question about Fasting

Post by Secret Alias »

On Klinghardt's theory, these would be passages in the Evangelion which Mark omitted (given with their Lukan locations):
I know everyone is against the use of LSD but why am I the only one who sees an other possibility here? Why do we always start with canonical Mark being some sort of anchor to anything other than the (falsified) canonical gospels? The antitheses went from the ur-Gospel to Matthew. The reference to eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom went to Matthew. In other words, the most Marcionite passages the ones that were as distinctive as Marcion's own "post-OP" transexual identity (he was castrated you know) all end up in Matthew. The point being here the ur-Gospel was weird. It was the passport to a weird transexual lifestyle. The number of eunuchs in the second century is WAY out of proportion to the Empire as a whole. Even Julius Cassian. Read the fragments in the context of Clement Stromateis Book 3. There must have been some wacky cultish behavior that got swept under the carpet (or "put in the closet" to use the modern vernacular). Castration, "long hair", dressing effeminately etc. As such it is unlikely that Mark or any other gospel that "represented" the ur-Gospel in the orthodox canon would retain the "freakiest" parts of the text. Read the Golden Ass. That's the vibe of early Christianity to the pagan world. Transexualism. Neither male nor female. WTF do you think that meant in a vulgar world like the vulgar Roman Empire. Early Christians underwent sex change operations. Read Justin and the implications of "going to Alexandria" (meant the same thing as 'going to San Francisco' in the 80s). The orthodox weren't preserving the ur-Gospel because they wanted the kind of early Christianity represented in Acts rather than Apuleius. There's a reason the canon was set up with "Mark" and two forgeries and John. They were trying to establish a "consensus" against the gospel of freakishness, the gospel of Marcion. The one thing the heretics knew was that Jesus didn't have dick. Sorry to put it in vulgar terms. But all this dancing around about Mark and Marcion's gospel. Jesus was the ideal man from before creation which even the Jews knew was a hermaphrodite.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Klinghardt and the Question about Fasting

Post by andrewcriddle »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 7:24 am I am trying to understand this thread.

Does KK recognize that since the second century there were reports of the passage being read as if John the Baptist was "scandalized" by Jesus?
But John is offended when he hears of Christ's miracles— because, <you suggest>, he belongs to the other <god>. I however shall first explain his reason for offence, so that I may the more easily show up the offence of the heretic. When the Lord of hosts himself was by the Word and Spirit of the Father working and preaching upon earth, it was necessary that that apportionment of the Holy Spirit which, after the manner of what was measured out to the prophets, had in John had the function of preparing the ways of the Lord, should now depart from John, having been drawn back again into the Lord, as into its all-inclusive head- spring.1 And so John, being now an ordinary man, one of the multitude, was offended, as indeed a man might be: not because he was hoping for, or thinking of, a different Christ—for he had no ground for such a hope—since he was teaching and doing nothing new. No man can have doubts about one who he knows does not exist, and of whom therefore he entertains neither hopes nor understanding. John however, both as Jew and as prophet, was quite sure that no one is God except the Creator.
The corollary of this is that the opening of the synoptic gospels CAN'T have been in the ur-Gospel. I think you would be well served ACTUALLY READING THE PATRISTIC SOURCE MATERIAL. This is what is wrong with the study of early Christianity. Secret Mark doesn't exist because people don't like certain aspects of its discovery. The Marcionite gospel is ignored because we don't have the gospel "in our possession." So this is a biased and self-serving "study" or "examination." Basically we are allowing the orthodox to determine which texts we can study. Or "garbage in garbage" out.
This passage is presumably referring to Matthew 11
11:1 After Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee.
2 When John, who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples 3 to ask him, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”
4 Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: 5 The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. 6 Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”
and/or Luke 7
7:18 John’s disciples told him about all these things. Calling two of them, 19 he sent them to the Lord to ask, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”
20 When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’”
21 At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. 22 So he replied to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. 23 Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”


Andrew Criddle
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Klinghardt and the Question about Fasting

Post by Secret Alias »

But why do Mark, Matthew and Luke have presumed priority? When it is Marcion we can "imagine" that he "cut" passages from a canonical gospel. "Of course he did. The Church Fathers tell us so." Not hard to "imagine." Makes perfect sense. However when it is Mark we can't imagine the same thing (that canonical Mark "cut" material from an ur-Gospel). Why is that? Because we don't have a second or third century source EXPLICITLY CONFIRMING IT? But surely if Marcion could "cut" material, why not Mark? I don't get it. Surely Papias could at least have conceived of it if he thought "Matthew" was better ordered. If I leave a sandwich out in the sun and get sick from eating surely I can "imagine" the sun effecting shrimp, milk, and other foods in the same way. Why is it so easy to accept Marcion "cutting" from a source gospel but with Mark it is "impossible" "unthinkable" "inconceivable"? I hate to bring up Secret Mark but there is your precedent.
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 1:54 pm
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.
I tried to summarize some of Klinghardt’s methodological perspective; any thoughts about that? One thing I didn’t mention was his general critique of the synoptic problem discourse in NT studies, 1850s—2000s.

And can you be more specific about which parts of the book, or the argument, you find to be incoherent or question-begging?

It seems like you are particularly unconvinced about the claim of Marcionite priority to Mark. But most of his argument is about the editorial direction between Luke and *Ev, so what is your position there?

Anyhow, I know that I’m not going to “formalize” his work into a neat list of assumptions and conclusions. I can’t think of any important book in biblical studies that has such an Aristotelian format or would be adequately and fairly represented that way.
Irish1975 wrote: Sat May 20, 2023 1:10 pm
1. The Tertullian/Harnack hypothesis that Marcion cut up Luke according to a definite theological agenda has always been hopelessly incoherent, if not absurd. Tertullian himself betrays this awareness in numerous places, where he indicts Marcion for doing such a terrible job of committing the very crime that Tertullian himself imputes to him, and which is the basis of Adversus Marcionem from start to finish. Tertullian never questions the indictment of Marcion that he inherits from Irenaeus, or his own monstrous portrait of an evil mus ponticus (the mouse from Pontus).

THERE ARE NO WRITINGS OF MARCION, of course. Nothing against which to test the validity of the most basic claims and allegations of Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian. The entire Christian tradition about Marcion is a Moscow show trial of a criminal defendant who was “disappeared” from the start, and made into a cartoon arch heretic (who evolves like Mickey Mouse). Klinghardt is not alone on this point (cf. Tyson, Lieu, BeDuhn, and others).

2. One can only work with the Gospel and Pauline textual traditions themselves. Just as there has to be a relationship of literary kinship between Matthew and Luke, so there has to be a literary kinship between *Ev and gLuke. They are too similar not to be versions of one another. But the question has never seriously been asked and investigated, which was the original, and which the plagiarism? Klinghardt aspires to go further than anyone before him in trying to open the heavy door of this question.

3. The thesis of *Ev-priority had been considered for a time in German scholarship prior to 1850, but was never rigorously tested. The debate was scuttled before it really got started. The 2-source theory (Marcan priority, Q) became entrenched, and has been so ever since (despite being unproven, unprovable, and generally unsatisfying even to proponents like McGrath; while Goodacre, its fiercest critic, likes it and wants it to stick around). The unwarranted self-certainty of NT Studies about Markan priority is the culprit.

4. Our evidence for the text of *Ev is generally terrible, and far worse than almost all the would be reconstructors say that it is (even Trobisch!). This evidence is just strong enough to convince a rational person that a Marcionite Gospel text had really existed in the early centuries, which was eerily similar to gLuke, but also significantly shorter and with a few crucial rearrangements of the material. But this evidence is not remotely strong enough to provide us with a text as stable as the Church’s Gospel tradition. We really only have two witnesses to something quasi-complete, Tertullian and Epiphanius, who often give conficting testimony, and are anything but trustworthy reporters on the Church’s most detested heretic.

5. There is a systematic bias in Marcion scholarship, most recently epitomized by Roth. They claim, and want to presuppose, that there is a neutral way to establish Marcion’s text, by simply going through the witnesses line by line. But this is tendentious. The assumption of Lukan priority is there all along, steering the investigation, and coloring the interpretation of every word. Thus Klinghardt brings something of a Kantian/Wittgensteinian/Kuhnian awareness of presuppositions, regulative hypotheses, or biases that distort a supposedly purely empirical process of reconstructing a lost text. We know well enough what kind of reconstructed Marcionite Gospels result from the all-pervasive bias towards Lukan priority. But the debate is not a real debate unless and until the opposite hypothesis, the anti-traditional hypothesis, is given a fair shake.

Hence Klinghardt’s most important methodological claim—

6. The only way to investigate thoroughly the possibility of Marcionite priority is TO ASSUME THAT IT IS TRUE. Sounds like a perfect fallacy, right? Begging the question, petitio principii, circular logic! No, because the assumption is a heuristic assumption—before or until it achieves acceptance as a ‘scientific’ conclusion (the Germans use ‘science’ in a broader sense than we do). The postulate of Marcionite priority has to be tested against a very inadequate and very complex body of textual ‘evidence.’ This is just the same unsatisfying and laborious type of methodology that Schweitzer declared would have to be employed in quests of the HJ. In this case, however, there are only 3 possibilities to be tested (parent/child, child/parent, sibling/sibling), rather than indefinitely many.

7. Following on 6, the textual tradition of gLuke, especially the Western, needs to be included as siftable evidence for the Marcionite text. This violates a conservative assumption—which even Harnack knew to be false—that no traces of (possibly, probably) Marcionite material are to be found in the textual tradition of the canonical NT. On the assumption that Klinghardt’s thesis is true, of course, there would be nothing surprising in the atavistic survival of Marcionite text in canonical versions. But again, the thesis is always and everywhere asssumed to be false. Because the Christian tradition is so sure that it already knows who Marcion was, what his theological agenda supposedly was, etc, it cannot entertain the question as a real question. It doesn’t even acknowledge that modern textual criticism tends to presuppose historical claims about Christian origins that cannot be justified rationally, but are simply theological. Most importantly, the assumption that what became our canonical 4-Gospel Book, and what textual critics aim to reconstruct as “the original text,” are one and the same.

Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Klinghardt and the Question about Fasting

Post by Secret Alias »

My question would be, why is it more logical to assume that the Church which emerged with/through Imperial favor was "more true" than Marcion? My supposition would be, develop a model for Marcion, develop a model for Irenaeus's Church and then compare.
Post Reply