Klinghardt and the Question about Fasting

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

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?

Yup. We take it something like this.

The trouble is, that's a historicist's argument. Right?

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:

That distance is hardly conceivable for the later stages of the tradition from *Mark to Luke.

[Giuseppe]

The trouble is, that's a historicist's argument. Right?

What?
I don't think that you believe that Simon Magus was a historical figure, despite of the fact that in Acts of the Apostles there is also a 'critical distance' between him and the apostle Peter.

Hence from the fact that a John the Baptist is introduced with a 'critical distance' between him and Jesus doesn't make him ipso facto a historical figure.

Or are you meaning a Jesus-historicist argument?

Obviously no.

In his article on academia.edu, Trobisch has been clear that a serious reason to doubt about the historicity of Jesus is the descent of him from above already adult in the earliest gospel. A point that has been made before him (who is not a mythicist) by a lot of mythicists of the past fixed with the Marcionite priority.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

The trouble is, that's a historicist's argument. Right?

What?
Or are you meaning a Jesus-historicist argument?

Obviously no.

In his article on academia.edu, Trobisch has been clear that a serious reason to doubt about the historicity of Jesus is the descent of him from above already adult in the earliest gospel. A point that has been made before him (who is not a mythicist) by a lot of mythicists of the past fixed with the Marcionite priority.

What does Trobisch have to do with it?

Why does Klinghardt argue that "distance" is "hardly conceivable for the later stages of the tradition ..."?

Because, as a Jesus historicist would explain, it was indeed historical and there was real rivalry between Jesus and John, or between their followers. But later, when everyone had died, nobody took it so seriously anymore ...

[Giuseppe]

Because, as a Jesus historicist would explain, it was indeed historical and there was real rivalry between Jesus and John, or between their followers. But later, when everyone had died, nobody took it so seriously anymore ...

For Marcion, Jesus had to be an enemy of John the Baptist just as in any movie 'Terminator' the cyborg comes in conflict with the policemen.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Because, as a Jesus historicist would explain, it was indeed historical and there was real rivalry between Jesus and John, or between their followers. But later, when everyone had died, nobody took it so seriously anymore ...

For Marcion, Jesus had to be an enemy of John the Baptist just as in any movie 'Terminator' the cyborg comes in conflict with the policemen.

Come on Giuseppe, we all know that and we also know that according to Klinghardt, Marcion did not write the gospel at all.

It's about the argument. Any Gnostic in the 5th century would have seen it the same way. So why should it be early? The argument is only valid if there was in fact a historical rivalry between Jesus and John.

[Giuseppe]

Because, as a Jesus historicist would explain, it was indeed historical and there was real rivalry between Jesus and John, or between their followers. But later, when everyone had died, nobody took it so seriously anymore ...

For Marcion, Jesus had to be an enemy of John the Baptist just as in any movie 'Terminator' the cyborg comes in conflict with the policemen.

Come on Giuseppe, we all know that and we also know that according to Klinghardt, Marcion did not write the gospel at all.

It's about the argument. Any Gnostic in the 5th century would have seen it the same way. So why should it be early? The argument is only valid if there was in fact a historical rivalry between Jesus and John.

What is the problem?

John the Baptist had become, by the time the Earliest Gospel was written, an icon of traditionalist Christians. Obviously he had to be chosen as the perfect rival for Jesus.

Even if proto-Luke was not written by Marcion, a such gospel had to be written by a gentilizer, to end, before or after, in the hands of the heresiarch.

I don't understand your argument:
1) the rivarly with the Baptist is enigmatic;
2) therefore proto-Luke is not the first gospel.

Is that what you are saying?

[Giuseppe]

Ignoring totally and entirely the fixation by Kunigunde on the marcionite priority as evidence (!) of the historical Jesus, I disagree with Ken also when he quotes Goodacre:

In his first reference to Occam in the book, he wrote:

On the [old] paradigm we might have hoped that Q would preserve for us some authentic, individual tones of the Baptist; but the fact is, as I have illustrated, that the Baptist not only speaks with the same tones and phrases as Jesus, but with the same tones and phrases as the Matthaean Jesus. Some simple-hearted followers of Occam might be beguiled by this into reducing the number of hypotheses, since we now have too many. Since Q’s vocabulary and Matthew’s seem to be the same, and since sophisticated defenders of the paradigm will allow that Q is post 70, and so in the same decade as Matthew, and since Q also shares most of Matthew’s theology, it looks as if either Q or Matthew could go. Either Matthew wrote Q, or Q wrote Matthew. (pp. 14-15).

(my bold)

An obvious objection to this claim is that the John who is scandalized by Jesus not being the coming Jewish Messiah is naturally not a Matthean John, since Matthew himself is embarrassed by a such John (see Klinghardt for the evidence of a such embarrassment).

Note also that in the account of the OT Patriarchs who didn't welcome the marcionite Jesus in the Hades we have an extension of the same Gospel account of John who didn't welcome the news about the marcionite Jesus: not coincidentially, John the Baptist is in prison when he receives the news, and the prison is ready to become an obvious metaphor of the Hades itself.

[Ken Olson]

Ignoring totally and entirely the fixation by Kunigunde on the marcionite priority as evidence (!) of the historical Jesus, I disagree with Ken also when he quotes Goodacre:

In his first reference to Occam in the book, he wrote:

On the [old] paradigm we might have hoped that Q would preserve for us some authentic, individual tones of the Baptist; but the fact is, as I have illustrated, that the Baptist not only speaks with the same tones and phrases as Jesus, but with the same tones and phrases as the Matthaean Jesus. Some simple-hearted followers of Occam might be beguiled by this into reducing the number of hypotheses, since we now have too many. Since Q’s vocabulary and Matthew’s seem to be the same, and since sophisticated defenders of the paradigm will allow that Q is post 70, and so in the same decade as Matthew, and since Q also shares most of Matthew’s theology, it looks as if either Q or Matthew could go. Either Matthew wrote Q, or Q wrote Matthew. (pp. 14-15).

(my bold)

An obvious objection to this claim is that the John who is scandalized by Jesus not being the coming Jewish Messiah is naturally not a Matthean John, since Matthew himself is embarrassed by a such John (see Klinghardt for the evidence of a such embarrassment).

An obvious objection to this claim is that Matt 11.6 and Luke 7.23 are word-for-word identical.

Matt 11.2 Now when John heard in prison about the deeds of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples 3 and said to him, “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” 4 And Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: 5 the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. 6 And blessed is he who takes no offense at me.”

Luke 7.8 The disciples of John told him of all these things. 19 And John, calling to him two of his disciples, sent them to the Lord, saying, “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” 20 And when the men had come to him, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to you, saying, ‘Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?’” 21 In that hour he cured many of diseases and plagues and evil spirits, and on many that were blind he bestowed sight. 22 And he answered them, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them. 23 And blessed is he who takes no offense at me.”

We do not have one text that says John is scandalized and another that does not.

Best,

Ken

PS - still working on my post on K on John's question to Jesus and on the introduction to the LP (I now realize the two cannot readily be separated).

[Giuseppe]

We do not have one text that says John is scandalized and another that does not.
[

but we have one text that says that Jesus "blesses him only under the condition that he 'takes no offense at me'" and a text that makes anonymous and absolutely generic the object of the blessing (Matthew 11:6: "Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me").

PS - still working on my post on K on John's question to Jesus and on the introduction to the LP (I now realize the two cannot readily be separated).

what is "LP" ?

[Ken Olson]

We do not have one text that says John is scandalized and another that does not.
[

but we have one text that says that Jesus "blesses him only under the condition that he 'takes no offense at me'" and a text that makes anonymous and absolutely generic the object of the blessing (Matthew 11:7: "Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me").

As I wrote, Luke 11.23 is verbatim identical with Matt 11.6 (in Greek and in the RSV English translation I gave).

Could you tell us where you found that Jesus 'blesses him only under the condition that ... '?

PS - still working on my post on K on John's question to Jesus and on the introduction to the LP (I now realize the two cannot readily be separated).

what is "LP" ?

Lord's Prayer