Klinghardt and the Question about Fasting

[Secret Alias]

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.

[Secret Alias]

It's like every village and town before the invention of the internet thought that it's customs and it's cuisine and it's way of life was the correct one(s). So if you're like from some Polish village you think perogies are "the best." There's only perogies with sour cream. That's what you eat on Saturday. Everyone "knows that." The canonical gospels are like that.

[mlinssen]

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.

Hence the pleading by Vinzent; and in my view none of this can be studied unless gospels, letters, Patristics and LXX are taken into account - and all read from the original MSS

[JoeWallack]

JW:
KK beat me to the Translations but I think a look at the evolution of the NRSV, generally considered the best translation by Skeptics, is representative of the gradual improvement in Christian bible scholarship:

2:18

Version	ASV	RSV	NRSV
Translation	And John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting: and they come and say unto him, Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?	Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and people came and said to him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?”	Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting, and people[a] came and said to him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” [a] Gk they

Commentaries also preferring "the people" are Baker Exegetical Commentary on the new testament and Donahue and Harrington Sacra Pagina: The Gospel of Mark.

KK, thanks for posting the excerpt from Moulton. I enjoyed the ending of Dynasty.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

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.

Giuseppe is getting impatient.

We'll start tomorrow with Klinghardt's "strong argument". I still don't get the argument, but apparently Ken does.

[Secret Alias]

I get that people like certainty. The Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the canonical set. That much is true. But surely there is value in noting that the Marcionite gospel understood that John the Baptist and the Pharisees opposed Jesus (or at least that the former was "scandalized" by him). The corollary of this is that the Marcionite gospel cannot have had the extended section with Jesus being acknowledged by John the Baptist. John was a figure known to the Marcionites and their gospel but there was no acknowledgement of Jesus by John. The opening lines were very different.

[Secret Alias]

And the overriding question is (a) to what degree do we blunt questions to ignore difficulties to our model that Mark is the first gospel and (b) ignore evidence in favor of a gospel like that associated with the Marcionites? If KK was familiar with the Patristic evidence regarding this passage she'd see that the Church Fathers acknowledge the Marcionite interpretation but (in the case of Tertullian) argue that "the Holy Spirit left him" when John questioned or doubted Jesus. The obvious inference is that the beginning of Mark is questioned by John's doubts later in the gospel. The Marcionites had a gospel without the baptism of Jesus by John or more importantly his acknowledgement of Jesus as the one. This came later and was not original to the gospel.

The Marcionite gospel has John appear "suddenly" in the narrative here (as if he was well known that he didn't require an introduction at the beginning of the gospel) and assumes that Jesus "came from a different god" than John and the Pharisees (who are presumably "Jews"). Celsus picks up on this point so it is an argument which was well known c 178 CE. In other words, by 178 CE there was a gospel which assumed that John and the Jews didn't recognize the god of Christianity. This means again that there wasn't this monolithic "acknowledgement" of Jesus by John and that, by inference, the gospel of Mark is later than the gospel of Marcion. That canonical Mark goes out of its way to smooth over the acceptance of Jesus by John to make Judaism "in keeping" with Christianity.

[Secret Alias]

[In the Marcionite gospel] [l]acking is any account of the preaching or the imprisonment of John the Baptist ; the narrative of Jesus ' baptism by John , the temptation of Jesus , and the genealogies are all missing. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ma ... frontcover

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Kunigunde, the following quote is the evidence that Klinghardt has done exactly the same identical my argument:

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.

(The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels, p. 647, my bold)

Thanks to google-preview I was able to read Klinghardt's comments on the verses GMarcion 7:17-23 last night.

To clarify, it must be said that this is again not an argument by Klinghardt. In this second volume, Klinghardt reconstructs GMarcion's text. He assumes GMarcion's priority over the canonical gospels and no longer discusses this issue. Klinghardt could rightly accuse us that we are discussing an alleged argument which he actually never understood as an argument or as a proof.

So what we do is the following:

From summarizing considerations by Klinghardt, we extract an argument that seems to be part of his reasoning, but which he actually never put forward.

Let’s remember what Irish said about Klinghardt's 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.

And when Ken again asks: What's his best argument?, Irish replies: I'm working on it. How is it that Irish has to work on it?

So, to repeat, what are his strongest cases?

Working on it.

I think if Klinghardt walked in here he would say this:

Okay, I boldly claim that Marcion wrote first. But don't expect the kind of evidence you expect from me. I just give Marcion's gospel a chance to be the oldest gospel and I think it deserves that chance. And then I'll see how that works.

[Giuseppe]

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 ?