Nice for you. But I don't. So no double standard.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:50 amI think that both Mark and Marcion indulge deliberately in the presence of a true accusation among false accusations: they are both 'false' accusations insofar they lend themselves to being misrepresented,Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:35 amYou must be remembering something wrong. I had a lengthy discussion with Ben about this question, who, unlike me, assumed it was a "true accusation". I also don't think in the present case it's a true accusation in GLuke and GMarcion.
- in Mark, the misrepresentation is that Jesus wanted the destruction and reconstruction of the physical temple, when really the Mark's Jesus was talking about himself;
- in Marcion, the misrepresentation is that Jesus was a libertine, a glutton and a drunkard, when really the Marcionite Jesus was an ethical figure.
Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’
-
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’
Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’
Glad we cleared that up.Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 2:23 pmThanks Irish for the interesting post. Yes, Klinghardt's argument sounds reasonable.
Epiphanius’ Greek and the OL witnesses agree completely, except for the variant “our law” in place of “the law.”Stuart recently made me aware that the Marconite text, like the Catholic text, can have different text variants. It seems to me that Epiphanius' reading of GMarcion 23:2 could be such a textual variant.Irish1975 wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 8:09 amAccording to Epiphanius (but not Tertullian), Marcion’s Gospel (*Ev) included two accusations against Jesus before Pilate, which are not found in the Lukan Gospel. One of these charges touches a critical and ambiguous theme in early Christianity: the dissolving (abolition, destruction) of the Law and the Prophets.
I don’t understand the claim or what it’s based on. The second sentence is incoherent to me. Maybe Stuart could explain, or someone could cite Clabeaux.Stuart wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 9:30 pmClabeaux also pretty much demolished the notion of a Western text type, or any specific text type for that matter, being closely related to the Marcionite text. Marcionite readings, many of which are more likely reflect local textual variants than specific Marcionite readings (again per Clabeaux; the texts of the Marcionites varied as much as the Catholics).
I don’t think that would be a good argument.Tertullian, writing about 207 CE, discussed GMarcion 23:2 but did not give this reading. The very old Papyrus 75 (Bodmer) has the Lukan version. Tertullian's silence could be a good argument that “his” text of GMarcion did not contain this variant.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:17 pmLuke 23.1-25, to Pilate, Jesus before Pilate and Herod.Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.42.1: ... [1] For when He was brought before Pilate, they proceeded to urge Him with the serious charge , of declaring Himself to be Christ the King; that is, undoubtedly, as the Son of God, who was to sit at God's right hand. ...
Tertullian (4.42.1) doesn’t cite any of the three Lukan charges in 23:2 other than the last, quod se regem diceret Christum: he declared himself to be a consecreated King (or Christ, a King). My text apparatus doesn’t indicate any deviations from the three-fold accusation in the Greek manuscripts, other than “our nation” vs “the nation.” So we can safely conclude that Tertullian did not seek to reproduce either catholic or Marcionite text in 23:2. He is only interested in debating the particulars of the messiah accusation. Therefore it would be an invalid inference (an argument from silence yes, but even worse) that the text of *Ev known to him lacked the abolition accusation. This is entirely consisent with Tertullian’s tendency to skip over material that was contrary to his purpose or that might weaken his argument. See BeDuhn, p. 34-35.
Why would Epiphanius be dependent on a Latin codex, especially of a catholic NT, when he’s overtly citing Marcion’s scriptures?The Panarion of Epiphanius, written around 374, knew this reading. This could correspond to the fact that the Latin Codex Palatinus, which may be the earliest witness to the reading, is usually dated to the end of the 4th century or the 5th century.
A dozen manuscripts is more than a few. Looking at the evidence, I suppose we can infer that the Greek tradition goes back only so far as the Lukan redaction.I think Klinghardt exaggerates when he speaks of the "Western" text in this case. He has a few Old Latin witnesses, but - as far as I know - not a single Greek codex or papyrus.Irish1975 wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 8:09 am(2) Klinghardt on the text-critical significance of *Ev 23:2 as evidence for *Ev-priorityThe agreements between *Ev and the ‘Western’ witnesses are unambiguously documented for 23:2. This example is methodologically most significant in several aspects. Unlike the other documentations, consistently showing a ‘negative’ agreement of *Ev with *W* (Western tradition) against the majority text, this involves ‘positive’ agreements. *Ev, together with significant *W* manuscripts, presents a text that is longer than that of the majority text. …This positive agreement bears significant weight. (pp. 77-78)
From my perspective, the issue is not what the most coherent version of the Jesus trial would or could have been, based on some arbitrary idea of religious vs political criminal procedure. Rather, what was the oldest version of the story, given the textual evidence that we have? We could not apply a test of coherence to biblical literature for very long before casting all of it into doubt—on a baseless assumption that the original story must have made perfect sense, or have been an accurate reflection of legal proceedings in Judea under Tiberius.I find it a bit weak that Klinghardt doesn't discuss an obvious counter-argument. In the Synoptics Jesus is accused before the Sanhedrin for religious "crimes", but before the Roman Pilate for political or social "crimes". This structure could suggest that the contradicting text variant (accusation for religious "crimes" before Pilate) is a later addition.
Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’
@SA
We “have the Marcionite text” as much as we have any number of ancient texts that have to be pieced together from a scattering of other authors. One case I know well is Heraclitus of Ephesus. His book didn’t survive. His “fragments” have to be gathered from dozens of much later authors. But once gathered, there is no doubt of an authentic coherence going back to end of the archaic period. An additional analogy to Marcion is that what “everybody knows” about Heraclitus (everything flows, you can’t step twice in the same river, everything is fire, etc.) comes almost exclusively from Plato, or from Aristotle via Plato. Neither are credible witnesses. As so often happens, what he is best known for having said is something that he never said, and that someone else put in his mouth. Cf. recent discussion of Ockham’s Razor.
Anyhow, you can’t refute the similarity of text, or at least you haven’t. Saying that *Ev simply is “a version of Luke” is an abuse of language. Obviously true because of the content overlap, but obviously false because of the massive differences.
We “have the Marcionite text” as much as we have any number of ancient texts that have to be pieced together from a scattering of other authors. One case I know well is Heraclitus of Ephesus. His book didn’t survive. His “fragments” have to be gathered from dozens of much later authors. But once gathered, there is no doubt of an authentic coherence going back to end of the archaic period. An additional analogy to Marcion is that what “everybody knows” about Heraclitus (everything flows, you can’t step twice in the same river, everything is fire, etc.) comes almost exclusively from Plato, or from Aristotle via Plato. Neither are credible witnesses. As so often happens, what he is best known for having said is something that he never said, and that someone else put in his mouth. Cf. recent discussion of Ockham’s Razor.
Anyhow, you can’t refute the similarity of text, or at least you haven’t. Saying that *Ev simply is “a version of Luke” is an abuse of language. Obviously true because of the content overlap, but obviously false because of the massive differences.
-
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’
It seems to me this fact only makes it clearer that this is a local text variant of GLuke/GMarcion, and not the Marcionite text. It is limited to the Latins, but well represented there, and is not found in other Western textual witnesses (notably Codex Bezae, Syriac and Coptic mss). I would question whether this text variant originally came out of GLuke or GMarcion.
Imho another argument is that the supposedly further charge (“misleading women and children”) did not find its way into the Lukan text (according to laparola). Why should there be harmonization of GMarcion and GLuke on the second charge but not on the fourth charge? Doesn't make any sense to me. The fourth charge is neither better nor worse attested than the second charge.
Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’
I suppose if we spread pixie dust over the Epiphanius passage, we can transform the heretic’s “additions” into variants of Luke.Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 12:39 pm It seems to me this fact only makes it clearer that this is a local text variant of GLuke/GMarcion, and not the Marcionite text.
Klinghardt says as much.It is limited to the Latins, but well represented there, and is not found in other Western textual witnesses (notably Codex Bezae, Syriac and Coptic mss).
Ok, but the evidence shows it has nothing to do with the Lukan redaction. If it had, it would have turned up in at least one Greek papyrus or uncial, and it would not be ascribed to “Mcn” in the NA critical apparatus. No Bible translation ever includes the two extra verses—despite the Latin witnesses—because everyone knows that they come from the heretical Gospel.I would question whether this text variant originally came out of GLuke or GMarcion.
The Old Latin versions show a pre-canonical tradition that got snuffed out.
Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’
It's not a dogmatic assumption, it is a continued line of thinking from Thomas through John to *Ev, some of the latter having been demonstrated by Klinghardt as well as Vinzent (and my latest, I would think).Irish1975 wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:27 amThat dogmatic assumption could be false. What is the basis for asserting that Marcion was an “enemy of Judaism and the Law”? But even if one of these polemical caricatures of the Church had been accurate, it is not valid to dismiss the textual evidence cited in the OP that the abolition accusation appeared in *Ev as false testimony by the enemies of the savior.mlinssen wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 12:26 pmLet's assume a positive answer to the first questionIrish1975 wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 8:09 am
- did *Ev positively affirm, or deny, or merely evoke, the idea of Jesus abolishing the Law?
- does the Tertullian/Harnack consensus image of “Marcion” as enemy of Judaism and the Law hold water against the evidence of 23:2?
- does the Tertullian/Harnack consensus image of “Marcion” as “conservative” editor or curator, whose only objective was to purge received texts of Judaistic perversions that would have preceded him, hold water?
- Ev positively affirms the idea of Jesus abolishing the Law
- (because) Marcion is an enemy of Judaism and the Law
- and most certainly "had purged received" texts of Judaistic perversions in the sense that his text(s) contained only anti-Judaic elements and surely not what the canonicals added
*Ev was very anti-Judaic, and this just one of the stronger examples of that
The IS of *Ev did come to abolish the Law and the Prophets
The value of Klinghardt’s work is to clarify that we do actually have hard evidence about *Ev, which only the dogmatic portrait of Marcion prevents people from evaluating properly.
Case in point: BeDuhn.
The abolition is a factual statement in *Ev and only becomes false in the NT via Matthew and the other examples from the letters, and we find Luke again holding a neutral position
Could you please clarify the two sections that I highlighted? I'm confused
Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’
So is Klinghardt claiming that 'I came not to fulfill the law but to abolish it' is the original reading of the Evangelion and that it predates the canonical gospels (particularly Matt 5.17)?
Do you agree with him?
Best,
Ken
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’
Please point to evidence that Tertullian argues from a text other than Luke. "I will argue from the portions of Luke Marcion still retains" is the argument Tertullian carries over from Irenaeus. It's Luke not Marcion. It's comical how dumb Marcionite scholarship is. He's telling us he combating Marcion with Luke and we won't hear him. He keeps saying "Marcion is cutting" -where are the excisions? It's just the Western text of Luke. Tertullian's order of the Pauline letters isn't Marcion it's the Eastern Galatians-first ordering which Palut took from Rome under Zephyrinus to Osroene. It's Ephrem's ordering of the Pauline letters.We “have the Marcionite text” as much as we have any number of ancient texts that have to be pieced together from a scattering of other authors
When Epiphanius cites the ordering he uses Tertullian's ordering (because he had the Greek original of Adversus Marcionem). But when he lays out the scholia it doesn't follow the Galatian-first ordering he plagiarized from Irenaeus. Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius had the Marcionite canon in front of them.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Tue May 30, 2023 5:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’
Ok but first of all, the second bit of highlighted text was NOT WRITTEN BY ME. I’ll get back to you about the rest.mlinssen wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 2:20 amIt's not a dogmatic assumption, it is a continued line of thinking from Thomas through John to *Ev, some of the latter having been demonstrated by Klinghardt as well as Vinzent (and my latest, I would think).Irish1975 wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:27 amThat dogmatic assumption could be false. What is the basis for asserting that Marcion was an “enemy of Judaism and the Law”? But even if one of these polemical caricatures of the Church had been accurate, it is not valid to dismiss the textual evidence cited in the OP that the abolition accusation appeared in *Ev as false testimony by the enemies of the savior.mlinssen wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 12:26 pmLet's assume a positive answer to the first questionIrish1975 wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 8:09 am
- did *Ev positively affirm, or deny, or merely evoke, the idea of Jesus abolishing the Law?
- does the Tertullian/Harnack consensus image of “Marcion” as enemy of Judaism and the Law hold water against the evidence of 23:2?
- does the Tertullian/Harnack consensus image of “Marcion” as “conservative” editor or curator, whose only objective was to purge received texts of Judaistic perversions that would have preceded him, hold water?
- Ev positively affirms the idea of Jesus abolishing the Law
- (because) Marcion is an enemy of Judaism and the Law
- and most certainly "had purged received" texts of Judaistic perversions in the sense that his text(s) contained only anti-Judaic elements and surely not what the canonicals added
*Ev was very anti-Judaic, and this just one of the stronger examples of that
The IS of *Ev did come to abolish the Law and the Prophets
The value of Klinghardt’s work is to clarify that we do actually have hard evidence about *Ev, which only the dogmatic portrait of Marcion prevents people from evaluating properly.
Case in point: BeDuhn.
The abolition is a factual statement in *Ev and only becomes false in the NT via Matthew and the other examples from the letters, and we find Luke again holding a neutral position
Could you please clarify the two sections that I highlighted? I'm confused
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’
Marcionite gospel reconstruction shows the superficiality of early Christian and humanities scholarship generally. People going only skin deep regurgitating complete waffle to sound knowledgeable and authoritative. Apes imitating science and the scientific method. How many trees did we chop down for "ghost research." The Church Fathers never got a sniff of a Marcionite canon. They could have argued from Matthew against the Ebionites or from John against the Valentinians. But these sects either weren't real or didn't persist long enough to deserve this level of exegetical depravity.
Correction: Origen, Commentary on John. We take the Church Fathers seriously for reasons other than the alleged "seriousness" of their scholarship. The difference between ante-Nicene Patristic research and mountainman's research. None. Good thing we found that "Phoenix bird" everyone is taking about. Or Clement's "bisexual hyenas." Complete garbage. Page after page of hearsay, innuendo and made up nonsense.
Correction: Origen, Commentary on John. We take the Church Fathers seriously for reasons other than the alleged "seriousness" of their scholarship. The difference between ante-Nicene Patristic research and mountainman's research. None. Good thing we found that "Phoenix bird" everyone is taking about. Or Clement's "bisexual hyenas." Complete garbage. Page after page of hearsay, innuendo and made up nonsense.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Tue May 30, 2023 5:32 am, edited 1 time in total.