Irish1975 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 10:59 am
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:46 pm
After reviewing Klinghardt’s arguments regarding ‘abolishing the law and the prophets’ in *Ev/Luke 23.2 (OG 1.74-78; 2.1166-1175), it seems to me that Klinghardt does not really make an argument against the theory that 'and abolishing the law and our prophets’ (
et solventem legem nostram et prophetas) in several Latin witnesses of the so-called Western
was an addition to canonical Luke prior to the *Ev. That possibility does not seem to be on his radar, despite
the fact that he does think it’s an addition to canonical Luke (which he thinks were made on the basis of, and thus later than, the *Ev).
Klinghardt does not, however, present an argument against the addition of ‘abolishing the law…’ to some manuscripts of Luke having taken place before Marcion (or, if you prefer, the *Ev), and this would seem a plausible alternative.
I can’t make heads or tails of this. Are you simply re-asserting the traditional view, Luke-priority? Obviously that claim is on Klinghardt’s radar, and he goes to great lengths refuting it.
No. I am evaluating Klinghardt's argument that the reading 'and abolishing the law and (our) prophets' attested in *Ev 23.2 and some manuscripts of the Western text of Luke is earlier than the reading of canonical Luke that lacks it and saying he has not (yet) made his case.
He presents an argument against Harnack's claim Marcion added 'abolishing the law ...', saying it would have gone against Marcion's supposed interest in distancing Jesus from the law.
If we accept that Klinghardt's argument against Harnack is sound, then Harnack has not falsified the proposition that the reading in the Evangelion is
later earlier [EDITED - oops]. But hat does not prove the reading in the Evangelion is earlier, only that Harnack's argument does not show otherwise.
To put it crudely, if Klinghardt has shown that 'abolishing the law and the prophets' is unlikely to be a Marcionite addition to Luke, he has not shown that it's unlikely to be an orthodox addition to Luke. (Parenthetically, there are a multitude of places where *Ev has variants found in the Western text of Luke. Harnack theorized that Marcion had used the Western text, and Marcion deliberately changed the readings in only a few places, including Luke 23.2. If Klinghardt's argument against Marcion's having made a deliberate change there is sound, then the possibility remains that variant was not part of the Western text before Marcion. Harnack could have simply placed it in the wrong category - i.e., it might have been inherited from the Western text rather than deliberately changed).
The sequence could still be: Luke=>Western Luke=>Evangelion. (I'm not claiming to have proved that it is; I'm saying Klinghardt has not proved otherwise).
So what I'm saying is that, yes, Klinghardt has argued that *Ev is prior to Luke overall. But he has not addressed the possibility that the text of Luke 23.2 originally did not contain the charge that Jesus wanted to abolish the law and the prophets, that that charge was added in the Western text, and that Marcion was dependent on the Western text.
It's possible I'm wrong about that. If I am, please cite the pages where Klinghardt considers the possibility that the Evangelion was based on a Western manuscript of Luke that already had the reading 'abolishing the law and the prophets' in it, and presents an argument against it, and then we'll look at that.
If you are appealing to BeDuhn’s conjecture of an ancestor text to both *Ev and Luke, then please explain that. (At a minimum, you should not refer to such a text as “Luke.”) But if so, it makes no sense at all why you would attribute to Klinghardt the claim that “it’s an addition to canonical Luke.”
This has nothing to do with BeDuhn's theory (or Semler's). Since you don't like my language, I'll try using yours (again). As I said earlier, when I say 'canonical Luke' I mean the same thing as you do when you refer to the unique and decisive (post-*Ev) Canonical Edition of Luke (with the caveat that I do not yet accept the post-*Ev part). So according to Klinghardt, there was:
1) A Canonical Edition of Luke that did not contain the reading 'abolishing the law and the prophets' at 23.2.
2) Scribes who copied the Canonical Edition of Luke added the reading to their copies of Luke because they were familiar with it from the Evangelion.
In your language:
4. When this scribe gets to Luke, he notices the extensive and detailed similarity to *Ev. So he retains certain wordings of *Ev in his version of Luke, perhaps because “this is my beloved son” is known and preferred in the community, or it sounds better to him, or sounds more likely to be the “real” version. Who knows why.
3) The reading 'and abolishing the law and the prophets' is an addition to what was in Canonical Luke (which did not have it) that is found in some copies of Luke. This does not mean it didn't exist earlier elsewhere, but it is an addition to what was in canonical Luke.
I do not see why this concept should be so hard for you to understand.
Best,
Ken