Irish1975 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 6:21 am
If Marcion utilized the Gospel (which I understood to be the *Ev mentioned earlier in the sentence), then it follows that *Ev existed before Marcion utilized it.
Ehh. K’s statement allows that Marcion might have composed it before he “utilized” it. It would be silly to extrapolate from this one single word a claim
that there was an Evangelion before Marcion.
“Utilize” is meant to be neutral among the various theories of the genesis of *Ev, and Marcion’s connection with it, as pp. 393ff demonstrate. K is verbose and repetitious about what he does and doesn’t claim, and he wouldn’t suggest an important claim through the vague use of a single word.
Thanks for the citation to the the section pp. 393ff. Let's look at what Klinghardt says there.
5. Marcion, *Ev, and the Canonical Edition (OG, 1.393-405)
Klinghardt discusses three possibilities which he designates a, b, and c.
a. Marcion as editor of canonical Luke and the reformer of the Church (OG, 1.394-396)
Klinghardt first discusses the theory that Marcion edited canonical Luke, which 'found its classical expression in Harnack' (1.394). Klinghardt writes: 'the model's principal assumption is proven obsolete - that Marcion revised canonical Luke in support of his own theological views (1.396).
We may infer that Klinghardt does not favor view (a) that Marcion edited canonical Luke.
b. Marcion as author of *Ev and founder of the Jesus-tradition. (OG, 396-401)
Second, Klinghardt discusses Markus Vinzent's theory that Marcion is the author of the Evangelion, writing: 'Markus Vinzent recently presented an exciting and truly astonishing thesis (Marcion is the
author of *Ev), which asserts that Marcion is the author of the oldest Gospel and the canonical Gospels have emerged only in reaction to this Gospel of Marcion' (1.396).
After some discussion Klinghardt states: '
The assumption of Marcion's authorship is possible, indeed. Vinzent's conception of Marcion's role in the emergence of the Gospels
could be valid' (OG, 1.400). The next sentence, however, begins: 'On the other hand, differences remain ... ' and Klinghard expresses some reservations about Vinzent's thesis. In the following paragraph, which concludes section (b), Klinghardt notes that gauging the general agreement and subtle differences between Vinzent's and his own theory ('this study', 1.401) is a task for the future.
We may infer that Klinghard allows (b) the theory of Marcion's authorship of the Evangelion as a possibility, but does not endorse it.
c. Marcion as recipient of *Ev: catalyst of the canonical edition. (OG, 401-404)
Here I will simply quote the first paragraph of (c) in its entirety.
If Marcion was neither the editor of an older text nor the original author of *Ev, what was his role? How did the separation from the Roman congregation occur? What appears most obvious is that the heresiologists' association of Marcion with *Ev was based solely on his recitation of this Gospel. Accordingly, Marcion did not work as author or editor at all; he merely used *Ev. Under that premise (representing the heuristic basis of this study throughout), Marcion's separation from the Roman congregation and the 'secession' of the Marcionites can be imagined in several scenarios, depending on whether Marcion arrived in Rome a Christian (as claimed predominantly by the Epiphanius tradition) or whether he became a Christian only after his arrival (as assumed by Tertullian).(1.401)
Theory (c), that Marcion was the recipient of the Evangelion, but he neither created it by editing canonical Luke, nor by authoring it himself, is Klinghardt's own theory and the heuristic basis of his study.
Best,
Ken
PS - I do not consider this the most important issue we could spend time discussing. I am much more interested in:
(1) How some manuscripts of Luke came to have readings that differ from canonical Luke, but agree with *Ev.
(2) Whether you advocate Klinghardt's theory that the *Ev predates all the canonical gospels, or only the more limited theory that it predates Luke.