Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Giuseppe »

Kunigunde's double standard:
  • she sees a true accusation among false accusations in Mark 14 (the episode of the false witnesses): the destruction and reconstruction of the temple in three days;
    ...and she denies that Mark was based on a previous source;
  • she sees the presence of a true accusation among false accusations in the Evangelion (before Pilate) and she claims that the Evangelion was based on a previous source.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Secret Alias »

Let's face it. Religion begins with subjective reasoning and it carries on through the study of religion. It's hard to get out from it. People go into it with what they want and they come out of it with what they want.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Irish1975 »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 9:45 am Indeed the presence of that accusation is a strong argument supporting the Marcionite priority: otherwise, why Marcion would have interpolated that accusation among false accusations?
Irenaeus asserted that Marcion abbreviated the Lukan text.
Tertullian asserted that Marcion’s ultimate goal was to separate the Law from the Gospel.

But if Klinghardt is correct about 23:2, then both claims are refuted.

—> there were at least some important bits of *Ev that are not found in canonical Luke; in fact, the manuscript evidence shows that they had once belonged to “early versions” of the text of Luke, but were eliminated in the canonical consolidation of the Gospels. They have been removed from canonical Luke. Therefore, categorically, *Ev is not an abbreviation of Luke.

—> If separating Law from Gospel had been Marcion’s overriding objective—ie, if Tertullian’s Marcion were “the historical Marcion”—he would not have allowed (as editor of “his Gospel”) the abolition accusation to stand. Why? Because it appears right along side the charge that Jesus spoke against paying taxes to Caesar, which the reader of the Gospel knows to be false because of the denarius episode. The narrative firmly establishes in a number of ways that the accusers are bearing false witness against an innocent man. A teller of this story would not place his most important bit of “good news” in the context of the slanders against the savior.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Irish1975 »

We can imagine a hundred different Marcions who might have been the source of “abolishing the law and prophets” at 23:2. The point is that the Church’s Marcion Haereticus, the bogeyman of Irenaeus and Tertullian, alleged to have abridged and mutilated Luke, could not have been “the Marcion” who made that insertion. If our best evidence shows that the abolition accusation does go back to *Ev, then we have to radically erase the Church’s portait of Marcion. That man never existed.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Irish1975 »

John2 wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 3:18 pm
Irish1975 wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 8:09 am
Also important for context—

Luke 16:16-17 (cf. Matthew 11:13)
Ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται μέχρι Ἰωάννου· ἀπὸ τότε ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγελίζεται καὶ πᾶς εἰς αὐτὴν βιάζεται. εὐκοπώτερον δέ ἐστιν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν παρελθεῖν ἢ τοῦ νόμου μίαν κεραίαν πεσεῖν.

The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters it violently. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become void.


—which both Tertullian and Epiphanius attest for *Ev,

This is an example of where a Hebrew Vorlage (and the extant Hebrew versions of Matthew) makes more sense than the Greek, since the word for "until" in Hebrew (ad) is similar to the word for "concerning" (al), with the difference between them being two easily mistaken letters (dalet and lamed).

This would be in keeping with what Jesus says in Mt. 11:11 and 11:14 ("Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist ... And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come").

It makes more sense to me for 11:13 to have originally said (in Hebrew) "For all the prophets and the law spoke concerning John," with a translator mistaking "concerning" for "until." And it would mean that "the prophets and the law" were still in effect after John (in keeping with Jesus' pro-Torah position elsewhere).

In my view, Luke used the NT Matthew and inherited this mistaken translation. So if Marcion's gospel also had "until," then his gospel would likewise be based in part on a faulty translation of the original Hebrew Matthew. This indicates to me that Marcion's gospel was a version of Luke (like Church writers say) and was not the first gospel.


https://www.google.com/books/edition/He ... frontcover
Whatever.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Giuseppe »

Irish1975 wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 7:57 am If our best evidence shows that the abolition accusation does go back to *Ev, then we have to radically erase the Church’s portait of Marcion. That man never existed.
I agree with the premise yet I don't derive a such conclusion. I preserve only a bit of a such Marcion 'remembered' by the Church Fathers: that, even if the his gospel preceded all the our gospels and his Apostolikon precedes all the our "Pauline" epistles, he was merely only one of the Gentile anti-demiurgists who broke in to co-opt the received Jesus from the Jewish tradition. Not different from the Naassean co-optation of the Phrygian Attis.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Irish1975 »

maryhelena wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 2:21 pm It's Sebastian Moll who has clearly stated that the evil god idea was the original idea of the anti-thesis - and that a just god idea was a later addition.
an extensive chronological overview of the sources’ testimony will show that Marcion’s original distinction was in fact between an evil and a good ...God, whereas the figure of the just God was only introduced by later generations of his followers.

Moll is just aping Irenaeus. He doesn’t know that Marcion was a “dualist.” Approaching the textual disputes with Trobisch, Vinzent, Klinghardt really has nothing to do with the absurd fables of either the biography or the theology of Marcion Haereticus.

We know nothing about Marcion. The only valid procedure is to examine the highly flawed and fragmentary evidence of his alternate scriptures.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Irish1975 »

mlinssen wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 12:26 pm
Irish1975 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?
Let's assume a positive answer to the first question

- 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
That 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.

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.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 7:11 am Kunigunde's double standard:
  • she sees a true accusation among false accusations in Mark 14 (the episode of the false witnesses): the destruction and reconstruction of the temple in three days;
    ...and she denies that Mark was based on a previous source;
  • she sees the presence of a true accusation among false accusations in the Evangelion (before Pilate) and she claims that the Evangelion was based on a previous source.
You 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.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Giuseppe »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 8:35 am
Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 7:11 am Kunigunde's double standard:
  • she sees a true accusation among false accusations in Mark 14 (the episode of the false witnesses): the destruction and reconstruction of the temple in three days;
    ...and she denies that Mark was based on a previous source;
  • she sees the presence of a true accusation among false accusations in the Evangelion (before Pilate) and she claims that the Evangelion was based on a previous source.
You 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.
I 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,
  • 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.
Post Reply