Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by mlinssen »

Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:05 pm
mlinssen wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 12:36 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:05 am I agree. Klinghardt frequently frames questions about readings as false dichotomies, positing them as a strict choice between them being Marcion's own redaction of Luke or in the Evangelion before Marcion and therefore pre-Lukan and the original reading of the gospels, as though those choices exhausted the possible options. (This is one of the problems with his argument re: 'abolishing the law and the prophets' in *Ev/Luke 23.2, which I still plan/hope to get to).

Best,

Ken
Ken, do you think that Klinghardt assumes *Ev to have redacted Luke, or that he posits that there was an Evangelion before Marcion?
Klinghardt believes that there was an Evangelion before Marcion and that it is the first (i.e., pre-Markan) gospel.

When he sees a reading in which the Evangelion differs from canonical Luke, he poses a stark choice: 'either (1) I am right and this was in the original Evangelion or (2) this must be Marcion's redaction of Luke'.

Put that way, all he has to do is show the reading is unlikely to be Marcion's redaction of Luke and he wins the argument. But there are other possibilities, such as someone else having redacted Luke before Marcion received it (as may be the case with 'beloved' in manuscripts of Luke 9.35).

Best,

Ken

PS I should acknowledge that Andrew and Kunigunde alluded to this issue in different ways up thread.
*Ev is the Marcionite gospel and it is the very first gospel, preceding all canonical ones - that is what Klinghardt posits.
Klinghardt also posits that NA27/28 / GNT4 do contain text of the earliest gospel, which thence is not Lukan - but *Ev's

It is striking in biblical academic that whenever it is about direction of dependence, two methods get deployed: either it is "evident and obvious" that e.g. the canonicals precede Thomas, or when such can't / doesn't get claimed then a magical third source gets introduced upon which both must have drawn. Science doesn't work that way, but biblical academic apparently does.
You can't have it both ways, and we can only build stable hypotheses on extant texts (which indeed is something of a thingy in the case of *Ev, yeah)

Everything is possible, but the likelihood of you demonstrating "someone else having redacted Luke before Marcion received it" is infinitesimal - so that simply isn't an available option

There are crazy riddles (such as the εὐθέως in Luke 5:39) still left which don't necessarily all need to be solved as the bulk of data points in the direction of *Ev-priority - I wouldn't blow all your ammo on a single verse
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:36 pm
Klinghardt says that Mark made Romans the torturers, who in *Ev were the guards of the Sanhedrin. In this way the gentiles are guilty and not only the Jews
That's how it is in John, the Romans torture unlike the synoptic account
But this is masked by the repeated rejection scene's and general anti-Jewish tenor of John's redactor
So I wonder if proto-John absolved the Jews or at least did not blame them, is that crazy?
Look carefully at John you'll see what i mean
That might mean Mark preserves the original of *Ev prior to a redaction making the Sanhedrin guards being responsible (in a Lukan priority scenario)
I'm gonna :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: until my tummy goes booom while awaiting your razor-sharp exposition on how and why the canonical redactor introduced the "general anti-Jewish tenor" my friend!
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Irish1975 »

Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:48 am PS - Just in general, it would be helpful to our discussions if everyone cited pages whenever saying 'Klinghardt argues X". It's a 1400 page book, and trying to find where he says a particular thing can be a daunting task if one does not have a citation.
🤓
Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:05 am
Klinghardt frequently frames questions about readings as false dichotomies, positing them as a strict choice between them being Marcion's own redaction of Luke or in the Evangelion before Marcion and therefore pre-Lukan and the original reading of the gospels, as though those choices exhausted the possible options. (This is one of the problems with his argument re: 'abolishing the law and the prophets' in *Ev/Luke 23.2, which I still plan/hope to get to).
🧐
Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:05 pm
mlinssen wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 12:36 pm Ken, do you think that Klinghardt assumes *Ev to have redacted Luke, or that he posits that there was an Evangelion before Marcion?
Klinghardt believes that there was an Evangelion before Marcion and that it is the first (i.e., pre-Markan) gospel.

When he sees a reading in which the Evangelion differs from canonical Luke, he poses a stark choice: 'either (1) I am right and this was in the original Evangelion or (2) this must be Marcion's redaction of Luke'.

Put that way, all he has to do is show the reading is unlikely to be Marcion's redaction of Luke and he wins the argument. But there are other possibilities, such as someone else having redacted Luke before Marcion received it (as may be the case with 'beloved' in manuscripts of Luke 9.35).
🤨
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Irish1975 »

Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:05 pm Klinghardt believes that there was an Evangelion before Marcion and that it is the first (i.e., pre-Markan) gospel.
What he “believes” is irrelevant.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by davidmartin »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:54 pm
davidmartin wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:36 pm
Klinghardt says that Mark made Romans the torturers, who in *Ev were the guards of the Sanhedrin. In this way the gentiles are guilty and not only the Jews
That's how it is in John, the Romans torture unlike the synoptic account
But this is masked by the repeated rejection scene's and general anti-Jewish tenor of John's redactor
So I wonder if proto-John absolved the Jews or at least did not blame them, is that crazy?
Look carefully at John you'll see what i mean
That might mean Mark preserves the original of *Ev prior to a redaction making the Sanhedrin guards being responsible (in a Lukan priority scenario)
I'm gonna :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: until my tummy goes booom while awaiting your razor-sharp exposition on how and why the canonical redactor introduced the "general anti-Jewish tenor" my friend!
if popcorn has that effect i don't want to be stuck in a lift with you! try "jerusalem" artichokes lol

i think it goes from moderately anti-Judaic to very anti-Jewish if the redactor puts in the rejection scene, like Matthew does even worse
and what other stuff did they put in i wonder?
like taking a source of private teachings and setting it in public debates with 'the Jews' who try to kill him all the time. that would do it
that last 1/3rd of John reads like a gnostic style re-write with disciple questions added + orthodox style ordinary stuff

then you have John talking a lot about 'soldiers'. Mark and Luke barely mention them, like once or twice
John has 7 references and they do that bad stuff like scourging which in Mark and Luke is done in the high priests courtyard by his goons not Pilate

i think there's a case original John was anti-Judaic 'the pharisees' but not anti-Jewish 'the people'
a gentile redactor with an uncircumcised dick and dislike of Jews is the perfect candidate to introduce this stuff i recon

this leaves the way clear of course for my pet theory of a Jewish but anti-religious Odes type base that got trampled on

if i was to criticise my own theory i would suggest Pilate doing the scourging was simply so Pilate could keep bring Jesus out to be rejected but i'd hope textual analysis would suggest otherwise.. cause i see hints the Romans get more blame in John than the synoptics if the rejection scenes are from the redactor.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Ken Olson »

Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:54 am
Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:48 am I cannot find it on the section where he's discussing *Ev 23.6-9, 10-12 in Oldest Gospel 2.1175-1180.
I'm glad to hear you've got a copy!

Perhaps you see for yourself what I meant about his arguments for Lukan posteriority and assumptions of Markan non-priority being of an entirely different quality. I struggle to read his section 11 starting around page 199. What the hell are you saying? and Why the hell not? constantly.
Yes, I've had a copy for a year or two now. I've found Klinghardt a difficult read, particularly because it's not always clear if he's arguing for his theory or from it (Irish1975 referred to his approach as 'heuristic'). Thanks for pointing out Chapter 11, 'The Literary relation between *Ev and Mark' (1.199-237. I will need to look over that and see if K. addresses the issue I posted about here (Mark's omission of L material from the Evangelion):

viewtopic.php?p=155622#p155622

I agree that his arguments for *Ev priority to Luke are overall of a better quality than his arguments for the absolute (pre-Markan) priority of *Ev, but that's the thesis he's arguing in the book and the reason for the title The Oldest Gospel. The arguments for *Ev priority to Mark frequently strike me as deduced from his thesis rather than from an independent examination of the data.

Best,

Ken

PS Klinghardt states a rule of thumb on p. 2.1168 'the reading furthest removed from the canonical text is more likely original'. I suppose that if you take that as your rule you will come to the conclusion that *Ev is prior to the canonical gospels.
Last edited by Ken Olson on Fri Jun 02, 2023 4:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Peter Kirby »

Ken Olson wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 3:44 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:54 am
Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:48 am I cannot find it on the section where he's discussing *Ev 23.6-9, 10-12 in Oldest Gospel 2.1175-1180.
I'm glad to hear you've got a copy!

Perhaps you see for yourself what I meant about his arguments for Lukan posteriority and assumptions of Markan non-priority being of an entirely different quality. I struggle to read his section 11 starting around page 199. What the hell are you saying? and Why the hell not? constantly.
Yes, I've had a copy for a year or two over now. I've found Klinghardt a difficult read, particularly because it's not always clear if he's arguing for his theory or from it (Irish1975 referred to his approach as 'heuristic'). Thanks for pointing out Chapter 11, 'The Literary relation between *Ev and Mark' (1.199-237. I will need to look over that and see if K. addresses the issue I posted about here (Mark's omission of L material from the Evangelion):

viewtopic.php?p=155622#p155622

I agree that his arguments for *Ev priority to Luke are overall of a better quality than his arguments for the absolute (pre-Markan) priority of *Ev, but that's the thesis he's arguing in the book and the reason for the title The Oldest Gospel. The arguments for *Ev priority to Mark frequently strike me as deduced from his thesis rather than from an independent examination of the data.
Exactly. I was referring to this post before, where on page 199, the program is explained.
Peter Kirby wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:51 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:42 pm Your argument (to use the term generously) would seem to be circular. You are presupposing that Marcion was earlier than Mark and therefore Mark was reacting against Marcion. This appears to be an argument aimed at people who already accept that your belief that Marcion was earlier than Mark, not one for people who need to convinced of that conclusion and want to see evidence for it.
I am working my way through Klinghardt, and I am also sometimes struggling to find the thread of the argument. After convincingly establishing that *Ev preceded the Gospel of Luke, at the outset of the discussion of *Ev and Mark, he says (p. 199):
For determining the editorial direction between *Ev and Mark, *Ev-priority over Mark is presupposed as working hypothesis for the subsequent examinations. If *Ev was broadly disseminated (Vetus Latina; Vetus Syra) prior to establishing the canonical edition (as suggested by text-historical observations), the assumption that Mark represents the first redaction of the allegedly oldest Gospel is plausible. Assuming *Ev-priority over Mark, the differences between the texts must be examined as being the likely result of the Markan redaction of *Ev.
Saying "*Ev-priority over Mark is presupposed," "the assumption that Mark represents the first redaction," and "Assuming *Ev-priority over Mark" is a rocky way to start an examination of which came first. And indeed the reader must work to separate arguments for plausibility (which can go either way) from actual arguments for the direction of the dependence.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Peter Kirby »

Ken Olson wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 3:44 pm I agree that his arguments for *Ev priority to Luke are overall of a better quality than his arguments for the absolute (pre-Markan) priority of *Ev, but that's the thesis he's arguing in the book and the reason for the title The Oldest Gospel.
It wasn't always his thesis. And even in his book, he concedes that the more sure relationships are Mark -> Matthew and *Ev -> Luke.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25442581

As you can tell, I have been able to separate the two different strands of argument that he makes.
Attachments
klinghardt-2008.png
klinghardt-2008.png (105.68 KiB) Viewed 810 times
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Ken Olson »

Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:05 pm Klinghardt believes argues (is that better?) that there was an Evangelion before Marcion and that it is the first (i.e., pre-Markan) gospel.

When he sees a reading in which the Evangelion differs from canonical Luke, he poses a stark choice: 'either (1) I am right and this was in the original Evangelion or (2) this must be Marcion's redaction of Luke'.

Put that way, all he has to do is show the reading is unlikely to be Marcion's redaction of Luke and he wins the argument. But there are other possibilities, such as someone else having redacted Luke before Marcion received it (as may be the case with 'beloved' in manuscripts of Luke 9.35).
As some have expressed skepticism (🤨 ) toward what I argued here, I want to pose a question using concrete examples.

Some manuscripts of Luke 9.35 contain the reading 'beloved' (in agreement with Mark 9.7), rather than the reading 'chosen' which NA 27 and Klinghardt consider original to Luke (see the textual apparatus in Klinghardt, OG, 2.731).

Some manuscripts of Luke 23.2 contain the reading 'he abolishes the law and the prophets' (see the textual apparatus in Klinghardt, OG, 2.1167) while most do not.

What is the origin of these manuscripts? Do they contain the original reading of Luke (Klinghardt thinks they do not) or have they been altered/interpolated?

Best,

Ken
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Irish1975 »

Ken Olson wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 6:19 am As some have expressed skepticism (🤨 ) toward what I argued here, I want to pose a question using concrete examples.
My point was that you didn’t follow your own rule: cite Klinghardt when making claims about him.
Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:05 pm Klinghardt believes argues (is that better?) that there was an Evangelion before Marcion and that it is the first (i.e., pre-Markan) gospel.
Where is this idea that Klinghardt argues for an “Evangelion before Marcion” coming from? Klinghardt’s study is simply not about Marcion per se. He is explicitly neutral about the major theories of Marcion, those of Harnack, Vinzent, BeDuhn, on pp. 393ff.
Post Reply