Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

[Ken Olson]

It seems to me that Klinghardt must be arguing that copyists of canonical Luke altered the readings in Luke in places to a different reading (which according to Klinghardt were from the Evangelion).

Klinghardt’s argument for the persistence of *Ev in the Western textual tradition is in chapter 5, beginning on p.74.

But FWIW, here is a little story I made up, which would illustrate the theory more or less—

1. Imagine a church somewhere that uses something like *Ev for a generation or two. It’s the only Gospel they know.
2. Then their elders hear about the 4-fold Gospel and decide to adopt it in favor of their primitive text. It seems clearly superior, maybe because it reads like the authentic testimony of the genuine 1st century apostles, or whatever.
3. The scribe they use is instructed to copy out the catholic version, all four Gospels, for the community to keep and use.
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.
5. A few years pass, and some monk comes along and copies it.
6. Back at the monastery, the librarian reviews the monk’s text, sees a bunch of wrong wordings, and decides to chuck it.
7. But the community’s version with the marcionite reading is preserved a little while longer.
8. Muslims invade and burn everything to the ground.

Thus most manuscripts of Luke conform over time, more or less, to the currently dominant (ie orthodox) understanding of “the true Gospel” that wins out politically. Over time, with the triumph of imperial Catholicism, readings from the Marcionite versions are weeded out of European and Byzantine territories.

Thank you. That was what I was looking for - especially step 4. I will get back to yo after I've reviewed Klinghardt 1.73-114.

Best,

Ken

[Irish1975]

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.

All right.

And yet, as far as I can tell, this study does not make any substantive claim about Marcion—who he was, or what was his relationship to *Ev. Klinghardt is one of very few scholars who see completely through the absurdities and fictions of Harnack, whose dogmatic, anachronistic portrait of Marcion has dominated NT scholarship for a hundred years. He knows that we really don’t know who Marcion was, although everyone seems to think that they do.

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.

very well

[Ken Olson]

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).

He discusses Harnack’s case (OG 1.74-78), noting that Harnack argued both that most of the readings in *Ev that are in agreement with the so-called Western text could be attributed to Marcion’s use of a version of the Western text, while in a few cases Marcion made alterations to Luke that became part of the Western text. Klinghardt takes Harnack to task over this, suggesting he has no solid criteria with which to make such a distinction and that he offers no solid explanation of why scribes would have taken readings from a text that would have been associated with the heretic Marcion and added them to orthodox canonical Luke. He also argues specifically against Harnack’s claim that ‘abolishing the law …’ was a Marcionite addition (1.77-78).

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 would make a similar criticism of Klinghardt’s approach to the question of *Ev’s relationship to Luke in general. Klinghardt frequently argues as if showing that there are severe problems with Tertullian and the other ancient orthodox writer’s accounts of the composition of the Evangelion, and also problems with Harnack’s account, then his thesis that the Evangelion is earlier than Luke must be correct. But those are not the only possibilities. As analogy, William Farmer argued (correctly) that the argument for Markan priority from the sequence of pericopes was invalid, but then he invalidly inferred that the argument from the sequence of pericopes proved the Greisbach hypothesis.

To be sure, Klinghardt does have some arguments for the priority of the Evangelion that do try to show canonical Luke must be the later text, such as the argument that no known Gospel text cuts out considerable material (entire pericopes) from its source without adding considerable material.

Best,

Ken

PS I agree with what Klinghardt says about the Western text in OG 1.73 n. 1. The term is misleading both because the manuscripts the term encompasses are not exclusively Western (it includes Egyptian and Syriac Manuscripts), nor is it a single controlled text type.

Post edited for clarity.

[Irish1975]

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.

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.”

To be sure, Klinghardt does have some arguments for the priority of the Evangelion that do try to show canonical Luke must be the later text…

That’s entirely what Klinghardt is arguing.

[Ken Olson]

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

[Irish1975]

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.
…
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.

Your hypothesis IIUC is that et solventem legem et prophetas might have been added in the Western text of “Luke,” and made its way from there into *Ev. This would only be possible if there had already existed a Gospel According to Luke, prior to both its copying in the Old Latin tradition, and to Marcion’s publication of *Ev. For a variety of reasons, Klinghardt rejects that assumption. The main reason is that the Synoptic problem has no viable solutions apart from *Ev.

And of course there is no tangible manuscript evidence, nor patristic testimony whatsoever, to support a “text of Luke” earlier than (1) *Ev itself, and (2) the mid-2nd century canonical edition of the four gospels. The burden of proof is on those who would postulate a text that isn’t necessary to explain the evidence that we have.

In short, if you accept that a “canonical Luke” redacted *Ev, there is no basis for conjecturing an “original Luke” prior to *Ev. A distinction between “Luke” and “canonical Luke” is unwarranted.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

This would only be possible if there had already existed a Gospel According to Luke, prior to both its copying in the Old Latin tradition, and to Marcion’s publication of *Ev. For a variety of reasons, Klinghardt rejects that assumption.

Klinghardt can do that. It is then of course no proof or even a plausible possibility, but merely his assumption.

[Ken Olson]

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.
…
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.

Your hypothesis IIUC is that et solventem legem et prophetas might have been added in the Western text of “Luke,” and made its way from there into *Ev.

Yes, with the caveat that I was not (yet) endorsing that hypothesis, but saying Klinghardt has not addressed it in his treatment of *Ev/Luke 9.2. But, yes, I think that would be a plausible alternative to Klinghardt's hypothesis that someone could hold.

This would only be possible if there had already existed a Gospel According to Luke, prior to both its copying in the Old Latin tradition, and to Marcion’s publication of *Ev. For a variety of reasons, Klinghardt rejects that assumption.

I know he does. The question is whether his reasons are sufficient to warrant his conclusion.

The main reason is that the Synoptic problem has no viable solutions apart from *Ev.

That's quite a claim (assuming you mean Klinghardt's theory of the priority of Marcion to all the canonical gospels). I think Klinghardt's overall solution to the synoptic problem has serious problems and I have not accepted it. He has, as you observed earlier, concentrated mainly on the *Ev/Luke relationship. I've asked before whether you endorse his theory that Mark was later than and dependent on *Ev. Do you agree with him, and if so, what are his best arguments to demonstrate that is the case? (And if you don't agree with him, then it follows that you think his overall solution to the synoptic problem is wrong).

And of course there is no tangible manuscript evidence, nor patristic testimony whatsoever, to support a “text of Luke” earlier than (1) *Ev itself, and

There is no tangible manuscript evidence for *Ev at all. You are insisting that the hypothesis you reject must meet a standard that the hypothesis you hold does not meet.

(2) the mid-2nd century canonical edition of the four gospels. The burden of proof is on those who would postulate a text that isn’t necessary to explain the evidence that we have.

I do not think Klinghardt has established his theory is necessary to explain the evidence we have. At least not the parts of it we have discussed on this list.

Has it been proved there were no manuscripts of the canonical gospels before the mid-2nd century? As far as I know, it has not. The argument as I understand it is that no one has proved the canonical gospels existed before that time, not that it can be proved they did not.

]In short, if you accept that a “canonical Luke” redacted *Ev, there is no basis for conjecturing an “original Luke” prior to *Ev. A distinction between “Luke” and “canonical Luke” is unwarranted.

Two problems here:

(1) Yes; *IF* I accepted that Luke redacted *Ev, then I would already have accepted the hypothesis for which Klinghardt is arguing. But I have not (yet) accepted it. I am trying to evaluate whether he has offered sufficient evidence to conclude that his theory is true and have not (yet) found it.

(2) the differences between manuscripts of Luke are a fact. There was, on Klinghardt's theory, an original Luke and there are manuscripts of Luke that have altered its readings (according to Klinghardt and according to you - or perhaps I should say 'according to Klinghardt as expounded by you').

Best,

Ken

[Secret Alias]

IF Marcionism is an exegetical tradition AND Marcionism is associated with Luke THEN how could the first comprehesive orthodox exegetical tradition associated with Luke be Tertullian's Against Marcion AND that comprehesive exegetical tradition have essentially been "Marcion is full of shit" AND Marcion is the secondary tradition.

Impossible.

Worthless discussion. This is disguised apologetics even if "apologizes" for inherited scholarly opinions. Not even worth discussing. Just trying to pretend your Michael Jordan by beating 6 year olds. You just use the fact that no one outside of textual criticism cares about the arguments of textual criticism. It's like Russians arguing "Russian is the best language" from arguments ... developed by writers in the Russian language. Marcion is first because it is both the earliest Lukan exegetical tradition AND the first Markan exegetical tradition AND sounds suspiciously like the exegetical tradition (assuming that all gospels originally had exegetical traditions) behind the Mark gospel behind Papias's Matthew gospel. In short, Marcion is prior to all gospels THEREFORE Marcion was first.