Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by davidmartin »

SA some things that are a waste of time unless strictly a stepping stone
Marcion, Josephus, the apostle Paul

at most you discover a camp of orthodox that rejected Judaism more than the others and had a gnostic idea of God
at most you find they are the only ones to preserve Paul's writings which orthodoxy borrowed
at most they may have had their own version of Luke or Mark which got turned into the church Luke

this is useful as a short paragraph in some bigger reconstruction of christian origins, all the work on marcion is useful only if summed up in less than 1 page

then it's a useful thing to know that orthodoxy did not have or use any of Paul's letters prior to Marcion because if they did then they wouldn't have had the gnostic stuff found in collosians or ephesians
it argues for the tradtional dating of paul because there must be time for his letters to disappear only to be discovered by Marcion later on
there's no indication the church at Rome ever knew the epistles prior to Irenaeus style orthodoxy - because Paul was rejected there since the Roman Shepherd of Hermas - the Rome church's own scripture - never mentions the atonement concept at all!
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Secret Alias »

Right but my point was (and I forget which thread this point was made in) who has "authority" about the nature of ghosts, goblins, pixies, fairies etc? Where is the evidence for the Marcionite canon? Is knowing what Tertullian, Epiphanius and Adamantius say about the Marcionite canon tantamount to have "knowing" the Marcionite canon? Well if they all agreed on the shape of the canon, maybe. But they don't and so it's essentially the same thing as being "authoritative" on the plot of the US government to destroy their own buildings on 9/11. Yes you can memorize claims, "facts," coincidences, theories, "eye-witnesses" etc. But is that tantamount to being an "authority" on 9/11?
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: Tue May 30, 2023 5:31 am
Irish1975 wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 5:13 am Ok but first of all, the second bit of highlighted text was NOT WRITTEN BY ME. I’ll get back to you about the rest.
Check, you are right. I can only blame my own fat fingers
lol
your question clearly and unequivocally is

What is the basis for asserting that Marcion was an “enemy of Judaism and the Law”?
From several angles,

1. How in hell does modern Christianity get away with putting a label of “anti-Judaism” on anyone? After Matthew, Luke, John, Turtle, Augustine, Luther… the Papal States, medieval ghettos, Auschwitz? It’s grotesque. Look at the passion narrative in Klinghardt’s *Ev or any reconstruction and ask, is this adequate material for a Mel Gibson movie?

2. Paul Fussell wrote that soldiers on the Western front in WWI could believe anything was true—except what was in their newspapers. We should have that same attitude about Marcion. Anything could be true, except for what the catholics damned him for. They stole re-wrote his scriptures, condemned him as demonic, and constructed their “rule of faith”/creeds on the basis of their condemnation of him. They never cited “Antitheses,” or any of his words. They blundered into reproducing much of his Gospel, in a doomed effort to refute a dogma that is not to be found in it. They made up a story to conceal the theft. But this is consistent with Abrahamic/monotheistic religious traditions down the ages. Moses told the Israelites to plunder the Egyptians before they went out. That’s more than just a cute episode. The German scholar Jan Assmsann has some great work on this theme, ie, that religion is always “counter-religion.” It is always a subversion and/or re-formulation of a previously dominant truth, myth, system, or practice. You can’t understand Luther without understanding late medieval Catholicism. You can’t understand modern fundamentalism apart from modernity, liberalism, historicization. Etc.

3. What was pre-Rabbinic “Judaism,” exactly? No one can say. See “the beginnings of Jewishness” by Shaye Cohen, and work by Daniel Boyarin. Jewish “identity” and practice and theology before the Rabbis was vastly different from what is meant in a post-medieval, post-Christian context by the terms “Jew” and “Judaism.” I suspect that Galatians played a much greater role in fixing modern people’s anachronistic ideas than anyone wants to admit. At least among Christian peoples since the 4th century, and on into medieval Europe and the Protestant modern scheme of the Biblical. I have no use for approaching Marcion through some simplistic claim of “he’s Jewish!” or, he’s the great anti-Jew! or my favorite, he’s “anti-semitic.” The concept of semitic races was invented in 19th century Europe, by the people who hated the Ashkenazim of the defunct Holy Roman Empire. I see race and ethnicity as nothing other than self-invention through myth and culture.

4. Despite 2 and 3, there is a certain profound rejection of something called Judaism, and identified with “the Law,” in Galatians and Romans. These are the proper sources for the real Marcion, as mutilated as they were by the supersessionists of the late 2nd century roman Church. Marcion hides in the NT. I wrote a post that you noticed a few weeks back about the Sarah/Hagar fantasy allegory in Gal 4:21-31, which is crucial for this topic. Tertullian gives a few variants of the Marcionite epistle, including positive content omitted in canonical Galatians. We saw there Marcion (as Paul) contemptuously contrasting the true covenant above with the enslaving covenant below, among those reading Moses in the synagogues.
Irish1975 wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:45 am
KEY
plain text: material common to both Marcionite and canonical Galatians
italics: voice of Tertullian
underline: text that could be either Tertullian or the Marcionite scripture
highlight yellow: text of Marcionite version that is absent from canonical NT
highlight orange: text of canonical Ephesians 1: 21
strikeout: text of canonical Galatians that is not attested for Marcion's edition


. . . . .
Abraham duos liberos habuit,
unum ex ancilla et alium ex libera;
sed qui ex ancilla carnaliter natus est,
qui vero ex libera per repromissionem:
quae sunt allegorica, id est aliud portendentia:
haec sunt enim duo testamenta—
sive duae ostensiones, sicut invenimus interpretatum
unum a monte Sina
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
in synagogam Iudaeorum secundum legem generans in servitutem;
aliud super omnem principatum generans, vim, dominationem,
et omne nomen quod nominatur,
non tantum in hoc aevo sed et in futuro,

quae est mater nostra,
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
in quam repromisimus sanctam ecclesiam;
ideoque adicit,
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
Propter quod, fratres, non sumus ancillae filii sed liberae...
Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear/read the law?
For it is written that
Abraham had two sons,
one by a slave girl and the other by a free woman;
but he that was by the slave girl was begotten in the manner of flesh,
while he that was by the free woman was by promise:
which things are allegorical, which means, portending something else:
for these are two testaments
or two revelations, as I see they have translated it

the one giving birth unto slavery from Mount Sinai,
she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia;
she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
But the Jerusalem above is free


in the synagogue of the Jews, according to the law,
giving birth unto slavery;

the other giving birth above all principality, power, and domination,
and every name that is named,
not only in this aeon, but in the next also
;
who is our mother,
For it is written,
“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and shout, you who are not in travail;
for the children of the desolate one are many more
than the children of her that is married.”

towards whom, returning [?], we have promised [?] the holy church### (see footnote);
and then he adds:
Now you, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.
But as at that time he who was born according to flesh persecuted him who was born according to spirit, so it is now.
But what does the scripture say?
“Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.”

So then, brethren, we are not sons of the slave girl, but of the free woman.

Marcion departs from Judaism; The Church refused to go with him, claiming to be the real Jews (verus Israel) while condemning “Jews in the flesh.” The one who leaves something is not its enemy.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Irish1975 »

BeDuhn makes a big deal of what he calls “harmonizations to Matthew” in *Ev. He thinks this is a knock-down argument against Klinghardt and *Ev as the original Gospel. And that there must have been an early Ur-Gospel, which evolved in two directions towards *Ev and Luke, each being contaminated in different ways by Matthew.

Klinghardt’s model invites a different conceptualization of the data. On p. 102 he gives an instructive example from the transfiguration episode, where the Father speaks from out of the cloud:

Marcion: (Trt/Ep/Ephrm): this is my beloved son

Mark: this is my beloved son

Matthew: this is my beloved son, with whom I am well-pleased

Nestle-Aland Luke: this is my son, my chosen

Many variants of Luke: this is my beloved son

See a critical apparatus for the details.

So, was *Ev “harmonized” with Mark and Matthew? Or was *Ev the original, which Mark followed exactly, Matthew expanded, and Luke transfigured?

Klinghardt cites Bruce Metzger—
The original Lukan reading is undoubtedly ἐκλελεγμένος (chosen), which occurs in a somewhat technical sense only here in the NT [but see Luke 23:35, ‘eklektos’]. The other readings, involving more usual expressions, are the results of copyists changing the word to agree with other passages.
Textual Commentary on the Greek NT
This seems to be the kind of “background text-critical” model on which BeDuhn relies for his account of “harmonizations” in *Ev.

Klinghardt agrees with Metzger that chosen must be the (canonical) Lukan reading, but he does not share his explanation of the many variant witnesses that “harmonize” Luke with the other synoptics. These do not result from “copyist” errors, but from the fact that there were two rival editions of this Gospel that contended with each other in the textual transmission: *Ev, and the 4-Gospel book of the canonical edition (cf. Trobisch). The *Ev reading of beloved survived in Mark and Matthew, but was replaced with chosen by the canonical editor (“Luke”). The *Ev variant persisted even in catholic manuscripts of Luke for many centuries. Harmonization might be one factor that explains it. But it need not be the only or the primary explanation.

However, if you are wedded to the theory that *Ev must have been a redaction of Luke, or that Luke must have faithfully preserved the reading that Marcion would have found in some hypothetical proto-Gospel from which they originated, then harmonization is the only possible explanation for the textual evidence. Harmonization of *Ev to a supposedly originally Markan/Matthean reading of beloved, and a (presumably later) harmonization of Luke to the same.

Klinghardt—
The peculiarities of *Ev apparently included a phenomenon that alters their text-critical significance when assuming a possible interference between the pre-canonical and the canonical texts. A long list of examples of a few canonical Luke manuscripts contain formulations and shorter passages which, while missing in the majority text, do have close (and often verbatim) agreements in the Synoptic parallel texts (Mark and Matthew). The critical editions treat these agreements methodologically as secondary conformations [=harmonizations] through Synoptic parallels on the level of the textual tradition. NA27 marks these parallels by the abbreviation p) and consistently relegates them into the apparatus…
Under the methodological premise of *Ev-priority, however, the evidence changes. For several of these ‘inner-Synoptic conformations,’ a corresponding attestation for *Ev does exist…
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 »

Irish1975 wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 2:11 pm
mlinssen wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 5:31 am
Irish1975 wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 5:13 am Ok but first of all, the second bit of highlighted text was NOT WRITTEN BY ME. I’ll get back to you about the rest.
Check, you are right. I can only blame my own fat fingers
lol
your question clearly and unequivocally is

What is the basis for asserting that Marcion was an “enemy of Judaism and the Law”?
From several angles,

1. How in hell does modern Christianity get away with putting a label of “anti-Judaism” on anyone? After Matthew, Luke, John, Turtle, Augustine, Luther… the Papal States, medieval ghettos, Auschwitz? It’s grotesque. Look at the passion narrative in Klinghardt’s *Ev or any reconstruction and ask, is this adequate material for a Mel Gibson movie?

2. Paul Fussell wrote that soldiers on the Western front in WWI could believe anything was true—except what was in their newspapers. We should have that same attitude about Marcion. Anything could be true, except for what the catholics damned him for. They stole re-wrote his scriptures, condemned him as demonic, and constructed their “rule of faith”/creeds on the basis of their condemnation of him. They never cited “Antitheses,” or any of his words. They blundered into reproducing much of his Gospel, in a doomed effort to refute a dogma that is not to be found in it. They made up a story to conceal the theft. But this is consistent with Abrahamic/monotheistic religious traditions down the ages. Moses told the Israelites to plunder the Egyptians before they went out. That’s more than just a cute episode. The German scholar Jan Assmsann has some great work on this theme, ie, that religion is always “counter-religion.” It is always a subversion and/or re-formulation of a previously dominant truth, myth, system, or practice. You can’t understand Luther without understanding late medieval Catholicism. You can’t understand modern fundamentalism apart from modernity, liberalism, historicization. Etc.

3. What was pre-Rabbinic “Judaism,” exactly? No one can say. See “the beginnings of Jewishness” by Shaye Cohen, and work by Daniel Boyarin. Jewish “identity” and practice and theology before the Rabbis was vastly different from what is meant in a post-medieval, post-Christian context by the terms “Jew” and “Judaism.” I suspect that Galatians played a much greater role in fixing modern people’s anachronistic ideas than anyone wants to admit. At least among Christian peoples since the 4th century, and on into medieval Europe and the Protestant modern scheme of the Biblical. I have no use for approaching Marcion through some simplistic claim of “he’s Jewish!” or, he’s the great anti-Jew! or my favorite, he’s “anti-semitic.” The concept of semitic races was invented in 19th century Europe, by the people who hated the Ashkenazim of the defunct Holy Roman Empire. I see race and ethnicity as nothing other than self-invention through myth and culture.

4. Despite 2 and 3, there is a certain profound rejection of something called Judaism, and identified with “the Law,” in Galatians and Romans. These are the proper sources for the real Marcion, as mutilated as they were by the supersessionists of the late 2nd century roman Church. Marcion hides in the NT. I wrote a post that you noticed a few weeks back about the Sarah/Hagar fantasy allegory in Gal 4:21-31, which is crucial for this topic. Tertullian gives a few variants of the Marcionite epistle, including positive content omitted in canonical Galatians. We saw there Marcion (as Paul) contemptuously contrasting the true covenant above with the enslaving covenant below, among those reading Moses in the synagogues.
Irish1975 wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:45 am
KEY
plain text: material common to both Marcionite and canonical Galatians
italics: voice of Tertullian
underline: text that could be either Tertullian or the Marcionite scripture
highlight yellow: text of Marcionite version that is absent from canonical NT
highlight orange: text of canonical Ephesians 1: 21
strikeout: text of canonical Galatians that is not attested for Marcion's edition


. . . . .
Abraham duos liberos habuit,
unum ex ancilla et alium ex libera;
sed qui ex ancilla carnaliter natus est,
qui vero ex libera per repromissionem:
quae sunt allegorica, id est aliud portendentia:
haec sunt enim duo testamenta—
sive duae ostensiones, sicut invenimus interpretatum
unum a monte Sina
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
in synagogam Iudaeorum secundum legem generans in servitutem;
aliud super omnem principatum generans, vim, dominationem,
et omne nomen quod nominatur,
non tantum in hoc aevo sed et in futuro,

quae est mater nostra,
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
in quam repromisimus sanctam ecclesiam;
ideoque adicit,
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
Propter quod, fratres, non sumus ancillae filii sed liberae...
Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear/read the law?
For it is written that
Abraham had two sons,
one by a slave girl and the other by a free woman;
but he that was by the slave girl was begotten in the manner of flesh,
while he that was by the free woman was by promise:
which things are allegorical, which means, portending something else:
for these are two testaments
or two revelations, as I see they have translated it

the one giving birth unto slavery from Mount Sinai,
she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia;
she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
But the Jerusalem above is free


in the synagogue of the Jews, according to the law,
giving birth unto slavery;

the other giving birth above all principality, power, and domination,
and every name that is named,
not only in this aeon, but in the next also
;
who is our mother,
For it is written,
“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and shout, you who are not in travail;
for the children of the desolate one are many more
than the children of her that is married.”

towards whom, returning [?], we have promised [?] the holy church### (see footnote);
and then he adds:
Now you, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.
But as at that time he who was born according to flesh persecuted him who was born according to spirit, so it is now.
But what does the scripture say?
“Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.”

So then, brethren, we are not sons of the slave girl, but of the free woman.

Marcion departs from Judaism; The Church refused to go with him, claiming to be the real Jews (verus Israel) while condemning “Jews in the flesh.” The one who leaves something is not its enemy.
Agreed to all that, save for some nuances - I'll address your points below

The deeper one gets into "a ruse", the more sobering the realisation of"reality" when one wakes up: the fiercest fighters against e.g. Christianity are those who have been submerged for decades in the more or most extreme kind of its manifestations or branches, for instance evangelicalism

A more painful example would be the loss of a child; I buried the 17-year old of a friend the other week, natural death, and his take was "god gives and god takes" - and one either creeps closer to his convictions and conventions at such a moment or (greatly) distances himself from them: extreme situations pose extreme challenges to extreme beliefs, and either enforce or topple those

Is it feasible to be anti-Nazi, anti-US, anti-China, anti-filthyrich, anti-religion? Any large power and movement or phenomenon evokes reactions on either side of the scale, of either inclusion or exclusion.
I really like Vinzent's Christi Thora and his John the Baptist exposition as failed prophet of Judaism, and I really like my own exposition of the old wineskin and fresh patch that gets so fully embraced by the letters and Tertullian:

Tertullian AM 3.15
In fact how can he tell us that a new patch is not sewn on to an old garment, nor new wine entrusted to old wineskins, if he is himself patched on to, and dressed up in, names that are old?
How has he managed to strip the gospel away from the law, if himself dressed up in the whole law—for that is what the name of Christ involves?
Strip the gospel from the Law indeed; that was the entire idea: not in the sentence that both were already connected as Tertullian posits, but in the sense that these were exactly the ‘fresh’ and the ‘old’ that *Ev had in mind: “we are brand new and we will have nothing to do with Judaism”. Yet that is not the end to that, as in book 4 Tertullian has another few goes at it, and he makes it very well understood that he very well understands the predicament that *Ev’s anti-Judaism ended up posing to Tertullian’s Christianity – which he reluctantly admits, and accepts on his own conditions in A.M. 4.11.9 (emphasis mine):
You are puffed up with old wineskins, and befuddled with new wine, and consequently have sewn the patch of heretical newness (‘pannum haereticae novitatisI’) upon the old, which is the prior, gospel.
(…) For new wine is not put into old bottles by one who has never had any old bottles, and no man adds a new piece to an old garment unless he has an old garment to add it to. The <only> person who abstains from doing a thing if it ought not to be done, is the person who has the means of doing it if it ought to be done. Consequently, if <Christ> was applying the parable to this purpose, of indicating that he separated (‘separare’) the newness of the gospel (‘evangelii’) from the oldness of the law (‘legis’), he made it clear that that from which he separated (‘separabat’) it was his own, and ought not to have been stigmatized as evil by the separation (‘separatione’) of things which did not belong: because no man combines his own belongings with those of others just to make it possible to separate (‘separare’) them from those of the others. Separation (‘Separatio’) is possible because things are conjoined: and their conjunction brings it about. So he made it plain that the things he was separating (‘separabat’) had once been in unity, as they would have continued to be if he were not separating (‘separaret’) them. In that sense we admit this separation (‘separationem’), by way of reformation, of enlargement, of progress, as fruit is separated (‘separatur’) from seed, since fruit comes out of seed. So also the gospel is separated (‘separatur’) from the law, because it is an advance from out of the law, another thing than the law, though not an alien thing, different, though not opposed
While trying to make a case for separation being only possible when executed by the owner of that which is to be separated, the resulting message is devastating. Tertullian certainly deserves full points for his splendid rhetoric about a schism that can only manifest itself in one object, after which multiple parts come into being: he certainly does have a valid point against *Ev – and while he perhaps implicitly also demonstrates that the ‘schism’ of *Ev likely derives from somewhere else but its own, he clearly does demonstrate that *Ev contains the word ‘schism’ in his patch and garment sentence (as do the reconstructions).

We can see both *Ev as well as NT emphasising the contrast between Judaism and their own movement - but can we tell what was before that, in order to evaluate whether such is a departure from or merely a rebuttal of?
No one can point me to Christian texts where Christians together with Judaics do the Kum Ba Yah - all (ALL) that we have from the very first FF onwards are refutations, re-actions, rebuttals and rebuking. There never was a parting of the ways as the ways aren't connected or combined at any point in time - and the hilarious fact of the matter is that the religiots who hold to a 50 CE Paul simply because dogma asserts such should see themselves confronted with the schism only 2 decades after Sweet Geewsus died.
But we all know the difference between seeing and perceiving, don't we

So for Christianity the conclusion must be: Christians against Judaics from the very start onwards

Marcionism or Chrestianity? Hard to tell of course although I assert that Thomas comes before John and *Ev and inspires them to their anti-Judaism, where John seems to be more pro-IS as sum total of the new truth and as such Judaism must simply be discarded (be that either Samaritanism or Judaism, see woman of the well) and *Ev appears to treat Judaism as his Nemesis, making it somewhat of a raison d'être to him

To the point of your points:

1. The Passion prediction in Klinghardt's *Ev is attested as missing for its third occurrence, contains only half a phrase for the second, and has an extensively attested first occurrence that however knows wild variations

2. Yup. All of the FF is propaganda, and pure and political propaganda at that. We can only catch them red-handed through their own inconsistencies and failure to demonstrate their claims when they could and should, for example the failure to berate *Ev for "excising καινή from διαθήκη", hence my call for an aggressive reconstruction of *Ev

3. Yup. We can only take the Tanakh and extrapolate from that, although e.g. Adler's work is very helpful for the scientific approach. But I'll settle for the essential points raised in Thomas as well as *Ev as well as the Synoptics:

A. Against fasting, praying, giving alms (which gets deflected onto the Pharisees alone by Mark FF)
B. Against food laws (incorporated by Mark, and so strongly mitigated by Matthew that it gets annihilated altogether)
C. Against circumcision (letters only)
D. Against Sabbath observance

*Ev clubs these together under "Law and Prophets" and so do the letters and FF, applying that mostly in order to emphasise the end to that - and as usual Thomas does nothing of that all, he merely deals deadly blows to the concepts via magnificently cunning and sharp wordplay.
Sincere question: is it reasonable to label that anti-Judaism?

4. It all is a debate, according to the rules of debate: if you can't stand out as clear winner then you have to make sure that the other side is a clear loser.
*Ev does it, Thomas does it, the canonicals do it, the FF do it

I am still very divided on the letters and Marcionite provenance, I can't fathom their purpose other than a single memo from HQ to all the congregations, a Reply-to-All so to say in order to remind everyone who's boss and to deal a carrot here and a stick there. It is evident that the letters are used to explain the complicated theology and christology in the gospels, to bridge their gaps, and to serve as a Dialogue with Trypho yet for a mute audience this time, reasons for the latter being obvious given the convoluted rhetoric

TL;DR

I believe all of Josephus to be fake, but there must be real events in his texts in order to make them appear reliable - and one of these could be the destruction of Mount Gerizim, and yes that lamb sacrifice reminds me very strongly of Thomas 60.
That event would turn every Samarian anti-Judean, but how would it turn any Samaritan anti-Judaic? I can not see the latter in any way, save for someone seeing religion / Judaism as a whole for the driver behind this bloody massacre, persecution and domination - and that could be a plausible reason to become vehemently anti-Judaic
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 »


LSJ 1940
ἐκλέγω fut. Pass. ἐκλεγήσεσθαι IG1². 76.16 ; pf. Pass. ἐξείλεγμαι Pl. Alc. 1.121e, and in med. sense, D. 20.131, but ἐκλέλεγμαι Diph. 44, Posidipp. 27.9 (prob.) : — pick or single out, Th. 4.59, etc. ; esp. of soldiers, rowers, etc., X. HG 1.6.19, Pl. R. 535a ; ἐκ πάντων κεφάλαια Id. Lg. 811a ; — Pass., Id. Alc. l.c. ; ἐκλελεγμένος select, recondite, Diog.Oen. 23 ; — Med., pick out for oneself, choose, Hdt. 1.199, 3.38, D. l.c. ; τὰ κάλλιστα Pl. Smp. 198d, al. ; ἐξ ἁπάντων Isoc. 9.58.
Lit. Crit., select, λέξεις καλάς DH. Comp. 3 ; cf. ἐκλογή.
Med., of God, elect, choose, LXX De. 4.37, Ep. Eph. 1.4, etc. ἐκλέγειν τὰς πολιὰς (sc. τρίχας) pull out one΄s grey hairs, Ar. Eq. 908, Fr. 410.
levy taxes or tribute, χρήματα παρά τινος Th. 8.44 ; τὰς ἐπικαρπίας And. 1.92, cf. IG1². 76.8 (Pass., ib. 16) ; ἔκ τινων D. 49.49 ; take toll of, χαλκοῦς Thphr. Char. 6.4 ; c. acc. pers., ἐ. τέλη τοὺς καταπλέοντας Aeschin. 3.113 ; c. acc. et gen., τὴν δεκάτην τῶν πλοίων X. HG 1.1.22.
declare, Prisc. p. 294D., Gloss.

Roman military Greek as usual: definitely not *Ev

Having chosen versus having been chosen is crucial in Thomas (Logion 49 versus 50) but I highly doubt that such did not get lost in translation. Oddly, Matthew doesn't have this verb at all, Mark once, and Luke and John use it four times:

https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=BS ... lter=G1586

And yes, it can be amusing to watch the acrobatics necessitated when people don't dare to admit that something conflicts with their theory. BeDuhn popped up in my Philip Discussion (and regrettably remained silent) yet hasn't made an entrance to my latest, that of the fresh covenant - I'm guessing that he's seen enough now.
Although the attrition to that one is more than horrible
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Ken Olson »

Irish1975 wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 5:26 pm BeDuhn makes a big deal of what he calls “harmonizations to Matthew” in *Ev. He thinks this is a knock-down argument against Klinghardt and *Ev as the original Gospel. And that there must have been an early Ur-Gospel, which evolved in two directions towards *Ev and Luke, each being contaminated in different ways by Matthew.

Klinghardt’s model invites a different conceptualization of the data. On p. 102 he gives an instructive example from the transfiguration episode, where the Father speaks from out of the cloud:

Marcion: (Trt/Ep/Ephrm): this is my beloved son

Mark: this is my beloved son

Matthew: this is my beloved son, with whom I am well-pleased

Nestle-Aland Luke: this is my son, my chosen

Many variants of Luke: this is my beloved son

See a critical apparatus for the details.

So, was *Ev “harmonized” with Mark and Matthew? Or was *Ev the original, which Mark followed exactly, Matthew expanded, and Luke transfigured?

Klinghardt cites Bruce Metzger—
The original Lukan reading is undoubtedly ἐκλελεγμένος (chosen), which occurs in a somewhat technical sense only here in the NT [but see Luke 23:35, ‘eklektos’]. The other readings, involving more usual expressions, are the results of copyists changing the word to agree with other passages.
Textual Commentary on the Greek NT
This seems to be the kind of “background text-critical” model on which BeDuhn relies for his account of “harmonizations” in *Ev.

Klinghardt agrees with Metzger that chosen must be the (canonical) Lukan reading, but he does not share his explanation of the many variant witnesses that “harmonize” Luke with the other synoptics. These do not result from “copyist” errors, but from the fact that there were two rival editions of this Gospel that contended with each other in the textual transmission: *Ev, and the 4-Gospel book of the canonical edition (cf. Trobisch). The *Ev reading of beloved survived in Mark and Matthew, but was replaced with chosen by the canonical editor (“Luke”). The *Ev variant persisted even in catholic manuscripts of Luke for many centuries. Harmonization might be one factor that explains it. But it need not be the only or the primary explanation.

However, if you are wedded to the theory that *Ev must have been a redaction of Luke, or that Luke must have faithfully preserved the reading that Marcion would have found in some hypothetical proto-Gospel from which they originated, then harmonization is the only possible explanation for the textual evidence. Harmonization of *Ev to a supposedly originally Markan/Matthean reading of beloved, and a (presumably later) harmonization of Luke to the same.

Klinghardt—
The peculiarities of *Ev apparently included a phenomenon that alters their text-critical significance when assuming a possible interference between the pre-canonical and the canonical texts. A long list of examples of a few canonical Luke manuscripts contain formulations and shorter passages which, while missing in the majority text, do have close (and often verbatim) agreements in the Synoptic parallel texts (Mark and Matthew). The critical editions treat these agreements methodologically as secondary conformations [=harmonizations] through Synoptic parallels on the level of the textual tradition. NA27 marks these parallels by the abbreviation p) and consistently relegates them into the apparatus…
Under the methodological premise of *Ev-priority, however, the evidence changes. For several of these ‘inner-Synoptic conformations,’ a corresponding attestation for *Ev does exist…
It's an interesting argument.

Klinghardt:
The text-critical assessment of this passage, representing the said conformations through the Synoptic parallels, is registered in the apparatus of NA-27 through p) and expressly substantiated by Metzger (n. 73). Nevertheless the reading 'beloved' is attested by Tertullian and Epiphanius also for *Ev (n. 74). It is likely that this was a formulation of the pre-canonical gospel first adopted by Mark 9.7, slightly broadened by Matt 17.5 ('with whom I am well pleased') and finally changed to 'the chosen' [or 'the elect'] by the Lukan redaction. The Lukan proclamation of Jesus being chosen is secondary and and a distinguishing mark of the Lukan redaction. This usage has an agreement in the crowd mocking of the crucified (Luke 23.35). [Klinghardt, Oldest Gospel, 1.102; I have changed the format of his citations slightly and rendered his Greek into English for the benefit of some of the forum members].

Klinghardt is arguing that the Evangelion is the earliest gospel and had 'beloved' in the Transfiguration scene at *Ev/Luke 9.35. This was then retained by Mark in 9.7, then Matthew used it and added 'with whom I am well pleased' at 17.5, and finally Luke changed 'beloved' to 'chosen' at 9.7.

As Klinghardt notes on the previous page, there are several manuscripts of Luke that contain the Markan or Matthean readings, and most scholars have thought that the text of Luke has been assimilated to Mark and Matthew in those manuscripts, and that Marcion used a manuscript of Luke that had been assimilated to Mark (i.e., the Evangelion shares the reading 'beloved' with Mark rather than 'chosen/elect' with Luke).

This is the assumption that Klinghardt wishes to challenge. I think for consistency, he has to argue that 'beloved' is the original reading of Luke and a canonical redactor changed it to 'chosen', because otherwise the theory that the text of Luke was assimilated to Mark stands and Marcion could plausibly have used such an assimilated text of Luke. (This may well be what Klinghardt is arguing but his language is confusing in places).

If so, this theory is possible. It could be that the Evangelion was first and contained the reading 'beloved', which was used by Mark, and (with additions) by Matthew, and that Luke originally had the 'beloved' that shows up in several Lukan manuscripts, but a canonical redactor changed it to 'chosen', which is the accepted reading of canonical Luke.

This is, however, not a knockdown argument, because Klinghardt's argument (as I have understood it) would be explaining only those Lukan manuscripts containing the reading 'beloved' in agreement with Mark as pre-dating canonical Luke. Those manuscripts of Luke sharing the reading 'the beloved, with whom I am well pleased', including Codex D (Bezae), still show they have been assimilated to the text of Matthew 17.5 (i.e., they contain a reading that Klinghardt takes to be Matthean redaction). So Luke 9.35 has been assimilated to Matthew in some manuscripts (on Klinghardt's assumptions), which makes the possibility that it has been assimilated to Mark in others more plausible (i.e., assimilation to Synoptic parallels is indeed something that happened with Luke 9.35).

Best,

Ken
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by andrewcriddle »

Leaving aside the precise relationship between Marcion's Gospel canonical Luke and original Luke, it seems clear IMO that the first part of Luke 23 and its parallel in Marcion is secondary to Mark. It is not just that the listing of precise charges in Luke and Marcion seems secondary, but the passage seems linked to the trial before Herod, (found in both Luke and Marcion's Gospel), which is probably a later development of the trial before Pilate only. I.E. even if Marcion's Gospel preserves original Luke here better than does canonical Luke, their common source is still secondary to Mark. (Alternatively if FTSOA canonical Luke is a redaction of Marcion's Gospel, Marcion's Gospel would still be secondary to Mark.)

Andrew Criddle
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Giuseppe »

Klinghardt says that Mark would have removed the trial before Herod to prevent the Marcionite accusation against a Jewish king as evil killer of Jesus (Pilate alone being left as the innocent killer of Jesus).

There would be also simmetry between the Good Thief and Pilate, and the Evil Thief and Herod.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by andrewcriddle »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:14 am Klinghardt says that Mark would have removed the trial before Herod to prevent the Marcionite accusation against a Jewish king as evil killer of Jesus (Pilate alone being left as the innocent killer of Jesus).

There would be also simmetry between the Good Thief and Pilate, and the Evil Thief and Herod.
One problem is the parallel between the trial of Jesus by Pilate and Herod and the trial of Paul by Agrippa and Festus. Brown in Death of the Messiah argues plausibly IMO that the role of Herod in Luke is based on the role of Agrippa in Acts.

Andrew Criddle
Post Reply