Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
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 »

Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:44 am
Irish1975 wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 5:26 pm
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?
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).
imho the situation seems a bit more complex than Klinghardt described it. The text variant "beloved" is the "Catholic" variant in Luke 9:35, which was already widely accepted early on (Western and Byzantine text-type), even among the fathers, especially by Tertullian himself. Only in modern times the ancient Alexandrian variant "chosen" was able to regain the upper hand due to the outstanding witnesses.

From a traditional point of view, it cannot even be ruled out that Marcion already had a text of GLuke with the secondary variant "beloved".

ἐκλελεγμένος - p45 p75 ‭א B L Ξ 579 892 1241 1342 ita itaur itff2 itl vgst syrs syrh(mg) copsa copbo arm (eth) WH NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM

ἐκλεκτός - (see Luke 23:35) Θ 1 1365 l547

ἀγαπητός - (see Mark 9:7) A C* E G H K P W X Δ Π f13 28 33 157 180 205 565 597 700 1006 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1242 1243 1253 1292 1344 1424 1505 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz l253 l292 l1552 itb itc ite itf itq vgcl vgww syrc syrp syrh syrpal goth geo slav Diatessaron Marcion (according to Tertullian) Marcion (according to Epiphanius) Clement Tertullian Ambrose Cyril ς ND Dio

ἀγαπητός ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα - (see Luke 3:22; Matthew 3:17; Matthew 17:5; Mark 9:7) C3 D Ψ pc Lect itd (copbo(ms))

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

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Giuseppe »

andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:20 am
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
Someone (Weill-Reynall) has proposed that the source of Acts about the trial of Paul before two rulers is older than the same gospels (cf the Festus's ignorance about Pilate). But even if Luke-Acts is based on proto-Luke for that matter, what does it imply? Only that Luke-Acts is based on proto-Luke.

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.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1281
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Ken Olson »

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.
Giuseppe,

Could you cite where Klinghardt argues this? I cannot find it on the section where he's discussing *Ev 23.6-9, 10-12 in Oldest Gospel 2.1175-1180.

Best,

Ken

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.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
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: 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.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1281
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Ken Olson »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:24 am
Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:44 am
Irish1975 wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 5:26 pm
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?
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).
imho the situation seems a bit more complex than Klinghardt described it. The text variant "beloved" is the "Catholic" variant in Luke 9:35, which was already widely accepted early on (Western and Byzantine text-type), even among the fathers, especially by Tertullian himself. Only in modern times the ancient Alexandrian variant "chosen" was able to regain the upper hand due to the outstanding witnesses.

From a traditional point of view, it cannot even be ruled out that Marcion already had a text of GLuke with the secondary variant "beloved".

ἐκλελεγμένος - p45 p75 ‭א B L Ξ 579 892 1241 1342 ita itaur itff2 itl vgst syrs syrh(mg) copsa copbo arm (eth) WH NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM

ἐκλεκτός - (see Luke 23:35) Θ 1 1365 l547

ἀγαπητός - (see Mark 9:7) A C* E G H K P W X Δ Π f13 28 33 157 180 205 565 597 700 1006 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1242 1243 1253 1292 1344 1424 1505 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz l253 l292 l1552 itb itc ite itf itq vgcl vgww syrc syrp syrh syrpal goth geo slav Diatessaron Marcion (according to Tertullian) Marcion (according to Epiphanius) Clement Tertullian Ambrose Cyril ς ND Dio

ἀγαπητός ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα - (see Luke 3:22; Matthew 3:17; Matthew 17:5; Mark 9:7) C3 D Ψ pc Lect itd (copbo(ms))

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
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 5:44 am 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 follow you this far.
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).
There are two points where I disagree with your second part.

I don’t see that K “has to argue that 'beloved' is the original reading of Luke and a canonical redactor changed it to 'chosen.’” On his model, which follows Trobisch’s thesis of a unique and decisive (post-*Ev) Canonical Edition, there is no distinction to be made between “original Luke” and a later “canonical redactor.” There were exactly two editions of the Gospel, one after the other. The original edition, which was *Ev, and the later Canonical Edition of “Luke” included with the canonical Four-Gospel Book. There is no evidential basis for positing a Lukan version of *Ev that pre-existed the canonical Four-Gospel Book.

Another problem concerns K’s position on “harmonizations,” which he calls secondary conformations among the synoptics. I think his claim is not as strong as you suggest. The argument IIUC is not that harmonizations either didn’t occur, or are not a valid explanation of certain patterns in the textual tradition. Thus, (to take your example) Codex Bezae was probably harmonized with the reading in Matthew, since that reading is unique to Matthew and differs from both Mark and *Ev. The argument is that we need not invoke synoptic harmonization as the one necessary and sufficient explanation of the many readings in the Lukan manuscript tradition that deviate from Canonical Luke and agree with Mark and/or Matthew. Where *Ev seems to have shared a synoptic reading, there is a valid alternative explanation, which is *Ev-priority and *Ev influence on the all the synoptics.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Giuseppe »

Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:48 am
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.
Giuseppe,

Could you cite where Klinghardt argues this? I cannot find it on the section where he's discussing *Ev 23.6-9, 10-12 in Oldest Gospel 2.1175-1180.
At the moment I have found this.
Jesus's silence in response to Herod's questions and - one may add - to the reproaches by the chief priests and scribes (verse *10, unattested), shaped the subsequent tradition: Mark 15,3f || Matt 27,12 adopted this element into Pilate's interrogation, and even John 19,8 describes it in that context. This insight into the reception of elements of the Herod episode by Mark and Matthew is important because the following mockery of Jesus by Herod and the soldiers (verse *11) is unattested and has a counterpart in the mockery by the soldiers of Pilate (Mark 15,17-20a || Matt 27,27-31a). The omission of the Herod episode thorugh Mark and Matthew had the consequence that they adopted these elements, placed them into the mockery by Pilate's soldiers, and combined with elements from the pre-canonical crucifixion episode.

(ibid., p. 1178)

But I am sure that I have read really something more in the first tome, about the pro-Jewish reasons, by Mark, of the omission of the Herod episode. I will find it.
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 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?
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1281
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Ken Olson »

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.
davidmartin
Posts: 1593
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by davidmartin »

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)
Post Reply