Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
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: Fri Jun 02, 2023 3:44 pm 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.
Examining pp. 1168-69, it is not hard to see that Klinghardt’s discussion there is about three sub-variants of the already non-canonical accusation in 23:2 about leading astray women and children. That of Epiphanius, of “c” (Colbertinus), and that of “e” (Palatinus). He is considering which of those three readings might be original to *Ev. (The purpose of Volume 2 being, of course, to reconstruct *Ev. Klinghardt’s elaborate argument for *Ev-priority is found only in Volume 1, even though the reconstruction is necessarily linked to his thesis.)

Not having much to go on, he says that the decision is “not easy.” He then considers one possible argument in favor of “c” and “e” against Epiphanius’ shorter version, i.e. to invoke “the rule of thumb regarding such deviations,” that ‘the reading furthest removed,’ etc. The “rule of thumb” is not something K makes up for himself—it wouldn’t be a rule of thumb in that case. It is some conventional canon of text criticism. More tellingly, he doesn’t even endorse the conclusion that would be based on it. At the end of the paragraph, he concludes that neither this “rule of thumb” argument nor any other considerations are “compelling,” and a decision among the three sub-variants “must remain undecided.”

So much for the idea that K’s substantive thesis of *Ev-priority is based on a whimsical “rule of thumb.”
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 »

Irish1975 wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 9:59 am
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.
Ah! Thank you for the clarification. The emoticon was less than clear on the point. I was remiss in not giving page numbers.
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.
The first of Klinghardt's three Main Theses in Chapter 2, Inquiry and Topic (1.19-26):

1. The first insight pertains to *Ev priority over Luke: Marcion did not revise and shorten canonical Luke, but Luke is a redaction (primarily an expansion) of the Gospel that was utilized by Marcion and also by many others. (22).

I thought my restatement of Klinghardt's thesis was fairly unobjectionable (apparently I was wrong about that): if Marcion utilized the Gospel (which I understood to be the *Ev mentioned earlier in the sentence), then it follows that *Ev existed before Marcion utilized it.

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 »

If Marcion utilized the Gospel (which I understood to be the *Ev mentioned earlier in the sentence), then it follows that *Ev existed before Marcion utilized it.
Ehh. K’s statement allows that Marcion might have composed it before he “utilized” it. It would be silly to extrapolate from this one single word a claim that there was an Evangelion before Marcion.

“Utilize” is meant to be neutral among the various theories of the genesis of *Ev, and Marcion’s connection with it, as pp. 393ff demonstrate. K is verbose and repetitious about what he does and doesn’t claim, and he wouldn’t suggest an important claim through the vague use of a single word.
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 »

I am reformulating the question I asked earlier because the post containing it had other issues (which I hope to get to), but I'm very curious about this:

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 to be the original reading of canonical Luke (see the textual apparatus in Klinghardt, OG, 2.731).

Some (particularly Latin) 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 the variant readings in these manuscripts where disagree with canonical Luke? Were they based on canonical Luke, but have different readings taken from other sources?

If not, where do the variant readings come from?

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

Do you mean what explains these variant readings? Or, what theory of the composition, redaction, and transmission of the Gospel manuscript tradition is the best explanation for the evidence that we have?

You keep using words like “origin” and “original” in ways that seem to presuppose your own theory, at odds with that of Klinghardt.

Obviously no one can know the “origin” of most of this literature.

What is the “origin” of pre-historic cave paintings? Not a very useful question.
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 »

Irish1975 wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 8:51 am @Ken

Do you mean what explains these variant readings? Or, what theory of the composition, redaction, and transmission of the Gospel manuscript tradition is the best explanation for the evidence that we have?What is the process by which that occured.
Yes. Both of those things. If you prefer, just answer the second question on what Klinghardt thinks happened.
You keep using words like “origin” and “original” in ways that seem to presuppose your own theory, at odds with that of Klinghardt.
Well, I am trying not to do that. What I wrote was 'the original reading of canonical Luke'.

You wrote up-thread:
On his [Klinghardt's] 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.
So what was the reading of the unique and decisive Canonical Edition (what I am calling 'the original reading of canonical Luke') according to Klinghardt (for 9.35 and 23.2), and why do we have manuscripts of Luke (not *Ev, but Luke) that do not have that reading but a different reading shared with *Ev? What is the process by which this occurred?

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). It is possible I am misunderstanding Klinghardt and/or you, and if that is the case, please set me straight on why manuscripts of Luke have readings that differ from that of the unique and decisive Canonical Edition.

Best, Ken
Last edited by Ken Olson on Mon Jun 05, 2023 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8020
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Peter Kirby »

I will offer the offhand remark here that the Serapion of Antioch story with the Gospel of Peter shows for example how people were reading other "Synoptics" regardless of their "heretical" association.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Secret Alias »

Serapion is part of the chain in the bringing of Roman Christian culture to the "Palutians" of Osroene:
Abshelama ordination was received from Palut the First; and by Palut ordination was received from Serapion, bishop of Antioch; and by Serapion ordination was received from Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome; and Zephyrinus of Rome received ordination from Victor of the same place, viz., Rome; and Victor received ordination from Eleutherius; and Eleutherius received it from Soter; and Soter received it from Anicetus; and Anicetus received it from Dapius; and Dapius received it from Telesphorus; and Telesphorus received it from Xystus; and Xystus received it from Alexander; and Alexander received it from Evartis; and Evartis received it from Cletus; and Cletus received it from Anus; and Anus received it from Simon Cephas; and Simon Cephas received it from our Lord, together with his fellow apostles, on the first day of the week, the day of the ascension of our Lord to His glorious Father, which was the fourth day of Heziran, which was is the nineteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, in the consulship of Rufus and Rubelinus, which year was the year 341; for in the year 309 occurred the advent of our Saviour in the world, according to the testimony which we ourselves have found in a correct register among the archives, which errs not at all in whatever it sets forth.
That's how the Diatessaron got to the East and it might even be proof that the "separated" gospels (i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke and Luke) weren't even invented yet by the time of Zephyrinus. Zephyrinus = 199 - 217. Assume the light of stars continues to travel even after the star is extinguished. Could be early third century for the fourfold gospel (although Celsus's testimony implies something more like 178 - 180 CE).
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 »

Irish1975 wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 6:21 am
If Marcion utilized the Gospel (which I understood to be the *Ev mentioned earlier in the sentence), then it follows that *Ev existed before Marcion utilized it.
Ehh. K’s statement allows that Marcion might have composed it before he “utilized” it. It would be silly to extrapolate from this one single word a claim that there was an Evangelion before Marcion.

“Utilize” is meant to be neutral among the various theories of the genesis of *Ev, and Marcion’s connection with it, as pp. 393ff demonstrate. K is verbose and repetitious about what he does and doesn’t claim, and he wouldn’t suggest an important claim through the vague use of a single word.
Thanks for the citation to the the section pp. 393ff. Let's look at what Klinghardt says there.

5. Marcion, *Ev, and the Canonical Edition (OG, 1.393-405)

Klinghardt discusses three possibilities which he designates a, b, and c.

a. Marcion as editor of canonical Luke and the reformer of the Church (OG, 1.394-396)

Klinghardt first discusses the theory that Marcion edited canonical Luke, which 'found its classical expression in Harnack' (1.394). Klinghardt writes: 'the model's principal assumption is proven obsolete - that Marcion revised canonical Luke in support of his own theological views (1.396).

We may infer that Klinghardt does not favor view (a) that Marcion edited canonical Luke.

b. Marcion as author of *Ev and founder of the Jesus-tradition. (OG, 396-401)

Second, Klinghardt discusses Markus Vinzent's theory that Marcion is the author of the Evangelion, writing: 'Markus Vinzent recently presented an exciting and truly astonishing thesis (Marcion is the author of *Ev), which asserts that Marcion is the author of the oldest Gospel and the canonical Gospels have emerged only in reaction to this Gospel of Marcion' (1.396).

After some discussion Klinghardt states: 'The assumption of Marcion's authorship is possible, indeed. Vinzent's conception of Marcion's role in the emergence of the Gospels could be valid' (OG, 1.400). The next sentence, however, begins: 'On the other hand, differences remain ... ' and Klinghard expresses some reservations about Vinzent's thesis. In the following paragraph, which concludes section (b), Klinghardt notes that gauging the general agreement and subtle differences between Vinzent's and his own theory ('this study', 1.401) is a task for the future.

We may infer that Klinghard allows (b) the theory of Marcion's authorship of the Evangelion as a possibility, but does not endorse it.

c. Marcion as recipient of *Ev: catalyst of the canonical edition. (OG, 401-404)

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.

Best,

Ken

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.
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: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:42 am 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.
Post Reply