The Marcionite gospel with accompanying sources.

Covering all topics of history and the interpretation of texts, posts here should conform to the norms of academic discussion: respectful and with a tight focus on the subject matter.

Moderator: andrewcriddle

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Marcionite gospel with accompanying sources.

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:38 am Though what order of Thomas 47, the Diatessaron and the Evangelion really were might be debateable (?)
ie. Thomas and the Diatessaron might not have 'followed' the Evangelion
Do you mean the in-text order? Regarding Thomas, there can't be the slightest doubt about that

The papyrus:

https://www.gospelofthomas.eu/blog/wp-c ... scan10.jpg
scan10.jpg
scan10.jpg (156.29 KiB) Viewed 538 times
The transcription:
GospelOfThomas_Logion-47.jpg
GospelOfThomas_Logion-47.jpg (149.94 KiB) Viewed 556 times
Or do you mean the order of texts? In essence that is irrelevant, Thomas and *Ev agree with the order of wine versus patch.
Did Thomas precede *Ev or vice versa? I won't have to tell you my opinion there
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8859
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Marcionite gospel with accompanying sources.

Post by MrMacSon »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:52 am
MrMacSon wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:38 am Though what order of Thomas 47, the Diatessaron and the Evangelion really were might be debateable (?)
ie. Thomas and the Diatessaron might not have 'followed' the Evangelion
Do you mean the in-text order? Regarding Thomas, there can't be the slightest doubt about that

The papyrus:

https://www.gospelofthomas.eu/blog/wp-c ... scan10.jpg

scan10.jpg

The transcription:

GospelOfThomas_Logion-47.jpg

Or do you mean the order of texts? In essence that is irrelevant, Thomas and *Ev agree with the order of wine versus patch.
Did Thomas precede *Ev or vice versa? I won't have to tell you my opinion there

I mean the order of the works (or the bulk of each work): priority/posterity; or contemporaneous (and likely in close spatial proximity)

(it's clear that the order of the key tropes within these three texts is consistent, yes?)

And BeDuhn has placed the Diatessaron in the mix.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Thomas and Marcion agree against the Synoptics

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:27 pm I mean the order of the works (or the bulk of each work): priority/posterity; or contemporaneous (and likely in close spatial proximity)

(it's clear that the order of the key tropes within these three texts is consistent, yes?)

And BeDuhn has placed the Diatessaron in the mix.
Why do you go into this direction? The topic at hand is Marcion and Luke, and the reason why I corrected Ben is because of his remarkable failure to notice that both his sources, Roth as well as BeDuhn, loudly attest to Marcion having wine and patch in a different order than each of the Synoptics.
Why do you almost always expand a topic into obscurity, insecurity, questions - away from answers?
Why do you distract so very often, instead of focusing on what is being brought to light?


It is evident that Luke is Marcion redacted.
It is evident that Thomas and Marcion have the same order for wine and patch, and that as such both agree to disagree with the Synoptics.
So Thomas obviously precedes the Synoptics in this case
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8859
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Marcionite gospel with accompanying sources.

Post by MrMacSon »

This webpage-article is interesting wrt a comparison of Roth's and Klinghardt's reconstructions of the Marcionite gospel-texts:

.
Published on 06/11/2018 by Daniel Dalke

Comparison of the reconstructions of Mcn by Roth and Klinghardt -

Dieter T. Roth and Matthias Klinghardt each presented a reconstruction of the Marcionite gospel in 2015. However, both pursued different goals, assumed different methodological prerequisites and applied different criteria when creating their reconstructions. The results of the comparison of both reconstructions will be summarized here.

Comparison of the methodology
Roth's approach is very positivistic and methodically very narrow. He wants to create a text that offers with the highest possible probability exactly what can be reconstructed from the sources. He examines in particular the three main sources Adversus Marcionem of Tertullian, the Panarion (Adversus haereses) of Epiphanius and the Adamantius dialogue to find out what they actually cite from the Marcionite gospel. His central method is the analysis of citation habits [of] the respective church fathers, with the help of which Roth also wants to explain contradictory testimonies of the heresiologists. History of speculation and considerations should expressly play no role in his approach. On the one hand, this concerns an alleged theology of Marcion, on the other hand, he does not want to commit himself in the processing direction between Lk and Mcn. Nevertheless, Roth also draws on the handwriting tradition of Luke to dissolve contradictions between the heresiological papers.

Klinghardt's goal goes beyond the actual reconstruction: he is on the search for a solution to the synoptic problem as well as for an answer to the question of the processing direction between Luke and Mcn. To this end, he relates textual criticism and the history of lore to each other and develops a comprehensive historical model. The reconstruction of the Marcionite gospel takes on a control and proof function. The decision in favor of Mcn priority is the basis for all further considerations by Klinghardt. Consequently, an alleged Marcionite theology does not matter to him/play no role in his work. Rather, the methodological criteria of editorial coherence and the phenomenon of interference are of central importance too. The latter allows Klinghardt not only to use the heresiological sources for the reconstruction, but also to refer to and draw on the entire manuscript tradition of the Luke and to establish presumed Marcionite readings from this. The manuscripts of the so-called "Western Text" play a special role here.

Both theoretical approaches must be criticized. Roth's central criterion can only be applied in its entirety to Tertullian, since only with him can "multiple citation" be used as comparison texts. Furthermore, it remains unclear which methodological considerations allow Roth to refer to/fall back on the manuscript tradition of Luke, if he expressly does not want to favor any processing direction. For Klinghardt, it is above all the phenomenon of interference which, from my point of view, requires further explanation. Prerequisites and conditions, as well as concrete ideas for this process, are not sufficiently available, but are necessary for the understanding and plausibility of Klinghardt's approach.

Comparison of the text of the reconstructions
The reconstructions of Roth and Klinghardt initially differ in their textual content. Roth only reconstructs parts of the text attested by the Fathers of the Church. The result is a positivist, fragmentary [working] text. He assigns the text fragments to different probability categories. Klinghardt's methodical preconditions, on the other hand, allow him to reconstruct texts in places where the Church Fathers are silent. His reconstruction thus represents a continuous text. Within this text, however, he indicates whether the text is also based on heresiological testimonies or only on the manuscript tradition of Luke. So, in principle, Roth offers nothing that could not be found in Klinghardt's reconstruction. However, Roth's reconstruction offers added value with regard to the division of the attested text into probability categories

A closer comparison shows that the reconstructions agree only in a quarter of the text attested by the Fathers of the Church. In over 80% of the verses, which are heresiologically unattested, and for which Roth therefore does not reconstruct a text, Klinghardt ascertains probable text existing in Mcn from the Lucan manuscript tradition. On the whole, both reconstructions agree in attested, missing, unwitnessed, and probably non-existent texts, in only 38% of the verses.

Dealing with contradictory testimonies
Roth's argumentation shows that the criterion of citation habits [is] often unable to resolve contradictions. Roth then draws on the Lucan manuscript tradition and often decides in the reconstruction of Mcn for that heresiologically attested variant to which the manuscripts of Luke have the greatest correspondence. This approach seems to me to be a methodological "no-go" in its generality. What methodological assumption leads him to this consideration, remains completely unclear. If Roth actually decides not to define the processing direction between Luke and Mcn, then a reconstruction decision based on Luke manuscripts is simply incomprehensible. For reasons of logic, it must therefore be assumed that Roth - unconsciously or consciously - decided/decides on one processing direction: either he follows Mcn priority and the insight that Marcionite readings have found their way into Lk manuscripts through interference, or he follows Lukan priority, in which the correspondences with the manuscripts are based on the original template Marcion used. However, it cannot be concluded with certainty from which reconstruction process Roth decided which direction of machining Roth ultimately chose. He himself leaves the reader in the dark about his methodological requirements.

Klinghardt's reconstruction decisions in the cases of contradictory testimonies are essentially based on the observation that the witnesses of the "Western Text" significantly often pass on Marcionite readings. Therefore, in the event of contradictions, he often opts for the variant that is also supported by these textual witnesses. However, if the "Western" witnesses also contradict one another, then Klinghardt's applies a methodical rule of thumb: the reading which deviates furthest from the canonical text can best be regarded as the original one. This rule of thumb is embedded in the historical model of Mcn Priority, This also correlates with the assumption of interference in the testimonies of the Church Fathers. Where possible, Klinghardt also checked the plausibility of his decisions as to historical tradition and editorial critical considerations.

The comparison has shown that the differences in the reconstructions are not primarily the result of different interpretations of sources, but that they are based on the methodological presuppositions that Roth and Klinghardt each make. Especially when considering the contradictory testimonies, it becomes apparent that the question of the processing direction between Luke and Mcn is necessary for a meaningful reconstruction of the Mcn - and that is a decision that must be made by Roth himself.


Klinghardt , Matthias: The oldest gospel and the genesis of the canonical gospels. Volume I and II. Tübingen, 2015.

Roth , Dieter T .: The Text of Marcion's Gospel. Leiden, 2015.


https://enipolatio.hypotheses.org/1025



Jan Heilmann said 13/06/2018 :

Thank you for this insightful comparison. How exactly does the 38% match come about? Is it the comparison of reconstructed verses, of literal correspondence ...? How big is the intersection between Roth and Klinghardt in places where they both reconstruct text?
.

Daniel Dalke
said on 13/06/2018 :

In the basic assignment of the verses into the categories, "witnessed", "missing witnesses" or "unwitnessed", both reconstructions - starting from 1151 verses for Luke – agree for about 93% of the verses (for 463 verses both provide attested text; both indicated 249 verses as missing; and both characterised 357 verses as 'untestified'/'unwitnessed'). However, this high rates only suggests an apparent agreement ... the textual content attested by the Chruch Fathers is evaluated very differently by both, so that the reconstructed text only corresponds exactly (literally) in about a quarter (!) of the verses. Within the unwitnessed verses, Klinghardt also offers 'probable existing passages'. In over 80% of the verses which both marked as untestified/unwitnessed, Klinghardt reconstructs 'untestified but probable' text. This is perception is the result of a difference in the reconstructions. Considering all these differences, starting from 1151 verses for Luke, 38% of their reconstructions agree (for 104 verses both offer exactly the same attested text; both denote 249 verses as missing; and both characterise 87 verses as unattested, whereby Klinghardt also assumes no existing text).
.

modified here from viewtopic.php?p=94036#p94036 (which was also edited today, based on a different translation)
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8483
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Marcionite gospel with accompanying sources.

Post by Peter Kirby »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:09 pm This thread, then, is a reconstruction of sorts, based primarily on the work of Dieter T. Roth and secondarily on the work of Jason BeDuhn; it is also a companion piece to the reconstruction of the Marcionite epistles.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:09 pmThe raw texts and translations from which I extracted the relevant material for most of these witnesses is to be found in my collection of witnesses to the Marcionite texts; extracts from the Adamantius Dialogue and from Ephrem, however, I have taken directly from Roth, who gives both the original Greek and the Latin translation by Rufinus of the former, but translations from the original Syriac into any one of three modern languages (English, German, French) of the latter. I have not bothered to translate either the Greek or the Latin of the Adamantius Dialogue; also, I have not found English translations for those portions of Ephrem's Syriac which Roth gives only in German or French, if English translations even exist. To all the other texts, by far most of the total, I have attached an English translation.
Index to other gospel texts.
Classic threads!
Post Reply