Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I agree that I don't think they knew each other or were writing in cooperation with each other. The canonical gospels are clearly in opposition to Marcionite ideas, at least Matthew and Luke are. John is also clearly a revision of a gnostic Gospel, likely Valentinian or something. But I do agree that they could have all been written in close proximity and within a short time frame. I still think that Ephesus is the most likely location for the development of most of the these works.

I can guarantee you that Vinzent views the gospels as pseudepigrapha.

The Vinzent-Klinghardt paradigm (which probably ought to be associated with David Trobisch) consists of both a positive claim about the uniformity of the Gospel tradition, and a negative claim about the failures of conventional NT work on the Synoptic Problem to achieve credibility.

The uniformity of the Gospel tradition: the Marcionite Gospel was written first, and the canonical Gospels were based on it, both directly and indirectly through each other.

Klinghardt's model is something like:


The negative claim is that NT Studies, since the 1850s, has operated on various false assumptions. Among these are the idea that each Gospel writer wrote in isolation from the others both in space and time. They wrote decades apart, and at various far flung locations around the Mediterranean. Each represented a "community" of belief, independently rooted in original memories. The only influence between them was literary. Matthew, for example, worked from a copy of Mark that had fallen into his hands.

A crucial antidote to these unfounded and unfruitful assumptions is Trobisch's discovery of the idea of the Canonical Edition, with each Gospel integrated from the beginning into a single editorial concept. This concept presupposed and reinforced the falsity of Marcion's text. Thus the 4-Gospel Book, whose historical genesis NT Studies repeatedly fails to explain, can only be understood historically as a unified outgrowth from the text that Marcion first made known in Rome, under Antoninus Pius.

You will find that order of books to radically change, and there will be a new addition to them

Up front

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 4:32 pm
The Vinzent-Klinghardt paradigm...probably ought to be associated with David Trobisch ...

... Trobisch's discovery of the idea of the Canonical Edition, with each Gospel integrated from the beginning into a single editorial concept ... Thus the 4-Gospel Book, whose historical genesis NT Studies repeatedly fails to explain, can only be understood historically as a unified outgrowth from the text that Marcion first made ...

• True
  
  Though I dunno about any concept which "presupposed and reinforced the falsity of Marcion's text", other than the efforts of Irenaeus, Tertullian and Co

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 4:32 pm
Klinghardt's model is something like:

• Marcion begot Mark

• Marcion and Mark begot Matthew

• Marcion (and Mark [& Matthew]?) begot John

• Marcion, Mark, Matthew and John begot Luke

• Luke plagiarized and expanded Marcion

• It's very weird that, with Luke being so much like Marcion, the author of Luke is supposed to have needed Mark, Matthew and John to produce Luke from Marcion ...

Of course, Lk does not use those gospels but common prior sources.

schillingklaus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 3:09 am Of course, Lk does not use those gospels but common prior sources.

Why don't you just troll off, klaus

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 1:07 am Though I dunno about any concept which "presupposed and reinforced the falsity of Marcion's text", other than the efforts of Irenaeus, Tertullian and Co[/list]

Perhaps "insufficiency" is better than "falsity."

Do you see any negative allusions to the Marcionite Gospel in Luke's prologue?


See Klinghardt's analysis at pp. 156ff of Vol. 1 of The Oldest Gospel & The Formation of the Canonical Gospels.

• It's very weird that, with Luke being so much like Marcion, the author of Luke is supposed to have needed Mark, Matthew and John to produce Luke from Marcion ...

Klinghardt argues that because of the redaction of Luke as the work of the author of Acts, and the fact that Luke-Acts are never found bundled together in the manuscript tradition, but always assigned to different bundles of the whole canonical edition, the redactor of Luke cannot be distinguished from the editor of the Canonical Edition. The consistent first-person editorial voice in Luke 1:1-4 and John 21:24-25 (both "I" and "we") betrays their common integration into the CE. Thus, Luke edited John. In confirmation of this thesis, Luke's passion account owes much to John's. Also, the minor agreements indicate a knowledge of Matthew's text. All signs point to Luke being the final synthesis of the Gospel tradition.

There are many other aspects of the overall argument for Marcionite priority and Lukan finality.

mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 11:26 pm You will find that order of books to radically change, and there will be a new addition to them

Up front

I'm familiar with your position, mlinssen, that gThomas stands first in the Gospel tradition. And I am open to the argument that Matthew and Luke used gThomas for logia material.

But how do you address the fact that gThomas is entirely non-narrative, and in that respect does not conform to the general idea of a Jesus story? Isn't it more in the tradition of "oracles of the Lord," thus having more in common (in form, not in substance) with the Papias traditions, and the so-called Apostolic Fathers? Perhaps also the epistle of James (common logia material); maybe even the Odes of Solomon?

Everything changes in the historical record of the 2nd century when stories about a Jesus are brought together.

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 9:09 am

mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 11:26 pm You will find that order of books to radically change, and there will be a new addition to them

Up front

I'm familiar with your position, mlinssen, that gThomas stands first in the Gospel tradition. And I am open to the argument that Matthew and Luke used gThomas for logia material.

But how do you address the fact that gThomas is entirely non-narrative, and in that respect does not conform to the general idea of a Jesus story? Isn't it more in the tradition of "oracles of the Lord," thus having more in common (in form, not in substance) with the Papias traditions, and the so-called Apostolic Fathers? Perhaps also the epistle of James (common logia material); maybe even the Odes of Solomon?

Everything changes in the historical record of the 2nd century when stories about a Jesus are brought together.

I hear you, and agree

Thomas is not about IS.
Nor about Chrestianity.
Certainly not about Christianity - the entire text doesn't even contain XS or XPS

Thomas solely and entirely is a vehemently anti-religious text about self-salvation, and it is especially anti-Judaic.
Yet it is very cryptic and easily misunderstood, and to the casual observer it is about a leader and his disciples (who get continuously trashed)

It is John who takes it into a narrative, and we can see how John contains as many occurrences of father as the Synoptics combined - and how the woman at the well betrays the Samaritan blood of John, and his shared hate towards the Judeans that Thomas also has.
I have no idea at this point in time why and how John (mis)understood Thomas, but I simply fail to make a business case for including John in the NT, most of all with everybody asserting that such happened at a late point in time
John doesn't belong in the gospels, simple as that - the only reason for including him is that he couldn't be excluded, and the highly likely reason for that is that he started it all, which is supported by the amount of texts found, and the fact that Tertullian names him so very, very often: 19 times, that's 2 more than Matthew and Mark together

.viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9804&p=141655&hilit ... hn#p141655

So there's your narrative Irish - Thomas really is the unwilling and unwitting silent witness to all of this, he has nothing to do with it and would have killed himself a thousand times had he known what his work would lead to

And yes, that's an incredibly hard sell, but it is what it is. I have thought for a while that Marcion took Thomas "straight up" but that simply is too much in one go, even though in theory he added only a narrative.
Why did John strip almost all of Thomas and just went with the context and themes? Isn't it ludicrous that Marcion adds so much from Thomas to John?

Honestly, yes - but why does Mark take only 35 logia and 6 parables from Thomas, and allow MatthewLuke to double those?

I'm not there yet Irish, such is for sure...