Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 8:57 am

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 1:07 am It's...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 ...[/list]

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.

• Yes, I was aware Klinghardt proposes a Final Redactor. Thanks, that helps put his proposals in better perspectivea wrt my current doubt (which I hadn't considered before now ie. before considering your post^^ (though not because of your post))
  
  1. eg. Luke's passion account owes much to John's ... the minor agreements [b/w Luke & Matthew] indicate a [Lukan] knowledge of Matthew's text
  eta: => Luke was [likely] a light-ish 'touching-up' of G.Marcion in light of G.Matthew and G.John

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 8:57 am

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

Perhaps "insufficiency" is better than "falsity."

• Perhaps, but perhaps only from a consequential point of view ie. in view of what happened: the heresiologists and catholic-orthodoxy

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 8:57 am
Do you see any negative allusions to the Marcionite Gospel in Luke's prologue?

Since many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting to me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in an orderly sequence, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about reliability of the things you have been taught. (NASB)

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

• Perhaps -
  
  
  an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word
  
  - as a [likely] re-writing of history
  
  I still need to read Klinghardt's opus

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 3:05 pm I still need to read Klinghardt's opus[/list]

mlinssen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 9:24 am 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...

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 8:48 am

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 3:05 pm I still need to read Klinghardt's opus[/list]

It's damn expensive, but rich and stimulating. I have been wanting to bring out more of his specific arguments for discussion here.

Thanks for the feedback.

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 8:58 am Ok good to know. I am due for a more critical reckoning with Thomas, and someday I will be able to take this discussion further with you. (I have purchased your e-book edition of Thomas, great price. Everyone else should too!)

One question: do you have any quick stats for the amount of Thomas/Marcion overlap?

mlinssen wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 9:23 am

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 8:58 am Ok good to know. I am due for a more critical reckoning with Thomas, and someday I will be able to take this discussion further with you. (I have purchased your e-book edition of Thomas, great price. Everyone else should too!)

Oh no! That's just there for purposes of stake-in-the-ground, and it is the very first version, which is okayish but it pales to what I have now:

https://www.academia.edu/42110001/Inter ... _of_Thomas

Which is for free

One question: do you have any quick stats for the amount of Thomas/Marcion overlap?

I had planned to do that, but I do have Thomas-Luke overlap in my 72 logia

https://www.academia.edu/41668680/The_7 ... al_cousins

Also for free, and besides it contains all versions, in full, of all of Thomas in the canonicals and all is versions in there: Mark, Luke, Matthew, John

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 9:27 am
Lol, my bad.