Michael BG wrote:I think you have misunderstood what I wrote. I am trying to get you to discuss the dating of the texts. This is part of discussing Christian origins as it is from the Christian tradition that these texts arose and were valued.
I think I made my position clear:
As to dating NT writings - all that is being dated are copies of copies. Dating a copy says nothing about the age or origin of the story the copy is recording.
Discussing Christian origins is a historical question. Dating texts relates to the history of the text - not to the story the texts contain. It is the story that is paramount not the manuscript that contains the story. Which gospel came first is not a matter of dating a manuscript. It is story development that can shed light on that. Sure, the various gospels have been edited, updated, etc - with the result that arguments over which gospel was first are still being made. Adding later material to an older gospel can cause problems - not just of dating a manuscript the story is recorded in - but of causing problems re the development of the story itself. What to do? Stick with attempts to date the manuscripts - a position that is subject to change with any new manuscript discovery - or attempt to discern the development of the story itself. My money is on the story itself not the manuscripts that contain the story....it's the message not the messenger that is of fundamental importance....
When the dating of Genesis is discussed the nature of the text is recognised, but textual criticism is still used to assist in the dating of the text. When Daniel (an apocalyptic document) is dated, the text is used to date it to between 167 and 164 BCE. We are not dating copies of copies, we are discussing dating the texts from what is in them. To talk about discussing the extant copies does little to get us close to when the texts were written, but sometimes might provide a cut-off date when it can be stated clearly the text had been written by.
Sure, one can make an interpretation of Daniel's apocalyptic text and allow ones interpretation of this apocalyptic text to date the manuscript. Tomorrow another apocalyptic interpretation could well produce a different dating scenario. Seems a bit like putting that tail on the donkey when blindfolded....All fun and games without any relevance for historical research...
As I have demonstrated Klinghardt’s theory that Luke used Marcion is weak. Also on page 22 Klinghardt writes, “I did not closely investigate the relation between Mark and Mcn, the direction of this relation (1) is, at this point of the discussion, a mere guess.” Klinghardt does not provide any evidence for this guess. The order of Marcion being the same as Luke and following Mark and including the same redaction to Mark as Luke, does nothing to prove that Marcion used Mark and not Luke. He would need to provide examples of Marcion following Mark when Luke does not to bring his guess within the scope of possibilities.
Like all solutions to the synoptic problem Klinghardt' suggestion is open to debate - take ones pick of those on offer, run with it to see how far it goes....
Of course I may have misunderstood what you have written and you may only be saying “wouldn’t it be interesting if Marcion was not based on Luke and was earlier than Luke, but I have no idea if this is true. Wouldn’t it be great, that even after 134 years when first proposed by Charles B. Waite, if someone would do more work on it.”
Yep, it really would be great if scholarly attention was given to Klinghardt's suggestion
Christ myth theory
- The beginnings of the formal denial of the existence of Jesus can be traced to late 18th-century France, and the works of Constantin François Chassebœuf de Volney and Charles-François Dupuis. Volney and Dupuis argued that Christianity was an amalgamation of various ancient mythologies and that Jesus was a totally mythical character.
So, because the debate has not been resolved, the ahistoricists/mythicists should close up shop and go home.......
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats