BeDuhn's & Klinghardt's solutions to the Synoptic Problem

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: BeDuhn's & Klinghardt's solutions to the Synoptic Problem

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:33 am
Thanks for that. There is so much that I agree with in that snippet.

First, let me note that, as I implied in my original statement above, BeDuhn does not, in fact, hold two contrary opinions at once. His approach is cogent and logical. While Klinghardt definitely pegs Marcion's as the first gospel, BeDuhn merely places it (or something like it) before canonical Luke. BeDuhn does not seem to suggest that Marcion's gospel also preceded both Matthew and Mark; he merely (and accurately, so far as it goes) says that Marcion's gospel ought to be considered as another synoptic. I am much more in agreement on this particular point with BeDuhn than with Klinghardt. I am by no means sure that Marcion's gospel precedes Mark, for example, and those two texts may evince the same kind of intertextuality that BeDuhn summarizes in his first paragraph.
You're welcome. As you posted elsewhere in the last few days, it seems you have BeDuhn's 2013 book (and Roth's 2015 book) -
Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:50 am
MrMacSon wrote: Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:31 pm
The Oldest Gospel: Klinghardt Edition, Quiet Waters Publications, July 2018, by Matthias Klinghardt (Contributor),‎ Stephen Trobisch (Translator),‎ David Trobisch (Preface)
... Klinghardt's 2015 reconstruction is presented here for the first time in an English translation. This gospel is presumed to be older than the canonical Four-Gospel book. https://www.amazon.com/Oldest-Gospel-Kl ... Klinghardt
Thanks for the link. I had some free Amazon points and went ahead and ordered this book, which arrived just today. Now I can compare BeDuhn, Roth, and Klinghardt, for whatever that might be worth.


Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:33 am Second, it is illuminating, I think, to compare that first paragraph from BeDuhn with a few paragraphs from David Parker which I have quoted on this forum now more than once:

David C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels, pages 121-122:

... I am proposing a three-dimensional diagram, in which the third dimension represents a series of contacts between texts each of which may have changed since the previous contact. For example, Matthew copies bits out of Mark in reproducing a tradition; then a later copy of Mark is enriched by some of Matthew's alterations1; and next a copy of Matthew (already different from the one we began with) is influenced by something from the also changed Mark. Add in Luke, and oral tradition2, and any other sources3 that might have been available, at any points in the development that you please, and you have a process a good deal less recoverable than any documentary hypothesis. It is not at all the orderly business we had hoped, and looks instead like molecules bouncing around and off each other in bewildering fashion.

It may be that I will be considered to be offering what has been called a complex solution, in distinction to the simple solutions such as those of Streeter and Farrer. Such a solution is presented by Boismard, who discerns over a dozen documents, some existing in earlier and later forms. But there is a major difference. I am not attempting to identify and to name sources or to recover layers. I am suggesting that the evidence is not of a kind to permit one to demonstrate the existence of the many documents posited by such theories. Thus, while Boismard's solution, like Streeter's argument for Proto-Luke, along with other theories, may be close to mine in recognising more than one point of contact between the Gospels, we differ more than we agree.

The same must be said after comparing my suggestion with the Deutero-Markus theory. I agree that the copy of Mark used by Matthew will not have been identical to the copies available to us. I would add that Matthew's copy will have been different also from Mark's autograph (unless he used the autograph, which must be regarded as improbable), and that Luke's copy will have been different again. But Deutero-Mark is a document, an edition. In contrast to that, I am proposing that we should be thinking of a process, and that the solid blocks of the documentary hypotheses prove to be at best soft and crumbling rock, at worst slowly shifting sand. Let us suppose, for example, that somebody who has read newly written Matthew copies Mark from a manuscript already different from the version known to Matthew, and introduces (intentionally or inadvertently) a few Matthaeanisms, and that Luke worked with such a copy. Who is to say that such a thing is impossible? That such confusing things occurred at a later date may be demonstrated from the manuscripts. A manuscript may harmonise a passage in Luke to Matthew; when we look at the Matthaean parallel in that manuscript, we find that it has a quite different form of the text from that taken into the Lukan version. This phenomenon may be found many times in Codex Bezae, one of the most frequently harmonising manuscripts. At its most extreme, we might say that every copying of a Gospel is, in the sense required by source criticism, a separate document, for it will to a greater or lesser extent be different from any other copy.

1 Interestingly, Parker seems to concur with others, such as Vinzent, who are saying there were a at least one step of re-editing of some of the early versions of these gospel in relation to others; & even Klinghardt says that in his paper cited above -
All the sophistication employed by textual criticism for determining the oldest variants is of little use when the sought-after text is in fact a younger, secondary phenomenon. This insight applies to the other gospels as well: the evidence suggests that these gospels existed in older versions, and that they, too, were edited as they became part of the New Testament. Many of the older variants of these other
gospels also belong to the pre-NT stage.

... distinguishing between two editorial stages of the same text allows us to understand the early history of the textual transmission: taking the revised canonical edition17

17 cf. D. Trobisch, The First Edition of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

2 oral 'traditions'/ sources are likely to be far less substantive contributions than has been previously asserted

3 other sources such as a proto-corea-Luke, ur-Marcion 'gods.pill' (sic) [I was comment recently that the term - 17th c., I think - was originally god.spell]
  1. Shelly Matthews' terminology
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: BeDuhn's & Klinghardt's solutions to the Synoptic Problem

Post by MrMacSon »

DCHindley wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 8:16 am What MrMacSon said:
Jason Beduhn and Matthias Klinghardt both presently propose that 'Marcion's Gospel' preceded both Marcion and Luke and was, in fact, the earliest Gospel written.
However, here is what BeDuhn says in the article you quoted:
The agreement between Klinghardt and myself that Marcion’s Gospel is the earlier version, pre-Marcion in its composition, and not a tendentious derivative of Luke, leads to the implication that it is a closer witness to the textual dependencies of the Synoptic Gospels...
I am not sure you captured the gist of what he says.
Exactly, hence me renewing my university alumni library card and going in [without full commando outfit this time] to get the full paper (and I didn't need the $80 alumni library card like I did 2 yrs ago; they now have a small number of walk-up-and-use computers without having to enter a library card name & number)

DCHindley wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 8:16 am ... this proto-Luke that scholars think they have teased out of the heresiologists' charges against Marcion's criticism...is just an earlier, pre-Marcionic, form of a gospel text that resembles Luke (proto-Luke).
Sure
DCHindley wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 8:16 am The other synoptic Gospels (Mark & Matthew) may well have co-existed in the proto-Lucan universe.
Sure, but most of these scholars are saying there were also pre- or proto- versions of these other gospels (and Klinghardt thinks that the eventual canonical Luke used g.John too).

DCHindley wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 8:16 am My objection is that I cannot put a lot of weight on a hypothetical proto-Lucan text reconstructed from the polemical charges of Marcions foes against his attempts to remove Judean contamination from it. "Q" may be hypothetical but it is happily based on commonalities between Mark, Matthew & Luke. Nonetheless, it's all a mess ...
Except there is reasonable agreement among several people about the ability to reconstruct Mcn/ proto-Luke because of the full account of it in the full-on polemical accounts of it.

And they have done so, eg. https://marcionbible.tu-dresden.de/marcionvariants.html

and Roth's PhD https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/ ... sequence=1
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: BeDuhn's & Klinghardt's solutions to the Synoptic Problem

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:18 am Count me as suspicious of any claim of 'gospels without a known provenance.'
None of the canonical ones do, anyway.

Secret Alias wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:18 am The issue for me at least is that you have the following claim made by Tertullian in Against Marcion:
  1. Marcion had access to all four canonical gospels but he chose Luke to 'abuse.'
  2. Luke, as Tyson notes, is the most 'theological' of the four gospels. It develops a 'proof by prophesy' logic especially at its conclusion.
  3. Marcion is alleged to have been 'anti-Jewish' on some level (whether against the god of the Jews in some passive or active way we pass without comment)
  4. Marcion 'left' Isaiah references in the Pauline epistles (assuming Tertullian cites from the Marcionite scriptures rather than as I suspect he cites from his own canon).
  5. Marcion left 'proof by prophesy' arguments in the Pauline scriptures (the use of Deuteronomy 21:23 as discussed in another thread)
To this end, it seems that at least some part of our assumptions about Marcion is not correct. Either Marcion was not 'anti-Jewish' at all but rather harbored a more nuanced understanding or approach to the scriptures or something else that can't be detected from our existing Patristic reports.
It's almost certain the heresiologists were misrepresenting Marcion (and Valentinus, etc), so their assertions have been and are strawmen fallacies (and red-herrings).

re your point 1: the first part is likely to be correct to the extent the four canonical gospels are likely to have existed in some form by the end of Marcions life and thus to have been in or orbiting his community by the time Tertullian wrote.

Secret Alias wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:18 am But clearly it seems possible to me at least that:

b) Paul developed arguments from Jewish scriptures in his letters (and even the Marcionite recension of those letters)
c) Paul developed 'proof by prophesy' arguments in his letters (so it would follow they would appear also in his/ the gospel used by the Marcionites) https://books.google.com/books?id=luPYA ... on&f=false

On the surface at least there is no reason to doubt that the Marcionites could have employed a 'proof by prophesy' gospel like canonical Luke.
It seems certain that Paul developed arguments from Jewish scriptures.

Whether "(a) Paul wrote the gospel of the Marcionites" is an interesting proposition/ question. Certainly, Robert M Price places him and forgers of him in and around the Marcionite community.


Note that Blackman says
Marcion's Messiah was a universal saviour

and
Marcion never seems to have considered the Old Testament as the heritage of Christians, as a body of literature which has a message for future as well as past generations

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=lu ... on&f=false

Perhaps engagement with 'Paul' brought the Judaisers

Secret Alias wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:18 am Some arguments on the other side of the ledger should also be considered:
  1. the orthodox avoid the most EXPLICIT Jewish scriptural references to the messiah (i.e. Daniel 9:26)
  2. the orthodox DO NOT develop 'proof by prophesy' arguments from these explicit references
I agree with (i), but there seems to be a missing middle minor premise. I think once the canonical gospels and the Pauline collection had been deemed kosher 'the orthodox' decided to sideline Marcion and the other pre orthodox theologies en mass (and 'the orthodox' may only be Irenaeus and Tertullian +/- others we may not know, or may know such as Hippolytus [of Rome] and Clement of Alexandria)
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: BeDuhn's & Klinghardt's solutions to the Synoptic Problem

Post by robert j »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:45 pm It's almost certain the heresiologists were misrepresenting Marcion (and Valentinus, etc), so their assertions have been and are strawmen fallacies (and red-herrings).
MrMacSon wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:12 pm... there is reasonable agreement among several people about the ability to reconstruct Mcn/ proto-Luke because of the full account of it in the full-on polemical accounts of it.

And they have done so ...
If the first is true, how reliable might one consider the second?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: BeDuhn's & Klinghardt's solutions to the Synoptic Problem

Post by MrMacSon »

robert j wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:04 pm If the first is true, how reliable might one consider the second?
Because the reconstructed Mcn aligns with much of Luke. They can recover and represent 'the textual variants for the Gospel used by the Marcionites as found in the manuscript tradition as well as in the scriptures of early christian writers', and then see how the heresiologists have misrepresented it. The quoted text is from the bottom middle column here https://marcionbible.tu-dresden.de/marcionvariants.html
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: BeDuhn's & Klinghardt's solutions to the Synoptic Problem

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 11:54 amYou're welcome. As you posted elsewhere in the last few days, it seems you have BeDuhn's 2013 book (and Roth's 2015 book)....
Yes, I have both. I needed both in order to put together my Marcionite texts: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1837 and viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: BeDuhn's & Klinghardt's solutions to the Synoptic Problem

Post by DCHindley »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:12 pm
DCHindley wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 8:16 am What MrMacSon said:
Jason Beduhn and Matthias Klinghardt both presently propose that 'Marcion's Gospel' preceded both Marcion and Luke and was, in fact, the earliest Gospel written.

However, here is what BeDuhn says in the article you quoted ...
Exactly, hence me renewing my university alumni library card and going in [without full commando outfit this time] to get the full paper (and I didn't need the $80 alumni library card like I did 2 yrs ago; they now have a small number of walk-up-and-use computers without having to enter a library card name & number)
Of course, there is a big difference in the library culture between primarily undergrad universities and the higher end ones known for their graduate studies programs. The former are noisy with some staff or patrons being very discourteous, while the latter are like super quiet and the staff & patrons are courteous.

Maybe 6 years ago I let my inter-library loan card expire, as I just hated going to the local University about 45 minutes away. The closest graduate study school is a good hour away from where I live now. Generally, it's not so much the driving but the parking. When I was still going to university libraries, though, I found that it was the tinfoil hat that did the trick. Your commando outfit must have been mighty handy warding off spitball attacks from the underclassmen.
Except there is reasonable agreement among several people about the ability to reconstruct Mcn/ proto-Luke because of the full account of it in the full-on polemical accounts of it.

And they have done so, eg. https://marcionbible.tu-dresden.de/marcionvariants.html
Over time (maybe the last 5 years maybe longer) I have downloaded several such lists of passages, and if you compare them you start to see where the differences between scholars come from. It's in what they do, and don't, include in their reconstructions, and the reasons they give in the footnotes explaining why.

Dieter Roth, for instance, teases out
* Attested Verses (those that the heresiologists claim Marcion definitely had in his "gospel"
* "Attested Verses - unattested" which I take to mean "Verses the heresiologists say weren't present in Marcion's gospel"
* Unattested Verses (Luke) = verses not part of the debate, although some could have been in Marcion's Gospel.

He does cite his sources for the verses in the first two categories (Luke, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Adamantius, and Others (like Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome, Ephrem, Pseudo-Ephem, Philastrius, Eznik, Pseudo-Tertullian's Against all Heresies).*

While I've collected many of these, some of them are image scans only, others are digital but could not reproduce the non-English parts of the texts, and several which are in Unicode Greek. To really understand the complexity of the matter at hand, I'd need to create a relational database in MS Access or something, but databases are not easy things to design and convert data for it.

For this reason, I consider anyone's reconstruction as largely preliminary, the correctness of which will depend on the validity of the assumptions they made going in with their own studies.

Just like Schweitzer's descriptions of the various H-C scholars and schools in the 19th and the first decade or so of the 20th centuries, showing where various incorrect assumptions were identified by intense critical analysis before the matter could advance a step further, I expect this debate to take many more decades before we start to see hard facts, not apparent facts.
Yes, I had downloaded Roth's PhD thesis a while ago. Like you, I scour the internet for these pearls.

DCH

* I have this teased into a "handy dandy" notebook MS Word file I could save in RTF for anyone interested, and if so, send me a PM with your e-mail address (fear not! I do not hand these out to others). The source for the file was Roth's 2009 PhD thesis, pages 47-62, and includes all the associated footnotes. A sample where I have edited out the footnote numbers:

Verse in Luke
Tertullian
Epiphanius
Adam.
Other(s)
3:1 Marc. 4.7.1 Pan. 42.11.5 Adam. 64.14-15 (2.3); 98.2-3 (2.18); 102.68-69 (2.19) Irenaeus, Haer. 1.27.2; 4.6.2: Hippolytus, Haer. 7.31.5: (Pseudo-)Ephrem, An Exposition of the Gospel: Origen, Ex libro Origenis in Epistolam ad Titum

robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: BeDuhn's & Klinghardt's solutions to the Synoptic Problem

Post by robert j »

robert j wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:04 pm
MrMacSon wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:45 pm It's almost certain the heresiologists were misrepresenting Marcion (and Valentinus, etc), so their assertions have been and are strawmen fallacies (and red-herrings).
MrMacSon wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:12 pm... there is reasonable agreement among several people about the ability to reconstruct Mcn/ proto-Luke because of the full account of it in the full-on polemical accounts of it.

And they have done so ...
If the first is true, how reliable might one consider the second?
MrMacSon wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 2:45 pm
robert j wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:04 pm If the first is true, how reliable might one consider the second?
Because the reconstructed Mcn aligns with much of Luke. They can recover and represent 'the textual variants for the Gospel used by the Marcionites as found in the manuscript tradition as well as in the scriptures of early christian writers', and then see how the heresiologists have misrepresented it. The quoted text is from the bottom middle column here https://marcionbible.tu-dresden.de/marcionvariants.html
That doesn't answer the question. I asked how reliable might one consider the output, when the only input of Marcionite material consists of --- in your own words --- assertions, strawmen fallacies and red-herrings.

It seems DCH has incorporated such concerns in his interpretations ---
DCHindley wrote: Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:04 am ... I consider anyone's reconstruction as largely preliminary, the correctness of which will depend on the validity of the assumptions they made going in with their own studies...
... applies to all theories, sure, but applies with spades for Marcionite reconstructions.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: BeDuhn's & Klinghardt's solutions to the Synoptic Problem

Post by MrMacSon »

DCHindley wrote: Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:04 am
MrMacSon wrote:... there is reasonable agreement among several people about the ability to reconstruct Mcn/ proto-Luke because of the full account of it in the full-on polemical accounts of it. And they have done so, eg. https://marcionbible.tu-dresden.de/marcionvariants.html
Over time (maybe the last 5 years maybe longer) I have downloaded several such lists of passages, and if you compare them you start to see where the differences between scholars come from. It's in what they do, and don't, include in their reconstructions, and the reasons they give in the footnotes explaining why.

Dieter Roth, for instance, teases out
* Attested Verses (those that the heresiologists claim Marcion definitely had in his "gospel"
* "Attested Verses - unattested" which I take to mean "Verses the heresiologists say weren't present in Marcion's gospel"
* Unattested Verses (Luke) = verses not part of the debate, although some could have been in Marcion's Gospel.

He does cite his sources for the verses in the first two categories (Luke, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Adamantius, and Others (like Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome, Ephrem, Pseudo-Ephem, Philastrius, Eznik, Pseudo-Tertullian's Against all Heresies).*

.....

... I consider anyone's reconstruction as largely preliminary, the correctness of which will depend on the validity of the assumptions they made going in with their own studies.

... I expect this debate to take many more decades before we start to see hard facts, not apparent facts.
Cheers DCH. I'll address these points first. At least Klinghardt is putting his research findings online, including references to sources, which will encourage open debate and has published a reasonably-priced, English-language book1 about it -
  • The Oldest Gospel: Klinghardt Edition, Quiet Waters Publications, July 2018
    by Matthias Klinghardt (Contributor),‎ Stephen Trobisch (Translator),‎ David Trobisch (Preface)

    1 a pared-down version of his two-volume 2015 German-language book, it seems.

and Klinghardt is engaging constructively in conferences (as is BeDuhn and as has Trobisch), and publishing the papers presented at those conferences -
  1. the paper at the start of this thread^^
  2. Das Neue Testament und sein Text im 2. Jahrhundert (Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (TANZ) 61)* (German Edition); by Jan Heilmann2 (Editor),‎ Matthias Klinghardt (Editor), Narr Francke Attempto Verlag, January 2018.
    • 'The New Testament and Its Text in the 2nd Century: (Texts and Works in the New Testament Age)'
    Forward/Vorwort
    This anthology is based on a conference that took place in March 2015 at the TU Dresden on "The New Testament and its text in the 2nd century" ... Most of the contributions are based on the presentations given at this meeting; [An] article by Wolfgang Grünstäudl is based on a lecture given at the TU Dresden in June 2013.
    2 Jan Heilmann is part of the group that is has published the website above

All Roth (and Judith Lieu) seem to be doing presently is 'throw shade' and negate, eg.
  1. at the current SBL/AAR conference -
    Marcion’s Gospel and the Textual History of Luke

    Program Unit: Gospel of Luke 
    Dieter Roth, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz

    After a period of time in which there was a slight lull in the study of Marcion and Marcion’s Gospel, the new millennium has witnessed a resurgence in scholarly work on this important second century figure and the Gospel he utilized. Several new reconstructions of Marcion’s Gospel have been published in the past few years (e.g., BeDuhn, Klinghardt, Roth) and a variety of monographs related to Marcion have devoted extensive discussion to his Gospel text (e.g., Lieu, Moll, Tyson, Vinzent). Despite widely divergent scholarly opinion on precisely how Marcion’s Gospel and Luke are related, that they are related has been nearly universally recognized in the history of research on Marcion's Gospel. For this reason, one should remain cognizant of the fact that a better understanding of the text of Marcion’s Gospel may provide important insight into the textual history of Luke. At the same time, however, all of these issues are related to the thorny questions surrounding the reconstruction of Marcion’s Gospel. Thus, in this paper the requisite methodological precision* for reconstructing Marcion’s Gospel is considered through critical interaction* with recent reconstructions of his text in order to then offer a series of preliminary conclusions concerning the place of Marcion’s Gospel when studying the textual history of and creating a textual apparatus for Luke.

    https://www.sbl-site.org/meetings/Congr ... etingId=33

    * Roth's appeal to precision and 'critical interaction' seem spurious as it's an ongoing proposal from him, ie. it's all he's done in the last 3 yrs
  2. a recent book chapter -

    Dieter T Roth, 'Marcion's Gospel and the Synoptic Problem in Recent Scholarship', Chapter 14 in Gospel Interpretation and the Q-Hypothesis; Mogens Müller & Heike Omerzu eds. Bloomsbury Publishing, 5 Apr. 2018.

There has been at least one attempt to compare Roth's and Klinghardt's reconstructions -eg. Daniel Dalke's 'Comparison of the reconstructions of 'Mcn' by Roth and Klinghardt', translation and original url via http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 036#p94036

.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: BeDuhn's & Klinghardt's solutions to the Synoptic Problem

Post by MrMacSon »

There's also this assessment of Klinghardt's proposals and argument, with points of disagreement

Pier Angelo Gramaglia

Marcion and the Gospel (by Luke) 
A comparison with Matthias Klinghardt

It is widely believed that the so-called Gospel of Marcion (about 85-160) is a shortened and modified version of the Gospel of Luke. In recent years, however, some scholars have questioned this reconstruction and have proposed that the text of Marcion is at the base of the Gospel of Luke, and not vice versa. In 2015, Matthias Klinghardt attempted a reconstruction of the Greek text of the Gospel of Marcion - which is known to us only through quotations - concluding that it is at the basis not only of the Gospel of Luke, but also of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John. It would then be useless to postulate the existence of the source Q , on which the theory of the two sources is based.

This book provides an Italian translation of the text proposed by Klinghardt and a detailed analysis of its theoretical reconstruction. The author [PA Gramaglia] concludes in this way: the Gospel of Marcion is really prior to the Gospel of Luke, but only because it is a first edition of it, by the hand of the same author of the text of Luke we have received; this Gospel, however, was not written by Marcion, but was used by him; it is not at the base of the writing of the other Gospels; finally, there is no reason to set aside the theory of the two sources.

http://www.aaccademia.it/scheda-libro?aaref=1173 (translated via Chrome/ Google Translate)

[nb. The book by Gramaglia is available for free download in PDF format on the website]



P. Gramaglia on the "Marcionite" Gospel
Published on 23/10/2017 by Jan Heilmann

In September, a study by Pier Angelo Gramaglia[1] [-] the first detailed examination of the theses published in 2015 by Matthias Klinghardt ... Strictly speaking, Klinghardt assumes that the gospel attested to by Marcion among others by Tertullian, Adamantius and Epiphanius:
  • contrary to communis opinio, does not represent a shortened Gospel of Luke ("Marcion priority"),
  • but, conversely, the Gospel of Luke is an expanded version of an older gospel,
  • from this all other gospels are dependent
  • and doubt the existence of a source "Q" for various methodological reasons.
Gramaglia confirms in his study Klinghardt's most important main assumption, namely that the Marcionite gospel is actually the older Gospel compared to the canonical Gospel of Luke. The allegations made by the heresiologists that Marcion had mutilated the Gospel of Luke do not reflect the historical facts. 

However, Gramaglia's and Klinghardt's approach differs greatly in the historical explanation of how the two texts were written and their relevance in the context of the Synoptic Question.

Gramaglia assumes that Marcion had an older version of the Gospel of Luke, which was edited by the same author well before the work of Marcion. These two versions were available to the heresiologists who, because they themselves considered the longer text to be the authoritative text (and presumably found it in their four-verse collection), had to assume that Marcion had mutilated it.

His verdict is based on an analysis of the editorial profile of Luke on the basis of lexicographical and syntagmatic differences compared to Matthew, Mark and Q. Since traces of this reconstructed editorial profile can also be found in the passages clearly attested to Marcion.

A detailed discussion of the methodology and argumentation of the study is not possible in the context of a blog. Only short critical inquiries are possible, which may open the discussion of his study: It is interesting from the result of his analysis that the passages testified to be missing for Marcion are characterized by a particularly large statistical frequency of features of the editorial profile compared to the passages attested, Gramaglia does not consider that this may also indicate that the editor was guided by certain features of the text to be revised, that he was guided by it in his revision and that he should therefore be distinguished from the original author.

Another great methodological weakness of Gramaglia's approach is that passages are also missing for the Marcionite Apostolos (a letter collection with ten Pauline letters). (At the Institute of Protestant Theology of the TU Dresden, a research project is currently underway.)

If one considers Gramaglia's approach to a logical end, then it must also have been revised or supplemented by the editor Lukas. On the one hand, Gramaglia did not include these texts in his analysis. On the other hand, this compelling conclusion, which would have to be drawn from Gramaglia's approach, seems to me more difficult to make plausible than an editorial revision of the texts in the second century when compiling the texts [in]to collections.

The study by Gramaglia affirms with gratifying clarity that the discussion about the relation of the Gospel of Luke to the gospel testified for Marcion is indeed to be re-opened and that the implications of the thesis of the "Marcion priority" are to be argued in detail. The book by Gramaglia is available for free download in PDF format on the website of the publisher Accademia University Press: http://www.aaccademia.it/scheda-libro?aaref=1173 [one has to provide one's personal details. I have, and got it ok via email]
 
[1] Gramaglia, Pier A .: 'Marcione e il Vangelo (by Luca). Un confronto con Matthias Klinghardt', Turin 2017.
[2] Klinghardt, Matthias: 'The oldest gospel and the genesis of the canonical gospels' (TANZ 60), Tübingen 2015.

via https://enipolatio.hypotheses.org/869#more-869 (translated via Chrome/ Google Translate)

Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply