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).
.