I'm sure that there are many instances where Klinghardt can be called out by critics - as all proposed solutions to the synoptic problem have been. From my perspective, from reading the Klinghardt article, he has offered an avenue for further research by his inclusion of the gospel of Marcion in the synoptic debate.Michael BG wrote:
<snip>
And finally I am left disagreeing with Klinghardt when he concludes “this model provides a solution of the contentious issues of the present debate”.
While Klinghardt' Marcion scenario places Marcion' gospel prior to gLuke that is not it's only significance - it's the historical questions that arise. Questions dealing directly with Marcion and the NT figure of Paul:
If Marcion had gMark or a proto-Mark then dating gMark becomes problematic if Marcion is dated later. (85 - 160 c.e. Wikipedia) The usual dating of gMark is 66-70 c.e. (Wikipedia). James Crossley dating gMark earlier, late 30s early 40s. Moving gospel writing to coincide with a late Marcion date puts 70 plus years between the consensus dating for NT Paul (dead 67 c.e. re Wikipedia) and the gospel writing. The usual dating has gospel writing soon after the death of the NT Paul.
A solution would be to jettison the consensus dating for the NT Paul and have him a contemporary of Marcion. Thus raising questions regarding the relationship between Paul and Marcion....and overlooking the dating issues surrounding gMark.
At one time I was of the opinion that gMark was late - a sort of condensed Readers Digest version of the gospel story. I thought perhaps an urLuke was earlier than Mark. However, the more I used the gospel story itself - to watch for developments in the story rather than how different gospel writers used the stories within that story - I now view gMark as the earliest of the synoptic gospels. Yes, one can say that gMark has been added to - and I grant that as I believe it has been added too - as have the other gospels.
Stories can be added to make a gospel appear older than it is - or stories could be added to make the gospel appear to reflect a later time period.
For instance: gMark says Bethsaida was a village - that would place gMark's story prior to or around 30 c.e. when Bethsaida was renamed Bethsaida-Julius and was designated a city.(The 34th year coin of Philip the Tetrarch being used to support dating for this event.) gMark says Herodias was married to Philip prior to her marriage to Herod/Antipas. Slavonic Josephus tells us this marriage to Herod took place on the death of Philip. Philip died, re Josephus, around 34 c.e. Josephus says Herod/Antipas was removed around 36/37 c.e. So a cut off date for gMark's Herodias and JtB story. However, there is no start date. gMark's Jesus figure was active prior to 30 c.e. How many years prior to 30 c.e. - gMark does not indicate. gMark's Jesus figure could just as easily be 50 years old rather than 30 years old when crucified.
1) the mention of Bethsaida as a village suggests a pre 30 c.e. Markan Jesus figure. This Jesus figure is crucified under Pilate. Dating Pilate is ambiguous - anything from 19 c.e. to 37 c.e. The Acts of Pilate, re Eusebius, has the Acts of Pilate story of a crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius. i.e. a crucifixion prior to 30 c.e. and the renaming of Bethsaida and it's upgrading to the status of a city.
2) while the mention of Herodias/Philip/Herod Antipas suggests a post 34 c.e. (post death of Philip) crucifixion scenario - in view of the Bethsaida reference - it's more likely that the Herodias/Philip/Herod Antipas story was a later addition to gMark. A later addition designed to move forward the development of the Jesus story away from any connection to the Acts of Pilate and it's 7th year of Tiberius crucifixion story.
Anyway, that's about how I approach the synoptic problem...
Also, of course, we don't have the exact words of any gospel.
- On “Knowing” the Original Words of the NT
http://ehrmanblog.org/on-knowing-the-or ... of-the-nt/
I have been discussing the question of whether we can know that we have reconstructed the original text of the New Testament at every point – or even every important point. To me the answer is self-evidently, No, of course not.
Bottom line, for me, is that Marcion linked to gMark places Marcion early in the developing gospel story. The question of the relationship between Marcion and Paul remains. One could either place them both pre 70 or post 93/94 c.e. Antiquities. Or one could recognize two developments in early Christianity and have one early and one late. With the Marcion connection to gMark, re Klinghardt, on the table and the possibility that gMark can be dated early - then it's the NT Paul that is to be dated late. Reverse the order - turn the table - and a way out of this synoptic problem might present itself....
