Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Klinghardt's solution

Expand Messages
  • Dennis Dean Carpenter
    Klinghardt s solution (the article) is available free at ingentaconnect.com. It was published in Novum Testamentum, 50.1, 2008. It is a pdf download. Dennis
    Message 1 of 7 , Jun 29, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Klinghardt's solution (the article) is available free at ingentaconnect.com. It was published in Novum Testamentum, 50.1, 2008. It is a pdf download.

      Dennis Dean Carpenter
      Dahlonega, Ga.




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David @ Comcast
      Dennis, thank you. I d been to that URL but hadn t noticed it was free! David Inglis _____ From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On
      Message 2 of 7 , Jun 29, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Dennis, thank you. I'd been to that URL but hadn't noticed it was free!



        David Inglis



        _____

        From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
        Of Dennis Dean Carpenter
        Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 6:08 AM
        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [Synoptic-L] Klinghardt's solution



        Klinghardt's solution (the article) is available free at ingentaconnect.com.
        It was published in Novum Testamentum, 50.1, 2008. It is a pdf download.

        Dennis Dean Carpenter
        Dahlonega, Ga._

        Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.12.92/2203 - Release Date: 06/29/09
        05:54:00




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Ron Price
        My thanks to Dennis for the pointer to Klinghardt s article. It contains several extraordinary claims, but for starters I ll be content with challenging two of
        Message 3 of 7 , Jun 30, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          My thanks to Dennis for the pointer to Klinghardt's article.

          It contains several extraordinary claims, but for starters I'll be content
          with challenging two of them.

          Firstly, Klinghardt claims that the canonical Luke-Acts is composed of two
          books with radically different origins. Luke is a slightly expanded version
          of a document composed by Marcion. Acts is apparently taken as composed by
          someone else. How then can he explain the extensive stylistic similarities
          between Luke and Acts which have prompted most scholars to attribute them to
          the same author?

          Secondly, on the question of the 'M' material not included in Luke,
          Klinghardt appears to think that the Farrer Theory leaves an unanswered
          question: 'Why did Luke omit this material?'. This in spite of the
          realization that 'M' material is absent from Luke by definition! He proceeds
          to argue that this 'problem' disappears on his theory because Luke was
          actually following the narrative frame of Marcion's Luke.

          But this argument is flawed because on his theory an equivalent question
          (which he appears not to notice) arises elsewhere, namely: Why did Matthew
          omit 'L' material when copying from Marcion's Luke?

          The one redeeming feature of the article is his perception that the solution
          to the Synoptic Problem lies somewhere between the 2ST and the Farrer
          Theory. It does. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with Marcion.

          Ron Price

          Derbyshire, UK

          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
        • Dennis Dean Carpenter
          Thanks. On your first objection, Ron, Klinghardt stated, Th e opposite view of Mcn s priority, however, provides an easy solution: in this case, Marcion s
          Message 4 of 7 , Jun 30, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks. On your first objection, Ron, Klinghardt stated,
            "Th e opposite view of Mcn's priority, however, provides an easy solution: in this case, Marcion's charge was correct that a catholic interpolation incorporated "his" gospel into the canonical bible of the Old and New Testaments, made some editorial additions and feigned Luke-Acts as a literary unity." If one sees, as I do, Acts as written to some extent to combat a perceived threat of Marcion and his gospel ("Dating Acts," Pervo and Tyson, "Forum 5.1," considered "virtually certan by the Acts Seminar), this certainly doesn't become unreasonable.

            On the second objection: Klinghardt is saying that in Matthew's gospel, Marcion's text was secondary to Mark, just as Matthew's text was secondary to Luke.According to Kinghardt, "Matthew is basically a re-edition of Mark (2) but also received additional material from Mcn (a) which is mostly congruent to Mcn's additions to Mark. Along this line, Matthew received the bulk of the double tradition material that is now embedded in Matt. 4-27."

            Dennis Dean Carpenter

            Dahlonega, Ga.









            My thanks to Dennis for the pointer to Klinghardt's article.

            It contains several extraordinary claims, but for starters I'll be content
            with challenging two of them.

            Firstly, Klinghardt claims that the canonical Luke-Acts is composed of two
            books with radically different origins. Luke is a slightly expanded version
            of a document composed by Marcion. Acts is apparently taken as composed by
            someone else. How then can he explain the extensive stylistic similarities
            between Luke and Acts which have prompted most scholars to attribute them to
            the same author?

            Secondly, on the question of the 'M' material not included in Luke,
            Klinghardt appears to think that the Farrer Theory leaves an unanswered
            question: 'Why did Luke omit this material?'. This in spite of the
            realization that 'M' material is absent from Luke by definition! He proceeds
            to argue that this 'problem' disappears on his theory because Luke was
            actually following the narrative frame of Marcion's Luke.

            But this argument is flawed because on his theory an equivalent question
            (which he appears not to notice) arises elsewhere, namely: Why did Matthew
            omit 'L' material when copying from Marcion's Luke?

            The one redeeming feature of the article is his perception that the solution
            to the Synoptic Problem lies somewhere between the 2ST and the Farrer
            Theory. It does. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with Marcion.

            Ron Price

            Derbyshire, UK

            Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • J Thomas Phillips
            Dennis or Ron, I have been following this thread regarding Klinghardt s solution to the Synoptic Problem to wit Klinghardt is from my reading of your post,
            Message 5 of 7 , Jun 30, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Dennis or Ron,

              I have been following this thread regarding Klinghardt's solution to the "Synoptic Problem" to wit Klinghardt is from my reading of your post, is attempting to place a {Marcion] text argument into the Synoptic Problem. Could either of you, direct me to situation where I may find both Klinghardts' article and refresher on Synoptic-L?  As a member this group of fine scholars, I however while appreciate the scholarly domain,  articles, arguments, text references and publications, am very much of a "novice scholar" if I claim such a title? While travel ling through the adventure of learning more and more of the Sacred Scriptures: who were the authors, what audience were they addressing, what and where did they obtain their date, documents, (besides what one would infer, of the "Oral Tradition"  I have a very curious mind, regarding both OLD and NEW TESTAMENTS, particularly the Prophets and their influence on the NT;  and therefore I need to know? Your
              help and assistance would be greatly appreciated.   Thanks,

              All the best,

              J. Thomas Phillips, group mbr,
              emmaus_60@...

              --- On Tue, 6/30/09, Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...> wrote:

              From: Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...>
              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Klinghardt's solution
              To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 6:43 PM

















              Thanks. On your first objection, Ron, Klinghardt stated,

              "Th e opposite view of Mcn's priority, however, provides an easy solution: in this case, Marcion's charge was correct that a catholic interpolation incorporated "his" gospel into the canonical bible of the Old and New Testaments, made some editorial additions and feigned Luke-Acts as a literary unity." If one sees, as I do, Acts as written to some extent to combat a perceived threat of Marcion and his gospel ("Dating Acts," Pervo and Tyson, "Forum 5.1," considered "virtually certan by the Acts Seminar), this certainly doesn't become unreasonable.



              On the second objection: Klinghardt is saying that in Matthew's gospel, Marcion's text was secondary to Mark, just as Matthew's text was secondary to Luke.According to Kinghardt, "Matthew is basically a re-edition of Mark (2) but also received additional material from Mcn (a) which is mostly congruent to Mcn's additions to Mark. Along this line, Matthew received the bulk of the double tradition material that is now embedded in Matt. 4-27."



              Dennis Dean Carpenter



              Dahlonega, Ga.



              My thanks to Dennis for the pointer to Klinghardt's article.



              It contains several extraordinary claims, but for starters I'll be content

              with challenging two of them.



              Firstly, Klinghardt claims that the canonical Luke-Acts is composed of two

              books with radically different origins. Luke is a slightly expanded version

              of a document composed by Marcion. Acts is apparently taken as composed by

              someone else. How then can he explain the extensive stylistic similarities

              between Luke and Acts which have prompted most scholars to attribute them to

              the same author?



              Secondly, on the question of the 'M' material not included in Luke,

              Klinghardt appears to think that the Farrer Theory leaves an unanswered

              question: 'Why did Luke omit this material?'. This in spite of the

              realization that 'M' material is absent from Luke by definition! He proceeds

              to argue that this 'problem' disappears on his theory because Luke was

              actually following the narrative frame of Marcion's Luke.



              But this argument is flawed because on his theory an equivalent question

              (which he appears not to notice) arises elsewhere, namely: Why did Matthew

              omit 'L' material when copying from Marcion's Luke?



              The one redeeming feature of the article is his perception that the solution

              to the Synoptic Problem lies somewhere between the 2ST and the Farrer

              Theory. It does. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with Marcion.



              Ron Price



              Derbyshire, UK



              Web site: http://homepage. virgin.net/ ron.price/ index.htm



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]































              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Ron Price
              ... Dennis, In his New Suggestion article Klinghardt gives no indication, apart from the above quote, as to who might have been the author of what he calls
              Message 6 of 7 , Jul 1, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Dennis Dean Carpenter wrote:

                > ..... On your first objection, Ron, Klinghardt stated,
                > "Th e opposite view of Mcn's priority, however, provides an easy solution: in
                > this case, Marcion's charge was correct that a catholic interpolation
                > incorporated "his" gospel into the canonical bible of the Old and New
                > Testaments, made some editorial additions and feigned Luke-Acts as a literary
                > unity."

                Dennis,

                In his 'New Suggestion' article Klinghardt gives no indication, apart from
                the above quote, as to who might have been the author of what he calls
                'Mcn'. The phrase "feigned Luke-Acts as a literary unity" seems to hint that
                Klinghardt takes Mcn and Acts to have been written by different people. If
                so, then my first objection still stands, namely how can they have been
                written by different people when (a) most scholars take the styles of Luke
                and Acts to indicate common authorship and (b) Klinghardt is not arguing (as
                far as I can see) that "some editorial additions" were designed to make the
                style of Mcn conform more closely with that of Acts.

                > On the second objection: Klinghardt is saying that in Matthew's gospel,
                > Marcion's text was secondary to Mark, just as Matthew's text was secondary to
                > Luke.According to Kinghardt, "Matthew is basically a re-edition of Mark (2)
                > but also received additional material from Mcn (a) which is mostly congruent
                > to Mcn's additions to Mark. Along this line, Matthew received the bulk of the
                > double tradition material that is now embedded in Matt. 4-27."

                My second objection didn't relate to double tradition material. So let me
                put rephrase it this way. Would you agree that Klinghardt has not thought it
                necessary to explain Matthew's omissions from 'Mcn'? If so, then my second
                objection stands, because it is illogical for Klinghardt to criticize the
                Farrer Theory for supposedly not being able to explain Luke's omissions from
                Matthew (omissions of the 'M' material other than the birth stories which
                seem to have been used in spite of their usual classification as 'M'), when
                Klinghardt cannot explain Matthew's omissions of 'L' material from 'Mcn'.

                Surely Klinghardt is not saying that Matthew accepted the double tradition
                material but not the 'L' material from 'Mcn' because the former but not the
                latter was "congruent with Mcn's additions to Mark". That would be nonsense.

                Ron Price

                Derbyshire, UK

                Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
              • Dennis Dean Carpenter
                Thomas, Here is an excellent place to start with the synoptic problem. From here you can go hither, thither and yon.
                Message 7 of 7 , Jul 2, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thomas,
                  Here is an excellent place to start with the "synoptic problem." From here you can go hither, thither and yon.
                  http://www.ntgateway.com/synoptic-problem-and-q/websites/
                  I posted the general way to get to the download Klinghardt's article. Seems like I didn't think to copy and paste the address, but I wrote, "Klinghardt's solution (the article) is available free at ingentaconnect.com. It was published in Novum Testamentum, 50.1, 2008. It is a pdf download."

                  Dennis Dean Carpenter
                  Dahlonega, Ga.


                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: J Thomas Phillips
                  To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:24 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Klinghardt's solution





                  Dennis or Ron,

                  I have been following this thread regarding Klinghardt's solution to the "Synoptic Problem" to wit Klinghardt is from my reading of your post, is attempting to place a {Marcion] text argument into the Synoptic Problem. Could either of you, direct me to situation where I may find both Klinghardts' article and refresher on Synoptic-L? As a member this group of fine scholars, I however while appreciate the scholarly domain, articles, arguments, text references and publications, am very much of a "novice scholar" if I claim such a title? While travel ling through the adventure of learning more and more of the Sacred Scriptures: who were the authors, what audience were they addressing, what and where did they obtain their date, documents, (besides what one would infer, of the "Oral Tradition" I have a very curious mind, regarding both OLD and NEW TESTAMENTS, particularly the Prophets and their influence on the NT; and therefore I need to know? Your
                  help and assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks,

                  All the best,

                  J. Thomas Phillips, group mbr,
                  emmaus_60@...

                  Recent Activity
                  a.. 1New Members
                  Visit Your Group
                  Search Ads
                  Get new customers.

                  List your web site

                  in Yahoo! Search.

                  Y! Groups blog
                  the best source

                  for the latest

                  scoop on Groups.

                  Cat Fanatics
                  on Yahoo! Groups

                  Find people who are

                  crazy about cats.
                  .



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.