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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Synoptic problem, Marcion, and Klinghardt

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... I m not sure I quite understand the question. The argument is indeed dependent on our knowledge of the text of Marcion, but then again so is almost any
    Message 1 of 52 , Jun 30, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      On Jun 28, 2009 1:25 PM, Dennis Dean Carpenter <ddcanne@...> wrote:
      >"Of course, text-types were not the argument of the heresiologists. Text-types,
      >the result of a historical process of textual transmission, is the discovery
      >of modern textual critics, starting from J. A. Bengel. If anything, the lack
      >of awareness of text-types by the heresiologists only makes the argument
      >stronger, because we have an independent basis for corroborating some of their
      >claims.
      >Stephen"
      >
      >
      >So, one is dependent on third and fourth century non-existent Marcion copies
      >to show a text type corrolation, one which assumes Alexandrian priority?

      I'm not sure I quite understand the question. The argument is indeed
      dependent on our knowledge of the text of Marcion, but then again so
      is almost any interesting thesis about Marcion. Hence Thus I don't really
      understand how articulating skepticism over Marcion's text moves the
      ball any, particularly in favor of anything like a Marcion-priority
      direction.

      As for text types, there's no "assum[ption of] Alexandrian priority."
      In fact, the eclectic approach that dominates the modern praxis of
      textual criticism treats every variant on a case-by-case basis and
      avoid granting priority to a text-type on an all or nothing basis.
      In my personal opinion, I would hold that the critical text ought to
      be somewhat more Western that it is currently published, but even so
      there are still very many corruptions among Western witnesses (as well
      as among Alexandrian witnesses) so as not to compromise the kind of
      analysis that Clabeaux did.

      Stephen

      --
      Stephen C. Carlson
      Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
      Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)
    • E Bruce Brooks
      Dave, That s about it. I don t think there ever was a pre-Gospel Sayings List; Thomas (at its beginning, perhaps James ) is the earliest, and even that is
      Message 52 of 52 , Oct 12, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Dave,

        That's about it. I don't think there ever was a pre-Gospel Sayings List;
        "Thomas" (at its beginning, perhaps "James") is the earliest, and even that
        is post-Markan. The sayings collections, as far as I can judge from extant
        material, are derivative anthologies, not primary documents. On claimed or
        conjectural texts I have no comment. Your ??? I would call Luke A, and your
        "Luke" is now my Luke B. To complete my picture of Luke-Acts:

        Mark (accretional, 30-45)
        Luke A (rewritten Mark plus new material, pre-70)
        Matthew (from Mark and Luke A, with new material, still pre-70)
        Luke B (rewritten in light of Matthew plus further new material, post-70)
        Acts I (added at the same time as Luke B
        Luke C = Acts II (these additions post-80)

        gThos does not seem to know gJohn, or did I miss something? It would be
        interesting to know if gThos is aware of (and anthologizing from) Luke C as
        well as Luke B. I haven't checked this. If not, then we would have,
        chronologically, more or less the following picture:

        Execution of Jesus (30)
        Mark (accretional, 30-45)
        Execution of James Zebedee, 44
        Leadership of conservative James the Brother at Jerusalem, c46
        Confrontation between "some from James" and Paul in Galatia
        Gnostic / Spirit tendencies in Pauline churches, 50's
        Death of Paul, c60
        James = Thos 1-12, perhaps c60)
        Luke A (rewritten Mark plus James plus new material, pre-70)
        Matthew (from Mark and Luke A, with new material, still pre-70)
        Luke B (rewritten in light of Matthew plus further new material, post-70)
        Acts I (added at the same time as Luke B)
        Colossians (post-Paul; extending Gnostic tendencies in Pauline churches)
        Thomas (extending James; drawing on Luke B and Matthew, less on Mark)
        Luke C = Acts II (these additions post-80)
        Ephesians (knows Acts II, perhaps c85)
        John (c90)
        1 Peter (in two layers, x and c93)
        1 Clement (knows Ephesians and 1 Peter, c96)

        Colossians (not long after Paul's death; probably written by the editor of
        the first Pauline corpus) and Ephesians (after Colossians, and also after
        Acts II) continue the Gnostic strain in the Pauline churches. Other
        post-Pauline literature (Pastorals, 2 Thess, Hebrews) is from different
        sources, and has different purposes.

        I have not included the probability that gJohn was written in at least three
        strata.

        Those who would compress this schedule by making Mark post-70 need to
        present a convincing alternative to the above picture, including all its
        components. It seems to me that there is good evidence, starting from the
        Oxford Committee's close look at literary directionality and awareness, for
        each step. Refutations welcome as always.

        Bruce

        E Bruce Brooks
        Warring States Project
        University of Massachusetts at Amherst
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.