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

Re: Synoptic problem, Marcion, and Klinghardt

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    Another article dealing with these issues (also Klinghardt): Marcion s Gospel and Luke: The History of Research in Current Debate Dieter T. Roth JBL 127
    Message 1 of 52 , Jul 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Another article dealing with these issues (also Klinghardt):

      "Marcion's Gospel and Luke: The History of Research in Current Debate"
      Dieter T. Roth
      JBL 127 (2008) 513-527

      Free download here:
      http://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/JBL1273.pdf
      (full journal issue, 6 MB!)

      From his conclusion:
      "In sum, as encouraging as it is to find renewed discussion concerning
      Marcion's Gospel in the scholarly literature, there has been a surprising
      lack of precision in the presentation of previous scholarship on this
      Gospel.
      ...
      an issue of primary importance for scholarship on the Gospels in the second
      century."

      These matters appear very complicated and in my view deserve a new,
      unprejudiced in depth study!

      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      --------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      mailto:wie@...
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
    • 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.