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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Klinghardt's solution

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 7 , Jul 1, 2009
      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."


      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 2 of 7 , Jul 2, 2009
        Here is an excellent place to start with the "synoptic problem." From here you can go hither, thither and yon.
        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,

        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.