According to BeDuhn himself, though, Klinghardt should be understood as offering both a "primary reconstruction" and additional speculation, as he writes in "New Studies of Marcion’s Evangelion" (2017).At the same time, like Bilby, I am optimistic that BeDuhn's more expansive Greek text represents an advance over Roth. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, of course, and working through the particular examples. But I am glad to have an alternative to Roth that likely doesn't fall into the same excesses as other offerings.
Even more seriously, Klinghardt has not adopted the same strict standard found in Roth’s and my own study, of relying only on direct testimony to the presence or absence of text. Instead, the reader finds himself back in Harnack-era speculation of probably present or absent passages based on subjective judgments without evidentiary control. Fortunately, however, he distinguishes this more speculatively-derived part of the reconstruction from that based strictly on the testimony of sources, and it is the latter, printed in bold-type, that must be considered his primary reconstruction, which in fact very closely approximates the reconstructions of Roth and myself. Klinghardt’s extensive assessment of testimony to Evangelion is an important complement to that offered by Roth’s book and my own.
To recover the "primary reconstruction" of Klinghardt, it is necessary to refer directly to his book (i.e. not Bilby's version of it).
So we have access to Roth (2009 / 2015), Klinghardt (2015 / 2020), and BeDuhn (2013 / 2023) for such reconstructions.
Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Sun Apr 07, 2024 7:51 pm