FWIW, I am not a true believer. I'm still not sure of what I'm doing when it comes to "solving" the synoptic problem or "reconstructing" the gospel of Marcion. But I understand the value of being a true believer. Klinghardt took a chance on the idea that *Ev was the "oldest gospel," and by now I think he is well convinced of it. Is it true? I doubt it. I think it goes off the rails at the point of misunderstanding the testimony of Tertullian, and then probably again at making *Ev the oldest gospel (I know, controversial). But it's still good to have someone going up that branch, if they're otherwise diligent and conscientious, which Klinghardt is. There's value in seeing the perspective developed, and individual bits that are gleaned therefrom. Including stuff that he wouldn't consider if he didn't take the "oldest gospel" and sort-of-maximalist Luke-lite premises, which may still throw off some little kernels of truth.
So am I a true believer in Mk -> *Ev -> Lk, no. Have I proven that the not-Luke-lite premise is true, no. But I think it's plausible. I think it's interesting. I know that it's under-explored. If I act a little bit like a true believer, I think interesting things can develop. Stuff that I wouldn't learn if I were taking a more detached, shrug-my-shoulder, too-hard-might-as-well-forget-it kind of approach.
So am I a true believer in Mk -> *Ev -> Lk, no. Have I proven that the not-Luke-lite premise is true, no. But I think it's plausible. I think it's interesting. I know that it's under-explored. If I act a little bit like a true believer, I think interesting things can develop. Stuff that I wouldn't learn if I were taking a more detached, shrug-my-shoulder, too-hard-might-as-well-forget-it kind of approach.
Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Mon Apr 08, 2024 9:12 pm