This is Vinzent's problem - he deals with side issues and avoids real problems. The only significant problem of this Vinzent-Trobisch-Klinghardt environment is to indicate and prove that *Ev, which Marcion used, is a homogeneous publication of another ghostwriter. The only major problem. Nothing is more important. Klinghardt's reconstruction is great, comprehensive and excellent apart from this assumption. He proved that *Ev came before Luke. But he didn't prove that *Ev was written by a single ghostwriter and that it wasn't Luke.
BTW. In the case of Paul's letters, it was Vinzent who convinced me that they were written as an epistolary novel and that they were not known until 140 CE. But he didn't deal with 1 Clem in the book - I don't know why. Such manners. And he was rightly criticized for it. But his Christ Resurrection in Early Christianity is great.
Vinzent asks great questions and then abandons them. Strange but true.
I owe him a great deal in understanding the problems of the early writings
BTW. In the case of Paul's letters, it was Vinzent who convinced me that they were written as an epistolary novel and that they were not known until 140 CE. But he didn't deal with 1 Clem in the book - I don't know why. Such manners. And he was rightly criticized for it. But his Christ Resurrection in Early Christianity is great.
Vinzent asks great questions and then abandons them. Strange but true.
I owe him a great deal in understanding the problems of the early writings
Statistics: Posted by JarekS — Tue May 07, 2024 8:55 pm