Christian Texts and History • Re: Van Manen about *Ev being a diplomatic Gospel

I have read this review of the Van Manen's view: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23660983

It seems that according to Van Manen both Mark and *Ev (and a lot of other gospels) are all based on the lost first gospel where the two only sure features are:

• 1) the descent of Jesus from above in Capernaum in the incipit.

• 2) a compromise between high christology of the authors and the low christology of the "oral tradition" about the historical Jesus. Such compromise supported the former more than the latter.

Hence the Van Manen's view resembles the Klinghardt's view insofar the latter says that Marcion merely used *Ev while Van Manen says that the marcionite Evangelion was a more liberal version of the "primitive gospel".

Obviously for Van Manen this primitive gospel preceded even the "Paul"'s letters. In modern terms, it would be better called: proto-*Ev.

My custom has been always to think in terms of epistles preceding the first gospel, but now I see that well two colosses (Bruno Bauer and Van Manen) argued for a primitive gospel preceding all the epistles. It can't be Mark since Mark knows Paul (docet Dykstra).

Statistics: Posted by Giuseppe — Tue May 21, 2024 12:29 pm

---