You hear it a lot because it is a broad and deep consensus of critical scholars. Once again, if you want to successfully challeng such a consensus, you should provide evidence or at least credible argumentation.
I agree that 90 CE is an overly optimistic end date for the composition of all of synoptic gospels. Does Klinghardt provide any evidence or credible argumentation for dating the gospel of Mark to the time of Marcion?
Broad and deep consensus is just an opinion. You only have a text and you don’t know if it was written by someone under the influence of strong emotions, a person in trauma after loss. You just assume it is. The same effect will be obtained by a writer building strong tension, creating a literary construct based on historical events in order to elevate his hero. Mark’s dualism, regardless of our conflicting opinions, is a fact because there is no evidence of who he was. This duality cannot be resolved either in favor of consensus or in my favor. For you, Mark is the result of strong traumatic experiences, and for me, a new product that was created under the influence of the success of another earlier product.
Klinghardt proposes different scenarios and dates leaving the question open. There is a proposal with which I agree – a short period of several years, a period of building up the entire evangelical tradition after Marcion’s successes, before coming to Rome. This is in the second part of the quote.
Robert said
Jarek said
Broad and deep consensus is just an opinion.
Of the overwheling majority of critical scholars.
You only have a text and you don’t know if it was written by someone under the influence of strong emotions, a person in trauma after loss. You just assume it is.
No, I have made no such assumption. Not sure why you kee I repeating this Sorry, It was from Stephen and Goodacre -obsession
The same effect will be obtained by a writer building strong tension, creating a literary construct based on historical events in order to elevate his hero. Mark’s dualism, regardless of our conflicting opinions, is a fact because there is no evidence of who he was. This duality cannot be resolved either in favor of consensus or in my favor.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Mark’s duality – 1. Mark’s immediate obsessive response to the temple’s destruction. 2. The subsequent deliberate use of the historical fact of the destruction of the temple in the creation of a literary work.
For you, Mark is the result of strong traumatic experiences …
No, I’ve never said this. Sorry Again – Just travesty of Stephen and Goodacre wording
… and for me, a new product that was created under the influence of the success of another earlier product.
But you have zero evidence of this earlier product or of its date of origin. I have arguments from four authors – Vinzent, Klinghardt, Detering Lourie
Klinghardt proposes different scenarios and dates leaving the question open. There is a proposal with which I agree – a short period of several years, a period of building up the entire evangelical tradition after Marcion’s successes, before coming to Rome. This is in the second part of the quote.
But, again, I asked if there was any evidence or credible argument. Are you now conceding that he has none? Yes, I confirm. I posted Klinghardt’s statement before your question after reviewing it
You only have a text and you don’t know if it was written by someone under the influence of strong emotions, a person in trauma after loss. You just assume it is.
No, I have made no such assumption. Not sure why you kee I repeating this Sorry, It was from Stephen and Goodacre -obsession
Jarek you quoted me but you did not read what I said.
Stephen said
Mark keeps on giving. He is obsessed by the Temple, an aspect of his gospel that seems obvious – once you notice it. Mark has an immediacy that almost makes you think he’s composing it as the Temple itself burns right in from of him. Yet he has clearly thought about it. I keep circling back to an aspect I really did grasp early on. The composition of the gospel was not the work of weeks or months but of years.
Stephen said
You only have a text and you don’t know if it was written by someone under the influence of strong emotions, a person in trauma after loss. You just assume it is.
No, I have made no such assumption. Not sure why you kee I repeating this Sorry, It was from Stephen and Goodacre -obsession
Jarek you quoted me but you did not read what I said.
Stephen said
Mark keeps on giving. He is obsessed by the Temple, an aspect of his gospel that seems obvious – once you notice it. Mark has an immediacy that almost makes you think he’s composing it as the Temple itself burns right in from of him. Yet he has clearly thought about it. I keep circling back to an aspect I really did grasp early on. The composition of the gospel was not the work of weeks or months but of years.
Mark is not obsessed by the Temple. His a professional writer doing his job perfectly to obtain his goals.
We have two different reconstructions of a person called Mark (duality ). We can’t resolve this duality because we only have a copy of one book written by Mark and we don’t know anything about him. Both reconstructions of person Mark are equally possible. Just because most people like Mark obsessed with the temple doesn’t change the fact that the odds are 50/50. The emotional text itself can be personal and honest or can be invented.
Klinghardt left the question of the dating of the gospels open because he considers the current consensus too narrow. He shows that the time frame for the reconstructions of professional biblical scholars should be from 40 CE to 140 CE. This way both Allan Garrow (early dating) and Marcus Vinzent (late dating) will be there. Actually, it can be extended to the year 150 CE because such a proposal was made in the Acts Seminar Report. The dating of the second book of Luke has been moved to the years 100-150 CE by several dozen biblical scholars.
So we have a time window of 40 CE-150 CE and we are trying to reduce it. Biblical scholars came to the conclusion that no one would convince anyone and that the votes had to be counted in order to declare a majority consensus. The 70CE-100CE majority consensus was defined.
But there are also other methods, such as the study of theoretically possible directions of content transmission between the gospels. Klinghardt started with the Gospel of Mark and failed to find even a theoretical possibility of such a transmission that would solve the problems of the model. After this failure, he tried Marcion’s gospel and found that the primacy of the Evangelical was the right solution.
My argument comes from the analysis of the audience and content market. First there was the clear market success of the first gospel, which initiated the competitive production of others in a short time, as indicated by the Venn diagram. Initially, whole parts of the text were copied from one another to come up with their own original narrative ideas over time. Had all the gospels been on the market at the time Marcion was active, his Evangelicon would have been much more extensive to remain competitive.
Sorry, Jarek, but these are nonsense statistics. 99% of critical scholars are convinced that Mark was most likely written around 70 CE. Three or four scholars think it might have been as late as 140 CE. Therefor both possibilities are equally likely?
Again. One information. True/False choice. The odds are 50/50. 99% is only a voting result. Nothing else. Both fogures are not connected to each other. Coin toss probability vs bets.
1% of biblical scholars aware of the essence of this choice develop their own theories, recognizing that information about dating Mark is irrelevant because it cannot be determined otherwise than by coin toss.
In the eyes of any outside audience, it looks like 99 people are betting heads and one is betting tails.
In this way the dating of Marek cannot be carried out, because a reliable result cannot be obtained. And since everything else depends on Mark’s dating, we have a bigger problem.
Marek’s relationship with Luke and Matthew is a different problem and significantly more data.
Klinghardt maintains Mark’s priority for the widely analyzed set of 3 synoptic gospels, and with Marcion’s gospel removed from his analysis, he represents the majority opinion.
Marcion ran a similar business to mine in many ways. I provided content to millions of people not guided by my aesthetics but by intuition what my client wants. I put myself in Marcion’s place and I know what I would choose for my client if I had a choice. From the number of manuscripts, we know what qualitative advantage the Gospel of Matthew had over Mark. And this is something that can be confidently predicted as you can see the difference between a Mercedes and a Trabant. Marcion might not like Matthew’s gospel, but he couldn’t ignore it at the start of his project. It just wasn’t there like Mark and Luke.
Biblical scholars did not go to mass content specialists for an opinion. For reasons unknown to me, you only have me.
Porphyry said
Robert said
Can you tell us specifically why Marcion’s text probably preceded Mark’s and why Mark’s text probably was not written until 140 CE?
I might end up eating humble pie up here in the peanut gallery, but my money is on, no.
The coin is still spinning in the air. The fact that 99% bet heads doesn’t change that fact.
Robert said
Rather than flipping a coin, Jarek, can you not give us any specific historical arguments for why Marcion’s text probably preceded Mark’s and why Mark’s text probably was not written until 140 CE?
Because the criticism of Marcion grows over time and does not begin with accusations of modifying the gospel. Justin Martyr begins it merely with a theological dispute, a difference of opinion (J. Lieu). It takes another 40 years and Tertullian to compare the gospels according to the scheme – my mother’s car is faster than your mother’s car (J. Lieu). Making a heretic is an incremental process. Marcion has been winning the market for a long time before orthodox people learned to take advantage of evangelical products that eventually helped them differentiate themselves from Marcion’s offerings long after his death. 4 gospels, 4 winds are arguments long too late to be considered true. The 4 winds must have been reliably dated earlier than Marcion’s gospel. Mark bet on the temple and almost all biblical studies on Mark. The magic of the illusion of a perfect idea. Marcion must have been the one who came up with the idea later.
The Gospels are an offer for the widest and least educated audience. Just like Medjugorje. An offer despised by the intellectual elite, considered invented. And suddenly someone unfolds it into a gigantic movement. Marcion and father Tadeusz Rydzyk from Toruń
The success of Marcion’s use of ‘new literature’ is confirmed by the rapid offer of new literary items dating from the second half of the second century. It was that inspiration. The time of exegesis of the LXX is over and the exegesis of new literature has begun. The genesis of the new stories is Paul’s statement about the humanity of Jesus and Josephus’ stories about prophets, charismatics and rebels. There is nothing strange about this
Robert said
Jarek, this is getting really tedious to keep asking, so I will just accept that you cannot give us any specific historical or literary arguments for why Marcion’s text probably preceded Mark’s and why Mark’s text probably was not written until 140 CE.
Clement of Alexandria held that Matthew wrote first, Luke wrote second and Mark wrote third; on the other hand, Origen argued that Matthew wrote first, Mark wrote second and Luke wrote third; finally, Tertullian states that John and Matthew were published first and that Mark and Luke came later. The nearest Justin Martyr writes in Dial about Peter’s diaries and it is not known whether he means the gospel of Mark or the gospel of Peter. The word gospel is not used. In total, Peter’s manuscripts are more numerous than those of Mark in the 3rd and 4th centuries CE.
There is nothing prior to 140 CE to prove Mark’s earlier existence. Citations from 1 Clem, even if the letter is authentic and correctly dated, do not indicate the direction of transmission of the text
Robert said
Hence the need for historico-critical and literary argumentation. If you have none, you have none.
That’s right. The dating of Mark cannot be reliably established and cannot be used to date the other gospels. Textual dating is a flip of the coin, and reliable gospel testimonies are relatively late. And no biblical criteria will change that. Marek is useless in dating and by no means easy in determining the transmission of the text. It seems logical to look for other points useful in solving these issues. The first confirmed historical fact from this period is the story of Marcion. It is only necessary to build a proper reconstruction of events and their interpretation
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)