Vonn’s diagram made for the synoptic gospels in the canonical version can be made for any content, and even for any product. It carries two pieces of information. First, it shows the relationship between related products. Secondly, it shows that a product has been successful enough and that is why it is worth copying and modifying it to achieve similar success yourself. And that’s all. It does not decide on priority.
The market success of the product is the most important stimulus for the rapid development of mass products. Content is a mass product. Religion is a mass enterprise.
For a long time, biblical studies separated New Testament studies from patristic studies, and this was an artificial division imposed by building an artificial tradition for selected literary works that later found their way into the NT. Their priority was assumed, which was the realization of the goals of historical policy or something else. The apocrypha simply had to be later, even if it turned out to be more popular than the books of the NT. The aforementioned list of manuscripts from the 2nd and 3rd centuries of the late Larry Hurtado is testimony to this.
The first market success of Christianity known to us is the Church of Marion. It shows for the first time the power of new products selected from early Christian literature aimed at the right audience. This market was Greek-speaking pagans unconnected with the Hellenistic tradition of the Mosaic religion. The product mix, finding the target market, organizational and training techniques (Eternal Rules of Amway) are three elements of Marcion’s success. And luck that he hit the right time with the offer.
So Marcion as a theologian or author is redundant to us. We cannot rule it out, but the importance of these possible functions is negligible for the purposes of this analysis. Biblical studies make a huge mistake in accepting the position of Marcion’s critics. The hysterical response to Marcion’s success points to rather more down-to-earth causes. Theology was the only field to criticize him
Is the gospel Marcion used the oldest? This is the result of a whole bunch of benchmarks. This is the first product that was a significant element of Marcion’s success. Gospel was a model and an impulse for other competitive products. When was it founded? The only chance for its proper dating is to find a relationship with the writings of Josephus, or the letters of Paul published in the Corpus. One date is 94 CE, the other is around 100 CE. If not – we are doomed.
When was Marcion successful? Since we have reduced the character of Marcion with the Occam razor to an early Christian entrepreneur, let’s do it also with information from his biography. He was born around 85 CE, came to Rome around 140 CE, left four years later, and died after 160 CE. The missionary success of his church can be dated back to 120-140 CE. It was publicly noticeable in the years 130 – 140 CE.
Without prior success, Marcion’s stay in Rome made no sense according to our reconstructive model
When to date the next Gospels?
Second century after 130 CE.
And they did not develop at the rate of 30 years (70CE-100CE). The first versions of them appeared within a few months of Marcjon’s success becoming public information. They were developed for a long time, as shown by Diatessaron.
“Their priority was assumed, which was the realization of the goals of historical policy or something else.”
I meant the historical policy of the early church – The canonical gospels were assigned to Jesus’ disciples or their associates.
“Is the gospel Marcion used the oldest? This is the result of a whole bunch of benchmarks.”
Someone wrote the first gospel. It achieved market success thanks to Marcion and from that moment began the process of its modification and expansion. If it had not been successful, the subsequent authors would not have used her text so intensively, but would have tried to create their own plot and narrative. Just like tailors and clothing designers, they work on their own ideas until a project is recognized by the market. The success of a particular project changes the situation. Then similar products based on it enter the market.
“The only chance for its proper dating is to find a relationship with the writings of Josephus, or the letters of Paul published in the Corpus. One date is 94 CE, the other is around 100 CE. If not – we are doomed.”
Interpreting the content produces ambiguous and contradictory results. On the basis of interpreting the content, the dating of even such Acts is useless because it is between 65 CE and 150 CE. For the purposes of this analysis, the dating of the first gospel can be anything. Marcion took the finished product from the market. Was it proto Mark or something else. I cannot say when this product was created, unless it finds a strong reference to something that we can effectively date.
“He was born around 85 CE, came to Rome around 140 CE, left four years later, and died after 160 CE. The missionary success of his church can be dated back to 120-140 CE. It was publicly noticeable in the years 130 – 140 CE.
Are you rejecting Vinzent’s use of Papias discussion of the gospel of John and Marcion?”
“(1) Marcion, as one can deduce from Tertullian, did not produce his
Gospel in one go, but in two stages, first he had provided a draft that,
against the will of Marcion, found its way to the public, was copied
and altered, and second in a published version (with the Antitheses and
Paul’s letters attached) which takes critical notice of these alternative
versions.
(2) The Gospel-writing of our Synoptics and John happened almost
simultaneously with that of Marcion’s.
Papias’ chronology, therefore, makes sense and John can have disapproved of Marcion’s Antitheses”
Yes I am. I reject Vinzent’s thesis of Marcion as Gospelwriter and this simultaneous gospel-making by John and Marcion. Why the hype around an unproven creation. It is as if two composers said that today each of them will write a hit after breakfast and they were arguing before which would be bigger. Marcion’s gospel was atested on the market before Rome
Diatessaron ca 170 CE – there is no Preface Luke 1:1-4 and ther is no genealogy. Working progress
Robert said
Jarek said
“Is the gospel Marcion used the oldest? This is the result of a whole bunch of benchmarks.”
Someone wrote the first gospel. It achieved market success thanks to Marcion and from that moment began the process of its modification and expansion. If it had not been successful, the subsequent authors would not have used her text so intensively, but would have tried to create their own plot and narrative. Just like tailors and clothing designers, they work on their own ideas until a project is recognized by the market. The success of a particular project changes the situation. Then similar products based on it enter the market. …
This is not a “result,” but merely an assumption, at best a working hypothesis.
Diatessaron ca 170 CE – Luke 1:1-4 and ther is no genealogy. Working progress
There is indeed a minority view but a reasonable one that an earlier version of Luke-Acts did not include the preambles, Lk 1-2, or the gegenealogy. But it does not follow that this earlier version of Luke was therefore the earliest gospel. That theory was tried among some early scholars, but generally rejected in favor of Markan priority. Do you have any worthwhile arguments against Markan priority?
My proposal is not based on which of the 3 analyzed gospels came first. I put forward a thesis based on marketing experience that Marcion used the oldest gospel.
An analysis of the arguments for and against the 3 Gospels led to the Mark-Matthew-Luke consensus (123) on the assumption that Marcion is a modified Luke and is not included in this analysis. I am using this one done by ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Klinghardt suggested 0123. Marcion-Mark – Matthew – Luke. Still holds Mark’s priority for the 3 synoptic Gospels. He considered Marcion as the original product and reconstructed it to solve the synoptic problems.
If this whole story about Marcion wasn’t there, such a reconstruction would be a technical trick. This way, by adding a new element at the beginning, everything can be solved. But there is a story of Marcion and his market success. Vonn’s diagram is for 3 gospels without Marcion
The market success of the product is the most important stimulus for the rapid development of mass products. Content is a mass product. Religion is a mass enterprise.
I put forward a thesis based on marketing experience that Marcion used the oldest gospel.
This must be the trickle down economics school of New Testament interpretation. For the perplexed a bibliography –
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Jesus is my SugarDaddy
Sorry this last one I made up. The others are quite real. No kidding. -sigh-
** you do not have permission to see this link **
A friend taught business ethics in an MBA program for several years . . . until he eventually got fed up and retired. He kept explaining that the students simply could not understand the concept of ethics in business when all they wanted to do was make as much money as possible.
JAS said
A friend taught business ethics in an MBA program for several years . . . until he eventually got fed up and retired. He kept explaining that the students simply could not understand the concept of ethics in business when all they wanted to do was make as much money as possible.
Holy truth. Business ethics is just PR to improve the image. An MBA diploma is the line on your CV to raise your salary.
Jarek said
“Is the gospel Marcion used the oldest? This is the result of a whole bunch of benchmarks.”Someone wrote the first gospel. It achieved market success thanks to Marcion and from that moment began the process of its modification and expansion. If it had not been successful, the subsequent authors would not have used her text so intensively, but would have tried to create their own plot and narrative. Just like tailors and clothing designers, they work on their own ideas until a project is recognized by the market. The success of a particular project changes the situation. Then similar products based on it enter the market.
It still seems to me that your conclusion is merely the “result” of an assumption that Marcion used the earliest gospel and that the other gospels were not written until after Marcion.
Steefen
Marcion used the earliest gospel, Luke? How is Luke the earliest gospel?
Marcion used the earliest gospel he was aware of.
Gospel of Mark supposedly had a head start on Gospel of Luke and Gospel of Matthew.
By AD 120, Marcion and others (maybe early “fathers”) did not know Luke comes from Mark?
Robert said
Jarek said
“Is the gospel Marcion used the oldest? This is the result of a whole bunch of benchmarks.”
Someone wrote the first gospel. It achieved market success thanks to Marcion and from that moment began the process of its modification and expansion. If it had not been successful, the subsequent authors would not have used her text so intensively, but would have tried to create their own plot and narrative. Just like tailors and clothing designers, they work on their own ideas until a project is recognized by the market. The success of a particular project changes the situation. Then similar products based on it enter the market.
It still seems to me that your conclusion is merely the “result” of an assumption that Marcion used the earliest gospel and that the other gospels were not written until after Marcion.
“The only chance for its proper dating is to find a relationship with the writings of Josephus, or the letters of Paul published in the Corpus. One date is 94 CE, the other is around 100 CE. If not – we are doomed.”
Interpreting the content produces ambiguous and contradictory results.
No, not really. There is a very strong consensus around the dating of Mark and Matthew. There is growing discussion around a late date for the gospel of Luke, but still after Mark and before the time of Marcion.
“It still seems to me that your conclusion is merely the “result” of an assumption that Marcion used the earliest gospel and that the other gospels were not written until after Marcion.”
I play the role of Marcion, who is not an author, but is a leader of an organization with business experience and his main goal is the good of this organization. My Marcion chooses from the market the gospel that is best for his purpose. Not the first, but the best, the most extensive one that allows you to maintain content competitiveness. So how did I come to the conclusion that it was the first and only available? From a Vonn diagram showing the relationship between the three gospels. Publishers decide the strategy. Ghost writers simply copy and modify the achievements of their predecessors, adding unique parts of the text, which are further processed for subsequent versions. What is the motivation for doing this? Something that has been successful in the market is a certainty and it is not worth taking the risk of creating your own version. The only rational strategy is to develop a proven product to be competitive. As soon as possible. This is why the synoptic gospels are results of one gospel developed as a living document.
We do not know the previous success story. So if a few people had the idea that it is worth writing a plot of Jesus’ life, they would be significantly different from each other and no one would copy anyone. There would be no basis for this.
“No, not really. There is a very strong consensus around the dating of Mark and Matthew. There is growing discussion around a late date for the gospel of Luke, but still after Mark and before the time of Marcion.”
I know. The consensus on dating Paul’s letters is even stronger. IMHO They are wrong
Robert said
Jarek said
My proposal is not based on which of the 3 analyzed gospels came first. I put forward a thesis based on marketing experience that Marcion used the oldest gospel.
What difference does your marketing experience argument make on whether Marcion used the oldest gospel or merely the only gospel he was aware of?
An analysis of the arguments for and against the 3 Gospels led to the Mark-Matthew-Luke consensus (123) on the assumption that Marcion is a modified Luke and is not included in this analysis. I am using this one done by ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Not true. The present consensus of Markan priority came after much debate of many alternatives, including urgospel and proto-Luke hypotheses that are essentially the same as your thesis. You wrongly set up your thesis as a new approach that that discards previous assumptions.
Kowalczyk’s position is in the extreme minority, not a good basis from which to start.
Klinghardt suggested 0123. Marcion-Mark – Matthew – Luke. Still holds Mark’s priority for the 3 synoptic Gospels. He considered Marcion as the original product and reconstructed it to solve the synoptic problems.
If this whole story about Marcion wasn’t there, such a reconstruction would be a technical trick. This way, by adding a new element at the beginning, everything can be solved. But there is a story of Marcion and his market success. Vonn’s diagram is for 3 gospels without Marcion
Anyone can solve a problem by positing the existence of an imaginary solution to said problem.
“What difference does your marketing experience argument make on whether Marcion used the oldest gospel or merely the only gospel he was aware of?”
Marcion started his project before traveling to Rome. It has been active on the market long enough to pledge the right product with the largest market. He chose for his offer products that were not authoritative, and which he himself considered the best. There were no stories about the birth of Jesus available or he would have to take them. They were too attractive to ignore.
“Not true. The present consensus of Markan priority came after much debate of many alternatives, including urgospel and proto-Luke hypotheses that are essentially the same as your thesis. You wrongly set up your thesis as a new approach that that discards previous assumptions. Kowalczyk’s position is in the extreme minority, not a good basis from which to start.”
Marcion is not included in all synoptic problem solutions. Debate of many alternatives- yes without Marcion. Marcion is not a protoLuke. Take a look, please. I am not sharring his opinion (Kowalczyk) – the collected data looks fine, his interpretation not.
“Anyone can solve a problem by positing the existence of an imaginary solution to said problem”
I told You. Without story of Marcion it will be an imaginary solution. I am curious about your opinion after reviewing the proposed Klinghardt solution.
Robert said
Jarek said
I know. The consensus on dating Paul’s letters is even stronger. IMHO They are wrong
Well at least you are now using the word ‘opinion’ instead of ‘indisputable fact’.
I told You. Without story of Marcion it will be an imaginary solution. I am curious about your opinion after reviewing the proposed Klinghardt solution.
You’re missing the point. We do not possess the gospel of Marcion. It has to be reconstructed. If you reconstruct it to have all the elements necessary to solve the synoptic problem, that is no great feat.
You’re right. I just want to add that whether Klinghardt reproduced Marcion’s gospel well or badly has no bearing on my thesis. Marcion was the first to give special importance to Paul’s epistles and the gospel. The Roman commune took over this policy. Not the other way around.
Robert said
That too is not an indisputable fact. Most scholars think an earlier collection of Paul’s letters existed prior to Marcion’s collection. Not to mention that most scholars date the gospels of Mark and Matthew long before Marcion.
I do not dispute the dating of Zuntz and say that Corpus was available before Marcion. The first gospel could have arisen before Marcion because I also believe that he chose it and not created it. I keep saying that all the time. I just wrote that he was the first to give them a special meaning. Thus, Marcion only made the market elevation of these books. On the other hand, Tertullian’s polemic shows that much of it is based on the differences between the textual variants, and it can be seen that in some places he compares Matthew with Marcion, as if the two gospels were indistinguishable to him (Judith Lieu).
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)