In the research process, there is often an unsolvable alternative that blocks the possibility of further mapping out the research path. The research community is divided into two groups that continue their research independently. Until someone can confirm or deny something. Let me repeat – two parallel and equivalent research processes are being carried out until the resolution is reached.
But you can’t come to terms with it. You bet in a coin toss.
When I look at Mark’s priority arguments, the same textual arguments are repeated, but other textual arguments are also omitted. Because they don’t fit the chosen scenario.
Mark may intentionally try to give his gospel a primal character by using bizarre primitive language techniques, but he does it inconsistently, as noted by synopsa.pl
Mark sometimes uses Luke’s specific language. On the other hand, Marek is a master of composition and sophisticated techniques.
The composer of this story has used sophisticated storytelling techniques, developed the characters and conflicts, and built suspense with deliberateness, telling the story to generate certain insights and responses in the audience. The author used classical rhetorical techniques to create emphasis and to develop themes that would otherwise not be so apparent. Itercalatian, chiastic structures, framework structures are used by the man who begins a sentence with “kai”.
A similar literary construct may be the obsession with the fall of the Temple, which, according to various scholars, depends on Matthew’s less dramatic testimony.
Dating by content is impossible, because the content does not reflect the intentions and goals of the author.We do not know the goals and intentions of the author of the text. He is a ghost writer who has to be better to win. His goal may be to give his work the appearance of seniority over others. Here is the only true, original message about the earthly Jesus and the rest are a brazen plagiarisms. Message created by witness not by professional. Simple like that
Well done since everyone is falling for it so far.
The external determining factor cannot be replaced. It’s time to come to admit it.
You’re right, excellent question.
The critical people in the creation of the gospels were the editors whose goal was to create the best product out of the available material. Whether it’s your own or a competitor’s material. Triple tradition is the material recognized as the best by all editors of the synoptic gospels in the final stage of canonical editing.
Well, Luke wrote his gospel in Limited Edition version (LE) as Bart called it, and let it be the first gospel as Klinghardt wants. The editor is bored. After some time, the gospel of Mark is created using LE Luke and his own ideas. The Gospel of Mark contains, in places, specific vocabulary for Luke.
Then Matthew comes along and revises Mark, uses Mark and LE Luke, develops his own ideas and is the best so far.
Luke reappears on the scene and writes 2 chapters and uses three sources – LE Luke, Mark, Matthew. He also knows John because he sometimes chooses him over Mark or Matthew.
So you’re right Luke is the most tired of editorial work, then Matthew and the least tired is Marek. Number of sources matters.
And it is perfectly visible. Only that the first Luke did not have an editorial job at all because he was ….. the first. But then he was the last evangelist.
When he approached the subject again, it wasn’t him who decided, but his friend the editor using the largest number of sources.
Extant?
If you are doing analysis for 3 products then you have Mark priority and some Q to solve problems. If you are doing analysis of 4 then the layout is different and Q is unnecessary.
The triple tradition is an editorial choice and Luke did not hesitate to use earlier outside sources as he sat down a second time to complete the gospel
Extant, those that actually survive. So if you look at the gospels we actually have copies of and we consider them in the forms attested in those copies, you agree that Mark is the first of those–though there may have been one or more pre-markan gospels that we don’t have. You also agree that Lk and Mt, in the forms we actually have them in, depend on Mk.
With the analysis of the 3 gospels it is as you say. But then we have synoptic problems known for this model.
What Klinghardt did was look for the first gospel as follows. First, he tried for years to distill such a gospel from Mark. And he failed, even though he publicly claimed several times that it would be some primal form of Marek. He succeeded with the gospel of Marcion *Ev. He really succeeded, his reconstruction is very flexible. Reviewers who have pointed out some errors in extensive book-sized reviews are not disappointed. He took their comments into account and the model still works the same.
This is not a research process carried out on the basis of a previously adopted thesis. Well done.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)