Robert said

Jarek said

Most 99% of critical biblical scholars bet heads on the coin toss first …

No, Jarek. That’s not what scholars do. They spend years learning ancient and modern languages and read the work of hundreds of years of scholarship to learn the difference between good argumentation vs pure speculative games of chance.

  

No, Robert. That’s what everyone does. Under the influence of tradition, under the influence of authorities, they convince themselves of the consensus and try to develop it creatively, to remove its problems. For several years, most theoretical physicists have looked at their achievements, which turned out to be wrong. This was shown by the machine that was built. The same will happen to the widely taught and accepted theory of the inflationary expansion of the universe. Bible studies are no exception.
Yesterday I was at Marta Przyszychowska’s author’s meeting and she told the whole story of her latest work.
Consensus is greatly overrated.

Stephen said
Under the influence of tradition, under the influence of authorities, they convince themselves of the consensus and try to develop it creatively, to remove its problems. For several years, most theoretical physicists have looked at their achievements, which turned out to be wrong. This was shown by the machine that was built. The same will happen to the widely taught and accepted theory of the inflationary expansion of the universe. Bible studies are no exception.

No.  In the field of NT studies as well as in science nothing makes a young scholar/scientist’s reputation faster than upsetting the apple cart.   And nothing is more redolent of the incipient crank than to claim they are being suppressed by some imaginary conspiracy of silence.  Sure, the consensus changes too slowly for some and of course there are narrow minded scholars with pet theories but if you could provide evidence that seriously challenged Big Bang Cosmology or could show a real reason to question the historicity of Jesus you would not be marginalized.  I know more scientists personally than I do NT scholars, but the process is nothing like conspiracy theorists imagine.  Claims of persecution are always a red flag.

  

Conspiracy of silence? You must be kidding. For 200 years, no one has challenged Newton’s authority on the constancy of time in space. There was no collusion, there was an authority that was supported by successive authorities. No one thought to question it. Only Leibniz, in a private letter, wrote to Newton that this did not follow from the equations at all and that he must have gone a step too far. Leibniz did not pursue the topic because physics did not interest him much.
When Einstein corrected Newton’s error, he took a step back. Time is no longer constant everywhere.
Klinghardt does the same. He takes a step back. His consensus for the gospel is 40-140 CE. He looks again at Marcion’s gospel without reaching back to Harnack. The first time he analyzes Mark against Harnack. The second time he analyzes Luke. His monograph is the most technical work I have seen in biblical studies. Maybe because he works at the Dresden University of Technology. I prefer the new pet theories from Peeters to the praise of consensus that youtube and Harper One are full of.

Porphyry said

Jarek said

Porphyry said

Jarek said

the most natural interpretation of the Venn diagram is working in parallel at the same time with transmission in different directions. 

  

One can’t establish the direction of dependence by looking at venn diagrams. You just can’t. If all we have is simply percentages of shared material, then you are right, we end up with a coin toss. But there are good arguments–based in evidence–for Markan priority that go beyond simply looking at how much material synoptics share. 

  

The high percentage of triple traditions and two double traditions clearly indicates that the time of gospel creation was common and short. Which in turn indicates that the market of recipients opened up and the supply did not keep up with the demand. As in fashion – suddenly everyone is sewing almost the same thing.

 

What is the second double tradition you are referring to?

  

Mark/Matthew Luke/Matthew

Robert said

Jarek said

Robert said

Robert said

Most critical exegesis have little difficulty judging clear instances of Markan priority and later redaction by Matthew or Luke. No need to flip coins. That’s not scholarship.

The above, which has been confirmed by 75 years of redaction criticism, is simply opposed by a dogmatic assertion by Klinghardt (pp 18-19):

Methodologically, source criticism cannot make an unambiguous judge-ment on the diachronic relationship between two literarily dependent texts based on these texts alone. This was clearly demonstrated by Volckmar’s criticism of Ritschl and by Ritschl’s response in their dispute about the literary relationship between Luke and the Marcionite Gospel. Observations about two texts – the recognition of the textual differences as well as the judgment on the respective (more or less cohesive) agreements – are synchronic observations from which no diachronic succession can be derived for allocating them in a historical timeline. As a rule, synchronic observations are ambivalent with regard to their diachronic placement. Putting two texts into a diachronic relationship requires additional information for indicating the precedence of one editorial direction over another is required for.

And while he does his best to exaggerate supposedly irresolvable problems for Marcan priority and the two-source theory, he seems completely unconcerned about the difficulties encountered in establishing Lukan or Marcionite priority. Can’t have it both ways, Matthias.

The toss of the coin dealt only with issues beyond the expertise of Bible studies. Did Mark write the gospel in the 70s CE, influenced by the destruction of the temple? This cannot be limited to one answer. The YES answer is widely used. The equally likely answer is NOT being ridiculed. Consensus has no good answers to simple questions. Why did the gospels develop so dynamically in the 1st century if their intensive use is not visible? What motivated the demand for them if they were not authoritative until the time of Justin Martyr? If we consider Marcion’s success as the cause, then we have a story repeated every day from time immemorial in every field. Competition is the most common reaction to market prospects opened by one of the players.

You’ve completely ignored my critique of Klinghardt here and are merely hearkening back to your defense of your inane coin-toss methodology. You’ve never shown that your dating is equally likely, merely asserted it on the basis of it supposedly being based on a coin-toss. So very much is not visible from the first century. Arguments from silence in 1st-century Christian origins are particularly bad. Why link the development of the gospel genre with that genre being authoritative? Cart before the horse. You’ve given no reason to prefer Marcion developing this genre rather than Mark. And Klinghardt does not think Marcion developed this genre.

  

No I am not ignoring your critique. I’m reading a summary of this nineteenth-century discussion right now

Klinghardt acknowledges Volckmar’s arguments and does not challenge his view that a particular methodology for establishing diachronic succession is ineffective. He does it in a different way.
Marcion is the first to achieve market success in missionary activity, giving the gospel authority and directing it to the largest market. He abandons the LXX exegesis and focuses solely on selected products. Using Paul’s epistles alone was not very effective( as their Author writes). The gospel was needed. Before he arrives in Rome, some scribes begin to develop the gospel creatively because they see its success, offering their products to all willing to buy them. Of course, Marcion did not develop the gospel or adapt it to his purposes. Marcion adopted the gospel for his purposes

Robert said

Jarek said

Klinghardt acknowledges Volckmar’s arguments and does not challenge his view that a particular methodology for establishing diachronic succession is ineffective. He does it in a different way.

But in the end, he ends up with a more detailed diachronic view, with more hypothetical recensions than either of the leading Marcan priority positions. His criticisms of the lack of agreement among Marcan priority scholars would be much better directed toward those who have debated Marcionite-Lucan priority, perhaps most especially himself.

  

Klinghardt comes to “a more detailed diachronic view” in a different way. It omits the method of “synchronic observations from which no diachronic succession can be derived” because it cannot produce unambiguous conclusions. 

Previously, a block called Q was set up to solve specific problems. Hypothetical research construct.
What Klinghardt did was check whether instead of an artificially defined hypothetical source, a real document could be taken, which perhaps is misjudged and misinterpreted. Klinghardt proved for me that it is possible for Luke and that it is not possible for Mark.
Vinzent, on the other hand, showed convincingly the importance of the Resurrection of Christ in the early church that Paul’s teachings were completely forgotten 80 years after his death. And the same with the gospels – as long as no one paid attention to them.
How does a theologian convince himself of a foreign theology?
Through a market test. When his theology is not accepted, he has a choice of either further polishing it and trying to sell it, which is associated with costs and financial risks, or joining the winner and doing exegesis of proven ideas.There is no basis for such a decision beforehand.
They began with the exegeses of the LXX. They looked with disgust at the new literature aimed at the mass market. And so they overlooked the success of this literature.
This pattern is repeated many times. There is equality and democracy, and yet we are self-absorbed. When selling content, I looked at my own aesthetics and supposed “cultural sophistication” and almost drowned the company in debt. And then I made money from music that I would never play at home myself, and even if I did, the kids would turn it off immediately.

To achieve success on the mass content market, you must want quantitative success, not qualitative success. If that’s what you’re guided by, you’re not a theologian, you’re a salesman.