Robert said
Jarek said
Since the entire biblical studies industry repeats after Marcion’s enemies that he was a theologian, then Vinzent cannot free himself from it either.
In an earlier thread, didn’t you also eventually and finally admit that Marcion was a theologian?
No, I didn’t. I always compared Marcion with Maciel Degolado or with Tadeusz Rydzyk. They are religious entrepreneurs, leaders.
Notice what the consensus proposes. The consensus is that all relevant early Christian literature was in place, ready to be used, waiting 30 years for a genius to start using it. And that this genius will take the least attractive gospel and win on the mass market with people who have had fuller and more interesting works at their disposal for years. And that all this is happening as part of a noble theological rivalry and that prosaic rivalry in the number of believers does not matter at all.
Robert said
Jarek said
Robert said
Jarek said
Since the entire biblical studies industry repeats after Marcion’s enemies that he was a theologian, then Vinzent cannot free himself from it either.
In an earlier thread, didn’t you also eventually and finally admit that Marcion was a theologian?
No, I didn’t. I always compared Marcion with Maciel Degolado or with Tadeusz Rydzyk. They are religious entrepreneurs, leaders.
You did ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
41? Yes indeed – the structure that has been built at a certain stage may limit the possibilities of maneuver or compromise. It puts pressure on its creator. Why should we give up our aspirations, why should we submit to those weaker ones we defeat every day, that’s not what you promised us, why should we abandon what you taught us, etc… This could be a real problem in negotiations with others.
Could someone summarize what Jarek’s theses are?
I gather he thinks Marcion’s Evangelion was an edition of an earlier lost proto-gospel (or did he write it from scratch–I’m not sure here?); that it was the model for the four canonical gospels–thus pushing their composition well into the second century, does this also imply that Mark knew the Q material and chose to excise it?); that the gospel writers were writing about the same time, directly competing with each other for readers, and mainly struggling to produce something that would go viral, so to speak–I guess so they could parlay the popularity of their work into money or influence.
Is that about right? Did i miss something significant?
Robert said
Jarek said
Notice what the consensus proposes. The consensus is that all relevant early Christian literature was in place, ready to be used, waiting 30 years for a genius to start using it. And that this genius will take the least attractive gospel and win on the mass market with people who have had fuller and more interesting works at their disposal for years. And that all this is happening as part of a noble theological rivalry and that prosaic rivalry in the number of believers does not matter at all.
This is purely an assumption on your part. You have no evidence that Marcion did not care about theology. You’re simply assuming that Marcion’s success had nothing to do with his theological views. But, in fact, the success of his reported views is still around to this day. Most Christians strongly prefer the New Testament over their Old Testament, and most of those who do value their Old Testament interpret it christologically. Even among scholars. The Marcion(ite) scholar whose views you most oppose, actually became a modern-day disciple and proponent of Marcion’s views of the Old Testament. No critical scholar thinks that we can fully and accurately reconstruct Marcion’s views purely on the basis of his opponents, but why assume that he did not have any theological views and that these views did not factor into his popularity?
Marcion, creating his theology, was guided by the goal – mass Christianization. He chose recipients without experience and tradition of Judaism, “tabula rasa” and offered Christ. You can’t confuse such people because they don’t know anything and their education starts with the most important thing. And most of them will remain at this stage. A charismatic leader is a value in itself, theology does not determine it.
Robert said
Jarek said
Robert said
Jarek said
Since the entire biblical studies industry repeats after Marcion’s enemies that he was a theologian, then Vinzent cannot free himself from it either.
In an earlier thread, didn’t you also eventually and finally admit that Marcion was a theologian?
No, I didn’t. I always compared Marcion with Maciel Degolado or with Tadeusz Rydzyk. They are religious entrepreneurs, leaders.
You did ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Ouch. That’s gonna leave a mark.
You might want to take some time to walk that off, Jarek.
Marcion came to Rome like others because the concentration of power and resources in this city was enormous. He found other leaders there and had a comparison. It’s hard to give precedence to a stranger just because he’s a Roman. Especially when you’re more successful yourself. The Romans tolerated him as long as they wanted to learn something from him, but they did not recognize his leadership. Theology in religion has various functions. Within the organization itself, theology is a display of the power. It was power struggle covered by theology
Jarek thinks there was an earlier, proto-Luke that Marcion brought with him to Rome, but did not write. This is a minority view, but not at all controversial. I think this is quite possible, but apart from the ‘great omission’ there is little reason to posit that this earlier version of Luke may have been a source for Mark.
Together with Bart we are proudly representing a minority view.
These are great three lectures by Bart.
that it was the model for the four canonical gospels–thus pushing their composition well into the second century, does this also imply that Mark knew the Q material and chose to excise it?);
This view was experimented with by several source-critics in the 19th century and a few in the 20th century. It has not gained much support. Matthias Klinghardt (and therefore probably also Jarek) thinks that what has traditionally been identified as Q material was already part of this proto-Luke gospel. That’s more unusual because one needs to imagine that Mark added doublets to create the great omission but simultaneously eliminated so much of Jesus’ teaching material. Klinghardt also tries to use the minor agreements (between Matthew and Luke against Mark) to argue for a proto-Luke source, but this completely fails to take account of the fact that the minor agreements are generally secondary in character, improvements upon Mark’s less elegant writing style. Klinghardt also posits a number of lost recensions that presumably help him to deal with these and other difficulties.
There are indications of a transmission from Matthew to Mark. In the case of the Synoptic Revelation, this view is shared by two biblical scholars, one being the radical critic Hermann Detering and the other being the Orthodox Bishop Basil Lourie. They date the Synoptic Apocalypse differently, but the analysis of both texts led them to conclude about the priority of Matthew and Mark’s dependence on Matthew for this part of the material. For Datering, SynApoc is a document from the Bar Kokkhba era, for Lourie, it is a Jewish document with an earlier date.
Jarek also thinks that the generally agreed upon seven authentic letters of Paul were also written by a professional ghost writer who was trying to create an idealized model for (Marcion’s) missionaries. This is nutso, in my humble opinion. No offense, Jarek!
Hope this is a fair and relatively accurate representation of Jarek’s apparent views. Apologies if I got anything wrong!
This is the era of ghost writers creating containers of knowledge for all. Ghost writers use invented tradition as support. The invented tradition ensures security against ghost writer’ fraud detection, gives the appearance of a noble patina, works simply and effectively. It’s not mine, I found it/they brought it to me, just look, how good it is. After all, you can see that I am recommending the views of a great man, which I did not write myself. etc..
I see no exception for Paul, though I have to admit that this patiently crafted fabrication can also be a real thing.
Paul claimed that Jesus was human and did nothing about it. Paul provided no material for popular piety. Piety based on the literal understanding of the story. This story doesn’t exist. There was a crisis – the fascination with Jesus would disappear if someone did not add a fictitious biography to Jesus. Marcion connected Paul’s teachings with the first life story of Jesus. Certainly not the last.
I like analogies. Father Rydzyk drove thousands of Polish pilgrims to Medjugorje who wanted to see the place of the last apparition of Mary. But it’s a one-time trip and soon the base of volunteers dwindled because everyone was already there. There is even a story that during his last trip, the discouraged Rydzyk left the pilgrims. After some time, he invented Radio Maryja. A constant undertaking, a constant presence of Mary in the lives of pious people. New entry.
The early Christians did the same – they provided a theological field that was limitless. Dozens of gospels, hundreds of letters, apocalypses of everyone who didn’t run away to a tree. Fictional heroes, hagigraphy. Antique Radio
Thank You Robert
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert