Robert said
So, Jarek, you generally trust the scholarly consensus?
I believe in the personal expertise of biblical scholars, I do not believe in unproven collective choices.
I can understand them, but see no reason to agree with them. Treating consensus as dogma turned out to be a mistake in the case of Bauer or Thompson.
But the despite of these mishaps still gives him a meaning he doesn't deserve.
For me, only what you can prove matters.
For 3 years, the theoretical physicists have been stuck in trauma because almost everyone trusted the consensus that turned out to be false.
Many of them have devoted most of their careers to developing new versions of this consensus or solving other problems based on it.
They know now. Such happiness did not come to Bible scholars. But it should be a good lesson for all.
Consensus only means that the goal of excluding false theories and confirming the only historical one has not been achieved.
One unproven theory was selected from the entire spectrum of unproven theories. We don't even know if we managed to define the true theory.
BTW There is an answer from Bart.
-
I think it is easily refuted. Matthew and Luke are almost certainly to be dated near the end of the first century; they used Mark which is therefore earlier, usually dated to ca. 70 CE. Marcion cannot have been active until many decades after that. So it’s an intersting thesis, but not surprising that almost no one is convinced (in fact, apart from the people who advance it, I don’t know anyone — Gospel scholar or Marcion scholar) who is!
For me, only what you can prove matters.
Proofs are for mathematicians and logicians. What we have is textual evidence that must be interpreted. Consequently we deal in probabilities. What is the best sense of the texts given what we can know about them? But that doesn’t mean that all interpretations are equally valid. A consensus is the amalgamation of the opinions of the folks who know a field best. When 99.8% of all the climate scientists and ecologists tell me that human caused warming is threatening our environmental prospects (and the dissenters all seem to work for fossil fuel providers) I sit up and take notice. The consensus can be wrong but you can’t dismiss it without demonstrating why it is wrong. And the fact that the consensus has been wrong in the past does not mean it is always wrong.
Of course with New Testament studies we are not on so firm a foundation as with the hard sciences. So we invent analytical tools to assist us. Ockham’s Razor makes a fine tool. The vast majority of conspiracy theories and forms of mythicism do not survive their first encounter.
Thank you both for these comments, I partially agree, I disagree with the others. I remember what a consensus-non-consensus discussion ends with.
Just watch the Ehrman Price debate. It just didn't work. But it's a part of the problem. In my Catholic experience, I have the impression of a certain imbalance.
On the one hand, the West brilliantly developed Bible studies based on the Protestant revolution and the exaltation of the Bible.
But at the same time, he lost knowledge and experience about the Roman Church, which has an impact on the assessment and interpretation of testimonies.
This is my feeling. Marcion was driven out of Rome not because of theology. He was too threatening as a leader, as an effective organizer.
No matter what he preached. If he were "Orthodox" his opponents would have preached a different formula.
Attempts to recreate his gospel from the testimonies of his enemies are like recreating Osip Mandelstam's poetry from KGB reports.
In Russia, in the 17th century, Nikon made a liturgical reform and made Russian rites similar to the Greek ones. His motivation was to return to the original
tradition. It caused a split and heated discussion that it turned out that the Russian tradition is original !! It was the Greeks who changed their rituals.
But Nikon has stated that if a theory disagrees with the facts, so much the worse for the facts. This is what it looks like.
No matter what theology is. It matters who controls it. Let's back to Marcion.
Why didn't Marcion stay in Rome and pursue competitive missionary activities?
What prevented him from exploiting this richest market?
What effective power did his competitors have that he had to get out?
This does not seem to be taken into account in the research. However, at the same time there is a lot of speculation about his views.
And that's what I don't understand.
Robert said
Jarek said
Marcion was driven out of Rome not because of theology. He was too threatening as a leader, as an effective organizer. No matter what he preached. If he were “Orthodox” his opponents would have preached a different formula.
How do you know this?
Of course I don’t know that. But I see it every day. The authors of various ideas are pushed out of the church and their ideas are implemented by the bishops. Since I can remember, it has been happening all the time. I observe these situations on a large scale and on a small scale. The most persecuted group by the church are people who took the initiative and announced it publicly, instead of kneeling down and handing it over to the bishop. Such people are always suspended, banned from public speaking for 5-10 years. This is everyday life. The grassroots Renewal in the Holy Spirit was expelled from the Church by the bishops 20 years ago. The same bishops are bringing Bashobora to Poland today, a preacher from Africa who resurrected 27 people, as he repeats himself, organizing the largest retreat in the country for him.This is not a modern practice, it is the oldest tradition of the institutional church. Martin Luther knew something about it, but you didn’t.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)