My fresh analysis is confirming much of what Vinzent, Klinghardt, Knox, Tyson and others have found about the Gospel of Marcion and its relationship to the synoptic Gospels.
In my view, credible historical-critical scholars can no longer refer to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John as if any of them are singular productions or first century creations. All of these texts have 2-3 major strata evidencing very different editors, concerns, educational levels, etc.. All of these texts were being heavily edited and re-written well into the 2nd century. Ultimately, the Gospels that are in our Bibles and on which many, many commentaries are written are mid-2nd century productions, which is but to say that the majority of so-called scholarly and commentary literature is deeply wrong because it is deeply unscientific.
For example, the Gospel of Mark is not a Gospel from the 70s: it is a combination of a major stratum from the 70s and a major stratum from the 140s. All the commentaries, books, and articles that treat Mark as if it were a coherent, unified production of a singular moment in time in the 70s are essentially committing massive, gross and flagrant anachronism and thoroughly misunderstanding both strata.
This all reminds me of what a Hebrew Bible professor colleague has on the sign of his office: “The Pentateuch is a Post-Exilic Compilation.” Yes, the Pentateuch had many pre-exilic sources, but a massive amount of post-exilic editorial work was what created the Pentateuch as a standardized collection. The same kind of sign should be posted on the office of every historical-critical scholar of the New Testament: “The Four Canonical/Early-Orthodox Gospels are Coordinated Mid-Second Century Productions.”
In my view, credible historical-critical scholars can no longer refer to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John as if any of them are singular productions or first century creations. All of these texts have 2-3 major strata evidencing very different editors, concerns, educational levels, etc.. All of these texts were being heavily edited and re-written well into the 2nd century. Ultimately, the Gospels that are in our Bibles and on which many, many commentaries are written are mid-2nd century productions, which is but to say that the majority of so-called scholarly and commentary literature is deeply wrong because it is deeply unscientific.
For example, the Gospel of Mark is not a Gospel from the 70s: it is a combination of a major stratum from the 70s and a major stratum from the 140s. All the commentaries, books, and articles that treat Mark as if it were a coherent, unified production of a singular moment in time in the 70s are essentially committing massive, gross and flagrant anachronism and thoroughly misunderstanding both strata.
This all reminds me of what a Hebrew Bible professor colleague has on the sign of his office: “The Pentateuch is a Post-Exilic Compilation.” Yes, the Pentateuch had many pre-exilic sources, but a massive amount of post-exilic editorial work was what created the Pentateuch as a standardized collection. The same kind of sign should be posted on the office of every historical-critical scholar of the New Testament: “The Four Canonical/Early-Orthodox Gospels are Coordinated Mid-Second Century Productions.”
https://vocesanticae.com/2020/09/08/fir ... -uploaded/
...but then he is both a Christian and a historicist worthy of a James McGrath. And yes: unfortunately the only comparison is an insult for me.
Where I realize that the biblical studies are definitively doomed.