What the interpolated John the Baptist in the incipit of the Marcion's Evangelion has eclipsed forever: the Gospel Paul

[mlinssen]

But if you accept that Marcion preceded Luke, then you are obliged to accept that Marcion preceded Mark, too.

• The incipit of Marcion gives a temporal marker ("the 15° year of Tiberius") that can make sense only as the date when a particular person was privileged by a mystical vision.

• The incipit of Mark doesn't give a temporal marker but betrayes from the first moment an excessive insistence on John the Baptist as the man who witnessed Jesus.

It is evident that Mark is opposing John the Baptist against the person who in Marcion had the privilege of "seeing" Christ for the first time.

Yes, Marcion / Luke tries to date Jesus, Mark doesn't. Mark was working hard on creating Jesus from scratch and he forgot about a lot of things, screwed up on many more things, and got cursed a gazilion times more, I suppose.
The first two there are facts, the third is an assumption (yet likely)

So the attempt to date Jesus is there, and the most plausible reason is that is serves to establish precedence. This highly illogical, contrarian story about this man-God-thingy got challenged by everyone, and rightfully so, and the first stake in the ground was about who came first.
If you want to put a stake into the ground, that's usually the first thing to do and the rest can wait

I wouldn't put too much weight on it really

[Giuseppe]

I wouldn't put too much weight on it really

Try this experiment of mind.

If someone says that Harry Potter entered in his town precisely the 15° May of this year, probably he is appealing to the witness of a particular person who "saw" Harry Potter precisely that day.

[mlinssen]

I wouldn't put too much weight on it really

Try this experiment of mind.

If someone says that Harry Potter entered in his town precisely the 15° May of this year, probably he is appealing to the witness of a particular person who "saw" Harry Potter precisely that day.

The reasons behind that could be countless, Giuseppe. But the first thing that comes to my mind is that the person is trying to establish an alibi - of any kind, for anyone

It is perfectly alright to make assumptions, we all do, and must really. But the next step is to put them to the test so we can either accept or reject them , with solid arguments.
And part of the test is coming up with counter-arguments in order to try to falsify your theory

So try this: what other reasons could there be? For simply mentioning a pointer to a date

[Giuseppe]

So try this: what other reasons could there be? For simply mentioning a pointer to a date

But I am the first to recognize the reason for "15° year of Tiberius". Read here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5024&hilit=Tybi#p97556

The point remains: you have a realistic "historical" date connected with a 100% mythological person (I assume that you are enough smart to agree with me that Jesus never existed ). You can do so only because you are reporting the claim of someone who can "confirm" the "historicity" of the event.

[mlinssen]

So try this: what other reasons could there be? For simply mentioning a pointer to a date

But I am the first to recognize the reason for "15° year of Tiberius". Read here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5024&hilit=Tybi#p97556

The point remains: you have a realistic "historical" date connected with a 100% mythological person (I assume that you are enough smart to agree with me that Jesus never existed ). You can do so only because you are reporting the claim of someone who can "confirm" the "historicity" of the event.

Errr no, they were only trying to set priority / establish precedence. Highly likely, according to me of course, to exclude Thomas from being prior

I date Thomas to the Hasmonean / Herodian Dynasty, roughly. The only reason for dating him towards the end of it (much later than 10 CE) is exactly the fact that there are attempts to date Jesus to 20-30 CE, just about

[Giuseppe]

Errr no, they were only trying to set priority / establish precedence.

eh eh, you are nailing our poor readers between two horns of the beast:

• To accept that my view (Marcionite relative priority) is correct, or

• ...or to accept the Thomasine absolute priority

How do you think our readers would react?

[mlinssen]

Errr no, they were only trying to set priority / establish precedence.

eh eh, you are nailing our poor readers between two horns of the beast:

• To accept that my view (Marcionite relative priority) is correct, or

• ...or to accept the Thomasine absolute priority

How do you think our readers would react?

I have the feeling that they'll just ignore the both of us

I've come to be convinced that "Luke" was Marcion though, and for a SACT today's was a bloody good one, if I say so myself

[MrMacSon]

eh eh, you are nailing our poor readers between two horns of the beast:

• to accept that my view (Marcionite relative priority) is correct; or

• to accept the Thomasine absolute priority

How do you think our readers would react?

I think that's a false dichotomy.

Both are feasible.

[MrMacSon]

I've come to be convinced that "Luke" was Marcion though ...

Markus Vinzent thinks a first edition of Luke the Marcionite gospel got into the hands of the canonical gospel writers and [me paraphrasing Vinzent] it motivated them to write their gospels, then Marcion wrote a second edition of his. It's possible, further to your & Vinzent's proposals, that Marcion wrote Luke as third edition [or maybe Luke was Marcion's second edition].

Matthias Klinghardt thinks

• Marcion [+/- Paul's epistles +/- the LXX-OT] -> Mark;
  
  • then 'Matthew' used Marcion & Mark (& other texts especially the LXX-OT) to write his gospel;
    
    • then 'John' use the preceding texts;
      
      • then 'Luke' used all these^

Merged versions of Vinzent's and Klinghardt's proposed schema's and Martijn's] would likely be feasible ...

[Giuseppe]

eh eh, you are nailing our poor readers between two horns of the beast:

• to accept that my view (Marcionite relative priority) is correct; or

• to accept the Thomasine absolute priority

How do you think our readers would react?

I think that's a false dichotomy.

Both are feasible.

sorry, you can say so only if you can give an alternative explanation about why Marcion gave a date so specific and precise ("the 15° Year of Tiberius") for the descent of the adult Christ on earth. I think that you can't give an alternative explanation both different from mine and from mlissen.