Jarek Stolarz: «Priority cannot be determined by content alone»

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Jarek Stolarz: «Priority cannot be determined by content alone»

Post by Giuseppe »

Jarek Stolarz strikes back with other intriguing comments!

External factor
In the research process, there is often an unsolvable alternative that blocks the possibility of further mapping out the research path. The research community is divided into two groups that continue their research independently. Until someone can confirm or deny something. Let me repeat - two parallel and equivalent research processes are being carried out until the resolution is reached.
But you can't come to terms with it. You bet in a coin toss.
When I look at Mark's priority arguments, the same textual arguments are repeated, but other textual arguments are also omitted. Because they don't fit the chosen scenario.
Marek may intentionally try to give his gospel a primal character by using bizarre primitive language techniques, but he does it inconsistently, as noted by synopsa.pl
Mark sometimes uses Luke's specific language. On the other hand, Marek is a master of composition and sophisticated techniques.
The composer of this story has used sophisticated storytelling techniques, developed the characters and conflicts, and built suspense with deliberateness, telling the story to generate certain insights and responses in the audience. The author used classical rhetorical techniques to create emphasis and to develop themes that would otherwise not be so apparent. Itercalatian, chiastic structures, framework structures are used by the man who begins a sentence with "kai".
A similar literary construct may be the obsession with the fall of the Temple, which, according to various scholars, depends on Matthew's less dramatic testimony.
We do not know the goals and intentions of the author of the text. He is a ghost writer who has to be better to win. His goal may be to give his work the appearance of seniority over others. Here is the only true, original message about the earthly Jesus and the rest are a brazen plagiarisms. Message created by witness not by professional.
Well done since everyone is falling for it so far.
The external determining factor cannot be replaced. It's time to come to admit it.


Skip the text analysis for now and just look at the technical inconsistencies. Here is the simple language of the street combined with a sophisticated composition. Plain street language with exceptions and intentional errors sometimes used and sometimes not. The author deliberately hides his professionalism. For what? i don't know. Maybe customer request, maybe to make his writing older than it really is


The Venn graph for the synoptic gospels clearly shows that their development followed simple editorial rules. The triple tradition is content that has been appreciated by all editors. This is not the oldest content, as is commonly assumed, but the most popular. Double traditions are content accepted by two. And individual choices. Klinghardt proved that the assumption that Mark is the oldest is unnecessary to achieve the same effect. The Limited Luke-Mark-Matthew-Canonical Luke sequence works in the same way and produces the same effects. So how to choose? An external criterion. The first to use the gospel systemically was Marcion. His gospel is Limited Luke (60%). that's where it started - the rest of the model is the same as the Mark-Matthew-Canonical Luke consensus.


I'm not talking about historical value, just that the model of dating the gospels and the relationship between them assumes one of the options of an irresolvable alternative. Option based on the assumed goals of the Author. To me, that's a mistake. Mark is secondary. Priority cannot be determined by content alone. The intentional efforts of the author to achieve such an effect can be relatively simple and effective

(my bold)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1038530526485151
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Which priority? Each tradition has its own

Post by mlinssen »

Priority to what?

We must distinguish between the Christian tradition, where Mark indeed holds priority and comes before LukeMatthew, and the Chrestian tradition where *Ev highly likely came last

We have a John in both traditions, and where John came prior to *Ev it certainly came last in the Christian tradition, as is visible among others in it having a resurrection there

But a lot of this will become better manageable if we start separating these traditions, because it will make room for the fact - and it is a fact indeed - that there is more than just one single "priority"
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: Jarek Stolarz: «Priority cannot be determined by content alone»

Post by schillingklaus »

Markan Priority is absolutely false in any case, regardless of all the right-wing propaganda. Critical scholars like Jean Magne realize the necessity of lost pre-synoptic gospels.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Jarek Stolarz: «Priority cannot be determined by content alone»

Post by mlinssen »

schillingklaus wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 12:46 am Markan Priority is absolutely false in any case, regardless of all the right-wing propaganda. Critical scholars like Jean Magne realize the necessity of lost pre-synoptic gospels.
Recent communications and discussions reveal that confusion has arisen over the past years, which may be solved by a new distinction

If we consider a Christian tradition we would generally hold Markan Priority to be valid there, along with Matthean Posteriority perhaps.
And if we then consider a Chrestian tradition we could hold Marcionite Posteriority to be valid there.
"Chrestianity precedes Christianity" then becomes a paradigm which would dispose with essentially futile arguments over a first gospel, as each tradition would have one

I think we will all benefit from this nuance, much more so because of the very, very different make up of each tradition.
And to further nuance the word nuance: in the Chrestian tradition I hold Thomas to be the very first text, and John to be the very first gospel; and we can see how Thomas is a perfect Quelle to a Chrestian tradition whereas it would be "way too skinny" to serve as the missing link to Christianity, dubbed Q.
Q exists only in the imagination of biblical scholars who fail to see that LukeMatthew was one single redaction aimed at completing the void that Mark introduced - which concerns a mostly single collection of additions and narratives that in itself gets diversified along with the intended audiences of Luke, respectively, Matthew

So I propose to introduce the notion of two separate traditions, Chrestianity versus Christianity, where the latter was a direct response to and reaction against the former, with each having its own first gospel.
And while *Ev served as Quelle to Christianity, Thomas served as Quelle to Chrestianity
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Jarek Stolarz: «Priority cannot be determined by content alone»

Post by Giuseppe »

Beyond of that, I am particularly galvanized by the method proposed by Stolartz:

What decides the priority is also an external factor. Not merely content.

I have never seen Markan prioritists base their own case on an external factor. De facto, the Markan prioritists are without external factors.

From this POV, they remember historicists who are such without the independant support of a Josephus.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Jarek Stolarz: «Priority cannot be determined by content alone»

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:05 am Beyond of that, I am particularly galvanized by the method proposed by Stolartz:

What decides the priority is also an external factor. Not merely content.
This appears to be a reasonable statement (for undated anonymous texts) on the basis that nobody knows for sure what the agenda of the author may have been to present the content. A modern example of an external factor is a date and time stamp which, if present and has not been tampered with, will immediately indicate chronological priority.
I have never seen Markan prioritists base their own case on an external factor. De facto, the Markan prioritists are without external factors.
The introduction of any external factors however is always or usually accompanied by the introduction of many additional assumptions - sometimes a raft of assumptions - related to the external factor. It does not necessarily make the task of determining chronological priority any easier or more certain.

For example introducing Marcion as an external factor is directly reliant upon the historical integrity of the secondary evidence - the texts of hostile heresiologists from whose works the text of Marcion is being reconstructed. External factors may in theory assist the determination of priority. But there can be no guarantee of this.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Jarek Stolarz: «Priority cannot be determined by content alone»

Post by Giuseppe »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 8:49 pmExternal factors may in theory assist the determination of priority. But there can be no guarantee of this.
In the case of interest, the external factor is very well defined and 100% proved:

The first to use the gospel systemically was Marcion

About Mark, we don't have even something resembling an external factor.
  • Papias is post-Marcion and/or seems not even to know the Gospel of Mark of which we are talking about,

  • while the Cerinthian (=Separationist) use of Mark is attested in the same Irenaeus's passage immediately after the mention of Marcion's use of Luke.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Jarek Stolarz: «Priority cannot be determined by content alone»

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:01 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 8:49 pmExternal factors may in theory assist the determination of priority. But there can be no guarantee of this.
In the case of interest, the external factor is very well defined and 100% proved:

The first to use the gospel systemically was Marcion
There are many hidden assumptions with this proposition that are being swept under the carpet. To claim this proposition to be true with 100% historical certainty is completely irresponsible.
Post Reply