Syndication

[JarekS]

Perhaps I will start with the achievements of biblical studies in solving the synoptic problem. Well, biblical studies analyzed the content dependencies between the gospels and created a number of simple hypotheses for the process of creating the canonical gospels.
Hypotheses such as 2SH and 2GH are most often creations based on the priority of the selected gospel and simple relationships between them and some hypothetical source. Currently, the most popular hypotheses assume the priority of Mark, 2SH, Farer.
Well, all these simple diagrams have some unresolvable problems that make them fail the stress test when analyzing content dependencies. It's good news that something turns out to be false.
Another serious attempt to solve the synoptic problem was to reconstruct Marcion's gospel and prove its priority. Adding another box called *Ev solved the main content problems. However, the linguistic side of the reconstruction was assessed with skepticism. Klinghardt proposed a new evangelical author and this is the most criticized point. There were more boxes and more relationships between them, but it was not enough to convince other biblical scholars.
I don't know anything about it, but I want to draw the right conclusions from the recommendations of biblical scholars. The problem is that the recommendations are contradictory. Therefore, I am looking for points common to all biblical scholars and I look only at those findings where they agree.
Such a point is represented by Goodacre when he states that the only model where the contents M, Mtt, L can be distributed is the multi-source hypothesis. Then all content relationships are explained. The problem with the multiple-source hypothesis is the lack of evidence for the existence of these sources.
The solution to this problem is the joint work of evangelists on the figure of the historical Jesus and the exchange of mutual achievements, as well as the key role of the Publisher, who decides on the shape of the published publication. And this is the proof. No gospel is homogeneous. These are all heterogeneous products - this is indicated by Venn diagrams and content distribution. Klinghardt wanted to prove that *Ev is a homogeneous product of one author, but he probably failed. *Ev is a heterogeneous product.
How it happened.
Let's take Bill Watterson's Calvin & Hobbes comic strips. Published individually in newspapers, they were also published as collections in several books. They were the same newspaper strips, arranged in the same order, only published in a different form. The strips are little pericopes. Most often, they function independently or in small groups - 2-4 strips describing a given event.
Bill worked independently because he somehow managed to come up with outfits to meet publishing deadlines. He worked independently because he made the decision and had the exclusive right to make it.
But this is not always the case. Thorgal - a comic book hero invented by a Polish cartoonist and a Belgian screenwriter, has been developed for over 40 years and so far the authors have included 4 scriptwriters and 5 cartoonists.
So what happened to the gospels? There was a need to create a publication intended for missionaries to provide the same standard content. This was not entrusted to one author, but to a group of people who supported each other in their creation. Why - because it was the publisher's interest that defined it. The publisher is interested in effectiveness and deadlines, not the homogeneity or heterogeneity of a literary work. It has to be efficient because time is money.
They wrote their strips - pericopes which were then sent to editors and from which subsequent editions were created - *Ev, Mark, Matthew, John, Luke. Or vice versa - I don't insist on this order. But I insist on the process.
I know it seems unbelievable to everyone. The problem is that you're asking the wrong people so far.
There are no authors where the work is anonymous, only product managers, publishers and project managers.
I love Bill and I'm glad he made 100 million off Calvin. He could have made 10 times more if he allowed it to be offered in merchandising. He was faithful to his hero whom he brought into existence and whose existence he ended.

[Giuseppe]

They wrote their strips - pericopes which were then sent to editors and from which subsequent editions were created - *Ev, Mark, Matthew, John, Luke. Or vice versa - I don't insist on this order. But I insist on the process.

I start to see where the theological dispute enters in your scenario: the editors, from the your description, are as politicians, i.e. interested only to intercept the popular favor (and possibly: money).

After the release of the first edition (*Ev), the editors saw that the masses were showing clues of disaffection towards Marcionite theology, hence they released new editions (Mark, Matthew and Luke) where subtle traces of anti-marcionism were sown here and there in order to satisfy the majority of the new audience.

Something of similar to new movies introducing themes that reflect better the new ideologies without the explicit rejection of the recipients used to vehicle old ideologies (case in point: the Lord of the Rings).

[Giuseppe]

This explains the difference between an Irenaeus and a Canonical Gospel.

• Irenaeus could be explicit and frank in his own rejection of marcionism: "I hate Marcion and I don't like everything written by him".

• A Canonical Gospel couldn't be so explicit and frank, since it worked on the same narrative of *Ev and addressed the same audience (marcionites and not-marcionites). Hence the presence in it of subte traces of anti-marcionism, traces that are so subtle that allow "biblical scholars" (plus the Peter Kirby of the moment) to ignore them and proclaim even their absence.

[StephenGoranson]

JarekS, you repeat your view that some person or central agency in Rome supplied early Christianity "product," top down,
but I don't see that you have shown that to be actually the case.

Apparently there were differences between or among early Christians. Walter Bauer's book Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity is one expression of that view.

Added:
For example, what would prevent an author who was not part or your purported "syndicate" to write a gospel,
which others could evaluate, accept or not, as they chose?

[JarekS]

Giuseppe. The discovery at Nag Hammadi exposed the lies of the Orthodox about the Gnostics, and yet biblical scholars reconstruct Marcion's theology based on the accusations of the Orthodox who were hostile to him. This is something I don't understand at all. How can so many people not notice the techniques of black PR, propaganda and disinformation.
Marcion sold the same Christ as the Orthodox - that's why he was terrible. Because he was effective. And he probably started first before anyone else.

[JarekS]

Stephen. Marcion came from Sinope but was a member of the Roman commune for at least a few years. He supported her financially and content-wise, as his enemies confirm. Together with other leaders, they implemented, among other things, a project of creating content in the form of publications intended for missionaries. The Gospels and other writings were intended directly for the missionaries and indirectly for the faithful (read in fragments by the missionaries). Early Christian writings were successful when copied by organized structures. Anyone could write the gospel - not everyone could distribute it. Christian publications were financed by leaders at the stage when they professionalized the staff by creating purpose-driven structures - some write the scriptures, others read them to the faithful, someone runs PR, ...
The textual entanglement of the synoptic gospels and Burkett's unequivocal statement, with which every biblical scholar will agree (none of the canonical gospels was the first or was the source), lead to one conclusion - the Gospel Christ was developed by common effort at the same time and place.
Walther Bauer was right in describing this differentiation, but overall he showed a natural phenomenon - people create content freely, but only a few people win the competition on the market by the decision of the recipients.
The Gospels are top-down invented products, as the research of Ludemann and Jesus Seminar has already thoroughly shown - most of the Gospel content is a rewriting of literary constructs known from the LXX, from ancient romances.

[StephenGoranson]

JarekS, you have repeated your "marketing and content sales" pitch.
No sale.

[JarekS]

I know

[StephenGoranson]

The question remains, whether your one-source total manufacture proposal is so obviously true.
Or whether, though I don't see that proposal as plausible, I am allowed to think something different.

[JarekS]

Let's try it differently. According to the Jesus Seminar, 18% of the gospels are some kind of historical account. According to Ludemann, only 5%. And these are completely different percentages of the Gospel text. So about 80-95% is invented tradition. None of the gospels is homogeneous and all of them contain common parts. No canonical text was the first or a source for any other canonical text. Regardless of what gospel you choose as the primary gospel, you still need to create hypothetical, at least 2 different versions of the proto-evangelium.

With this in mind, please suggest a solution other than mine. I want to know such a solution