Nonsynoptic texts and the synoptic problem.

[Ben C. Smith]

Really? You think that Justin's community and Marcion's community could have independently come up with the same idea given that Irenaeus's reports that Justin hated Marcion? Interesting. Unless of course you buy into the BS that Tatian 'broke' with Justin simply because Irenaeus's contemporaries knew Tatian's beliefs much better than Justin's (so he could be put up as an exemplar of orthodoxy, this even though the Philosophumena may well be referencing his heresy in its section on 'Justinus'). Even without this distraction it is hard to believe that later users of the Diatessaron (= Ephrem for instance) came from a tradition which 'invented' the flying Jesus coincidentally with the Marcionite 'invention' of a similarly docetic Jesus, especially when it is the same event is referenced Jesus passing through the crowd as they try to push him off the cliff. One tradition has Jesus fly above the Jews, the other has the crowd pass through Jesus. The end result is the same - they all die - as they plunge over the precipice. The independent development of this story in two hostile communities is not remotely possible IMO. The story wasn't added but rather Luke 'tamed' it's significance. There can be no other reasonable explanation IMO.

You are obviously arguing points that are waaaay down the road from simply assembling texts to be examined synoptically.

If you step back toward the stage at which the necessary first steps are made, you will plainly see that (A) two independent inventions of a flying Jesus and (B) the originality of that flying Jesus to whatever gospel or gospels we eventually find to be the earliest are not the only two options on the playing field.

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

You questioned whether the Diatessaron should be included in the list. Unless I missed something ...

[Ben C. Smith]

You questioned whether the Diatessaron should be included in the list. Unless I missed something ...

I did no such thing. I welcomed the Diatessaron as a perfectly good candidate for the list. Did you interpret my qualification as a denigration of some kind? It most certainly was not that.

Ben.

ETA: I did question a particular kind of argument (not even the exact argument itself) you made about the primitivity of a reading, but that was in no way meant to dislodge the Diatessaron from the list. All I was saying is that, if I wind up accepting any version(s) of the Diatessaron as more primitive than any or all of the synoptics, it probably will not be because of that kind of argument. That is all.

[Secret Alias]

Cool. Happy times.

[Secret Alias]

I take that 'happy times' back. This is what I had a problem with:

Perhaps we should qualify this little list somewhat by observing that, inasmuch as we are bringing such texts into the synoptic problem, we are treating them as primitive gospels or Ur-gospels, not as Diatessara. (A true Diatessaron would, by definition, presuppose all four canonical gospels and therefore not qualify as part of the problem of the composition of the first three.)

The users of the 'DIatessaron' did no call it so. I am not convinced that they believed it was a composite text either. Unfortunately that text (and Justin's gospel) do not survive. But we shouldn't assume that these texts were composite merely because those selling us another brand of gospel tell us so. Sort of like 'accepting' that red meat isn't bad for you merely because you heard something to that effect from the Beef Council.

As long as we leave open the question as to whether Justin's gospel was a 'harmony' or that Tatian's text was too (or if they were even distinct from one another), we can move forward without any complaint from me.

[Ben C. Smith]

I take that 'happy times' back. This is what I had a problem with:

Perhaps we should qualify this little list somewhat by observing that, inasmuch as we are bringing such texts into the synoptic problem, we are treating them as primitive gospels or Ur-gospels, not as Diatessara. (A true Diatessaron would, by definition, presuppose all four canonical gospels and therefore not qualify as part of the problem of the composition of the first three.)

The users of the 'DIatessaron' did no call it so. I am not convinced that they believed it was a composite text either. Unfortunately that text (and Justin's gospel) do not survive. But we shouldn't assume that these texts were composite merely because those selling us another brand of gospel tell us so. Sort of like 'accepting' that red meat isn't bad for you merely because you heard something to that effect from the Beef Council.

As long as we leave open the question as to whether Justin's gospel was a 'harmony' or that Tatian's text was too (or if they were even distinct from one another), we can move forward without any complaint from me.

Yes, but that is pretty much what I am saying. I am saying that, from our point of view (as those who would use these texts in the synoptic problem), these texts are not Diatessara. They are proto-gospels (a term I dislike, but I am trying to convey real meaning here). Of course we should not assume that these texts went through and harmonized all four gospels just because later Christians with different sensibilities said they did, any more than we should blithely assume that Marcion mutilated the gospel and the epistles just because Tertullian said he did. Of course we should have to mount an argument either way. My point is purely semantic: if these texts are proto-gospels to us, then they are no longer Diatessara, by definition. And to use the title Diatessaron might not only mislead onlookers but also perhaps even subtly bias the proceedings. (I have no substitute title in particular in mind, but I wanted to make the point, which has turned out harder to make than I anticipated, especially with someone I really thought would agree with it.)

Ben.

[Peter Kirby]

Here are a trio of texts of the kind I am talking about:

1. Alan Garrow has argued that the Didache (which is extant) may be an integral part of the synoptic problem, serving as what he calls an extant instance of Q between Matthew and Luke.
2. Various scholars have argued for the Marcionite Evangelion (which has to be reconstructed) as a more ancient version of our canonical Luke, thus integrating that reconstructed text (basically as an Ur-gospel) into the synoptic problem.
3. Recently Dennis R. MacDonald has argued, in Two Shipwrecked Gospels, that Luke is the latest of the synoptic gospels and that Luke-Acts drew on the Expositions of Papias (which work has to be reconstructed) as well as Mark, Matthew, and a proprietary version of Q, thus drawing the Hierapolitan father into the mix.

What other texts are perhaps worthy of being considered in (at least partial) solutions of the synoptic problem? What other texts have been so considered?

Ben.

Gospel of the Hebrews (and possibly two other variants)
Tatian's so-called Diatessaron
Justin's Gospel Harmony (assuming it was different from Tatian's)
The Arabic Diatessaron and other (late) gospel harmonies

The 'jewish-christian' gospels
http://earlychristianwritings.com/gospelegyptians.html
http://earlychristianwritings.com/gospelhebrews.html
http://earlychristianwritings.com/gospelebionites.html
http://earlychristianwritings.com/gospelnazoreans.html
http://earlychristianwritings.com/tradi ... thias.html

The fragmentary gospels ( eg P. Oxy. 840, 1224 )
http://earlychristianwritings.com/oxyrhynchus840.html
http://earlychristianwritings.com/oxyrhynchus1224.html
http://earlychristianwritings.com/fayyum.html
http://earlychristianwritings.com/dura.html

Lucan fragment "p69" (sometimes identified with Marcion's gospel)
+ all the patristic witnesses for Marcion's gospel

The Gospel of John
http://earlychristianwritings.com/john.html

The Gospel of Peter
http://earlychristianwritings.com/gospelpeter.html

The Gospel of Thomas
http://earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

The Gospel of the Savior
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelsavior.html

The Gospel of Judas
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospeljudas.html

Epistula Apostolorum
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/apostolorum.html

Infancy Gospel of James
http://earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html

Infancy Gospel of Thomas
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/ ... homas.html

[Ben C. Smith]

Good ones, Peter. Thanks. I guess my question ends up just being a hunt for early Christian documents. Virtually anything can figure in to the synoptic problem.

[Peter Kirby]

Good ones, Peter. Thanks. I guess my question ends up just being a hunt for early Christian documents. Virtually anything can figure in to the synoptic problem.

Well, sort of. We can perhaps start pruning this list if we think that some of them are strictly 'late' and dependent on the NT gospels.

And there doesn't seem much need to throw things into the mix if they don't have any synoptic material or gospel episodes.

I think it's a good idea. It could be the basis of an 'eclectic' synopsis.

As possible witnesses for the early state of the gospels, 1 Clement, the Ignatian epistles, and James (in addition to the Didache) are sometimes mined. James is also sometimes said to lie behind the gospels or to share oral tradition.

The Acts of the Apostles is sometimes said to transpose gospel material found in Luke's sources from that 'gospel' to the Acts.

Paul is sometimes said to the basis of Mark or Matthew.

[Ben C. Smith]

I think it's a good idea. It could be the basis of an 'eclectic' synopsis.

Well, the idea started with my little mental list of texts that I refuse to consider the synoptic problem without; this list includes the Didache and Marcion, for example. But I have been coming to see that perhaps we need to take all things into consideration at once. For instance, when I read Garrow about Matthew, Luke, and the Didache, I find myself wondering whether throwing Marcion in there would change things. And I wonder the same about MacDonald integrating Papias; what if both the Didache and Marcion are considered at the same time?

An eclectic synopsis is a nice idea; but wow, so complex.

Ben.