Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 2:17 am
What in God's holy name am I blathering about?
This statement deserves the the first annual BC&H
Vice Admiral James Stockdale Award for self awareness - Dilly Dilly!
Now that the academy award is out of the way, I'll address the OP.
You actually ask an excellent and very important question, even if you display a compete lack of understanding about the economic and logistical impact of "a long epistle" ... "sent out over the empire." It's not like you have a post office or better yet an email server, where you can upload millions of people and spam them all at once. You have to write on paper (papyrus) by hand. (1) So let me rephrase the question to be a little more worthy of discussion.
Why are the Gospels so long, and so complete, and were they used for Evangelism as their name implies, and that could be read from description of their use in Galatians and elsewhere in Paul?
I intentionally loaded several sub-points in there and implied a few others:
1) Why was there Evangelism?
2) Was the Gospel (singular) used for Evangelism or was something else written used?
3) What Gospel is Paul talking about in Galatians, (a) that he preaches, (b) that other one which says has been perverted (v 1:7, μεταστρέψαι)
Paul says he took this Gospel to "Jerusalem" to those reputed to be something (v2:1-2, 6-7a), and that they approved its content and "added nothing," and entrusted him with spreading the Gospel (Apostleship). Mind you he says they have no value to him, but that they did not object. So I think we are looking at divisions at this point even among those he reports to.
What we know about correspondence in this era is that it required transport by a courier. For important business and statecraft matters this is no issue. Further writing material was expensive and relatively scarce. Parchments were often reused multiple times to save money. So for Evangelism, it makes greatest sense to send a single book with an Apostle (envoy/emissary) containing what they need to know. This means they must be literate, as they have to read the book they are bringing. But they are walking so they are not going to bring that much. A scripta continua manuscript maximizes space and could make a single book an easy travel item. There would be no 2nd copies. One had to carry ones bedding and supplies with them like camping in the mountains today, so the lighter the better.
The above description I make, says that letters would not make a lot of sense in the initial mission, but perhaps later when synagogues (really a "house church", and I am using the term synagogue in the NT writers sense, as a building where people met) were established for the assembly of followers. What mattered was conveying the story to believe,
"I have made known to you, brothers, that the Gospel which I preached ('evangelized') to you, which you received and also stood, through which you are also saved, provided you hold fast with that word (i.e., 'doctrine') I preached ('evangelized') to you, unless you believed in vain. For I handed to you firstly, that Christ died for our sins, and he was buried, and he arose on the third day"
(shortest attested version of 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, which strikes me as original, as it lacks later polemic element "according to scripture").
To me this very much is a Gospel, a Synoptic Gospel in fact, which he is preaching. The letters, even in shortest forms are simply focusing on key theological points of contention between rival Christian sects.
The above simply sets the table. We now have to get back to your question. Why is what was used for evangelism a long Gospel (Mark is even 13 chapters plus a couple verses in the 14th, the Marcionite form of what became Luke was probably similar size, maybe a bit smaller)?
The Didache, which is a monastic document, suggests there was a time when sayings and stories were formed, and prayers made, along with rules for the community, which found their way into a Gospel. The Didache is too much of a rules and regulations type document for evangelism. But it does show Christian documents were produced in monastic settings, possibly before evangelism took off. The Gospel would be the tool that succeeded. But where did the material come from? How did it go from sayings and prayers and OT exegesis in monasteries into a Gospel form? Was there an intermediary step? Is what we call prototype Gospel a failed Gospel that didn't work for evangelism, but was incorporated by the Synoptic Gospel writers in a second try? Or perhaps it used for something else (IMO the better explanation) and developed with another function and purpose before becoming the Gospel literature we know?
There are many more questions that come from the wellspring of your question about why the Gospel form for evangelism. Questions about the structure and organization of the pre-evangelical Christian movement. How did so many sects appear immediately after the writings appear (they must have existed before, with such developed systems and competing Gospels, of which four survive)? Was it a monastic movement from a single location or was it in many locations when evangelism began?
Footnote:
(1)
it has been discovered that the truly ancient civilizations over 3000 years ago used to send letters to each other in Phoenician, carving the text in clay and then firing a couple of copies in the kiln. From this copper could be slightly heated and stamped to produce a hard copy for delivery. This was not cheap and probably limited to Kings. The Rosetta Stone was used to translate to the local tongue -- there have been a few of these type stones found in different locations. This is not a technique that would have been available to the early Christian writers and there is no evidence this clever method was used in the Roman days. ... or was it? We do have some copper scrolls from various sites such as the DSS. BUt we don't have any of the pottery dies.)
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift