The "Christian" Big Bang

[rgprice]

It seems as if we are faced with two possibilities.

1) The worship of Jesus Christ began around the middle of the first century and slowly developed over a period of about 100 years. Along the way narratives were written about Jesus that somewhat slowly evolved over time and by the mid-second century many different groups had adopted these stories with varying interpretations of them.

2) There was a sort of "big bang" in the early-mid 2nd century when the first Gospel story was written and upon the writing of this story, within the span about about 5 years, dozens of variants of the story were produced - spawning or having been spawned by - various individuals and groups all offering similar, but different, interpretations of these stories. This seems to have happened somewhere around 120-140. So within the span of roughly 5-10 years there went from 0 stories about "Jesus Christ" with perhaps just a few minor followers who viewed Jesus merely as a figure known through Jewish scriptures, to tens of thousands of worshipers of Jesus Christ - a figure known to them through the Gospel stories.

Under the big bang view the proliferation of Gospel stories in the first 5-10 years would be attributed to the fact that they were anonymously written and not yet considered sacred by anyone. So there would have been a brief period of a few years were writers freely modified the story without consideration or limitation. With neither authorial attribution nor scriptural authority, there were no checks against modifying the story.

But by around 170-180 various groups had settled on "their versions" of the story and those versions then became authoritative and from that point those versions became much less subject to modification.

Is the "big bang" theory really plausible? Late dating of the Gospels seems to require it.

[mlinssen]

Why would "Late dating of the Gospels seems to require it." be the case?

How can you leave out the most essential part of an OP like this? The least you should have done is state

Late dating of the Gospels seems to require it, because
1. Cdgf
2. Gdesd
3. K te sase

There is no late dating at all, there is dating that is corroborated by content of texts as well as textual finds, and it points to 2nd half of 2nd CE for the earliest Christian texts - without saying anything about Chrestian ones

There is the awesome mystery of untouchability, yes: why do we have nothing but similar if not identical versions of the thousands of bits found?
Or rather, is it a mystery? What we witness is that no one bothered to do a minor rewrite of a text by changing e.g. a quarter or less / more: they'd rather write their own completely new version in stead

And perhaps the Church just eradicated everything else

[mlinssen]

And perhaps we should see everything in the light of the early centuries, where writing a text perhaps even outweighed building a house.
What did it cost, who would do it, when, where, how often?

Was it even possible for a scribe to alter more than a word or so? I don't think so, I think it was an extreme peer review process and an interesting read in this regard is

SCRIBAL HABITS AND THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT by Andrew Wilson

https://www.academia.edu/12896529/Scrib ... pp_95_126_

The text got longer over the years, ever so slightly and slowly - but copying didn't really mess with texts at all, so to say.
Then all we have is our single source of gossip: the FF - and what the dessert is still willing to give up to us

[Giuseppe]

Surely I am inclined to think that "there was a sort of "big bang" in the early-mid 2nd century when the first Gospel story was written". At any case this doesn't exclude the possibility that there was a sort of "big gang" also in the first century: I mean the dreams, visions, revelations, "oracles of the Lord Jesus", in a word hallucinations, that were the original impulse of the various Christian sects. The evidence of a such hallucinatory "big bang" at the Origins is in the epistles, beyond their authenticity or less (since they preceded the gospels).

The irrational feature of the early Christian revelations is sufficient alone to throw doubt about the historicity of the presumed founder.

[MrMacSon]

It seems as if we are faced with two possibilities.

1) The worship of Jesus Christ began around the middle of the first century and slowly developed over a period of about 100 years. Along the way narratives were written about Jesus that somewhat slowly evolved over time and by the mid-second century many different groups had adopted these stories with varying interpretations of them.

2) There was a sort of "big bang" in the early-mid 2nd century when the first Gospel story was written and upon the writing of this story, within the span about 5 years, dozens of variants of the story were produced - spawning or having been spawned by - various individuals and groups all offering similar, but different, interpretations of these stories. This seems to have happened somewhere around 120-140. So, within the span of roughly 5-10 years there went from 0 stories about "Jesus Christ" with perhaps just a few minor followers who viewed Jesus merely as a figure known through Jewish scriptures, to tens of thousands of worshipers of Jesus Christ - a figure known to them through the Gospel stories.

Under the big bang view the proliferation of Gospel stories in the first 5-10 years would be attributed to the fact that they were anonymously written and not yet considered sacred by anyone. So there would have been a brief period of a few years were writers freely modified the story without consideration or limitation. With neither authorial attribution nor scriptural authority, there were no checks against modifying the story.

But by around 170-180 various groups had settled on "their versions" of the story and those versions then became authoritative and from that point those versions became much less subject to modification.

Is the "big bang" theory really plausible? Late dating of the Gospels seems to require it.

That comes across to me as a false dichotomy.

It could apply to orthodoxy but, even then, there are other possibilities for the development of orthodoxy.

Furthermore, afaik, we don't have evidence for the synoptic gospels being associated with groups or groups forming around them (perhaps not ever?). We can envisage a Marcionite community and perhaps a Johannine community.* And at least one community for each of the Simonian, Sethian, Valentinian, and other so-called 'gnostic' theologies. If the propositions/ theories about a 2nd century origin for all of the near-canonical versions of the synoptic gospels is true, those 'gnostic' groups likely existed before the synoptic gospels were written.

* There's a theory that the Johannine epistles preceded the 'Gospel-attributed-to-John', so, if that's the case, a Johannine community may well have preceded the writing of all the canonical gospels.

As for -

But by around 170-180 various groups had settled on "their versions" of the story and those versions then became authoritative; and from that point those versions became much less subject to modification

- I can agree that a core version of each of the canonical gospels had been settled [on], but, afaik, whether groups had coalesced around each of them remains to be seen; except perhaps for G.John.

Don't forget even Tertullian supposedly moved away from orthodoxy to join the Montanists; or, at least, to be one.

Clement of Alexandria seemed to be of an independent 'philosopher of new theologies' category, as perhaps were others, including Origen, rather than a group or community leader.

Then there's the Arianism vs 'the Orthodox' thing which, afaik, doesn't fit neatly into the " 'Orthodox' vs 'Gnostics' " disputes.

Marcionism persisted for a few centuries: perhaps into the 6th century, at least.

When the true Catholic Church formed is, afaik, also not clear. Is seems there was a Constantinople origin of 'orthodoxy' based largely on a persisting influence of Irenaeus and Tertullian, facilitated by the Council of Nicea, and perhaps also facilitated as much if not more by Epiphanius (+/- others) than by Eusebius (and Lanctantius) ...

[rgprice]

There's a theory that the Johannine epistles preceded the 'Gospel-attributed-to-John', so, if that's the case, a Johannine community may well have preceded the writing of all the canonical gospels.

Yes, but there is also a theory that the Johannine epistles were written by people trying to imitate the style of the Gospel of John. So basically there is a theory for everything. There are theories for the precedence of each Gospel. I've also seen a lot of pushback against the idea of any real "Johannine community".

But it seems that whatever the case, if the Gospels originated around 130, then there had to have been an explosion of them. Like one day there were none, then someone wrote a story, and then within 1-3 years there were now 10 versions of that story. Some period went by where writers felt free to modify the story however they wanted. Then at some point some versions of those stories, among different groups, came to be seen as official versions or correct versions, and those versions were perpetuated with a minimum of modification.

If we postulate an origin of the Gospels in the mid to late 1st century, then of course the stories could have proliferated and changed over a much longer period of time.

[MrMacSon]

There's also potential roles for the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip in the development of the canonical Gospels (scholars are divided as to whether G.Philip should be read as a single discourse or as a collection of otherwise unrelated Valentinian sayings)

[MrMacSon]

Yes, but there is also a theory that the Johannine epistles were written by people trying to imitate the style of the Gospel of John.

Well, that'd still suggest a collective [of people] doing that ie. a group or community

I was going to say, "something we don't have as much indication of champions or precedences for each of the synoptic gospels" but perhaps Tertullian was championing G.Luke +/- G.Matthew; and, of course, there's the proposition that the author of Mark was championing Paul. So perhaps you're more right than I was in that first-thought post above.

I've also seen a lot of pushback against the idea of any real "Johannine community".

Fair enough. Though, as I think some of the Johannine theology may have preceded the synoptic theology, I tend to think a group or community contemplating such theology may have inspired the so-called 'Johannine tradition'.

But, otherwise, it's all speculation depending on other speculation at present.

There are theories for the precedence of each Gospel.

Though it seems that current predominant views have Matthew based on Mark and or Marcion; or in conjunction with Luke.

But it seems that whatever the case, if the Gospels originated around 130, then there had to have been an explosion of them. Like one day there were none, then someone wrote a story, and then within 1-3 years there were now 10 versions of that story. Some period went by where writers felt free to modify the story however they wanted. Then at some point some versions of those stories, among different groups, came to be seen as official versions or correct versions, and those versions were perpetuated with a minimum of modification.

I'm not familiar with the scholarship on the different early versions of the canonical gospels. Is there any?

If we postulate an origin of the Gospels in the mid to late 1st century, then of course the stories could have proliferated and changed over a much longer period of time.

I don't think there's any evidence of that. Other than the assertions that there were single true versions all the way to Irenaeus and beyond

[mlinssen]

There's a theory that the Johannine epistles preceded the 'Gospel-attributed-to-John', so, if that's the case, a Johannine community may well have preceded the writing of all the canonical gospels.

Yes, but there is also a theory that the Johannine epistles were written by people trying to imitate the style of the Gospel of John. So basically there is a theory for everything. There are theories for the precedence of each Gospel. I've also seen a lot of pushback against the idea of any real "Johannine community".

But it seems that whatever the case, if the Gospels originated around 130, then there had to have been an explosion of them. Like one day there were none, then someone wrote a story, and then within 1-3 years there were now 10 versions of that story. Some period went by where writers felt free to modify the story however they wanted. Then at some point some versions of those stories, among different groups, came to be seen as official versions or correct versions, and those versions were perpetuated with a minimum of modification.

If we postulate an origin of the Gospels in the mid to late 1st century, then of course the stories could have proliferated and changed over a much longer period of time.

You must perceive the circular reasoning here, I think.
People (well, sheeple really) used to go by the lies of the FF and think that everything originated in 40-50 CE.
Now we go by the extant texts found and their paleographic dating, and I personally think that carbondating them won't change an awful lot as that also assigns a -50 / +50 span of years around the most likely date.
So the upper limit now gets determined by the dating of the FF to and of the FF themselves, and lo and behold we run into a really tight squeeze!

The thing is, with the fragmentary state of MSS we can't say whether we are looking at a Chrestian MS or a Christian MS, most of the time. If there's a resurrection, birth narrative or anything that smells like Judaic roots, it's guaranteed to be Christian - but if there isn't, then how do we know what we hold in our hands?

So, Geoff, tell me: what to you is the main argument for wielding the date that you do? Internal dating of the FF by and of the FF, I presume - but I'll enjoy a pleasant urprise

[MrMacSon]

... what...is the main argument for wielding the date that you do? Internal dating of the FF by and of the FF, I presume ...

We mainly go on tradition, afaik, though I think some of the 3rd century non-Christian texts such as those of Plotinus and Porphyry give witness to Christianity then, ie. in the mid 3rd century, that fits with what is traditionally said before then:

fragments from Against the Christians do not exhibit deep metaphysical disagreements; they are mostly concerned with particular, non-philosophical claims made in 'the Bible' and by Christians that Porphyry finds incredible and objectionable. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/porphyry/

We may as well continue with the traditional dating of the Church Fathers (though we still ought to be wary about the authenticity of accounts about Porphyry's Against the Christians.^1,2 And I suspect a reasonable amount of what is attributed to the likes of Tertullian are later embellishments: perhaps even whole texts in Tertullian's case)

1. search 'Porphyry' here https://tertullian.org/fathers/porphyry ... gments.htm
2. see pp.16-18ff here https://archive.org/details/against-the ... 3/mode/2up