I can't go there. There is too much overlap. There had to be a prototype, and in fact I think two forms. Largely this is based on technical evidence.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:47 amThe more I look into midrashic connections with the Hebrew scriptures I sometimes think we have no need to be looking for prototypes or ur-gospels. Rather, how about the literati studying, analysing, discussing and exchanging ideas, with the writing being limited to letters, small "talks" and mini-treatises. From here the first gospel was written -- even if in Greek, it had Hebrew discussions, ideas etc to draw upon. Perhaps the best explanation for the prototypes not surviving is that there were no such prototypes. Or what were those "memoirs of the apostles" Justin speaks of?Stuart wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:17 pm But I fully acknowledge Christianity grew out of some splinter of Judaism. And that of course it had to have started with at least some Aramaic speakers and Hebrew writers. The question for me is, at what stage of the prototype gospel formation did the language switch to Greek? Was the entire project Greek, or was there some earlier core that was Hebrew/Aramaic?
I would propose instead that the midrashic composition capability existed among the gospel writers, at least of the Marcionite and Matthew gospels. This may have been done in Greek (IMO that was the case, much like Philo's Theraputae communities) or in Hebrew. But these were built upon prototype gospels. Mark has no additional midrashic material, so I do not think he had that skill, much like he lacked knowledge of Malachi and Isaiah, such that he could not even identify passages from them.Mark in fact convinces me their was a prototype.
The weak point in the argument that there may not have been a prototype is shown by the Marcionite gospel and what looks like a Signs or other first version of John embedded within than gospel. We also have the earlier form of the Pauline letters, and within them many shorter letters. No manuscripts of these survive.
Note, I think we way underestimate the impact of the Diocletian persecution had on the survival of manuscripts. We really do not have any definite pre-4th century surviving manuscripts (a few contested, and mostly scraps) and we have clear text types among those early manuscripts, suggesting a relatively few archetype manuscripts were available to propagate the manuscripts we have. The other impact was the near complete disappearance of many non-canonical books. Certainly any prototypes that had survived the Decian and Diocletian persecutions would have gone the way of the Gospel of the Egyptians or the Psalms of the Marcionites (some may have survived by absorption into Catholic versions). In short the absence of prototype manuscripts is no more compelling an argument than similar ones about shorter forms of the Pauline letters.
Finally, I have come to the opinion that the (prototype) gospel goes back farther than their use in evangelism. This was a document that existed and was used for some other community purpose, perhaps as a religious play, before it was purposed as the evangelical gospels we know.
