Evolution of the Gospel - Enoch Powell
Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2021 1:10 pm
Hello all, this is my first post here.
I am relatively new to Biblical scholarship, which I began largely for literary reasons (I have been learning Greek for some time now, and was interested in koine).
I came across and read a book by Enoch Powell (yes - that one), called "The Evolution of the Gospel" where he used the methodology he developed in his studies of the textual history of Herodotus to do a (clearly "avant garde") reconstruction of the early history of the gospels. I was very keen to hear some more detailed thoughts on it, personally I found it highly convincing but he makes a number of outlandish assertions (though this seems to be a popular game in the field), including:
1) Jesus was not crucified, he was stoned to death for blasphemy by Jewish religious authorities. This was more based on historical concerns (Jesus, at least in the account given in the gospels, does not commit any crimes against the RE and there is no reason for them to intervene in what was a matter for the religious authorities) rather than textual analysis but wondered what we think of this?
2) Matthew comes first. This I was most puzzled by as (acknowledged in the book) it seems pretty near consensus that it goes Mark, Q - Luke and Matthew cribbing the two. The justifications EP gives are quite beyond me although I recommend the book to give a fuller account of them. Many of his dating methods are sound (at least regarding obvious stuff such as predictions about the temple being destroyed), and it certainly seems (to a rank amateur, I must add) that Matthew's gospel appears the lightest on detail out of MML.
3) According to Powell the text is a kind of compromise between two factions, one proselytizing gentiles who provide the original core of the text, with its pro-Roman and pro gentile conversion (Powell interprets for example the exorcisms as referring to gentiles rejecting the pagan gods, and highlights how the roman soldier's son is used as one of the examples, among other things). This text also allegedly rejected Jewish law (the "camel and the eye of a needle" becomes an allegory where "wealth" is "outward obedience of the law". The text then undergoes revisions in post-revolt Jerusalem where amendments are made to make it more friendly Jewish Christians, as well as a thorough focus on the non-political nature of the messiah (render unto Caesar etc) for obvious reasons post revolt.
Powell has various examples where he says Luke and Mark are dependent on Matthew's text, and he seems to view them as inferior compositions. His focus on allegory I found fascinating - but I suppose my question (beyond asking for your general thoughts if you've read it) is whether this is as controversial as say his claims Jesus wasn't crucified. EP had a powerful contrarian streak and I'm interested to know which parts of this are considered 'normal' and which less so.
Apologies for the long post and I'm sure I've missed loads of things anyway, but any thoughts you have greatly welcome.
I am relatively new to Biblical scholarship, which I began largely for literary reasons (I have been learning Greek for some time now, and was interested in koine).
I came across and read a book by Enoch Powell (yes - that one), called "The Evolution of the Gospel" where he used the methodology he developed in his studies of the textual history of Herodotus to do a (clearly "avant garde") reconstruction of the early history of the gospels. I was very keen to hear some more detailed thoughts on it, personally I found it highly convincing but he makes a number of outlandish assertions (though this seems to be a popular game in the field), including:
1) Jesus was not crucified, he was stoned to death for blasphemy by Jewish religious authorities. This was more based on historical concerns (Jesus, at least in the account given in the gospels, does not commit any crimes against the RE and there is no reason for them to intervene in what was a matter for the religious authorities) rather than textual analysis but wondered what we think of this?
2) Matthew comes first. This I was most puzzled by as (acknowledged in the book) it seems pretty near consensus that it goes Mark, Q - Luke and Matthew cribbing the two. The justifications EP gives are quite beyond me although I recommend the book to give a fuller account of them. Many of his dating methods are sound (at least regarding obvious stuff such as predictions about the temple being destroyed), and it certainly seems (to a rank amateur, I must add) that Matthew's gospel appears the lightest on detail out of MML.
3) According to Powell the text is a kind of compromise between two factions, one proselytizing gentiles who provide the original core of the text, with its pro-Roman and pro gentile conversion (Powell interprets for example the exorcisms as referring to gentiles rejecting the pagan gods, and highlights how the roman soldier's son is used as one of the examples, among other things). This text also allegedly rejected Jewish law (the "camel and the eye of a needle" becomes an allegory where "wealth" is "outward obedience of the law". The text then undergoes revisions in post-revolt Jerusalem where amendments are made to make it more friendly Jewish Christians, as well as a thorough focus on the non-political nature of the messiah (render unto Caesar etc) for obvious reasons post revolt.
Powell has various examples where he says Luke and Mark are dependent on Matthew's text, and he seems to view them as inferior compositions. His focus on allegory I found fascinating - but I suppose my question (beyond asking for your general thoughts if you've read it) is whether this is as controversial as say his claims Jesus wasn't crucified. EP had a powerful contrarian streak and I'm interested to know which parts of this are considered 'normal' and which less so.
Apologies for the long post and I'm sure I've missed loads of things anyway, but any thoughts you have greatly welcome.