The big question for me...

[rgprice]

I believe that much of the content of the New Testament was revised by one or more proto-Catholic editors. But this then raises a major question. If these documents were revised by orthodox editors, then why didn't they do a better job of it?

The way that I envision this having happened is as follows:

The first edition of the NT was created around 150-160.

At least the Gospels of Mark, Marcion, John and Matthew were written prior to the compilation of the first edition of the NT.

The Gospel of Luke, Acts of the Apostles, and the Pastorals may have been written by the person who created the first edition of the NT. Or maybe by a small group of people who made the NT. As such, the writer of Luke had access to virtually all of the material in the NT (with the exception of maybe a few works that were added later).

Many features of the NT material can be explained as orthodox revisions to teh text at the time of the creation of the NT, but there are also many features of the texts that contradict orthodox positions, show poor editing, leave contradictions in place both within individual documents and across the documents.

So the question is, if someone were editing these materials to bring them in-line with orthodox views, then why didn't they do a better job of it?

So far, my only answer for this is that they were rushed and had limited resources. This again supports the idea that it was one person who did this, or at most a small group of a few people. The scenario I envision is that Marcion's New Testament had recently come out and was gaining popularity. Someone wanted to react to it, to put out a collection that was claimed to have preceded Marcion's works so they had to assemble the material very quickly, like within a year or two of Marcion's works becoming public. So they cobbled together what they could find, and appropriated Marcion's materials as well, thus revising Marcion's collection of Pauline letters into the orthodox version by adding the Pastorals and making a few key interpolations and by making the Gospel of Luke, which mostly just adds on new material to the beginning and being of Marcion's Gospel.

But is this a reasonable explanation? What else could explain so many of the "flaws" that exist within the NT anthology?

Of course Irenaeus and others pointed to the imperfections of the NT as evidence that the works were authentic and untampered, which is why they contained contradictions because they were written by different people, but the existence of contradictions proved they hadn't been harmonized. So, could leaving in some contradictions actually have been an intentional ploy? It should be noted that at this time in this culture, literary forgery had practically become a science, in which great expertise had been developed. But was this type of flawed editing employed in the art of fraud and forgery?

[Charles Wilson]

You're asking the right questions!

Howard Teeple writes his Literary Origins of the Gospel of John on the basis of finding the Greek Definite Article in front of some names but not others. There appear to be some Types of Doctrine/Text associated with these appearances. He finds an "S" - Source. a "G" - Gnostic, an "R", Redactor and an "E" - Editor as Major Strands in John.

Yet, if there was an Editor who oversaw the last Organization of John, why wouldn't he have smoothed over the Arthrous/Anarthrous Sections to make a Unified Whole?

Further, John appears to answer/correct the Synoptics within the Dogma from an entire different Ministry. Why? We can trace the multiple Authorships to what appears to be an Original Common Story that was dismembered and rewrittten. Why?
(I see the Original as being centered on the Mishmarot Priesthood. YMMV.)

There is, as Maccoby asserts, a Political Aspect here and, as we are all seeing today, Politics changes directions with the winds.
Is this why the Texts were rushed?

I'm with you on this one, RGP.

CW

[rgprice]

That's for that, looks like an interesting book, I'll have to check that out.

I think that the NT and many parts of it were "rushed to market" in the middle of the second century seems so far to me like the best explanation for the poor editing of the materials, but I admit it leaves me a little dissatisfied.

On the other hand, consider the alternative if we were to take the works as having developed in the first century and been treasured within various communities prior to having been put into the NT. That's basically the consensus view.

I think that position has an even hard time explaining the poor editing of the materials. How could John have existed within a community and been a treasured work that existed for between 40 and 200 years prior to being put into the NT, or at least 40 to 60 years before coming into the hands of church fathers, and have so many editorial problems in it?

That such works were cobbled together rapidly seems to make more sense.

[Irish1975]

Of course Irenaeus and others pointed to the imperfections of the NT as evidence that the works were authentic and untampered,

I am curious to see the passages where Irenaeus (or Tertullian, etc.) says this.

which is why they contained contradictions because they were written by different people, but they existence of contradictions proved they hadn't been harmonized. So, could leaving in some contradictions actually have been an intentional ploy? It should be noted that at this time in this culture, literary forgery had practically become a science, in which great expertise had been developed. But was this type of flawed editing employed in the art of fraud and forgery?

Contradictions were not an unintentional flaw for the catholic editor. A few reasons--

1. The Jewish scriptures were not a model of logical coherence. There were different tellings of the same stories, e.g. the Deuteronomist vs. the Chronicler.

2. The purported witnesses were "12 apostles" and Paul: a diverse group known within the narrative for their individual and collective flaws. Paul, the first witness, boasts of his weaknesses, and accepts that other apostles preach Christ somewhat differently than he (Corinthians).

3. The Church specifically wanted to reconcile divergent 2nd century groups. The Jewish/Gentile split, an occasion for many contradictions, was openly confessed and witnessed to by the emerging Church, albeit in the cartoonish terms of Luke. The Quartodeciman controversy over the date of Easter, and perhaps a wider controversy over the Gospel of John, needed to be resolved. So there was a "wide tent" approach.

4. Only the extreme few who could both read and have extensive access to the scriptures, such as Origen or Jerome, actually had the opportunity to wrestle with so many contradictions. This codex anthology was never meant to be distributed in every hotel room. The diversity of texts allowed bishops and churches to make judicious use of this or that text as occasion demanded.

5. Faith and paradox. The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life. This is fuzzy, but it is clear that Christians have always had, and still have, a knack for seeing "divine paradox" where a skeptical mind can only see absurdity and contradiction. When I look back to my younger days as a believer, it is remarkable that I never particularly noticed or cared about biblical contradictions. Faith forestalls certain questions and anesthetizes critical analysis.

[Irish1975]

Sloppiness and contradictions are different issues. I agree that the editorial sloppiness in gJohn noted by Robert reflects a rush to market. Although textual insertions and emendations continued for centuries, we should also suppose an immediate conservative reluctance to mess with the divine word. Another explanation is that many of these scribes were dim or poorly educated.

[rgprice]

I am curious to see the passages where Irenaeus (or Tertullian, etc.) says this.

I know I've read over this a few times, but I don't recall the exact passages. Origen's commentary on John contains some examples: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101510.htm

1. The Jewish scriptures were not a model of logical coherence. There were different tellings of the same stories, e.g. the Deuteronomist vs. the Chronicler.

I never considered that, good point.

5. Faith and paradox. The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life. This is fuzzy, but it is clear that Christians have always had, and still have, a knack for seeing "divine paradox" where a skeptical mind can only see absurdity and contradiction. When I look back to my younger days as a believer, it is remarkable that I never particularly noticed or cared about biblical contradictions. Faith forestalls certain questions and anesthetizes critical analysis.

True, but to me the question still remains: Would an editor have intentionally left errors, contradictions, oddities in these texts as a cover in order to be able to claim that he hadn't edited the texts? Or is this more a matter of sloppy work?

[robert j]

Perhaps along with writing a few harmonizing texts themselves, I wonder if those individuals that gathered together the NT in the second century had at least two primary goals. The first, mentioned by Irish1975 above.

First, to gather together as many of the diverse Christian texts in use at the time --- texts in which they could tolerate the doctrinal concepts --- in order to cast a wide net for the purpose of bringing diverse groups together. A critical mass over which they might gain authority and patronage.

And secondly, to exclude groups whose doctrines they deemed not tolerable (heretical).

Clement of Alexandria seems to reflect such efforts in his apologetics in his Stromata ---

From what has been said, then, it is my opinion that the true church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those who according to God's purpose are just, are enrolled. … In the nature of the One, then, is associated in a joint heritage the one church, which they strive to cut asunder into many sects.

Therefore in substance and idea, in origin, in pre-eminence, we say that the ancient and catholic (καθολικὴν, universal) church (ἐκκλησίαν) is alone, collecting as it does into the unity of the one faith -- which results from the peculiar Testaments, or rather the one Testament in different times by the will of the one God, through one Lord -- those already ordained, whom God predestinated, knowing before the foundation of the world that they would be righteous …

Of the heresies, some receive their appellation from a name, as that which is called after Valentinus, and that after Marcion, and that after Basilides … (Stromata, 7.17)

And just prior to that in Book 7 of the Stromata ---

For we have, as the source of teaching, the Lord, both by the prophets, the Gospel, and the blessed apostles, in divers manners and at sundry times, leading from the beginning of knowledge to the end. But if one should suppose that another origin was required, then no longer truly could an origin be preserved …

For we must never, as do those who follow the heresies, adulterate the truth, or steal the canon of the church, by gratifying our own lusts and vanity … (Stromata, 7.16)

ETA: OK, I think I fixed my mix metaphors.

[perseusomega9]

Remember Irenaeus tells us that each sect used a singular gospel. The NT is a consensus document casting the widest net for the most fish. Some quick edits and now some of those Valentinians, Basilideans, Markionites, etc can join the catholic church because they have the same books and miracle of miracles, they're actually in agreement.

[davidmartin]

First, to gather together as many of the diverse Christian texts in use at the time --- texts in which they could tolerate the doctrinal concepts --- in order to cast a wide net for the purpose of bringing diverse groups together. A critical mass over which they might gain authority and patronage

Great answer I think this is the primary reason
Just looking at Acts one can see a harmonising of Paul and Peter factions under one roof
The various texts that came in couldn't be completely re-written but were edited by various people of different abilities. I believe they did attempt to standardise on Matthew or make a gospel harmony standard like the Diatessaron (which worked in Syria) but by the mid to late 2nd century the earlier productions were too entrenched

Nothing makes this clearer than the doctrine of hell which is glaringly absent from some NT texts, and prominent in others depending on where it originally came from

[neilgodfrey]

As others have pointed out, inconsistencies and contradictions abound in the Jewish Scriptures, too. Even Genesis 1 is contradicted by Genesis 2.

Some have seen similarities with Greek historical writing where different versions were presented side by side but the difference with the OT, of course, is that the author does not intrude to point out what he's doing -- so we are left with contradictory versions (e.g. David's rise to power) without explanation.

That removal of the author's voice may be seen as a ploy to add greater authority to the texts. Ben Smith here and I once discussed the possibility that the gospels were emulating this genre of "scripture writing".

I've since seen arguments that little contradictions and story variants arouse reader/audience involvement, thought, recreation in their own minds about things, and this all contributes to an investment of emotional and mental effort and belief. That's the explanation that contradictory etc Greek myths were believed for so long. Ditto the gospels.

On a more practical level, it would be a hellovalotof work to revise all the literature, so a minimalist approach would be a smart move -- leave anything that can be interpreted in the proto-orthodox way and against Marcionism as it is. Just work on the stuff that can't be so easily interpreted.

And having in elements that are dear to as wide a community as possible is a good catholic practice -- even at the cost of inconsistencies.