StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 10:06 am
Randy, perhaps you are misreading me.
You (nor anyone else that I know of)
have not provided evidence of
"some unknown imagined 'single common source'" [check the thread title].
I apologize if I haven't been clear--I tend to write run-on sentences which bury some arguments inside of each other. And in this case, I have phrased the argument in the form of a question (like on jeopardy
)
Nevertheless, I *have* argued that the manuscript tradition provides evidence for a single source. The evidence is that virtually *all* of the manuscripts, which we have even fragmentary remains of, were written in codices using nomina sacra.
Seems to me there are only 2 possibilities:
1. Either that tradition was created once and spread,
2. or it was created over and over again, all over the empire, virtually every time any scribe put pen to paper to first write out a sacred text.
The "jeopardy" question is: Which one of those possibilities seems more likely?
When, what date, was this putative universal switch of all imaginary unified Christians everywhere?
It had to happen *after* what was written was sacred scriptures. Perhaps early copies of Mark, and certainly the autographs of Paul's letters were written on scrolls. But they were not considered sacred scripture yet.
And it had to happen before virtually any of the manuscripts we have any scrap of were produced.
That narrows it down to right around the turn of the 2nd century.
Are you unaware of differing opinions?
Well, I consider you a friend, so apparently some of my friends have differing opinions
So, given that particular absence of evidence, why should I be convinced?
I don't know what evidence you wish to have is absent
Which is why I keep asking you for it, apparently to the point of trying your patience. Sorry ;-(
I notice that you also accept the gMark as allegory proposal, which rgprice
offers as, in effect, another single-source idea.
But, of course, it is not an allegory. Also, not persuasive.
Well, that is another can of worms. I was of the "of course its not!" school of thought when I started reading his book, but by the end I had changed my mind. Seldom have I ever been so gobsmacked by anything. It is certainly a very counter-intuitive hypothesis, going against the party line of virtually all religious and secular scholarship. The earliest readers of Mark who we know about (Matthew and Luke) took it literally, not allegorically. So believe me, I can understand why you don't agree, in fact, there's more work to do to really nail it down. E.g. if it could be shown that some other contemporary work, perhaps the shepherd of hermas, was written allegorically, and make a study of the early church fathers to demonstrate they all interpret scripture allegorically, that would help lot. There is a just-discovered 4th century text which gives an allegorical reading of the gospels: was that sui genres, or was it part of a tradition? But until that work is done, it's certainly reasonable to disagree with it.
A group may eventually and gradually mostly find a new formatting use handy, right?
Yes, but that's kinda the claim; just saying that *somebody* must have been the first, and as his book and copies of it spread around, other people took a look at it and thought it was a good idea. They then made *their* books that way, etc etc. And this whole process must have been completed by around the turn of the 2nd century. We may, in fact, not be so far apart on this as we both were assuming, come to think of it.