The early history of Christian gospels

[Huon]

It seems to me that the way our mainstream biblical scholars still see the early history of Christian gospels can be best compared with Creationism. After all, each of our mainstream Synoptic theories today -- whether it is 2ST (Two Source Theory), 2GT (Two Gospels Theory), or Farrer -- is premised essentially on the assumption that all of the Synoptic gospels somehow emerged into the world in a single act of creation -- each put together by a single writer, it seems, an exegetical genius of some sort, locked up in a private study somewhere, and isolated from all the others. And after each of the gospels had been written down "during the first century", it had been frozen textually, more or less, somewhat miraculously perhaps?

But what I'm offering here, on the other hand, is essentially an evolutionary view of gospels' history. And, on this view, no single date of creation can ever be affixed to any of our 4 canonical gospels. Their development was a continuous process, that started perhaps even before 70 CE, and continued well past 200 CE. And, all throughout, while this process unfolded, there had been a lot of cross-pollination among the gospels -- the sort of a cross-pollination that's usually pretty obvious even to a casual reader. After all, especially after the 4 gospels had been assembled together into a single edition ca 170 CE, the whole collection was owned by the Church, so all 4 gospels had a potential common editor who was quite interested in making their accounts appear more harmonious.

And, in general, I find that if one discusses these matters with non-professionals, for a change, these non-professionals will usually express no surprise at all upon hearing that the Church continued to develop and "improve" these works for quite a long period of time as it saw fit. After all, it's a common enough assumption that the Church was the owner of these texts right from the beginning, so why wouldn't their owner continue to make some "improvements" to them, if it saw the need to do so?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I friendly disagree with you. Please tell me one mainstream scholar who thinks that the gospel of Mark is a creation of "a single writer, an exegetical genius".

Almost all scholars share your view.

[outhouse]

It seems to me that the way our mainstream biblical scholars still see the early history of Christian gospels can be best compared with Creationism. After all, each of our mainstream Synoptic theories today -- whether it is 2ST (Two Source Theory), 2GT (Two Gospels Theory), or Farrer -- is premised essentially on the assumption that all of the Synoptic gospels somehow emerged into the world in a single act of creation -- each put together by a single writer

You need to take a real class and learn the subjects, because no mainstream scholars are stating this, generally speaking.

Their development was a continuous process, that started perhaps even before 70 CE,

A little clue for ya brother

That is the current consensus .

[Ulan]

In principle, this should already be clear from the Two-Source hypothesis itself, which basically says that Matthew and Luke are rewrites of "Mark". And John is a commentary on "Mark". Even this is simplified, as Luke obviously used a different proto-Mark than Matthew, sans Bethsaida stories. If you then look at the Bethsaida stories, you see they have some peculiarities, which makes gMark composite. Later changes are obvious from the manuscript tradition and the texts of the church fathers.

So, yes, that's preaching to the choir.

[Peter Kirby]

Almost all scholars share your view.

That is the current consensus .

So, yes, that's preaching to the choir.

Wow, guys, way to gang up on Huon.

After all, each of our mainstream Synoptic theories today -- whether it is 2ST (Two Source Theory), 2GT (Two Gospels Theory), or Farrer -- is premised essentially on the assumption that all of the Synoptic gospels somehow emerged into the world in a single act of creation

IMO, not wrong, since none of these three theories involve positing multiple major recensions to Matthew, Luke, or Mark.

it had been frozen textually, more or less, somewhat miraculously perhaps?

A dramatic flourish, which seems to have caused misunderstanding and some level of hostility in the replies. Obviously there are manuscript variants. Obviously this forces everyone to acknowledge some level of textual instability. And obviously there are some scholars who find a lot more. But it's not entirely wrong here either, as there is a very strong tendency in a lot of scholarship to limit textual variation to the greatest possible extent (and never, ever to allow "conjectural emendation," hypothetical interpolations, etc.).

What is missing from the OP is an actual "evolutionary view of gospels' history," as I only see a reference to one, not the working out of one.

[outhouse]

Wow, guys, way to gang up on Huon.

Sorry Boss.

If he doesn't understand the books were compiled by a community who collected traditions important to them, how can he understand they were so important they did not go through radical changes afterwards? What is there to debate?

We all understand the ending of Mark was redacted to match the agenda of other gospels at some point, and that we are dealing with copies of copied copies. But does anyone really argue with credibility that after 100 CE they evolved dramatically from their compiled state?

Then we have a fallacy that that the 4 were compiled into one edition at 170 and evolved past 200.


If he had singled out specific verses or sentences and made a case, I would have ignored it. But vague generalizations to this extent should have been backed with credible sources when one travels that far off the beaten path, so to speak.

[Peter Kirby]

But vague generalizations to this extent should have been backed with credible sources when one travels that far off the beaten path, so to speak.

So he's unwittingly regurgitating current consensus and he's travelled far off the beaten path.

I'd like to let him try to explain his specific ideas. Seems more productive than jumping all over him.

While the OP isn't as developed as I would have liked either, at least it's a welcome change of pace from some of the usual suspects and their threads.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

It is good that you defend our Huon. I think the problem is that he mixed two things. The creation of the gospels and the further existence of the texts.

I think it´s right to say that no mainstream scholar thinks that Mark created his gospel as a "lonely genius" (okay, our Joe Wallack preached that, a few others and so do I). Almost all scholars think that he compiled and redacted many retelled memories and rewritten anecdotes as his sources.

The other thing is the further existence of the texts.

[Peter Kirby]

It is good that you defend our Huon. I think the problem is that he mixed two things. The creation of the gospels and the further existence of the texts.

I think it´s right to say that no mainstream scholar thinks that Mark created his gospel as a "lonely genius" (okay, our Joe Wallack preached that, a few others and so do I). Almost all scholars think that he compiled and redacted many retelled memories and rewritten anecdotes as his sources.

The other thing is the further existence of the texts.

I agree. It is a problem that he mixed more than one issue.

When I read Huon's post, I don't get the impression that he realizes that he could be taken as talking about a point of view according to which the authorship of the original canonical Gospels were "communal" and not individual (or vice-versa). I get the impression that he walked into a barfight that he didn't even realize were going on at the time. I get the impression that, for Huon, the "single writer" authorship and the "frozen" texts (without major revision and redaction) were two ways of saying the same thing. So yes I suppose it is a good thing to alert him to the views of some according to which the original form of the synoptic Gospels were a group effort.

And it's certainly not his focus in any case; he is not setting up communal authorship as the alternative to sole authorship. What his OP is doing is setting up considerable-revision-over-time as the alternative to more-or-less-originally-written-as-is.

Which is to say that his focus is on the original forms of the texts as contrasted with the further existence of the texts.

[outhouse]

[And it's certainly not his focus in any case; he is not setting up communal authorship as the alternative to sole authorship. What his OP is doing is setting up considerable-revision-over-time as the alternative to more-or-less-originally-written-as-is.

.

What date was the ending of Mark added. Would be a good question to ask along these lines.

But it seems to me, maybe im wrong, I think he follows that the text had been dramatically altered by a orthodoxy that didnt really exist that early. Which brings up the new question below.

the whole collection was owned by the Church

What group or assembly does he mean? and owned?