Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I finally agree with something Ulan is saying.
Are you ready to join the "club" here at BC&H that sees a proto-Gospel underlying the Synoptics, whether called the Grundschrift, Urevangelium, or what I now call the Evolving Proto-Gospel?

Ulan wrote: with gMark being first.

As to the general text history, the human mind likes easy solutions. I'm not sure there is one here. gMatthew as it is looks rather late.

And its obvious what is called Matthews text, layered on top of what is called Mark.

I see different geographic locations getting a copy of Mark and these communities complaining its theology was different and finding a distinct need to redact the text heavily.


It also reflects the known diversity in first century Hellenistic Judaism.

Adam wrote:I finally agree with something Ulan is saying.
Are you ready to join the "club" here at BC&H that sees a proto-Gospel underlying the Synoptics, whether called the Grundschrift, Urevangelium, or what I now call the Evolving Proto-Gospel?

Who are these club members? You, Stephan, who else? I guess naming Stephan and you together in this makes the crux of the question visible: I can imagine lots of scenarios. The decision what is wrong or what is correct, or better what is likely and what isn't, is not that easy.

Right, it's certainly not that easy. If it were, someone else would have figured it out, too.
To Stephan (haven't heard from HIM in a LONG time) I would tentatively add Ben Smith. Ben?

Adam wrote:To Stephan (haven't heard from HIM in a LONG time)...

Another secret to unravel . He's still the most prolific poster on this board at the moment.

Ulan wrote: Who are these club members?.

The majority here have been debating each other for 5 years at a minimum for me, and others a decade.

Many can predict in full what each other will say in return and keep said posters on ignore as biases are well known in full by most here.

Adam wrote:Right, it's certainly not that easy. If it were, someone else would have figured it out, too.
To Stephan (haven't heard from HIM in a LONG time) I would tentatively add Ben Smith. Ben?

I would probably belong to that group in a general way, if by "Ur-Gospel" one does not have to intend a single, unified text. I tend to think that gospel materials of some kind preceded our earliest extant gospel, which I take to be Mark. But I am still investigating all of that, and I am not necessarily sure what shape those materials may have taken.

Thank you, Ben.
You're more like the 19th Century German scholars (as am I) who spoke of an Urmarkus, meaning more what we would call today a Proto-Gospel. One that cannot be specified as to content and authorship anything whatever like I do.

Ben C. Smith wrote: I would probably belong to that group in a general way if, by "Ur-Gospel", one does not have to intend a single, unified text. I tend to think that gospel materials of some kind preceded our earliest extant gospel, which I take to be Mark. But I am still investigating all of that, and I am not necessarily sure what shape those materials may have taken.

Adam wrote:Thank you, Ben.
You're more like the 19th Century German scholars (as am I) who spoke of an Urmarkus, meaning more what we would call today a Proto-Gospel.

It would be fascinating to be able to tease out what these/this was like, and elucidate how they came about.

Adam wrote: One that cannot be specified as to content and authorship anything whatever like I do.

You have an idea?

Thanks for the opening, MMS-
Yes, see my Gospel Eyewitnesses Thesis (as edited by Peter Kirby under 'THESE ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT MY IDEAS")
in his Oct. 10, 2013 post Here:
http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... p?f=3&t=14

The Thesis there of seven written eyewitness accounts in the four gospels does not necessarily imply my subsequent Evolving Proto-Gospel Hypothesis, but it did provide a base for recasting the Synoptic Problem in a new image.