FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-18-2001, 02:56 AM   #1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post Redaction of the Gospels

I ask this question mainly to other Christians on the board, although of course the rest can answer if they wish.

It often seems taken for granted that the gospel writers took a previous work or works and modified it and added their own theological perspective.
Especially with the Gospel of John there seems to be agreement that the original version of this has been tampered with by a later person slightly but the majority left pretty much in tact.

I'm rather new at studying this sort of thing, but it all seems rather strange to me. Looking at the history of the Church there is one thing which stands out: Whenever any part of the Church tried to change anything, the Church fragmented into two rival groups. One group wanted to keep the old and the other supported the change.

Looking back to the redaction of the gospels, I'm sure you can see my point: If the gospels were truly redacted then shouldn't we see rival groups, one with the original and the other with the changed version? Yet baring Marcion, there seems to be a pretty universal early agreement about the canonicy of all 4 gospels. Where are the factions we would expect? The same of course applies to any and all alleged interpolations in the rest of the cannon.

I'm confused, what gives? I would be especially interested to hear from any Christians who believe in large amounts of redactional activity.
 
Old 05-18-2001, 06:20 AM   #2
Lance
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Overland Park, KS USA
Posts: 335
Thumbs down

Tercel: I believe one of the groups that fought this battle years ago were the gnostics. And they lost.

And the church did the predictable...OFF WITH THEIR HEADS.

Thats why you don't see the rival group.
Lance is offline  
Old 05-18-2001, 07:44 AM   #3
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tercel:

Looking back to the redaction of the gospels, I'm sure you can see my point: If the gospels were truly redacted then shouldn't we see rival groups, one with the original and the other with the changed version? Yet baring Marcion, there seems to be a pretty universal early agreement about the canonicy of all 4 gospels. Where are the factions we would expect? The same of course applies to any and all alleged interpolations in the rest of the cannon.

I'm confused, what gives? I would be especially interested to hear from any Christians who believe in large amounts of redactional activity.
</font>
Certainly NOT speaking from any kind of
authority here... but I think the main argument from the pro-redactors is that
we have no really early copies of the gospels, and there was plenty of time for
them to be redacted before the oldest copies
that we have.

Someone jump in and confirm or deny that?

Also, is it Mark's gospel for which there is an older
fragment which differs from later copies,
showing clear evidence of redaction?

 
Old 05-18-2001, 12:43 PM   #4
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Kosh:
Certainly NOT speaking from any kind of
authority here... but I think the main argument from the pro-redactors is that
we have no really early copies of the gospels, and there was plenty of time for
them to be redacted before the oldest copies
that we have.

Someone jump in and confirm or deny that?

Also, is it Mark's gospel for which there is an older
fragment which differs from later copies,
showing clear evidence of redaction?

</font>
Yes, it is Mark's Gospel and the later addition is 16:9-20 which are not contained in our earliest texts.
 
Old 05-21-2001, 08:56 PM   #5
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tercel:
Looking at the history of the Church there is one thing which stands out: Whenever any part of the Church tried to change anything, the Church fragmented into two rival groups. One group wanted to keep the old and the other supported the change.</font>
I think it was more complex than this. And the complexities were much more profound than the way I simplistically break them down here. There were many groups--not just two. There were at least six: the Pauline bunch (Hellenistic dying/saving god), the Q bunch (wisdom and parabolic Jesus only), Mark (secret messiah), Matthew (new Moses), Luke (there for the poor--the anti-Ceasar) and John (God himself). And the Gnostics. And others, I'm sure.

Consider the metaphor of a dozen or so prairie fires burning out of control from the confines of a tinderbox of isolated groups of Jesus' followers and the Pax Romana "government." Add a bit of heat and certain church fathers went on a stamping crusade to get the little fires out.

All that remains now are a few ashes and the scant evidence of polemics and criticism from the winning side.

The little group grew almost as fast as Muslims and Mormons are doing today....


 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:52 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.