Loren Rosson III

The Patchwork Gospels

A few years ago an independent scholar named Andrew Tempelman wrote a book called The Patchwork Gospels, a description of which can be found here:

http://www.jlc.net/~aretee/aretee/pwg.html

(See particularly the link "About This Book".) Tempelman believes the four canonical gospels were mostly written in the second century. He acknowledges that Jesus existed (probably was some kind of revolutionary), but thinks the gospels tell us nothing reliable about him. Here's an excerpt from the intro (from "About This Book"):

"I have been compelled by the evidence to take the position that the first, second, and third century writers were not merely commentators upon a putative set of gospel texts, unknown and unavailable and hypothetical as those fabled texts are. They, both heretics and orthodox writers, the latter often in reaction against the more original former, are the originators of the sayings of Jesus, and of the gospels...

"The evidence shows that it was not oral tradition that preserved the sayings and perhaps some of the narrative in the gospels until they were finally written down in early source documents such as Q and Mark, and a few decades later, the full-blown gospels; but instead it was six brilliant 2nd century writers who created most of the gospel sayings and much of the narrative connections between the sayings. These writers were, in sequence both chronological and influential, Justin Martyr in ~135 and 150, Marcion in ~160, Valentinus in ~170, Irenaeus in ~185, Tertullian in ~192-208, and Clement of Alexandria in ~200. These six represent two schools of thought which were nearly violently opposed to each other, and out of their furious debate – not out of any church need to commit its precious message to print, as most church history of the period probablisitically tries to paint the picture – the gospel segments poured forth. What this means is that the Oral Tradition Theory and the Two Source Theory must now be replaced by the Great Writer, or the Great Scribal Interpreter, Theory...

"Some people will never be convinced, even by the evidence. But these ought to be haunted by the question: is there any known written text from the first century to which Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, or Tertullian, referred? Other than Paul’s written references to six or seven sayings of the lord that he knew, only five of which appear in the later synoptic gospels, there is none. That text, or those texts, purportedly from the first century, are to this day not yet known to exist."

There are links to some pages in the book so you can see how the author's intricate color-coding scheme works, and thus (supposedly) how the gospel segments began unfolding throughout the second century. I have found this whole idea preposterous, but am wondering what others in this forum think.

jjramsey

I doubt the Synoptic Gospels were written in the 2nd century simply because they contained predictions that the kingdom of God would come in power within the lifetime of some of Jesus' audience. Hope that this prediction would pan out could be maintained in the first century, but by the second century, there would be few if any left of Jesus' audience still alive, and this hope would have been thwarted.

Roger Pearse

It must be pure drivel from start to finish. That the author suggests that the 'evidence' supports his view shows us that we are dealing with someone with an agenda.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

I have to wonder what Justin Martyr means, then, when he keeps referring back to the memoirs of the apostles, as in Apology 1.66.3, for example:

For the apostles in the memoirs made by them [εν τοις γενομενοις υπ αυτων απομνημονευμασιν], which are called gospels [ευαγγελια], have thus delivered unto us what was commanded them, that Jesus took bread and after giving thanks said: Do this in my memory; this is my body. And the cup likewise, having taken it and given thanks, he said: This is my blood. And he gave it to them alone.

Or what Irenaeus means when he says things like the following from Against Heresies 3.10.5:

At the end of the gospel, moreover, Mark says [in fine autem evangelii ait Marcus]: And so the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was received into the heavens, and sits at the right hand of God.

I have no idea how to handle passages such as these on the assumption that Justin and Irenaeus were in fact in the process of writing those gospels to which they attribute such passages.

Ben.

Clivedurdle

Reactions of shock and preposterous were also given to Darwin. There possibly are errors, mistaken arguments in there, but my immediate reaction would be to explore the concepts further. This is a hypothesis, I would not throw the baby out with the bath water.

A comment about Mark - isn't that from the added ended of Mark? Did Irenaeus know that? Did he write that bit himself?

Julian

Is it just that finds this sentence a bit strange? He concludes that Jesus existed and was probably some kind of revolutionary, but then he also says that the gospels, our only source for Jesus, tell us nothing reliable.

Julian

Loren Rosson III

He's willing to accept what Paul's letters imply about a crucifixion. But other than martrydom for an unknown cause, he thinks there's nothing we can know about Jesus.

Julian

I see. That actually makes some sense seeing what was one of the cimes for which crucifiction was used as punishments. Makes more sense now, thanks.

Julian

andrewcriddle

Irenaeus almost certainly knew the 'long ending' of Mark.

Since the long ending may have been known by Justin Martyr and was almost certainly part of Tatian's Diatessaron it is unlikely that Irenaeus composed it himself.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

Just some wayward thoughts...

The early Christian Fathers thought they had found the secret to life, the universe and everything. They thought they had good news to tell everyone. Anyone telling the story might think they had a duty to improve the story - they did believe they were in communion with the holy spirit who was telling them things. They might easily change things - we know this is very easy - the story of Jesus and the other criminals on the cross has two different doctrines dependent on punctuation.

It is very easy to add things, tweak meanings, edit. If you think you are obeying god when doing it!

A patchwork gospel sifted through the lens of theological assumptions makes logical sense. Stories upon stories.