Ben C Smith

Do you have an inventory somewhere of what you think the proto-gospel contained?

Ben.

Yuri Kuchinsky

In general, I see this proto-gospel as not all that different from Lk (no surprise here ?), beginning at Lk 3:1, minus a few passages here and there that seem obviously doctored later.

It is almost a consensus among NT commentators that Luke's Passion Narrative is more original overall than either Mk or Mt.

Yet the Sayings Tradition does present a few particular challenges. As I see it, some parts of the Sayings Tradition were original to the early Lk. Yet some other sayings (or groups of sayings) were probably added later. I haven't really dealt with this matter in depth, primarily because I see this whole Q Industry as mostly misguided... So I tended to stay away from Q -- or anything to do with it -- as much as possible.

All the best,

Yuri.

Ben C Smith

So do you think that Matthew copied from Mark or vice versa? Those two have a lot in common that a proto-gospel that looks like Luke would not explain on its own.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Yes, that is a possibility. The date you gave above of 100 CE is also conceivable. Can you provide a link where you explain more about this? It is very promising IMHO.

I wonder what the proto gospel would look like?

Obviously, the gospels have been padded by taking texts from the Hebrew Bible (or more often the Septuagint) to supply details. Someone once went through Mark's passion narrative and removed every conceivable reference or allusion to the "Old Testament" on the theory that it was later addition. Also, literary doublings and multiplications (such as Peter's three denials, and the two trials) were collapsed into one. The result was a very sparse but compelling narrative. If I remember correctly, the chief priests (or chiefs) transmuted into archons.

I can't recall this approach being taken with a whole gospel, but it would be interesting with Luke.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Hi Ben,

It may be that the relationships between the gospels are more complicated that generally thought. When we see Justin's undifferentiated "Memoirs" and the four gospels supposedly not named until about 180 CE; it makes me wonder.

I think there may have been written proto gospels around before Mark, just as Yuri suggests.

Ben, you are well versed in the textual issues. What do you think?

Thanks,
Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith

The memoirs are not entirely undifferentiated in Justin. Dialogue 106.3 mentions the memoirs of Peter and says they contained the detail about the name Boanerges.

I think you are asking me to solve the synoptic problem in 12 words or fewer.

There may well have been such proto-texts. The Lucan prologue may in fact attest to many such texts. I also think there may have been sayings texts (like Thomas or the hypothetical Q) floating around which gave rise to talk of Matthew having composed the logia in Hebrew (or Aramaic).

I am completely open to complex theories of synoptic relations; however, I doubt that any such complex theory will ever command the field. There are just too many unknowns to prove any one such theory.

I am reading Alan Garrow, The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache, right now; very interesting. If he is correct the Didache itself (or at least significant tracts of it) would be a proto-text, used only by Matthew. In a related article Garrow also argues for Didache 16 as the background for Paul in the apocalyptic passage of 1 Thessalonians.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Could this mean the Memoirs of Christ? Even if it is meant the "Memoirs of Peter" it does not say "Gospel of Mark."


That is very interesting. Garrow's book is $135 on Amazon. (gulp) Could you give us a few high points?

Jake

Ben C Smith

It could; but the αυτου follows on the Î*ετÏ?ον more closely.

Right. In fact, Justin does not even mention Mark. My point, however, is that Justin appears to have on hand a text with the Boanerges detail that he appears to attribute to Peter (in particular out of all the other apostles). The memoirs are not entirely undifferentiated.

When I finish the book (which I am taking on my imminent business trip) I would be happy to summarize some of it.

Ben.

Steven Avery

To me it sounds a bit that these are theories that act as a cover for the Didache not being mentioned hardly anywhere. Its not mentioned, so lets put it as a source document for the Gospels, and then we can write a nice paper noting various allusions (that could be seen in either direction in a simple analysis).

Ben, if you can help, what is the hard evidence that the Didache was a significant document to anybody? And what is the first historical mention of this document as a work by anybody ?

Whenever I read about this document, I get an uneasy sense that the scholarship is conjecture and supposition, so if you can help with a bit of the missing hard facts, it would be appreciated.

Perhaps there is an earlier thread reviewing 'just the facts, maam'. (Well, first.)

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

RUmike

My only concern about the Didache is, if its author was using GMatt, why did he not credit any of the sayings to Jesus? That seems odd to me.