graymouser

There are instances in late NT mss. like Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 that most scholars agree are definitely redactions because of their lack of attestation in the earliest mss. This phenomenon - which has so disturbed some evangelical Christians that they come to hold the absurd position of the inerrancy of the King James Version of the Bible - seems to not faze most Christians.

However, the earliest physical attestation of any Gospels seems to be P66, the partial John from around 200 CE. Scraps of John are attested a bit earlier (hardly definitive dating) but hardly enough to definitively establish the Gospel as being in a complete form too early. John was written, probably, around 120 CE.

Is there any consensus as to the degree of redaction that could've gone on during those 80 or so years (considerably longer for the synoptics)? For instance, has anyone done solid textual analysis to see how much is consistently the work of single authors? It seems to me to beg the question when asking that the Gospels as we know them are necessarily similar to what the original writings were, given that they are highly charged religious works.

Any information on the subject would be greatly appreciated.

-Wayne

Vinnie

Here is a piece on the text of John you may find informative:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/johntext.html

I have another one on the text of Mark but I didn't transer it over from my old site (no longer in existence) yet. I'll try to do that tonight

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

The Patchwork Gospels will help you to identify the earliest quotations of the passages of the Gospels. My e-Catena will also help in this regard.

R. T. Fortna (The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor) and some others have argued for a "Signs source" behind 4G (the Gospel of John). Thomas L. Brodie (The Quest for the Origin of John's Gospel) and others maintain that 4G uses the synoptics.

best,
Peter Kirby