On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Rick Hubbard wrote:

> Although the topic of this post is not directly relevant to the
> interests of this list, it is nevertheless interesting.

Well, Rick, actually I think this is quite relevant to the list, because
the central question here is the dating of GOT, especially vis-a-vis Mk,
but also vis-a-vis other canonical gospels.

> Since it is reasonable to surmise that a great number of the 200+
> subscribers who read this list are non-specialists, it would be most
> helpful if you would expand on your remarks for our edification.
>
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> >
> > I think there's a general tendency in NT criticism to disregard and/or
> > minimise the Jewish roots of all the four canonical gospels. But in fact,
> > there's a lot of research indicating that all the four gospels were
> > originally entirely Jewish in their early versions. (This is consistent in
> > many details with Boismard's Multi-Stage Hypothesis.)

> A brief overview of the research you mention would be very helpful,
> especially that which takes issue with NT criticism's disregard for
> the Jewish roots of the intracanonical gospels. Of special importance
> would be an explanation of precisely which details of Boismard's
> hypothesis correct this minimizing tendency.

This will be quite a task, to be sure. In fact, this is enough material
for a whole book, rather than for one Internet post. But let me try to
clarify briefly what I said.

First of all, since we now deal with the question of dating of gospels,
including GOT, I will state my position about this. Myself, I'm a very
late dater vis-a-vis the canonicals. I don't think that back in 100 CE any
of the four canonicals were in the shape we now see them. In other words,
back in 100 CE, all the four canonicals were still in a more primitive and
much more Jewish shape. As we now see them, all four are basically
products of the 2c, while including some 1c materials.

This basic view has been argued by Alfred Loisy, and I think his arguments
are weighty. According to Loisy, all the four canonicals were originally
entirely Jewish in their early versions, and they were still so back in
100 CE. But to argue this view will take a very long time, of course, and
will need to include a lot of evidence from different parts of the
gospels. For example, the question of quartodecimanism comes up here as
one of the central arguments.

In particular, Loisy saw it as inconceivable that the standard
flesh-and-blood Eucharist would have been acceptable for
Jewish-Christians. According to him, this was introduced under the Gentile
influence towards 140, and included into the canonicals at that time.
Other such motifs include the physical understanding of the resurrection,
the attitude towards the laws of Moses, the inclusion of the Gentiles into
the covenant, etc.

Now, as far as Boismard's work goes, a good general overview of his
theories (in French) is available in his article THEORIE DES NIVEAUX
MULTIPLES, in Dungan, D.L. (ed.) _The Interrelations of the Gospels_: The
proceedings of a Symposium led by Boismard, Farmer, and Neirynck (Leuven:
Leuven University Press, 1990.) Basically, he argues that all three
Synoptics had early proto-versions on which the canonical versions were
later based. His theories are not very well known to NT specialists.

Of all his early proto-gospels, the proto-Mk is somewhat better known than
others. Among other scholars, Helmut Koester argued at length for its
validity e.g. in his book ANCIENT CHRISTIAN GOSPELS. Also, pMk theory was
already advocated by Bultmann, who was of course the teacher of Koester.
Loisy also argued for it.

But also various theories of proto-Mt have been advocated by scholars such
as Malcolm Lowe and David Flusser ("Evidence Corroborating a Modified
Proto-Matthean Synoptic Theory", NTS 29 (1983) 25-47).

It should be noted that Boismard is a highly respected textual scholar. In
general, his arguments are almost exclusively textually based. He goes
into very minute comparisons of portions of the texts of the Synoptics,
trying to discern their interrelationships, and their early sources. This
is very difficult area, to be sure. What he does not do, is put his
arguments into a general theological perspective. And the same applies to
Koester. But Loisy, to the contrary, very often bases his arguments
precisely on general theological, historical, and history-of-religions
perspectives. It is he who best outlined the argument that all the four
canonical gospels had Jewish-Christian roots, and that they were later
re-written by Gentile Christians. According to him, such themes as the
negative portrayal of Peter and other Jewish disciples were added by later
Pauline-oriented Gentile Christians.

> > The dominant 2 Source Theory (accepting the priority of Mk) is a case in
> > point. How can one seriously entertain an idea that Mk, with its numerous
> > seemingly late and pro-Gentile elements, was all completed ca 70 CE? This
> > is way too early. Parts of it probably _were_ written ca 70 CE, but, in my
> > view, later a lot of Gentile and even anti-Jewish stuff was added up in
> > the 2c.
>
> Again, it is likely that not everyone on the list is familiar with the
> compositional theories you mention. It would be very helpful to us
> all if you would briefly review those theories, and especially those
> which argue *against* Markan priority and *for* late dating.

I have dealt with some of this above. To be sure, I don't argue against
Markan priority as such, but more against the view that all of Mk should
be seen as early.

> > GOT does possess considerable Jewish elements, and this is an argument for
> > dating it earlier than many parts of Mk.

> For my part, at least, I am unfamiliar with the researchers who argue
> that GThom should be dated earlier than Mark (or parts of Mark) based
> on the observation of the presence of Jewish elements.

If GOT is generally found to be more Jewish in character than Mk, then, in
my view, this will be an argument for its dating earlier than Mk. This is
how I see the situation. Jewish-Christian elements of all the gospels
should be seen as indicators of these passages being early.

> Perhaps you would be kind enough to share that documentation with us
> on the list (and perhaps to explain precisely which logia in GThom
> exhibit those elements).

The fact that the disciples and James are portrayed with greater respect
in GOT than in the canonicals should be an argument for GOT being earlier
than the canonicals.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

Open biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - loisy-l

To subscribe to loisy-l, send blank email to loisy-subscribe@eGroups.com

The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian