On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Rick Hubbard wrote:

> ... Y. Kuchinsky invokes the authority of A. Loisy as support for his
> hypothesis. Notwithstanding the fact that specific citations of
> Loisy's work have not been provided to support Kuchinsky's position,

To clarify here, I have previously invoked the support of Alfred Loisy for
my argument that there existed the early versions of all four canonical
gospels, that these early versions were mostly Jewish-Christian in spirit,
and that this may help in dating GOT to approximately the same period of
time as these early versions of the canonicals.

But currently, the majority of NT scholars appear to argue that Mk, the
earliest gospel, was written by Gentile-oriented Christians, later to be
adopted by some more Jewish-oriented community as Mt. I disagree with
this. So in this, I actually agree with the Griesbachians (advocates of
the priority of Mt) who say that the more Jewish gospel should also be
seen as the earliest one.

But also, different from the Griesbachians, I argue that it is in fact
probable that the earliest version of Mk (proto-Mk) was created by
Jewish-Christians, and that it was later adopted into Mt. And yet still
later, proto-Mk was re-edited and expanded into the canonical Mk. I
believe that this is simpler and more economical than all the alternative
views.

So what did Loisy really say about these early proto-gospels that may
stand behind the current canonical gospels? Did he say anything different
from how I summarised his views so far? Certainly not, in spite of what
some of the recent posters, citing some rather uninformed secondary
literature (no surprise here), have said. And one need not go too far to
discover this. I already cited this book by Loisy,

Loisy, Alfred Firmin, 1857-1940. The birth of the Christian religion =
(La naissance du Christianisme). London: G. Allen & Unwin. 1948.

So here are some quotes right from the beginning of it. One need not read
too far into this book to discover the real views of Loisy.

"The Gospel attributed to Mark, generally regarded as the oldest of the
Four, is a shortened manual of Christian catechesis, not all of one piece,
and not exempt from retouchings. The last of these consisted in the adding
of a conclusion (16:9-20) perhaps as recent as the middle of the second
century. The basis of Mark seems to have been a document which agreed with
John in the date of the passion, that is to say, in implying the
coincidence of the Christian with the Jewish Passover. [In the footnote
here Loisy adds that the Meal of the Anointing in Mk 14:3-9, by
anticipation, breaks up the prelude to the arrest and betrayal, so this
pericope is probably secondary, and had been inserted rather late. -- Y]
This document has been worked over and surcharged, one part of the
alterations betraying the influence of Pauline tendencies and doctrines,
while others reveal the knowledge of didactic elements expanded in Matthew
and Luke, and [these alterations also betraying] readjustment of the
passion stories to adapt them to the practice of the Sunday Easter. The
date of the fundamental document may be earlier than the year 70; the
subsequent editorial revision is later than the fall of Jerusalem." p. 45

Clearly, in the above, Loisy stresses the importance of the date of the
earliest Easter observances. Easter, of course, was by far the central
festival for early Christians, so the importance of the date of its
celebration is difficult to overestimate. Majority of the liturgical
scholars today seem to consider that the earliest Christian Easter was
quartodeciman, i.e. always celebrated at the same time as other Jews
celebrated the Passover. Sunday Easter observance, significantly diverging
from Judaism, would then have been introduced some time later (the precise
timing of which is debatable).

Also, significantly, Loisy talks here about the "influence of Pauline
tendencies and doctrines" on the later canonical Mk. Plenty of such later
Gentile-oriented influences are observable in Mk, which should be seen as
markers of later additions.

And also he talks about the knowledge by the canonical Mk "of didactic
elements expanded in Matthew and Luke". In other words, some parts of Mk
seem to betray a dependence on Mt and Lk.

Elsewhere (Loisy, Alfred, _The Origins of the New Testament_ [Les origines
du Nouveau Testament], NY, Collier, 1962, p. 365), Loisy argues that "the
first drafts" of Mk as a whole go to the "beginning of the second
century". But he obviously feels that the source documents of Mk go back
rather earlier.

And also BTW he says on the same page,

"It is obvious that the book [Mk] had no other usage in view that that of
public reading in the assembled congregations".

So this obviously corresponds quite well to what the Anglican Bishop Spong
is arguing at this time.

For Mt, obviously, he gives dates somewhat later than Mk.

And here's about Lk,

"Wherever they were composed, the third Gospel and Acts reflect the
development of Christian faith and institution between the years 125 and
150." (THE BIRTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, p. 51)

Loisy advocates that, similar to proto-Mk, there was also an earlier
proto-Lk.

So I hope this clarifies some of these misconceptions about what Loisy
actually argued for.

To summarise my argument once again, these proposed early Jewish-Christian
proto-gospels seem to date to about the same time as the Gospel of Thomas
that is also quite compatible with Jewish-Christianity.

Regards,

Yuri.

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

Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy

"Genuine ignorance is ... profitable because it is likely to be
accompanied by humility, curiosity, and open mindedness; whereas ability
to repeat catch-phrases, cant terms, familiar propositions, gives the
conceit of learning, and coats the mind with varnish water-proof to new
ideas" -- John Dewey