RE: The Johannine Solution
- Bruce, here is part 2, one more part to come.
<<<KYM: There were two reasons for committing what they had taught to
writing. Firstly, those things needed to be recorded for the continuing
Church. Secondly, something had to be written quickly to encourage the
believers at this critical time. What the council resolved to do was to
expand Mark, the gospel with which the whole Church was now familiar.
Following the council, then, those who had been eyewitnesses began to verify
and collate those things which they had been teaching until this time. Once
that collection (effectively Q) . . .
BRUCE: Eek, here is the demon Q. The motive in this scenario, if we accept
the scenario, can only have been to save everything BESIDES what was known
to be in Mk. But Q as it now officially stands (IQP) contains, not
supplements, but variants, of things in Mk. That is, unless Kym is prepared
to revise Q to fit his scenario (and such a revision can always be
considered; I am not yet convinced that there is NOTHING in that particular
slot), we have a conflict between asserted motive and observed result.>>>
I wondered about using a different term from ‘Q’ but as it fitted with
the most basic understanding of that hypothetical document (i.e. a written
collection of sayings [and more] not used for Mk but available to both Mt
and Lk) so it seemed better to put up this explanation of Q’s origin than
to introduce a whole new document.
The collation (Q) put together by a number of apostles and eyewitnesses was
originally to add to what had already been given in Mk. That may have meant
some adjustments to Mk but, after that project was abandoned for Jn, the
remainder was taken up by Mt and Lk who were both free to adapt the material
or the readers to whom their particular gospels were directed, i.e. Jewish
and Gentile. If, as I say, the group writing John had the first pick of the
apostolic recollections, then our view of Q is deficient, it must include
virtually all of Jn as well. It must also allow for Mt and Lk’s freedom to
adapt the same material for their own purposes.
<<<KYM: . . . was complete they began adding it to the Markan structure.
This expansion I have called AEEMark (Apostles and Eyewitnesses Expansion of
BRUCE: Just to keep my place: We now have Mk, Q, and a single text amounting
to a combination of the two: Mk fleshed out with Q. Three physical
<<<KYM: After proceeding for some time, however, for a number of reasons,
what was to have been a comprehensive and chronologically ordered gospel was
abandoned. In its place, the gathering produced the shorter and more
exhortative Gospel of John.
BRUCE: The unstated "reasons" are crucial, and need to be stated if the
argument itself is not to fall apart. What, for example, happened to the
physical, but as we are now told, incomplete, Mk+Q? Is this step necessary,
and for what reason? What fact in the extant texts is it there to
There are several reasons why AEEMark was abandoned. Several o f them are:
the Markan structure – with only one trip to Jerusalem – did not allow
for all the material that they had collated to be reasonably included. Given
the technology of the day, the size and cost of the proposed document was
impractical for what was needed at the time. The urgency of the situation
demanded rapid duplication and distribution. The way they were writing
AEEMark did not allow for some of the material to be included and so ceased
to be appropriate if they were going to incorporate all that they thought
necessary (more of this later).
<<<KYM: John, then, had first use of the material the apostles' had collated
(Q). It was completed in late 68 (October or, at the latest, November).
BRUCE: That Jn outranks some, or all, of the other Gospels is theologically
satisfactory to many: as one NT scholar put it, "John got it right." But
even this implies that all the other Gospels are chronologically earlier, as
well as being inaccurate at many points. I would say that they are certainly
*theologically* earlier; but this is just to say again that Jn is the most
evolved of the four. Hard sell here.>>>
The idea that the Church evolved theologically is a nonsense. Those from
whom we should expect the profoundest theology are those who spent several
years under the tutelage of Christ himself. Let me quote part of a footnote
in the book:
[[[…Torrance’s book, The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers,
(Torrance, T. F., Eerdmans, 1948). In that book, and without denying the
value of their works, Torrance shows that in the earliest writings of the
sub-apostolic period – and contrary to the New Testament epistles and
gospels, especially John – the understanding of God’s grace as the gift
of salvation completed and secured in the person of Jesus, and particularly
in his life and death, had already grown dim. In some writings it was
clearly not understood at all. The works Torrance examined were: The
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (i.e. the Didache); the First and Second
Epistles of Clement; the Epistles of Ignatius, the Epistle of Polycarp; the
Epistle of Barnabas; and the Shepherd of Hermas. The point here is that
doctrine did not develop at such a pace as to make any writer other than an
apostle – or apostles – likely to produce such a profound volume as
John’s gospel clearly is.]]]
<<<KYM: Once John was completed and while it was being copied and
distributed, what remained of the apostles' recollections was divided up
between Matthew and Luke, each of whom would produce lesser but still
substantial expansions of Mark. Matthew and Luke agreed on what each should
use uniquely, the remainder both would use to ensure that between the three
later gospels, nothing was omitted of what the apostles and others had
collated. However, both men were free to adapt the material to fit the
particular readerships targeted by their gospels.
BRUCE: This at least answers the objection of Streeter and others, who fail
to find intelligible motive for the way Mt and Lk take turns with Markan
material, as though at least one knew what the other was doing. Myself, I
here agree with M Goulder, that Luke had both Mt and Mk in front of him, and
was determined to improve on Mt's handling of the earlier Markan tradition.
I like that explanation much better, partly because it requires the positing
of fewer councils of the whole, with all the Evangelists agreeing to divide
the material between them, like Paul and Peter assigning themselves to
different segments of the unconverted. Who calls that meeting? Who has the
power to enforce those decisions? How much of a unitary "Church" is it
actually valid to posit at the period in question?>>>
Mt and Lk had both MK and Jn in front of them – as well as their portions
of Q, some unique to each, some which both would adapt and include. The
council was required after Nero’s death because of the crisis in the
Church, a crisis worse than that of Nero’s persecutions. There is only one
council involved (hinted at in the accounts of the writing of John in the
Muratorian Fragment and Clement of Alexandria). With the giving of the
Revelation the apostles had prepared the Church for the appearing of Christ.
Jesus would destroy the beast (Nero) and usher in the new heavens and the
new earth. It didn’t happen, The apostles had got it wrong! What else had
they got wrong? The gospel itself was under threat. Only a council could
effectively resolve the matter. Peter and Paul were dead, the only survivor
of the inner three (Peter, James and John) and the receiver of the
Revelation, John, was best placed to call the council. He was also in Asia
which was central to the Church where it had spread around the Mediterranean
from Rome to Cyrene. The primary power of the council rested in the
apostles, about half of whom, I believe, were present (certainly John,
Andrew and Matthew) as well as other eyewitnesses. Added to these were those
(bishops) who had been appointed to care for certain cities and provinces
through the expected tribulation. The whole church was represented and the
council well able to speak for and unify all. It was also well fitted to
enforce its decisions everywhere.
<<<KYM: Matthew and Luke returned to their respective homes to write. Both
had copies of Mark and John as they wrote and neither needed to duplicate
what they knew was already contained in the latter. Similarly, while they
used the Markan framework, they were not compelled to include all of the
shorter gospel because it would also continue to circulate in its own right.
The last two gospels may have been completed by the end of 68 but certainly
would have been by early 69. (Luke would have gone on to complete Acts by
BRUCE: It takes us outside the current topic, and it would also take us
outside the limits defined by List protocol, but somebody, somewhere, needs
to discuss the Pervo claim of a very late Acts…>>>
As stated earlier, Luke was best suited to write Acts. It was at the
Ephesian council that he collated most of his information re the beginnings
of the Church and Peter’s ministry. He already knew most of the rest about
Paul. The reason Acts ends where it does is because soon after the
Revelation was given and Paul and the other apostles were involved in
organizing the Church for conflict with the state. Given the Roman
Empire’s continuance, it would have been madness to detail such activities
of the Church’s leaders.
St Luke's Anglican Church
- Bruce, here is the third and final part of my response. Thankyou for allowing me to do so.
<<<As for the scenario before us, it explains too much, too easily. It handles omissions and duplications with equal aplomb, because both are stated to be within the group's collective, indeed communal, mandate. Myself, I think it was Lk's announced intention to replace Mk (and all his sources) with something more adequate to the needs of believers or future believers. I can't imagine him leaving part of the logic of his work to be external to it; that is, based on a confidence in the continued availability, to *all* his own readers, of the text of Mk. Is there any positive sign that this was the case? I can't think of one, but am willing to be told.>>>
'Too much too easily.', but isn't that what one of the signs of the value of a suggestion? Isn't that something like what the famous Mr Occam suggested?
There are many complex reasons why the different gospellers included or omitted or modified various bits and pieces - some of our trying to work out why is what I meant by straining at gnats - but here is a simple explanation that makes eminent sense (to me, anyway) and fits all the necessary pieces together.
I have stated preciously on this list that Lk's prologue refers to efforts of the 'many' of the Ephesian council to 'compile a (single) narrative', i.e. John. That having been completed, Lk had his share of the remainder of the apostles and eyewitnesses recollections and he was going to write another orderly account. That account - as with Matthew - fulfilled in some measure what the council originally intended to do with AEEMark but which it realized was not practical.
Mk had already been distributed across the whole Church - at least where it existed in the Roman Empire. From Rome that could have been done in a couple of months. Its wide distribution would, in part, have guaranteed its survival, but the Church itself seems to have determined - and stated quite early - that all four gospels should continue.Note Irenaeus, 'But it is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are' (i.e. four). Origen tells us, 'I accept the traditional view of the four gospels which alone are undeniably authentic in the Church of God on earth.'
<<<Failing such, I want something with more meat on its theoretical bones to explain what of Mk was omitted by Lk. I still think that John Hawkins went a long way in this direction, and I can't imagine that the real answer will differ greatly from the one to which his work pointed: avoidance of the demeaning, the emotional, the theological inadequate, and above all, avoidance of the Galilean elements. Next of course to John, which is further along that same trajectory, Lk is the most Jerusalemizing of the Gospels.>>>
There are parts of Mark 6, the details of John the Baptist's arrest and death and Jesus' visit to his home town, which Luke has not covered or not fully covered. His omissions of some Markan material may have been to streamline his gospel for his own target readership, but he must also have had confidence that that material would not be lost, i.e. that the Church would continue to use Mk.
<<<KYM: It was not considered necessary to preserve Q because all of it was contained in one or more of the three later gospels.
BRUCE: This to me is open to the same objections I just made for Mk. It imputes to the Evangelists a motive that matches their present canonical status: that is, as one of four parallel accounts. It requires that ALL the Evangelists can look sideways in their Bible, so to speak, and take note in great detail of what the others are doing, or not doing. It requires collusion at the beginning, and full mutual knowledge at the end. If we open our Bibles and look at the four of them, there they are, forever cheek to
jowl. But I can't think that this situation or anything structurally equivalent to it obtained during what I will call the Evangelical period.>>>
Yes - for most of the above - and Why could it not be so? for the last sentence or, But what if it is that simple?
Thus far Kym's suggestion. I am concerned also for what it does not contain, that is, a recognition that these texts are not unitary, but stratified. What about Jn 21? What about the widely acknowledged signs that blocks of material have been moved around in Jn? What about my own findings (see you all in San Diego) about a similar situation in Lk? What about (missed you at SBL/NE last year) the evident late and theologically motivated addenda to Mk? What about (missed you yet again at SBL/EGL last month) the signs that the Twelve are a late and Church-historically motivated addendum to Mk? The evidences for something of this sort are palpable. I think they need to be followed up. A theory which works in terms of integral texts, of single authorship, just doesn't cut it, in the face of these rather widespread indications. Also James (too bad you couldn't make it to SBL/NE last month), and 2Cor, etc etc.>>>
When it comes to John I have to say that it is unified, wonderfully unified. Though ch 21 may be an appendix, it is original to Jn and an essential part of it. I can only point you to my book, 'The Amazing Structure of the Gospel of John', almost all of which can be viewed at www.sherwoodpublications.com.au . See particularly pp 32 and 45-53.
This same book shows that nothing has been displaced in Jn (see p 53). As for Lk, I have not done the same degree of work as I have in Jn but I would be very surprised if any of the Synoptics have the same kinds of unifying structures that Jn does. A displaced section would be harder to prove/disprove but I am inclined to believe that what we have is what the authors, in all four cases, intended. The exception would be Mk's ending and of that I cannot comment except to say that the Ephesian council was a likely group to have added it.
There is a variety of styles of material in Luke. Some of it is straight from what we are continuing to call Q, some of the same has been adapted to suit his Gentile readership. There is material from the break-up of AEEMark and there is material which was leftover from the writing of John. These variations may well give the impression of displacements or stratification, but I do not think either actually happened.
I will not comment here on 2 Cor or James, though I have something to say abut the latter.
<<<What is it that we have in front of us? This is the first question to be asked of any text we are interested in. Is it one thing, or a conflated several, or a linear composition extended over time, or a successively interpolated core? These and other possibilities richly exist, in all literatures ancient and modern. Not to reckon with them, especially when signs of them are recognizably present, is in my opinion not really to engage the problem seriously.>>>
What do we have in front of us, indeed? Four separate works, one produced by an apostle providing a brief account to support the church in crisis (Mk), one compiled by an apostolic group to deal with a subsequent crisis (Jn), and two filling out the first with details the apostles and others were concerned should be preserved for a continuing Church (Mt & Lk). In all three later gospels are the remnants of AEEMark and the remainder of Q, i.e. that which was not included in AEEMark. What we also have in the three later gospels (accepting that Mt and Lk were commissioned to write their expansions of Mk on behalf of the council) are three works to which the apostles themselves contributed and which carried the full weight of apostolic authority (cf Jn 1:14; 21:24). That same group assented to - and so added their authority to - Peter's gospel (Mk) and possibly provided an ending to it.
Perhaps from here, Bruce (or other listers), if you wish to continue the discussion we can look at smaller sections. I cannot keep up this rate of responding.
St Luke's Anglican Church
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Bruce, so much for a little at a time! It will take me two or three days to get to the rest so you will need to be patient.
<<<BRUCE: This is dismissive; some would say offensive. The contentions in the early churches are there in all the records we have of them, including the early layer of the Epistle of James (never mind furious Paul), which speaks of disharmony and even alienation in the believers to whom it was addressed. They are not a figment of any arbitrary bias in modern investigators collectively, or any culpable failure of "unity" on their part. "Reading the Scriptures aright" seems in this context to mean "Reading the Scriptures in terms of a harmonizing hermeneutic." >>>
Not at all! There were certainly 'contentions in the early churches' but that is something quite different from contentions between the apostles. Apart from Gal 2:11f, there is no record of conflict between the apostle. And why can't we believe that Peter would have taken Paul's rebuke and been grateful for it? Further, how does 2 Pet 3:15-18 figure in such a discussion without resorting to it not being genuinely Petrine?
James refers to a 'shallow man' in his passage on faith and works (Jas 2:14-26) but it is our imposition on the text to insist that that was Paul. This is the same James who '.saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel; to the uncircumcised.and when [he] perceived the grace that was given to me.gave to me.the right hand of fellowship.' (Gal 2:7-9).
Apart from the passage already mentioned Paul's anger is only addressed to the false or superlative apostles, not to any of the twelve. His respect for the work and word of the other apostles meant that he preferred not to work where any of them had already begun (Rom 15:20).
BRUCE: This seems to me no more than a pious hope. First, the "differences" on record go far beyond the food issues of Galatians 2:11f, they cluster around those who do, and those who do not, believe in the Resurrection (Corinthians passim).
Again, Paul is not addressing fellow apostles here but false apostles.
<<<More generally, the gospel preached by Jesus, according to our probably earliest source, Mk 1:14-15, was a gospel of repentance (merited forgiveness of sin). Between this and the gospel of grace (unmerited forgiveness of sin) there lies, like a sword, the doctrine of the Atonement. Between these two stages, we seem to have undergone a transition from works to faith. That the doctrine of the Atonement was not held by all early believers is a matter of record. That it was later than the rival beliefs or theories is very strongly suggested by its absence in the earlier Gospels, and its presence in the later ones.>>>
Hands up all those who see the gospel of repentance as allowing a 'merited forgiveness of sin'! Repentance itself is an admission that forgiveness is not merited - especially as repentance is a gift, not a work (e.g. Acts 11:18; 2 Tim 2:25). On the other hand, do you mean to say that one need not repent to receive the 'unmerited forgiveness of sin' through the gospel of grace? That the doctrine of the Atonement is largely missing in any of the Gospels is understandable. Jesus' teaching could hardly deal with what even the disciples could/would not hear until after he had accomplished that atonement. (An excellent book on this is P.T. Forsyth's, 'The Preaching of Jesus and the Gospel of Christ'). My view, as you know, is that there is an insignificant time-gap between the gospels.
<<< BRUCE: The transition from no church structure (specifically prohibited in James) to the beginnings of church structure (hinted at in the genuine epistles of Paul) to unmistakable hierarchies, though not yet of uniform nature across all Christendom (the spurious epistles of Paul, including Timothy and Titus) is also there in the record, if the record is read in its
probable order of composition. Against this Kym opposes a speculation ("would have") based on a scenario with the evidence in question does not uniformly attest. I am not convinced. >>>
By the end of the first century and start of the second, there was a very strong view of apostolic succession (e.g. Ignatius). They had no doubt that the apostles had appointed successors. I can only add more speculation by saying that the strength of the Fathers' views on succession would not have been possible unless there was some event at which the (or some of the) apostles, probably collectively, authorised that new (i.e. archiepiscopal) ministry. I believe it was at the Ephesian council that those apostles present acknowledged the value of that form of government - which they had set up for the period of the expected tribulation - and authorised its continuation. (Perhaps this is not for this list) .
<<<BRUCE: This implies a single compositional act for Mark, and a compositional act of the highest authenticity. But it rests on Origen, who seems to have been later than Papias, who tells a different story. None of the stories avails against the evidence of the text, which bears all the standard marks of having undergone not only interpolations, but accretions, over a considerable period of time.>>>
Yes and yes to the first sentence. Robert Gundry in an appendix to his exhaustive commentary on Mark suggests the only reason Mk would have survived - especially after the publication of Mt and Lk, was an awareness of its Petrine origins. I am not qualified to assess 'interpolations [and] accretions.' Are there sufficient variations in the text of the ancient copies of Mark to indicate this (apart from its ending/s)?
<<< BRUCE: Not plausible. Nothing in Mark suggests an intent of limited usefulness; on the contrary, its accretions and self-interpolations suggest a text eager to keep itself up with events, including doctrinal events like the Resurrection Theory. Nor does the text as a whole, or its probable core as a whole, suggest an intention to "encourage the Church through its difficult time." It suggests an intention to define Jesus; it is not an exhortation but an apologia. Are there passages in Mark, not interpolations but part of the literary framework of Mark, which suggest otherwise? >>>
The view of many commentators that Mk was written for a suffering Church may not prove my scenario but it does support it. 1 and 2 Pet seem to view the end as nigh which is interesting if, again as a number of commentators consider, 2 Pet 1:15 refers to the Gospel of Mark.
<<< BRUCE: This scenario gives all material in all Gospels an unimpeachably authentic source and status: eyewitness accounts, combined by central authority and thus presumably freed of any variants those eyewitness accounts might have contained in the raw state. This makes the divergences of Mt and Lk in particular simply unintelligible. >>>
Yes, it gives them 'unimpeachably authentic source and status'. I wonder why we would resist this? The divergences in Mt and Lk are explained by their adaptation of material for their respective readerships and that they wrote in isolation from each other. The differences also indicate that the early church was more interested in presenting gospels which evoked faith rather than attempted to prove Jesus was the Christ by conformity of details. I suspect this was another reason why the apostles abandoned AEEMark.
<<< BRUCE: This response wanders from the point, or else weakens its original assertion. I would put the matter this way: Each successive Gospel (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) tried to improve on the previous ones - Luke, explicitly so - by making the story of Jesus more narratively effective, factually accountable, and internally coherent. John, as the last and on this hypothesis the most rationalized (even if rationalized in a Gnostic direction), appeals to those who find the non sequiturs and internal inconsistencies of the earlier Gospels troublesome. But it's like replacing a pencil with a calculator. The calculator adds more accurately (it solves the Quartodeciman controversy between East and West), but does that make it earlier than the pencil? >>>
I cannot comment because I do not accept your order of priority. Each of the gospels is adequate for the purpose for which it was written. Three were, in there final state, individual works, one was a corporate work (Jn). I see their order as Mk, Jn and MT and LK (both with Mk and Jn in hand) last and simultaneously and both with the commission to expand Mk for their respective Jewish and Gentile readerships.
<<< BRUCE: Tilt. Kym has up to now been envisioning a unified and even a hierarchical Church, one that can summon all eyewitnesses together and collate their material; a single and powerful entity, far more potent than anything at the present day. Now, suddenly, we are told that whereas the earlier Mark was addressed to, and circulated to, all of Christendom, in
this later and presumably still more advanced stage, the Church is so divided between Jewish and Gentile segments that it needs a different spokesman for each. Which is Kym's real picture? His scenarios for Mk vs Mt/Lk don't seem to coexist. >>>
There's that 'tilt' again! In Mk, Peter produced one work which would be useful for all. Once the Church realized that it was going to continue - possibly even beyond the lifetime of the apostles - they also knew that they had to provide gospels which would be directed to the two groups which God himself had recognized and for which he had called and appointed different apostles (e.g. Gal 2:7-8). Peter was writing for a crisis which he assumed would last for no more than a few years, the council commissioned works which would serve a Church for a time beyond what they could foresee.
St Luke's Anglican Church
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I would like to have completed my response to your former post but I had better keep up with your current rather than have you running too far ahead. Perhaps we will return to the other.
<<<BRUCE: . the apostles whom Paul stigmatizes as "false apostles" are still called by him "apostles," he just disagrees with what they preach. They would doubtless have said the same or worse of him. And as for the perspective from which we in our time might reject some apostles (teachers of the Way) as false, why should we side with Paul against Apollos? . Gal 2:11f attests conflict between people Kym is willing to call apostles. I should think that clinches it. And what of the Peter/Paul conflict implied in 1 Cor 1:12?>>>
No, they may have been self-proclaimed apostles, but they were NOT apostles that the Church should have recognized. If you are going to allow that the PSEUDAPOSTOLOI (2 Cor 11:13) were only different from the twelve in degrees, will you also allow that the only difference between the PSEUDOCHRISTOI of Mk 13:22 and Christ is one of degrees?
And there is no siding between Paul and Apollos, it was not with Apollos or Cephas/Peter that Paul had difficulties but with the Corinthians who wrongly preferred one over the other (1 Cor 3:4-9,22).
<<<BRUCE: Why can't we believe that Apollos would have taken the Pauline reindoctrination and been grateful for it?>>>
Obviosly he did, he was encouraged and given a letter of recommendation by the Pauline camp (Acts 18:27) and he became a co-worker with Paul (1 Cor 4:6; 16:12).
<<< And I do not accept Kym's treatment of "contentions in the early churches" as though they were of no account. At stake here are things like the Doctrine of the Resurrection. Basic and consequential. The large point is that Christian doctrine, even about fundamental things like whether Christ died for your sins, was diverse, and stridently so, in the earliest times for which we have anything like evidence. Sometimes named apostles, or named other figures, are associated with one or the other side of these differences; sometimes not. Either way, the basic fact is the fact of ideological disagreement.>>>
No difference was of no account, but contentions between true and false apostles is one thing, 'ideological disagreements' between true apostles would have destroyed the Church.
<<<BRUCE: Kym quotes Pauline materials, and post-Pauline ones at that, in support of Pauline doctrine. It may be conceded that these materials support Pauline doctrine. The question is, was there any other doctrine? Consider John the Baptist. He preached a Gospel of Repentance, and be baptized the repentant as a symbol of the washing away of their sins. John was not the Christ, and he had no doctrine of Atonement, or of other mechanism of forgiveness, to rely on, either at the time or prospectively.>>>
Oh? "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."
<<<In John's world, which is also the world in which Jesus began, what gets the sinner forgiven is the sinner's repentance. This is very OT, but not for that less likely as a doctrine of John. It is then relevant that Jesus follows in the line of John, and is himself baptized by John, and is himself said at that point in Mk to preach a gospel of repentance. The Markan story implies (if you think about it, and Matthew evidently thought about it) that Jesus had sins to forgive; Matthew's account of it answers this difficulty by making the baptism pro forma merely; in Lk and Jn it is pushed further and further offstage, and Jn, John the Baptist himself articulates the Doctrine of Atonement, with Jesus right there in front of him, and thus still a long way from the Cross. This last, at least to me, is unreal in the extreme. What the Gospels together show is first a naive acknowledgement of the Baptism as a fact, then an increasing discomfort with it as a rite with implications for the purity of Jesus, and finally with a replacement of the theology of forgiveness implied by John's baptism with a new theology of atonement. This progression through the Gospels, always in the order Mk > Mt > Lk > Jn (though Mt/Lk can be very close together on some issues) is what I have called a Trajectory. The Baptism of Jesus is to me one of the clearest Trajectories, and it clearly shows the evolution of theories of Jesus in the period to which the Gospels collectively are witnesses.>>>
This development, if you are right about the sequence and timing of the gospels, takes Jesus from a sinner to a Saviour. So what kind of Jesus do you believe in? The former can do nothing for anyone else's sin, the latter would appear to be a fabrication to improve on earlier, inadequate ideas. Neither, then, could do us any good!
<<<BRUCE: .But I ask, with von Soden and others: What exactly was Jesus preaching in the meantime, in synagogues up and down Galilee; what doctrine struck the Capernahumites as both new and authoritative? He must have been SAYING something in advance of establishing himself as a dead, and thus a risen, person. What does Kym think that was? With what teachings did he temporize in those years, with what doctrinal place-holders did he hold the thousands spellbound for days? It's a real question, and I would appreciate an answer from anyone who has one to give. >>>
In one sense, it did not matter what he was preaching. The people held him, as they did John the Baptist, to be a prophet. Add to that the miracles he performed and it is no wonder the people flocked to him. What we are told, whatever the actual content of his teaching was, that Jesus:
'.went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every infirmity among the people' (Mt 4:23).
What he did teach was primarily for his disciples and veiled from others (e.g. Matt 13:10-17). Even what he opened up for the disciples was often not understood (e.g. Mt 16:2123; Mk 6:52; 9:9-10, 32; Lk 9:45). Jn, of course, holds much of his 'plain' teaching which, for its directness, put him in conflict with those who were threatened by it and him. Besides healing the sick, we know that he did encourage the people in forgiveness (Mt 9:2) and righteous living (Mt 5-7). Those who were just on for the ride were, no doubt, tantalized by his parables or amused and often self-seeking with the signs he performed (Mt 8:16; Mk 6:53-56; Jn 6:26). The main issue continues to be that Jesus could not teach plainly about the Atonement, for example, until he had actually made atonement. A major part of what he spoke about after his resurrection - which formed the basis of the apostles' doctrine - must have included this matter (e.g. Lk 24:26,32,44-45; Acts 1:3) .
<<<KYM: My view, as you know, is that there is an insignificant time-gap between the gospels.
BRUCE: I know it; few better. And I reject it. The Gospels show, not signs of simultaneity, but signs of linear growth, the kind of growth that takes years rather than weeks to happen. In an earlier age, faith was troubled by the evidence in the rocks, and in the fossils that they contained, that geological and biological processes of fantastic duration had taken place long before the present age. Yet Scripture (as interpreted in orthodox circles) held that the Earth had been created only 6,000 years ago, and the evidence of geology must thus be some sort of misleading anomaly. Was it Kingsley, who said at that time that he could not believe that "God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie?" Well, I stand with Kingsley. I cannot believe that men have contrived to write, in the folded and fissured and fossilized record of the Gospels, an intentional simulacrum of something that did not actually take place, namely, a slow development of Jesus theory and indeed of congregational practice, over many decades.>>>
Firstly, I hope that your mention of some peoples understanding of the 'youth' of the earth is not to imply that that is my view. It is not - though I think God would be capable of doing so if he so pleased. The issue at stake, however, the time-lapse between the Gospels, is not affected in anyway by one's view of creation. The layering of the rock strata has nothing to do with the layering of the Gospels. Even so, if we are capable of imposing a preconceived understanding on the rock strata which can be clearly observed, we are even more capable of imposing a theory of stratification on the various, ambiguous and at times enigmatic literary forms of the gospel. Our motives in such things are often less than pure!
Well Bruce, that's it! I concede defeat. Not defeat in what may be true about the gospels but defeat as far as being able to keep up with you on the list. I hoped to be able to chip away at some essential points but your output has overwhelmed me. I've been thinking today as I have tried to find the time to give to your posts and it seems to me I have other priorities which will neglected if I try to keep up the level correspondence your posts demand. Sad, because I asked for some interaction, got it, and now I'm bailing out. Succinctness - both in length of posts and subject (i.e. the Synoptic Problem) may have allowed a longer and more fruitful discussion. The time I am giving to reading and responding, however, is too much given my primary, pastoral responsibilities in a parish and a hospital. I suspect some interesting issues have been uncovered on both sides - perhaps some unexpected ones.
St Luke's Anglican Church
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]