The next set of principles deal with how the authors themselves handled the texts they had. In other words, what caused them to write what they wrote? What were their motivations? What caused them to make their textual decisions? When looking for explanations, often one is looking for causes, and since textual history is what we are studying, the causes of that history are exactly what we are looking for.
I propose that the NT authors were motivated by two primary factors: story, and theology.
When I say "story", I am also refering to history, but I argue the NT authors were not always interested in history as we understand it. They were interested in narrating events, but that narrative was often based on hearsay, legend, second-hand or third-hand sources, and the like. And what history they thought they were reporting was always written down as a story, a narrative with a didactic purpose, with an internal structure that did not necessarily reflect chronology. In addition, the NT authors, I believe, at least sometimes deliberately wrote fictionalized accounts in order to prove metaphorical or theological points.
This leads us to their second motivation: theology. We wouldn't have multiple gospels at all if it weren't for warring theologies. Theology was the primary motivation for writing a new gospel in the first place. Changes from one gospel to another--whether by way of revision, or wholesale creation--are largely caused by theology, when they are not caused by the needs of narrative logic. And, quite often, the needs of theology and story go hand-in-hand, as when a new pericope, written to illutrate some theological point, needs to be integrated into a narrative sequence, for example.
Interesting series of posts. Just an observation from Trobisch. Was the shape of the canonical gospels determined SOLELY by the original authors (presuming that there were actual evangelists named 'Matthew,' 'Luke' and a 'John' who wasn't Mark) or did the final editor of the canon have a hand in shortening longer texts to make them 'fit' within a fourfold gospel 'set.'
ReplyDeleteTrobisch is quite certain that canonical John is a shortened version of a longer original text. Is the same thing true with canonical Mark? If the various reports about Matthew and the Gospel of the Hebrews are true, then an argument can be made that the canonical text was shortened here too.
The point again the redacting may not have been carried out by 'Matthew,' 'Mark,' 'Luke' or 'John' but by the final editor of the canon who made 'according to Matthew,' 'according to Mark,' 'according to Luke' and 'according to John' (words splashed across the top of the page of each gospel which did not come from the authors themselves) READ AS ONE GOSPEL only when read together as one unit.
Individually, 'according to Matthew' is not a gospel, nor Mark etc. They were ONLY meant to be read together.
Very good questions. I think my diagram is comprehensive--there weren't longer versions of the canonical gospels, besides 1) GPEt as a source for GMt and GLk, and 2) SGM as a source for GMk and GJn. Possibly SGM was a longer gospel than GMk or GJn, but I'm not sure. I doubt that GPet was longer than either GMt and GLk, however. Not sure what you mean about GHeb; GHeb was said to be a bit shorter than GMt.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the gospels evolved as coherent texts, though possibly as each tradition was created (first Markan, then "Matthean" and "Johannine", and finally "Lukan") they were read together. Nevertheless, they did not evolve as harmonies--that came later.
I'll be sure to look into Trobisch, though.
Trobisch takes the second ending of John to pertain to the set of the four texts not just to John.
ReplyDeleteJesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
Trobisch again sees editorial redaction in John. Mark is pathetically short. Too short to be used as a gospel in its own right. The beginning is implausibly piece meal. The ending was curtailed and reformed in countless ways.
I don't believe that canonical Mark represents Mark's original vision. I think the editor of the present New Testament canon was palpably hostile towards Mark and the Alexandrian tradition. But that's just me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDo you think the reference to Aramaic phrases in Mark was a way of subtly hinting that the text was 'really' dependent on the Gospel of the Hebrews and thus subtly denying Alexandrian claims of Markan primacy? I've always thought how absurd having the Aramaic there is. It's almost a way of making you aware that the narrative is one step removed from the 'truth.' I can't imagine a movie doing that.
ReplyDeleteEven Mel Gibson didn't start the movie in English and then step out in front of the camera and say 'Talitha cumi' that means ...
It's ridiculous and only appears in Mark. The canon is palpably hostile to Mark. Canonical Mark must have drove Clement and the Alexandrians crazy.
It's a 'mixed' text just like Clement describes the 'Carpocratian' gospel of Mark. There are real elements but then there is all this 'pollution' thrown into the mixture.
I'll agree it's possible the canonical gospels were tampered with here and there. In fact we know some versions were, from the numerous divergent manuscripts we have. Maybe John was refering to the other three gospels, but I'm not so certain--I'm guessing there were many stories about Christ in circulation at the time, and that could have been enough.
ReplyDeleteI don't see that GMk is "pathetically short", but I agree that it was revised repeatedly--at least twice, under my schema, and yes the shorter and longer endings are quite late additions. I'm not sure that adds up to "countless" times, but clearly there were different endings circulating for a while.
Canonical GMk is almost certainly not original GMk, no. I'm not sure the final redactor was hostile to Mark, but he might have been. He was certainly hostile towards the SGM! And the SGM is when the voice we call "Mark" took shape. You make an interesting point about the Aramaicisms--I would agree there's no reason to assume they're primitive. And it is definitely a mixed text! That much is certainly true.
Actually let me add that just in the last 24 hours I've discovered something quite astonishing about the Longer Ending, based on my own source-critical work. You can be sure that I'll be blogging about it in the near future. It's definitely a late addition to canonical GMk, but...we'll, you'll just have to wait to learn the rest of the story!
ReplyDelete