Longfellow
Well-Known Member
I’m thinking that maybe the sources for the Synoptics and Acts were partly written and contemporary with Jesus and/or the apostles.
Gospel Sources Partly Written and Contemporary with witnesses?
- Thread starter Longfellow
- Start date
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
Nothing else besides what we see in the NT and other early writings, if that's what you mean. To spell it out a little more, I'm thinking that in Capernaum where he lived, and among the many other disciples besides the twelve, and in the crowds that came to hear him, there would have been people taking notes and writing letters and teaching aids, just like in any other teaching network. Those would have survived long enough to be the Q, L, M and other sources that scholars are imagining. If you have some reasons for thinking that didn't happen, I'm interested.
I don't have any reason to think there would be "people taking notes and writing letters and teaching aids," because I don't see any evidence of any? And I think it's a premise built of supposition, with not a lot going for it.
Oral tradition, yes. A lost 'sayings gospel' attributed to the Hebrews, but a written tradition would not be so strong in rural communities. And not necessary in smaller communities. In Galilee, it would be word-of-mouth. John the Baptist had a huge following, but nothing survives of his teachings.
The Gospels have to be taken on their own terms, but generally fall into tyhe category of hagiography. Then we have to try and filter out just what's what.
Was Jesus born in Bethlehem? Didn't matter to Paul, nor Mark. A big deal in Matthew and Luke. Again, immaterial in John, who rather scoffed at the idea anyway.
wil
UNeyeR1
It is my understanding all the "books" of the Bible were this new thing ....pamphlets ...methew mark Luke and John were shared and traded amongst believers as individual reading material amongst those that scratched fish in the sand... what we call the OT and most writings were scrolls at the time...
That the.christian bible putting together a compendium of these recent pamphlets, and then making pamphlets of the Jewish stories and having dropped them on the floor before binding them together into this new fangled technology....the book...
That the.christian bible putting together a compendium of these recent pamphlets, and then making pamphlets of the Jewish stories and having dropped them on the floor before binding them together into this new fangled technology....the book...
This side-track provided quite interesting ...
By the 1st century CE, text were written on sheets (paper, parchment, papyrus) which were glued or stitched together, and rolled into a scroll. The word 'volume' (when applied to a book) comes from the Latin verb volvo, 'to roll' or 'turn about'.
The Hebrew Scriptures were rolled sheets of papyrus or animal skins stitched together to form single, continuous pieces, typically up to 30 feet in length, divided into columns for readability. A book such as Isaiah or Jeremiah, would occupy one entire scroll. Multi-book anthologies were unwieldy.
Meanwhile, wax-and-wood writing tablets emerge. You can write in the wax, it can be rubbed off, and written over. Or re-waxed. Someone hinged tablets together; someone used stronger wooden boards for front and back covers. The Latin codex originally meant 'tree trunk', but was used to name these writing tablets. Over time, the codex evolved into a set of written leaves bound along one edge and protected by covers.
Nearly all discoveries of second-century Greek New Testament manuscripts on papyrus are codices rather than scrolls. Meanwhile, second-century pagan literature generally appears on scrolls. Scrolls are the form for 'official' texts, legal and religious. Christians used the codex format, and by the 4th century, that had become the norm across the empire.
The codex conserves space. Both sides of each sheet could bear writing, whereas scrolls generally displayed text on one side. For those wanting to combine books—like the Gospels—into one handy volume, the codex was a fitting choice. Matthew’s Gospel might occupy 30 foot of scroll. Luke about 31, Mark nearly 19 and John 24. That's 100 feet of scroll, three times longer than one might expect.
Paul’s letters could be stored in one codex, enabling someone to find a reference without searching a trunk of separate scrolls. Preachers, apologists and the like could swiftly locate texts in the more manageable codex format.
Portable, too. Some early Christian codices were pocket-sized. An itinerant preacher could carry a codex with him. The convenience of the codex was far superior to the scroll. You could carry the entire NT in a backpack.
Using both sides of a sheet meant fewer materials to copy the same body of text. The codex was bound into its own protective covers, whereas the scroll was packed in containers. Again, the codices could be boxed easier. Any missionary, travelling far and wide, would favour the codex over the scroll.
The codex stands as a testament to the zeal and practicality of believers in the early centuries. Despite the inertia of a tradition favouring scrolls, Christians saw in the codex its capacity, economy, ease of reference, portability and relative durability.
+++
There is one further ramification. The plethora of NT materials from an era when almost nothing survived is almost an embarrassment. Not only multiple sources, but the ability to cross-reference what amounts to thousands of copies by the dawn of the printing press, and the ability therefore to check veracity.
All other texts from Antiquity we know are via one or two medieval manuscripts. The poet Lucretius (1st century BCE) was discovered in one manuscript in 1417, and that's the foundation of Epicurean studies. We have manuscripts of the NT going way way back and because we have copies of copies we can go back to a more secure base than for ancient texts like Homer and Virgil, Caesar and Cicero, Seneca and Suetonius.
Across all these copies the NT is pretty secure, and the fact there are doubts about this word or that paragraph (or even chapter) is only there because of the wealth of resources available.
By the 1st century CE, text were written on sheets (paper, parchment, papyrus) which were glued or stitched together, and rolled into a scroll. The word 'volume' (when applied to a book) comes from the Latin verb volvo, 'to roll' or 'turn about'.
The Hebrew Scriptures were rolled sheets of papyrus or animal skins stitched together to form single, continuous pieces, typically up to 30 feet in length, divided into columns for readability. A book such as Isaiah or Jeremiah, would occupy one entire scroll. Multi-book anthologies were unwieldy.
Meanwhile, wax-and-wood writing tablets emerge. You can write in the wax, it can be rubbed off, and written over. Or re-waxed. Someone hinged tablets together; someone used stronger wooden boards for front and back covers. The Latin codex originally meant 'tree trunk', but was used to name these writing tablets. Over time, the codex evolved into a set of written leaves bound along one edge and protected by covers.
Nearly all discoveries of second-century Greek New Testament manuscripts on papyrus are codices rather than scrolls. Meanwhile, second-century pagan literature generally appears on scrolls. Scrolls are the form for 'official' texts, legal and religious. Christians used the codex format, and by the 4th century, that had become the norm across the empire.
The codex conserves space. Both sides of each sheet could bear writing, whereas scrolls generally displayed text on one side. For those wanting to combine books—like the Gospels—into one handy volume, the codex was a fitting choice. Matthew’s Gospel might occupy 30 foot of scroll. Luke about 31, Mark nearly 19 and John 24. That's 100 feet of scroll, three times longer than one might expect.
Paul’s letters could be stored in one codex, enabling someone to find a reference without searching a trunk of separate scrolls. Preachers, apologists and the like could swiftly locate texts in the more manageable codex format.
Portable, too. Some early Christian codices were pocket-sized. An itinerant preacher could carry a codex with him. The convenience of the codex was far superior to the scroll. You could carry the entire NT in a backpack.
Using both sides of a sheet meant fewer materials to copy the same body of text. The codex was bound into its own protective covers, whereas the scroll was packed in containers. Again, the codices could be boxed easier. Any missionary, travelling far and wide, would favour the codex over the scroll.
The codex stands as a testament to the zeal and practicality of believers in the early centuries. Despite the inertia of a tradition favouring scrolls, Christians saw in the codex its capacity, economy, ease of reference, portability and relative durability.
+++
There is one further ramification. The plethora of NT materials from an era when almost nothing survived is almost an embarrassment. Not only multiple sources, but the ability to cross-reference what amounts to thousands of copies by the dawn of the printing press, and the ability therefore to check veracity.
All other texts from Antiquity we know are via one or two medieval manuscripts. The poet Lucretius (1st century BCE) was discovered in one manuscript in 1417, and that's the foundation of Epicurean studies. We have manuscripts of the NT going way way back and because we have copies of copies we can go back to a more secure base than for ancient texts like Homer and Virgil, Caesar and Cicero, Seneca and Suetonius.
Across all these copies the NT is pretty secure, and the fact there are doubts about this word or that paragraph (or even chapter) is only there because of the wealth of resources available.
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
If you don't count the Bible and other early writings as evidence, then I don't have any evidence for what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what seems to me like the most plausible explanation for what we see in the gospels and Acts. The network of Jesus disciples wrote things down just like people did in other teaching networks. They recopied as needed what they considered worth recopying, just like people did in other teaching networks. That's what Q, L, M, and other gospel sources were, writings copied and recopied from the times that Jesus and the apostles were teaching. Late in the first century or early in the second, in response to competition from other leaders against the successors to Paul's emissaries some of those successors arranged for some skilled story writers to compile those writings into stories, to help keep the churches united under their leadership. One gospel for the churches radiating from Antioch, one for the churches radiating from Rome, one for the wider diaspora, and one for the Greeks. Possibly John actually was written by him. Acts was written partly to show that Paul subordinated himself to the apostles; to counteract the way he was being used by Gnostics.
That's my story today, but it changes every day. If you can think of any other reasons besides lack of evidence for thinking that didn't happen, I'm interested.
That's my story today, but it changes every day. If you can think of any other reasons besides lack of evidence for thinking that didn't happen, I'm interested.
I'm not sure there's any evidence for what you are saying, that's my point. There seems to be a lot of conjecture?
Well anyone can imagine a scenario for which there's a lack of evidence ... and many have
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
I’m calling what I’m saying a fictional story now, because the point is not to try to convince anyone. It’s to see if there’s anything implausible about it to anyone. Does it seem implausible to you that people in the Jesus teaching network wrote things down as they were happening, just like in other teaching networks, or that they recopied them as needed over a few decades, until they became the Q, L, M and other sources of the gospels?I'm not sure there's any evidence for what you are saying, that's my point. There seems to be a lot of conjecture?
Well anyone can imagine a scenario for which there's a lack of evidence ... and many have
I think the question is why would anyone write things down? Most of the time people would only need to communicate with those they are close to, emotionally and physically, so they would simply talk to them to tell of what they saw and did. The NT exists precisely because people wanted to communicate to others they were not physically close to, so writing was the only reasonable option.
I think your narrative would have to account for the silence about the Galilee community in the emergence of Christianity.
I don't know of other teaching networks, so I can't compare.
I quite agree that there were probably written sources... but they're lost. But those lost works alluded to are not necessarily contemporaneous, nor first-hand accounts.
There was undoubtedly a transmission of saying and doings, from witnesses and early hearsay, but whether anyone was actually making a written record of what Jesus was saying at the time is a difficult one.
We just don't know.
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
That answers my question. Thanks!
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
I’ve read about it and thought about it some more, and I challenge anyone to do three hours of research on writing practices at the beginning of the first century, then tell me honestly that you think it's possible that Jesus had no followers who could write, or that you think it's possible that none of those took notes, or that you think it's possible that those notes were not recopied as needed until the gospels were written.
Last edited: