Gospel Sources Partly Written and Contemporary with witnesses?

[Longfellow]

Well I believe He did, because I accept the testimonies of the disciples and the evangelists. To me, it's their experience of meeting and walking with Christ (and that includes Paul).

I accept the evangelists are anonymous, and perhaps writing at a one-step remove. I accept that they added and embellished, their their narratives follow the pattern of mythic narratives of the day, they they sit comfortably in GrecoRoman literature. That Paul was deeply influenced by Jewish Merkabah Mysticism. But I see no reason to assume that diminishes the Message, or that he, or they, got it wrong.

They all got it differently, but they're all essentially right.

I'm not against you, I'm just trying to point out that while your thesis is credible, it lacks credibility and, based on the fact that there's no evidence to support it, there's no reason why anyone should entertain it as anything other than your version of what could have happened.

Again, I'm thinking that I might have grievously miscommunicated to you what this discussion is all about for me. See my latest post in Non-Christian Follower of Jesus.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Longfellow —

Trying to narrow in on the broader issue.

... that disciples in the time of Jesus wrote notes, and that those were copied into collections that were faithfully recopied until they were used as sources for the gospels, is an imaginary scenario with very little documentation for it ...

There's no firm evidence that supports it, so scholarship cannot really make a claim based on 'what could have been'. Generally, the view is, in the absence of evidence, it remains an open question.

Imagining that gospels were copied from each other, with or without some parts from a lost source, is also an imaginary scenario, with zero documentation for it, and requiring endlessly changing convoluted explanations for the contradictions that it generates.

No, that's not the case, really. The claims rest on the 'internal evidence' of the Gospels, there's nothing convoluted about it.

Even if working from notes taken down at the time, the same 'contradictions' and 'convolutions' would be there.

 

[Longfellow]

I made a mistake mixing up the question of when and how the gospels were written with the question of how much in them is witness testimony.

People were calling Jesus a master teacher, his followers were calling themselves disciples, and people were comparing them to disciples of other teachers. The burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the disciples of Jesus did not write notes, recopy them, and use them in the same ways that disciples of other teachers did. Over a year or more, Jesus would have repeated his public talks and private lessons more than once. There would be notes from different disciples writing about the same occasions and about different occasions. For example, Jesus might have given the same talk once on a hill and once not on a hill, with exactly the same similarities and differences that we see in the gospels. He would have repeated the same parables many times, in different ways, with exactly the same similarities and differences that we see in the gospels. Whenever and however the gospels were written, each one would have copied from a different collection of notes. That would explain all the similarities and differences that scholars have tried to explain as parts of one gospel being copied from another.

 

[Thomas]

The burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the disciples of Jesus did not write notes, recopy them, and use them in the same ways that disciples of other teachers did.

No, the burden of proof is on you to produce evidence to support your thesis.

Criticising other theories is not proof of your own.

There would be notes from different disciples writing about the same occasions and about different occasions.

I hate to keep beating the same drum, but repeating a supposition enough times does not make it a fact.

The source-theory hypotheses rest on interpretations of the evidence.

Your notes hypothesis rests on an assumption.

Scholarship can't proceed on the basis of assumptions – if that were the case, we'd all believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the actual authors of their Gospels, and the first and fourth were eye-witness disciples, two of the Twelve.

For example, Jesus might have given the same talk once on a hill and once not on a hill, with exactly the same similarities and differences that we see in the gospels.

I'm sure He did.

Whenever and however the gospels were written, each one would have copied from a different collection of notes. That would explain all the similarities and differences that scholars have tried to explain as parts of one gospel being copied from another.

No, it really doesn't, old friend. Sorry, but there it is.