Doherty tops is hand to show his ignorance when he quotes Hemut Koster, major textaul critic.
Only in Justin Martyr, writing in the 150s, do we find the first identifiable quotations from some of the Gospels, though he calls them simply "memoirs of the Apostles," with no names. And those quotations usually do not agree with the texts of the canonical versions we now have, showing that such documents were still undergoing evolution and revision. Scholars such as Helmut Koester have concluded that earlier "allusions" to Gospel-like material are likely floating traditions which themselves found their way into the written Gospels. (See Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels and his earlier Synoptische Uberlieferung bei den apostolischen Vatern.) Is it conceivable that the earliest account of Jesus' life and death could have been committed to writing as early as 70 (or even earlier, as some would like to have it), and yet the broader Christian world took almost a century to receive copies of it?
The problem is he quotes Koester as an authority. One would think he will Koester as an autority. But in the next breath says AD 70 is early, although concievable as the date for the first Gospel. But Koester himself is the guy who says that people were writting Gospels as early AD 50.Just see the same source.
Whereabouts does Koester say people were writing Gospels as early as 50?
ReplyDeleteseveral places, there's one:
ReplyDeleteKoester writes, "John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). (Ibid = 218)
Meta,
ReplyDeleteKoester is describing Crossan’s hypothesis, with which he disagrees. On the following page, he writes:
>>There are three major problems with this hypothesis… The second problem regarding Crossan’s ingenious hypothesis is his confidence in major literary compositions of a very early date as the well spring for, and almost exclusive source of, all later gospel literature. In our discussion of the process of the formation of the gospel tradition, two observations applied to all relevant materials: (1) the oral tradition continued for many decades and remained an important factor, influencing even later stages of the written records; (2) the earliest written materials were relatively small compositions of special materials which paralleled the oral use of traditional materials, such as collections of wisdom sayings or of miracle stories, which were assembled for very practical purposes.<<
Koester is saying that Crossan is wrong in thinking that the early Christian were writing “major literary compositions” (i.e., as major as Crossan’s Cross Gospel) at “a very early date” (i.e., as early as “the middle of the first century CE”). He thinks that at that date, they were writing down little bits of oral tradition, like sayings or miracle catenae (pp. 201-205). Koester is specifically saying that the early Christian were *not* writing Gospels as early as 50 CE. Just see the same source.
--LO
Koester is saying that Crossan is wrong in thinking that the early Christian were writing “major literary compositions” (i.e., as major as Crossan’s Cross Gospel) at “a very early date” (i.e., as early as “the middle of the first century CE”). He thinks that at that date, they were writing down little bits of oral tradition, like sayings or miracle catenae (pp. 201-205). Koester is specifically saying that the early Christian were *not* writing Gospels as early as 50 CE. Just see the same source.
ReplyDelete>>>No Koseter agrees with Crosson up to the point of the empty tomb. He says quite cleary that the PMR is used by Mark and John Matthew and Luke and Peter, and all of that form one source written mid century, and epiphanies are form different soruces.
these next two quotes say exactly what I just told you:
Koester:
"A third problem regarding Crossan's hypotheses is related specifically to the formation of reports about Jesus' trial, suffering death, burial, and resurrection. The account of the passion of Jesus must have developed quite eary because it is one and the same account that was used by Mark (and subsequently Matthew and Luke) and John and as will be argued below by the Gospel of Peter. However except for the appearances of Jesus after his resurrection in the various gospels cannot derive from a single source, they are independent of one another. Each of the authors of the extant gospels and of their secondary endings drew these epiphany stories from their own particular tradition, not form a common source." (Koester, p. 220)
"Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb. With respect to the stories of Jesus' appearances, each of the extant gospels of the canon used different traditions of epiphany stories which they appended to the one canon passion account. This also applies to the Gospel of Peter. There is no reason to assume that any of the epiphany stories at the end of the gospel derive from the same source on which the account of the passion is based."(Ibid)
In an article published in the Back of Helmut Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels, William L. Petersen states:
"Sometimes we stumble across readings which are arguably earlier than the present canonical text. One is Matthew 8:4 (and Parallels) where the canonical text runs "go show yourself to the priests and offer the gift which Moses commanded as a testimony to them" No fewer than 6 Diatessaronic witnesses...give the following (with minor variants) "Go show yourself to the priests and fulfill the law." With eastern and western support and no other known sources from which these Diatessaranic witnesses might have acquired the reading we must conclude that it is the reading of Tatian...The Diatessaronic reading is certainly more congielian to Judaic Christianity than than to the group which latter came to dominate the church and which edited its texts, Gentile Christians. We must hold open the possibility that the present canonical reading might be a revision of an earlier, stricter , more explicit and more Judeo-Christian text, here preserved only in the Diatessaron. (From "Titian's Diatessaron" by William L. Petersen, in Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990, p. 424)
Koster:
"There are two solutions that are equally improbable. It is unlikely that the pericope in Egerton 2 is an independent older tradition. It is equally hard to imagine that anyone would have deliberately composed this apophthegma by selecting sentences from three different Gospel writings. There are no analogies to this kind of Gospel composition because this pericope is neither a harmony of parallels from different Gospels, nor is it a florogelium. If one wants to uphold the hypothesis of dependence upon written Gospels one would have to assume that the pericope was written form memory....What is decisive is that there is nothing in the pericope that reveals redactional features of any of the Gospels that parallels appear. The author of Papyrus Egerton 2 uses independent building blocks of sayings for the composition of this dialogue none of the blocks have been formed by the literary activity of any previous Gospel writer. If Papyrus Egerton 2 is not dependent upon the Fourth Gospel it is an important witness to an earlier stage of development of the dialogues of the fourth Gospel....(Koester , 3.2 p.215)
here's another quote that makes it celar Koster believes in a single ancinet source that predates all the canonical gospels and peter, and the ephphanies are from different soruces, but the single soruce ends with empty tomb.
ReplyDelete"The Gospel of Peter, as a whole, is not dependent upon any of the canonical gospels. It is a composition which is analogous to the Gospel of Mark and John. All three writings, independently of each other, use older passion narrative which is based upon an exegetical tradition that was still alive when these gospels were composed and to which the Gospel of Matthew also had access. All five gospels under consideration, Mark, John, and Peter, as well as Matthew and Luke, concluded their gospels with narratives of the appearances of Jesus on the basis of different epiphany stories that were told in different contexts. However, fragments of the epiphany story of Jesus being raised form the tomb, which the Gospel of Peter has preserved in its entirety, were employed in different literary contexts in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew." (Ibid, p. 240).
Koester is saying that Crossan is wrong in thinking that the early Christian were writing “major literary compositions” (i.e., as major as Crossan’s Cross Gospel) at “a very early date” (i.e., as early as “the middle of the first century CE”). He thinks that at that date, they were writing down little bits of oral tradition, like sayings or miracle catenae (pp. 201-205). Koester is specifically saying that the early Christian were *not* writing Gospels as early as 50 CE. Just see the same source.
ReplyDelete>>>No Koseter agrees with Crosson up to the point of the empty tomb. He says quite cleary that the PMR is used by Mark and John Matthew and Luke and Peter, and all of that form one source written mid century, and epiphanies are form different soruces.
these next two quotes say exactly what I just told you:
Koester:
"A third problem regarding Crossan's hypotheses is related specifically to the formation of reports about Jesus' trial, suffering death, burial, and resurrection. The account of the passion of Jesus must have developed quite eary because it is one and the same account that was used by Mark (and subsequently Matthew and Luke) and John and as will be argued below by the Gospel of Peter. However except for the appearances of Jesus after his resurrection in the various gospels cannot derive from a single source, they are independent of one another. Each of the authors of the extant gospels and of their secondary endings drew these epiphany stories from their own particular tradition, not form a common source." (Koester, p. 220)
"Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb. With respect to the stories of Jesus' appearances, each of the extant gospels of the canon used different traditions of epiphany stories which they appended to the one canon passion account. This also applies to the Gospel of Peter. There is no reason to assume that any of the epiphany stories at the end of the gospel derive from the same source on which the account of the passion is based."(Ibid)
LO says: These two quotations support the idea that Koester believes in a passion narrative source (which he would probably not consider to be an actual “Gospel”) that’s “quite early.” While quite early means before the canonical Gospels and Peter, it does not necessarily mean by mid-century or 50 CE, as you are claiming, unless you can show that Koester thinks one of those canonical Gospels or Peter was written very, very soon after 50. And Koester’s comment contra Crossan about the first writings being miracle catenae and wisdom collections suggest he does not think that the Passion Narrative was as early as Crossan suggests.--LO
In an article published in the Back of Helmut Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels, William L. Petersen states:
"Sometimes we stumble across readings which are arguably earlier than the present canonical text. One is Matthew 8:4 (and Parallels) where the canonical text runs "go show yourself to the priests and offer the gift which Moses commanded as a testimony to them" No fewer than 6 Diatessaronic witnesses...give the following (with minor variants) "Go show yourself to the priests and fulfill the law." With eastern and western support and no other known sources from which these Diatessaranic witnesses might have acquired the reading we must conclude that it is the reading of Tatian...The Diatessaronic reading is certainly more congielian to Judaic Christianity than than to the group which latter came to dominate the church and which edited its texts, Gentile Christians. We must hold open the possibility that the present canonical reading might be a revision of an earlier, stricter , more explicit and more Judeo-Christian text, here preserved only in the Diatessaron. (From "Titian's Diatessaron" by William L. Petersen, in Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990, p. 424)
LO says: This does not help your case. Petersen is arguing that the reading found in Tatian’s Diatesseron may be older than that found in our *present* canonical texts of the Gospels. This reading could have come from an early extra-canonical gospel, which is what you seem to be claiming, but that is not the position that Petersen is advocating here. He is advocating the possibility (and he’s saying only possibility) that Tatian had a version of one of the canonical gospels that contained this reading and that that version may have been more original than the reading found in our extant manuscripts of Matthew (or Mark or Luke). In other words, Mt. 8.4 (and/or its parallels in Mark and Luke) may have had the reading now found in the Diatesseron, and that reading may be more original than the textual tradition of our surviving manuscripts of Matthew (or Mark or Luke), which have been edited by Gentile Christians. Petersen reiterates the point three pages later:
>>Third, Tatian appears to have used a redaction of the canonical Gospels which was very old—sometimes, perhaps, revealing a textual tradition that was _more_ ancient that our present canonical text (Reading 3 and 4)—and which had a Jewish-Christian flavor<< [428; reading 3 is the one under discussion here].--LO
Koster:
"There are two solutions that are equally improbable. It is unlikely that the pericope in Egerton 2 is an independent older tradition. It is equally hard to imagine that anyone would have deliberately composed this apophthegma by selecting sentences from three different Gospel writings. There are no analogies to this kind of Gospel composition because this pericope is neither a harmony of parallels from different Gospels, nor is it a florogelium. If one wants to uphold the hypothesis of dependence upon written Gospels one would have to assume that the pericope was written form memory....What is decisive is that there is nothing in the pericope that reveals redactional features of any of the Gospels that parallels appear. The author of Papyrus Egerton 2 uses independent building blocks of sayings for the composition of this dialogue none of the blocks have been formed by the literary activity of any previous Gospel writer. If Papyrus Egerton 2 is not dependent upon the Fourth Gospel it is an important witness to an earlier stage of development of the dialogues of the fourth Gospel....(Koester , 3.2 p.215)
LO says:
Koester thinks that fragment P. Egerton 2 was produced or copied around 200 CE [206-207]. He thinks that it was not dependent on the canonical gospels, but on an oral tradition apparently independent of the canonical gospels. But he doesn’t say it was *written* earlier than the canonical Gospels, let alone by 50 CE. Since Koester thinks the oral tradition persisted for many decades and influenced even the later stages of the written tradition (219), what he says is quite consistent with Egerton having been first put into writing in the late first or even the second century. He’s saying there was an oral tradition before the canonical Gospels, that it continued for many decades, and that Egerton is based on it. He’s not claiming that Egerton was *written* earlier than the canonical Gospels. It could have been, but Koester is not claiming that it was.--LO
9:24 AM
Metacrock said...
here's another quote that makes it celar Koster believes in a single ancinet source that predates all the canonical gospels and peter, and the ephphanies are from different soruces, but the single soruce ends with empty tomb.
"The Gospel of Peter, as a whole, is not dependent upon any of the canonical gospels. It is a composition which is analogous to the Gospel of Mark and John. All three writings, independently of each other, use older passion narrative which is based upon an exegetical tradition that was still alive when these gospels were composed and to which the Gospel of Matthew also had access. All five gospels under consideration, Mark, John, and Peter, as well as Matthew and Luke, concluded their gospels with narratives of the appearances of Jesus on the basis of different epiphany stories that were told in different contexts. However, fragments of the epiphany story of Jesus being raised form the tomb, which the Gospel of Peter has preserved in its entirety, were employed in different literary contexts in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew." (Ibid, p. 240).
LO says: Koester believes in a Pre-Markan (and pre- Petrine, Johannine, Matthean, and Lukan) Passion Narrative. That is not in dispute. You still lack evidence that *Koester* thinks this was written by 50 CE.--LO
Koester is saying that Crossan is wrong in thinking that the early Christian were writing “major literary compositions” (i.e., as major as Crossan’s Cross Gospel) at “a very early date” (i.e., as early as “the middle of the first century CE”). He thinks that at that date, they were writing down little bits of oral tradition, like sayings or miracle catenae (pp. 201-205). Koester is specifically saying that the early Christian were *not* writing Gospels as early as 50 CE. Just see the same source.
ReplyDelete>>>No Koseter agrees with Crosson up to the point of the empty tomb. He says quite cleary that the PMR is used by Mark and John Matthew and Luke and Peter, and all of that form one source written mid century, and epiphanies are form different soruces.
these next two quotes say exactly what I just told you:
Koester:
"A third problem regarding Crossan's hypotheses is related specifically to the formation of reports about Jesus' trial, suffering death, burial, and resurrection. The account of the passion of Jesus must have developed quite eary because it is one and the same account that was used by Mark (and subsequently Matthew and Luke) and John and as will be argued below by the Gospel of Peter. However except for the appearances of Jesus after his resurrection in the various gospels cannot derive from a single source, they are independent of one another. Each of the authors of the extant gospels and of their secondary endings drew these epiphany stories from their own particular tradition, not form a common source." (Koester, p. 220)
"Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb. With respect to the stories of Jesus' appearances, each of the extant gospels of the canon used different traditions of epiphany stories which they appended to the one canon passion account. This also applies to the Gospel of Peter. There is no reason to assume that any of the epiphany stories at the end of the gospel derive from the same source on which the account of the passion is based."(Ibid)
LO says: These two quotations support the idea that Koester believes in a passion narrative source (which he would probably not consider to be an actual “Gospel”) that’s “quite early.”
>>>Koster deals with the use of the term Gosple. He does not limit the concept to "gospel" to just a full blown narratival dialouge.
what difference does it make? If all these were were pericopes, they still picture Jesus as a flesh and blood guy!
While quite early means before the canonical Gospels and Peter, it does not necessarily mean by mid-century or 50 CE, as you are claiming, unless you can show that Koester thinks one of those canonical Gospels or Peter was written very, very soon after 50.
>>>>>>He does say that. But the "mid century" quote, while refurring to Crosson, refurs to the part of Crosson's theory withwhich Koster is in agreement. Don't forget all they disagree about is the source of the epiphanies.
And Koester’s comment contra Crossan about the first writings being miracle catenae and wisdom collections suggest he does not think that the Passion Narrative was as early as Crossan suggests.--LO
>>>>that's your conjecture and it is qutie wrong.
hey even if Koester only believed there a few pericopes written the day before Mark in 69 that would still destory Doherty's theory. Becasue he has Mark as the first guy to ever put Jesus in a flesh and blood context, and that it spread to wider chuch in the second century. this proves the idea was in circulartion at least in 60s if not ealier.
In an article published in the Back of Helmut Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels, William L. Petersen states:
"Sometimes we stumble across readings which are arguably earlier than the present canonical text. One is Matthew 8:4 (and Parallels) where the canonical text runs "go show yourself to the priests and offer the gift which Moses commanded as a testimony to them" No fewer than 6 Diatessaronic witnesses...give the following (with minor variants) "Go show yourself to the priests and fulfill the law." With eastern and western support and no other known sources from which these Diatessaranic witnesses might have acquired the reading we must conclude that it is the reading of Tatian...The Diatessaronic reading is certainly more congielian to Judaic Christianity than than to the group which latter came to dominate the church and which edited its texts, Gentile Christians. We must hold open the possibility that the present canonical reading might be a revision of an earlier, stricter , more explicit and more Judeo-Christian text, here preserved only in the Diatessaron. (From "Titian's Diatessaron" by William L. Petersen, in Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990, p. 424)
LO says: This does not help your case. Petersen is arguing that the reading found in Tatian’s Diatesseron may be older than that found in our *present* canonical texts of the Gospels. This reading could have come from an early extra-canonical gospel, which is what you seem to be claiming, but that is not the position that Petersen is advocating here. He is advocating the possibility (and he’s saying only possibility) that Tatian had a version of one of the canonical gospels that contained this reading and that that version may have been more original than the reading found in our extant manuscripts of Matthew (or Mark or Luke). In other words, Mt. 8.4 (and/or its parallels in Mark and Luke) may have had the reading now found in the Diatesseron, and that reading may be more original than the textual tradition of our surviving manuscripts of Matthew (or Mark or Luke), which have been edited by Gentile Christians. Petersen reiterates the point three pages later:
>>>>Yea I understand that. and that would mean it has to originate at least prior to 70 wehre Mark is usually dated. Since we have to make room for copy time and travel time, for a tragjectory coming oral tradition, we getting back into the 50s. If not 50 than at least some time in the 50s, and means the 40s for oral tradition.
Sinc material in Mark has the ear marks of oral tradition that in itself might argue agsinst Doherty.
>>Third, Tatian appears to have used a redaction of the canonical Gospels which was very old—sometimes, perhaps, revealing a textual tradition that was _more_ ancient that our present canonical text (Reading 3 and 4)—and which had a Jewish-Christian flavor<< [428; reading 3 is the one under discussion here].--LO
Koster:
"There are two solutions that are equally improbable. It is unlikely that the pericope in Egerton 2 is an independent older tradition. It is equally hard to imagine that anyone would have deliberately composed this apophthegma by selecting sentences from three different Gospel writings. There are no analogies to this kind of Gospel composition because this pericope is neither a harmony of parallels from different Gospels, nor is it a florogelium. If one wants to uphold the hypothesis of dependence upon written Gospels one would have to assume that the pericope was written form memory....What is decisive is that there is nothing in the pericope that reveals redactional features of any of the Gospels that parallels appear. The author of Papyrus Egerton 2 uses independent building blocks of sayings for the composition of this dialogue none of the blocks have been formed by the literary activity of any previous Gospel writer. If Papyrus Egerton 2 is not dependent upon the Fourth Gospel it is an important witness to an earlier stage of development of the dialogues of the fourth Gospel....(Koester , 3.2 p.215)
LO says:
Koester thinks that fragment P. Egerton 2 was produced or copied around 200 CE [206-207].
>>>you are splicing together two ideas that dont' go together. becasue you are talking about the result, the copy of Eg2 that we have. I'm talking about the traditino that Eg2 uses that predates the canonical Gospels (which begin at 70 so prior to AD70).
He thinks that it was not dependent on the canonical gospels, but on an oral tradition apparently independent of the canonical gospels. But he doesn’t say it was *written* earlier than the canonical Gospels, let alone by 50 CE.
>>>exacty what he said. And he is saying that the canoicals were based on it. Now what do you think? they used oral tradition that had that but it just missed all the saying sources?
Since Koester thinks the oral tradition persisted for many decades and influenced even the later stages of the written tradition (219), what he says is quite consistent with Egerton having been first put into writing in the late first or even the second century.
>>>>not at all. He says it was written in 50, not Eg2 but the PMR.
He’s saying there was an oral tradition before the canonical Gospels, that it continued for many decades, and that Egerton is based on it. He’s not claiming that Egerton was *written* earlier than the canonical Gospels. It could have been, but Koester is not claiming that it was.--LO
9:24 AM
Metacrock said...
here's another quote that makes it celar Koster believes in a single ancinet source that predates all the canonical gospels and peter, and the ephphanies are from different soruces, but the single soruce ends with empty tomb.
"The Gospel of Peter, as a whole, is not dependent upon any of the canonical gospels. It is a composition which is analogous to the Gospel of Mark and John. All three writings, independently of each other, use older passion narrative which is based upon an exegetical tradition that was still alive when these gospels were composed and to which the Gospel of Matthew also had access. All five gospels under consideration, Mark, John, and Peter, as well as Matthew and Luke, concluded their gospels with narratives of the appearances of Jesus on the basis of different epiphany stories that were told in different contexts. However, fragments of the epiphany story of Jesus being raised form the tomb, which the Gospel of Peter has preserved in its entirety, were employed in different literary contexts in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew." (Ibid, p. 240).
LO says: Koester believes in a Pre-Markan (and pre- Petrine, Johannine, Matthean, and Lukan) Passion Narrative. That is not in dispute. You still lack evidence that *Koester* thinks this was written by 50 CE.--LO
4:25 PM
>>>you are working overtime to twist the words. what you Doherty or something? Doherty groupies!
this quote from Petersen in Koester's book, which Koster uses for support:
ReplyDeleteNo fewer than 6 Diatessaronic witnesses...give the following (with minor variants) "Go show yourself to the priests and fulfill the law." With eastern and western support and no other known sources from which these Diatessaranic witnesses might have acquired the reading we must conclude that it is the reading of Tatian...The Diatessaronic reading is certainly more congielian to Judaic Christianity than than to the group which latter came to dominate the church and which edited its texts, Gentile Christians. We must hold open the possibility that the present canonical reading might be a revision of an earlier, stricter , more explicit and more Judeo-Christian text, here preserved only in the Diatessaron. (From "Titian's Diatessaron" by William L. Petersen, in Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990, p. 424)
Dealing with readings in the Diatesseron so of course that's written sources. He's saying written sources that predate the canonicals.
He supports the ventional date for Mark, AD 70. So anything prior to that must be given tavel time and copy time, so we push back 20 years.
I don't have the Koester boko avaible at this time. I'm moving.
ReplyDeleteHope the move went well. Had a chance to look at Koester's book yet?
ReplyDelete--Loyal Opposition