Subject: Re: Words of Jesus

From: [email-masked] (U. Schmid)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 14:09:46 +0100

[long message]

On Sat, 13 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorf wrote (inter alia):

>I think that very extensive redaction is the reason why there was no
>plethora of writings describing who wrote the Gospels, when & where they
>were written, and their motivations for having been written. And similarly
>the reason why the Logia, about which Papias wrote five treatises, did not
>survive.

I must confess that I do not fully understand the reasoning behind this
argument.

1. What sort of redaction do you mean referring to what part of the tradition?

2. Why should there have been a "plethora of writings describing who wrote
the Gospels..."? Besides, we have at least the testimony of a certain
"Prebyter" prior to Papias describing at least two of the Gospels.

3. The "reason why the the Logia, about which Papias wrote five treatises,
did not survive" apparently is that they never existed apart from Papias
work. Papias collected them out of written and oral sources adding his
comments to them. The gathering of this sources must have been a work sui
generis never intended to be published seperately but only incorporated in
his five treatises. Why this work did not survive is a totally different
question.

>If this reasoning is correct, persons like Justin must have been
>a bit dubious as to who wrote the Gospels, if they came out almost a
>century after the fact yet were attributed to mid-1st-century persons; and
>so he avoided naming them by their kata's Matthew, Mark.... .

Again, I don't fully understand what you mean.

1. It is a well known fact that Justin displays knowledge of at least the
Synoptic Gospels usually calling them Apomnemoneumata, once glossing this
term with Euangelia (1 Apol 66.3).

2. Once Justin refers to Peter's Apomnemoneumata (Dial. 106.2-3) giving
evidence that he knows the Presbyter tradition related to the Gospel of
Mark (c.f. Papias).

3. Once Justin refers to the Apomnemoneumata of the Apostles and of their
followers (Dial. 103.8) giving evidence that he knows two different groups
of written Gospels. One group was written by apostles (e.g., Matthew and
John) and another group was written by followers of the apostles (e.g.,
Mark and Luke).

4. The existence of multiple writings of the same genre (Apomnemoneumata,
Gospels) necessarily points to designations of these writings that need to
have at least two features:
a. A unifying feature denoting that they belong to the same genre.
b. A distinctive feature denoting that yet they are distinct entities.

5. The unanimously attested Gospel superscriptions in the manuscript
tradition is "euaggelion kata..." (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) satisfying
both features. Moreover, there is not the slightest hint that any of the
canonical Gospels was ever attributed to anyone else than the known names.
The "euaggelion kata..." expression even serves another purpose:
Emphasizing that in theological terms there is and can be only one Gospel,
though there are (at least) four written accounts of it.

6. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude:
Justin knew the titles as they are found in the manuscript tradition (c.f.,
the plural "Euaggelia", the Memoirs of Peter, i.e. Gospel of Mark).

7. In assuming that Justin "avoided naming them by their kata's Matthew,
Mark..." you seem to imply that he should have used these designations. But
why should he have done so? In my view there is simply no reason for this
assumption:
a. Justin chose for whatever reason to refer to the Gospels mainly as
Apomnemoneumata. The grammatical construction of Apomnemoneumata simply is
with the genitive.
b. He used the term euaggelion only three times. Without going into more
detail at this point, it seems unnatural or even inappropriate to me had he
used the "kata" name(s) in these cases (cf. 1 Apol. 66.3; Dial. 10.2;
100.1).
c. Besides, the most frequent term to introduce Gospel material (either
written oder oral) in patristic writings from the early times (Apostolic
Fathers) up to the time of Justin was: "the Lord says (said), etc." From
the time of Irenaeus on there is an increasing use of the formula "it is
written" (gegraptai) though not completely superseding the former. The
formula "it is written (said) in the Gospel", as far as I can tell, never
completely superseded any of the former. Moreover, the formula "it is
written in the Gospel according to Matthew, Marc, etc.", though
occasionally used, never played a prominent role in the patristic writers I
am familiar with (Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Epiphanius).
There might have been a variety of reasons why these writers chose to refer
to the Gospel material the way they did. But it's simply anachronistic to
assume they _should_ have done it in one or another other way.

Therefore, even the outline of your argument not to mention your
extrapolations seems highly questionable to me.

[snip]
>
>Some of this comes close to W. Bauer's hypothesis, except that I see the
>Logia as having inspired the first Gospel, but not until early 2nd
>century, at which time it also reenergized the Gnostic movement.

If the Logia you refer to are those of Papia's work, see my argument above.

>I find
>it consistent that Papias trusted oral tradition rather than the written
>word (in the Gospels),

Where does Papias say that he "trusted" oral tration rather than the
written word?

>and that Marcion felt free to choose a gospel to
>doctor up and then reject the other Gospels.

Marcion is a perfect example of the relatively long period of _written_
accounts of the Gospel tradition and of the relatively well established
position of at least one of the Synoptics.
a. He never referred to oral tradition to overcome or replace what he held
to be interpolated by judaizers.
b. He even accused the desciples of Jesus as having tempered his message.
c. He used one of the lateron canonical Gospels to regain the authentic
teaching of Jesus.
Very briefly I may conclude therefrom that by performing his task the very
way he did it, Marcion gives evidence to a strong counterposition referring
to one (or probably more) _written_ account(s) of the _Synoptic_ Gospel
tradition based on the claim of apostolic origin. It is noteworthy that
Marcion never introduced "apocryphal" figures or secret teachings or oral
tradition to rely on. Quite to the contrary, Marcion seemed to have
acknowledged his counterparts claim of apostolic offspring with respect to
their writings, though accusing the apostles, save for Paul, of having
tempered Jesus teaching after he has left them. Marcion even supports his
counterparts' claim by using one of "their" Gospels as an appropriate
starting point for regaining the "original" teaching of Jesus.

Ulrich Schmid,
Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies

Ulrich Schmid,
Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies

---

From: Jim Deardorff <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 21:24:13 -0700 (PDT)

On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, U. Schmid wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote (inter alia):
> 
> >plethora of writings describing who wrote the Gospels, when & where 
> >they were written, and their motivations for having been written. 
> >And similarly the reason why the Logia, about which Papias 
> >wrote five treatises, did not survive.
 
> I must confess that I do not fully understand the reasoning behind 
> this argument.
> 

I am inferring that Matthew is rife with redactions, as most redaction
critics suspect, and I don't see how this fact, if it is a fact, could
have been kept totally secret from those within the church where the
writer of Matthew was located.  So, within that church, this would have
been an embarrassment they would not wish to talk about or write about. 
Hence there would be a great paucity of writings on how the Gospel of
Matthew came into being, as outside of this church or region even less
would be known on how Matthew originated. 

Next I presume that the tradition of Matthew coming first, Mark second, is
truthful, as this was just a matter of chronology and nothing that
Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine would have had any theological need to
falsify.  Hence when Mark came out, presumably in Rome, those who compared
it against Matthew (though Matthew may still have been written only in
Hebraic/Aramaic at that time) would have been able to see that Mark was a
redacted abbreviation of Matthew.  This would not have spoken well for its
authenticity, and again would not have inspired persons at the church in
question (in Rome) who knew about the situation to write about its origin.
Hence there is a great shortage of information about Mark's origin also.

Might this not explain why Justin, who spent his last 25 years or so in
Rome, rarely if ever quoted from Mark in his Apologies or Dialog (a
possible allusion to Mk 12:30 may instead have been to Lk 10:27), though
very frequently quoting from Matthew and sometimes from Luke?  Justin
would not likely have known of the detailed situation in Antioch or
wherever Matthew (and Luke) originated, and could more easily assume that
these other gospels were authentic and suitable to quote from or allude
to.

So after Luke came out, according to the same tradition, it should have
been known to those closest to that writer not only how heavily he
borrowed from Mark, but that he borrowed from Matthew and placed many of
those verses in improper context (causing scholars many centuries later to
postulate existence of Q).  So the very persons who could have written
about the origins of the Gospel of Luke from first-hand information
similarly did not wish to do so as it would have been embarrassing to the
early church. 

I can think of another possibility or two as to why Justin did not quote
from Mark, and these also involve Marcan redactions.

> the Gospels..."?

The era when the Gospels first came out should have been the most glorious
period in the history of the early church -- to finally have the written
teachings of the Lord made available to the church when before there had
been only oral tradition and the epistles of Paul, who was no first-hand
witness.  (Or, if he had been a witness to Jesus, that fact must have been
what turned him into the key persecutor of Jesus' followers.)  So, by all
reasonable expectations, various early church fathers should have written
about how and where, why and by whom, the Gospels were written, within a
few decades of the Gospels' appearances.  Instead, there is only silence
on these matters -- silence that I see explained as per above. 

I believe this should have been much too momentous an era in the history
of the early church for the argument of silence to be casually dismissed
as untrustworthy.

> Besides, we have at least the testimony of a certain

The very little that Eusebius said that Papias said the Presbyter John had
told Papias is about it -- about all we have.  There should have been much
more if there had been nothing embarrassing about the Gospels' origins.
But what little survived even from Papias can be interpreted as having
posed embarrassments to the early church: (1) Something about the Logia
caused "difficulty" in interpretation; (2) some parts of Mark were written
in improper order -- improper order relative to some preexisting written
gospel that I take to have been Matthew. 

> comments to them. ...

That's an assumption that needn't be made.  The Logia could have been an
extensive *written* document known to Papias, or sayings he recalled from
such a document or from those who had read the document.  If so, the
written source did not survive even though, with this interpretation, it
formed the basis for Matthew.  The exception to this I'm aware of is the
late-emerging candidate to have been these written Logia that I have been
studying (Talmud of Jmmanuel).

> term with Euangelia (1 Apol 66.3).

There is no dispute that Justin knew of the Gospels, and so probably also
that they were attributed to apostles or more distant disciples.  But in
this example you cited, was it Justin or a later copyist who made the
Euangelia gloss?  

> evidence that he knows the Presbyter tradition related to the Gospel of

Yes, and Clement of Alexandria further places Peter and (John) Mark in
Rome. In this regard, you might be interested in studying the Talmud of
Jmmanuel, because from it one can deduce what these "memoirs" of Peter
consisted of, and how they tie in with the good agreement of order of Mark
against Matthew from Mt 12 on and the great disagreement in order before
that point.  I believe that is what Papias referred to when mentioning
incorrect order in Mark.  And from it one can also explain why it was that
Peter & Mark in Rome had a document ("memoirs") in the 50s or 60s while
the Gospels did not come out until decades later, if one infers that well
before the time of Eusebius it had become totally unacceptable to regard
the Gospels as having been written by any others than the men whose names
are attached to them.  (That is, I think it was likely Eusebius, not
Papias, who in quoting from Papias equated the writer of Matthew with the
disciple, and the writer of Mark with the person Mark.) 

> John) and another group was written by followers of the apostles (e.g.,

Yet, the point that he didn't identify any of these gospels by name seems
deserving of an explanation.  I do wonder if it was not because he knew
that the Gospels themselves had not been written by their "kata's", and so
didn't wish to come right out and particularize his sources by name.  I
regard Justin as being in the transition period after the Gospels had
appeared but before the embarrassing aspects of their origins had faded in
time and they could be definitely attributed to their "kata's" (later in
the 2nd century, and no later than the time of Irenaeus). 

I appreciate your comprehensive replies, Ulrich.  This may be getting too
long, however, and so I do need to cut more from here on.

> .... 6. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude:
> Justin knew the titles as they are found in the manuscript tradition 
> (c.f., the plural "Euaggelia", the Memoirs of Peter, i.e. Gospel of
> Mark).

Yes, probably so.  However, I don't equate these "Memoirs" with GMark.

> Mark..." you seem to imply that he should have used these designations. 
> But why should he have done so? In my view there is simply no 
> reason for this assumption:

The "whatever reason" deserves consideration.  I suppose it's possible
that when Matthew, Mark & Luke first came out they each didn't come
accompanied by their "kata" designations.  These might have been added a
little later than in Justin's time, or the time when the Gospels available
to Justin had been copied.  But this seems too conjectural to dwell upon.

> 100.1). ....

But if Justin *had* referred to Matthew, Mark or Luke by name, in
referring to one or another gospel, rather than referring to memoirs of
the apostles, we all would have accepted that and not thought it strange
at all.

However, whatever way you look at it, in his references to the Gospels he
used language that would not require him to state which "kata" gospel he
was referring to in which allusion.  If the four Gospels had been written
around 70-90 C.E., it is incomprehensible that they would not have been
mentioned by name within a time period of three generations later, unless
there was a very good reason for it.  Even if they were not written until
around 120, a good reason is still needed why they were not mentioned by
name for another 3 decades or so.

> Where does Papias say that he "trusted" oral tradition rather than 
> the written word?  ....

That's the way I interpret Papias's "For I imagined that what was to be
got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living
and abiding voice."  I equate "books" here with "the Gospels" and "the
living and abiding voice" with oral tradition, and find it plausible
that Eusebius would soften any of Papias's statements that in any way cast
doubt on the authority of the Gospels.  Eusebius treated the writers of
the Gospels as if they were practically divine.

> position of at least one of the Synoptics. ...

I wouldn't call it "relatively long," however.  It might have been only 20
years or so.  But a lot can happen in 20 years.

> to be interpolated by judaizers.

This doesn't address the time period.  (And he may not have agreed with
some of the oral tradition.)

> b. He even accused the desciples of Jesus as having tempered his message.

If I believed that certain portions of the Gospel of Matthew came from
that disciple, I would agree with Marcion.  I instead believe that the
tempering and tampering came from the writer of the gospel. 

> tradition based on the claim of apostolic origin.

But this tradition need not have dated back more than 20 years.

> It is noteworthy that

Certainly by the time Marcion began setting up his own church he knew 
of the Gospels and of Luke, but not necessarily for more than 20 years
before then.  There is much we don't disagree on.

This discussion is out of scope of tc if tc's ultimate goal, relative to
the Gospels, is to recover them as they were in the time of Justin or
Irenaeus.  If, however, the goal is to get back to the teachings of Jesus,
then redaction criticism and (early) source criticism come into play, and
this discussion may have relevance for this list.

Jim Deardorff