Textual Criticism of Synoptic Gospels

[Furrowed Brow]

I have recently been involved in a discussion on Mark Priority, and have read several discussion over the years regarding gospel authorship. There are some basic assumptions taken as true. For example it is generally accepted as fact that the authors of Matthew and Luke wrote with polished Greek and the author of Mark’s Greek was more vulgar and prone to grammatical mistakes. The range of dates for a when a gospels was originally written seem to lie in the period 40 C.E.-95 C.E, though the actual dates for each gospel can be debated. But there is a disconnect I have been glossing over in my own thinking and I’d like an explanation.

Here is the list of earliest papyrus

The earliest Matthew papyrus are 150 C.E. and P104. Luke appears on P75 and dates to 175-225. There is much less Mark though there are sections on P45 dated 250 C.E. So when we talk about the authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke and say things like Luke’s Greek is polished or Mark’s Greek is not so good we are really talking about P104, p75 or P45 or documents that date even later, or am I missing something?

Whilst we might talk confidently about the grammar and scholarship seen on documents dated 150-250 how do we connect the quality of writing seen there with the presumed dates of original authorship around 50-95 some 55 to 100 years or so earlier. Even if we assume the surviving documents we have are a straight copy from an original on what grounds do we assume the polished Greek seen on a Matthew document belongs to the original author and is not down to the copyist.

How valid is it to talk about the grammar, agenda, and content of the writings of the original authors of Matthew, Mark and Luke circa 50-90 C.E. based on documents dated no earlier than 150 C.E? Should we really talk about the grammar, agenda and content of 2nd and 3rd century copyists? On what grounds do we assume vulgar or polished phrasing seen on a 2nd/3rd century document traces back to the 1st. How for example, can we be reasonable sure that Luke’s genealogy that starts with Adam really is a 1st century feature of Luke?

[Mithrae]

The four gospels were known and used by Tertullian in Carthage (c190-210CE), Clement in Alexandria (c180-200CE), Irenaeus in Lyons (c180CE) and Justin Martyr in Ephesus and Rome (c150CE) (source). If there were copies of the gospels floating around in those four diverse parts of the empire by 190CE - and it's absurd to imagine that they were the only ones - then it's obvious that there wasn't a single, easily-modified line of manuscripts leading up to our first extant fragment of 150CE. Around 110CE on his way to martyrdom in Rome Ignatius of Antioch's letters quote from Matthew and Luke, and shortly afterwards his friend Polycarp made use of all four gospels; again, if there were at least two copies of these gospels around in 110CE, and probably more than that, then it's obvious that there wasn't a single, easily-modified line of manuscripts leading up to our first extant fragment of 150CE.

If we take Ignatius he uses passages we would recognise now as coming from Matthew and Luke but he does not refer to them. Ref

It seems we have documents dated 150 and 160 for Justin Martyr but he does not name the gospels though his writing “harmonises� with just one synoptic gospels apparently, but what that means and which gospel I’m not sure. Ref

Irenaeus looks like a much better source. It seems we actually have a Latin text date approximately 180 CE, and Irenaus identifies the four Gospels and makes a big play of there being four gospels and references and alludes to them extensively. He mentions Matthew proclaiming Jesus’s birth and Abraham. But Iranaeus seems to think Matthew Jesus is very human, humble and gentle.

I take Irenaeus as good evidence that there were four distinct gospels established by 180 at least in Iraneus’ mind. And we get hints and directions as to what are in those gospels, but the date of 180 CE is not so different from P75, and it leaves us still having to bridge the gap of at least 90 years if we want to project back to the 1st century Ref. And we might see how this more structured view of four gospels emerges from Justin which mentions the gospels but does not name them . It seems Justin does not marshal his material in anything like the systematic way Iranaeus thinks of them as four.

Here's a complete list of Justin Martyr's references to the 'memoirs' of the apostles (plus an obvious reference to John's gospel). (Google search for my list.) Note that he calls them 'gospel,' and note also that every single one of them references information from the canonical gospels. In some cases the information is found in several gospels, but there are also distinct references to each of the four:

• For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.â€� ~ 1 Apology 61 (cf John 3:3&5)
  
  For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;� and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;� and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. ~ 1 Apology 66
  
  And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits ~ 1 Apology 67
  
  
  
  For [Christ] called one of His disciples— previously known by the name of Simon—Peter; since he recognised Him to be Christ the Son of God, by the revelation of His Father: and since we find it recorded in the memoirs of His apostles that He is the Son of God ~ Dialogue with Trypho 100
  
  For they that saw Him crucified shook their heads each one of them, and distorted their lips, and twisting their noses to each other, they spake in mockery the words which are recorded in the memoirs of His apostles: ‘He said he was the Son of God: let him come down; let God save him.’ ~ Dialogue 101
  
  For the power of His strong word, by which He always confuted the Pharisees and Scribes, and, in short, all your nation’s teachers that questioned Him, had a cessation like a plentiful and strong spring, the waters of which have been turned off, when He kept silence, and chose to return no answer to any one in the presence of Pilate; as has been declared in the memoirs of His apostles ~ Dialogue 102
  
  For this devil, when [Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, at the time when the voice spake to Him, ‘Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten Thee,’ is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him, even so far as to say to Him, ‘Worship me;’ and Christ answered him, ‘Get thee behind me, Satan: thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.’ ~ Dialogue 103 (cf Matthew 3:17 & 4:9-10)
  
  For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, ‘If it be possible, let this cup pass:’ ~ Dialogue 103 (cf Luke 22:42, 44)
  
  And this is recorded to have happened in the memoirs of His apostles. And I have shown that, after His crucifixion, they who crucified Him parted His garments among them. ~ Dialogue 104
  
  For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. ~ Dialogue 105 (John and Matthew/Luke)
  
  For when Christ was giving up His spirit on the cross, He said, ‘Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit,’ as I have learned also from the memoirs. For He exhorted His disciples to surpass the pharisaic way of living, with the warning, that if they did not, they might be sure they could not be saved; and these words are recorded in the memoirs: ‘Unless your righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ ~ Dialogue 105 (cf Luke 23:46, Matthew 5:20)
  
  ...and that He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles. ~ Dialogue 106
  
  Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him. ~ Dialogue 106 (cf Matthew 2:1)
  
  And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder ~ Dialogue 106 (cf Mark 3:16-17; does "written in the memoirs of him" mean memoirs about Jesus, or the memoirs of Peter/Mark?)
  
  And that He would rise again on the third day after the crucifixion, it is written in the memoirs that some of your nation, questioning Him, said, ‘Show us a sign;’ and He replied to them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and no sign shall be given them, save the sign of Jonah.’ ~ Dialogue with Trypho 107 (cf Matthew 12:38ff)

You can access Justin Martyr's works (as well as other early church fathers) here.

To my understanding (and what you may be missing) is that it was around 150/160CE that Marcion formed the first specific Christian canon, consisting of Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles (minus the pastorals). His 'heresy' was a huge threat to the proto-orthodox church and obviously prompted folk like Irenaeus to respond with their own polemics and clarification on which Christian writings were to be considered scripture. To argue on the basis that before this point the church fathers didn't explicitly state which gospels and epistles they considered authoritative is to misunderstand the development of early Christian community and beliefs.

Nevertheless, I think it's indisputable that Justin Martyr did indeed accept the four canonical gospels by 150CE, if not earlier; his encounters with Trypho supposedly occurred in Ephesus around 135CE, though the writing came much later.

I should also point out in light of my above list that the ntcanon site I linked earlier is at best a very useful starting point for investigation, hardly an exhaustive reference source (it doesn't even provide the text of JM's reference to Mark). So for now I'll take its ticks on the gospels for Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria on face value Though I note my error in that Polycarp used only three gospels, not the four I earlier posted.

I think what historia is getting at, and what I was trying to get at in my earlier post, is that drawing on a wide range of sources lessens the chance for such error. For example the writings of church fathers from before the council of Nicaea include over 30,000 quotations from the New Testament.

But the council of Nicae was in 325 CE some 230 years after the time period we are projecting back to. Granted there is a rich heritage by 325 and what we have then issues from earlier periods, but maybe my concern bubbles up in the question about the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke. The question is where and when the two genealogies first appear. A rich heritage providing plenty of a material to cross reference by 325 does not tell us if either genealogy appears on their respective autographs. This to my mind looks like a weak inference, and especially weak for Luke.

Off hand two main responses spring to mind, one of which I've already covered: If someone in 150 or 220CE or whenever had decided to add a genealogy to their copies of Luke, there were plenty of other copies around and people who'd say "Hey wait, that's not meant to be there, and it's different from Matthew's!" No doubt the additions to John 8 and Mark 16 were commented on too (whenever they were added), but apparently were recognised for inclusion in later gospels because the adulteress makes a great moral story and Mark lacked a proper ending like the others. But a new genealogy which contradicts Matthew's? Not a chance. The same reasoning applies to a new genealogy in Matthew, albeit without the added problem of comparison/contradiction.

Secondly in the case of Matthew there's the fact that the genealogy fits so well with the author's theme of proving to Jews that Jesus is the Messiah: Descended from the line of kings, the three sets of 14 generations and (arguably) some of the simpler or more obvious gematria/numerics which can be derived from it. (Now that I'm reminded of it, I think I may start a thread on that topic; came across it years back on a Christian forum.) Indeed, it would be shocking if Matthew had written his gospel without showing the Messiah's descent! And again as ThatGirl would point out, the same reasoning applies to a lesser extent for Luke's genealogy in showing Christ to be the son of Adam, son of God, in keeping with his broader themes.

It's virtually inconceivable that major changes to any one or two lines of manuscripts in the 2nd century would go unnoticed.

Tale Ignatius, Justin, Iranaeus, Clement and Tertullian. I do not see four gospels in Ignatius or Justin. P47 and P45 as far as I am aware do not name the gospels, they just include material we would now recognise as coming from the respective gospels. What I am seeing in this evidence is the idea of four distinct gospels arriving around 180 CE with Iranaeus. Iranaus was a follower of Polycarp but we don’t get the same four gospel systemisation in his writings. ref. Something happened in the transmission of ideas between Polycarp and Iranaeus.

As I asked Notachance in that thread, if there truly were any concerted effort to change the gospels, why do we still find different numbers of angels at Jesus' tomb, or any other amongst dozens of discrepancies between the gospels and Acts?

Because it does not have to be a widespread concerted effort, it just takes a systemiser like Iranaeus and material to begin to be divided into four distinct gospels around the middle end of the 2nd century and that tradition followed thereafter. Let me put this the other way around. What evidence is there that there were four distinct gospels prior to 180CE? There does not seem to be very much if any at all.

I think I've suggested what happened between Polycarp and Irenaeus, and also that there were indeed four distinct accepted gospels in the preceding decades (albeit less formally acknowledged).

More broadly though may I say that these are worthy questions which anyone genuinely interested in Christian origins should consider at some point (even if only to see what others have to say on the topic ). They're questions which have actually provided the groundwork for some of my key intellectual philosophies, because ultimately these questions boil down to where we each draw our personal lines regarding what constitutes 'persuasive' evidence.

One can take a minimalist position that if there's no positive manuscript or literary evidence for distinct gospels (or their full/exact content) prior to a certain date, we needn't accept them as factual. Indeed some folk might adopt an extreme minimalist position (Notachance again) that "Nobody who ever met anybody who ever met anybody who met Jesus EVER mentioned miracles. People started writing about miracles ELEVEN generations after Jesus was dead. That is to say that the first person to certifiably write on paper that Jesus could do miracles was the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandson of somebody who would have been alive when Jesus died." As I mentioned in your thread on Mark, a while back I learned a lot by researching my responses in a forum dominated by folk who believed Jesus never existed (and at least one who argued that Paul was also a mythic character).

The main question for me, then as now, is whether one can consistently hold to such a position. As we've already noted in this thread, the works of Plato are far more dubious than any New Testament book. So are the histories written by Herodotus, Ctesias, Thucydides, Xenophon, Josephus, Tacitus, Hegesippus, Eusebius etc. etc. Many facts of ancient history can be gleaned from archaeological remains, but if one consistently applies a minimalist approach to textual evidence a huge amount of what we know is essentially lost, and a lot of what's left makes far less sense. And not necessarily just ancient history; how many autographs by great scientists of the renaissance do we possess, or autographs by those who knew them? It may not change the scientific facts, but it's still a point worth considering for anyone interested in the grand story of human development or assigning credit where it's due. As I discovered when I suggested the comparison on that forum I mentioned, there are folk who genuinely believe that Shakespeare did not exist.

If it's applied consistently, I really can't see a good argument against any particular threshold of 'persuasive' evidence that an individual chooses; in this field or in any other. Personally, while I retain doubt and scepticism about all my views, the threshold at which I consider views worthy of entertaining and perhaps accepting is probably somewhat lower than most other sceptics (perhaps because I'm more sceptical about the 'big picture'). What tends to concern me is not so much the particular threshold an individual might choose, as whether it's not simply an inconsistent/biased approach to religion (or some other subject). Despite our differences of opinion regarding the supernatural and perhaps Christian origins, I think you and I can both recognise the curiousity, intelligence and logic behind each others' enquiries

--
However going back to your actual questions, I think it's worth noting that while they're the best kinds of (textual) evidence, manuscript and literary evidence are not the only types we have at our disposal. (These are largely my own categorisations as far as I know, I should note.) Also worth considering are interpretive and sociological evidence. My 'sociological' evidence is somewhat along the same lines as my previous post: In that post my broad aim was a logical inference between X number of manuscripts/manuscript lines in 250CE (or whenever), to X number in 190, to x number in 110... The actual positive evidence at each stage may not be overwhelming, but if there's something there - and absent any good contrary or alternative theories - doesn't the inference carry considerable merit?

Similarly I'd suggest on a 'sociological' level that given over a century of earlier development in Christian community and doctrine, can we plausibly argue that a bishop in far-off Gaul in 180CE invented the four-fold gospel canon from thin air and succeeded? Far more likely is that, in response to Marcion's challenge, Irenaeus' more explicit designation of the accepted gospels was merely building on existing informal Christian custom - for which we find strong witness from Justin Martyr and weaker evidence from Polycarp, Ignatius, Papias and probably others (eg 1 Timothy 5:18). Indeed, in a broadly similar vein of reasoning it's hard to imagine that the early Christians would have gone for more than a few decades without some kind of written narrative/s of their founder's life in the first place. At each level, the inference seems to hold true.

But just as important is 'interpretive' evidence - the fact that much about the gospels simply doesn't make sense as a product of later times. Two examples which spring to mind are Matthew's emphasis on how soon Christ will return, which to my mind only makes sense in the 1-3 years immediately after the temple's destruction, and John's appendix (21:15-23) which only seems to make sense if an alleged long-surviving disciple had, against expectations/hopes, recently died. These I believe to be fairly strong interpretive arguments, though with differing levels of persuasiveness biblical scholars obviously provide all kinds of competing formgeschichte (form history) for their texts. But despite the many (often quite minor) contradictions between competing theories, it's hard to find any reason for doubting the mainstream consensus that all four gospels make the most sense in the historical setting of late 1st century Christianity.

[Furrowed Brow]

Hi Mithrae I’m going to respond to just the first part of your post for the moment and will get on to the rest asap.

Here's a complete list of Justin Martyr's references to the 'memoirs' of the apostles (plus an obvious reference to John's gospel). (Google search for my list.) Note that he calls them 'gospel,' and note also that every single one of them references information from the canonical gospels. In some cases the information is found in several gospels, but there are also distinct references to each of the four:

Agreed Justin Martyr is working with the notion that apostles had memoirs and these were called Gospels and that he had access to material we now identify as Matthew, Luke and John and Mark.

What I am not seeing is Martin differentiating Gospels. Of course this does not mean he does not have four distinct memoirs headed Matthew, Mark, Luke and John on his papyrus shelf but the fact he can access material we know is later organised that way does not mean that is how Justin’s papyrus shelf is organised....it might mean that....it might not. I don’t think this is a new debate.

Nevertheless, I think it's indisputable that Justin Martyr did indeed accept the four canonical gospels by 150CE, if not earlier; his encounters with Trypho supposedly occurred in Ephesus around 135CE, though the writing came much later.

Apparently not. I found this "Revelation, Truth, Canon, and Interrpretation: Studies in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho" By Craig D. Allert which says some stuff around page 184 and after that applies to our conversation.

I’m not sure if I agree with Allert but he seems to like the idea Justin is not using John and is using a harmonized synoptic gospel

The circumstantial evidence shows two characteristics: First, the longer the citation in Justin, the more obviously it is harmonized; second, the harmonizations consist of passages drawn only from the synoptics, Johannine elements are absent
Allert,194

Allert seems to favour Bellinzoni who argues for post synoptic harmony i.e. the synoptic gospels existed independently first. I might want to disagree with that but these are Bellinzoni’s reasons:

Bellinzoni places his agreement with the solution that Justin used a post synoptic
harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. His evidence for such a conclusion
includes the following: 75
(1) It is easily demonstrated that Justin used more than one source.
(2) Justin generally used as his source written tradition.
(3) Justin's written sources harmonized parallel material from Matthew, Mark,
and Luke.
(4) In the case of Matthew and Luke, related material from different parts of a
single gospel were often combined into a single saying.
(5) Justin's sources often derived material from a single gospel (either
Matthew or Luke, never Mark or John).
(6) Justin's quotations of the sayings of Jesus show absolutely no dependence
on the Gospel of John.
Allert, 200

Ok so there is at least one expert who argues Justin does not access John and is only writing from a synoptic tradition.

However I have an even bigger concern. We don’t have any original Justin. What we get only goes back as far to medieval times. I found this reference to Paris 450 which dates to the 14th century for Justin. This source confirms Paris 450 dated Sept 1364 and Claomont 82 dated 1557 are our sources for Justin. (Scroll down to Works).

So our nearest copy is 1200 years later. As much as we can talk about Justin as if we have access to his own writings I can’t help but think 1200 years is a long time for interpolations to sneak into Trypho by later scribes. The post synoptic harmonisation detected by Bellinzoni might easily be just that given a 14th century copy of Justin. Quite often I am finding the kinds of evidence textual scholars offer is thinly cut. I’m not saying there have been major changes, just enough to muddy the evidence either way.

• Trypho 103 We don’t get a Matt document with 4:9-10 until the 4th century. Matt 3:17 does not look right as that is the baptism of Jesus. But even so we are still not getting these passage in what we can definitely assign as Mark until the 4th.
  
  Trypho 104 and the allusion to Luke 20:42/44. Justin seems to be working with his own version of 42 and verse 44 which talks about his sweat looking like drops of blood does not appear in many early version of Luke including P75. It is not there. So is this really Luke? And is it later 4th?

Given the very late date of Paris 450 can we really be confident these are original to Justin circa 150-160.

[Furrowed Brow]

To my understanding (and what you may be missing) is that it was around 150/160CE that Marcion formed the first specific Christian canon, consisting of Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles (minus the pastorals). His 'heresy' was a huge threat to the proto-orthodox church and obviously prompted folk like Irenaeus to respond with their own polemics and clarification on which Christian writings were to be considered scripture. To argue on the basis that before this point the church fathers didn't explicitly state which gospels and epistles they considered authoritative is to misunderstand the development of early Christian community and beliefs.

That is not quite my point regarding Justin. First I am not talking about epistles. Take the idea of a pre-synoptic harmonisation. Justin could have been working from one document.

Off hand two main responses spring to mind, one of which I've already covered: If someone in 150 or 220CE or whenever had decided to add a genealogy to their copies of Luke, there were plenty of other copies around and people who'd say "Hey wait, that's not meant to be there, and it's different from Matthew's!"

Maybe they did. Not to say they put it writing, and not to say they disliked the change, and if it happened in the 2nd century we have hardly any material at all from that time. But Luke is different from Matthew and that had to occur at some point, and the kind of hand going up to pose a question you allude to presumably happened. Maybe it is the sort of thing that spurs on some of the apocryphal gospels, schisms, and Marcion etc. It is not too difficult to see why Marcion would not want a Hebrew genealogy that affirms the Old Testament given his dislike of the Hebrew bible and the old temperamental God.

No doubt the additions to John 8 and Mark 16 were commented on too (whenever they were added), but apparently were recognised for inclusion in later gospels because the adulteress makes a great moral story and Mark lacked a proper ending like the others. But a new genealogy which contradicts Matthew's? Not a chance. The same reasoning applies to a new genealogy in Matthew, albeit without the added problem of comparison/contradiction.

I think that is just too bold. If we work with the presumption that there is a fairly clear cut four gospel tradition handed down from the 1st century then your point gathers strength. But do we need to assume that. If there are various versions and variations and harmonise arising in the early 2nd century rooted in widespread 1st century oral tradition then I think this creates the right kind of circumstance to see material appearing that looks like each other but remembered a little different in each meeting house or church. We only need a dozen or so different centres getting things down in writing. Some of these ending up as apocryphal gospels, some of them getting harmonised, some keeping their own distinct flavour. As these first writings are not yet fully authoritative there is room for additions and interpolations and so forth as the writing begin to disseminate and someone copying a text they have recognised adds their own thoughts or make changes on keeping with how they always heard a certain story. So basically we only have to envisage a period of non faithful copying lasting maybe 50 to 75 years. This process settling down by towards the end of the 2nd century. But how all this material connects to the 1st century is a lot more blurry than the canon would lead us to believe. Not to say someone or some group did not walk out of Judea with the Kernel of the story but the transmission being way to intricate for us to discern vulgar grammar on say Mark tracing back to the original 1st century autograph, if such a thing even exists.

...but if one consistently applies a minimalist approach to textual evidence a huge amount of what we know is essentially lost,...

I confess I’m probably a minimalist. I don’t think we lose what we “know� we just get a more honest look at what we think we would like to say we know. I’m content to say I don’t know if Socrates existed or whether Plato’s Republic I once read was indeed all written by Plato. I’m not impoverished by that thought and may actually be enriched if I get a glimpse at how intricate real life can be. I am certain about the supernatural and aliens but as for real life my brow gets all wrinkly just thinking about it.

[Mithrae]

So our nearest copy is 1200 years later. As much as we can talk about Justin as if we have access to his own writings I can’t help but think 1200 years is a long time for interpolations to sneak into Trypho by later scribes. The post synoptic harmonisation detected by Bellinzoni might easily be just that given a 14th century copy of Justin. Quite often I am finding the kinds of evidence textual scholars offer is thinly cut. I’m not saying there have been major changes, just enough to muddy the evidence either way.

• Trypho 103 We don’t get a Matt document with 4:9-10 until the 4th century. Matt 3:17 does not look right as that is the baptism of Jesus. But even so we are still not getting these passage in what we can definitely assign as Mark until the 4th.
  
  Trypho 104 and the allusion to Luke 20:42/44. Justin seems to be working with his own version of 42 and verse 44 which talks about his sweat looking like drops of blood does not appear in many early version of Luke including P75. It is not there. So is this really Luke? And is it later 4th?

Given the very late date of Paris 450 can we really be confident these are original to Justin circa 150-160.

Not a particularly new suggestion to me, and at least you haven't yet advanced the theory that Justin Martyr was a mythical character of the intellectual-converted-pagan archetype

And as I've already said, I don't really have an argument against that level of scepticism. Except perhaps by analogy. For you haven't provided any motivation and/or mechanism for the falsification of the copies of Justin Martyr's works, and nor have you responded to the last three paragraphs of my post (which in part touch broadly on that very topic). It occurs to me that you're just one step away from the likes of New World Order conspiracy theorists:
Step 1 - Count existing, well-known and accepted evidence as insufficient
Step 2 - Suggest deliberate falsification of the evidence in some way
Step 3 - Ignore or discount motive/mechanism, or propose motives only for a few key figures
Step 4 - Propose an alternative paradigm which explains all the modified evidence

Of course, being an open-minded sort of person, I'm not convinced that the conspiracists are wrong. But I'm curious how you respond to the comparison. On the basis of no actual evidence, you appear to be claiming some likelihood of forgery in the works of a mid-second century Christian apologist. Out of interest, how do you know that the sources you've provided in your post are significantly more reliable than scribes from the 2nd to 14th centuries?

Nevertheless, I think it's indisputable that Justin Martyr did indeed accept the four canonical gospels by 150CE, if not earlier; his encounters with Trypho supposedly occurred in Ephesus around 135CE, though the writing came much later.

Apparently not. I found this "Revelation, Truth, Canon, and Interrpretation: Studies in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho" By Craig D. Allert which says some stuff around page 184 and after that applies to our conversation.

I’m not sure if I agree with Allert but he seems to like the idea Justin is not using John and is using a harmonized synoptic gospel

The circumstantial evidence shows two characteristics: First, the longer the citation in Justin, the more obviously it is harmonized; second, the harmonizations consist of passages drawn only from the synoptics, Johannine elements are absent
Allert,194

Allert seems to favour Bellinzoni who argues for post synoptic harmony i.e. the synoptic gospels existed independently first. I might want to disagree with that but these are Bellinzoni’s reasons:

Bellinzoni places his agreement with the solution that Justin used a post synoptic
harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. His evidence for such a conclusion
includes the following: 75
(1) It is easily demonstrated that Justin used more than one source.
(2) Justin generally used as his source written tradition.
(3) Justin's written sources harmonized parallel material from Matthew, Mark,
and Luke.
(4) In the case of Matthew and Luke, related material from different parts of a
single gospel were often combined into a single saying.
(5) Justin's sources often derived material from a single gospel (either
Matthew or Luke, never Mark or John).
(6) Justin's quotations of the sayings of Jesus show absolutely no dependence
on the Gospel of John.
Allert, 200

Ok so there is at least one expert who argues Justin does not access John and is only writing from a synoptic tradition.

Interesting the emphasis that Justin doesn't draw from John. I should point out that Bellinzoni is incorrect in point 5 above, because as shown in my quotes Justin Martyr mentions the name 'Boanerges' given to the sons of Zebedee only in Mark's gospel. Quite a few other references could be from Mark's gospel, but also could be from the other synoptics; perhaps this is why it's John in particular which Justin apparently doesn't draw from, the odd one out in a handy harmonisation theory.

As far as John:

• For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.â€� ~ 1 Apology 61 (cf John 3:3&5)
  
  For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. ~ Dialogue 105 (John and Matthew/Luke)

The first quote I consider definitely (and obviously) a combination of John 3:3 and John 3:5. From the second quote, off-hand I believe that reference to Jesus as 'only-begotten' and 'word' also occur only in John throughout the New Testament, and Justin here attributes it to the memoirs (or gospels).

If you contend along with Allert/Bellinzoni that "Johannine elements are absent," I'd appreciate more than a mere assertion or argument from (weak) authority. I spent some four hours making my last post (admittedly thanks mostly to poor internet), and my claim that Justin references information distinct to each of the four gospels seems sound.

[Furrowed Brow]

And as I've already said, I don't really have an argument against that level of scepticism.

I don’t think I am be overly sceptical. I’m just saying that 1200 years means there is a fair chance the text is tainted by its process of transmission. And the degree of taint is not huge but sufficient to not be able to make fine cut judgments that require very close attention to the text. I think any other stance requires an unwarranted degree of credulity. I’m not doubting there was a Justin.

For you haven't provided any motivation and/or mechanism for the falsification of the copies of Justin Martyr's works,

Falsification? Well that is a hard term and kind of paints me into just one corner. OK I am guessing that over 1200 years Trypho was copied a number of times. I don’t know how many. But the longer the period between copies the worse condition will be the older manuscript. Say it was left 200 years before a copy was made. There would be a good chance the older version has a few page in a fragmentary condition leaving the copyist to make an educated guess on how to fill the gaps. Or if the text was recopied say every 50 years that would make 24 copyists. With regular copying there is more chance of just one or two earnest scribes making additions and changes, and even then there may be the odd degraded line the scribe has to make a best guess at. And I’m am only talking about changes that are of sufficient degree that make finer cut observations like Bellinzoni’s unwarranted, at least as far as projecting the small the way back to Justin’s time.

..and nor have you responded to the last three paragraphs of my post (which in part touch broadly on that very topic).

However going back to your actual questions, I think it's worth noting that while they're the best kinds of (textual) evidence, manuscript and literary evidence are not the only types we have at our disposal. (These are largely my own categorisations as far as I know, I should note.) Also worth considering are interpretive and sociological evidence. My 'sociological' evidence is somewhat along the same lines as my previous post: In that post my broad aim was a logical inference between X number of manuscripts/manuscript lines in 250CE (or whenever), to X number in 190, to x number in 110... The actual positive evidence at each stage may not be overwhelming, but if there's something there - and absent any good contrary or alternative theories - doesn't the inference carry considerable merit?

Sure it has merit. But it is one way to assess the data. It still might be a mistake. If there is a sudden mushrooming of writing in the early second then this picture muddies the lineage. We know we have a more or less intact Luke and John by 175 CE earliest, and this could be as late as 225 CE. We have nothing substantial before that. I think the evidence clearly points to four distinct gospels being in place by 180 CE thanks to Iranaeus. But we do not know how much of the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as Iranaeus understood these is what we see on say P75 and other later documents, or whether Iranaeus represents either the start, the continuation or the blooming of the four gospel tradition.

Similarly I'd suggest on a 'sociological' level that given over a century of earlier development in Christian community and doctrine, can we plausibly argue that a bishop in far-off Gaul in 180CE invented the four-fold gospel canon from thin air and succeeded?

Out of thin air no. Out of four distinct Gospels...maybe.....maybe not.

Far more likely is that, in response to Marcion's challenge, Irenaeus' more explicit designation of the accepted gospels was merely building on existing informal Christian custom - for which we find strong witness from Justin Martyr and weaker evidence from Polycarp, Ignatius, Papias and probably others (eg 1 Timothy 5:18). Indeed, in a broadly similar vein of reasoning it's hard to imagine that the early Christians would have gone for more than a few decades without some kind of written narrative/s of their founder's life in the first place. At each level, the inference seems to hold true.

I don’t know if that is taken in isolation from all possibilities it is the only realistic inference. You seem to be inferring a more straight forward lineage and transmission of information. Maybe this is right but I don’t think the inference of faithful copying tracing back to the 1st century is any stronger than accepting things were a lot messier than that picture allows; for the messier picture there would be wider number of centres of original first writings with each using an oral tradition (with vague provenance) and material that arises on one centre at times be absorbed into the writings of another, and other times rejected or ignored and so on. In all this process we cannot ever realistically trace a 1st century autograph for any of the gospels.

There is no reason to think of the first disciples as anything close to scholarly, and it is probable they do not write anything down themselves. And we don’t even know that if there were writings in say the period 70 CE if any of this actually survives in anything like a meaningful way that influences later writings. I don’t see any pressing need to think the movement started to write things down in anything like an organised way until the numbers of more educated folk began to increase. Not just because you need more educated folk to do the writing, but because these will also be the intended audience. Not much point in writing things down if no one around you can read little more than sign and read their or own name. An increase in writing indicates an increase in literacy rates amongst believers, to the point that a written tradition has an audience. This is a phenomena that in all likely did not start until we get to the disciple of the disciples at the earliest. I would think either the old age or death of the last few disciples may have been one seminal moment when writing was spurred on. So we are probable in the period 70CE or later. Then again the old age or death of their disciples would numerically be a much bigger moment and herald a larger more widespread phase of writing, and it would also be more realistic to accept there would have been a degree of jockeying for position amongst this second generation of Christians either for their own advance or the advance of the tradition they have inherited. We also need to factor in the possibility that some of these writings might have been historical collations of what people remembered on the death of a disciple or disciple of a disciple. In addition to that we need to factor out thinking about there be any charming liars, attention seekers, embellishers, earnest interpolators and competition. At this point we would also have to prefer the idea of faithful copying to the idea that the tradition arises within a sociological context characterised by human foibles and power plays. The kind of view that might have some community coming up with a genealogy that goes back to Abraham and some other community in a power play come up with a genealogy that goes back to God they have a powerful reason for justifying and disseminating their output.

But just as important is 'interpretive' evidence - the fact that much about the gospels simply doesn't make sense as a product of later times. Two examples which spring to mind are Matthew's emphasis on how soon Christ will return, which to my mind only makes sense in the 1-3 years immediately after the temple's destruction, and John's appendix (21:15-23) which only seems to make sense if an alleged long-surviving disciple had, against expectations/hopes, recently died.

Yes this might explain it. But this is not slam dunk. This is the kind of thing I see as fine cut and it is thin stuff to use as a foundation. Yep sure if you think this explanation edges it then run with it. But the more boldly the idea is emphasised as likely then you just have to filter out other explanations to an equal degree. If for instance this passage is not written down until say a few decades or more later, and it issues from a local need to answer a community’s questions, you have far more mundane answer to why a local Bishop or elder in the community is writing with a slightly more anxious tone. Whilst we can look to large scale events that register with us today to explain some passage or other, the tone of any writer could be down to a host of other things now lost to us.

These I believe to be fairly strong interpretive arguments, though with differing levels of persuasiveness biblical scholars obviously provide all kinds of competing formgeschichte (form history) for their texts. But despite the many (often quite minor) contradictions between competing theories, it's hard to find any reason for doubting the mainstream consensus that all four gospels make the most sense in the historical setting of late 1st century Christianity.

I don’t think I’m implying they don’t make sense. What I am saying is that there is a far more assured tone being used that is just not warranted. And what prompted this thread was the idea we can talk confidently about say the vulgar Greek and grammar in Mark, and the polished grammar of Matthew and Luke being indicative of 1st century autographs of these gospels. It is not at all clear to me there ever were 1st century autographs, but if there were that we can discern their grammar from 2nd/3rd copies.

It occurs to me that you're just one step away from the likes of New World Order conspiracy theorists:

I hope not and think this is probably not apt because I reject just about every conspiracy you might name including New World Order. I normally always favour incompetence over conspiracy, and unconscious bias and social drift over conscious plan.

Step 1 - Count existing, well-known and accepted evidence as insufficient

I'd first just try to accurately account for all the data in situ. A 2nd/3rd century document is not a 1st century document, and a 14th century document is not 2nd century. Just the basics first.

Step 2 - Suggest deliberate falsification of the evidence in some way

We certainly have to consider and then rule out all deliberate falsification, but that does not quite cover all the potentialities. We just have to place the data in different contexts and see if different interpretation are likely, less likely or not likely at all.

Step 3 - Ignore or discount motive/mechanism, or propose motives only for a few key figures

I think that complaint works both ways. You seem to be assuming a continuous line of reasonably faithful copying that traces back to the 1st century. I am saying that don’t cover all alternatives and that there are plausible and realistic alternatives that dramatically weaken the ability to draw firm conclusions.

Step 4 - Propose an alternative paradigm which explains all the modified evidence

Well the alternative I have offered here and in the Markan Priority thread are in in response to a demand for an alternative. But yes so long as the alternative is realistic then it is realistic. If one version edges it then sure run with it. I am more impressed by accounts that show a keen awareness of the inherent weaknesses in the favoured interpretation of the data. Justin makes a good example. The fact is the data is 14th century. So I find it difficult to see how anyone can write about Justin without heavily qualifying its 14th century credentials. Before gleaning this rather important fact I was wondering what the dates were for Justin, and time and time again – at least on what I could find on the internet – I kept seeing second century dates. It took considerable time and effort and many attempts to track down Paris 450. It is this kind of glossing over the facts about the data that prompted this thread.

Of course, being an open-minded sort of person, I'm not convinced that the conspiracists are wrong.

Nah, they’re mostly nuts.

But I'm curious how you respond to the comparison. On the basis of no actual evidence, you appear to be claiming some likelihood of forgery in the works of a mid-second century Christian apologist.

Again forgery is a laden word, and besides from painting me into just one corner it already presumes some prior original and authentic account that is being corrupted. But the point I think you are glossing over is that faithful copying is itself an assumption. I do not have access to any different data than you do. If you are right and you are confident in this assessment of the data then you are sure that it is not likely that the gospel tradition has been influenced by well intentioned liars, embellishers, misrepresentations, interpolators, faithful mistakes, etc, and you have to be sure that the original transmission of the information in writing is pretty much free of cross fertilisation, and you have to be sure there really are 1st century autographs of the four gospels. And 'll point out you have to be sure of all this based on late 2nd and then 3rd/4th and 14th century documents.

Just to be clear: to raise the point that there is realistic doubt I don’t have to prove or demonstrate the alternative is the best answer, only that it is not realistic to dismiss it, and any account that ignores that is glossing.

Out of interest, how do you know that the sources you've provided in your post are significantly more reliable than scribes from the 2nd to 14th centuries?

I don't. But if you are right you have just pointed out a glaring mistake by a fellah who has been teaching this stuff at professor level over four decades. Kind of makes my point about folks fallibilities.

Bellinzoni was 38 years a professor at Wells New York, and gained his doctorate from Harvard and was part of the Jesus Project. I guess that does not put him in the very top flight, but I don’t think that makes him a weak source.

Craig Allert is an associate professor at Trinity Western. Again maybe not the very top of his field, but not a weak authority.

My appeal to authority was limited to introducing the fact that there are other established ways of interpreting Justin, and that there is a real scholarly debate as to what we can glean from Justin regarding his sources. I probably do not agree with either of them, so that is hardly an appeal to authority in the usual sense of what that means in debate.

[Mithrae]

Out of interest, how do you know that the sources you've provided in your post are significantly more reliable than scribes from the 2nd to 14th centuries?

I don't. But if you are right you have just pointed out a glaring mistake by a fellah who has been teaching this stuff at professor level over four decades. Kind of makes my point about folks fallibilities.

Bellinzoni was 38 years a professor at Wells New York, and gained his doctorate from Harvard and was part of the Jesus Project. I guess that does not put him in the very top flight, but I don’t think that makes him a weak source.

Craig Allert is an associate professor at Trinity Western. Again maybe not the very top of his field, but not a weak authority.

My appeal to authority was limited to introducing the fact that there are other established ways of interpreting Justin, and that there is a real scholarly debate as to what we can glean from Justin regarding his sources. I probably do not agree with either of them, so that is hardly an appeal to authority in the usual sense of what that means in debate.

I haven't read what these two have written; I'd be surprised if they'd made a glaring mistake (they no doubt have their arguments for their position), but from what I know my opinion is that their claim that Justin shows no dependance on John seems extremely dubious. My first quote is not quite word-for-word 'what Christ said' in John, but it's very close and in his context of baptism the reference to John 3:3&5 seems indisputable to my mind.

In an earlier discussion Student pointed out that John uses 'born from above' rather than Justin's 'born again,' a point worth noting. But I can't read Greek. I can obviously access concordances with both the TR and Alexandrian texts of the verse in John, but know of no such useful reference source for Justin Martyr's work (or Irenaeus, Tertullian, Ignatius, Polycarp etc.) - and even if I did, there's still obvious limits to what I could glean from them. Even if I were to spend a few years learning Koine Greek, accessing websites isn't exactly the same as seeing the actual extant manuscripts.

The point I intended in the above quote is that our activities here on our forums, the views put forward by scholars such as Bellinzoni and Allert and indeed to an extent even the actual facts which they cite are subject to the same kinds of questions and criticisms as the integrity of the ancient texts themselves. I'd hazard a guess that there's no single scholar with a comprehensive understanding of Koine Greek, acquaintance with all the extant manuscripts of all related works, the archaeology and provenance surrounding their discovery, the paleography, textual criticism and carbon-dating used to determine their time of origin... or indeed probably not any two or three scholars who know and trust each other very well who cover all those fields (and any I've missed). At some point, even the thinking of professional scholars must include elements of assumption in the form of trust that the peers from other specialised fields whose work they rely on is not false or fundamentally flawed. Peer-review makes this a smaller assumption of course (certainly much smaller than analogous peer review in the transmission of different lines of manuscript evidence), but it's still there.

And that's within the scope of a scholarly profession; my NWO comparison was intended to illustrate that in day-to-day life, the many things which we more or less take for granted are potentially open to almost as much scepticism as the integrity of NT texts. Of course I'm essentially just arguing the case of uncertainty for you. But as you'll no doubt agree, the fact is that we need to accept some level of assumption (or some threshold of 'persuasive' evidence) not just in enquiries into ancient texts, but simply to function as human beings. I would argue that too much scepticism is as problematic as too much certainty.

My unbolded 'step 4' of conspiracy theorists is the one which you don't take, of proposing some alternative paradigm - you're simply illustrating that significant element of uncertainty regarding our enquiries into Christian origins. That's something I respect; a BS rating of 4-5 for the existence of Jesus or Socrates compared with maybe 6 for the Yeti being a case in point. At the very least, it helps highlight the fundamentally flawed nature of even the best apologist arguments for Jesus' resurrection for any conservatives who may be reading My opinion is that the views I've expressed regarding the gospels are the best explanations I know of by a rather significant margin, but it doesn't hurt to remember that that's not necessarily saying a whole lot.



I'll leave it at that for now - distracted by an old game I downloaded and probably more Star Trek later I'm building up quite a backlog of things to reply to, but I've got next week off work so if all else fails I'll probably find the inclination to do so then.

[Mithrae]

And as I've already said, I don't really have an argument against that level of scepticism.

I don’t think I am be overly sceptical. I’m just saying that 1200 years means there is a fair chance the text is tainted by its process of transmission. And the degree of taint is not huge but sufficient to not be able to make fine cut judgments that require very close attention to the text. I think any other stance requires an unwarranted degree of credulity. I’m not doubting there was a Justin.

Agreed, but remember that we're only talking about Justin as evidence for the earlier existence of the four gospels. Surely that twelve-century gap leaves room for considerably more scepticism that a fellow called Justin wrote them c150CE than for scepticism of the gospels' origins in a single-century gap?

Of course continuing the comparison a little, a dilligent researcher might be able to find quotations of Justin's work in later 2nd or 3rd century church fathers' writings, thus proving that Justin did indeed exist and write around that time. ...or did he? Would these hypothetical quotations prove what we want to know, any better than Justin does of the gospels? Are the manuscripts of these other church fathers early enough to be sure they're accurate?

Perhaps as a little exercise we could examine something really 'certain' like the Council of Nicaea. Pretty sure there'd be no archaeological evidence. I wonder when the first extant manuscripts of the likes of Eusebius, Athanasius or Jerome date from? Do they mention the council, or if not what sources would we need and when are their manuscripts from? Is the gap more than the 100-150 years of the gospels? Are there sufficient quotations from other writers to piece together the history reliably?

However going back to your actual questions, I think it's worth noting that while they're the best kinds of (textual) evidence, manuscript and literary evidence are not the only types we have at our disposal. (These are largely my own categorisations as far as I know, I should note.) Also worth considering are interpretive and sociological evidence. My 'sociological' evidence is somewhat along the same lines as my previous post: In that post my broad aim was a logical inference between X number of manuscripts/manuscript lines in 250CE (or whenever), to X number in 190, to x number in 110... The actual positive evidence at each stage may not be overwhelming, but if there's something there - and absent any good contrary or alternative theories - doesn't the inference carry considerable merit?

Sure it has merit. But it is one way to assess the data. It still might be a mistake. If there is a sudden mushrooming of writing in the early second then this picture muddies the lineage. We know we have a more or less intact Luke and John by 175 CE earliest, and this could be as late as 225 CE. We have nothing substantial before that. I think the evidence clearly points to four distinct gospels being in place by 180 CE thanks to Iranaeus. But we do not know how much of the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as Iranaeus understood these is what we see on say P75 and other later documents, or whether Iranaeus represents either the start, the continuation or the blooming of the four gospel tradition.

Similarly I'd suggest on a 'sociological' level that given over a century of earlier development in Christian community and doctrine, can we plausibly argue that a bishop in far-off Gaul in 180CE invented the four-fold gospel canon from thin air and succeeded?

Out of thin air no. Out of four distinct Gospels...maybe.....maybe not.

Far more likely is that, in response to Marcion's challenge, Irenaeus' more explicit designation of the accepted gospels was merely building on existing informal Christian custom - for which we find strong witness from Justin Martyr and weaker evidence from Polycarp, Ignatius, Papias and probably others (eg 1 Timothy 5:18). Indeed, in a broadly similar vein of reasoning it's hard to imagine that the early Christians would have gone for more than a few decades without some kind of written narrative/s of their founder's life in the first place. At each level, the inference seems to hold true.

I don’t know if that is taken in isolation from all possibilities it is the only realistic inference. You seem to be inferring a more straight forward lineage and transmission of information. Maybe this is right but I don’t think the inference of faithful copying tracing back to the 1st century is any stronger than accepting things were a lot messier than that picture allows; for the messier picture there would be wider number of centres of original first writings with each using an oral tradition (with vague provenance) and material that arises on one centre at times be absorbed into the writings of another, and other times rejected or ignored and so on. In all this process we cannot ever realistically trace a 1st century autograph for any of the gospels.

I'll stand by my views stated so far as being the best explanation of the data by a significant margin. I agree that it's far from certain

There is no reason to think of the first disciples as anything close to scholarly, and it is probable they do not write anything down themselves. And we don’t even know that if there were writings in say the period 70 CE if any of this actually survives in anything like a meaningful way that influences later writings. I don’t see any pressing need to think the movement started to write things down in anything like an organised way until the numbers of more educated folk began to increase. Not just because you need more educated folk to do the writing, but because these will also be the intended audience. Not much point in writing things down if no one around you can read little more than sign and read their or own name. An increase in writing indicates an increase in literacy rates amongst believers, to the point that a written tradition has an audience. This is a phenomena that in all likely did not start until we get to the disciple of the disciples at the earliest. I would think either the old age or death of the last few disciples may have been one seminal moment when writing was spurred on. So we are probable in the period 70CE or later.

I'm not sure how much we can infer from your points about literacy, consider that Paul was writing some fairly weighty stuff to numerous churches by the 50s CE. All it would take is one literate person to read them out to the congregation. And in fact, regardless of whether we view Paul as representing, opposing or moulding the actual disciples' message, the polemical elements in many of his letters suggest another, even earlier motive to put the gospel in writing.

That said, of the canonical gospels the only one I think may have been written a few years before 70CE is Mark, probably spurred on as you've implied by Peter's death. The destruction of the temple would be another big motivator (hence Matthew) and sometime after that Luke. Remember that even in later centuries Christianity drew many of its converts from the poorer sections of society, and assuming that correlates somewhat with literacy levels there's really no more reason to suggest that as an inhibitor or motivator to write in the second century than in the first. Quite simply, it seems entirely probable that folk would indeed have been writing about Jesus' life long before the end of the 1st century.

Then again the old age or death of their disciples would numerically be a much bigger moment and herald a larger more widespread phase of writing, and it would also be more realistic to accept there would have been a degree of jockeying for position amongst this second generation of Christians either for their own advance or the advance of the tradition they have inherited. We also need to factor in the possibility that some of these writings might have been historical collations of what people remembered on the death of a disciple or disciple of a disciple. In addition to that we need to factor out thinking about there be any charming liars, attention seekers, embellishers, earnest interpolators and competition. At this point we would also have to prefer the idea of faithful copying to the idea that the tradition arises within a sociological context characterised by human foibles and power plays. The kind of view that might have some community coming up with a genealogy that goes back to Abraham and some other community in a power play come up with a genealogy that goes back to God they have a powerful reason for justifying and disseminating their output.

I think this is more into the question of the formation of the gospels, of motives and messages, redactions and so on, more than later transmission. Certainly in the case of the actual author I of all people can understand changes made to a work - I've been known to edit my posts two or three times before I'm happy, and then think of something new to add an hour later. But generally I'm not too comfortable with the highly speculative nature of some scholars' proposed redactions (and sometimes whole lists of redaction phases). There's certainly a distinct possibility of those things, by the original author and within his community, but with the passage of time and the dissemination of the work that possibility grows smaller. Even in a single community, for every person who might want to change a work in some manner there's likely to be one who doesn't, and odds are those wanting to preserve the 'truth' of the work would tend to hold more sway as time goes on.

Again, even within a single gospel the fact of glaring errors like Matthew absurdly sitting Jesus on two donkeys (21:1-7) due to misunderstanding 'prophecy' suggests that revisionism was the exception rather than the rule.

But just as important is 'interpretive' evidence - the fact that much about the gospels simply doesn't make sense as a product of later times. Two examples which spring to mind are Matthew's emphasis on how soon Christ will return, which to my mind only makes sense in the 1-3 years immediately after the temple's destruction, and John's appendix (21:15-23) which only seems to make sense if an alleged long-surviving disciple had, against expectations/hopes, recently died.

Yes this might explain it. But this is not slam dunk. This is the kind of thing I see as fine cut and it is thin stuff to use as a foundation. Yep sure if you think this explanation edges it then run with it. But the more boldly the idea is emphasised as likely then you just have to filter out other explanations to an equal degree. If for instance this passage is not written down until say a few decades or more later, and it issues from a local need to answer a community’s questions, you have far more mundane answer to why a local Bishop or elder in the community is writing with a slightly more anxious tone. Whilst we can look to large scale events that register with us today to explain some passage or other, the tone of any writer could be down to a host of other things now lost to us.

Well to an extent it does come down to opinion - that's what's implied by 'interpretive' evidence at least So again I'd just go with my 'best explanation of the evidence by a significant margin' line.

These I believe to be fairly strong interpretive arguments, though with differing levels of persuasiveness biblical scholars obviously provide all kinds of competing formgeschichte (form history) for their texts. But despite the many (often quite minor) contradictions between competing theories, it's hard to find any reason for doubting the mainstream consensus that all four gospels make the most sense in the historical setting of late 1st century Christianity.

I don’t think I’m implying they don’t make sense. What I am saying is that there is a far more assured tone being used that is just not warranted. And what prompted this thread was the idea we can talk confidently about say the vulgar Greek and grammar in Mark, and the polished grammar of Matthew and Luke being indicative of 1st century autographs of these gospels. It is not at all clear to me there ever were 1st century autographs, but if there were that we can discern their grammar from 2nd/3rd copies.

It looks like the grammar question was answered as much as it's going to be in the first page of the thread. An interesting question for sure, and though I really don't know the answer my best guess would be that the good or bad grammar of each gospel shows fairly consistently across the range of copies (esp. in the early centuries). If it were just one or two copies it might mean nothing, but if there's a consistent pattern in the copies it implies an origin further back down the line. I don't know whether that 'if' is true of course (but if it is it'd also say something about accuracy in transmission too).

Incidentally, when discussing texts, scribal errors and manuscript families I often find myself thinking about genes, mutations and divergent species. It seems a strangely apt comparison a lot of the time. Just thought I'd throw it out there