Egerton's relationship to the Synoptics

[hatsoff]

Hey, Joe. Despite what you may think, and despite my often-disagreement, I do appreciate your insights where they intercept my interests. To that end...

I've noticed Egerton shares some readings with not only Jn, but also Mk ant Mt. How do you think we should interpret this seemingly literary relationship?

Notice I'm asking you, not scholars you've read. What are your thoughts?

Myself, I'm a bit perplexed. Egerton could just as well be evidence of an early canon as it is that of source material. That is to say, we know from Papias and Justin Martyr that the canonical Gospels were trusted very early. Perhaps Egerton is the first of many harmonizations.

Let me know.
--Ben

[Metacrock]

Hey, Joe. Despite what you may think, and despite my often-disagreement, I do appreciate your insights where they intercept my interests. To that end...

I've noticed Egerton shares some readings with not only Jn, but also Mk ant Mt. How do you think we should interpret this seemingly literary relationship?

Notice I'm asking you, not scholars you've read. What are your thoughts?

Myself, I'm a bit perplexed. Egerton could just as well be evidence of an early canon as it is that of source material. That is to say, we know from Papias and Justin Martyr that the canonical Gospels were trusted very early. Perhaps Egerton is the first of many harmonizations.

Let me know.
--Ben

Hey Hats. I am delighted that you came. Ok clean slate Ok? Let's wipe the history and just work at understanding each other?

To answer your question, that's a good observation. I believe that Eg2 is evidence of Pre Markan redaction. It's problematic to take Papias as proof of chronology for writing of Gospels. I'll get to Eg2 in a second. But let me deal with this issue.

We do not have any assurance from Papias that any of the versions we know in the canon were those he discusses. For example he says Matt wrote in Hebrew and everyone tried to translate it as best he could. So at best what we have that we know as "Matt" is a translation not a copy of the original. Moreover, his use of the term "logia" indicates that Matt wrote a Hebrew saying source and it was translated into Greek. So is the version we have not only a translation but also the narrative framework has been added from some other source? So maybe Q is the original Matt Hebrew saying source?

as for Mark, the version of Mark that Matt uses is not the same at that used by Luke. So there were at least two versions of Mark. that would account for the four separate endings. The theory of the Ur Mark has been floating around for a long time. So the pre Markan stuff could be the Ur Mark.

I find Eg2 facinating. It's very different than the canonicals but clearly has a foothold in them. It's Jewish. It's not a latter fabrication of the second century as this would probably be gentile. the differences in synoptic quotations (the one I quoted was of course one of those) are Jewish. Little tial end thing like "go show yourself to the priests, as says the law." That phrase is not in Mark.more likely to be early but not proven fact.


The point I was making is that the four Gospels all use Eg2, or some prior source that Eg2 uses.

[hatsoff]

Hey Hats. I am delighted that you came. Ok clean slate Ok? Let's wipe the history and just work at understanding each other?

To answer your question, that's a good observation. I believe that Eg2 is evidence of Pre Markan redaction. It's problematic to take Papias as proof of chronology for writing of Gospels. I'll get to Eg2 in a second. But let me deal with this issue.

We do not have any assurance from Papias that any of the versions we know in the canon were those he discusses. For example he says Matt wrote in Hebrew and everyone tried to translate it as best he could. So at best what we have that we know as "Matt" is a translation not a copy of the original. Moreover, his use of the term "logia" indicates that Matt wrote a Hebrew saying source and it was translated into Greek. So is the version we have not only a translation but also the narrative framework has been added from some other source? So maybe Q is the original Matt Hebrew saying source?

I agree that this is a problem, but I never considered it to be nearly as serious as some suppose. Anyway, what I mean to say is that Egerton Gospel is perfectly harmonious with the prevailing Christian tradition of the late second through fifth centuries, where Gospel harmonies abounded. The only gripe is that Egerton comes earlier than expected, but this could as easily be interpreted as evidence (albeit weak evidence) that those traditions which we can only reliably trace back to Justin Martyr had developed slightly earlier. This solution seems much simpler, and therefore more likely, than that Egerton was part of a complicated web of the literary evolution of the canonical Gospels.

as for Mark, the version of Mark that Matt uses is not the same at that used by Luke. So there were at least two versions of Mark. that would account for the four separate endings. The theory of the Ur Mark has been floating around for a long time. So the pre Markan stuff could be the Ur Mark.

The hypothesis is sound, but I would consider it considerably less likely than the ordinary 2SH or others which sidestep Q altogether. Personally, I never thought Wilke got a fair shake, and I tend to prefer his solution to Farrer's.

Specifically, why do you think an ur-Mark or proto-Mark is likely to have existed?

I find Eg2 facinating. It's very different than the canonicals but clearly has a foothold in them. It's Jewish. It's not a latter fabrication of the second century as this would probably be gentile. the differences in synoptic quotations (the one I quoted was of course one of those) are Jewish. Little tial end thing like "go show yourself to the priests, as says the law." That phrase is not in Mark.more likely to be early but not proven fact.

The point I was making is that the four Gospels all use Eg2, or some prior source that Eg2 uses.

I still don't see why you balk at a simpler explanation--IE, that Egerton was a harmonization of three or perhaps all four canonical Gospels.

[Metacrock]

Hey Hats. I am delighted that you came. Ok clean slate Ok? Let's wipe the history and just work at understanding each other?

To answer your question, that's a good observation. I believe that Eg2 is evidence of Pre Markan redaction. It's problematic to take Papias as proof of chronology for writing of Gospels. I'll get to Eg2 in a second. But let me deal with this issue.

We do not have any assurance from Papias that any of the versions we know in the canon were those he discusses. For example he says Matt wrote in Hebrew and everyone tried to translate it as best he could. So at best what we have that we know as "Matt" is a translation not a copy of the original. Moreover, his use of the term "logia" indicates that Matt wrote a Hebrew saying source and it was translated into Greek. So is the version we have not only a translation but also the narrative framework has been added from some other source? So maybe Q is the original Matt Hebrew saying source?

I agree that this is a problem, but I never considered it to be nearly as serious as some suppose. Anyway, what I mean to say is that Egerton Gospel is perfectly harmonious with the prevailing Christian tradition of the late second through fifth centuries, where Gospel harmonies abounded. The only gripe is that Egerton comes earlier than expected, but this could as easily be interpreted as evidence (albeit weak evidence) that those traditions which we can only reliably trace back to Justin Martyr had developed slightly earlier. This solution seems much simpler, and therefore more likely, than that Egerton was part of a complicated web of the literary evolution of the canonical Gospels.

The point about Eg2 is that it has readings that predate the canonicals. That doesn't mean the whole gospel eg2 is pre canonical. It's a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy ect ect, and if had all those copies to trace back we would find the author probably wove together an early saying source, or narrative account with another narrative to create eg2. So the txt itself could come from that late period but the readings it uses don't.

Meta:as for Mark, the version of Mark that Matt uses is not the same at that used by Luke. So there were at least two versions of Mark. that would account for the four separate endings. The theory of the Ur Mark has been floating around for a long time. So the pre Markan stuff could be the Ur Mark.

The hypothesis is sound, but I would consider it considerably less likely than the ordinary 2SH or others which sidestep Q altogether. Personally, I never thought Wilke got a fair shake, and I tend to prefer his solution to Farrer's.

that's not where the majority consensus of textual criticism has gone though.

Specifically, why do you think an ur-Mark or proto-Mark is likely to have existed?

Some version has to be first. Scholars such as Robinson start dating it way early. I'm not sure it is that early, but if there were many versions of Mark then the first one was the Ur Mark. But Koester gives more evidence for more versions than just Matt and Luke. I would have to read again to remember them but I have come across that here and there several times.

Meta: I find Eg2 facinating. It's very different than the canonicals but clearly has a foothold in them. It's Jewish. It's not a latter fabrication of the second century as this would probably be gentile. the differences in synoptic quotations (the one I quoted was of course one of those) are Jewish. Little tial end thing like "go show yourself to the priests, as says the law." That phrase is not in Mark.more likely to be early but not proven fact.

The point I was making is that the four Gospels all use Eg2, or some prior source that Eg2 uses.

I still don't see why you balk at a simpler explanation--IE, that Egerton was a harmonization of three or perhaps all four canonical Gospels.

It has material not in the canonicals. The point is not the finished product. you might be right about that. But the point is that somewhere in its construction it used early readings that pre date the canonicals.