Stephen said

I think I'll take a look at Larsen's book, thanks. 

You should!  It is very well done.

Why don't you go over to Prof Ehrman's Recent Posts page and ask him?   I'd be interested in his response even though I'm pretty sure he won't agree.   
  

I'd have to wait for a daily topic that makes it relevant, right?

We're taught not to modify a text if we value it but that's thinking like moderns.  Luke and Matthew felt free to change Mark precisely because they valued it.  It was a living work.  As soon as a text is fixed you're forced to either accept it or reject it in toto.  It's only at that point fundamentalism becomes possible. 

sberry said
Just finished Gospels Before The Books (2018) by Matthew Larsen of Yale.  He has a perspective that was new to me, essentially that Mark was not a set-piece "book" but rather a constantly evolving collection of notes, stories, and sayings (possibly organized thematically like you would a recipe collection) with perhaps multiple authors.  The person who wrote "Matthew" did not write a different book but finished the same project that "Mark" was working on, if in fact they were different people or groups.  Thus, Luke had the older collection ("Mark") and complained about its organization when writing something different.
Professor Ehrman seems to think of the four gospel authors as separate people who wrote separate finished books.
Just wondering if Bart or other scholars have addressed Larsen's hypothesis?

In some ways it is similar, but on a much smaller scale, to what BruceRMcF has been describing here as Bilby's theory of the continuous growth of the gospel corpus. In theory, it's possible, but we would have to allow for the final redactor of Mark’s gospel stamping it with a definite shape, structure, and consistent style. To such an extent that he would deserve to be called a genuine author. And Matthew is clearly making definite changes in direction, not mere additions so I would attribute the role and title of author as well. That being said, there's no doubt that Matthew, Luke, John, as well as the authors of non-canonical gospels viewed the tradition and prior works as fluid and changeable to a very high degree. This should be expected as a common characteristic of storytelling, even in written works. Think of all the various versions of Greek and Roman myths, rewriting of traditional plays. Learning how to write and craft stories was largely an exercise in rewriting Homer, not just imitating but emulating earlier works. How might one improve upon a story or tell it from a different perspective. Shakespeare did this, rewriting the work of earlier playwrights. Screenwriters still do it today when making a movie out of a novel. 

Paul's view — God destroys the old tent and re-clothes the person in a new spiritual body — elegantly sidesteps all of the problems connected to 'resurrection of the old body':

• The cripple is not resurrected as a cripple because the new body is not the old body reassembled
• The baby is not resurrected as a baby for the same reason
• Cremation is irrelevant because God is creating something new
• The food chain problem dissolves entirely

Paul's view is not only more faithful to his own text — it is more theologically coherent and more philosophically defensible than the crude physicalism Wright insists on reading into him.

Wright's insistence on physical corpse resurrection as the only authentic Jewish and Pauline view actually creates more problems than it solves — philosophically, theologically, and exegetically.

Paul's actual view, read honestly, is:

• Still genuinely bodily — not a Greek escape into pure spirit
• Still compatible with Jewish resurrection hope
• Free from the absurdities of literal corpse reassembly
• Internally coherent with his own analogies and language

And it took no 700 pages to get there. Just an honest reading of what Paul actually wrote.

In this view the soma consists of three components, each composed of ever finer stuff.  There is the sarx, "flesh", the nous, "mind/soul" and pneuma, "spirit".  The problem for us as interpreters is that none of these terms meant for Paul exactly what they mean for us. For Paul even the "flesh" has a metaphysical aspect. 

Since only the pneuma can be transformed into the Resurrection Body, what happens to the sarx and the nous?   Paul is clear as mud, alas. Martin seems to believe that in the resurrection the sarx and the nous drop away.  In that case the disposition of Jesus' sarx would be secondary to Paul.  No tomb required. Prof Ehrman, on the other hand, thinks (I asked him) both the sarx and the nous are transformed into pneuma.   I'm content to observe the argument and not have an opinion. 

I think I'll take a look at Larsen's book, thanks. 

Why don't you go over to Prof Ehrman's Recent Posts page and ask him?   I'd be interested in his response even though I'm pretty sure he won't agree.   

So let's skip the Greek and talk about seeds.

Paul's Own Analogy Betrays Wright

Wright claims Paul teaches a physically continuous resurrection body — same body that goes into the ground, transformed but materially continuous. One of his key proof texts is Paul's seed analogy in 1 Corinthians 15:35–44: seed becomes plant, therefore buried body becomes resurrection body. Same stuff, new form.

But that's not how seeds work. When a seed germinates, the shell — the husk, the casing — cracks open and is left behind in the dirt. It rots in the soil. The plant emerges from the genetic information within, but the physical container is discarded. And Paul says it explicitly: "What you sow is not the body that will be" (1 Cor. 15:37). The whole point of the analogy is discontinuity. The original form is left behind so something qualitatively different can emerge.

Wright has built his case for physical continuity on an analogy whose most visible feature is physical discontinuity.

The Tent That Gets Demolished

Paul's other major metaphor confirms this. In 2 Corinthians 5:1–5, the present body is an "earthly tent" that is demolished — not renovated, but torn down — and replaced by "a building from God, not built by human hands."

Wright points to Paul's language about wanting to be "further clothed" rather than found "naked." But the "further clothed" scenario — the new body thrown on over the old like an overcoat — applies to those still alive at the General Resurrection. For those who die, the tent is demolished. And Paul's dread of "nakedness" reveals a three-stage picture: you die (corpse left behind), then there is a you persisting in a stripped, disembodied intermediate state, then that you receives the new heavenly body. If the physical body were simply transformed in place, there'd be no nakedness to fear.

The person survives death. The body does not. Wright collapses this distinction, applying language Paul reserves for the living to the dead, making it sound as though the physical body is always preserved. But Paul says the opposite: the tent is destroyed. The shell is left in the dirt. Again.

The Simplest Objection Is the Strongest

You don't need to out-Greek N.T. Wright. His own key analogy — Paul's own chosen picture — has a most prominent feature that directly contradicts his conclusion. Wright must argue either that Paul didn't understand how seeds work, or that he chose an analogy whose most obvious feature undermines his own point.

Professor Ehrman seems to think of the four gospel authors as separate people who wrote separate finished books.

Just wondering if Bart or other scholars have addressed Larsen's hypothesis?

Jean-François Lavère,
_The Valtorta Enigma, Volume 1: The astounding accuracy of one woman's private revelation of the Gospel story_ (2023), 272pp.

_The Valtorta Enigma, Volume 2: Hidden truths unveiled: how the writings of Maria Valtorta clarify many Biblical questions_ (2024), 498pp.

DavidFord said
Some people believe that it accurately depicts things that occurred.

Some people will believe anything ...

C. Alan Ames, _Through the Eyes of Jesus Trilogy_ (2003)
** you do not have permission to see this link **