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?
I haven’t read Larsen’s argument, so I’m reluctant to comment too strongly, but while I do think the synoptics may have been more fluid than we tend think of them, I have trouble thinking Mark was merely a lightly ordered collection of notes maintained in an ongoing state of flux by multiple authors. Both on the small scale (linguistic style) and the big scale (careful development and arrangement) it points to a single hand. Something similar can be said of Matthew and Luke–each reveals an author with a distinctive coherent voice and vision.
A provocative thesis. There has been much “questioning of the assumptions” in the field as of late and its good to revisit some long held opinions. But I tend to agree with Porphyry about Mark. It looks messy on the surface for sure but you can detect a real literary structure and arrangement that belies the idea that it’s unorganized. For me the question is about Matthew and Luke’s use of Mark. The idea that they are later versions of a single literary tradition rather than three separate or disparate literary traditions seems to strike a chord with a lot of contemporary scholars.
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.
...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.
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.
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?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)