Christian Texts and History • Re: Gary Greenberg argues for a proto-gospel

In his book, The Case for a Proto-Gospel. Recovering the Common Written Source Behind Mark and John (New York: Peter Lang, 2020), Gary Greenberg argues for a high degree of probability that Mark and John have a literary relationship based on a written source, but that, as there are several parallels between Mark and John that the latter couldn’t have obtained from the former, Mark and John made independent use of an earlier written source, a proto-gospel.

Greenberg also notes there is a substantial literary relationship between John and Luke based on a written source, both sharing a large number of scenes and stories that couldn’t have been obtained from Mark, but, as there are indications that John did not know Luke, and Luke did not know John, both likely used a common written source, a proto-gospel

I have read the section of Greenberg's book, 'Did John know Luke?' pp. 695-698, in which he argues that John did not know Luke but that they shared a common source. I didn't find any of his reasons for concluding John did not know Luke convincing. Did you? If so, which?

It seemed to me that Goldberg was assuming a version of what I have called previously on this forum the conservation of matter and energy school of thought. As E.P. Sanders formulated it (he does not call it by that name): 'the view that nothing was ever omitted and nothing was ever created' (Studying the Synoptic Gospels, 1989, p. 117).

Best,

Ken

viewtopic.php?p=168363#p168363

Hi Ken. I'm only taking a superficial helicopter or even 'international space station' view of the "proto-gospel" concept at this stage, so I've only had a superficial look at Goldberg's summary. I am fascinated that he invoked John so much into an investigation of the so-called 'synoptic problem, however, but I will look into it (and, as the image JarekS has posted highlights,^ Klinghardt considers this).

Thank you for the link and introduction to Sander's Studying the Synoptic Gospels: there's a few [tentative] gems in that three-page excerpt (most are one-liners though, e.g. #4, p. 117, "[Boismard's] theory of criss-cross copying has much to commend it in general" though, as Sander's notes, it is dubious that "fine detail in the reconstruction of hypothetical documents can be correct").

Statistics: Posted by MrMacSon — Fri Jan 24, 2025 1:48 pm

---