Of course the things I blog about - the Diatessaron, 'Secret Mark,' the Marcionite gospel, Imperial conspiracies - all seem the furthest thing from Trobisch's erudite writings. Yet this is what is so amazing about Trobisch's theories. You know they are true because they help explain things even HE doesn't spend a lot of time considering.
Indeed I think most scholars just make stuff up in their heads by recycling ideas that have won a 'popularity contest' in academia. Things that sound nice but ultimately are not based on real independent research. Trobisch has spent the time to actually re-examine the physical evidence associated with the earliest manuscripts. That's what make his theories actually work so well. They are based on physical truths, not just presumed 'metaphysical ones.'
In any event, another man I greatly admire - Roger Viklund - asked me to spell out my theory about the development of the canonical gospels from earlier texts like Secret/Mystic Mark. Roger has demonstrated that he can sum up HIS model for the origins of the gospel in a simple graphic (see left image). I started wondering if I could do the same.
Let me start what I think is wrong with most theories about the origins of the gospel - too many scholars allow themselves to just swim in the artificial fishbowl of the four-fold canon. Yes it's 'safe' inside here but Trobisch's research smashes the appearance of 'reliability' of these texts.
Trobisch has definitively demonstrated something which I think only a handful of scholars have the mental capacity to appreciate. Charlie Hedrick 'gets' the brilliance of Trobisch. So do a lot of other brilliant scholars I have met. Yet there are so many bloggers and lay people who have never bothered to read this exceptionally smart man's works that I would like to begin presenting my theory about the origins of the gospel by actually spending some time on Trobisch's theory which, as I have already mentioned is the basis to my own ideas.
The centerpiece to Trobisch's system is that the texts of 'MATTHEW,' 'MARK,' 'LUKE' AND 'JOHN' were never meant to be gospels in their own right. This is a massively important concept that I don't think people who haven't read Trobisch's work can appreciate its underlying profundity.
Trobisch's 'great revelation' - the one that earns him a place in heaven or 'the stratosphere' just mentioned is that all the MSS of the fourfold gospel make it plainly evident that they were intended to be used as a 'set.' What is represented here is not 'four gospels.' This is a cardinal error of scholars trying to reconstruct the history of the canon. Rather it is 'a gospel in four.'
I can't emphasize how critical this is and how all attempts to simply take the four texts as 'four gospels' necessarily goes beyond what was originally intended by the final editor of the canon.
Scholars can say whatever they want of course. In many ways the field of academic research is open to any idea that manages to get published. However when we say 'four gospels' we are necessarily creating a new opinion, a new understanding of the canon which is not what was intended by the believers in the canon.
What happens is that scholars forget that it is a 'gospel in four' and when they speak of 'four gospels' that such an opinion is 'self-evident' and doesn't require explanation. No, my friends, Trobisch's work makes clear that the 'final edition' of the canon was introduced in an environment where 'gospel' was ALWAYS used in the singular.
It can also be inferred from Trobisch's evidence that the final editor of the final canon must have had a role in 'straightening' the texts to make them agree with one another. In other words, whatever existed BEFORE the date of the completion of the 'final edition' it is impossible to believe that THESE four gospels retained their original form. This is an entirely separate issue from whether or not a 'Matthew,' 'Mark,' 'Luke' or 'John' actually existed before 180 CE. I personally don't believe that 'Luke' is older than this date.
Yet when you stand in front of this precipice - AND THIS A MASSIVE PRECIPICE TROBISCH HAS DISCOVERED - what we have to do is stop at the date 180 CE and say that canonical Matthew, Mark, Luke and John CAN ONLY BE ASSIGNED TO THIS DATE.
What lies before 180 CE is now entirely up for grabs. The 'set' of the New Testament canon is no different than the 'set' of Ignatian writings which the Dutch radicals have clearly demonstrated were also manufactured to be used as a 'set.' (OF COURSE I BET THERE ARE STILL PEOPLE SHAKING THEIR HEADS SAYING 'I DON'T GET WHAT THE BIG DEAL IS IF ONE PERSON SAYS 'ONE GOSPEL IN FOUR' AND 'FOUR GOSPELS IN ONE' yet these people are undoubtedly the same type of people who think that finding a clitoris is a trivial detail for sex).
So let me recapitulate what I said in a previous post for those who didn't get it the first time around.
The heading kata Markan etc. rather than Euangelion kata Markan etc. implies what I have already said it implies, but then he argues for the originality of the full form. In my opinion, the ms. evidence points the other way. After arguing for the originality of the full form, he goes on to reach the same conclusions that I reached from the short form, but without seeing the next step. What is important here is that he then says, rightly, that Euangelion kata Markan doesn’t mean the Gospel by Mark, but instead 'according to Mark.' This is not the formula for authorship of a new book, which is to put the author’s name in the genitive without a preposition. The only way this can make sense, says he, is if it is the totality of the four that is called the Gospel. His conclusion is that the group of four must have been published together. He doesn’t take what I think ought to have been the next step. For this reason, he is unable to account for the official and universal use of the Diatessaron by the Syrian Church.
Trobisch adds elsewhere that he thinks the last verse of John to be the editor’s note at the end of the totality, not the note to mark the end of John. He says, rightly in my opinion, that the verse before this is the editor’s note to the end of John. He raises the question of whether the last chapter, which is all from the hand of an editor, might be from the editor of the group of four.
This is the beginning point of my reconstruction of the origin of the gospels. According to my understanding this means that ALL previous attempts to reconstruct the origins of the canon are completely misguided because they assume that the FORM of the Gospel of Mark as we now have it was relatively firm throughout the ages.
I have uncovered evidence in fact from Irenaeus himself that the 'according to Mark' in his day (I am in fact going to make a point of REFUSING to call the canonical texts 'the Gospel of ....' from now on for the sake of clarity) was at least 'somewhat longer' than our present edition of the text.
This is critical in my mind for why I have come to embrace 'the Gospel according to Mark' (notice Clement's emphasis throughout To Theodore and Quis Dives Salvetur) referenced in the Mar Saba document. The idea fits perfectly with the IMPLICATIONS of Trobisch's research. I think ALL of the canonical texts went back to 'longer FULL gospels' which were truncated to 'fit' within the canonical 'set.'
I would go so far as to argue that Irenaeus already points to the fact that 'according to Matthew' goes back to a longer text when he declares "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church." [Irenaeus AH iii.1.1] I don't think there is a reasonable scholar alive today WHO DOESN'T THINK that Irenaeus is referencing the idea that 'according to Matthew' goes back to the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews' mentioned in countless later Fathers.
I am not going to make the mistake of accepting what Irenaeus says uncritically. I believe there was some kind of text or texts which the Church Fathers identified by this name. Whether they were all the same text or whether this text REALLY became 'according to Matthew' isn't the point.
What we should notice instead is that Irenaeus has already opened the door to the idea of a longer Matthew. The first clue in this regard is that after noting that the Ebionites use 'according to Matthew' in some sense he says that 'they get it' wrong. "For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord." What Irenaeus REALLY means clearly is that they use the Gospel according to the Hebrews - the text which MUST BE REGARDED AS A 'LONGER MATTHEW' OR AT LEAST 'DIFFERENT MATTHEW' - and that their errors are LATER refuted in SHORTER Matthew.
Just look at what Irenaeus says about only one 'Ebionite error' which CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE ORIGINATED if the Ebionites used 'according to Matthew' (i.e. our canonical text):
God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] "Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son," as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God. For truly this prediction was uttered before the removal of the people to Babylon; that is, anterior to the supremacy acquired by the Medes and Persians. [Irenaeus AH iii.21.1]
Folks, this isn't rocket science. There is no way that the Ebionites could have 'thought' that Mary WASN'T a virgin if their gospel had Matthew 1:18. Our 'according to Matthew' is - at least according to Irenaeus Gospel according to the Hebrews with the addition of Matthew 1:18. There are countless changes which can easily be documented from the text known to 'Ebionites' to the 'according to Matthew' we are now familiar with, many of which support the idea that 'the Gospel according to the Hebrews' was actually longer.
Now let's turn to Irenaeus' treatment of a longer 'according to Mark' but before we do let's not that just as Irenaeus only identifies our canonical text as 'Matthew' or 'according to Matthew' and only with the inclusion of the word 'gospel' - i.e. 'a written Gospel among the Hebrews' - when referencing THE HERETICAL TEXT, he only identifies canonical Mark as 'according to Mark' and the one time a variant 'heretical' text Mark is cited it is referenced in the full form i.e. 'the Gospel by Mark.' As we see:
Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. [ibid iii.11.7]
I think this is absolutely significant given Trobisch's observations. The heretics used not only a single 'Gospel by Mark' but more importantly a single, LONGER 'Gospel by Mark' (this story of Christ separating from Jesus and watching him crucified is no longer in 'according to Mark'). I will end this brief introduction with EVERY citation of the canonical 'according to ...' gospel's in Irenaeus and I will prove that he never references the 'orthodox' versions as 'individual gospels.' For Irenaeus they are always parts of a set which is the gospel.
Not only does this support the idea that the heretics GENERALLY 'preferred' single gospels but moreover ANY EARLY EXPRESSION of phrases which sounded like 'the Gospel according to' a particular individual were likely signs of heresy or deviation from the original 'orthodox formula.'
Consider then how important it is then that Clement of Alexandria not only references a longer 'according to Mark' but specifies on more than one occasion that it is a 'Gospel according to Mark':
Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. For the true things, being mixed with inventions, are falsified, so that, as the saying goes, even the salt loses its savor.
and again:
To them [the Carpocratians], therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that it is the mystic gospel by Mark, but should even deny it on oath. For 'not all true things are to be said to all men' (2:10 - 13).
I am only trying to sketch the paradigm I begin with when I start to reconstruct the gospel, but I should only like to say that I have developed a lengthy argument that proves that Polycarp used a longer gospel of John again that was eventually shortened by his 'disciple' Irenaeus in order to establish the fourfold canon.
I should also say that I see Irenaeus' formula in the same book which begins with Matthew and ends with John as a CHRONOLOGICAL revelation of fourfold gospel. First came 'according to Matthew,' then 'according to Mark,' then 'according to Luke' and then 'according to John' (the revelation of which can be associated with Polycarp) AND THEN THE ASSEMBLY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON BY IRENAEUS (remember he can provide no witnesses for any 'elders' who ever acknowledged the gospel should be in four).
I think it is implicit also that this chronology implies that 'John' - the revelation of Polycarp - is the final 'seal' which closed the heavenly revelation. This would have been very important in the contemporary given the controversies in Rome and undoubtedly - simmering beneath the surface - in contemporary Alexandria regarding the authenticity of John.
As I see it, the fourfold gospel was designed principally to answer objections about the authenticity of the Johannine revelation of Polycarp. Remember I believe the Acts of the Apostles was originally introduced as a revelation of John. I have explained this already in an unpublished monograph. The skeptical reader need only remember that Revelations was taken to have been written by the same author as the Gospel of John. As such, 'Johannine texts' don't have to be ACTUALLY written by the same historical authors to be considered Johannine literary compositions.
The important thing for Irenaeus was to answer the objections about the authenticity of Polycarp's claims of a Johannine canon. This was secured by placing John as the 'seal of the evangelists.' Indeed as Trobisch notes, it is highly probable that the final words of John represent a conclusion to the set as a whole and were written by Irenaeus himself.
So ends my brief sketch of what I think ARE NOT the original forms of the gospel. The fact that other scholars limit themselves to what they (wrongly) identify as 'four gospels' is no concern of mine. As noted earlier, our canon was designed from the outset as a gospel in four. Indeed if the reader walks away with only one idea from this blog it is that just because Irenaeus limited himself to a gospel of four that each one of these texts necessarily 'corresponds' with a like named historical precursor.
I think for instance that 'Mark' and 'John' go back to one and the same historical person.
If I was to develop a graphic to explain my theory of the origin of the gospel, I'd have a sea of question marks with names like 'the Marcionite gospel,' 'the Gospel according to the Hebrews,' the Gospel of the Mixed (i.e. the so-called 'Diatessaron') and the like floating within the sea of question marks.
Then I would have Polycarp's creation of the original Gospel of John from these shadowy references to lost gospels.
Then I would have a single line with the name 'Irenaeus.'
Then I would have a series of arrows coming from the gospel names in the sea of question marks and the sea of question marks itself (because there are undoubtedly more gospels than we know have any information about). I would also have one thinner arrow going from Polycarp's Gospel of John to each one of the three synoptic gospels (to illustrate that a shadow from this text was cast over even the three synoptics EVEN BY VIRTUE OF WHAT MATERIAL WAS EXCLUDED FROM THEIR CONTENTS) and then a heavy line going from Polycarp's 'Gospel of John' to Irenaeus' 'according to John.'
Maybe I should just take the time tomorrow to make up the graphic myself ...
UPDATE - As always I contacted the LIVING expert whose opinion is cited here - i.e. David Trobisch - and asked him to sign off on my short hand sketch of his theory. He sent back an email and told me that he loved my blog and added 'I feel understood.' As such - for all the lazies who haven't actually READ Trobisch's The First Edition of the New Testament, you can trust that what I am saying is Trobisch's opinion IS Trobisch's opinion ...
