Some Random Notes From My Re-Reading of David Trobisch's First Edition of the New Testament

I haven't read Trobisch's book in some years. I saw it just sitting on my shelf and I thought to myself, why not read it again? Let me tell you folks, it's brilliance can't be understated. Not only is this book easy to read (my mother could finish it end to end) his observations are ALWAYS right on the money.

Where I have a tendency to go overboard and reach for conclusions which might or might not be true, Trobisch does the exact opposite. He devotes a single sentence to an idea that I might have circled around for two days (or two weeks) and in that one sentence a thousand possibilities are left open for the reader to consider.

Y'all have to buy this book. Really and truly.

In any event, I would just like to go through the hundred pages of the book (yes that's all) and cite some stuff which might be old news to some but I think doesn't get mentioned enough in relation to the whole Secret Mark 'debate.'

In the section which goes over surviving editions of the New Testament Trobisch reminds his readers that John is not always the last of the four gospels:

The Codex Washingtonianus W 032 (fifth century) arranges the Gospels in the order Matthew, John, Luke and Mark. A new quire was used for each Gospel. The sequence therefore is based soley on the continuous pagination of the quires, which was added by the original scribe and served as a guide for the bookbinder

... The famous Greek-Latin Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis D 05 (fifth century) displays the same arrangement of the Gospels: Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark ... At some point in the history of the exemplar, the sixty-six pages between Mark and Acts were torn out and are now lost. [p. 30]

Trobisch puts forward the suggestion that the sequence resulted from 'the editorial intent to have the apostles' Gospels precede the Gospels of the apostles' students.' This makes sense and I believe that Tertullian makes reference to the kind of grouping Trobisch describes but interesting John appears first rather than Matthew "In short, from among the apostles the faith is introduced to us by John and by Matthew, while from among apostolic men Luke and Mark give it renewal" [Tertullian AM iv.2]

The other possibility that could explain the peculiar grouping is found in Clement's To Theodore where the Gospel according to Mark is identified as the 'gospel of perfection':

Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected.

If Clement's letter is genuine how could 'another gospel' or even two gospels have been allowed to come after the 'perfect gospel'? Indeed Islam describes itself as the 'perfect religion' with the idea that nothing could come after it.

Irenaeus interesting makes reference to a heretical belief associated with a 'perfect gospel' which came after 'other less perfect' gospels were already written. The context of Irenaeus' statement makes it absolutely certain that Mark is the 'perfect gospel' in question:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. 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. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

This whole section of material could be interpreted as a response to the ideas of To Theodore or an Alexandrian tradition which supported it. The line "they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures" could be read to dispute the idea that Mark not only wrote his gospel AFTER other less perfect gospels were already completed but moreover that "he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord [in previous gospels], but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils."

The same thing could also be said for the line in Irenaeus "for it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles." We will come upon Trobisch's theories about the purpose of the 'final edition' shortly. I just wanted to start my readership off with a provocative post. Maybe Mark appears last is because it was associated with a community which thought that Mark - rather than John - was thought to be the 'final seal' of the gospels even the 'gospel of perfection' ...