Using Irenaeus to Prove David Trobisch's Understanding of the Development of the Canon [Part One]

Here are all of Irenaeus' References to 'Gospel' in The Detection and Refutation of False Gnosis. I want to show that Trobisch's arguments are perfectly reflected in Irenaeus. In a previous age the world was filled with communities gathered around single, long gospels (Evangelium). Now in the present age the four gospels are taken collectively to be one gospel.

1. AH i.7.4 "They [the Valentinians] maintain that he [the Demiurge] is the centurion mentioned in the Gospel, (in Evangelio) who addressed the Saviour in these words: "For I also am one having soldiers and servants under my authority; and whatsoever I command they do." (Matt. viii. 9; Luke vii. 8) Notice it is not 'the Gospel according to Matthew or Luke' but 'the Gospel.'

2. AH i.8.4 "They say, too, that Simeon, “who took Christ into his arms, and gave thanks to God, and said, Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace, according to Thy word,” (Luke ii. 28) was a type of the Demiurge, who, on the arrival of the Saviour, learned his own change of place, and gave thanks to Bythus. They also assert that by Anna, who is spoken of in the Gospel (in Evangelio; Luke ii. 36) as a prophetess, and who, after living seven years with her husband, passed all the rest of her life in widowhood until she saw the Saviour, and recognised Him, and spoke of Him to all, was most plainly indicated Achamoth, who, having for a little while looked upon the Saviour with His associates, and dwelling all the rest of the time in the intermediate place, waited for Him till He should come again, and restore her to her proper consort. Her name, too, was indicated by the Saviour, when He said, “Yet wisdom is justified by her children.” (Luke vii.35) All the references in the section are from Luke and yet Irenaeus identifies that he is citing from 'the Gospel' rather than a particular gospel.

3. AH i.20.2 "Some passages, also, which occur in the Gospel, (in Evangelio) receive from them a colouring of the same kind, such as the answer which He gave His mother when He was twelve years of age ..." What makes the list of sayings that follows so interesting is that it clearly does not come from one text or even from the received text of our canon, which begs the question - what type of 'gospel' were the Marcosians using? The answer has to be that instead of a gospel of four they must have had a single, long gospel. It is worth noting that the English translations typically translate this passage in the plural 'the gospels' even though this is not what is written.

4. AH i.26.2 "Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, (Mattheaum Evangelio) and repudiate the Apostle Paul ..." Notice again the heretics who use one gospel are always identified as using a 'Gospel according to ..." instead of 'according to ...' which is the title of each of the four texts of the fourfold gospel. Compare Epiphanius' statement "In the Gospel that is in general use among them which is called "according to Matthew", which however is not whole and complete but forged and mutilated - they call it the Hebrews Gospel .." and again "and that he came and declared, as their Gospel, which is called Gospel according to Matthew, or Gospel According to the Hebrews?"

5. AH i.27.2 "Besides this, he mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke (Lukam Evangelium), removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most dearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father. He likewise persuaded his disciples that he himself was more worthy of credit than are those apostles who have handed down the Gospel (Evangelium) to us, furnishing them not with the Gospel (Evangelium), but merely a fragment of it." I think the use of EVANGELIUM here reflects again the Marcionite terminology. There heretics used a text called 'the Evangelium' which Irenaeus attributes to Luke and as a consequence of the fact that they only have one of the four text which make up the true gospel, they are furnished not with the Evangelium, but a mere fragment of it.'

6. AH ii.20.4 "For that Judas the traitor is the twelfth in order, is agreed upon by all, there being twelve apostles mentioned by name in the Gospel (Evangelio)."

7. AH ii.22.3 "But it is greatly to be wondered at, how it has come to pass that, while affirming that they [the heretics] have found out the mysteries of God, they have not examined the gospels (in Evangeliis) to ascertain how often after His baptism the Lord went up, at the time of the passover, to Jerusalem ..." The reference here is again TO ALL THE HERETICS and GOSPELS in the broadest sense. Even within the Catholic canon there is only one 'gospel' - the Gospel of John - which mentions this visit to Jerusalem. Irenaeus is demonstrated not to call the individual texts of the one gospel as 'gospels' in their own right.

8. AH ii.22.3 "Their [i.e. the heretic's] explanation, therefore, both of the year and of the twelfth month has been proved false, and they ought to reject either their explanation or the Evangelium; otherwise, How is it possible that the Lord preached for one year only?" Again Evangelium is here used to refer to the gospel used by the heretics. Irenaeus is reflecting their terminology.

9. AH ii.22.5 "Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years,(1) and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Evangelium and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information." This is a statement directed at Florinus and others who knew that Polycarp used a text he identified as 'the Evangelium' like the Marcionites (hence their dispute).

10. AH ii.26.4 " Or again, if any one should, because of this expression which occurs in the Gospel (in evangelio), "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them falls to the ground without the will of your Father," take occasion to reckon up the number of sparrows caught daily" [Mat x.29]

11. AH ii.27.2 "According to this course of procedure, therefore, man would always be inquiring but never finding, because he has rejected the very method of discovery. And when the Bridegroom comes, he who has his lamp untrimmed, and not burning with the brightness of a steady light, is classed among those who obscure the interpretations of the parables, forsaking Him who by His plain announcements freely imparts gifts to all who come to Him, and is excluded from His marriage-chamber. Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels (Evangelia), can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them; and since they proclaim that one only God, to the exclusion of all others, formed all things by His word, whether visible or invisible, heavenly or earthly, in the water or under the earth, as I have shown from the very words of Scripture" Once again 'gospels' is used in the broadest sense. Irenaeus is attacking previous efforts to interpret 'the gospels' by means of knowledge or as Irenaeus clarifies "not that he meant to inveigh against a true knowledge of God, for in that case he would have accused himself; but, because he knew that some, puffed up by the pretence of knowledge, fall away from the love of God, and imagine that they themselves are perfect, for this reason that they set forth an imperfect Creator, with the view of putting an end to the pride which they feel on account of knowledge of this kind."

11. AH iii.pref. "For the Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the Gospel (Evangelii), through whom also we have known the truth."

12. AH.iii.1.1 "WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel (Evangelium) has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public."

13. AH iii.1.1 " 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 (Evangelium Dei)."

14. AH iii.1.2 "Matthew also issued a written Gospel (Evangelii) 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 Evangelium preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel (Evangelium) during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." Notice that only the text put forward by Mark is NOT explicitly identified as an Evangelium. This is VERY significant. I suspect it reflects an allusion to the debate at the heart of To Theodore, but I won't stress the point.

I will continue this later but Trobisch's point would be that yes Irenaeus is still saying that four evangelists wrote four gospels. Irenaeus couldn't have denied this. But lurking here in Book Three Chapter One is the heretical idea that some of the gospels where written before the evangelists had 'perfect knowledge.'

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. [ibid]

I take this to be a reference again to the chronology proposed by Clement and moreover the placement of John as the 'final seal' of the gospels is also part of an effort to diminish the value of the Mark.

Just think about what Clement is saying about Mark first writing a gospel for Peter and then a gospel 'according to perfection' (loose quote) on his own in Alexandria. I have always thought that the existing canon was developed AGAINST the Markan tradition and to subtly uphold the authority of Polycarp (i.e. 'John') even though many in the age KNEW that he was a fraud.

More after the hockey game (sorry, I am Canadian) ...