This is so stupid, I don't think they have really thought through their position. They see all the issues related to the Diatessaron represent little more than a 'distraction' from the 'truth' of the fourfold canon.
I would argue instead that there was a text - the Gospel according to John - promoted by an itinerant preaching later identified as 'Polycarp' whose individual readings were adjusted by an associated - Irenaeus - to accord with what is much better identified as a 'fourfold gospel harmony' - the four familiar canonical texts Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I see the fourfold canon as representing the limit of 'acceptable gospel readings.' In this way, as I have already noted elsewhere, there is an odd parallel with the development in Judaism of the Mishnah which represents the limit of 'acceptable interpretations' of Jewish Law.
The specific identification of the narrative now identified as 'the Diatessaron' as 'according to John.' But as I have just noted in a previous post, if we look carefully we can still discover where it once identified itself as:
The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus the Son of the living God by John
Now I want to move one step further. I think that the Gospel according to Luke only had an existence with the reforms of Irenaeus. At the same time, I think the canonical Acts of the Apostles was introduced by Polycarp at least one - possibly two generations earlier. How can I reconcile this state of affairs when most scholars speak of the 'Luke-Acts corpus'?
I think that Polycarp originally identified John Mark as the author of Acts. At the same time I am sure that the introduction which now appears at the beginning of the Gospel according to Luke actually introduced the Diatessaron to its readers.
Yet let's put these theories aside for the moment and focus on the canonical gospel of John and draw readers attention to the paradox that the Alexandrian tradition thinks Mark both (a) wrote the gospel based on his personal witness of Jesus' ministry (b) put himself in various scenes in his narrative but (c) many of those scenes where Mark appears are found outside of canonical Mark.
Whatever the reader thinks of these arguments (not mine but the basis to the ancient Coptic tradition) the same weird logic unfolds when we start considering the figure of 'the evangelist John.' Now let me state for the record that I think that Mark and John go back to the same historical figure. What Irenaeus has cleverly done with the arrangement of his canon is convince countless generations that we are dealing with two different individuals. This is why the Johannine narrative almost never overlaps with the synoptic texts in Irenaeus' canon.
Nevertheless I can certainly see how Polycarp introduced his Gospel as 'the true gospel of John Mark' or if you will used parallel arguments to the so-called 'Carpocratians' in the Letter to Theodore. Both of their churches were in Asia Minor. How many Christian church networks does anyone believe there really were in Asia?
In any event I have mentioned most of this to my readership in previous posts. What strikes me as puzzling again is that something about the canonical Johannine gospel has always bothered me and it came to my attention one day when I was reading that generally ignored apocryphal text, the Acts of John. It has an uncanny parallel with the Coptic tradition about Mark, just mentioned.
In one of the oldest parts of the surviving fragments we see John reflect upon his experience at the transfiguration. The idea that John might have thought his experience was pretty impressive makes intuitive sense. After all he managed to witness Jesus transforming himself into another person. The problem of course emerges when we start thinking about how this story fits into our canonical Gospel of John. For then we come face to face with the realization that the editor has some how removed the story from the narrative.
A lot of what appears in our canonical gospel of John makes sense precisely for this reason. As we all know it is in John’s gospel that John is intimated to be the beloved disciple. It is also made clear that John alone of all the disciples witnessed Jesus’ Passion and had some kind of “secret experience” as he beheld Jesus crucified.
For most of us these details are enough to convince us that everything about our canon makes sense. Nevertheless a critical evaluation of the surviving Diatesseron is actually a better candidate to be the original gospel of John because in addition to these details it includes John’s experience at the Transfiguration, John’s mother Salome figures also prominently (a feature of the Diatesseron fragment discovered at Dura Europa) among other things.
To this end I hope to “deprogram” much of my readership from exclusively understanding the development of the gospel in terms of our inherited quaternion. The only problem is that I haven’t discovered any more of this lost text than remains in our surviving Diatesseron. Instead I have something far less convincing but nevertheless worthy of consideration – I think I know what was removed from our “gospel harmony” translations to disguise the truth of its origins.
In order to make my case that something was removed from our surviving Diatesseron texts I should refamiliarize my readership with the structure of the gospel itself – at least from its opening lines. While I would rather not have you see the text as “being made up of four gospels” it is necessarily for the present moment to see the opening lines as reflecting the following pattern when compared to our inherited quaternion:
Mark 1:1
John 1:1-5
Luke 1:5-80
Matt 1:18-25a
Luke 2:1-39
Matt 2:1b-23
Luke 2:40-52; 3:1-6
John 1:7-28
As I said, I regret doing this. I even hate using the title “Diatesseron” because it makes it sound as if it came after our four gospels rather than before them.
Nevertheless as I said there is a very good reason why I think it is important we learn to still see the text in this way. It draws our attention to the fact that each of the opening lines of our four gospels appear in the Diatesseron save for the introductory words of Luke. Of course we have demonstrated our belief that Luke was the invention of Irenaeus.
So where do I think these lines come from? I actually think they formed the opening words to Polycarp’s original gospel of John which were deliberately removed from later copies of the Diatesseron because they reveal that the words belonged at the start of a Diatesseron which Polycarp wrote to Theophilus of Antioch. Anyone who knows Polycarp knows at once that the text is not merely a gospel of John but in fact the gospel attributed to the beloved apostle that caused quite a backlash in Rome and Alexandria.
For the moment let me say that once you restore the last missing introductory words of Luke 1:1-4 back as the original preamble to the gospel i.e.
Luke 1:1-4
Mark 1:1
John 1:1-5
Luke 1:5-80
Matt 1:18-25a
Luke 2:1-39
Matt 2:1b-23
Luke 2:40-52; 3:1-6
John 1:7-28
These first words from Luke suddenly take on a very different meaning at the head of a Diatesseron attributed to John. Now the author is understood to openly acknowledge that he is assembling a “harmony” of various earlier gospel texts.
Do you start to get the picture now, my friends? There is a reason why Luke 1:1-4 no longer appears at the head of the surviving Arabic Diatesseron texts. The text becomes too much of challenge to our inherited prejudices passed onto us by Irenaeus and his quaternion. If our Diatesseron retained Luke 1:1-4 as its opening words we realize at once that the whole gospel of Luke is fake. The very authenticity of a disciple Luke is suddenly called into question.
With this restoration of the original text we realize at once that Luke was invented to obscure the original place of John in Polycarp’s canon. Let me give you another reason why we have to assume that the Diatesseron originally had Luke 1:1-4 as its opening preamble. The Catholic canons from the early period necessarily had the Diatesseron followed by Acts and the Epistles of Paul including the Pastorals.
The point is that the beginning of Acts doesn’t make any sense unless the gospel it is paired off has as its opening words Luke 1:1-4. “In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus …” [Acts 1:1] only makes sense if the first words to Theophilus viz. “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things …” [Luke 1:1] appear in the corresponding gospel. We have only become familiar with that “corresponding gospel” being called “Luke” owing to Irenaeus. The gospel could well have originally have been called “John” too. That paradigm just happens to be foreign to us now.
As such, if we were to go back in time and visit the Catholic communities of the Middle East in the period when the Diatesseron was still in use we would necessarily see that it wasn’t “Luke” who has the companion of Paul but “John.” The idea would only seem natural owing to the fact that the one gospel of John was immediately followed by an Acts of the Apostles text also written by John.
Scholars of course will deny this is even possible of course given the fact that our first so-called “we section” of Acts makes the idea that “John” originally accompanied Paul impossible. Yet look carefully at who the first person is to cite this particular section of text is. It is Irenaeus, the very individual who “invented Luke” who comes along and says “take a look at Acts to see how it proves Luke and not John was its author.”
We have a saying in my country that “the one who smelt it probably dealt it.” It is usually used to identify a flatulent companion in the group. In this particular case it is apt because it is Irenaeus who first announces as his proof “that this Luke was inseparable from Paul and his fellow-laborer in the Gospel” the words of his slightly altered text of Acts whereby:
[Luke] himself clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so by the truth itself. For he says that when Barnabas, and John who was called Mark, had parted company from Paul, and sailed to Cyprus, "we came to Troas.”[Irenaeus iii.14.1]
This discovery should be called “too good to be true” because it is so perfectly deflates the claim made by some obviously that John was really the author of the text.
We have already demonstrated that in Polycarp’s age John and Paul were linked together as inseparable. Now we see that the lines (Acts 15:36 – 38) which precede the first surviving mention of the author’s connection to the apostle (Acts 16:10 – 18) “just happen” to disqualify John from that traditional role. This can’t be accidental. As we shall soon see, Polycarp wrote the original book of Acts as the second part of his witness of “those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word.”
So it is that just as the original gospel is John’s story as companion of Jesus, the historical text which follows was his testament to being the companion of Peter and Paul. We should notice immediately how many times the pairing of “Peter and John” appears in the early section of the gospel. John is the witness to Peter’s healing of the Crippled Beggar so we read of “Peter and John” doing this or that four times in the section (Acts 3:1,3,4, 11).
Then we see chapter four is properly titled “Peter and John Before the Sanhedrin” where the two are paired together seven more times (Acts 4:1, 3, 6,7,13, 19, 23). The section makes clear an important point which certainly wasn’t lost on Polycarp’s followers – John demonstrated to be equally comfortable with Peter as he is with Paul thus confirming the central premise of Catholic teaching that its Church was founded on a friendship between the two men.
In any event the same idea is present after the conversion of the Samaritans. We read that “[w]hen the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them.” (Acts 8:17) The idea here is that the two men together have the power to send the Holy Spirit upon the Samaritans and eventually do so when we read that “[t]hen Peter and John placed their hands on them, and [so] they received.” (Acts 8:17) This is followed up with the claim that “when [the Samaritans] had testified and proclaimed the word of the Lord, Peter and John returned to Jerusalem, preaching the gospel in many Samaritan villages.” [Acts 8:25]
So it is that we should see why the Acts of the Apostles is divided into two distinct sections - the first which witnesses Peter, the second which witnesses Paul. Once again it was Polycarp’s original purpose in writing Acts as a Johannine witness to have his “John” stand between Peter and Paul and witness that their teachings were totally compatible with one another. So it is that the original Acts text, after demonstrating “John” could “fellow-work” with Peter goes on to witness the same thing about Paul.
In my mind we should notice however that the surviving “we” references all point to places where one would expect to encounter John. The Bezan text of Acts has the author identify himself as being present at the first apostolic gathering at Antioch (Acts 11:28). The apostle John was certainly here. We have already touched on the material near Acts 16:10-18 which leaves us with the author disembarking from the ship to meet the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:5 – 16) – John certainly belonged among the Christians of Ephesus.
Then after the last verse in chapter 20 – viz. “then [the Ephesians] accompanied him to the ship” the ship leaves with the author identifying himself as still being on board (Acts 21:1-18). John once again belongs to any coming or going from a gathering of Ephesians. Yet when the author says that “the next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present” we know at once that this is a deliberate echo of the material in the second chapter of Galatians where John is clearly identified as being present.
With regards to the final “we section” – that of Acts 27:1-28:16 – there is no compelling reason to think that John was or was not present during this account of Paul’s last days other than for one reason. The author is clearly developing a fictious end to an imaginary person in Paul. No one ever heard of this man before these things were written. Nevertheless if in fact Polycarp claimed that “John” was the original author he would certainly have been believed because his relationship with this apostle was apparently well established.
So I hope the reader can at least theoretically see that in Syriac and throughout the eastern lands OUTSIDE OF ROMAN CONTROL where Christian communities exclusively employed only the Diatessaron as their gospel and where this text was immediately followed in the canon by the Acts of the Apostles, that these communities must have 'thought' that the author of their gospel was also the author of Acts.
In other words, that John Mark wrote both the Diatessaron, Acts and the letters attributed to him.
I will prove this in one of my last posts here at 'Polycarp Week' (which is soon stretching out into 'Polycarp Month' at the way things are going). However I have a surprise for you. I wanted to hold it out until the end.
I sometimes think that many of you who read this post each day must be asking yourselves, 'this guy is really good at making stuff up in his head1' Well, remember when I said that that what now appears as the introduction to the Gospel according to Luke MUST HAVE BEEN the introduction to the original Diatessaron? I was holding back something from you. What I should have said was that I always thought this since I was very young but I only received confirmation of this theory when I came across the Codex Fuldensis which represents a text that Victor of Capua explains he found in the following terms:
It was by chance that into my hands would fall the unified Gospel well made up from the quartet. It was without title and I could not find the name of the author.
While Victor claims that it is the Alexandrian Diatessaron of Ammonius, he is certainly wrong. Victor must have struggled to explain this unique 'gospel harmony' which as we noted begins as follows:
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us, According as they, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, have delivered them unto us, It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed.
In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and God was the Word
The point of course is that we now have an ancient witness to the introductory words which are now found in Luke affixed at the start of a single, long gospel. I think the context transforms the meaning of the words and - if they are acknowledged to have originally introduced a Diatessaron-like gospel - allow for the idea that Polycarp or whoever assembled this collection had a hand in developing something that went beyond merely 'preserving' an ancient gospel.
It should also be noted that the Codex Fuldensis went out of its way to avoid having Acts immediately follow this gospel. The order of text here is:
Gospel, Pauline epistles (Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1-2 Thessalonians, Colosians, Laodiceans, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews), Acts of the Apostles, Catholic epistles (usual order), Apocalypse.
My guess is that this was not always the case. As I will show in my next post, in Syria and in other places where the single, long gospel 'by John' was used, the Gospel and Acts were originally taken as a unit or written by one and the same hand - i.e. they were both 'according to John.'
The Codex Fuldensis can be found here.
