.jpg)
I really hope that people take the time to read my last post. I think its profundity will be self-evident.
Many people question why William Petersen, Tjitze Baarda and other of my heroes bother to 'take the Diatessaron' seriously. Now the reader will understand. These men knew by instinct that something 'wasn't quite kosher' with the traditional explanation of the origins of this textual tradition. It always seemed to them that despite the obvious 'harmonization' present in the material, that it 'knew' or was 'witness to' an older form of the gospel.
Now the reader will know why.
Why have demonstrated that the 'final editing' process which David Trobisch demonstrates took place at the end of the second century ALSO INVOLVED THE RE-FORMING of the Gospel of Polycarp. Already what Trobisch brings forward amounts to a massive editorial effort. Now we have made manifest what should have been obvious to anyone who bothered to question 'where the Diatessaron' fit in all of this.
Peters and others argue that the Diatessaron was composed (or edited if it was essentially a re-casting of the Gospel of the Hebrews into a different dialect) while Tatian was in Rome. It was translated immediately into Latin, and vigorously promulgated by the Church for use in general preaching and teaching. This means that if Tatian was rejected by the self-named Catholic Church, it was only shortly before he left Rome, which most calculate as around 172 A.D.
Peters essentially tells us that when we read the English translation of the Arabic Diatessaron we must always remind ourselves that the original text behind the Diatessaron was further away from the Canonical Four than what is in front of you. This opinion is based on extensive detailed examination of all the evidence by many scholars over many years. It is not a matter of opinion. If you need the reference, it is Curt Peters, Das Diatessaron Tatians, Rome 1939, reprinted 1960, ch. XXIII (the last chapter). Peters refers to studies by many scholars as well as his own, and that there is no disagreement on the matter. It is in this chapter as well that Peters gives the evidence (from his own studies and others) that the base of the Diatessaron was the Gospel of the Hebrews, not the Canonical Four.
We have just taken that observation to the next level. We have noted in our last post that there exists a parallel between 1 Clement 13:1-2, the parallel to that section in Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians and the Diatessaron verbatim 'copy' of the parallel in Polycarp's 'to the Philippians' which clearly suggests that what Peters examines on a macrocosmic scale, can be viewed on the subatomic level with these passages.
The same person who changed Polycarp's allusion to 1 Clement 13:1-2 (to use the language of von Campenhausen and Koester) must now be understood to have also established the original 'Diatessaron.' There really can be no other explanation.
We have to choose between one of two possibilities. Either as Koester argues Polycarp "who knew the Gospels of Matthew and Luke corrected the text in order to establish a more faithful agreement of Jesus' words with the wording of the written gospels" or Irenaeus, the man who claimed to be the world's greatest expert on Polycarp, 'corrected' his master's work in order to make it 'agree' essentially with his introduction of the four-faced gospel.
I really can't see anyway around the idea that Irenaeus was the 'final editor' of the canon to use Trobisch's terminology. As Trobisch notes, that editor must, in turn, have altered the original contents of all four gospels in order to help 'make them all fit together.' This is especially true of the Gospel of John as Trobisch takes great pains to demonstrate.
If Polycarp was the 'final editor' then we would have to argue that not only did he know the four gospels, but also edited a pre-existent copy of the Gospel according to John. I find this very difficult to believe. Whatever the original Gospel of John was, it couldn't have been developed much earlier than Polycarp.
Then there is the issue of Irenaeus failing to mention that his master Polycarp - viz. 'the elder' - was a witness of its existence before 170 CE. The poetic examples which Irenaeus has to draw upon to 'sell' his gospel concept suggests to me at least that he COULDN'T settle the issue of the antiquity of the four-faced gospel with Polycarp's blessing.
To this end, the only reasonable suggestion that stands before us is that whoever the author of '1 Clement' was, he undoubtedly used a text like 'the Gospel of the Hebrews.' It might even have been a 'mixed gospel' drawing on pre-canonical gospels to complete its patchwork narrative.
The point however is that when Irenaeus established the four-faced the purpose as Trobisch notes was to establish what the limit of 'orthodoxy.' All that we have begun to notice now is that the Diatessaron might well have been developed as a parallel 'correction' of single, long gospels used by the original followers of Polycarp. The individuals readings now come from the 'final edition' of the four-faced gospel. But now one may even understand that Diatessaron was designed for the traditional role of preaching and teaching in the Church.
The use of the Diatessaron would have been paralleled by Clement's distinction of a text designed to be 'useful for increasing the faith' and an esoteric text in the hands of the elite members of the Church for the path towards 'perfection.'
Why would a four-faced gospel be reserved for the presbytery? This a good question. Part of the purpose might have been doctrinal.
An observation by Knox to this end. The ancient headings still used centuries later “kata Matthaian”, “kata Markon”, “kata Loukan”, “kata Iôannên” imply the concept of a SINGLE Gospel. The heading is not “The Gospel according to Mark” and so on, but only “according to Mark. The heading “the Gospel” is therefore implicitly reserved for the book of which these are the four parts. He points out that this is the kind of wording used by all early authors. I would add that this is still reflected in the order of service, in which “the Gospel” is the name of a book containing all four. Knox adds that this manner of reference means that the abstraction “the Gospel” comes according to Mark and so on, but he adds as well that the abstraction is visible in a book, or what would be a book if you could fit all four into one ms., and that this book would not be four Gospels, but one Gospel with four faces, referring to the old symbolism of the lion, bull, eagle, and man. I would add that this symbol comes from Ezekiel ch. I and ch. X, and that in Ezekiel’s vision the four faces belong to ONE angelic being. What all this means is that ancient scribal practice and ancient liturgical terminology and ancient theological terminology reflect an original situation of one Gospel, and that these usages are inexplicable otherwise. This is also the assumption in the Koran.
Polycarp was an itinerant preacher. I see absolutely now independent evidence that he was a 'bishop' in the traditional sense, let along a 'bishop of Smyrna.' This is another example of Irenaeus' influence.
Whatever gospel Polycarp had he undoubtedly 'broke the rules' of the Markan tradition and openly promulgated its contents 'freely' to everyone. This must have been part of his appeal.
I can't help get the feeling that whoever Clement was up against in To Theodore he too was breaking all the rules. It seems that it was only owing to the open promulgation of the gospel of the heretics mentioned in the text, that Clement has even started to think about lifting the traditional silence/ambiguity over the author of the original gospel in Alexandria.
The enemies of the Alexandrian tradition are portrayed as 'free' spirited 'wanderers' while Clement deliberately emphasizes the 'firmness' of the churches roots. Because of the text is rooted in the same physical building that St. Mark originally deposited the document at the start of Christianity he emphasizes its sacredness is 'guarded' or 'hidden.'
If we can tentatively accept the idea that to Theodore was developed very early in Clement's career (at least earlier than Clement's unhesitatingly transparent acknowledgement of the contents of the Gospel according to Mark in Quis Dives Salvetur) one can begin to see the idea that Irenaeus' editorial efforts were designed to counter many of the same charges that Clement levels against the 'Carpocratians' with regards to the gospel of Polycarp.
Trobisch mentions many of these safeguards in his Final Edition of the New Testament when he emphasizes that the editor could not simply alter the original Gospel in any way he wished. There would still have been competing versions. In fact, there already were competing versions of the single long book, all recognisably versions of the same book. By publishing the four at once as a set, a clear distinction could be made between what was and was not the canonical Gospel. Remember that none of the four parts of the set of four are adequate on their own. All the earlier forms were long and did not differ throughout, but only in certain passages.
We should note carefully what Trobisch says about the Nomina Sacra. Words such as Theos, Kyrios, Iêsous, sometimes Hierousalêm, are written in abbreviated form with a horizontal line on top. These are not the old shorthand symbols. It takes just as long to write the abbreviated form as the whole word. These Nomina Sacra forms appear with the Set of Four for the first time, They are the publisher’s trademark, telling the reader that this is the canonical fourfold Gospel.
I am starting to wonder if Irenaeus allowed the Diatessaron to be circulated in the 'free' manner of Polycarp, only guaranteeing now that the individual readings would 'fit' the four-faced gospel should anyone bother to do a side by side comparison. The idea of having a four-faced gospel WITHIN the protection of the inner sanctum of the Church (i.e. to be used exclusively by the presbytery) might well have been designed to answer the charges (in To Theodore but also Gaius of Rome, the Alogoi etc) that the Evangelium that Polycarp promulgated in the name of John was a 'mixed gospel' ('ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܡܚܠܛܐ' or Ewangeliyôn Damhalltê).
If you really think about it - and I don't know how many people who study these things actually have the capacity for original thought - having an exoteric Diatessaron and an esoteric four-faced Gospel would have obvious advantages as a defense of Polycarp and his gospel. Just think for a moment about the propaganda value of allowing the catechumen, formerly only used to the idea of the Diatessaron, being allowed to see the four sources from where (allegedly) the single, long gospel was mixed from.
I know that this is a 'big thought' and it might be hard to ram into the heads of people who think they 'already know' the true paradigm of the Church. But if, as I suggest the four-faced gospel sat hidden in the churches (just sit in the pews of a Catholic Church for instance and you will never see a copy of the New Testament to this very day) it would support the 'miraculous' agreement argued by Irenaeus in the most important part of his Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So-Called.
It isn't just that the four-faced gospel 'borrows' from the tradition of the Creator or reflects his glory at the center of the Christian universe. Irenaeus is really saying that this glory was present from the beginning of Christianity because what previous generations did not realize was that the four gospels were incomplete on their own and meant to be read together as one.
Thus - while not referencing Polycarp directly - the idea then that someone might have come along and developed a 'mixed' gospel (if indeed Polycarp is to be identified as 'Carpocrates' for reasons I already outlined) the 'mixing' now is not only seen as a something which can be defended, it is now the necessary precursor, it is a divinely sanction 'creation,' which 'reveals' the secret hidden from all previous generations.
As we read in the beating heart of Book Three of Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So-Called (indeed the beating heart of the book as a whole):
Such, then, are the first principles of the Gospel: that there is one God, the Maker of this universe; He who was also announced by the prophets, and who by Moses set forth the dispensation of the law which proclaim the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and ignore any other God or Father except Him. So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. 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. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these, our proof derived from them is firm and true.
It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. As also David says, when entreating His manifestation, "Thou that sittest between the cherubim, shine forth." For the cherubim, too, were four-faced, and their faces were images of the dispensation of the Son of God. For, [as the Scripture] says, "The first living creature was like a lion," symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second [living creature] was like a calf, signifying [His] sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but "the third had, as it were, the face as of a man,"--an evident description of His advent as a human being; "the fourth was like a flying eagle," pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church. And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated.[AH iii.11.7-8]
Does the reader get what I am saying? Does he finally understand why it is important to understand that the four-faced gospel was originally hidden from public viewing like the Gospel according to Mark in Alexandria.
The coming together of the four gospels in miraculous union was an unparalleled event in human history. Just think of the implications of what Irenaeus is saying on previous generations of Christians. Could he really have claimed that those before him had the exact final edition of the four gospels as he was promoting here? Of course not (John's gospel was said to be written only at the end of the first century!). But, he would have argued undoubtedly, that they would have had access to Polycarp's 'mixed' gospel, where again - thanks to Irenaeus' re-engineering genius now acted as a Rosetta Stone for understanding how all the pieces of the four different traditions fit together.
As it turns out Irenaeus likely did consider himself a loyal servant of Polycarp. He would do anything to save his master's legacy - even if it meant rewriting history and two dozen or so canonical documents along the way ...
