David Trobisch Identifies the 'Editorial Concept' of Our New Testament Canon

I am continuing my study of David Trobisch's amazing work the First Edition of the New Testament. It is from this work that I develop all my 'crazy' theories of an Imperial conspiracy at the heart of the Catholic Church. As I have just demonstrated while Trobisch has to reject the suggestion of Hengel and others that his theory can only work if there was a strong central authority in Rome in the late second century, I say 'bring it on!' I am certain there was a strong central authority in Rome helping reshape the face of Christianity. Indeed there are ancient witnesses preserved in historical narratives preserved in Arabic and Ethiopian which say EXACTLY what I am suggesting. According to a fourth or fifth century account preserved in Arabic by Al Jabbar, an unidentified Emperor of Rome told the Christians to change their religion and:

the Christians answered: "We will do this." (And the Romans) said: "Go, fetch your companions, and bring your Book (kitab)." (The Christians) went to their companions, informed them of (what had taken place) between them and the Romans and said to them: "Bring the Gospel (al-injil), and stand up so that we should go to them." But these (companions) said to them: "You have done ill. We are not permitted (to let) the Romans pollute the Gospel. In giving a favorable answer to the Romans, you have accordingly departed from the religion. We are (therefore) no longer permitted to associate with you; on the contrary, we are obliged to declare that there is nothing in common between us and you;" and they prevented their (taking possession of) the Gospel or gaining access to it.

It is noteworthy that the Arabic history suggests that the four gospels developed from a 'remembrance' of that lost original text. None of them exactly preserves the original material.

Trobisch of course does not subscribe to this view. He would rather position the triumph of the Catholic tradition in terms of a Darwinian 'survival of the fittest.' The fact that Irenaeus sat in the Imperial court or that the Popes Victor, Zephyrinus and Callixtus were benefactors of Commodus' generosity (via Marcia his Christian concubine) is swept under the rug by the handful of scholars who are aware of these references for fear - I think - that they might be labeled 'conspiracy nuts' like me. One might also suggest that for many, their faith will not allow the possibility that there were manipulations of this sort. But Trobisch? I don't understand how he could dismiss the explanation given what he has shown of the development of the canon.

Again, no one wants to be labeled a 'conspiracy theorist.'

In any event, we should move on to the one part of Trobisch's work which DOES admit to a conspiracy of sorts - the editorial organization of the canon. For in no uncertain terms does Trobisch dismiss the idea that the surviving texts of the canon ended up as part of the collection out of an accidental victory of truth. Trobisch' repeatedly stresses that the components of the canon were included for a very specific 'editorial concept.' Let's see what he says:

The final redaction of an anthology always reflects a specific editorial concept. When editors publish material they guide readers to interpret it in a specific way by setting certain signals within a redactional frame. From a critical perspective their interpretation may or may not be inherent in the traditional material.[p. 45]

Trobisch goes on to examine the edition of our surviving canon from the reader's point of view and demonstrates its 'implied reading instructions provided by redactional signals.' Trobisch concludes that this 'reading experience was intended by the editors and that it expresses an important component of the editorial concept.' [ibid]

His example of how this process works is amazingly straightforward:

the names of the alleged gospel authors Mark and Luke refer the readers to passages in Acts, 1 Peter, and to the letters of Paul, which indicate harmony and cooperation between the Jersualem authorities and Paul. The same message is conveyed by the macrostructure of the collection, which presents writings of the Jerusalem authorities, James, Peter, and John, side by side with the letters of the apostle Paul. When viewed from the perspective of the traditional material, however, the Letter to the Galatians sharply contradicts that image of harmony., The redaction suggests that the clashing parties had reconciled later, an interpretation that is not supported by the text of Galatians. All three perspectives therefore demonstrate an obvious interest on the part of the final editors to present the early Christian missionaries as working together in unity and harmony.[p. 46]

Of course other scholars have noticed the artificiality of this 'working together' - Knox being the most notable. Yet, as we will see, what takes Trobisch's work to the next level is that he sticks to the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of the canon to make his point. The manuscripts themselves bear witness to the redactional efforts of the final editor.