David Trobisch's Identification of the 'Editorial Concept' of the Catholic New Testament and My Identification of a Parallel 'Gospel Secret' in the Alexandrian Tradition

We are continuing with our study of David Trobisch's the First Edition of the New Testament working our way up to his identification of the editorial concept of the canon. He writes:

Each book of the New Testament bears a title. Each title informs the readers, expressly or implicitly, about the author of the document. However, the author cannot be identified with certainty as long as the writing is read only by itself. Given the background of the entire anthology, however, the names mentioned in the titles stimulate the curiosity of the readers and direct them to specific text passages in other writings of the Canonical Edition.

Because literature always addresses the public, it depends heavily on credibility. If a text has passed through the professional hands of the author, editor, publisher and bookseller, the reader will assume with good reason that the editorial frame and in particular, the alleged authorship is accurate. From the readers' perspective it will not seem necessary to explicitly affirm the authenticity of a book. Most readers will be comfortable as long as the text does not confront them with obvious inconsistencies concerning its authorship. [p.46]


Trobisch goes on to demonstrate how 'sympathetic readership' were guided by the editorical arrangement of the canon towards 'identifying the authors mentioned in the titles (of the gospels).' Trobisch notes that 'they will carefully study other text passages of the collection that contain these names. For the readers it is like untangling a riddle that has already been solved by the editors.' [p. 47]

Now readers of my Real Messiah will already be aware that the Alexandrian tradition maintains a similar riddle exclusively with regards to the 'hidden references' to their apostle Mark. As early as Severus al'Ashmunein we are told that even though the name 'Marcus' never appears in any of the gospels he wrote his gospel in such a way that initiated readers were recognize that he was lurking in margins of his own composition.

Severus introduces 'Mark' the father of the Alexandrian tradition to his Alexandrian audience by saying he 'secretly' appears in various passages in the gospel and related canonical literature:

he was among the servants who poured out the water which our Lord turned into wine, at the marriage of Cana in Galilee. And it was he who carried the jar of water into the house of Simon the Cyrenian, at the time of the sacramental Supper. And he also it was who entertained the disciples in his house, at the time of the Passion of the Lord Christ, and after his Resurrection from the dead, where he entered to them while the doors were shut. And after his Ascension into heaven, Mark went with Peter to Jerusalem, and they preached the word of God to the multitudes. And the Holy Ghost appeared to Peter, and commanded him to go to the cities and villages which were in that country. So Peter, and Mark with him, went to the district of Bethany, and preached the word of God; and Peter remained there some days. And he saw in a dream the angel of God, who said to him : «In two places there is a great dearth». So Peter said to the angel : «Which places meanest thou?» He said to him : «The city of Alexandria with the land of Egypt, and the land of Rome. It is not a dearth of bread and water, but a dearth arising from ignorance of the word of God, which thou preachest». So when Peter awoke from his sleep, he told Mark what he had witnessed in his dream. And after that Peter and Mark went to the region of Rome, and preached there the word of God.

And in the fifteenth year after the Ascension of Christ, the holy Peter sent Saint Mark, the father and evangelist, to the city of Alexandria, to announce the good tidings there, and to preach the word of God and the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom is due glory and honour and worship, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, the one God for ever. Amen.

As we will see with Trobisch's treatment of the identity of Mark, it is apparent that the Alexandrians LEARNED TO IDENTIFY their Mark with John Mark of Acts. However the idea that Mark is present in a large number of narratives of the gospel is uniquely Alexandrian.

What is even more curious about this short list of 'sightings of Mark' is that his appearances are not limited - at first glance - to narratives our canon acknowledges as being written by Mark. There are a great many scenes listed here and elsewhere which only appear in 'according to Luke' or 'according to John.'

As such a strange paradox is now set before us. How can the Alexandrian Church have passed on a tradition that Mark wrote his gospel BASED ENTIRELY ON HIS OWN EXPERIENCE WITH JESUS. In other words the Copts not only deny that the Gospel of Mark is a Gospel of Peter' in any way, shape or form but moreover that Mark witnessed Jesus' preaching and his narrative of the gospel is wholly based on what he saw from that firsthand account (i.e. Peter's reference did not figure into the narrative).

It is plainly evident from the contemporary work on St. Mark by Pope Shenouda III the Evangelist Mark - a popular work which nevertheless which is necessarily put forward ex cathedra - that the Copts had a parallel tradition to what is written in the second century Muratorian Canon on the Gospel of Mark namely that Mark's composition:

those things at which he was present he placed thus (in his gospel).

As such we must scratch our heads and wonder how it was that most of the Alexandrian sightings of Mark do not conform to the Gospel of Mark in our canon.

In other words, why wouldn't Mark have included the marriage at Cana (John 2) and the bit about Jesus entering the room while the doors were shut (John 20:26) if (a) as the Alexandrians claimed he was present at the narrative and (b) the purpose of his gospel was to secretly manifest his presence to initiated readers?

The first answer that comes to the mind is that this Alexandrian tradition developed late in its history when the canon was already split into four. The problem with this assumption is that it begins with the idea that the Copts were so stupid that they couldn't see that they were developing an irrational tradition. We can't allow ourselves to write off bits of tradition merely because it is convenient for our existing assumptions.

The oral tradition perpetuated by Serverus has roots which go back to the second and third centuries. I have already argued that the Muratorian canon was developed from an Alexandrian ordering of the letters of Paul. There is evidence that Origen identified a secret beloved disciple named 'John' (undoubtedly John Mark) in SYNOPTIC narratives. This turns around the Severian tradition only now in reverse - why is John's 'secret' presence discovered outside of the Gospel of John?

I don't want to get bogged down in this discussion, but there is ample evidence that Alexandrians identified Mark as the naked neaniskos of either Mark 14:52 OR LGM 1 as early as the first narratives of Peter 1's death (c. 311 CE).

The point then that we should keep in mind is that everything that Trobisch says about an attempt by the final editor of the New Testament canon to define the various authors by other books in the collection must be seen as running COUNTER TO or ON TOP of a 'gospel secret' tradition WITHIN the gospel and letters of Paul (i.e. the canon of Marcion).

Trobisch recognizes but sidesteps the whole question of whether the Marcionite canon was earlier than the Catholic collection. I don't see there being any question that the canon of 'those of Mark' (Aramaic Marqiyone) was older. As such I can't help but see that what Trobisch is describing as a DELIBERATE EXPANSION of the canon to identify Mark who was also called John as amounting to only a small player within a Greater Church which went previously unrecognized by the Marcionites.

Moreover Origen's identification of secret references to John in the synoptics when reconciled with the Coptic traditions recognition of Mark's secret presence in various passages of the gospel of John argue in my mind for the idea that BOTH Origen and the Alexandrians generally knew of a longer version of the gospel (undoubtedly written by the historical Mark who was also called John) which identified the author SOLELY through secret references in his own gospel.

Irenaeus' editorial efforts were thus yet another example of the efforts of the Roman church at the end of the second century to attack the standing of Mark within his own Church. As I have noted this effort developed not only through what Trobisch identifies as arrangement of 'clues' in the texts OUTSIDE of the Gospel (i.e. in the various extra writings of the canon) but moreover from his deliberately arranging the gospel in four so as to make it impossible to identify the 'gospel secret' associated with a 'hidden disciple' with Mark, the original author of the text.

UPDATE: A service to my readership I have included a lengthy citation of Shenouda's APPLICATION of Severus' tradition about Mark writing a gospel and inserting himself SECRETLY in his own narrative. The citation below begins at page 10 of Shenouda's the Evangelist Mark:

Because of [Mark's] wealth of knowledge, some thought he was a translator to Peter the Apostle during his missionary. It was mentioned that some barbaric tribes attacked the family's properties in Gyréne, at the time of Augustus Caesar, that forced them to emigrate to Palestine. By the time Lord Christ began His teaching, the family was already settled there.

That was how Mark met The Lord and became one of his disciples. His mother Mary also hosted Him in her house and was among the women who served Him. It was mentioned that Mark was at the Wedding of Cana of Galilee, where God did His first miracle, changing the water into wine. He was among those who tasted it.

No home had more fame than St. Mark's home. It was there where Lord Jesus Christ observed the passover with his pure disciples. There He washed their feet and gave them His Covenant, His Holy Body and Blood. That was where the disciples hid before the resurrection. In it, the Holy Spirit filled the disciples and they spoke in tongues. This great home was the first Christian Church and its most upper room was the famous Zion chamber.

All these facts were mentioned in our Coptic references as well as in books of the Catholics, Protestants and other churches.

In his book " Les Saints d'Egypte", Father Paul Dorliane Chineau testified that Mark was known as 'son of Mary', the neighbor and the hostess of Christ, and that Mary's home was where Christ celebrated the last Passover, It was built on Mount Zion, on the big rock.

Another distinctive testemony was what Cardinal Bareaunios, a Catholic scholar in the sixteenth century, referred to St. Mark's home, "It was a destination for the Lord Christ and His followers, where He celebrated the Passover with them and where they hid after His death. In its upper room, the Holy Spirit filled them, thus it became the first Christian church. The same was mentioned by Theodosius, a Sixth Century writer, in his book "The Holy Land", and was published by Gildemeister in De Situ Terrae Sanctae (p. 20)

The British Encyclopedia mentioned that St. Mark's home was the center of the Christian life in Jerusalem. As The Lord Christ celebrated the Passover in St. Mark's home, all scholars concluded that he was the man who carried the water pitcher, Our God talked about to His disciples and said, " Go you into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. And wheresoever he shall go in, say you to the goodman of the house, The Master said, where is the guest chamber, where I shall eat the Passover with my disciples? " Alexander pointed to this in his book " Landatio Barnaboe " (p. 440).

The upper chamber in St. Mark's home, where the disciples of God assembled, was mentioned, "These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary
the mother of Jesus, and with His brethren." [Acts 1: 14] In the same room where they were sitting, the Holy Spirit filled them, and it " Filled the house" ; "They began to speak with other tongues". [Acts 2:1-4] Accordingly, this house witnessed the establishment of the First Church.

Thus it wasn't surprising to honor this house as the first church. When the angel freed St. Peter from the prison, he went directly to this house, "He came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark ; where many were gathered together praying". [Acts 12:12]
What a person he would be in such amazing spiritual environment? A person who served the Lord! A person who was raised in the arms of his righteous mother, among relatives of Christ's Apostles, in a house which God entered, where He gave His Body and His Blood and filled them with the Holy
Spirit.

Nobody within such an environment, would be, other than the Beholder of God, St. Mark the Evangelist, who joined His disciples, and became one of the selected Seventy Apostles.

There is another curiosity in the Coptic tradition in that Severus and every writer since identifies Mark as one of the seventy. If Mark every experience of Mark with Jesus went into his own gospel, why is the mention of the seventy only attributed to Luke?