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?
Showing posts with label Imperial Conspiracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Imperial Conspiracy. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
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.
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.
More on Hengel's Critique of David Trobisch and My Imperial Conspiracy Theory
Trobisch characterizes Hengel's criticism of his theory of the 'unnatural' development of the canon as follows:
Hengel's presupposition is that an edition of alleged apostolic writings could be distributed successfully among Christians only if backed by a central church authority. But this is clearly disproved (in his view) by the evidence of the rich Christian literature of the time. [p. 43]
Of course because Trobisch is a 'real scholar' he can't even consider Irenaeus' own confession that he and the other top figures in the Catholic Church sat in the Imperial court of Commodus and received money from Caesar, which was deposited in Carpophorus's bank in the Piscina Publica of Rome. No, that would be a 'conspiracy theory' and conspiracies have never, ever had a role in history.
I love Trobisch, in spite of the fact that he would never connect Irenaeus' Imperial connections to his theory. Indeed I think it is part of the reason I love his work so much. It guarantees a place for me and my theory. I consider my theory to be nothing short of being David Trobisch's bastard child.
Hengel's presupposition is that an edition of alleged apostolic writings could be distributed successfully among Christians only if backed by a central church authority. But this is clearly disproved (in his view) by the evidence of the rich Christian literature of the time. [p. 43]
Of course because Trobisch is a 'real scholar' he can't even consider Irenaeus' own confession that he and the other top figures in the Catholic Church sat in the Imperial court of Commodus and received money from Caesar, which was deposited in Carpophorus's bank in the Piscina Publica of Rome. No, that would be a 'conspiracy theory' and conspiracies have never, ever had a role in history.
I love Trobisch, in spite of the fact that he would never connect Irenaeus' Imperial connections to his theory. Indeed I think it is part of the reason I love his work so much. It guarantees a place for me and my theory. I consider my theory to be nothing short of being David Trobisch's bastard child.
On the Anti-Markan Motivation of the Previous Editors of the Catholic Canon
I am about to cite the heart of Trobisch argument, the one where he argues that the canon is organized in a very specific manner. What purpose does the New Testament canon serve according to this great 'African' scholar? (lol - Trobisch was born to missionary parents in Africa) Trobisch PROVES something I think we have all suspected USING THE ARRANGEMENT OF PHYSICAL MANUSCRIPTS WHICH MAKE UP THE CANON. He says that the 'final editor' wanted to dispel any doubts about conflicts in the Church between the Petrine and Pauline Churches as witnessed by Galatians (and I would argue the last chapters of 2 Corinthians).
What makes Trobisch such a great scholar is his focus and discipline. Even if I had studied the same manuscripts and had all the knowledge that Trobisch has, I would inevitably have gotten that argument bogged down in various distractions. What makes the Final Edition of the New Testament such a great read is that he neatly side steps questions like whether or not the canon was developed in reaction against Marcion etc.
Yet as I like to engage in speculation (I think it defines who I am as a person). I am convinced that Irenaeus is the elusive final redactor of the canon. Indeed in personal conversations I have had with Trobisch he never shoots down my suggestion. Instead he behaves like a reasonable scholar - even a polite scholar - and says that he enjoys reading and listening to my theories but nevertheless refuses to endorse any of my ideas (he could avoid answering my calls if he thought I was a REAL waste of time).
Trobisch has also avoided making any public statement on where he stands on the Mar Saba letter. I wonder though if we can see something of a precursor to the Catholic reconciliation of the Petrine and Pauline Churches in that document.
As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected.
As I noted here before this Alexandrian formula represents a parallel reconciliation between two factions in the Church. The major difference of course is that we are talking about the Christians aligned with 'Simon' (called 'Peter') and those associated with Mark.
I know the standard way of reading Clement's Letter to Theodore is that it DOES NOT reflect a whole different orthodoxy but rather 'the story of the Alexandrian See' AS IF Alexandria were already part of the Greater Church. But - as I have noted many times before - why would the Alexandrians have joined a Church which did not even include Alexandria in the story of the birth and development of Christianity.
I have already made my position clear in previous posts - I think 'orthodoxy' as we know it was IMPOSED on Alexandria from without (and in specific Rome and the Imperial court where Irenaeus acknowledges he and others sat and enjoyed the good will of Commodus).
The reason Clement and Origen never OPENLY take pride in their native city and its connection to St. Mark is because it was verboten and 'heretical' to do so. The ONLY accepted historical model for Christian origins was the canonical Acts of the Apostles.
In any event, let's just acknowledge for a moment that the description of Mark's role in writing the gospel associated with Peter and the gospel of Mark might have represented a precursor to Irenaeus' efforts with the New Testament canon as Trobisch sees it. Let us ask why Mark takes the place of Paul a generation or two before Irenaeus.
Could it be that 'Paulos' - an appellation we have come to take as a name but is more likely a title - was never the name of the Apostle in Alexandria? Could it be that the letters attributed to 'Paulos' by the circle of Polycarp were identified as 'Markan' in Alexandria?
Now I admit there is no way to prove any of this. Nevertheless I do see some hints of this situation in the anti-Marcoionite writings. I don't want to bore the reader with the citation of statements in Hippolytus and other sources right not. But let me say something else.
We all know that Irenaeus made the case that the text Paul mentions as 'his gospel' was written by Luke. I don't believe it. Neither did the Marcionites. When I refer to the Real Messiah for instance as 'my book' it is strange for someone else to come along and say 'no really, what Huller meant to say that it is his book written by Alan Schwartz.'
To this end, the Marcionites (a name which can be translated as meaning 'those of Mark' in Aramaic) had a formula where the same guy that wrote the letters wrote the gospel wrote the apostolic letters. Irenaeus says, no there was one guy who wrote the letter with the help of 'fellow workers' and his gospel by other fellow workers. I don't believe a word of it but again where did Irenaeus get the idea for this craziness? Where is the precedent? As I will demonstrate this week in future posts I think it comes from Polycarp and his canon.
I will demonstrate that there is an abundance of evidence that suggests that before Irenaeus, the church of Polycarp believed the canon had just one gospel - the Gospel of John - and that John wrote this gospel for Paul. This is not something which I just made up in my head. There is plenty of physical evidence and references in the Church Fathers to support this position.
Under my scenario Luke was actually created after Polycarp's Gospel of John as an anti-gospel of Mark. The opening lines of Luke were actually taken from the longer Gospel of John which resembled the Diatessaron. 'Theophilus' was Theophilus of Antioch (so Kuhn also has concluded) and the editor of the Gospel of John was Polycarp who wrote the opening words:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
As a testimony about his relationship with John, the eyewitness of Jesus and this part of the single, long Diatessaron was broken off canonical John and developed into the introduction of the newly manufactured 'Lukios' in the court of Lucius Commodus.
What is so interesting about this scheme is that we actually do have canons where there is just the Gospel of John and then Acts. Acts then would not be ascribed to Luke in the Polycarpian Church but to John Mark who - as Trobisch notes acts as the glue between the Petrine Church and the Pauline Church.
As I will demonstrate it is Irenaeus who developed his new canon AFTER Polycarp in such a way to introduce Luke as the author of Acts. He does this by arguing that Paul rejected John Mark to accompany him on his most important journey. Irenaeus takes great pains to point this passage out to his readers in a section of Against the Heresies which focuses on (a) those who reject the name Paul for the apostle and (b) those who reject Luke.
In any event all that we need to see now is that there is a natural progression from the reconciliation in To Theodore to the 'final edition' of the canon developed by Irenaeus THROUGH Polycarp:
a) Clement writes that Mark wrote BOTH the Gospel of (Simon) Peter and the Gospel of Mark, the latter gospel being 'more perfect' than the one written for the man Irenaeus and others saw as being the 'head of the apostles.' In Alexandrian orthodoxy we would likely have seen TWO canons - one for those of the faith (i.e. those outside the presbytery) which began with the Gospel of (Simon) Peter and whatever else was included in that canon and then ANOTHER canon for the FULL members of the Church, those who had undergone initiation into perfection where the Gospel according to Mark was ultimately followed by the so-called 'Pauline' letters and which I believe included a text called 'to the Alexandrians (how could Alexandrians not have believed in the Alexandrian letter?).
b) Polycarp then developed a parallel canon around the original and longer Gospel of John. This canon looked more like the canons of the Syrian Church. The 'Gospel of the Mixed' (which was according to John) was first, followed by Acts (which was understood to be written by John Mark), followed by the Pauline letters, the Johannine letters and other familiar texts and concluded with the Revelations of John. John Mark was now the interpreter of Paul who has just been introduced to the Christian universe. It is not hard to see that 'John Mark' is still Mark but Polycarp claimed that he met the apostle after he had left Alexandria and went on to Asia Minor. Polycarp's canon was ultimately met with hostility from members of the traditional order (Clement of Alexandria's To Theodore, Gaius of Rome) and division existed in the Church thereafter.
c) Irenaeus attempted to reconcile the divisions in the Church by a fourfold division of the gospel which ultimately subordinated both Mark and Paul to John and Peter. I believe Polycarp claimed that John was 'John Mark' and that his version of the gospel was 'truer' that the one in Alexandria and/or the Marcionite text (assuming that these weren't the same which I think they were). Irenaeus developed John and Mark into two different people, ended John's original role in Polycarp's community as author of Paul's gospel, ended Mark's role in the Alexandrian Church as the author of the Gospel of Peter and subordinated the Gospel of Mark to all gospels of the canon making it so short that it had no real value other than to deny the existence of all other Gospel of Mark's in circulation in Alexandria or among the Marcionites.
Irenaeus then not only developed Polycarp's canon of Paul, John Mark and Peter he moved the headquarters of the Church from Peter's original See of Antioch (as reflected in the Acts of the Apostles) to Rome and in the process claimed that the Gospel of Mark was written for Peter in Rome (something which To Theodore never claims; that claim is reserved for the Gospel of Peter). Nevertheless to diminish the importance of the revelation of Mark, the Gospel of Matthew is given the primary spot even though the Gospel of Mark was purportedly written for the head of the Church Peter (!).
In other words, all features of the new canon had the purpose of subordinating and attacking the original Alexandrian revelation of Mark as referenced in the Letter to Theodore.
The Gospel of Mark lies like a dead shell of the text's original glory. All the contentious passages which were used to support Marcionite or Alexandrian arguments about the role of Jesus in the community of Mark were isolated in the Gospel of Luke and written with the implied authority of Lucius Commodus the disciples namesake.
Irenaeus then says that 'the Gospel of the Marcionites' was really a bastard copy of this text KNOWING THAT THE COMMUNITY IN QUESTION WOULD NEVER REVEAL THE SHAPE AND CONTENT OF ITS SECRET, SACRED GOSPEL. In other words, there never was a 'Marcionite' gospel but rather a community which 'belonged to Mark' (Marqiyone) in Alexandria which used a variant Gospel of Mark. The battlefield as it were which Irenaeus and the Catholics waged war against the Alexandrians was fought against GOSPEL READINGS - the actual physical text of the Evangelium was never revealed.
By stigmatizing READINGS as 'Marcionite' they prevented their dissemination. It wasn't only Clement who denied that his gospel was by Mark. Look at the Marcionites in corrupted copies of the Dialogues of Adamantius after a debate as to whether the Gospel really belongs to Peter (sounds Markan doesn't it?).
On the previous page, the statement by Peter, “you are the Christ” has been raised. Eutropius the pagan arbitrator asks whether Peter wrote the gospel. The Marcionite Marcus replies “Christ, not Peter, wrote the gospel.”
Pretty: “What right has Marcus to say that Christ wrote the gospel. The Gospel writer did not refer to himself; he refers to him who he is proclaiming – Jesus Christ.”
Rufinus: “Deinde quomodo dicit Christum scripsisse euangelium? Non enim tanquam de se scribens loquitur scriptor euangelii, sed tanquam alium et qui extra se sit praedicans Christum.”
Greek: “πῶς δὲ λέγει τὸν Χριστὸν γεγραφηκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον? οὐ γὰρ ὡς περὶ αὑτοῦ ὁ γράψας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐσήμανε, σημαίνει ὃν κηρύσσει Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν,…”
Attempt from Greek: “But how does he say that the Christ has written the gospel? For he who wrote the gospel did not indicate himself, he indicates the one he is proclaiming – Christ Jesus.”
The point is that there are uncanny parallels as to whether Mark is the author of BOTH the so-called 'Marcionite' gospel and the Gospel of Mark of Alexandria. The inclusion of Peter into the mix in the Marcionite debate further references that it is the Gospel of Mark which is being referenced (remember BOTH Mark and the so-called 'Gospel of Marcion' begin with Mark 1:1 - it forms their title i.e. the Gospel of Jesus). Hippolytus' statement is now instructive:
When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. [Hippolytus Ref. vii. 18]
I think that Trobisch's analysis is brilliant but it only goes so far. It wasn't just that Irenaeus was arguing FOR the working together of all the members of the Church. This is just the beginning. Let us ask - why should it matter than the Church had so many members were working together? Was it just to define or redefine pre-existing texts and personalities in the Church?
No I think that isn't it.
I think Irenaeus divined the weakness of the Markan tradition and its reliance on a single witness - i.e. St. Mark. Mark as I have always argued was originally much more like Mohammed than people would care to acknowledge. He had a heavenly revelation where he received the true Torah or the Torah according to perfection (the gospel) but this was ultimately a PERSONAL REVELATION (there were no human witnesses).
Maimonides only refers to the founder of Islam as 'the madman' for this reason. As there were no witnesses to his revelation the Jews tried to write it off as the product of a madman.
That is why in the rewrites of the Pauline canon we see 'Paul' confront and sometimes acknowledge that he is sounding like a madman. Just think of his employment also of Deuteronomy 17.6.
The editor of the canon NEEDED to surround HIS PAUL with countless fellow workers who - although able to prove his personal revelation - could now vouch for his orthodox character.
Irenaeus had divined the weakness of the Markan system when it ran afoul of the Roman government. They had an 'unspeakable' revelation - i.e. one that couldn't be revealed. The contents of their gospel, the identity of their apostle and his relation with the contemporary world couldn't be revealed to those outside the initiated.
Irenaeus did what any strategist would do - he controlled the identity of the Church for those on the outside and made 'secret knowledge' of any kind heretical. Just read Irenaeus again you'll see what I mean.
As such his reformation of the canon wasn't just to hide disunity in the Church but also it was a deliberate attempt to subordinate Alexandria, the Alexandrian gospel and the Alexandrian apostle by exploiting the traditions most glaring weakness - its secrecy.
What makes Trobisch such a great scholar is his focus and discipline. Even if I had studied the same manuscripts and had all the knowledge that Trobisch has, I would inevitably have gotten that argument bogged down in various distractions. What makes the Final Edition of the New Testament such a great read is that he neatly side steps questions like whether or not the canon was developed in reaction against Marcion etc.
Yet as I like to engage in speculation (I think it defines who I am as a person). I am convinced that Irenaeus is the elusive final redactor of the canon. Indeed in personal conversations I have had with Trobisch he never shoots down my suggestion. Instead he behaves like a reasonable scholar - even a polite scholar - and says that he enjoys reading and listening to my theories but nevertheless refuses to endorse any of my ideas (he could avoid answering my calls if he thought I was a REAL waste of time).
Trobisch has also avoided making any public statement on where he stands on the Mar Saba letter. I wonder though if we can see something of a precursor to the Catholic reconciliation of the Petrine and Pauline Churches in that document.
As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected.
As I noted here before this Alexandrian formula represents a parallel reconciliation between two factions in the Church. The major difference of course is that we are talking about the Christians aligned with 'Simon' (called 'Peter') and those associated with Mark.
I know the standard way of reading Clement's Letter to Theodore is that it DOES NOT reflect a whole different orthodoxy but rather 'the story of the Alexandrian See' AS IF Alexandria were already part of the Greater Church. But - as I have noted many times before - why would the Alexandrians have joined a Church which did not even include Alexandria in the story of the birth and development of Christianity.
I have already made my position clear in previous posts - I think 'orthodoxy' as we know it was IMPOSED on Alexandria from without (and in specific Rome and the Imperial court where Irenaeus acknowledges he and others sat and enjoyed the good will of Commodus).
The reason Clement and Origen never OPENLY take pride in their native city and its connection to St. Mark is because it was verboten and 'heretical' to do so. The ONLY accepted historical model for Christian origins was the canonical Acts of the Apostles.
In any event, let's just acknowledge for a moment that the description of Mark's role in writing the gospel associated with Peter and the gospel of Mark might have represented a precursor to Irenaeus' efforts with the New Testament canon as Trobisch sees it. Let us ask why Mark takes the place of Paul a generation or two before Irenaeus.
Could it be that 'Paulos' - an appellation we have come to take as a name but is more likely a title - was never the name of the Apostle in Alexandria? Could it be that the letters attributed to 'Paulos' by the circle of Polycarp were identified as 'Markan' in Alexandria?
Now I admit there is no way to prove any of this. Nevertheless I do see some hints of this situation in the anti-Marcoionite writings. I don't want to bore the reader with the citation of statements in Hippolytus and other sources right not. But let me say something else.
We all know that Irenaeus made the case that the text Paul mentions as 'his gospel' was written by Luke. I don't believe it. Neither did the Marcionites. When I refer to the Real Messiah for instance as 'my book' it is strange for someone else to come along and say 'no really, what Huller meant to say that it is his book written by Alan Schwartz.'
To this end, the Marcionites (a name which can be translated as meaning 'those of Mark' in Aramaic) had a formula where the same guy that wrote the letters wrote the gospel wrote the apostolic letters. Irenaeus says, no there was one guy who wrote the letter with the help of 'fellow workers' and his gospel by other fellow workers. I don't believe a word of it but again where did Irenaeus get the idea for this craziness? Where is the precedent? As I will demonstrate this week in future posts I think it comes from Polycarp and his canon.
I will demonstrate that there is an abundance of evidence that suggests that before Irenaeus, the church of Polycarp believed the canon had just one gospel - the Gospel of John - and that John wrote this gospel for Paul. This is not something which I just made up in my head. There is plenty of physical evidence and references in the Church Fathers to support this position.
Under my scenario Luke was actually created after Polycarp's Gospel of John as an anti-gospel of Mark. The opening lines of Luke were actually taken from the longer Gospel of John which resembled the Diatessaron. 'Theophilus' was Theophilus of Antioch (so Kuhn also has concluded) and the editor of the Gospel of John was Polycarp who wrote the opening words:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
As a testimony about his relationship with John, the eyewitness of Jesus and this part of the single, long Diatessaron was broken off canonical John and developed into the introduction of the newly manufactured 'Lukios' in the court of Lucius Commodus.
What is so interesting about this scheme is that we actually do have canons where there is just the Gospel of John and then Acts. Acts then would not be ascribed to Luke in the Polycarpian Church but to John Mark who - as Trobisch notes acts as the glue between the Petrine Church and the Pauline Church.
As I will demonstrate it is Irenaeus who developed his new canon AFTER Polycarp in such a way to introduce Luke as the author of Acts. He does this by arguing that Paul rejected John Mark to accompany him on his most important journey. Irenaeus takes great pains to point this passage out to his readers in a section of Against the Heresies which focuses on (a) those who reject the name Paul for the apostle and (b) those who reject Luke.
In any event all that we need to see now is that there is a natural progression from the reconciliation in To Theodore to the 'final edition' of the canon developed by Irenaeus THROUGH Polycarp:
a) Clement writes that Mark wrote BOTH the Gospel of (Simon) Peter and the Gospel of Mark, the latter gospel being 'more perfect' than the one written for the man Irenaeus and others saw as being the 'head of the apostles.' In Alexandrian orthodoxy we would likely have seen TWO canons - one for those of the faith (i.e. those outside the presbytery) which began with the Gospel of (Simon) Peter and whatever else was included in that canon and then ANOTHER canon for the FULL members of the Church, those who had undergone initiation into perfection where the Gospel according to Mark was ultimately followed by the so-called 'Pauline' letters and which I believe included a text called 'to the Alexandrians (how could Alexandrians not have believed in the Alexandrian letter?).
b) Polycarp then developed a parallel canon around the original and longer Gospel of John. This canon looked more like the canons of the Syrian Church. The 'Gospel of the Mixed' (which was according to John) was first, followed by Acts (which was understood to be written by John Mark), followed by the Pauline letters, the Johannine letters and other familiar texts and concluded with the Revelations of John. John Mark was now the interpreter of Paul who has just been introduced to the Christian universe. It is not hard to see that 'John Mark' is still Mark but Polycarp claimed that he met the apostle after he had left Alexandria and went on to Asia Minor. Polycarp's canon was ultimately met with hostility from members of the traditional order (Clement of Alexandria's To Theodore, Gaius of Rome) and division existed in the Church thereafter.
c) Irenaeus attempted to reconcile the divisions in the Church by a fourfold division of the gospel which ultimately subordinated both Mark and Paul to John and Peter. I believe Polycarp claimed that John was 'John Mark' and that his version of the gospel was 'truer' that the one in Alexandria and/or the Marcionite text (assuming that these weren't the same which I think they were). Irenaeus developed John and Mark into two different people, ended John's original role in Polycarp's community as author of Paul's gospel, ended Mark's role in the Alexandrian Church as the author of the Gospel of Peter and subordinated the Gospel of Mark to all gospels of the canon making it so short that it had no real value other than to deny the existence of all other Gospel of Mark's in circulation in Alexandria or among the Marcionites.
Irenaeus then not only developed Polycarp's canon of Paul, John Mark and Peter he moved the headquarters of the Church from Peter's original See of Antioch (as reflected in the Acts of the Apostles) to Rome and in the process claimed that the Gospel of Mark was written for Peter in Rome (something which To Theodore never claims; that claim is reserved for the Gospel of Peter). Nevertheless to diminish the importance of the revelation of Mark, the Gospel of Matthew is given the primary spot even though the Gospel of Mark was purportedly written for the head of the Church Peter (!).
In other words, all features of the new canon had the purpose of subordinating and attacking the original Alexandrian revelation of Mark as referenced in the Letter to Theodore.
The Gospel of Mark lies like a dead shell of the text's original glory. All the contentious passages which were used to support Marcionite or Alexandrian arguments about the role of Jesus in the community of Mark were isolated in the Gospel of Luke and written with the implied authority of Lucius Commodus the disciples namesake.
Irenaeus then says that 'the Gospel of the Marcionites' was really a bastard copy of this text KNOWING THAT THE COMMUNITY IN QUESTION WOULD NEVER REVEAL THE SHAPE AND CONTENT OF ITS SECRET, SACRED GOSPEL. In other words, there never was a 'Marcionite' gospel but rather a community which 'belonged to Mark' (Marqiyone) in Alexandria which used a variant Gospel of Mark. The battlefield as it were which Irenaeus and the Catholics waged war against the Alexandrians was fought against GOSPEL READINGS - the actual physical text of the Evangelium was never revealed.
By stigmatizing READINGS as 'Marcionite' they prevented their dissemination. It wasn't only Clement who denied that his gospel was by Mark. Look at the Marcionites in corrupted copies of the Dialogues of Adamantius after a debate as to whether the Gospel really belongs to Peter (sounds Markan doesn't it?).
On the previous page, the statement by Peter, “you are the Christ” has been raised. Eutropius the pagan arbitrator asks whether Peter wrote the gospel. The Marcionite Marcus replies “Christ, not Peter, wrote the gospel.”
Pretty: “What right has Marcus to say that Christ wrote the gospel. The Gospel writer did not refer to himself; he refers to him who he is proclaiming – Jesus Christ.”
Rufinus: “Deinde quomodo dicit Christum scripsisse euangelium? Non enim tanquam de se scribens loquitur scriptor euangelii, sed tanquam alium et qui extra se sit praedicans Christum.”
Greek: “πῶς δὲ λέγει τὸν Χριστὸν γεγραφηκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον? οὐ γὰρ ὡς περὶ αὑτοῦ ὁ γράψας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐσήμανε, σημαίνει ὃν κηρύσσει Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν,…”
Attempt from Greek: “But how does he say that the Christ has written the gospel? For he who wrote the gospel did not indicate himself, he indicates the one he is proclaiming – Christ Jesus.”
The point is that there are uncanny parallels as to whether Mark is the author of BOTH the so-called 'Marcionite' gospel and the Gospel of Mark of Alexandria. The inclusion of Peter into the mix in the Marcionite debate further references that it is the Gospel of Mark which is being referenced (remember BOTH Mark and the so-called 'Gospel of Marcion' begin with Mark 1:1 - it forms their title i.e. the Gospel of Jesus). Hippolytus' statement is now instructive:
When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. [Hippolytus Ref. vii. 18]
I think that Trobisch's analysis is brilliant but it only goes so far. It wasn't just that Irenaeus was arguing FOR the working together of all the members of the Church. This is just the beginning. Let us ask - why should it matter than the Church had so many members were working together? Was it just to define or redefine pre-existing texts and personalities in the Church?
No I think that isn't it.
I think Irenaeus divined the weakness of the Markan tradition and its reliance on a single witness - i.e. St. Mark. Mark as I have always argued was originally much more like Mohammed than people would care to acknowledge. He had a heavenly revelation where he received the true Torah or the Torah according to perfection (the gospel) but this was ultimately a PERSONAL REVELATION (there were no human witnesses).
Maimonides only refers to the founder of Islam as 'the madman' for this reason. As there were no witnesses to his revelation the Jews tried to write it off as the product of a madman.
That is why in the rewrites of the Pauline canon we see 'Paul' confront and sometimes acknowledge that he is sounding like a madman. Just think of his employment also of Deuteronomy 17.6.
The editor of the canon NEEDED to surround HIS PAUL with countless fellow workers who - although able to prove his personal revelation - could now vouch for his orthodox character.
Irenaeus had divined the weakness of the Markan system when it ran afoul of the Roman government. They had an 'unspeakable' revelation - i.e. one that couldn't be revealed. The contents of their gospel, the identity of their apostle and his relation with the contemporary world couldn't be revealed to those outside the initiated.
Irenaeus did what any strategist would do - he controlled the identity of the Church for those on the outside and made 'secret knowledge' of any kind heretical. Just read Irenaeus again you'll see what I mean.
As such his reformation of the canon wasn't just to hide disunity in the Church but also it was a deliberate attempt to subordinate Alexandria, the Alexandrian gospel and the Alexandrian apostle by exploiting the traditions most glaring weakness - its secrecy.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
How My Theory About An Imperial Conspiracy in the Late Second Century Bridges the Gap Between David Trobisch and Martin Hengel
Let's continue with Trobisch's amazing work. After going through all the surviving manuscript evidence (which I won't cite here) Trobisch develops some important conclusions which I think best explain the origin of the canon:
With the exception of five documents, all of the evaluated manuscripts of the first seven centuries may be interpreted as copies of the same (original) edition P46 and D 06 (Letters of Paul), W 032 (Gospels), and D 05 (Gospels, Praxapostolos) may be understood as a deliberate redaction rearrangement of the same material.
... I would like to illustrate this point with an analysis of Theodor Zahn's argument. According to Zahn, an anonymous anti-Montanist writer at the end of the second century asserted that any additions to or deletions from the Holy Scripture were intolerable. Zahn then turns to Tertullian, a Montanist, who only a few years later repeated exactly the same sentence about such additions and deletions during a discussion with a theological opponent. For Zahn there is little doubt that both authors refer to the final verses of Revelations. Zahn then ironically remarks that one could conclude that these men had perused an examplar of the New Testament, one that began with the Gospel According to Matthew and ended with the Revelations of John - an examplar, that is, that looked very much like modern printed editions. As far as Zahn is concerned, such a conclusion would be a foolish error. His verdict strongly influenced most twentieth-century studies on the New Testament canon.
... [after arguments against Zahn's view] From this perspective, the same documented debates that are usually evaluated to demonstrate a gradual growth process of the canon serve instead as proof that the Canonical Edition of the Christian Bible was finished, published and widely used.
It is not Theodor Zahn's fault that he did not appropriately evaluate the manuscript evidence. The Codex Sinaiticus had just been discovered when Zahn published his work, and a reliable transcript of the Codex Vaticanus was not yet available. The high value of both witnesses for the reconstruction of the original text was not yet established among scholars. The impressive number of papyri accessible to us today had not yet been discovered. Zahn certainly is not to be blamed. Today, however, New Testament research has to deal with and evaluate the rich new manuscript evidence.
More often than not, the history of the Christian Bible was treated as the history of a doctrine and not the history of a publication. Researchers focused on the canon, not on the Canonical Edition.[p. 35 - 37]
So I hope my readers understand what Trobisch is saying. Someone in the late second century established a 'final edition' of the canon and the basic form of this collection stayed relatively stable over time.
Of course Trobisch recognizes that there are critics of his position - most notably Martin Hengel. Here is what Trobisch writes a little later after demonstrating that the titles of the various gospels, letters and works of the surviving New Testament canon were assigned by a final editor living in the second century (you'll have to buy the book to read that argument):
The uniform structure of the titles (of the various texts in the canon) points beyond the individual writing to an overall editorial concept and was not imposed by the authors of the individual writings. The titles (of the various texts) are redactional. In most cases the genre designations, the alleged authorship, and the structure of the titles cannot be derived from the text with certainty. This strongly suggests that the present form of the titles was not created by independently working editors but that they are the result of a single, specific redaction.
Martin Hengel strongly rejects the idea that the uniformity of the Gospel titles, which he readily agrees existed toward the end of the second century, might be explained as the result of a centralized redaction promoted by the influence and power of the church. And many historians will wholeheartedly agree with Hengel. The Christian church of the second century had not yet developed the structures that would later be used to promote and enforce the specific practices that would later be used to promote and enforce specific practices and creeds. There was no central personality who could have exercised so much power.[p. 41]
I STRONGLY disagree of course and Trobisch has read SOME of the arguments I developed three years ago to identify Irenaeus as that 'central personality.' I think my regular readers have seen the proofs which connect Irenaeus, Marcia and Eclectus to Commodus' inner circle. I would contend that traditional scholarship is too afraid of the stigma of promoting 'conspiracy theories' to ever admit that Irenaeus is EXACTLY the kind of figure Trobisch is describing.
My new book coming out in the fall of 2011 will do exactly this, I promise ...
With the exception of five documents, all of the evaluated manuscripts of the first seven centuries may be interpreted as copies of the same (original) edition P46 and D 06 (Letters of Paul), W 032 (Gospels), and D 05 (Gospels, Praxapostolos) may be understood as a deliberate redaction rearrangement of the same material.
... I would like to illustrate this point with an analysis of Theodor Zahn's argument. According to Zahn, an anonymous anti-Montanist writer at the end of the second century asserted that any additions to or deletions from the Holy Scripture were intolerable. Zahn then turns to Tertullian, a Montanist, who only a few years later repeated exactly the same sentence about such additions and deletions during a discussion with a theological opponent. For Zahn there is little doubt that both authors refer to the final verses of Revelations. Zahn then ironically remarks that one could conclude that these men had perused an examplar of the New Testament, one that began with the Gospel According to Matthew and ended with the Revelations of John - an examplar, that is, that looked very much like modern printed editions. As far as Zahn is concerned, such a conclusion would be a foolish error. His verdict strongly influenced most twentieth-century studies on the New Testament canon.
... [after arguments against Zahn's view] From this perspective, the same documented debates that are usually evaluated to demonstrate a gradual growth process of the canon serve instead as proof that the Canonical Edition of the Christian Bible was finished, published and widely used.
It is not Theodor Zahn's fault that he did not appropriately evaluate the manuscript evidence. The Codex Sinaiticus had just been discovered when Zahn published his work, and a reliable transcript of the Codex Vaticanus was not yet available. The high value of both witnesses for the reconstruction of the original text was not yet established among scholars. The impressive number of papyri accessible to us today had not yet been discovered. Zahn certainly is not to be blamed. Today, however, New Testament research has to deal with and evaluate the rich new manuscript evidence.
More often than not, the history of the Christian Bible was treated as the history of a doctrine and not the history of a publication. Researchers focused on the canon, not on the Canonical Edition.[p. 35 - 37]
So I hope my readers understand what Trobisch is saying. Someone in the late second century established a 'final edition' of the canon and the basic form of this collection stayed relatively stable over time.
Of course Trobisch recognizes that there are critics of his position - most notably Martin Hengel. Here is what Trobisch writes a little later after demonstrating that the titles of the various gospels, letters and works of the surviving New Testament canon were assigned by a final editor living in the second century (you'll have to buy the book to read that argument):
The uniform structure of the titles (of the various texts in the canon) points beyond the individual writing to an overall editorial concept and was not imposed by the authors of the individual writings. The titles (of the various texts) are redactional. In most cases the genre designations, the alleged authorship, and the structure of the titles cannot be derived from the text with certainty. This strongly suggests that the present form of the titles was not created by independently working editors but that they are the result of a single, specific redaction.
Martin Hengel strongly rejects the idea that the uniformity of the Gospel titles, which he readily agrees existed toward the end of the second century, might be explained as the result of a centralized redaction promoted by the influence and power of the church. And many historians will wholeheartedly agree with Hengel. The Christian church of the second century had not yet developed the structures that would later be used to promote and enforce the specific practices that would later be used to promote and enforce specific practices and creeds. There was no central personality who could have exercised so much power.[p. 41]
I STRONGLY disagree of course and Trobisch has read SOME of the arguments I developed three years ago to identify Irenaeus as that 'central personality.' I think my regular readers have seen the proofs which connect Irenaeus, Marcia and Eclectus to Commodus' inner circle. I would contend that traditional scholarship is too afraid of the stigma of promoting 'conspiracy theories' to ever admit that Irenaeus is EXACTLY the kind of figure Trobisch is describing.
My new book coming out in the fall of 2011 will do exactly this, I promise ...
