Who REALLY Created the New Testament?

I can't count the number of times that I have praised David Trobisch over the last few days. I know he is my superior. I respect him immensely. But I have to say that he and I are heading in opposite directions on the issue of who the final editor of the New Testament canon was.

As I mentioned at my last post on the subject, it was Robert Price who told me about Trobisch. I had written the first version of my Against Polycarp in which I 'accused' Polycarp of being the 'final editor' of the canon. Price loved the book and told me that it would be published by the Journal of Higher Criticism. The Journal went through a series of transformations. Against Polycarp is always said to be high on the list of titles that they want to publish. In the meantime however, I discovered that more research I did on Polycarp, the more I realize he couldn't possibly have been the 'final editor' type.

Polycarp was a lunatic, plain and simple. He was a delusional para-suicidal crusader. A final editor needs to feel comfortable sitting behind a desk.

I don't even know if Polycarp had a real name, let alone a fixed address.

In any event, the more I studied matters it became clear that most people couldn't distinguish between Irenaeus' claims about the 'beloved disciple of the beloved disciple' and the real Polycarp. This shouldn't be at all surprising as Irenaeus is our only real source for any information about a person of this name. Yet even with this situation there are still enough scraps of information about 'the real Polycarp' from the existing writings of Irenaeus which allow us to see that Irenaeus rather than Polycarp is the final editor of the canon.

Whenever I approach Trobisch on the subject he can never provide me with a reason not to identify Irenaeus as this figure. I presume that the problem is that 'real scholars' assume that whatever Irenaeus believed must have come from Polycarp.

This is what Irenaeus claims I admit but it is not hard to see that Irenaeus and Polycarp did not use the same Gospel, that Irenaeus and Polycarp did not employ the same canon, that Irenaeus and Polycarp had two different histories of the formation of the Church.

The most obvious clue which points to this conclusion is that there was another person in Rome named Florinus who openly challenged Irenaeus' claims about the teacher whose teaching both men claimed to witness.

Florinus was a Valentinian. Need I say more?

It would be too much for me to overturn almost two thousand years of ASSUMPTIONS about Irenaeus' 'faithfulness' to his master. I am prepared to do this in the coming days but for the moment let me just say that even without the distraction of figuring out who Polycarp is, it should have been obvious to Trobisch how absolutely perfectly Irenaeus of Rome embodies EVERYTHING he writes about the 'final editor' of the canon.

I think David was afraid of the implications of this identification so he avoids the topic (especially because people like Tommy Wassermann and Larry Hurtado wouldn't talk to him any more if he admitted this).

Indeed where Polycarp represents a striking comet full of kinetic energy Irenaeus and his writings represent an almost unimaginable level of tedium. Irenaeus's writings are so boring that they would even prevent Viagra from being effective.

I want the readers to keep all that I have cited from Trobisch's understanding of the function and purpose of the orthodox New Testament canon (i.e. to identify and define the central players in the early Church) when we see what appears in the first few chapters of Book Three of Irenaeus' work. I know I had started to go through Irenaeus to demonstrate Trobisch's understanding of the 'gospel of four was witnessed and shared by Irenaeus. Now I want to go one step further and demonstrate that Trobisch's claims about the function of the New Testament canon is also shared by Irenaeus.

I will bold important sections of the text and add a numeral to comment on the most important sections in subsequent posts. Irenaeus begins by noting to his readers that:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles (1). For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter (2), did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia(3).

These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics(4).

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce (5): wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth (6), is not ashamed to preach himself.

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles (7), [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour (8); and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition (9).

Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Wherefore they must be opposed at all points, if per- chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it (10).

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world (11); and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves (11). For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul (13); as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority (14), that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy (15). To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians (16), exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood (17), and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth (18), for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,--a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,--that, namely, which is handed down by the Church (19). There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth (20); as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles (21).

I think the reader gets a general idea how all this not only confirms but even PROVES Trobisch's theory about the origins of the current canon, but makes Irenaeus a prime suspect for the role of 'final editor' of the canon. More to follow ...

Responding to Readers Emails

I have about twenty emails from readers which I haven't responded to owing to the demands of my day job. Some of this stuff is very interesting including Dimitris link here to a budding study supporting Eusebius' report that the first monasteries grew out of the Jewish therapeutae.

David Trobisch on the Identification of John Through the 'Editorial Concept' of the New Testament

I have told my readers how much I love David Trobisch's observations in the Final Edition of the New Testament. Apparently I am not the only one who loves Trobisch. Aside from being a favorite of virtually every scholar I have ever respected, I happened to notice that Trobisch even gets an endorsement from Anne Rice, author of the Interview With a Vampire and related texts(!).

In any event, I have been doing detailed citations from Trobisch's work for the last few days. There is a selfish motivation for all of this of course. I am commonly accused of having some 'radical' ideas about an Alexandrian tradition based solely on the authority of a Mark who was also called John. I see this concept reflected in Clement's Letter to Theodore (at least with regards to a figure named Mark who is traditionally understood by Alexandrians to have also been called 'John').

Nevertheless I think because there are so many people who have never read Trobisch's work before, or perhaps there are so many people who might have read SOME of Trobisch's stuff and are unable to see the IMPLICATIONS of that work, I thought it might be useful to stop talking about ME and MY THEORIES for a while and spend some time talking about someone else's ideas which are far less controversial than my own.

Let me say again that like all great thinkers and writers, Trobisch lays out a series of observations which are irrefutable. As with all good scientific research, Trobisch's methodology CLEARLY DISTINGUISHES between the evidence and his conclusions. You can read the Final Edition and walk away disagreeing with SOME of Trobisch's inferences or indeed argue that Trobisch hasn't gone far enough or hasn't realized the full implications of his own research.

That is what I try and do with all of my research. I want to go beyond Trobisch while at the same time admitting that Trobisch's work is far superior to my own.

I happen to spend a great deal of time on David's work in the Real Messiah but strangely enough, I had never even read Trobisch when I had completed my first book, Against Polycarp when I was twenty three years old. I was already friends with Bob Price and he told me, "there's this scholar you have to read ..." and it was nothing short of revelation ever since BECAUSE we represent two different methodologies - one sound (Trobisch) and the other wholly inspirational (myself) - arriving at exactly the same fundamental conclusion (all the other difference are unimportant - at least to me).

So let's move on to the final stage in our examination of Trobisch's work - the specific APPLICATION of the 'editorial concept' of the New Testament canon as he sees it.

As we noted earlier, Trobisch sees the final editor of the New Testament canon as DELIBERATELY assembling a collection of writings for the purpose of providing a framework toward identifying all the principle figures of the Church as 'working together' for the establishment of orthodoxy. Most people would acknowledge the 'working together' as a 'historical fact.' Trobisch says it is impossible for us to ascertain whether or not this is true. One might argue that this editorial effort was developed AGAINST a pre-existent Marcionite understanding of a basic split in the Church at its very beginnings.

Of course, I think that the Marcionite view is the correct one. As a Jew I know that you can't get ten of us in a room without hearing ten different opinions or interpretations! (lol) But seriously, the only way the Letter to the Galatians makes any sense is if it was originally witnessing a fundamental disagreement which later became glossed over by subsequent editorial manipulations of the original (Marcionite) text.

It is interesting to note that entirely independent of Trobisch Theodore Weeden (another genius) sees a split between Mark and the Jerusalem community. I needn't recycle my view that the anti-Marcionite writings of Tertullian, Adamantius and Ephrem provide clues for the idea that 'Paul' was a title which the original Apostle Mark assumed after his transformational experience. Indeed there is no better clue than the one provided by Eznik when he says that 'Marcion' himself had the vision ascribed by our canon to 'Paul.'

It is not at all difficult to get from 'Marcion' to Mark if you have a basic familiarity with Jewish Aramaic. Of course most New Testament scholars can only work out linguistic arguments from Greek so the question of whether 'Marcion' developed from Marcus 'remains an open question' (!).

In any event, there is an ancient tradition as old as the canonical Acts of the Apostles that Mark was also called John (or indeed that John's other name was Mark). The Copts to this day say that Mark was the apostle's Gentile name and John his Jewish name. Not only do we see countless examples of important Jews in the Common Era and earlier holding two names, modern Samaritans continue this practice (my friend Benyamim Tsedaka also has an Arabic alias - Amin).

While scholars struggle to make sense of whether John Mark was St. Mark or St. John or some other John, Trobisch's work provides us with an explanation for why they can't seem to get out of these woods. The canon was deliberately arranged so as to identify 'Mark' and 'John' as two separate individuals.

Trobisch begins with the Gospel of Mark and says that the only clue that a reader of the New Testament would stumble across the second text in his canon and see a heading splashed across the top of the page - 'according to Mark.' As Trobisch notes:

Reading the title of the Second Gospel, readers may ask, 'Who is Mark?' In order to find an answer, they will have to consult other writings.[p. 47]

As Trobisch goes on to demonstrate the additional writings of the canon - not shared by the Marcionite collection - would readers to the conclusion that Mark was the son of Peter, a wholly subordinate figure in the early history of Christianity.

At the same time, Trobisch notes that far more significance would be attributed to 'John' who after all wrote a mysterious text which closes the collection of four gospels. As Trobisch writes:

The naming of authors in the titles of specific writings in another editorial feature that illuminates the editorial concept. From the readers' perspective these famous names seem to guarantee the reliability of the Canonical Edition. As far as the macrostructure is concerned, the authoritative names are part of a carefully woven web holding together the disparate parts of the New Testament. And seen from the perspective of the traditional material, the Fourth Gospel clearly did not intend to disclose the name of the 'beloved disciple.' The final editors, however, presented it as the work of John. All three perspectives therefore display a strong editorial interest in conveying the names of the prominent authors to the readers.[p. 46]

So Trobisch later goes on to tackle the same inquiry he developed for the Second Gospel namely:

Reading the title of the Fourth Gospel (i.e. 'according to John'), again the reader may ask, "Who is John?" The name John is mentioned twenty times in this Gospel, sixteen times in reference to John the Baptist and four times in reference to John, the father of Peter. Neither one can be regarded as the author, because the death of John the Baptist is reported in the text (10:40-41) and because Peter's father would be a very unlikely candidate to write the Gospel.

The last chapter expressly addresses the authorship, however, without giving a name. The 'disciple who is testifying these things' (Jn 21:24) is identified as the disciple 'who Jesus loved' and who 'was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, 'Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?' (Jn 21:20).

On the one hand, the readers are told by an unidentified voice that the beloved disciple wrote the Gospel and that it is now - maybe for the first time - presented to the public. (See the next chapter for a more detailed treatment of John). Both the title and the final remarks refer to the authorship. They enclose the book like brackets. From the reader's point of view the title does not necessarily have to be formulated by the author. On the contrary, the readers may readily accept the publisher's comments at the end as an explanation for the strange wording 'According to John' in the title. They indicate that John is not the author of this book in its present form but that John's original manuscript was edited for publication by someone else. From the reader's perspective editorial activity is not problematic. [p. 52]

Of course what isn't problematic for the naive believer is in fact a difficulty for those who want to critically examine the text. How are we to know what original text lays behind the editor's manipulation of the current material? Trobisch of course avoids delving into these controversial issues but sticks with demonstrating HOW WE WERE INTENDED TO IDENTIFY JOHN based on the 'editorial concept' of the canon. He concludes:

there is a way the reader can corroborate the suggestion of the publishers that John the son of Zebedee is the beloved disciple. All the reader will have to do is consult the other three Gospels. The preceding synoptic Gospels inform the reader that Jesus occasionally chose to confide in only three of the twelve disciples; these were Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, John and James (Mt 17:1 par.; 26:37 par; Mk 5:37). If the readers suspect the beloved disciple to be one of these three preferred disciples, they should be able to conclude with confidence that the beloved disciple is identical with John, the son of Zebedee. Peter is eliminated as the possible author of the Fourth Gospel since he is mentioned next to the beloved disciple in the final chapter and in the scene depicting the Last Supper, to which readers are referred. James can be excluded from further consideration because according to Acts 12:2 the Zebedee James died early, before the first missionary trip of Paul; Jn 21, however, presupposes that the beloved disciple outlived all other disciples. One way readers may identify the author of the Fourth Gospel, therefore, is to eliminate two names from the circle of three disciples who were especially close to Jesus [p. 53]

Of course many of my readers will say to me now that Trobisch is just restating the obvious. But what they don't understand (because they haven't read the book likely) is that Trobisch's restating of the obvious is ultimately developed to demonstrate how nothing in the canon is accidental. There is a deliberate effort on the part of the final editor to frame a particular understanding of 'the truth' which ultimately raises serious questions for anyone who just wants to take information from the canon as 'historical facts.'

It wasn't as if pristine original texts were just collected and dumped into the canon the way the final editor found them. At each step along the way, the final editor can be seen reshaping and manipulating evidence to fit a particular vision of the ancient Church. He wants above all else to LIMIT speculation and to END competing interpretations of who Mark or John is as much as he is 'preserving an original understanding.'

Of course the question Trobisch never answers is who the final editor was. I know from subsequent investigations that he has tried to see if Polycarp might have been this figure, but this simply will not work. Polycarp was the author of the original Gospel of John which I would argue resembled the Diatessaron.

In any event any inquiry into the question of who the final editor was can only lead to one conclusion - he was the historical author of the Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge False So-Called - i.e. the Church Father commonly idenified as 'Irenaeus' (although I am not at all sure this was his actual name). In my conversations with Trobisch he acknowledges that Irenaeus is the only other likely candidate once Polycarp is eliminated.

In my next post, I will begin my demonstration of why Irenaeus' writings provide AN EXACT PARALLEL for what Trobisch theorizes happened in the late second century from the surviving manuscript evidence of the New Testament canons. Hope you can all wait until then! This is very exciting stuff, in my mind. It is the opening which proves that the Marcionite understanding IS THE ONLY HOPE for a pristine tradition (and even then you never know) ...

Once You Read David Trobisch's First Edition of the New Testament How Can Anyone Deny Marcionite Primacy?

The way I see it there is a church within the Church. I have never understood why the critics of Christianity attack the religion as if it were one monolithic concept which was constant throughout the ages. In many ways they are more irrational when it comes to Christian origins than the pious.

I just don't understand why these people can't see that there is a church WITHIN the Church, that the Marcionite canon was ABSORBED INTO the Church of the Catholoci. It means nothing to me that Irenaeus tells us that 'Marcion' took the Gospel of Luke and the Letters of Paul and corrupted them. It is plain from the surviving evidence that the Marcionites developed a parallel argument that the Catholoci split apart the one true Gospel and made it four.

So let's put aside my claim that Marcionite (Aramaic Marqiyone) means 'those of Mark.' Let's put aside my claim that the Marcionites used the longer Alexandrian gospel according to Mark. Let's put aside the debates I have with 'Marcionophiles' that Marcionitism was actually closer in spirit to authentic Judaism.

Let's put aside all the crazy distractions that I inevitably find myself embroiled in merely because I am bored out of my mind living in a cabin in the woods of Washington State.

When you stop reading Trobisch's book and you take a second look at our inherited canon you can't help but get the feeling that all it represents is a Roman reworking of the original Marcionite canon.

You see, when I speak in terms of the 'Marcionite canon' then everyone out there THINKS that they 'understand where I am coming from.' Yet in my mind, I am expressing the same thing if I say that the Romans reorganize the Alexandrian canon. This because I don't believe for a moment that there ever was a guy named MARCION running around corrupting the Church. 'Marcion' was just another orthodox 'boogeyman' like Ebion, Elxai and even Polycarp - i.e. identities developed to obscure the historical reality associated with controversial figures.

I think that Alexandria was the original headquarters of the 'Marcionite' (i.e. 'those of Mark') Church. I have countless reasons for thinking this (Origen's reference to an enthroned Marcion, the Marcionite Epistle to the Alexandrians, the fact that the orthodox tradition UTTERLY DENIES any role to Alexandria in the development of the 'true Church,' the fact that the Clement and Origen are unable to express ANY pride in the Alexandrian See).

But again I have to put all of this aside to be 'understood.'

When you put down Trobisch's the First Edition of the New Testament you can see that an editor went out of his way to build this massive external structure so as to 'bury' the Marcionite canon (i.e. the Evangelium and the Apostolicon) WITHIN a crowded distraction.

We must remember that just as seven Marcionite letters became buried within thirteen apostolic epistles, one Evangelium was 'separated' (to use the Syriac term) or diluted within a gospel of four.

It doesn't matter to me that Trobisch did not come to this conclusion in his work on the Pauline epistles. It just seems patently obvious when you QUIETLY think about the implications of his study of the New Testament.

The Marcionites not only DID NOT HAVE this massive editorial structure directing people where to find information about 'Mark' and 'John,' their UNCLUTTERED canon ultimately must have allowed the initiated to pursue the 'gospel secret' - i.e. the mystery hidden within the original copies of the gospel.

The truth is that you can't have it both ways. You can't have a Church promoting people to learn about the identity of John from clues OUTSIDE of the Gospel AND AT THE SAME TIME encourage them to cleave to oral traditions about the mysteries of the various gospel passages. Irenaeus for instance, not only ACTIVELY directions Christians to the former but REPEATEDLY attacks the merits of the mystical approach.

To this end, I want to return back to my original effort to demonstrate that Irenaeus' understanding of a 'gospel in four' is perfectly compatible with Trobisch's formulation. A few days ago I was going through every single reference to 'gospel' in the Refutation and Overthrowing of Knowledge Falsely So Called and I ended up at the clearest declaration of Irenaeus understanding of a successive unfolding of gospels, culminating with Polycarp's original Evangelium 'according to John.'

What I want the reader to see in my next post is that Irenaeus limits the discussion of the 'gospel secret' - i.e. a beloved disciple hidden within the pages of the gospel - to John, the teacher of Polycarp. As we have already noted there has been a parallel Alexandrian tradition in existence from Irenaeus' day which said that this figure was really 'Mark who was also called John.'

Did Polycarp originally think that his John was the same as the Alexandrian Mark? I suspect so, but I can't prove it. All that can be said with certainty is that by the time of Irenaeus' reforms the two were unmistakably referenced as two separate individuals.

Yet it is only when we read Trobisch's explanation of the function of the canon ALONGSIDE Irenaeus' instruction to the faithful in Book Three Chapter One of Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge False So Called that we understand why ten generations of scholars have never seen that there IS another possibility.

Trobisch makes plain the canon was established at the end of the second century. It is the canon which says that Mark and John are two different people and that one is true apostle and the other a mere 'interpreter' of the word of another apostle. Not only do I believe this was deliberate I don't think there is any real reason to believe that THE REAL POLYCARP of history held that John and Mark were one and the same person too.

It was Irenaeus who arranged the canon to rewrite history. Mark was subordinated to such an extent and his gospel curtailed to such an extent that both become functionally useless to the salvation of the faithful. This was deliberate. But for the very fact that we see Irenaeus and his successors struggling to curb the influence of this original tradition for several generations, we should properly see the late second century canon as functioning exactly in the manner of the photo I started this post.

There was a Church WITHIN the Church, a Church of St. Mark, against whom Irenaeus developed the whole canon. This is the ultimate context of the Letter to Theodore and it is why Irenaeus' successor Hippolytus says that many of the believers in Mark had read Irenaeus' report about their beliefs, practices and gospel encouraged the remaining portion to DENY his exaggerated claims about their sect. We read:

For also the blessed presbyter Irenaeus, having approached the subject of a refutation in a more unconstrained spirit, has explained such washings and redemptions, stating more in the way of a rough digest what are their practices. (And it appears that some of the followers of Mark,) on meeting with (Irenaeus' work), deny that they have so received (the secret word just alluded to), but they have learned that always they should deny. Wherefore our anxiety has been more accurately to investigate, and to discover minutely what are the (instructions) which they deliver in the case of the first bath, styling it by some such name; and in the case of the second, which they denominate Redemption. But not even has this secret of theirs escaped (our scrutiny).[Hippolytus Ref. vi. 26]

Does any of this sound familiar to the readers of the letter to Theodore? More to follow tommorow. I am so tired, I just have to get some sleep

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?

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.

Was Mark a Title?

I want to stress again that “marqa” is certainly in origin a personal name, but that an Aramaic-speaker would have FELT it as being a title.

Agrippa Messiah

Was Agrippa the Messiah? The sources really do bear out the contention that Agrippa was regarded as the Messiah at some time. Now it is time to tidy up. This is what needs to be done now. a) In all cases, the reader needs to be shown to what extent the text has been condensed or paraphrased or both.
b) The first quote, starting, “Titus will make peace etc.” has no source that I could find. The word “strengthen” looks like a mistranslation.
(c) The two refs. to Daniel VII: 25 near the start need to be corrected. Daniel XII: 7 is in Hebrew, not Aramaic.
(d) The translation of Saadya’s note on IX: 24 is a long way off track in understanding the syntax, the condensation and paraphrasing depend on the original misunderstanding of the syntax. He says that prophecy ended with the building of the SECOND Temple, and was then replaced by the Bat Kol. The reference to the Third Temple, however, has been correctly understood.
(e) Correct Metsidat David to Metsudat David.
(f) Make it clear that Metsudat David re-interprets Rash’s words so as to give them a standard orthodox meaning. Saadya gives the same interpretation as Rashi, but although he is much earlier, he is deliberately not so explicit as Rashi, leaving it to the attentive reader to realise the implication.
(g) Near the end of the message, the words “which will be a curse”, are not only wrong, they weaken the clear evidence that Rashi is paraphrasing a document from 68 A.D. Translate “but he (Titus) will come to no good”. Nevertheless, Rashi’s words after that are an attempt at reconciling his source with the standard doctrine of his day.

On the Name 'Mark'

As to the question on how early a word “marca” could have been borrowed from Germanic into Romance, and specifically whether it could have been borrowed by Latin as early as the 1st c. A. D., I intend to ask someone about this but don't know who to approach. Note carefully: the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary doesn’t say this word was borrowed into English from Frisian: it says it is the COGNATE of the Frisian word. This dictionary uses three separate symbols for “derived from by natural development” (in this case by both Frisian and English from Proto-Germanic), “naturally cognate to” (e.g. the English and Frisian and Dutch and Gothic words are all natural developments from the same Proto-Germanic original), and “derived by lifting from another language” (as the Romance forms from various forms of Germanic). Have a careful look at the table of symbols. Don’t forget either that sometimes the borrowing can be from both Celtic to Germanic and Celtic to Romance, as is the case for “cat” (Latin “cattus”), “beak” (French “bec”), “car”, and “orca”( i.e. the technical term for a killer-whale).

On the Stigmata

What is the stigmata? It essentially means 'mark.' This is a question that is important to me in establishing a line of argument for the dating of the artificial development of the connotation of the Palestinian Aramaic word “marqa”, which originally meant the sealing and legal delivery of a legal document, and specifically when speakers of this language might first have been able, on the analogy of Latin, to invent an artificial scholarly use of it as meaning “stigmata”. The word is Germanic in origin. The question is, when does it first appear in Latin or Romance? Does it first appear as a literary word, or as a colloquial word, or is it impossible to work out the details? We can’t work this out from the dictionaries, and we don’t. know the literature. In short, we haven’t got the necessary Sprachgefühl. Any information would be appreciated.

Mark as a Title in Aramaic

Can I remind you again of my casual remark that it seems to me, on the evidence I have gathered, that although Mark is a personal name in Latin and Greek, an Aramaic-speaker would have taken it as a TITLE if it had been useful to do so. When I said that the Samaritan Targum translates Sh-L-M as maroq or mirroq, this definitely doesn’t mean that the Samaritans would have expected to use either of these two specific forms as a name or a title. These two forms are only the infinitives of the root M-R-Q, and the form marqa would have been felt as the ABSTRACT NOUN from the same root. As for speakers of what is attested in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, and Jewish and Samaritan speakers of Hebrew, they would have felt the form marqa to be the abstract noun from the root M-R-Q meaning in legal usage “signed, sealed, and delivered”. None of the extant Jewish Targums use this word in this place, but the LXX has a translation that looks like the equivalent, which means there was probably once a Jewish Targum with this form. Besides, how else can you explain why it is that the massively important figure Mårqe is not known to us by his Hebrew or Aramaic personal name? So” John Mark” would be a personal name followed by a title. As for the importance of the name John (Yohanan “the Lord is gracious”) here is a plausible route back to the Torah. Note the words “Grace and Truth” right at the start of John’s Gospel, and note that what is meant is that the insight once limited to Moses will be accessible to everyone, the reference being to Exodus XXXIV: 6 IN ITS CONTEXT. The words “Grace upon Grace”don’t mean, as the Evangelicals think, “lots and lots of grace”. They mean Grace on top of Grace or Grace in addition to Grace, i.e the universal awareness of grace going beyond the awareness once limited to Moses. This is what the Greek preposition plainly means, as Francis Moloney (an Australian now working in the U.S.A.) has pointed out in his commentary on John. This makes me wonder just how much Sprachgefühl for Greek most N.T. scholars have. (You can see why I despair when N.T. scholars show their ignorance of the depths of the Torah, or the fact that the N.T. makes no sense without the Torah). I would guess that when Samaritan tradition stresses the numerical equivalence of Mårqe and Mûshi (Moses) it makes a reference to this interpretation or connotation, but with the original significance forgotten.

Who was Marcion?

I think Marqiyon in Aramaic is a back-formation from Marqîyônê meaning followers of Mark. The suffix –iyon is productive in Hebrew and Aramaic of the time. (Productive is a technical term of theoretical linguistics meaning used to make new words, as opposed to being recognised in existing words but not used to make new words). It does not make diminutives: it makes derivatives. PEOPLE don’t have names ending in –iyon in Hebrew or Aramaic, but THINGS named by relation to other things have the suffix. I think the Greek Markion is a combination of influence of the Aramaic and a conscious creation of a Greek diminutive. The Diatessaron was produced simultaneously in Syriac and Latin in Rome exactly when Irenaeus wrote, so Syriac/Aramaic contact is certain. Does the Greek or Latin name Markion occur before Irenaeus?