PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Note this on the documentary Hypothesis from Wikipedia:

Blinkinsopp makes sense to me. To print contradictory text side by side is a ridiculous thing to do. Only a powerful outside political force could get groups together to do it.

The logical choice of culprit in forcing together the contradictory four gospels would be Constantine. How sure are we that he did not do it? I know that there are mentions of the four gospels in Irenaeus and Tertullian, but how sure can we be that these passages are not backdated?
Assuming that they are authentic, what political forces before Constantine could have caused groups to swallow their pride, split their differences, and allow four different groups to accept each other's gopel?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin (AKA PhilosopherJay)

mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

In thinking about this question I'd have to answer that probably only the Roman Emperors held such power. In their role of "Pontifex Maximus" they each acted, one after another over the centuries, as a chief (and ultimate arbitur) of all the separate and many "Pontifices" or "priests" of the myriad religions and cults in the Roman Empire. They selected their own deity to patronize during their rule. We do know at least that the Emperors often re-populated various regions with various peoples and tribes following many of their successful wars in one region or another. This is a similar type of "harmonisation" but it was not literary, rather social or even ethnic.

The Roman Emperors, with the possible exception of Philip the Arab (according to Eusebius) did not classify the christian cult, or its writings, with any of the deities that they patronised ...

According to Cambridge Ancient History Volume 12
OFFICIAL RELIGION

p.412

Religion in the Roman Empire was governed by the princeps, as "Pontifex Maximus" a member of all priestly colleges and responsible for all public morals and well being.

The following is evidenced by coins and temple foundations:

Claudius: magnified the cult of Cybele.
Gauis: in Rome introduced Osiris (and other Egyptian deities accepted in Italy)
Vespasian: favored Isis and Sarapis.
Domitian: was a benefactor of Isis, Minerva and Jupiter
Hadrian: built the temple of Venus and restored many temples in Rome.
Severan Dynasty: sponsored Bacchus, Hercules and Sarapis.
Illyrian Dynasty: were devoted to Vesta.
Aurelian: built the temple of Sol Invictus, celebrated 25th December and established priestly colleges.
Diocletian: supported Sol Invictus, Isis, Sarapis, Jupiter and Hercules.

Also related to your OP is the question about the origin of the nomina sacra, the abbreviations exhibited in the most ancient manuscripts of the greek new testament.

The presence of the "nomina sacra" in the Gospels and NT
imply a single and strong redactive force ..... (but when?)

Although not necessarily a political force, the evidence indicates a strong early literary scribal REDACTIVE force in the four different gospels and the rest of the NT books. Anyway, I just thought I'd add that.

Toto

But the gospels are not harmonized or combined as they would be by analogy to the documentary hypothesis.

And I don't think that it requires a military force such as Constantine to force disparate sides to come together. All it takes is one charismatic individual with sufficient resources. For example, the modern American conservative movement is largely a product of William Buckley, who got libertarians, corporate interests, social conservatives, and evangelical Christians to come together for a common purpose.

stephan huller

Hi Jay

I have spent some time thinking about this very idea. Some preliminary observations:

1. Constantine is utterly irrelevant to this discussion because the fourfold gospel was first mentioned by Irenaeus.

2. The fourfold nature of the gospel does not derive from the fact that this just happened to be the number of authentic gospel traditions that had come down to Irenaeus or that the fourfold gospel was already in use before Irenaeus, rather the sacredness of the number four was already established among the Christian sects which predated Irenaeus (the Marcosians for instance) and Hellenistic-Roman scientific speculation (i.e. the number of winds were four, the number of seraphim/hiyyot were four). In short, the fact that we have four parts to the one gospel had less to do with the fact that Irenaeus had four 'authentic' gospels sitting on his desk associated with four Christian groups and was forced to somehow to 'build' a fourfold revelation. Rather, there might have been many more or many less groups that Irenaeus was appealing his message to - four just happened to be a good or poetic number and so developed a 'gospel in four.'

3. Celsus charges that the division of the gospel was artificially developed " certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections." [CC 2.27] It is not clear Celsus was referring here to our 'fourfold gospel' but Origen's comments seem to confirm that context.

4. The common Syriac terminology for our canonical texts is the 'separated gospels.' This was certainly established in an age when the Syrian churches were exclusively using a form of the Diatessaron. The implication of the Syriac terminology again is that someone thought 'the four' were taken from one proto-gospel - i.e. that they were separated away from a single original proto-text.

5. Polycarp (and Clement of Rome) seem to have also use a variant gospel text related to the Diatessaronic tradition. If Irenaeus is the first to mention the fourfold nature of the gospel and he claims at the same time to be the true heir to the truth of Polycarp. We have our strongest suggestion that Irenaeus established the quadraform shape of the canon/

6. The fourth or fifth century Jewish Christian source (according to Pines) behind Al-Jabbar's historical claims about the way the gospel was developed by Imperial conspiracy "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."

7. An observation by John Knox - The ancient headings still used centuries later “kata Matthaian”, “kata Markon”, “kata Loukan”, “kata Iôannên” imply the concept of a SINGLE Gospel. The heading is not “The Gospel according to Mark” and so on, but only “according to Mark. The heading “the Gospel” is therefore implicitly reserved for the book of which these are the four parts. He points out that this is the kind of wording used by all early authors. I would add that this is still reflected in the order of service, in which “the Gospel” is the name of a book containing all four. Knox adds that this manner of reference means that the abstraction “the Gospel” comes according to Mark and so on, but he adds as well that the abstraction is visible in a book, or what would be a book if you could fit all four into one ms., and that this book would not be four Gospels, but one Gospel with four faces, referring to the old symbolism of the lion, bull, eagle, and man. I would add that this symbol comes from Ezekiel ch. I and ch. X, and that in Ezekiel’s vision the four faces belong to ONE angelic being. What all this means is that ancient scribal practice and ancient liturgical terminology and ancient theological terminology reflect an original situation of one Gospel, and that these usages are inexplicable otherwise.

8. David Trobisch's theory about the artificiality of the 'editorial concept' at the heart of the gospel. Every one of these questions is addressed and answered by Trobisch in his book. One point for a start. The original Gospel could not just be altered. There would still have been competing versions. In fact, there already were competing versions of the single long book, all recognisably versions of the same book. By publishing the four at once as a set, a clear distinction could be made between what was and was not the canonical Gospel. Remember that none of the four parts of the set of four are adequate on their own. All the earlier forms were long and did not differ throughout, but only in certain passages.

Note carefully what Trobisch says about the Nomina Sacra. Words such as Theos, Kyrios, Iêsous, sometimes Hierousalêm, are written in abbreviated form with a horizontal line on top. These are not the old shorthand symbols. It takes just as long to write the abbreviated form as the whole word. These Nomina Sacra forms appear with the Set of Four for the first time, They are the publisher’s trademark, telling the reader that this is the canonical fourfold Gospel.

Some selections from his First Edition of the New Testament:

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]

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]

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]

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]

I think that the fourfold division of the gospel was developed entirely artificially and had nothing to do with a 'fourfold division' of Christianity within the Church. There is no evidence to suggest that Matthew ever had a 'sect' built around it (as one would expect with an actual independent literary work). The Gospel of Mark did have a tradition associated with it - the Alexandrian tradition but Clement says the Alexandrian gospel was different. The Gospel of Luke was artifically developed against the Marcionites. There is no independent evidence for a 'sect' built around Luke. There is some evidence that the Valentinians had a special relationship with a text associated with John but Trobisch has determined that an older (lost) version of John must have existed at one time. Canonical John is not that text.

Conclusions - The following is just provisional. There is no evidence whatever of the set of four Gospels before Irenaeus. There were several Gospels, but no person or group used a set of four with equal authority. Geographical distribution is often mentioned in the textbooks, but several scholars have pointed out that there is no evidence for this. The evidence confirms a picture of a set of four shortened Gospels made by abridging the books MADE TO BE ASSOCIATED AS IF WITH a sect (which means careful selection of what to leave out). The ending of John was adjusted so as to make it read like the conclusion to the set of four. The set of four was probably published in Rome in about 170 CE It was in Greek and only in Greek. Translations into other languages were delayed for reasons uncertain. The older long single Latin Gospel, in the edition of the Diatessaron and probably also in an edition like the one used by Justin, was used for all preaching and teaching in Latin and for all liturgical purposes in Latin. Serious books were written in Greek in Latin-speaking areas and these quoted the Fourfold Gospel. No-one writing in Latin used the set of four before Tertullian, and he read them in Greek and did his own translating as needed. There was no use at all for any purpose of the set of four in areas where the language was Aramaic or Armenian or Georgian for centuries afterwards. (I don’t know yet about areas where Ethiopic or Coptic or Arabic or Gothic were used. However, the indications are that the pre-Islamic Arabic Gospel was a single book).

stephan huller

To your point Jay,

We don't have the gospel of the Hebrews but rather a specifically redacted text which claims to somehow be related to that original (but Irenaeus never says how exact the representation is).

We don't have the final gospel of Mark but according to Clement - we have an unfinished edition, one which was essentially incomplete. One may wonder if this was just a 'safe' way for Clement to say that Mark was redacted from an Alexandrian original in Rome through a 'Carpocratian' agent (Marcellina?).

We don't have the original Marcionite gospel but a specific Catholic redaction where the Marcionites are accused of tampering with a text associated with a certain 'Luke.' Luke's authorship of the text mentioned in the Pauline epistles as 'my gospel' - i.e. material written by the apostle by his own hand - is especially hard to believe. Once again the Catholic text is artificial.

We don't have the original John but according to Trobisch an ammended version of a lost original likely originally associated with Polycarp and the so-called Valentinian gnostics (on Polycarp as the inspiration for the Valentinians just study the example of Florinus of Rome whom Irenaeus acknowledges spent more time with his master than Irenaeus did and was clearly a greater authority on his teaching.

In the end when the final picture emerges it is impossible not so see that the four canonical gospel have no real association whatsoever with 'real sects' in the period. They are entirely artificial constructs with the sole purpose of accomodating some sort of greater ecumenism in the Church.

If there was Imperial coersion it was applied by Commodus and the Severan Emperors not Constantine.

One more observation - the first and last gospels are associated with disciples of Jesus i.e. Matthew and John

the second and third gospels are attributed to individuals identified by the Catholic traditions as companions of the disciples - Mark and Luke

Is this the original fault line of the Catholic Church? i.e. Mark + Luke = the Marcionite gospel/secret Mark. Matthew + John = the original Valentinian gospel of John/Polycarp's gospel.

It is obviously an oversimplication but I suspect that Irenaeus despite criticizing the Valentinians was closer to that tradition (by means of Polycarp) than to the original tradition of Mark. That is why Book One places the Valentinians first and those of Mark are added on as some sort of offshoot (even though this couldn't have been historically true given that Tertullian's earlier version of Against the Valentinians does not continue to describe the Marcosians as a Valentinian sect).

Doug Shaver

How sure do I need to be to justify having any doubt?

Doug Shaver

Only if you believe the contradictions are real and not just "apparent contradictions."

Religious people nowadays, without being forced by any despots, do all kinds of things that we skeptics perceive as ridiculous. Why should we think religious people used to be smarter than they are now?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Mountainman,

Good point about the power of the emperors. They are certainly the first suspects.

There's a half century gap between Hadrian and the Severan Dynasty on the list. Marcus Aurelius or Commodus might have had influence or even Septimus Severan -- (from EarlyChristians.Org ):

Septimus was a religious reformer and may have been open to Christianity at first. Could it have been that Christians thought they had a chance to capture political power through him if they united and reformed their religion to match Septimus' religious views?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto,

Great analogy.

We should remember that Buckley was also a devout Catholic and wealthier version of Joseph McCarthy. He united diverse groups by focusing exclusively on the demonization of communists, socialists and liberals in order to create his seemingly united conservative movement.

In the same way the forces of Christian orthodoxy seemed to have concentrated on demonization of "Heretics" in order to create orthodoxy.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay

Hi Stephan,

Lots of things to think about in your posts. Thanks.

Jay Raskin