Anyone have a copy of Trobisch “Who Published the New Testament?”

[mlinssen]

What is very peculiar about the NT as well as their texts though is the fact that they contain sooooooo many mistakes that absolutely don't attest to an organised publication, it one that was done with little care.
Somehow strangely, it was like these writings were chiseled in stone: I've they were written they were written and couldn't be changed anymore

Now what would have caused that? I honestly don't know

A similar thing can be said of the Letters of Ignatius, which were also published by Polycarp.

Well, I tend to think that all these issues and the poor editing are a product of this having been the task of a single person who was overwhelmed and in a rush. Perhaps, maybe, like an old man in his waning years....

You wish!

[Ulan]

The gospel of Luke is very sloppily edited, which gave rise to this idea of a rushed edition and also to that of Luke being an edit of the Marcionite gospel.

Note that Trobisch didn't suggest the whole NT was published as one piece, but in four different publication units: a four gospel book, the letters of Paul plus Hebrews, one unit containing Acts and the Catholic epistles, and Revelation as a separate thing. Acts and the Catholic epistles comprise the orthodox glue that holds all of it together, plus the pastorals.

In later years, he changed a few of these positions.

[lclapshaw]

The gospel of Luke is very sloppily edited, which gave rise to this idea of a rushed edition and also to that of Luke being an edit of the Marcionite gospel.

Note that Trobisch didn't suggest the whole NT was published as one piece, but in four different publication units: a four gospel book, the letters of Paul plus Hebrews, one unit containing Acts and the Catholic epistles, and Revelation as a separate thing. Acts and the Catholic epistles comprise the orthodox glue that holds all of it together, plus the pastorals.

In later years, he changed a few of these positions.

https://www.amazon.com/J-R-R-Tolkien-4- ... _id=972485

[MrMacSon]

The gospel of Luke is very sloppily edited, which gave rise to {a} this idea of a rushed edition and also to that of {b} Luke being an edit of the Marcionite gospel.

{b} - the idea of Luke being an edit of the Marcionite Gospel also came about because of what was gleaned from (i) the heresiologist's accounts of it (particularly but not just Tertullian's), and (ii) in Markus Vinzent's case, what Tertullian also said about Marcion and his interactions with 'them' ie. with Tertullian's fellow protagonists

Note that Trobisch didn't suggest the whole NT was published as one piece, but in four different publication units: a four gospel book, the letters of Paul plus Hebrews, one unit containing Acts and the Catholic epistles, and Revelation as a separate thing. Acts and the Catholic epistles comprise the orthodox glue that holds all of it together, plus the pastorals.

In later years, he changed a few of these positions.
.

Have you, there, in that first paragraph (in this excerpt of your post), given a summary of Trobisch's The First Edition of the New Testament?*

FWIW, some of Trobish's more recent publications are available via his website. See

1. viewtopic.php?p=149598#p149598 and
2. http://trobisch.com/david/wb/pages/publications/pdf.php

The title has the reverse wrt italics ie. 'The Frist New Edition of the New Testament'

[MrMacSon]

Very interesting read so far!
Trobisch has a very valid point regarding John, but misses out on the opportunity to point out that this primarily was a way to change Johannine Priority to Posteriority. By wrapping up the four gospels with John and indeed this conclusive sentence, the impression was suggested that John indeed "closed the book".

Through reading this article and skim-reading some of Trobisch's more publications in the last 24 hrs, I get the impression he thinks Johannine Priority was a thing and that John was, indeed, positioned to "close the book".

(see the excerpt below, in the white box)

Trobisch is very wrong concerning the nomina sacra of course, these existed in - likely - the first CE already, and can't be an indication of "carefully edited publication"

I think you're wrong here.

1. I didn't get the impression that Trobisch didn't think the nomina sacra didn't exist in the first century CE; and
2. I think his points that
   1. the use of nomina sacra was pretty universal in all the early Christian [and Coptic] manuscripts and the codices (and ther *canons*); and
   2. there were fairly consistent patterns to their use in the canons, such as the Codex Sinaiticus
   suggests a farily "carefully edited publication" is valid

What is very peculiar about the NT, as well as their texts, though, is the fact that they contain soooo many mistakes that absolutely don't attest to an organised publication, or one that was done with little care.

III. Formation of the New Testament

"2. Book. A closer look at the manuscripts reveals common editorial features which cannot have originated with the authors of the individual writings. The notation of the nomina sacra, the codex form, the uniform arrangement and number of writings in the manuscript tradition, the formulation of the titles, and the evidence indicating that the collection was called “New Testament” from the very beginning demonstrate that the NT is a carefully edited publication and not the product of a gradual process which lasted for centuries. These editorial features serve to combine disparate material into a cohesive literary unit. Furthermore, these elements cannot be credited to several, independently operating editors, but must be the work of a single editorial entity. In other words, the uniformity of the redactional elements in the manuscript evidence indicates that the NT was edited and published by specific people at a very specific time and at a very specific place.

4. Canon ... No synod or council in antiquity ever decided on the contents of the NT. The parallel publishing ventures of the time, which tried to serve the needs of a growing Jewish and Christian readership, suggest that the formation of the Christian Bible with its two distinct parts, the Old and the New Testaments, is best interpreted on the background of the book industry of the time.

5. Literature. The perception that the NT constitutes a literary unit encourages an interpretation on the macro level. The beginnings and endings of each of the four volumes connect the units. The first two words of the Four-Gospel-Book, βίβλος γενσεως (Matt 1:1), with their references to Genesis, create a link to the editorial title of the first book of the HB/OT. The last sentence of the Four-Gospel-Book (John 21:25) refers to books in plural about Jesus, nicely bringing the volume to a close: “But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

The first sentence of the πραξάπόστολος has a literal reference to the last sentence of the Four-Gospel-Book: “In the first book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning” (Acts 1:1). The doxology at the end of the πραξάπόστολος, Jude 23–24, nicely rounds off this volume. The first sentence of the Letters of Paul refers to the royal lineage of Jesus and his resurrection (Son of David according to the flesh, Son of God through his resurrection; Rom 1:3–4) addressing an obvious difference between Mark, which includes neither an explanation of the royal origins of Jesus nor a resurrection appearance of Jesus, and the other three gospels. At the same time, this sentence reaffirms the reader’s sentiment that Luke’s gospel is Paul’s gospel as it insists on both the royal origin of Jesus and gives an account of his resurrection.

The last sentences of the Letters of Paul pick up this theme again. By mentioning Luke and Mark in the same sentence (Phlm 24) readers are reminded that Luke knew Mark and that on a literary level Luke’s gospel is to be seen as an improved edition of Mark (cf. Luke’s reference to previous, badly organized books on Jesus in Luke 1:1–3).

The introduction to the Revelation of John finally answers the question who this John is, who as mentioned in the title of the anonymous fourth gospel and identified as the beloved disciple in John 21:24, and who the author of the three letters are, where the name John is given only in the titles but not in the text. The first sentence states that Revelation was written by John “who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Rev 1 : 2), a phrase that readers of the NT will understand as a reference to the Gospel according to John. This sentence effectively links the Revelation of John to the Four-Gospel-Book, the πραξάπόστολος, and the Letters of Paul (John is one of the three pillars of the Jerusalem church, Gal 2:9).

Finally, the ending of Revelation, with its warning neither to add nor to remove any of the words of the prophecy of this book (Rev 22:18–19), forms an excellent conclusion and encourages readers to apply this warning not only to the Revelation of John but to the entire Christian Bible.

http://trobisch.com/david/wb/media/arti ... %20EBR.pdf

1. Collection ... In manuscripts containing more than one volume, the order of the volumes varies. The order of the specific writings within each volume changed slightly in the Byzantine manuscript tradition, where Hebrews is moved from its place following 2 Thessalonians to the end of the Letters of Paul, following Philemon. At the same time the Letters of Paul are placed between Acts and the General Letters.
.

I would modify s3 thus -

3. Competition. The Christian Bible faced strong competition during the 2nd century CE. Competing with the “Old Testament” were the Septuagint, the edition of Theodotion of Ephesus, and the edition of Aquila. From 135 CE onward, Valentinus, a representative of the Christian gnostic movement...is reported to have published a Gospel of Truth. [The Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas were popular; as were the works of Josephus, Cicero and others (including the classics: Plato's Timaeus; Homer's Iliad and commentaries and newer versions of them, such as Virgil's Aeneid]. The Gospel of Thomas could well have been popular (in some cirlces).] Sometime around or after 150 CE, Tatian, [said to have been] a student of Justin, produced the Diatessaron .... This edition competed with the NT [both the orthodox canon and Marcion's canon] for centuries in the Syriac Church [at least; as well as, perhaps, as Trobisch says at the start of this section, the Septuagint, 'the edition of Theodotion of Ephesus,' and 'the edition of Aquila'].

Papias of Hierapolis’ five-volume work, a collection of unpublished material on Jesus was also well known (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39). Furthermore, the NT [Book of John] informs its readers that it is not a complete edition (John 21:25) and that there were books on Jesus published before (Luke 1:1).
.

- in the first instance: there's so much more that could be said here (see Jörg Rüpke's Pantheon).

I'd modify this thus, too:

Somehow strangely, it was like these writings were chiselled in stone: once they were written [Finalised], they were written [deemed to have been divine] and couldn't be changed anymore

[MrMacSon]

"...reading instruction of the editors of John: Read Luke first, look for points of reference, we are not going to repeat where we agree, Luke provides the structure of the narrative, but we will point out where we have additional information and we will prove our point to you by quoting the manuscript of the Beloved Disciple."

2 Redactional-Critical Assessment: Gospel According to John in the light of Marcion’s Gospel
..< . . omitted . . >
In Marcion’s book the disciple John is one of the twelve (Lk 6:14), and yet little more than a side character. He is in the background when Peter is called (Lk 5:10), he silently witnesses the resurrection of the little girl (Lk 8:51),12 he is present at the transfiguration scene (Lk 9:28), and he is sent with Peter to prepare the last Passover meal (Lk 22:7). His character only has two lines of speech, the first saying, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us” (9:49). The other line John gets, he speaks in unison with his brother James, “Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them [= the Samaritans]?” (Lk 9:54).

Readers of the New Testament may find that the scenes from Marcion’s book featuring John are greatly elaborated in the Gospel According to John and numerous details are corrected. Narrating the calling of Peter, the Gospel According to John shifts the location from Galilee to a place on the Jordan closer to Jerusalem, and Peter is not the first disciple to become a follower of Jesus but the third one (Jn 5:35–43). The scene in Samaria is reflected in the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman (Jn 4:1–42). The information in Marcion’s book that Peter and John prepared the last Passover in the light of the Gospel According to John is questionable because according to John Jesus dies in the afternoon before the Passover meal. It therefore seems unlikely that Jesus would send out disciples to prepare an event that Jesus knew he would not attend. All these corrections undermine Marcion’s authority to report accurately.

In Marcion’s edition of Paul’s letters, John is marginal as well. John, the disciple, is only mentioned once by name (Gal 2:7–9).

And when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

When the editors of the Canonical Edition introduced readers to the seven Catholic Letters, however, John was represented with three writings.

Readers of the Canonical Edition know that Paul had seen Christ in a vision (2 Cor 12:1–10). But John’s credibility, in contrast to Paul’s, is based on more than visionary experiences. The book of Revelation of John vividly documents John’s visions. But in addition, John presents himself to readers as Jesus’ beloved disciple and a reliable witness to historical events in Jesus’ life (1Jn 1:1).

We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands.

It is with this authority that John in his letters counterbalances canonical Paul. Paul only knows Christ spiritually. John experienced both: the man Jesus and the resurrected Christ.

In Marcion’s publication, John is a colorless side character both in Marcion’s gospelbook and in his edition of Paul’s writings. The editors of the Canonical Edition, however, lift John from obscurity and make him a prominent voice in the New Testament.¹³ Next to Paul with fourteen writings, John is the author of five writings, followed by Peter and Luke with two writings each.¹⁴ The remaining four authors, Matthew, Mark, and Jesus’ brothers James and Jude each only have one writing to their name.

Taking a side character and making him or her an authoritative voice is a well-documented literary strategy in extra-canonical gospels.¹⁵ It fits the genre.

Summary

The editors of the Gospel According to Luke clearly stated their intention in the introduction (Lk 1:1–4): They are presenting to the readers the [supposed] critical work of [a foundational] first-century author ... Luke had had access to the earliest publications and to eyewitnesses. Luke’s work is older than Marcion’s [dammit].

The Gospel According to John may have been published with the same objective. By referencing and correcting passages that were first published by Marcion, it follows the lead of the Gospel According to Luke, which immediately precedes it in the Canonical Edition. The editors express at the end (Jn 21:24) that there are many other books that could be published about Jesus, but because they discovered a manuscript written by an eyewitness, Jesus’ beloved disciple John, they imply that their gospel is better than Marcion’s book. They repeat the argument of canonical Luke and Tertullian: 'the 'older version' is 'more trust-worthy'.'

If the Gospel According to John reacts to Marcion, its historical value lies in its description of what editors, publishers, and, possibly, their audience believed concerning Christ a century after Jesus’ death. This makes the Gospel According to John an excellent source to illustrate theological convictions of the developing catholic Christian movement as their leaders struggle to articulate their beliefs by narrating what Jesus did and taught in the context of Marcionite, Gnostic, Jewish, and other faith communities with ties to the Jesus tradition.

http://trobisch.com/david/wb/media/arti ... arcion.pdf

13 Peter of Alexandria, who died in 311, wrote that the autograph of the Gospel According to John was still on display in the church of Ephesus (Migne, PG 18, 517). With this assessment, he captured very well what readers of the Canonical Edition can glean from information provided by the editors: John is associated with Ephesus and the Gospel According to John is based on an autograph.

14 In the Greek manuscript tradition, Hebrews is transmitted as a letter of Paul, placed between 2Thessalonians and 1Timothy in almost all early witnesses. A literary approach assesses the implied narrator only, allowing for the possibility of fictional voices. For a full discussion of the manuscript evidence see Trobisch, Paulusbriefsammlung.

15 Gospel of James, Mary, Judas, and Thomas (brother of Jesus) come to mind. It is also the strategy for the most successful extra-canonical Christian letter collection, the 6th century corpus assigned to Dionysius Areopagita (cf. Heil/Ritter, Corpus Dionysiacum, 151–210).

[davidlau17]

The existing early specimens of the New Testament feature a closed selection of twenty-seven writings arranged in the same sequence and displaying uniform titles with very few variants. They were produced in the form of bound manuscripts and employ a unique system to mark sacred terms, the so-called nomina sacra. These features indicate that the New Testament is a carefully edited publication, rather than the product of a gradual process that lasted for centuries.

Which early specimens is Trobisch referring to here? Afaik, the earliest existing manuscripts of a completed New Testament (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) date from the 4th century, and neither of them contain 27 writings. Sinaiticus adds the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepard of Hermas to the 27 books. Vaticanus lacks 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation (i.e. it has 22 books).

Last but not least, Polycarp had experience in publishing. He assembled and distributed the first edition of the Letters of Ignatius.

Using chapter 13 of Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians as evidence of his experience in publishing is a bit problematic. In chapter 9, Polycarp lists Ignatius among the Philippian martyrs, but in chapter 13 he indicates that Ignatius is still alive. Thus, chapter 13 is suspected to be an interpolation.

[rgprice]

Irenaeus mentions Polycarp in Adv. Haer., III.3.4.
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, 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. 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; 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.

Is Irenaeus stating here that Polycarp brought the New Testament collection to the Rome?

[MrMacSon]

The existing early specimens of the New Testament feature a closed selection of twenty-seven writings arranged in the same sequence and displaying uniform titles with very few variants. They were produced in the form of bound manuscripts and employ a unique system to mark sacred terms, the so-called nomina sacra. These features indicate that the New Testament is a carefully edited publication, rather than the product of a gradual process that lasted for centuries.

Which early specimens is Trobisch referring to here? Afaik, the earliest existing manuscripts of a completed New Testament (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) date from the 4th century, and neither of them contain 27 writings. Sinaiticus adds the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepard of Hermas to the 27 books. Vaticanus lacks 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation (i.e. it has 22 books).

I was wondering the same thing (though set it aside in considering other things)

Last but not least, Polycarp had experience in publishing. He assembled and distributed the first edition of the Letters of Ignatius.

Using chapter 13 of Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians as evidence of his experience in publishing is a bit problematic. In chapter 9, Polycarp lists Ignatius among the Philippian martyrs, but in chapter 13 he indicates that Ignatius is still alive. Thus, chapter 13 is suspected to be an interpolation.

chapter 13 is suspected to be an interpolation because Ignatius is said to be still alive?

I take all the 'is still alive' statements in these mid 2nd century documents to be likely to be true
ie. I take all these people to be contemporaneous with each other; including a key Johannine author - John - Papias and Marcion.

[rgprice]

I take all the 'is still alive' statements in these mid 2nd century documents to be likely to be true
ie. I take all these people to be contemporaneous with each other; including a key Johannine author - John - Papias and Marcion.

Exactly. Its actually kinda funny, because these statements cause so much confusion among traditional scholars, yet if you just take them at face value, they tell us that the Gospels were written in the 2nd century. I mean there are like what, 3 or 4 or 5 figures who claim to know Gospel writers, but they are all from the 2nd century, and then there are all of these exotic explanations for how it can't be quite right or whatever or show someone lived a really long time, etc.