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

[rgprice]

It's an article, but its behind a paywall and I can't find it anywhere else. It's where he makes a case that Polycarp assembled to the first edition of the New Testament.

[MrMacSon]

Free Inquiry 28:30-33, 2008 ?? (via https://philpapers.org/rec/TROWPT-2)

-> http://trobisch.com/david/wb/media/arti ... e%20BW.pdf

---

There's also a reddit post (which I haven't yet investigated further) which refers to:

"Several people are mentioned in this article as arguing Polycarp wrote the Pastoral letters pseudonymously.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblic ... _a_single/
.

It includes this url: http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/ ... _first.htm

[MrMacSon]

Free Inquiry 28:30-33, 2008 ?? (via https://philpapers.org/rec/TROWPT-2)

-> http://trobisch.com/david/wb/media/arti ... e%20BW.pdf

in part:

THE PUBLISHER OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

If one considers the note to the readers of the Gospel collection (John 21:25), the canonical awareness of Acts, and the prominence of Asia Minor and Rome in the New Testament's forged letters, some characteristics of the ideal publisher of the New Testament in the middle of the second century become clear:

1. He was a well-known person of the time
2. He held authority among Catholic Christians in Rome and Asia Minor
3. He was a person who would add credibility to the Gospel of John & to the other Johannine writings of the N.T. (1, 2 & 3 John & Revelation)
4. He displayed a tolerant attitude toward the Easter Controversy
5. He opposed Marcionite Christianity
6. He was a person with experience in publishing

Polycarp of Smyrna fulfills all these criteria. He was a bishop earlier than 110 C.E...and he died sometime between 155 and 167 C.E. He certainly was a prominent person of the time (1) and carried authority with Catholic Christians in Asia Minor (2). He is described as a disciple of John by lrenaeus, and his esteemed position would have added credibility to the publication of Johannine material (3). Polycarp of Smyrna was chosen by the congregations in Asia Minor to represent them in the Easter Controversy. He was sent to Rome to negotiate with his counterpart, Bishop Anicetus. They agreed to disagree. This sequence of events matches the position described in the covering note to the Four-Gospel-Book (John 21:25) (4). Furthermore, Polycarp is reported by lrenaeus to have opposed Marcion to his face, calling him the firstborn of Satan (5). Last but not least, Polycarp had experience in publishing. He assembled and distributed the first edition of the Letters of Ignatius. The time frame is set by Anicetus, who became bishop in 156-7 C.E., and by the latest possible date for Polycarp's martyrdom, 168 C.E.

I will conclude these considerations with a bold statement:

The New Testament was published by Polycarp of Smyrna between 166 and 168 C.E

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

eta:

THE CORROBORATING EVIDENCE

... 2 Timothy 4:9-20...contains thirteen names: Demas, Crescens, Titus, Luke, Mark, Tychicus, Carpus, Alexander, Prisca, Aquila, Onesiphorus, Erastus, and Trophimus. Of these, all but two are mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament. Forgeries often repeat information from genuine material to create credibility; interpreters are well advised to concentrate on the additional material, the "extra." In this case, the two names, Carpus and Crescens, should command our interest. Carpus could easily be interpreted as referring to Bishop Polycarp. But who is Crescens?

A letter of Polycarp to the Philippians has survived. It served as the introduction to Polycarp's edition of the Letters of Ignatius. In this letter, he thanks his secretary and gives his name: "These things I have written to you with the help of Crescens. I have recommended him to you and I recommend him to you again. For he has acted blamelessly among us, and I believe also among you."

Although this argument cannot carry the burden of proof, it is a nice example of corroborating evidence.

[MrMacSon]

The start of Trobisch's article is noteworthy

In 2000 Oxford University Press published The First Edition of the New Testament, the English version of my German postdoctoral thesis. In it, I tried to determine when the N.T. was first published. I concentrated my efforts on studying the manuscript tradition. The result was surprising and differed considerably from the conclusions drawn in the classic studies by Alfred Loisy (1891), Theodor Zahn (1888-92), Adolf von Harnack (1914), and Hans von Campenhausen (1968).

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. Instead, it was edited and published by specific people at a very specific time and place. Because its first documented readers are the church fathers lrenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tatian -all of whom wrote at the end of the second and the beginning of the third centuries- the New Testament must have been published before 180 C.E.

In the ten years since the first publication of my book in German, numerous reviews have been written, and many colleagues have tested my theory. They either liked it or they hated it, but to my knowledge no one has been able to point out a serious flaw in either the evidence evaluated or the conclusions drawn. So, I will assume that the theory has withstood the test of time and take the next step of interpreting the New Testament as a publication of the second century.

I will also assume that the New Testament contains forgeries, an assumption shared by the majority of historical scholars. A forgery is an authoritative document that lies about its true authorship. Books of the New Testament widely regarded as forgeries include 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, and 2 Peter. These letters appear to have been written by the apostles Paul and Peter, although they were actually authored by someone else. Whoever designed them intended to deceive readers about their true authorship.

If you cannot find it in your heart to look at the New Testament as a publication of the second century that contains forgeries, then the following deliberations are not for you. But, if you are willing to entertain the idea that the New Testament, like any other book, was published by a person or a group of people, then you might be interested in asking the question: Who published the first edition of the New Testament?

eta:
from the first column of p.32:

... The editorial note at the end of John [Jn 21:20-24] invites them to read the fourth Gospel as an authoritative commentary on the first three, a commentary written from the perspective of an eyewitness who tells the readers what really happened.

The last sentence of John, however, goes one step further: "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" (John 21:25 NRSV). The authorial voice shifts from the first-person plural "we know" to first-person singular "I suppose." And this sentence does not refer to only one author and one manuscript; instead, it talks about "books" in the plural. The reader of John will have just finished reading the fourth account of "things that Jesus did."

A modern rendition of this sentence may sound like: "If everything Jesus did was written down, I suppose that the world could not contain all the books that would have to be published. Four books are plenty!" The last sentence of John does not refer only to the Gospel according to John; it refers to the Gospel collection as a whole. It may have been written by the publisher of the Four-Gospel-Book [the N.T.].

If this reading is correct, we can draw several conclusions about the publisher:

1. He is well known. Using the first person singular indicates that the Four-Gospel-Book was not published anonymously and that the first readers were aware of the name of the publisher. If this was a famous person of the time, we have hope that we would recognize his name even today.
   .
2. Whoever wrote this sentence [ie. John 21:25] used his authority to add John to the canon as a witness to the synoptic gospels.
   .
3. One of the major disagreements between the fourth Gospel and the first three is the date of Jesus's death. Whereas the synoptic gospels have Jesus celebrate the Passover meal with his disciples the evening before he dies, John has Jesus die on the afternoon before Passover [Jn 18:28; 19:31]. In the second century, Asia Minor followed the Johannine tradition, commemorating Jesus's death on the day before Passover no matter what day of the week this happened to be. Rome, on the other hand, always commemorated Jesus's death on a Friday. This led to differences in the fasting observances and gave rise to a well-documented conflict of the second century, the so-called Easter Controversy.
   
   By publishing John together with the synoptics, the publisher indicates that he is aware of the discrepancy but tolerates both positions.

..< . . paragraph omitted . . >

Like no other book of the New Testament, the book of Acts offers a view into the whole collection. Being the second volume of Luke's work, it provides a link to the Four-Gospel-Book. In its first half, Acts introduces the authors of the General Letters: Peter, John, James, and Jude; in the second half, it introduces Paul, the author of the other New Testament letter collection. In addition, Acts provides information that makes it possible to identify Luke, the author of the Gospel, as the 'doctor' who travels with Paul and to identify Mark as someone close to Peter and Paul. This "canon consciousness" suggests that the book of Acts was composed at a later date than is typically thought; this theory is supported by the first attestation of the book around 180 C.E. The first writer to quote from and make references to Acts is Irenaeus, who uses Acts extensively to refute the heretical theologian Marcion (ca. 110-160) in the third book of his Against Heresies.

Marcionite Christianity followed the lead of Paul and opposed the Jerusalem-based leadership of James and his associates. The Marcionite Bible contained only one Gospel, which was close to (but not identical with) the canonical Gospel according to Luke; in addition to the Gospel, it contained ten letters of Paul, but Hebrews and the Pastorals were not included. Irenaeus uses Acts to argue that anyone who accepts the authority of the Gospel according to Luke would also have to accept the authority of the second volume, the book of Acts.

Forgeries usually originate in close proximity to their first users. Therefore, it is very likely that the book of Acts, in the form we read it today, was produced to assist the emerging Catholic Church in its struggle against Marcionite Christianity.

This is also true for the New Testament as a whole. Whoever selected the eight authors whose writings arc collected in the New Testament tried to give as much representation to Paul as he did to the Jerusalem leadership. The letters of Paul are balanced by a collection of letters from Peter, John, and Jesus's brothers James and Jude. The gospel of Paul (Luke) is offset by the Gospels of Matthew and John. Mark, who is portrayed as being close to both Peter (1 Peter 5:13) and Paul (Col. 4:10), serves as a role model to the readers, encouraging them not to make a choice between Peter and Paul.

eta:2
If one takes the Marcionite 'Canon' to be the First New Testament, Trobisch would be talking about the Second New Testament (?)

[MrMacSon]

It'd be interesting to read these articles by David Trobisch

--, "The Gospel According to John in the Light of Marcion's Gospelbook," in Das Neue Testament und sein Text im 2.Jahrhundert, editor(s): Jan Heilmann, Matthias Klinghardt, TANZ 61 (Tübingen: Francke, 2018) 171-181.

--, "Formation of the New Testament," Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception. De Gruyter (Berlin, Boston). Editor(s): Hans-Josef Klauck, Volker Leppin, Bernard McGinn, Choon-Leong Seow, Hermann Spieckermann, Barry Dov Walfish, Eric J. Ziolkowski. , Vol 4. (2012) 897-901.

--, "The New Testament in the Light of Book Publishing in Antiquity," in Editing the Bible: Assessing the Task Past and Present; edited by John S. Kloppenborg and Judith H. Newman. Resources for Biblical Study, vol. 69 (Leiden:Brill, 2012) 161-170.

--, "The Need to Discern Distinctive Editions of the New Testament in the Manuscript Tradition," in The Textual History of the Greek New Testament: Changing Views in Contemporary Research; edited by Klaus Wachtel and Michael W. Holmes. The Textual History of the Greek New Testament, vol. 8 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011) 43-48.

--, "The Book of Acts as a Narrative Commentary on the Letters of the New Testament: A Programmatic Essay," in Rethinking the Unity and Reception of Luke and Acts. Andrew F. Gregory, C. Kavin Rowe (eds.) (University of South Carolina Press, 2010) 119-127.

--, "The Authorized Version of His Birth and Death," in Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth. R. Joseph Hoffmann (ed.) (Prometheus Books, 2010) 131-139.

http://trobisch.com/david/wb/pages/publications.php and http://trobisch.com/david/wb/pages/publications/pdf.php

[Irish1975]

Trobisch’s little book, with its simple and clear argument, demolished a flood of nonsense that has been written about “The Canon” since the 19th century; which is still being written and parrotted today.

His idea is summarized in three sentences:

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.

By contrast, the universally dominant theory of Zahn, Harnack, Metzger, etc. has to suppose that the New Testament edited itself. Their theory is that every text circulated independently—as a scroll, perhaps—for many generations before finally being gathered into “collections,” like a random assortment of books gathered on a modern bookshelf. The collection became sacred with the passage of time, and bizarre names like “The Gospel According to Mark” were the work of either the original author (absurd), or of arbitrary custom (impossible). The sequence Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John was universally observed for all time, even though no one from Irenaeus to now has been able to explain why only this order is acceptable.

This Theory of the Canon supposes that in spite of massive variation in the text of the NT over many centuries, with different text types, different endings in Mark, etc, by a miracle of history, all these different manuscripts fell into perfect harmony in their titles, arrangement, and nomina sacra. The theologically meaningless (or mostly meaningless) uniformity of such details was completely agreed upon by all scribes across the centuries, while the very Divine Word itself fell prey to every kind of distortion, fraud, deletion, correction, and random error. It’s quite a theory.

[Irish1975]

FWIW, my advice as a close reader of Trobisch, is to buy and carefully study The First Edition of the New Testament.

The article in Free Inquiry is okay, but nothing special. Even though “The Edition of Carpus & Crescens” has a certain charm.

[rgprice]

Thanks all.

[mlinssen]

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".
And it is evident for John couldn't be changed anymore or they'd have redacted the Passover death date

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"

Last but not least, the dates to the Patristics aren't historical in any way - where is the outside evidence to these persons but more importantly where is the link between their texts and them?

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, or one that was done with little care.
Somehow strangely, it was like these writings were chiseled in stone: once they were written they were written and couldn't be changed anymore

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

[rgprice]

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....