Only Fantastically Amazing People Think We Have The Ur-Canon

[TedM]

"What of his insistence that there was only one true Gospel, the book which Paul referred to as 'my gospel'?

This is idiocy at its finest. Galations was not a book Paul referred to as his 'gospel'. Pauls 'gospel' wasn't a book, Galatians or Luke. geez...

[Stephan Huller]

'Galations.' What are you hitting the bottle again Ted?

[Stephan Huller]

The bad thing about this forum is that discussions that start ordered and disciplined end up getting diffused into countless micro-discussions. At the beginning of the thread I put forward the suggestion that those who believe that we have the ur-Canon are fucking idiots. While this is not a terminology used in scholarship it is in my mind appropriate to describe those who ignore the obviousness of the evidence in this regard.

Let's re-examine the point at which the thread got derailed.

1. Bernard originally acknowledge that Irenaeus's misrepresentation of Papias's original reference to oracles associated with Jesus into an attestation for Irenaeus's own 'gospel according to Matthew' - a narrative text allegedly written original in 'Hebrew' was a sign of his inherent dishonesty. He would do anything to win an argument (much like Bernard which in this case means completely changing his mind about Irenaeus when I pointed a very similar thing occurs with respect to another of Irenaeus's new creations 'according to John.'
2. As I noted in an earlier part of the thread. It is mostly agreed that Irenaeus when defending the sanctity of 'according to John' responds to localized opposition to the aforementioned text - usually identified with Gaius of Rome. Gaius of Rome has been identified as a contemporary of Irenaeus through many different lines of argument. While no one has directly made the link between Irenaeus introducing the text called 'according to John' and Gaius's opposition, it is clear from the comments made by Irenaeus in Book Three that he was actively involved in the debate for 'according to John.' He was not a mere bystander and perhaps the most unusual aspect of Irenaeus's defense is that he doesn't make the needed link between Polycarp and 'according to John.' Nor in fact do we find any evidence connecting Polycarp to 'according to John' in his known letter.

I suggested earlier in the post that Gaius's connection to the Martyrdom of Polycarp and Schoedel's identification of Gaius the contemporary of Irenaeus with Gaius of Rome:

Clearly a separate appendix. It makes no claim to be part of the original. The effort to put even the copying of the letter in a sort of succession extending back to Polycarp is disquieting, and suggests that this appendix was reformulated (or even invented) by the editor who appended 22.3. By "Gaius" the reader may have been expected to recall the "churchman" of that name referred to by Eusebius, H.E. 2.25.6 (cf. Lawlor-Oulton, II, 208).

I would suggest that this helps us explain why Irenaeus doesn't make the connection between Polycarp and 'according to John.' Gaius stood close enough to Polycarp to make the case that the elder never made reference to this text. Irenaeus therefore was again lying when culling the literature of previous generations and making a circumstantial case for the existence of a new, never before conceived text like 'according to John.' I mentioned also that a similar situation existed with respect to the priest who is only by the surname 'Florinus.' Florinus (given name unknown) was an intimate with Polycarp so much so that Irenaeus had to concede in effect his superior attachment to the influential presbyter. Was 'Gaius' merely the given name and 'Florinus' the surname of the same historical individual? I don't know. But it matters not. Irenaeus's inability to argue for Polycarp's association with his newly invented text was also likely the basis for Gaius's opposition. If we follow the pattern of contemporaries of Polycarp his gospel likely appeared 'Diatessaronic' (to use that unfortunate term once again).

3. Clearly I don't need to spend a lot of time on the question of whether the Marcionites disagreed with Irenaeus with respect to whether 'Luke' or their 'Gospel of Jesus' written by the apostle was original. The important thing is to see that it follows a pattern already established:

(a) the historical context of the new 'according to Matthew' established by fraudulent means
(b) the historical context of the new 'according to John' established by fraudulent means
(c) the historical context of the new 'according to Luke' established by fraudulent means

as such it will not take much (the citation of Clement's Letter to Theodore) to establish the fact that another anonymous gospel (only secretly attested to being 'according to Mark') existed in Alexandria. It was a text which demonstrated that canonical 'according to Mark' was little more than a gutting of the original Alexandrian gospel. It would be my assumption similarly that Luke 'gutted' the Marcionite gospel (which Eznik explicitly and Ephrem implicitly identifies as 'Diatessaronic' no less than countless references in Tertullian, Origen, Adamantius and many more Fathers). Similarly too the fact that canonical 'according to John' is allegedly by John the apostle but ignores critical synoptic scenes where John is known to have been present (no less than the conclusion of John) argues for a similar cutting of an original 'Diatessaronic' according to John. Countless Church Fathers testimonies that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was the basis for 'according to Matthew' and Epiphanius's statement that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was the Diatessaron would support a similar shortening with respect to this text.

As such what I suggest is that Irenaeus radically truncated at least four single long gospels and arranged them as a unity as 'the gospel in four' quite deliberately. The purpose, much like and at the same time as the Mishnah was to establish ecumenism in the Church. Arguing on behalf of the four canonical gospels being 'shortenings' of a long ur-text is Marutha's preservation of a criticism of the relevant passage in Irenaeus which first argues for the fourfold gospel as well as the fact that the original fourfold gospel was identified as 'the (four) separated gospels' when discovered in Syriac at the beginning of the last century.

Now let me ask Bernard another question - are you still insisting that everyone who has ever written on Marutha's testimony is wrong in seeing a reflection of a criticism of Irenaeus's handiwork? Moreover with respect to the discovery of the Evangelion Dampharshe ("Separated Gospels") too are you also denying - incredibly - that these piece of evidence point to the churches of the East not only 'preferring' the single long gospel form but also believing (whether 'rightly' or wrongly' in your head) that our fourfold gospel was 'separated' from their original?

[Stephan Huller]

Since no one seems aware why the Syriac tradition identified our four canonical gospels as 'the separated gospel' I will let other scholars spell it out for them:

Despite some dissenting voices, the priority of the Diatessaron in the Syriac textual tradition has in recent decades been generally taken as granted. Indeed, according to Voobus, 'That the extant text-versions of the Old Syriac Gospels originated later than the Diatessaron is not a commonly accepted view, but it is a fact which has already been proved by Vogels' ')http://books.google.com/books?id=_Vg7IZ ... 22&f=false

Indeed a full citation of Voorbus is quite interesting to read on its own:

'That the extant text-versions of the Old Syriac Gospels originated later than the Diatessaron is not a commonly accepted view, but it is a fact which has already been proved by Vogels. For a long time I have been investigating the Old Syriac Gospels independently in order to examine variants of the Diatessaron. I have, thereby, again become convinced that this version is full of readings from the Diatessaron. is full of readings from the Diatessaron. These are the elements which were destined to be of boundless importance for the future of the Old Syriac Gospel type. Thus it can be said - mutatis mutandis - that the representatives of the Vetus Syra constitue a synthesis, in which old text material, after the pattern of the Diatessaron, has been poured into the form of the Four Gospels which suited the demands of the time [Voorbus p. 35]

More on topic however is the following:

In the Syriac gospels discovered by Cureton, the MS. of the first bears the title, ' distinct or separated gospel of S. Matthew,' evidently in contrast to the combined or compiled gospel of the Diatessaron. The Syriac translation of Eusebius is a work of the fifth century, and in this century, also, in a list of Canons put forth by Rabbula (fifth century CE), Bishop of Edessa, he says, " Let the presbyters and deacons have a care that in all the churches there be provided and read a copy of the distinct or separated gospel." No such distinction was made at the time when the legend of Addai was written. http://books.google.com/books?id=XhRWAA ... 22&f=false

[Stephan Huller]

The Mishnah acts as a model for the contemporary 'ecumenical' interest (undoubtedly spurred on by the Imperial government) to unite one fragmented Palestinian religious traditions. Contemporary Samaritanism can similarly be demonstrated to be an ecumenical cohesion of both traditional and Dosithean halakhah - formulated at a time unknown. The Christian canon would be yet another example of (forced) ecumenism.

[Stephan Huller]

Again I ask Bernard the question - didn't the early eastern Christians refer to our canonical texts (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) as 'the separated gospel' because they had a tradition which told them that our four texts were 'split' from their original gospel narrative? You don't have to agree with that assessment. But it is important to demonstrate for once Bernard that you can think outside of your own box and actually report what other people actually thought and believed. Again:

1. did people in the lands of the east, in the greater Semitic culture of Jesus, use only a single long gospel until the 5th century when the Imperial authorities forced them to 'switch' to the Roman canon?
2. were the four gospels called 'the separated gospel' because it was believed the four were 'separated' for the one ur-gospel formerly used in their communities?
3. does Marutha's report about gospel 'of the four regions (of the world)' preserve a similar Diatessaronic rejection of Irenaeus's canon? I know in the last case you have demonstrated an incapacity to understand the parallel, but I ask as a point of emphasis.

[Stephan Huller]

It's funny that you don't even have the smallest difficulty with the fact that if we were to travel in the second and third century Middle East, every Christian community would be demonstrated to use only the single, long gospel form (= the so-called 'Diatessaron') but the closer we get to Rome geographically the less frequent the use of that text would be and instead it was replaced by the 'separated gospel' (= the gospel of the four regions of the world). Jesus according to you was a real man, the religion that developed from him began growing in the heart of the Middle East but no churches within a thousand miles of Jerusalem even knew the form of the gospel you take delight in.

You take issue with 'wild speculation.' But is that what I am really engaging in? Or am I merely waving the white flag of surrender to the actual historical situation at the heart of the Christian problem. We can't possibly know the full truth about Christianity because all we have been left with are white lies. Irenaeus says his forged 'according to Matthew' was written 'while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome,' Mark was written at Rome and Luke likely was too. This is above all else a Roman canon. It reflects Imperial hegemony so it can't be expected to reflect the authentic culture which naturally gave rise to Christianity in a revolutionary age. As such we can't have the ur-canon. This should be patently obvious.

So again I ask, is it really that you believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the original gospels and that our canon was the ur-canon or is it that you have problems admitting that the real truth about the development of Christianity is ultimately unknowable beyond the barest details? I suspect the latter.

[Stephan Huller]

Another observer from the 18th century on Marutha's testimony and its relation to Irenaeus:

Since the compiling of the Catalogue in the former part of this work, I have observed in Dr. Mill an account of the Gospel of the Simonians, as mentioned in the Arabick Preface to the Council of Nice, which is in Labbe. That I might not omit any thing of this sort, I here give the reader that learned doctor's account of it. The Simonians, (he supposes,) i. e. " the followers of Simon Magus, forged this Gospel, which, " according to the number of our four Gospels, and at length about the time of Irenaeus, " borrowing a title from the holy Fathers of the Church, who wittily concluded there were four Gospels, because there were four regions of the world, ( or four principal winds ') they called it, The Book of the four Corners or Regions of the World. http://books.google.com/books?id=dIUNAA ... 22&f=false

Of course it is difficult not to break out into fits of laughter when we read this author stand so close to the solution but not see it at all! Really the Simonians actually 'borrowed' the title from Irenaeus! No Irenaeus and his crew were referred to as 'Simonians' for reasons we can't fathom (unless 'Simon' Peter was associated with Rome negatively by someone).

[Stephan Huller]

Where did this image originate of the 'four regions' of the world? It seems to be an Assyrian obsession - kibrat arbai, kibrat erbetta

http://books.google.com/books?id=uDijjc ... 22&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=gg0m24 ... 22&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=nFMvx4 ... 22&f=false

Is this a clue for the cultural context of Irenaeus's interest in the four regions:

The word is probably a name for the Babylonians proper, who would otherwise be very noticeably absent from the list. Jensen (ZA 15:256) thinks it reflects *Arbakisddu, *Arbkisddu, *Arpkisddu, "land of four banks," that is, land of the four banks of the Euphrates and Tigris. Delitzsch (Paradies, 255-56) argues that it means the land of the four regions of the world like kibrat arba 'i in the famed Babylonian royal title sar kibrat arba'i (king of the four regions of the world). http://books.google.com/books?id=-ZtH3h ... 22&f=false

Is the four gospel somehow connected with Roman presence in Babylonia?

[Stephan Huller]

Interestingly the Roman annexation of Mesopotamia occurred c 195 CE and coincides with the division of Syria into two provinces which is reflected in Irenaeus's editing of Justin's Dialogue (see a previous thread). Interestingly Roman military victories and Imperial expansion made their way into subsequent editing of the Church Fathers like Justin Martyr. Is it possible that the gospels were modeled on the Roman occupation of the 'land of the four regions' of the world = Mesopotamia? http://books.google.com/books?id=DQgmOZ ... es&f=false Can the fourfold gospel be firmly dated to 195 CE?