Mike Bird on Irenaeus’ Fourfold Gospel Canon

I will get back to blogging the various patristic traditions about Mark soon, but in the meantime here is Mike Bird’s view on the emergence of the four Gospel canon.  My own view is that the Apostolic Fathers tend to quote either independent oral tradition or, if they reference a written text (e.g., the Didache), it is most likely Matthew (see the studies by Koester, Massaux, Gregory and Tuckett, etc).  The Synoptic Gospels and possibly John (and other sources?) are included in Justin Martyr’s “Memoirs of the Apostles,” memoirs written by the apostles or their assistants (Dial. 103.8).  I think a fourfold gospel canon probably emerged sometime between Justin and Irenaeus; Irenaeus’ curious argument about why there are four and only four Gospels shows that he is defending an already existing fourfold Gospel canon that was popular but may have not yet won the day.  Other Christian groups selected just one Gospel like the Marcionites (some version akin to Luke), the Ebionites (a Hebrew version of Matthew) or the Diatessaron or were willing to use both the New Testament Gospels and their own Gospels such as the Valentinians.  What do you think?

Robert Myles on the Authorship of Matthew

In the last post and the good discussion in the comments I noted I lean towards the view that the early 2nd century bishop Papias of Hierapolis was referring to some version of canonical Mark and Matthew.  Since I have no reason to assume that Papias was not telling the truth when he writes that he received the tradition from followers of John the Elder, I think that his tradition is important in helping to determine the date of these two gospels and their early reception if these ideas were being entertained by the elders at the turn of the century.  But whether they are necessarily historically accurate is another question.  As it happens Robert Myles, a PhD candidate at the University of Auckland who I met at an SBL meeting, has written a post tackling what seems to be a pendulum shift in terms of accepting the historical reliability of the traditional authorship of Matthew.  He also brings up the interesting question of ideological context that sees the rise of highly traditional views in some quarters of scholarship and one could cite the rise of popular mythicism online at the far end of the spectrum on the other side as part of this same cultural matrix.  But what do you think: does the evidence (the unanimity of the patristic tradition and titles, the gospel as engaged in an internal Jewish debate, the name change from Levi the tax collector to “Matthew” in Matt 9:9) support Matthean authorship or is there too many historical issues with the Papian tradition (e.g., Greek Matthew is dependent on Greek Mark) to speculate beyond the anonymity of the Gospel?

Sheffield/Manchester/Durham Conference

Every year there is a student conference hosted by the Universities of Sheffield, Manchester or Durham.  I have really enjoyed participating the last 2 years as it is a chance to meet a variety of scholars and students and each institution has its own strengths and research interests so it makes for great discussion.  At it on Monday I presented on “Papias and the Four Canonical Gospels” where I looked at the question of whether Papias’s traditions on the evangelists Mark and Matthew (as quoted in Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.15-16) were meant in reference to canonical “Mark” or “Matthew” and whether there is evidence that Papias also knew the Gospels of Luke and John even though there is no explicit tradition on the latter in the surviving citations of Papias (unless Charles E. Hill is right on a New Papian Fragment).  In my view, I think it is more probable than not that Papias was intending to refer to some version of our “Gospels according to Mark/Matthew,” despite issues with the (mistaken?) tradition that Matthew originally wrote in a Hebrew (Aramaic?) dialect, but that the evidence put forward by some scholars for knowledge of Luke and John is inconclusive at best.  I received some great questions afterwards and most rewarding of all got the chance to discuss some of my ideas on Papias with Dr. Francis Watson who has recently worked on the fourfold Gospel canon.

A number of other papers caught my attention.  One student looked at how to interpret Johannine language that suggests believers will be incorporated into the “divine identity” (borrowed from Richard Bauckham).  Another looked at the parable of the tenants in the Gospel of Matthew and Thomas and, avoiding the archaelogical question of the independence or dependence of Thomas, instead addressed the meaning of the parable in the literary context of each and how this impacts on its meaning whether as a christological allegory or a critique of the desire for wealth.  Other papers looked at the feminine imagery of Babylon in the book of Revelation in light of other sapiental texts, the historical Jesus’ threats of eternal judgment on the rich as a very unpalatable figure for scholarship in a modern capitalist context, at the possible authenticity of Lk 22:43-44 where Jesus sweats drops of blood against a text critic such as Bart Ehrman who finds it a later interpolation, at an ecclesiological reading of “all Israel” in Romans 11, on the interaction of Greek and Roman culture in Corinth and so on.  Whether I agreed or disagreed with any of the papers, there was much food for thought.

The Dating Game: External Evidence

In order to pinpoint a date for a literary work, it is important to establish a terminus a quo (limit from which) and terminus ad quem (limit to which).  For instance, if we have evidence of a later author explicitly mentioning Mark or signs of literary dependence specifically on Mark (rather than some apostolic fathers just quoting oral tradition or triple tradition material in all three Synoptic Gospels), then we know that Mark must date before that text.  So the external evidence:

• The earliest manuscript evidence comes from the Chester Beatty papyri (p⁴⁵) in the 3rd century that contains all four gospels.
• Irenaeus (ca 180 CE) has a specific tradition on the evangelist Mark along with the other three evangelists (Against Heresies 3.1.1) and explicitly cites the text of Mark’s Gospel (e.g. A.H. 3.10.5).
• Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (ca 150 CE) cites Mk 3:17 which alone refers to the sons of Zebedee by the name Boangeres, which is translated by Mark as the ’sons of thunder’ (Dial. 106.3).
• The Longer Ending of Mark (16:9-20) is written some time in the first half of the second century by a scribe dissatisfied with the abrupt ending at Mark 16:8 and wanting to harmonize it with the resurrection narratives of the other three NT Gospels (the definitive study is by James A. Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark).
• Some time in the first quarter of the second century (though most likely 110 CE), Papias refered to Mark as the “interpreter of Peter” (quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15).  I know this is more debatable, but I am convinced that Papias was referring roughly to our NT Mark (and Matthew, cf. 3.39.16), despite some of the critical problems about matching the tradition with what has come down to us as the “Gospel according to Mark” or the ”Gospel according to Matthew.”  Also, I think Papias genuinely received it at an earlier time from followers of the Elder John, so this tradition can be traced back to ”the presbyters” at the turn of the century.
• Assuming the dominant scholarly consensus on Markan priority, Mark must have been written before Matthew and Luke and there must be certain amount of time for Mark to have achieved wider circulation to have been independently (?) used by both.
• When the patristic authors write about the origins of Mark’s gospel, the patristic tradition seems divided between the view that Mark was written after Peter had died (e.g., Irenaeus, A.H. 3.1.1.; the anti-Marcionite Prologue) or that he was still alive (e.g., Clement of Alexandria, quoted in Eusebius H.E. 2.15.1-2; 6.14.5-7).  However, at least a few scholars have disputed that the use of exodos in Irenaeus is a euphemism for death and intend think it means that it refers to after Peter and Paul “departed” (i.e. left) Rome, Mark transmitted the Gospel to Rome (J. Chapman, E.E. Ellis; see bibliography).  For more on the patristic traditions and some critical doubts, see my post here)

Thus, if we just rely on the external evidence, I think we still have enough to safely date Mark sometime in the latter half of the first century.  The next step is to turn to the internal evidence to see if we can narrow that date further (around 70 CE?  Late 60s CE?  Even earlier?)

The Gospel According to…?

Although it is generally concluded that the superscriptions to the gospels are secondary, what is striking is the uniformity (“Euangelion kata Markon” [Gospel according to] or the abbreviated form “kata Markon” [according to Mark]) and unconventionality of the titles (i.e. the usual way is to have the genitive of the author’s name followed by the title of the work) (cf. Hengel).  So how early do these titles go back and what was the major influence that led the Christians to entitle a Jesus bios (Life) as a “Gospel”?  Below are some of the major competing theories and see the acompanying bibliography to consult for the details:

• The singular noun euangelion was initially used to proclaim the ”good news” that the crucified one as risen Lord against the imperial cult.  However, is there evidence for a shift from proclamation to titular usage in the NT?  Some argue the opening of Mark with ”the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God (but cf. text critical issues around Mk 1:1) was intended as a title, initiating the “Gospel” genre.  Others see Matthew taking that next step:  while Matt only has euangelion 4 times, the redactional “the gospel of the kingdom”  (4:23; 9:35) or ”this [touto] gospel” (24:14 ["this gospel of the kingdom]; 26:13) (cf. 13:19 “word of the kingdom”) summarizes the totality of Jesus’ teaching and deeds (e.g., 26:13 wherever “this gospel of the kingdom” is proclaimed, the story of the woman annointing Jesus will be too).  “This gospel of the kingdom” is a capsule summary of the contents of Matt’s book, encouraging the development of “Gospel” as a title.
• In ancient libraries/book shops, titles of books were necessary in order to distinguish them and, if they were written anonymously, a pseudonymous title and author would be provided.  In a similar way, Christians established their own scriptoria within major centres (e.g., Rome, Ephesus, etc) and as soon as multiply copies of a Gospel began circulating it became necessary to supply them with a title and thus the titles would have been added fairly early.  This may be presupposed by Papias reference to Mark and Matthew (and possibly John) or plural euangelia in Justin Martyr.
• The Didache cites traditions “in the gospel” (8:2; 15:3-4; cf. 11:3) seems like the author is alluding to a written text (instead of just oral tradition and the “gospel” as kerygmatic proclamation) and most likely Matthew (e.g., Matthew’s version of the Lord’s prayer).  Thus, the Didache may give limited evidence for the gospel used as a title of a work, though this does not necessarily yet apply to all Christians in all places of the Empire.
• According to Koester’s study of the Church Fathers, euangelion continues to refer to oral proclamation (though he admits there is debate on the Didache even though he decides it was oral tradition, and argues for the usage of “written gospels” in 2 Clement [cf. 8:5] which he dates to ca 150 CE or later).  Marcion was the first to initiate the use of “gospel” as a title of a literary work when he confused Paul’s reference to “my gospel” (cf. Rom 2:16) as a reference to his written gospel (some version of Luke) (cf. Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.4.1-2).  Yet Theophilus of Antioch may be the first to cite the Gospels by their named authors.
• The Gospel titles were only added at the emergence of the fourfold gospel canon in the middle to late second century to distinguish the books (the singular “Gospel” according to four different authors, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).

So when do you think the titles by their named authors first emerged?  For much more details on the points above, here is a short Bibliography:

• Bird, Mike.  “Mark, Interpreter of Peter and Disciple of Paul” in Paul and the Gospels: Christology, Conflicts and Convergences (ed. Michael F. Bird and Joel Willits; London and New York: T&T Clark, 2011): 30-58.  Cf. http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2010_03_01_archive.html
• Collins, Adela.  Mark: A Commentary.  Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.
• Gundry, Robert.  “EUAGGELION:  How Soon a Book?” JBL 115 (1996): 321-25.
• Hengel, Martin.  The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ. London: SCM; Harrisburg: Trinity, 2000.
• Kelhoffer,  James A. “‘How Soon a Book’ Revisited:  EUAGGELION as a Reference to ‘Gospel’ Materials in the First Half of the Second Century.”  Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 95 (2004): 1–34.
• Koester, Helmut.  Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development. London: SCM;Philadelphia: Trinity International, 1990.
• Marcus, Joel.  Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.  Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 2000.
• Stanton, Graham.  Jesus and Gospel.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

The Patristic Tradition on Authorship

There was a virtual consensus from the 2nd century onward that the evangelist Mark was the interpreter of Peter.  This tradition was recorded probably ca 110 CE (or ca 130) by the bishop Papias of Hierapolis, who in turn received it earlier from some enigmatic figure known as the presbyter John (quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15).*  Here is Bart Ehrman‘s translation in the LOEB series:

And this is what the elder used to say, ‘when Mark was the interpreter [or translator] of Peter, he wrote down accurately everything that he recalled of the Lord’s words and deeds – but not in order.  For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I indicated, he accompanied Peter, who used to adapt his teachings for the needs at hand, not arranging, as it were, an orderly composition of the Lord’s sayings.  And so Mark did nothing wrong by writing some of the matters as he remembered them.  For he was intent on just one purpose: to leave out nothing that he had heard or to include any falsehood among them.

To see the Greek and translation choices of different scholars for this fragment of Papias, see J.B. Lightfoot & J.R. Harmer (cf. Rev Daniel R. Jennings reproduces their list of fragments), T.C. Schmidt, Richard Bauckham, Stephen Carlson, Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson.  On the one hand, Papias attributes the tradition to the Elder John so he did not just read it out of 1 Peter 5:13 (though Eusebius mentions that Papias knew 1 Peter and 1 John), but, on the other hand, Mark’s accuracy in faithfully recording the preaching of the Apostle Peter seems to be a way to neutralize the critique of Mark as lacking “order” (τάξις).  While the rest of the patristic tradition largely follows Papias on the Mark-Peter connection, there are some interesting developments to consider when comparing the various references to Mark in Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 106.3), Irenaeus of Lyons (Against Heresies 3.1.2; cf. Eusebius, E.H. 5.8.2-4), Clement of Alexandria (quoted in Eusebius, E.H. 2.15.1-2; 6.14.5-7; Adumbr. in I Pet. 5.13, the Letter to Theodore [Secret Mark]), Origen (commentary on Matthew, quoted in Eusebius, E.H. 6.25.5), Tertullian (Against Marcion 4.5.3), Epiphanius (Panarion 51.6.10-14a), Jerome (On Illustrious Men 8; Prologue of the Four Gospels), the so-called Anti-Marcionite Prologue, the Monarchian Prologue, Augustine (On the Consensus of the Evangelists 1.6), John Chrysostoam (Homily [1:7] on Matthew).  I have listed sites below to look up each individual reference, but I want to leave some questions that call attention to the important differences.  For instance, 1) did the evangelist write after Peter’s death (if exodos is a euphemism for death in Irenaeus) or while Peter was still living, 2) if the latter, what was Peter’s attitude towards Mark’s Gospel, 3) is the location of Mark’s writing left unspecified, in Rome, vaguely in the regions of Italy or in Alexandria, Egypt, 4) at whose request or for what purpose did Mark write the Gospel, 5) what is the historical order of the 4 Gospels?

For external evidences, see Stephen Carlson’s Synoptic Problem (on the old site or new site), Ben Smith’s Text Excavations (external evidence to The Four Gospels, the Latin Prologues), Peter Kirby’s Early Christian Writings, the Christian Classics Ethereal Library Early Church Fathers, Kevin Edgecomb’s Patristic Stuff (esp. Dialogue with Trypho), Roger Pearse’s the Tertullian Project, Mahlon Smith’s Synoptic Gospel’s Primer (see Index “Traditional Opinions”)

*My thanks to Nazaroo for preserving my rough notes on Papias from the last blog, though my bibliography on Papias has since grown much larger and some of my opinions have changed from a year ago.