that the problem is to define Marcion as the author of the gospel (Vinzent), the author of the letters (Detering) or the theologian
(all mentioned plus other biblical scholars).
Robert M. Price, Hermann Detering, and Darell J. Doughty were right about WHAT, exactly?
Robert Price (from the link Jarek provided)
Conclusion
In composing a survey like this one, it is scarcely possible to avoid reaching some tentative conclusions of one’s own. I will take the liberty of sharing them here. Most of them will by now come as no surprise.
Some use of Romans and 1 Corinthians, followed later by the sequel 2 Corinthians, as encyclicals seems quite likely, as does local exchange and circulation of other letters. And the question of authorship would have little bearing here one way or the other. In this process, interpolations were made and then gradually permeated the text tradition of each letter until final canonization of the Pastoral edition (and concurrent burning of its rivals) put a stop to all that.
But the first collector of the Pauline Epistles had been Marcion. No one else we know of would be a good candidate, certainly not the essentially fictive Luke, Timothy, and Onesimus. And Marcion, as Burkitt and Bauer show, fills the bill perfectly. Of the epistles themselves, he is probably the original author of Laodiceans, the Vorlage of Ephesians) and perhaps of Galatians, too. Like Muhammad in the Koran, he would have read his own struggles back into the careers of his biblical predecessors.
Marcion adapted the now-lost Ur-Lukas and combined it with his ten-letter Pauline Corpus to form the Apostolicon. As Knox perceived clearly, our canonical Luke tried to supplant Marcion’s gospel, augmenting the pre-Marcionite Ur-Lukas with new, catholicizing and anti-Marcionite material of various sorts. Canonical Luke succeeded in this effort (again, the longer displaces the shorter). And a la Knox, the Acts of the Apostles (with its Peter-clone Paul who writes no letters but only delivers them for the Twelve) was intended to replace the dangerous Corpus of “the apostle of the heretics.” But, like Jacob, it only managed to usurp priority over Esau (even today subtly governing the way historical critics read the Pauline Epistles). The Pauline Corpus survived alongside it.
One modification I would make in Knox’s reconstruction is to factor in Jerome D. Quinn’s proposal that the author of Luke-Acts was the author of the Pastoral Epistles and that he intended a tripartite work, on the pattern of contemporary collections of documents about or by a famous figure and concluding with a letter or collection of letters by the great man. Luke-Acts-Pastorals would then be a “tripartite tractate” to counter Marcion’s scripture, the Pastorals meaning to supplant the earlier letters. I suspect the redacted Ephesians and 3 Corinthians were originally similar Pauline “diatessarons” aiming but failing to replace Marcion’s Pauline Corpus. ( I should note that Knox did, of course, regard the Pastoral Epistles as post-Marcion and anti-Marcion; he just didn’t group them with Luke-Acts.)
Since the Corpus could not be eliminated, Plan B was to reissue them in a sanitized edition, domesticated by means of the Pastoral stratum. From there on in, it became easier to destroy rival versions of the Pauline letters. The Gospels of Mark and Matthew were added. and so was John once it had undergone “ecclesiastical redaction” ( Bultmann), just like Laodiceans and Ur-Lukas. How interesting that, just as Acts has Paul chained to a Roman guard on either side, so are the most “heretical” of New Testament writings escorted by watchful catholic sentinels on both sides: John is bracketed between Luke and Acts, Paul’s letters between Acts and the Pastorals. They shouldn’t offer any trouble.
Eventually, nondescript Catholic Epistles were spuriously ascribed to the Pillar Apostles so as to dilute Paul’s voice yet further. There was even an attempt to fabricate an innocuous replacement for the Marcionite Laodiceans. It didn’t catch on, though it did manage to fool Harnack .
Finally, I observe that the idea of the Pauline collection serves as something of an allegory of reading (Paul de Man), or rather perhaps an allegory of writing, for the present paper. For one finds oneself in the role of Onesimus or Marcion, rounding up all the various theories on the origin of the corpus, collecting both the well-known and the obscure. One puts them together and finally writes one’s own Laodiceans/Ephesians, this paper, to introduce one’s collection to a wider audience.
Steefen
Some use of Romans and 1 Corinthians, followed as encyclicals seems quite likely.
The first collector of the Pauline Epistles had been Marcion.
Robert Price
Not the essentially fictive Luke, Timothy, and Onesimus.
Steefen
So, Luke can re-write the biographical information in the Pauline letters: of course, he didn’t collect the letters for posterity if he is re-writing the content to suit his own purposes and not the purpose of the autobiographer.
Marcion is perhaps the original author of Galatians–and Galatians is one of the seven letters considered genuine by most scholars.
Galatians is dated first of the seven at c. 48 AD.
With Marcion writing Galatians–Marcion, BORN AD85–what does that do to the Pauline chronology/timeline? ? ?
Luke tried to supplant Marcion’s gospel. Then final gospel of Luke comes after Marcion’s second century gospel.
So, we have Luke re-writing the biography of Paul and also trying to edit Marcion’s second century gospel.
“the Acts of the Apostles (with its Peter-clone Paul who writes no letters”
You are saying Luke, in Acts, does not admit that Paul wrote important letters. Luke in Acts does not admit to the greatness of the Epistle to the Romans.
“Since the Corpus could not be eliminated, Plan B was to reissue them in a sanitized edition, domesticated by means of the Pastoral stratum.”
Well, well, well, it is probable that there was an insertion of the Last Supper language into 1 Corinthians, Chapter 11.
“As Knox perceived clearly, our canonical Luke tried to supplant Marcion’s gospel, augmenting the pre-Marcionite Ur-Lukas with new, catholicizing and anti-Marcionite material of various sorts. Canonical Luke succeeded in this effort (again, the longer displaces the shorter).”
Jarek, thank you for your post.
Regards,
Steve Campbell, author and publisher of the well-reviewed book
Historical Accuracy, that brings facts and self-examination to sacred scripture
I would like to buy two toilet bowl brushes and some body cream . . . oh, not that Amway, sorry.
To answer Stephen’s question, believing the fringe stuff makes some people feel special. Just anyone can believe what scholars, research and critical thinking tell us. It takes someone really special to believe something that hardly anyone else would believe.
Steefen said
Robert M. Price, Hermann Detering, and Darell J. Doughty were right about WHAT, exactly?
G. Zuntz stated that no one had access to Paul’s letters from the primary circulation. Letters are only known from a collection of 10 letters called the Pauline Corpus which was established around 100 CE. This applies to all readers including the Church Fathers of the 2nd century CE. This is shown in the attached drawing. Paul’s letters are dated solely on the basis of their content. So we are facing an alternative. Letters are authentic or letters are imaginary tradition. Considering the 40 years between their public appearance and the supposed date of their creation. Markus Vinzent showed that neither the letters nor the teachings of Paul were authoritative until the middle of the second century. It was only Marion’s missionary success that made them meaningful. Robert M. Price, Hermann Detering, and Darell J. Doughty rightly consider them an imaginary tradition. They served Marcion to do the same as we do today. To teach new missionaries and to read them to the faithful in small portions. Big words in the mouth of an army of average missionaries – that was the key to missionary success.** you do not have permission to see this link **
It is almost certainly too extravagant to say that no one had access to Paul’s letters from the primary circulation, at least as individual letters. It is probably true that there was no immediate collection made. And it may well have been true that the original content of the letters had very limited circulation, perhaps growing a bit by means of copies over time.
Stephen said
Why would you prefer these fringe views over the scholarly consensus?
Bible scholars have no criteria for what is real and what is made up. The situation in which, after 40 years, the letters of a missionary who founded a dozen (?) Churches are published, and none of these churches survived, and failed to maintain a personal chain of traditions, makes the history of the letters extremely improbable. The letters themselves were never used to manage anything.
Jarek
The situation in which, after 40 years, the letters of a missionary who founded a dozen (?) Churches are published, and none of these churches survived, and failed to maintain a personal chain of traditions, makes the history of the letters extremely improbable. The letters themselves were never used to manage anything.
Steefen
Paul makes it to Rome. There supposedly is a church already there. Paul produces the Epistle to the Romans. The existing church at Rome was not quick to pull it into a chain of traditions?
Romans is not deemed valuable until Marcion?
None of the other churches survived? They did not turn into Eastern Christianity while the Roman church turned into Roman Christianity?
Jarek said
Stephen said
Why would you prefer these fringe views over the scholarly consensus?
Bible scholars have no criteria for what is real and what is made up. The situation in which, after 40 years, the letters of a missionary who founded a dozen (?) Churches are published, and none of these churches survived, and failed to maintain a personal chain of traditions, makes the history of the letters extremely improbable. The letters themselves were never used to manage anything.
But you seem to imagine that there is something peculiar about the New Testament. We have NO clear chain of transmission for ANY ancient literature. What we have are copies of manuscripts that survived from ancient times. But just because a document was written at some point it doesn’t follow that it was composed at that point. For example the earliest complete copy of Plato we have is from 895 of the common era. Plato’s life dates are estimated from the 420s to the 380s before the common era. The document is a copy of a copy of a copy etc etc etc going all the way back to Plato, none of which we possess. So at least be consistent. If you’re going to doubt the authenticity of the NT simply because of the lack of a clear chain of transmission then you have to throw out everything else as well. It’s entirely possible that a bunch of folks got together and created Plato and his work whole cloth but how likely is that? You’re either going to do ancient history or you’re not. And that demands a close reading of the text.
About the Author from the amazon.com product page for Christ’s Resurrection…
Markus Vinzent is Professor for the History of Theology at King’s College London in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies.
Prior to King’s he was H.G. Wood Professor of Theology at Birmingham University (1999-2010) and Professor of Church History at the University of Cologne, Germany (1997-1999).
In a series of monographs he has published on early Christian beliefs (Monarchianism, Trinity, Apostles’ Creed) and their reception in the Middle Ages, the Enlightenment and in contemporary theology.
Vinzent is one of the directors of the International Conference on Patristic Studies University of Oxford, editor of Studia Patristica and of Eckhart: Texts and Studies.
This monograph has resulted from ‘Early Christian Iconography and Epigraphy’, a project generously funded by the British Academy (2011-12) and directed by the author.
Jarek
Christ’s Resurrection in Early Christianity by Markus Vinzent showed that Paul’s teachings were unknown or ignored for 80 years after his alleged death. And this is not some invention, but a conclusion from a wide query of sources [NOT FRINGE].
Amazon Book Description of Christ’s Resurrection… by Vinzent
Why is the Resurrection of Christ so remote, almost non-existent in many early Christian writings of the first 140 years of Christianity? This is the first Patristic book to focus on the development of the belief in the Resurrection of Christ through the first centuries A.D.
From the Editorial Review (source not given) on the Amazon product page for the book
The central foundational belief of Christianity in Paul waned in popularity after its promotor’s death, and other theological topics grew sufficiently important to challenge the primacy of the Resurrection: Jesus’ sayings, his cross and his sacrificial death, his role as a Passover lamb, his birth, youth, and life.
It was not until the Christian teacher Marcion rediscovered Paul and rekindled [Paul’s] emphasis on the Resurrection that the resurgence of Paul swept away the competition – even though that meant the Church had to be snatched back from the heretic Marcion.
Professor Vinzent takes the reader on a fascinating journey through virtually every Christian text from the first two centuries in order to demonstrate the validity of his thesis.
His judgments, informed by a comprehensive knowledge of previous research, are based on a thorough reading of the evidence. This book constitutes a great achievement to which I am sure I shall have frequent recourse.’ Gerd Lüdemann, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Germany ‘Few Christians would deny that the Resurrection of Christ is the central mystery of Christian belief. But was this always the case?
This provocative book, the first Patristic one to chart the history of the significance of the Resurrection in first and second century Christianity, through a careful and wide-ranging analysis of canonical, non-canonical, and early patristic texts, and by drawing upon recent revisionist scholarship, presents the startling thesis that the centrality of the Resurrection in earliest Christianity was peculiar to Paul and in fact not shared by other authorities.
Stephen said
Jarek said
Stephen said
Why would you prefer these fringe views over the scholarly consensus?
Bible scholars have no criteria for what is real and what is made up. The situation in which, after 40 years, the letters of a missionary who founded a dozen (?) Churches are published, and none of these churches survived, and failed to maintain a personal chain of traditions, makes the history of the letters extremely improbable. The letters themselves were never used to manage anything.
But you seem to imagine that there is something peculiar about the New Testament. We have NO clear chain of transmission for ANY ancient literature. What we have are copies of manuscripts that survived from ancient times. But just because a document was written at some point it doesn’t follow that it was composed at that point. For example the earliest complete copy of Plato we have is from 895 of the common era. Plato’s life dates are estimated from the 420s to the 380s before the common era. The document is a copy of a copy of a copy etc etc etc going all the way back to Plato, none of which we possess. So at least be consistent. If you’re going to doubt the authenticity of the NT simply because of the lack of a clear chain of transmission then you have to throw out everything else as well. It’s entirely possible that a bunch of folks got together and created Plato and his work whole cloth but how likely is that? You’re either going to do ancient history or you’re not. And that demands a close reading of the text.
Over the course of 40 years, all congregations have disappeared and no one even tried to admit that he was a student of Paul’s student … Nobody knew him, nobody mentioned him, and it is completely incomprehensible. A brilliant writer, and he did not cope with the task of ensuring the continuity of his activity, even for one generation. So for 30 years he made the same mistakes and did not see them. Paul simply wasn’t doing any missionary activity. He was a writer whose editors cut up and stuck together and added 3 foreign letters and released them to the market. Detering was wrong about dating Marion’s activities. Marcion did not come to Rome to listen to lectures wiser than himself. He wanted to conquer Rome with money and his systemic missionary solutions.
Stephen said
Jarek said
Stephen said
Why would you prefer these fringe views over the scholarly consensus?
Bible scholars have no criteria for what is real and what is made up. The situation in which, after 40 years, the letters of a missionary who founded a dozen (?) Churches are published, and none of these churches survived, and failed to maintain a personal chain of traditions, makes the history of the letters extremely improbable. The letters themselves were never used to manage anything.
But you seem to imagine that there is something peculiar about the New Testament. We have NO clear chain of transmission for ANY ancient literature. What we have are copies of manuscripts that survived from ancient times. But just because a document was written at some point it doesn’t follow that it was composed at that point. For example the earliest complete copy of Plato we have is from 895 of the common era. Plato’s life dates are estimated from the 420s to the 380s before the common era. The document is a copy of a copy of a copy etc etc etc going all the way back to Plato, none of which we possess. So at least be consistent. If you’re going to doubt the authenticity of the NT simply because of the lack of a clear chain of transmission then you have to throw out everything else as well. It’s entirely possible that a bunch of folks got together and created Plato and his work whole cloth but how likely is that? You’re either going to do ancient history or you’re not. And that demands a close reading of the text.
This really is the key point. The Pharaohs and Roman emperors were worshiped as Gods. No one would credit their divine status today, but that does not mean that they were not real people and real historical figures and that they did not do at least some of what is attributed to them. We cannot really run tests on ancient history. It does not submit to mathematical, scientific precision and verification that way. It may be inconvenient, but we just have to accept it with its limitations.
Robert said
Jarke said… This book proves that ** you do not have permission to see this link ** and his late colleagues Hermann Detering and Darell J. Doughty were right. …Who has kidnapped the Jarek that we all knew and loved? The humorous skeptic that said this:
Jarek said
I don’t agree with anybody.
Robert said
That’s funny.
If Price believes it is more probable that Jesus did not exist, and Metzger believes the opposite, and you don’t agree with either of them or anyone else, what’s that like?
Is your mind a totally blank slate? When you hear an opinion, scholarly or otherwise, do you say to yourself, “That sounds like an intelligent opinion, I think I will disagree with it.” Then when you hear a contrary opinion, do you say again, “That too sounds like an intelligent opinion, I think I will also disagree with it!”
Favorite pastime should be fun. And for me, it’s just entertainment.
Steefen said
About the Author from the amazon.com product page for Christ’s Resurrection…Markus Vinzent is Professor for the History of Theology at King’s College London in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies.
Prior to King’s he was H.G. Wood Professor of Theology at Birmingham University (1999-2010) and Professor of Church History at the University of Cologne, Germany (1997-1999).
In a series of monographs he has published on early Christian beliefs (Monarchianism, Trinity, Apostles’ Creed) and their reception in the Middle Ages, the Enlightenment and in contemporary theology.
Vinzent is one of the directors of the International Conference on Patristic Studies University of Oxford, editor of Studia Patristica and of Eckhart: Texts and Studies.
This monograph has resulted from ‘Early Christian Iconography and Epigraphy’, a project generously funded by the British Academy (2011-12) and directed by the author.
Jarek
Christ’s Resurrection in Early Christianity by Markus Vinzent showed that Paul’s teachings were unknown or ignored for 80 years after his alleged death. And this is not some invention, but a conclusion from a wide query of sources [NOT FRINGE].
Amazon Book Description of Christ’s Resurrection… by Vinzent
Why is the Resurrection of Christ so remote, almost non-existent in many early Christian writings of the first 140 years of Christianity? This is the first Patristic book to focus on the development of the belief in the Resurrection of Christ through the first centuries A.D.
From the Editorial Review (source not given) on the Amazon product page for the book
The central foundational belief of Christianity in Paul waned in popularity after its promotor’s death, and other theological topics grew sufficiently important to challenge the primacy of the Resurrection: Jesus’ sayings, his cross and his sacrificial death, his role as a Passover lamb, his birth, youth, and life.
It was not until the Christian teacher Marcion rediscovered Paul and rekindled [Paul’s] emphasis on the Resurrection that the resurgence of Paul swept away the competition – even though that meant the Church had to be snatched back from the heretic Marcion.
Professor Vinzent takes the reader on a fascinating journey through virtually every Christian text from the first two centuries in order to demonstrate the validity of his thesis.
His judgments, informed by a comprehensive knowledge of previous research, are based on a thorough reading of the evidence. This book constitutes a great achievement to which I am sure I shall have frequent recourse.’ Gerd Lüdemann, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Germany ‘Few Christians would deny that the Resurrection of Christ is the central mystery of Christian belief. But was this always the case?
This provocative book, the first Patristic one to chart the history of the significance of the Resurrection in first and second century Christianity, through a careful and wide-ranging analysis of canonical, non-canonical, and early patristic texts, and by drawing upon recent revisionist scholarship, presents the startling thesis that the centrality of the Resurrection in earliest Christianity was peculiar to Paul and in fact not shared by other authorities.
Steve Campbell, author and publisher of the well-reviewed book
Historical Accuracy, that brings facts and self-examination to sacred scripture
Yes, I will have to add this book to my reading list and likely to Historical Accuracy, 2nd Edition and its bibliography:
Christ’s Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Making of the New Testament by Markus Vinzent.
Stephen said
But you seem to imagine that there is something peculiar about the New Testament. We have NO clear chain of transmission for ANY ancient literature. What we have are copies of manuscripts that survived from ancient times. But just because a document was written at some point it doesn’t follow that it was composed at that point. For example the earliest complete copy of Plato we have is from 895 of the common era. Plato’s life dates are estimated from the 420s to the 380s before the common era. The document is a copy of a copy of a copy etc etc etc going all the way back to Plato, none of which we possess. So at least be consistent. If you’re going to doubt the authenticity of the NT simply because of the lack of a clear chain of transmission then you have to throw out everything else as well. It’s entirely possible that a bunch of folks got together and created Plato and his work whole cloth but how likely is that? You’re either going to do ancient history or you’re not. And that demands a close reading of the text.
A comparative analysis, called benchmarking, should not be different from the reality. I have been doing this for 20 years for my clients and I know how difficult it is to find the right point of reference.
7 letters from one author were collected, greatly edited and supplemented with three other letters written by other authors. Any comparisons with the publishing of books by Seneca, Plato or Cicero do not apply. The publisher produced a textbook and missionary tool in a single publication that only the priest had access to. The textbook provided a minimum standard of priesthood service. Pauline Corpus did not honor Paul as a writer but used his myth as a missionary and apostle.
On the practical side, the same was taught to many in various parts of the Empire, and central control of the message was maintained. There are only books left after Paul. None of the communities survived these 40 years. Because they were simply not there.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)