Dr. Ehrman,
Romans and I Corinthians were in Marcion’s canon/collection.
Question #1: Are there major differences between Romans and I Corinthians in Marcion’s canon/collection and Romans and I Corinthians in
– Codex Vaticanus (4th century)
– Codex Sinaiticus (after 325 CE), or
– the Latin Vulgate of Jerome (commissioned in 382 CE)?
Question #2: If there were no major differences, did the Marcion versions of Romans and I Corinthians end up in
– Codex Vaticanus
– Codex Sinaiticus, or
– the Latin Vulgate
Question #3: Would you like to credit someone earlier than Marcion for collecting the letters of Paul?
For example:
Acts 19: 30-31 – Asiarchs were friends of Paul. Surely, the Asiarchs would preserve the great Pauline epistle to the Romans. The Asiarchs of the Commune Asiae could have been the agents that preserved their friend Paul’s Letter to the Romans, if not other letters in the Asian churches.
Thank you.
Robert said
Jarek said
Robert said
Almost all of this is well known, but what exactly do you think has now been proven, that Marcion wrote the letters of Paul? Except Galatians? That someone else wrote them? That they were all written together at the same specific time? That none of the churches supposedly founded by Paul actually existed, except perhaps those in Galatia?
Letters were written and edited and then added to others to create a universal collection called the Pauline Corpus. From its inception to the present day, Corpus has served exclusively priests in two applications. It was a textbook for new missionaries. He was a source of content for the faithful, administered in small doses and widely discussed. The letters were not used for any crisis management or relations with specific assemblies. These are testimonials to help all the faithful in their dilemmas and troubles. An invented tradition, badly needed for a new venture.
Most of this is also not in any way controversial among critical scholars. But I’m not sure what you mean by ‘priests’ in earlier times of ‘Christianity’. Are you thinking there were ‘priests’ in the first couple of ‘Christian’ centuries? In what sense? No one thinks Paul’s letters were considered authoritative (ie, used for crisis management) during the first century. Not sure what is new and proven here?
Marcion did not write any letters, but took them from the market. Why didn’t he write? Because his goal was to build a network of congregations, not to write. Then you take the best material available, and you don’t waste time on crap. And he succeeded. If he was from the vicinity of Rome, we would have the Shepherd Hermas in the NT instead of Paul’s letters.
Vinzent does think Marcion probably edited the letters of Paul and that he did edit or add to an early version of what would eventually become the gospel of Luke. These are certainly controversial extreme minority positions, but I very much doubt Vinzent would claim to have proven this. Scholars such as Venzent do not exaggerate like that.
Even if he lost. Rome accepted Paul’s letters because he had to. Marcion created a whole host of these congregations. There was no point in overturning the mission cannon, only Marion himself, and taking over the congregations.
I doubt Marcion created the very first collection of Paul’s letters. Since Marcion’s collection included 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians (“Laodicians”), it seems more likely that previous collector(s) had forged some of these letters to be help interpret the ‘authentic’ letters. Did Marcion edit the collection he inherited? Possible or even likely. I think this might be Vinzent’s position, but I’ve only read some of his stuff.
Writing something yourself and counting that it will be a good product is a completely different business, different risk, different goals. Not for Marcion. He left nothing behind, allegedly wrote some kind of introduction called Antithesis. And everyone makes him a theologian. Interesting, isn’t it. The Pauline congregations have disappeared immediately, and everyone is making Paul a missionary. Yes you can. Only what it has to do with common sense?
So you don’t think Marcion wrote anything at all, or perhaps only an introducution? Who are you following in that opinion? Or is that your own original idea?
Consensus makes Paul an unprecedented giant. Radical critics tried to do the same with Marcion.
I do not think that is the consensus of critical scholars, at least not recognized as such in his own time. His writings eventually became very influential in later times, of course.
There is no tradition of organized Christianity in the first century. And it’s not some freak showing it, but a diagram by Gunther Zuntz.
No one thinks there is. That’s nothing new. Most critical scholars don’t think Paul’s influence was substantial in the first century. He presumably lost his dispute with Peter in Antioch. He founded some churches, but did any of them exercise any significant influence on what would later become the ‘universal church’? No, not at all.
Priests – I mean the active members of Marcion’s structure, who devote time to building the structure – missionaries.
Vinzent calls Marcion the author of the gospel on the basis of Tertullian’s testimony and others accuse him of misreading and misunderstanding Tertullian’s writings.
If letters have not been authoritative for 80 years, why have they become authoritative?
Nowhere have I written that Marcion created the Pauline Corpus or wrote or edited letters or the gospel. Bible scholars make the same mistake whether they are mainstream or not. I have always emphasized that he took products from the market and that his area of interest was the territorial and numerical expansion of his church.
According to the letters, Paul was the founder of the congregation network with which he communicated remotely. Since I consider Paul’s letters in the story layer a creation of an invented tradition about the achievements of a great missionary, the consequence of this is the lack of this organized structure.
The tradition of the great missionary Paul was invented for future missionaries. There was no primary circulation of letters to specific congregations. The story of Paul is a testimonial – we are like Paul, we act like Paul, we continue his work.
Jarek
Nowhere have I written that Marcion created the Pauline Corpus or wrote or edited letters or the gospel.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
Nowhere have you written that Marcion
1) created the Pauline Corpus
2) wrote or edited letters
3) wrote or edited the gospel
Original Post
How to connect all these authors, including Zuntz? It is enough to move away a sufficient distance and you can see that:
the problem is to
1a) define Marcion as the author of the gospel (Vinzent)
1b) Marcion adapted the now-lost Ur-Lukas (Robert Price)
2) define Marcion as the author of the letters (Detering) or
3) define Marcion as the theologian (all mentioned plus other biblical scholars)
4) Likely, Romans and I Corinthians were used as encyclicals. In this process interpolations were made, gradually permeating the text tradition of each letter (Robert Price)
5) the first collector of the Pauline Epistles had been Marcion (Robert Price, Burkitt, and Bauer)
6) Marcion is probably the original author of Ephesians (Laodiceans) [not one of the seven Pauline letters deemed authentic] and Galatians [one of the seven Pauline letters deemed authentic] (Robert Price)
7) The author of Luke-Acts was the author of the Pastoral Epistles (Knox modified by Robert Price)
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
Nowhere have you written that Marcion
1) created the Pauline Corpus / So, you disagree with #5 (Robert Price, Burkitt, and Bauer)?
2) wrote or edited letters / So, you disagree with #2 (Detering); #4 (Robert Price) and #6 (Robert Price); and #5 (Price, Burkitt, and Bauer)?
3) wrote or edited the gospel / So you disagree with #1a (Vinzent), #1b (Robert Price)?
Jarek
According to the letters, Paul was the founder of the congregation network with which he communicated remotely.
I consider Paul’s letters in the story layer a creation of an invented tradition about the achievements of a great missionary.
The tradition of the great missionary, Paul, was invented for future missionaries.
Steefen Argumentation Specialist
The invented tradition about the achievements of a great missionary–for future missionaries, according to you, could not have been invented by Marcion?
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
Nowhere have you written that Marcion
1) created the Pauline Corpus
2) wrote or edited letters
Robert Price
There was an aim to replace Marcion’s Pauline Corpus.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
Even if Marcion did not write or edit Pauline letters, as you claim,
after Marcion’s inclusion of them in his canon/collection, Robert Price says they were reissued in a sanitized edition.
= = =
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Marcion redacted what is perhaps the first ** you do not have permission to see this link ** on record, which he called the Gospel and the Apostolikon, which reflects his belief in the writings of Jesus and the apostle Paul respectively.
= = =
Even if Marcion did not write or edit Pauline letters, as you claim,
the definition of redact is edit (text) for publication.
Robert said
Jarek said
Priests – I mean the active members of Marcion’s structure, who devote time to building the structure – missionaries.
Vinzent calls Marcion the author of the gospel on the basis of Tertullian’s testimony and others accuse him of misreading and misunderstanding Tertullian’s writings.
If letters have not been authoritative for 80 years, why have they become authoritative?
Nowhere have I written that Marcion created the Pauline Corpus or wrote or edited letters or the gospel. Bible scholars make the same mistake whether they are mainstream or not. I have always emphasized that he took products from the market and that his area of interest was the territorial and numerical expansion of his church.
According to the letters, Paul was the founder of the congregation network with which he communicated remotely. Since I consider Paul’s letters in the story layer a creation of an invented tradition about the achievements of a great missionary, the consequence of this is the lack of this organized structure.
The tradition of the great missionary Paul was invented for future missionaries. There was no primary circulation of letters to specific congregations. The story of Paul is a testimonial – we are like Paul, we act like Paul, we continue his work.
My question was about what you considered to have now been proven that was not already common knowledge. “This book proves that Robert M. Price and his late colleagues Hermann Detering and Darell J. Doughty were right.” Right about what, exactly? What exactly has been proven?
With respect to this question of yours: “If letters have not been authoritative for 80 years, why have they become authoritative?” I would not consider this to be a black and white, all or nothing, binary sort of thing. Rather, each letter would have presumably carried some weight among at least some of the people in the community addressed by each letter. This may have gradually increased over time as Paul’s fame grew, as some letters became more widely known, as more and more gentile communities arose that did not want to convert to Judaism.
This is the difference between us. I would be on your side if Harnack were right in dating Acts. Then I would understand that here two different currents met around 65 and in order not to cannibalize each other, they decided to synchronize each other. Then I see the sequence of traditions from the moment the letters were written, as it appears from their content. Paul becomes popular and used in subsequent publications with his attribution. It would make absolutely sense. But Letters 40-60, black hole, Corpus 100, Resurrection 150, Acts 100-150 make no sense whatsoever. When you look at these dates, the cause and effect sequence starts with Corpus. Marcion gave a subsidy, it was accepted and they tried to get along for 5 years. For 5 years was ok. Something happend. Did not work. Marcon was questioned, not to destroy his achievements.
Steefen said
JarekAccording to the letters, Paul was the founder of the congregation network with which he communicated remotely.
I consider Paul’s letters in the story layer a creation of an invented tradition about the achievements of a great missionary.
The tradition of the great missionary, Paul, was invented for future missionaries.
Steefen Argumentation Specialist
The invented tradition about the achievements of a great missionary–for future missionaries, according to you, could not have been invented by Marcion?
Let’s assume I want to be a missionary. I have the following choice. Either I come up with everything that is a bit risky myself, or I buy a book with proven mission content. Then I have a much better chance of adding some value to others’ ideas. The second thing is how to keep the established congregation going. You must have a lot of content. After some time you find: They are bored and I have no idea. Then you go to the bookstore. The need to obtain the content existed before Marcion
Robert said
I’m still wondering if you’ve answered the question: What do you think has now been proven that was not already common knowledge. “This book proves that Robert M. Price and his late colleagues Hermann Detering and Darell J. Doughty were right.” Right about what, exactly? What exactly has been proven?
Vinzent’s work shows the beginning of the Pauline tradition in early church. Zuntz’s dating shows the letters being launched to market. The gentlemen were right in saying that there was no Pauline Christianity in the first century
Robert said
I doubt Vinzent would claim to have proven that. There’s a difference between being able to defend a thesis and proving it. There’s no proof about these kinds of things.So, proven or not, if there was no Pauline Christianity in the first century, who do you think wrote Paul’s so-called authentic letters? And when do you think they were written.
All of Paul’s letters were written by professional writers using false attribution. Most of this has been shown by biblical research. One author wrote the 7-letter collection, another 24-letter collection was written by another author. One was first, the other was late. Other authors showed better or worse imitative artistry of the first letters. Despite these efforts, the Corpus had letters of various authors. The letters were written for missionaries before the year 100.
Steefen said
JarekAccording to the letters, Paul was the founder of the congregation network with which he communicated remotely.
I consider Paul’s letters in the story layer a creation of an invented tradition about the achievements of a great missionary.
The tradition of the great missionary, Paul, was invented for future missionaries.
Steefen Argumentation Specialist
The invented tradition about the achievements of a great missionary–for future missionaries, according to you, could not have been invented by Marcion?
You are a missionary and you want to convey something important, what you have just come up with. You write it down. The next day, you sit on the agape and pull out yesterday’s scroll and speak. “I inherited this letter from my grandfather who was a student of the disciple of the great apostle Paul. Grandfather passed it on to my father, my father gave it to me …”
Your words take on multi-generational power and tradition
Steefen said
** you do not have permission to see this link **Marcion accepted the following Christian writings in this order:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link ** (which Marcion called Laodiceans)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Acts of the Apostles did not make the list above.
Jarek said
Robert said
I’m still wondering if you’ve answered the question: What do you think has now been proven that was not already common knowledge. “This book proves that Robert M. Price and his late colleagues Hermann Detering and Darell J. Doughty were right.” Right about what, exactly? What exactly has been proven?
Vinzent’s work shows the beginning of the Pauline tradition in early church. Zuntz’s dating shows the letters being launched to market. The gentlemen were right in saying that there was no Pauline Christianity in the first century
Well, well, well, it is probable that there was an insertion of the Last Supper language into 1 Corinthians, Chapter 11
because Pauline Christianity dates after AD64 and likely, after AD70. Of course, no Pauline Christianity in the first century puts it not only after AD64, AD70, but after Josephus’ Antiquities and after the Testimonium Flavianum.
Contributions of Markus Vinzent as per Wikipedia
His main contribution to the field of historical theology is his radical attempt to read sources non-anachronistically. As a result, Christianity is seen as a religion which developed its contours much later than previously assumed. In his recent monograph on the Resurrection, he argues that its foundational writings, especially the canonical and non-canonical Gospels, all stem from the middle of the second century, and even Paul’s letters, written around the mid first century, only became influential a hundred years later. The Roman teacher and businessman ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Similarly, Vinzent has shown that the Christian Creed is a later development and, like that of Christian festivals (except Easter which was adopted from Judaism, but was radically altered by Marcion – a change which was adopted only at a time when the other festivals were introduced) is a product of the fourth century. Especially the Apostles’ Creed seems to have derived from the dogmatic disputes in 340 AD.** you do not have permission to see this link **
On the basis of Vinzent’s views, the early history and the nature of Christianity looks very different from our common understanding. Christianity developed as one of the Jewish sects and did not move beyond this framework before the reconceptualization by Marcion of Sinope in the years after 140 AD. Moreover, the various theologies and communities that mushroomed from the mid second century became gradually influenced by the ‘Gospel(s)’ and ‘Paul’.
Markus Vinzent is the head of the research project at the Max Weber Centre for Advanced Cultural and Social Studies on the place of Marcion of Sinope in the development of the gospel genre. The project, entitled ‘The Gospel of Marcion: The Beginnings of Christianity’, proceeds from the premise that the four canonical gospels of the New Testament were composed in the first-century and were canonised following the end of the second-century AD. The project brings into question the scholarly consensus surrounding the dating and redaction history of the canonical gospels, to show that the teacher and naval merchant, Marcion, was the first to compile a work of literature recognisable today as belonging to the gospel tradition. The predominant language of Marcion’s home region, Sinope, a Bithynian-Pontian Roman province, is widely accepted to be Pontiac Greek, a dialect of Ancient Greek, although it remains yet unknown, whether or not Marcion was fluent in the language.** you do not have permission to see this link **
Vinzent (2014) argues, that the core writings of the New Testament were likely heavily redacted, if not outright created, in the second-century AD, namely the canonical gospels (as well as the non-canonical gospels), which stem from the middle of the second-century AD, the Pauline Epistles (going back to Paul, but severely redacted when further ‘Pauline’ letters and Acts were added).** you do not have permission to see this link **
Thus Marcion’s Gospel is taken to be the historical font for each of the four canonical gospels, because they consult Marcion as their source.** you do not have permission to see this link ** In his own words, Marcion created the literary genre of the gospel tradition and gave his work its name, all whilst without historical precedent in the attachment of the name of this genre to the story of Jesus. Through the collected texts of his Gospel and the ten Pauline Epistles, which he came to publish as ‘the New Testament’, the first collection ever to take this name, Marcion gave a previously ‘Jewish sect’ an increasingly Christian profile, thus setting in motion their establishment into the institutional environment of the Roman world, in that Christianity had finally come to shed its Jewish identity. In the introduction to his New Testament, Marcion copies Tertullian’s example, and denounces the four later canonical gospels as plagiarism. Thus Vinzent thinks that from this, the basis was created for the establishment of the Pauline Epistles as canon, through the connection of the later four canonical gospels with origins of the wider New Testament, in which the Acts of the Apostles are found at the end. Markus’s project enjoys a scholarly connection to reconstructions of the Gospel of Marcion undertaken by Theodor Zahn, Adolf von Harnack, Dieter T. Roth, and Matthias Klinghardt.
According to Vinzent, Marcion placed the Resurrection of Christ at the centre of Christian belief in the second-century, through his rediscovery of Paul and the publication of the ten Pauline Epistles, in conjunction with his gospel, which was later condemned by opponents as a variation of the Gospel of Luke. Further still in his analysis, Vinzent holds that the Resurrection of Christ became an important element of belief only in those circles most influenced by the writings of Paul and the Gospel of Marcion.** you do not have permission to see this link **
For Vinzent, the ‘Gospel of Marcion’ was initially composed for teaching, and not publication, however, as soon as it was published, it was heavily plagiarised by several teachers and scribes, and then revised for publication into several different editions under the guise of various pseudonymous attributions to the Apostles and their disciples.** you do not have permission to see this link **
Vinzent supports the investigation of David Trobisch and Matthias Klinghardt (2011), which examines the origin of the post-Marconite gospels as ‘canonical redaction’.** you do not have permission to see this link ** Thus Vinzent presents the following points:
• Marcion created the first so-called ‘gospel’ and the first ‘New Testament’. He also assumed, amongst other things, that the origin of the gospel was an active oral tradition in Rome.
• Although originally compiled for his own teaching, the text of the Gospel of Marcion reached a far wider audience than first intended and was subsequently plagiarised, revised, and distilled into pseudoepigraphia attributed to pseudonyms, e.g., Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, but also to other prominent authorities, i.e., Peter.
Vinzent seems to be saying there was a Paul in the first century.
He is also saying the Oral Tradition was strong in the first century.
What he cannot say is that the ritual of re-enacting the Last Supper was strong before AD70.
What he cannot say is that Paul learned to re-enact the Last Supper from the disciples of a Jesus crucified approximately AD30.
Marcion gave a previously ‘Jewish sect’ an increasingly Christian profile, thus setting in motion their establishment into the institutional environment of the Roman world, in that Christianity had finally come to shed its Jewish identity. In the introduction to his New Testament, Marcion copies Tertullian’s example, and denounces the four later canonical gospels as plagiarism.
Steefen
Either the four gospels were written in the first century OR they plagiarized Marcion’s gospel in the second century.
One way out is to say, like gospel of Luke, there were early editions of Matthew, Mark, and John which did not reach complete form until after Marcion’s gospel.
Marcion gave a previously ‘Jewish sect’ an increasingly Christian profile, thus setting in motion their establishment into the institutional environment of the Roman world, in that Christianity had finally come to shed its Jewish identity. In the introduction to his New Testament, Marcion copies Tertullian’s example, and denounces the four later canonical gospels as plagiarism.
So, it was more Marcion than Paul who established (not created) Gentile Christianity.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)