‘plagiarisms’ or ‘rivalry’?

 A good question has been set to me: 

Does Marcion actually call the other gospels ‘plagiarisms’ or are you supplying your own translation for the Latin word ‘æmulatio’ which elsewhere in Tetullain does not mean either ‘emulation’ or ‘plagiarism’ but rather ‘rivalry’?

Here my answer: 

this is a typically hermeneutical argument which is based on a wrong assumption. When Tertullian relates the opinion of Marcion he moves away from his own semantic and takes on that of his opponent (when you read the introduction to the reconstruction of the Pauline 10-Letter Collection you will come across numerous examples). Evans, the English translator of Tertullian, knew this, hence he translates Adv. Marc. 4.4, after in 1 the discussion was who had "adulterated" the text of the Gospel, in 2 the "materia aemulatione", rendered correctly as "before anything is done to it", followed by "habuerit de veritate materiam, et Marcionis ante credatur aemulationem a nostro expertum" which he renders: "it had from the truth material, and Marcion's be believed to have suffered hostility from ours before it" - it is about the material (i.e. the text) that has been taken and suffered, what Evans calls hostility, hence injury, alteration (adulteratio) - as the term "plagiarism" was only created a few years before (Tertullian still only knows the term as "kidnapper") - what Marcion criticizes is precisely this, that his New Testament had been taken and hostility done to it, what Martial called plagiatus.

From Paul to Saul: The Creation of Paul's Letters in the 2nd Century! | ...

New Testament for Dummies

 Together with a non-specialist, I am working towards a New Testament introduction for dummies (highly appreciated sort of non-academics!)

Here a first go - please let me know, if this is the right level of conversation:

B: It all sounds very exciting, exceedingly complex, and evidently intellectually and spiritually dynamic. A constant to and fro, it would seem, though evidently more competitive (between Marcion and the 'canonical party') than collaborative.

 

M: In truth, both: collaborative and competitive. Nothing extraordinary in that. Communication among academics has changed little since antiquity. They did then what we do now, learn from one another and attempt to make sense of the complexities.

 

B: The question for me is, what criteria governed the reworkings? Were they undertaken in close connection with trustworthy testimonies? Were they arbitrary, naïvely fanciful, or shrewdly devised?

 

M: Excellent questions. If I see things correctly, the revisions, much as today, tended to be conservative: only what seemed mistaken or imprecise was amended, and always in contact with what one held to be reliable testimony. Even fictive narratives (genre permitting, such as in the Acta literature or apocalyptic works) sought to remain within a tradition. The naïve ones are rare; calculating, deliberate alterations are more apt, often driven by purpose.

 

B: A distinguishing criterion seems to have been the attitude towards the Torah, which Marcion sought to exclude, while others strove to retain it at all costs.

 

M: This is a sensitive point, yet Marcion is no outlier here. Torah exegesis and even the development of new writings were commonplace in Jewish scholarly circles. The Jewish "Bible" was not yet a closed canon. Particularly the category of the "Writings," that third section of the Jewish Bible beyond Torah and Prophets, remained open.

We also have authors such as Philo of Alexandria, who interprets the Torah with great freedom, or Josephus, who in his Jewish Antiquities rewrites the entire Jewish scripture for a Hebrew-speaking and later also Greek audience. Many figures whom we designate as "Christian" (Ptolemaeus, Justin, and others) wrestle with which commands of the Torah remain binding, which are divine, Mosaic, or manmade, especially in light of the writings Marcion assembled.

No one insisted on retaining the Torah "at all costs", rather, it was maintained with considerable abridgement and qualification. Certainly, Marcion represents an extreme within this spectrum, viewing the Torah and the Prophets as wholly obsolete, and reinterpreting the Gospel and ten Pauline letters as Christ's new Torah, not as part of the third division of the Jewish scriptures, but as something altogether new.

 

B: But why multiply one Gospel into four? That seems to me to weaken rather than strengthen the case.

 

M: The first redactions of the single Gospel appear to have been uncoordinated, more reflective of the diversity of opinion among teachers of the time. All four canonical Gospels not only echo Marcion's text verbally and theologically, but also diverge from it, sometimes sharply.

In the very way they made use of Marcion's Gospel, so too did they utilise the Gospels developing alongside their own. The academic world then was no larger or smaller than now. They knew of one another, paid attention, copied and altered one another. This is no sign of weakness; it is the very nature of open scholarly discourse.

 

B: Perhaps it is best explained by positing multiple versions of Jesus' life, teaching, and death in circulation?

 

M: Perhaps, but not necessarily. The literary proximity and often-parallel structure of the five Gospels rather argues against it. Yet it seems that the various authors sought further information, added it when found, removed less fitting material, and restructured their texts.

 

B: You also mentioned Tatian, who compiled a single Gospel, presumably because he sensed that four versions were too vulnerable?

 

M: I would not leap to a polemical interpretation. Up to and even beyond Irenaeus, Gospel production appears to have followed the academic norms mentioned above. Teachers continued to produce Gospels: that of Mary, of Peter, and many more. When Bishop Serapion, around Irenaeus' time, encountered the Gospel of Peter in a congregation, he took no offence at its use, until he was alerted to controversies about it, whereupon he became critical.

That Tatian fused the five Gospels likely relates to the enduring influence of Marcion's Gospel within his New Testament, prompting Tatian to make a singular one of his own, as others may have attempted, as the Gospel of Peter fragment suggests.

 

B: Irenaeus, at any rate, comes close to recommending the modern canon.

 

M: Quite so. And just as the man who calls in the fire brigade may well have lit the blaze, so Irenaeus, with his propaganda tract, is likely the architect of the second canonical redaction, just as his teacher Polycarp may have stood behind the first canonisation of the Pauline letters.

 

B: If there was no "Luke," and Acts was not written by the same hand as the Gospel, then the linkage must be redactional, must it not?

 

M: Indeed. The Gospel of Luke, save for the additions and changes, is identical with Marcion's. The redactors adapted or composed Acts, furnishing it with a preface matching the one they appended to the Gospel in its revised form. The linguistic proximity of Luke and Acts is thus redactional, a feat still prompting scholars to treat the two as a unified work. In that sense, the redactors did their job well.

 

B: Finally, there is the "truth-question," which one might answer: it is of no consequence what historical-critical analysis may reveal; what was ultimately canonised is, by the Holy Spirit's inspiration, of unassailable authority.

This answer borrows the philosophical distinction between genesis and validity, only to transmute its meaning and apply it theologically. Yet in philosophy, this notion insists that historically contingent facts (a posteriori truths) cannot determine the validity of universally binding rational truths (a priori). The Pythagorean theorem is not true because Euclid discovered it in 300 BC; it is valid by virtue of pure reason, quite independently of its genesis.

To transfer this principle to theology is a daring methodological leap, a Salto mortale. Canonisation is not grounded in a priori insight, but rather constitutes a historical process of opinion-formation, even if one believes the Spirit guided it. Such guidance can never be proved a priori, only believed a posteriori, an act of human decision.

 

M: Faith, as Tertullian first expressed it, may entail such paradoxes: "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" Later: credo quia absurdum. To believe may be to perform one death-defying leap after another in the circus tent, a voluntary surrender. History is of little help here. For Irenaeus and Tertullian, the "canon of truth" outranks Scripture itself, though they argue with their opponents over which Scriptures are older. But that is not the point. The Holy Spirit in theology has no birth, no death, no age. It is a breath, and breath, as we know, cannot be pinned down.

 

B: So is the historical-critical method but a meaningless game of facts, I am not of the same opinion. I regard canonisation as fallible, even if the Spirit did assist. I conceive the relationship between God and humanity as dialogical, in which God allows errors, works with our limitations creatively, patiently, mercifully. This does not imply that all aspects of canonisation are wrong.

 

M: Indeed, the moment we add the supra-factual to the factual, be it breath, be it God, we change a critical method into one marked by indeterminacy, for we have introduced the incalculable into the equation.

 

B: But suppose you could demonstrate that certain redactional moves violated the historical truth of Jesus' teaching or Paul's, or even his Spirit, perhaps for reasons of power. Why should one not name and correct them?

 

M: We are far from that. We do not yet know what the "historical truth of Jesus’ teaching and life (or Paul’s)" is, nor what aligns with or contradicts his Spirit. We must first search for the guiding interests reflected in the texts we possess or reconstruct.

 

B: Fundamentalists and ideologues may well raise the alarm, but why? What sort of lifeless, undialogical, authoritarian, at best paternalistic image of God is that?

 

M: Thus the need for critical—also historical-critical—work. It must be anti-ideological and self-critical.

Interview "Badische Zeitung", 1.7.2025 on the "other" Paul

 In advance of the forthcoming book on "From Paul to Saul" (here the German version "Von Paulus zu Saulus), the "Badische Zeitung" has published an interview that gives a first insight into the new project:

Vortrag zu den verschiedenen Paulusbildern im 2. Jh. in der Nähe von Freiburg

 Wer zufällig gerade zu diesem Zeitpunkt in Freiburg ist und mitdiskutieren möchte:

How Irenaeus attests to the canonical redaction (Trobisch)

The principle that Irenaeus himself uses – to substantiate his own position by textual evidence, in particular from his own collection, and to conclude that anyone who recognises these truths also adheres to the canonical Paul (Iren., Adv. haer. IV 32,1),[1] obviously also applies to the anonymous presbyter, from whom Irenaeus seems to have adopted this argument. Irenaeus's circular argument reads: ‘After that, the whole doctrine will be established for him if he also reads the scriptures carefully according to those presbyters in the church with whom the apostolic teaching is, as I have shown.’[2] (Iren., Adv. haer. IV 32,1).

What is crucial for our context is that he speaks of the ‘writings’ that can be read ‘according to the presbyters in the church’. He does not call these writings ‘New Testament’, indeed, he does not even speak of a collection of writings, but obviously still has individual writings in mind. He identifies the authorities for these writings with presbyters ‘in the church’, not with Apostles. They are presbyters ‘with whom’ only the apostolic teaching is.

In my opinion, Irenaeus thus precisely outlines the circle of those who, since Trobisch, are to be addressed as the editors of the canonical redaction.[3] He then also makes it clear that this redaction was directed against Marcion and uses 1 Cor 2:15 to authorise the presbyter and to self-immunise the redaction:

‘A disciple like this, truly spiritual, because he receives God's Spirit, who from the beginning assisted man in all of God's arrangements, has announced the future, points out the present and reports the past, who ‘judges all, but is himself judged by no one’ (1 Cor 2:15) ...  he will also judge the teaching of Marcion’ (Irenaeus, Adv. haer. IV 33,1-2).

[1] Here John 1,3; Eph 4,5-6 are taken as starting points – whoever adheres to these canonical passages will also ‘adhere to the head...’ (Eph 4,16), which is another canonical passage.

[2] Post deinde et omnis sermo ei constabit, si et scripturas diligenter legerit apud eos qui in ecclesia sunt presbyteri, apud quos est apostolica doctrina, quemadmodum demonstravimus. Both German translations (Brox, FC, and Emenegger, BKV) are inaccurate here. Brox translates the important passage as: ‘if he has carefully read the scriptures with the presbyters in the church’, Emenegger: ‘if he also carefully reads the scriptures with the priests of the church’.

[3] D. Trobisch, Die Endredaktion des Neuen Testaments, 1996.

Re-launch of the Patristica Podcast: All about the 10 Pauline Letter Collection

 Here is the new re-launch of the Patristica youtube channel and podcast. Despite the title of the link below, it is more about Paul than the Gospel, as you will quickly discover, as this is what I am working on at the moment: 

https://youtu.be/hPreTmej86k

Interview on 'Resetting Christian Origins' (CUP)

For all those interested in this recent book of mine, I have given an interview to Jonathon Lookadoo. My host is Associate Professor at the Presbyterian University and Theological Seminary in Seoul, South Korea. While his interests range widely over the world of early Christianity, he is the author of books on the Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius of Antioch, and the Shepherd of Hermas, including The Christology of Ignatius of Antioch (Cascade, 2023).

Being a scholar of early Christian studies himself, it was great to talk to him and answer his questions at New Books Network / New Books in Biblical Studies, under the following link: Markus Vinzent, "Resetting the Origins of Christianity: A New Theory of Sources and Beginnings" (Cambridge UP, 2022) - New Books Network

The Beginnings of Early Christianity: How does the 2nd century relate to the 1st century

 I received the following friendly enquiry:

"With regard to the books: "Resetting the Origins of Christianity", "Christ's Torah" and "Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity" - I admire the approach of these books to reconstruct historically grown ideas and validity claims retrospectively. I understand that you place weight to the 2nd century for the emergence of the New Testament. So far, however, it has not been entirely clear to me how you establish the relationship between the 2nd century and the 1st century. Sometimes it seems to me that you - like most scholars - assume a Christian movement that began in the 1st century leaving behind textual evidence such as at least the Pauline epistles (or parts of them). But then I have the impression that you - like the Dutch radical critics - think of Christianity as a product of the 2nd century in every respect.

I would be very happy to hear how you understand the relationship between the 2nd century and the 1st century in the development of the Christian tradition (not just the scriptures). 

To this I replied:

In answer to your question, I confess that, in my opinion, the first century has so far been the black box into which researchers (and many outside them) have put what they would like to see in it. As I am only too aware of this danger myself in retrospect, I endeavour first of all not to "assume" either the one position you mentioned, the second or any other position. Rather, I approach it through all the centuries and ask myself which is the earliest achievable level on which we can find contours and constructions (and thereby construct ourselves again). So first of all I confess my ignorance beyond this. As you have rightly recognised, the next main question, which I have already asked myself in the books you mention but only answered very cautiously, is how one could describe the relationship between the 2nd and 1st centuries.

I have gained a little more insight into this in the last three years, because during this time I have reconstructed the Pauline letters as suggested by the witnesses to Markion's collection. Although Hilgenfeld - Zahn - Harnack - Schmid and BeDuhn had already undertaken such reconstructions, the first four of these editors still proceeded from the heresiological model of Markionite editorial abridgement (although the edition of the canonical Pauline epistles first appears before our eyes with Irenaeus, i.e. a good three decades after that of Markion) and therefore offer only deviations, but no continuous text, while BeDuhn offers a largely continuous text of the letters, but only in English translation.

In my reconstruction, I noticed that the two collections (1. the 10-letter collection of Markion; 2. the 14-letter collection from the time of Irenaeus) have strikingly different languages and semantics. Furthermore, it is striking that the three letters Eph, Col and 2Thess, which today are regarded as pseudo-Paulines, differ from the 7 letters found in the 10-letter collection even in the "pre-canonical" version (i.e. as parts of the 10-letter collection) in that they possess a language in many respects that we encounter in the 14-letter collection.

This trace opens a small door into the time before Marcion, perhaps even into the 1st century - hence my comments for you.

The fact that Marcion's collection of 10 letters contains a lexis, semantics, a grammar etc. that is clearly identifiable and different from those of the 14-letter collection shows: 

1. that there was a redaction of this 10-letter collection (one can of course ask whether by Marcion or by an earlier editor, if Marcion had indeed, as Lieu, BeDuhn, Klinghardt, Goldmann, Flemming assume, changed nothing or nothing significant about these letters)

2. that there was a further, later redaction of this collection of 10 letters, when it was expanded into a collection of 14 letters at the time of Irenaeus.

3. here the view into the time before Marcion: that 3 letters were included in the 10-letter collection, which are already characterised by a language that we encounter again in the canonical editing of the 14-letter collection.

4 This means, however, that in his search for Pauline letters or letter material, the editor had not only come across 7 letters (whether already in a collection remains to be investigated), which after the redaction appear uniform in language throughout, while he must have come across a collection of 3 letters that came from a linguistic-religious-cultural milieu that was that of the later canonical redaction. Even after the pre-canonical redaction, the parallels to the later canonical redaction can still be recognised.

5) After the pre-canonical editing of all 10 letters, the 10-letter collection came into the milieu from which the 3 letters originated. In this milieu, the 10-letter collection was expanded into the 14-letter collection and canonically edited into the form that we find today in the canonical New Testament.

A further insight became clear to me when I compiled the "Concordance to the Precanonical and Canonical New Testament (narr.de)":

6. the 10-letter collection has largely the same linguistic features as the pre-canonical Gospel of Marcion's New Testament.

7. the other parts of the canonical collection of the 27 books beyond the 14-letter collection largely share a common canonical language (despite all the individual differences of all their individual writings).

This means that if we want to look back from the 2nd to the 1st century, the following questions will have to be answered: Who is the redactor who presents a single Gospel text and 10 Pauline letters that are demonstrably from one and the same hand?

What is the character of the 3 letters used by this editor? Are they literary fiction or do they go back to older material, possibly to a "Paul"? Since they must have already existed in a collection due to their linguistic similarities, do they represent the older level in comparison to the 7 letters offered by the editor? If this were the case, then the letters now regarded as pseudo-Paulines would be older and closer to Paul than the so-called "genuine" 7 letters. 

Or is it precisely the fact that the 3 letters were already edited as a collection that speaks against their more original character? Since the editor - knowing what an editor is and does - must have known that it was an edited collection of the 3 letters, which he included in his own collection of 10 letters, he obviously saw no problem in using edited texts, editing them himself and still putting them under the label "Paul". 

As far as the source(s) of the 7 letters are concerned, the question of whether the editor used individual letters or a collection cannot be answered just as clearly. The fact that the editor left the three letters together, placed five letters before them and two after, and that he arranged his collection of 10 letters biographically and geographically, just as he arranged the Jesus material biographically and geographically, rather suggests that he had not yet found the seven letters as a collection. For if the 7 letters had been available to him as a collection and if he had also drawn on an older Gospel, then it would be more than coincidental if both older sources (Gospel, 7 letters) had the same organisational structure. What is historically probable is that he possessed epistolary material for the 7 letters, just as he possessed Jesus material, from which he created partial collections for his New Testament, which he structured similarly and which also both reflect his editorial language.

What does this mean for our insight into the 1st century? Especially for your question about the Christian movement and, I would add, its protagonists? In "Christ's Torah" I have already pointed out that the editor also includes elements (such as "bringing fire/conflict") that contradict his own idea. This suggests that there is a previous source for this material, which the editor traces back to the Jesus of his gospel. Similar elements that seem to contradict his idea can also be found in the letters of Paul in the 10-letter collection. Here, too, the editor cites Paul as the source. Can we trust this information? It seems to me, as I have already written, that the editor was not someone who produced pseudonymous fictions - a significant difference to the canonical editors, for whom pseudonymity and fictionality are  characteristic features. That is why we still do not have any letters that scholars attribute to Paul other than the seven that can be found in the 10-letter collection. I would therefore rate the confidence in this editor higher rather than lower.

Who could this editor be if the Gospel and the 10-letter collection were written by his consistently editorial hand?

1) An ultra-conservative answer could be: Paul. Then Paul not only brought a message, but this gospel to the Galatians.

Or, if this is not considered possible,

2. a disciple of Paul, perhaps Luke. Then he would be the author/editor of the gospel and the 10 Pauline letters.

3. an anonymous person (as assumed by BeDuhn, Lieu, Klinghardt ...), who then wrote both parts.

Or, what I consider to be the most likely solution, especially in view of the witnesses of the 2nd century:

4th Markion.

Gal 2, the controversy between Paul and Peter according to Marcion

  The reconstruction

11 Πέτρον[1] κατὰ πρόσωπον ἀντέστην, ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν,[2]

11 Ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην, ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν.

---

[1] With Tertullian who uses the accusative (Petrum). I am grateful to Mark Bilby who has drawn my attention to this phenomenon and the reliability of the short and attested text for the precanonical version (Email from 23.8.23). The unattested parts are products of the canonical redaction. Πέτρος can be found in 06, 010, 012, 018, 020, 630, 1505, 2464, M, it, vg^mss, sy^h, MVict, Ambst, and in the latin tradition in 61, 64, 75, 76, 77, 78, 89. The difficulty, the Christian tradition had with the controversy between Paul and Peter, can be seen already in Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. Clement, for example, does not identify Kephas with Peter, but takes him as one of the 70 disciples of Jesus, see Euseb. Caes., Hist. eccl. I 12,2. In contrast, Tertullian claims that the dispute was one of Peter's behaviour, not something substantial or doctrinal. Origen claims that there was not really any controversy at all between Paul and Peter, see H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater (1951), 48.

[2] Tert., Adv. Marc. V 3,7: Sed reprehendit Petrum non recto pede incedentem ad evangelii veritatem. Plane reprehendit, non ob aliud tamen quam ob inconstantiam victus, quem pro personarum qualitate variabat. See the attestation for Πέτρος and κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην, so according to Harnack, Schmid and BeDuhn, and ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν, indicated by Tertullian's ad evangelii veritatem. Plane reprehendit, non ob aliud tamen quam ob inconstantiam victus, quem pro personarum qualitate variabat.

The lexic:

ὅτε, 112 times in the NT , Lk 2,21. 22. 42; 4,25; 13,35; 15,30; 22,35, in verses that are missing in *Ev, precanonically only attested for *Gal 4,3. 4. Ἀντιόχεια, 19 times in the NT, only here in a letter by Paul that is recognized today to be by Paul, yet here as elsewhere in the NT only at the canonical level (Acts 11,19. 20. 22. 26. 27; 13,1. 14; 14,19. 21. 26; 15,22. 23. 30. 35; 18,22; Gal 2,11; 2 Tim 3,11). πρόσωπον, 84 times in the NT, Lk 1,76; 2,31; 9,51, in verses that are missing in *Ev fehlen, then Lk 9,53; 10,1, where those parts of the verses with the term are absent from *Ev, precanonically attested for *Ev 7,27; 12,56; *Gal 2,11; *2 Cor 3,18; 4,6; *2 Thes 1,9. αὐτῷ, 780 times in the NT, Lk 1,5. 11. 19. 32. 74; 2,5. 26; 4,3. 5. 6. 8. 9. 12. 16. 17. 20. 22; 5,9; 7,43; 8,1. 19. 28. 38. 39; 9,32; 10,37; 13,1. 8. 31; 15,1. 16. 18. 21. 27. 30. 31; 18,43; 19,25; 20,10. 38; 22,43. 63; 23,43. 55; 24,19, in verses or part of verses that are missing in *Ev, precanonically attested for *Ev 4,35; 5,11; 6,29 (? Adamantius); 8,3. 18. 25; 9,30. 60; 11,11/12; 12,8. 10. 20; 16,29 (? Adamantius); 18,7. 37 (? Adamantius); 20,5; 22,14; 23,9 (?). 32; 24,42 (? Eznik); *Gal 2,11; *1 Cor 12,9; *2 Cor 1,20; *Rom 1,17; 11,35; *Laod 2,16; *Col 1,19; 2,13. ἀνθίστημι, 16 times in the NT, precanonically attested for *Ev 21,15 (at the canonical level in Mt 5,39; Lk 21,15; Acts 6,10; 13,8; Rom 9,19; 13,2; Gal 2,11; Eph 6,13; 2 Tim 3,8; 4,15; Ja 4,7; 1 Pet 5,9). καταγιγνώσκω, 3 times in the NT (at the canonical level in Gal 2,11; 1 John 3,20. 21. The form ἦν, 301 times in the NT, Lk 1,7. 10. 21. 22. 66. 80; 2,7. 25. 26. 33. 36. 40. 51; 3,23; 4,16. 17. 38; 5,15. 17; 7,37; 9,31. 45. 53; 15,9. 24. 32; 18,34; 19,47; 23,51. 53, in verses that are missing in *Ev fehlen, precanonically rare in *Ev and in *Paul, attested for *Ev 16,19 (? Adamantius); 20,4; *1 Cor 10,4; *Phil 3,7. 

Hence, in *Gal of Marcion's collection, the confrontation between Paul and Peter was one that took place immediately at their encounter in Jerusalem, not much later and not in Antioch, and it was not only Paul's rejection of Peter, but also of the other two, James and John, and of the church of Jerusalem. That is why we find the Letters of Peter, James and John together with Acts in the Praxapostolos and that the Jerusalem collect has been placed into the revised letters of Paul and indicated in Acts. So, Gal is even more a step between *Gal and Acts.

Of course, one could interject (as a dear friend and colleague did): Isn't it possible that T is changing the text as he is not because of *Gal but because the text as he has it is an embarrassment? IN other words, Gal 2.11-14 is such a disaster for his position of a picture of the early church as imagined by Acts that he has abbreviated it altogether? And further that it plays into Marcion's hand? I agree that Praxapostolos is a way of massaging this away. But perhaps I am not following your line of reasoning. I am not sure how creating the Antioch incident helps in an anti-Marcionite rendition since the dispute assumes Peter and "those from James" (I would include in that number John) shows the apostles at odds with Paul. Tertullian would have liked it if he could have ignored this altogether, But how would inventing Antioch have made things any better. I think I am missing something basic in your argument.

To this I replied:

Of course, you could be right that Tertullian gives us his abbreviation that does not reflect *Gal - this is very much the position of Schmid, Roth, Becker and others who approach *Gal from the canonical perspective. Throughout the work on the reconstruction, and particularly with the additional help of the very different lexic between *Paul and Paul (just as with *Ev and Lk), it has become clear that though Tertullian in places abbreviates the text, such abbreviations are more seldom than previously thought of. If one leaves the canonical perspective (and with it not only the idea that Marcion has abbreviated Lk and Paul - interestingly those who have given up this apologetic perspective are still inclined to approach *Paul and *Ev from the canonical text), methodologically you first have to think through the possibility that what Tertullian gives us is all that he read. Only if this does not make sense and there is need for the assumption of missing text and Tertullian abbreviating something, then I do recur to the canonical text.

On this case: You are right too, Gal 2 is an embarrassment for Tertullian and for his idea of the ideal church. That he does not mention Antioch at all - given the methodological approach, set out above - first needs to make one question, how would the text of Gal 2 read without it? The first thing one encounters is that the construction in which Tertullian gives us the report is Peter in the accusative. This could be chance, of course, but if the methodological approach is right, then it is rather an indication that what he attests to is the wording that I had sent you, and in this case, the resistance is not one in Antioch, but an immediate one in Jerusalem and a confrontation, as you rightly point out, with Peter, James and John - and the Jerusalem church in its entirety.

If this were so, what is the reason, I then ask, that the canonical redactor would alter the scenario? He moves the face to face controversy away from Jerusalem and further away from James and John with "those from James" no longer being the three themselves as the instigators of the controversy (and note the long discussion amongst scholars who try to remove "those from James" even further away from James). Antioch, of course, is the better place to stage the controversy, as a) it was not the centre of the Christian Church and the three pillars, b) it was the church where Paul lived - so the controversy takes place in his church, a community not more reliable than Paul himself, c) the community shows its support to Jerusalem by raising money and organising the collect, hence, proves the centrality and position of the church of Jerusalem.

Still, the controversy between Paul and Peter was embarrassing, as one can see from the counter-arguments in Tertullian, Tertullian reads the canonical text not as a doctrinal dispute, but a moral one and about Peters turncoat behaviour (still embarrassing enough, but explicable, given the other information the gospels give about Peter's behaviours). The redaction preserves James and John and the Jerusalem church, and I think, this is what is shown by adding letters that are attributed to these two or rather three apostles to the Praxapostolos that underpins Acts' narrative. There are still tensions between Acts and Gal, as it now stands - the redaction had to deal with *Gal, could alter it, but could not simply erase it or do away with everything. Yet, read from the perspective of Acts, Gal is even more tamed down then read as a stand alone text.

when I am getting a bit quiet ...

 then I am working on something substantial. Hence, sorry about being slow in moderating the blog and posting here. However, I have worked my socks off to produce a reconstruction of pre-canonical Paul, the ten letters of the collection that Marcion of Sinope brought together sometime after the end of the so-called Bar Kokhba revolt, i.e. after the year 135 CE.

The first product of this endeavour is the publication of a comparative "Concordance to the precanonical and canonical New Testament" that is going to be published with NarrFranckeAttempto on

19 June 2023

I hope to finish the reconstruction and the introduction to it sometime later this summer, so watch out for it.

Marcion's origin - a new video upload and discussion between Jacob Berman and myself

 If you wish to listen in, here the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou7n-7-hB2s

Origenes über den kurzen Paulusbrief und Markion

 

Caput hoc Marcion, a quo scripturae evangelicae atque apostolicae interpolatae sunt, de hac epistula penitus abstulit, et non solum hoc, sed et ab eo loco ubi scriptum est: Omne autem, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est, usque ad finem cuncta dissecuit. In aliis vero exemplaribus, id est in his, quae non sunt a Marcione temerata, hoc ipsum caput diverse positum invenimus. In nonnullis etenim codicibus post eum locum, quem supra diximus, hoc est omne autem quod non est ex fide peccatum est, statim cohaerens habetur: Ei autem, qui potens est vos confirmare. Alii vero codices in fine id, ut nunc est positum content. (Orig., Comm. in Rom. X 43,2)

(„Dieses Stück [Röm 16,25-27] hat Marcion, der die Schriften der Evangelien und der Apostel durch Streichungen verfälscht hat, aus diesem Brief vollständig getilgt, und nicht nur das, sondern schon von der Stelle an, wo es heißt: Alles aber, was nicht aus Glauben geschieht, ist Sünde (Röm 14,23), hat er bis zum Ende alles gestrichen. In anderen Handschriften dagegen, das heißt in denen, die nicht von Marcion leichtfertig behandelt wurden, finden wir diesen Teil an verschiedener Stelle. Denn in manchen Kodizes wird nach der Stelle, die wir oben genannt haben, das heißt nach dem Wort: Alles aber, was nicht aus Glauben geschieht, ist Sünde (Röm 14,23), sofort angeschlossen: Dem aber, der die Macht hat, euch Kraft zu geben (Röm 16,25a). Andere Kodizes dagegen haben diesen Teil [scil. Die Doxologie] am Ende [des Römerbriefes], so er jetzt steht“, Übers. Heither, 280f.).

Hieraus schließt Goldmann zunächst korrekt, dass nach Origenes – und dies stimmt mit unseren textlichen Zeugen für den Römerbrief überein, wie man der Edition des vorkanonischen Textes entnehmen kann – „in anderen, nicht von Marcion beeinflussten (quae non sunt a Marcione temerata) – also ‚katholischen‘ Handschriften … sich die Doxologie an verschiedenen Stellen [finde]: einmal nach 14,23 und einmal am Ende des Briefes.“[1] Goldmann deutet auch scharfsinnig, dass nach Origenes „die ihm geläufige Position der Doxologie nach den Kapiteln 15 und 16 offenbar nicht die ursprüngliche ist, sondern dass die Doxologie eben erst jetzt am Briefende auftaucht“ (ut nunc est positum),“[2] also ursprünglich nach 14,23 gestanden war. Goldmann erkennt auch den inneren Widerspruch des Origenes, der einerseits das Fehlen der Kapitel 15 und 16 auf eine Tilgung durch Markion zurückführt, andererseits von Exemplaren, also wohl Manuskripten, spricht, in denen diese beiden Kapiteln fehlen, die er dennoch aber als von Markion unbeschnittene bezeichnet.[3] Trotz dieser Inkonsistenz ist unbestreitbar, dass Origenes Handschriften benennt, „in denen die Doxologie nach 14,23 positioniert ist“, und bei denen es sich neben den markionitischen auch „um von Marcion unbeeinflusste, also ‚katholische‘ Kodizes“ gehandelt hat.[4] Wenn Goldmann daraus aber den Schluss zieht, „der kurze Römerbrief“ könne „nicht auf Marcion zurückgeführt werden“ und in der Fußnote hierzu notiert, dass „sich der Widerspruch nur dann auflösen“ würde, „wenn auch die HSS dieser Textformen (Position der Doxologie nach 14,23) in enge Nähe zu Marcion gesetzt werden“, so halte ich gerade diese Beobachtung für die einzig mögliche. Denn wenn Origenes „kurze Römerbriefe“ in zwei Versionen kennt: Die von Markion um Kapitel 4, 9-11, 15-16 kastrierte, und die „katholische“, in der allerdings die Kapitel 15-16 fehlen, so spricht er doch niemals von einem kurzen katholischen Römerbrief ohne Kapitel 4, 9-11. Gegen die Lektüre von Goldmann wird Origenes damit zu einem Zeugen – wie Tertullian – der uns bestätigt, dass der kurze Römerbrief (ohne Kapitel 4, 9-11, 15-16) in der Tradition ausschließlich Markion zugeschrieben wird. Wiederum jedoch ist es das Ketzerargument, das als Ersatz für die Tradition herhalten muss: „Dass dies [der nicht markionitische Ursprung dieses kurzen Römerbriefs ohne Kapitel 4, 9-11, 15-16] ernsthaft in Betracht zu ziehen ist, legt nicht zuletzt auch die überaus zahlreiche und regional weit gestreute Bezeugung des kurzen Römerbriefes nahe. Die Spuren, die dieser sowohl in der altlateinischen Tradition als auch im Mehrheitstext hinterlassen hat, lassen es doch recht unplausibel erscheinen, die Textform als Resultat häretischer Redaktionstätigkeit zu begreifen. Gamble bemerkt zu Recht, dass eine solch weiträumige Verbreitung einer häretisch anmutenden Textform kaum vorstellbar ist.“[5]

---

[1] A. Goldmann, Über die Textgeschichte des Römerbriefs. Neue Perspektiven aus dem paratextuellen Befund (2020), 148.

[2] Ibid. 149

[3] Vgl. Ibid. 149-150. 164.

[4] Ibid. 164.

[5] Ibid. 165

Chris Albert Wells: MARCION'S STING An Open Letter to Markus Vinzent

 Chris has written a piece on my thoughts on Marcion to which I will soon reply, but here already his paper which can be found on Academia.edu:

MARCION'S STING An Open Letter to Markus Vinzent

Marcion And The Dating Of The Synoptic Gospels - Markus Vinzent in conversation with Jacob Berman on History Valley

 Here is another video interview by Jacob Berman for his intriguing History Valley youtube video channel. I much enjoyed this session and thank Jacob deeply for the inspiring conversation:

Do not miss the youtube discussion between James Valliant and Markus Vinzent on History Valley

 The recent discussion between James Valliant and me on History Valley is now online:

I really enjoyed this discussion and have learned a lot from James Valliant. Thanks for this opportunity!

Christi Thora and the Prophet Simon Kimbangu, Congo - Werner Ustorf's response

 My friend and former colleague Werner Ustorf from Birmingham University wrote to me the following response to my recently published book "Christi Thora" ("Christ's Thora") which I am publishing here with his consent:

I have read most of your argumentation in “Christi Thora” (not all the scriptural evidence though). Being a layperson in this regard, my impression is that your research is eminently fruitful. It is a line of thought that began to take shape decades ago and needs to be pursued with determination. The crux seems to be that the whole debate (or 98% of it) is in the hands of those who say what they always wanted to say (I am talking of the “Christian” bias, i.e. that bias that became victorious in the history of this religion).

Translating your questions into my words, I would say that what happened in response to Marcion is a complete takeover of his gospel by the group that became victorious (“orthodox”). Hijacking his texts, they re-attached the story of Christ to the Jewish tradition. And in doing so, they signalled to the Roman Empire that they were the ‘right’ version of Judaism, namely conform to the system and non-dangerous. Unfortunately, this claim, i.e. Christianity as the only legitimate continuation of Judaism, created the historical roots of antisemitism.

If Marcion had his text ready already in his Pontus years, you would probably want to know where he got his knowledge from. All these “Q”-issues would come back into the discussion. There should also be a new, and serious (non-Christian) investigation of the gospel of Thomas. Then, a step by step chronology of the mythology of Christ could be developed.

As you know, I was able to a small extent to do just that in relation to the Prophet Simon Kimbangu in the Congo. This was my summa cum laude PhD thesis, but nobody, neither in theology nor (of course) the Kimbanguist Church itself, was interested in this. I could show how the prophet’s own sayings and letters were ignored and replaced by plain inventions of sacred wonders and how these developments were promoted by people high up in the service of the then Belgian colonial government. The ’new’ image of the Kimbanguist tradition was non-violent and strictly non-political. A few years later, these Neo-Kimbanguist leaders cooperated with the dictator Mobutu and killed (literally) all survivals of the previous incarnation of Kimbanguism. All the books were re-written. Today, Kimbangu has been declared God’s second incarnation - that of the Holy Spirit. Dogma is also that every human being at the point of death will be judged by Kimbangu. This latter development I would explain as a consequence of the religious competition in the Congo. The Kimbanguists needed to up their game in order to compete.

Anyway, you have got yourself a massive research programme for years to come. I am not worried about this. I am worried about mediating the results of this research to the public. This is probably something that needs to be thought about.

Best wishes,
Werner

To this kind email I replied:

how right you are. I think, the same pattern runs through history, be it that of writing the history of early Islam or as with your experience in Congo. It would be worth to have a comparative study of how religions move from not always pacifist enthusiasts to a smoothened, altered and accommodating and colonially institutionalised movement that fits quite often culturally the very different political powers, leading to a kind of novel political structure with a remodelled religion.

And with regard the public, these ideas will go out. I just had last week and this week interviews with Jacob Berman who is running quite a successful History channel on Early Christianity on youtube. So, the combination between research and publications, traditional and novel, is the way forward. And, actually, I am doing this type of research, because I like doing it, irrespective of how many people it read or are inspired by what is written.

yours Markus 

Are Paul's seven letters authentic?

 Today, the following email reached me:

Dear Markus,

I enjoyed reading your views on Marcion, I found them very interesting and convincing!   My professional interests are in modern history so I have only an amateur's knowledge of New Testament Studies.  Without dismissing it outright, can any strong case be made that some of the authentic letters of Paul are actually not authentic?  I know the Dutch radicals argued against some of them long ago, and some of their arguments are summarized (badly) below.  Are the seven letters considered authentic because of a form of scholarly orthodoxy (like the idea that Marcion came long after the four gospels) or because the evidence is very strong?  

Thanks very much for your time,

Stephen

a)  The letters are treatises not letters especially the very long Romans and First Corinthians

b)  Left no trace on the history of the churches they address

c)  Catholicizing terms are used 

d) Internal contradictions and discontinuities 

e) Confusion over Paul's relationship to the churches he is writing

f) Complexity and depth of the theology and ethics anachronistic for 50s CE

g) Pronounced post-Jewish Christianity of the letters could not have emerged so soon after the death of Jesus

h) Concerns addressed in the letters are anachronistic for the first century

I) Rejection of Israel in Romans 9-11 suggests period after the fall of Jerusalem

j) Persecutions mentioned in the letters were anachronistic for the 50s CE 

to which I replied:

thanks for asking this crucial question which bothered me for some years and to which I have not yet formed my opinion. However, as I write, I am working on a parallel monograph to the one by which Matthias Klinghardt reconstructed Marcion's Gospel. So far, I have gone through Galatians and 1 Corinthians up to chapter 10, if you read Greek or German, I am happy to send you the draft to that point.

But what I discovered - something that astonished myself is the following observation.

Based on our witnesses (Tertullian, Epiphanius ...) and on papyri and manuscript variations in the tradition of the Epistles, it is clear that they attest to two very different collections of Paul's letters. More on this I am publishing in the nearer future with a book by CUP, but which I am now detailing in the current study.

Marcion's collection had the known 10 Pauline letters, of which 7 are commonly regarded as authentic (except for some critiques like the Dutch radicals). There argument are heavy, though.

The question then is - what is the nature of the letters in this collection. As far as I can say today, one notices in the semantics some differences between the Pseudo-Paulines (2 Thess, Col, Laod) and the other seven letters. However, all of the 10 letters reflect such a proximity to the semantics of Marcion's Gospel, as reconstructed by Klinghardt that it looks as if we have only a few options on the one result from my initial study of Galatians and 1 Cor 1-9: the person who has written or thoroughly revised the Gospel is the same who has written or thoroughly revised the letters.

1. This person is Paul
2. This person is a student of Paul, Luke
3. This person is a later anonymous redactor
4. This person is Marcion

But more we will know when I have finished the exercise of comparing in detail the reconstructed form of Marcion's collection with that of the canonical revision.

What was the title of Marcion's collection of Paul's letters: Apostolos or Apostolikon? Wie lautete der Titel von Markions Paulusbriefsammlung, Apostolos oder Apostolikon?

The title of Marcion's collection of Paul's letters is mostly given as "Apostolikon" (so, for example, in Jason BeDuhn, The First New Testament, Polebridge 2013), but, as in one of the major studies of this work, in Ulrich Schmid ("Marion und sein Apostolos. Rekonstruktion und historische Einordnung der marcionitischen Paulusbriefausgabe, de Gruyter 2012), it is named as "Apostolos".

Tertullian is silent about the title of this collection, but the title appears several times in Epiphanius, where it mainly given as Apostolikon, and only in passing also referred to as Apostolos. When we find the title for the first time in Epiphanius, he speaks of Marcion's Apostolikon – yet, as with the list of the letters which Marcion brought together and altered by "his cracked brain", Epiphanius mentions Ephesians, not the title under which Marcion knew and listete this letter, Laodicenes. Hence, it is clear that Epiphanius deploys polemics in characterizing the work of Marcion. And this comes to the fore also with regards the title of the work. While for Marcion Paul was the only true Apostle, Tertullian opened his commentary of Marcion's collection of Pauline letters by showing that Paul could at best be apostolic, not an Apostle, because his name cannot be found in one of the lists of Apostles in any of the Gospels, Tert., Adv. Marc. V 1. It is for the this reason, we can assume that Epiphanius also introduces the title of Marcion's collection not as "Apostolos", but rather calls it "Apostolikon" in anti-heretical polemic, Epiph., Pan. 42,10,2. A little later, he speaks of the „Apostolos“ , ibid. 42,10,3, but only in combination with "the words of the savious and those of the Apostle". Immediately after this, he speaks again of the "Apostolikon" and his own use of language shines through, ibid. 42,10,4. Most clearly, he gives the correct title "Apostolos", when in Epiph., Pan. 42,10,5-7 we read: „... other [verses] were exactly like both the Gospel and Apostle, unchanged by Marcion but capable of completely contradicting him ... to manifest the One who is plainly confessed by the apostolic writing and the proclamation of the Gospel“. The change from "Apostle" to "Apostolic" highlights again the falling into Epiphanius' own polemical style, so also in ibid. 42,11,7 (vgl. auch 42,11,9), where he accuses Marcion of, „having the letters of Paul, the Apostle“, yet not all, but just a few in his „Apostolikon“. 
One further important witness is Jerome who in his Commentary on Galatians (well informed by a whole range of earlier commentators, including various works by Origen), quotes from "Marcion's Apostolos", so Hieron., Commentaria in Epistolam ad Galatas (PL 26, 313A).
I therefore think, Ulrich Schmid has chosen the correct title of this work by calling it „Apostolos“.[1]

Der Titel von Markions Paulusbriefsammlung wird meistens mit "Apostolikon" angegeben (so etwa von Jasen BeDuhn, The First New Testament, Polebridge 2013), doch in einer der zentralen Studien dieses Werkes, in Ulrich Schmid ("Marion und sein Apostolos. Rekonstruktion und historische Einordnung der marcionitischen Paulusbriefausgabe, de Gruyter 2012), heißt das Werk "Apostolos".

Tertullian schweigt sich über den Titel dieses Werkes aus, doch bei Epiphanius begegnet er gleich mehrmals, und zwar häufiger als Apostolikon, und nur angedeutet als Apostolos. Bei der Ersteinführung spricht Epiphanius vom Apostolikon – doch scheint hier wie auch in der ersten unten gespiegelten Liste, die Markions Laodizenerbrief als Epheserbrief einführt, Polemik im Spiel zu sein. Denn während Paulus für Markion der einzige wahre Apostel ist, hatte Tertullian in seiner Polemik in Tert., Adv. Marc. V 1 darauf verwiesen, dass Paulus bestenfalls „apostolisch“ genannt werden könne, weil er in keiner einzigen der Apostellisten der Evangelien vorkomme, also auch nicht eigentlich Apostel sei. Darum führt Epiphanius wohl den Titel als „Apostolikon“ = „das Apostolische“ an, nicht als „der Apostel“, Epiph., Pan. 42,10,2, während er erst etwas später dann einmal vom „Apostolos“ = „dem Apostel“ spricht, ibid. 42,10,3, jedoch nur in Kombination mit: „von den Worten des Retters und des Apostels“. Auch unmittelbar danach spricht er gleich wieder von dem „Apostolischen“, womit seine eigene Diktion zum Vorschein kommt, ibid. 42,10,4. Am deutlichsten wird der richtige Titel danach formuliert, da es bei Epiph., Pan. 42,10,5-7 heißt: „... andere [Verse] aber besitzt er dem Bestand nach wie das Evangelium so auch den Apostel, ohne von ihm verändert zu sein, doch geeignet, ihn zu widerlegen ... um denjenigen zu offenbaren, der offen bekannt wird von der apostolischen Schrift und der evangelischen Verkündigung“. Der Wechsel vom „Apostel“ zum „Apostolischen“ lässt erneut Epiphanius’ eigene polemische Diktion durchklingen, so auch ibid. 42,11,7 (vgl. auch 42,11,9), wo er Markion vorwirft, „die Briefe des Paulus, des Apostels“, jedoch nicht alle, sondern nur einige im „Apostolikon“ zusammengebracht zu haben.
Ein weiterer wichtiger Zeuge ist Hieronymus, der in seinem Galaterbriefkommentar (wohl belesen, indem er Kommentare und Schriften früherer Gelehrter zu Rate zog, etwa verschiedene Schriften des Origenes), und aus "Markions Apostolos" zitiert, so in Hieron., Commentaria in Epistolam ad Galatas (PL 26, 313A).
Ulrich Schmid schreibt deshalb zurecht von Markions „Apostolos“.[1]

---

[1] U. Schmid, Marcion und sein Apostolos. Rekonstruktion und historische Einordnung der marcionitischen Paulusbriefausgabe (2012).