Invitation to my Inaugural Lecture at King's College London

Inaugural Lecture: Markus Vinzent: Marcion's Gospel and the beginnings of Christianity

Location

Safra Lecture Theatre

Category

Lecture

When

17/10/2012 (18:00-19:30)

Contact

Parts of the Arts & Humanities Festival 2012: Metamorphoses: Transformations and Conversions:
Presented by the Department of Theology and Religious Studies

To book, go to our booking page

Description

That Christianity began as a movement in the mid first century, triggered by an individual that suffered capital punishment from the hand of the Romans, is common knowledge. That the Jesus-Movement grew and transformed, if not converted the Roman Empire is undisputed. Many questions, however, how this process took place and what transformation or conversion entails are still unresolved, others have not even been asked. The lecture raises one of those and challenges the standard assumption that during the first two centuries Christianity soon departed from Judaism and developed alongside community based narratives of Jesus' life by which it distinguished itself from both Judaism and Paganism. Instead it introduces the hitherto disregarded Gospel of Marcion as the first of its genre, written after the year 136 AD, which not only transformed a Jewish branch into a stand-alone religion that changed the world, but also provided a single-authored narrative that became the world's most copied and sold book ever.

James Carleton Paget, 'Marcion and the Resurrection: Some Thoughts on a Recent Book'

James Carleton Paget, 'Marcion and the Resurrection: Some Thoughts on a Recent Book', Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35 (2012), 74-102.

When one writes a book like "Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Making of the New Testament" - quite different from the two others which I have published since then ("The Art of Detachment", 2011, and "Meister Eckhart's On the Lord's Prayer", 2012) which touches so many's personal convictions, the basis of a belief system and existential engagements - one can only hope for a scholarly detached readership that proves reason and judgement - though in conflict with conviction and engagements - being above partiality. It is a great sign of encouragement to me when I read James Carleton Paget's review, a 27 pages detailed and thorough study of my work that scholarship prevails. Even more, as I will reflect on what he argues not here or at least not now - as I have to digest his own arguments and efforts at least twice as long as he shows to have deeply pondered upon mine, only to give back to him my thanks for such a gift - it moves me to read in his conclusion that despite him trying 'to show that there are grounds for thinking that his [mine] revisionist views are based upon highly contentious conclusions, whose disputed character is dealt with in a sometimes misleadingly sweeping manner, and are dependent upon questionable methodological assumptions and procedures', he modestly adds that 'it is, however, difficult to see how one could disprove what he [me] has argued, that is, show it to be wrong beyond reasonable doubt' (99).
If anything at all this book achieves to present a thesis which cannot easily be disproved by a scholar of a rank and standing of this reviewer whom I have admired for years since we have met in Cambridge and continue to admire now even more, it was worth putting my pen to paper and my fingers to my laptop. If he as a New Testament scholar believes that it is difficult to see how 'beyond reasonable doubt' my interpretation cannot be disproved, it gives hope to me as Patristic scholar that my further work in this area is not futile. But, again, I'd like to take time to reflect on what he suggested and only want to add one note here, because - if I have not overlooked something, but I will check again - it is the only one 'misreading' which he indicates and which has been picked up by another scholar in the field, Frederik Mulders, in his impressively well documented and carefully edited blog (http://resurrectionhope.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/markus-vinzents-questionable.html). In response, I posted two answers, the more important one follows here:

Frederik agrees with James on the reading of Tertullian, that he (Tertullian) never asserts that Marcion claimed the thesis I am arguing. And he that 'the Latin clearly states that Marcion accused the "upholders of Judaism" of having falsified Luke, not of having falsified his own Gospel' (Frederik Mulders quoting James Carleton Paget, 94 note 47). Even if this were the right interpretation which I doubt on the basis of the Latin text below - how could Marcion have said this, by having asserted first that his Gospel is the true, Tertullian's (Matth., Luke) the falsified? (Ego meum dico verum, Marcion suum. Ego Marcionis affirmo adulteratum, Marcion meum). After Marcion had claimed that Tertullian's is the falsified, Tertullian adds (I give Evans translation so that nobody can claim that I am doing up my own translation), that (to him, Tertullian, it would be absurd) that 'Marcion's be believed to have suffered hostility from ours before it was even published' (Marcionis ante credatur aemulationem a nostro expertum quam et editum). Leaving aside here what 'et editum' means (I have dealt with it this week in my paper to the British Patristics Conference in Exeter), I cannot see, how Evans' could be proven wrong in his translation. Marcion believed that his (Marcionis!) Gospel 'suffered hostility' from 'ours' (= Matth., Luke). On the basis of this claim by Marcion, that his own Gospel suffered hostility, Tertullian continues with an 'if'-sentence (again Evans' translation): 'If that gospel which among us is ascribed to Luke—we shall see <later> whether it is <accepted by> Marcion—if that is the same that Marcion by his Antitheses accuses of having been falsified by the upholders of Judaism ...' (Si enim id evangelium quod Lucae refertur penes nos (viderimus an et penes Marcionem) ipsum est quod Marcion per Antitheses suas arguit ut interpolatum a protectoribus Iudaismi...). Again, Tertullian is of course aware that Marcion would NOT accept that this Gospel which he just had called his own (without ascription to an author! A sign for Martin Hengel that yet no competing aemulatio or text existed) should carry the ascription to Luke. The muddle of interpretation derives from two problems: a) Interpreters in the past (including James and Frederik now), ignored the above quoted sentence that Marcion spoke about his own Gospel (Marcionis - correctly translated by Evans); and b) that subsequent when Tertullian claims this to be his own (penes nos), it is again overlooked that he admits that it is his claim, not necessarily shared (he refers to the later discussion) by Marcion.
In consequence - my interpretation is not only literally and grammatically correct, it is the only one that renders the text as given (and correctly translated by Evans).

Applying for a PhD in Early Christianity/Patristics/Medieval Theology/Economics of Religion in the UK

 

Around this time of year people who are aiming for PhD work in the next academic year start thinking about places to explore, and start making preliminary inquiries. Thanks to colleagues like Larry Hurtado who have blogged on their sites, and in following (and partly plagiarising - not a good example for PhD work!) them, I'd like to give a few hints and tips how best to go about it. Of course, I am always looking for great Postgraduate students and the future of academic in the few fields where I am working in myself: Early Christianity, Patristics, Medieval Theology and Economics of Religion.
King's College London, and the Department of Theology and Religious Studies (for which I act as Postgraduate Admissions Tutor) strongly encourages high profiled applications, and I welcome opportunities to advise potential applicants. To avoid writing a lot of the same sort of advice and information repeatedly, simply read the following lines. Because the UK PhD structure is different from the North American model (and different also from models in other European countries), it is important for applicants to understand things and to prepare themselves adequately. 

What, then, are the specifics of a UK PhD?

The UK PhD has a different structure from both the North American and the European (or at least the German) PhD. In the latter, students typically can be admitted on the basis of a very good first degree in their Undergraduate Studies, or in Theology/Religion often a very good MDiv. In Germany, students have to have a clear project. In the US, those admitted to PhD study first take a year or more of courses and extensive reading, which is designed to prepare them for the “comps” (written field exams), whereas in Germany people register for a PhD and then, have to find their ways more or less on their own - guided by their supervisor, of course, through a mixture of supervisions and graduate seminars. As in the US, students are expected not solely to attend to their narrow topic, but to read broadly so to cover the subject area in its entirety, as this will be checked in the viva (in Germany), or in the first year comps in the US.
Before students can sit the comps or are even admitted to doctoral studies in Germany, they’ll have to show that they can read/translate the relevant languages, which often involves timed, written translation tests in each.
The UK PhD has a different start - I find that most students first have to be guided by me towards a narrower topic within the broader research area. In addition, this search will only define which ancient or modern language the students have to learn (as most do not come with the appropriate language knowledge). From experience, it takes the first good 3 months minimum to get to know what precise subject area and question a student is going to tackle. Which leaves us with another 9 month to come up with a first chapter which is going to be assessed in an upgrade procedure from MPhil to PhD - the entrance to finishing the project within, normally, a total of 36 months (with another 12 months almost fee and supervision free for writing up). Having said this - a number of my students have been able to submit early and saved the fees for the third year.

In considering admission to PhD work in my fields at King's, it is necessary that students should not be further along in preparation than in the American-type or German programme, but that they are open minded, and very hard working. Quite often, as a rule, King's requires students to do a taught Masters degree first, because of the pressure that students otherwise submit themselves to.
So, in addition to excellent marks in relevant prior studies, and strong references, King's requires applicants to show aptitude and experience in doing research in the field, as shown in a masters dissertation or some major research essay. We also emphasize that it is extremely helpful if students have worked up languages (Latin, Greek, French, German) to adequate levels before they commence PhD work, and we require demonstration of reading abilities by the end of their first year of PhD study.

The additional matter I’ll mention here has to do with what is expected of a PhD thesis and the demands of identifying a research-focus that will lead to a successful thesis. The essential criterion is that the thesis must be judged by examiners to comprise a genuine contribution to knowledge/understanding of the subject, something “publishable” (i.e., worth the attention of other scholars working on the subject). That is, whereas a decent masters thesis need only demonstrate competent engagement with a subject and scholarship on it, the PhD thesis should constitute some new/further advance in thinking about the subject.
In any field such as my own, in which the evidence-base is almost infinite, it can be a problem to identify a good research question which can be answered in the given space of time.  All good research should be critical and creative, finding not only new answers, but rather new questions to drive further research. Most often, however, an applicant comes with a research area, not with a particularly new question, one of the reasons, why the first exercise (also to see whether you are prepared to adapt and learn) consists in delineating a way towards an innovative angle.
I do require applicants to do advance reading before applying, and to propose a potential research-focus as part of the application. But I don’t necessarily expect that all the delineation of the question will be done then. We like applicants to indicate what they’ve read on their proposed research-focus, and what ideas or questions occur to them, why they find the proposed research interesting and worth pursuing. This need not require more than a few pages at most.
One suggestion is that prospective PhD students look for data that haven’t so frequently been studied, or haven’t been studied recently, or haven’t been researched in the same depth as some other data. That may well mean exploring beyond the limits of one’s previous courses of study, and perhaps beyond the “biggie” texts such as the big names in the subject areas. In addition, it is helpful, if students have checked out my list of publications (to be found here on the blog), in order to see, how I work and which kinds of questions have driven my past research. My most recent monographs are Christ's Resurrection in Early Chrsitianity and the Making of the New Testament (2011), The Art of Detachment (2011) and recently Eckhart's On the Lord's Prayer (2012). The project in the making are a monograph (together with Allen Brent) on Early Christian Iconography, another on Marcion and the Dating of the Gospels, a multi-volume commentary on Marcion's Gospel and a translation with commentary of Eckhart's Parisian Questions.
Let me also add a personal note. My list of Postgraduate Students here at King's is rather long - and, once I take on a PhD student, I feel responsible not only for her or him getting the degree and the title, but also for caring for the future career. Such responsibilities cannot be multiplied without limits, hence my plea that, if I cannot take somebody on, but direct the applicant to one of my fine colleagues, it is not that I am not willing to engage with the person or the work, but that either the applicant's interest lies closer in the research field of one of my colleagues in or outside the Department, or that I have to balance new commitments with what I have taken on already.
So how to start an application: simply do your preparatory work and send me an email with your proposal. The better the field (not the precise question) is prepared, the easier we will come together.

 

Fellow at the Max Weber Kolleg, Erfurt, Germany

Time flies - just returned from an intellectually challenging stay at the Max Weber Kolleg, Erfurt, Germany, where for the past 3 months I was able to engage with colleagues of various backgrounds to work on the BARDA project on Early Christian Iconography and Epigraphy which interlinked more and more with further research on Marcion's impact on early Christianity. On this topic I shared draft ideas with colleagues in open lectures at Erfurt and two weeks ago at Tuebingen University. Here at the picture you see the 'new faces', from left to right:
Prof. Dr. Harry Maier, Prof. Dr. Günter Sternberger, DDr Jutta Vinzent, Prof. Dr. Joseph Bergin, myself, Prof. Dr. Valerian Rodrigues.
I have to thank the people in charge at the Max Weber Kolleg to enable such an inspiring stay - and we hope that it will not have been the last of them.

Markus Vinzent, Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity ...: what does he argue and [why] does it matter?' Judith Lieu and James Carleton Paget from Cambridge

It is nice to see people discussing the book that I published last year, here at the New Testament and Patristics joint seminar in Cambridge on Tuesday (01/05/2012). Prof Judith Lieu and Dr James Carleton Paget lead the seminar with the title: 'Markus Vinzent, Christ’s Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Making of the New Testament (Ashgate, 2011): what does he argue and [why] does it matter?'

As Frederik Mulder kindly posts on his blog (http://resurrectionhope.blogspot.de/2012/05/markus-vinzent-christs-resurrection-in.html), both Prof Lieu and Dr Paget are commissioned to write review articles of the book for important journals. Indeed, these will add to the existing ones:

M. Edwards, Church Times 2.12.2011;

F. Mulder, Theology 115 (2012) 123-124;

L. Wickham, TLS 6.1.2012

Please also note some of my answers that I have published in response to these reviews here on my blog. Also glad to read that other colleagues like Prof Richard Bauckham, Prof Morna Hooker, Dr Peter Head, Dr Simon Gathercole and Dr Thomas Graumann attended the seminar. So I am looking forward to continue the discussion with them and anybody interested in engaging on this topic.