Paul's revelation - who speaks to him, Jesus Christ or God?

In the pre-canonical version (*) it is a vision of God. In *Gal 1:12 and (*)2Cor 4:6, it is God who speaks to *Paul. 

The canonical level differs from this. For in Acts, the voice is explicitly identified with Jesus in all three passages (Acts 9:6 // 26:15: ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting’; 22:8: ‘I am Jesus the Nazorean whom you are persecuting’). Here too, as is so often the case, the canonical editors or later copyists carelessly accept an inaccuracy when in Gal 1:12 the revelation at the end of the verse is attributed to ‘Jesus Christ’, but then the following verb in verse 15 requires ‘God’ as the subject. As a number of old manuscript witnesses also attest, this verb lacks the subject ‘God’ - they must therefore still have read ‘God’ in Gal 1:12, while other manuscripts insert ‘God’ in verse 15, because Gal 1:12 now speaks of ‘Jesus Christ’ instead of the revelation of ‘God’. This change is probably due to the harmonisation of the Pauline Galatians text with the Acts of the Apostles. However, this then led to a further inconsistency, because in Gal 1,12 - as in Acts three times - Paul lets Jesus Christ speak in the revelation, but in 2 Cor 4,6 the pre-canonical text remains, in which God speaks explicitly.

In der vorkanonischen Version (*) handelt es sich um eine Vision Gottes. In *Gal 1,12 und ⁽*⁾2Kor 4,6 ist es Gott, der zu *Paulus spricht. 

Davon unterscheidet sich die kanonische Ebene. Denn in Apg wird die Stimme an allen drei Stellen ausdrücklich mit Jesus identifiziert (Apg 9,6 // 26,15: „Ich bin Jesus, den du verfolgst“; 22,8: „Ich bin Jesus, der Nazoräer, den du verfolgst“). Auch hier, wie so oft, nimmt die kanonische Redaktion oder nehmen spätere Kopisten nachlässig eine Ungenauigkeit in Kauf, wenn in Gal 1,12 die Offenbarung am Ende des Verses „Jesus Christi“ zugeschrieben wird, dann aber das nachfolgende Verb in Vers 15 als Subjekt „Gott“ bedarf. Wie eine Reihe auch alter handschriftlicher Zeugen belegen, fehlt diesem Verb die Subjektsangabe „Gott“ – sie müssen darum wohl in Gal 1,12 noch „Gott“ gelesen haben, während andere Handschriften in Vers 15 „Gott“ einsetzen, weil inzwischen in Gal 1,12 anstelle von der Offenbarung „Gottes“ von derjenigen „Jesu Christi“ redet. Diese Änderung wird wohl aufgrund der Angleichung des paulinischen Galatertextes an die Apostelgeschichte erfolgt sein. Das führte dann allerdings zu einer weiteren Inkonsistenz, weil Paulus dann in Gal 1,12 – wie in der Apostelgeschichte dreimal – Jesus Christus in der Offenbarung sprechen lässt, allerdings in 2Kor 4,6 noch der vorkanonische Text stehengeblieben ist, in welchem ausdrücklich Gott spricht.

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

The new book "Beyond the Timeline: Resetting Historiography" is about to be published

 This book that goes back to a workshop from 2022 dealing with the retrospective approach that was suggested in my Writing the History of Early Christianity (CUP, 2019) and tested again in my Resetting the Origins of Early Christianity (CUP, 2023), brings together scholars from a broad range of historiographical studies, music, natural sciences, medieval history, holocaust studies ... and, like me, they grapple with the idea of writing history not simply along the chronological time-line.

You are in for a reshaping of historiography. The book is edited by Julia Seeberger, Sabine Schmolinsky and myself:

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

Chrysostom's homily on Ignatius, the martyr

In my Writing the History of Early Christianity (CUP 2019, 301-302), I claim that "reference is made to the ‘name’ of Ignatius; he is called ‘holy’, ‘blessed’, ‘divine’, ‘the glorious martyr’, the ‘martyr’, the ‘apostolic man’, the ‘bishop of Antioch’ etc." without mentioning Chrysostom's homily on Ignatius, the martyr (PG 50, 587-596) explicitly, but indirictly - ‘the glorious martyr’, the ‘martyr’, the ‘apostolic man’ refer to this homily, and then add that "the first to call him θεόφορος is Severus of Antioch in the years 518–513 CE".

Recently, the argument was made that before Severus, Chrysostom in the mentioned homily had called Ignatius "Theophorus". This, however, is not as straightforward as a short look into PG 50 seems to suggest.

The title of the homily (see PG 50) is: εἰς τὸν ἱερομάρτυρα Ἰγνάντιον. The further subtitle with 'theophorus' is only preserved in one of the two manuscripts.

That the shorter title of the one Ms is the older and correct one, while the second Ms shows an enlargement of the title in light of the 13 Letter Collection, particularly, as “discovery of the Ignatian relics and the redaction of the long recension belong together” (Gilliam, Ignatius, 190), derives from the homily itself. 

Chrysostom's homily widely deals with Ignatius, the martyr, even talks about the triple designation of Ignatius (martyr, bishop, apostle), then Chrysostom adds four more crowns by which he praises Ignatius - but nowhere does he touch once at the (later) title of Theophoros that is indicated in the subtitle of one manuscript. 

If the subtitle of the homily had been part of the original title of this homily, why would Chrysostom avoid praising Ignatius for a title that features so prominently in the subtitle and could have helped him to claim Ignatius for the Nicenes (against the Neo-Arians), particularly as he seems to make use of the 'middle recension' (so Gilliam, Ignatius, 209-210). The more likely answer seems to be that the subtitle was added to the original, short title that correctly describes the content of the homily, when Ignatius had become known through the 13 letter collection in the long version as the 'theophoros' and that this title of Ignatius had also been entered in the version of the 7 letter collection. 

Hence, the homily in its content and textual transmission is rather proof than counter-proof of what I have stated in my Writing of Early Christian History, and claims for an earlier use of the title is part of the hagiographical repositioning of the second century martyr.