Is Marcions Gospel First? - Dr. Markus Vinzent Vs. Dr. Dennis MacDonald

[MrMacSon]

Vinzent—

... Only recently, in a centenary volume of 2005, Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett picked up the often used, but rarely diligently read slender work of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology of 1905, entitled The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers. Gregory and Tuckett brought together a group of specialists and reviewed the earlier findings of their Oxford colleagues. William L. Petersen gives a short summary of what had been achieved at Oxford over a hundred years ago ...

The charge given to the committee was ‘to prepare a volume exhibiting those passages of early Christian writers which indicate, or have been thought to indicate, acquaintance with any of the books of the NT.’ The committee limited itself to the so-called Apostolic Fathers (AFs), examining eight authors (and/or texts) [Barn., Did., 1Clem., Ign., PolPhil., Herm., 2Clem.]. …The 1905 researchers ranked the likelihood that a specific Father demonstrated knowledge of a given book in the NT by assigning each possible intersection a letter grade from ‘A’ to ‘D’ ...

Petersen concludes his summary by pointing out that ‘their empirical, textual observations were devastating for the idea of a ‘standard’ or ‘established’ text of the New Testament in the first half of the 2nd century. And he specifies the results from his own reading of them ...

Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels (Peeters, 2014), pp. 224-26.

Irish1975, you've hyper-linked to the 1905 publication by the by Oxford Society of Historical Theology, The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, which Peterson is commenting on.


Did you mean to link to or emphasis, Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett, eds. The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, Volume 2: Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers. Oxford: OUP; 2005 (hardback), 2007 (paper back)

From a review by Dan Batovici, University of St Andrews:

Most of the articles included in these volumes were presented at “a conference held at Lincoln College, Oxford, in April 2004” (v).

The first volume, concerned mainly with textual issues, was divided in two main parts, of which the first one groups together three contributions presenting textual issues in both corpora – Apostolic Fathers (AF) and New Testament (NT) – while the second part of the book was dedicated mostly to evaluating the presence of NT text in a particular AF text: seven papers focus on a specific text from the AF corpus and its relation with the NT writings, preceded by an extended methodological inquiry from the part of the two editors.

https://rbecs.org/2010/10/07/trajectori ... c-fathers/

---

To clarify

1. Andrew Gregory, Christopher Tuckett, eds., The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers Volume 1: The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers
   

   
   Description
   
   The two-volume work The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers offers a comparative study of two collections of early Christian texts: the New Testament; and the texts, from immediately after the New Testament period, which are conventionally referred to as the Apostolic Fathers.
   
   The first volume, The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, presents a comprehensive and rigorous discussion of the extent to which the writings later included in the New Testament were known to and used by each of the Apostolic Fathers. Contemporary research on the textual traditions of both collections is used to address the questions of textual transmission and reception.
   
   

   The start of the Preface of the 1st volume:
   
   
   
   The essays and studies included in these two volumes are intended to update, to develop, and to widen the scope of the issues considered by members of ‘A Committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology’ in their landmark and still valuable reference book, The New Testament in the Apostolic Father. That volume was published by the Clarendon Press in 1905, and it is to acknowledge the importance of that famous book that these companion volumes are published in its centenary year. The 1905 volume was very much a product of Oxford, albeit by a number of scholars who may have been on the fringes of university life (as John Muddiman explains, in Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, p. 107); Kirsopp Lake is listed among the contributors as Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the University of Leiden, but he was curate of the University Church of StMary the Virgin in Oxford until his appointment to that chair in 1904.
   
   Oxford connections remain important in these centenary volumes. Both editors are members of the Oxford Theology Faculty, and these papers represent the first-fruits of an ongoing research project on the New Testament and the second century that is supported by the Theology Faculty ...
   
   https://www.scribd.com/document/4670437 ... s-2006-pdf
   
   
   
   https://www.google.com.au/books/edition ... UDegQIExAH
   
   https://www.amazon.com./Reception-New-T ... 348&sr=8-1
   
   .
2. Andrew Gregory, Christopher Tuckett, eds., The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, Volume 2: Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers. Oxford: OUP
   
   https://www.google.com.au/books/edition ... MAAJ?hl=en
   
   https://www.amazon.com./Trajectories-th ... 199230056/

[MrMacSon]

Petersen concludes his summary by pointing out that ‘their empirical, textual observations were devastating for the idea of a ‘standard’ or ‘established’ text of the New Testament in the first half of the 2nd century. And he specifies the results from his own reading of them:

First, it is clear that the vast majority of passages in the AFs for which one can find likely parallels in the NT have deviations from our present, critically reconstructed NT text. It must be emphasized that the vast majority of these deviations are not minor (e.g. differences in spelling or verb tense), but major (a completely new context, a substantial interpolation or omission, a conflation of two entirely separate ideas and/or passages.)

Second, harmonization is a surprisingly common phenomenon. Sometimes the harmonizations are (almost) entirely composed of material found in our modern editions of the NT; more often, however, they contain material which we today classify as extra-canonical.

Third, the AFs often reproduce, without remark, material that we, today, call extra-canonical. Sometimes this extra-canonical material is introduced with the quotation formula — such as, ‘the Lord says,’ or ‘the Gospel says.’ The obvious inference is that the Father considered this extra-canonical source as authoritative as any other ...

Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels (Peeters, 2014), pp. 224-26.)

Does the "without remark" imply that the extra-canonical material was not specified? Or if not, was the extra-canonical material identified, and is it listed somewhere?

Well, that's a quote of William L. Petersen, in turn, quoted by Markus Vinzent, so you may need to read William L. Petersen yourself to get an answer

The excerpt Irish1975 provided includes

Vinzent—

Petersen concludes his summary by pointing out that ‘their empirical, textual observations were devastating for the idea of a ‘standard’ or ‘established’ text of the New Testament in the first half of the 2nd century. And he specifies the results from his own reading of them:

Third, the AFs often reproduce, without remark, material that we, today, call extra-canonical. Sometimes this extra-canonical material is introduced with the quotation formula — such as, ‘the Lord says,’ or ‘the Gospel says.’ The obvious inference is that the Father considered this extra-canonical source as authoritative as any other. … Some might wonder if the disagreements would disappear if the basis for comparison were changed from our modern critically reconstructed text to the texts of the ‘great uncials’ of the mid-4th century (Cs. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus). They do not. Even if the basis for comparison is changed to the text of our oldest continuous-text manuscripts of the NT documents (P64, P67, P66), the differences remain. One simply must admit that the passages found in the AFs are different from the texts found in our oldest NT papyri ...

Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels (Peeters, 2014), pp. 224-26.

I also think Petersen's first two points are also noteworthy:

First, it is clear that the vast majority of passages in the AFs for which one can find likely parallels in the NT have deviations from our present, critically reconstructed NT text. It must be emphasized that the vast majority of these deviations are not minor (e.g. differences in spelling or verb tense), but major (a completely new context, a substantial interpolation or omission, a conflation of two entirely separate ideas and/or passages.)

Second, 'harmonization' is a surprisingly common phenomenon. Sometimes the harmonizations are (almost) entirely composed of material found in our modern editions of the NT; more often, however, they contain material which we today classify as extra-canonical.

I think 'harmonisation' is likely to be a misrepresentation of what was happening : it's likely the AFs were using pre-canonical texts, and some may well have been contemporaneous with - or even involved in - development of canonical texts

[rgprice]

I am quite underwhelmed by MacDonald to be honest, who apparently gets tired of listening rather soon, given his "that analogy doesn't work for me" that is succeeded by nothing.
When you believe in Papias who so very anachronistically mentions only Mark and Matthew and no John or Luke, and when you have been wielding the Homeric hammer for so long, it is unavoidable that you reject anything but Markan Priority

I like his work, of which I have read a few books - but he doesn't hold a candle to Vinzent when it comes to arguing his case or reacting to what others bring up

I've never been impressed by MacDonald. I think most/all of his claims about Homeric influences are entirely off the mark and for the most part he doesn't really contribute much to any discussion other than beating that one out-of-tune drum over and over again.

I agree there may have been pre-synoptic narratives, but they didn't look like any of the current Gospels we know, and they may not have been about "Jesus". For example, the Vision of Isaiah. I agree that there never was a Q, and that "Q" is essentially Marcion's Gospel.

I still don't think that "Marcion's Gospel" was the first, under the assumption that Marcion's Gospel looked like Luke 3-24.

Every Gospel for which we have texts to compare shares traits with Mark exclusive of other Gospels. Mark is written in a way that makes sense as an original narrative that is a pesher on the First/Second Jewish-Roman War. I don't see how Mark can be derived from Luke 3-24, but I do see how Luke 3-24 can be derived from Mark. Mark contains essentially no teachings. I find it unfathomable that someone would take a narrative with the Lukan teachings in them and remove all of those to create Mark. Adding teachings to a narrative makes sense, removing them doesn't.

"Marcion first" would essentially mean that the "Q" material was not added to Mark, rather the Q material is what Mark removed. I think a case for removing that material is very difficult.

The only alternative is that Marcion's Gospel looked more like Mark than Luke, but that runs into many problems when it comes to the Patristic witnesses.

I don't agree that all of the Gospel writers knew each other. I mean, maybe, but that's just conjecture. But more important, if the Gospel writers knew each other, then why is it that other than possibly John, no one else knew who the real Gospel writers were? Also, many are writing in opposition to the other. It seems to me that if the Gospel were all written in a short span around 140 by people who knew each other, then there would have been a greater understanding of who the real authors were. Instead, other than John, it seem no one had any idea who wrote these works. And even which John was misunderstood. So I don't see how it could have been that chummy of a club and that out in the open, and for so much to have been unknown by everyone else.

I also find the idea that Marcion started his Gospel, then others got a copy of it and modified it, then get got their copies and worked their changes back into his, an entirely fantastical idea that is just grasping at straws. I think more likely, there are simply more lost intermediate versions of the stories that make understanding the relationships too complicated because we are missing too many puzzle pieces. And on top of that, the Canonical Gospels were all edited in the presence of one another, so the editor of the NT collection cross-referenced the Gospels against themselves, making modifications to all of them with the knowledge of all of them.

[mlinssen]

I don't agree that all of the Gospel writers knew each other. I mean, maybe, but that's just conjecture. But more important, if the Gospel writers knew each other, then why is it that other than possibly John, no one else knew who the real Gospel writers were?

Also, many are writing in opposition to the other. It seems to me that if the Gospel were all written in a short span around 140 by people who knew each other, then there would have been a greater understanding of who the real authors were. Instead, other than John, it seem no one had any idea who wrote these works. And even which John was misunderstood. So I don't see how it could have been that chummy of a club and that out in the open, and for so much to have been unknown by everyone else.

Neither do I. The writers were such a happy chappy bunch and so very cordially intimate with each other YET any of the Patristics fails to mention any of them, and when they do mention one they fail to mention the remainder?

Do realise that Vinzent is holding on to this last straw precisely because his next step will take him where he doesn't want to go - which he knows, and he is prepared to walk that path

I also find the idea that Marcion started his Gospel, then others got a copy of it and modified it, then get got their copies and worked their changes back into his, an entirely fantastical idea that is just grasping at straws. I think more likely, there are simply more lost intermediate versions of the stories that make understanding the relationships too complicated because we are missing too many puzzle pieces. And on top of that, the Canonical Gospels were all edited in the presence of one another, so the editor of the NT collection cross-referenced the Gospels against themselves, making modifications to all of them with the knowledge of all of them.

Yes, that is always a sign of giving up. "Well lemme just make everyone dependent on everyone else and vice versa so every possible theory that I will ever come up with will always fit"

Thomas, John, Marcion, Mark, LukeMatthew - that's the order.
Mark invented the resurrection, LukeMatthew the birth narrative and the bogus John B speech, etc

Naturally, elements of other stories for thrown in and MacDonald may have a Homeric point or two, just like maryhelena may have a Hasmonean point or two - but those are just peripheral filling, side dishes

The entire failure of the video is in the fact that MacDonald thinks (and acts) that he is the main course and Vinzent the desert, whereas it is precisely the other way around

Round two will bring us either some awkward silences or quite a bit of hubbub

[Giuseppe]

The entire failure of the video is in the fact that MacDonald thinks (and acts) that he is the main course and Vinzent the desert, whereas it is precisely the other way around

True, I also have perceived something of similar but you have pointed out it very well.

For me it has been always obvious that all of the Gospel writers knew each other, at least the Synoptics, since 'synoptics' mean "with the same eye" and I remember a Neil's post on Vridar where he talks about authors of the second century being inclined to write anonymously when they wrote "sacred books".
The same rapidity of writing assumed by Vinzent's hypothesis may explain why Jesus was historicized rapidly, without discussion at all, since the propagandistic need required a new version in short times of the hero.

[Giuseppe]

Note also that Vinzent thinks that the Gospel writers were all Romans, i.e. residents in Rome.

Acts is deliberately silent about what happened in Rome.

[Irish1975]

Petersen concludes his summary by pointing out that ‘their empirical, textual observations were devastating for the idea of a ‘standard’ or ‘established’ text of the New Testament in the first half of the 2nd century. And he specifies the results from his own reading of them:

First, it is clear that the vast majority of passages in the AFs for which one can find likely parallels in the NT have deviations from our present, critically reconstructed NT text. It must be emphasized that the vast majority of these deviations are not minor (e.g. differences in spelling or verb tense), but major (a completely new context, a substantial interpolation or omission, a conflation of two entirely separate ideas and/or passages.)

Second, harmonization is a surprisingly common phenomenon. Sometimes the harmonizations are (almost) entirely composed of material found in our modern editions of the NT; more often, however, they contain material which we today classify as extra-canonical.

Third, the AFs often reproduce, without remark, material that we, today, call extra-canonical. Sometimes this extra-canonical material is introduced with the quotation formula — such as, ‘the Lord says,’ or ‘the Gospel says.’ The obvious inference is that the Father considered this extra-canonical source as authoritative as any other. ….

Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels (Peeters, 2014), pp. 224-26.)

Does the "without remark" imply that the extra-canonical material was not specified? Or if not, was the extra-canonical material identified, and is it listed somewhere?

Thanks.

It is known, for example, that some words attributed to the Lord in 2 Clement are from the Gospel of Thomas, others from the Gospel of the Egyptians.

[Irish1975]

Irish1975, you've hyper-linked to the 1905 publication by the by Oxford Society of Historical Theology, The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, which Peterson is commenting on.

Did you mean to link to or emphasis, Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett, eds. The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, Volume 2: Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers. Oxford: OUP; 2005 (hardback), 2007 (paper back)

Nope! Just playing with russian dolls. I don’t know if the latter volumes are worth acquiring, but people should definitely consult the online 1905 text.

[mlinssen]

Note also that Vinzent thinks that the Gospel writers were all Romans, i.e. residents in Rome.

Acts is deliberately silent about what happened in Rome.

Mark is Roman, LukeMatthew also is.
Marcion isn't, John isn't

And not only none of them knew one another, but there was also no necessity for it.
Look at the verbatim agreement, look at the scribal signs: all these texts SCREAM anonymous and stealthy copying in the dark, without any respect whatsoever for their source

It is completely out of the question that any of them knew anyone else - but it is either a cosy club of gospel writers, or an organised movement to redact texts, and in the latter case it will be all made up, wholly not divinely inspired, and all of Christianity will be exposed as a hoax, a repeated Roman redaction of Egyptian material

So Vinzent here merely is clinging on to one single fingernail

[Irish1975]

The same rapidity of writing assumed by Vinzent's hypothesis may explain why Jesus was historicized rapidly, without discussion at all, since the propagandistic need required a new version in short times of the hero.

Yes. It is a thesis that may only make sense if Rome was a hotbed of religious ferment at the time. There had already been many christological ideas and texts, especially from the prophets and from Jewish apocalypticism. These were absorbed into the Marcionite religion of Christ worship whose core is found in the Pauline Corpus, and thus emerged the figure of the Jewish messiah who had already come in obscurity and humility, and died, and the world failed to acknowledge.

A lot of movies go through many scripts, many hands. It turned out that the 4 scripts together, cutting out Marcion’s, were more useful than just one. The effect can be compared to a 3D movie, where multiple images are overlaid with one another in each frame.