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

[MrMacSon]

Markus Vinzent is a Patristic scholar

[Leucius Charinus]

https://youtu.be/6APhk33Z8uI
TIMESTAMP = 8:31

Markus Vincent says that these people worked with manuscripts.
He then says they had codices in front of them

This is before 150 CE and well before the widespread use of codex technology.

<------- Stats on % Codices by Century

Some Christian academics have claimed that the Christians invented the codex. Is Markus Vincent one of these? IDK. But the claim that this very very tiny group of writers who were informed over what the others were writing -- in CODICES -- is ringing all sorts of alarm bells.

Can anyone who has further material by Markus clarify this issue that the early Christians (presumably prior to 150 CE) were using codices?

[Leucius Charinus]

Markus Vinzent is a Patristic scholar

Yes he stressed that. A patristic scholar is one who knows his Eusebius by heart.

"In 1519 Luther made himself familiar with Eusebius in Rufinus' translation. In 1530 Caspar Hedio published the Chronica der alten christlichen Kirchen
aus Eusebius und der Tripartita. Flacius Illyricus and his team of centuriators knew their Eusebius by heart, of course - and the same can be said of all the ecclesiatical historians who worked after them, be it in the Protestant or the Catholic camp. What both Protestants and Catholics wanted to prove was that they had the authority of the first centuries of the Church on their side."

p.149/150
The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/The%2 ... graphy.htm

[Secret Alias]

Yeah. All in the plot. Of course this conspiracy pays so well. I hear they are paying Patristic scholars BILLIONS to keep quiet.

[Leucius Charinus]

I don't know what modern era patristic specialists are paid. But they are paid to know their Eusebius and the FF by heart.

[Irish1975]

https://youtu.be/6APhk33Z8uI
TIMESTAMP = 8:31

Markus Vincent says that these people worked with manuscripts.
He then says they had codices in front of them

This is before 150 CE and well before the widespread use of codex technology.

<------- Stats on % Codices by Century

Some Christian academics have claimed that the Christians invented the codex. Is Markus Vincent one of these? IDK. But the claim that this very very tiny group of writers who were informed over what the others were writing -- in CODICES -- is ringing all sorts of alarm bells.

Can anyone who has further material by Markus clarify this issue that the early Christians (presumably prior to 150 CE) were using codices?

I think Vinzent is relying on textual scholars like David Trobisch, who writes in his 2000 book: “In contrast to non-Christian literary texts, the NT has been passed on to us almost exclusively in codex form…In a representative count, C.H. Roberts and T.C. Skeat evaluated 172 Greek manuscripts and fragments of the Christian Bible dating from the first four centuries, and they found that 158 originated from codices and only 14 from scrolls.”

and

“The codex form was popular before Christians discovered it for their purposes.” He cites Seneca and Martial (1st century) as being familiar with it.

[mlinssen]

https://youtu.be/6APhk33Z8uI
TIMESTAMP = 8:31

Markus Vincent says that these people worked with manuscripts.
He then says they had codices in front of them

This is before 150 CE and well before the widespread use of codex technology.

<------- Stats on % Codices by Century

Some Christian academics have claimed that the Christians invented the codex. Is Markus Vincent one of these? IDK. But the claim that this very very tiny group of writers who were informed over what the others were writing -- in CODICES -- is ringing all sorts of alarm bells.

Can anyone who has further material by Markus clarify this issue that the early Christians (presumably prior to 150 CE) were using codices?

I think Vinzent is relying on textual scholars like David Trobisch, who writes in his 2000 book: “In contrast to non-Christian literary texts, the NT has been passed on to us almost exclusively in codex form…In a representative count, C.H. Roberts and T.C. Skeat evaluated 172 Greek manuscripts and fragments of the Christian Bible dating from the first four centuries, and they found that 158 originated from codices and only 14 from scrolls.”

and

“The codex form was popular before Christians discovered it for their purposes.” He cites Seneca and Martial (1st century) as being familiar with it.

Of course

I couldn't particularly vividly imagine the picrutre that Vinzent was sketching, with a writer not behind a desk but with books on his lap, yet it is humanly impossible to use a scroll and then go by selecting bits and pieces left and right in order to turn 2-3 sources into a single output. The very least to do then would be to cut up the scroll in parts which would be an extreme waste of money for the average man, but certainly not for the elite

"First described in the 1st century of the Common Era, when the Roman poet Martial praised its convenient use"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex

So certainly not a Christian invention, but a Roman one

[Leucius Charinus]

https://youtu.be/6APhk33Z8uI
TIMESTAMP = 8:31

Markus Vincent says that these people worked with manuscripts.
He then says they had codices in front of them

This is before 150 CE and well before the widespread use of codex technology.

<------- Stats on % Codices by Century

Some Christian academics have claimed that the Christians invented the codex. Is Markus Vincent one of these? IDK. But the claim that this very very tiny group of writers who were informed over what the others were writing -- in CODICES -- is ringing all sorts of alarm bells.

Can anyone who has further material by Markus clarify this issue that the early Christians (presumably prior to 150 CE) were using codices?

I think Vinzent is relying on textual scholars like David Trobisch, who writes in his 2000 book: “In contrast to non-Christian literary texts, the NT has been passed on to us almost exclusively in codex form.

Yes it seems that is the basis of Vinzent's claim. While Trobisch's claim is correct, the dating of the so-called "early" Christian codex manuscript is completely at odds with the timeline of 1st century (for the purpose of the standard gospel authorship) and also with a timeline prior to 150 CE (for the purposes of active Christian involving Marcion).

In a representative count, C.H. Roberts and T.C. Skeat evaluated 172 Greek manuscripts and fragments of the Christian Bible dating from the first four centuries, and they found that 158 originated from codices and only 14 from scrolls.”

One of the studies of Roberts and Skeat is available here:

THE BIRTH OF THE CODEX

COLIN H. ROBERTS
and
T.C. SKEAT

LONDON. Published for THE BRITISH ACADEMY
by THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

(C) 1987 reissue [1983] The British Academy


CONTENTS


PREFACE vii
LIST OF PLATES [plus some added images] ix
+ Greek and Latin Vocabulary relating to "books"
1 INTRODUCTION 1
·2 PAPYRUS AND PARCHMENT 5
3 THE WRITING TABLET 11
4 FROM WRITING TABLET TO PARCHMENT NOTE-BOOK 15
+ Ancient School Practices
5 MARTIAL AND THE FIRST APPEARANCE OF THE CODEX 24
AS A LITERARY FORM
6 THE EVIDENCE OF LEGAL WRITERS 30
+ Other "Paraliterary Formats and Practices
7 ROLL AND CODEX: EVIDENCE OF GREEK 35
LITERARY TEXTS OF THE FIRST FIVE CENTURIES

+ Ancient Bookselling and Booksellers
+ Roll and Codex in early visual representations

8 THE CODEX IN EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 38
[[fairly simplistic and historically uncritical]]
9 WHY DID CHRISTIANS ADOPT THE CODEX? 45

INADEQUACY OF PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
[[fairly simplistic and historically uncritical]]
10 THE CHRISTIAN ADOPTION OF THE CODEX: TWO HYPOTHESES 54
[[expand with additional hypotheses]]
11 THE CHRISTIAN CODEX AND THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE 62
[[much to update, show complexities]]
12 THE CODEX IN NON-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 67
[[update, combine with chapter 8]]

13 EPILOGUE 75
A LIST OF THE TEXTS REFERRED TO 77
PLATES
+ Bibliography
+ Reviews
+ Extra Notes

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/courses/7 ... -rev1.html

I have an analysis of some of the data from this report here:
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_071.htm


In regard to the claims that the Christian's invented the codex:

Eric G. Turner opens his book "The Typology of the Early Codex" with the statement that "The greatest benefactors of mankind are unsung and unknown - the inventor of the wheel, the deviser of the alphabet. Among their number we should place the inventor of the codex." The opening paragraph then continues to elaborate on the advantages of the codex and the disadvantages of the roll. There is nothing here to contradict. Three cheers for the "unsung and unknown"!!!

However, in the second paragraph, the author states ...

• "Let me be quite clear. I do not mean to reopen the question of the origin of the codex. C.H. Roberts in his British Academy paper on "The Codex" of 1954 has set out a series of attractive hypotheses which are likely to hold the field until new evidence is forthcoming.. Pointing to the fact that almost all Christian texts found in Egypt (beginning in the second century of the Christian era) are in codex, not roll form, at a time when parallel finds from the same source show that the codex form was scarcely used at all for Greek and Latin literature, he has suggested that the codex was a deliberate innovation of Christian evangelists, who evolved it from the parchment notebook."

and

“The codex form was popular before Christians discovered it for their purposes.” He cites Seneca and Martial (1st century) as being familiar with it.

So it does not look like Vinzent subscribes to Robert's conjecture that the evangelists invented the codex. (Which is surely confirmation bias).

However Vinzent (and others) are bending the evidence to make the claim that Christians were using the codex in the 1st or 2nd century. The basis of this claim are Christian related papyrus fragments being dated "early" by means of paleography in isolation.

Brent Nongbri writes that none of these co-called "early Christian papyri" MUST be as old as the 2nd century. He seems happy for a 3rd century date for the lot and spends a great deal of time writing articles suggesting the upper bounds of dating Christian manuscripts by means of paleography in isolation should include the 4th century.

The stats (from the above cited articles) for the percentage ratio between codices and rolls by century and with respect to Greek literary and scientific writings (excluding Christian literature are as follows:

Century --- No. Codices --- No. Rolls --- % Codices

1st ------ 2 ----- 840 ----- 0.2 %
2nd ----- 55----- 2501----- 2.2 %
3rd ----- 223 ----- 1660 ----- 11.8 %
4th ----- 329 ----- 301 ----- 52.2 %
5th ----- 325 ----- 185 ----- 63.7 %

Reminder Note: These stats are for Greek literary and scientific writings.


Were Christians using the codex in the 2nd century?

According to Nongbri (as I read him) we have no compelling evidence that Christians were using the codex in the first century. Or at the purported time (c.150 CE) when Marcion was supposedly building his boats and dicing up the canonical literature. Or indeed at any stage in the 2nd century. Even the 3rd century looks pretty bleak.

So I do not find this claim (from Vinzent and Trobisch and other mainstream scholars) to be likely. It may be that the Christians were dealing in codices in the 2nd century but as far as I can determine we have no compelling and corroborating evidence.

[Markus Vinzent]

On the question of the use of codices - I thought in the past like many here that there was too little and too late evidence of Christians using codices. However, while writing the introduction to the reconstruction of the precanonical version of Paul's letters, it became more likely that the bilingual codices that exist make it likely that not only Irenaeus used a bilingual codex, but also that the first New Testament was produced as a bilingual codex. The problem that we have is that most of our evidence is very limited. Compare the 5% of manuscripts (out of around 800) that give us the Pauline letters, only these are bilinguals, but they are the closest manuscripts to the precanonical collection.
I am not finished with the introduction, but the comparative "Concordance" of the precanonical and the canonical NT will be published on 19 June, so all can get a pretty good insight into parallels and differences of the use of the Lemmata in both versions.
Thanks for engaging so vividly in the discussion I had with Dennis - and let us see how far we can get in the near future. Scholarship is not about truth, it is about aiming at being honest.

[Peter Kirby]

On the question of the use of codices - I thought in the past like many here that there was too little and too late evidence of Christians using codices. However, while writing the introduction to the reconstruction of the precanonical version of Paul's letters, it became more likely that the bilingual codices that exist make it likely that not only Irenaeus used a bilingual codex, but also that the first New Testament was produced as a bilingual codex. The problem that we have is that most of our evidence is very limited. Compare the 5% of manuscripts (out of around 800) that give us the Pauline letters, only these are bilinguals, but they are the closest manuscripts to the precanonical collection.
I am not finished with the introduction, but the comparative "Concordance" of the precanonical and the canonical NT will be published on 19 June, so all can get a pretty good insight into parallels and differences of the use of the Lemmata in both versions.
Thanks for engaging so vividly in the discussion I had with Dennis - and let us see how far we can get in the near future. Scholarship is not about truth, it is about aiming at being honest.

It's good to see you here!

I had no idea that the bilingual codex was frequently used as a format or that their readings resemble the first Gospel/Apostle (NT).