David Trobisch "What if everything was just made up? About literature and the experience of resonance"

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Thing is though, if Paul is a second century literary creation as has been proposed by many. One that was composed over a long period of time and encompasses multiple stages of XCanity then I would expect that the nature of references to a Gospel by said fictional construct to be somewhat fluid and flexible.

That could be possible, but shouldn't prevent you from taking an interest in what Paul is saying. Some of the contents of Trobisch's allegedly written gospel could then be reconstructed and it can be stated that - as far as we know - it has nothing to do with Markion's gospel. For example 1 Thessalonians 3:2 and Philippians 4:3

1 Thessalonians 3:2
... and we sent Timothy, our brother and fellow worker of God in the gospel of Christ, in order to strengthen and to encourage you concerning your faith,

Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, true yokefellow, help these women who labored together with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

It would then be clear that in that written gospel different characters appear, including God with Timothy and Paul with several women and Clement.

[lclapshaw]

Thing is though, if Paul is a second century literary creation as has been proposed by many. One that was composed over a long period of time and encompasses multiple stages of XCanity then I would expect that the nature of references to a Gospel by said fictional construct to be somewhat fluid and flexible.

That could be possible, but shouldn't prevent you from taking an interest in what Paul is saying. Some of the contents of Trobisch's allegedly written gospel could then be reconstructed and it can be stated that - as far as we know - it has nothing to do with Markion's gospel. For example 1 Thessalonians 3:2 and Philippians 4:3

1 Thessalonians 3:2
... and we sent Timothy, our brother and fellow worker of God in the gospel of Christ, in order to strengthen and to encourage you concerning your faith,

Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, true yokefellow, help these women who labored together with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

It would then be clear that in that written gospel different characters appear, including God with Timothy and Paul with several women and Clement.

Oh, even though I personally, currently, view "Paul" as a literary construct, I do have an interest in what "he" is being made to say by the authors writing the material that is attributed to the character.

It seems to me that for the most part, the earliest layer anyway, that when Paul is referring to the "euangelion" it is being used in the classical sense of Official Announcement/Good Message with nothing whatever to do with an actual written account of some kind of God come to Earth. However, it seems to me that that is not a constant and some authors may be making references to an actual Gospel, as in an actual written text. Whatever that Gospel text might be.

[Irish1975]

Since [the Marcionite 'edition'] contains ten Pauline epistles in addition to the Evangelium, Paul is implied as the editor. In Galatians and 1 Corinthians, the literary Paul refers to the one gospel that was handed down to him. Paul is not the author of the Evangelium, he is the editor.

I don’t understand the leap from the “literary” Paul, the narrative personality of the epistles, to the concept of Paul as “editor.”

I wasn't sure about the concept of Paul as "editor" of the Marcionite 'edition'/corpus, but I guess Trobisch is proposing that Paul's reference to a gospel in Galatians and 1 Corinthians was a reference to 'the Marcionite Evangelion' AND that Paul was a 2nd-century Marcionite ...

• (Paul's reference to a gospel in Galatians and 1 Corinthians could represent references to other early 'Christian' texts, such as the Epistle to the Hebrews, Revelation, an early, genuine version of the Didache or the Diatessaron, or the like, but that would require them to be accepted as such )

... which also suggests the disputes mentioned in Paul (and G.Mark)—between Paul and Peter-and-James (and perhaps John)—represent disputes between Marcionites and others over doctrine. Which would also place Paul, James and John (and others) in the 2nd century CE.

Certainly there are indications that John the author of G.John (or perhaps the three Johannine epistles) was a 2nd century author (Papias, etc).

On one reading of Galatians 1, it is Marcion who speaks through the apostle Paul (the “little” emissary). Marcion would have propagated the original written Gospel, having received a “revelation of Jesus Christ.” In line with what Origen reports as the account of Celsus (CC 2.27, I think), three and then four other Gospels quickly sprang up in emulation of Marcion’s Gospel. These emulations make Jesus out to be a son-of-David messiah, who fulfills the Law and the Prophets. Marcion then responds with Galatians 1, his angry denunciation of those who would “pervert” his Gospel and present it as being “kata anthropon” (according to some idiot or other, so-and-so).

6 Θαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι [Χριστοῦ] εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον,
7 ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ μή τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ.
8 ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίζηται [ὑμῖν] παρ’ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.
9 ὡς προειρήκαμεν καὶ ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω· εἴ τις ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελίζεται παρ’ ὃ παρελάβετε, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.
10 Ἄρτι γὰρ ἀνθρώπους πείθω ἢ τὸν θεόν; ἢ ζητῶ ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν; εἰ ἔτι ἀνθρώποις ἤρεσκον, Χριστοῦ δοῦλος οὐκ ἂν ἤμην. 
11 Γνωρίζω γὰρ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον·
12 οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον αὐτὸ οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην, ἀλλὰ δι’ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

The ten thousand commentaries on Galatians (universally steeped in a Christian theological perspective) never satisfyingly explain why a Paul at war with “Judaizing” colleagues (Kephas, James, John, Barnabas) would have made such electrifying allegations at all. In these stale commentaries, the Gospel Paul defends becomes, unimpressively, a message of “freedom from the Law,” and such like. But no such theme is present in Galatians 1, where everything comes down to a far more sinister contrast between a false Gospel “kata anthropon” and a true Gospel revealed to Paul alone (“through an apocalypse of Jesus Christ”).

The phrase

ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο

at the start of verse 7 is not the casual sloppiness of an angry letter dashed off, but a meaningful clarification. The ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον of verse 6 is a perverse “hetero-Gospel,” and yet it is not “other.” Because it had been derived from Marcion’s! Not because, eg, Paul believed that he was the only apostle who knew the Gospel Truth About Freedom from The Law. If these other Judaizing pseudo apostles had been preaching a Gospel that included circumcision, separation from Gentiles, and dietary observances, then their “Gospel” would be simply false. Not a plagiarism of the true Gospel!

[MrMacSon]

It seems to me that for the most part, the earliest layer anyway, that when Paul is referring to the "euangelion" it is being used in the classical sense of Official Announcement/Good Message with nothing whatever to do with an actual written account of some kind of God come to Earth.

• Unless that "Euangelion" was the one Marcion is said to have had. Which starts:
  
  
  
  1. In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,
  2. [Pontius Pilatus being the Governor of Judaea,] Jesus came down to Capernaum, a city in Galilee,
  3. and taught on the sabbath days; and they were astonished at his doctrine:
  
  https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... llord.html
  https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... cion1.html
  
  
  
  

---

---

And, as a timely corollary:

On one reading of Galatians 1, it is Marcion who speaks through the apostle Paul (the “little” emissary). Marcion would have propagated the original written Gospel, having received a “revelation of Jesus Christ.” In line with what Origen reports as the account of Celsus (CC 2.27, I think), three and then four other Gospels quickly sprang up in emulation of Marcion’s Gospel.

• Yep, Contra Celsus 2.27:
  
  
  After this he [Celsus] says that certain of the Christian believers... have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections ..<obfuscation>.. neither is it against genuine Christianity that there are some who corrupt the Gospel histories ..<obfuscation>..
  
  And the preceding chapter, chapter 26, is noteworthy, too:
  
  
  This Jew of Celsus still accuses the disciples of Jesus of having invented these statements, saying to them: "Even although guilty of falsehood, you have not been able to give a color of credibility to your inventions." In answer to which we have to say, that there was an easy method of concealing these occurrences —not recording them at all ... Celsus, indeed, did not see that it was an inconsistency for the same persons both to be deceived regarding Jesus, believing Him to be God, and the subject of prophecy, and to invent fictions about Him ... they were not guilty of inventing untruths, but, such were their real impressions, they recorded them ['honestly']; or else they were guilty of falsifying the histories and did not [really] entertain these views ...
  
  nb. Celsus is said to have written his True discourse ~180 AD/CE

These emulations make Jesus out to be a son-of-David messiah, who fulfills the Law and the Prophets. Marcion then responds with Galatians 1, his angry denunciation [thru Paul] of those who would “pervert” his Gospel and present it as being “kata anthropon” (according to some idiot or other, so-and-so):

6 Θαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι [Χριστοῦ] εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον,
7 ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ μή τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ.
8 ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίζηται [ὑμῖν] παρ’ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.
9 ὡς προειρήκαμεν καὶ ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω· εἴ τις ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελίζεται παρ’ ὃ παρελάβετε, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.
10 Ἄρτι γὰρ ἀνθρώπους πείθω ἢ τὸν θεόν; ἢ ζητῶ ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν; εἰ ἔτι ἀνθρώποις ἤρεσκον, Χριστοῦ δοῦλος οὐκ ἂν ἤμην. 
11 Γνωρίζω γὰρ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον·
12 οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον αὐτὸ οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην, ἀλλὰ δι’ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

The ten thousand commentaries on Galatians (universally steeped in a Christian theological perspective) never satisfyingly explain why a Paul at war with “Judaizing” colleagues (Kephas, James, John, Barnabas) would have made such electrifying allegations at all. In these stale commentaries, the Gospel [that] Paul defends becomes, unimpressively, a message of “freedom from the Law,” and such like. But no such theme is present in Galatians 1, where everything comes down to a far more sinister contrast between a false Gospel “kata anthropon” and a "true Gospel" revealed to Paul alone (“through an apocalypse of Jesus Christ”).

The phrase

ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο

at the start of verse 7 is not the casual sloppiness of an angry letter dashed off, but a meaningful clarification. The ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον of verse 6 is a perverse “hetero-Gospel,” and yet it is not “other.” Because it had been derived from Marcion’s! Not because, eg, Paul believed that he was the only apostle who knew the Gospel Truth About Freedom from The Law. If these other Judaizing pseudo-apostles had been preaching a Gospel that included circumcision, separation from Gentiles, and dietary observances, then their “Gospel” would be simply false. Not a plagiarism of the true Gospel!

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Oh, even though I personally, currently, view "Paul" as a literary construct, I do have an interest in what "he" is being made to say by the authors writing the material that is attributed to the character.

It seems to me that for the most part, the earliest layer anyway, that when Paul is referring to the "euangelion" it is being used in the classical sense of Official Announcement/Good Message with nothing whatever to do with an actual written account of some kind of God come to Earth. However, it seems to me that that is not a constant and some authors may be making references to an actual Gospel, as in an actual written text. Whatever that Gospel text might be.

Hi Lane, regardless of whether I share this opinion or not, I find it very difficult to deal properly with such a view. Isn't there an obvious temptation to assign statements in the letters that one likes or understands well to one stratum and less desired statements to a later/"incriminated" stratum? At least that was my impression of all authors who "reconstructed" the Markionite version of Paul's letters, but imho always ended up in their own wishful thinking.

I am particularly amused that Trobisch's statements quite obviously point to a historical Jesus. But our Markion fans in the forum don't seem to have understood that yet.

Literatur als Kunst	Literature as art
Dieser Konflikt steht narrativ für das Versagen der ersten Nachfolger Jesu, die die zentrale Botschaft des Gottessohnes nicht verstehen, und verleiht der Überzeugung Ausdruck, dass nicht die Lehre Jesu, sondern die Erfahrung des Geistes Christi Erlösung vom körperlichen Tod und damit ewiges Leben im Geiste verspricht. Das Christentum ist geboren, das Jesustum überwunden.	This conflict represents the narrative failure of Jesus' first followers, who do not understand the central message of God's message, and expresses the conviction that it is not the teaching of Jesus, but the experience of the Spirit of Christ that promises salvation from physical death and thus eternal life in the spirit. Christianity is born, ‘Jesusism’ has been overcome.

[lclapshaw]

Oh, even though I personally, currently, view "Paul" as a literary construct, I do have an interest in what "he" is being made to say by the authors writing the material that is attributed to the character.

It seems to me that for the most part, the earliest layer anyway, that when Paul is referring to the "euangelion" it is being used in the classical sense of Official Announcement/Good Message with nothing whatever to do with an actual written account of some kind of God come to Earth. However, it seems to me that that is not a constant and some authors may be making references to an actual Gospel, as in an actual written text. Whatever that Gospel text might be.

Hi Lane, regardless of whether I share this opinion or not, I find it very difficult to deal properly with such a view. Isn't there an obvious temptation to assign statements in the letters that one likes or understands well to one stratum and less desired statements to a later/"incriminated" stratum? At least that was my impression of all authors who "reconstructed" the Markionite version of Paul's letters, but imho always ended up in their own wishful thinking.

Sure. This is a valid point IMO. As far as I'm concerned this is inherent in the majority of the material attributed to Paul regardless of how one thinks the letters were composed though.

[davidmartin]

Doesn't Paul's Christology preclude a written gospel?
If for him Jesus only became Christ on his resurrection then the only valid encounters are visionary ones
Hebrews also agrees with Paul, Jesus only becomes the son of God at the resurrection and gives a wonky account of Jesus's life

[Giuseppe]

I don't understand why Carrier has received an article via mail about the subject, when he could well have downloaded it freely.

[Secret Alias]

Trobisch, my son and I went to an excellent traditional German restaurant in Chemnitz. The paper came up. He's not a rabid mythicist or even a mythicist. He just pays attention to the lack of evidence.

[Giuseppe]

Trobisch, my son and I went to an excellent traditional German restaurant in Chemnitz. The paper came up. He's not a rabid mythicist or even a mythicist. He just pays attention to the lack of evidence.

Ok, but do you concede that he is professing a form of Jesus Agnosticism, of the kind:


we can't know if Jesus existed or less, because the more earliest story about him has him descending from heaven already adult.