I see that prof
Vinzent makes indirectly the same point when he writes:
What is historically probable is that he possessed epistolary material for the 7 letters, just as he possessed Jesus material, from which he created partial collections for his New Testament, which he structured similarly and which also both reflect his editorial language.
What does this mean for our insight into the 1st century? Especially for your question about the Christian movement and, I would add, its protagonists? In "Christ's Torah" I have already pointed out that the editor also includes elements (such as "bringing fire/conflict") that contradict his own idea. This suggests that there is a previous source for this material, which the editor traces back to the Jesus of his gospel. Similar elements that seem to contradict his idea can also be found in the letters of Paul in the 10-letter collection. Here, too, the editor cites Paul as the source. Can we trust this information? It seems to me, as I have already written, that the editor was not someone who produced pseudonymous fictions - a significant difference to the canonical editors, for whom pseudonymity and fictionality are characteristic features.
Hence, there was:
- 1) disturbing material for Marcion in *Ev;
- 2) disturbing material for Marcion in the Apostolikon.
The historicist prof Vinzent takes
(1) to mean that Jesus existed. I take
(1) to mean that previous gospels preceded *Ev, dated back to the primitive gospel of which the epilogue can be reconstructed
here.
But
both I and prof Vinzent take
(2) to mean that the epistles were
for the most part original.
