Markus Vinzent on History Valley

[Giuseppe]

. But at that time Vinzent didn't take on the debates about Paul and "Paul" and the Corpus Paulinum.

he could continue to ignore Paul. If he is going to focus on Paul, in my view, is because he is obliged someway to reply against the criticism that the same person (Marcion) couldn't be in the same time sincere with the sources collected by him in the Evangelion, and be a mere corruptor of the Pauline epistles.

Addenda: so Vinzent is going to repeat exactly the same steps of the his precursor P.-L. Couchoud: Marcionite priority, and probable authenticity of the Apostolikon. I would be very surprised if Vinzent will diverge from Couchoud about this point (for example: by arriving to deny the authenticity of the Pauline epistles, or moving the historical Paul in a different time, during the 70 CE).

[StephenGoranson]

In this interview, imo, Markus Vinzent was quite learned and impressively, clearly articulate.
One part I was not persuaded about--even though, as he said, more or less, simple X followed Y followed Z schemes are iffy--was his assertion that the gospel writers all knew one another, in some unnamed location, and shared drafts among themselves.

[gryan]

In this interview, imo, Markus Vinzent was quite learned and impressively, clearly articulate.
One part I was not persuaded about--even though, as he said, more or less, simple X followed Y followed Z schemes are iffy--was his assertion that the gospel writers all knew one another, in some unnamed location, and shared drafts among themselves.

Agreed.

StephenGoranson: Could you say a bit more about why it is that you are not persuaded?

[StephenGoranson]

For one thing, what shared, unnamed location?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

In this interview, imo, Markus Vinzent was quite learned and impressively, clearly articulate.
One part I was not persuaded about--even though, as he said, more or less, simple X followed Y followed Z schemes are iffy--was his assertion that the gospel writers all knew one another, in some unnamed location, and shared drafts among themselves.

Agreed.

Vinzent is under extreme time pressure with his theory. If Marcion wrote the first gospel, the others must all have written shortly after to fit the second-century timeline. Hence his theory that Marcion was the teacher and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John his disciples.

[mlinssen]

For one thing, what shared, unnamed location?

Why would one care about a trivial thing like that when it is the very concept itself that is brought to the attention?

Will you reject the concept when you'd receive a precise location? Or are you merely demanding what cannot be demanded so you can pout?

Just pick a location yourself Stephen

[Irish1975]

For one thing, what shared, unnamed location?

Rome, obviously. Maybe Ephesus too. I don't recall Vinzent being generally shy about locating the 2nd century Gospel-writing.

Here are my notes from another video that Vinzent did with James Valliant on History Valley (circa 50 minutes in).

Vinzent: "Before Marcion's publication in 144, not a single author that we can quote, knows of any of these stories...how can it be that only people who write gospels read gospels, and quote each other??" (50 min). So much simpler, easier [Occam's razor] to envisage that the evangelists knew each other, in the same time and same place, than that they were scattered around the Mediterranean, and writing 30 years apart or whatever.
NT scholars working on the synoptic problem are not stupid people but they "ask the wrong question." The genealogical assumption is wrong. These Gospels written in such tight proximity that there is massive cross-contamination, and thus they all knew each other. Even what we can reconstruct of Marcion's Gospel is, per Tertullian, contaminated with the other 4. Marcion complained of what those writing under apostolic and subapostic names did to his text.
"They're all Roman texts."

[Irish1975]

From MV's blog, 11/26/22

[question:] Where does Paul and his writings relate to this with respect to his chronology and influence?

[MV:] As my work on Paul is still in the making, I can only give a preliminary answer as for now. What has become clear already (and two new books argue into the same direction, though unfortunately in German: Alexander Goldmann, Über die Textgeschichte des Römerbriefes. Neue Perspektiven aus dem paratextuellen Befund, Tanz 63, Tübingen 2020; Tobias Flemming, Die Textgeschichte des Epheserbriefes. Marcion änderte nichts: Eine grundlegend neue Perspektive auf den Laodicenerbrief, Tanz 67, Tübingen 2022), and I had the privilege to discuss my preliminary insights with the two authors of these books - and their teacher Matthias Klinghardt, and his research group (Jan Heilmann, Kevin Künzl and others) at Dresden a few weeks ago:

The version of the 10 letters that were part of Marcion's collection, and which were a lot shorter than the version which we find in the canonical New Testament, is closer to Paul. In many respects, it shows a different language, another self-understanding of Paul, different theological concerns ... it might be that just as Marcion accepted a set of two letters (Laodicenes and Colossians, perhaps also 2 Thessalonians) which show a closer relation to the redactional profile of the later canonical New Testament, the people who redacted or produced Laodicenes and Colossians, in return, accepted Marcion's set of his seven or eight letters plus Laodicenes and Colossians which Marcion had integrated into his collection. And as Marcion had apparently heavily redacted these ten letters, so the canonical redactors turned to this collection, added further letters (1-2 Tim, Tit, Hebrews; the Catholic letters), Acts, redacted Luke and added Matthew, Mark and John and Revelation. For the chronology - an early stage of the collection and mutual exchange of what different people had collected and reworked seems to have been the aftermath of the second Jewish war. What the stock was that lies underneath both sets (set 1: Marcion's seven or eight letters; set 2: Laodicenes and Colossians) is too early to say, here I need to finish a bit more homework. So far, however, we can see the impact that Marcion's activity had, just as we see other players exerting influence on him.

[Irish1975]

I wonder how he grounds this hypothesis about a distinct collection of Laodicians, Colossians, & 2 Thessalonians. Maybe just by reference to the standard "Deutero-Pauline" concept, i.e. that these three epistles are later than the seven but prior to the pastorals.

[Secret Alias]

As a student of Marcion he knows the Marcionites viewed the orthodox gospels as forgeries.