The 'Disarrangement' of Ancient Christian Texts

[Secret Alias]

I have an emerging hypothesis which I think is more nuanced that a number of other 'conspiracy' type theories. I've brought it up in a number of threads. But I'd like to revisit the theory with a new discovery.

1. Someone or some people 'disarranged' not only the gospel but the Commentary on the gospel written by Justin or someone in his circle. When Luke was arranged the Commentary was taken out of its natural order (originally arranged according to the common order of the super gospel of both Marcion and Justin and the Epistle to the Apostles presumably) and 'disarranged' according to the synoptic ordering of the gospels. I haven't a clue what gave rise to the synoptic gospel order.
2. The Pauline epistles represent a 'disarrangement' of the lost Apostolikon. Not merely the order of the letters. The specific arrangement into the familiar epistles (i.e. 'first Corinthians' 'Romans' etc) but the contents of each letter represent a disarrangement of some lost original arrangement.
3. Pseudo-Tertullian's Against the Jews and Book III of Against Marcion represent two separate 'disarrangements' of a lost treatise by Justin
4. I strongly suspect that Clement's 'Patchwork' (Στρωματεῖς) is a disarrangement of earlier material.
5. It has long been argued that Irenaeus's Against the Heresies is a disarrangement of earlier material (i.e. Justin's Syntagma, Theophilus etc)
6. I have argued here (successfully I think) that Origen's Commentary on Matthew is a disarrangement of an earlier Commentary on Ammonius's super-gospel.

I am going to argue in this thread that Origen's Against Celsus was deliberately 'disarranged' from an original text. The opening words of the treatise acknowledge the 'second writing' effort but claim it is by Origen. I don't think it was. I strongly suspect that this second disarranged treatise might point to Eusebius as the disarranger. Either that or 'disarranging' was an established practice used by more than one Christian 'disarranger.'

[Secret Alias]

So let's look at the state of Origen's treatise right now. We read in the preface that:

When false witnesses (ψευδομαρτυρούμενος) testified against our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, He remained "silent" (ἐσιώπα Mark 14:61, Matt 26:63) and when unfounded charges were brought against Him, He returned "no answer" (οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίνετο Matt 27:12), believing that His whole life and conduct among the Jews were a better refutation than any answer to the false testimony, or than any formal defence against the accusations. And I know not, my pious Ambrosius, why you wished me to write a reply to the false charges brought by Celsus against the Christians, and to his accusations directed against the faith of the Churches in his treatise; as if the facts themselves did not furnish a manifest refutation, and the doctrine a better answer than any writing, seeing it both disposes of the false statements, and does not leave to the accusations any credibility or validity.

So the story is that Ambrose, Origen's rich Marcionite patron, told him to write a treatise to respond to Celsus's book a True Account. When did this happen? No one knows. But it has always struck me as curious that Ambrose was a heretic (a Marcionite according to Jerome - ignore Eusebius). How long could there have been Marcionites in Alexandria?

Also it is curious that the reference to Ambrose interrupts the natural flow of the opening words for we immediately segue back to the clever allusion to Jesus before the Sanhedrin:

Now, with respect to our Lord's silence when false witness was borne against Him, it is sufficient at present to quote the words of Matthew, for the testimony of Mark is to the same effect. And the words of Matthew are as follow:

And the high priest and the council sought false witness against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none, although many false witnesses came forward. At last two false witnesses came and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and after three days to build it up. And the high priest arose, and said to Him, Do you answer nothing to what these witness against you? But Jesus held His peace. And that He returned no answer when falsely accused, the following is the statement: And Jesus stood before the governor; and he asked Him, saying, Are You the King of the Jews? And Jesus said to him, You say. And when He was accused of the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto Him, Do you not hear how many things they witness against You? And He answered him to never a word, insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.

Ὁ δὲ ἀρχιερεὺς καὶ τὸ συνέδριον ἐζήτουν ψευδομαρτυρίαν κατὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ὅπως θανατώσωσιν αὐτόν, καὶ οὐχ εὗρον πολλῶν προσελ θόντων ψευδομαρτύρων. Ὕστερον δὲ προσελθόντες δύο εἶπον· Οὗτος ἔφη· ∆ύναμαι καταλῦσαι τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν οἰκοδομῆσαι. Καὶ ἀναστὰς ὁ
ἀρχιερεὺς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Οὐδὲν ἀποκρίνῃ, ὅτι οὗτοί σου καταμαρτυ ροῦσιν; Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐσιώπα." Ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅτι οὐκἀπεκρίνετο κατηγορούμενος, τοιαῦτα γέγραπται· "Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐστάθη ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ ἡγεμόνος· καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτὸν λέγων· Σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔφη αὐτῷ· Σὺ λέγεις. Καὶ ἐν τῷ κατηγορεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ πρεσβυτέρων οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίνετο. Τότε λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Πιλᾶτος· Οὐκ ἀκούεις, πόσα σου καταμαρτυροῦσι; Καὶ οὐκ ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ πρὸς οὐδὲν ῥῆμα, ὥστε θαυμάζειν τὸν ἡγεμόνα λίαν

It was, indeed, matter of surprise to men even of ordinary intelligence, that one who was accused and assailed by false testimony, but who was able to defend Himself, and to show that He was guilty of none of the charges (alleged), and who might have enumerated the praiseworthy deeds of His own life, and His miracles wrought by divine power, so as to give the judge an opportunity of delivering a more honourable judgment regarding Him, should not have done this, but should have disdained such a procedure, and in the nobleness of His nature have contemned His accusers. That the judge would, without any hesitation, have set Him at liberty if He had offered a defence, is clear from what is related of him when he said, Which of the two do you wish that I should release unto you, Barabbas or Jesus, who is called Christ? and from what the Scripture adds, For he knew that for envy they had delivered Him. Jesus, however, is at all times assailed by false witnesses, and, while wickedness remains in the world, is ever exposed to accusation. And yet even now He continues silent before these things, and makes no audible answer, but places His defence in the lives of His genuine disciples, which are a pre-eminent testimony, and one that rises superior to all false witness, and refutes and overthrows all unfounded accusations and charges.

The allusion to 'what Matthew says' and 'what Mark says' sounds remarkably similar to Eusebius's corrections of the original Origenist commentary on the Diatessaron which was refashioned as a Commentary on Matthew. Was Eusebius the 'correcter' of Against Celsus? I strongly suspect so.

But more significant is the fact that Origen's opening words require a form of the gospel which contradicts all known gospel forms. For Origen's point is that Jesus did not defend himself against any false charges whatsoever. He goes to great lengths to cite two scenes from the gospel - (a) what Jesus said before the Sanhedrin and (b) what Jesus said before Pilate to reinforce the idea that Jesus did not respond to false charges. What Origen was about to do - i.e. respond to false charges - went against what Jesus did. The language of Against Celsus is quite specific - i.e. it even goes so far as to cite 'Matthew and Mark' but there is a problem here. Origen does not cite the full passage in Matthew 26.

Matthew 26 reads (in full):

The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. 60 But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.

Finally two came forward 61 and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”

Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63 But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” “You have said so,” (λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς Σὺ εἶπας) Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

It is difficult for me to believe that Origen had our text of Matthew where the same words "You say" are used to answer the high priests here and in chapter 27. In Origen's treatment of the material in chapter 27 he treats "Σὺ εἶπας" as a denial or at least a non-answer. How could Origen have ignored the fact that the same words were used in chapter 26? The answer has to be that in the gospel of Origen and Ambrose, Jesus does not respond with the business about "from no one you will see the Son of Man ..."

The same ambiguity actually exists in the original material Against Marcion written by Justin. There we can see the same tampering - the addition of the "Son of Man sitting at the right hand" but the original understanding of the Marcionites (and the author) is that Jesus did not answer any of the questions directed against him:

Also when Peter has made a rash utterance, and he turns him rather in the direction of denial, you can see he is a jealous god.1 Moreover, as he was the Christ of the prophets it was his due to be betrayed with a kiss, being the Son of him whom the people loved with their lips. When brought into the council he is asked whether he is himself the Christ. With reference to what Christ could the Jews have asked this question, except their own? Why then did he not, even then, tell them of that other? Because, you answer, he had to be able to suffer. By which you mean, so that he, supremely good, might plunge into crime those who were still ignorant. 'But even if he had told them, he would still have suffered: for he said, If I tell you, ye will not believe: and by refusing to believe, they would have continued to demand his death.' But surely he would have been more likely to suffer if he had declared himself <the Christ> of that other god, and consequently an opponent of the Creator. And so it was not with the intention of suffering that he forbore even then to explain that he was different: but because they desired to extort a confession from his own mouth, and yet even if he confessed were not going to believe, though they ought to have known who he was from his works which were in fulfilment of the scriptures, it was his right, as one to whom unchallenged recognition was due, to hide himself from them. [And for all that he still gives them a chance, when he says, Hereafter shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God. From Daniel's prophecy he put himself before them as the Son of man,a and from David's psalm as sitting at the right hand of God.b And so from that saying of his, and its bringing together of <two texts of> scripture, they were fully enlightened as to whom he wished them to take him to be (underlined represents later addition)], And they asked him, Art thou then the Son of God? Of what god, if not the only God they knew about? Of what god, if not him who they remembered had said in the psalm to his son, Sit thou on my right hand? 'But he answers, Ye say it, as though it were, I do not.' No, but he affirmed that he was that which they had said when they asked him that
second time. Yet how can you prove that they were asking a question, and not themselves making the statement when they said Thou art then the Son of God? In that case, as he had indirectly proved by the scriptures that they must understand he was the Son of God, and they perceived this—Thou art then the Son of God, which thou art unwilling to declare openly—he likewise answers in the affirmative, Ye say it: and so clearly was this his meaning, that they continued in the impression which his statement indicated.

So when they had led him to Pilate they began to accuse him of saying he was Christ a King, meaning no doubt the Son of God, who was to sit at God's right hand. Surely they would have arraigned him under some other charge, being in doubt whether he had said he was the Son of God, if he had not
by the statement Ye say it, indicated that he was what they said. Also when Pilate asked, Art thou the Christ? he answered again Thou sayest it, so that he might not seem, through fear of the authority, to have refused to answer. So the Lord is set in judgement, and has set in judgement his own people.

No the two gospels are not the same. But the same point can be drawn from both - Jesus did not respond to his accusers which is Origen's understanding of the gospel - something which does not follow from any of the synoptics where he breaks his silence and is no longer a 'secret Christ.'

[FransJVermeiren]

2. The Pauline epistles represent a 'disarrangement' of the lost Apostolikon. Not merely the order of the letters. The specific arrangement into the familiar epistles (i.e. 'first Corinthians' 'Romans' etc) but the contents of each letter represent a disarrangement of some lost original arrangement.

Based on my chronological research I believe we can discern the ‘disarrangement’ of the Pauline epistles quite concretely. A major chronological forgery has changed Paul the propagator of the future messiah into a follower of Jesus-the-messiah.

Below I mention only 3 elements of my much more elaborated argumentation:
1. After comparison of the ancient manuscripts Nestle-Aland concludes that at least in 7 places ‘Jesus’ has been added to ‘Christ’ or ‘Lord Christ’ in Paul’s letters. ‘Jesus Christ’ is used much more frequently without textual evidence of a ‘Jesus’ addition, but I believe the ‘Jesus’ addition is a constant in the Pauline epistles. After the elimination of ‘Jesus’ (and maintaining ‘Christ’ or ‘Lord Christ’) the Pauline epistles become consistent as oriented towards a future messiah.
2. While there are numerous anti-Roman cryptograms in the Pauline epistles, there is one fragment which admonishes to respect the authorities: Romans 13:1-7. This addition disarranges Paul’s message from revolutionary anti-Roman into loyal to the Roman authorities.
3. In 1 Corinthians we twice find the signature of a later ‘disarranger’:
• 1Cor 11: 23: ‘For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, …’
• 1 Cor 15: For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, …’
It is unthinkable that Paul has written this way in the fifties of the first century CE with first-hand accounts of the apostles at his disposal.

I have tried to reconstruct the Pauline epistles into their original ‘pre-Jesus’ messianistic status. Below you find the first verses of Paul’s first letter, 1 Thessalonians. In verse 10 I have eliminated a ‘Jesus’ phrase which disrupt Paul’s logic reasoning. I discuss this verse first.
I believe the original version of 1 Thessalonians 1, verse 10 went as follows: ‘… and wait for his Son from heaven [future] who delivers us from the wrath to come [future].’
In the present presentation 1 Thessalonians 1, verse 10 goes as follows: ‘… and wait for his Son from heaven [future], whom he raised from the dead, Jesus [past] who delivers us from the wrath to come [future].’ (italics mine)

Schematically the time orientation is as follows:
Original arrangement:
• First part: future oriented
• Second part: future oriented
Present presentation:
• First part: future oriented
• Middle part: oriented to the past
• Third part: future oriented.
In the reconstruction the time orientation is consistent, in the present presentation of the text this sentence doesn’t make any sense unless the ‘second coming of Jesus’ theory is accepted, for which there is not a single argument.

Reconstruction of 1 Thessalonians chapter 1, verse 1-10
(1) Paul, Silvanus and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Christ: grace to you and peace.
(2) We give thanks to God always for you all, constantly mentioning you in our prayers, (3) remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Christ. (4) For we know, brethren beloved by God, that he has chosen you; (5) for our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. (6) And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with joy inspired by the Holy Spirit; (7) so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia. (8) For not only has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and Achaia, but your faith in God has gone forth everywhere, so that we need not say anything. (9) For they themselves report concerning us what a welcome we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God, (10) and to wait for his Son from heaven, who delivers us from the wrath to come.

Combined with verse 9 the time orientation becomes even stronger:
• Paul’s gentile followers left their polytheistic religion (worshipping idols): past
• Now they are monotheists (worshipping the one Jewish god): present
• And also messianists who wait for God’s Son to come from heaven: future.

Paul and his followers adhere to messianistic Judaism (Essene messianism in particular).

[Ben C. Smith]

After comparison of the ancient manuscripts Nestle-Aland concludes that at least in 7 places ‘Jesus’ has been added to ‘Christ’ or ‘Lord Christ’ in Paul’s letters. ‘Jesus Christ’ is used much more frequently without textual evidence of a ‘Jesus’ addition, but I believe the ‘Jesus’ addition is a constant in the Pauline epistles. After the elimination of ‘Jesus’ (and maintaining ‘Christ’ or ‘Lord Christ’) the Pauline epistles become consistent as oriented towards a future messiah.

The only concrete manuscript evidence I can think of for supposing that "Jesus" has been added to "Christ" would be instances in which at least one manuscript bears "Christ" alone where other manuscripts bear "Christ Jesus" or "Jesus Christ" — correct?

A simple search both for "Jesus Christ" and for "Christ Jesus" in the NASB version of the Pauline epistles — followed by a comparison of the major codices Sinaiticus (א), Alexandrinus (A), Vaticanus (B), and Boernerianus (G) — yields the following such instances:

Romans 2.16: "Christ" in Sinaiticus, "Jesus Christ" in Alexandrinus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Romans 3.22: "Christ" in Vaticanus, "Christ Jesus" in Alexandrinus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Romans 6.3: "Christ" in Vaticanus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Romans 8.11: "Christ" in Vaticanus and Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere. (Sinaiticus also corrects "Christ Jesus" to "Christ".)
Romans 8.34: "Christ" in Vaticanus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Colossians 4.12: "Christ" in Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
1 Corinthians 4.15: "Christ" in Vaticanus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Galatians 5.6: "Christ" in Vaticanus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Galatians 5.24: "Christ" in Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Ephesians 2.7: "Christ" in Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Ephesians 2.20: "Christ" in Sinaiticus, "Jesus Christ" in Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Ephesians 3.1: "Christ" in Sinaiticus and Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Ephesians 3.6: "Christ" in Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Philippians 3.12: "Christ" in Boernerianus and Vaticanus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.

But there are also nearly as many instances of "Jesus" being found alone in at least one manuscript where other manuscripts have "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus":

Romans 5.11: "Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
1 Corinthians 1.2: "Jesus" in Alexandrinus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
1 Corinthians 1.8: "Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
1 Corinthians 6.11: "Jesus" in Alexandrinus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
2 Corinthians 8.9: "Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Philippians 2.11: "Jesus" in Boernerianus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Colossians 1.3: "Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Colossians 1.4: "Jesus" in Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
1 Thessalonians 5.9: "Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
2 Thessalonians 1.12: "Jesus" / "Jesus Christ" in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, "Jesus Christ" / "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
1 Timothy 1.16: "Jesus" in Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" in Alexandrinus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.

Both lists sit in amongst rather many more instances of manuscript confusion between "Christ Jesus" and "Jesus Christ", as well as other, similar variations:

Romans 1.1: "Christ Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Romans 1.8: "through Jesus Christ" missing in Sinaiticus.
Romans 5.17: "Christ Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Romans 5.21: "Christ Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Romans 13.14: "Christ Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Romans 15.5: "Christ Jesus" in Vaticanus and Boernerianus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Romans 16.24: "Jesus Christ" missing in Boernerianus.
Romans 16.25: "Christ Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Romans 16.26: "Christ Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
1 Corinthians 1.1: "Christ Jesus" in Vaticanus and Boernerianus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere. (Sinaiticus has a smudged abbreviation for "Jesus".)
1 Corinthians 1.2: "to those sanctified in Christ Jesus" missing in Vaticanus and Boernerianus.
1 Corinthians 2.2: "Christ Jesus" in Boernerianus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
2 Corinthians 1.1: "Christ Jesus" in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
2 Corinthians 1.19: "Christ Jesus" in Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
2 Corinthians 4.5: "Christ Jesus" in Alexandrinus and Boernerianus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
2 Corinthians 13.5: "Jesus Christ" in Vaticanus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
2 Corinthians 13.14: "Jesus Christ" in Vaticanus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Galatians 2.16: "Jesus Christ" / "Christ Jesus" in Sinaiticus and Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" / "Christ Jesus" in Alexandrinus, "Christ Jesus" / "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Galatians 3.14: "Christ Jesus" in Alexandrinus and Boernerianus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Ephesians 1.1: "Christ Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Ephesians 1.5: "Christ Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Ephesians 2.6: "in Christ Jesus" missing in Boernerianus.
Ephesians 2.10: "in [the] Lord" instead of "in Christ Jesus" in Boernerianus.
Ephesians 3.11: "Christ Jesus" missing in Boernerianus.
Ephesians 5.20: "Christ Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Philippians 1.1: "Christ Jesus" in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Philippians 1.6: "Christ Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Philippians 1.19: "Christ Jesus" in Boernerianus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Philippians 2.21: "Christ Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Philippians 3.8: "Jesus Christ" / "Christ" in Alexandrinus, "Christ Jesus" / "Christ" elsewhere.
Philippians 3.14: "Jesus Christ" in Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
2 Thessalonians 1.1: "Christ Jesus" in Boernerianus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
2 Thessalonians 2.16: "Christ Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
1 Timothy 1.1: "Jesus Christ" in Alexandrinus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
1 Timothy 6.13: "Christ Jesus" in Alexandrinus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
1 Timothy 6.14: "Christ Jesus" in Sinaiticus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
2 Timothy 1.1: "Jesus Christ" in Alexandrinus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
2 Timothy 1.2: "Jesus Christ" in Sinaiticus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
2 Timothy 1.9: "Jesus Christ" in Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Titus 1.1: "Christ Jesus" in Alexandrinus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Titus 1.4. "Jesus Christ" in Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Titus 2.13: "Jesus Christ" in Alexandrinus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Philippians 4.7: Alexandrinus has "Christ" where other manuscripts have "God".
Philemon 1.9: "Jesus Christ" in Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.

Not to mention variations on other titles, mainly "Lord", being attached (or not) to these names. I think the argument can be made that, far from demonstrating the addition of "Jesus" to texts originally bearing only "Christ", those instances both of "Christ" standing alone in some spots and of "Jesus" standing alone in other spots (where other manuscripts give the fuller name) are simply subordinate examples of the much broader trend of confusion between the various permutations of the name. I suppose, however, an argument might be made from "Christ" appearing overall more commonly than "Jesus" in the Pauline epistles, though that is a weaker argument than actual manuscript evidence of variation.

Believe me, I am highly sympathetic to attempts to clear up some of the confusion surrounding the name(s) of Jesus, not to mention the various Christologies attached to them, and it would be excellent if it could be shown that one of the names clearly preceded the other in the manuscript record of, say, the Pauline epistles. That would be great. But I am not sure that your particular argument holds much water in this case.

The above instances are not at all exhaustive, incidentally, since I did not search each of the codices individually for instances of these names where the NASB might lack them. For example, in Philippians 2.10 Sinaiticus has "Jesus Christ" where the other codices have just plain "Jesus". This verse may be instructive in other ways, however, since there is the distinct possibility that the name "Jesus" is crucial to the meaning of the hymn:

9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The name "Jesus" may here be important for its theophoric value, being a Greek transliteration of Yeshua, a shortening of Yehoshua, which means "Yahweh saves" (Yahweh being perhaps the most expected "name which is above every name"). If so, then in this hymn, at least (which should perhaps be called the Jesus Hymn rather than the usual Christ Hymn), the name Jesus is original.

Ben.

[MrMacSon]

A simple search both for "Jesus Christ" and for "Christ Jesus" in the NASB version of the Pauline epistles — followed by a comparison of the major codices Sinaiticus (א), Alexandrinus (A), Vaticanus (B), and Boernerianus (G) — yields the following such instances:

Romans 2.16: "Christ" in Sinaiticus, "Jesus Christ" in Alexandrinus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Romans 3.22: "Christ" in Vaticanus, "Christ Jesus" in Alexandrinus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Romans 6.3: "Christ" in Vaticanus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Romans 8.11: "Christ" in Vaticanus and Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere. (Sinaiticus also corrects "Christ Jesus" to "Christ".)
Romans 8.34: "Christ" in Vaticanus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Colossians 4.12: "Christ" in Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
1 Corinthians 4.15: "Christ" in Vaticanus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Galatians 5.6: "Christ" in Vaticanus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Galatians 5.24: "Christ" in Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Ephesians 2.7: "Christ" in Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Ephesians 2.20: "Christ" in Sinaiticus, "Jesus Christ" in Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Ephesians 3.1: "Christ" in Sinaiticus and Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Ephesians 3.6: "Christ" in Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Philippians 3.12: "Christ" in Boernerianus and Vaticanus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.

But there are also nearly as many instances of "Jesus" being found alone in at least one manuscript where other manuscripts have "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus": -

Romans 5.11: "Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
1 Corinthians 1.2: "Jesus" in Alexandrinus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
1 Corinthians 1.8: "Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
1 Corinthians 6.11: "Jesus" in Alexandrinus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
2 Corinthians 8.9: "Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Philippians 2.11: "Jesus" in Boernerianus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Colossians 1.3: "Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Colossians 1.4: "Jesus" in Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
1 Thessalonians 5.9: "Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
2 Thessalonians 1.12: "Jesus" / "Jesus Christ" in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, "Jesus Christ" / "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
1 Timothy 1.16: "Jesus" in Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" in Alexandrinus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.

Interesting. Have similar comparisons been done with the reconstructed Marcionite texts and later texts?

[Ben C. Smith]

A simple search both for "Jesus Christ" and for "Christ Jesus" in the NASB version of the Pauline epistles — followed by a comparison of the major codices Sinaiticus (א), Alexandrinus (A), Vaticanus (B), and Boernerianus (G) — yields the following such instances:

Romans 2.16: "Christ" in Sinaiticus, "Jesus Christ" in Alexandrinus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Romans 3.22: "Christ" in Vaticanus, "Christ Jesus" in Alexandrinus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Romans 6.3: "Christ" in Vaticanus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Romans 8.11: "Christ" in Vaticanus and Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere. (Sinaiticus also corrects "Christ Jesus" to "Christ".)
Romans 8.34: "Christ" in Vaticanus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Colossians 4.12: "Christ" in Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
1 Corinthians 4.15: "Christ" in Vaticanus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Galatians 5.6: "Christ" in Vaticanus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Galatians 5.24: "Christ" in Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Ephesians 2.7: "Christ" in Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Ephesians 2.20: "Christ" in Sinaiticus, "Jesus Christ" in Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Ephesians 3.1: "Christ" in Sinaiticus and Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Ephesians 3.6: "Christ" in Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
Philippians 3.12: "Christ" in Boernerianus and Vaticanus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.

But there are also nearly as many instances of "Jesus" being found alone in at least one manuscript where other manuscripts have "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus": -

Romans 5.11: "Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
1 Corinthians 1.2: "Jesus" in Alexandrinus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
1 Corinthians 1.8: "Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
1 Corinthians 6.11: "Jesus" in Alexandrinus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
2 Corinthians 8.9: "Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Philippians 2.11: "Jesus" in Boernerianus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Colossians 1.3: "Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
Colossians 1.4: "Jesus" in Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, "Christ Jesus" elsewhere.
1 Thessalonians 5.9: "Jesus" in Vaticanus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
2 Thessalonians 1.12: "Jesus" / "Jesus Christ" in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, "Jesus Christ" / "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.
1 Timothy 1.16: "Jesus" in Boernerianus, "Christ Jesus" in Alexandrinus, "Jesus Christ" elsewhere.

Interesting. Have similar comparisons been done with the reconstructed Marcionite texts and later texts?

Well, not by me. But I doubt we could do much on such a close verbal level with the lost Marcionite epistles. Too much actual text is missing from our extant information (nearly all of Philemon, by far most of Philippians, and so forth).

[MrMacSon]

... I doubt we could do much on such a close verbal level with the lost Marcionite epistles. Too much actual text is missing from our extant information (nearly all of Philemon, by far most of Philippians, and so forth).

It could still be done on what is known or reconstructed, though??

[Secret Alias]

Summary of existing information:

1. What Epiphanius says was in the gospel (problem = doesn't seem Epiphanius actually had the gospel before him despite what he claims/Epiphanius is an unreliable source)
2. What Tertullian says (problem = Tertullian doesn't usually say 'this is what is in Marcion's gospel'; instead he comments on a commonly held gospel WHICH SCHOLARS ASSUME 'MATCHES' THE MARCIONITE GOSPEL; but this isn't necessarily so).
3. What various other sources say (only a few agree; there is always new information so no 'complete list' exists)

Therefore no chance at knowing what the Marcionite gospel looked like.

[FransJVermeiren]

The name "Jesus" may here be important for its theophoric value, being a Greek transliteration of Yeshua, a shortening of Yehoshua, which means "Yahweh saves" (Yahweh being perhaps the most expected "name which is above every name"). If so, then in this hymn, at least (which should perhaps be called the Jesus Hymn rather than the usual Christ Hymn), the name Jesus is original.

Thank you Mr. Smith for your challenging reply. Below I address only one small point , I hope to reply more comprehensively in the near future.

In my opinion the name "Jesus" has not been used here for its theophoric value, I think the real crucified Jesus is meant. Philippians 2:8-9a: "And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him..." From this verses we can say that the "days of Jesus" are clearly located in the past. Indeed, as you say, this is the Jesus Hymn.

But what happens in the next pericope? I only quote the core verse (verse 16): "...holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain."
First Jesus' days in the past are discussed, and in the next paragraph Paul mentions the 'day of Christ' in the future (and, I repeat, without any trace of a second coming discourse). Is Paul utterly inconsistent? I don't believe so, Paul's most important feature throughout his letters is his persistence in preaching the future Christ. This 'Shining as Lights in the World' pericope (verse 12-17) is only one of many instances where he is doing so. Here we see the real messianistic Paul. The Jesus hymn is from a later, post-70 date, and, observing its abstracting qualities, rather 2nd century than end 1st century CE.

[Ben C. Smith]

The name "Jesus" may here be important for its theophoric value, being a Greek transliteration of Yeshua, a shortening of Yehoshua, which means "Yahweh saves" (Yahweh being perhaps the most expected "name which is above every name"). If so, then in this hymn, at least (which should perhaps be called the Jesus Hymn rather than the usual Christ Hymn), the name Jesus is original.

Thank you Mr. Smith for your challenging reply. Below I address only one small point , I hope to reply more comprehensively in the near future.

In my opinion the name "Jesus" has not been used here for its theophoric value, I think the real crucified Jesus is meant. Philippians 2:8-9a: "And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him..." From this verses we can say that the "days of Jesus" are clearly located in the past. Indeed, as you say, this is the Jesus Hymn.

But what happens in the next pericope? I only quote the core verse (verse 16): "...holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain."
First Jesus' days in the past are discussed, and in the next paragraph Paul mentions the 'day of Christ' in the future (and, I repeat, without any trace of a second coming discourse). Is Paul utterly inconsistent? I don't believe so, Paul's most important feature throughout his letters is his persistence in preaching the future Christ. This 'Shining as Lights in the World' pericope (verse 12-17) is only one of many instances where he is doing so. Here we see the real messianistic Paul. The Jesus hymn is from a later, post-70 date, and, observing its abstracting qualities, rather 2nd century than end 1st century CE.

Certainly, if the Hymn is an interpolation, then whatever it contains is removed from consideration as evidence of naming. Your theory already requires a great many Pauline passages to be interpolations, anyway, I would imagine.