Prof Vinzent: why Marcion created Christianity

[Giuseppe]

https://books.openedition.org/efr/5307

Interesting

[Giuseppe]

where Tertullian claims that he is essentially a mythicist:

According to Tertullian, Marcion’s choice to describe Jesus’s beginning as an "appearance", "suggests a sudden and unexpected sight" and implies fixing one’s eyes on "a thing which has at that instance appeared". He therefore wonders about the "sequence", the "aspect", the "sort of array", even the "speed", "move", and "time of day or of night", when Jesus "came down". Who "witnessed it, and who gave assurance of a fact not easily credible even to him who gives assurance?", he asks. And because of the incredible nature of the event, Tertullian argues that nobody could have believed it, had it not been foretold by the Prophets of Israel

(my bold)

[Giuseppe]

About YHWH according to Marcion:

This God, however, is perceived by Marcion as the antithesis to the God of Israel – the judging, war-mongering creator god of the Torah, the Prophets, and apocalyptic writings like Daniel. In his place, Marcion crowns the God of the new edict of peace and love of enemies, a counter-programme to that of Bar Kokhba.

[Giuseppe]

Heracleon was the same guy who connected Capernaum with Sheol. Now, I learn that he wrote a commentary on Marcion's Gospel, too.

To us, the fact that Tertullian is the first commentator on any preserved Gospel is most important, only preceded in this regard by Heracleon who wrote two commentaries: one on Marcion’s Gospel (only fragments of which survive),33 the other on the Gospel of John, fragments of which are preserved in Origen

Hence, if for Heracleon the equation Capernaum==Sheol holds true for his commentary on GJohn, it has to be true for his commentary on Marcion, too. I don't see why he should change his view about the allegorical meaning of Capernaum, in the passage from a gospel to another.

[Giuseppe]

What strikes me about the incipit of Marcion, is the probable midrash from the Genesis:

Fiat lux. Et lux fuit.

Interpreted, obviously, according to the distorted Gnostic exegesis of Genesis, with the Light coming from a supreme god who is distinct from the (evil) creator, and the Serpent as friend of the First Man. The demiurge is without the Light, the only able to give life to his inert creation. Hence the demiurge could only DESIRE the Light, just as John the Baptist could only dedire/predict the coming of the "Stronger one". Not coincidentially, for Heracleon the Baptist allegorizes the demiurge.


In this case, Jesus's rapidity to descend on Capernaum is very probably the allegory of the sudden apparition of the Light, coming from the supreme god to help a second time the demiurge in a new creation.

One where the presence of the evil demiurge is not more tolerated.

[Giuseppe]

What strikes me about the incipit of Marcion, is the probable midrash from the Genesis:

Fiat lux. Et lux fuit.

Interpreted, obviously, according to the distorted Gnostic exegesis of Genesis, with the Light coming from a supreme god who is distinct from the (evil) creator, and the Serpent as friend of the First Man. The demiurge is without the Light, the only able to give life to his inert creation. Hence the demiurge could only DESIRE the Light, just as John the Baptist could only dedire/predict the coming of the "Stronger one". Not coincidentially, for Heracleon the Baptist allegorizes the demiurge.


In this case, Jesus's rapidity to descend on Capernaum is very probably the allegory of the sudden apparition of the Light, coming from the supreme god to help a second time the demiurge in a new creation.

One where the presence of the evil demiurge is not more tolerated.

one can easily see how the separationism is a first naive way to incapsulate the Light in a human recipient who is a creature of the demiurge (so Cerinthus) or is the demiurge himself (so Cleomenes and the patripassianism). In order to rehabilitate the creature (by pointing out that the man Jesus son of Joseph and Mary was a pious Jew respectful of the Law etc), hence the creator too. The Catholic rehabilitation of the demiurge as the supreme god is only the last answer against Marcion.

[Giuseppe]

What strikes me about the incipit of Marcion, is the probable midrash from the Genesis:

Fiat lux. Et lux fuit.

Interpreted, obviously, according to the distorted Gnostic exegesis of Genesis, with the Light coming from a supreme god who is distinct from the (evil) creator, and the Serpent as friend of the First Man. The demiurge is without the Light, the only able to give life to his inert creation. Hence the demiurge could only DESIRE the Light, just as John the Baptist could only dedire/predict the coming of the "Stronger one". Not coincidentially, for Heracleon the Baptist allegorizes the demiurge.


In this case, Jesus's rapidity to descend on Capernaum is very probably the allegory of the sudden apparition of the Light, coming from the supreme god to help a second time the demiurge in a new creation.

One where the presence of the evil demiurge is not more tolerated.

one can easily see how the separationism is a first naive way to incapsulate the Light in a human recipient who is a creature of the demiurge (so Cerinthus) or is the demiurge himself (so Cleomenes and the patripassianism). In order to rehabilitate the creature (by pointing out that the man Jesus son of Joseph and Mary was a pious Jew respectful of the Law etc), hence the creator too. The Catholic rehabilitation of the demiurge as the supreme god is only the last answer against Marcion.

The problem raised by Tertullian (total absence of witnesses at the descent on Capernaum) was signaled by Celsus, too:

When you were bathing, says the Jew, beside John, you say that what had the appearance of a bird from the air alighted upon you. And then this same Jew of his, continuing his interrogations, asks, What credible witness beheld this appearance? Or who heard a voice from heaven declaring you to be the Son of God? What proof is there of it, save your own assertion, and the statement of another of those individuals who have been punished along with you?

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm

Evidently, for Celsus, not even the mere witness of John the Baptist was sufficient to confirm the real descent of Christ on Jesus.

Hence, how could Tertullian be satisfied by only the presence of the Baptist as witness ? According to his same logic, that is the Celsus's logic too, Tertullian would have required more witnesses during the descent. Not only the Baptist. Not only the man "who was punished along with" the Christ (i.e., the man abandoned by him on the cross), who could even be the same Baptist.

Really, during the creation, no living being was witness of the sudden apparition of the Light, but only the creator, since the rest of the creation was created after the introduction of the Light from above.

[Giuseppe]

Hence, I see 3 interests in game:

• 1) Marcion wanted zero witnesses of the ascent to confirm that Jesus was the Light from a supreme god (not YHWH) appearing to give life to a new creation (per Genesis 1).

• 2) Tertullian, Origen want zero witnesses, apart the Baptist, to confirm that only OT prophets could confirm the Jesus's descent.

• 3) Celsus wanted zero witnesses to deny any authenticity to the descent.

Just as the creator was so idiot that he didn't realize that the Light came from an alien god, so John the Baptist was so idiot that he didn't realize that Jesus came from above to his baptism. That is the reason why "Mark" (author) has John who was didn't realize nothing during the baptism: John allegorizes the unaware demiurge, there.