Markus Vinzent calls the Marcion's Jesus an 'unhistorical saviour'

[ABuddhist]

If Marcion's Gospel was first, then his Gospel and his letters of Paul were independent of the Hebrew Scriptures, which suggests a Jesus that developed out of something else. What could that be? That's the question.

Perhaps the anti-Roman firebrand Jesus whom we see in Revelation to John? Just throwing out an idea.

[MrMacSon]

... that there is a core to the Jesus story that is independent of the Hebrew Scriptures, one that was reflected in the [a] Gospel and in the letters of Paul, if Marcion is to be believed.

If Marcion's Gospel was first, then his Gospel and his letters of Paul were independent of the Hebrew Scriptures, which suggests a Jesus that developed out of something else. What could that be? That's the question.

There's a few options including but probably not limited to:

1. a trend or even a concerted move to reify the saviour figure recounted in texts such as the Sethian Apocryphon/Secret Book of John - a revelation delivered by a resurrected Saviour (Christ(?)) to John - which opens
   
   
   "The teaching of the saviour, and the revelation of the mysteries and the things hidden in silence ... things which he taught John, his disciple."
   
   
2. that Marcion's account was a true fiction, as Jörg Rüpke, suggests he thinks it is in commentary in his 2018 book,
   • Pantheon: A New History of Roman Religion
3. a bit of both

---

Can Marcion be explained under the theory that the Jesus story was crafted from the Hebrew Scriptures?

As I understand it Marcion's gospel was crafted to counter the Hebrew Scriptures. If Marcion's gospel was first, his Jesus would be the first attempt to put an actual, concrete saviour-messiah on the map.

Right, and Tertullian makes that very point: if Marcion's Gospel was to counter the Hebrew Scriptures in an earlier Christianity, then the orthodox version was prior. As Tertullian wrote (quoted above) "No one censures things before they exist".

• Tertullian is very likely to have been re-writing history. To the point of gaslightling.

[Leucius Charinus]

Right, and Tertullian makes that very point: if Marcion's Gospel was to counter the Hebrew Scriptures in an earlier Christianity, then the orthodox version was prior. As Tertullian wrote (quoted above) "No one censures things before they exist".

• Tertullian is very likely to have been re-writing history.
  To the point of gaslightling.

I'm glad there is at least some skepticism regarding whatever historical integrity may be associated with the narratives of at least some of these heresiological Ante Nicene "Fathers".

This contemporary explosion of academic interest in the possibility that Marcion is involved in the authorship and/or editorship of the NT canonical writings is completely dependent upon the narratives of the heresiologists.

Gaslighters have many techniques including:

* Obfuscation – Abuser deliberately obfuscates an issue.

* Withholding – Abuser pretends not to understand the victim.

* Countering – Abuser will vehemently call into question a victim's memory in spite of the victim having remembered things correctly.

* Blocking and diverting – Abuser changes the conversation from the subject matter to questioning the victim's thoughts and controlling the conversation.

* Trivializing – Abuser makes the victim believe his or her thoughts or needs are not important.

* Forgetting and denial – Abuser pretends to forget things that have really occurred; the abuser may deny or delay things like promises that are important to the victim. Although anyone can deny or delay, the gaslighter does it regularly in the absence of real external limitations. The gaslighter may make up or create artificial barriers to allow themselves to deny or delay that which is important to the victim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

We should keep firmly in mind that the heresiologists are the abusers and the heretics are the victims of the abuse. At stake here is the historical integrity of any and all reconstructions of "Early Christianity".

As far as I am concerned we should also keep firmly in mind here that these heretics should -- in the first place -- be identified as the authors of those writings deemed to be heretical by the orthodoxy. (Specifically the NT apocryphal corpus of literature). The job of the heresiologists included the gaslighting of these authors whoever they may turn out to be, wherever they wrote, and whenever they wrote.

[mlinssen]

The implications go beyond that, though. It suggests that there is a core to the Jesus story that is independent of the Hebrew Scriptures, one that was reflected in the first Gospel and in the letters of Paul, if Marcion is to be believed.

I don't think that that suggests that there is a historical core to and thus for a historical Jesus. But it doesn't rule out such a core.

Yes, I deliberately didn't say "historical" core, but rather an "independent" one. Though of course a "historical core" is one possible option.

If Marcion's Gospel was first, then his Gospel and his letters of Paul were independent of the Hebrew Scriptures, which suggests a Jesus that developed out of something else. What could that be? That's the question.

Can Marcion be explained under the theory that the Jesus story was crafted from the Hebrew Scriptures?

As I understand it Marcion's gospel was crafted to counter the Hebrew Scriptures. If Marcion's gospel was first, his Jesus would be the first attempt to put an actual, concrete saviour-messiah on the map.

Right, and Tertullian makes that very point: if Marcion's Gospel was to counter the Hebrew Scriptures in an earlier Christianity, then the orthodox version was prior. As Tertullian wrote (quoted above) "No one censures things before they exist".

On the other hand, if the first Gospel (e.g. gMark) wasn't crafted from the Hebrew Scriptures, nor were Paul's letters -- no suffering servant influence, no Psalms influence -- but nevertheless there were still the 12 disciples, Judas, certain sayings and events, all dating to the 15th year of Tiberius, it brings up an interesting portrait of early Christianity.

When your centre of the universe is Judaism, perhaps it is hard to imagine that there exists a giant universe apart from it.
When your centre of the universe is Christianity, perhaps it is hard to imagine that there exists a giant universe apart from it.

Look at the world around 100 BCE-CE, observe the Mediterranean and everything around it: the cultures, the religions, spiritualities, century and millennia old customs and traditions of which we have archaeological and written evidence, carbondated even

What could it be? Everything. Judaism was nothing but a speck on the map of hundreds of religions, and it certainly didn't belong to the dozens of main ones

[GakuseiDon]

Can Marcion be explained under the theory that the Jesus story was crafted from the Hebrew Scriptures?

As I understand it Marcion's gospel was crafted to counter the Hebrew Scriptures. If Marcion's gospel was first, his Jesus would be the first attempt to put an actual, concrete saviour-messiah on the map.

Right, and Tertullian makes that very point: if Marcion's Gospel was to counter the Hebrew Scriptures in an earlier Christianity, then the orthodox version was prior. As Tertullian wrote (quoted above) "No one censures things before they exist".

• Tertullian is very likely to have been re-writing history. To the point of gaslightling.

It's certainly possible, but is there evidence for such a view?

[MrMacSon]

Tertullian is very likely to have been re-writing history. To the point of gaslightling.

It's certainly possible, but is there evidence for such a view?

I think so: Tertullian's profound rhetoric, and, like other Ante-Nicene Patristic Fathers, his appeal to supposed Jewish prophecy about Jesus underpinning the Christian theology and tropes he and his peers are pushing, serve as evidence.

As I note previously:

One thing I noticed in reading Against Marcion book IV is that, after raising and briefly considering the issue of whether Marcion's gospel or Luke and other synoptic gospels, Tertullian goes into a long spiel appealing to the Jewish scriptures rather than to actual accounts about Jesus.

Markus Vinzent notes in his 2014 book Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels that, on occasion, and not just in Against Marcion, Tertullian gives clues about what really happened. And Vinzent also noted that in his 2016 book, 'Tertullian's Preface to Marcion's Gospel', in which he dissects Tertullian's preface-commentaries about Marcion, not just to Adversus Marcionem, but also to De preascriptione haereticoum, De resurrectione carnis and to De carne Christi, that Tertullian gives away his real agenda/s [in those prefaces].

Vinzent sees

"a glimpse of what, despite all the rhetorical clouding of Tertullian, might have provoked Marcion in the first place to publish his own preface to his Gospel, the 'Antitheses'; together with this Gospel-text and the ten Pauline letters as his New Testament."
.

And notes:

"Tertullian who, towards the beginning of the third century, is trying to keep on a tight rein the horses that Marcion had let loose around the middle of the second century, is at the same time indulging in a leisurely riding of those [same] running animals and fully admiring their steam, power and sheer irresistible attraction, as they gallop taking rider and reader into unknown territories ...

"... every so often Tertullian has to admit that the one he is trying to defeat did get things right and pushed the same agenda that he himself is following, the novelty of Christianity, the newness of its scriptures, the divinity of Christ and the prophetic nature of his message. In contrast to Marcion, however, at least as he sees and portrays him, Tertullian tries to retain traditio, to re-establish the hierarchical link between the old and the new, between just and good, between the prophets of old and the great prophet, Jesus.25 And he insists on the integration of the prefigurations of the truth, the grand story.26 This he sees narrated by the Word Christ who was the Son of his Father,27 created the World, called Israel, and when it rebuked and refuse the saviour,28 'extended towards all men the law of his Father's bounty, excluding none from his compassion as he excludes none from his vocation'.29 [pp.4-6]


²⁵ According to R. Braum, Tertillien: Contra Marcion IV (2001), 32, more than 50% of all 419 quotes from the 'Old Testament' in Adv. Marc. IV refer to prophetic writings, making a total of 222 quotes (of which 140 are explicit citations). Of these, again, over 50%, or a total of 140 quotes (86 explicit ones), refer to Isaiah alone, followed by Jeremiah (15/14), Zacharia (13/9), Daniel (12/3), and others.

²⁶ On this progressive scheme see also Tert. De or. I, 1-2; see J.-C. Fredouille, Tertuallien et la coversion de la culture antique (1972), 274-81, who points out the Aristotelian and Neo-Platonic elements of it; on the notion of progress see L.E.L. van der Geest, Le Christ et l'Ancien Testament chez Tertullian (1972), 81-5.

²⁷ see Tert., Adv. Marc. IV 39.

²⁸ see Tert., Adv. Marc. IV 31.43.

²⁹ see Tert., Adv. Marc. IV 16 [cited in Latin].
.

In an Epilogue Vinzent warns to

"detect the twists [Tertullian] has given to the data21."

21 See E. Bosshardt, Essai sur l'originalite et la probitie de Tertullien dans son traite contre Marcion (1921), 53-7; E. Lodovci, Sull' interpretazione di alcuni test della Lettera ai Galati' (1972), 374.
.

And he cautions

So, whenever we read Tertullian we should

1. check whether the opposite of what he is trying to convey could be closer to reality ... for example, his statement that his own Gospel-text is 'the one, true and tradition Gospel' of the Apostles which was cut up and down by Marcion; while the historical truth might have been the contrary;
   .
2. notice the interference between his personal interest and the interpretation he gives of any given 'fact' ... don not mistake 'facts' for claims, as Judith Liu has now thoroughly shown; [see J. Lieu, Marcion and the Making of a Heretic (2015).]
   .
3. reckon with a silencing of important facts which do not fit the author's intention - see, for example, the draft Gospel of Marcion;
   .
4. understand the ideological basis from which to Tertullian argues and the aim towards which he is driving: most importantly, for a prior existence of a or the Gospel(s) of the Apostles and their Apostolic men, and the positioning of the New Testament as linked to the Old Testament; while at his juncture he is only hoping and fighting for the acceptance of this combination as a mainstream belief;
   .
5. detect the seriousness of the underlying argument the moment he is ridiculing [his] opponent's position...for example, [Tertullian's account of] Marcion’s claim that his gospel was falsified by authors who then pseudonymously put the names of Apostles and Apostolic men to their texts.

[schillingklaus]

Revelation is by no means anti-Roman, as already proven by G.A.van den Bergh van Eysinga and denied by Kreuzerin.

Marcion's story was by no means an early attempt of a messianic saviour figure but a late attempt to de-Judaize a previously Judaized anti-demiurgic saviour figure. The messiah is necessarily a Judaizing thing.

[mlinssen]

Revelation is by no means anti-Roman, as already proven by G.A.van den Bergh van Eysinga and denied by Kreuzerin.

Marcion's story was by no means an early attempt of a messianic saviour figure but a late attempt to de-Judaize a previously Judaized anti-demiurgic saviour figure. The messiah is necessarily a Judaizing thing.

The very clue of Chrestianity / "Marcion" is that there is a figure, who will bring salvation - but that salvation will be from yourself and of yourself and baptism in the name of the father, son and holy spirit was a ritual that fulfilled and symbolised rebirth - or resurrection so you will.
None of that was Judaic, he most certainly was not messianic, and the whole point was that all of it was anti-Judaic, and renouncing all of Judaism: the Law and the Prophets were until John, and IS came after John

The only Judaisation that ever took place was when Christianity hijacked Chrestianity; the alleged accusations by the FF that "Marcion" dejudaised something existing fell through right from the start. Just read any Against Marcion and that becomes evident.
The Messiah was introduced by Mark who was the first Christian gospel, and reversed the anti-Judaism by fusing Christianity with the Tanakh:

viewtopic.php?p=149148#p149148

[GakuseiDon]

Tertullian is very likely to have been re-writing history. To the point of gaslightling.

It's certainly possible, but is there evidence for such a view?

I think so: Tertullian's profound rhetoric, and, like other Ante-Nicene Patristic Fathers, his appeal to supposed Jewish prophecy about Jesus underpinning the Christian theology and tropes he and his peers are pushing, serve as evidence.

But, is it evidence for that? I think it is the other way around. Looking at the earliest layer of Christian writings, they nearly all appeal to Jewish prophecy and the importance of the Hebrew Scriptures: Epistle to the Hebrews, Ignatius, 1 Clement, Ascension of Isaiah, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus. All earlier than Tertullian, and all consistent with the views of Tertullian on the origins of Christianity, AFAICS. If there is re-writing of history, it seems to have happened before Tertullian.

Most of the analysis of Paul and the Gospels on this forum up to recently seems to have been around how Paul and the Gospels were heavily influenced by the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus didn't exist because he was created from the Hebrew Scriptures!

But now there is an earlier layer about a Jesus that wasn't created from the Hebrew Scriptures??? I think that requires some kind of explanation about where the idea of "Christ"/"Messiah" came from, if there was no Hebrew Scriptures origin (a point Tertullian makes as well)

Also some re-evaluation of Paul's letters and gMark might be nice from those who have thought that Paul and the Gospel writers were working from Hebrew Scriptures, but now think that Marcion was primary. You know who you are!

Of course we are looking through the lens of the victors here, but that doesn't make Tertullian and others wrong. Anything can be proposed, but not everything has evidence.

As I note previously:

One thing I noticed in reading Against Marcion book IV is that, after raising and briefly considering the issue of whether Marcion's gospel or Luke and other synoptic gospels, Tertullian goes into a long spiel appealing to the Jewish scriptures rather than to actual accounts about Jesus.

Yes, I know. He doesn't appeal to "newspaper reporter" accounts of Jesus. Like nearly all early Christian writers, 'finding' Jesus in the Jewish Scriptures was regarded as important.

In fact, that is evident in the whole rationale behind Marcion's belief that 'Judaisers' had inserted lots of Jewish Scripture references into Paul and Marcion's Gospel rather than inserting "actual accounts about Jesus", despite Marcion apparently believing that Jesus had a ministry on earth, interacted with his 12 disciples, etc.

Markus Vinzent notes in his 2014 book Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels that, on occasion, and not just in Against Marcion, Tertullian gives clues about what really happened. And Vinzent also noted that in his 2016 book, 'Tertullian's Preface to Marcion's Gospel', in which he dissects Tertullian's preface-commentaries about Marcion, not just to Adversus Marcionem, but also to De preascriptione haereticoum, De resurrectione carnis and to De carne Christi, that Tertullian gives away his real agenda/s [in those prefaces].

<snipped>

Thanks for the quotes from Vinzent. I don't see anything there that addresses the question, though I don't have his book so I can't comment without seeing the context or cites he uses.

[schillingklaus]

Tyhe messiah was introduced long before Mk in pre-synoptic-gospels, and Mk is only excessively late piecemeal with no originality.