Christi Thora: new book by Markus Vinzent (German)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Christi Thora: new book by Markus Vinzent (German)

Post by mlinssen »

https://www.herder.de/theologie-pastora ... 7/p-24068/

Es ist anerkanntes Wissen, dass das Neue Testament als Sammlung erst im 2. Jh. entstanden ist. Wie kam zu dieser Sammlung? War es ein langsamer, organischer Prozess, in dem an vielen Orten, von unterschiedlichsten Verfassern geschriebene Texte in unterschiedlichen Versionen überliefert und in den diversesten Gemeinden gelesen, zu einem Buch zusammengewachsen sind, das dann in ersten Konturen bei Irenäus von Lyon im letzten Drittel des 2. Jh. greifbar wird – so die Annahme der älteren Forschung – oder wurden Schriften bewusst ausgewählt und in einer redaktionellen Entscheidung eines Einzelnen oder einer Gruppe von Editoren zusammengestellt, zu diesem Zweck überarbeitet und miteinander harmonisiert und mit eigens für diese Redaktion erstellten Schriften und neuen Kapiteln ergänzt? Letztere Theorie gewinnt sie heute stärkere Beachtung in der Forschung.

Mit dieser Frage verbindet sich auch die der methodischen Perspektive, ob die Herausbildung des Neuen Testaments von gegenseitigen gemeindlichen Anstößen, von verwickelten Lese- und Rezeptionsvorgängen und als Teile liturgischer Praktiken erfolgte, oder ob bestimmte Autoren am Werk waren.

Das Buch will dazu einladen, die neutestamentlichen Schriften auf dem Hintergrund des 2. Jh. zu lesen. Dies erfolgt mit Blick auf die Sammlung als solcher und entlang der vier Sammlungseinheiten: den Evangelien, dem sog. Praxapostolos (Apostelgeschichte und kanonische Briefe), den Briefen des Paulus und der Apokalypse. Es wird sich erweisen, dass die Mitte und 2. Hälfte des 2. Jahrhunderts das historische plausiblere Szenario für die Entstehung des neuen Testaments zu sein scheint.


It is accepted knowledge that the New Testament as a collection did not come into being until the 2nd century. How did this collection come about? Was it a slow, organic process in which texts written in many places by a wide variety of authors were handed down in different versions and read in the most diverse congregations, growing together into a book that then became tangible in its first contours in Irenaeus of Lyons in the last third of the 2nd century - as is the assumption of older research - or were writings deliberately selected and compiled in an editorial decision by an individual or a group of editors, revised and harmonised with each other for this purpose and supplemented with writings and new chapters created especially for this editing? The latter theory is gaining more attention in research today.

Linked to this question is that of the methodological perspective of whether the formation of the New Testament was the result of mutual congregational impulses, of intricate processes of reading and reception, and as parts of liturgical practices, or whether specific authors were at work.

The book aims to invite readers to read the New Testament writings against the background of the 2nd century. This will be done with a view to the collection as such and along the four collection units: the Gospels, the so-called Praxapostolos (Acts and canonical letters), the letters of Paul and the Apocalypse. It will turn out that the middle and 2nd half of the 2nd century seems to be the more historically plausible scenario for the emergence of the New Testament.

Seconded, and that's an early date, wholly influenced by the dating game of the Church Fathers I think. I think it will move up by a few centuries in the coming years, 300 CE sounds about right but we'll see - and what's the exact difference between outright falsification and outrageous falsification anyway?

Bought it, reading it. Good stuff
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Christi Thora: new book by Markus Vinzent (German)

Post by perseusomega9 »

I'm looking forward to this book.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Christi Thora: new book by Markus Vinzent (German)

Post by mlinssen »


Nicht einmal ein wissenschaftlicher synoptischer Kommentar zu den Evangelien des Markus, Matthäus und Lukas liegt vor

It is very promising. Not too shy either

Präzisierend muss man sagen, dass es Justin nicht um die Taten Jesu geht, sondern um Aussagen Jesu

Justin is not about the narrative, merely about the sayings of Jesus

Ohne hier über die historische Verlässlichkeit der Details der verschiedenen auf-geführten Zeugnisse ein Urteil fällen zu können, lässt sich aber doch zusammen-fassend festhalten, dass die gesamte frühchristliche Überlieferung zu Johannes zu-mindest einen gemeinsamen Nenner hat, der darin besteht, dass die Evangelien nicht zufällig an verschiedensten Orten und zu verschiedensten Zeiten entstanden sind, sondern dass der Anfang dieser Schriftstellerei unter den Akteuren koordiniert und in Kenntnis der Schriften der anderen durchgeführt wurde. Alle Zeugnisse sprechen für einen etwa simultanen Schreibprozess und mehr noch für eine gegen-seitige Kenntnis und Reaktion innerhalb der eigenen Redaktionsarbeit.

Even if we rely on the "witnesses" to the "witnesses", all stories tell of a process of collecting and editing, of deliberate construction of texts

Auch die bislang bekannt gewordenen Papyri aus dem zweiten und dritten Jahrhundert mit der sehr unterschiedlichen Anzahl von Bezeugungen der verschiedenen Schriften des Neuen Testaments – bis zum Jahr 300 liegen etwa folgende Evangelienzeugen vor: „für Joh sechzehn Papyri, für Mt zwölf, für Lk sieben; für EvThom und EvPetr jeweils drei; für EvMar zwei; für Mk und das Diatessaron einer“, erst nach dieser Zeit ändert sich die Überlieferungs-lage– spricht gegen die „Annahme einer einheitlichen Sammlung“ in Form eines gebundenen Kodex aus der Zeit des Irenäus, die bereits einen entsprechenden Ein-fluss auf die Gesamtrezeption gehabt hätte

It is a very intriguing piece so far. Vinze neatly chronologically outlines the various "witnesses". My German is really being tested as I'm not used to some of the vocabulary but it's getting better as I go along.
John and Luke versus Matthew really, and Mark is an afterthought. I am increasingly convinced that he's proto-Luke and the first Christian make-over of Chrestianity, which would make Matthew the second and last. And it would really seem that John represented the epitome of Chrestianity, which would explain his last position in the Canon. Only after having been greedily redacted of course, yet it is extraordinary that Mark and Matthew use a Roman loanword for the actual flogging whereas all predictions are in native Greek, whereas John has the native Greek - was he redacted that late?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Christi Thora: new book by Markus Vinzent (German)

Post by mlinssen »


Während dieser die Berge mit den Pro-pheten identifizierte, den Botschafter mit dem vom Geist Gesalbten, Zion als die Versammlung der Söhne der Gerechtigkeit und „Dein Gott“ mit Melchisedek (übersetzt: der gerechte König),21bildet für Markion das Evangelium den genauen Kontrast: Kein Prophet kannte diese Botschaft, außer der Messias des völlig trans-zendenten Gottes. Die engelhafte, himmlische Gestalt des Messias selbst über-bringt die frohe Botschaft, und Gott versammelt durch ihn keine Söhne der Ge-rechtigkeit, sondern solche, die voller Güte sind. Darum ist Gott auch kein gerechter oder sich rächender König, sondern allein der bislang unbekannte gütige Vater.22

Vinzent says it exactly like it is: Marcion just had the Father and nothing else - and he simply just couldn't link that to any god, certainly not to the wrathful god of the Tanakh.
(Perhaps he even wanted to, but there is absolutely no room whatsoever for that in Thomas)
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Christi Thora: new book by Markus Vinzent (German)

Post by Giuseppe »

I have read the previous books of prof Vinzent, and this point has always wondered me:

Justin is not about the narrative, merely about the sayings of Jesus

Sure, I can accept that point. But for Justin the sayings of Jesus don't come from a revelatory being but from a Jesus "in the flesh".

So, is this an expedient by Vinzent to preserve his historicist faith, despite of his radical view that Marcion wrote the Earliest Gospel ?

At any rate, I know that, assuming mlinssen's theory of Thomasine priority, the idea of a Jesus teacher of sayings could come from Thomas and from it enter in Justin's mind, once debtly 'corrected' in a judaizing sense.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Christi Thora: new book by Markus Vinzent (German)

Post by Giuseppe »

Jean Magne is partially a follower of the Thomasine absolute priority.

For example, about Thomas 16, he says that it preserves the oldest form of the logion:

Jesus said: Perhaps men think that I am come to cast peace upon the world; and they do not know that I am come to cast dissensions upon the earth, fire, sword, war. For there will be five who are in a house; three shall be against two and two against three, the father against the son and the son against the father, and they shall stand as solitaries.

One of the raisons is that the Logion 16 finds his parallel in the Logion 101:

<Jesus said:> He who does not hate his father and his mother like me cannot be a [disciple] to me. And he who does [not] love [his father] and his mother like me cannot be a [disciple] to me. For my mother [ . . . ], but [my] true [mother] gave me life.


The hate against a mother and relatives finds a parallel in a love for another mother and another relatives.

Jean Magne quotes Epiphanius about the Gospel of Philip, where we are explained about the identity of two different mothers for Jesus, one (carnal) who has to be hated, and the other (celestial) who had to be loved:

13,2 They cite a fictitious Gospel in the name of the holy disciple, Philip, as follows. “The Lord hath shown me what my soul must say on its ascent to heaven, and how it must answer each of the powers on high. ‘I have recognized myself,’ it saith, ‘and gathered myself from every quarter, and have sown no children for the archon. But I have pulled up his roots, and gathered my scattered members, and I know who thou art. For I,’ it saith, ‘am of the ones on high.’ ” And so, they say, it is set free. (3) But if it turns out to have fathered a son, it is detained below until it can take its own children up and restore them to itself.

https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/tag/panarion-26/

Jésus est venu d'auprès du Père, d'une part pour nous le faire connaitre, de l'autre pour briser sur la croix (céleste) le pouvoir sur nous des Puissances célestes de l'Archonte, les sept planètes du Destin qui, à chacun des cieux auxquels elles président, essaient de retenir l'ame qui s'élève vers le plérome.

(J. Magne, Sacrifice et Sacerdoce, p. 100).
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Christi Thora: new book by Markus Vinzent (German)

Post by Giuseppe »

Note that this gives an explanation about why the crucifixion had to be placed precisely in the outer space:

Because the planetary archontes forbid in outer space the souls to transit towards the pleroma.

Hence the planetary archontes had to be defeated precisely where they prevented souls from passing through: in the outer space.

This is probably the reason why the crucixifion in outer space was held by Valentinians and anti-demiurgists in general, yet in the late 2° century CE.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Christi Thora: new book by Markus Vinzent (German)

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 7:48 am I have read the previous books of prof Vinzent, and this point has always wondered me:

Justin is not about the narrative, merely about the sayings of Jesus

Sure, I can accept that point. But for Justin the sayings of Jesus don't come from a revelatory being but from a Jesus "in the flesh".

So, is this an expedient by Vinzent to preserve his historicist faith, despite of his radical view that Marcion wrote the Earliest Gospel ?

At any rate, I know that, assuming mlinssen's theory of Thomasine priority, the idea of a Jesus teacher of sayings could come from Thomas and from it enter in Justin's mind, once debtly 'corrected' in a judaizing sense.
What Markus wants to emphasise, I think, is that Justin doesn't tell about all the places that Jesus visits and how he works miracles for the respective audiences in the respective places that we know from the NT as we have it today.
So he could be reading from Marcion, or *Ev as Klinghardt and Vinzent label it, or Thomas, or even any other collection of sayings - but not from "the gospels". Or it could be that he wants to ignore all of that
Justin does have the plural keys that the Pharisees hid, which is only present in Thomas and nowhere else. I've not given Justin more than a cursory glance but will surely include his when I do the Klinghardt parallels. Although I find myself in a void at the moment, without much appetite either for Philip or that
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Christi Thora: new book by Markus Vinzent (German)

Post by mlinssen »


Schließlich hat man auf das „größte Paradox in der Geschichte der Entstehung des Christentums“ hingewiesen, das mit dem Täufer zusammenhängt:
„Der Ritus der Taufe war derjenige, durch den Menschen in die Jesusbewegung eingegliedert wurden. Doch Jesus war offenkundig nicht die Quelle für diese Übung. Der ursprüngliche Täufer war ein anderer Prophet, Johannes. In den synoptischen Berichten von der Taufe des Johannes behauptet Johannes, mit Wasser zu taufen, während der, der nach ihm komme, Jesus, mit dem Heiligen Geist taufen würde. Dann aber tauft Johannes Jesus mit Wasser und dem Heiligen Geist. Jesus geht von dannen und tauft niemanden.“140

Baptism supposedly initiates one into Christianity - so there's no need to baptise Jesus Christ, it would seem? It is John's invention, who claimed that he only baptised with water but that Jesus would baptise with the holy spirit.
And then it is John who baptises Jesus with water and Holy Spirit, and Jesus never baptises anyone

Da Markion gerade mit Johannes dem Täufer die Grenze zwischen der jüdischen Geschichte und der Geschichte des Christentums markiert hatte, die späteren kanonischen Evangelien aber gerade keine Trennung dieser Geschichten, sondern den Täufer als die Verbindungsfigur ansahen, die die jüdische und christliche Tradition als eine einzige zusammenhalten sollte, stellen sie an den Anfang der Jesusgeschichte den Brückenbauer Johannes

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Christi Thora: new book by Markus Vinzent (German)

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 8:14 am Jean Magne is partially a follower of the Thomasine absolute priority.

For example, about Thomas 16, he says that it preserves the oldest form of the logion:

Jesus said: Perhaps men think that I am come to cast peace upon the world; and they do not know that I am come to cast dissensions upon the earth, fire, sword, war. For there will be five who are in a house; three shall be against two and two against three, the father against the son and the son against the father, and they shall stand as solitaries.

One of the raisons is that the Logion 16 finds his parallel in the Logion 101:

<Jesus said:> He who does not hate his father and his mother like me cannot be a [disciple] to me. And he who does [not] love [his father] and his mother like me cannot be a [disciple] to me. For my mother [ . . . ], but [my] true [mother] gave me life.


The hate against a mother and relatives finds a parallel in a love for another mother and another relatives.

Jean Magne quotes Epiphanius about the Gospel of Philip, where we are explained about the identity of two different mothers for Jesus, one (carnal) who has to be hated, and the other (celestial) who had to be loved:

13,2 They cite a fictitious Gospel in the name of the holy disciple, Philip, as follows. “The Lord hath shown me what my soul must say on its ascent to heaven, and how it must answer each of the powers on high. ‘I have recognized myself,’ it saith, ‘and gathered myself from every quarter, and have sown no children for the archon. But I have pulled up his roots, and gathered my scattered members, and I know who thou art. For I,’ it saith, ‘am of the ones on high.’ ” And so, they say, it is set free. (3) But if it turns out to have fathered a son, it is detained below until it can take its own children up and restore them to itself.

https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/tag/panarion-26/

Jésus est venu d'auprès du Père, d'une part pour nous le faire connaitre, de l'autre pour briser sur la croix (céleste) le pouvoir sur nous des Puissances célestes de l'Archonte, les sept planètes du Destin qui, à chacun des cieux auxquels elles président, essaient de retenir l'ame qui s'élève vers le plérome.

(J. Magne, Sacrifice et Sacerdoce, p. 100).
Interesting. Thomas does have all the words there: fire, sword, war - and only if one peruses all the texts does that become clear.
Luke has ‘fire’ (12.49), Matthew has ‘sword’ (10.34), ‘war’
is distinctive to Thomas. Yet Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions (Syriac) 2.26 has 'I have not come to send peace on earth, but war.'
Luke 12.51//Matthew 10.34 in PRec f Ar
add "war" - DeConick doesn't have a clue about anything in or about Thomas, but her parallels are useful

Logion 101 simply states the obvious: assuming that one can only either hate or love another one, then no one can become a disciple to IS - which is part of his message, and also amply demonstrated in his never ceasing verbal lashings of the ignorant fools. Whose main function of course consists of handing Thomas an excuse to ridicule Judaism

Logion 16 works only for Thomas because it states that the son is two; divided. Yet the father is three, hence he can be(come) with the son. And the number 5 is used to denigrate the image of Paradise, stressing even further that it is divided.
It is perfectly possible to interpret Thomas without clasping at straws, without relying on context that is assumed to be prior.
Magne may accidentally have a partial point here, but his argumentation is wild. I haven't read him, by the way
Post Reply