Markus Vinzent: Was Marcion anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic?

[mlinssen]

And if that wasn't enough, a small nuclear to go along with that: http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/2023/ ... mitic.html

A pivotal question, tabooed by biblical academic thus far, and almost always misconstrued. The word in the texts is ⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓⲟⲥ and one may make of that what one wants, when the context allows for it. Philip distinguishes between Hebrews (ϩⲉⲃⲣⲁⲓⲟⲥ in logion 6) and Judeans (ⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓⲟ[ⲥ] in logion 108) and Judaics (ϊⲟⲩⲇⲁϊ in logion 53)

An essential discussion that is necessary to start; in my view it all derives from Thomas, progresses into John and escalates into Marcion / *Ev: anti-Judean-ism as well as anti-Judaism. Thomas was a Samarian, John was, and while Thomas invents IS as a pure concept, John assigns him a human shape and portrays him as Samarian: and there is a very big difference between Samaritan (of the Samaritan faith) and Samarian (from the region of Samaria).
There never was any anti-semitism in any text, just "some plain ol' North & South hate between groups of people" next to fierce anti-Judaism, as Judaism took the brunt of all the anti-religious outings in Thomas, John and Marcion

[Giuseppe]

Marcion seems to have been a thorough historian and did not aim at writing historical fiction. This is all the more true since a prophetic figure unknown to his audience and readership could hardly have served Marcion's argument.

It is evident that Vinzent is using the unexpected mention of John in Marcion as evidence that Marcion wasn't inventing at all Jesus. Mythicist Georges Ory opted for the radical view that Marcion never mentioned John.

It is therefore astonishing that Marcion hardly receives any attention in the relevant research on John.[3]

I think this is a false wonder. To my knowledge, the higher number of Christian apologists masked as "academics" is found precisely "in the relevant research on John". It is very an enormous shame, since this modern emphasis on John the Baptist appears to be sometimes a terrible echo of the Tertullian's anti-marcionite emphasis on John.

[mlinssen]

Marcion seems to have been a thorough historian and did not aim at writing historical fiction. This is all the more true since a prophetic figure unknown to his audience and readership could hardly have served Marcion's argument.

It is evident that Vinzent is using the unexpected mention of John in Marcion as evidence that Marcion wasn't inventing at all Jesus. Mythicist Georges Ory opted for the radical view that Marcion never mentioned John.

[ETA: distinguished between the two Johns]

Correct analysis by Vonzent, wrong conclusion: John the Gospel comes before *Ev, and his introduction of John B doesn't need any fixing.
Ory is wrong, *Ev abuses John B to the max and turns him into a sock puppet of Judaism just as Justin Martyr does with Trypho, the FF do with Marcion, etc

It is therefore astonishing that Marcion hardly receives any attention in the relevant research on John.[3]

I think this is a false wonder. To my knowledge, the higher number of Christian apologists masked as "academics" is found precisely "in the relevant research on John". It is very an enormous shame, since this modern emphasis on John the Baptist appears to be sometimes a terrible echo of the Tertullian's anti-marcionite emphasis on John.

I think so too, Giuseppe. It is safe for these "academics" to not touch Marcion of course, they are excused. Then again all research on John is don & dusted when we observe the 6 verses he gets from Mark: to Christianity, he was a nuissance. And the phoney preaching that LukeMatthew adds later doesn't really improve the situation - on the contrary

[MrMacSon]

My take:

... why Marcion mentions John at all in his Gospel ...

... so that he could use him to mark the boundary between the time of Jewish prophetism and the novelty that was brought by Jesus ... Marcion saw him as a prophet and teacher of righteousness, and...that Jesus's message could either be identified with or at least equated with that of John ...

The first introduction of the Baptist in *Ev clearly prepares the core antithetical passage of *Ev 16...with the Baptist being regarded as the border between the Jewish Law and Prophets on the one side, and the Gospel on the other ... it is said in *Ev that the news of Jesus's miracles - preceded by the raising of the young man of Nain (*Ev 7:11-16) - reached John the Baptist [who] "took offence" "when he heard of...Jesus' deeds" (*Ev 7:18), a remark, as we will later see in more detail... cut out by the redaction that turned *Ev into Lk.

In *Ev, Jesus's answer to the question of John's disciples - [of] whether it was he who was coming or whether they should expect someone else - which in Lk sounds somehow random - reads: "Blessed are you if you take no offence at me!" (*Ev 7:23). The verse refers directly to vers 7:18 and makes clear that John did, indeed, take offence at Jesus [or was to be portrayed as doing so]. That John is seen as a person who is not blessed by Jesus underlines the gulf that Marcion sees between the Baptist and the Saviour ...

http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/2023/ ... mitic.html
.

... Just as Tertullian wished to see John not as a division between, on the one side, Law and Prophets, and, on the other, the Gospel, but rather as a bridge, a parenthesis or an ‘in-between’ between Jewish and Christian traditions, so the canonical editors redacted *Ev to remove Marcion’s edge of John serving as a boundary marker.

... Tertullian...refers to this consistency when he states his intention to contradict him in his views on John:

• "I shall make it my purpose to show both that John is in accord with Christ and Christ in accord with John, the Creator's Christ with the Creator's prophet, that so the heretic may be put to shame at having to no advantage made John's work of no advantage" [Adv. Marc. IV 11,4].

... According to Tertullian, *Ev lacked this passage that one can find in Lk 3:21-22, because this act of baptism served Marcion as a justification for the antithesis between John and Christ, and, as the next pericope will show, between John’s disciples and Jesus's disciples. “For”, Tertullian argues,

• "if John's work had been utterly without effect when, as Isaiah says, he cried aloud in the wilderness as preparer of the ways of the Lord by the demanding and commending of repentance, and if he had not along with the others baptized Christ himself, no one could have challenged Christ's disciples for eating and drinking, or referred them to the example of John's disciples who were assidous in fasting and prayer: because if any opposition had stood between Christ and John, and between the followers of each, there could have been no demand for imitation, and the force of the challenge would have been lost" [Adv. Marc. IV 11,5]

From this Tertullian concludes that Christ belongs to John, and John to Christ, and both to the Creator, that both were "preachers of the Law and of the Prophets."

... Tertullian believes he has discovered an inner contradiction in Marcion, who otherwise insisted on asceticism himself: "Now deny, if you can, your utter madness, Marcion: you go so far as to assail the law of your own god" [Adv. Marc. IV 11,6] - for how could he call Christ a "bridegroom", if Marcion otherwise preached marital abstinence and insisted on asceticism?

http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/2023/ ... mitic.html
.

From reading Tertullian it thus becomes even clearer...that Marcion used the example of the new wine and the old wineskins to impart his message: that his saviour Christ revealed a new way of life, a series of new commandments and a new form of Scripture, ie. the new wine that does not fit into the old wineskins of the Law and the Prophets and thus into the Jewish tradition. The reasoning in *Ev is not insignificant: Christ would "tear apart" the Jewish tradition, which would mean a larger gap for both sides with a downfall of both, just as the pouring of Christian novelty into the old frame of Judaism would destroy both – as the novel cult is only served by a novel container or grounding, the older cult will not be threatened by the novel content, and both will have a future.

... Marcion advocated a novel frame for Christ and his new message...based on a new scriptural foundation.

But even though the qualification of the Jewish tradition as "old" could also be quickly misunderstood as a disqualification and devaluation, as happens with Tertullian (and Justin before him), Marcion was also concerned with the fate of the Jewish tradition. For it is clear from the second example - of the unrolled patch on an old garment - that Marcion was also concerned that neither new nor old should tear when he speaks of the new then being of "no use to the old".

Accordingly, Marcion also saw a benefit of the "Gospel" and Christ for the Jewish tradition. What did this consist of? In the image of the example, it is first of all that there is no "greater rift". Even though Marcion provided Jewish (and non-Jewish) followers of Christ their distinct identity (Christanismus) in setting them in antithesis to a Jewish identity (Judaismus), as he stated in his preface, his intention was the avoidance of a separation or an antagonism between these two cult forms. Hence he was neither anti-Jewish nor did he press for a downfall of the old Jewish tradition ...

... that the Christians could be a threat to Jews and Jews to Christians might be mirroring the historical situation after the Second Jewish war ... The example of the wineskins and the cloak also intimate that...Christianity was inconceivable without its antithetical counterpart, Judaism.

http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/2023/ ... mitic.html
.

---

I'm not sure about:

... as a political statement, Christianity sailed under Roman-political protection of Jewish privileges which was only possible as long as Christianity and Judaism were further recognized as belonging together and both survived.

• whether there was Roman-political protection of Jewish privileges after the Bar Kohkba Revolt would, I would think, be debateable.
  
  But Christianity may well have benefited - from philosophical and theological points of views - from perception in belonging together with Judaism : there may well have been interest in Judaism because it had been so troublesome (and Judaism may well have capitalised on its developing and evolving written 1st and 2nd century works, the Tosefta and the Mishna)

[MrMacSon]

*Ev abuses John to the max and turns him into a sock puppet of Judaism; just as Justin Martyr does with Trypho; the FF do with Marcion, etc.

• Good point

John comes before *Ev, and his introduction of John doesn't need any fixing

• I presume 'his introduction of John' = Marcion's mention and use of John (?)

[mlinssen]

*Ev abuses John to the max and turns him into a sock puppet of Judaism; just as Justin Martyr does with Trypho; the FF do with Marcion, etc.

• Good point

John comes before *Ev, and his introduction of John doesn't need any fixing

• I presume 'his introduction of John' = Marcion's mention and use of John (?)

Ta, fixed that ambiguity now:

John the gospel comes before *Ev, and his introduction of John B doesn't need any fixing (by *Ev)

In other words, and can we please nuance this damn stupid intro-demand that is enormously over emphasised in biblical academic, John Presbyter introduces John.
And really, if we stick to John as first gospel, then so many problems get solved

Regarding your other remarks Mac: I completely disagree with Vinzent for the last part where he seems to be making amends for something?

As this argument reveals, Marcion did not recognise in Christ's appearance an anti-Johannean, anti-Pharisaic or at all anti-Jewish attack directed against Law and Prophets, as Tertullian interpreted Marcion, but Marcion advocated a novel frame for Christ and his new message, which he only saw guaranteed in a new form, based on a new scriptural foundation

Hell no, *Ev explicitly changes Thomas's old patch onto a new garment into a new patch onto an old one: with an old patch of Judaism onto the new Chrestianity garment the damage of rejection would have been moderate, but with the new Chrestianity patch not being applied to the old Judaic garment - ah forget about it, it is time that I write my say on this at large and get it over with

I will settle this once and for all. Vinzent is here backing out of his German book, IIRC - but there's much more going on here

But even though the qualification of the Jewish tradition as "old" could also be quickly misunderstood as a disqualification and devaluation, as happens with Tertullian (and Justin before him), Marcion was also concerned with the fate of the Jewish tradition.

is completely rubbish, *Ev is vehemently anti-Judaic. We mustn't further that Vinzent is German and that his book gets released in English now, and it won't be the first time that a book gets severely watered down whence it gets translated into English: the French Guillaumont and Leloup, for instance, are essentially different from their English translations.
I suspect an awful lot at play here, that has nothing to do with the findings of Vinzent - even though the net effect of what he does here is taking away anti-Semitism from Marcion and putting ing it into the hands of Christianity, which naturally is entirely correct because it is their stories and translations which turned the anti-Judaism into anti-Jewism

[Giuseppe]

John the Gospel comes before *Ev, and his introduction of John B doesn't need any fixing.

what do you mean as "no fixing" for the Baptist in proto-John? Doesn't proto-John mention Pilate, hence fixing both Jesus and John the Baptist under Pilate?

Prof Vinzent writes:

Whatever source Marcion has in mind, his mention of John speaks for his assumption that the Baptist was a historical figure, so that he could use him to mark the boundary between the time of Jewish prophetism and the novelty that was brought by Jesus.

If Marcion is first and if the Baptist Passage in Josephus is a total forgey (I like a lot that prof Vinzent is open to a such concrete possibility), then Marcion would have dated John the Baptist under Pilate by a mere arbitrary act, i.e. Marcion was really dealing with an undated John the Baptist.

Who was this undated John the Baptist?
I am inclined to think that he was the essene Teacher of Righteousness. Or the distorted memory of John of Gischala. Or both.

If he was Dositheus/Theudas (as per Ory's argument), then Marcion was de facto going against the followers of a Samaritan messiah crucified by Pilate. This would fit the memory of Simon Magus (Marcion?) revolting against his leader Dositheus.

[Giuseppe]

Really, if the Marcionite priority points towards an undated John the Baptist fixed arbitrarily by Marcion under Pilate, then this evidence talks about John being introduced in the Gospel tradition as an enemy, as a rival of the Christian Jesus. If the same polemical rivalry had moved, after Origen, the anti-marcionite Christians to interpolate John the Baptist in Josephus, then we are dealing not with a banal forgery, but with an anti-marcionite forgery.

What could be of anti-marcionite in the Baptist Passage interpolated by Christians in Josephus?


Georges Ory gives the answer:

A Christian evidently wanted to insert an account of the forerunner of Jesus together with praise in his regard. He did so in order to combat the preceding passage (regarding the unnamed Samaritan upstart, XVIII.4.1) which he felt included perfidious material regarding John.21 The interpolator needed to show that John was not an agitator but a peaceful and good prophet. In this way Josephus—a historian who viewed the Samaritans as troublemakers—is made to contradict himself in his own writing.

I am more and more persuaded that Ory is right, i.e. that:

• Theudas/Dositheus/John the Baptist was the unnamed Samaritan false prophet killed by Pilate;

• Marcion used Theudas/Dositheus/John the Baptist to mark the boundary between the time of Jewish prophetism and the novelty that was brought by Jesus; Marcion agrees with Josephus about the negative portrayal of Theudas/Dositheus/John the Baptist:
  
  • 
    
    “The man who excited [the Samaritans to tumults] was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence…”
    
    (XVIII.4.1)
  • 
    
    All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them
    
    (John 10:8)

• The anti-marcionite gospels (Mark in primis) rehabilitated the memory of John the Baptist, just as the interpolation of the Baptist Passage in Josephus rehabilitated the memory of John the Baptist, by merely separating him from his real identity: the unnamed Samaritan false prophet killed by Pilate.

[mlinssen]

Almost none of you can focus, or can you?
The attention span in this forum is less than 2 seconds

[Giuseppe]

Almost none of you can focus, or can you?
The attention span in this forum is less than 2 seconds

In whiletime, I have posted the following question to prof Vinzent:

Hi Prof Vinzent, I like the fact that you are open to the concrete possibility that the Baptist Passage in Josephus may be a Christian interpolation (as argued recently by Rivka Nir). Assuming that is the case, then the possibility is equally concrete that Marcion fixed Jesus (beyond if Jesus existed or not) under Pilate because Marcion had fixed already John the Baptist under Pilate (and as you write, Marcion wanted to use John the Baptist "to mark the boundary between the time of Jewish prophetism and the novelty that was brought by Jesus"). If therefore the chronological marker for Jesus is John the Baptist (meant by Marcion as a human 'boundary' between old and new), then the chronological marker for John the Baptist was, right or wrong, Pilate. Why? I see that in the Evangelion John the Baptist is never connected with Herod, so the readers would have realized that he was beheaded probably by Pilate. Why did the late gospels (Mark in primis) make Herod, and not Pilate, the killer of John? Because they were embarrassed by the risk of a confusion between John the Baptist and the unnamed Samaritan false prophet killed by Pilate (which would be also the reason of the Christian interpolation of the Baptist Passage in Josephus). This same embarrassment by pro-John Christians explains why John the Baptist was placed by the anti-John Marcion just under Pilate: Marcion would have favored this confusion (right or wrong) between John the Baptist and the Samaritan prophet, by placing the former under Pilate, on imitation of the latter. Or, in alternative, John the Baptist was really the Samaritan Prophet killed by Pilate.