Is Marcion's Gospel First? Marcion Versus the Early Church

Is Marcion's Gospel First? Marcion Versus the Early Church | Dr. Markus Vinzent

Рет қаралды 9,817

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 117

@Bwise779 7 ай бұрын

Dr. Vinzent never disappoints. In my humble opinion, he is the most interesting and captivating guest on your channel. No matter how many times he talks about second century Christianity, especially Marcion, I learn something new every time. Jack is not far behind…a great thread of study!

@Patristica 7 ай бұрын

🎉 cheers!

@joegarry8983 7 ай бұрын

True.

@neophyteone712 7 ай бұрын

Dr Vinzent is a god of academia

@joegarry8983 7 ай бұрын

@@neophyteone712 In my opinion the god of gods.

@singingphysics9416 6 ай бұрын

Totally agree. I subscribe to his channel for Marcus and Jack

@Alex18NY Ай бұрын

25 minutes in and so much information already. Dr. Vinzent is incredible. Thank you 🙏🏻.

@ChampDietingAndFitness 7 ай бұрын

I must say I really like your format. Your very direct with your questions and don't talk often and let them explain. Definitely gonna sub to your channel and give your video a like : )

@ReligionWatch 7 ай бұрын

This man is a brilliant scholar, his knowledge is outrageous.

@robinstevenson6690 7 ай бұрын

But beware - - some of the "brilliance" could be sophistry, methinks. Remember that he is just expressing his own opinions, and many of his views are way out in left field, from the standpoint of mainstream scholars.

@Patristica 7 ай бұрын

Thanks !

@AnyProofOfTheseClaims 7 ай бұрын

@@robinstevenson6690Which usually means they are on to something lol

@robinstevenson6690 7 ай бұрын

@@AnyProofOfTheseClaims As a scholar, I find many holes in Vinzent's logic, and think he's going way out on a limb in his analysis.

7 ай бұрын

@@robinstevenson6690 but you can't cite any of these holes, as a scholar

@PMConnolly 4 ай бұрын

This was just excellent. So instructive and helpful. Thank you.

@jimtussing 7 ай бұрын

Wonderful interview. Stunned by his comparatively late dating of the gospels.

@Philemon616 29 күн бұрын

Can anyone tell me where I can obtain a copy of Doctor Markus Vinzent's reconstruction of Paul's epistles? !!

@Joseph_Ben_David 4 ай бұрын

Hey brother, good luck with your ventures and endeavors. Maybe we can cross pollinate. God bless.

@tomt373 6 ай бұрын

Notice that the Gedeon "New Testament and Psalms" bibles commonly given out, are not much more the Marcion's Bible. Frankly, at most of your typical churches these days, if you look at how much of the typical members' Bibles pages show any wear, you will see that a "condensed" Marcion Bible would have served most of them adequately.

@kyanamccoy 4 ай бұрын

So could the missing Q be the marcion text?

@MrOliver1444 7 ай бұрын

Dr Vinzent is super interesting

@robinstevenson6690 7 ай бұрын

Dr. Vinzent seems to suggest a mid-to-late 2nd century date for 3 of the 4 gospels. If that is his view, than he's far from the mainstream view that the gospels were written many decades earlier (late 1st to early 2nd c. C.E.).

@DrVictorVasconcelos 7 ай бұрын

I don't think that's an uncommon uncommon position 😂 I mean, it's uncommon, but several scholars do. It's not wild, so to say.

@TheDanEdwards 7 ай бұрын

Late dating of our current version of Luke, and for the gJohn, is not that unusual, though the majority of scholars do seem to think that Mark and Matthew are earlier than the middle of the 2nd century.

@Akio-fy7ep 7 ай бұрын

Dating of all the gospels is very, very far from settled. All we really know is that Mark was not before 70, and anyway necessarily preceded Matthew, which necessarily preceded Luke. Our John is 3rd-edition, and the last edit shows reactions to Luke, so its first edition may precede Luke. Each could easily be decades later than its earliest possible date. Texts mentioned by e.g. Papias and Justin have no necessary connection to any particular book.

@RichACBlues 7 ай бұрын

@@Akio-fy7ep exactly. who knows. could of all been written at the same time. These gnostics had to be pulling from something though. I doubt they created the original list of jesus saying or apostle testimonies. and I doubt it was just some oral tradition at that point lol. i agree with Papios that Mark is probably John Mark. And that Matthew was originally in hebrew. Cause the caannanite vs the made up word cannanean, or syrophonecian, Makes me think Mark is the same racist who abandoned his cousin and Pauls missionary work with the gentiles. lmao.

@Akio-fy7ep 7 ай бұрын

@@RichACBlues Thomas has been demonstrated to derive from Luke. But a good third of it was added on piecemeal for decades after. We know where most "sayings" of Jesus came from: 'Mark' mined them from Paul's opinions in his letters, from Hebrews, and 1 Clement. 'Matthew' added his opinions, then 'Luke his, sometimes contradicting Matthew. There is no hint of evidence for any "sayings" before Mark.

@RMCChurch-kj7no 7 ай бұрын

Was Marcion aware of "Mark"? Im curious as to why he chose "Luke" over Mark.

@iwilldi 7 ай бұрын

Because he did not like/read canonical Mark (ca 100 AD) (He had not seen the original Mark (ca 71-76 AD) which was Matthew's and then Luke's source, the same copy) Because he did not like Matthew (ca 85 AD) Because he liked Luke (ca 95 AD) who later has Matthew elected 2nd Judas. Luke was really pissed about Matthew because aMatthew ripped off page 9/10 of Mark's copy of 20 pages, and was unable to locate another copy. So Luke shouts out Matthew-Levi in his pedigree and has a prehistory about a census / tax-collecting. Of course Marcion will delete this quibble.

@TheDanEdwards 7 ай бұрын

@@iwilldi You really want to defend your orthodoxy, even though scholarship has undermined it.

@iwilldi 7 ай бұрын

@@TheDanEdwards I cannot remember that orthodoxie had declared Mark a deconvert ever.

@Akio-fy7ep 7 ай бұрын

@@iwilldi Apparently you still mean to die on the hill defending the fantasy that Matthew's copy of Mark was a bound paper book before the 2nd century, when everything else was on papyrus scrolls and, maybe in a few cases, codices? Why not go for a Gutenberg printed copy? Or even a PDF?

@iwilldi 7 ай бұрын

@@Akio-fy7ep Yes!

@iwilldi 7 ай бұрын

Did Marcion write the 1st gospel? I will start such a discussion only when Marcion's text will be discussied side by side with Mark's text. Cause you need to proove that Mark is derived form Marcion, not the other way round. It's called a synoptic problem.

@robinstevenson6690 7 ай бұрын

Vinzent has stated that Marcion "rewrote" the Pauline epistles, so it seems very likely he thinks Marcion rewrote the first gospel, as well. Apparently, according to Vinzent, Marcion had no compunctions about substituting his own ideas for those written by the authors of the original NT documents.

@TheDanEdwards 7 ай бұрын

@@robinstevenson6690 "the Word of God"

@TheDanEdwards 7 ай бұрын

"Cause you need to proove that Mark is derived form Marcion," - why? The proposition Dr. Vincent is giving is one of chronology. Vincent is not saying there were no other circulating ideas about Jesus outside of Marcion. So the author of Mark may simply be _reacting_ to Marcion, not trying to duplicate Marcion.

@iwilldi 7 ай бұрын

@@TheDanEdwards what weasel words ...

@Akio-fy7ep 7 ай бұрын

@@robinstevenson6690 I don't know of any evidence of Marcion composing, as opposed to cutting out bits he didn't like. But we know far less about Marcion and his doctrine and canon than is usually assumed, because much of what "biblical scholars" (hack! spit!) think they know comes from idle speculation and outright falsehoods by his 2nd- and 3rd-century enemies, compounded by their own predecessors' failures. Anyway we can be certain that Mark precedes Matthew and Luke, and thus Marcion if he really did redact Luke.

@Brasil1980rob 7 ай бұрын

Dr Vinzent is the logos

@francisgruber3638 7 ай бұрын

"Art and archaeology cannot provide the material basis 'to secure the irrefutable inner continuity' of the Christian beginnings..." The reference to "irrefutable evidence" sounds a lot like an appeal to the ever-elusive ideal of absolute certainty. Without it, people have made room for every kind of revisionist outlook, from Dan Brown's absurd historical fictions to Joseph Smith's utterly contextualized revelations. This sounds like more of the same, with just a more mainstream anticlerical attitude.

@sciptick 7 ай бұрын

Yes. Markus Vinzent relies on an "argument from silence" of documents we _do not have,_ which is invalid reasoning. We don't know what would have been in those documents; they could have been full of lively discussion of the topic Vincent assumes they were silent about, right up until the time when we actually have documents, which are full of lively discussion of the topic. Vinzent's work has value when he debunks "biblical scholarship" tropes that turn out, on examination, to be vaporous speculation typically supported by previous vaporous speculation. The first half of his last book was full of such brilliant take-downs, which would have been easy picking for dozens of "biblical scholars" if they cared to actually work, and not just pile up more fantasies on the fantasies of their predecessors. Clearing the biblical-scholarship stable of generation after generation of pony product will be a project of generations after they actually start doing it. They could start any time. Vinzent's attention would be better directed to leading that labor. Maybe redirect a nearby river? We know Paul's letters were well-known in the 1st century because 1 Clement, from the 60s, knows them; and what 'Mark' has his Jesus say is largely mined from opinions in Paul's letters, drawing also on Hebrews and 1 Clement; and we know that Matthew is based on Mark, and Luke on Mark and Matthew. We do not know as much about Marcion as "biblical scholars" fondly imagine because most of what has been concluded rests on idle speculations and outright fabrication of such notorious mountebanks as Eusebius and Tertullian and their ilk.

@mcosu1 7 ай бұрын

@sciptick powerful! What would you consider "pony product?:

@mcosu1 7 ай бұрын

Vinzent is really into Derrida, so it's surprising to me that he insists on so much certainty in the textual history. As Derrida said, "there is nothing outside the text."

@DrVictorVasconcelos 7 ай бұрын

Funny how people who are rejected by the establishment seem to be at least more likely to be nicer people.

@robinstevenson6690 7 ай бұрын

I'm not sure that they are nicer, in general. For example, Jacob has stated that Robert Eisenmann has been very disagreeable in their encounters.

@RichACBlues 7 ай бұрын

Ya the Valentinians were the biggest, also were Sethians, Novatians, etc... The real and only reason they were all considered heretics, Is because they said the old testament God was different than the new testament God. Some said evil, some said learning and growing. That automatically means to me they coudln't have written the gospels, Because they are based on old testament prophecy. But they all believed in a Trinity, Belived jesus was God, Believed in one God of ALL. Irenaeus never had an issue with those things. They differ on creation, and they talk about multiple realms, but that was never an issue either until Rome needed one. Now in Valentinus' case, he was murdered by enemies he had in Rome. But you were right, he had no clue he was hated so much by them, and didn't even believe friends who tried to warn him not to go back to Rome. He was a Priest, and was a surety for Bishop, but after he got passed over at the last minute he went to Alexandria and became Bishop. So maybe there was tensions over that as well.

@brianpetruska1825 7 ай бұрын

Another BLICKBUSTER episode with Marcus Vincent. A clear advantage of Vincent's method is falsifiability, which he demonstrates here by modifying prior conclusions in the face of new evidence. If Marcion isn't first, then we have a very complicated story with Marcion somewhere in the middle, which is what Bilby's been saying for a while.

@henryschmit3340 7 ай бұрын

"Is Marcion's Gospel first?" No, because he left out the Old Testament which is the foundation of the Gospel account. The Old Testament was around before Marcion. The earliest creed, which was also before Marcion, shows this clearly... "The earliest creed records the sacrificial death, burial, Resurrection, and post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ. It is very specific and full of eyewitness testimony. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 states: For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, And that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. Author of the creed. The apostle Paul was the first to put the early creed in writing. Paul, aka Saul (Sha’ul) of Tarsus, had been a devout follower of Pharisaic Judaism before accepting Jesus as Messiah. As a Pharisee, tutored by the famed Rabban Gamaliel, Paul was an expert in Jewish tradition and Old Testament Scriptures (Acts 22:3). He was a man of considerable social and religious clout in the Jewish community. When Christianity began to spread rapidly after the death and Resurrection of Christ, Paul zealously persecuted its earliest followers. In Acts, Luke records Paul consenting to the beating, imprisonment, and execution of early Christians. However, while traveling to Damascus to imprison more Christians, Paul had a spectacular encounter with the risen Christ (Acts 9:1-8). Within days, Paul was baptized and began preaching that Jesus Christ was the Son of God who rose from the dead. Many of the earliest Christians were skeptical and feared Paul, questioning his motives (Acts 9:21,26). Paul had suddenly forsaken a life of relative luxury to spread a faith which he had brutally persecuted and wilfully rejected. With nothing to gain politically, economically, or socially, Paul would become one of the greatest missionaries of all time. In the end, Paul went to his death preaching Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Date of the creed. Many scholars believe that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians around AD 55, or about twenty-two years after the death and Resurrection of Christ. JAT Robinson, the liberal New Testament scholar, conducted an in-depth study in which he found strong historical, textual, and logical evidence for the entire New Testament having been composed between AD 40-65.1 In particular, Acts ends while Paul is still in prison. As a result, 1 Corinthians may have been written even earlier. However, a wide range of scholars believes the earliest Christian creed was formulated and taught less than five years after the death and Resurrection. Ulrich Wilckens writes that it, ‘indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity.’ Joachim Jeremias states that it is ‘the earliest tradition of all.’ Gerd Lüdemann, an arch-skeptic, maintains that ‘the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years…’ Michael Goulder, an anti-christian, thinks it ‘goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion.’ Thomas Sheehan believes the creed ‘probably goes back to…within two to four years of the crucifixion.’ Two New Testament scholars date the creed even earlier. Walter Kasper believes the creed may have been in use less than one year after the crucifixion. Likewise, James D.G. Dunn wrote that the 1 Corinthians 15 creed was formalized and taught within months of Jesus’ death and Resurrection. Historically speaking, the creed was formulated, distributed, and written so extremely early that talk of myth or legend lacks any credibility whatsoever.The creed is built upon the eyewitness testimony of the earliest believers, as well as Peter, James, and Paul. It is highly likely that Paul confirmed the content of the creed when he met with Peter and James in Jerusalem a few years after his conversion to Christianity. Paul documents his trip in Galatians 1:18-19 where he uses a very significant Greek word-historeo (‘ιστορέω). It means that Paul’s visit to Jerusalem was a historical investigation. Paul visited Jerusalem to carefully examine the eyewitness accounts of Peter and James. The creed states that Jesus appeared to more than five hundred people at one time after his death. The gospels don’t document this appearance. None of the other New Testament epistles mention this event. No first-century secular historians mention it either. Skeptics often point to this lack of corroboration as evidence that the event never really occurred. However, the skeptics are committing the fallacy of arguing from silence. It is unreasonable to expect every contemporary writer to document every single historical event. More importantly, the creed is very early, historically reliable, and specific. It invites testing, mentions two former skeptics, and most of its contents are corroborated by other historically reliable sources. Critics also argue that the gospels relate an evolutionary development of post-Resurrection appearances. They argue that from the Gospel of Mark through the Gospel of John, the appearances grow in number and scope. As more time elapses, history is distorted by myth and legend. However, the 1 Corinthians 15 creed, which documents the greatest number of appearances, predates the gospels. It is crucial to note Paul’s temporal proximity to these witnesses. In the creed, he writes that the majority of the five hundred are still living. Either Paul knew these individuals or had a source that did. Dr Gary Habermas sums it up the best: Now, stop and think about it: you would never include this phrase unless you were absolutely confident that these folks would confirm that they really did see Jesus alive. I mean, Paul was virtually inviting people to check it out for themselves! The 1 Corinthians 15 creed provides extremely early and historically reliable evidence for the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is far too early for the development of legend, and it is rooted in eyewitness testimony. And it specifically cites two former skeptics, James and Paul, who eventually paid the ultimate price for their faith in a Saviour they once rejected. 1 Corinthians 15:45 says, ‘The first man Adam became a living being. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.’ As the last Adam, Christ conquered sin and death, which Adam had brought into the world. Christ’s Resurrection was the turning point of history and the hope of eternal life for those who place their trust in Him as their Lord and Saviour."

@TheDanEdwards 7 ай бұрын

A very long comment for a KZbin video, such as your comment, always leads me to ask two things: 1) what of the comment is cut and pasted from elsewhere, and 2) why is the commenter so disturbed by the video that they write (or copy) a dissertation?

@TheDanEdwards 7 ай бұрын

" the Old Testament which is the foundation of the Gospel account"

@RichACBlues 7 ай бұрын

@@TheDanEdwards "The Lord God Send me and His Spirit" The Virigin birth of the Son of God is in the old testament many times. Even the Crucifixion. The whole thing was prophecy down to the Romans not breaking his legs. Its the whole point of the new testament. Gnostics had other ideas man. lol They were all persecuted for thinking the old testament God was a different God than the new testament GOd. Thats almost like a different religion.

@AnthonyL0401 7 ай бұрын

Sir, this is a Wendy's

@henryschmit3340 7 ай бұрын

@@TheDanEdwards "your thesis" It's not a "thesis" when the scriptures plainly describe what is going on from the start -- the fall of man in Genesis and the means of redemption in the Gospels. That's the story from beginning to end. That's what Paul is talking about. "He rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures." It is alluded to in various places in the Old Testament, and after the ressurection, Paul saw it clearly enough. As a member of the Jewish religious elite he was an authority on the Jewish scriptures.