Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar
AI InsightBöylece o, kendi teolojisi etrafında şekillenen bir inanç yaratmayı belli dereceye kadar başarabilmişti ve müntesipleri üzerinde uzun zaman kalıcı etki de yaratabilmişti.
📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale
Özet
Modern araştırmalar, Hıristiyan kutsal metinlerinin kanonlaşmasında ve Hıristiyanlığın Yahudilikten koparak bağımsız bir din olmasında erken dönem heretiklerinin doğrudan ve dolaylı tesirlerinin sanıldığından daha fazla olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu bağlamda Hıristiyanlık tarihinin ilk üç yüzyılını konu edinen birçok araştırma, hâkim Hıristiyan geleneği tarafından bir şekilde göz ardı edilmiş tarihsel şahsiyetleri gün yüzüne çıkardı. Aynı zamanda bu çalışmalar, söz konusu heretiklerin Hıristiyan geleneğinin oluşumundaki yerleri hakkında bazı geleneksel teolojik kabulleri tartışmaya açtı. Kuşkusuz bu çalışmalarda ele alınan isimler arasında Sinoplu Marcion’un (öl. 160/161/165) özel yeri vardır. Çünkü o, erken dönem Hıristiyanlığın kurumsallaşma sürecindeki etkili aktif katılımcılardan biriydi. Aynı zamanda o, bilinçli bir teolojik duruş içinde inisiyatif alarak kendi kanonunu oluşturan ilk isimlerdendi. Öyle ki Hıristiyanlık tarihiyle ilgilenen araştırmacıların büyük bir kısmı, miladi 2. yüzyılda Mesihçi hareketin geneli tarafından hâlihazırda bilinen ve kabul edilen rivayetlerden belli seçkiler yaparak otoriter bir koleksiyon derleyen ilk kişinin Marcion olduğu konusunda neredeyse hemfikirdir. Böylece o, kendi teolojisi etrafında şekillenen bir inanç yaratmayı belli dereceye kadar başarabilmişti ve müntesipleri üzerinde uzun zaman kalıcı etki de yaratabilmişti.
Abstract
Modern researches, contrary to traditional beliefs, has shown that early period heretics had greater direct and indirect effects on the canonization of Christian scriptures and in the process of the separation of Christianity from Judaism. In this context, many studies that deal with the first three centuries of history of Christianity have brought to light historical figures that were somewhat ignored by the dominant Christian tradition. Also, these studies opened up for discussion some traditional theological assumptions about the place of these heretics in the formation of the Christian belief. Undoubtedly, Marcion (d. 160/161/165) has a special place among the names discussed in these studies. Because he was a person of influential active participants in the institutionalization process of early Christianity. He was also one of the first figures to form his holy canon by taking the initiative in a conscious theological stance. So, most scholars who dealing with the history of Christianity almost agree that Marcion was the first to collect an authoritative canon by set certain selections from the texts already known and accepted by a large part of the Messianic movement in the 2nd century AD. Thus, he was able to somewhat create a belief that was shaped around his own theology and had a permanent effect on her followers.Nevertheless, traditional Christianity has an interesting silence about Marcion’s precursor role in the formation of the Christian canon. Therefore, there is substantially silence about the methodology which he used in his search for the historical life of Jesus and Paul and in his critical studies of the scriptures. For example, Church fathers who were interested in the edition of the scriptures mostly ignored Marcion's influence in the canonization of the New Testament and did not prefer to cite him because he was a heretic. So, his place as a biblical critic has been abandoned to conscious silence by the Church for centuries. Undoubtedly, it was Adolf von Harnack (d. 1930) who pointed out the most important heretic of the second century as a biblical critic by removing him from a long silence for centuries. In the first quarter of the 20th century, Harnack’s success was to both write the monography of Marcion and (to put it in S. Moll’s words) was to convert this most important heretic of the 2nd century to a hero. Harnack, in his monography (Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott) first published in German in 1921, not only demonstrated Marcion’s direct or indirect influence on the Christian canonical tradition but also determined the direction of critical studies and discussions in the following years. For this reason, studies on Marcion may be largely divided into two main fields socalled pre-Harnack and post-Harnack.This paper is about Marcion’s place as an ancient forerunner of modern biblical criticism in the context of post-Harnackian studies. In this context, our research aims to reveal possible aspects of the relationship between Marcion’s critical method and the basic features of modern Biblical studies. We do not address some issues that are important about Marcion and his gnostic theology because of exceeding the scope of this article. But in this paper, we discuss various aspects of the theological and methodological background of Marcion’s Old Testament criticism. Also, we try to explore how Marcion organized his New Testament canon and how it related to her Old Testament criticism. From this aspect, the study aims to show the influence of Marcion on modern critical studies in the context of post-Harnackian discusses. We also aim to contribute to the newly developing literature about Marcion in the Turkish-speaking world and to draw attention to his biblical theology in the academic field. This article consists of fourpart. In first part, we tried to show how Harnack made Marcion a forerunner of modern biblical criticism and biblical theology. In this context, we have drawn attention to some features of Marcion’s biblical theology and textual criticism. And we discussed the main features of his theology which is centred on faith and salvation and we referred to some common grounds between Marcion's theology and modern biblical theology. In the second part, the philosophical and theological background of Marcion's criticism of the scriptures is tried to be shown. Accordingly, we discussed Marcion's dualistic faith in god. We emphasized the connection between his dualistic faith of god and his understanding of scripture. As various researchers realized before, Marcion used the distinction between the just god (the god of the Jews), namely Demiurge, and the good God as the basis for the distinction between the Old Testament and the New Testament.