The first Gospel: surprise, indifference or hostility?

[Michael BG]

Frankly I don't realize your reversal order.
Neither prof Vinzent nor Giuseppe are saying that ''the Old Testament God is saying the woes and Jesus is saying the beatitudes''.

You have failed to express yourself clearly then!

You wrote

The 'woes' will come from Demiurg on good rich people and Jesus cannot prevent these material 'woes' on them.

His 'woes' were the persecutions made on him by proto-catholics (read: the angry Demiurg).

The rich are admonished not because in ''a state of rejection'', but as warning on the future woes (of this world) by which the angry Demiurg will persecute them as Marcionite Christians.

Now the marcionite people (who are respected at present time by not-marcionite people) don't risk their life, but they will risk their life in future, because the Demiurg, the master of this world, will be angry against them, in virtue of their new religion: Christianity.

In the original version the author of the ''woes'' is the Demiurg, angered by the fact that rich people, happy people, respected people, will embrace the faith in another God distinct from him. (my bolding).

by translating according to my view, the scriptures would be so:

“Blessed are you who are poor now in this world dominated by Demiurg,
for yours is the kingdom of the Stranger God.

Blessed are you who hunger now in this world dominated by Demiurge,
for you will be satisfied in the world of the Stranger God.
Blessed are you who weep now in this world dominated by Demiurge,
for you will laugh in the world of the Stranger God.

Blessed are you when people (slaves of the Demiurge) hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil,
because of the apparent Son of Man (but really Son of a Stranger God).

For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets of the Demiurge's Messiah (by observing the Torah given by Demiurge).

“But woe (by Demiurge) to you who are rich in this world dominated by Demiurge,
for you have already received your comfort [i.e. the demiurge will despoil you of your wealth as he did with the Fool Rich].

Woe (by Demiurge) to you who are well fed now in this world dominated by Demiurge,
for you will go hungry when the Demiurge will take your souls.
Woe (by Demiurge) to you who laugh now in this world dominated by Demiurge,
for you will mourn and weep when the Demiurge will take your souls.

Woe (by Demiurge) to you when everyone speaks well of you in this world dominated by Demiurge,
for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets (by stoning them in observance to the Torah given by Demiurge)

You have removed the Vinzent point about the second group - those facing the Woes will move to the position of the first group and then receive the same reward.

Your version is full of interpretation. My version was simpler and I thought made it clear that the woes were authored by the Old Testament God which you call Demiurge. Your version adds nothing to the discussion unless you are conceding that Vinzent is wrong and those facing the woes don’t end up with the same rewards as the first group?

You need to make your version simplier.

How about:

Jesus said,
...
‘Woe to you who are rich now,
for the God of the Jews will make you poor
Woe to you who are well fed now,
for the God of the Jews will make you hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for the God of the Jews will make you weep.
Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you now,
for the God of the Jews will make you hated, insulted and excluded’

Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who hunger,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep,
for you will laugh.
Blessed are you when people hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil,
Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven.”

This keeps and enhances the Vinzent interlinking complementary structure and allows those facing the woes to be rewarded in the same way as those in the second (beatitude) group.

[Giuseppe]

You have removed the Vinzent point about the second group - those facing the Woes will move to the position of the first group and then receive the same reward.

My view is not inconsistent with Vinzent's but makes more explicit his view. Surely, if a rich person (second group) is admonished by listening Jesus saying 'Woes to you'', then that rich realizes that his happiness is precaurious, that he must not do too much reliance on wealth and material goods (remember that Marcion himself was materially rich), because the demiurge may deprive him of that wealth at any moment. In short, the meaning is the same as the parable of the Fool Rich. If the rich is really converted by this admonition by Jesus, then he, as says Vinzent, goes from to second to first group (he realizes to be suffering in this world even if he doesn't suffer now).

But if the rich is not converted by admonition of Jesus, then Jesus warns him that the demiurge will take his soul at any moment, just as he did to the Fool Rich. In that case, the rich is in a state of ''rejection'' but is not Jesus who rejects him: the rich simply decides to stay freely in this world dominated by the demiurge, and consequently he will be judged by the demiurge. Be judged by the demiurge is to go to hell, because the creator god is always able to find a sin even in the most innocent of men.

In conclusion Jesus is saying: if you prefer this material world to my spiritual world, then I (with my death) cannot buy your souls from the demiurge.

Your version is full of interpretation. My version was simpler and I thought made it clear that the woes were authored by the Old Testament God which you call Demiurge. Your version adds nothing to the discussion unless you are conceding that Vinzent is wrong and those facing the woes don’t end up with the same rewards as the first group?

You don't like the difference between Jesus saying 'woe to x' meaning that Jesus is author of that woe on x...

...and Jesus saying 'woe to x' meaning that Jesus advises x that x is (just now that he is rich) under the threat of a 'woe' from the demiurge. A kind of sword of Damocles.

For example, if I say to you ''if you do not pay attention, you are going to be invested'' is not my car to invest yourself, but another car.

[Giuseppe]

''Damocles'' is the Demiurge, here:



Who is now under the threat of Demiurg (the rich of second group), have two options before:

1) to recognize to be under constant threat in this hell and therefore to go from the second group to first group (prof Vinzent docet) and to be saved becoming Marcionite Christians,

2) to ignore the heretical Jesus and to continue to thank the creator God for their (apparently) ''happy'' condition, without to know that the Demiurge will judge them severely post-mortem.

Now, by adding verse 6:23a, Luke makes clear (against Marcion) that the Creator God is the true comforter of the first group, therefore he is the right threat on the second group. But in this way, Luke disturbs the cross-over structure.

[Michael BG]

You have removed the Vinzent point about the second group - those facing the Woes will move to the position of the first group and then receive the same reward.

My view is not inconsistent with Vinzent's but makes more explicit his view.

If the rich is really converted by this admonition by Jesus, then he, as says Vinzent, goes from to second to first group (he realizes to be suffering in this world even if he doesn't suffer now).

No because you have included soul in woes two and three, which wasn’t Vinzent’s point.

You want to discuss Marcion’s theology and I don’t. I am only interested in the text.

Can’t you get away from all this theology and get back to the text? Please discuss my example of what Marcion could have written.

Stop preaching!

Please look at my example of what Marcion could have written and think about if it could meet the needs of the Marcionite community better than what Vinzent thinks is the text of Marcion. Don’t get hung up in telling me about Marcion theology.

[Giuseppe]

Not because you have included soul in woes two and three, which wasn’t Vinzent’s point.

Then I have no problem to change what I have written:

Woe (by Demiurge) to you who are well fed now in this world dominated by Demiurge,
for you will go hungry when the Demiurge will take your souls.
Woe (by Demiurge) to you who laugh now in this world dominated by Demiurge,
for you will mourn and weep when the Demiurge will take your souls.

in this new form:

Woe (by Demiurge) to you who are well fed now in this world dominated by Demiurge,
for you will go hungry when the Demiurge will wish.
Woe (by Demiurge) to you who laugh now in this world dominated by Demiurge,
for you will mourn and weep when the Demiurge will wish.

My point is always the same of Vinzent : not trust the Demiurge because he might take off tomorrow what he gives you today.

You want to discuss Marcion’s theology and I don’t. I am only interested in the text.

At least you have clear now which is the marcionite interpretation.

Can’t you get away from all this theology and get back to the text? Please discuss my example of what Marcion could have written.

You insist that if Luke would show the woes before the beatitudes, then you would be persuased by Vinzent and me. But I find strange that your need. It's typical of a Gnostic preacher to start by saying the beatitudes of the other world, and to end with the woes of this world. It's equally expected of an apocalyptic preacher. The marcionite antithesis can raise in both cases.
For example, see what Jesus says about Judah. Before the ''woes'':

The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. But woe [by Demiurg] to that man who betrays him!”
(Luke 22:22)

...and after the surprising antithesis:

but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the apparent Son of Man with a kiss?”
(Luke 22:48)

...to signify that Jesus has already forgiven Judah and he will continue to love him, therefore Jesus contrasts his friendly acceptation of the kiss of Judah with the 'woe' that the Demiurge will fall on Judah after his death. The antithesis is raised because the usual betrayal in Antiquity expected the murder on the spot of the person who is betrayed (see Caesar, see Pompey, see the same John the Baptist). But Jesus is not killed in Gethesemani, but... ....kissed!
Note the great contradiction raised by our proto-catholic gospels when they link the 'woes' on the betrayer with the answer of Jesus to Judah: Jesus is to be thought angry even when he asks to Judah 'with a kiss you betray me?'' because Jesus will be the author of the infernal 'woe' on Judah.

Therefore I give you a counter-example to your insistence that Marcion works only if beatitudes follow the woes.

I think we are made.

1) You recognize now the croos-over structure.

2) you recognize by need that verse 6:23a disturbs the cross-over structure.

3) I have shown you that the verse 6:23a makes clear that the Creator God is the comforter and dispenser of the beatitudes.

4) hence, per 2 and 3, you can consider now verse 6:23a missing in Mcn and probably a proto-catholic interpolation

5) therefore Mcn precedes Luke.

[Michael BG]

Not because you have included soul in woes two and three, which wasn’t Vinzent’s point.

Then I have no problem to change what I have written:
in this new form:

Woe (by Demiurge) to you who are well fed now in this world dominated by Demiurge,
for you will go hungry when the Demiurge will wish.
Woe (by Demiurge) to you who laugh now in this world dominated by Demiurge,
for you will mourn and weep when the Demiurge will wish.

My point is always the same of Vinzent : not trust the Demiurge because he might take off tomorrow what he gives you today.

If the text was

Woe to you who are well fed now,
for the God of the Jews will make you hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for the God of the Jews will make you weep.

Does my version end up in the same place as yours?

Can’t you get away from all this theology and get back to the text? Please discuss my example of what Marcion could have written.

You insist that if Luke would show the woes before the beatitudes, then you would be persuased by Vinzent and me. But I find strange that your need. It's typical of a Gnostic preacher to start by saying the beatitudes of the other world, and to end with the woes of this world. It's equally expected of an apocalyptic preacher. The marcionite antithesis can raise in both cases

Just more words and a complete failure to address my text.
So you are saying that Marcion is a Gnostic?
Why don’t you address my text?

Therefore I give you a counter-example to your insistence that Marcion works only if beatitudes follow the woes.

You have failed to address my text. However my point was that the “Rejoice .. “ sentence would not be a problem if the order was reversed as well as making it clear that those in the woes would get to the same position as those receiving the beatitudes and removing the need to read into the saying things that are not there. I am saying that the Marcionite and Vinzent interpretations work with my text much easier than with what Vinzent thinks the text in Marcion was. I don’t understand why you can’t see that it works better with my text?

I think we are made.

1) You recognize now the croos-over structure.

2) you recognize by need that verse 6:23a disturbs the cross-over structure.

[3) I have shown you that the verse 6:23a makes clear that the Creator God is the comforter and dispenser of the beatitudes.

4) hence, per 2 and 3, you can consider now verse 6:23a missing in Mcn and probably a proto-catholic interpolation

5) therefore Mcn precedes Luke.

NO
1 The cross-over structure is only in the mind of Vinzent unless we edit the saying and make it clearer by having the woes first.
2 6.23a does not disturb the cross-over structure in my text
3 Harnack includes as being there the text where it is not stated it is missing and this seems the more probable. If it was missing and it was critical then a Church Father would have pointed it out.
4 Therefore 6.23a was most probably included in the Marcionite gospel
5 As there is no textual difference between Luke and the Marcionite gospel, Lk 6:20-26 can’t be used as evidence that the Marcionite gospel was written first.

[Giuseppe]

If the text was

Woe to you who are well fed now,
for the God of the Jews will make you hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for the God of the Jews will make you weep.

Does my version end up in the same place as yours?

It seems to me that you're taking too literally the words of Professor Vinzent about the woes of the second group ''leading'' to affliction of the first group.
I don't see sincerely why Vinzent would need the woes before and the beatitudes after, if his goal is to show that Marcion wants to compare the absurd justice of Demiurg with the goodness of Jesus. You ignore that Luke (as we have it now) already has the dramatic condition before (as a condition DE FACTO, since the poor are poor now) while the 'woes' for the second group are a dramatic condition IN POTENTIA therefore they rightly come late.

So you are saying that Marcion is a Gnostic?

In this point, according to mine an Vinzent's interpretation, Marcion is introducing a dualism between the celestial world of True God and this world of the Demiurge. Therefore he sounds Gnostic in this point. And if I preach the Gnostic dualism, I am free to start my preaching by despising this world, or by exalting the other world (or vice versa).

In any case, what you need (affliction before and beatitude after) is already in our Luke. Read the following.

You have failed to address my text. However my point was that the “Rejoice .. “ sentence would not be a problem if the order was reversed as well as making it clear that those in the woes would get to the same position as those receiving the beatitudes and removing the need to read into the saying things that are not there. I am saying that the Marcionite and Vinzent interpretations work with my text much easier than with what Vinzent thinks the text in Marcion was. I don’t understand why you can’t see that it works better with my text?

No, at contrary the present order in Luke supports the Marcion's priority.
An example: if I want to convince someone that the world is ''not the same'' after Auschwitz, before I start by describing Auschwitz, and then I say that anyone who has not experienced Auschwitz must take care not to repeat Auschwitz again, otherwise he will experience a new Auschwitz again.

My metaphor of Auschwitz is informative about our case: the knowledge of Auschwitz (i.e. the knowledge of the state of affliction of the first group and relative beatitudes) is preparatory to remind those who have not made experience of Auschwitz not to repeat Auschwitz (i.e., it is preparatory to remind those in the second group to avoid ending up in the state of affliction of the first group).

the first group is afflicted at present time ----> the victims of Auschwitz during the IIWW.

the first group will receive liberation in the other world ----> the victims of Auschwits will go to Heaven

the second group ignores the state of affliction of the first group -----> we ignore what was really Auschwitz

the second group needs to be informed about the state of affliction of this world ----> we should know what happened in Auschwitz

1 option) the second group ends in the first group -----> we are ''no longer the same'' as before after learning what happened at Auschwitz.

2 option) the second group ignores the Jesus' warning -----> we continue to ignore Auschwitz even after knowing what happened in Auschwitz, therefore we are doomed to repeat Auschwitz.

As you see, in both the 2 final cases, the second group is doomed to end in the first group, velim nolim. Because both Marcionite Christians and not-Christians will experience that this world is a hell.

NO
1 The cross-over structure is only in the mind of Vinzent unless we edit the saying and make it clearer by having the woes first.

By using Auschwitz as metaphor of the world dominated by Demiurge, I think I have proved definitively that the cross-over structure is there precisely in virtue of the beatitudes being first and the ''potential'' woes coming later. Therefore the point of Vinzent can be used as premise and my remaining argument (about verse 6:23a) works.

Please use the Auschwitz metaphor to show that you understand my argument.

[Michael BG]

It seems to me that you're taking too literally the words of Professor Vinzent about the woes of the second group ''leading'' to affliction of the first group.
I don't see sincerely why Vinzent would need the woes before and the beatitudes after, if his goal is to show that Marcion wants to compare the absurd justice of Demiurg with the goodness of Jesus. You ignore that Luke (as we have it now) already has the dramatic condition before (as a condition DE FACTO, since the poor are poor now) while the 'woes' for the second group are a dramatic condition IN POTENTIA therefore they rightly come late.

So now you are saying that the reversal for the woe group might not happen. I didn’t read this in the Vinzent acticle. Are you making stuff up?

So you are saying that Marcion is a Gnostic?

In this point, according to mine an Vinzent's interpretation, Marcion is introducing a dualism between the celestial world of True God and this world of the Demiurge. Therefore he sounds Gnostic in this point. And if I preach the Gnostic dualism, I am free to start my preaching by despising this world, or by exalting the other world (or vice versa).

As I keep saying the text does not say what you interpret it as saying. And the reason we know this is because Luke has the same text.

No, at contrary the present order in Luke supports the Marcion's priority.

Only in your mind and Vinzent’s.

Jesus said,
...
‘Woe to you who are rich now,
for the God of the Jews will make you poor
Woe to you who are well fed now,
for the God of the Jews will make you hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for the God of the Jews will make you weep.
Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you now,
for the God of the Jews will make you hated, insulted and excluded’

Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who hunger,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep,
for you will laugh.
Blessed are you when people hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil,
Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven.”

I am wondering if you are afraid to discuss this text. I want to just to discuss this text if you wish to continue this discussion with me. Not what is in Luke, Not what Vinzent thinks is in Marcion. Just this text. Can you do that?

[Giuseppe]

So now you are saying that the reversal for the woe group might not happen. I didn’t read this in the Vinzent acticle. Are you making stuff up?

If I (a rich person) change my idea about something I believed good and now believe not good (i.e. this world), then a reversal is already in act in me, therefore I become a member of the first group (a poor person). Vinzent is saying this, in my opinion.

Jesus said,
...
‘Woe to you who are rich now,
for the God of the Jews will make you poor
Woe to you who are well fed now,
for the God of the Jews will make you hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for the God of the Jews will make you weep.
Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you now,
for the God of the Jews will make you hated, insulted and excluded’

Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who hunger,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep,
for you will laugh.
Blessed are you when people hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil,
Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven.”

Sincerely, I don't know how can I reply since I see your question as absolutely neutral, meaning that even if I answer ''no problem between your text and marcionite theology'' then this doesn't imply that Luke precedes Mcn.

This is the prefaction of Primo Levi, ''If this is a man'' and does a 'marcionite' point (before the woes on already suffering people, and after the woes on rich people):

You who live safe
In your warm houses,
You who find, returning in the evening,
Hot food and friendly faces:

Consider if this is a man
Who works in the mud,
Who does not know peace,
Who fights for a scrap of bread,
Who dies because of a yes or a no.
Consider if this is a woman
Without hair and without name,
With no more strength to remember,
Her eyes empty and her womb cold
Like a frog in winter.

Meditate that this came about:
I commend these words to you.
Carve them in your hearts
At home, in the street,
Going to bed, rising;
Repeat them to your children.

Or may your house fall apart,
May illness impede you,
May your children turn their faces from you.

Luke 13:25-28 is attested in Marcion:

25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are:

26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets.

27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.

28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see all the just people in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.

The last verse 28 reads so in Mcn, according to Roth (see page 425 of his book):

ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων, (ὅταν ὄψεσθε) πάντας τοὺς δικαίους εἰσερχομένους (ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ) τοῦ θεοῦ, ὑμᾶς δὲ κρατουμένους ἔξω.


Note that Luke has the verse 28 in this way:

There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.

But in this way Luke is saying: ''Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets'' didn't see Jesus, and despite of this fact they are in the kingdom of God. Luke insists on the salvation of who didn't see Jesus:

29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.

30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.

(verses 29 and 30 are missing in Mcn)

But the marcionite interpretation is that the 12 disciples of Jesus did see Jesus, and despite of this fact they are not (now, once dead) in the kingdom of God.

I think that in this point Mcn makes more sense. Because Luke is introducing this division: who goes to Paradise are the prophets (the Jews before Jesus) + the gentiles. All other people are not saved. But Luke has no reason to send to hell the 12 disciples of Jesus.

In Mcn there is not contradiction of this kind: who goes to Paradise are who didn't see Jesus. All the others (in particular, the disciples) + the prophets (the Jews before Jesus) go to hell.

[Michael BG]

Sincerely, I don't know how can I reply since I see your question as absolutely neutral, meaning that even if I answer ''no problem between your text and marcionite theology'' then this doesn't imply that Luke precedes Mcn.

Can I assume that you have no problem between my suggested text and Marcionite theology?
You are getting ahead of ourselves. There are many questions to be discussed before we get to a conclusion.

Do you see that my version makes the reserval clearer regarding the poor and the rich and those who are spoken well of and hated etc.?

Luke 13:25-30

[25] When once the householder has risen up and shut the door, you will begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, `Lord, open to us.' He will answer you, `I do not know where you come from.'
[26] Then you will begin to say, `We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.'
[27] But he will say, `I tell you, I do not know where you come from; depart from me, all you workers of iniquity!'
[28] There you will weep and gnash your teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out.
[29] And men will come from east and west, and from north and south, and sit at table in the kingdom of God.
[30] And behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last."

I suppose you wish to discuss a Lucan interpretation of these verses.

The ending is the easiest to interpret. When the end of time comes everyone will be gathered togethered and the Gentiles will be judged as fitting as being with God in his kingdom. The Gentiles (the last) will be first. But those who failed to do what God wanted (the Jews) will not be judged as good because they had the prophets to tell them what God required, but often failed to do it.

I suppose there is a reference earlier to those who claim to be doing what God wants, but God doesn’t see it that way. God doesn’t recognise them as doing what he wanted them to do.

Those who fail to repent and turn back to do God’s will are going to be judged and instead of being with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the prophets in the Kingdom of God they will be outside “weeping and gnashing their teeth”.

I think my interpretation is correct. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the prophets end up in the kingdom of God as do the Gentiles because they do what God wants them to do. It has nothing to do with seeing Jesus. It is about their relationship with God. Jesus is in the same tradition as the prophets.