The first Gospel: surprise, indifference or hostility?

[MrMacSon]

The subsequent, quite surprising image of Jesus coming alone from the distant Galilee with the sole aim of receiving the Jewish-style immersion in water (Mk 1:9bc; diff. 1:5) ...

It may not have been a Jewish-style immersion. Plenty of Egyptian mystery cults - present around the eastern Mediterranean - were also immersing in the 1st century and later.

But what does the qualification "by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality" mean ?? viz. -

The subsequent, quite surprising image of Jesus coming alone from the distant Galilee with the sole aim of receiving the Jewish-style immersion in water (Mk 1:9bc; diff. 1:5) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality...

Ans for the rest of that statement -

The subsequent, quite surprising image of Jesus coming alone from the distant Galilee with the sole aim of receiving the Jewish-style immersion in water (Mk 1:9bc; diff. 1:5) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul's subsequent statement that 'he' advanced in Judaism beyond many of his contemporaries in his people, being far more zealous for the Jewish traditions (Gal 1:14).

- who is 'he'? Jesus? (or Paul?)

whether "Paul says " ..'he' advanced in Judaism beyond many of his contemporaries in his people, being far more zealous for the Jewish traditions" might be moot.

[Giuseppe]

But what does the qualification "by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality" mean ??

said more simply: midrash. The scholars are a bit hypocritical when they invent more words to mean the same simple thing.

- who is 'he'? Jesus? (or Paul?)

He is Paul in Galatians 1.
Basically, Adamczewski and Dykstra are saying that midrash works in this way:

1) the Jesus coming from Nazaret is Paul persecutor,
2) the baptized Jesus is the Paul who is converted,
3) the Jesus who goes to wilderness is the Paul who goes to Arabia and Sinai,
4) the Jesus who goes to Galilea is the Paul who goes to Damascus,
5) the Jesus who meets the first disciples is the Paul who meets Peter and James in Jerusalem,
6) the Jesus who has as inner circle (during his miracles) only the Pillars is the Paul who in Gal 2 meets secretely only the Pillars
7) the John of Baptist in conflict with Herod is Paul who is in conflict with Peter in Antioch.

And so on, from that point the analysis of Adamczewski becomes more speculative.

[Michael BG]

Maybe a case for a second century date for Mark is the place to start to convince me.

The name of Caesarea of Philip ...as referring to an important city which was located far in the north in the tetrarchy of Philip, so that Jesus and his disciples had to 'go out' to it (Mk 8:27), was borrowed from Jos. B.J. 2.168; Ant. 18.28 .... This imperial name provided an appropriate setting for the confession of Jesus as the royal Messiah ... Moreove, th eimperial name of Caesarea alludes to the content of the Jewish Christian proclamation of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, as it was presumably formulated in Rome, under the authority of the Jerusalem community, with its leader Cephas (Mk 8:29; cf. Rom. 15:30-31).
(p. 110-11)

Firstly I assume that Caesarea Philippi is what the city was called when Mark wrote his gospel and in the 30s CE. Therefore we can’t assume that Mark borrowed the name from Josephus. I dispute the idea that Mark sees Jesus as “the royal Messiah” in a Jewish context. It is quite possible that the reason that Peter’s declaration is placed there is because of the association with Caesarship. However this does not mean that Mark created the whole story or located it there.

in Galatians a strong case can be made for Paul persecutor being a lateinterpolation in Galatians 1:

The case for regarding 1.13, 14, 22, 23, 24 as an interpolation is a strong one as it stands, but to complete the case I must try to explain why anyone should wish to add this sort of note to Paul’s text.

http://vridar.org/2014/12/20/paul-the-p ... rpolation/

O’Neill makes a very good case for verses 13 and 14 to be interpolations. I especially like his discussion of the idea of the church being unPauline while “the churches of” (which is used in verse 22) as being Pauline. This also means that his case for verses 22-24 is weaker.

So Adamczewski (and Dykstra would agree):

The subsequent, quite surprising image of Jesus coming alone from the distant Galilee with the sole aim of receiving the Jewish-style immersion in water (Mk 1:9bc; diff. 1:5) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul's subsequent statement that he advanced in Judaism beyond many of his contemporaries in his people, being far more zealous for the Jewish traditions (Gal 1:14).

(p. 39)

therefore, since Mark 1:9 is peculiar Markan verse based midrashically on interpolated passage in Galatians 1.13, 14, 22, 23, 24, then the entire gospel of Mark was probably written on epistles of Paul who are already interpolated.

therefore: Mark was written in II CE, since only in II CE someone could have a theological interest in editing Galatians. [/b]

Mark 1:9

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. (RSV)

Nazareth is a problem word. I agree with Michael Turton when he states that “'Nazareth” “is apparently a later addition to the text”. Matthew only has “Jesus came from Galilee” so there is a possibility that was what Mark originally had.

Michael Turton also states that “this is the only use of the word "Nazareth" in Mark; all other usages are a Greek word, nazarhnos, generally translated as "Nazarene." "Nazarene" can mean either a sectarian designation, or "of (the location of) Nazara," but it cannot mean "of Nazareth." How the ending "th" became attached to it is a mystery that no one has yet solved. If ... Mark really thought that Jesus was from Nazareth, why does he keep saying that he is "of Nazara?"”

Michael Turton also states that “in Mark 2:1 the writer identifies Capernaum as Jesus' home, not Nazareth.”

If “Nazareth of” is an interpolation maybe it is possible that “from Galilee” is Marcan redaction and the earlier pre-Marcan tradition only had “Jesus was baptized by John in the Jordan” as the introduction to Jesus’ baptism.

The tradition that Mark is using here has Jesus being adopted as Son of God at the moment of his baptism and reflects a movement of when Jesus became divine from his resurrection to his baptism; - a process that ends with Jesus being divine or a heavenly figure since before creation.

Therefore this tradition that Mark is using here does not go back to Paul, but to a separate early Christain belief. A bit like the transfiguration. It is not evidence for Marcan lateness.

you would reply that the consensus does not believe an interpolation that of Paul the persecutor.
But I find very unexpected that a physical persecutor (or even just an anti-Christian informer) proves to be a great mystic overnight.

I am curious to know what you think about this argument.

I don’t like to appeal to consenus. I like to consider the evidence. If this is another place where I hold a minority view I am content with that.

You give examples of where you think Mark has borrowed names from Josephus but I still find that a silly argument unless you can provide evidence that the name in Josephus is unique and not held by other people at that time. I imagine it would be hard to provide evidence for a negative.

Jairus is a rare name among the Jews. If I don't find it anywhere in the ancient leterature apart in Josephus, then his occurrence in a presumed I CE Mark and Josephus is surprising (=unexpected, =unlikely)... ...unless Mark borrowed from Josephus.

Strongs says it is of Hebrew origin Jair – There was a Judge of Israel called Jair (Judges 10:3-5).

[Idem for the name of Salomé.

How about the sister of Herod the Great grandmother of Herodias. Do you know it is a Greek form of shalom menaing peace?
What about Queen Salome Alexandra of Judea 76 to 67 BCE (mother of Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II)?

You fail to understand that your position regarding Caligula and Hadrian only works if the author knows of both events. You fail to recognise that if the source used by Mark was written in 40 CE that the author of that document didn’t know about Hadrian.

I can say with extreme certainty that IF Mark was written in 40 CE, then Mark didn't allude to Caligula when he said about the presence of the abomination is in the temple, and for two reasons:
1) Caligula was insignificant in Judea and his fool actions could interest at maximum only learned and hellenistic Jews as Philo;
2) the threat of Caligula was not concretized: hence, no abomination.

This is an arrogant reply. You cannot know what you say you know, unless you have a time machine and if you do can I come with you when you next use it.
You still don’t understand the Caligula sourse position.
Philo and Josephus both saw there was a problem with Caligula wanting to erect a statue in the Jewish Temple and it was only his death in 41 CE that stopped it from happening. Therefore if you were a Jew alive in 40 CE you might have been as concerned as Philo. I thought I had made it clear that the Caligula source document was written by a Jew.

It's impossible to prove the existence or the absolute absence of 'earlier traditions' behind Mark. The probabilites a priori in Mark support Mythicism

There is no a priori case for mythicism. I expect some might argue that there is for an historical Jesus, but I don’t accept a priori arguments.
Within the evidence we have there are stages in when Jesus becomes the Son of God and I believe that the earliest tradition is it happened at resurrection. It then moved back to transfiguration and then baptism and in Matthew and Luke at birth and then he had always been so.
Even in Hebrews which presents Jesus as a heavenly being there are still traces of a Jesus who existed on earth, the author has failed to remove them all.
If mythicists were correct why would Jesus have been seen as human at all? Why would he need to be adopted as Son of God or appointed (Rom 1:4)?

Please can you give an internet link to your version of Tertullian you are quoting because I looked in two different versions and couldn’t find this quote?

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/evan ... k3_eng.htm

Chapter 24 is missing from the Holmes translation also at Tertullian.org.

It is possible that the texts these Christians were using implied that the Old Testament God is the same God as the Father God of Jesus, but it is only once the Marcionites and others challenged this implied reading that more explicit statements were need. Therefore you need to find in the gospels these explicit statements.

I read:

Luke 8:28

28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell at his feet, shouting at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, don’t torture me!”

There are many occurrences in Luke of the strange expression ''the Most High God''. What need was there to specify that the unique God is 'the most high' ? Are there some Christians denying that the Jewish God was the Most High? curiously, according to Vinzent, in Mcn the people possessed by demons did recognize Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, and therefore the son of Demiurge (more precisely, the dying Messiah ''ben Joseph'').

Yesterday I read a little more of Acts and Christian Beginnings The Acts Seminar Report edited by Dennis E Smith and Joseph B Tyson and they state, “the phrase, ‘Most High God’ is problematic.The term is familiar in the LXX, and the third gospel Luke frequently uses it ... But the phrase ... is also found in Greek literature and in a number of inscriptions, where it designated Zeus or another god in the Greek pantheon” (p 197-98).

Therefore the phrase ‘the Most High God’ is not just a Jewish term and as Smith and Tyson write its use “does not rule out belief in other gods, and so it is appropriate in a polytheistic setting” (p 198). However its use in Mk 5:7 might go back to Septuagint usage, which early Christains often copied. Luke then copies it from Mark, while Matthew drops it. If Matthew is the most Jewish gospel does he drop it because the term is not used by Jewish Christians?

[Giuseppe]

The topic of this thread is that in my eyes the first written Gospel is surprising and that the surprise is not found in the Resurrection (there was already a belief in the resurrection before the first written gospel), is not found in the dualism (there were already gnostics among Christians), but is caused by the marcionite antithesis between a God of pure love and a Jewish God who is just but cruel.
In short, I'm saying that the idea that Jesus did preach love is a specific marcionite addition.

Evidence of this is found in Tertullian, talking about the beatitudes:

But, you say, by pointing the contrast of
the Creator's sternness he did establish the fact that he is one to
be feared. <Yes: but> if one to be feared, one rather to be obeyed
than disregarded, and Marcion's Christ begins now to give teaching
on behalf of the Creator. Again, if that Woe which has the
rich in view is the Creator's, then it is not Christ who is angry
with the rich, but the Creator, and Christ sets his approval
on rich men's claims, that pride and glory, I mean, that devotion
to the world and neglect of God, for which they deserve that Woe
from the Creator. And surely this disapproval of the rich must
proceed from the same <Christ> who has just now expressed
approval of the indigent. Any man disapproves of the contrary
of that of which he has expressed approval. So it follows that if
that curse against the rich is ascribed to the Creator, the blessing
of the indigent must also be claimed for him, and in that case
the whole work of Christ is the Creator's work. If the blessing
meant for the indigent is to be ascribed to Marcion's god, the
cursing meant for the rich must be set down to him too, and in
that case he will be exactly like the Creator, a kind god and also
a judge, and there will no longer be room for that distinction by
which there come to be two gods, and, as the distinction is
abolished, there will remain no other course than for the Creator
to be pronounced the only God there is. Therefore if Woe is a
term of malediction, or of some unusually severe reproof, and if
it is by Christ directed against the rich, I have to prove that the
Creator too disapproves of the rich, as I have already proved
that he is a comforter of the indigent, so that in this sentiment
too I may show that Christ is with the Creator.

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/evan ... k4_eng.htm

The argument of Tertullian in short is:

1) Jesus says: But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation already.

2) the old scriptures prove that the God of Jews is a 'conforter of the indigent''

3) therefore: ''Christ is with the Creator'' when he damns the richs.

Prof Vinzent says that there is a cross-over structure in Mcn:


source: http://markusvinzent.blogspot.it/2011/0 ... l-220.html


"Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be filled.
Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.
Blessed are you when men hate you and exclude and insult you, casting out your name as evil on account of the son of man.

But woe to you who are rich, you are receiving your comfort.
Woe to you who are full, for you will hunger.
Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep;
woe to you when men speak well of you."


The Marcion's interpretation is indeed surprising:


1) those who are materially poor now will be rewarded in the future becoming spiritually rich (per natural reading).

2) those who are materially rich now will really are spiritually suffering (without knowing it) just now in virtue of their being materially rich, therefore they will be rewarded in the future by becoming materially poor (by suffering real Roman persecutions in name of Christ on this terra) and so becoming like those of point 1 (to have a spiritual divine reward in heaven, as poor on this terra).


I think this point of Vinzent alone is very strong, persuasive, conclusive evidence that Marcion is prior than Luke/Matthew.

It would be very 'diabolic' (=unexpected, =unlikely) for a presumed late Marcion to edit Luke (assuming that Marcion knew that in Luke the ''woes'' are spiritual infernal woes by Creator God) in order to cast these infernal woes in material woes relative to the conditions of this world of illusion. It is as if I should imagine that the traditional interpretation of the Book of Revelation were to be changed by suggesting that the tortures of the damned are actually made on this terra (and not even in eschatological times!) for their greater spiritual good!

An operation of that kind is very a 'mission impossible'.

But the reverse is 100% expected: Luke did edit the marcionite interpretation by casting the material ''woes'' in Mcn as spiritual infernal ''woes'' by God Creator.

In short, the marcionite beatitudes are saying:
you (material) poor will be (spiritual) rich...
...and you (material) rich will be (material) poor in order to become (spiritual) rich.


Note that that is the point, too, where both Luke and Matthew, in order to diverge from marcionite surprising antithesis between happy poverty and apparent wealth, become virulent anti-Jewish.

But you insist that Matthew was a true ''Jewish-Christian''...

[Giuseppe]

In short, Tertullian reports correctly which was exactly the marcionite interpretation of the beatitudes:

But, I imagine, he [the marcionite God] is no longer perfectly good: at length he shares
something of the Creator's character, and has ceased to be entirely
Epicurus' god. For see, he betakes himself to cursing and shows
himself to be one who is capable of offence and anger. For he says
Woe. So we have the question raised of the import of this word,
with the suggestion that it implies not so much malediction as
admonition. But what is the difference in intention, when even
an admonition is not given without the spur of commination,
especially when made more astringent by the word Woe? Also
both admonition and commination are in character with one
who is capable of being angry. For no one is going either by
admonition or by commination to forbid a person to do something,
unless he is going to inflict punishment if it is done. No one can
inflict punishment, but one who is capable of anger. There are
others indeed who admit the word involves cursing, but will have
it that Christ uttered the word Woe not as proceeding strictly
from his own judgement, but because the word woe comes from
the Creator, and he wished to set before them the Creator's
severity, and so give greater commendation to his own tolerance
previously in the beatitudes.

According to Tertullian (correctly), the marcionite view is the following:

Jesus is admonishing physical woes in arrival for the rich, he is not cursing those rich. Those material 'woes' will come from the Creator god (because the Demiurge is the real archon of this world) but because the rich who becomes a marcionite Christian will be persecuted in name of Christ and then he will know poverty and misery (the 'woes') in this world (in order to have the grace in the other world, the celestial one of the god of Marcion).

Therefore Tertullian is confuted when he says apologetically :

But what is the difference in intention, when even
an admonition is not given without the spur of commination,
especially when made more astringent by the word Woe? Also
both admonition and commination are in character with one
who is capable of being angry.

Tertullian ignores in this point deliberately - he is a fool apologist, after all - the fact that in Mcn the 'woes' come from Creator God and not from Jesus: Jesus is only admonishing that the Demiurge, in his cruelty, will attack the marcionite rich by persecuting them (via Romans) and reducing them to poverty and misery. The celestial remedy will arrive, too, for the ''rich-became-poor'', and this time from the True God.

[Michael BG]

Prof Vinzent says that there is a cross-over structure in Mcn:
http://markusvinzent.blogspot.it/2011/0 ... l-220.html

I think Vinzent’s interpretation is lovely. I like the idea that those in a state of rejection will be punished or brought down low, but in the end will be equally rewarded after the punishment. His appeal to the possible Q saying (Lk 17:3-4 Mt 18:21-22) is unusual, but for me does seem to link into the idea that Jesus was preaching about God’s mercy in the tradition of the prophets and it was repentence that was important and not the idea that once a person has “sinned” there is no hope for them.

I have not come across any scholar who says that the Woes should not be read with the Beatitudes. As my interest is in trying to discover what was in Q these are linked together to assist in this process.

Also Vinzent’s Beatitudes and Woes are not the same as Giuseppe’s

2:20 Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God belongs to you.
2:21 Blessed are you who hunger <now>, for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep <now>, for you will laugh.
2:22 Blessed are you when people hate you, and exclude and reject your name as evil on account of the Son of Man! 2:23 For their ancestors did the same things to the prophets.

2:24 But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation already.
2:25 Woe to you who are well satisfied with food, for you will be hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.
2:26 Woe when people speak well of you, for their ancestors did the same things to the false prophets.

There are differences in the words but I have highlighted in red the more important admissions of Giuseppe.

Of course we shouldn’t be surprised that they can’t agree on the wording. I looked at the posting of Ben C Smith viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765#p39310
and the supporting text of Tertullian to discover what were the words in the gospel of Marcion but I couldn’t find them, because they are not there. Giuseppe has posted sections of Tertuillan interpretation but again the wording is not quoted. Only a couple of days ago I criticised Vinzent for the false impression he gave of the position of those who support the idea of a Jewish pre-Marcan text (dated c 40 CE) behind parts of Mark 13. This is a modern scholar who should abide by the rules of scholarship and not misrepresent the views of other scholars, but if we can’t have it from Vinzent why on earth should we expect it from Tertuillan who will not have even been aware of our modern expectations?

If we look at the text as given by Vinzent we will find that what he says is false. In the first woe the rich are consoled they are not made poor which is what he says happens to them. In the fourth woe there is no penalty they are just compared to false prophets but without any penalty for being a false prophet. If Vinzent was correct in his interpretation they should be hated. Again we come face to face with the poor scholarship of Vinzent.

I think this point of Vinzent alone is very strong, persuasive, conclusive evidence that Marcion is prior than Luke/Matthew.

A few years ago I tried to discover what I thought was the most likely text of Q and influenced by Matthew Black but not in total agreement with him I concluded this was what Q was likely to have been:

[20b]"Blessed are you poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
[5] "Blessed are you meek,
for you shall inherit the earth.

[4] "Blessed are you who mourn,
for you shall be comforted.
[21b] "Blessed are you that weep now,
for you shall laugh.

[7] "Blessed are you merciful,
for you shall obtain mercy.
[9] "Blessed are you peacemakers,
for you shall be called sons of God,

[21] "Blessed are you that hunger,
for you shall be satisfied.
[Inferred] "Blessed are you who thirst,
for you shall be sated.

[11] "Blessed are you when men revile you
[23c] for so their fathers did to the prophets.
[22d] “Blessed are you when men declare that your name is evil,
on account of the Son of man!
[23] Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy,
[23b] your reward is great in heaven;

Now if I am correct and this is the most likely earlier version of these sayings then it is clear than Marcion and Luke are dependent. Luke and Matthew both have “your reward is great in heaven” and if they were independently based in Marcion this wouldn’t be the case. It is therefore very likely that Marcion has removed this section. Therefore this is evidence that Marcion is later than both Matthew and Luke.

[Giuseppe]

I think Vinzent’s interpretation is lovely. I like the idea that those in a state of rejection will be punished or brought down low, but in the end will be equally rewarded after the punishment.

I suspect that you don't realize precisely which is the point of Vinzent. He is saying (basing on Tertullian's evidence about which was the marcionite opinion) that those riches are NOT ''in a state of rejection''. To be rich or in wealth, to be a pharisee or a Roman, is not a state of rejection, for the Jesus of Mcn.
In Mcn Jesus is saying: attention, your rich people etc, because I prophetize that if you will become marcionite Christians (and the author of Mcn is assuming that they were marcionite Christians), then you will be persecuted (against my will) by the angry Demiurg. The 'woes' will come from Demiurg on good rich people and Jesus cannot prevent these material 'woes' on them. But in this way, by their being persecuted, etc, the rich marcionite Christians will be rewarded in the other world by a spiritual richness (just as the poor Marcionites).

His appeal to the possible Q saying (Lk 17:3-4 Mt 18:21-22) is unusual, but for me does seem to link into the idea that Jesus was preaching about God’s mercy in the tradition of the prophets and it was repentence that was important and not the idea that once a person has “sinned” there is no hope for them.

You start (just as Tertullian) from the fatal dogmatic assumption that the rich people are ''in a state of rejection'' but for Marcion it was not so. Marcion of Sinope himself was a very rich person! He was not in a state of rejection. His 'woes' were the persecutions made on him by proto-catholics (read: the angry Demiurg).

Also Vinzent’s Beatitudes and Woes are not the same as Giuseppe’s

2:20 Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God belongs to you.
2:21 Blessed are you who hunger <now>, for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep <now>, for you will laugh.
2:22 Blessed are you when people hate you, and exclude and reject your name as evil on account of the Son of Man! 2:23 For their ancestors did the same things to the prophets.

2:24 But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation already.
2:25 Woe to you who are well satisfied with food, for you will be hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.
2:26 Woe when people speak well of you, for their ancestors did the same things to the false prophets.

There are differences in the words but I have highlighted in red the more important admissions of Giuseppe.

Of course we shouldn’t be surprised that they can’t agree on the wording. I looked at the posting of Ben C Smith viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765#p39310
and the supporting text of Tertullian to discover what were the words in the gospel of Marcion but I couldn’t find them, because they are not there.

If I remember well, Roth says that Mcn is identical with Luke 6:20-26, here.

If we look at the text as given by Vinzent we will find that what he says is false. In the first woe the rich are consoled they are not made poor which is what he says happens to them.

I dont' see where is the problem:
But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation already.

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. Therefore the rich marcionite people have already their consolation, since in next future they risk the loss of that illusory consolation. A Roman persecution will threat them. They will be despoiled by archons of this world.

In the fourth woe there is no penalty they are just compared to false prophets but without any penalty for being a false prophet.

The fourth woe:
2:26 Woe when people speak well of you, for their ancestors did the same things to the false prophets.
This is clearly a warning: the false prophets were at first believed, then in a second time, as 'false prophets', they were stoned by the people. 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.

If Vinzent was correct in his interpretation they should be hated.

Deut. says that the false prophets had to be hated: they were stoned. Surely not an act of love...

The modern ''false prophets'' (in the eyes of the slaves of Demiurg) will be the same marcionite Christians. These are the same people who will be persecuted in name of the apparent Son of Man.

Again we come face to face with the poor scholarship of Vinzent.

I disagree entirely. Don't you realize that you are imitating the same mistakes of Tertullian ? You are assuming that the ''woes'' are will thrown on people ''in a state of rejection'' and therefore you are assuming that the ''woes'' are infernal woes, i.e. post-mortem woes. But it's not so.
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.

Therefore the 'woes' that await them are the physical pre-mortem ''woes''.

Now if I am correct and this is the most likely earlier version of these sayings then it is clear than Marcion and Luke are dependent. Luke and Matthew both have “your reward is great in heaven” and if they were independently based in Marcion this wouldn’t be the case.

[/quote]
Don't you realize the alternative solution? Mcn ---> Matthew ---> Luke.

[Giuseppe]

Please note the surprising antithesis: the future persecutors of the marcionite Christians will act as their fathers acted against the ancient prophets, i.e. treating them as 'false prophets' (persecuting them). The contradiction or antithesis is that now to be apparently ''false prophets'' are the same true Christians, i.e., the enemies of the God of the ancient prophets.


The general warning is the following:

in a cruel world ruled by the Demiurge (and his slaves, who will be persecutor of good Chrestians), even the appearance of happiness is illusory and might turn any moment into its opposite. Ultimately responsible for all that evil (against all Christians, poor or rich) is the Demiurge.

[Michael BG]

In Mcn Jesus is saying: attention, your rich people etc, because I prophetize that if you will become marcionite Christians (and the author of Mcn is assuming that they were marcionite Christians), then you will be persecuted (against my will) by the angry Demiurg. The 'woes' will come from Demiurg on good rich people and Jesus cannot prevent these material 'woes' on them. But in this way, by their being persecuted, etc, the rich marcionite Christians will be rewarded in the other world by a spiritual richness (just as the poor Marcionites).

Your interpretation of Vinzent is not correct. He writes, “The blessed end up where the rich start from and the rich start from where the blessed end up in”. But this isn’t true as I have pointed out already.

Vinzent writes, “Even clearer are the next two beatitudes and woes where hunger corresponds directly with ‘being hungry’, and weeping with ‘mourning and weeping’." He is mostly correct accept that the last one should only be weeping and shouldn’t include mourning. However these are earthly things.

Then he leaps to make a linkage that is missing in the text equating the false prophets with “being hated, excluded and rejected”. For the parallelism to be explicit we would have “for you will be hated, excluded and rejected”, which isn’t there.

Vinzent makes this clear – “Both this cross-over structure and the strict correspondence between beatitudes and woes result in the following: the state from which the beatitudes start, namely from the poor, the hungry, the weeping and the hated are precisely the states into which the woes lead: rich who ends as a poor, the satisfied who ends as somebody hungry, the laughing who ends as mourner and the well spoken of who ends being regarded like the pseudoprophets, namely hated and rejected.”

Vinzent does not say that the rich will become Marcionite Christians and he doesn’t talk about the Demiurg.

Of course Tertullian gets it completely wrong making up the idea that God said the Woes rather than Jesus. Luke is happy to create the woes because he doesn’t like the rich and likes the poor. It makes sense for Luke to rework what was in Q to form the woes in the same way he re-works the sources he has when writing Acts.

You start (just as Tertullian) from the fatal dogmatic assumption that the rich people are ''in a state of rejection'' but for Marcion it was not so. Marcion of Sinope himself was a very rich person! He was not in a state of rejection. His 'woes' were the persecutions made on him by proto-catholics (read: the angry Demiurg).

It is not my assumption it is what Vinzent writes. The rich will become poor, the satisfied – hungry, those laughing will weep. The woes clearly have a reversal. Vinzent makes it clear they will join the first group. Why would there be a need for this reversal if the rewards for the first group went straight to the second group? The second group can only get the rewards after getting to the same situation as the first group according to Vinzent.

If I remember well, Roth says that Mcn is identical with Luke 6:20-26, here.

I am not impressed that Roth thinks he can say what was in Marcion regarding Lk 6:20-6. I want to see and read the evidence that what Roth thinks was in Marcion was likely to be in Marcion. Please provide the relevant church father passages that quote the wording rather than talk round the verses.

If we look at the text as given by Vinzent we will find that what he says is false. In the first woe the rich are consoled they are not made poor which is what he says happens to them.

I dont' see where is the problem:
But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation already.

I know you don’t see the problem.
Vinzent wrote “rich who ends as a poor,”.
But that is not what the text says. This is why he is wrong and no amount of re-interpretation will affect this.

[therefore you are assuming that the ''woes'' are infernal woes, i.e. post-mortem woes.

But I am not. I am saying that Vinzent says there will be a reversal but I haven’t assumed where this might be. Vinzent is clear there is a reversal so the rich will be poor and so end up at the same place as the poor. I haven’t concerned myself where this place might be. I am only concerned that the text does’t say that the rich will be poor.

Don't you realize the alternative solution? Mcn ---> Matthew ---> Luke.

I am aware that it is unlikely that Luke used Matthew as a source.
However it is not possible for Luke to have only used Matthew if Matthew used Marcion because the text of Luke agrees more with Marcion than it does with Matthew. Also I am aware it is unlikely that Mark used Luke or Matthew or Marcron as a source.

[Giuseppe]

Don't you realize the contradiction between this your claim:

Vinzent does not say that the rich will become Marcionite Christians and he doesn’t talk about the Demiurg.

...and this your claim?

Of course Tertullian gets it completely wrong making up the idea that God said the Woes rather than Jesus.

The key to interpret the text à la Marcion is to assume that the author of the 'woes' is not Jesus but the Demiurg.

I think Vinzent is saying this:

the poor will be blessed, and so on.

...but you rich are not safe : the demiurge will persecute you, therefore, you will become like the poor of the first group.

Vinzent makes this clear – “Both this cross-over structure and the strict correspondence between beatitudes and woes result in the following: the state from which the beatitudes start, namely from the poor, the hungry, the weeping and the hated are precisely the states into which the woes lead: rich who ends as a poor, the satisfied who ends as somebody hungry, the laughing who ends as mourner and the well spoken of who ends being regarded like the pseudoprophets, namely hated and rejected.”

I assume the context for these words is a context of persecution by authority. Jesus prophetizes to his Christian audience that every person, independent of his present happiness or not, will suffer the pains of this world, a world dominated by the demiurge. There is not salvation in this world. This is pure gnosis.

Note the apology of Tertullian: he goes above and beyond to insist that, when Jesus was talking about 'woes', then he is the author of these future 'woes', because he is the creator god.

Please, read carefully the words of Vinzent. I'm sure I really understood him on this point!