The first Gospel: surprise, indifference or hostility?

[Giuseppe]

There is not reversal. Simply, there is a shared destiny (beyond the provenance): the fate for both poor and rich is a fate of suffering in this world, because this is the world of Demiurg.

Another point in Mcn/Luke where Jesus talks about 'woe' but he doesn't thinks about himself as the author of that 'woe' is

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

As I said, the key in Mcn is that the author of woes is always the Demiurg, since the True God is not able of punishing the sinners: he is able only of love and forgiveness. Jesus can only predict the woes which are coming in the future on Christians or on Judah.

As I said, this opens an interesting view: that the scribes and pharisees did need Judah because in this way only Judah attracts the wrath of the Demiurge for killing the innocent Jesus and all them will be exonerated. The Demiurge will punish Judah not because he recognizes the divinity of Jesus, but because he severely apply the his Torah who prohibits the murder.

If this is the case, then all of Mcn was entirely invented by his author. There is not historicity at all. I don't need even Paul to confute historicity.

[Giuseppe]

A surprising antithesis is in view here, at the light of what I said above:

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.

If a common destiny of suffering waits both the first and the second group, then a doubt is put on the hability of the persecutors (Demiurg's slaves) of recognizing correctly the true prophets from the false prophes. This implies that the same old Scriptures cannot help to distinguish correctly who would be a true prophet and who would be a false prophet.

Deuteronomy 13

If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

What was this if not a pure marcionite antithesis ?

[Michael BG]

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

You can assume whatever you like, but that isn’t in the text. If it isn’t in the text it can’t be used to discuss textual use. It appears you don’t understand this. Interpretation can be useful for what is there or what is changed. For example Luke is concerned with the poor and doesn’t like the rich and this can be used as a reason why Luke most likely created the woes from what was in Q.

If the Marcion gospel was the first and made from new cloth then if he wanted the Demiurg or the Old Testament God to say the woes then why didn’t he have it happen? The reason must be because the Marcion gospel is not the first and is interpreting the existing gospels in new ways.

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.

I'm sure I really understood him on this point!

But you are incorrect and everyone can see you are incorrect because you haven’t quoted Vinzent as evidence.

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.

But you are making an interpretation not based on the wording of the text.

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.

What Tertullian thinks is irrelevant. It is the text which is important. How many times do I have to write this for you to understand?

There is not reversal. Simply, there is a shared destiny (beyond the provenance): the fate for both poor and rich is a fate of suffering

But that isn’t what Vinzent wrote and it isn’t in his text of Marcion.

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

Lk 22:22 is about Judas Iscariot and doesn’t link to the woes in chapter 6.

As I said, this opens an interesting view: that the scribes and pharisees did need Judah because in this way only Judah attracts the wrath of the Demiurge for killing the innocent Jesus and all them will be exonerated. The Demiurge will punish Judah not because he recognizes the divinity of Jesus, but because he severely apply the his Torah who prohibits the murder.

If this is the case, then all of Mcn was entirely invented by his author. There is not historicity at all. I don't need even Paul to confute historicity.

The text of Marcion does not say any of this. I haven’t even seen the word Demiurge in the Marcion gospel. Marcion has re-interpreted the existing gospels not created them and that is why when you talk of his theology you can’t find it clearly stated in the gospel you have to re-intepret the edited text to find it. As I think I have already said you start from the wrong place. You start from your version of Marcion’s theology and then read it into what others say is the Marcion text.

If a common destiny of suffering waits both the first and the second group, then a doubt is put on the hability of the persecutors (Demiurg's slaves) of recognizing correctly the true prophets from the false prophes. This implies that the same old Scriptures cannot help to distinguish correctly who would be a true prophet and who would be a false prophet.

What was this if not a pure marcionite antithesis ?

You can post your interpretation of what Vinzent says is in the Marcion text, but that does not mean that your interpretation is correct, especially as you had been using Vinzent as support but I hope you have now recognised he doesn’t provide it. You need to post a Church Father to support your view.

But even if your interpretation is correct that does not make a case for earliness. Tertullian’s interpretation is useless; you have to find out Luke’s meaning and compare the changes to make a case for which is changed to suit the author's theology.

At no point have you compared the Marcionite and Lucan text. This might be because Roth does not state that any of the Lucan text is attested as absent. The only difference that Roth thinks are there is evidence for lateness because of fatigue (a bit like in Matthew). [Vinzent’s text does not agree with Roth’s here.]

As it seems the text of Marcion and Luke are not attested as different here, these verses can not be used for earliness or lateness. End of.

[Giuseppe]

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

You can assume whatever you like, but that isn’t in the text. If it isn’t in the text it can’t be used to discuss textual use.

Well. I will show you pure textual evidence of Luke's editing Mcn and not the contrary, exactly on this point.

I want only two concessions on your part, if only for the pure love of discussion:
1) that you concede (gratis) that Vinzent's reconstruction of Marcion's text is correct,
2) that you concede (gratis) that my marcionite interpretation is the same of Vinzent.

I know your caveat about prudence on these points, etc, but at moment it's all that I have on which I can apply my logic. I am sure that Vinzent will have his valid reasons to reconstruct in that way the text. And at any case, I see that Roth agrees with him about the beatitudes.

Therefore, by convention, we accept that this is the text of Marcion (in red the verse 6:23a, found in Luke but not in Mcn. I don't know if Roth puts verse 6:23a in Mcn, too, because otherwise I cannot do my argument, therefore I pray tou to accept verse 6:23a is absent in Mcn):

“Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
21
Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.
22
Blessed are you when people hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil,
because of the Son of Man.

23 “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.

24
“But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
25
Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.
26
Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,
for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.


Note what Luke has done, by adding verse 6:23a :

23 “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven.

Luke is saying: when you are in that state of distress, then you should rejoice, because that state of distress is really a divine sign of predestination. The Christians (i.e., the meant audience) need to be happy of suffering, to be proud of their poverty, because those ''woes'' are part of divine providence. Christians (the first group) must thank their ''woes'' because only thanks to those ''woes'' they will deserve heaven.

The implicit corollary is that those ''woes'' (on the first group) come provvidentially from the true God, a God who is the same of Jesus.

To the extent that those woes (for the first group) are the ''baptism of martyrdom'', then those ''woes'' are in a sense providential, benefits. These ''woes'' occur under the tacit will of the same god of Jesus.


This move of Luke is 100% expected if (and only if) verses 6:23a is absent in Mcn.

In Mcn verse 6:23a cannot be found since that verse 6:23a destroyes all the marcionite interpretation (as attested by Tertullian): the verse 6:23a suggests that the woes of the first group are part of divine providence to the extent that Christians should enjoy in virtue of those ''woes'' and even ''leap for the joy''.

Remove verse 6:23a. Then you no longer know who is the trascendent author of those ''woes'' (on the first group), given the text. We know that that state of affliction reflects (real or presumed) persecution of the ancient Christian community. Romans (or Jews behind the Romans) are persecuting Christians. Is that persecution caused by divine providence or by Satan? We don't know.

Now, so Vinzent (as evidence that Vinzent supports my interpretation):

Tertullian reports that ‘there are others [than Marcion] 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’, hence they removed the curses from Christ’s mouth and suggested that ‘the word woe comes from the Creator’.

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

The marcionite interpretation, says Tertullian, is that the author of the ''woes'' (on the second group) is not the true God the Father, but is the Demiurge. Therefore the Demiurge, in a marcionite view, is the author of the state of affliction of the first group, too (according to Vinzent, ''precisely the states into which the woes lead'').

If these are the rules of the game, then I find it easier to think that Luke added the verse 6:23a to emphasize the providential nature of the state of affliction of the first group (so to emphasize by contrast the divine - and not satanic - origin of the ''woes'' that will fall on the second group), and not rather than Marcion removed the verse 6:23a to introduce the ambiguous (demiurgical?) origin of those ''woes'' afflicting both the first and the second group.

Moral: if you are a Marcionite Christian, you should not ''leap for joy'' because the Demiurge is bringing down his wrath against you. That is not ''dvine providence'' but the hate by a inferior God. It would be something of very irrational, for a Marcionite, if he is satisfied (sic) that the Demiurge is his enemy.

But not so for Luke.

[Michael BG]

Well. I will show you pure textual evidence of Luke's editing Mcn and not the contrary, exactly on this point.

I want only two concessions on your part, if only for the pure love of discussion:
1) that you concede (gratis) that Vinzent's reconstruction of Marcion's text is correct,
2) that you concede (gratis) that my marcionite interpretation is the same of Vinzent.

I know your caveat about prudence on these points, etc, but at moment it's all that I have on which I can apply my logic. I am sure that Vinzent will have his valid reasons to reconstruct in that way the text. And at any case, I see that Roth agrees with him about the beatitudes.

No your assumptions are wrong, but it doesn’t really matter if you and Vinzent agree on your interpretation of the Marcionite interpretation if you don’t use him for support.

Therefore, by convention, we accept that this is the text of Marcion (in red the verse 6:23a, found in Luke but not in Mcn. I don't know if Roth puts verse 6:23a in Mcn, too, because otherwise I cannot do my argument, therefore I pray tou to accept verse 6:23a is absent in Mcn):

“Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
21
Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.
22
Blessed are you when people hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil,
because of the Son of Man.

23 “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.

24
“But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
25
Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.
26
Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,
for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

While there is agreement that it is possible that “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven” is missing from Marcion there is no attestation that it is missing. So you wish to start your case on dependence not on what is highly probable but on something we don’t know.

Luke is saying: when you are in that state of distress, then you should rejoice, because that state of distress is really a divine sign of predestination. The Christians (i.e., the meant audience) need to be happy of suffering, to be proud of their poverty, because those ''woes'' are part of divine providence. Christians (the first group) must thank their ''woes'' because only thanks to those ''woes'' they will deserve heaven.

Earlier you wrote:

Simply, there is a shared destiny (beyond the provenance): the fate for both poor and rich is a fate of suffering in this world, because this is the world of Demiurg.

the rich marcionite Christians will be rewarded in the other world by a spiritual richness (just as the poor Marcionites).

So according to your Marcionite interpretation the poor Marcionites will experience suffering in this world and in the spiritual will receive their spiritual reward. So here both Luke and Marcion agree. And because they agree there is no need for Marcion to have removed the text which we have no evidence that he removed.

In Judaim I understand there was a belief that those who had a difficult life on earth would be rewarded in heaven and the Beatitudes fits this belief. The Beatitudes are about reward in heaven, it seems OK to try to be content now knowing you have been promised a better time in heaven.

Matthew has a slightly different wording (5:12)

Rejoice and be glad your reward is great in heaven (underlined in both).

If we assume that both Luke and Matthew are independent it is hugely unlikey they would agree here. Therefore the most likely explanation is they were both using a common sourse that included the words: “Rejoice ... your reward is great in heaven” and this I call Q.

So to be clear the best explanation why Matthew and Luke agree here is their use of Q and it is a quite natural flow for the Beatitudes to end on this possitive note as in my reconstruction and has nothing to do with Marcionite theology.

I note you haven’t dealt with my counter argument that if the Marcionite gospel was first why his gospel does not state that the Demiurge or Old Testament God is saying the Woes rather than have Jesus saying them as in Matthew and Luke. An appeal to Marcionite interpretation only makes it clearer that they are re-interpreting the text and not creating it.

[Giuseppe]

While there is agreement that it is possible that “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven” is missing from Marcion there is no attestation that it is missing. So you wish to start your case on dependence not on what is highly probable but on something we don’t know.

You make a mistake. We know two things:
1) we know the marcionite interpretation of the gospel thanks to Tertullian (the Demiurge is author of the affliction for both the first and second group)
2) we can infer from point 1, by simple logic, that in Mcn there is probably not the verse 6:23a, since that verse has clearly the function of removing the heretical idea that the present state of affliction of the first group is caused by the God Creator. If the Creator god is the one who comforts the woes for the first group (the sense of verse 6:23a), then he is not the author of the present affliction of the first group.

We know directly by some fragments of Antithesis of Marcion that the True God was unable to punish man for his sins. The True God can only love and forgive. He could not send anyone to hell (since the ''hell'' is this world). He could do nothing else. Therefore if Jesus in Mcn mentions ''woe/s" for the rich or for Judah, we can be relatively sure that the author of woes is not the True God but another: the Creator God.

So according to your Marcionite interpretation the poor Marcionites will experience suffering in this world and in the spiritual will receive their spiritual reward. So here both Luke and Marcion agree. And because they agree there is no need for Marcion to have removed the text which we have no evidence that he removed.

No. that verse 6:23 is crucial. His presence implies that the Creator God is surely not the author of affliction for the first group. His absence raises the possibility that he is the author of that affliction for the first group (and therefore he is the Demiurge).

Matthew has a slightly different wording (5:12)

Rejoice and be glad your reward is great in heaven (underlined in both).

If we assume that both Luke and Matthew are independent it is hugely unlikey they would agree here. Therefore the most likely explanation is they were both using a common sourse that included the words: “Rejoice ... your reward is great in heaven” and this I call Q.

You can argue only basing your arguments on Luke, therefore you should not mention Matthew, here. We should limit to compare only Mcn and Luke between them.

At any case, Luke is dependent on Matthew about his addition of verse 6:23a.


In short, my argument from textual evidence is based on two points:

the first point is already made by Vinzent:

the inserted verse of Luke 6:23a which is not attested for Marcion’s Gospel and somehow disturbs the interlinking complementary structure of the combination

the second and more strong point is mine:

I have identified a theological reason for Luke to add the verse 6:23a on Mcn: If the creator god is the one who comforts, then he is not more the implicit persecutor.

Vice versa, you can not give, by your own admission, a valid reason why Marcion would mutilated verse 6:23a. This your ignorance of the real reasons for the Marcionite removal of the verse 6:23a induces you to reduce dogmatically your apology to the mere objection that ''we're not sure that Marcion had or not the verse 6:23a''. But the simple logic suggests that he could not have that verse, since the simple presence of the verse 6:23a constitutes an impossibility for Marcion to say that the author of the affliction of the first group was just the god of the Jews.

I note you haven’t dealt with my counter argument that if the Marcionite gospel was first why his gospel does not state that the Demiurge or Old Testament God is saying the Woes rather than have Jesus saying them as in Matthew and Luke. An appeal to Marcionite interpretation only makes it clearer that they are re-interpreting the text and not creating it.

The true God is never mentioned in Mcn.

I read from Judith M. Lieu's book on Marcion that Marcion didn't call never the god of the Jews with the name 'Demiurge'. Only marcionites did.

The only points in Mcn where the ''Creator'' (alluding to Demiurge) is mentioned espliciter are two (but according to Harnack's translation):

And someone from the crowd said to Chrestos, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me." And he said to him, "Man: who made me a judge or arbitrator between you?" And he said, "Beware, keep yourself away from all covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions." And he told them a parable, saying, "A certain rich man produced an abundant yield, and he thought to himself, 'What should I do? For I have nowhere to store my crops.' Then he said, 'I'll do this: I'll tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and in them I'll store all my grain and other goods. Then I'll say to myself, "You have plenty of goods stored up for many years, so relax: eat, drink, and be merry!"' But the creator said to him, 'You fool! Tonight your soul is required of you. And the things you've prepared: to whom will they go?' So it is for the one who gathers up treasures for himself, but is not rich toward God." Then he said to his disciples, "Therefore, I say to you, don't worry about your life, about what you should eat, about what you should wear. For life is more than food, and the body is more than clothing. Think of the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap, nor do they have a storehouse or a barn. Think of how the lilies grow: they neither work nor spin, yet I say to you, even Solomon in his so-called glory was arrayed like one of these. So, don't continue to seek out what you might eat or drink or wear, and do not worry, but instead, continue to seek out God's kingdom. Fear not, little flock, for the Father is pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give alms, making for yourselves purses that never wear out, a treasure in the highest heaven that will never fail, where no thief draws near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

Then Chrestos told them a parable about how they must always pray, and never lose heart, saying, "There was a certain judge in a certain city, who did not fear the creator or respect other men. And there was a widow in the city that was coming to him, saying, 'Avenge me against my adversary.' For some time, he would not do so, but later on, he said within himself, 'I may not fear the creator or respect other men, but because this widow keeps bothering me, I'll grant her plea, so she stops coming and harassing me.'" And the Lord said, "Listen to what the unjust judge says. And won't God give justice to his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night; will he delay in helping them? I say to you, he will grant their plea quickly. Even so, when the son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"

[Michael BG]

While there is agreement that it is possible that “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven” is missing from Marcion there is no attestation that it is missing. So you wish to start your case on dependence not on what is highly probable but on something we don’t know.

You make a mistake. We know two things:
1) we know the marcionite interpretation of the gospel thanks to Tertullian (the Demiurge is author of the affliction for both the first and second group)
2) we can infer from point 1, by simple logic, that in Mcn there is probably not the verse 6:23a, since that verse has clearly the function of removing the heretical idea that the present state of affliction of the first group is caused by the God Creator. If the Creator god is the one who comforts the woes for the first group (the sense of verse 6:23a), then he is not the author of the present affliction of the first group.

We know directly by some fragments of Antithesis of Marcion that the True God was unable to punish man for his sins. The True God can only love and forgive. He could not send anyone to hell (since the ''hell'' is this world). He could do nothing else. Therefore if Jesus in Mcn mentions ''woe/s" for the rich or for Judah, we can be relatively sure that the author of woes is not the True God but another: the Creator God.

None of this addresses my point. You assert that Lk 6:23a is missing in Marcion’s gospel and you appeal to the idea that the present state of the people in the beatitudes is casued by God. However I don’t see this as necessary for those in that condition to look forward to the spiritual condition to come. It doesn’t matter who casues your present condition the verse only says – Rejoice because your reward is great in heaven. You haven’t provided any evidence that Marcion disagreed with this.

So according to your Marcionite interpretation the poor Marcionites will experience suffering in this world and in the spiritual will receive their spiritual reward. So here both Luke and Marcion agree. And because they agree there is no need for Marcion to have removed the text which we have no evidence that he removed.

No. that verse 6:23 is crucial. His presence implies that the Creator God is surely not the author of affliction for the first group. His absence raises the possibility that he is the author of that affliction for the first group (and therefore he is the Demiurge).

You are asserting this without any evidence. There is nothing implied. The text is silent on the reason why people are poor, hungry, and weeping. The text only states their condition will change. Also it is possible that verse 23a only applies to those who are suffering because of their message regarding the Son of Man. Therefore because they know their message is correct and they are doing God’s will they should rejoice because great will be their reward in heaven. Again their suffering is not casued by God, but it is rewarded by God.

Matthew, here. We should limit to compare only Mcn and Luke between them.

At any case, Luke is dependent on Matthew about his addition of verse 6:23a.

I reject the idea that Luke is dependent on Matthew. Matthew should not be ignored especially when I think Roth often favours the Matthew reading over the Lucan ones in Marcion.

In short, my argument from textual evidence is based on two points:

the first point is already made by Vinzent:

the inserted verse of Luke 6:23a which is not attested for Marcion’s Gospel and somehow disturbs the interlinking complementary structure of the combination

the second and more strong point is mine:

I have identified a theological reason for Luke to add the verse 6:23a on Mcn: If the creator god is the one who comforts, then he is not more the implicit persecutor.

I have already demonstrated that the interlinking structure is a feature of Vinzent’s mind and not the text.
Secondly the text does not say that God is the persecutor. An appeal to Tertullian is as irrelevant as an appeal to a Christian apologist.

by your own admission, a valid reason why Marcion would mutilated verse 6:23a. This your ignorance of the real reasons for the Marcionite removal of the verse 6:23a induces you to reduce dogmatically your apology to the mere objection that ''we're not sure that Marcion had or not the verse 6:23a''. But the simple logic suggests that he could not have that verse, since the simple presence of the verse 6:23a constitutes an impossibility for Marcion to say that the author of the affliction of the first group was just the god of the Jews.

Again you assert. If it was such impossibility for Marcion to have verse 23a why doesn’t anyone tell us it was missing?

I note you haven’t dealt with my counter argument that if the Marcionite gospel was first why his gospel does not state that the Demiurge or Old Testament God is saying the Woes rather than have Jesus saying them as in Matthew and Luke. An appeal to Marcionite interpretation only makes it clearer that they are re-interpreting the text and not creating it.

The true God is never mentioned in Mcn.

I read from Judith M. Lieu's book on Marcion that Marcion didn't call never the god of the Jews with the name 'Demiurge'. Only marcionites did.

That doesn’t counter my argument. In fact I think it supports it. The reason the Demiurge isn’t mentioned is because the Marcionite gospel is based on the existing gospels and not created from scratch.

The only points in Mcn where the ''Creator'' (alluding to Demiurge) is mentioned espliciter are two (but according to Harnack's translation):

And someone from the crowd said to Chrestos, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me." ... But the creator said to him, 'You fool! Tonight your soul is required of you. And the things you've prepared: to whom will they go?' So it is for the one who gathers up treasures for himself, but is not rich toward God." ... So, don't continue to seek out what you might eat or drink or wear, and do not worry, but instead, continue to seek out God's kingdom. Fear not, little flock, for the Father is pleased to give you the kingdom. ... For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

Then Chrestos told them a parable about how they must always pray, and never lose heart, saying, "There was a certain judge in a certain city, who did not fear the creator or respect other men. And there was a widow in the city that was coming to him, saying, 'Avenge me against my adversary.' For some time, he would not do so, but later on, he said within himself, 'I may not fear the creator or respect other men, but because this widow keeps bothering me, I'll grant her plea, so she stops coming and harassing me.'" And the Lord said, "Listen to what the unjust judge says. And won't God give justice to his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night; will he delay in helping them? I say to you, he will grant their plea quickly. Even so, when the son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"

I don’t think the word “espliciter” is English. It would be very helpful if you gave the Lucan reference to your quotes from the Marcionite gospel.

The first part is the parable of the “Rich Fool” is Lk 12:13-21. Roth however has “20 “But God said to him, ‘You foolish one, tonight your soul is required of you.”, but verse 21 is like Lk 6:23a neither attested as there or missing. (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765&start=10#p39319). It appears that Harnack has created his own unattested version!

The next section is “On Anxiety” a Q saying (Mt 6:25-33 Lk 12;22-34). Roth has 31 “But seek God’s Kingdom, ... ”, but he doesn’t have verse 32, however BeDuhn does.

The next section is the parable of the “Unjust Judge” (Lk 18;1-8). Roth only has 1 a parable that they must always pray, and not give up, 2 a judge”. While it seems that Beduhn has “He also spoke a parable to them that they must always pray, and not give up, 2 saying, “There was a certain judge in a certain city who didn’t fear God, and didn’t respect man.” Please not there is no “Creater”. Verse 4bc (Though I neither fear God, nor respect man) is again like Lk 6:23a neither attested as present nor missing. (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765&start=20#p39326).

Therefore even where you think Marcion has changed the Lucan text to make clear which God is being referred to neither Roth nor BeDuhn supports Harnack. This is clear evidence just how difficult it is to discover what the text of Marcion is. Also Harnack is supporting my view that where there is no attestation either way we should assume the text is present.

[Giuseppe]

None of this addresses my point. You assert that Lk 6:23a is missing in Marcion’s gospel and you appeal to the idea that the present state of the people in the beatitudes is casued by God.

I appeal to idea that for the proto-catholic Luke, the creator God is not the author of the present state of affliction for the first group, since the verse 6:23a makes clear that the Creator God is the comforter. Without verse 6:23a, Vinzent is right when he sees the croos-over structure at work. And if Vinzent is right about that cross-over structure, then there is textual evidence of the marcionite interpretation that sees the Creator God (the Demiurge) as the author of the present state of affliction for the first group.

Therefore my proof (that verse 6:23a is a proto-catholic interpolation) is reduced to prove that Vinzent is right about the croos-over structure.

It doesn’t matter who casues your present condition the verse only says – Rejoice because your reward is great in heaven. You haven’t provided any evidence that Marcion disagreed with this.

Marcion would agree with the verse 6:23a only if the Stranger God is meant as the comforter. But in Luke the comforter of 6:23a is clearly the Creator God. My thesis is that this verse betrayes the Lukan need to specify the goodness of the Creator God. Since that verse disturbs the cross-over structure seen by Vinzent, then I can call it an interpolation.
You are right that the verse 6:23a ''doesn't matter'' ONLY IF there is not cross-over structure. Because otherwise, if that cross-over structure is found, then there is an identity between who will cause the 'woes' for the second group and who causes the affliction for the first group. And that cannot be the true god but the demiurge.

You are asserting this without any evidence. There is nothing implied. The text is silent on the reason why people are poor, hungry, and weeping. The text only states their condition will change. Also it is possible that verse 23a only applies to those who are suffering because of their message regarding the Son of Man. Therefore because they know their message is correct and they are doing God’s will they should rejoice because great will be their reward in heaven. Again their suffering is not casued by God, but it is rewarded by God.

If Vinzent is right when his cross-over structure proves that the 'woes' of the second group lead to the state of affliction of the first group, then you cannot assert more that ''their suffering is not casued by God, but it is rewarded by God'' since you should recognize that the author of suffering in both cases is the Creator God.

I have already demonstrated that the interlinking structure is a feature of Vinzent’s mind and not the text.

In this post I will demonstrate that Vinzent is right about his cross-over structure and not to recognize this is pure apology.

The first affliction:

2:20 Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God belongs to you.

fits with the first 'woe':

2:24 But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation already.

This 'woe' by Demiurge fits perfectly with what does the Demiurge himself in the parable of the “Rich Fool” (Lk 12:13-21) where the Demiurge punishes the rich fool by stripping him suddenly of his wealth. The rich fool is an example of a person who, not being marcionite Christian, risks to become poor unexpectedly.


The second affliction :

2:21 Blessed are you who hunger <now>, for you will be satisfied.

...fits with the second 'woe':

2:25 Woe to you who are well satisfied with food, for you will be hungry.

Obvious.

The third affliction:

Blessed are you who weep <now>, for you will laugh.

...fits with the third 'woe':

Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.

Obvious.

The last affliction:

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.

...fits perfectly with the last 'woe':


2:26 Woe when people speak well of you, for their ancestors did the same things to the false prophets.

I am really surprised by your dishonest comment in a previous your post:

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.

To say ''In the first woe the rich are consoled they are not made poor which is what he says happens to them'' is really pure apologetic. It's implicit, if someone says me ''woe to you because you have already your comfort'', it means that in future I will not receive more comfort, that is I will become poor (and from the second group I go to first group).

To say that there is ''no penalty for being a false prophet'' is a double mistake, since Deuteronomy 13:1-5 reads clearly:

If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

We know from Eliah stories that the Balaam prophets were revered and respected in a first time by idolatrous kings, later to be defeated, killed and stoned by Eliah or the people in a second time.


I am now enough sure to can assert that the general sense of that cross-over structure is the following:

Who does not realize that he is already suffering because he is in this world dominated by Demiurge, then he will suffer in the future in this world dominated by Demiurge.

Therefore the 'woes' work as admonition and not as damnation, exactly the same function of the parable of the Fool Rich in Luke 12:13-21. The sense of 'woes' is: do not expect to be safe in this world, because this world is not at all sure. Do not place hopes in a world dominated by the demiurge, because it may just be just the demiurge to punish you in this world.

Again, the apologetical verse 6:23a specifies that the Demiurge is the comforter, and in addition it specifies that the Demiurge is the comforter ''in the heaven'', to exorcise the heretical idea that the Demiurge is the master of this world.

Secondly the text does not say that God is the persecutor. An appeal to Tertullian is as irrelevant as an appeal to a Christian apologist.

It's ironical that you say that Tertullian is ''irrelevant'' since he himself does your same argument: he did appeal to many verses of the old scriptures where YHWH is shown as comforter.

For example:

Lastly, that same word woe is directed by Amos against rich men who abound
in delights: Woe, he says, to them that sleep on beds of ivory, and
flow with delights upon their couches, who eat the kids out of the flocks
of goats and the sucking calves out of the herds of cattle, who beat time
to the sound of instruments—they reckoned these as things that
abide, not as things that flee away—who drink their wine refined,
and anoint themselves with the chief ointments. Therefore even if I
had done no more than show the Creator dissuading men from
riches, and not also condemning rich men in advance, and that
with the same word that Christ also used, no one could deny
that the threat added against the rich by that woe of Christ, came
from the same authority from whom the dissuasion from the
objects themselves, the riches, had already issued. For a threat is
something added to dissuasion.

You do the same when before you appeal to Q as if by saying ''Q!!!'' you describe a link, a presumed natural continuity of the Gospel with Judaism, when that artificial ''continuity'' is a myth made by proto-catholics as Tertullian in reaction to Marcion.

And what was partially that reaction, if not a reaction of surprise?

Again you assert. If it was such impossibility for Marcion to have verse 23a why doesn’t anyone tell us it was missing?

I don't use a mere argument by silence to remove verse 6:23a from Mcn. I add the fact that the verse 6:23a disturbs an existing cross-over structure signaled correctly by Vinzent. It's not a coincidence that the cross-over structure makes precisely the equation ''Creator God=the author of affliction for both first & second group''.

That doesn’t counter my argument. In fact I think it supports it. The reason the Demiurge isn’t mentioned is because the Marcionite gospel is based on the existing gospels and not created from scratch.

When the demons call Jesus ''son of God'' they think that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah come to punish them. When Jesus is recognized as 'son of Joseph', the people think that Jesus is the suffering ''Messiah ben Joseph'' whoose death precedes the arrival of the victorious Messiah ben David. When Jesus is called 'son of carpenter' the Demiurge is meant as 'carpenter' even etymologically.

But the Father of Jesus is like the God of Epicurus: he doesn't punish sinners. He can only love and forgive. Therefore the context should be to reveal when the Creator God is meant. In the parable of Fool Rich only the Demiurge can be meant since he punishes the rich by taking his life. Therefore the reconstruction of Harnack is not ad hoc in that case. That parable makes an exquisite marcionite point.

[Michael BG]

It seems that we are going round in circles, so perhaps you will comment on what I think these verses should be if Marcion was the first gospel and Vinzent was correct.

Jesus said, “The God of the Jews says,
‘Woe to you who are rich now,
for you will be poor
Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will weep.
Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you now,
for you will be hated, insulted and excluded’
But I say to you,
‘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 now fits your theology of Marcion and the position of Vinzent.

Taking Vinzent first, I have made it clear that being rich, well fed, laughing and being spoken well of are NOW. I have placed the beatitudes after the woes to make sure it is clear that those in the first group end up where the second group begin and also removed the “now” from the second group so it is clear that once the first group get into the same position as the second group the rewards applies to them.

I have made it clear that the Old Testament God is saying the woes and Jesus is saying the beatitudes.

Why would Marcion create the verses in the order you have them in, when with a few more words he could have be clear and produced the wording as I suggest it should be?

[Giuseppe]

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''.

I have already made clear sense of the original marcionite meaning of beatitudes and woes. I repeat it again and again. In short, a manifesto of GNOSTIC DUALISM:

to first group: you who suffer now in this world have already realized that this world is a hell, and therefore you will be rewarded in the future in the heaven
to second group: you who enjoy now in this world fail to realize that this world is a hell, so I warn you now that, because of the demiurge, you will realize sooner or later, on your skin, that this world is a hell.

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)

_______________________________________

This is why Marcionism is NOT Judaism. Why Hell is not Heaven. Why this world is not the other world. Why the body is not the spirit. This is a ultra-cosmophobic view. This is pure miso-cosmism.
Hyeronimus Bosch may help you to realize the sense of human condition of the second group:


See the central image: Garden of Earthly Delights