“Why do you call me good?”
Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:49 pm
So Luke 18:18-22
Jesus is a true rabbi ----> Jesus is good
Jesus seems that he agrees with the conclusion (he is good) but he disagrees with the premise (he is rabbi or only a rabbi) therefore there are two possible (mutually exclusive) options about what Jesus thinks really about himself:
1) Jesus is only the (Son of) God ----> Jesus is good
2) Jesus is not only a rabbi, but he is (Son of) God ----> Jesus is good
The premise in point 1 is marcionite. The premise in point 2 (that Jesus is both a Jewish teacher of the Law and a divine person) is proto-catholic.
The other verses of Luke seems to support the inference 2, since Jesus urges the ruler to respect the law given by Moses.
If these verses were found in Mcn, then this seems to be a real proof of Lukan priority over Mcn: a marcionite Jesus cannot urge the observance of the Law of YHWH.
But is this the case?
Verses 20, 21 etc in Luke 18 seem to talk about the wealth of material goods.
Where's the topic of the goodness of Jesus (found in the incipit of the episode)?
I think that the proot-catholic editor 'Luke' has interpolated verses 20-30 in Mcn because the real verses of Mcn following the answer of Jesus were really these of Luke 10:26-35 :
Note the difference: Jesus explains and expands the topic of goodness not while he answers to who calls him 'good rabbi' but in Luke 10, where who does the question doens't call Jesus as 'good' but only 'rabbi'. In Luke 18, instead of speaking about (his) goodness, Jesus begins to speak about wealth versus poverty. I find this ridiculous.
The Parable of Samaritan makes more sense in reply to the questioner who calls Jesus 'good rabbi'.
And if I am correct about this, then this supports the inference 1 above: only God (Jesus) is good, because he is the Good Samaritan who destroys the law of the priest and levite of the parable.
Mcn would have this episode (or something of similar):
How should we call this, if not a classic Marcionite antithesis?
See what the proto-catholic Luke did: interpolating the episode about the goodness with an alternative episode about the conflict richness versus poverty, he replaced the Samaritan (Simon Magus?) with the ''young ruler'': a guy thought by Secret Alias (and by the fool apologist Stanley Porter) as... ...Paul!!!
The logic of the ruler seems to be the following:A certain ruler asked Jesus a question. “Good teacher,” he said, “what must I do to receive eternal life?”Jesus answered. “No one is good except God. You know what the commandments say. ‘Do not commit adultery. Do not commit murder. Do not steal. Do not be a false witness. Honor your father and mother.’ ”“Why do you call me good?”
“I have obeyed all those commandments since I was a boy,” the ruler said.
When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You are still missing one thing. Sell everything you have. Give the money to those who are poor. You will have treasure in heaven. Then come and follow me.”
Jesus is a true rabbi ----> Jesus is good
Jesus seems that he agrees with the conclusion (he is good) but he disagrees with the premise (he is rabbi or only a rabbi) therefore there are two possible (mutually exclusive) options about what Jesus thinks really about himself:
1) Jesus is only the (Son of) God ----> Jesus is good
2) Jesus is not only a rabbi, but he is (Son of) God ----> Jesus is good
The premise in point 1 is marcionite. The premise in point 2 (that Jesus is both a Jewish teacher of the Law and a divine person) is proto-catholic.
The other verses of Luke seems to support the inference 2, since Jesus urges the ruler to respect the law given by Moses.
(Luke 18:20-21)You know what the commandments say. ‘Do not commit adultery. Do not commit murder. Do not steal. Do not be a false witness. Honor your father and mother.’ ”
“I have obeyed all those commandments since I was a boy,” the ruler said.
If these verses were found in Mcn, then this seems to be a real proof of Lukan priority over Mcn: a marcionite Jesus cannot urge the observance of the Law of YHWH.
But is this the case?
Verses 20, 21 etc in Luke 18 seem to talk about the wealth of material goods.
Where's the topic of the goodness of Jesus (found in the incipit of the episode)?
I think that the proot-catholic editor 'Luke' has interpolated verses 20-30 in Mcn because the real verses of Mcn following the answer of Jesus were really these of Luke 10:26-35 :
Luke 18:18-23 | Luke 10:25-37 |
Luke 18:18 A certain ruler asked Jesus a question. “Good teacher,” he said, “what must I do to receive eternal life?” | Luke 10:25 One day an authority on the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to receive eternal life?” |
Luke 18:19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good except God. |
|
Luke 18:20 You know what the commandments say. ‘Do not commit adultery. Do not commit murder. Do not steal. Do not be a false witness. Honor your father and mother.’ ” | Luke 10:26-28: “What is written in the Law?” Jesus replied. “How do you understand it?” He answered, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Love him with all your strength and with all your mind.’And, ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ ” “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do that, and you will live.” |
Luke 18:21 “I have obeyed all those commandments since I was a boy,” the ruler said. | Luke 10:29 But the man wanted to make himself look good. So he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” |
Luke 18:22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You are still missing one thing. Sell everything you have. Give the money to those who are poor. You will have treasure in heaven. Then come and follow me.” | Luke 10:30 Jesus replied, (the Parable of Samaritan follows) |
Note the difference: Jesus explains and expands the topic of goodness not while he answers to who calls him 'good rabbi' but in Luke 10, where who does the question doens't call Jesus as 'good' but only 'rabbi'. In Luke 18, instead of speaking about (his) goodness, Jesus begins to speak about wealth versus poverty. I find this ridiculous.
The Parable of Samaritan makes more sense in reply to the questioner who calls Jesus 'good rabbi'.
And if I am correct about this, then this supports the inference 1 above: only God (Jesus) is good, because he is the Good Samaritan who destroys the law of the priest and levite of the parable.
Mcn would have this episode (or something of similar):
Note the irony in Jesus's answer: precisely those who have observed the Law (the priest and the Levite) are not good, while the Samaritan (a heretic who does not respect the Law: Simon Magus?) is good.One day an authority on the law stood up to test Jesus. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to receive eternal life?”
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good except God.
“What is written in the Law?” Jesus replied. “How do you understand it?”
He answered, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Love him with all your strength and with all your mind.’And, ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ ”
“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do that, and you will live.”
But the man wanted to make himself look good. So he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho. Robbers attacked him. They stripped off his clothes and beat him. Then they went away, leaving him almost dead. A priest happened to be going down that same road. When he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. A Levite also came by. When he saw the man, he passed by on the other side too. But a Samaritan came to the place where the man was. When he saw the man, he felt sorry for him. He went to him, poured olive oil and wine on his wounds and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey. He brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins. He gave them to the owner of the inn. ‘Take care of him,’ he said. ‘When I return, I will pay you back for any extra expense you may have.’
“Which of the three do you think was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by robbers?”
The authority on the law replied, “The one who felt sorry for him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do as he did.”
How should we call this, if not a classic Marcionite antithesis?
See what the proto-catholic Luke did: interpolating the episode about the goodness with an alternative episode about the conflict richness versus poverty, he replaced the Samaritan (Simon Magus?) with the ''young ruler'': a guy thought by Secret Alias (and by the fool apologist Stanley Porter) as... ...Paul!!!