(Luke 23:2)And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation.
(Mcn, per Epiphanius, Schol. 69)And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation by abolishing the Law and the Prophets.
According to Klinghardt, this would be an “evidence” that Marcion couldn't put the false accusation that Jesus abolished the Law and the Prophets (i.e., he was a Marcionite Jesus) on the mouth of the Jewish enemies of Jesus, since the accusation of sedition is false and by extension even the accusation of a marcionite antithesis would be false for Marcion: contradiction.
Sincerely, this argument doesn't persuade me about the thesis of Klinghardt, but it persuades me about the truth of the thesis of Markus Vinzent. Marcion would have had all the interest to write a verse - him personally - that the Jewish enemies of Jesus accused him of open marcionite antithesis (“abolishing the Law and the Prophets”).
Luke was a forger of Mcn since he preferred to convert the accusation (by ''the Jews'') of marcionite antithesis in an accusation of anti-Roman sedition: evidently, for Luke, it was far more preferable to raise the (false) suspect that Jesus was an anti-Roman Zealot rather than to preserve the accusation against Jesus that he was what Marcion preached he was: pure radical and innatural antithesis against the god of the Jews.
Vinzent - Klinghardt : 1 - 0.
What do you think?