Marcion strikes back (in Luke 23:2)

[Giuseppe]

And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation.

(Luke 23:2)

And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation by abolishing the Law and the Prophets.

(Mcn, per Epiphanius, Schol. 69)

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?

[Secret Alias]

Again, I don't expect to make progress making people understand the issues at hand but the phrase 'the Law and the prophets' points to something important. The story of Israel is that God himself in a physical form (whether that of a man or of fire is immaterial because the words are the same) came and delivered the 10 utterances. This is all that God gave. After that 'Moses' and the prophets added more and this seems to or could well be argued to be what the Jews and Jesus are arguing over. I for one can't think offhand of one of the ten utterances which Jesus 'abolished.' Maybe I am wrong. But this is IMHO the proper context to the original statement. Jesus gave Israel the ten utterances then they systematically added new laws and ordinances (including sacrifice). He came down to correct the situation but from the POV of contemporary Jews 'destroy' their religious tradition. Clear enough?

You see when people argue that Marcion 'opposed' Judaism in some way that doesn't mean what people think it does. Today these 'new conservatives' identify themselves as 'patriots' to the point of backing Trump using the Russians to hack the elections and there by subvert democracy. To turn everything into black and white 'good guys and bad guys' doesn't do anyone any favors. Marcion could well have understood Jesus opposing the Law and the prophets but not the traditions of Israel. Surely the Samaritans 'hated' the Jews and their tradition but defended the sanctity of the Sinai revelation. That doesn't mean that I am right that the Marcionites defended the sanctity of the Sinai revelation but it is hard to believe or see that there is any evidence that they opposed it. Just the laws added by Moses and the prophets.

Moses wasn't a 'Jew.' We can't use 'Israelite' and 'Jews' as interchangeable. The Samaritans weren't a 'kind of Jewish tradition.' It's just laziness and ignorance that leads to these sorts of quips. The Jews were thrown out of a wretched part of the world where they surely would have been exterminated or decimated like the Samaritans ultimately were had they remained 'landlocked' there. The galut ultimately secured their continuation. They became ambassadors of Israel long before the state of Israel. They came to embody 'the tradition of Israel' before Christianity even though rabbinic Judaism came after Christianity.

[Giuseppe]

Ok but what do you think about the reason, for "Luke" (editor) to remove the last phrase about the Law & Prophets?

Did he prefer really a vulgar accusation of anti-Roman sedition instead of the (not so) implicit confession by "the Jews" that Jesus was marcionite (beyond of what means "marcionite" bur surely not proto-Catholic) ?

[Secret Alias]

Attitudes toward the Jews changed from the first half to the last half of the century. By the end of the century the Jews were seen as tolerable when compared against the Christians.

[Charles Wilson]

And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation.

(Luke 23:2)

And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation by abolishing the Law and the Prophets.

(Mcn, per Epiphanius, Schol. 69)
...
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.

Compare what the accusers say with the argument found in Matthew:

Matthew 19: 16 - 17 (RSV):

[16] And behold, one came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?"
[17] And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments."

There is certainly mischief here. I trace this to Josephus and a very cynical retelling of Archelaus falling at the feet of Caesar (Hence the "One there is who is good" clue). Note, however that this quote in Matthew is placed in the mouth of Jesus!

"Jesus" cannot be "subverting the nation" when he states clearly that everyone should KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS.

What Luke shows is evidence of Historical Record. "Jesus" did not "abolish the Law". He did not abolish the Words of the Prophets.

Matthew 11: 13 (RSV):

[13] For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John;

This is a war between Luke and Matthew. Matthew here argues that it was Jesus-Himself who "fulfilled" the Law. Luke argues that it was the Legality of the Bureaucracy arguing with the Bureaucracy over the direction (and command of...) the Words of "Jesus".

John offers to settle the argument in ch. 11 and 12. The History is taken over by Rome. After all, the Movement was created by them. They were the final arbiters:

John 11: 49 - 50 (RSV):

[49] But one of them, Ca'iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all;
[50] you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish."

As I have stated before, this is analogous to Lenin having to show that Russia actually did go through the Industrial Revolution on the way to the murderous Socialist Tyranny. The taking and rewriting of Jewish Stories was accomplished and the Transvaluation had to be done. The clues left in the Text by survivors of the Destruction of the Temple made it through and it appears that some of the authors of the Gospels did not recognize what was directly in front of them. Luke and Matthew are fighting yesterday's War.

CW

[Charles Wilson]

For a fun nine minutes, have a look at our old friend, Garner Ted Armstrong on the logical ramifications of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNdYMgMT-Ns&t=266s

[Giuseppe]

Attitudes toward the Jews changed from the first half to the last half of the century. By the end of the century the Jews were seen as tolerable when compared against the Christians.

Philostratus despised the Jews, it seems. And he was of the end of Century.

[davidbrainerd]

For a fun nine minutes, have a look at our old friend, Garner Ted Armstrong on the logical ramifications of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNdYMgMT-Ns&t=266s

An irrelevant strawman. In Marcionism the OT god is not Jesus' Father. And its obvious even in Paul the abolition of the Law has nothing to do with abolishing thou shalt not murder, but with the silly ceremonial laws. This guy can beat that strawman all day, but at the end of the day that strawman is actually gonna kick his ass.

[Charles Wilson]

David --

Hope I didn't touch a nerve with GTA. As I stated, it's fun stuff, at least to me..

What do you see as History here? I find it interesting to examine the Logical parts of the arguments, esp. the Existence arguments. "Jesus appeared and therefore always existed". Do you develop a History of Marcion? If so, I would be interested in what you see.

Your point about Paul is interesting. The "...silly ceremonial laws" were not silly to the Hasmoneans and their disappearance from the (Roman) historical record points to a deeper development in the History. The Hasmoneans developed Galilee for the Priesthood and the Story of Peter depends on understanding this fact. Alas, this is what has been hidden.

Thnx,

CW

[perseusomega9]

I wish I had Charles' drugs.