"Why do you call me good?"

[Secret Alias]

I will try one more time just for clarity. Adv Marc cites the gospel with Jesus being addressed as magister.

1. You and most people simply read through Adv Marc as if Tertullian is consistently citing from Marcion's gospel. That assumption is great for claiming that we can know Marcion's gospel and Pauline corpus but it's ultimately complete bullshit. Adversus Marcionem never claims to be going through Marcion's gospel line by line or even consistently - it never claims to be a commentary on Marcion's gospel. We just assume that the author is doing that because the text becomes 'really weird' if we don't make this assumption. It's also more productive to assume that Tertullian is writing a commentary on Marcion's gospel and academia is all about faux productivity.

The alternative understanding is:

2. that Adversus Marcionem is not a commentary on Marcion's gospel but something else. I admit this isn't a sexy argument. It means not only that we don't get to know Marcion but even the previous incarnations of the text of Adv Marc (mentioned in the incipit) are also lost to us. No one likes to see friends and relatives and loved ones pass on but that's life. In my opinion the most reasonable explanation of what Adversus Marcionem is (remember we've abandoned getting to know Marcion and are now left grappling with 'what is Adversus Marcion') is a collection of works somehow related to but not necessarily 'against' Marcion (notice that Book Three is an original work that is derived from the same source as Tertullian's Against the Jews). In short, just like Book Three and Book Two for that matter, Book Four is an early commentary on a gospel - not a Marcionite gospel but a gospel - certainly a so-called 'gospel harmony' - which for reasons that are difficult to comprehend from our vantage point was reshaped into a vaguely chronological polemic that Luke is 'truer' or better than Marcion's gospel.

With that model it is important to note that the source behind Tertullian was making a commentary on a gospel which had Jesus addressed as the Greek equivalent of magister. I find it hard to accept that Tertullian had kurios in front of him in that original Greek commentary and decided to render it 'magister' in Latin. Something else is at work here.

[Giuseppe]

But if - as you seem to think - Adv Marc is a direct reflection of what is in Marcion's text, then by that logic Marcion's gospel did not have 'Lord' here at all but 'teacher' or rabbi. Get it now? Get why I am being a dick? You haven't thought things through. You use a source to support your agenda but then immediately drop it when that source isn't useful for your agenda. I hate people like that. You have to be consistent. You have to be truthful. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

I understand your point. But my approach to the (research for the) Earliest Gospel is well described by the greatest mythicist Rylands, when he wrote:

Most critics are now of opinion that Mark’s Gospel is the oldest, and that Matthew’s comes next. The radical Dutch school, however, maintain that Matthew’s is earlier than Mark’s—a view which has also lately been advocated by Mr. J. M. Robertson. The fact is that the question of the priority of these Gospels is one to which no simple answer can be given. Each of them went through what may be called several editions, and at each re-editing something was added. As an illustration of the case, suppose that some book, A, is published, and then a few years later another book, B ; and that after a few more years a second edition, revised and enlarged, of A (call it Aa) appears. Then in one sense Aa is later than B ; but in another sense it is earlier, since its first edition was published earlier. Hermann Raschke, in a very able work, Die Werkstatt des Marcusevangelisten, has proved that Mark’s Gospel, in an earlier form than our present one, was the Gospel used by Marcion the Gnostic, and that it is a Gnostic and anti-Judaic work. From the information given by Epiphanius and other early Christian writers, as well as on critical grounds, Raschke has reproduced Marcion’s text, and has shown that additions were subsequently made to it under the influence of Matthew’s Gospel. For example, verses 2 and 3 of the first chapter are copied from Matthew xi, 10, and iii, 3, respectively. Again, Marcion’s Gospel did not contain the story of the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness, but in a later edition a short notice of it was inserted in the words, “ forty days, tempted of Satan,” in chap, i, 13. Another passage in which the influence of Matthew is apparent is that consisting of verses 11 to 13 in chap, ix, where the disciples ask about the necessity for the coming of Elias before the Messiah and Jesus replies that Elias has indeed come. This passage has been inserted here from Matthew xvii, 1 0- 1 2. Since, then, our Mark bears evidence of the influence of Matthew, it must in some sense be later than Matthew. On the other hand, there is evidence of the same sort to prove that Marcion’s Gospel, or some very similar gospel on which that was founded, is earlier than Matthew’s.

(Evolution of Christianity, p. 173-174)

I think that you agree already with the approach of Rylands (since I see you swing between ''Mark'' and ''Mcn'' as Earliest Gospel, to mean that pure marcionite ideas may be found even in the (by me hated) proto-catholic Matthew (!) but not in Mark and in Mcn and in Luke and in John.

If I adopt the approach of Rylands, the accusation of ''inconsistency'' against me by you should fall. What do you think?

[Secret Alias]

Fuck Rylands. The group of people we have at this forum are superior to a source like this. Between us we can get to the bottom of anything. Stop citing antiquated source material. The internet has ushered in a golden age of learning which wasn't possible a hundred years ago. Why do you need to reinforce a specifically 'mythicist' agenda. Go where the evidence leads you. Listen to what emerges from discussions with learned men like Ben, spin and others here. I don't think you realize how lucky you are to have a team of intelligent individuals dissecting problems you raise. Just sticking with a mythicist agenda is a slight against the good fortune and opportunity we have participating in this forum. You shouldn't be looking for membership in a 'club' or a party or a religion. Just think or reason your way to the best answer. The best way to avoid insanity is to look over your shoulder and ask - why doesn't he or she think or come to the same conclusions as I do? It's not good for man to be alone.

[iskander]

8 “But you must not be called ‘Teacher,’ because you have only one Teacher, and you are all brothers and sisters together. 9 And don’t call any person on earth ‘Father,’ because you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 And you should not be called ‘Master,’ because you have only one Master, the Christ.

(Matthew 23:8-10)

What Matthew reports is entirely consistent with what Josephus wrote in his Antiquities (44:18:2) about the sect of Judas the Galilean who refused to give to a man the title of Lord and Master.

The fact that the prohibition to call someone ''Master'' is found only in Matthew and not in Luke and Mcn, means that there is some anti-marcionite reason behind it.

In Mcn there is the prohibition of calling someone not ''Master'', but ''Good'':

A certain ruler asked him, "Good MASTER, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.

(Luke18:18-19)


If Jesus is called Master, then he is a divine being. But he cannot be called ''good'' by someone who thinks that he is the Messiah of the Demiurge. Since he is good only as he is the Messiah of the Good God.

For Matthew, it is implicitly allowed to call someone good, since the same creation is good.

Jesus said: Don't call me good

Who are the people of "The Way"?
The reformers loathe the sale of the mercy of God :The Cleansing of the Temple is an act of violence against the power of the temple .
In Mark 10:17-19 we find more information about the religious programme of the reformers:
Mark 10:17-19
17 As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ 18Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. 19You know the commandments: “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honour your father and mother

The question the man had asked was: , "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
Jesus replies, to inherit eternal life you must follow the teaching of God , for He is the only good teacher. Let no man deceive you. The Decalogue is your guide.


The reformer ignores the atoning sacrifice of the temple and the commandments ordained by the priesthood of the temple ; instead, the reformer warns him against the Oral Law and he insists that only the Decalogue comes from God and hence keeping the 10 statements, utterances of God is the way .
[/quote]
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2173&start=10

[Secret Alias]

It is more interesting to discuss whether the phraseology was "Teacher what good ..." or "good teacher what must I ..." I remember that coming up over and over again in my mind when I read Origen's Commentary on Matthew.

[iskander]

Fuck Rylands. ...

Fuck Origen and Fuck Marcion

[Secret Alias]

But Rylands is a recent opinion. It's no better than any informed poster at this forum. Let's talk about sources. Let's argue over interpretation. But just citing another lengthy opinion doesn't further the discussion.

[Giuseppe]

For Marcion, the Old Testament is still valid only for the Jews.

If the young questioner represents Israel (per Oseah), then the marcionite Jesus wants that he remains faithful to the Demiurge, as Jew. The price to pay is to consider 'good' the Kyrios, the Creator, and not calling Jesus ''Master'' as only the Demiurge is Master.

[Giuseppe]

No, I think that a more probable solution of the enigma is that the interpolator changed the words of Jesus in red.

18 A certain leader asked Jesus, “Good Teacher, what must I do to have life forever?”
19 Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? Only God is good. 20 You know the commands: ‘You must not be guilty of adultery. You must not murder anyone. You must not steal. You must not tell lies about your neighbor. Honor your father and mother.’”
21 But the leader said, “I have obeyed all these commands since I was a boy.”
22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “There is still one more thing you need to do. Sell everything you have and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come and follow me.” 23 But when the man heard this, he became very sad, because he was very rich.
24 Jesus looked at him and said, “It is very hard for rich people to enter the kingdom of God. 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

(from Luke 18)
The moral instructions by Jesus were not the Ten Commandaments but the instructions of the Good God.

If these instructions were really the Ten Commandaments, why are they not ''ten'', afterall? This is a clue of interpolation. Surely the moral instructions would be in the original text something as:

Jesus said: Love your brother as your soul; watch over him like the apple of your eye.

(Thomas 25)

[Giuseppe]

On this passage, Origen declared (Macarius Chrysocephalus):

"These things are said against the disciples of Valentin, Basilides and Marcion because also they have these texts in their gospel".

Therefore it is very probable that the interpolation is not about ''Master'' but about the source of the moral instructions: it was not the Law but the Good God.