Rising of the Dead in Matthew as anti-marcionite episode?

[Giuseppe]

What interested me is the reading of the abstract of this article:

What Could This Rising from the Dead Mean? Paul, Mark, and Marcion’s Gospel
Program Unit: Pauline Epistles
Heidi Wendt, Wright State University Main Campus
The past decade has witnessed a resurgence of interest in the question of Pauline influence on the Gospel of Mark, a possibility with tantalizing implications. Given Paul’s few remarks about the earthly Jesus, what would it mean for Mark’s author to have crafted his more extensive portrayal of this figure with Paul in view? To what extent did Pauline interests shape the text widely held to be the earliest gospel and a source for both Matthew and Luke, and how would such a relationship inform our picture of the diversity and historical development of early “Christianity” as it is attested in this literature? This paper explores how Markan motifs of secrecy, mystery, differential understanding, and revelation not only accord with elements in the Pauline epistles, but also work together to legitimate Paul as the paramount (or even the only “true”) apostle of Jesus Christ. After proposing a Pauline reading of the so-called Messianic secret that runs throughout Mark, I consider how this hypothesis points to more plausible social settings for the composition of gospel literature. Whereas the canonical gospels have been treated foremost as artifacts of the collective beliefs of pious communities, I argue that they were implicated in the construction and defense of religious authority among would-be Christian experts acting in a largely freelance capacity. For the Mark-Paul connection, I am particularly interested in the enigmatic second-century “heretic” Marcion, a staunch Paulinist thought to have pioneered the concept of a closed New Testament canon and maybe even, as one scholar has recently argued, to have written the first gospel

https://www.sbl-site.org/meetings/Congr ... etingId=29

So was the zombies episode in Matthew an anti-marcionite episode? I am inclined to answer: yes. Marcion denied the resurrection of the bodies. The related passage in 1 Cor 15 seems the more anti-marcionite passage in all Paul.

In particular the fact that the Matthew's Jesus can give again the life to so many bodies just in Jerusalem.

The "problem" is that if I see this episode of the zombies as anti-marcionite, then also the episode of the empty tomb in Mark (where the missing body is that of "Jesus Nazarene", not of Jesus or Christ) may be an anti-marcionite feature.

[Giuseppe]

At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open.
The bodies of many saints [ἁγίων] who had fallen asleep were raised..

(Matthew 14:51-52)

The ''saints'' is surely a reference to the ''saints of Jerusalem'', the followers of the Pillars, enemies of Paul for Marcion.

[Stuart]

At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open.
The bodies of many saints [ἁγίων] who had fallen asleep were raised..

(Matthew 14:51-52)

The ''saints'' is surely a reference to the ''saints of Jerusalem'', the followers of the Pillars, enemies of Paul for Marcion.

Yes, I agree on this. It is a response to Marcion's story of Lazurus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-29 [1]): specifically these word from Abraham when responding to the rich man's request for mercy from his anguish and torment in the flames of Hades, in verse 16:26 "and besides ... between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us." and when the rich man asks for intervention by in 16:29 "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them." Marcion is clearly saying that the followers of Moses, that is the Jewish Christians, are not going to wind up where they think, and they cannot be raised.

[1] Luke added verses 16:30-31 to equate Jesus' teaching with Moses. They are not attested in Marcion.

[Giuseppe]

At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open.
The bodies of many saints [ἁγίων] who had fallen asleep were raised..

(Matthew 14:51-52)

The ''saints'' is surely a reference to the ''saints of Jerusalem'', the followers of the Pillars, enemies of Paul for Marcion.

Yes, I agree on this. It is a response to Marcion's story of Lazurus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-29 [1]): specifically these word from Abraham when responding to the rich man's request for mercy from his anguish and torment in the flames of Hades, in verse 16:26 "and besides ... between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us." and when the rich man asks for intervention by in 16:29 "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them." Marcion is clearly saying that the followers of Moses, that is the Jewish Christians, are not going to wind up where they think, and they cannot be raised.

[1] Luke added verses 16:30-31 to equate Jesus' teaching with Moses. They are not attested in Marcion.

It's not enough clear. Are you saying that Abraham is not symbol of Demiurge in that episode? Could Marcion mention a biblical name in His Gospel? I doubt about that.

[lsayre]

It seems as if Moses is the one with his bootstraps tied to the Demiurge. Not Abraham. Paul's insight was that the law is a stumbling block, and Moses is the one who is associated with the law.

[lsayre]

Per Paul (Marcion?), Abraham almost got in bed with the Demiurge ahead of Moses, but instead he cast out Hagar (who is Mt. Sinai, hint, hint) and righted his ship.

Galatians 4:21-31 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV

[Stuart]

In Marcion, as with John and apparently many Gnostic sects Abraham was a split point, a fork in the road at which the Gnostics and Orthodox split. Abraham is the father of the Nations (ethnos) or gentiles as well as the Jews. So he is the father of both. The significance of the Marcionite allegorical (ἀλληγορούμενα) interpretation of Abraham's two sons in which the slave's sons are equated with Judaism - my reconstruction below

4:22 εἰ γὰρ Ἀβραὰμ δύο υἱοὺς ἔσχεν, ἕνα ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης καὶ ἕνα ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας. (1)
For if Abraham had two sons, one from the maidservant, but the other from the free woman.
4:23 ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται, ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας δι᾽ ἐπαγγελίας. (2)
But the one from the maidservant was born according to the flesh, and the one from the free (woman) through promise.
4:24 ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα· αὗται γάρ εἰσιν δύο διαθῆκαι, μία μὲν ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινά
These things are allegorical; for these are the two covenants, one from Mount Sinai,
εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν τῶν Ἰουδαίων κατὰ τὸν νόμον δουλείαν γεννῶσα, (3)
in the synagogue of the Jews, according to the law, gives birth to slavery:
4:26(a) ἡ δὲ 1:21 ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς γεννῶσα, [καὶ] δυνάμεως [καὶ] ἐξουσίας καὶ παντὸς ὀνόματος
but the other, gives birth ~far above all rulers, [and] powers, [and] authority, and all names
ὀνομαζομένου, οὐ μόνον ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι, 4:26(c) ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ ἡμῶν· (4)
that have been named, not only in this age but also in the coming (one), who is our mother: (5)
4:31 διό, ἀδελφοί, οὐκ ἐσμὲν παιδίσκης τέκνα ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐλευθέρας.
Therefore brothers, we are not children of the maidservant but of the free (woman).

(1) Marcion's text does not appeal to the OT (Tertullian AM 5.4.8) the text read εἰ γὰρ 'for if' for γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι 'for it is written that' that usually connotes an actual OT (LXX) quote to follow, and none does here, but later in 4:27ff. Thus Marcion's text is original.
(2) Marcion deletes μεν with p46 B Vg, Clabeaux rates this as correct pre-Marcionite text against UBS (Adversus Marcionem 5.4.8)
(3) The Synagogue of the Jews according to the Law here is a direct Marcionite reference to the Catholic Church – as with the Cathars a millennium later. The Catholic editor changed this to ἥτις ἐστὶν Ἀγάρ 'who is Hagar' and continued through 4:25 with inheritance.
(4) Verse 4:26 has Ephesians 1:21 intertwined with it. Curiously Ephrem of Syria, who does not know Marcion’s text, also attests this variant. The traditional view is this variant was inspired by ἄνω Ἰερουσαλήμ 'above is Jerusalem’ of the Catholic version. I instead think the Ephesians 1:21, which was missing from Marcion’s text of Laodiceans (Ephesians) and reads like an interpolation there between 1:20a and 1:22, belongs instead here, where the theology fits squarely with Marcion. The Catholic text refers to a Jerusalem which is idealized as in heaven, a theme not existent until long after the City was destroyed by the Romans in the aftermath of Bar Kochba (132-135AD), while prior to that the concept was of restoring Jerusalem not displacing it to the heavens.
(5) Galatians 4:27-30 were added by the Catholic editor to bring the passage into agreement with the theology of inheritance through the promise to Abraham, quoting Isaiah 54:1 (verses 27) and Genesis 21:10 (verse 30). These were not in the original nor Marcion.

This position concerning slavery to the Creator (Demiurge) for the Jewish branch of the descendants of Abraham is picked up by John 8:31-45, where Jesus basically tells the Jews (Jewish Christians) they are descendants of the slave woman.

This is something most commentators have missed about the Gnostics and Marcionites, that Abraham is a common ancestor in their mythology. The Law is slavery to them. And following it enters one into such slavery where you are answering to framer of the elements of the Universe, the Demiurge. John 8:52-8:58 takes this further with the pre-existant Jesus who knows Abraham and embraces him, again against the Jews. You missed this too, as do others who rely not on the texts of the heretics but on the commentary of the church fathers without consideration of the text.

[Giuseppe]

It is a response to Marcion's story of Lazurus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-29 [1]): specifically these word from Abraham when responding to the rich man's request for mercy from his anguish and torment in the flames of Hades, in verse 16:26 "and besides ... between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us." and when the rich man asks for intervention by in 16:29 "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them." Marcion is clearly saying that the followers of Moses, that is the Jewish Christians, are not going to wind up where they think, and they cannot be raised.

[1] Luke added verses 16:30-31 to equate Jesus' teaching with Moses. They are not attested in Marcion.

But could a marcionite Abraham leave the rich man in the hell even if the latter was disposed to be converted ?

The good god left the souls of the Jews in the hell only if they wanted to remain there.

[Stuart]

The development of Marcionite theology is no different than other theologies. What the text of Luke shows is the early version of the Mid-2nd century. You are referring to reports from later eras, after the concept was thought through. It was a development upon the baptism of the dead, which Marcionites practiced, much like Mormons today -and for the same reasons.

I am of the opinion that theologies were not fixed at one moment by their inventor and forever unchanged. Rather I think they developed in response to questions, challenges and issues not thought about when first put together. The stories of Jesus in Hades, both Marcionite and other Christians, are examples of secondary concepts (and apocrypha) that answered questions from followers. My analysis of the NT texts is based on this.

The text in Luke was focused not on that secondary development but upon the primary, that following Jewish Christianity (i.e., Matthew's Gospel) meant following Moses, who was from another God. Jesus' attitude in both the Marcionite Gospel and John's Gospel indicate an attitude of let them follower their path, I'm not the one who judges them, and walk away. Similar is found in Paul.

You could argue that the concept of the Marcionite Christ entering Hades to free the souls enslaved by the Jewish God is an answer to and derived after Matthew 27:51-52. Christian sectarian theologies developed rapidly in the early centuries to pressures and competition.

Your understanding of Marcionism is similar to Stephen Huller's in that you are viewing much later forms, and presuming it (or any sect for that matter) as static in their beliefs and details. They were not.

[lsayre]

Is 1 Corinthians 15:29 original to Marcion, or a much later interpolation? And if an interpolation, which faction would be fingered for it?