Matthew 10:28 as marcionite verse that proves not-marcionite priority

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 4238
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Matthew 10:28 as marcionite verse that proves not-marcionite priority

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:52 pm


28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell

(Matthew 10:28)
Who can destroy also the soul? Marcion answers us: the demiurge. So this verse is 100% pure marcionism.

But the paradox is that basically because it is marcionite, it proves definitely that the Earliest Gospel couldn't never be marcionite. The verse say practically: if you (Jews) kill me, then I (the Good God) can always forgive you; but the demiurge can't forgive you never, but he will punish you.

Now, if the euhemerized Jesus was placed under Pilate, it is so for the famous affair of the temporal difference of 40 years: 70 - 40 = 30 CE i.e. Pilate.

For example, Acts 13:18 assumes the biblical tradition that wants the end of the YHWH's patience (in enduring the crime of the Jews) after a period of 40 years:

for about forty years he endured their conduct in the wilderness; ...

So if the crime was punished in 70 CE (Judaea capta), then the crime was realized in 70 - 40 = 30 CE. Under Pilate.

But could Marcion write an Earliest Gospel where he was the first to place Jesus under Pilate, for the only reason that in this way the allusion is made to the cruel justice of the demiurge against the his people, the Jews, for the killing of the (apparently) most innocent among the men (so going against the Law of the Creator) ? But wasn't the Law deleted by Jesus forever? It holds still but only for who adored still the demiurge: the Jews and the Jewish-Christians.

This has all the air of an harmonization (by Marcion) of a previous gospel where the "facts" were decisively more crude and cruel in all their grotesque simplicity: the Creator punished his people in the 70 CE because the his people had killed his Son in 30 CE.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4238
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Matthew 10:28 as marcionite verse that proves not-marcionite priority

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:59 pm

So I think more probably that, moved by the clear embarrassment for a "Father" who kills the Jews for the death of the his Son (in the Earliest Gospel), Marcion denied that a so cruel and vendicative deity could be the true Father of the true Son of God. Hence his solution: the justice of the demiurge was the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. He continued to do the dirty work, while the goodness is all of the Higher God.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4238
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Matthew 10:28 as marcionite verse that proves not-marcionite priority

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:22 pm

Only in this way I can stop the my "marcionite obsession" (with great joy of the entire forum) since I think that I have found the way to explain why Marcion (or whatever dualist Christian in the his place) has to be necessarily not the author of the Earliest Gospel: I have used a principle that is the exact contrary of the Lectio difficilior potior (Latin for "the more difficult reading is the stronger") in philology. Where different Gospels conflict on a particular view, I suggest that the more embarrassing one is more likely the original. The presupposition is that late evangelists would more often replace embarrassing "truths" with more familiar and less controversial ones, than vice versa, even to the cost (in the Marcion's case) of introducing another god.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
toejam
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Matthew 10:28 as marcionite verse that proves not-marcionite priority

Post by toejam » Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:37 pm

I don't see the need for Marcion here. Many apocalyptic Jews of the 2nd Temple period believed in a mass resurrection, with the unfaithful to then be judged and annihilated in the flames of Gehenna. That is what I suspect Matt 10:28 is about.

Your claim that this verse is 100% Marcion is asserted surety with no justification.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208

Giuseppe
Posts: 4238
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Matthew 10:28 as marcionite verse that proves not-marcionite priority

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:38 pm

toejam wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:37 pm
I don't see the need for Marcion here. Many apocalyptic Jews of the 2nd Temple period believed in a mass resurrection, with the unfaithful to then be judged and annihilated in the flames of Gehenna. That is what I suspect Matt 10:28 is about.

Your claim that this verse is 100% Marcion is asserted surety with no justification.
is there the equivalent verse in Luke? If yes, then the probability it is marcionite becomes higher.

At any case, I have not even need of that verse to make the my point. I want only to point out the difference between justice (of the creator) and goodness (of the Good God) and that verse (even by mere coincidence) describes perfectly the difference. But I could use other evidence to the same point (given that that distinction is one of the more sure things we know from marcionism).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4238
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Matthew 10:28 as marcionite verse that proves not-marcionite priority

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:38 am

So my point is that the Earliest Gospel could be written only by one who thought that the Creator = the Father of Jesus.

Because to place Jesus under Pilate is a possible move only if the intention of the author is to prove that the punition of the Jews (for their crime against the Son) happened exactly 40 years after (with Titus).

But a God who punishes is hardly the Higher God of the Gnostics (not only of Marcion), famous for the his love of all, even of wicked people.


The point is so evident that even Edwin Johnson, a mythicist proponent of Gnostic origins of the entire Christianity, is moved to recognize, against all the his thesis of Gnostics being earlier than Judaizers, that :

The old enmity of Greeks and Jews was intensified by the fact that the latter had now to deal with foes of their own household. Men of Jewish blood and education must have conspired to cast the odium of the murder of the Messiah and His accursed death upon the ancestors of the afflicted race. Hate can cement and idealise as well as love; and it seems that we can only understand how the Cross should have become the symbol on the one hand of indelible shame, a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence, on the other of immortal love, in the light of this principle. We who from childhood have been wont to revere the Cross as the sign of salvation by divine love, rather than as the monument of human blindness and hate, must in the light of the evidence reverse this view.

(passage quoted from Antiqua Mater, my bold)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Stuart
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Matthew 10:28 as marcionite verse that proves not-marcionite priority

Post by Stuart » Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:10 pm

toejam wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:37 pm
I don't see the need for Marcion here. Many apocalyptic Jews of the 2nd Temple period believed in a mass resurrection, with the unfaithful to then be judged and annihilated in the flames of Gehenna. That is what I suspect Matt 10:28 is about.

Your claim that this verse is 100% Marcion is asserted surety with no justification.
Really? Can you show an example of this mass resurrection belief in Jewish literature? Unless you are saying Matthew is Jewish.

This looks like a vague assertion without much evidence. As much of a mess a Giuseppe's thoughts are, he at least throws his evidence out for all to see before falling down with logical errors.

*********************************

For the record, the verse is most definitely not Marcionite, but an expansion upon and response to the Marcionite in Luke 12:4-5. Giuseppe has managed to get it all backwards (again).

The story really is a retelling of Orpheus' visit to Hades to convince Pluto, ruler of the underworld, to release his wife Eurydice. And in fact it is Hades where the dead go. However in Matthew's account the body and soul are destroyed in Gehenna, which seems to be the equivalent of or same as Tartarus, the abyss or pit which a river of fire, Phlegethon, leads to in the underworld. We get a picture of this in the Lazurus and the Rich Man story of Luke 16:19-29. With that background, here was the reply I was going to enter:

********************************

Giuseppe,

Matthew 10:28 is a development on the text from Luke, or rather the Marcionite version of Luke

12.4 "I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body (ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεινόντων τὸ σῶμα), and after that have no more that they can do. 12.5 But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed (τὸν μετὰ τὸ ἀποκτεῖναι), has power to cast into Hell (ἔχοντα ἐξουσίαν ἐμβαλεῖν εἰς τὴν Γέενναν); yes, I tell you, fear him!"

What is worth noting is in the Marcionite/Luke text is that the killer of the body (σῶμα) cannot do anything more, he cannot touch the soul. But the one who can throw you into Gehenna (Γέεννα) is to be feared.

Luke/Marcion uses Gehenna in no other place. This is the worst place one can go, it is the pit (βόθυνον) of Luke 6:39 (also Matthew 15:14). This is different from Hades (ᾍδης), the underworld, the land of the dead and ruled in Greek mythology by Hades (Pluto) which makes one appearances in the Marcionite Gospel. And it has a most useful description, where in the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, in verse 16:23, where both Lazarus and the Rich man reside - however they are separated by a great chasm which is fixed so that one cannot reach from the area of comfort (i.e., Elysium) to the area of anguish and flames (i.e., Tartarus). So Hades can be both a good and a bad place. But Hades is not Gehenna. It is more like purgatory. Christ will come raise the good to Heaven in his visit, leaving the wicked to their fate.

Luke 10:15 where Capernaum is fated for Hades is not in Marcion (per Zahn). It came into Luke from Matthew.

But Matthew 10:28 is derived from Luke/Marcion 12:4-5. And we know that because an adjustment is made to the passage to fit his Catholic/Ebionite like theology. He specifically spells out that the one who kills (ἀποκτείνω) the body (σῶμα) doesn't kill the soul (ψυχὴν). But in Gehenna the body and the soul are destroyed (ἀπολέσαι). This destruction after death is meant to make it impossible for resurrection, as Matthew believes in a bodily resurrection. Preservation of the body is important (see Acts 2:27, 2:31 which talks about Jesus' body in Hades not suffering any decay) for the resurrection is bodily. We see that in Matthew 27:52-53 where the bodies (σώματα) of the saints rose and were seen throughout city.

These are specific adjustments to the Marcionite presentation, which saw resurrection as spiritual. Matthew found it necessary to specify that body and soul are destroyed by Satan in Gehenna, so that for such a person no resurrection is possible.

And this is clear because Matthew makes further references specifically the Gehenna in this complete destruction manner: in 5:22 speaking IMO about heretics, 5:29-30 for offending eyes and hands, which are a repeat of 18:8-9 which speak of Gehenna and the "fire" of the pit referred to in the Lazarus story (if Gehenna is Tartarus and not a separate hell), and Matthew 23:15, 33 which IMO has Pharisees as stand-ins for heretical clergy. Mark has just a single Foot-Hand-Eye passage and in typical style says Gehenna once for each, while in the Epistle of James the mention is for the offending tongue (add that to the Foot-Hand-Eye having fun).

Note: 2 Peter 2:4 makes a specific reference to Tartarus (ταρταρώσας) as where the wicked are thrown. This is the closest link between Tartarus and Gehenna, as they seem to be the same place or function the same.

What Matthew has done is subtly pass the punishment in Gehenna from the Just God (who is also the high god) to the devil or Satan, a fallen angel who replaces the Greek Hades or Pluto/Orcus as the ruler of the evil section of the dead.

So again you have built things cart before horse. Matthew has greatly expanded the Luke story and shown a physical resurrection.
Last edited by Stuart on Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

Giuseppe
Posts: 4238
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Matthew 10:28 as marcionite verse that proves not-marcionite priority

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:02 pm

Stuart wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:10 pm
What Matthew has done is subtly pass the punishment in Gehenna from the Just God (who is also the high god) to the devil or Satan, a fallen angel who replaces the Greek Hades or Pluto/Orcus as the ruler of the evil section of the dead.
This is similar to what I would like to read in that verse, precisely. Someway, it seems that Matthew did so because himself was embarrassed partially by the excessive 'justice' of the his god, insofar he is who punishes so cruelly. So he carriers the 'dirty work' (punishment in Gehenna) on the shoulders of Satan, even if Satan is doing still his will.

Therefore, even if the verse is not marcionite, we can say still that it is 'marcionite' insofar his author was well aware of the moral dilemma raised by Marcion: could the justice be harmonized with goodness? Until which point? Et similia.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Stuart
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Matthew 10:28 as marcionite verse that proves not-marcionite priority

Post by Stuart » Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:56 pm

It is my opinion that Matthew's author had three documents which he built from

1. a prototype Synoptic Gospel (different from the one used by the Marcionite author)
2. the Marcionite Gospel
3. part of the Marcionite Antithesis (this shows up in chapter 5 of Matthew)

Matthew wrote in reaction to the Marcionite Gospel, and attempted to "set the record straight" with the "correct" theology about Jesus, John the Baptist, the relationship of the Creator/Law Giver/Jewish God to the High God (they are the same), and a host of other things Marcion got "wrong" in his Gospel.

In fact if the sect Matthew belonged to had not had such a different theology as the Marcionites, they never would have bothered to write a corrected Gospel. But the success and obvious usefulness of a Gospel for evangelism pretty much forced a response. (In my view the same corrective was what inspired the Gospel of John, to set the record right after Matthew from a 3rd sect).

The inescapable truth is all three of these theologies (Marcion, Matthew, John) as well as many others must have been more or less formed BEFORE the Marcionite Gospel was written to spark the competition which say the entire NT written. So I cannot tell you which theology came first. I can only analyze the literature and say which book was written in response to another book.

Each sect used the books published which were most agreeable with their positions. If no book was close they wrote one, especially a Gospel. Matthew's sect was forced to write their own because the Marcionite simply had too many presentations which were not "correct" and which countered the teaching this sect wanted to make. It doesn't make one sect more ancient than the other.

Matthew's presentation was so extreme to other groups that John's Gospel and the (Marcionite) letter to the Galatians (the "perverted Gospel" it talks about IMO is Matthew) were written in response. Yet many think John's theology is closer to the oldest, and others think Mark's theology is.

But because these Gospels were all written in such close proximity of time to each other, there really was not enough time for new theologies to be developed (maybe one point or two adjust or in response), the authors must have had these well developed theologies already. This means the order of the writings in terms of date has almost nothing to do with the ancientness of the sect which backed it's writing. Several different sects and opinions had developed before any Gospel was written. So you cannot say it went from this type of theology to that type.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

Post Reply