Still on Moses and Elijiah as the two crucified thieves and the same Rulers of this Age

[Giuseppe]

It seems that Origen also, has preceded myself in recognition of the fact that the two thieves are the "archons of this age":

Origen is a little less clear on the relation between Christ and the goat which is sent away, but what he does say is fascinating. In one section of his homily, Origen compares the two goats to the two thieves who flank Jesus on Golgotha. The one who “reviled” Jesus, he notes, was sent to the “‘wilderness’ of hell.”82 The Alexandrian exegete then loosely quotes Colossians 2:14-15—in his paraphrase, Christ “fastened the principalities and opposing powers upon his cross and he triumphed over them”—and interprets it by saying, “in this he fulfilled ‘the lot of the scapegoat’ and as ‘a prepared man’ he led them ‘into the wilderness.’” Along similar lines, Origen adds: [Christ] would make ‘the lot of the scapegoat’ the opposing powers, ‘the spirits of evil and the rulers of this world of darkness’ [cf. Eph. 6:12] which, as the Apostle says, ‘he led away with power triumphing over them in himself’ [cf. Col. 2:15]. ‘He led them away.’ Where ‘did he lead’ them except ‘to the wilderness,’ to desolate places?83

(my bold)

https://epublications.marquette.edu/dis ... ns_mu/716/

Source: The Two Goats: A Christian Yom Kippur Soteriology
Richard Barry
Marquette University

But naturally, what the proto-catholics will say never, is that, even conceding the premises (and there is textual evidence of this double concession):

• 1) Moses and Elijah are the two thieves

• 2) the two thieves are demons

Therefore

• 3) Moses and Elijah are demons.

[Giuseppe]

Ephrem the Syrian confirmed the demonic/archontic nature of Moses and Elijiah on Tabor:

But concerning Moses and Elijah who were found on the mountain in company with Isu, what do they (i.e. the Marcionites) say that they were doing in his presence ? But they say that they were guardians there. And what. pray, were they guarding, since there was nothing on the mountain ? And if there had been anything on it, the Maker would have had the Cherub and the point of the sword with which to surround the mountain.27 And if because Isu was a stranger to Him (i.e. to the Maker) they were guarding the mountain for Him, then, as between the mountain and the sanctuary, which of them was greater 28 to the Maker, that He should cease to guard His city and |lx His sanctuary and send them (i.e. Moses and Elijah) to guard a mountain in which there was nothing ? If He did not set forth [P.88.] some symbol there for us, let them tell us what such persons as Moses and Elijah were doing there. And if they say, 'You are asking us concerning your own (affairs) also,' then leave that (question) of ours as to what they were doing, and tell us (?) your own (opinion), namely on what account Isu went up thither. Was it in order to fight that he went up thither ? . . . did he make war against the Maker or . . . ? .

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ephra ... rcion1.htm

A word is basically important here for the original marcionite exegesis of the Transfiguration episode:

Can it be (that it was done) in order that He might shew them that what He gave was greater than what He received ? Then also Moses, etc., sold themselves to Him there, on account of that surpassing glory which they saw. And perhaps Isu too shewed them that glory on the mountain in order to incite Moses, etc., so that because Moses and Elijah were accustomed to that surpassing vision of the Maker Isu shewed them that (his glory) surpassed that of the Maker, in order that they might desire it eagerly on [P. 92.] account of its surpassing character. Well, then, in short, they made a bargain with him, because they had loved him.

The "glory" can mean, in Pauline terms, only a thing: Crucifixion.

Hence no wonder about the rapid passage from the emphasis on the "surpassing glory" to the emphasis on a cosmic "fight":

And if thou sayest that neither for a sale nor for a bargain had Moses, etc., come to Him, then why had they come to Him ? Can it be that they had come to fight ? And very likely It is that men would come to fight against God ! And which of them is it who strikes (the blow), or which is it who is struck ? Or did he on this account take his Apostles with him and cause them to ascend (the mountain), in order that they might wage war with the Prophets ? And which of the sides conquered there or lost ? But that battle, what was it for ? Can it have been on account of the love of their Gods ? And why would not those Gods themselves contend for the love of mankind ? For if the Gods are at peace, why do they contend about mankind ? . . . [l. 39.] For if created things are from One, unadvisedly did Isu [1.42.] interpose, ... If they say that in truth the Stranger went up to heaven, see how much the Maker despised him and . . . [P.93.] against his disciples and against him [who said], 'This is my Son and my Beloved,' 33 [for] He had sent only two against them.

Ephrem the Syrian wonders why the demiurge would have sent only Moses and Elijiah to combat Jesus and the three Pillars. The answer, I think, will be found in nuce in the episode of the two crucified thieves. They are someway Moses and Elijiah insofar they want the crucifixion of Jesus, also.

[Giuseppe]

There is also the curious marcionite irony of:

• A Peter who believes (contra factum) that Jesus is loved by Moses and Elijiah and he would like to raise "three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah"

• The crowd who believes (contra factum) that Jesus deserves to be "counted among evildoers", as per the Psalm. And therefore the crowd raises three crosses, —one for Jesus, one for the first thief and one for the second thief.

This irony is typically marcionite insofar it raises an antithesis:

• Jesus is really an enemy of Moses and Elijiah,
  pace the Peter's opinion.

• Jesus is really an enemy of the two crucified thieves,
  pace the crowd's opinion and the Psalm.

Again and again all the evidence points to the fact that the Transfiguration episode was the real cosmic celestial Crucifixion of Jesus by hand of the "archons of this age".

[Giuseppe]

Another marcionite irony in action:

• Peter "did not know what to say, they were so frightened".

• The crowd didn't know what was doing (by crucifying Jesus).

The implication is that not only "Jews" as an abstract entity, but also the Pillars, the Judaizers themselves, are killers of Jesus. This is a feature of Mark that is so too much often trascured. What moves the crowd to kill Jesus is a holy fury, a religious furor.

Who has written the Passion story is doing someway a parody of a rival belief held by a rival community, one where Jesus is wanted as crucified for expiation of the sins of that rival community.

The "Jews" in the story are really the Judaizers insofar they want the crucifixion of Jesus with a sacre furor that is totally unexpected even by mere not-Christian Jews.

This is 100% expected if:

• 1) the author of the story was Cerdon or Marcion

• 2) he was condemning the expiatory sacrifice theory as shown, for example, in Hebrews or in Revelation, where the killers of the Lamb seem to be the same his adorers.

ADDENDA: in the eyes of Cerdon and Marcion, the Judaizers would be the willing executioners of the Jesus Son of the Good Good. Insofar they take him for a Lamb who has to be killed. When really he is not at all the Lamb of the Creator.

[Giuseppe]

ADDENDA: in the eyes of Cerdon and Marcion, the Judaizers would be the willing executioners of the Jesus Son of the Good Good. Insofar they take him for a Lamb who has to be killed. When really he is not at all the Lamb of the Creator.

this is also the reason why the people believe that Jesus is the Messiah Son of Joseph. They want the his death not for envy or for some moral sin, but in virtue of a religious motive. Their true great sin is to believe, as mere Judaizers, that Jesus's death can purify their sins.

When the reality is that Jesus's death doesn't purify, but it reveals.