We know via Tertullian that Marcion interpreted the Transfiguration episode as the Christ buying the souls in Sheol and therefore contracting with Moses and Elijah about what souls precisely have to ascend to heaven and what souls have not.
The two thieves allegorize therefore not directly Moses and Elijah, but just these souls disputed by Christ with them.
This is made evident in Mcn = proto-Luke, where the Good Thief has to ascend to heaven while the Evil Thief has to be left nailed on the cross. The reference is evidently to the act of buying by Christ of the only souls who have recognized the Father of Christ as the supreme god (not the demiurge). Who is left is only the soul of who adores/deserves the justice of the demiurge.
But in Mark and in Matthew both the two thieves are negative people. The evident corollary, per the logic above, is that ALL the souls allegorized by them have to be left in Sheol. Jesus doesn't free them. He agrees with Moses and Elijah about their being left in Sheol.
So the guys à la Brandon are entirely wrong, again and again.
It is false that the Good Thief is mere pro-Roman apology.
In proto-Luke (aka Mcn) there is the original episode.
Hence: Mcn precedes even Mark.
Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
1 post • Page 1 of 1
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.