YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 7221
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Mar 24, 2020 10:39 pm

Compare the following two verses:

Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him.

(Mark 14:45)

But Jesus said, “Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?”

(Luke 22:48)

...with the following verse:

And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”)

(Mark 15:34)

In both the cases, we have:
  • A betrayal in action;
  • A betrayer: Judas, YHWH;
  • A human victim of the betrayal: the Son of Man, the crucified one;
The difference is that Judas is a negative character, while YHWH seems to be identified with the supreme god, in Mark.

But we know that Mark was the gospel preferred by separationists:

Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm

According to a separationist interpretation, a superior Christ (assume for sake of discussion that he is the Son of YHWH) betrayed de facto the man Jesus, abandoning him on the cross. Hence I am justified to add YHWH in the equation: he is abandoning/betraying the mere man Jesus to death, but, differently from Judas, his betrayal - the betrayal of YHWH - was forgiven, apparently, by Separationists à la Cerinthus.

This is sufficient for me to reconstruct the evolution of the Gospel versions:
  • In the Earliest Gospel, it was YHWH, the demiurge, who conspired against Jesus, by betraying him to his killers.
  • In the separationist original proto-Mark, As effect of the rehabilitation of YHWH as supreme god, his conspiracy against the man Jesus is forgiven, but it is still recognized as a cynical betrayal;
  • In the our Mark, while the fact that YHWH betrayes Jesus de facto (by abandoning him) is partially eclipsed (because in whiletime GMark had become property of the proto-Catholics), Judas is introduced as the true evil conspirer and betrayer of Jesus.

I wonder if the theme of the kiss could reflect the parody of the souffle of the creator on the inert body of Adam, at the creation:

Image

According to some Gnostics, by the souffle on Adam, the demiurge lost the spiritual Sophia who passed so in Adam.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 965
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Joseph D. L. » Wed Mar 25, 2020 6:00 am

A more pragmatic solution is found in Gospel of Peter when Jesus cries, "My power, O power, you have forsaken me." This makes perfect since in the Separationist theology, where the Spirit enters Jesus at his baptism, and leaves him sometime before the crucifixion (Fleeing Youth, maybe? Or Simon the Cyrene?)

If Mark/proto-Mark (which I think was Gospel of Peter) was attached to Cerinthus, then that would be odd calling the demiurge evil. Cerinthus thought the deriurgos was neutral.

But an answer is found in the text itself when Jesus speaks of his death in Mark 8. According to John, Paul, and Gospel of Judas, Jesus has to die. So everything is really just a formality. Is Judas then that related to Archons' ignorance in Ascension of Isaiah? That I don't know.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7221
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Mar 25, 2020 6:40 am

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 6:00 am
If Mark/proto-Mark (which I think was Gospel of Peter) was attached to Cerinthus, then that would be odd calling the demiurge evil. Cerinthus thought the deriurgos was neutral.
I agree (but not about GPeter being proto-Mark): the Cerinthians were Judaizers insofar they wanted the partial rehabilitation of the demiurge. But it is evident that the superior Christ and/or YHWH abandoning the man Jesus on the cross (without make him risen) is worthy still of a negative moral judgmement, even according to the followers of that Separationist theology. My point is that, if they preserved that evil action (=abandoning the man Jesus to his fate), the true reason was because they were obliged to do so: they inherited the precise theme of Jesus betrayed by the creator from Marcion.

Basically, I am applying Criterion of Embarrassment on the Separationists:
  • 1) none would invent a supreme god abandoning the man Jesus on the cross, unless the supreme god is an evil demiurge;
  • 2) But the separationists believed that Jesus was abandoned on the cross by the supreme god;
  • 3) therefore: the separationists had copied from Marcion the belief that the evil demiurge abandoned/betrayed Jesus to his killers. But they rehabilitated the demiurge as supreme god.
Hence, as corollary, Judas is not part of the Earliest Gospel. The original verse was something as:

But the creator god, seeing that the Christ was destroying his Law, moved the high priests against him.

The rest is.. ...a story!
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 965
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Joseph D. L. » Wed Mar 25, 2020 8:17 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 6:40 am
Joseph D. L. wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 6:00 am
If Mark/proto-Mark (which I think was Gospel of Peter) was attached to Cerinthus, then that would be odd calling the demiurge evil. Cerinthus thought the deriurgos was neutral.
I agree (but not about GPeter being proto-Mark): the Cerinthians were Judaizers insofar they wanted the partial rehabilitation of the demiurge. But it is evident that the superior Christ and/or YHWH abandoning the man Jesus on the cross (without make him risen) is worthy still of a negative moral judgmement, even according to the followers of that Separationist theology. My point is that, if they preserved that evil action (=abandoning the man Jesus to his fate), the true reason was because they were obliged to do so: they inherited the precise theme of Jesus betrayed by the creator from Marcion.

Basically, I am applying Criterion of Embarrassment on the Separationists:
  • 1) none would invent a supreme god abandoning the man Jesus on the cross, unless the supreme god is an evil demiurge;
  • 2) But the separationists believed that Jesus was abandoned on the cross by the supreme god;
  • 3) therefore: the separationists had copied from Marcion the belief that the evil demiurge abandoned/betrayed Jesus to his killers. But they rehabilitated the demiurge as supreme god.
Hence, as corollary, Judas is not part of the Earliest Gospel. The original verse was something as:

But the creator god, seeing that the Christ was destroying his Law, moved the high priests against him.

The rest is.. ...a story!
The reason I suggest that Peter was Ur-Mark is 1) due to how similar they are in structure, and 2) the snippets of Peter being the narrator of the text.

Criterion of embarrassment isn't a useful tool to gauge these things with, because that comes down to individual bias. An example that comes immediately to my mind is the act of castration of the Attis cult initiates. Castrates and eunichs were thought to be shameful to the the greater culture, yet the participants of the Attis cult did anyway, indeed made it a characteristic of their god. And you have to consider that such a motive was out of a conscious desire to rail against the society and induce counter culture. (So in the fifties you have propaganda about the dangers of smoking marijuana, while in the sixties it became a symbol for rebelling against such contained ideas.)

So with the Power/God leaving Jesus to his death, that depends what the motivations were to the writers and believers. The Cerinthians thought Jesus was 100% man, whose parents were Mary and Joseph. When the Spirit enters him, it allows him to perform miracles with its power, but and it cannot partake in his death, so it must leave him. So it's right in line with a Separationist theology.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7221
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Mar 25, 2020 8:46 am

1)GPeter is too much short to prove your point. Apart the fact that it is separationist (I concede it). So I ignore it.

2) please don't misinterpret me. I am using criterion of embarrassment on beliefs to recover oldest embarrassing beliefs, not to recover historical nucleus (as it is the case with your Attis example). Note that I am the first in the world to recognize that an impassible god abandoning a 100% man Jesus on the cross is embarrassing, therefore it has to be preceded by a belief where the embarrassment was even more evident: the belief that the bastard demiurge conspired and betrayed Jesus.

3) Yes, I agree that Cerinthians were separationists and Judaizers. Differently from Marcion who hated YHWH as bastard demiurge.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 965
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Joseph D. L. » Wed Mar 25, 2020 9:42 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 8:46 am
1)GPeter is too much short to prove your point. Apart the fact that it is separationist (I concede it). So I ignore it.

Well, if you're just thinking that the passion/resurrection portion was all there was. But there is good reason to suppose that it was Gospel-style structure, probably about the same length as Mark.
2) please don't misinterpret me. I am using criterion of embarrassment on beliefs to recover oldest embarrassing beliefs, not to recover historical nucleus (as it is the case with your Attis example). Note that I am the first in the world to recognize that an impassible god abandoning a 100% man Jesus on the cross is embarrassing, therefore it has to be preceded by a belief where the embarrassment was even more evident: the belief that the bastard demiurge conspired and betrayed Jesus.
As I said, that is impossible because that is entirely limited to the biases of writers and the culture. A crucified god might have been embarrassing for some, but not others. A castrated god might have been embarrassing for some, but not others. So you have no way of knowing beyond your own bias what the writers considered embarrassing or not.
3) Yes, I agree that Cerinthians were separationists and Judaizers. Differently from Marcion who hated YHWH as bastard demiurge.
How can Marcion have hated YHWH when things like this were apart of his Gospel:

And it came to pass, behold a man full of leprosy:
who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying,
Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
13 And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying,
I will: be thou clean.
And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
14 And he charged him to tell no man:
but go, and shew thyself to the priest,
and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded,
that this may be a testimony to you.

///

And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings,
he took Peter and John and James,
and went up into a mountain to pray.
29 And [it came to past] as he prayed,
the appearance of his countenance was different,
and his raiment white, flashing like lightning.
30 And, behold, there stood with him two men, which were Moses and Elias,
31 seen in his glory.
32 Now Peter and they that were with him were weighed down with sleep:
but when they were fully awake, they saw his glory,
and the two men that stood with him.
33 And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus,
Teacher, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles;
one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias:
not knowing what he said.

///

19 There was a certain rich man,
and he was clothed in purple and fine linen,
faring sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus,
which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs
which fell from the rich man's table:
but even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died,
and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom
: the rich man also died, and was buried.

23 And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off,
and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said,
Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus,
that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue;
for I am in anguish in this flame.
25 But Abraham said,
Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things,
and likewise Lazarus evil things:
but now he is comforted, and thou art in anguish.
26 And besides all these things,
between us and you there is a great gulf fixed:
so that they which wish to cross from hence to you may not be able;
neither can they from thence pass through to us.
27 But he said, I pray thee therefore, father,
that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them,
lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets;
let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham:
but if one from the dead went unto them,
they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
not even if one from the dead arose,
will they be persuaded.

Marcion does not indicate that he has some irrational hatred towards YHWH, and the earliest witness to him, Justin, said that his only heresy was making YHWH lesser to a higher god, which was not unknown to rabbinical Judaism, who likewise didn't hate YHWH. This idea that Marcion hated YHWH and Judaism only comes from people like Irenaeus and Tertullian, who also call him a hater of the truth. I take little stock in what they say, and you shouldn't either. Marcion's entire theology is rooted in Judaism. You can't look at the above and say that it wasn't. You can say that he felt his system was superior, or that it was the natural progression of Judaism, but you cannot say he hated it. I'm sorry man, but that idea is completely without merit and made up from people who hated Marcion.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7221
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Mar 25, 2020 9:53 am

1) I ignore GPeter, sorry.

2) the criterion of Embarrassment, docet dr. Carrier, is useful to recover oldest beliefs, not to recover historical nucleus. I am not applying the criterion of Embarrassment on the separationist belief to prove that Jesus existed. I am applying it on the separationist belief to prove that the view of a god who abandoned/betrayed Jesus preserves trace of a belief that is really embarrassing therefore more old than separationism itself, precisely the Marcion's belief that the bastard demiurge conspired against Jesus.

Learn, please: "more old" doesn't mean "more historical", here.


3)
This idea that Marcion hated YHWH and Judaism only comes from people like Irenaeus and Tertullian, who also call him a hater of the truth.
you are ignoring Celsus, who met personally Marcionites and learned from them their beliefs. And Celsus confirms that Marcionites hated the bastard demiurge.
I take little stock in what they say, and you shouldn't either. Marcion's entire theology is rooted in Judaism.
Sorry, but to my knowledge Marcion comes from Sinope, not from Judea.
made up from people who hated Marcion.
The Pagan Celsus didn't hate Marcion. Celsus despised Marcion just as he despised the Judaizers (ebionites) and the proto-catholics. Therefore Celsus is a credible independent witness of the anti-demiurgist view of Marcion.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 965
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Joseph D. L. » Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:58 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 9:53 am
1) I ignore GPeter, sorry.
Which is your right, but I think you're missing a big piece of the puzzle.
2) the criterion of Embarrassment, docet dr. Carrier, is useful to recover oldest beliefs, not to recover historical nucleus. I am not applying the criterion of Embarrassment on the separationist belief to prove that Jesus existed. I am applying it on the separationist belief to prove that the view of a god who abandoned/betrayed Jesus preserves trace of a belief that is really embarrassing therefore more old than separationism itself, precisely the Marcion's belief that the bastard demiurge conspired against Jesus.
Even setting aside a historical Jesus, which the issue doesn't touch upon, the idea of using the criterion of embarrassment is not an honest assessment of retrieving what these people believed, originally believed, or their motivations.

And your last statement is just a presumption treated a s fact.

Learn, please: "more old" doesn't mean "more historical", here.

In this instance, the older something is, is the more authentic it is.

So if it's shown that Macrion didn't hate YHWH, then it doesn't matter what later Marcionites thought. The father away we get from the sphere of influence (100 ad -140 ad) is the less I care about what others have to say. I can only use their writings for information on how the traditions evolved, and can only hope to work my way back through the layers of sediment with appropriate the tools and theories. I'll be honest, even someone like Celsus means very little to me.


3)
you are ignoring Celsus, who met personally Marcionites and learned from them their beliefs. And Celsus confirms that Marcionites hated the bastard demiurge.
This is the full context of what Origen says about Celsus's interpretation on the Marcionites:

In the next place, mixing up together various heresies, and not observing that some statements are the utterances of one heretical sect, and others of a different one, he brings forward the objections which we raised against Marcion. And, probably, having heard them from some paltry and ignorant individuals, he assails the very arguments which combat them, but not in a way that shows much intelligence. Quoting then our arguments against Marcion, and not observing that it is against Marcion that he is speaking, he asks: Why does he send secretly, and destroy the works which he has created? Why does he secretly employ force, and persuasion, and deceit? Why does he allure those who, as you assert, have been condemned or accused by him, and carry them away like a slave-dealer? Why does he teach them to steal away from their Lord? Why to flee from their father? Why does he claim them for himself against the father's will? Why does he profess to be the father of strange children?" To these questions he subjoins the following remark, as if by way of expressing his surprise: Venerable, indeed, is the god who desires to be the father of those sinners who are condemned by another (god), and of the needy, and, as themselves say, of the very offscourings (of men), and who is unable to capture and punish his messenger, who escaped from him! After this, as if addressing us who acknowledge that this world is not the work of a different and strange god, he continues in the following strain: If these are his works, how is it that God created evil? And how is it that he cannot persuade and admonish (men)? And how is it that he repents on account of the ingratitude and wickedness of men? He finds fault, moreover, with his own handwork, and hates, and threatens, and destroys his own offspring? Whither can he transport them out of this world, which he himself has made? Now it does not appear to me that by these remarks he makes clear what evil is; and although there have been among the Greeks many sects who differ as to the nature of good and evil, he hastily concludes, as if it were a consequence of our maintaining that this world also is a work of the universal God, that in our judgment God is the author of evil. Let it be, however, regarding evil as it may — whether created by God or not — it nevertheless follows only as a result when you compare the principal design. And I am greatly surprised if the inference regarding God's authorship of evil, which he thinks follows from our maintaining that this world also is the work of the universal God, does not follow too from his own statements. For one might say to Celsus: If these are His works, how is it that God created evil? And how is it that He cannot persuade and admonish men? It is indeed the greatest error in reasoning to accuse those who are of different opinions of holding unsound doctrines, when the accuser himself is much more liable to the same charge with regard to his own.

I'll also point out that YHWH being the author of good and evil is not unique to Marcionites.

For the sake of my servant Jacob,
and Israel my chosen,
I call you by your name,
I name you, though you do not know me.
5 I am the Lord, and there is no other,
besides me there is no God;
I equip you, though you do not know me,
6 that people may know, from the rising of the sun
and from the west, that there is none besides me;
I am the Lord, and there is no other.
7 I form light and create darkness;
I make well-being and create calamity;
I am the Lord, who does all these things.

None of this shows that Marcion had some unabashed hatred for YHWH and JUdaism.
I take little stock in what they say, and you shouldn't either. Marcion's entire theology is rooted in Judaism.
Sorry, but to my knowledge Marcion comes from Sinope, not from Judea.
You don't have to be in Judea to know about Judaism.

Alexandria had a thriving Jewish population. Rome had a Jewish population. Greece had a Jewish population.

You see man, it's stuff like this that causes people to believe you don't know what you're talking about. Aquila came from Sinope, and yet he became a Jewish proselyte. What was stopping Marcion, if it's not geography (which is everything)?

Hell, we don't even know where Marcion came from. Him being from Sinope, Pontus could very well have ulterior motives from the heresy hunters (especially if you read Tertullian's description). As far as we know, Marcion could have come from anywhere in the Empire. Sinope, Syria, Alexandria, Rome, etc. We don't know.
The Pagan Celsus didn't hate Marcion. Celsus despised Marcion just as he despised the Judaizers (ebionites) and the proto-catholics. Therefore Celsus is a credible independent witness of the anti-demiurgist view of Marcion.
Celsus is writing at 220 ad (and yes, I know the consensus has him at 175 ad. I don't care. He's writing after Zephyrinus and the establishment of a four-fold canon), and by that point Marcionites have evolved. It's one reason why I don't care about Esnik or Ephraim. My interest is Marcion, not Marcionites. If at somepoint between Marcion, and Irenaeus, Tertullian, Celsus, and everyone else the Marcionites hated YHWH and Judaism, means absolutely nothing to me. Marcion himself was dependant on Judaism (as shown by the very texts the Marcionites used), and his views were not at all strange to rabbinical Judaism. Again, Justin's only charge against Marcion was that he made YHWH--the god of Judaism, meaning that Marcion was derivative of Judaism himself, because he still regarded YHWH as creator--second to an even more powerful god--again, which is found with a literal reading of Torah.

In all honesty, you just over complicate things. I mean, how in the world can you actually prove any of the things you say? It's all circular and too dependent on these obscure yet specific interpretations of yours.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7221
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Mar 25, 2020 9:53 pm

1) all the gospels are false and inauthentic since Jesus never existed (per Paul and Hebrews and Revelation), hence what matters is only the identity of the older gospel, and so I am justified to recover the older belief by applying the criterion of embarrassment on separationism.

2) I fear that you don't know the exact words of Celsus (and it escapes me why you quote the fool Christian apologist Origen, who is not Celsus):

Let no one suppose that I am ignorant that some of them will concede that their God is the same as that of the Jews, while others will maintain that he is a different one, to whom the latter is in opposition, and that it was from the former that the Son came.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04165.htm

That single quote is sufficient, for me, to consider your view seriously compromised and totally confuted, since it proves, in only a stroke, two my points:
  • That Celsus claims total independent knowledge of marcionism, one not based on the tendentious proto-catholic propaganda ("Let no one suppose that I am ignorant that some...")
  • That Celsus claims what is more embarrassing from his POV, for a Judaizer as Origen: that the god adored by Marcion "is in opposition" to YHWH. "Opposition" means war, conflict, contrast, rivalry, hostility, dualism, it doesn't mean "alliance between two different gods".
Also here, the more embarrassing belief (from the POV of the winners) is probably the older belief. The evolution shows that they were the later marcionites to judaize, not the early marcionites. An example among all: Esnik, who judaizes insofar he talks about a conversion of the demiurge after the resurrection of Jesus.
A more recent example is the Marcion invented by Joseph D.L.

Strictly speaking, I place myself among the scholars who argue that the Christian gnosticism/anti-demiurgism is not a Jewish thing.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 965
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Joseph D. L. » Thu Mar 26, 2020 8:14 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 9:53 pm
1) all the gospels are false and inauthentic since Jesus never existed (per Paul and Hebrews and Revelation), hence what matters is only the identity of the older gospel, and so I am justified to recover the older belief by applying the criterion of embarrassment on separationism.
That doesn't even make sense. How does criterion of embarrassment on separationism allow you to retrieve what the original Gospel was?
2) I fear that you don't know the exact words of Celsus (and it escapes me why you quote the fool Christian apologist Origen, who is not Celsus):

Let no one suppose that I am ignorant that some of them will concede that their God is the same as that of the Jews, while others will maintain that he is a different one, to whom the latter is in opposition, and that it was from the former that the Son came.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04165.htm
To begin with, we don't have Celsus's own words. They're all filtered through Origen. Next, I quoted the full passage from Origen to show that Celsus was mistaken in his overestimation of the Marcionites claim that YHWH was the father of evil.
That single quote is sufficient, for me, to consider your view seriously compromised and totally confuted, since it proves, in only a stroke, two my points:
  • That Celsus claims total independent knowledge of marcionism, one not based on the tendentious proto-catholic propaganda ("Let no one suppose that I am ignorant that some...")
Which I didn't argue against, so you're just wasting your time.
  • That Celsus claims what is more embarrassing from his POV, for a Judaizer as Origen: that the god adored by Marcion "is in opposition" to YHWH. "Opposition" means war, conflict, contrast, rivalry, hostility, dualism, it doesn't mean "alliance between two different gods".
Opposition can mean a myriad of things, as Origen pointed out. Indeed, as I provided evidence above, YHWH being the progenitor of both good and evil was a long standing Jewish idea. None of this means that Marcion hated YHWH
Also here, the more embarrassing belief (from the POV of the winners) is probably the older belief. The evolution shows that they were the later marcionites to judaize, not the early marcionites. An example among all: Esnik, who judaizes insofar he talks about a conversion of the demiurge after the resurrection of Jesus.
The relevance of this is what? How is the more embarrassing belief older when you can't know what the belief even was? Like I said, I don't care about what Esnik thought. He was writing over 300 years after Marcion.
A more recent example is the Marcion invented by Joseph D.L.
The difference between us Giuseppe is I go with what the evidence shows, while you go with whatever your interpretation and beliefs are. Evidence comes first. Not your beliefs.
Strictly speaking, I place myself among the scholars who argue that the Christian gnosticism/anti-demiurgism is not a Jewish thing.
Gnosticism wasn't anti-demiurge, Giuseppe. You continuously show that you don't know what you are talking about. Plato was a Gnostic, yet he praised the demiurge. Gnosticism is a term that doesn't mean anything because it can be applied to anything and everything. Hell, Catholicism is Gnostic. Mithraism is Gnostic. Orphism is Gnostic. Osirisism is Gnostic. Gnostic is only concerned with heavenly knowledge. And you ignore Jewish Gnostics like Philo and Artapanus and the Dositheans; and gnosticis who thought the demiurge was benevolent.

Scholars don't know what Gnosticism is either because they think it's whatever Irenaeus and the other heresiologists thought, which is not reliable.

Marcion's only claim was the YHWH was second to a higher god. That's it. There is no evidence that he thought he was evil, or that he hated him. If anything his system is closer to the Valentinians, who held the demirge as ignorant of the higher realities.

Post Reply