luke 21:12

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
theterminator
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:07 am

luke 21:12

Post by theterminator » Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:27 am

luke 21 :12

7 And they asked him, "Teacher, when will this be, and what will be the sign when this is about to take place?" 8 And he said, "Take heed that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name, saying, 'I am he!' and, 'The time is at hand!' Do not go after them. 9 And when you hear of wars and tumults, do not be terrified; for this must first take place, but the end will not be at once." 10 Then he said to them, "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; 11 there will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and pestilences; and there will be terrors and great signs from heaven.

12 But before all this they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name's sake. 13 This will be a time for you to bear testimony. 14 Settle it therefore in your minds, not to meditate beforehand how to answer; 15 for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict. 16 You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and kinsmen and friends, and some of you they will put to death; 17 you will be hated by all for my name's sake. 18 But not a hair of your head will perish. 19 By your endurance you will gain your lives. 20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it; 22 for these are days of vengeance, to fulfil all that is written. 23 Alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days! For great distress shall be upon the earth and wrath upon this people; 24 they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led captive among all nations; and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. 25 "And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth distress of nations in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, 26 men fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.



is the writer of luke unaware of false christs within christian community?
.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 908
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: luke 21:12

Post by Charles Wilson » Sun Mar 27, 2016 8:51 am

The verses are from the time of Alexander Jannaeus and are written as Prediction. "Alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!". This is from Jannaeus taking Pharisees and crucifying them in front of their wives and children and then slitting the throats of said wives and children in front of those who are being crucified.

I don't know if Luke cared or not.

We now return you to Regular Commentary on this Forum...

CW

Bernard Muller
Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: luke 21:12

Post by Bernard Muller » Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:21 am

Different times and different Christian communities.
At the time of writing of the two gospels, one community had "false Christs" while the other one did not.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Stuart
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: luke 21:12

Post by Stuart » Mon Mar 28, 2016 1:21 am

To complicate matters Marcion apparently read + ὁ Χριστός after ἐγώ εἰμι agreeing with Matthew 24:5 against Mark 13:6
Tertullian AM 4.39.2: Venient denique illi dicentes, Ego sum Christus.
(only 157 agrees, a tertiary 12th century minuscule, and it more likely harmony to Matthew)

The relationship of the Gospels to one another is not securely established (hence the never ending sequence debates). All of them, including Marcion's version of Luke, were derived from earlier prototype forms. Still there is a triple tradition in Luke 21:8-11 with Matthew 24:4-8 and Mark 13:5-8, so they derive from a common source. The question is if ὁ Χριστός was in Marcion and passed to Matthew (whose author I contend knew the Marcionite Gospel) then why is it missing from Luke, and why was it not added to Mark?

Changes of this sort have a theological underpinning. In the Marcionite theology the Christ of the God/Prince/Ruler of the world had not yet come - the one predicted in the Isaiah and Malachi texts by John the Baptist in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (but denied in John). This Christ to come is the antichrist in the Marcionite teachings. But here the text speaks of many, which is baffling, both in the Marcionite and the Catholic understanding. False prophets seem to be something else, at least for Matthew who mentions them directly 24:11 and warns that are a danger to lead one astray, just as all the texts agree that those proclaiming themselves the one (or Christ) can lead astray.

The concept of multiple ones claiming to be the one or the Christ seems strange, unless we are looking at one of the branches of the Valentinian sects - but I am baffled as to the meaning of a plurality of false Christs, since that implies multiple competing Gods, something beyond or understanding of both Marcionite and proto-Orthodox teaching.
Last edited by Stuart on Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 8074
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: luke 21:12

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:19 am

The idea in Tertullian is that the author citing "a gospel" likens Marcion to the false messiah passages (= Luke 21:8 and parallels). In this and several other passages in Against Marcion the author identifies Marcion as the false messiah. Why on earth would he do this from Marcion's gospel? The author clearly believes that Jesus foretold the coming of an (evil) Marcion. The underlying logic that all variant readings in Adv Marc are Marcionite readings is bloody retarded but scholars NEEDS to do this retarded action because if the acknowledge the pool of variants in Adv Marc is contaminated (i.e. that many of the variants belong or are shared by the author) all hope of "rescuing" Marcion's gospel are lost. So what do you think these dishonest people do? Do you think they would ever admit we can't know Marcion? Of course not.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 8074
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: luke 21:12

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:34 am

Here is the fucking passage that myopic people like Stuart use to claim a 'Marcionite variant' is present:
We have already reached agreement on the rightful ownership of the names, that it appertains to him who first proclaimed his own Christ among men, and changed a name to Jesus. Thus we shall also be in agreement concerning the presumption of one who says that many will come in his name, when it is not his name if he is not the Christ and Jesus of the Creator, to whom the rightful possession of the name belongs, and when, what is more, he forbids our acceptance of others who are in like case with himself, seeing that he, no less than they, has come in a name not his own—unless it was his purpose to forewarn the disciples against lying claimants to the name, he himself through rightful ownership of the name possessing the truth of it.1 So then those people will come, saying I am Christ.a You, will receive them: you have received one exactly like them. For this one too has come in his own name. What then of the fact that there is still to come the real owner of the names, the Christ and Jesus of the Creator? Shall you reject him? But how unfair, how unjust, how unworthy of a god supremely good, that you should not receive him when he comes in his own name, when you have already received another in his name. Let us see also with what signs he marks the times. Wars, I imagine, and kingdom against kingdom, and nation against nation, and a plague, and famines and earthquakes, and fearful sights, and great signs from heaven, all of which are in keeping with a stern and fearsome God.
It is utter madness to suggest that Tertullian's words 'certainly' have a rooting in a 'Marcionite variant.' It's possible. But it is equally possible that the variation was found in one of the authors who altered the original text even the original author. A much stronger argument is that Tertullian is copying a text written by someone like Justin (note the parallel arguments regarding Jesus and the name of Christ in Against the Jews).

I have noted this a thousand times at this forum through its various incarnations - Irenaeus is in the habit of attacking heresies from HIS OWN scriptures exactly as we see here. This doesn't necessarily mean Irenaeus is the author but many of the shared variants between Adv Marc and Irenaeus make some sort of contamination highly probable. The differences between the author's text and Marcion's are not significant. There is a sense they are paralleled in some sense. But this idea that we are 'onto' specific variants based on the reading of a work rewritten at least three times (see intro to Adv Marc) and passed through various hands and various ascribed authors (see intro) is among the stupidest and most desperate arguments in the history of the humanities. It's like joining an orgy and being 'certain' that you are never going to commit some homosexual act or other.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Stuart
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: luke 21:12

Post by Stuart » Mon Mar 28, 2016 9:12 am

Stephen,

You do identify a problem with AM (DA has different issues with citation reliability) in determining whether the text cited is from the Marcionite, or from the Catholic version of Luke, or if it is from a 3rd source Matthew. Not every time Tertullian cites a passage does he leave clear markers. However in chapter 39 he does not cite Matthew or say my gospel even once, and he follows the sequence of Luke. So there is no good evidence it is from another source.

It is possible Tertullian himself added ὁ Χριστός (hence sum Christus) to the reading to conform the Marcionite to the version he preferred, as he raises no flag to the text being different from Luke here, but then again it is not unusual for him to not flag minor differences of a word or two. Although I am satisfied this is not the case here, because Tertullian we would expect to say something along the lines of "I am he that is he meant the Christ", but I would concede it is an uncertain reading, since we have no other citations of this verse in Marcion to compare with.

I do think Tertullian knows and has the Marcionite text, unlike Adamantius which worked from earlier anti-Marcionite sources but didn't have the text. But he is writing a full three generations after Marcion. So whatever he knows of Marcion and the origins of his sect is mere legend. And he is the earliest source. (The Polycarp quote is a legend likely derived from the letter ascribed in his name, which itself is another anonymous letter).

As for your unfortunate (R-word) argument ... well I'm not into Trump style logic, where insults and ad hominem carry the day. I'll just ignore it.

There are many technical reasons I believe Matthew knew the Marcionite gospel and also an early version of the antithesis. But I wont go into it here, as it is just another Synoptic theory, albeit one without Q, and as this is a never resolved debate and one I care not to engage at this time, I'll just say it's my belief FWIW. I'd be happy to converse off line with you on why I think so, but let's just recognize that Synoptic theories are unproven at best.

Anyway this is a side topic. My question is still, why multiple ones claiming to be Christ who are not in Matthew and Marcion? What does that symbolize? 1 John 2:22, 4:3, 2 John 2:17 have a single antichrist, which makes sense.

The one passage I think is of interest in comparing is 1 John 2:18 which seems to apply
Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.
This is curious. We have many antichrists appearing, yet the antichrist is yet to come. Who are these many antichrists? How doe they differ from the antichrist? That is my question.
Last edited by Stuart on Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 8074
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: luke 21:12

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:21 am

Is it too much to ask that we stop saying that 'such and such is Marcionite' from AM and reclassify it under the broad heading of 'second century variant'? That's all I ask. I am not even convinced that specific reference by Epiphanius to it's Marcionite provenance is reliable enough to identify it as such. I think there is enough evidence that he is blatantly abusing a second hand source despite his claims to have done first hand research himself.

I welcome a discussion of the develop of AM or specifically AM books 4 and 5. As I have said before the parallel to keep in mind is Against the Jews/AM 3. I find it wholly plausible that AM goes back to a text that was not specifically 'anti-Marcionite.' It may well have been a Marcionite commentary turned against Marcion or a text by Justin (assuming Justin was not a Marcionite).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 8074
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: luke 21:12

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:06 am

And let's look at that passage again there are even more oddities to note:
We have already reached agreement on the rightful ownership of the names, that it appertains to him who first proclaimed his own Christ among men, and changed a name to Jesus. Thus we shall also be in agreement concerning the presumption of one who says that many will come in his name, when it is not his name if he is not the Christ and Jesus of the Creator, to whom the rightful possession of the name belongs, and when, what is more, he forbids our acceptance of others who are in like case with himself, seeing that he, no less than they, has come in a name not his own—unless it was his purpose to forewarn the disciples against lying claimants to the name, he himself through rightful ownership of the name possessing the truth of it.1 So then those people will come, saying I am Christ.a You, <Marcion,> will receive them.
Let's start with this translation of Evans:
We have already reached agreement on the rightful ownership of the names that it appertains to him who first proclaimed his own Christ among men, and changed a name to Jesus
But note the Latin:
Olim constitit de nominum proprietate ei illam (competere) qui prior et Christum suum in homines annuntiaret et Iesum transnominaret
And Holmes's translation:
As touching the propriety of His names, it has already been seen that both of them" are suitable to Him who was the first both to announce His Christ to mankind, and to give Him the further name of Jesus.
Who are the 'we' who have 'reached agreement' on the rightful ownership of the names? Marcionites? It is hard to imagine that the author had Marcionites specifically in mind? But there is a strange dialogue going on at the core of the text that is now AM.

In the previous chapter the author was dealing with Luke 20:41 - 44:

Then Jesus said to them, “Why is it said that the Messiah is the son of David? 42 David himself declares in the Book of Psalms:
“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
43 until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”’[c]
44 David calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”
The text makes it seem as if this 'must have been' part of the Marcionite gospel. But really? Here is the commentary in full:
If now the scribes regarded Christ as the son of David, and David himself calls him Lord, what does this mean to Christ? It was not that David was correcting a mistake of the scribes, but that David was paying respect to Christ, when David affirmed that Christ was his Lord even more than his son—
and this would not be in character with a destroyer of the Creator. But on my side how very apposite an interpretation. He had recently been called upon by that blind man as son of David: what he then refrained from saying, as he had no scribes present, he now in their presence brings forward without suggestion from them, so as to indicate that he whom the blind man, following the scribes' doctrine, had called merely David's son, was also David's
Lord. So he rewards that blind man's faith, by which he had believed him the son of David, but criticizes the tradition of the scribes, by which they failed to know him also as Lord. Anything that had bearing on the glory of the Creator's Christ, could only have been sustained in this form by one who was himself the Creator's Christ.
So on the surface at least we would have to believe:

1. the Marcionite 'Luke' had Luke 20:41 - 44.
2. the commentary represents Tertullian with this 'Marcionite Luke' in his possession acknowledging that the Marcionite had the passage more or less exactly as it appears in our Luke (i.e. the reference is made as part of a debate with the scribes)
3. the author makes it seem as if Marcion interpreted the passage as "David correcting a mistake of the scribes" which somehow (no matter how vaguely) had the effect of confirming his " character as a destroyer of the Creator."

I don't see how any of this is remotely plausible. I think the author is completely making up the Marcionite reference/interpretation to Luke 20:41 - 44. But the real discovery is that the author clearly in my mind leaves some vestige of the original context of the analysis of Luke 20:41 - 44 viz. a passage which is in no way a part of any surviving gospel - Luke 18.

He had recently been called upon by that blind man as son of David: what he then refrained from saying, as he had no scribes present, he now in their presence brings forward without suggestion from them, so as to indicate that he whom the blind man, following the scribes' doctrine, had called merely David's son, was also David's Lord. So he rewards that blind man's faith, by which he had believed him the son of David, but criticizes the tradition of the
scribes, by which they failed to know him also as Lord. Anything that had bearing on the glory of the Creator's Christ, could only have been sustained in this form by one who was himself the Creator's Christ.

This is a very peculiar line of logic. So the argument now is that Jesus had wanted to say something since the incident with the blind beggar and only now said it in front of the scribes. Nonsense. I would argue that the present commentary (= AM) knows as it knows elsewhere what the original reading of the shared gospel for Marcion and the original author and now has reworked that text to fit Luke.

In other words, Luke 20:41 - 44 was originally part of the blind beggar (Luke 18) narrative. Let's look at the two passages:
As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. 36 When he heard the crowd going by, he asked what was happening. 37 They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.”

38 He called out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”

39 Those who led the way rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”

40 Jesus stopped and ordered the man to be brought to him. When he came near, Jesus asked him, 41 “What do you want me to do for you?”

“Lord, I want to see,” he replied.

42 Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.” 43 Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus, praising God. When all the people saw it, they also praised God.
And the missing piece:
“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
43 until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”’[c]
44 David calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son
?”

The full integration of the two passages:
As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. 36 When he heard the crowd going by, he asked what was happening. 37 They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.”

38 He called out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”

39 Those who led the way rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”

40 Jesus stopped and ordered the man to be brought to him. When he came near, [he said to him] "David himself declares in the Book of Psalms:

“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
43 until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”’[c]
44 David calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”

Jesus asked him, 41 “What do you want me to do for you?”

“Lord, I want to see,” he replied.

42 Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.” 43 Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus, praising God. When all the people saw it, they also praised God.
The person reading the gospel clearly understood originally that Jesus was NOT the messiah (= adonai) but 'the Lord.' That the blind man understood this teaching is confirmed by the fact that he ceases to call Jesus 'son of David' but 'Lord' in what follows and thus Jesus gives him sight to confirm that he is no longer blind.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 8074
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: luke 21:12

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:10 am

And we know that this passage was important for Irenaeus because (a) Jesus keeps reinforcing that he is the seated adonai/Christ = the trial and (b) the long ending of Mark goes so far as to confirm the details of Psalm 110. I am not so sure that the original author held the same interest in Psalm 110. For Irenaeus it becomes nothing short of an obsession to prove that Jesus was indeed the 'Christ of Psalm 110.' This is why the gospels were rearranged. But in the original text known to the source of AM (whether or not he agreed with the text) was such that Jesus was NOT the adonai/Christ of Psalm 110. But this has been all obscured by the lockstep unity of Mark/Matthew/Luke all fabricated by Irenaeus IMO.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], GakuseiDon, Giuseppe, Joseph D. L., lsayre and 49 guests