Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Irish1975 »

According to Epiphanius (but not Tertullian), Marcion’s Gospel (*Ev) included two accusations against Jesus before Pilate, which are not found in the Lukan Gospel. One of these charges touches a critical and ambiguous theme in early Christianity: the dissolving (abolition, destruction) of the Law and the Prophets. (The other charge, about misleading women and children, is obscure and outside the scope of this thread.)
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:17 pm Luke 23.1-25 Evangelion 23:1-2, Jesus before Pilate

1 Καὶ ἀναστὰν ἅπαν τὸ πλῆθος αὐτῶν ἤγαγον αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸν Πειλᾶτον.
2 ἤρξαντο δὲ κατηγορεῖν αὐτοῦ λέγοντες
Τοῦτον εὕραμεν διαστρέφοντα τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν
καὶ καταλύοντα τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας,
κωλύοντα φόρους Καίσαρι διδόναι,
καὶ ἀποστρέφοντα τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ τὰ τέκνα,
καὶ λέγοντα ἑαυτὸν Χριστὸν βασιλέα εἶναι.
1 The whole company of them rose up and brought him before Pilate.
2 They began to accuse him, saying,
We found this man perverting the nation,
destroying [dissolving, abolishing] the law and the prophets,
forbidding paying taxes to Caesar,
misleading women and children,
and saying that he himself is Christ, a king.

This 5-fold indictment contrasts with Luke’s 3-fold indictment—

ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 23:1-2

1 Καὶ ἀναστὰν ἅπαν τὸ πλῆθος αὐτῶν ἤγαγον αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸν Πιλᾶτον.
2 Ἤρξαντο δὲ κατηγορεῖν αὐτοῦ λέγοντες·
τοῦτον εὕραμεν διαστρέφοντα τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν
καὶ κωλύοντα φόρους Καίσαρι διδόναι
καὶ λέγοντα ἑαυτὸν χριστὸν βασιλέα εἶναι.
Gospel According to Luke 23:1-2 (RSV)

1 Then the whole company of them arose, and brought him before Pilate.
2 And they began to accuse him, saying,
“We found this man perverting our nation,
and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar,
and saying that he himself is Christ a king.”

There are at least three explicit NT references to the notion of abolishing the Law (and the Prophets)—

Matthew 5:17
Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας· οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι.

Think not that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have come not to abolish, but to fulfill.

Galatians 2:18
εἰ γὰρ ἃ κατέλυσα ταῦτα πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ, παραβάτην ἐμαυτὸν συνιστάνω.

But if I re-establish those things [sc. works of the Law] which I have abolished, I prove myself a transgressor.

Acts 6:12-14
συνεκίνησάν τε τὸν λαὸν καὶ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους καὶ τοὺς γραμματεῖς καὶ ἐπιστάντες συνήρπασαν αὐτὸν καὶ ἤγαγον εἰς τὸ συνέδριον, ἔστησάν τε μάρτυρας ψευδεῖς λέγοντας· ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος οὐ παύεται λαλῶν ῥήματα κατὰ τοῦ τόπου τοῦ ἁγίου [τούτου] καὶ τοῦ νόμου· ἀκηκόαμεν γὰρ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος οὗτος καταλύσει τὸν τόπον τοῦτον καὶ ἀλλάξει τὰ ἔθη ἃ παρέδωκεν ἡμῖν Μωϋσῆς.

And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon Stephen and seized him and brought him before the council, and set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law; for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and will change the customs which Moses delivered to us.”

Also important for context—

Luke 16:16-17 (cf. Matthew 11:13)
Ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται μέχρι Ἰωάννου· ἀπὸ τότε ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγελίζεται καὶ πᾶς εἰς αὐτὴν βιάζεται. εὐκοπώτερον δέ ἐστιν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν παρελθεῖν ἢ τοῦ νόμου μίαν κεραίαν πεσεῖν.

The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters it violently. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become void.

—which both Tertullian and Epiphanius attest for *Ev, although probably without “and every one enters it violently.”

Epiphanius is emotional about the ‘additions’ at 23:2—
Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.6: <ξθ>. Προσέθετο μετὰ τό «τοῦτον εὕρομεν διαστρέφοντα τὸ ἔθνος» «καὶ καταλύοντα τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας». <ο>. Προσθήκη μετὰ τό «κελεύοντα φόρους μὴ δοῦναι» «καὶ ἀποστρέφοντα τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ τὰ τέκνα». / 69. After, 'We found this fellow perverting the nation,' Marcion added, 'and destroying the Law and the prophets.' 70. The addition after 'forbidding to give tribute' is 'and turning away the wives and children.'
Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.17: <Σχόλιον> <ξθ>. Προσέθετο μετὰ τό «τοῦτον ηὕραμεν διαστρέφοντα τὸ ἔθνος» «καὶ καταλύοντα τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας». <Ἔλεγχος> <ξθ>. Πόθεν οὐ φωραθήσῃ, πόθεν οὐκ ἐλεγχθήσῃ διαστρέφων τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου; ὅταν γὰρ ἐνταῦθα προσθείης τὸ μὴ γεγραμμένον, συκοφαντῶν σεαυτὸν – οὐ γὰρ ἂν εἴποιμι τὸν κύριον – <καὶ> λέγων ὅτι τοῦτον ηὕραμεν καταλύοντα τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας, τὸ ἀντίζυγον τούτου ἐλέγξει σε, ὦ ματαιόπονε, αὐτοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος λέγοντος «οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας, ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι». οὐ δύναται τοίνυν ὁ αὐτὸς <ὁ> λέγων «οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι» διὰ τὸ καταλύειν κατηγορεῖσθαι. οὐ γὰρ εἶχεν οὕτως τὸ ῥητόν, ἀλλά· «ηὕρομεν τοῦτον διαστρέφοντα τὸν λαόν, λέγοντα ἑαυτὸν Χριστὸν βασιλέα». <Σχόλιον> <ο>. Προσθήκη μετὰ τό «κελεύοντα φόρους μὴ δοῦναι» «καὶ ἀποστρέφοντα τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ τὰ τέκνα». <Ἔλεγχος> <ο>. Τίς αὑτῷ κρημνὸν περιποιεῖ, πληρῶν τὸ γεγραμμένον, τό· «ὁ ἑαυτῷ πονηρὸς τίνι ἀγαθὸς ἔσται;» πάσης γὰρ τόλμης καὶ πονηρίας ὑπόδειγμά ἐστι καὶ κινδυνώδους ὁδοιπορίας τὸ τὰ μὲν γεγραμμένα παρακόπτειν, ἃ δὲ μὴ γέγραπται προστιθέναι, μάλιστα ἐν εὐαγγελίῳ ἀκαταλύτῳ ὄντι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. καὶ αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ τῆς προσθήκης οὔτε τόπον ἔχει οὔτε αἴνιγμα. οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστρεψεν Ἰησοῦς γυναῖκας ἢ τέκνα· αὐτὸς γὰρ ἔφη «τίμα τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα» καί «ἃ ὁ θεὸς συνέζευξεν, ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω». ἀλλὰ κἂν εἴπῃ «ἐὰν μή τις καταλείψῃ πατέρα καὶ μητέρα καὶ ἀδελφοὺς καὶ γυναῖκα καὶ τέκνα καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, οὐκ ἔστι μου μαθητής», οὐχ ἵνα μισῶμεν πατέρας, ἀλλ' ἵνα μὴ ὑπαγώμεθα πατέρων καὶ μητέρων ἐπιταγῇ * ἑτέρας πίστεως ἢ τρόπῳ παρὰ τὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος διδασκαλίαν. / Scholion 69. After 'We found this fellow perverting the nation,' Marcion added, 'and destroying the Law and the prophets.' (a) Elenchus 69. How will you [sc. Marcion] not be detected? How will you not be exposed as perverting the way of the Lord? For when, in order to slander yourself—I won't say, 'the Lord'—you add something here that is not in the text and say, 'We found this fellow destroying the Law and the prophets,' the opposite of this will refute you, you expender of wasted effort, since the Saviour himself says, 'I came not to destroy the Law and the prophets, but to fulfil.' (b) Now the same person who says, 'I came not to destroy,' cannot be accused of destroying. For the text did not say this, but, 'We found him perverting the nation, saying that he himself is Christ, a king.' Scholion 70. An addition after, 'forbidding to give tribute,' is, 'and turning away their wives and children.' (a) Elenchus 70. Who will get himself out onto a cliff, in fulfilment of scripture's, 'He that is evil to himself, to whom will he be good?' [Sirach 14:5] For falsifying something that is written, but adding something that is not, is an example of the utmost rashness, wickedness, and unsafe travel—especially in the Gospel, which is forever indestructible. (b) And the additions themselves have no place in the Gospel and contain no hidden meaning. Jesus did not turn wives or children away; he himself said, 'Honour thy father and mother,' and, 'What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.' (c) But even though he did say, 'Except a man leave father, and mother, and brethren, and wife, and children and the rest, he is not my disciple,' this was not to make us hate our parents. It was to prevent our being led to follow the teaching of another faith at our fathers' and mothers' command, or to behaviour contrary to the Saviour's teaching.[/box]
The superfluous comment that these additions “contain no hidden meaning” indicates that Epiphanius himself was not content with, and perhaps not convinced by, the dismissal of the charges merely as interpolations. For the catholic church they reflect a heretical tradition about Jesus that would have been disturbing, not because false, but because of its plausibility within the overall scheme of the Jesus story and the Pauline corpus. As with so much of the heresiological literature against Marcion, the obsessive polemic and emotional intensity tell a darker story than what they actually have to say against him.

KLINGHARDT

The “Marcionite inclusion” at 23:2 (not something allegedly excised from Luke, but allegedly added to it by Marcion) about abolishing the Law and the Prophets is considered by Klinghardt a crucial piece of evidence for *Ev-priority. It is important to his argument because of (1) its critically significant theme, and (2) the strength and clarity of its manifestation in the textual tradition.

(1) Klinghardt on the thematic significance of *Ev 23:2
If Marcion was indeed interested in distancing his Jesus from the ‘law and prophets,’ then he could not — under any circumstances — have listed the charge of Jesus abolishing the law and prophets under the false accusations. Instead, he would have had to accentuate this charge positively; Adamantius and Isidore of Pelusium have done this quite pointedly in their reception of Marcion. Harnack and others did not comment on this aspect which so markedly contradicts their thesis of Luke-priority and Marcion’s associated alleged redaction. (p. 78)
This remark diametrically opposes the editorial interest alleged for Marcion. If — as presumed consistently from Tertullian all the way to Harnack and beyond! — Marcion’s antinomianism was one of his main theological concerns, it is simply incomprehensible why he should have added the accusation about dissolving the law and the prophets in his Gospel and placed it within a series of recognizably false charges by the adversaries; these, moreover, convincingly confirm that Jesus was not guilty of such ‘dissolving.’ Under the assumption of Luke-priority, this problem is completely inexplicable. Unsurprisingly, therefore, advocates of Luke-priority prefer to pass that problem over without commentary. (p. 1170)

Adamantius Dialogue 2:18 (830e)
[Marcus the Marcionite:] The Judaists wrote this, i.e. “I came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it.” However, Christ didn’t say that, but “I came not to fulfill the law but to abolish it.”

Isidore of Pelusium (early 5th century), ep 1371 (PG 78, 393A)
They [=Marcionites] do omit the word of the Lord which says: ‘I have not come to abolish the law or the prophets’ and they put instead, ‘Do you think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets? I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.”

Klinghardt on this Isidore quotation:
What makes this statement tricky is the beginning. Isidore could absolutely not have known any Lukan text at the beginning of the 5th century that would have contained the statement, “I have not come to abolish the law and the prophets.” Accordingly, the Marcionites could not have ‘obliterated’ this statement and ‘put’ something else in its place. Isidore’s comment, therefore, is no proof of a corresponding text of *Ev at the beginning of the 5th century. He rather substantiates a firm anti-Marcionite tradition. (p. 55)

(2) Klinghardt on the text-critical significance of *Ev 23:2 as evidence for *Ev-priority

The agreements between *Ev and the ‘Western’ witnesses are unambiguously documented for 23:2. This example is methodologically most significant in several aspects. Unlike the other documentations, consistently showing a ‘negative’ agreement of *Ev with *W* (Western tradition) against the majority text, this involves ‘positive’ agreements. *Ev, together with significant *W* manuscripts, presents a text that is longer than that of the majority text. …This positive agreement bears significant weight. (pp. 77-78)
Thus the two additional charges against Jesus at 23:2 are fundamental for the debate about *Ev-priority for two reasons:
  • a positive and specific unanimity between witnessed content *Ev and early catholic manuscript tradition
  • their exclusion from the canonical text, i.e., their status as overflows—not curtailments—of the canonical Jesus story
And the number of Old Latin manuscripts at issue is considerable—
For determining the editorial direction between *Ev and Luke, it is of vital importance that regarding 23:2 Epiphanius attests two ‘additions’ to *Ev in contrast to the canonical majority text; these additions also surface in the Old Latin tradition.

The first of these ‘overflows’ (καὶ καταλύοντα τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας) is beyond doubt. It is (with a marginal expansion) firmly attested by a large part of the Old Latin tradition:

et solventem legem [nostram: om c vg] et prophetas (b cc e ff2 gat i l q vg4 mss).


It should be noted here that D d do not contain this passage, and that they attest the shorter canonical text. That ambivalence with the ‘Western’ tradition, based on the inconsistent correction of the pre-canonical Gospel-text by canonical Luke, is unfailingly observed.

[There is a] substantive problem raised by the first accusation, that Jesus would dissolve the law and the prophets. The (unambiguous) attestation of this text for *Ev is remarkable in various aspects. Applicable is the fundamental insight that the infiltration of such readings into the catholic text can be explained only if they did not originate from a text deemed heretical, but if they go back to a previous, still pre-canonical, edition.
(pp. 1167f)
Regardless of how Klinghardt’s case is evaluated and by whom, I hope to have shown that it is neither incoherent nor easily dismissed.

I think his discussion of the substantive/‘thematic’ issue could have been clearer and more elaborate. My lingering questions—
  • did *Ev positively affirm, or deny, or merely evoke, the idea of Jesus abolishing the Law?
  • does the Tertullian/Harnack consensus image of “Marcion” as enemy of Judaism and the Law hold water against the evidence of 23:2?
  • does the Tertullian/Harnack consensus image of “Marcion” as “conservative” editor or curator, whose only objective was to purge received texts of Judaistic perversions that would have preceded him, hold water?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Giuseppe »

Indeed the presence of that accusation is a strong argument supporting the Marcionite priority: otherwise, why Marcion would have interpolated that accusation among false accusations?

Note that Mark copied from Marcion the presence, among false accusations, of a true accusation (that Jesus would have destroyed the temple and reconstrued it after days). It is 'true' at least in a spiritual sense.



The alternative is that it was not Marcion who interpolated that accusation among false accusations, but his same adversaries, since only so they could attack Marcion along the following lines:

by denying the Law given by God (YHWH), how can you claim to observe the laws of the Romans?

Remember that the same 'Barabbas' has marcionite associations in virtue of the name ("Son of Unknown Father", not YHWH), therefore the implication 'denial of Law and Prophets ----> revolt against Caesar' is well expected as part and parcel of the anti-marcionite polemic.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Irish1975 »

Jason BeDuhn (2013) flatly contradicts the factual premiss—


Irenaeus indicates that the Evangelion was shorter than the text of Luke known to him, a difference he attributes to Marcion “removing all that is written [in Luke] respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most clearly confessing that the maker of this universe is his Father” (AH I 27.2). Tertullian similarly refers to Marcion’s text as ‘adulterated’ and ‘mutiliated’ compared to Luke, but does not bother to provide much information on the differences. Epiphanius likewise refers to Marcion cutting or altering the text, and supplies some of the details of these textual differences a century and a half after Tertullian, listing passages of varying length missing from Marcion’s text compared to that of Luke, at least those that Epiphanius would have liked to cite against Marcion’s views. None of these witnesses [sc. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius] mention any additional material in the Evangelion that was not also found in Luke.

The First New Testament, p. 67

Neither the surrounding discussion nor his notes — unless I missed something — explain this assertion.

But then he takes the opposite tack in the notes to the reconstruction of 23:2, showing that he knows full well that Epiphanius “mentions additional material in the Evangelion”—
Epiphanius accuses Marcion of adding “and destroying the Law and the Prophets” in v.2, but the same reading is found in the majority of OL manuscripts, and was even carried over into the Vulgate, and it passed without comment in Tertullian; cf. Acts of Pilate 2 [?!!].
p. 190

What I just cited is the entirety of what BeDuhn has to say on the matter of 23:2. But if he accepts Epiphanius’ witness to the extent of including the “additional” charges against Jesus (abolishing Law & Prophets, etc) in his reconstruction of the Evangelion, then why does BeDuhn insinuate that it’s all some crazy Latin tradition, on par with the Acts of Pilate? Something that can be dismissed as not worthy of discussion? As much as I appreciate BeDuhn’s scholarship in general, his treatment of this obviously critical text is both equivocal and evasive. But I don’t know what else he has published about it since, and perhaps he will take a more credible approach in his forthcoming second edition.
Last edited by Irish1975 on Sat Aug 12, 2023 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by John2 »

Irish1975 wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 8:09 am
Also important for context—

Luke 16:16-17 (cf. Matthew 11:13)
Ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται μέχρι Ἰωάννου· ἀπὸ τότε ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγελίζεται καὶ πᾶς εἰς αὐτὴν βιάζεται. εὐκοπώτερον δέ ἐστιν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν παρελθεῖν ἢ τοῦ νόμου μίαν κεραίαν πεσεῖν.

The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters it violently. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become void.


—which both Tertullian and Epiphanius attest for *Ev,

This is an example of where a Hebrew Vorlage (and the extant Hebrew versions of Matthew) makes more sense than the Greek, since the word for "until" in Hebrew (ad) is similar to the word for "concerning" (al), with the difference between them being two easily mistaken letters (dalet and lamed).

This would be in keeping with what Jesus says in Mt. 11:11 and 11:14 ("Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist ... And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come").

It makes more sense to me for 11:13 to have originally said (in Hebrew) "For all the prophets and the law spoke concerning John," with a translator mistaking "concerning" for "until." And it would mean that "the prophets and the law" were still in effect after John (in keeping with Jesus' pro-Torah position elsewhere).

In my view, Luke used the NT Matthew and inherited this mistaken translation. So if Marcion's gospel also had "until," then his gospel would likewise be based in part on a faulty translation of the original Hebrew Matthew. This indicates to me that Marcion's gospel was a version of Luke (like Church writers say) and was not the first gospel.


https://www.google.com/books/edition/He ... frontcover
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2884
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by maryhelena »

Irish1975 wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 8:09 am According to Epiphanius (but not Tertullian), Marcion’s Gospel (*Ev) included two accusations against Jesus before Pilate, which are not found in the Lukan Gospel. One of these charges touches a critical and ambiguous theme in early Christianity: the dissolving (abolition, destruction) of the Law and the Prophets. (The other charge, about misleading women and children, is obscure and outside the scope of this thread.)
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:17 pm Luke 23.1-25 Evangelion 23:1-2, Jesus before Pilate

1 Καὶ ἀναστὰν ἅπαν τὸ πλῆθος αὐτῶν ἤγαγον αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸν Πειλᾶτον.
2 ἤρξαντο δὲ κατηγορεῖν αὐτοῦ λέγοντες
Τοῦτον εὕραμεν διαστρέφοντα τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν
καὶ καταλύοντα τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας,
κωλύοντα φόρους Καίσαρι διδόναι,
καὶ ἀποστρέφοντα τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ τὰ τέκνα,
καὶ λέγοντα ἑαυτὸν Χριστὸν βασιλέα εἶναι.
1 The whole company of them rose up and brought him before Pilate.
2 They began to accuse him, saying,
We found this man perverting the nation,
destroying [dissolving, abolishing] the law and the prophets,
forbidding paying taxes to Caesar,
misleading women and children,
and saying that he himself is Christ, a king.

This 5-fold indictment contrasts with Luke’s 3-fold indictment—

ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 23:1-2

1 Καὶ ἀναστὰν ἅπαν τὸ πλῆθος αὐτῶν ἤγαγον αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸν Πιλᾶτον.
2 Ἤρξαντο δὲ κατηγορεῖν αὐτοῦ λέγοντες·
τοῦτον εὕραμεν διαστρέφοντα τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν
καὶ κωλύοντα φόρους Καίσαρι διδόναι
καὶ λέγοντα ἑαυτὸν χριστὸν βασιλέα εἶναι.
Gospel According to Luke 23:1-2 (RSV)

1 Then the whole company of them arose, and brought him before Pilate.
2 And they began to accuse him, saying,
“We found this man perverting our nation,
and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar,
and saying that he himself is Christ a king.”

=snip=


KLINGHARDT

The “Marcionite inclusion” at 23:2 (not something allegedly excised from Luke, but allegedly added to it by Marcion) about abolishing the Law and the Prophets is considered by Klinghardt a crucial piece of evidence for *Ev-priority. It is important to his argument because of (1) its critically significant theme, and (2) the strength and clarity of its manifestation in the textual tradition.
Taking it as a given, that this verse is within the material attributed to Marcion and that there is no suggestion of it being an interpolation, this verse is simply a reflection of the position taken by the writer/writers of that material i.e. that the Jesus figure has been sent to destroy the Law and the prophets. The Law and the prophets being the realm of the evil god. The Marcion antithesis being utilized for the crucifixion story.

(I view Marcion as having in his possession earlier writings. i.e. that he is not the author of these writings)

Perhaps, the point that the writer/writers of the antithesis were making was not that the OT god was to be destroyed but that his time in the historical spotlight was over. 'Marcion's' evil god of the OT ended up, via the Pauline writings, being moved, as it were, to a new home, a new context. Methinks, without the evil god of the antithesis, the Pauline heavenly, outer-space, celestial crucifixion of 1 Cor. 2:8. would not have been possible. (My position is that there are two crucifixion stories in the NT - the gospel crucifixion on tera-firma and the Pauline crucifixion by the archons in a spiritual/philosophical context.)

Paul said, “the archons of this eon crucified” Jesus (1 Corinthians 2:8), language evocative of celestial demonic powers, while essentially saying the Roman authorities never would have done that

Carrier, Richard. Jesus from Outer Space (p. 136). Pitchstone Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Once, the Pauline writings had moved the evil god to a philosophical, intellectual context, the Lukan writers was able to drop the position of the Marcionite writings. The evil god was now safely confined to a context where 'evil' could be utilized for intellectual growth and evolution. The Law and the Prophets - reflecting basic requirements, principles, of human interaction, remain.

That's basically my thinking at the moment.....the evil god of the Marcion antithesis - the very foundation of the writings in procession of Marcion - needs to be brought into focus when considering the NT writings.


Sebastian Moll: The Arch Heretic Marcion
page 47

Marcion’s dualism forms without doubt the centre of his doctrine. The nature of this dualism does not seem to give rise to much doubt, either, ever since Harnack established his idea that Marcion distinguishes between a just and a good God, and thereby also established a scholarly consensus which lasted for almost a century. However, in the present chapter we shall see that this view is one of the greatest misconceptions concerning Marcion’s teaching, for the heresiarch’s distinction was in fact far less ‘protestant’ than Harnack imagined, as he simply distinguished between an evil and a good God.

1. The Evil God

While recent scholarship has correctly pointed out that Harnack’s perspective is due to his ‘Neoprotestant interpretation” of Marcion, it would be false to claim that there was no evidence in the sources to support his view of a just and a good God within Marcion’s system. As so often, the sources do not provide a coherent picture of Marcion’s doctrine in this matter; however, an extensive chronological overview of the sources’ testimony will show that Marcion’s original distinction was in fact between an evil and a good God, whereas the figure of the just God was only introduced by later generations of his followers.

A recent post of mine commenting on David Litwa's book : The Evil Creator.

As to the creator god being evil - methinks an 'evil' principle is a necessary part, not of human physical existence but of our intellectual capacity. We think up ideas - and whether or not they are good or bad ideas, sooner or later the ideas will be 'taken out' by better, more useful ideas. Which is basically to say that destruction is a creator's prerogative. Thus, an 'evil god' is a big part of our human condition. (evil in the physical sense is obviously inhumane). The OT - with all it's stories of destruction of Israelite enemies - is simply giving voice to the 'evil' principle that has enabled humans to be intellectually where we are today.

What the New Testament story has done is demonstrate that the OT principle of a negative dualism, an evil god, is replaced, on terra firma, by a positive dualism between man and man - neither Jew nor Greek. Which basically points to a god of love, of love of neighbour. A reversal of sorts, a new Jerusalem on earth.

It is of course not a choice between these two gods, the evil god and the god of love. Both have their place, both have their context in which they can be of value. The OT god and the NT god are not antagonists when confined to their own context, a context in which each can have value.

Perhaps it's time for the 'evil god' to demonstrate that he still has the power to destroy - to destroy any ideas that are contributing to the disastrous political situation the world now faces. Or is it always going to be a case that we never learn.....yep, we need food in our bellies - but without ideas of value in our heads - we will not only stagnate but become immune to any intellectual spark that strives for growth. More love in the world is not the answer - ideas are needed - that old 'evil god' is needed to do some intellectual housekeeping....

=========================

David Litwa

As my argument now draws to a close, I want to offer a practical suggestion regarding terminology that might in some way help us to surmount the current impasse about the use of “Gnosis” or “gnostic” as a global term. I propose that we call the idea (or ideology) of an evil creator, present in several early Christian groups, “negative demiurgy.”

“Negative demiurgy” is more precise and thus more useful as an analytical tool and comparative category. In the second century CE, it would describe the views of Marcionite and Sethian Christians, for instance—neither of whom we need call “gnostic” in a global sense. Negative demiurgy, I think, should not be understood as the central idea of a separate religion or religious phenomenon. Instead, I take it as a particular view possible in several discrete traditions, though mostly within what I would prefer to call summodeistic faiths (including early Judaism and Christianity).20 It is, to be sure, a minority position in the Abrahamic traditions. Yet it should not be left unstudied, not only since it is important for early Christian history and the history of biblical interpretation, also because it is alive and well in modern times.

The Evil Creator Today

A key inspiration for negative demiurgy in contemporary discourse is—once again—Christian scripture.21 This time, however, the most vocal critics of the biblical creator are not alternative Christian theologians but humanists and freethinkers still endeavoring to detach politics, science, and education from the structures of religious ideology. In so doing, they continue the project of the Enlightenment, which proved so influential for the founding of Western democracies.

Litwa, M. David. The Evil Creator (p. 303). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10472

Bottom line - the evil god of destruction - the very god that is at the heart of the writing attributed to Marcion - perhaps needs to demonstrate that power once again.....Stagnant thinking re the NT needs a strong push to get a move along... ;)
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by mlinssen »

Irish1975 wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 8:09 am
  • did *Ev positively affirm, or deny, or merely evoke, the idea of Jesus abolishing the Law?
  • does the Tertullian/Harnack consensus image of “Marcion” as enemy of Judaism and the Law hold water against the evidence of 23:2?
  • does the Tertullian/Harnack consensus image of “Marcion” as “conservative” editor or curator, whose only objective was to purge received texts of Judaistic perversions that would have preceded him, hold water?
Let's assume a positive answer to the first question

- Ev positively affirms the idea of Jesus abolishing the Law
- (because) Marcion is an enemy of Judaism and the Law
- and most certainly "had purged received" texts of Judaistic perversions in the sense that his text(s) contained only anti-Judaic elements and surely not what the canonicals added

*Ev was very anti-Judaic, and this just one of the stronger examples of that
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2884
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by maryhelena »

mlinssen wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 12:26 pm
Irish1975 wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 8:09 am
  • did *Ev positively affirm, or deny, or merely evoke, the idea of Jesus abolishing the Law?
  • does the Tertullian/Harnack consensus image of “Marcion” as enemy of Judaism and the Law hold water against the evidence of 23:2?
  • does the Tertullian/Harnack consensus image of “Marcion” as “conservative” editor or curator, whose only objective was to purge received texts of Judaistic perversions that would have preceded him, hold water?
Let's assume a positive answer to the first question

- Ev positively affirms the idea of Jesus abolishing the Law
- (because) Marcion is an enemy of Judaism and the Law
- and most certainly "had purged received" texts of Judaistic perversions in the sense that his text(s) contained only anti-Judaic elements and surely not what the canonicals added

*Ev was very anti-Judaic, and this just one of the stronger examples of that
I don't find an anti-Judaic interpretation in the least bit useful.....

The evil god in the antithesis, in possession of Marcion, does not make it's writer anti-Jewish. It makes the writer a Jewish philosopher acknowledging that a negative dualism between Jew and Greek was not a humanitarian approach to living on terra-firma. Pauline philosophy developed Marcoin's negative dualistic philosophy with his Jesus/Christ figure crucified by evil rulers in outer space...

Yes, the evil god idea/philosophy left itself open to misinterpretation. Even today, scholars have had difficulty with attributing evil to a god.

I propose that we call the idea (or ideology) of an evil creator, present in several early Christian groups, “negative demiurgy.” The related phrase “biblical demiurgy,” as proposed by Michael A. Williams in 1996, was generally not accepted by scholars.19 I myself understand it to be overly vague—since effectively it could apply to all theories of the biblical creator, whether he is viewed as good, evil, or as something in between. “Negative demiurgy” is more precise and thus more useful as an analytical tool and comparative category.

=========

Marcion and the Making of a Heretic: God and Scripture in the Second Century Judith M. Lieu

20 Lieu maintains that for Marcion the creator is not evil but the source of evils (Marcion, 347–49). Nevertheless, if she admits that for Marcion the creator makes evils, that he is jealous and is therefore characterized by “ignorant hubris” (340), that he is “severe, ignorant . . . capricious . . . petty, a lover of war” (347), that he is “angry, jealous, proud, and angry” (as in Tertullian AM 2.16.3), and if these adjectives describe the creator’s character (in accordance with Lieu’s subtitle and discussion beginning on her Marcion, 337), then it is hard to see how the creator, for Marcion, is not wicked. Lieu avoids asserting that for Marcion the creator is evil is because she is concerned that such an assertion will make Marcion “a principled dualist” (348). Yet Marcion was hardly a “principled dualist” if, as I argue, the creator was not considered to be a true deity.

Litwa, M. David. The Evil Creator (p. 124). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

It's Sebastian Moll who has clearly stated that the evil god idea was the original idea of the anti-thesis - and that a just god idea was a later addition.
an extensive chronological overview of the sources’ testimony will show that Marcion’s original distinction was in fact between an evil and a good ...God, whereas the figure of the just God was only introduced by later generations of his followers.

The point of this thread is about ''abolishing] the law and the prophets,''. The Marcion story about this charge being raised against it's Jesus figure is one thing - to move from that to the Jesus figure being anti-Judaic is not warranted. The arrival of new knowledge is always indebted to past knowledge. The past is never done away with - some element of it survives in the new. (thesis, antithesis and synthesis.) For christians the OT Law and prophets were no longer to serve as their code of conduct - but Law remains as part and parcel of the human condition. Freedom from Law is primarily and intellectual pursuit.

The arrival of the new christian dispensation, the arrival of new knowledge, did not destroy the god of the OT Law and prophets idea. The principle of a negative dualism, of a negative or evil god was moved, as it were, to a purely spiritual/intellectual or philosophical context. Or in the NT language - the new Jerusalem came down to earth allowing the old Jerusalem to replace it in the spiritual/intellectual context. A negative dualism, an evil god, has no place on terra-firma. The new christian dispensation is one of a positive dualism - a principle better placed to function between man and man.

'Marcion's' evil god is fundamental to understanding christian philosophy. In fact, whether christians like it or not, it's this evil god, this god of negative dualism - or as Litwa would label it - “Negative demiurgy' - that has produced the heretics of yesterday and today....

It's not people bashing that is the mark of our humanity - it's bashing, crucifying, those old ideas that seek to retain their long gone glory days...
Last edited by maryhelena on Sun May 28, 2023 2:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Irish1975 wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 8:09 amRegardless of how Klinghardt’s case is evaluated and by whom, I hope to have shown that it is neither incoherent nor easily dismissed.
Thanks Irish for the interesting post. Yes, Klinghardt's argument sounds reasonable.

Just my 2 cents

1)
Irish1975 wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 8:09 amAccording to Epiphanius (but not Tertullian), Marcion’s Gospel (*Ev) included two accusations against Jesus before Pilate, which are not found in the Lukan Gospel. One of these charges touches a critical and ambiguous theme in early Christianity: the dissolving (abolition, destruction) of the Law and the Prophets.
Stuart recently made me aware that the Marconite text, like the Catholic text, can have different text variants. It seems to me that Epiphanius' reading of GMarcion 23:2 could be such a textual variant.
Stuart wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 9:30 pmClabeaux also pretty much demolished the notion of a Western text type, or any specific text type for that matter, being closely related to the Marcionite text. Marcionite readings, many of which are more likely reflect local textual variants than specific Marcionite readings (again per Clabeaux; the texts of the Marcionites varied as much as the Catholics).
Tertullian, writing about 207 CE, discussed GMarcion 23:2 but did not give this reading. The very old Papyrus 75 (Bodmer) has the Lukan version. Tertullian's silence could be a good argument that “his” text of GMarcion did not contain this variant.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:17 pmLuke 23.1-25, to Pilate, Jesus before Pilate and Herod.
Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.42.1: ... [1] For when He was brought before Pilate, they proceeded to urge Him with the serious charge , of declaring Himself to be Christ the King; that is, undoubtedly, as the Son of God, who was to sit at God's right hand. ...

The Panarion of Epiphanius, written around 374, knew this reading. This could correspond to the fact that the Latin Codex Palatinus, which may be the earliest witness to the reading, is usually dated to the end of the 4th century or the 5th century. The following is a snipet from Tischendorf’s copy.
Palatinos.jpg
Palatinos.jpg (95.94 KiB) Viewed 1047 times


2)
Irish1975 wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 8:09 am(2) Klinghardt on the text-critical significance of *Ev 23:2 as evidence for *Ev-priority
The agreements between *Ev and the ‘Western’ witnesses are unambiguously documented for 23:2. This example is methodologically most significant in several aspects. Unlike the other documentations, consistently showing a ‘negative’ agreement of *Ev with *W* (Western tradition) against the majority text, this involves ‘positive’ agreements. *Ev, together with significant *W* manuscripts, presents a text that is longer than that of the majority text. …This positive agreement bears significant weight. (pp. 77-78)
I think Klinghardt exaggerates when he speaks of the "Western" text in this case. He has a few Old Latin witnesses, but - as far as I know - not a single Greek codex or papyrus.

3)
I find it a bit weak that Klinghardt doesn't discuss an obvious counter-argument. In the Synoptics Jesus is accused before the Sanhedrin for religious "crimes", but before the Roman Pilate for political or social "crimes". This structure could suggest that the contradicting text variant (accusation for religious "crimes" before Pilate) is a later addition.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Secret Alias »

Why do people continue to speak of "the Marcionite text" here? We don't have the Marcionite text. So when did we last "see" the Marcionite text? Likely somewhere in Armenia or Osroene or some border region of the Roman Empire. Tertullian never saw the text. He just copied out some commentary related to Marcionism where the author was making a Papias-like comparison with Matthew and accusing Marcion of removing "essential" things from Matthew which was later (likely by Irenaeus in his lost Against Marcion) transformed into an argument on behalf of Luke being the ur-Marcion gospel (and then a subsequent line by line "study" of Luke to see if it says what Marcion claimed about his gospel). Epiphanius "claims" of course to have had the Marcionite gospel in his possession. Oh sure. But he also claims to have met orgiastic Christians with their holy writings that are mostly regarded as spurious. Also if you look carefully at Epiphanius's citation of material from the Marcionite "Apostle" IN THE MAIN SECTION of the Panarion he follows the Eastern ordering of the Pauline writings (i.e. Galatians, 1 Corinthians etc) BUT IN THE ACTUAL SECTION where he gives citations it follows a completely ordering of letters, one that has never been followed in any ordering of any Pauline Epistles I have ever seen. How can this be explained? I think Epiphanius knew Irenaeeus's Against Marcion (the predecessor of Tertullian's Latin text) and used it in his chapter on Marcion but he received a letter or information from someone who claimed to have had the Marcionite canon in his possession and used it specifically for the section on the Apostle. No one we know ever saw the Marcionite canon.

The Church Fathers often remind me of an insecure boy. "I am the best at everything, I know everything, everything else sucks." But then when they actually have to report on something or explain something they usually do a shitty job.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Klinghardt on ‘abolishing the Law & Prophets’

Post by Secret Alias »

The Marcionite canon is kind of like gravity. Most people can see gravity at work when they drop something on the ground. But just because you can describe things falling to the ground it doesn't mean that you understand gravity. EXCEPT for religious scholars who like to pretend that WHATEVER WE DO KNOW ABOUT SOMETHING IS ALL THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT THAT SUBJECT. "Yes gravity is just things falling to the ground."
Post Reply