This 5-fold indictment contrasts with Luke’s 3-fold indictment—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.”
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)—
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—
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—
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.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]
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)
[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
Thus the two additional charges against Jesus at 23:2 are fundamental for the debate about *Ev-priority for two reasons: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)
- 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
Regardless of how Klinghardt’s case is evaluated and by whom, I hope to have shown that it is neither incoherent nor easily dismissed.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)
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?