The Demiurge or Evil Creator God in the Evangelion

[maryhelena]

To clarify the initial question: I am asking if it is unambiguously stated anywhere in the text of the Evangelion (according to the reconstructions of BeDuhn, Roth, or Klinghardt) that the God of Israel is definitely to be distinguished from the Father (the 'good god") referred to by Jesus.

I am not asking if Marcionites interpreted the texts of the Evangelion that way. I am sure they did, or at least were reported to have done so by the so-called orthodox fathers (e.g., Tertullian).

To put it another way, I am not asking if there are texts in the Evangelion can be interpreted in a Marcionite framework (good high God vs. evil creator of the material world who is the God of Israel), I am asking if that framework is ever explicitly described in the text.

If it's the OT god you are looking for in the Marconite gospel, then, methinks, you are looking in the wrong place. The gospel attributed to Marcion is not a gospel designed to highlight the OT god - a god generally viewed as being a god of 'evil', a god of negative dualism. 'Chosen people' clearly a reflection of that god's negativity. Arguments about the nature of god - and in particular the OT god - were, seemingly, of interest to Marcion. That he was in possession of an anti-thesis is evidence of that. As old as the hills one could say - what is god, what is the nature of god. To think these questions were not of interest - and of considerable concern - to the writers of the NT would be inexcusable. Yes, of course, that debate is ongoing - and perhaps never to be resolved. Dawkins had his own take on the OT god.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Perhaps one way to look at the gospel problem - i.e. in what order were these books composed - is to consider numbers used in their storytelling. Yes, placing all the Greek words into a computer program will most likely demonstrate how many voices are involved, how many hands played their part in writing the gospel stories. Maybe some words are from an earlier time than a later time. Perhaps all the gospels have had additions and subtractions. Perhaps it's all one big mix up, a giant puzzle of who did what where and when. I don't know Greek. What I do know is that the gospel story has a structure, a structure using a specific template - variations on a theme of Daniel ch.9. I think once the numbers are followed that a pattern can emerge as to which order the gospel story should be read.

Where to find the OT god of evil, of negative dualism if not in Marcion's gospel - you'll find him loud and clear in the gospel of Matthew.

II: 21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, on the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I tell you that on the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom than for you.

25: 31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.'

37 Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?' 40 And the king will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.' 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44 Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?' 45 Then he will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Jesus is either a schizophrenic or a composite literary figure. A composite literary figure that can not only represent more than one historical figure - but also can reflect both the OT evil god and the NT god who wants us all to turn the other cheek and to love our enemies. Perhaps, it's this tension, in all of us, that allows the gospels of John and the gospel attributed to Marcion, to concentrate, highlight, the 'new' god of positive dualism. Leaving the gospel of Matthew to retain a place for the OT god of 'evil'.

Below is a chart to demonstrate how I think the gospels have managed to retain a role for the 'evil' god of the OT while giving preferential treatment to the NT god of love your enemies. The Pauline story, with its celestial, outer-space, crucifixion story, is allowing the OT evil god prominence within a spiritual/philosophical context.

Gospel: Theology/Philosophy focus	Gospel: history/dating structure focus
Gospel of John: Jesus not yet 50 years old. Use of Daniel ch.9 and it's 70 weeks of years. 7 x 7 = 49 years. Utilizing this numbers formula as a time frame in which to set out the gospel story. Time of Pilate. Suggesting a birth narrative early in the rule of Herod. → →→	Gospel of Matthew version One. Slavonic Josephus: Birth narrative prior to the 15th year of Herod, 25 b.c. 490 years back to 515 b.c. and temple rededicating. Acts of Pilate, crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius, 21 c.e.
Gospel attributed to Marcion. 15th year of Tiberius, 29/30 c.e. 7 years from 7th year of Tiberius, 21/22 c.e. Pilate governor of Judea. 70 years back to 40 b.c. and Herod. → →→	Gospel of Matthew version Two. Archelaus added; Jesus a young child on return from Egypt. Suggestion a birth narrative late in the time of Herod. Archelaus 4 b.c. to 6 c.e. Gospel Jesus becomes a younger man in the 15th year of Tiberius.
	Gospel of Luke. 15th year of Tiberius back to Lysanias of Abilene in 40 b.c. Removal of Archelaus and arrival of Quirinius census. Birth narrative 6 c.e. 70 years back to 63 b.c. Jesus figure about 30 years old in 15th year of Tiberius. Requiring a second birth narrative in 1 b.c. ..Two birth narratives allowing for a crucifixion date in 30 c.e. or 36/37 c.e. Tiberius 14 - 37 c.e. Gospel Jesus story ends 77 years after 40 b.c.
Gospel of Mark. No useful historical markers, aside from Pilate. Perhaps designed for public reading or play. A synopsis or abstract designed to be all things to all people. All well and good - but the gospel story is bigger, and more troublesome, when read from the beginning.

A recent post of mine on the gospels.

Philo, Pilate, Tiberius and the Gospel of John

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10457&p=150109#p150109

[mlinssen]

Are there texts in any of the major recent reconstructions of the Evangelion (BeDuhn, Roth, Klinghardt) that clearly distinguish the Father to whom Jesus refers from the God of Israel of the Hebrew Bible/Jewish Scriptures/Old Testament, or distinguish Jesus' Father from the creator of the material world?

If so, what are they?

Thanks,

Ken

Not that I know of

You really should include Bilby by the way, as his work is beautifully open and verifiable - and in general views and presents everything from the top level down through to the very bottom. While old-fashioned research on *Ev often gives the impression that line-by-line the various texts are juxtaposed and analysed, Bilby provides us all with a helicopter view as well.
Especially the 3.7. Indexed Data Dictionary: Vocal Strata Profiles is invaluable

Naturally we have a lot of comments by Tertullian about the creator that do what you inquire after, but I presume you distinguish between the two

[Ken Olson]

PS Satan is called the 'god of this aeon' in 2 Cor. 4.4, and the 'ruler of this cosmos' in John 12.31.

Are you aware, true, that in the Marcionite version of 2 Corinthians 4:4 "the god of this world" blinds people from Christ's glory and therefore he can only be a designation for the demiurge. If I remember well, Vinzent's point is that it is the older reading.

As to the parable, you have not explained at all, not even on a level of mere interpretation, why the opposition is between two objects (trees) uniquely from the point of view of their ability to create something.

In addition, how do you explain the fact that the Jesus's answer before the Pilate's question "are you the king of the Jews?" is "you say so", raising the suspicion that the implicit continuation of the same answer is: "I don't".

Your argument was not strong to begin with and is getting worse.

(1) I put the comment about the way 2 Cor 4.4 and John 12.31 in a postscript because it is not relevant to the main topic of this thread - whether there are passages in the Evangelion (in the reconstructions of BeDuhn, Roth, and Klinghardt) that clearly distinguish between the High God of Father preaches by Jesus and the God of the Israel/Demiurge.

(2) I wrote that, according to Klinghardt (and I agree), the metaphor about the trees in 6.43 is explained by applying it to the anthropos in 6.45 (i.e., the anthropos is the referent which is represented by the trees in the metaphor).

The additional consideration you bring up is about 'creating something' is easily answered, as the same metaphor of bearing fruit is applied to persons is Luke 3.8-9:

Luke 3.8 Bear fruits that befit repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 9 Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

Therefore the metaphor about bearing good or bad fruit can readily be applied to persons.

(3) The question about Jesus answer before Pilate is also irrelevant to the question of this thread.

Best,

Ken

PS I am primarily interested in getting Klinghardt's arguments right and analyzing them. Convincing Giuseppe of something of which he does not wish to be convinced is probably beyond my powers.

[Secret Alias]

As Marcion is Jewish (or Marcionism derives from Jewish thought) it would be surprising that the Devil would have a prominent role in the religion.

[mlinssen]

As Marcion is Jewish (or Marcionism derives from Jewish thought) it would be surprising that the Devil would have a prominent role in the religion.

I know that you want need that to be the case, but the very opposite is true

Can you provide me with 3 main "Jewish" points in Marcion / Marcionism?

[Secret Alias]

Why do I want this to be the case? Because my mother is Jewish? Really? How many Jews want Hitler to be Jewish because they are Jewish?

But here goes anyway.

1. Marcion's two powers = Philo's two powers. Philo was the face of Judaism in Alexandria.
2. As Trobisch noted to me at our German dinner, expertise on the Law implies Jewishness. (like American X the movie)
3. His understanding of Jesus as a "phantasma" comes from Josephus's understanding of the mysterious "man" who wrestles with Jacob.
4. the very idea of a narrative where the god who gave the ten commandments comes "unknown" to Jews (who are supposed to know him). Has a Jesus of Montreal feel to it.
5. the original Jewish tradition held that God only gave the ten commandments. Moses gave the rest. To argue against Moses's laws in favor of "god-given commandments" would make the Jew who thought this seem "anti-Jewish."
6. there were Jews who were against the building of permanent physical buildings to "house" god. They were called Dositheans. Christianity allegedly spawned from Dositheus according to more than one ancient source (or at least heretical Christianity).
7. there were Jews who opposed the slaughter of animals (based on 5 above).
8. there were those who argued that circumcision was not required because of 5.
9. there is no requirement for rest on the Sabbath in its short form (the form that was likely originally written on the replica memorials in the various houses of worship) Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy.
10. the underlying supposition would be that Marcionism was partial to the ten commandments and viewed these as "god given" but juxtaposed the sacredness of these commandments with those given on only the authority of Moses.

Do you need more? That was written in a minute.

[Irish1975]

My banal observation:

If proto-Luke is only passed through the hands of Marcion, then it had to have received some anti-demiurgic bits.

The hands of Marcion had to be even only slightly dirty.

Do you think, otherwise, that Marcion was a saint man?

Of course not Giuseppe. But it seems like you are wedded to the criminal sketch of Marcion perpetrated by Irenaeus. Why must Marcion’s hands have been “even only slightly dirty”? I don’t know what you mean by that exactly, but a good detective is objective about forensic evidence, and doesn’t bring moralistic prejudices into an investigation. Since we have no writings of Marcion and only an evolving corpus of incoherent ecclesiastical slander, the prevailing mythology of Marcion (Harnack’s) must be rejected. There is no other way.

[Giuseppe]

PS I am primarily interested in getting Klinghardt's arguments right and analyzing them.

I don't think that it is a betrayal of Klinghardt's view, to think that what provoked the fabrication of Mark, Matthew, Luke-Acts and John was the presence of a proto-Luke + the marcionite interpretation applied on it.

This to say that, for all the practical goals, only the mix (a proto-Luke + a marcionite interpretation of it) really matters.

An example: Klinghardt thinks that the baptism of Jesus by John was interpolated because of the coincidential conjunction of two facts:

• proto-Luke had only a descent from above

• a guy (Marcion) interpreted it as evidence that Jesus was alien and not Jewish.

[maryhelena]

My banal observation:

If proto-Luke is only passed through the hands of Marcion, then it had to have received some anti-demiurgic bits.

The hands of Marcion had to be even only slightly dirty.

Do you think, otherwise, that Marcion was a saint man?

Of course not Giuseppe. But it seems like you are wedded to the criminal sketch of Marcion perpetrated by Irenaeus. Why must Marcion’s hands have been “even only slightly dirty”? I don’t know what you mean by that exactly, but a good detective is objective about forensic evidence, and doesn’t bring moralistic prejudices into an investigation. Since we have no writings of Marcion and only an evolving corpus of incoherent ecclesiastical slander, the prevailing mythology of Marcion (Harnack’s) must be rejected. There is no other way.

It seems to me that you might be attempting to save Marcoin from himself...
That an evil OT god is not the focus of the Marcoin gospel does not mean that the OT evil god was of no interest to him. Are you really attempting to discredit the antithesis. Yes it's words on a page, as are the words of the reconstructed gospel. But surely it's too simplistic to accept one set of words and not the other....

Marcoin is said to uphold two gods. The OT evil god and the NT turn the other cheek god. Two principles necessary for human progress. A negative and a positive dualism.
The issue is the context in which these two god/principles function for best value. To deprive Marcoin of his two gods is to stifle NT research.

[Irish1975]

PS I am primarily interested in getting Klinghardt's arguments right and analyzing them.

Maybe you can comment sometime on the argument from 23:2, which I tried to outline and clarify.

An example: Klinghardt thinks that the baptism of Jesus by John was interpolated because of the coincidential conjunction of two facts:

• proto-Luke had only a descent from above

• a guy (Marcion) interpreted it as evidence that Jesus was alien and not Jewish.

I think that’s not right. Klinghardt thinks that the evidence for the verb for “came down” is ambiguous, suggesting either a heavenly descent, or just ordinary human travel, but not decisively one or the other. See p. 516ff.