The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by Giuseppe »

Note that the pattern (of making Jesus more cruel, against Marcion's do-goodism), is found particularly in the following Mark's episode (5:13):

So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine, and the herd, numbering about two thousand, stampeded down the steep bank into the sea and were drowned in the sea.

In Mcn, the unclean spirits don't have a bad end. "Jesus gave them permission". Period.

He is so good that he forgives even the demons!
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by Sinouhe »

@giuseppe

I think that your criterion based on your opinion of what Matthew or Mark think about Marcion, is subjective and therefore less relevant than a detailed analysis of the texts.

These analyses reveals textual alterations or unintentional errors on the part of Marcion when he is altering Mark's text or Matthew.

I will not insist any further, but I am for my part now convinced that the Marcion priority is not a tenable hypothesis. At least not with the text of Marcion that we have in the church fathers.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by Giuseppe »

Without polemic, I have noted, Sinohue, that your certainty is based on the not-existence of Q, since I see that you quote Goodacre again and again.

If you leave room for doubt about the Goodacre's claim that the problems that have raised the hypothesis Q are not true problems, then I think that you would become virtually more open to consider that Mcn resolves the problems as and better than Q (since Mcn existed, Q is only a hypothesis).
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by Giuseppe »

maryhelena wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 8:01 am That Marcoin's gospel has no birth narrative does not make a gospel with a birth narrative anti-Marcoin.
No, it does. The genealogies in Matthew and Luke prove that the birth stories have the function of connecting Jesus even more strongly with the OT scriptures than never imagined by a mere birth story. Sometimes, with a curious paradox as corollary: how when the genealogies arrive until to Joseph, the mere putative father of Jesus, hence annulling, de facto, the presumed prophetical value of a such genealogy.

Even the Ascension of Isaiah as reconstructed by Norelli, i.e. with a birth for Jesus, even if a docetic birth, well, even that is partially anti-marcionite, according to prof Vinzent.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by mlinssen »

Sinouhe wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 7:49 am
mlinssen wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 6:18 am 2) As you can see in viewtopic.php?p=137976#p137976 Bezae has (κράβαττον) in Luke...

Klinghardt formed the working assumption at some point that was NA in fact has done at points is to establish the earliest gospel - which is *Ev in his very well reasoned opinion

1) Likewise for Luke 4:16, look at the tons of MSS that have something else but Nazara:
3) only Epiphanius attests to this in Marcion, none of the others do (Klinghardt page 1154-5)
Personally, I prefer to rely on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus codex which are older than the Bezae.
I referred to Bezae for 2), yet to "tons of MSS that have something else but Nazara" for 1)...
But of course, if we look, thanks to the harmonization of the scribes that has been done on certain gospels, we will find manuscripts that will agree with the other gospels. I don't think that our purpose and our interest should be to look in manuscripts if we find harmonizations of certain terms that are lacking in the older manuscripts.
Bezae has been created / produced in relatively splendid isolation. As the dating of these 3 MSS is purely palaeographical, it is wise to look at the content itself:

The following nomina sacra are written in an abbreviated form: ΙΗΣ (Ιησους, Iēsous), ΧΡΣ (Χριστος, Christos), ΠΑΡ (πατηρ, patēr), ΣΤΗ (σταυρωθη, staurōthē). Other words which usually feature among the nomina sacra are written out in full: μητερ, υιος, σωτηρ, ανθρωπος, ουρανος, δαυιδ, Ισραηλ, Ιηρουσαλημ (mēter, huios, sōter, anthrōpos, ouranos, David, Israēl, Iērousalēm)

Hardly any NS, and IhS contains the eta

Issues of conformity have dogged the usage of the codex in biblical scholarship. "In general the Greek text is treated as an unreliable witness," but it is "an important corroborating witness wherever it agrees with other early manuscripts."

LOL
4) the whole feeding of the 5 thousand is hardly attested. Yet there no comment at all about the plural crowds. 9:12 in NA is divided into plural and singular, and again Bezae is among those who have singular crowds
5) the whole feeding of the 5 thousand is hardly attested.
What do you mean by that ? I find the feeding of the thousand in Marcion here : http://gnosis.org/library/marcion/Tert5.html#AM213
No, what you find there is a tiny phrase mentioning feeding of crowds, followed by a complete absence of any description of any of it
First one then: it is clear that Mark sees the missing word in Marcion and goes through a lot of cringing trouble to insert the house:
Matthew reads Marcion, the mess that Mark made, and decides to get rid of it all just as he cuts short the blame game of the resurrection story. Naturally he finishes Luke who says nothing but the people carrying the paralytic upon a house across the tiles
It could be. Why not. But it still don't explain this :

Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 08.40.08.png

Goodacre
It might be added, as further evidence from the same pericope, thatLuke MARCION has the scribes and the Pharisees debating not, as in Mark, 'in their hearts' (en taiV kardiaiV autwn, Mark 2.6) but, apparently, aloud (dialogizesqai . . . legonteV, Luke MARCION 5.21). This is in spite of the fact that Jesus goes on to question them, in both Luke MARCION and Mark, why they have been debating 'in' their 'hearts' (en taiV kardiaiV umwn, Mark 2.8 // Luke MARCION 5.22). (19) The latter phrase has simply come in, by fatigue, from Mark. (20)

and other examples provided by Goodacre, which I think he got from Goulder and another one I have forgotten.
Roth:

Luke 5:20–21 4.10.1—. . . qui dicturi erant: Quis dimittet peccata nisi solus deus? | 4.10.13— Nam cum Iudaei, solummodo hominem eius intuentes, . . . merito retractarent non posse hominem delicta dimittere, sed deum solum, . . . | 4.10.14—[the Son of Man] consecutum iudicandi potestatem, ac per eam utique et dimittendi delicta—qui enim iudicat, et absoluit—, ut scandalo isto discusso per scriptu-rae recordationem facilius eum agnoscerent ipsum esse filium hominis ex ipsa peccatorum remissione. Denique nusquam adhuc professus est se filium hominis quam in isto loco primum in quo primum peccata dimisit, id est in quo primum iudicavit, dum absolvit. | Bapt. 10.3—Sed neque peccata dimittit neque spiritum indulget nisi solus deus. | Bapt. 12.8—. . . remittuntur tibi peccata . . . | Pud. 21.2— Quis enim dimittit delicta, ni solus Deus?

Tertullian’s comments in 4.10.13, 14 seem to require Jesus’ words in v. 20, though no reading can be reconstructed. The brief reference in Bapt. 12.8 that appears to refer to Luke 5:20//Matt 9:2//Mark 2:5 also provides no real point of comparison for Marcion’s text. Tertullian’s testimony to the final element in Luke 5:21 occurs twice in 4.10. It is worth noting that in the citation in 4.10.1 there is no reference to the ability (δύναται) to forgive sins; however, in 4.10.13 this element is attested.53 Its absence in the former citation should not be used to posit an omission in Marcion’s text as neither the citation of Luke 5:21//Mark 2:7 in Pud. 21.2, nor the apparent allusion to this verse in Bapt. 10.3 contains a direct reference to the ability or power to forgive sins. In addition, the use of the future dimittet in 4.10.1 could be due to Tertullian’s citation habit, in spite of his writing dimittit in Pud. 21.2 and Bapt. 10.3. Thus, Harnack is probably generally correct in reconstructing δύναται ἀφεῖναι ἁμαρτίας εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ θεός.54 It should be noted, though, that the reading ἀφεῖναι ἁμαρτίας is elsewhere unat-tested. B, D, and Ξ read ἁμαρτίας ἀφεῖναι and all other witnesses read ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας, as in Mark 2:7. Tertullian also varies the word order in his citations, and thus no firm decision can be made on whether Marcion read an aorist or present infinitive or on the order of the elements in his text.

Klinghardt:
20220523_193806_1.jpg
20220523_193806_1.jpg (931.74 KiB) Viewed 1269 times
The "in their hearts" is a variant in Bezae and another handful MSS, and omitted in yet another handful

Where does Goodacre get his idea what Marcion contained here?
Both Roth and Klinghardt come up with nothing in this particular regard:

5:20 [4.4.4]—[Attested but no insight into wording can be gained] 5:21 [4.4.4]— . . . τίς [δύναται likely present] {ἀφεῖναι ἁμαρτίας} εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ θεός.

What does Goodacre cite in order to verify his bold claim here?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by mlinssen »

Sinouhe wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 8:03 am
Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 5:55 am I would do it more willingly if Matthew was removed entirely from the discussion. :confusedsmiley:
This example is terrible for Marcion priority over Matthew :

Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 18.02.21.png
Sinouhe, can you please stop making wild and crazy assumptions like these?
No one attests to the ten minas in Marcion - or rather, they attest to its very absence

It is very dumb to assume that Luke equates to Marcion: of that were the case, every single letter by Tertullian, Epiphanius and the rest would be completely untrue as there would be not a single difference between the two
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 9:47 am
maryhelena wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 8:01 am That Marcoin's gospel has no birth narrative does not make a gospel with a birth narrative anti-Marcoin.
No, it does. The genealogies in Matthew and Luke prove that the birth stories have the function of connecting Jesus even more strongly with the OT scriptures than never imagined by a mere birth story. Sometimes, with a curious paradox as corollary: how when the genealogies arrive until to Joseph, the mere putative father of Jesus, hence annulling, de facto, the presumed prophetical value of a such genealogy.

Even the Ascension of Isaiah as reconstructed by Norelli, i.e. with a birth for Jesus, even if a docetic birth, well, even that is partially anti-marcionite, according to prof Vinzent.
One Jesus is given a Jewish birth narrative. Another Jesus came down from heaven. Two Jesus stories. Two very different contexts. Choosing between them is as illogical as choosing between our human nature...... body and spirit are two very different aspects of our human nature - and function accordingly. Relationship, interaction but never assimilation.

Marcion is as fundamental to Pauline theology/philosophy as Paul is to Christianity.

Anti-Marcoin is not the way forward......
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by Giuseppe »

maryhelena wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 10:11 am

One Jesus is given a Jewish birth narrative. Another Jesus came down from heaven. Two Jesus stories.
if the first Jesus is a reaction to the second Jesus, then the former is even more mythological than the latter.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 10:16 am
maryhelena wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 10:11 am

One Jesus is given a Jewish birth narrative. Another Jesus came down from heaven. Two Jesus stories.
if the first Jesus is a reaction to the second Jesus, then the former is even more mythological than the latter.
Both Jesus figures are literary creations....... our job is to attempt to understand what their creators designed them for..... what message, what story, what philosophy, what ideas do they reflect. Political allegory, philosophical allegories..... Indicate sophisticated minds, schools of scholars..... we fail them if all we do is throw stones at Marcion's ideas.
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by Sinouhe »

mlinssen wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 10:02 am
Sinouhe wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 8:03 am
Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 5:55 am I would do it more willingly if Matthew was removed entirely from the discussion. :confusedsmiley:
This example is terrible for Marcion priority over Matthew :

Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 18.02.21.png
Sinouhe, can you please stop making wild and crazy assumptions like these?
No one attests to the ten minas in Marcion - or rather, they attest to its very absence

It is very dumb to assume that Luke equates to Marcion: of that were the case, every single letter by Tertullian, Epiphanius and the rest would be completely untrue as there would be not a single difference between the two
My bad, it’s just that i follow this reconstruction : http://gnosis.org/library/marcion/Gospel5.html

I said earlier that i rely on this reconstruction.

For example, Concerning the ten servants, it includes everything from luke :
135929F4-EE46-4305-962C-2A10B08306D6.png
135929F4-EE46-4305-962C-2A10B08306D6.png (747.48 KiB) Viewed 1217 times
Where can i find a reliable reconstruction of Marcion ? I will test all my examples again with a reliable construction.

The link you gave me earlier is not practical, I don't know what is marcion, luke, hypothesis, etc. I would like the most reliable reconstruction possible but I can't find anything on google except a book by Roth which is not very practical either. But if I have to, then I'll go with that one.
97C0B083-F047-40C3-865F-70751D78BAD9.png
97C0B083-F047-40C3-865F-70751D78BAD9.png (2.74 MiB) Viewed 1217 times
Post Reply