Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:28 am It is as I thought. I am going to need a reference from you for the specific Marcionite interpretation of these incidents.

are you asking so to question my knowledge or to question the same view that, according to Marcion, Jesus was not known by any being of this world? I prefer the former because otherwise you seem to say between the rows that any minimal marcionite exegesis is definitely lost to us (something I strongly disagree with).

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:37 am

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:28 am It is as I thought. I am going to need a reference from you for the specific Marcionite interpretation of these incidents.

are you asking so to question my knowledge or to question the same view that, according to Marcion, Jesus was not known by any being of this world? I prefer the former because otherwise you seem to say between the rows that any minimal marcionite exegesis is definitely lost to us (something I strongly disagree with).

I am asking you for the source of your claim. How is this not clear? You said that Marcion and/or the Marcionites treated these verses in a certain way, and I am asking you for the source of this knowledge of yours. If all you have is that "according to Marcion, Jesus was not known by any being of this world," that is fine: just give me the reference or evidence for that bit of information.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:54 am I am asking you for the source of your claim. How is this not clear? You said that Marcion and/or the Marcionites treated these verses in a certain way, and I am asking you for the source of this knowledge of yours. If all you have is that "according to Marcion, Jesus was not known by any being of this world," that is fine: just give me the reference or evidence for that bit of information.

if I remember well, Tertullian says somewhere that for Marcion Jesus commands the silence to demons (and to Peter) as he is not the Jewish Christ as they argue. At moment I can't give the precise reference to Tertullian's words.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 12:11 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:54 am I am asking you for the source of your claim. How is this not clear? You said that Marcion and/or the Marcionites treated these verses in a certain way, and I am asking you for the source of this knowledge of yours. If all you have is that "according to Marcion, Jesus was not known by any being of this world," that is fine: just give me the reference or evidence for that bit of information.

if I remember well, Tertullian says somewhere that for Marcion Jesus commands the silence to demons (and to Peter) as he is not the Jewish Christ as they argue. At moment I can't give the precise reference to Tertullian's words.

In Against Marcion 4.7.1-13 Tertullian asks some rhetorical questions of Marcion, but I cannot find any indication there of Marcion's own exegesis of the verses in question. In Against Marcion 4.21.6-7 Tertullian implies Marcion's position as that Jesus enjoined Peter to silence because Peter's conclusion ("you are the Christ") was wrong, though whether Tertullian is reacting to something he knows from the Marcionites or merely assuming Marcion's reaction is not clear. Nothing there about the demons, though, who actually use the term "most high God," which makes it hard to simply guess at what Marcion might have said about their assertion. Maybe this was just a feature of the gospel that he knew and republished which he did not spend a lot of time thinking about.

Most of what I "know" about Marcion I know from modern sources, and that is not good enough for me. I grow weary of the assumptions which permeate the field. We have all heard Stephan go on and on (and on and on and on) about how what we know about Marcion comes almost exclusively through the church fathers who opposed him, and he has a point. No more assuming what Marcion believed on one topic based on what he believes about another. If you were to listen to a person on the right end of the political spectrum here in the US go on about the value of life while arguing against abortion, you might assume that this same person also opposes capital punishment; and you would probably be wrong. People can hold nuanced views on things, or fail to think things all the way through, or even simply ignore things. Aliens from another planet who stumbled upon modern Christians who take Jesus' words of memorial seriously at the Last Supper, to the point of celebrating the Eucharist on a regular basis, might well assume that these same Christians also take Jesus' words in John 13.14 seriously, to the point of celebrating a Footwashing ceremony on a regular basis, too; and yet Footwashing ceremonies are far rarer in Christianity than the Eucharist or Communion is. Such is the peril of making assumptions.

And, regardless, you still need to change the wording of your threefold panel of options. You are saying that the gospels do not support A, when A is practically a quote from the gospels. It makes reading your posts extremely confusing.

I remember the Vinzent's argument that the construct 'Son of Most High God' is an explicit Jewish allusion to the Creator (as opposed to any other god) and was used polemically by Luke against Marcion. I am always expecting his future book on Marcion's exegesis of the his proto-Luke.
As to your skepticism about how to infer true Marcionite exegesis from Tertullian's propaganda, I see that Judith Lieu raises the same question (in the her book Marcion and the Making of a Heretic):

He does, however, pay particular attention to the healing of the demoniac and to the latter’s recognition of Jesus as Son of God (Luke 4.33–7). For Tertullian this can only refer to the Creator God since on Marcion’s own account the demons could have no knowledge of any other deity. Yet he anticipates that Marcion will in turn emphasise Jesus’ rebuke to them and his command to silence (AM IV. 7.8–11; cf. IV. 8.5–8). This version of what might be called ‘the messianic secret’ becomes a repeated theme: Are the demons right or wrong? Why does Jesus respond as he does to Peter’s confession? Is there a correct way to understand Jesus, but also a way which appears correct but is in fact not so? Does Jesus, or does he not, match prior expectations? The passage as a whole well illustrates the difficulties in reconstructing Marcion’s source Gospel as well as that which he produced,...

In my view, this kind of skepticism may be justified in other points but not always, and especially not on this point. It makes perfect sense to me that the marcionite Jesus rebukes the demons (and Peter) because they are believing him the Jewish Messiah, so helping the people to believe him the Jewish Messiah and to make him king against Rome (the natural consequence of being a Jewish messiah): a feature found also in proto-John (notoriously a Gnostic gospel along dualist lines) where Jesus escapes the people who want him as their king. So the Judaizing preaching about Jesus (as Messiah Son of the Creator) is for Marcion definitely of diabolic origins. So, even if the reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel is lost to us, the his exegesis of the essential points is not lost.

Not only proto-John is evidence of that reading (Jesus misinterpreted for the Jewish Messiah by demons, Peter and people). So Couchoud:

(Creation of Christ)

Only that reading may explain why Peter is called Satan when he calls Jesus 'Christ', since that kind of 'recognition' is what the demons were already doing. Only so the people who called Jesus as 'king of the Jews'' (per Pilate's words) can be meant as possessed by the demons (in wanting the death of Jesus), just as Peter was in Caesarea Philippi.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:13 pmAs to your skepticism about how to infer true Marcionite exegesis from Tertullian's propaganda....

That is not what this skepticism is about. My skepticism is in inferring Marcion's exegesis when Marcion's exegesis is not even being quoted, whether by Tertullian or not. "Doubtless you will say" is not actually a quotation or even a paraphrase.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:20 am That is not what this skepticism is about. My skepticism is in inferring Marcion's exegesis when Marcion's exegesis is not even being quoted, whether by Tertullian or not. "Doubtless you will say" is not actually a quotation or even a paraphrase.

But in this case, Tertullian says us which is the Marcionite exegesis:

(Tertullian, 4:17).
This fits the Gnostic theology of proto-John (a Gospel of which the gnostic nature is totally ignored by Secret Alias to discern correctly Marcion).

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:56 am

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:20 am That is not what this skepticism is about. My skepticism is in inferring Marcion's exegesis when Marcion's exegesis is not even being quoted, whether by Tertullian or not. "Doubtless you will say" is not actually a quotation or even a paraphrase.

But in this case, Tertullian says us which is the Marcionite exegesis:

“Because this one lies in saying that Jesus comes from the god of the Jews”

(Tertullian, 4:17).

Please quote this line in context and show me how this is Marcion and not just Tertullian supposing what Marcion would say.

It is so simple, that your suspicions regard it betray more your fear that Mcn precedes all the Gospels than a real skepticism about who is of Tertullian and what is not (but this is - obviously - only a my personal suspicion).

At any rate:


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm

Here Tertullian asks: if in virtue of the same logic of Marcion (the fact that even the demons couldn't recognize the alien Jesus, so their recognition of him as Son of God is necessarily wrong: viz, they are alluding to the demiurge as father of Jesus) no entity of this world knew in advance the identity of the alien, then which evidence did they have also only in order to call him 'Son of God' (even assuming that the 'god' here is the demiurge) ?

Hence it is strongly expected that Tertullian has to deny with great and obssessive insistence the fact that the 'teaching as one with authority' (fact that precedes the false recognition of Jesus as Jewish Christ by demons) has to be considered a great miracle (able alone to raise great wonder by the demons about the identity of Jesus).

Simply that he went into the synagogue, and did nothing even in word against the Creator?

So we are moved to accept, for the Marcion's Gospel, just the precise point that is denied by that rethorical question of Tertullian: the 'new' doctrine given by Jesus 'with authority' in the synagogue is per se necessarily the previous miracle that scandalized the demons, at the point to make them believe that Jesus could only be the Jewish Messiah (in absence of any other god of their knowledge).

So the demons are scandalized by the 'authority' of Jesus (believing him wrongly the Jewish Christ), ignoring that Jesus was dissolving rather the Law of the Creator.