Why did Marcion adopt the gospel of Luke?

[Giuseppe]

Giuseppe, unfortunately your position seems circular to me and lacking in a logical thread. I feel you wish to rush to conclusions without providing a step by step approach.

There is nothing wrong with you rejecting that Paul wrote about a historical Jesus, but to convince me you would need to engage with the evidence reference by reference and not dismiss them by saying “epistles of ''Paul'' are entirely silent on the HJ -- because never existed one”.

As my argument goes, the steps are the following:
1) midrash from Josephus insignia episode proves that Pilate was introduced in the first Gospel deliberately to show the Jews as perfidious conspirators acting behind the scenes (and not the contrary: that Jews had to be at any cost ''bad'' to ingratiate so the Romans).

2) Because the introduction of Gospel Pilate implies by logical effect the Roman crucifixion of Jesus, then the point 1 proves that Jesus was not crucified by Romans (but it doesn't prove that Jesus didn't exist).

3) the Jews, under the Roman rule, cannot crucify no man (a point you give me free contra outhouse).

4) Therefore: points 2 and 3 prove that Jesus was not crucified by no man (Roman or Jew).

5) This is confirmed in the Jewish reaction described in the Talmud. Peter Shafer proves in his book that a recurring pattern in all Talmudic stories about Jesus is the attribution of direct responsibility for his death, with much of a legal process, always and only on the Jews themselves. If the Romans were the real killers of Jesus, why did the Talmudists insist that were instead them, the same Jews, the true killers of Jesus? The more economic explanation, in my view and given the points 1-4, is that they did so because they had understand pratically the point 1 (that the unique theological/propagandistic raison d'être of Pilate in the Gospel is to despise the perfidious Jews) -- even if they assumed in while the Gospel story as ''Remembered Christian History'' and not as pure fiction (i.e.: even if they were Gospel-based historicist).

6) I think the epistles of ''Paul'' were composed after the first Gospels. I am satisfied by Detering's proof of the fabrication of that letters in II CE. Even if it's not a conclusive proof. But Detering doesn't say that the epistles follow the Gospels (he may even accept the contrary, as does Bob Price). I think so because more or less the first Gospels (Mcn , Matthew, Mark) give a negative portrait of the disciples (even if Matthew tries to rehabilitate partially them against the Mcn's defamation), but not still a portrait of the True Disciple/Witness par excellence. I find that need as entirely satisfied by the invention of ''Paul''.
The epistles show a knowledge of the Gospel Jesus because Galatians assumes as background a Paul coming from Diaspora to show his Good News to Pillars of Jerusalem, therefore confirming a priori the assumption of a ideal Gospel Jerusalem post-Resurrection.
The original marcionite epistles don't show a knowledge of a HJ because they do not add anything of different to the Gospel Jesus (already an angelic being in Mcn) that is historical and/or realistic, saying only that he was crucified by ''the archons'' (i.e. demons acting behind the Jews, the latter in turn acting behind the Romans) ''of this eon'', who Jesus rose and revealed to Paul the true message of Jesus. These epistles quoted the Eucharist episode (already found in the Gospel) but don't add nothing about a Gospel itinerant Jesus because in a marcionite view that preaching was in vain (kata sarka), since neither the Jews nor even his Jewish disciples had understood and/or liked the true message of Jesus. This is the reason because a itinerant teacher Gospel Jesus didn't find mention in the original marcionite letters.

When discussing the “Jewish text” behind Celsus I am not convinced you have provided any evidence against my suggestions. However now you wish to ignore this and discuss how Origen interpreted Celsus. As I said Niehoff says that Origen wrote after 250 CE.

I have mentioned the Niehoff but his case about the Jewish source is not conclusive. I think you agree that this ''Jewish source'', if existed, repeats the same Talmudic defamations (about a Jesus son of a Roman soldier, usurper, magician, etc.) but it's difficult to say if it did deny also the Pilate responsability or not, because it's difficult to know when is the pagan Celsus the author of the Pilate reference, or his hypothetical Jewish source. What I see is that Pilate/Jesus relation is not found in the Talmud. Note that I don't claim that the Talmudists were not historicist. I claim they were historicist because (like Celsus) they were Gospel-based, but deniers of any role of killer for Pilate.

I think it might be possible for you and me to agree with Origen – “there are no other sources to the life of Jesus accept those found in the Christian traditions including the gospels and the Pauline epistles.” However where we differ is how we considers these texts.

All Celsus utility in my opinion is reduced only to his put ''with the backs to the wall'' Origen, forcing him to say what secular evidence he has about Jesus. The answer of Origen betrays that he had no secular evidence of Jesus, outside of the Gospel. The best economic explanation for this fact is that that secular evidence did not exist. This is definitely most expected if Jesus never existed than the reverse.

I would like to slow down the debate and request that you start presenting your case about the Jews taking responsibility for the death of Jesus from the “Jewish text” behind Celsus, because I don’t think there is any.

As I said above, it's difficult to know if that Jewish source did accept the Pilate episode or not, because Celsus did accept it and he could have overlapped his opinion with that of his Jewish source about the specific Pilate episode.

[outhouse]

1) that the Jews were so treacherous, so bad, so evil, that they took advantage perfidiously of Pilate to kill Jesus,

2) that then these same Jews denied that they had manipulated Pilate (even never mentioning him in the Talmud!) arrogating to themselves the ''sadic'' pride and the ''perverse'' pleasure of killing that ''impostor'' & ''magician'' & ''bastard'' (even knowing that were not them who killed Jesus but the Roman Pilate),

3) that they had slandered Jesus just for the pure pleasure of doing so,

4) and all this in the absolute absence of evidence of a historical Jesus.

Its obvious by your own admission and attributing words to me, I never stated. You have little knowledge of the topic at hand.


1 Maybe you don't understand Pilate owned Caiaphas and they ran the show to keep money flowing, and probably gave orders that anyone caught causing trouble would be crucified ASAP. No need for your imaginative mental hoops to jump through.

2 No Jews need manipulate pilate by following pilates orders to a T. Talmud, sorry not credible and way to late to be useful, pilate isn't in FKN marry poppins either.

3 slander is not an issue, a zealot causing trouble probably is.

4 non sequitur, jesus has historicity whether you or anyone else here likes it or not.

[Michael BG]

As my argument goes, the steps are the following:
1) midrash from Josephus insignia episode proves that Pilate was introduced in the first Gospel deliberately to show the Jews as perfidious conspirators acting behind the scenes (and not the contrary: that Jews had to be at any cost ''bad'' to ingratiate so the Romans).

2) Because the introduction of Gospel Pilate implies by logical effect the Roman crucifixion of Jesus, then the point 1 proves that Jesus was not crucified by Romans (but it doesn't prove that Jesus didn't exist).

3) the Jews, under the Roman rule, cannot crucify no man (a point you give me free contra outhouse).

4) Therefore: points 2 and 3 prove that Jesus was not crucified by no man (Roman or Jew).

We both agree on your point 3. However you have not convinced me there is any evidence for your steps 1, 2 and 4.

What evidence would you provide that Mark as the first gospel is a Midrash of Josephus? How do you argue against the scholars who say that it can be seen that Luke knew Josephus in his description of the fall of Jerusalem, but Mark’s description is not based on Josephus?

Before turning to the Talmud I think we need to consider Celsus. You provided the link to Maren R. Niehoff (this is a woman according to her picture) and discuss what she writes about the Jewish text behind Clesus (https://www.academia.edu/6392027/A_Jewi ... Celsus_Jew).

She write, “According to the Jew mentioned by Celsus, the shameful death of Jesus on the cross caused his disciples many problems, which they tried to hide and suppress. Despite their partial and tendentious presentation of the facts, our author identifies what appears to him as the original story: Jesus was crucified as a mean criminal and his body was stolen from the tomb. The story of his resurrection and foreknowledge of his own death were subsequently invented by his disciples.”
(p 168-69)

According to Roberts-Donaldson Origen states, ‘And how can the following assertion of this Jew of Celsus appear anything else than a manifest falsehood, viz., that Jesus, "having gained over no one during his life, not even his own disciples, underwent these punishments and sufferings?"’ (2:39), and ‘But since this Jew of Celsus compares Him to robbers, and says that "any similarly shameless fellow might be able to say regarding even a robber and murderer whom punishment had overtaken, that such an one was not a robber, but a god, because he predicted to his fellow-robbers that he would suffer such punishment as he actually did suffer,"’ (2:44) {this is evidence that the Jew recognised that Jesus had been crucified with robbers}. Niehoff quotes 2:55 – “his cry from the cross when he expired” clearly the Jew believed Jesus was crucified.

You will recall that Niehoff dates this to about 150 CE and therefore this is older than the traditions in the Talmud. Therefore before an appeal to the Talmud can be made the clear evidence that a Jew in Alexandria believed Jesus was crucified has to be refuted.

[Giuseppe]

@outhouse

Talmud, sorry not credible and way to late to be useful

Talmud is not credible OK (it's Jesus historicist), but I have problems with your view just seeing the Talmud. According to you, I should accept with impunity that Jesus existed (and killed by Pilate and only by him), by virtually assuming that:

1) that the Talmudist Jews, even under attack of the defamation called 'gospel' (because you agree with me that the 'gospel' was a pure propagandistic anti-Jewish defamation!) according to which ''they were so treacherous, so bad, so evil, that they took advantage perfidiously of Pilate to kill Jesus'', well, that...

2) ...that then these same Talmudist Jews denied (!!!) that they had manipulated Pilate (even never mentioning him in the Talmud!) arrogating to themselves the ''sadic'' pride and the ''perverse'' pleasure of killing that ''impostor'' & ''magician'' & ''bastard'' (even knowing that were not them who killed Jesus but the Roman Pilate, if REALLY Pilate killed a historical Jesus), and...

3) that they, the Talmudist Jews, had slandered Jesus just for the pure pleasure of doing so (sic)...

well, no:

if a Talmudist would refute Christianity, he told the simple verity: that Jesus was killed by Pilate for sedition because a false messiah (as Bar Kokhba was killed by Hadrian for sedition, because a false messiah). Instead the Talmudist seems more embarrassed from the fact that the gospel says that the Jews used Pilate as a puppet.

In other words, if you apply the ''criterion of embarrassment'' on the Gospels to derive a historical seditious Jesus slain by Pilate,...

... then with equal rights I apply the same identical ''criterion of embarrassment'' on the Talmud to derive my conclusion that all the Talmudist authors were evidently embarrassed to learn from the Gospel that they were to have manipulated cowardly Pilate just to get rid of Jesus. Therefore, moved by that ''embarrasment'', these same Talmudist authors have proud themselves to killing directly the historical Jesus.

Contradiction.

Because a more simple Talmudist apology (and strategy) would be to apply, as does you and as does the ignorant Celsus, the ''criterion of embarrasment'' on the Gospels and to derive a seditious bad Jesus slain by Pilate because only a false messiah. Point. Stop.

The fact that that ''more simple Talmudist apology'' doesn't appear in the Talmud means that my explanation of the evidence is more economical: the introduction of Pilate in the story serves only to denigrate the Jews, and not viceversa, that ''the denigration of Jews was a required apologetical step to safeguard the reputation of Pilate''.

@Michael_BG

You will recall that Niehoff dates this to about 150 CE and therefore this is older than the traditions in the Talmud. Therefore before an appeal to the Talmud can be made the clear evidence that a Jew in Alexandria believed Jesus was crucified has to be refuted.

Please note that it's impossible to discriminate a priori in Celsus what is the personal opinion of Celsus and what is the opinion of the his hypothetical informant Jew. At any case, my argument doesn't require that Celsus or his Jew (or even the Talmud) were skeptics about historicity of Jesus, even if Celsus writes:

But the statement of Celsus which we wish to examine at present is the following: "Let us then pass over the refutations which might be adduced against the claims of their teacher, and let him be regarded as really an angel. But is he the first and only one who came (to men), or were there others before him? If they should say that he is the only one, they would be convicted of telling lies against themselves."
(Contra Celsus, 5:52, my emphasis)

What evidence would you provide that Mark as the first gospel is a Midrash of Josephus? How do you argue against the scholars who say that it can be seen that Luke knew Josephus in his description of the fall of Jerusalem, but Mark’s description is not based on Josephus?

To be honest, I'm assuming free that Mcn was the first Gospel and not Mark.
Within two years I will argue better this point, strong of the overwhelming evidence that prof Klinghardt has found.

Please read my answer to outhouse in this same comment.

[outhouse]

According to you, I should accept with impunity that Jesus existed (and killed by Pilate and only by him), by virtually assuming that:


.

Your complete inability to comprehend what is being stated is one thing I can deal with.

Your complete dishonesty will not be tolerated.


No where have I stated Jesus was only killed by Pilate.


I stated quite clearly Pilate was in charge with Caiaphas under him working as his right hand man.

[outhouse]

the introduction of Pilate in the story serves only to denigrate the Jews

.

Horse crap.

Pilate was in charge at the time the crucifixion was said to have taken place, that is why he was used.

He was also used rhetorically to give authority to a peasant Galilean, as so important that he had audience with the highest Roman official in the land.


It is obvious you don't understand the intended audience for the gospels were Romans and Gentiles in the Diaspora, and that NO ONE is going to paint a Roman official as the butcher he was known to be.

''the denigration of Jews was a required apologetical step to safeguard the reputation of Pilate''.

In part yes.

You pervert the word Jew with such vagueness though.


In context to the authors, not all Jews applied to this denigration you speak of. Don't you think this was directed at the corrupted temple cults?

[Giuseppe]

If your criterion of embarrassment works really, why instead by applying it on the Gospel I may derive a seditious Jesus killed by the Romans, while by applying it on the Talmud I may derive the idea that the Talmudist Jews didn't never appeal to the charge that Jesus was only a seditious Jew killed by Romans (EVEN when THAT would be their BEST anti-Christian strategy) ?

Very strange that the best historical candidates to emphasize in anti-christian function the ROMAN crucifixion of Jesus, DENIED just that ROMAN crucifixion.

[Giuseppe]

Who do you think was the best candidate to accuse Jesus of anti-Roman sedition?
1) the pagans
2) the rabbinical Jews creators of the Talmud
3) others

I think 2. But this didn't happen. Why?

[outhouse]

Who do you think was the best candidate to accuse Jesus of anti-Roman sedition?

Mark describes starting trouble in the temple which is a death sentence in itself.

Luke describes sedition directly.


It was known the temple was corrupt and Roman controlled, it was the national treasury in which indirectly belonged to Romans and Pilate had pilfered this before at will.

The only reason the Romans let the temple stand, was because it was their cash cow.


Seditious acts meant to stop the money flow to Rome by causing trouble in the temple, fits 100% the anthropology of this time period without question.

[Michael BG]

@ Giuseppe

In your quote from Origen it seems clear he is quoting Celsus, but in the quotes I provided it is clear Origen is quoting the Jew that Celsus quoted. I find your argument strange, because it was you who pointed out that Celsus was using a Jewish tradition. And I thought we would both agree this is the earliest source we have for what Jews were saying about Jesus.

I don’t accept that Marcion is the earliest gospel and in another thread I hope to convince Ben that there is little evidence that it is earlier than Luke.

Therefore it seems we have reached an impasse. You cannot provide a case to convince me that Mark was written after Josephus and so cannot get me to accept your first step. I think the Jewish source that Celsus used refutes the evidence of the Talmud because there is an older Jewish tradition than that in the Talmud that Jews accepted that Jesus was crucified and you have not provided a case to discrete my evidence and so I haven’t accepted you original step 5.