Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

DCHindley wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 12:54 pm. He was doing miracles, so had some sort of other worldly origin, but not necessarily with good intentions.

my point is that the earliest evidence doesn't assume that the demons killed Jesus because they saw someone who was doing miracles. They killed him because a very weak (=without miracles) uman being was just entered enigmatically their world without their official permission.

I don't understand why you talk about Cathars, here.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:48 pm Jesus was crucified by demons for one of the following three reasons:

(A) because the demons knew that Jesus was the Son of God

(B) because Jesus was just entered in the world of the demons without their permission

(C) because Jesus had made miracles on the earth, miracles considered 'upheavals' of the archontic rule.

Neither Paul nor Ascension of Isaiah report that Jesus had made some action, before the crucifixion, that was able to derive against him the attention of the demons. So Paul and Ascension of Isaiah support the scenario (B).


In general the Gospels support the scenario (C).


Only a Gospel parable supports the scenario (A): the parable of the Tenants....

A and C are not mutually exclusive, and the gospels definitely support A. The demons being exorcised recognize Jesus precisely as the son of God.

the gospels definitely support A.

Only if we admit that the Earliest Gospel assumed that Jesus was the Son of YHWH, because otherwise even the demons don't recognize that Jesus is the son of a higher god (as per GMarcion).

At any rate, the criterion by me used to classify the possible options in A, B and C (as above) is: which miracle did Jesus do in order to provoke the demons?






Only C requires necessarily the earthly context, since the 'signs and wonders' can only be done to benefit humanity on the earth. basically, A and B, alone, make any earthly context basically useless.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 10:36 pm

the gospels definitely support A.

Only if we admit that the Earliest Gospel assumed that Jesus was the Son of YHWH, because otherwise even the demons don't recognize that Jesus is the son of a higher god (as per GMarcion).

I have no idea what you are talking about, as usual. The demons literally recognize Jesus as the son of the "most high God" in, for example, Mark 5.7.

Your three options were:

(A) because the demons knew that Jesus was the Son of God

(B) because Jesus was just entered in the world of the demons without their permission

(C) because Jesus had made miracles on the earth, miracles considered 'upheavals' of the archontic rule.

And A is basically a paraphrase of Mark 1.34: they knew who he was, and they recognized him before he worked any miracles in front of them.

You are going to have to use different terms for the ideas you are trying to put forth if you have any desire to be understood, because right now you are directly contradicting the text, so much so that it appears you are going out of your way to do so.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 6:32 am

I have no idea what you are talking about, as usual. The demons literally recognize Jesus as the son of the "most high God" in, for example, Mark 5.7.

If you assume that the 'most high God' is the god of the Jews, then you have all the reasons of this world. My point is only that, according to the marcionite exegesis of these similar words in GMarcion, the demons didn't recognize Jesus since they believed him as the Jewish Messiah (and you know that Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah for Marcion).

And A is basically a paraphrase of Mark 1.34: they knew who he was, and they recognized him before he worked any miracles in front of them.

Even apart any Marcion's exegesis, it is a fact that well before Mark 1:34 the demons had had sufficient evidence to recognize that Jesus was someway 'special' in virtue of a precise miracle: to teach a new doctrine as one 'with authority' (see Mark 1:22). So the hypothesis A is excluded a priori from any Gospel. The demons infer who is Jesus because they have seen his miracles before. While I want evidence of a text where the demons know a priori the identity of Jesus even before he does miracles.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 8:05 am

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 6:32 am

I have no idea what you are talking about, as usual. The demons literally recognize Jesus as the son of the "most high God" in, for example, Mark 5.7.

If you assume that the 'most high God' is the god of the Jews, then you have all the reasons of this world. My point is only that, according to the marcionite exegesis of these similar words in GMarcion, the demons didn't recognize Jesus since they believed him as the Jewish Messiah (and you know that Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah for Marcion).

What is the reference for this Marcionite exegesis of the similar words in the Marcionite gospel? I will need to see the text you are drawing from before commenting further.

And A is basically a paraphrase of Mark 1.34: they knew who he was, and they recognized him before he worked any miracles in front of them.

Even apart any Marcion's exegesis, it is a fact that well before Mark 1:34 the demons had had sufficient evidence to recognize that Jesus was someway 'special' in virtue of a precise miracle: to teach a new doctrine as one 'with authority' (see Mark 1:22). So the hypothesis A is excluded a priori from any Gospel. The demons infer who is Jesus because they have seen his miracles before. While I want evidence of a text where the demons know a priori the identity of Jesus even before he does miracles.

Do you know what the word "fact" even means?

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 8:49 am What is the reference for this Marcionite exegesis of the similar words in the Marcionite gospel? I will need to see the text you are drawing from before commenting further.

I am sorry, but it is too much evident that Marcion interpreted in that way the 'recognition' by demons.

Do you know what the word "fact" even means?

For me it is a fact that the 'new' teaching 'with authority', able alone to provoke an upheaval in the society (as per Mark 1:22), is to be considered a pure and simple 'MIRACLE'. And said miracle comes before of any demonic recognition. Is it clear?

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:06 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:What is the reference for this Marcionite exegesis of the similar words in the Marcionite gospel? I will need to see the text you are drawing from before commenting further.

I am sorry, but it is too much evident that Marcion interpreted in that way the 'recognition' by demons.

Then maybe I am not understanding what you are saying. Here is your statement again:

My point is only that, according to the marcionite exegesis of these similar words in GMarcion, the demons didn't recognize Jesus since they believed him as the Jewish Messiah....

Can you perhaps rephrase this?

For me it is a fact that the 'new' teaching 'with authority', able alone to provoke an upheaval in the society (as per Mark 1:22), is to be considered a pure and simple 'MIRACLE'. And said miracle comes before of any demonic recognition. Is it clear?

That is not a fact. That is, by definition, an interpretation.

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Then maybe I am not understanding what you are saying. Here is your statement again:

My point is only that, according to the marcionite exegesis of these similar words in GMarcion, the demons didn't recognize Jesus since they believed him as the Jewish Messiah....

Can you perhaps rephrase this?

if the marcionite Christ is totally unknown to this world (and his creator), then the same demons were confused when they called him 'the Son of Most High' (they meant YHWH while Jesus was the Son of the Good God). So in this case there is no case A since the identity of Jesus was not known by all (men, demons and creator).

That is not a fact. That is, by definition, an interpretation.

To teach something of new may be interpreted as not a miracle in any ordinary book. But not in the Gospel. Especially when:
1) not a word is said about that new teaching.
2) that new doctrine is precisely what provokes (at least one of) the demons against Jesus.

At least, this is the my interpretation. I don't see which different interpretation may replace it. So it is a fact for me.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:25 amif the marcionite Christ is totally unknown to this world (and his creator), then the same demons were confused when they called him 'the Son of Most High' (they meant YHWH while Jesus was the Son of the Good God). So in this case there is no case A since the identity of Jesus was unknown by all (men, demons and creator).

It is as I thought. I am going to need a reference from you for the specific Marcionite interpretation of these incidents.

To teach something of new may be interpreted as not a miracle in any ordinary book. But not in the Gospel. Especially when:
1) not a word is said about that new teaching.
2) that new doctrine is precisely what provokes (at least one of) the demons against Jesus.

This is interpreting the evidence. It is not the same thing as the evidence.