No “Son of Man” in Marcion

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: No “Son of Man” in Marcion

Post by Giuseppe »

Ben, there is really evidence clear and simple of the fact that Son of Man was used as anti-marcionite element. Please see the figure of idiot made by the marcionite Meghetius here:

Ad. What then does it say of Christ who is the son of man? If he is the son of man, according to you he will not be your son of God.
Meg. He is God's son.
Ad. But explain the scriptures in such a way as to be intelligible, as the scriptures are. In what way is he the son of God, who declared himself the son of man?
Meg. He made use of a parable, in saying that he was the son of man.
Eutr. It was to be understood as a spiritual parable, -can that be historical?
Meg. Spiritual.
Eutr. In what way does he say that - is the scripture not spiritual? Thus it is spiritual, and not plain and historical.
Meg. A certain thing he intends as spiritual, while he may speak simply in another.
Eutr. This opinion seems inconsistent to me.
Meg. In places there are scriptures that are parables, those that are spiritual, others that are certainly historical.
Ad. Show then from the scriptures where the son of man is a "parable"? ...

http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/dialogues.htm

There is no way to allegorize Son of Man by a true marcionite.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: No “Son of Man” in Marcion

Post by Ulan »

All this doesn't change anything about the point that you basically throw away the only evidence we have in order to get to your conclusion. At that point, you are left with nothing.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: No “Son of Man” in Marcion

Post by Giuseppe »

Ulan wrote: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:05 am All this doesn't change anything about the point that you basically throw away the only evidence we have in order to get to your conclusion. At that point, you are left with nothing.
I have quoted Adamantius as evidence that there was a Catholic argument of the kind "Jesus is Son of Man therefore Jesus is also Man" while there was not a clear marcionite apology, other than the words "it is allegory".
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: No “Son of Man” in Marcion

Post by Giuseppe »

In Luke 22:66-71:
At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and the teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. 67 “If you are the Messiah,” they said, “tell us.”

Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68 and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.”

70 They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?”

He replied, “You say that I am.”

71 Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”

This passage in Luke is more allegorical that Mark's equivalent passage.

In Luke, Jesus talks about the "mighty God" who welcomes in heaven the Son of Man from that precise moment (as per my interpretation). He has abandoned the earth.

Note the irony: the sinedrites believe that who is remained before them (after the words "But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.”) was still the divine Christ...

...but they believe this because the mere man Jesus replied them that :
You say that I am.”
Hence the circularity of the sinedrite claim of recognition of the Son of God is evident:

The sinedrites believe that Jesus is one who claims that he is the Christ because just they (!) say that he is the Christ, and they believe to themselves because they believe to the man Jesus.

Hence the sinedrites are condemned to deny the words of the divine Christ:

69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.”

...but to accept the words of the mere man Jesus:

You say that I am.”
For them, the Son of Man is not ascended in heaven just in that moment.

Hence, they consider as "Son of God" a mere human being who is not the Son of Man (the man Jesus), while in the same time they consider the Son (the divine Christ) as a (mere son of) man (human being).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: No “Son of Man” in Marcion

Post by Giuseppe »

I am sure that if Ben, Ulan or Stuart or Secret Alias are really smart people :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: :cheers: , then they can only recognize that there is “something of true” in what follows:


Luke 22what the sinedrites believewhat Marcion means
At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and the teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. 67 “If you are the Messiah,” they said, “tell us.”
Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68 and if I asked you, you would not answer.
the sinedrites have only to hear. the evangelist is fixing the rules of the game: the sinedrites have not believe the Christ, but they have to believe to the man Jesus.
69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.”
the sinedrites believe that the impostor named Jesus is proclaiming the fugue, in that precise moment, of himself, the man Jesus. the divine Christ (the celestial/allegorical “Son of Man”) is abandoning in that precise moment the mere son of man Jesus, to go from his Father in Heaven.
They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?”
the sinedrites believe that now Jesus is going to reveal his identity, if really he claims that he (the man Jesus) is going to heaven.the sinedrites don't know that the allegorical “Son of Man”, i.e. the divine Christ, is gone to heaven, and not the mere man Jesus.
He replied, “You say that I am.”
the sinedrites now have to believe what the man Jesus says about him, since they are condemned only to not believe what the divine Christ (not the man Jesus) says them, and who is talking now is the man Jesus, not the divine Christ. really, before the sinedrites there is only a mere man abandoned to himself, Jesus, who can only confirm what the sinedrites already have decided about him.
71 Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”
The “his own lips” are the lips of a mere man Jesus who is been just abandoned by the divine Christ (the allegorical “Son of Man”), hence it is expected that the sinedrites believe entirely to whoever is not the divine Christ. note that if the divine Christ had answered them, then :
“If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68 and if I asked you, you would not answer”

Hence the fact that now the sinedrites believe to what is heard “from his own lips” is the mathematical proof that the man before them is not more the divine Christ.

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: No “Son of Man” in Marcion

Post by Ulan »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:18 am
Ulan wrote: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:05 am All this doesn't change anything about the point that you basically throw away the only evidence we have in order to get to your conclusion. At that point, you are left with nothing.
I have quoted Adamantius as evidence that there was a Catholic argument of the kind "Jesus is Son of Man therefore Jesus is also Man" while there was not a clear marcionite apology, other than the words "it is allegory".
So you don't like that answer, and that is why it doesn't exist? Or rather, because you don't like the answer, it cannot have been a recognition of the point that the concept of "son of man" actually existed in Marcionite texts? That's one rather solipsistic way to turn evidence that "son of man" existed as a concept in Marcionite thinking into its opposite.

Note that your last post before this one deals actually with a different issue.
Last edited by Ulan on Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: No “Son of Man” in Marcion

Post by Giuseppe »

Ulan, please read above the my post, where I assume the presence of “Son of Man” in Marcion as allegorical term to make confused the sinedrites. That is the only way I can accept the term for Marcion, otherwise I lean towards considering it an interpolation.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: No “Son of Man” in Marcion

Post by Ulan »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:35 am Ulan, please read above the my post, where I assume the presence of “Son of Man” in Marcion as allegorical term to make confused the sinedrites. That is the only way I can accept the term for Marcion, otherwise I lean towards considering it an interpolation.
Well, okay. That's somewhat moving the goalposts (which isn't always a bad thing), but at least you accept then that the term was used in Marcion's scripture. Interpretations of what "son of man" actually means are not that clear-cut that I wouldn't see room for different models.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: No “Son of Man” in Marcion

Post by Giuseppe »

The term is danielic but it serves to a typical marcionite anti-thesis: as my commentary of Luke 22 shows (note that I don't need interpolations in this example) the sinedrites - following Daniel - believe that the Son of Man is an exalted man (the man Jesus) and hence they identify him as the "Son of God", but they don't realize that the Son of Man is the same Son of God and Christ, who had just abandoned the man Jesus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: No “Son of Man” in Marcion

Post by lsayre »

Would a bunch of subsistence level agrarian farmers and city dwelling peasants fathom anything at the level of a gnostic? If such myths have their root in poverty and despair it seems that the core of the myth would be likely to have a far more simple base. Only the wealthy would have the time, education, and resources to contemplate and entertain such philosophical entanglements as nuances between terms such as Son of Man and Son of God. At what level did the poor and ignorant perceive such matters? Or did they even bother? Is all of religion a game played among the wealthy classes?
Post Reply