How Did the Marcionites Deny the Typology of Joshua?

[stephan happy huller]

The idea is that Joshua was a precursor for Jesus. That would be almost unavoidable if Jesus was really named Jesus. But the Marcionites said no way. This has usually been interpreted to mean the Marcionites denied allegory. I take this to mean Isu did not mean Jesus or Joshua.

[stephan happy huller]

Against the Jews	Adv Iud.	Adv. Marc. III	Against Marcion 3
"But if the Christ," say they, "who is believed to be coming is not called Jesus, why is he who is come called Jesus Christ?"	"Sed si Christus, inquiunt, qui venturus creditur non Iesus dicitur, quare is qui venit Iesus Christus appellatur ?"	Nunc si nomen Christi, ut sportulam furunculus, captavit, cur etiam Iesus voluit appellari, non tam expectabili apud Iudaeos nomine?	Now supposing it true that he pilfered the name of Christ, like a petty thief after the dole-basket, why did he also choose to be called Jesus, a name about which the Jews had no such expectations?
Well, each name will meet in the Christ of God, in whom is found likewise the appellation Jesus.	Constabit autem utrumque nomen in Christo dei, in quo invenitur etiam Iesus appellatus.	Nec enim, si nos per dei gratiam intellectum consecuti sacramentorum eius hoc quoque nomen agnoscimus Christo destinatum,	Although we for our part have by the grace of God obtained understanding of his mysteries, and recognize that this name too was destined for Christ,
		ideo et Iudaeis, quibus adempta est sapientia, nota erit res. Denique ad hodiernum Christum sperant, non Iesum, et Heliam potius interpretantur Christum quam Iesum. Qui ergo et in eo nomine venit in quo Christus non praesumebatur, potuit in eo solo nomine venisse quod solum praesumebatur. Ceterum cum duo miscuit, speratum et insperatum, expugnatur utrumque consilium eius. Sive enim ideo Christus, ut interim quasi creatoris irreperet, obstrepit Iesus, quia non sperabatur Iesus in Christo creatoris: sive <ideo Iesus> ut alterius haberetur, non sinit Christus quia non alterius sperabatur Christus quam creatoris. Quid horum constare possit ignoro. Constabit autem utrumque in Christo creatoris, in quo invenitur etiam Iesus. Quomodo, inquis ?	a name about which the Jews had no such expectations? Although we for our part have by the grace of God obtained understanding of his mysteries, and recognize that this name too was destined for Christ, it does not follow that the Jews, deprived of wisdom, were to be aware of that fact. Indeed until this present day they are hoping for Christ, not for Jesus, and they would rather interpret Elijah as Christ, than Jesus [i.e. Joshua]. He then who has come also in this name in which Christ was not expected, had it in his power to come in that name alone which was the only one expected. But as he has combined the two, the expected and the unexpected, both of his designs are put out of court. For if his reason for being Christ was that he might for a time steal in on the pretence of belonging to the Creator, <the name of> Jesus opposes <this>, because there was no expectation of Jesus [Joshua] in the Creator's Christ: or if <he was named> Jesus so that he might be taken to belong to the other <god>, <the name> Christ forbids <this>, because the Christ that was hoped for belonged to no other than the Creator. Which of these <names> can hold its ground, I know not. But both can hold their ground in the Creator's Christ, in whom also <the name of> Jesus is found to be. In what way, you ask.
Learn the habitual character of your error.	Disce et erroris tui morem:	Disce et hic cum partiariis erroris tui Iudaeis.	Have your answer here, along with the Jews, who hold the half of your error.
In the course of the appointing of a successor to Moses, Oshea the son of Nun is certainly transferred from his pristine name, and begins to be called Jesus. Certainly, you say. This we first assert to have been a figure of the future. For, because Jesus Christ was to introduce the second people (which is composed of us nations, lingering deserted in the world aforetime)	Cum successor Moysi destinaretur Auses filius Nave, transfertur certe de pristino nomine et incipit vocari Iesus? Certe, inquis. Hanc prius dicimus figuram futuri fuisse. Nam quia Iesus Christus secundum populum, quod sumus nos nationes in saeculi deserto	dum Moysi successor destinaretur Auses filius Naue, transfertur certe de pristino nomine et incipit vocari Iesus. Certe, inquis. Hanc prius dicimus figuram futuri fuisse. Nam quia Iesus Christus secundum populum, quod sumus nos nati in saeculi desertis,	When Auses [Oshea] the son of Nave [Nun] was marked out as successor to Moses, you admit he is changed from his original name, and begins to be called Jesus. Just so, you answer. We observe first that this was a figure of him who was to be. Because Jesus the Christ was going to bring the second people, which are we, born in the wilderness of <this> world,
into the land of promise, "flowing with milk and honey" (that is, into the possession of eternal life, than which nought is sweeter); and this had to come about, not through Moses (that is, not through the Law's discipline), but through Jesus (that is, through the new law's grace), after our circumcision with "a knife of rock" (that is, with Christ's precepts, for Christ is in many ways and figures predicted as a rock);	commorantes ante, introducturus esset in terram repromissionis melle et lacte manantem, id est in vitae aeternae possessionem qua nihil dulcius, idque non per Moysen id est non per legis disciplinam, sed per Iesum id est per novae legis gratiam provenire habebat circumcisis nobis petrina acie id est Christi praeceptis -- petra enim Christus multis modis et figuris praedicatus est	introducturus erat in terram promissionis melle et lacte manantem, id est vitae aeternae possessionem, qua nihil dulcius, idque non per Moysen, id est non per legis disciplinam, sed per Iesum, per evangelii gratiam, provenire habebat, circumcisis nobis petrina acie , id est <praeceptis> Christi, petra enim Christus,—	into the land of promise, flowing with milk and honey, which means the inheritance of eternal life, than which nothing not, that is, by the discipline of the law, but by Jesus, through the grace of the gospel, after we had been circumcised with the knife of flint, that is, the precepts of Christ—for the rock was Christ
therefore the man who was being prepared to act as images of this sacrament was inaugurated under the figure of the Lord's name, even so as to be named Jesus.	ideo is vir qui in huius sacramenti imagines parabatrur etiam nominis dominici inauguratus est figura, ut Iesus nominaretur.	ideo is vir, qui in huius sacramenti imagines parabatur, etiam nominis dominici inauguratus est figura, Iesus cognominatus.	therefore that man who was being set aside for the similitudes of this mystery was also first established in the likeness of our Lord's name, being surnamed Jesus
For He who ever spake to Moses was the Son of God Himself; who, too, was always seen.	Nam qui ad Moysen loquebatur, ipse erat dei filius qui et semper videbatur;	Hoc nomen ipse Christus suum iam tunc esse testatus est cum ad Moysen loquebatur.	Christ himself, when talking with Moses, bore witness that this name is his own.

It is at this point that the texts veer off in two different directions. However it should be clear that the original argument (Adv Iud) has nothing to do with Joshua. The original argument that Jesus was the man (vir = ish) who spoke with Moses who is the Son of God and who was prophesied as the 'angel of God' in the Pentateuch. Both texts represent a lost original which has been altered to fit the Jesus = Joshua argument. The texts continue:

Against the Jews	Adv Iud.	Adv. Marc. III	Against Marcion 3
For God the Father none ever saw, and lived.	deum enim patrem nemo umquam vidit et vixit
		Quis enim loquebatur, nisi spiritus creatoris, qui est Christus?	For who was it that was talking? Surely the Creator's Spirit, who is Christ.
And accordingly it is agreed that the Son of God Himself spake to Moses, and said to the people, "Behold, I send mine angel before thy"--that is, the people's--"face, to guard thee on the march, and to introduce thee into the land which I have prepared thee: attend to him, and be not disobedient to him; for he hath not escaped thy notice, since my name is upon him." For Jesus was to introduce the people into the land of promise, not Moses. Now He called him an "angel," on account of the magnitude of the mighty deeds which he was to achieve	Et ideo constat ipsum dei filium Moyseo esse locutum et dixisse ad populum: Ecce ego mitto angelum meum ante faciem tuam, id est populi, qui te custodiat in itinere et introducat te in terram quam praeparavi tibi. Intendite illi et audite eum et ne inobaudiens fueris ei; non enim celabit te, quoniam nomen meum super illum est, populum enim introducturus erat Iesus in terram repromissionis, non Moyses. Angelum quidem dixit eum ob magnitudinem virtutum quas erat editurus	Cum ergo mandato diceret populo, Ecce ego mitto angelum meum ante faciem tuam, qui te custodiat in via et introducat in terram quam paravi tibi, intende illi et exaudi eum, ne inobaudieris eum; non enim celabit4 te, quoniam nomen meum super illum est: angelum quidem eum dixit ob magnitudinem virtutum quas erat editurus , et ob officium prophetae, nuntiantis scilicet divinam voluntatem; Iesum autem ob nominis sui futur sacramentum.	When therefore he spoke to the people, to whom he had given the commandments, and said, Behold I send my angel before thy face, to guard thee in the way, and to bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee: give heed to him and hear him, disobey him not, for he will not hide it from thee that my name is upon him: he called him an angel because of the greatness of the exploits he was to perform, and because of his office of prophet in declaring the will of God: but he called him Jesus because of the mystery of his own name which was to be.

From here the material goes off in two separate directions both attempting to draw in the figure of Joshua:

Against the Jews	Adv Iud.	Adv. Marc. III	Against Marcion 3
(which mighty deeds Joshua the son of Nun did, and you yourselves read), and on account of his office of prophet announcing (to wit) the divine will; just as withal the Spirit, speaking in the person of the Father, calls the forerunner of Christ, John, a future "angel," through the prophet: "Behold, I send mine angel before Thy"--that is, Christ's--"face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee." Nor is it a novel practice to the Holy Spirit to call those "angels" whom God has appointed as ministers of His power. For the same John is called not merely an "angel" of Christ, but withal a "lamp" shining before Christ: for David predicts, "I have prepared the lamp for my Christ; " and him Christ Himself, coming "to fulfil the prophets," called so to the Jews. "He was," He says, "the burning and shining lamp; " as being he who not merely "prepared His ways in the desert," but withal, by pointing out "the Lamb of God," illumined the minds of men by his heralding, so that they understood Him to be that Lamb whom Moses was wont to announce as destined to suffer. Thus, too, (was the son of Nun called) Joshua, on account of the future mystery of his name: for that name (He who spake with Moses) confirmed as His own which Himself had conferred on him, because He had bidden him thenceforth be called, not "angel" nor "Oshea," but "Joshua." Thus, therefore, each name is appropriate to the Christ of God--that He should be called Jesus as well (as Christ).	Idem enim Iohannes non tantum angelus Christi vocatus est sed et lucerna lucens ante Christum. Paravi enim lucernam Christo meo David praedicat. + quem + ipse Christus veniens adimplere prophetas dicit ad Iudaeos: Ille fuit, inquit, lucerna ardens et lucens, utpote qui non tantum vias eius parabat in eremo sed et agnum dei demonstrando inluminabat mentes hominum praeconio suo, ut eum esse intellegerent agnum quem Moyses passumm nuntiabat. Sic et Iesus ob nominis sui futurum sacramentum. Id enim nomen suum confirmavit quod ipse ei indiderat, quia non angelum nec Ausen sed Iesum eum iusserat exinde vocari. Sic igitur utrumque nomen competit Christo dei, ut et Iesus appellaretur.	Identidem nomen suum confirmavit quod ipse ei indiderat, quia non angelum nec Ausen, sed Iesum eum iusserat exinde vocitari. Ergo si utrumque nomen competit in Christum creatoris, tanto utrumque non competit in Christum non creatoris, sicut nec reliquus ordo. Facienda est denique iam hinc inter nos certa ista et iusta praescriptio et utrique parti necessaria, qua determinatum sit nihil omnino commune esse debere alterius dei Christo cum Christo creatoris. Nam et a vobis proinde diversitas defendenda est, sicut a nobis repugnanda est, quia nec vos probare poteritis alterius dei venisse Christum, nisi eum longe alium demonstraveritis a Christo creatoris, nec nos eum creatoris vindicare, nisi talem eum ostenderimus qualis constituitur a creatore. De nominibus iam obduximus. Mihi vindico Christum, mihi defendo Iesum.	Again and again he asserted his own name which he had conferred upon him, because he had ordered him to be addressed in future not as angel or as Auses but as Jesus. Therefore in as much as both these names are appropriate to the Creator's Christ, to that extent neither of them is appropriate to the Christ of a non-creator—nor again is the rest of what he did. So from this point onwards there must be marked out between you and me that firm and definite ruling, necessary to both parties, by which it is laid down that there can be nothing at all in common between the Christ of another god and the Christ of the Creator. You will have as great a need to defend their diversity, as I to oppose it: because you will only be able to prove that another god's Christ has come, by showing that he is far and away different from the Christ of the Creator: while I shall only be able to prove him the Creator's by showing him to be such a one as is commissioned by the Creator. On the matter of the names I have now gained my point: I claim Christ as mine, I assert that Jesus belongs to me.

[stephan happy huller]

Notice also that the original author does not know 'and the Rock was Christ' otherwise he would have cited it above. Instead he has to argue that that Christ should be taken as the rock because of a number of allegories.

[stephan happy huller]

If you look carefully at the examples given Tertullian never exactly explains how or why the Marcionites reject the typology of Joshua. The closest we get is that the Jews don't expect the messiah to be named Jesus and for some reason again not given the arguments used against the Jews originally are reused against the Marcionites. I must confess I find this among the most interesting problems in Patristics - a view probably not shared by many.

I think either Justin and/or Irenaeus wrote the original lost treatise. I assume it was written against the Jews ... but who knows. Somehow it was turned around as a treatise Against Marcion but even this is problematic.

why was it directed against Marcion the man rather than "Marcionites" as such (Marcion must have been dead), why not against Apelles or some living member of the sect?

"Marcion" was by the time of Irenaeus an anachronism presumably.

[stephan happy huller]

I think you can still see that Against Marcion's use of the material against the Jews that he doesn't have a fucking clue why this connects back to the Marcionites ... but it does somehow. He just doesn't seem to know why any more.

in Adv Iud it is the Jews who ask


"But if the Christ," say they, "who is believed to be coming is not called Jesus, why is he who is come called Jesus Christ?"

I wonder. What group did the Jews think they were addressing? Was the original author of this treatise a Marcionite?

[stephan happy huller]

I think we can confirm that the Marcionites rejected the Joshua typology from Book One of Ephrem's Against Marcion, in a section dealing with the Transfiguration narrative:

[

See] also, O Marcion, that [these] two Gods, namely the Maker and the Stranger, are both of them angry at the same thing, and take pleasure in the same thing, and are gratified by the same thing. For the Maker is angry at hateful things, and the Good (God) also is angry at hateful things — if it be right to admit that the Good (God) is angry with those who have committed no offence whatever against Him. And so also both of them are gratified by good things, for ... it is evident that they are both angry at adultery and theft and other hateful things, and that they are both gratified by sackcloth and fasting and prayer. For what has happened to these two Gods that they should have one will ? Is it not clear that either there is (only) One God, or that they are both One, for as one they both will with one will ?

And that thou mightest know that this is so, the Maker sanctified Moses and sent him to Egypt, and since Moses wished to take his wife with him by force, He (i.e. the Maker) constrained |xxxv him by means of an angel21 to send her back, that He might show how pleasing holiness is to Him. And the Stranger also acted likewise towards Simon (Peter), although he did not [P. 76.] compel him ; and (the fact) that he did not compel him, was it because it did not [become] Him to compel, not only because He is good but also because He is not our Creator ? And again, when the People had been sanctified, He did not allow them to approach the holy mountain because they were turning again to married life ; but the People were standing at a distance, and Moses the holy was speaking, and God was answering with a voice. And again, the disciples also were standing in silence, and Simon only was speaking. And perhaps thou wilt say, Was there not among them John, a virgin, and were not all his companions holy ? (But I reply, Nay—) for here (i.e. at Sinai) also were not the People holy in relation to the Maker ? And Joshua was a virgin, and 22 he (i.e. Moses) was brought in with Joshua only. Lo ! here also it is found that Isu resembles the Maker ; for the Maker sanctified the chief of His prophets, and Isu sanctified the chief of His apostles.

I think Ephrem's irony means it was a point that the author judged would send his opponents into fits of rage. The point now becomes a little more confusing:

1. a treatise written against the Jews was re-baptized by Tertullian (or perhaps Irenaeus and loosely translated by Tertullian) against Marcion
2. the Jews objected to the Joshua typology and the Marcionite rejection of Jesus being identified as Jesus (= a Greek translation of the Hebrew Joshua) was somehow connected (i.e. that the Jews saying 'the messiah was not going to be called Jesus' was likened to the Marcionites 'Isu is not a translation of Jesus or Joshua)

Unless someone else has a better explanation ...

[stephan happy huller]

Also Adv Marc. 4:12

If Christ interfered with377 the Sabbath, He simply acted after the Creator's example; inasmuch as in the siege of the city of Jericho the carrying around the walls of the ark of the covenant for eight days running, and therefore on a Sabbath-day, actually378 annulled the Sabbath, by the Creator's command----according to the opinion of those who think this of Christ in this passage of St. Luke, in their ignorance that neither Christ nor the Creator violated the Sabbath, as we shall by and by show. And yet the Sabbath was actually then broken379 by Joshua,380 so that the present charge might be alleged also against Christ.

Also in the Dialogue of Adamantius De recta fide, the Marcionite champion Mege- thius maintains that: »the prophet of the God of Creation, in order that he might destroy more of his enemies, made the sun to stand, so that it did not set until he had done destroying the enemies of God's people; but our Lord, who is good, says, ,Do not let the sun go down upon your wrath'«