Another Argument that Against Marcion Existed in a Period Before the Gospel of Luke Was Published

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Another Argument that Against Marcion Existed in a Period Before the Gospel of Luke Was Published

Post by Secret Alias »

Luke 4:26 Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. 27 And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”
Given that the reference to Naaman the Syrian appears in chapter 4 of our Luke you'd expect the reference to Naaman to occur early in Against Marcion. No, it does not. Instead the reference occurs as a theoretical response in the second healing of lepers in Luke in chapter 17. Again it is 'theoretical' - i.e. as if the Marcionites said this about the distinctiveness of Christ and not as a textual reference to Luke chapter 4 as we might expect (however strange that might be in a commentary on something in Luke 17):
For a phantom is not susceptible of defilement. He therefore, who could not be defiled, as being a phantom, will not have an immunity from pollution by any divine power, but owing to his fantastic vacuity; nor can he be regarded as having despised pollution, who had not in fact any material capacity242 for it; nor, in like manner, as having destroyed the law, who had escaped defilement from the occasion of his phantom nature, not from any display of virtue. [6] If, however, the Creator's prophet Elisha cleansed Naaman the Syrian alone, to the exclusion of so many lepers in Israel, this fact contributes nothing to the distinction of Christ, as if he were in this way the better one for cleansing this Israelite leper, although a stranger to him, whom his own Lord had been unable to cleanse. The miracle was performed in the district of Samaria, to which country also belonged one of the lepers.1402 Samaria, however, had revolted from Israel, carrying with it the disaffected nine tribes,1403 which, having been alienated1404 by the prophet Ahijah,1405 Jeroboam settled in Samaria. Besides, the Samaritans were always pleased with the mountains and the wells of their ancestors. [AM 35]
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Another Argument that Against Marcion Existed in a Period Before the Gospel of Luke Was Published

Post by Secret Alias »

I think the same thing can be argued on behalf of Against Marcion 19. Luke 8 reads:
His disciples asked him what this parable meant. 10 He said, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, “‘though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.’ “This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God. 12 Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.
It appears as if Jesus cites Isaiah - how could the Marcionites be so foolish as to claim that there was no evidence of Jesus's use of scripture. Case closed. But now look at Against Marcion - is the author arguing that Jesus cited Isaiah or that Isaiah predicted what Jesus would later say:
By Isaiah the Lord called these wealthy ladies----"Rise up, ye women that are at ease, and hear my voice"702 ----that He might prove703 them first as disciples, and then as assistants and helpers: "Daughters, hear my words in hope; this day of the year cherish the memory of, in labour with hope." For it was "in labour" that they followed Him, and "with hope" did they minister to Him. [2] On the subject of parables, let it suffice that it has been once for all shown that this kind of language704 was with equal distinctness promised by the Creator. But there is that direct mode of His speaking705 to the people"Ye shall hear with the ear, but ye shall not understand"706 ----which now claims notice as having furnished to Christ that frequent form of His earnest instruction: "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."707 Not as if Christ, actuated with a diverse spirit, permitted a hearing which the Creator had refused; but because the exhortation followed the threatening. First came, "Ye shall hear with the ear, but shall not understand; "then followed, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." [3] For they wilfully refused to hear, although they had ears. He, however, was teaching them that it was the ears of the heart which were necessary; and with these the Creator had said that they would not hear. Therefore it is that He adds by His Christ, "Take heed how ye hear,"708 and hear not,----meaning, of course, with the hearing of the heart, not of the ear. If you only attach a proper, sense to the Creator's admonition709 suitable to the meaning of Him who was rousing the people to hear by the words, "Take heed how ye hear," it amounted to a menace to such as would not hear. In fact,710 that most merciful god of yours, who judges not, neither is angry, is minatory.[AM 19]
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Another Argument that Against Marcion Existed in a Period Before the Gospel of Luke Was Published

Post by Secret Alias »

Against Marcion cites Isaiah 53 as if it is specifically applied to Jesus being crucified between two thieves:
"Moreover two malefactors are crucified around Him, in order that He might be reckoned amongst the transgressors."
Yet it seems hard to believe that Tertullian would have applied this scripture to Luke chapter 23 when it is specifically cited in Luke 22 by Jesus to his own capture by the authorities at Gethsemane:
Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.” Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. 36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Another Argument that Against Marcion Existed in a Period Before the Gospel of Luke Was Published

Post by Secret Alias »

Moreover Tertullian seems to imply that the Roman soldiers taking Jesus's clothes are a fulfillment of what is written in the Psalms:
Although His raiment was, without doubt, parted among the soldiers, and partly distributed by lot, yet Marcion has erased it all (from his Gospel),1655 for he had his eye upon the Psalm: "They parted my garments amongst them, and cast lots upon my vesture." You may as well take away the cross itself! But even then the Psalm is not silent concerning it: "They pierced my hands and my feet."
If the words of the Psalm were explicitly cited in his gospel you would figure that Tertullian would say so. Instead he seems to imply:

1. the Passion narrative included the report of soldiers taking Jesus's clothes
2. this has to be read as 'fulfilling' the Psalm

I can't get over the fact that 'they pierced by hands and feet' also influenced the post-resurrection appearance of Jesus in the same way. In other words, the text never cited the Psalms but the narrative was nevertheless written in such a way as to conform the details presented there. I don't think that Marcion's gospel had the post-resurrection display of pierced hands and feet. Tertullian says that it does. But I presume this is based on the fact that there is no definitive proof or any report of the Marcionites deleting the passage.

Instead he has stumbled upon a complaint that the Marcionite's removed the line about the soldiers taking his garments and argued that this was done for polemical reasons - which doesn't make sense. As Tertullian notes:
Indeed, the details of the whole event are therein read: "Dogs compassed me about; the assembly of the wicked enclosed me around. All that looked upon me laughed me to scorn; they did shoot out their lips and shake their heads, (saying, ) He hoped in God, let Him deliver Him."1658 Of what use now is (your tampering with) the testimony of His garments? If you take it as a booty for your false Christ, still all the Psalm (compensates) the vesture of Christ.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Another Argument that Against Marcion Existed in a Period Before the Gospel of Luke Was Published

Post by Secret Alias »

ggg
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Another Argument that Against Marcion Existed in a Period Before the Gospel of Luke Was Published

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:56 am May a man rather not have fathers and sisters (living), or even no relatives at all? But there is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ. Such a method of testing the point had therefore no consistency whatever in it and they "who were standing without" were really "His mother and His brethren." [AM 4.19]

Saturninus governor of Syria 10 - 6 BCE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Sentius_Saturninus. Luke's Quirinius is ten years after this. If this were in any other book - other than a text purporting to be a commentary on Luke essentially - this discrepancy might be minor. But the author who wrote these words clearly was making up the existence of a census in order to prove that Jesus was a historical person before he had any knowledge of Luke. There are many other example of this. But here it is clearly an example of Luke being inspired by the arguments behind Against Marcion.

Incidentally a gospel with one year or ministry for a 30 year old Jesus = 20 CE for the crucifixion - the date preferred by Schwartz, Mason, Charlesworth and many other based on numerous sources.
What about this reconstruction?

Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 26.8: 8 Ἔστι δὲ ἡμῖν καὶ σύνταγμα κατὰ πασῶν τῶν γεγενημένων αἱρέσεων συντεταγμένον, ᾧ εἰ βούλεσθε ἐντυχεῖν δώσομεν. / 8 But there is for us a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, we will give you.

Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 46.1: 1 Ἵνα δὲ μή τινες ἀλογισταίνοντες εἰς ἀποτροπὴν τῶν δεδιδαγμένων ὑφ’ ἡμῶν εἴπωσι πρὸ ἐτῶν ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα γεγεννῆσθαι τὸν Χριστὸν λέγειν ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ Κυρηνίου, δεδιδαχέναι δὲ ἅ φαμεν διδάξαι αὐτὸν ὕστερον χρόνοις ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ ἐπικαλῶσιν ὡς ἀνευθύνων ὄντων τῶν προγεγενημένων πάντων ἀνθρώπων, φθάσαντες τὴν ἀπορίαν λυσόμεθα. / 1 But lest some should without reason and for the perversion of what we teach maintain that we say that Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius, and subsequently, in the time of Pontius Pilate, taught what we say He taught; and should cry out against us as though all men who were born before Him were irresponsible--let us anticipate and solve the difficulty.

Justin Martyr, Dialogue 78.4: 4 Φοβηθεὶς οὖν οὐκ ἐκβέβληκεν αὐτήν, ἀλλά, ἀπογραφῆς οὔσης ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ τότε πρώτης ἐπὶ Κυρηνίου, ἀνεληλύθει ἀπὸ Ναζαρέτ, ἔνθα ᾤκει, εἰς Βηθλεέμ, ὅθεν ἦν, ἀπογράψασθαι· ἀπὸ γὰρ τῆς κατοικούσης τὴν γῆν ἐκείνην φυλῆς Ἰούδα τὸ γένος ἦν. καὶ αὐτὸς ἅμα τῇ Μαρίᾳ κελεύεται ἐξελθεῖν εἰς Αἴγυπτον καὶ εἶναι ἐκεῖ ἅμα τῷ παιδίῳ, ἄχρις ἂν αὐτοῖς πάλιν ἀποκαλυφθῇ ἐπανελθεῖν εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν. / Then he was afraid, and did not put her away; but on the occasion of the first census which was taken in Judea, under Cyrenius, he went up from Nazareth, where he lived, to Bethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled; for his family was of the tribe of Judah, which then inhabited that region. Then along with Mary he is ordered to proceed into Egypt, and remain there with the Child until another revelation warn them to return into Judea.

  1. Justin composes the Syntagma, attributing the census to Saturninus.
  2. Justin later notices his own chronological error (or changes his mind about the chronology) and mentally corrects it in time for the first Apology and the Dialogue.
  3. But Tertullian uses the errant Syntagma, not noticing the later fix in the first Apology and the Dialogue.
Luke's chronology has always been notorious:

Luke 1.5: 5 In the days of Herod [died 4 BC to AD 1], king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

Luke 2.1-2: 1 Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus [ruled 27 BC to AD 14], that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. 2 This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria [AD 6-12].

That bit in red is a standalone; it could be justly put in parentheses. What if it were originally lacking, and the Lucan infancy narratives envisioned Jesus being born well and truly before King Herod's death, perhaps even while Saturninus was still governor of Syria? The infancy gospel of James includes Augustus ordering the census but nothing about it being under Quirinius:

Infancy gospel of James 17: 17 And there was an order from the Emperor Augustus, that all in Bethlehem of Judaea should be enrolled. And Joseph said: I shall enroll my sons, but what shall I do with this maiden? How shall I enroll her? As my wife? I am ashamed. As my daughter then? But all the sons of Israel know that she is not my daughter. The day of the Lord shall itself bring it to pass as the Lord will. And he saddled the ass, and set her upon it; and his son led it, and Joseph followed. And when they had come within three miles, Joseph turned and saw her sorrowful; and he said to himself: Likely that which is in her distresses her. And again Joseph turned and saw her laughing. And he said to her: Mary, how is it that I see in your face at one time laughter, at another sorrow? And Mary said to Joseph: Because I see two peoples with my eyes; the one weeping and lamenting, and the other rejoicing and exulting. And they came into the middle of the road, and Mary said to him: Take me down from off the ass, for that which is in me presses to come forth. And he took her down from off the ass, and said to her: Whither shall I lead you, and cover your disgrace? For the place is desert.

This chronology would actually pretty well agree with Matthew's, I think. In this case nothing chronological would be amiss with Justin attributing the census to Saturninus in the Syntagma; the gospel of Luke, however, would have been later adjusted (by adding 2.2, at least) to match up with the famous census under Quirinius instead. It has appeared to me before that a proto-Luke has been salted at times with data from Josephus en route to becoming the canonical text that we know.

I also note this abstract, which would support your other option, that Justin himself did not compose the original treatise used in Against Marcion:

Justin’s Advertisement of the Syntagma against All the Heresies
Geoffrey S. Smith
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199386789.003.0002


This chapter revisits a topic that has received much attention in scholarship: Justin’s role in the emergence of the heresiological tradition. Since Justin is often thought to have authored the earliest known heresy catalogue, the Syntagma against All the Heresies, he is credited with the “invention” of heresiology. This chapter, however, reevaluates Justin’s status as the founder of heresiology by arguing that he likely did not compose the Syntagma against All the Heresies. When he mentions the treatise in 1 Apology 26, he uses the language of advertisement, not of authorship. Despite the likelihood that Justin did not compose this earliest known heresy catalogue, he nonetheless plays an important role in the early heresiological tradition by promoting the treatise and making it available to a wide audience. Justin may not be the progenitor of the Christian heresiological tradition, but he certainly lent stability to it by popularizing one particular catalogue over and above others.

And Smith may be right: technically, Justin does not directly claim to have penned the Syntagma himself. That dative (ἡμῖν) is the key, it would seem: is the treatise by him or just in his possession?
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Another Argument that Against Marcion Existed in a Period Before the Gospel of Luke Was Published

Post by Stuart »

Peter,

The problem with Stephen's approach is that he presumes the Lucan readings we see today to have been before the Marcionite as well. He also ignores passages quoted by Tertullian that are clearly part of the Lucan account but not part of the Marcionite text -- he does make such distinctions here and there. It's a kind of pick and choose technique, not rigorously consistent.

If the common model of Marcion --> Matthew --> Luke, and Luke then revised during a Catholicizing period which could have gone on well into the 3rd century occurred, then that would account for all the discrepancies, and put a published Luke before Tertullian, although perhaps missing a few elements of Luke as we know it. This snowball for the Gospels is not as popular a theory as for Paul and other books like Hebrews and Revelation, but should be given serious consideration.

What the model of Marcion before Matthew and Matthew before Luke says is that Matthew could well possess, and almost certainly does possess, some Marcionite readings no longer held in Luke, because Luke was redacted. Matthew of all the Gospels appears to have been written specifically to refute Marcionite positions, point by point, thus the incorporation of Marcionite sayings would be a logical method to use.

Remember also Stephen is working under the assumption that Marcion used a canonical Gospel similar to what we know today. (I am ignoring his more outlandish assumptions of misnamed Church Fathers -based apparently upon 4th and 5th century gossip, and slavish acceptance of Eusubius as a source-, and various language claims of dubious analysis.) The alternate model is one he refuses to consider, and in this is a clear case where it should be considered side by side.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Another Argument that Against Marcion Existed in a Period Before the Gospel of Luke Was Published

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:57 pmLuke's chronology has always been notorious:

Luke 1.5: 5 In the days of Herod [died 4 BC to AD 1], king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

Luke 2.1-2: 1 Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus [ruled 27 BC to AD 14], that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. 2 This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria [AD 6-12].

That bit in red is a standalone; it could be justly put in parentheses. What if it were originally lacking, and the Lucan infancy narratives envisioned Jesus being born well and truly before King Herod's death, perhaps even while Saturninus was still governor of Syria?
The earliest patristic references to Luke 1.2 seem to be the following:

Hippolytus, Commentary on Daniel 4.9: 9 And on account of this also the first census happened under Augustus, when the Lord was born in Bethlehem, so that the men of this world, being registered in the earthly kingdom, were called Romans, but those who believe in the heavenly kingdom were named Christians, who on their forehead carry the trophy against death to the front line.

Origen, Homilies on Luke 11.6a: 6a After this the Scripture adds, "It happened in those days that an edict went out from Caesar Augustus, that the whold world should be registered. This was the first census made under Cyrinus, the governor of Syria."

Eusebius, History of the Church 1.5.2: 2 It was in the forty-second year of the reign of Augustus and the twenty-eighth after the subjugation of Egypt and the death of Antony and Cleopatra, with whom the dynasty of the Ptolemies in Egypt came to an end, that our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea, according to the prophecies which had been uttered concerning him. His birth took place during the first census, while Cyrenius was governor of Syria.

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Another Argument that Against Marcion Existed in a Period Before the Gospel of Luke Was Published

Post by andrewcriddle »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Mar 06, 2018 8:13 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:57 pmLuke's chronology has always been notorious:

Luke 1.5: 5 In the days of Herod [died 4 BC to AD 1], king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

Luke 2.1-2: 1 Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus [ruled 27 BC to AD 14], that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. 2 This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria [AD 6-12].

That bit in red is a standalone; it could be justly put in parentheses. What if it were originally lacking, and the Lucan infancy narratives envisioned Jesus being born well and truly before King Herod's death, perhaps even while Saturninus was still governor of Syria?
The earliest patristic references to Luke 1.2 seem to be the following:

Hippolytus, Commentary on Daniel 4.9: 9 And on account of this also the first census happened under Augustus, when the Lord was born in Bethlehem, so that the men of this world, being registered in the earthly kingdom, were called Romans, but those who believe in the heavenly kingdom were named Christians, who on their forehead carry the trophy against death to the front line.

Origen, Homilies on Luke 11.6a: 6a After this the Scripture adds, "It happened in those days that an edict went out from Caesar Augustus, that the whold world should be registered. This was the first census made under Cyrinus, the governor of Syria."

Eusebius, History of the Church 1.5.2: 2 It was in the forty-second year of the reign of Augustus and the twenty-eighth after the subjugation of Egypt and the death of Antony and Cleopatra, with whom the dynasty of the Ptolemies in Egypt came to an end, that our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea, according to the prophecies which had been uttered concerning him. His birth took place during the first census, while Cyrenius was governor of Syria.

Justin Martyr certainly knew of Luke dating the birth of Jesus at the time of Quirinius/Cyrenius.

First Apology
Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judæa.
Dialogue With Trypho
And Joseph, the spouse of Mary, who wished at first to put away his betrothed Mary, supposing her to be pregnant by intercourse with a man, i.e., from fornication, was commanded in a vision not to put away his wife; and the angel who appeared to him told him that what is in her womb is of the Holy Ghost. Then he was afraid, and did not put her away; but on the occasion of the first census which was taken in Jud a, under Cyrenius, he went up from Nazareth, where he lived, to Bethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled; for his family was of the tribe of Judah, which then inhabited that region.


Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Another Argument that Against Marcion Existed in a Period Before the Gospel of Luke Was Published

Post by Ben C. Smith »

andrewcriddle wrote: Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:27 pmJustin Martyr certainly knew of Luke dating the birth of Jesus at the time of Quirinius/Cyrenius.
Yes, you are right. Justin was the author I had already listed and quoted on the subject. I should have said that they were the earliest besides Justin.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply