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

[Ben C. Smith]

This goes along with the "strange" passages in which the text is being compared to the Gospel of Matthew.

Which is?

I have a rudimentary list here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1757, which also links to a much longer list Stephan posted on his blog by way of collecting all possible instances.

[MrMacSon]

Cheers Ben.

[Secret Alias]

I am just now going through the text of Against Marcion 4 in order. I don't think in fact that this is a reference to Matthew at all but another example of the author predating the synoptic gospels:

It is, in short, too bad164 that Romulus should have had in Proculus an avoucher of his ascent to heaven, when the Christ of (this) god could not find any one to announce his descent from heaven; just as if the ascent of the one and the descent of the other were not effected on one and the same ladder of falsehood! Then, what had he to do with Galilee, if he did not belong to the Creator by whom165 that region was destined (for His Christ) when about to enter on His ministry?166 As Isaiah says: "Drink in this first, and be prompt, O region of Zabulon and land of Nephthalim, and ye others who (inhabit) the sea-coast, and that of Jordan, Galilee of the nations, ye people who sit in darkness, behold a great light; upon you, who inhabit (that) land, sitting in the shadow of death, the light hath arisen."167 [4] It is, however, well that Marcion's god does claim to be the enlightener of the nations, that so he might have the better reason for coming down from heaven; only, if it must needs be,168 he should rather have made Pontus his place of descent than Galilee.

The footnote This is the literal rendering of Tertullian's version of the prophet's words, which occur chap. ix. 1, 2. The first clause closely follows the LXX. (ed. Tisch.): Tou=to prw=ton pi/e, taxu/ poi/ei. This curious passage is explained by Grotius (on Matt. iv. 14) as a mistake of ancient copyists; as if what the Seventy had originally rendered taxu\ poi/ei, from the hiphil of l@l@q, had been faultily written taxu\ pi/e, and the latter had crept into the text with the marginal note prw=ton, instead of a repetition of taxu\. However this be, Tertullian's old Latin Bible had the passage thus: "Hoc primum bibito, cito facito, regio Zabulon," etc.

Again Against Marcion (or its predecessor) shaped the form of canonical Matthew. As Ben notes I also partake particular interest in T's statement that Marcion excised things here which only appear in Matthew in what follows. To me this makes it obvious the author was dealing with a pre-canonical gospel:

It will, however, be vain for him to deny that Christ uttered in word what He forthwith did partially indeed. For the prophecy about place He at once fulfilled. From heaven straight to the synagogue. As the adage runs: "The business on which we are come, do at once." Marcion must even expunge from the Gospel, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel; "172 and, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs,"173 ----in order, forsooth, that Christ may not appear to be an Israelite. [6] But facts will satisfy me instead of words.

Sed frustra negabit Christum dixisse quod statim fecit ex parte. Prophetiam enim interim de loco adimplevit. De caelo statim ad synagogam. Ut dici solet, ad quod venimus; hoc age, Marcion, aufer etiam illud de evangelio, Non sum missus nisi ad oves perditas domus Israel, et, Non est auferre panem filiis et dare eum canibus, ne scilicet Christus Israelis videretur. Sufficiunt mihi facta pro dictis.

So for those who deny the idea that there are two pre-canonical gospels at the heart of the discussion (at least at the core of Against Marcion) what follows next should be the clincher.

It is not enough for the author to say that Marcion erased things from Matthew that were never in Luke - viz. the whole bit we just saw about the Canaanite woman feeding her dogs over her children (the story that is passed on to the Pseudo-Clementines in a pre-canonical form too (with the name of the daughter as Berenice). Believe it or not Against Marcion doesn't stop at accusing Marcion of 'cutting out' from his gospel things that never appear in Luke. He goes on step further and says - even with this deletion you can still see the 'prophetic fingerprints' of the story in Marcion's gospel even though it has Jesus go from heaven straight to the synagogue.

The thought here is very strange and it is made even more incomprehensible by later editing of the original text - but it goes something like this. Marcion's gospel and the true gospel (the pre-canonical gospel of the original author which must have looked something like a gospel harmony) both retain the reality that Jesus's actions were prompted by the Holy Spirit, the same Holy Spirit which infused the prophets. The authors of the gospels were infused by the same Spirit and so - I guess - you can still see 'the prophesy' of Jesus visiting the mother feeding her dogs before her kids in the synagogue narrative which in the Marcionite gospel immediately follows Christ's descent from heaven.

Here is how the (strange) original argument is preserved in our present text of Against Marcion:

Lo, He enters the synagogue; surely (this is going) to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Behold, it is to Israelites first that He offers the "bread" of His doctrine; surely it is because they are "children" that He shows them this priority.174 Observe, He does not yet impart it to others; surely He passes them by as "dogs." For to whom else could He better have imparted it, than to such as were strangers to the Creator, if He especially belonged not to the Creator?

Very bizarre indeed. There are two gospels - the author's own gospel which has the woman feeding the dogs before the entry into the synagogue and Marcion's gospel which lacked the woman feeding the dogs. Neither are canonical but both according to the author have been inspired by the same Holy Spirit that was active in the prophets and both therefore conform to some prophesy in the Old Testament that I can't quite figure out what it is.

Yet another example of the proto-gospel situation is when the author cites a harmonized 'gospel' (sing) and its birth narrative featuring lines from what is now Matthew and Luke:

As therefore he could not by any means acknowledge him, whom he was ignorant of, to be Jesus and the Holy One of God; so did he acknowledge Him whom he knew (to be both). For he remembered how that the prophet had prophesied185 of "the Holy One" of God, and how that God's name of "Jesus" was in the son of Nun.186 These facts he had also received187 from the angel, according to our Gospel: "Wherefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called the Holy One, the Son of God; " (Luke i. 35) and, "Thou shalt call his name Jesus."(Matt. i. 21)

[Peter Kirby]

Fascinating that the 'Against Marcion ur-text' might have predated Luke, and then Luke might have corrected Marcion, and then the legend arose that Marcion's text was a mutilation of Luke... a legend encrusted over the earlier Against Marcion, which knew nothing about the Gospel of Luke.

Wow. I hadn't thought it could have been that complicated.

There may be some loose ends here, but I believe this kind of work should be published, if it hasn't already been.

It'd be good if it hasn't.

The idea that Luke could have used not only the 'Marcionite' Gospel but also a commentary on it (... a critical one) is very interesting.

Which would put Luke -or that aspect of Luke- being written in ~200 AD/CE

The idea that Tertullian didn't totally understand his source gets further evidence from the point made above.

to clarify fully: Luke being inspired by arguments behind/in Against Marcion?

This goes along with the "strange" passages in which the text is being compared to the Gospel of Matthew.

Which is?

My post was primarily for SA or anyone else who remembers some context. I suppose I could fish out some links.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1464
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1757
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3236

I'm not sure I found all the best threads, but... the best indicators are right at the front of Against Marcion, where the text complains about stuff that was excised in Marcion's gospel -- and that stuff is usually talking about the Gospel of Matthew.

I think the word here is Luke being inspired by what's "behind" Against Marcion, if that is defined as Tertullian's publication of it.

Huller, Criddle, and others before them have speculated on an anti-Marcionite text, possibly by Justin Martyr(?), that lies behind AM.

[MrMacSon]

Cheers Peter.

[andrewcriddle]

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.

I'm going to take this as an argument about the Greek proto-Against Marcion which Tertullian probably used. (I take it as certain that canonical Luke is earlier than Tertullian.)

The problem is that this proto-Against Marcion probably derives from Justin Martyr and associates. However Justin 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.

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.

Hence I strongly suspect that proto-Against Marcion referred to Quirinius and Tertullian changed this to Saturninus.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

Well that is important to take note of but:

1. the assumption that the proto-text of Against Marcion goes back to Justin is only a tentative hypothesis. It could have been someone in his circle or someone outside of his circle too. Admittedly Justin as the author of proto-Against Marcion ties a lot of loose ends together. But life is full of loose ends. Neatness isn't always a good argument. It's just a good argument to help us close the book turn away and move on to other things.
2. at the heart of this is another strange assumption - viz. only one of Justin's works (= proto-Against Marcion) was corrupted with Lukan material. If Against Marcion 4 goes back to Justin and Against Marcion 4 was corrupted or adapted to Luke (originally not being about Luke) then surely other works of Justin might have suffered the same fate.

[Secret Alias]

It is odd that Tertullian cites Matthew's wording in

Thenceforth Christ extended to all men the law of His Father's compassion, excepting none from His mercy, as He omitted none in His invitation. So that, whatever was the ampler scope of His teaching, He received it all in His heritage of the nations. [13] "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."597 In this command is no doubt implied its counterpart: "And as ye would not that men should do to you, so should ye also not do to them likewise." Now, if this were the teaching of the new and previously unknown and not yet fully proclaimed deity, who had favoured me with no instruction beforehand, whereby I might first learn what I ought to choose or to refuse for myself, and to do to others what I would wish done to myself, not doing to them what I should be unwilling to have done to myself, it would certainly be nothing else than the chance-medley of my own sentiments598 which he would have left to me, binding me to no proper rule of wish or action, in order that I might do to others what I would like for myself, or refrain from doing to others what I should dislike to have done to myself. [14] For he has not, in fact, defined what I ought to wish or not to wish for myself as well as for others, so that I shape my conduct599 according to the law of my own will, and have it in my power600 not to render601 to another what I would like to have rendered to myself----love, obedience, consolation, protection, and such like blessings; and in like manner to do to another what I should be unwilling to have done to myself----violence, wrong, insult, deceit, and evils of like sort. Indeed, the heathen who have not been instructed by God act on this incongruous liberty of the will and the conduct.602 [15] For although good and evil are severally known by nature, yet life is not thereby spent603 under the discipline of God, which alone at last teaches men the proper liberty of their will and action in faith, asin the fear of God. The god of Marcion, therefore, although specially revealed, was, in spite of his revelation, unable to publish any summary of the precept in question, which had hitherto been so confined,604 and obscure, and dark, and admitting of no ready interpretation, except according to my own arbitrary thought,605 because he had provided no previous discrimination in the matter of such a precept ... Accordingly, when He uttered such denunciations as, "Thou shalt do no murder; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness," He taught me to refrain from doing to others what I should be unwilling to have done to myself; and therefore the precept developed in the Gospel will belong to Him alone, who anciently drew it up, and gave it distinctive point, and arranged it after the decision of His own teaching, and has now reduced it, suitably to its importance, to a compendious formula, because (as it was predicted in another passage) the Lord----that is, Christ" was to make (or utter) a concise word on earth."

Note Matthew reads:

“Why do you ask Me about what is good?” Jesus replied, “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” 18“Which ones?” the man asked. Jesus answered, “‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, 19honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.’”

The LXX begins with "adultery.' Luke begins with adultery. And notice there is another reference to the same passage clearly coming from a gospel later in Against Marcion 4 where it is followed by a saying that only appears in Matthew:

Well now, Marcion, and all ye who are companions in misery, and associates in hatred1448 with that heretic, what will you dare say to this? Did Christ rescind the forementioned commandments: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother? "Or did He both keep them, and then add1449 what was wanting to them? This very precept, however, about giving to the poor, was very largely1450 diffused through the pages of the law and the prophets. This vainglorious observer of the commandments was therefore convicted1451 of holding money in much higher estimation (than charity). [6] This verity of the gospel then stands unimpaired: "I am not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them." [4.36.5]

It defies credulity to suggest that Tertullian has before him Marcion's gospel and is systematically working through that text in Against Marcion. It is instead a manipulation of an early commentary on a Gospel Harmony with passage clearly paralleled in Matthew. No doubts about it.

[Secret Alias]

The argument for Against Marcion being used to ultimately 'fix' the Marcionite canon becomes actually a lot stronger in Book 5. In other words, it seems that as the author is making scriptural comparisons showing that the New Testament is based on the Old some of his examples get incorporated into our canonical text of the Pauline Letters: Example 1:

But what do the Marcionites wish to have believed (on the point)? For the rest, the apostle must (be permitted to) go on with his own statement, wherein he says that "a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith: " [Galatians 2:6] faith, however, in the same God to whom belongs the law also. For of course he would have bestowed no labour on severing faith from the law, when the difference of the god would, if there had only been any, have of itself produced such a severance. Justly, therefore, did he refuse to "build up again (the structure of the law) which he had overthrown. The law, indeed, had to be overthrown, from the moment when John "cried in the wilderness, Prepare ye the ways of the Lord," that valleys108 and hills and mountains may be filled up and levelled, and the crooked and the rough ways be made straight and smooth109 ----in other words, that the difficulties of the law might be changed into the facilities of the gospel. For he remembered that the time was come of which the Psalm spake, "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast off their yoke from us; "110 since the time when "the nations became tumultuous, and the people imagined vain counsels; "when "the kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ,"111 in order that thenceforward man might be justified by the liberty of faith, not by servitude to the law, "because the just shall live by his faith." [Hab 2.6] Now, although the prophet Habakkuk first said this, yet you have the apostle here confirming the prophets, even as Christ did. [Adv Marc 5.3]

If you look at the author is not saying that Paul included Hab 2.6 in his epistle. He's merely trying to diffuse the Marcionite argument that Paul was saying that he was against the law by using several scriptures as support including Hab 2.6. In fact he says what Paul did is the same as Christ did which has to mean 'loosely agreed to the principles of Hab 2.6' rather than actually citing the scripture in some sort of written testimony.

[Secret Alias]

delete