Clear Sign that Against the Jews is From Something Like Justin's Dialogue and is More Original Than Against Marcion 3

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Clear Sign that Against the Jews is From Something Like Justin's Dialogue and is More Original Than Against Marcion 3

Post by Secret Alias »

I think everyone at this forum is aware that there are large sections of Tertullian's Against the Jews and Against Marcion 3 that are verbatim copies of one another. I have long maintained that Against the Jews is more original. Most people agree. But I've also argued that Against the Jews goes back to something written by Justin. Look at the first line of Against the Jews and you will see why:
It happened very recently a dispute was held between a Christian and a Jewish proselyte. Alternately with contentious cable they each spun out the day until evening. By the opposing din, moreover, of some partisans of the individuals, truth began to be overcast by a sort of cloud. It was therefore our pleasure that that which, owing to the confused noise of disputation, could be less fully elucidated point by point, should be more carefully looked into, and that the pen should determine, for reading purposes, the questions handled.

Proxime accidit: disputatio habita est Christiano et proselyto Iudaeo. Alternis vicibus contentioso fune uterque diem in vesperam traxerunt. Obstrepentibus quibusdam ex partibus singulorum nubilo quodam veritas obumbrabatur. Placuit ergo, [ut] quod per concentum disputationis minus plene potuit dilucidari, curiosius inspectis lectionibus stilo quaestiones retractatas terminare.
This clearly makes it seem as if Against the Jews came from something like the Dialogue where indeed Trypho's companions are still identified as 'proselytes' - "Wherefore, Trypho, I will proclaim to you, and to those who wish to become proselytes, the divine message which I heard from that man (Jesus)."

Getting back now to Against Marcion. As I have long argued Book 2 naturally flows into Book 4. The last paragraph of Book 2 deals with the Antitheses the first paragraph of Book 4 deals with the Antitheses. Book 3 - the book with large sections which parallel Against the Jews - marks a break from the discussion about the Antitheses just mentioned and announces for all who can hear that the author here is the secondary editor who references two previous editions of Against Marcion in the introduction to the work as a whole:
Continuing with my reconstruction of the work which was lost, and following its original lines, I have now to treat of the Christ, even though, by having completed my proof that divinity necessarily implies unity, I have rendered this superfluous.
At the beginning of Book 1 the same editor declares:
Nothing I have previously written against Marcion is any longer my concern. I am embarking upon a new work to replace an old one. My first edition, too hurriedly produced, I afterwards withdrew, substituting a fuller treatment. This also, before enough copies had been made, was stolen from me by a person, at that time a Christian but afterwards an apostate, who chanced to have copied out some extracts very incorrectly, and shewed them to a group of people. Hence the need for correction. The opportunity provided by this revision has moved me to make some additions. Thus this written work, a third succeeding a second, and instead of third from now on the first, needs to begin by reporting the demise of the work it supersedes, so that no one may be perplexed if in one place or another he comes across varying forms of it.
So Book 3 is not an original part of Against Marcion but part of the construction of the so-called 'third edition' of the work. Against the Jews then represents a summary of a lost Dialogue in Greek and Against Marcion 3 represents an adaptation of that lost Greek work into the middle of a systematic reworking of a lost original four volume work Against Marcion.
“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: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Clear Sign that Against the Jews is From Something Like Justin's Dialogue and is More Original Than Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

Indeed the author (or editor) of Book 3 is clearly not in the process of writing the five volumes in order - i.e. as a first draft - because he repeated makes mention to things which later appear in Book 4 and 5 proving Book 3 is a secondary (or tertiary) addition. The first example of this 'wait until Book 4 and 5' appears in chapter 11
A certain woman cried out, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the breasts which thou hast sucked:a and how comes it that his mother and his brethren are reported standing without? But we shall consider these texts in their proper place (i.e. in Book 4)
Again in chapter 17:
His activity needs to be reviewed by the canon of the scriptures, where, if I mistake not, it is distinguished as a twofold series of acts, of preaching and of power. But I shall arrange my treatment of both topics as follows. Since I have thought it well that Marcion's own gospel should be brought under discussion, I shall defer until then my treatment of various aspects of his teaching and miracles, as for the matter then in hand. Here however in general terms I shall complete the course I have entered upon, explaining meanwhile that Christ is announced by Isaiah as one who preaches
And again in chapter 24:
Of Abraham's bosom I shall speak at the proper time. As for the restoration of Judaea, which the Jews, misguided by the names of towns and territories, hope for exactly as described, it would be tedious to explain how the allegorical interpretation of it is spiritually applicable to Christ and the Church and to the possession and enjoyment of it. I have discussed this in another work, which I entitle Of the Hope of the Faithful.1 At present too it would be superfluous, not least because we are not discussing an earthly but a heavenly promise. For we do profess that even on earth a kingdom is promised us:2 but this is before we come to heaven, and in a different polity—in fact after the resurrection, for a thousand years, in that city of God's building, Jerusalem brought down from heaven, which the apostle declares is our mother on high: and when he affirms that our politeuma, our citizenship, is in heaven, he is evidently locating it in some heavenly city.
“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: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Clear Sign that Against the Jews is From Something Like Justin's Dialogue and is More Original Than Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

And then look at this statement (just cited):
His activity needs to be reviewed by the canon of the scriptures, where, if I mistake not, it is distinguished as a twofold series of acts, of preaching and of power. But I shall arrange my treatment of both topics as follows. Since I have thought it well that Marcion's own gospel should be brought under discussion, I shall defer until then my treatment of various aspects of his teaching and miracles, as for the matter then in hand. Here however in general terms I shall complete the course I have entered upon, explaining meanwhile that Christ is announced by Isaiah as one who preaches
When Tertullian says this in Book 3 it makes little sense as a typology of 'preaching and power' is completely absent in this work. However as Kamimura notes this typology of 'preaching and power' is central to Against the Jews:
In Against the Jews, he examined general prophesies about Christ after moving into the confirmatio of this treatise. He maintained that scriptural prophecies were fulfilled only through the operations of the predicted Christ. Tertullian’s description of Jesus’ ministry as being one of preaching and of power consistently corresponded to the typological reading of scriptural passages.
For the same John [sc. John the baptiser] is called not merely an ‘angel’ of Christ, but withal a ‘lamp’ shining before Christ (lucerna lucens ante Christum): for David predicts, ‘I have prepared the lamp for my Christ (lucernam Christo meo);’ (Ps. 131(132):17) and him Christ Himself, coming ‘to fulfil the prophets,’ called so to the Jews. ‘He was,’ He says, ‘the burning and shining lamp (lucerna ardens et lucens);’ (John 5:35) as being he who not merely ‘prepared His ways in the desert,’ but withal, by pointing out ‘the Lamb of God,’ (John 1:29) illumined the minds of men (inluminabat mentes hominum) by his heralding, so that they understood Him to be that Lamb whom Moses was wont to announce as destined to suffer. (Against the Jews 9.24; trans. S. Thelwall)
The imagery of lamp serves as the basis for John’s relationship to Christ: as a messenger who went before to prepare the way. Here Tertullian offered a further image of light, that is, the illumination of the mind, as it indicates the operation performed by Christ. It is interesting to note that Tertullian mentioned Jesus’ words at John 5:35 and 1:29 and interpreted them as applicable to the typological interpretation of the passage from Psalms. In the following section he referred further to the reading of passages from Isaiah which outlined the preaching of Jesus to the gentiles.
If He ‘neither did contend nor shout, nor was His voice heard abroad,’ who ‘crushed not the bruised reed’—Israel’s faith, who ‘quenched not the burning flax (linum ardens)’ (Isa. 42:2–3)—that is, the momentary glow (ardorem) of the Gentiles—but made it shine more by the rising of His own light (lucere magis fecit ortu luminis sui), (Isa. 60:1–2)—He can be none other than He who was predicted. The action, therefore, of the Christ who is come must be examined by being placed side by side with the rule of the Scriptures. For, if I mistake not, we find Him distinguished by a twofold operation,—that of preaching and that of power. (Against the Jews 9.28–29; trans. S. Thelwall)
Having examined Jesus’ nature, he wished to demonstrate that Christ was prophesied in Isaiah to share in his ministry of bearing light to the gentiles. He applied the imagery of flame and light to prove that the universal purpose of his operation had been predicted in the Hebrew Scriptures, thus showing that he was the one who was to be called the light to this world
“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: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Clear Sign that Against the Jews is From Something Like Justin's Dialogue and is More Original Than Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

Here are the two passages back to back. Look how clearly the reference to Book 4 is simply added by the editor to what was originally written in the source for Against the Jews. There can be no mistake about it:
Against the Jews chapter 9

I demand, again--granting that He who was ever predicted by prophets as destined to come out of Jesse's race, was withal to exhibit all humility, patience, and tranquillity--whether He be come? [28] Equally so (in this case as in the former), the man who is shown to bear that character will be the very Christ who is come. For of Him the prophet says, "A man set in a plague, and knowing how to bear infirmity; "who "was led as a sheep for a victim; and, as a lamb before him who sheareth him, opened not His mouth."183 If He "neither did contend nor shout, nor was His voice heard abroad," who "crushed not the bruised reed"--Israel's faith, who "quenched not the burning flax"184 --that is, the momentary glow of the Gentiles--but made it shine more by the rising of His own light,--He can be none other than He who was predicted. The action, therefore, of the Christ who is come must be examined by being placed side by side with the rule of the Scriptures. For, if I mistake not, we find Him distinguished by a twofold operation,--that of preaching and that of power. Now, let each count be disposed of summarily. Accordingly, let us work out the order we have set down, teaching that Christ was announced as a preacher as, through Isaiah: [30] "Cry out (ἀναβόησον)" he says, "in vigour, and spare not; lift up, as with a trumpet, thy voice, and announce (ἀνάγγειλον) to my commonalty their crimes, and to the house of Jacob their sins. Me from day to day they seek, and to learn my ways they covet, as a people which hath done righteousness, and hath not forsaken the judgment of God," and so forth: that, moreover, ]He was to do acts of power from the Father: "Behold, our God will deal retributive judgment; Himself will come and save us: then shall the infirm be healed, and the eyes of the blind shall see, and the ears of the deaf shall hear, and the mutes' tongues shall be loosed, and the lame shall leap as an hart,"[/b]186 and so on; [31] which works not even you deny that Christ did, inasmuch as you were wont to say that, "on account of the works ye stoned Him not, but because He did them on the Sabbaths."
Book Three of Against Marcion
It is no interior quality of his that he proclaims is of that nature. For if the fullness of the Spirit has come to rest upon him, I recognize a rod out of the root of Jesse:e and its flower will be my Christ, upon whom, according to Isaiah, has rested the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and strength, the Spirit of knowledge and godliness, the Spirit of the fear of God. For there is no one of mankind in whom this diversity of spiritual testimonies has met together, except Christ, who was equated with a flower because of the grace of the Spirit, yet was accounted of the stem of Jesse, being descended from it through Mary. But I challenge you to say what you have in mind. If you grant that to him applies all this humility and patience and non-resistance, and in view of these he is to be Isaiah's Christ—a man in affliction, and knowing how to bear weakness,f who has been brought as a sheep to sacrifice, and as a lamb before the shearer he opened not his mouth: who neither did strive nor cry, nor was his voice heard out of doors: who did not break the bruised reed, which means the shaken faith of the Jews, nor quench the burning flax, which was the recently kindled ardour of the gentiles—he cannot be any other than the one the prophet foretold. His activity needs to be reviewed by the canon of the scriptures, where, if I mistake not, it is distinguished as a twofold series of acts, of preaching and of power. But I shall arrange my treatment of both topics as follows. Since I have thought it well that Marcion's own gospel should be brought under discussion, I shall defer until then my treatment of various aspects of his teaching and miracles, as for the matter then in hand. Here however in general terms I shall complete the course I have entered upon, explaining meanwhile that Christ is announced by Isaiah as one who preaches: for he says, Who is there among you who feareth God, and will hear the voice of his Son? and as a healer, for he says, He himself hath taken away our weaknesses and borne <our> wearinesses.
Indeed if you look at the section it is precisely because the editor of Book 3 has added the bit about 'what is going to appear in Book 4' that he has completely changed the argument. He kept everything up to the statement "we find Him distinguished by a twofold operation,--that of preaching and that of power" but then he subsequently removed the two scriptures originally associated with 'preaching' and 'power' in Against the Jews.

What's curious of course is that in Book 3 after saying 'preaching and power' the editors give us 'preaching' as a corrupt version of Isa 50:10 XX which reads "Who is among you that fears the Lord? let him hearken to the voice of his servant" and then instead of the example of 'power' he gives us a reference to 'healing' (and thus breaking the original logic) which really only a recapitulation of the line which came earlier - viz. Isa 53 ""A man set in a plague, and knowing how to bear infirmity."
Last edited by Secret Alias on Fri Jul 27, 2018 7:15 am, edited 3 times in total.
“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: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Clear Sign that Against the Jews is From Something Like Justin's Dialogue and is More Original Than Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

So the point is that Against the Jews more faithfully preserves the inner logic of Jesus exhibiting 'preaching and power' because of the scriptures. For interest sake here is how the two texts diverge from the point just cited:

Against the Jews 10
Concerning the last step, plainly, of His passion you raise a doubt; affirming that the passion of the cross was not predicted with reference to Christ, and urging, besides, that it is not credible that God should have exposed His own Son to that kind of death; because Himself said, "Cursed is every one who shall have hung on a tree."188 But the reason of the case antecedently explains the sense of this malediction; for He says in Deuteronomy: "If, moreover, (a man) shall have been (involved) in some sin incurring the judgment of death, and shall die, and ye shall suspend him on a tree, his body shall not remain on the tree, but with burial ye shall bury him on the very day; because cursed by God is every one who shall have been suspended on a tree; and ye shall not defile the land which the Lord thy God shall give thee for (thy) lot."189 [3] Therefore He did not maledictively adjudge Christ to this passion, but drew a distinction, that whoever, in any sin, had incurred the judgment of death, and died suspended on a tree, he should be "cursed by God," because his own sins were the cause of his suspension on the tree. [4] On the other hand, Christ, who spoke not guile from His mouth,190 and who exhibited all righteousness and humility, not only (as we have above recorded it predicted of Him) was not exposed to that kind of death for his own deserts, but (was so exposed) in order that what was predicted by the prophets as destined to come upon Him through your means might be fulfilled; just as, in the Psalms, the Spirit Himself of Christ was already singing, saying, "They were repaying me evil for good; "192 and, "What I had not seized I was then paying in full;193 " They exterminated my hands and feet; "194 and, "They put into my drink gall, and in my thirst they slaked me with vinegar; "195 "Upon my vesture they did cast (the) lot; "196 just as the other (outrages) which you were to commit on Him were foretold,--[5] all which He, actually and thoroughly suffering, suffered not for any evil action of His own, but "that the Scriptures from the mouth of the prophets might be fulfilled."

And, of course, it had been meet that the mystery198 of the passion itself should be figuratively set forth in predictions; and the more incredible (that mystery), the more likely to be "a stumbling-stone,"199 if it had been nakedly predicted; and the more magnificent, the more to be adumbrated, that the difficulty of its intelligence might seek (help from) the grace of God.

[6] Accordingly, to begin with, Isaac, when led by his father as a victim, and himself bearing his own "wood,"200 was even at that early period pointing to Christ's death; conceded, as He was, as a victim by the Father; carrying, as He did, the "wood" of His own passion.

Joseph, again, himself was made a figure of Christ202 in this point alone (to name no more, not to delay my own course), that he suffered persecution at the hands of his brethren, and was sold into Egypt, on account of the favour of God;203 just as Christ was sold by Israel--(and therefore, ) "according to the flesh," by His "brethren"204 --when He is betrayed by Judas. For Joseph is withal blest by his father206 after this form: "His glory (is that) of a bull; his horns, the horns of an unicorn; on them shall he toss nations alike unto the very extremity of the earth." Of course no one-horned rhinoceros was there pointed to, nor any two-horned minotaur. But Christ was therein signified: "bull," by reason of each of His two characters,--to some fierce, as Judge; to others gentle, as Saviour; whose "horns" were to be the extremities of the cross. For even in a ship's yard--which is part of a cross--this is the name by which the extremities are called; while the central pole of the mast is a "unicorn." [8] By this power, in fact, of the cross, and in this manner horned, He does now, on the one hand, "toss" universal nations through faith, wafting them away from earth to heaven; and will one day, on the other, "toss" them through judgment, casting them down from heaven to earth.

He, again, will be the" bull" elsewhere too in the same scripture.207 When Jacob pronounced a blessing on Simeon and Levi, he prophesies of the scribes and Pharisees; for from them208 is derived their209 origin. [9] For (his blessing) interprets spiritually thus: "Simeon and Levi perfected iniquity out of their sect,"210 --whereby, to wit, they persecuted Christ: "into their counsel come not my soul! and upon their station rest not my heart! because in their indignation they slew men"--that is, prophets--"and in their concupiscence they hamstrung a bull!"211 --that is, Christ, whom--after the slaughter of prophets--they slew, and exhausted their savagery by transfixing His sinews with nails. [10] Else it is idle if, after the murder already committed by them, he upbraids others, and not them, with butchery. But, to come now to Moses, why, I wonder, did he merely at the time when Joshua was battling against Amalek, pray sitting with hands expanded, when, in circumstances so critical, he ought rather, surely, to have commended his prayer by knees bended, and hands beating his breast, and a face prostrate on the ground; except it was that there, where the name of the Lord Jesus was the theme of speech--destined as He was to enter the lists one day singly against the devil--the figure of the cross was also necessary, (that figure) through which Jesus was to win the victory?213 Why, again, did the same Moses, after the prohibition of any "likeness of anything,"214 set forth a brazen serpent, placed on a "tree," in a hanging posture, for a spectacle of healing to Israel, at the time when, after their idolatry,215 they were suffering extermination by serpents, except that in this case he was exhibiting the Lord's cross on which the "serpent" the devil was "made a show of,"216 and, for every one hurt by such snakes--that is, his angels217 --on turning intently from the peccancy of sins to the sacraments of Christ's cross, salvation was outwrought? For he who then gazed upon that (cross) was freed from the bite of the serpents.

Come, now, if you have read in the utterance of the prophet in the Psalms, "God hath reigned from the tree,"219 I wait to hear what you understand thereby; for fear you may perhaps think some carpenter-king220 is signified, and not Christ, who has reigned from that time onward when he overcame the death which ensued from His passion of "the tree."

Similarly, again, Isaiah says: "For a child is born to us, and to us is given a son."221 What novelty is that, unless he is speaking of the "Son" of God?--and one is born to us the beginning of whose government has been made "on His shoulder." [12] What king in the world wears the ensign of his power on his shoulder, and does not bear either diadem on his head, or else sceptre in his hand, or else some mark of distinctive vesture? But the novel "King of ages," Christ Jesus, alone reared "on His shoulder" His own novel glory, and power, and sublimity,--the cross, to wit; that, according to the former prophecy, the Lord thenceforth "might reign from the tree." For of this tree likewise it is that God hints, through Jeremiah, that you would say, "Come, let us put wood222 into his bread, and let us wear him away out of the land of the living; and his name shall no more be remembered."223 Of course on His body that "wood" was put;224 for so Christ has revealed, calling His body "bread,"225 whose body the prophet in bygone days announced under the term "bread." [13] If you shall still seek for predictions of the Lord's cross, the twenty-first Psalm will at length be able to satisfy you, containing as it does the whole passion of Christ; singing, as He does, even at so early a date, His own glory.226 "They dug," He says, "my hands and feet"227 --which is the peculiar atrocity of the cross; and again when He implores the aid of the Father, "Save me," He says, out of the mouth of the lion"--of course, of death--"and from the horn of the unicorns my humility,"228 --from the ends, to wit, of the cross, as we have above shown; [14] which cross neither David himself suffered, nor any of the kings of the Jews: that you may not think the passion of some other particular man is here prophesied than His who alone was so signally crucified by the People.


Now, if the hardness of your heart shall persist in rejecting and deriding all these interpretations, we will prove that it may suffice that the death of the Christ had been prophesied, in order that, from the fact that the nature of the death had not been specified, it may be understood to have been affected by means of the cross229 and that the passion of the cross is not to be ascribed to any but Him whose death was constantly being predicted. [15] For I desire to show, in one utterance of Isaiah, His death, and passion, and sepulture. "By the crimes," he says, "of my people was He led unto death; and I will give the evil for His sepulture, and the rich for His death, because He did not wickedness, nor was guile found in his mouth; and God willed to redeem His soul from death,"230 and so forth. [16] He says again, moreover: "His sepulture hath been taken away from the midst."231 For neither was He buried except He were dead, nor was His sepulture removed from the midst except through His resurrection. Finally, he subjoins: "Therefore He shall have many for an heritage, and of many shall He divide spoils:232 " who else (shall so do) but He who "was born," as we have above shown?--"in return for the fact that His soul was delivered unto death? "For, the cause of the favour accorded Him being shown,--in return, to wit, for the injury of a death which had to be recompensed,--it is likewise shown that He, destined to attain these rewards because of death, was to attain them after death--of course after resurrection. [17] For that which happened at His passion, that mid-day grew dark, the prophet Amos announces, saying, "And it shall be," he says, "in that day, saith the Lord, the sun shall set at mid-day, and the day of light shall grow dark over the land: and I will convert your festive days into grief, and all your canticles into lamentation; and I will lay upon your loins sackcloth, and upon every head baldness; and I will make the grief like that for a beloved (son), and them that are with him like a day of mourning."233 [18] For that you would do thus at the beginning of the first month of your new (years) even Moses prophesied, when he was foretelling that all the community of the sons of lsrael was234 to immolate at eventide a lamb, and were to eat235 this solemn sacrifice of this day (that is, of the passover of unleavened bread) with bitterness; "and added that "it was the passover of the Lord,"236 that is, the passion of Christ. Which prediction was thus also fulfilled, that "on the first day of unleavened bread"237 you slew Christ;238 [19] and (that the prophecies might be fulfilled) the day hasted to make an "eventide,"--that is, to cause darkness, which was made at mid-day; and thus "your festive days God converted into grief, and your canticles into lamentation." For after the passion of Christ there overtook you even captivity and dispersion, predicted before through the Holy Spirit.
Against Marcion 3
At least in the manner of his death, I suppose, you try to suggest a difference, alleging that the passion of the cross was never prophesied of the Creator's Christ, with a further argument that it is quite incredible that the Creator should have exposed his Son to that form of death on which he himself had laid a curse. Cursed, it says, is every one that hath hung on a tree. Now the meaning of this curse I leave for later consideration— though it is in full keeping solely with that preaching of the cross which is our present subject of inquiry—because on other occasions also the proof of facts has preceded the explanation of them. I shall first explain about the types. And certainly there were most cogent reasons why this mystery could not escape being prophesied by types and figures. The more incredible it was, the more offensive it would become if it were prophesied in plain terms: and the more marvellous it was, the more it needed to be covered in obscurity, so that difficulty of understanding might make request for the grace of God. And so Isaac, to begin with, when delivered up by his father for a sacrifice, himself carried the wood for himself,b and did at that early date set forth the death of Christ, who when surrendered as a victim by his Father carried the wood of his own passion.2 Joseph also, himself to be a type of Christ—and not for this reason alone <that I delay not my course> that he suffered persecution from his brethren because of God's grace, as Christ suffered from the Jews, his brethren according to the flesh—when blessed by his father in these precise terms, His glory is that of a bullock, his horns are the horns of a unicorn: with them will he winnow the nations together, even to the end of the earth,c was certainly not intended to be a rhinoceros with one horn or a minotaur with two horns: rather in him Christ was indicated, a bullock according to both accounts, to some people stern as a judge, to others kind as a saviour, whose horns were to be the extremities of the Cross.3 For in a yardarm, which is part of a cross, the extreme ends are called horns, while the unicorn is the upright middle post. So then by this virtue of the Cross, and by being horned after this manner, he is even now winnowing all the nations through faith, lifting them up from earth into heaven, as he will afterwards winnow them by judgement, casting them down from heaven to earth. He is also to be found as a bullock in another place in the same scripture, where Jacob utters a spiritual reproof against Simeon and Levi, who stand for the scribes and pharisees, for their origin is counted from these: Simeon and Levi have perfected iniquity by their heresy— that, it means, by which they persecuted Christ—let not my soul come into their council, and let not my affections take rest in their assembly, because in their indignation they have put men to death—that is, the prophets—and in their concupiscence they have severed the sinews of a bulld—that is, of Christ, whom after the murder of the prophets they crucified, and with nails wrought savagery against his sinews. Otherwise it would be to no purpose if, after the murder of men, he were to rebuke them for the slaughter of some ox or other. And again, why did Moses on that occasion only when Joshua was warring against Amalek, pray sitting and with out-stretched hands,e when in such critical circumstances he might have been expected rather to commend his prayer by bended knees, by hands beating the breast, and face turned down to the ground? Evidently because on that occasion, when one was contending who bore our Lord's name, as our Lord himself was afterwards to contend against the devil, the form of the cross was essential, so that by it Joshua might gain the victory. The same Moses again, although he had forbidden the likeness of any thing,f afterwards set up a brazen serpent on a poleg in the attitude of one hanging, and commended it to be gazed upon for healing.4 Why was this, except that here too he was asserting the power of our Lord's Cross, by which <that old> serpent, the devil, was being reduced to bondage, while to everyone wounded by spiritual snake-bites who should look upon it and believe in it, was promised healing of the bites of sins, and salvation from thence forward?

Come now, if you have read in the Psalms,a The Lord hath reigned from the tree,1 I wonder what you understand by it: unless perhaps <you think> the reference is to some woodman as king of the Jews, and not to Christ, who ever since his suffering on the tree has been king through his conquest of death. For although death reigned from Adam until Christ, why should not Christ be said to have reigned from the tree, ever since by dying on the
tree of the Cross he drove out the kingdom of death? In the same sense also Isaiah says, Because to us a child is born:b what is new in this, unless he is speaking of the Son of God? And, Unto us one is given, whose government is placed upon his shoulder: which of the kings ever displays the sign of his dominion upon his shoulder, and not rather a crown upon his head or a sceptre in his hand, or some mark of appropriate apparel? No, only the new king of the new ages, Christ Jesus, <the king> of new glory, has lifted up upon his shoulder his own dominion and majesty, which is the Cross, so that from thenceforth, as our previous prophecy stated, he did as Lord reign from the tree. You have a hint of this tree also in Jeremiah, who prophesies to the Jews that they will say, Come and let us cast a tree into his bread,c meaning, his body. For so God has revealed it, even in the gospel which you accept, when he says that bread is his body:d so that even from this you can under- stand that he who gave bread the figure of his body is the same as he whose body the prophet had of old figuratively described as bread, as our Lord himself was afterwards to expound this mystery. If you ask for further prophecy of our Lord's Cross, you can find complete satisfaction in the twenty-first psalm, which comprises the whole passion of Christ, who was even at that date foretelling of his own glory. They pierced, he says, my hands and my feet,e which is the particular outrage of the cross. And again, while appealing for his Father's help, he says, Save me from the lion's mouth, meaning death: and <my> lowliness from the horns of the unicorn,f the points of the cross, as I have already pointed out.2 Now since neither David nor any king of the Jews had to suffer that cross, you cannot think this a prophecy of the passion of anyone else, but only of him who alone was so notably crucified by that people.


So now, if the heretic's obstinacy contemns and derides all these interpretations of mine, I shall <be prepared to> grant him that the Creator has given <in this psalm> no indication of any cross of Christ, in that even on this ground he will not prove that he who was crucified was any other <than the Creator's Christ>—unless perchance he succeeds in showing that his death in this form was prophesied by his own god, so that diversity of prophesyings may prove there was diversity of passions and, in consequence, diversity of persons. But as there was no prophecy of Marcion's Christ, far less of his cross, the prophecy of one death <and not two> is sufficient proof that the Christ who is meant is mine. From the fact that the manner of his death is not stated, it follows that it could have come about by a cross, and it could only have had reference to another if there had also been prophecy of another—unless perhaps he prefers that not even the death of my Christ was prophesied: in which case he is put to greater shame, while he tells of the death of his own Christ, whose birth he denies, but denies the death of my Christ, whose birth he admits. But I can prove both the death and the burial and the resurrection of my Christ by one word of Isaiah, who says, His sepulture hath been taken away out of the midst.g He could not have been buried without having died, nor could his sepulture have been taken away out of the midst except by resurrection. And so he added, Therefore shall he have many for an inheritance, and of many shall he divide the spoils, because his soul hath been delivered over unto death.h For in this is indicated the purpose of this grace, that it is to be a recompense for the insult of death. It is likewise indicated that he is to obtain these things after death, by virtue, that is, of resurrection.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Fri Jul 27, 2018 7:18 am, edited 2 times in total.
“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: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Clear Sign that Against the Jews is From Something Like Justin's Dialogue and is More Original Than Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

The point is that it can't be doubted any more that the editor of the third edition (that we know of) for Against Marcion took the original Greek text which preceded the Latin) Against the Jews and adapted its 'anti-Jewish' rhetoric for an argument against Marcion. He modified it and placed it between what is not Books 2 and Books 4. The most difficult question now before us is why? Why would he take things related to Judaism and redirect them against Marcion and put this garbled reworked text in the middle of a more coherent argument that was 'flowing' from Book 2 to Book 4 regarding the 'antitheses' found in Marcion's gospel. I think I know the answer ...
“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: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Clear Sign that Against the Jews is From Something Like Justin's Dialogue and is More Original Than Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

It is interesting that large parts of Book 3 have the editor rail against the Marcionites knowing full well the original accusation was made against the Jews. I find this difficult to reconcile unless the author in some way knew that the Marcionites were a type of Jewish sect. For instance where Against the Jews originally and more logically declares:
Now, if the hardness of your heart shall persist in rejecting and deriding all these interpretations, we will prove that it may suffice that the death of the Christ had been prophesied, in order that, from the fact that the nature of the death had not been specified, it may be understood to have been affected by means of the cross and that the passion of the cross is not to be ascribed to any but Him whose death was constantly being predicted.

Nunc si omnes istas interpretationes respuerit et inriserit duritia cordis vestri, probabimus sufficere posse mortem Christi prophetatam, ut ex hoc quod non esset edicta qualis mors intellegatur per crucem evenisse nec alii deputandam fuisse passionem crucis quam cuius mors praedicabatur. [AI 10.14]
This is the original argument namely that the Jews denied that any reference to crucifixion was ever made in the 'Old Testament,' We know that this is originally a 'Jewish' line of reasoning because the exact idea appears at length in Justin's Dialogue:
Then Trypho remarked, "Be assured that all our nation waits for Christ; and we admit that all the Scriptures which you have quoted refer to Him. Moreover, I do also admit that the name of Jesus, by which the the son of Nave (Nun) was called, has inclined me very strongly to adopt this view. But whether Christ should be so shamefully crucified, this we are in doubt about. For whosoever is crucified is said in the law to be accursed, so that I am exceedingly incredulous on this point. It is quite clear, indeed, that the Scriptures announce that Christ had to suffer; but we wish to learn if you can prove it to us whether it was by the suffering cursed in the law."

I replied to him, "If Christ was not to suffer, and the prophets had not foretold that He would be led to death on account of the sins of the people, and be dishonoured and scourged, and reckoned among the transgressors, and as a sheep be led to the slaughter, whose generation, the prophet says, no man can declare, then you would have good cause to wonder. But if these are to be characteristic of Him and mark Him out to all, how is it possible for us to do anything else than believe in Him most confidently? And will not as many as have understood the writings of the prophets, whenever they hear merely that He was crucified, say that this is He and no other?"

"Bring us on, then," said [Trypho], "by the Scriptures, that we may also be persuaded by you; for we know that He should suffer and be led as a sheep. But prove to us whether He must be crucified and die so disgracefully and so dishonourably by the death cursed in the law. For we cannot bring ourselves even to think of this."

"You know," said I, "that what the prophets said and did they veiled by parables and types, as you admitted to us; so that it was not easy for all to understand the most [of what they said], since they concealed the truth by these means, that those who are eager to find out and learn it might do so with much labour." [Dialogue 89 - 90]
To that end when we see this specifically Jewish line of argument cited in Against the Jews we know it is an accurate reflection of what Tertullian says at the very beginning of that work - namely that he summarized the points from " a dispute was held between a Christian and a Jewish proselyte."

When Against Marcion 3 is suddenly inserted between Books 2 and 4 from common material we know full well that the source of this material took place between Christians and Jews rather than orthodox Christians and Marcionite Christians originally. Let's see how the editor of Book 3 adapted this particular 'Jewish' argument for the Marcionites:
Now, if the hardness of your heart shall persist in rejecting and deriding all these interpretations, we will prove that it may suffice that the death of the Christ had been prophesied, in order that, from the fact that the nature of the death had not been specified, it may be understood to have been affected by means of the cross and that the passion of the cross is not to be ascribed to any but Him whose death was constantly being predicted. For I desire to show, in one utterance of Isaiah, His death, and passion, and sepulture. "By the crimes," he says, "of my people was He led unto death; and I will give the evil for His sepulture, and the rich for His death, because He did not wickedness, nor was guile found in his mouth; and God willed to redeem His soul from death,"230 and so forth. [16] He says again, moreover: "His sepulture hath been taken away from the midst."231 For neither was He buried except He were dead, nor was His sepulture removed from the midst except through His resurrection. Finally, he subjoins: "Therefore He shall have many for an heritage, and of many shall He divide spoils:232 " who else (shall so do) but He who "was born," as we have above shown?--"in return for the fact that His soul was delivered unto death? "For, the cause of the favour accorded Him being shown,--in return, to wit, for the injury of a death which had to be recompensed,--it is likewise shown that He, destined to attain these rewards because of death, was to attain them after death--of course after resurrection.

Nunc si omnes istas interpretationes respuerit et inriserit duritia cordis vestri, probabimus sufficere posse mortem Christi prophetatam, ut ex hoc quod non esset edicta qualis mors intellegatur per crucem evenisse nec alii deputandam fuisse passionem crucis quam cuius mors praedicabatur. am mortem eius et passionem et sepulturam una voce Esaiae volo ostendere: A facinoribus, inquit, populi mei perductus est ad mortem et dabo malos pro sepultura eius et divites pro morte eius, quia scelus non fecit nec dolus in ore eius inventus est; et deus voluit eximere a morte animam eius et cetera. [16] Dicit etiam adhuc: Sepultura eius sublata est e medio. Nec sepultus enim est nisi mortuus nec sepultura eius sublata est e medio nisi per resurrectionem eius. Denique subiungit: Propterea ipse multos in hereditatem habebit et multorum dividet spolia -- quis alius nisi qui + natus + est, ut supra ostendimus ? -- pro eo quod tradita est in mortem anima eius. Ostensa enim causa gratiae eius, pro iniuria scilicet mortis repensandae, pariter ostensum est haec illum propter mortem consecuturum post mortem, utique post resurrectionem, consecuturum[AI 10.14]
Against Marcion 3.19.6 - 9
So now, if the heretic's obstinacy contemns and derides all these interpretations of mine, I shall <be prepared to> grant him that the Creator has given <in this psalm> no indication of any cross of Christ, in that even on this ground he will not prove that he who was crucified was any other <than the Creator's Christ>—unless perchance he succeeds in showing that his death in this form was prophesied by his own god, so that diversity of prophesyings may prove there was diversity of passions and, in consequence, diversity of persons. But as there was no prophecy of Marcion's Christ, far less of his cross, the prophecy of one death <and not two> is sufficient proof that the Christ who is meant is mine. From the fact that the manner of his death is not stated, it follows that it could have come about by a cross, and it could only have had reference to another if there had also been prophecy of another—unless perhaps he prefers that not even the death of my Christ was prophesied: in which case he is put to greater shame, while he tells of the death of his own Christ, whose birth he denies, but denies the death of my Christ, whose birth he admits. But I can prove both the death and the burial and the resurrection of my Christ by one word of Isaiah, who says, His sepulture hath been taken away out of the midst. He could not have been buried without having died, nor could his sepulture have been taken away out of the midst except by resurrection.
And so he added, Therefore shall he have many for an inheritance, and of many shall he divide the spoils, because his soul hath been delivered over unto death.h For in this is indicated the purpose of this grace, that it is to be a recompense for the insult of death. It is likewise indicated that he is to obtain these things after death, by virtue, that is, of resurrection.

Nunc et si omnes istas interpretationes respuerit et irriserit haeretica duritia, concedam illi nullam Christi crucem significatam a creatore, quia nec ex hoc probabit alium esse qui crucifixus est: [7] nisi forte ostenderit hunc exitum eius a suo deo praedicatum, ut diversitas passionum, ac per hoc etiam personarum, ex diversitate praedicationum vindicetur. Ceterum nec ipso Christo eius praedicato, nedum cruce ipsius, sufficit in meum Christum solius mortis prophetia. Ex hoc enim quod non est edita qualitas mortis, potuit et per crucem evenisse, tunc alii deputanda si in alium fuisset praedicatum. [8] Nisi si nec mortem volet Christi mei prophetatam, quo magis erubescat, si suum quidem Christum mortuum annuntiat, quem negat natum, meum vero mortalem negat, quem nascibilem confitetur. Et mortem autem et sepulturam et resurrectionem Christi mei una voce Esaiae volo ostendere dicentis, Sepultura eius sublata de medio est. [9] Nec sepultus enim esset nisi mortuus, nec sepultura eius sublata de medio nisi per resurrectionem. Denique subiecit, Propterea ipse multos haereditatihabebit et multorum dividet spolia, pro eo quod tradita est anima eius in mortem. Ostensa est enim causa gratiae huius, pro iniuria scilicet mortis repensandae. Pariter ostensum est haec illum [propter mortem consecuturum,]3 post mortem utique per resurrectionem consecuturum.
Now let's think about how bizarre the argument is in what is now Against Marcion 3. The author says that the Marcionites say that there is no sign that the messiah will be crucified in the 'Old Testament' THEREFORE Jesus is the Christ of another god other than the Creator/Jewish god. This is a ridiculous line of argumentation. It results from the fact that a Jewish argument - namely the prophecies by their very nature 'knew' what was going to occur and did not mention crucifixion - being adapted for a purpose which not originally imagined by the original author - namely that Jewish arguments would become adapted to refutations of another group - i.e. the Marcionites.

So it is that this in Against the Jews:
Nunc si omnes istas interpretationes respuerit et inriserit duritia cordis vestri, probabimus sufficere posse mortem Christi prophetatam, ut ex hoc quod non esset edicta qualis mors intellegatur per crucem evenisse nec alii deputandam fuisse passionem crucis quam cuius mors praedicabatur.
Became transformed into this:
Nunc et si omnes istas interpretationes respuerit et irriserit haeretica duritia, concedam illi nullam Christi crucem significatam a creatore, quia nec ex hoc probabit alium esse qui crucifixus est: nisi forte ostenderit hunc exitum eius a suo deo praedicatum, ut diversitas passionum, ac per hoc etiam personarum, ex diversitate praedicationum vindicetur.
Notice that the last part of Against the Jews is completely missing from the parallel section of Book 3. In fact it has been reworked into the next sentence. Here is the last half of the section in Against the Jews:
we will prove that it may suffice that the death of the Christ had been prophesied, in order that, from the fact that the nature of the death had not been specified, it may be understood to have been affected by means of the cross229 and that the passion of the cross is not to be ascribed to any but Him whose death was constantly being predicted (probabimus sufficere posse mortem Christi prophetatam, ut ex hoc quod non esset edicta qualis mors intellegatur per crucem evenisse nec alii deputandam fuisse passionem crucis quam cuius mors praedicabatur).
and the next sentence in Against Marcion 3:
But as there was no prophecy of Marcion's Christ, far less of his cross, the prophecy of one death <and not two> is sufficient proof that the Christ who is meant is mine (Ceterum nec ipso Christo eius praedicato, nedum cruce ipsius, sufficit in meum Christum solius mortis prophetia).
“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: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Clear Sign that Against the Jews is From Something Like Justin's Dialogue and is More Original Than Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

So what I am trying to get across to people (and this inevitably fails with hardcore 'Marcionophiles) is - what does it mean that the editor of the third edition of Against Marcion 'falsified' a manuscript which openly acknowledges it was developed from a debate between a Christian and a Jewish proselyte for use against the Marcionite religion? THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND. If the final editor was willing to do THIS what does it say about the accuracy of the rest of the material in the book? The bottom line is that it can't be taken to provide us with wholly accurate information about the sect, that's first of all. Moreover given what Andrew Criddle and I have noticed about the book which follows - namely that it repeatedly mentions Marcion altering, not acknowledging or removing things from Matthew when ostensibly it now appears as a commentary on Luke it certainly makes the case that Book Four has similarly been altered. I would even argue that the insertion of the falsified 'Against the Jews' as Book 3 was part of this overall falsification effort.

Yet what the logic was behind this falsification effort is not easy to discern. Why for instance does Book 4 say over and over again that Marcion wanted to distinguish the gospel and the Law, that he was against the god of the Law the Creator if the same editor felt that the anti-Jewish arguments of 'Against the Jews' or its source could apply also to Marcion? Wasn't Marcion then a 'kind of Jew' as is repeatedly referenced in Book 4 itself? This is the most fundamental disconnect once you understand that the third edition of Against Marcion - our surviving copy of the work as outlined in the beginning of the book - has the paradox of Marcion 'separating the gospel and Law and their respective gods' but at the same having him 'Jewish enough' that arguments against 'Jews' or 'Jewish proselytes' are suitable for adaptation as 'Against Marcion' arguments.

The solution has to be that there were Jews in the second century or people identified or identified themselves as Jews who at once:

1. didn't think the 'Old Testament' prophesies pointed to Christ but someone else perhaps Jesus (i.e. that the group were adoptionists)
2. accepted the idea that the Jewish god, Jesus or 'the Son' was 'inferior' (perhaps in an Arian manner) to the ultimately Christian god 'the Father' or Christ.

Indeed if the Marcionites were 'substitutionalists' i.e. the type who argued that Jesus was crucified but Christ escaped (or 'adoptionists') perhaps it could be argued that the one crucified wasn't the Christ or messiah. To that end, the prophesies could have applied to Jesus and Christ in different ways but not Christ crucified.
“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: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Clear Sign that Against the Jews is From Something Like Justin's Dialogue and is More Original Than Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

Let's continue looking at how Against Marcion 3 adapted Against the Jews. Notice a massive excision (in red) is removed all pertaining to the prophecy of the destruction of the Jewish religion:

Against the Jews
He says again, moreover: "His sepulture hath been taken away from the midst."231 For neither was He buried except He were dead, nor was His sepulture removed from the midst except through His resurrection. Finally, he subjoins: "Therefore He shall have many for an heritage, and of many shall He divide spoils:232 " who else (shall so do) but He who "was born," as we have above shown?--"in return for the fact that His soul was delivered unto death? "For, the cause of the favour accorded Him being shown,--in return, to wit, for the injury of a death which had to be recompensed,--it is likewise shown that He, destined to attain these rewards because of death, was to attain them after death--of course after resurrection. [17] For that which happened at His passion, that mid-day grew dark, the prophet Amos announces, saying, "And it shall be," he says, "in that day, saith the Lord, the sun shall set at mid-day, and the day of light shall grow dark over the land: and I will convert your festive days into grief, and all your canticles into lamentation; and I will lay upon your loins sackcloth, and upon every head baldness; and I will make the grief like that for a beloved (son), and them that are with him like a day of mourning."233 [18] For that you would do thus at the beginning of the first month of your new (years) even Moses prophesied, when he was foretelling that all the community of the sons of lsrael was234 to immolate at eventide a lamb, and were to eat235 this solemn sacrifice of this day (that is, of the passover of unleavened bread) with bitterness; "and added that "it was the passover of the Lord,"236 that is, the passion of Christ. Which prediction was thus also fulfilled, that "on the first day of unleavened bread"237 you slew Christ;238 [19] and (that the prophecies might be fulfilled) the day hasted to make an "eventide,"--that is, to cause darkness, which was made at mid-day; and thus "your festive days God converted into grief, and your canticles into lamentation." For after the passion of Christ there overtook you even captivity and dispersion, predicted before through the Holy Spirit.

[1] For, again, it is for these deserts of yours that Ezekiel announces your ruin as about to come: and not only in this age239 --a ruin which has already befallen--but in the "day of retribution,"240 which will be subsequent. From which ruin none will be freed but he who shall have been frontally sealed241 with the passion of the Christ whom you have rejected. [2] For thus it is written: "And the Lord said unto me, Son of man, thou hast seen what the elders of Israel do, each one of them in darkness, each in a hidden bed-chamber: because they have said, The Lord seeth us not; the Lord hath derelinquished the earth. And He said unto me, Turn thee again, and thou shall see greater enormities which these do. [3] And He introduced me unto the thresholds of the gate of the house of the Lord which looketh unto the north; and, behold, there, women sitting and bewailing Thammuz. And the Lord said unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen? Is the house of Judah moderate, to do the enormities which they have done? And yet thou art about to see greater affections of theirs. [4] And He introduced me into the inner shrine of the house of the Lord; and, behold, on the thresholds of the house of the Lord, between the midst of the porch and between the midst of the altar,242 as it were twenty and five men have turned their backs unto the temple of the Lord, and their faces over against the east; these were adoring the sun. [5] And He said unto me, Seest thou, son of man? Are such deeds trifles to the house of Judah, that they should do the enormities which these have done? because they have filled up (the measure of) their impieties, and, behold, are themselves, as it were, grimacing; I will deal with mine indignation,243 mine eye shall not spare, neither will I pity; they shall cry out unto mine ears with a loud voice, and I will not hear them, nay, I will not pity. [6] And He cried into mine ears with a loud voice, saying, The vengeance of this city is at hand; and each one had vessels of extermination in his hand. And, behold, six men were coming toward the way of the high gate which was looking toward the north, and each one's double-axe of dispersion was in his hand: [7] and one man in the midst of them, clothed with a garment reaching to the feet,244 and a girdle of sapphire about his loins: and they entered, and took their stand close to the brazen altar. And the glory of the God of Israel, which was over the house, in the open court of it,245 ascended from the cherubim: [8] and the Lord called the man who was clothed with the garment reaching to the feet, who had upon his loins the girdle; and said unto him, Pass through the midst of Jerusalem, and write the sign Tau246 on the foreheads of the men who groan and grieve over all the enormities which are done in their midst. And while these things were doing, He said unto an hearer,247 Go ye after him into the city, and cut short; and spare not with your eyes, and pity not elder or youth or virgin; and little ones and women slay ye all, that they may be thoroughly wiped away; but all upon whom is the sign Tau approach ye not; and begin with my saints."248 [9] Now the mystery of this "sign" was in various ways predicted; (a "sign") in which the foundation of life was forelaid for mankind; (a "sign") in which the Jews were not to believe: just as Moses beforetime kept on announcing in Exodus,249 saying, "Ye shall be ejected from the land into which ye shall enter; and in those nations ye shall not be able to rest: and there shall be instabilityof the print250 of thy foot: and God shall give thee a wearying heart, and a pining soul, and failing eyes, that they see not: and thy life shall hang on the tree251 before thine eyes; and thou shalt not trust thy life."

[10] And so, since prophecy has been fulfilled through His advent--that is, through the nativity, which we have above commemorated, and the passion, which we have evidently explained--that is the reason withal why Daniel said, "Vision and prophet were sealed; "because Christ is the "signet" of all prophets, fulfilling all that had in days bygone been announced concerning Him: for, since His advent and personal passion, there is no longer "vision" or "prophet; "whence most emphatically he says that His advent "seals vision and prophecy." [11] And thus, by showing "the number of the years, and the time of the lxii and an half fulfilled hebdomads," we have proved that at that specified time Christ came, that is, was born; and, (by showing the time) of the "seven and an half hebdomads," which are subdivided so as to be cut off from the former hebdomads, within which times we have shown Christ to have suffered, and by the consequent conclusion of the "lxx hebdomads," and the extermination of the city, (we have proved) that "sacrifice and unction" thenceforth cease.

Sufficient it is thus far, on these points, to have meantime traced the course of the ordained path of Christ, by which He is proved to be such as He used to be announced, even on the ground of that agreement of Scriptures, which has enabled us to speak out, in opposition to the Jews, on the ground252 of the prejudgment of the major part. For let them not question or deny the writings we produce; that the fact also that things which were foretold as destined to happen after Christ are being recognised as fulfilled may make it impossible for them to deny (these writings) to be on a par with divine Scriptures. [12] Else, unless He were come after whom the things which were wont to be announced had to be accomplished, would such as have been completed be proved?


[1] Look at the universal nations thenceforth emerging from the vortex of human error to the Lord God the Creator and His Christ; and if you dare to deny that this was prophesied, forthwith occurs to you the promise of the Father in the Psalms, which says, "My Son art Thou; to-day have I begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I will give Thee Gentiles as Thine heritage, and as Thy possession the bounds of the earth."254 [2] For you will not be able to affirm that "son" to be David rather than Christ; or the "bounds of the earth" to have been promised rather to David, who reigned within the single (country of) Judea, than to Christ, who has already taken captive the whole orb with the faith of His gospel; as He says through Isaiah: "Behold, I have given Thee for a covenant255 of my family, for a light of Gentiles, that Thou mayst open the eyes of the blind"--of course, such as err--"to outloose from bonds the bound"--that is, to free them from sins--"and from the house of prison"--that is, of death--"such as sit in darkness"256 --of ignorance, to wit. And if these blessings accrue through Christ, they will not have been prophesied of another than Him through whom we consider them to have been accomplished.
Against Marcion 3
But I can prove both the death and the burial and the resurrection of my Christ by one word of Isaiah, who says, His sepulture hath been taken away out of the midst.g He could not have been buried without having died, nor could his sepulture have been taken away out of the midst except by resurrection. And so he added, Therefore shall he have many for an inheritance, and of many shall he divide the spoils, because his soul hath been delivered over unto death.h For in this is indicated the purpose of this grace, that it is to be a recompense for the insult of death. It is likewise indicated that he is to obtain these things after death, by virtue, that is, of resurrection. It is enough so far to have traced out Christ's course in these matters, far enough for it to be proved that he is such a one as was foretold, and consequently ought not to be taken as any other than he who it was foretold would be such as this. And so now, because what happened to him is in harmony with the Creator's scriptures, the prior authority of the majority of instances must restore credibility to those others which in the interest of opposing opinions are either brought into doubt or completely denied. I now go further, and build up all those parallels from the Creator's scriptures of things it was prophesied would occur after Christ's coming: for events are found to be happening as they were ordained, which could not have been the case apart from the coming of Christ which had to precede them. See how all the nations since then are looking up out of the abyss of human error towards God the Creator, and towards his Christ, and deny, if you dare, that this was prophesied. Even at the very beginning of the Psalms the Father's promise will meet you: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee: require of me and I will give thee the gentiles for thine inheritance, and the boundaries of the earth for thy possession.a You cannot claim that David, rather than Christ, is his son: or that the boundaries of the earth were promised to David, whose reign was confined to the one single nation of the Jews, rather than to Christ, who has by now taken the whole world captive by the faith of his gospel. So also by Isaiah: I have given thee for a covenant of the <human> race, for a light of the nations, to open the eyes of the blind, those who are in error, to loose from their bonds those that are bound, that is, to set them free from sins, and from the cell of the prison, which is death, those who sit in darkness, the darkness of ignorance.b If these things are coming to pass through Christ, they cannot have been prophesied of any other than him through whom they are coming to pass.
“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: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Clear Sign that Against the Jews is From Something Like Justin's Dialogue and is More Original Than Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

It seems to me to be very significant that this same editor makes the case that Marcion edited and 'cut' - i.e. took things out of - Luke when he himself edited and 'cut' massive swaths out of Against the Jews to make his Against Marcion 3 reshaping material to make it say something the opposite of what it originally said (i.e. that it was against Marcion when the arguments were 'Against the Jews'). It is hard to believe anything he claims about the Marcionite gospel being a falsified Luke when his treatise is a falsified Against the Jews. Score one (or many) for Marcionite primacy. Either all the ancient Christians were lying, assholes like our President or just the one editor who rewrote our current treatise. It would seem that we shouldn't take the Marcion corrupted or falsified Luke argument very seriously when the main proponent of that claim - our chief witness viz. the editor of Against Marcion - is a corrupt falsifier, at the very least. If we smell a foul smell and we look at our shoes to see we stepped in dog poo that doesn't necessarily mean we haven't pooped out pants but it seems a satisfactory explanation - a suitable working hypothesis in the interim anyway.
“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
Post Reply