The use of the term αντιπαραθέσεως in the account of the Marcionites is very interesting as it seems to be noted by Clement of Alexandria and argued to be a positive for his tradition:
The Stromata will contain the truth mixed up in the dogmas of philosophy, or rather covered over and hidden, as the edible part of the nut in the shell. For, in my opinion, it is fitting that the seeds of truth be kept for the husbandmen of faith, and no others. I am not oblivious of what is babbled by some, who in their ignorance are frightened at every noise, and say that we ought to occupy ourselves with what is most necessary, and which contains the faith; and that we should pass over what is beyond and superfluous, which wears out and detains us to no purpose, in things which conduce nothing to the great end. Others think that philosophy was introduced into life by an evil influence, for the ruin of men, by an evil inventor. But I shall show, throughout the whole of these Stromata, that evil has an evil nature, and can never turn out the producer of aught that is good; indicating that philosophy is in a sense a work of Divine Providence.
In reference to these commentaries, which contain as the exigencies of the case demand, the Hellenic opinions, I say thus much to those who are fond of finding fault. First, even if philosophy were useless, if the demonstration of its uselessness does good, it is yet useful. Then those cannot condemn the Greeks, who have only a mere hearsay knowledge of their opinions, and have not entered into a minute investigation in each department, in order to acquaintance with them. For the refutation, which is based on experience, is entirely trustworthy. For the knowledge of what is condemned is found the most complete demonstration. Many things, then, though not contributing to the final result, equip the artist. And otherwise erudition commends him, who sets forth the most essential doctrines so as to produce persuasion in his hearers, engendering admiration in those who are taught, and leads them to the truth. And such persuasion is convincing, by which those that love learning admit the truth; so that philosophy does not ruin life by being the originator of false practices and base deeds, although some have calumniated it, though it be the clear image of truth, a divine gift to the Greeks; nor does it drag us away from the faith, as if we were bewitched by some delusive art, but rather, so to speak, by the use of an ampler circuit, obtains a common exercise demonstrative of the faith. Further, the juxtaposition of doctrines, by comparison (αντιπαραθέσεως), saves the truth, from which follows knowledge.
Philosophy came into existence, not on its own account, but for the advantages reaped by us from knowledge, we receiving a firm persuasion of true perception, through the knowledge of things comprehended by the mind. For I do not mention that the Stromata, forming a body of varied erudition, wish artfully to conceal the seeds of knowledge. As, then, he who is fond of hunting captures the game after seeking, tracking, scenting, hunting it down with dogs; so truth, when sought and got with toil, appears a delicious thing. Why, then, you will ask, did you think it fit that such an arrangement should be adopted in your memoranda? Because there is great danger in divulging the secret of the true philosophy to those, whose delight it is unsparingly to speak against everything, not justly; and who shout forth all kinds of names and words indecorously, deceiving themselves and beguiling those who adhere to them. "For the Hebrews seek signs," as the apostle says, "and the Greeks seek after wisdom." (Strom 1.3)
But the multitude are frightened at the Hellenic philosophy, as children are at masks, being afraid lest it lead them astray. But if the faith (for I cannot call it knowledge) which they possess be such as to be dissolved by plausible speech, let it be by all means dissolved, and let them confess that they will not retain the truth. For truth is immoveable; but false opinion dissolves. We choose, for instance, one purple by comparison (αντιπαραθέσεως) with another purple. So that, if one confesses that he has not a heart that has been made right, he has not the table of the money-changers or the test of words. And how can he be any longer a money-changer, who is not able to prove and distinguish spurious coin, even offhand? (ibid 6.10)
Notice the Marcionite (or even Manichaean understanding of the two trees parable denoting 'two natures' - "that evil has an evil nature, and can never turn out the producer of aught that is good." This is not the Catholic interpretation of the saying but the heretical one.
In Eusebius we perhaps find a better term to translate this word:
And now we may well compare the present with former things, and review these happy changes in contrast (αντιπαραθέσεως) with the evils that are past, and mark the elaborate care with which in ancient times porches and sacred precincts, groves and temples, were prepared in every city for these false deities, and how their shrines were enriched with abundant offerings. (In Praise 10.9)
Last edited by stephan happy huller on Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
And he despoiled this (philosopher), and imagined that up to the present would pass undetected his transference, under the same expressions, of the arrangement of his entire heresy from Sicily into the evangelical words (of Mark).
δν συλαγωγών (Μαρκίων) μέχρι νῦν λανθάνειν ύπελάμβανε την διαταγήν πάσης της κατ' αυτόν αίρέσεως άπό της σικελίας τις τοὺς εὐαγγελικοὺς λόγους μεταφερων αὐταῖς λέςεσι.
Last edited by stephan happy huller on Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
The interpretation of William Talbot which was published in the Correspondence section of the Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, v. 8 no. 25, April 1861, pp. 175-177.
We see that Hippolytus charges Marcion with having stolen his principal opinions without acknowledgment from Empedocles of Agrigentum, and even given them in that author's very words (αυταις λεξεσι), as if they were a part of the Gospel truth - "whereas it is certain," says Hippolytus, "that neither Paul the apostle, nor Mark with the mutilated fingers (Μαρκος ό κολοβοδακτυλος), have ever promulgated any such opinions. Not any of these things is written in the gospel of Mark."
The opinion which Bunsen formed of this passage, was that the text was entirely corrupted, and that instead of Μαρκος ό κολοβοδακτυλος, we should read Μαρκος ό καλων λογων διδασκαλος.υ
But it seems to me that this is a violent alteration of the text, and recedes too far from the reading in the MS. A more plausible conjecture would be, to omit λογων, and read Μαρκος ό καλο διδασκαλος "Mark the giver of good advice." But even this correction is not very satisfactory. The word καλοδιδασκαλος only occurs once in the New Testament, where it is applied to old women, who are exhorted to be "givers of good advice" to the younger women. - Now in the present passage there is no question of "giving advice" to any one.
It is probable that Marcion professed some particular reverence for the gospel of Mark (from the similar name he bore), and that may be the chief reason why Hippolytus, wishing to refute Marcion, refers to that evangelist rather than the others. "Neither Paul nor Mark have said these things, nor are any of them to be found in Mark's gospel."
A parallel to the material in the Philosophumena regarding . If we look at Tertullian's treatise De Carne Christi we see an echo of similar arguments by the heretics starting with the statement near the end:
Moreover it would not suit Christ's purpose, when bringing to nought the sin of the flesh, not to bring it to nought in that flesh in which was the nature of sin: neither would it be to his glory. For what would it amount to if it was in a better kind of flesh, of a different (that is, a non-sinful) nature, that he destroyed the birthmark of sin? 'In that case,' you will reply, 'if it was our flesh Christ clothed himself with, Christ's flesh was sinful.' Forbear to tie up tight a conception which admits of unravelling. By clothing himself with our flesh he made it his own, and by making it his own he made it non-sinful. Moreover--and let this be addressed to all those who suppose that because he was not of a man's seed, it was not our flesh that was in Christ--let them remember that Adam himself was made into this flesh, though not of a man's seed: as earth was changed into this flesh without a man's seed, so also the Word of God was able, without coagulation, to pass into the material of that same flesh.
So Jesus is not 'Adam' but a parallel 'heavenly Man' who - according to the Catholics - goes into the Virgin's womb and is born to mortal flesh. Everything else about the Catholic ideas mirrors that of the heretics - i.e. Jesus is a supernatural being who now allows himself to be born of mortal flesh.
In what immediately follows he continues to mention a particular heretical teacher named Alexander who held these same beliefs:
But, dismissing Alexander, along with those syllogisms of his which he tortures in his arguings, also along with those psalms of Valentinus which with supreme impudence he interpolates as though they were the work of some competent author, let us now
concentrate our attack at one single point, whether it was from the Virgin that Christ took to himself flesh: for by this method, if by
no other, it will be established that his flesh was human, if it derived its substance from a human womb: although it has already become clear that it was of human constitution, both from the appellation 'man' and from its natural characteristics, from the sense-perception of handling and from the issue of the passion.
Yet before all else we shall need to adduce the reason which prescribed that the Son of God should be born of a virgin: which was, that he must needs be born in a new manner, as being the founder of that new birth concerning which it was proclaimed by Isaiah that the Lord would give a sign. What sign is that? Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb and shall bear a son.1 And so a virgin did conceive, and bore Emmanuel, God with us. This is the new birth, that man is being born in God, since the day when God was born in man, taking to himself flesh of the ancient seed without the agency of the ancient seed, so that he might reshape it with new (that is, spiritual) seed when he had first by sacrifice expelled its ancient defilements. But that newness in its totality, as also in all its bearings, was prefigured of old, when by a reasonable ordinance by means of a virgin man was born to the Lord. The earth was still virgin, not yet deflowered by husbandry, not yet subdued to seedtime: of it we are told that man was made by God into a living soul. Therefore, seeing that of the first Adam it is so related, naturally the second or last Adam, as the apostle has called him, was likewise from earth (that is, flesh) not yet unsealed to generation brought forth by God to be a life-giving spirit.
Of course most people don't know that the Marcionite recension of 1 Corinthians has 'the last Lord' not 'last Adam.' Funny that the author doesn't mention that here!
What is especially interesting is that there seems to a sense of very different order to the gospel which I would like to demonstrate. I am talking of course about a so-called 'Diatessaron' which began with the material from our 'John.' In what immediately follows again we read:
And yet--that I leave not otiose the introduction of the name of Adam--why was Christ called Adam by the apostle2 if his manhood was not of terrestrial origin? Here also reason gives from man flesh without seed, from God spirit with seed. Therefore if there was an ordinance of reason regarding the need for the Son of God to be brought forth from a virgin, what room is there for doubt that he received from the Virgin that body which he did bring forth from the Virgin, seeing that what he received from God is something else? 'It is', say they, 'because the Word was made flesh.'1 This saying testifies and declares what it was that was made flesh, while yet there is no risk that, in spite of this, something else, and not the Word, was made flesh, if it was out of flesh that the Word was made flesh. Or else, if out of himself he was made flesh, let Scripture say so. Since the Scripture says no more than what the Word was made, and not also from what he was so made, it follows that its suggestion is that he was so made out of something else, and not out of himself. If not out of himself but out of something else, beginning with that admission discuss of what it is more fitting to believe the Word was made flesh, if not of that flesh within which he was made flesh--if for no other reason, because the Lord himself has judicially and categorically stated, That which is born in the flesh is flesh, because it has been born of flesh.2 If he said this of man only, and not also of himself, openly deny that Christ is man, and thus maintain that it did not apply to him. ' Nay, but he adds, And that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit,3 because God is spirit,4 and He was born of God. : this certainly has him in view, the more so if it has also those who believe in him.'
Then if this too applies to him, why not also that other? For you cannot divide them, this to him, the other to the rest of men: for you do not deny the two substances of Christ, that of flesh and that of spirit. But if he possessed flesh no less than spirit, when he makes a statement concerning the condition of the two substances which he bore within himself, he cannot be thought to have made a pronouncement concerning spirit as being his but flesh as not his. Thus, since he was himself by the Spirit of God (and the Spirit is God) born of God, he was also of human flesh and as man conceived and born in the flesh.
In my mind it is highly probably that Tertullian (or his source Irenaeus) is providing us with insight into the original reading of the heretical gospel. This quote is broken up and spread out over the rest of the first chapters of John in our canon but likely formed the preamble to the heretical gospel - perhaps even a separate book (i.e. the Antitheses).
For Tertullian continues in what again immediately preceded it in the heretical canon. He asks:
'What then is the meaning of, Was born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of a man, but of God?'1 This text will
be of more use to me than to them, when I have refuted those who falsify it. For they maintain that it was thus written, Were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh or of a man, but of God,2 as though it referred to the above-mentioned believers in his name:3
and from it they try to prove that there exists that mystic seed of the elect and spiritual which they baptize for themselves. But
how can it mean this, when those who believe in the name of the Lord are all of them by the common law of human kind born of blood and of the will of the flesh and of a man, as also is Valentinus himself? Consequently the singular is correct, as referring to the Lord--was born . . . of God. Rightly so, because the Word is God's, and with the Word is God's Spirit, and in the Spirit is God's power, and God's everything that Christ is. As flesh, however, he was not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh and of a man, because the Word was made flesh by the will of God: for it is to his flesh, not to the Word, that this denial of a nativity after our pattern applies; and the reason is that it was the flesh, not the Word, which might have been expected to be born that way. 'But in denying, among other things, that he was born of the will of the flesh, surely it also denies that he was born of the substance of flesh.' No: because neither does the denial that he was born of blood involve any repudiation of the substance of flesh, but of the material of the seed, which material it is agreed is the heat of the blood, as it were by despumation changed into a coagulator of the woman's blood. For from the coagulator there is in cheese a function of that substance, namely milk, which by chemical action it causes to solidify.
We understand, then, a denial that the Lord's nativity was the result of coition (which is the meaning of the will of a man and of the flesh), but no denial that it was by a partaking of the womb. And why indeed does the evangelist with such amplification insist that the Lord was born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh or of a man, except that his flesh was such as no one would suspect was not born of coition? Consequently, his denial that it was born of coition involves no denial that it was born of the flesh, but rather an affirmation that it was born of the flesh, seeing he does not deny 'of flesh' in the same terms in which he denies 'of coition'. I put it to you: if the Spirit of God came down into the womb without the intention of partaking of flesh from the womb, why did he come down into the womb? For he might have been made spiritual flesh outside the womb with far less trouble than within it. To no purpose did he bring himself into a place from whence he took nothing out. But it was not to no purpose that he came down into the womb. Consequently he did receive something from it, because if he did not receive something from it it was to no purpose that he came down into it, the more so if he were going to be flesh of such a character as, being spiritual, had nothing in common with the womb.
Indeed we can begin to see Tertullian's rewriting of an original treatise which used a Diatessaron to one which identified a specific name of a gospel - i.e. Matthew in which again immediately follows:
But what sort of twistiness is yours, that you try to remove that syllable 'of', prefixed in the function of a preposition, and to substitute another, which in this connexion is not found in the holy Scriptures? You allege that he was born 'by the virgin' not 'of the virgin', and 'in the womb' not 'of the womb', on the ground that when the angel in a dream said to Joseph, For that which is born in her is of the holy Spirit,1 he did not say 'of her'. Yet surely, though he had said 'of her' he would have meant 'in her': for that was in her which was of her. Equally then, when he says 'in her', the meaning 'of her' is included, because that which was in her was of her. Also it is in my favour that the same Matthew, when rehearsing the Lord's pedigree from Abraham down to Mary, says Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary of whom Christ is born.2 Paul too imposes silence on these teachers of grammar: God, he says, sent his Son, made of a woman.3 Does he say 'by a woman' or 'in a woman'? His language is indeed the more accurate in that he says 'made' in preference to 'born'. For it would have been simpler to pronounce that he was born: yet by saying 'made' he has both set his seal on The Word was made flesh,4 and has asserted the verity of the flesh made of the Virgin.
We, moreover, shall have in this connexion the support of the Psalms, not indeed those of that apostate and heretic and Platonic
Valentinus, but of the most holy and canonical prophet David. He, in our Church, sings of Christ, because by him Christ sang of
himself. Take psalm twenty-one, and hear the Lord conversing with God the Father. For thou art he that didst rend me out of my
mother's womb:1 there is one. And my hope is from my mother's breasts. I have been cast upon thee out of the womb:2 there is another. Thou art my God even from my mother's womb:3 there it is in other words. Now let us fight it out in view of the meanings themselves. Thou didst rend me, he says, out of the womb. What is it that is rent out, except that which inheres, which is fastened in, is entwined with that from which its removal requires it to be rent out? If he did not adhere to the womb, how was he rent out?
If he who was rent out did adhere, how could he have adhered, except that while coming out of the womb he was knit by means
of that umbilical cord, as it were an offshoot of his caul, to the womb where he originated? Even when something external is
cemented to something external, it is so united in flesh and entrails with that to which it is cemented, that when it is rent away it
forcibly takes with it [something] out of the body from which it is rent away, [as it were] a sort of corollary of broken unity and an
aftermath of mutual coition.
Moreover, since he also mentions his mother's breasts--undoubtedly implying that he sucked them --let midwives, physicians, and biologists bear witness concerning the nature of breasts, whether they are wont to flow except at the genital experience of the womb, from which the veins pay over into the teat that cess of the lower blood, and in the course of that transfer distill it into the more congenial material of milk. That is why, during lactation, the monthly periods cease. But if the Word was made flesh out of himself, and not out of what the womb contributed, how did a womb which had wrought nothing, performed nothing, experienced nothing, decant its fountain into those breasts in which it causes change only by the process of giving birth? It cannot have possessed blood for the supply of milk without also having reasons for the blood itself, namely the tearing away of flesh which was its own. What novelty there was in Christ, the novelty of his being born of a virgin, is plain: namely, this and nothing else, that he was born of a virgin
according to the manner I have expounded, to the further intent that our regeneration should be virginal in a spiritual sense,
sanctified from all defilements through Christ, himself virgin even in the flesh, because it was of a virgin's flesh that he was born.
I suspect that either Tertullian or his source is not being entirely honest about the original argument of the heretics. Indeed the reference to 'Matthew' and the context of Mary and Joseph has been rewritten probably by a later hand.
My sense is that the original preamble to the gospel - or 'Antitheses' - shared in common with the Marcionites read as follows:
to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh or of a man, but of God. For that which is born in her is of the holy Spirit. That which is born in the flesh is flesh, because it has been born of flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is Spirit, because God is spirit, and He was born of God.
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in the bosom of the Father, has made him known.
I am not saying that this has to be the right reading especially towards the end (which isn't specifically mentioned in the treatise). But this seems to be what emerges from the discussion so far.
Before we continue with De Carne Christi it is worth noting how the late Arabic Diatessaron incorporates the two birth narratives of Luke and Matthew. It inserts them back to back in the middle of the preamble of what we identify as John 1. So we read:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God is the 3 Word. This was in the beginning with God. Everything was by his hand, and 4 without him not even one existing thing was made. In him was life, and the life 5 is the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness apprehended it not.
6 There was in the days of Herod the king a priest whose name was Zacharias, of the family of Abijah; and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name 7 was Elizabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all his com- 8 mands, and in the uprightness of God without reproach. And they had no son, for 9 Elizabeth was barren, and they had both advanced in age. And while he discharged Arabic. the duties of priest in the order of his service before God, according to the custom of the priesthood it was his turn to burn incense; so he entered the temple of the Lord. And the whole gathering of the people were praying without at the time of the incense. And there appeared unto Zacharias the angel of the Lord, standing at the right of the altar of incense; and Zacharias was troubled when he saw him, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said unto him, Be not agitated, Zacharias, for thy prayer is heard, and thy wife Elizabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shall call his name John; and thou shalt have joy and gladness, and many shall rejoice at his birth. And he shall be great before the Lord, and shall not drink wine nor strong drink, and he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit while he is in his mother's womb. And he shall turn back many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit, and in the power of Elijah the prophet, to turn back the heart of the fathers to the sons, and those that obey not to the knowledge of the righteous; and to prepare for the Lord a perfect people. And Zacharias said unto the angel, How shall I know this, since I am an old man and my wife is advanced in years? And the angel answered and said unto him, I am Gabriel, that standeth before God; and I was sent to speak unto thee, and give thee tidings of this. Henceforth thou shall be speechless, and shalt not be able to speak until the day in which this shall come to pass, because thou didst not trust this my word, which shall be accomplished in its time. And the people were stand- Arabic, ing awaiting Zacharias, and they were perplexed at his delaying in the temple. And when Zacharias went out, he was not able to speak unto them: so they knew that he had seen in the temple a vision; and he made signs unto them, and continued dumb. And when the days of his service were completed, he departed to his dwelling.
25 And after those days Elizabeth his wife conceived; and she hid herself five months, and said, This hath the Lord done unto me in the days when he looked upon me, to remove my reproach from among men.
27 And in the sixth month Gabriel the angel was sent from God to Galilee to a city called Nazareth, to a virgin given in marriage to a man named Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel entered unto her and said unto her, Peace be unto thee, thou who art filled with grace. Our Lord is with thee, thou blessed amongst women. And she, when she beheld, was agitated at his word, and pondered what this salutation could be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour with God. Thou shall now con- ceive, and bear a son, and call his name Jesus. This shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father: and he shall rule over the house of Jacob for ever; and to his kingdom there shall be no end. Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be to me when no man hath known me? The angel answered and said unto her, The Arabic. Holy Spirit will come, and the power of the Most High shall rest upon thee, and therefore shall he that is born of thee be pure, and shall be called the Son of God. And lo, Elizabeth thy kinswoman, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her, her that is called barren. For nothing is difficult for God. Mary said, Lo, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be unto me according unto thy word. And the angel departed from her.
40 And then Mary arose in those days and went in haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah; and entered into the house of Zacharias, and asked for the health of Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit; and cried with a loud voice and said unto Mary, Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit that is in thy womb. Whence have I this privilege, that the mother of my Lord should come unto me? When the sound of thy salutation reached my ears, with great joy rejoiced the babe in my womb. And blessed is she who believed that what was spoken to her from the Lord would be fulfilled.And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour, Who hath looked upon the low estate of his handmaiden:
Lo, henceforth, all generations shall pronounce blessing on me.
For he hath done great things for me, who is mighty,
And holy is his name.
And his mercy embraceth them who fear him,
Throughout the ages and the times.
He wrought the victory with his arm,
And scattered them that prided themselves in their opinions.
He overthrew them that acted haughtily from their thrones,
And raised the lowly.
He satisfied with good things the hungry,
And left the rich without anything.
He helped Israel his servant,
And remembered his mercy
(According as he spake with our fathers)
Unto Abraham and unto his seed for ever.
And Mary abode with Elizabeth about three months, and returned unto her house.
And Elizabeth's time of delivery was come; and she brought forth a son. And her neighbours and kinsfolk heard that God had multiplied his mercy towards her; and they rejoiced with her. And when it was the eighth day, they came to circumcise the child, and called him Zacharias, calling him by the name of his father. And his mother answered and said unto them, Not so; but he shall be called John. And they said unto her, There is no man of thy kindred that is called by this name. 63, And they made signs to his father, saying, How dost thou wish to name him? And he asked for a tablet, and wrote and said, His name is John. And every one wondered. And immediately his mouth was opened, and his tongue, and he spake and praised God. And fear fell on all their neighbours: and this was spoken of in all the mountains of Judah. And all who heard pondered in their hearts and said, What shall this child be? And the hand of the Lord was with him.
68 And Zacharias his father was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied and said, Blessed is the Lord, the God of Israel, Who hath cared for his people, and wrought for it salvation; And hath raised for us the horn of salvation Arabic, In the house of David his servant (As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets from eternity), That he might save us from our enemies, And from the hand of all them that hate us.
73 And he hath performed his mercy towards our fathers, And remembered his holy covenants, And the oath which he sware unto Abraham our father, That he would give us deliverance from the hand of our enemies, And without fear we shall serve before him All our days with equity and righteousness.
77 And as for thee, O child, prophet of the Most High shalt thou be called.
Thou shalt go forth before the face of the Lord to prepare his way, To give the knowledge of salvation unto his people, For the forgiveness of their sins, Through the mercy of the compassion of our God, With which he careth for us, to appear from on high To give light to them that sit in darkness and under the shadow of death, And to set straight our feet in the way of peace.
81 And the child grew and became strong in the spirit, and abode in the desert until the time of his appearing unto the children of Israel.
and then Matthew what we would call 'Matthew' is awkwardly introduced immediately thereafter:
Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah was on this wise: In the time when his mother was given in marriage to Joseph, before they came together, 2 she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband was a just man and did not wish to expose her, and he purposed to put her away secretly. 3 But when he thought of this, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, and said unto him, Joseph, son of David, fear not to take Mary thy wife, for that 4 which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit. She shall bear a son, and thou shalt 5 call his name Jesus, and he shall save s his people from their sins.And all this was that the saying from the Lord by the prophet might be fulfilled:
6 Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel, 7 which is, being interpreted, With us is our God. And when Joseph arose from his 8 sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took his wife; and knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son.
9 And in those days there went forth a decree from Augustus Caesar that all the people of his dominion should be enrolled. This first enrolment was while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And every man went to be enrolled in his city. And Joseph went up also from Nazareth, a city of Galilee, to Judaea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem (for he was of the house of David and of his tribe), with Arabic. Mary his betrothed, she being with child, to be enrolled there. And while she was there the days for her being delivered were accomplished. And she brought forth her firstborn son; and she wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them where they were staying.
and then this awkward going back and forth from what is obviously now - the canonical Matthew to canonical Luke - continues until we read:
And after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teach- ers, hearing them and asking them questions; and all who heard him wondered at his wisdom and his words. And when they saw him they wondered, and his mother said unto him, My son, why hast thou dealt with us thus? behold, I and thy father have been seeking for thee with much anxiety. And he said unto them, Why were ye seeking me? know ye not that I must be in the house of my Father? And they understood not the word which he spake unto them. And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth; and he was obedient to them: and his mother used to keep all these sayings in her heart.
And Jesus grew in his stature and wisdom, and in grace with God and men. And in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor in Judaea, and one of the four rulers, Herod, in Galilee; and Philip his brother, one of the four rulers, in Ituraea and in the district of Trachonitis; and Lysanias, one of the four rulers, in Abilene; in the chief-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the command of God went forth to John the son of Zacharias in the desert. And he came into all the region which is about Jordan, proclaiming the baptism of repentance unto the forgiveness of sins. And he was preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, and saying, Repent ye; the kingdom of heaven is come near. This is he that was spoken of in Isaiah the prophet, The voice which crieth in the desert, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, And make straight in the plain, paths for our God.
44 All the valleys shall become filled, And all the mountains and hills shall become low; And the rough shall become plain, And the difficult place, easy; And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
46 This man came to bear witness, that he might bear witness to the light, that every man might believe through his mediation. He was not the light, bat that he might bear witness to the light, which was the light of truth, that giveth light to every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. And those who received him, to them gave he the power that they might be sons of God,--those which believe in his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God. And the Word became flesh, and took up his abode among us; and we saw his glory as the glory of the only Son from the Father, which is full of grace and equity. John bare witness of him, and cried, and said, This is he that I said cometh after me and was before me, because he was before me. And of his fulness received we all grace for grace. For the law was given through the mediation of Moses, but truth and grace were through Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only Son, God, which is in the bosom of his Father, he hath told of him.
We should notice a couple of things before we go back to the use of a Diatessaron in De Carne Christi:
1. our 'John 1' appears 'broken up' with the birth narrative material from what is now Matthew and Luke
2. the opening section naturally 'concludes' with John 1:18
3. the words that follow i.e. John 19 could well have been taken as the source for the gospel which followed as 'according to John' viz. And this is the witness of John when the Jews sent to him from Jerusalem priests (Καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ Ἰωάννου)
Celsus seems to indicate that this is how the gospel was read - i.e. that John 'who bathed beside Jesus' was the witness for the baptism narrative and presumably the gospel as a whole.
The Diatessaronic text of the author of De Carne Christi (or that of his heretical opponent 'Alexander') however puts the break where the birth narratives are inserted a little later. In the Arabic Diatessaron it is here:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. ------> birth narrative
The Diatessaronic text of the author De Carne Christi put the insertion here:
to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh or of a man, but of God. For that which is born in her is of the holy Spirit. That which is born in the flesh is flesh, because it has been born of flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is Spirit, because God is spirit, and He was born of God. The Word became flesh -----------> birth narrative
What is interesting however is that when we now look at our 'version' of the Johannine preamble it is apparent that it has been deliberately reconstructed so as to posit two distinct 'Johns' - John the Baptist and John the evangelist. The highlighted material do not appear in the Arabic Diatessaron and were unknown to the Marcionites (because we are repeatedly told they had no reference to John the Baptist at least at the beginning of the gospel):
6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
The resulting section seems a rather awkward attempt to deny the heretical reading of the material that followed:
And in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor in Judaea, and one of the four rulers, Herod, in Galilee; and Philip his brother, one of the four rulers, in Ituraea and in the district of Trachonitis; and Lysanias, one of the four rulers, in Abilene; in the chief-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the command (Gk 'word') of God went forth to John the son of Zacharias in the desert. And he came into all the region which is about Jordan, proclaiming the baptism of repentance unto the forgiveness of sins. And he was preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, and saying, Repent ye; the kingdom of heaven is come near. This is he that was spoken of in Isaiah the prophet, The voice which crieth in the desert, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, And make straight in the plain, paths for our God. All the valleys shall become filled, And all the mountains and hills shall become low; And the rough shall become plain, And the difficult place, easy; And all flesh shall see the salvation of God. This man came to bear witness, that he might bear witness to the light, that every man might believe through his mediation. He was not the light, bat that he might bear witness to the light, which was the light of truth, that giveth light to every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. And those who received him, to them gave he the power that they might be sons of God,--those which believe in his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God. And the Word became flesh, and took up his abode among us; and we saw his glory as the glory of the only Son from the Father, which is full of grace and equity. John bare witness of him, and cried, and said, This is he that I said cometh after me and was before me, because he was before me. And of his fulness received we all grace for grace. For the law was given through the mediation of Moses, but truth and grace were through Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only Son, God, which is in the bosom of his Father, he hath told of him.
And this is the witness of John when the Jews sent to him from Jerusalem priests 3 and Levites to ask him, Who art thou? And he acknowledged, and denied not; 4 and he confessed that he was not the Messiah.
Given what we know about the Diatessaronic gospel of De Carne Christi it would appear that not only the Arabic Diatessaron and its Syriac predecessors but also the Gospel of John in our possession all developed from an attempt to deny the heretical reading of the 'preamble' (= antitheses) to the gospel which said that Jesus was not a human being, he came from heaven, and that he offered the possibility of being remade or refashioned through baptism to all his adherents. No specific mention of 'John' likely until the words 'Καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ Ἰωάννου' because the only John known to the early Christians was John the disciple, the witness.
The basic template of the birth narrative addition follows the general pattern of what appears in the Arabic Diatessaron. The only difference being that the Arabic Diatessaron has taken over whole sections from Luke and Matthew while the section in De Carne Christi is much shorter. Here is what is attested in the narrative:
And the angel entered unto her and said unto her, Peace be unto you, you who are filled with grace. Our Lord 30 is with you, you blessed among women. Luke 1:29 And she, when she beheld, was agitated 31 at his word, and pondered what this salutation could be. Luke 1:30 And the angel said unto 32 her, Fear not, Mary, for you have found favour with God. Luke 1:31 You shall now conceive, 33 and bear a son, and call his name Jesus. Luke 1:32 This shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give him the throne of 34 David his father: and he shall rule over the house of Jacob for ever; Luke 1:33 and to his 35 kingdom there shall be no end. Luke 1:34 Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be to 36 me when no man has known me? Luke 1:35 The angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit will come, and the power of the Most High shall rest upon you, and therefore shall he that is born of you be pure, and shall be called the Son 37 of God. Luke 1:36 And lo, Elizabeth your kinswoman, she also has conceived a son in her old 38 age; and this is the sixth month with her, her that is called barren. Luke 1:37 For nothing is 39 difficult for God. Luke 1:38 Mary said, Lo, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be unto me according unto your word. And the angel departed from her.
40 Luke 1:39 And then Mary arose in those days and went in haste into the hill country, to a 41 city of Judah; Luke 1:40 and entered into the house of Zacharias, and asked for the health of 42 Elizabeth. Luke 1:41 And when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in 43 her womb. Luke 1:42 And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit; and cried with a loud voice and said unto Mary, Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the 44 fruit that is in your womb. Luke 1:43 Whence have I this privilege, that the mother of my 45 Lord should come unto me? Luke 1:44 When the sound of your salutation reached my ears, 46 with great joy rejoiced the babe in my womb. Luke 1:45 And blessed is she who believed 47 that what was spoken to her from the Lord would be fulfilled. Luke 1:46 And Mary said,
My soul does magnify the Lord,
48 Luke 1:47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour,
49 Luke 1:48 Who has looked upon the low estate of his handmaiden:
Lo, henceforth, all generations shall pronounce blessing on me.
50 Luke 1:49 For he has done great things for me, who is mighty,
And holy is his name.
51 Luke 1:50 And his mercy embraces them who fear him,
Throughout the ages and the times.
52 [Arabic, p. 5] Luke 1:51 He wrought the victory with his arm,
And scattered them that prided themselves in their opinions.
53 Luke 1:52 He overthrew them that acted haughtily from their thrones,
And raised the lowly.
54 Luke 1:53 He satisfied with good things the hungry,
And left the rich without anything.
55 Luke 1:54 He helped Israel his servant,
And remembered his mercy
56 Luke 1:55 (According as he spoke with our fathers)
Unto Abraham and unto his seed for ever.
57 Luke 1:56 And Mary abode with Elizabeth about three months, and returned unto her house.
58, 59 Luke 1:57 And Elizabeth's time of delivery had come; and she brought forth a son. Luke 1:58 And her neighbours and kinsfolk heard that God had multiplied his mercy towards her; 60 and they rejoiced with her. Luke 1:59 And when it was the eighth day, they came to circumcise the child, and called him Zacharias, calling him by the name of his father. 61 Luke 1:60 And his mother answered and said unto them, Not so; but he shall be called John. 62 Luke 1:61 And they said unto her, There is no man of your kindred that is called by this name. 63, 64 Luke 1:62 And they made signs to his father, saying, How do you wish to name him? Luke 1:63 And he asked for a tablet, and wrote and said, His name is John. And every one wondered. 65 Luke 1:64 And immediately his mouth was opened, and his tongue, and he spoke and 66 praised God. Luke 1:65 And fear fell on all their neighbours: and this was spoken of in all 67 the mountains of Judah. Luke 1:66 And all who heard pondered in their hearts and said, What shall this child be? And the hand of the Lord was with him.
68 Luke 1:67 And Zacharias his father was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied and said,
69 Luke 1:68 Blessed is the Lord, the God of Israel,
Who has cared for his people, and wrought for it salvation;
70 Luke 1:69 And has raised for us the horn of salvation
[Arabic, p. 6] In the house of David his servant
71 Luke 1:70 (As he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from eternity),
72 Luke 1:71 That he might save us from our enemies,
And from the hand of all them that hate us.
73 Luke 1:72 And he has performed his mercy towards our fathers,
And remembered his holy covenants,
74 Luke 1:73 And the oath which he swore unto Abraham our father,
75 Luke 1:74 That he would give us deliverance from the hand of our enemies,
And without fear we shall serve before him
76 Luke 1:75 All our days with equity and righteousness.
77 Luke 1:76 And as for you, O child, prophet of the Most High shall you be called.
You shall go forth before the face of the Lord to prepare his way,
78 Luke 1:77 To give the knowledge of salvation unto his people,
For the forgiveness of their sins,
79 Luke 1:78 Through the mercy of the compassion of our God,
With which he cares for us, to appear from on high
80 Luke 1:79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and under the shadow of death,
And to set straight our feet in the way of peace.
81 And the child grew and became strong in the spirit, and abode in the desert until the time of his appearing unto the children of Israel.
Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah was on this wise: In the time when his mother was given in marriage to Joseph, before they came together, 2 she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 1:19 And Joseph her husband was a just man and did not wish to expose her, and he purposed to put her away secretly. 3 Matthew 1:20 But when he thought of this, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, and said unto him, Joseph, son of David, fear not to take Mary your wife, for that 4 which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 1:21 She shall bear a son, and you shall 5 call his name Jesus, and he shall save his people from their sins. Matthew 1:22 And all this was that the saying from the Lord by the prophet might be fulfilled:
6 Matthew 1:23 Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
And they shall call his name Immanuel,
7 which is, being interpreted, With us is our God. Matthew 1:24 And when Joseph arose from his 8 sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took his wife; Matthew 1:25a and knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son.
9 Luke 2:1 And in those days there went forth a decree from Augustus Cæsar that all the 10 people of his dominion should be enrolled. Luke 2:2 This first enrolment was while Quirinius 11, 12 was governor of Syria. Luke 2:3 And every man went to be enrolled in his city. Luke 2:4 And Joseph went up also from Nazareth, a city of Galilee, to Judæa, to the city of David 13 which is called Bethlehem (for he was of the house of David and of his tribe), Luke 2:5 with 14 [Arabic, p. 8] Mary his betrothed, she being with child, to be enrolled there. Luke 2:6 And while 15 she was there the days for her being delivered were accomplished. And she brought forth her firstborn son; and she wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them where they were staying.
16 And there were in that region shepherds abiding, keeping their flock in the watch 17 of the night. Luke 2:9 And behold, the angel of God came unto them, and the glory of the 18 Lord shone upon them; and they were greatly terrified. Luke 2:10 And the angel said unto them, Be not terrified; for I bring you tidings of great joy which shall be to the 19 whole world; Luke 2:11 there is born to you this day a Saviour, which is the Lord the Messiah, 20 in the city of David. Luke 2:12 And this is a sign for you: you shall find a babe wrapped 21 in swaddling cloths and laid in a manger. Luke 2:13 And there appeared with the angels suddenly many heavenly forces praising God and saying,
22 Luke 2:14 Praise be to God in the highest,
And on the earth peace, and good hope to men.
23 Luke 2:15 And when the angels departed from them to heaven, the shepherds spoke to one another and said, We will go to Bethlehem and see this word which has been, as 24 the Lord made known unto us. Luke 2:16 And they came with haste, and found Mary and 25 Joseph, and the babe laid in a manger. Luke 2:17 And when they saw, they reported the word 26 which was spoken to them about the child. Luke 2:18 And all that heard wondered at the 27 description which the shepherds described to them. Luke 2:19 But Mary kept these sayings 28 and discriminated them in her heart. Luke 2:20 And those shepherds returned, magnifying and praising God for all that they had seen and heard, according as it was described unto them.
29 [Arabic, p. 9] Luke 2:21 And when eight days were fulfilled that the child should be circumcised, his name was called Jesus, being that by which he was called by the angel before his conception in the womb.
30 Luke 2:22 And when the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were 31 completed, they took him up to Jerusalem to present him before the Lord Luke 2:23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male opening the womb shall be called the 32 holy thing of the Lord), Luke 2:24 and to give a sacrificial victim as it is said in the law of 33 the Lord, A pair of doves or two young pigeons. Luke 2:25 And there was in Jerusalem a man whose name was Simeon; and this man was upright and pious, and expecting 34 the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Spirit was upon him. Luke 2:26 And it had been said unto him by the Holy Spirit, that he should not see death till he had seen with 35 his eyes the Messiah of the Lord. Luke 2:27 And this man came by the Spirit to the temple; and at the time when his parents brought in the child Jesus, that they might 36 present for him a sacrifice, as it is written in the law, Luke 2:28 he bare him in his arms and praised God and said,
37 Luke 2:29 Now loosen the bonds of your servant, O Lord, in peace,
According to your saying;
38 Luke 2:30 For my eye has witnessed your mercy,
39 Luke 2:31 Which you have made ready because of the whole world;
40 Luke 2:32 A light for the unveiling of the nations,
And a glory to your people Israel.
41 Luke 2:33 And Joseph and his mother were marvelling at the things which were being said 42 concerning him. Luke 2:34 And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, Behold, he is set for the overthrow and rising of many in Israel; and for a sign of contention; 43 Luke 2:35 and a spear shall pierce through your own soul; that the thoughts of the 44 [Arabic, p. 10] hearts of many may be revealed. Luke 2:36 And Anna the prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher, was also advanced in years (and she dwelt 45 with her husband seven years from her virginity, Luke 2:37 and she remained a widow about eighty-four years); and she left not the temple, and served night and day with 46 fasting and prayer. Luke 2:38 And she also rose in that hour and thanked the Lord, and she 47 spoke of him with every one who was expecting the deliverance of Jerusalem. Luke 2:39 And when they had accomplished everything according to what is in the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to Nazareth their city.
Now getting back to the comparison of De Carne Christi and the statements about the Marcionites in the Philosophumena there are a great many parallels. If we compare this statement in the Philosophumena we just saw:
Marcion rejected altogether the Genesis of our Saviour He considered it to be absurd that under the creature fashioned by destructive Discord should have been the Logos that was an auxiliary to Friendship--that is, the Good Deity. (His doctrine,) however, was that, putting to the side the birth (narrative), He Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and that, as being intermediate between the good and bad Deity, He proceeded to give instruction in the synagogues.
Μαρκίων την γένεσιν του Σωτήρος ημών παντάπασι παρητήσατο, άτοπον είναι νομίζων ύπόπλασμα του ολέθριου τούτου νείκους γεγονέναι τον λόγον τον τη φιλία συναγωνιζόμενον, τουτεστι τώ άγαθω, άλλα χωρίς γενέσεως ετει πεντεκαιδεκάτω της ηγεμονίας πεντεκαιδεκατω της ηγεμονίας Ύιβερίου Καίσαρος κατεληλυθότα αυτόν άνωθεν, μέσον οντά κακοΰ και αγαθού, διδασκειν εν τοις συναγωγαϊς.
The very same idea appears in the De Carne Christi. In what almost immediately follows our last citation:
If Mary was carrying Jesus in her womb not as a son but as a guest, what can Elisabeth mean by Blessed is the fruit of thy womb?2 What sort of fruit of a womb is this, which has neither germinated from the womb, nor struck root in the womb, nor belongs to her whose the womb is? In what sense, really, is Christ the fruit of her womb? Is it not because he is himself the flower from the stem which came forth from the root of Jesse, while the root of Jesse is the house of David, and the stem from the root is Mary, descended from David, that the flower from the stem, the Son of Mary, who is called Jesus Christ, must himself also be the fruit? For flower is fruit, because by means of the flower and from the flower every fruit is perfected into fruit. What then? They deny to the fruit its own flower, to the flower its own stem, and to the stem its own root, so as to preclude the root from laying claim, by means of its own stem, to the ownership of that which is from the stem, namely the flower and the fruit: whereas in fact the whole ladder
of descent is counted back from the final to the principal, that now at length these persons may know that the flesh of Christ adheres
not only to Mary, but also to David through Mary and to Jesse through David. Thus it is that God swears to David that this
fruit out of his loins, that is, out of the posterity of his flesh, will sit upon his throne.4 If he is out of the loins of David, the more so
is he out of the loins of Mary, for on her account he is reckoned as having been in David's loins.
Thus even though they delete also the testimony of the devils who cry out to Jesus 'son of David', yet they will not be able to delete the testimony of the apostles, if the devils' testimony is beneath their notice. Matthew himself, to begin with, a most trustworthy compiler of the Gospel, as having been a companion of the Lord, for no other reason than of making us cognisant of Christ's origin according to the flesh begins thus: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.5 The fact that, by a descent which flows from these sources of origin, the sequence is brought down step by step to the nativity of Christ, can only mean that the very flesh of Abraham and David is registered as making an offshoot of itself through each several ancestor right down to the Virgin, and as bringing in Christ--nay rather, Christ himself comes forth--from the Virgin. Paul also, being a disciple and teacher and witness of the same Gospel, because he is an apostle of the self-same Christ, attests that Christ is of the seed of David according to the flesh1--evidently Christ's own flesh. Consequently Christ's flesh is of the seed of David. But it is of the seed of David in consequence of the flesh of Mary, and therefore it is of Mary's flesh, seeing it is of the seed of David.
In whatever direction you twist the expression, either his flesh is of Mary's flesh because it is of David's seed, or else it is of David's
seed because it is of Mary's flesh. The same apostle resolves this whole controversy by defining Christ himself to be Abraham's
seed: and since he is Abraham's, evidently much more is he David's, who is the more recent. For when tracing back the promise of the blessing of the nations in the seed of Abraham-- And in thy seed shall all the nations be blessed2--he says, He said not seeds, as of many, but seed, of one, which is Christ.3 What quality of flesh must and can we, who (in spite of our opponents' objections) read and believe this, acknowledge in Christ? Evidently no other than Abraham's, in that Christ is the seed of Abraham: nor other than Jesse's, in that Christ is the flower out of the root of Jesse:4 nor other than David's, in that Christ is the fruit out of the loins of David:5 nor other than Mary's, in that Christ is from Mary's womb: and, still higher up, no other than Adam's, in that Christ is the second Adam.6 It follows, therefore, that they must either claim that those others had flesh composed of spirit, so that the same quality of substance may be brought down into Christ, or else admit that Christ's flesh was not composed of spirit, since its descent is not recounted from a spiritual stock.
The fact that we are back at the antithesis between the two men - one earthly, one heavenly - undoubtedly means that we have reached the end of the original birth narrative or its inclusion in the Catholic proto-Diatessaron.
Indeed the text of De Carne Christi abruptly ends here with the reference to Jesus's birth according to the gospel of Luke:
We recognize here the fulfilment of the prophetic word of Simeon which he pronounced over the still new-born infant Lord: Behold, this child is set for the ruin and raising up of many in Israel, and for a sign that is being spoken against.1 The sign is that of the nativity of Christ, according to Isaiah: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb and shall bear a son
A long discussion of the testimony of Isaiah and the Holy Spirit follow and then as we said the text just 'ends.'
Yet as with many of Tertullian's texts the original material continues at the very beginning with what is now clearly the systematic acknowledgement of the material that the author accuses the Marcionites of 'deleting' from the true gospel (= a Diatessaron):
Clearly it is nativity that Gabriel announces. (Luke 1. 26-30) 'What,' says Marcion, 'have I to do with the Creator's angel?' And in a virgin's womb that conception is represented. 'What,' says he, ' have I to do with Isaiah, the Creator's prophet? ' (Isa. 7. 14) He abhors delay. He was for bringing Christ unexpectedly down from heaven. 'Away,' he says, 'with Caesar's enrolments, always a nuisance, and with inns with no room: (Luke 2. 1-14) away with dirty rags and hard mangers: let the angel host take the responsibility when it gives honour to its own God, and that by night: the shepherds had better watch over their flocks: no need for the wise men to be fetched along from afar: for all I care, they may keep their gold: also let Herod be a better man, lest Jeremiah have something to boast of; (Matt. 2. 1-18) and let not the Child be circumcised, lest he feel pain, nor brought to the temple, lest he burden his parents with the expense of an offering, nor put into the hands of Simeon, lest he make the old man sorry because he is soon to die: also let that old woman hold her tongue, lest she put the evil eye upon the boy.' (Luke 2. 21-38)
It is, I suppose, on these considerations, Marcion, that you have presumed to delete all those documents bearing on Christ's origins, to prevent his flesh being proved to be flesh. On whose authority, pray? Show your credentials. If you are a prophet, foretell something: if an apostle, preach publicly: if an apostolic man, agree with the apostles: if but an ordinary Christian, believe the traditional faith. If you are none of these--I have good reason for saying it--die. Nay, you are already dead, for you are not a Christian, seeing you do not believe that which, when believed, makes men Christians: and you are the more dead as you are the more not a Christian as having been one and having fallen away by annulling what you formerly believed, as you yourself claim in a certain epistle, and as your people do not deny, and ours prove.
Therefore, when you annulled what you did believe, you annulled it as no longer believing it. Yet your having ceased to believe was no valid reason for annulling it: on the contrary, by annulling what you did believe you prove that before you annulled it the case was different, and it was that different belief which was the traditional one. But what was traditional was true, as having been handed down by those who had the right to do so: and thus by annulling what was traditional you annulled what was true, and your act was illegal. But I have already in my book against all the heresies made fuller use of this kind of appeal to fundamental law. That I take for granted as I now of superfluity resume the discussion, demanding the reasons which led you to suppose that the birth of Christ never took place.
It is usually blindly stated that Marcion simply took the material out of Luke. Yet in Against Marcion Tertullian's source repeatedly identifies Marcion deleting things which never appeared in Luke and only Matthew. The argument for a Marcionite Diatessaron is actually proved by Eznik of Kolb's many statements about the conclusion of the Marcionite gospel (= that it draws from all three gospels). But let's continue on a little further in what appears in De Carne Christi.
So finally we see that De Carne Christi actually plows through a specific order of text 'excised' from the gospel which can only be from a Diatessaronic text. Look at what again immediately follows:
Inasmuch as you suppose this was within your competence to decide, it can only have been that your idea was that to God nativity is either impossible or unseemly. I answer, that to God nothing is impossible except what is against his will. So then we have to consider whether it was his will to be born: because, if it was, he both could be and was born. I betake myself to a short cut. If it had been God's will for himself not to be born--whatever his purpose might be--neither would he have permitted himself to have the appearance of being a man: for no one, seeing him a man, would refuse to admit that he had been born. Thus, what it had been his will not to be, it certainly would have been his will not to seem to be. Whenever any fact is objectionable, even the supposition of it is disapproved of: because it makes no matter whether a thing is or is not if, when it is not, there is a presumption that it is. But this certainly does matter, that God should not experience as a falsehood that which he is not in truth.
'But,' you say, 'his conscience was enough for him: it was men's fault if they thought him born because they saw him a man.' Well then, with how much more dignity, as well as consistency, would he have borne with men's estimate of him if really born, seeing that even though not born he would have had to bear with the same estimate, with wrong done to his own conscience besides. How much, think you, does it count towards our confidence in him, if while not born he did against his conscience put up with the repute of having been born? Tell me, what made it worth Christ's while, that when he knew what he was he should make himself visible as what he was not? Your answer cannot be, 'Lest if he had been born and had really clothed himself with man he might have ceased to be God, losing what he was while becoming what he was not.' For God runs no risk of ceasing to be what he is.
' But,' you say, ' the reason why I deny that God was really and truly changed into man, in the sense of being both born and corporated in flesh, is that he who is without end must of necessity also be unchangeable: for to be changed into something else is an ending of what originally was: therefore change is inapplicable to one to whom ending is inapplicable.' I admit that the nature of things changeable is bound by that law which precludes them from abiding in that which in them suffers change-- the law which causes them to be destroyed by not abiding, seeing that by process of change they destroy that which they once were. But nothing is on equal terms with God: his nature is far removed from the circumstances of all things whatsoever. If then things far removed from God, things from which God is far removed, do in the process of being changed lose that which they once were, where will be the difference between divinity and the rest of things except that the contrary obtains, namely that God can be changed into anything whatsoever, and yet continue such as he is? Otherwise he will be on equal terms with the things which, when changed, lose that which they once were--things with which he is not on equal terms, as in all respects so also in the outcome of change.
You have read at one time, and believed it, that the Creator's angels were changed into human shape, and that the bodies they were clothed with were of such verity that Abraham washed their feet, and that by their hands Lot was snatched away from the men of Sodom,1 and an angel also having wrestled with a man with the whole weight of his body desired to be let go, so fast was he held.2 Well then, that which was permitted to the angels of the inferior God when changed into human corporeity, the faculty of none the less remaining angels--will you deny this to the more mighty God, as though his Christ had not the power, when truly clothed with manhood, of continuing to be God? Or did perhaps those angels too become visible as a phantasm of flesh? No, this you will not dare to say. For if in your view the Creator's angels are as Christ is, Christ will belong to that God whose angels are such as Christ is.
If you had not maliciously rejected some and corrupted others of the scriptures which oppose your views, the Gospel of John would in this matter have put you to rout when it proclaims that the Spirit in the body of a dove glided down and settled upon our Lord. Though he was spirit he was no less truly dove than spirit, yet had not put to death his own proper substance by the assumption of a substance not his own. But, you ask, where is the body of the dove, now that the Spirit has been withdrawn into heaven? Just like the bodies of the angels, it was suppressed on the same terms on which it had also been produced. If you had seen it when it was being brought out of non-existence, you would have been aware also when it was being withdrawn into non-existence. As its beginning was not visible, neither was its ending. Yet it was a body, a body in three dimensions, at whatever moment it was visible as a body.2 That which is written cannot possibly not have been so.
It is hard to believe that the author has in mind our canonical gospel of John's testimony of the baptism because all that appears there is John's statement that a dove came down:
Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.”
The idea here is that John alone of the texts does not speak of a 'likeness' of a dove but an actual dove. Yet for Marcion to have expunged this line in particular the presumption again must be that we are dealing with a Diatessaron.
Instead the author must have in mind the Diatessaronic text.
