A “division” against a “sword”: who came first?

[Giuseppe]

Luke 12:51 :

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division

Matthew 10:34

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Tertullian accuses Marcion for having replaced "sword" with "division".

But He will Himself best explain the quality of that fire which He mentioned, when He goes on to say, Suppose that I have come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division. Luke 12:51 It is written a sword, but Marcion makes an emendation of the word, just as if a division were not the work of the sword. He, therefore, who refused to give peace, intended also the fire of destruction. As is the combat, so is the burning. As is the sword, so is the flame. Neither is suitable for its lord. He says at last, The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law against the daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against the mother-in-law. Luke 12:53 Since this battle among the relatives was sung by the prophet's trumpet in the very words, I fear that Micah Micah 7:6 must have predicted it to Marcion's Christ!

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm

When Tertullian had written:

It is written a sword, but Marcion makes an emendation...

...does he mean (first case):

It is written a sword by Luke, but Marcion makes an emendation...

or does he mean (second case):

It is written a sword by Matthew, but Marcion makes an emendation...

FIRST CASE:

Harnack claims that Tertullian was wrong in this particular criticism against Marcion, since, according to Harnack, Marcion would have corrupted Luke, and in Luke there is not "sword", but "division". So here Tertullian would have confused Matthew with Luke as the source corrupted by Marcion. Therefore, at least about the "division", Marcion didn't corrupt, but preserved Luke.

SECOND CASE:

Another hypothesis is that Tertullian was quoting Mcn itself, so to accuse Marcion by the his own text (Marcion having read "sword" in Matthew and replaced it with division). Even in this case, Marcion was not corrupting Luke, since both have "division".

_______________________



Now, the Dialogues of Adamantius, chap. 5, reports that "sword" was in Mcn.

Harnack argues from this evidence that Matthew was also the source of Mcn , even if the "sword" was not found in Mcn (sic). Harnack's explanation has to assume the coincidence of well two distractions, by Tertullian and by Adamantius, about what was in Mcn.

The more probable explanation is that:

• Mcn had "sword"

• Luke had replaced "sword" with "division"

• Matthew preserved the "sword" of Mcn, even if he was based also on Luke

[Giuseppe]

Hence the term "sword" assumes, differently from the milder "division", an irrevocable division. The Christianity is divided forever from Judaism. The term "division" assumes, at contrary, that what Jesus divided (i..e, Judaism from Christianity) will be a day reconciled, possibly in a catholic sense.


Hence the "sword" is very probably a marcionite sword.

Matthew preserved the marcionite sword, but not for this he is less mild than Luke in comparison to Mcn.

Since Mcn had:

If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple

(Luke 14:26)

...mitigated by Matthew in:

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

(Matthew 10:37)

So it is explained the presumed "immorality" of Luke 14:26: it is "immoral" if said by a man, but it is not "immoral" if said by a god. It is the same degree of "immorality" shown by the gnostic Jesus at Cana towards his presumed - and only presumed - mother:

When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? My hour has not yet come.”

(John 2:3-4)

Note that even in that case, John is mitigating Marcion, since the new wine is introduced magically by Jesus in already existing old wineskins, not decisively a marcionite action!

[Giuseppe]

The same implication made usually about the presumed source Q betrayes strongly a marcionite influence behind these same scholars who are authors of that implication!

The implication is the following:

the sayings of the source Q give a portrait of Jesus as a "Cynic-like sage".

A Cynic-like sage is a typical Gentile figure who is lover of antithesis and paradoxes.

And Marcion was a gentile Christian.

Everything fits.

[Giuseppe]

It is easy to infer the Marcionite original passage corrupted by Luke 12:51 :

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division

It was probably the following:

Suppose ye that I am come to give division on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather peace

[Secret Alias]

חרב LXX = πόλεμον