Is Irenaeus citing from a Marcionite canonical text?

[Stephan Huller]

Sorry, I get carried away in my own ruminations as a result you missed what I was saying. There really are eight references which could conceivably related to said 'presbyter':

1. As I have heard from a certain presbyter, who had heard it from those who had seen the apostles, and from those who had been their disciples, the punishment [declared] in Scripture was sufficient for the ancients in regard to what they did without the Spirit's guidance. For as God is no respecter of persons, He inflicted a proper punishment on deeds displeasing to Him

2. The Scripture has thus sufficiently reproved him [Solomon], as the presbyter remarked, in order that no flesh may glory in the sight of the Lord

3. We ought not, therefore, as that presbyter remarks, to be puffed up, nor be severe upon those of old time, but ought ourselves to fear, lest perchance, after the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but be shut out from His kingdom.

4. Thou wilt notice, too, that the transgressions of the common people have been described in like manner, not for the sake of those who did then transgress, but as a means of instruction unto us, and that we should understand that it is one and the same God against whom these men sinned, and against whom certain persons do now transgress from among those who profess to have believed in Him. But this also, [as the presbyter states,] has Paul declared most plainly in the Epistle to the Corinthians, when he says, "Brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant,

5. the elders pointed out that those men are devoid of sense, who, [arguing] from what happened to those who formerly did not obey God, do endeavour to bring in another Father, setting over against [these punishments] what great things the Lord had done at His coming to save those who received Him, taking compassion upon them

6. as also the presbyter remarked: For if God had not accorded this in the typical exodus, no one could now be saved in our true exodus

7. When recounting certain matters of this kind respecting them of old time, the presbyter [before mentioned] was in the habit of instructing us, and saying: "With respect to those misdeeds for which the Scriptures themselves blame the patriarchs and prophets, we ought not to inveigh against them, nor become like Ham, who ridiculed the shame of his father, and so fell under a curse; but we should [rather] give thanks to God in their behalf, inasmuch as their sins have been forgiven them through the advent of our Lord; for He said that they gave thanks [for us], and gloried in our salvation."

8. After this fashion also did a presbyter, a disciple of the apostles, reason with respect to the two testaments, proving that both were truly from one and the same God.

What I am saying over the course of this discussion is that if we were to establish the certain citations from the presbyter (= red) versus questionable citations (= blue) versus summaries of what Irenaeus claimed the presbyter said (= bold):

1. As I have heard from a certain presbyter, who had heard it from those who had seen the apostles, and from those who had been their disciples, the punishment [declared] in Scripture was sufficient for the ancients in regard to what they did without the Spirit's guidance. For as God is no respecter of persons, He inflicted a proper punishment on deeds displeasing to Him [authentic saying]

2. The Scripture has thus sufficiently reproved him [Solomon], as the presbyter remarked, in order that no flesh may glory in the sight of the Lord [application of 1 with Solomon by Irenaeus]

3. We ought not, therefore, as that presbyter remarks, to be puffed up, nor be severe upon those of old time, but ought ourselves to fear, lest perchance, after the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but be shut out from His kingdom. [authentic saying]

4. Thou wilt notice, too, that the transgressions of the common people have been described in like manner, not for the sake of those who did then transgress, but as a means of instruction unto us, and that we should understand that it is one and the same God against whom these men sinned, and against whom certain persons do now transgress from among those who profess to have believed in Him. But this also, [as the presbyter states,] has Paul declared most plainly in the Epistle to the Corinthians, when he says, "Brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, [no explicit reference to the presbyter - the Latin text reads Et hoc autem apostolum in epistola, quae est ad Corinthios, manifestissime ostendisse, dicentem : ' Nolo enim vos ignorare, fratres or "This also the apostle manifestly shows in his epistle to the Corinthians, saying : " Moreover, brethren, I would not that you are ignorant ..."]

5. the elders pointed out that those men are devoid of sense, who, [arguing] from what happened to those who formerly did not obey God, do endeavour to bring in another Father, setting over against [these punishments] what great things the Lord had done at His coming to save those who received Him, taking compassion upon them [Latin presbyters vs Armenian presbyter]

6. as also the presbyter remarked: For if God had not accorded this in the typical exodus, no one could now be saved in our true exodus [authentic saying]

7. When recounting certain matters of this kind respecting them of old time, the presbyter [before mentioned] was in the habit of instructing us, and saying: "With respect to those misdeeds for which the Scriptures themselves blame the patriarchs and prophets, we ought not to inveigh against them, nor become like Ham, who ridiculed the shame of his father, and so fell under a curse; but we should [rather] give thanks to God in their behalf, inasmuch as their sins have been forgiven them through the advent of our Lord; for He said that they gave thanks [for us], and gloried in our salvation." [authentic saying]

8. After this fashion also did a presbyter, a disciple of the apostles, reason with respect to the two testaments, proving that both were truly from one and the same God.[not a citation; a claim without any evidence]

My assumptions:

2 = Irenaeus is applying what the presbyter generally says about the attitude toward the patriarchs from Old Testament to Solomon

4 = is the one I was discussing earlier, I don't see the word 'presbyter' anywhere in the passage

5 = the Latin text has presbyteri (plural) the Armenian presbyter (sing) and I don't find Hill's arguments persuasive as to why the plural doesn't fit the context.

8 = I am not sure what to make of this one. Irenaeus is summarizing something he says that the presbyter said but (i) he doesn't provide any back up citation and (ii) he has just spent a very long time connecting the presbyter to the alleged weight of the 'apostles and presbyters' who all say the same thing. Why if the presbyter simply said something like this - i.e. the two covenants came from the same god - why doesn't Irenaeus just cite it? He wouldn't need to develop this complicated argument if the example was ready at hand. The argument seems to be - because the presbyter was a presbyter and all the apostles and presbyters held that the same god gave both covenants therefore he can be certain what the presbyter believed. But again doesn't seem to have actually said this otherwise he'd have the citation ready at hand to hammer it against his opponents who seem to have cared what the presbyter said.

Thus the minimalist interpretation (the citations we can be sure of are actually from the presbyter):

1. As I have heard from a certain presbyter, who had heard it from those who had seen the apostles, and from those who had been their disciples, the punishment [declared] in Scripture was sufficient for the ancients in regard to what they did without the Spirit's guidance. For as God is no respecter of persons, He inflicted a proper punishment on deeds displeasing to Him

3. We ought not, therefore, as that presbyter remarks, to be puffed up, nor be severe upon those of old time, but ought ourselves to fear, lest perchance, after the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but be shut out from His kingdom.

6. as also the presbyter remarked: For if God had not accorded this in the typical exodus, no one could now be saved in our true exodus

7. When recounting certain matters of this kind respecting them of old time, the presbyter [before mentioned] was in the habit of instructing us, and saying: "With respect to those misdeeds for which the Scriptures themselves blame the patriarchs and prophets, we ought not to inveigh against them, nor become like Ham, who ridiculed the shame of his father, and so fell under a curse; but we should [rather] give thanks to God in their behalf, inasmuch as their sins have been forgiven them through the advent of our Lord; for He said that they gave thanks [for us], and gloried in our salvation."

With the last one about 50 - 50 in terms of authentic/spurious claim:

8. After this fashion also did a presbyter, a disciple of the apostles, reason with respect to the two testaments, proving that both were truly from one and the same God.

[Stephan Huller]

Here is a brief synopsis of Hill's argument (p. 35 - 36) regarding the presbyter's teaching as Irenaeus uses it in his argument of 4.27.1-32.1. 1.

1.AH 4. 27. 1-3 We ought not judge the OT saints who sinned.
4.27.1 Presbyter: the punishment declared in scripture is sufficient for those whose deeds displeased God. The examples of David and Solomon are considered.
Presbyter: Scripture has sufficiently reproved Solomon "in order that no flesh may glory in the sight of the Father."
4.27.2 Presbyter: For this reason too the Lord descended into the regions under the earth to preach his advent and the remission sins for those who believe. God remitted their sins in the same way that he remitted ours.
Presbyter: We should therefore not be puffed up nor severe upon the ancients, but instead ought to fear. 4.27.3 It is the same God against whom the ancients sinned and against whom certain persons now transgress, who profess to have believed in him, as Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 10.1-12. 2.

2.AH 4.27.4-30.4 Because Paul demonstrates that it is the same God who judges sin both then and now, and tells us why these things were written down in scripture (1 Cor. 10.1-12), they are proved ignorant who argue from the transgressions of the ancients for the existence of two Gods.
4.28.1 Presbyter: They are ignorant who use God's judgments on his enemies in the Old Covenant to postulate the existence of another God.
4.28.2 Our lives therefore must be the more circumspect.
4.28.3 Those who assail us by charging that the OT God had to afflict the Egyptians with plagues and destroy them in the sea in order to save his people, may be answered from the similar situation regarding the Jews who crucified Jesus.
4.29.1-2 Those who object to God's hardening Pharaoh's heart must deal with NT examples of the same thing.
4.30.1 Those who object to the plundering of the Egyptians prove themselves ignorant of God's righteous dealings. Presbyter: If God had not conceded this in the typical exodus, one could not be saved today in our true exodus. The Israelites in fact had more right to make use of the goods of the Egyptians than we Christians have to make use of the goods of the Egyptians than we Christians have to make use of the goods of the Romans.
4.30.2 The Egyptians, who enslaved the Israelites to advance their own wealth, owed Israel much more than the latter took with them on leaving Egypt.
4.30.3 Anyone who criticizes the Israelites while he himself benefits from the largess of the Romans and other nations, is hypocritical and unjust.
4.30.4 The entire exodus of the people from Egypt was a type and image of the church's exodus from among the Gentiles and, at last, into God's eternal inheritance.

3. AH 4.31.1-4 Where scripture does not rebuke the sins of the ancients, does not condemn them but rather look for a type. The case of Lot and his daughters is examined. 4.3 1 . 1 Presbyter: Do not judge the patriarchs and prophets for sins for which scripture rebukes them; nor reprehend them when scripture does not do so, but instead search for a type. An example is found in the case of Lot, his daughters, and his wife.
4.31.1-3 Lot's daughters acted in simplicity and innocence, and they typified the elder and the younger church, which gave birth through the Holy Spirit, the seed of the Father.

4. AH 4.32.1 The presbyter used to discourse after this fashion, proving that both testaments were from the same God. Presbyter: Their word has no stability who say that this world was made either by angels, or by a certain power, or by another God

[Stephan Huller]

My dispute with Hill (no less than Moll and Vinzent and others) is that we shouldn't confuse what Irenaeus has cited from 'the Elder' and his application of that material. Take for example his (4). Harvey and others deny vehemently that this can be the same elder as the quoque in 4.32.1 (Hujusmodi quoque de duobus Testamentis senior Apostolorum discipulus disputabat) distinguishes Irenaeus and the presbyter. Hill counters that van Unnik did take account of the reading of the Armenian, which will be explained below. But it all comes down to the difference between the Latin and the Armenian text.

[Stephan Huller]

A comparison of my list with Hill's

1. As I have heard from a certain presbyter, who had heard it from those who had seen the apostles, and from those who had been their disciples, the punishment [declared] in Scripture was sufficient for the ancients in regard to what they did without the Spirit's guidance. For as God is no respecter of persons, He inflicted a proper punishment on deeds displeasing to Him [authentic saying]
Hill - 4.27.1 Presbyter: the punishment declared in scripture is sufficient for those whose deeds displeased God.

2. The Scripture has thus sufficiently reproved him [Solomon], as the presbyter remarked, in order that no flesh may glory in the sight of the Lord [application of 1 with Solomon by Irenaeus]
Hill - 4.27.1 Presbyter: Scripture has sufficiently reproved Solomon "in order that no flesh may glory in the sight of the Father."

Et propter hoc Dominum in ea quae sunt sub terra descendisse, evangelisantem et illis adventum suum, remissione peccatorum exsistente his qui credunt in eum.
4.27.2 Presbyter: For this reason too the Lord descended into the regions under the earth to preach his advent and the remission sins for those who believe. God remitted their sins in the same way that he remitted ours. [this directly follows the last saying which may account for why - even though there is no 'presbyter' reference - this is taken to be a reference]

3. We ought not, therefore, as that presbyter remarks, to be puffed up, nor be severe upon those of old time, but ought ourselves to fear, lest perchance, after the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but be shut out from His kingdom. [authentic saying]
Hill 4.27.2 - Presbyter: We should therefore not be puffed up nor severe upon the ancients, but instead ought to fear.

4. Thou wilt notice, too, that the transgressions of the common people have been described in like manner, not for the sake of those who did then transgress, but as a means of instruction unto us, and that we should understand that it is one and the same God against whom these men sinned, and against whom certain persons do now transgress from among those who profess to have believed in Him. But this also, [as the presbyter states,] has Paul declared most plainly in the Epistle to the Corinthians, when he says, "Brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, [no explicit reference to the presbyter - the Latin text reads Et hoc autem apostolum in epistola, quae est ad Corinthios, manifestissime ostendisse, dicentem : ' Nolo enim vos ignorare, fratres or "This also the apostle manifestly shows in his epistle to the Corinthians, saying : " Moreover, brethren, I would not that you are ignorant ..."]
Hill - not interested in this.

5. the elders pointed out that those men are devoid of sense, who, [arguing] from what happened to those who formerly did not obey God, do endeavour to bring in another Father, setting over against [these punishments] what great things the Lord had done at His coming to save those who received Him, taking compassion upon them [Latin presbyters vs Armenian presbyter]
4.28.1 Presbyter: They are ignorant who use God's judgments on his enemies in the Old Covenant to postulate the existence of another God.

6. as also the presbyter remarked: For if God had not accorded this in the typical exodus, no one could now be saved in our true exodus [authentic saying]
Hill - 4.30.1 Presbyter: If God had not conceded this in the typical exodus, one could not be saved today in our true exodus.

7. When recounting certain matters of this kind respecting them of old time, the presbyter [before mentioned] was in the habit of instructing us, and saying: "With respect to those misdeeds for which the Scriptures themselves blame the patriarchs and prophets, we ought not to inveigh against them, nor become like Ham, who ridiculed the shame of his father, and so fell under a curse; but we should [rather] give thanks to God in their behalf, inasmuch as their sins have been forgiven them through the advent of our Lord; for He said that they gave thanks [for us], and gloried in our salvation." [authentic saying]
Hill - 4.31.1 Presbyter: Do not judge the patriarchs and prophets for sins for which scripture rebukes them; nor reprehend them when scripture does not do so, but instead search for a type.

8. After this fashion also did a presbyter, a disciple of the apostles, reason with respect to the two testaments, proving that both were truly from one and the same God. For there is no other God besides Him who made and fashioned us, and that the discourse of those men has no foundation who affirm that this world of ours was made either by angels, or by any other power whatsoever, or by another God.
Hill - 4.32.1 Presbyter: Their word has no stability who say that this world was made either by angels, or by a certain power, or by another God
Nec [enim] esse alterum deum praeter eum qui fecit et plasmavit nos, nec firmitatem habere sermonem eorum qui dicunt aut per angelos aut per [aliam] quamlibet virtutem aut ab alio Deo factum esse hunc mundum, qui est secundum nos. [I still think this is bullshit; not a direct citation but a summary of what Irenaeus claimed was his beliefs]

Here is another resource of saying in Irenaeus and other sources:

http://books.google.com/books?id=88yvav ... 22&f=false

[Stephan Huller]

I think the new addition from Hill is quite critical. Whether or not Hill is right that this is a citation from the presbyter the fact that Irenaeus applies it to the Marcionite understanding of the descent of Christ into the underworld is significant. It tells us that Irenaeus was using the writings of the Elder (the previous line) to make the case to the Marcionites as to properly interpret his letter. Why else would he have done this unless this was a text held in common with the heretics like the gospel and like Paul (no other New Testament material is ever cited)? On the Marcionite understanding and its similarity to Church Fathers:

Clem. Alex. 452 quotes Hermas to a similar effect. Afterwards (763) in a section on the preaching of the Gospel to Jews and Gentiles in Hades, he quotes, as from "the Scripture," the words, "Hades saith to Destruction, His form we saw not, but His Voice we heard " (comp. Job xxviii. 22 Heb. "Destruction and Death say, We have heard a rumour thereof with our ears"). It is not the place, Hades, he says, but those in Hades, who "hear the Voice." Then he adds "But what [more]? Do not (t( S' oi>x!) they shew that the Lord hath preached the Gospel (e&rryytXladai) both to those that perished in the Deluge — or

Those, he says, who had led a right life, "even though they were in Hades and in ward, having heard the Voice of the Lord, whether from Himself in person or rather had been chained (/jaXXoK 6i wtireSrindvoit) — and to those under constraint both in prison and ward (nal toU iv <t>v\a. apparently referring to 1 Pet. iii. 19 "he went and preached unto the spirits in prison (rois b> ipv'haicji irvtvfuurar)." Later on — after a mention of Mt. xxvii. 51 "many bodies of those that slept arose" — Clement (764) apparently refers again to the "Voice" mentioned in Job, and speaks of "the peculiar nature of the Voice." Those, he says, who had led a right life, "even though they were in Hades and in ward, having heard the Voice of the Lord, whether from Himself in person or acting through the Apostles, turned-towards [Him] with all speed and believed.

[3616 f] These last words about those who "led a right life" and "turned, towards [Him] with all speed" recall the opposite view imputed to Marcion by Irenaeus (i. 27. 3) that Cain and the Sodomites and other sinners, "ran (accurrissent) " unto Jesus, when He descended to Hades, but that Abel and the saints did not thus "run." http://books.google.com/books?id=yPw8AA ... 22&f=false

[DCHindley]

Stephan,

So,

How's the weather on the far away planet you are inhabiting?

DCH

[Stephan Huller]

Got me to attend the British Patristics conference. Ain't complaining 'bout the weather

[Stephan Huller]

I will tell you why this matters though:

1. it has the potential to show (if I am successful) once and for all that the Catholics derived their canon from the Marcionites
2. that the 'elder' concept helps explain the invention of 'Marcion' (= Mark the less) i.e. 'the elder' was perhaps also a 'Mark' (hence the origin of the strange name). The tradition associated with this 'second Mark' is thus 'of Mark the less'
3. the patterns by why Irenaeus uses the elder to attack the Marcionites is similar to his employment of 'the gospel' and 'Paul' against them.

I think that stuff matters. I think the way most people approach the New Testament stinks because it is lacks any imagination. I find that dull to be honest because it has no explanative power. If Marcion was first everything based on a false canon is, well, false. So why bother pursuing something false?

[Stephan Huller]

And why do I think people pursue the answer in the synoptic texts? Because human nature likes dealing with certainties or at least perceived certainties. The same psychological phenomenon that is attending church is at the bottom of developing models for the gospel out of a false canon. It's there and that's all we got. Just pretend its real and continue to engage others "faking it" and you can have a job with authority and you can publish stuff and be respected. But its all bullshit. Marcion was first and anyone who has ever thought about Marcion for more than hour knows its true. They're just scared of losing that most sacred of human commodities = security

[Stephan Huller]

The paper is coming along. As it stands I don't think I will even be mentioning Marcion or the reference to a text called 'Saba' in Marutha. As I am writing this I feel like I am on that show Chopped on the Food Network only I am running out of space rather than time. It takes so many pages just to get through an idea any grand ambitions rapidly disappear. I thought this parallel was interesting though:

In this text the Marcionite Megethius says that when the 'Creator God' cursed the earth also condemned Adam because his soul was made of earth.[ De Recta in Deum Fide 827d]

But Irenaeus notes that "It was for this reason, too, that immediately after Adam had transgressed, as the Scripture relates, He pronounced no curse against Adam personally, but against the ground, in reference to his works, as a certain person among the elders has observed: "God did indeed transfer the curse to the earth, that it might not remain in man."

Indeed in his third book of Allegorical Interpretation Philo writes the following with respect to the initial cursing episode:


Adam is the intermediate sort of mind which at one time if investigated is found to be good, and at another time bad; for inasmuch as it is mind, it is not by nature either good or bad, but from contact with virtue or with vice, it frequently changes for the better or for the worse; therefore it very naturally is not accursed of its own nature, as neither being itself wickedness nor acting according to wickedness, but the earth is accursed in its works: for the actions which proceed from the entire soul, which he calls the earth, are open to blame and devoid of innocence, inasmuch as he does everything in accordance with vice.[246, 247]

On the one hand Philo's argument brings some surprising parallels with Marcion. As Runia notes here "there can be no question of an active opposition between God and hyle resulting in a true dualism. The chief characteristic of matter is not active maleficence but negativity and recalcitrance." Marcion is repeatedly identified as sharing similar views. Matter, rather than the Lord, is the power of evil in the world. The Creator is understood to occupy the middle place between good and evil as with Philo's description of Adam.