Possible New Information About the Marcionites in Tertullian De Pudicitia

[Secret Alias]

Scholars of Marcion aren't the brightest. The point is that they get SIDETRACKED by the interests or POV the Church Fathers put in front of them. In other words, the obsession of the loser Church Fathers DEFINES who the Marcionites were to posterity. But we all know that the Christian god isn't like Yahweh. Jesus is kind and merciful. Really, really stupid.

[Secret Alias]

And then once you see the Marcionites are clearly the subject of De Pudicia the clear implication is that the orthodox Church grew out of Valentinianism or the pseudo-Johannine tradition.

[Secret Alias]

Did what is now called 'orthodoxy' emerge from a movement within Valentinianism against Marcionism? In other words, let's suppose that there always was a tradition of 'secret gnosis' within early Christianity which grew out of the Apostle's writings which supposed there were mysteries associated with the gospel. Very quickly a false school emerged associated with a 'John' that never existed. Polycarp and Florinus are the earliest known associates of this John - assuming 'Ignatius' is a fiction. What we are suggesting is that tension existed between the false teachers of Johannine Christianity and the authorities in Rome and elsewhere especially Alexandria. If De Pudicitia can be used as an example this community used the Book of Acts and a presumed 'second center' of Christianity at Antioch reflected in the book as the place from which Christianity flourished in post 70 CE.

The fairy tale of a 'family of Jesus' community who were the bishops of Jerusalem is an obvious myth perpetrated by Hegesippus. There is a blur of distinction between Polycarp and this Hegesippus. Both come to Rome during the reign of Anicetus and combat the heresies there. Irenaeus's citation of the Roman episcopal list is done anonymously and with additions and immediately preceding the quintessential reference to Polycarp. There is a similar blur between 'Marcion' and Marcellina that is well document no less than Celsus's 'Harpocratians' and Hegesippus's 'Carpocratians.' Another possible blur Anicetus and Acinetus (see other thread).

So what do we know about the author and his opponents. They both shared the understanding of Jesus as the angel who appeared to the Patriarchs - posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=108840 Look also at that quote from the mouths of his opponents.

[Secret Alias]

Another surprising Marcionite reference - this - where the author addresses an authority presumably the bishop of Rome:

Give me now, you apostolic, such examples of prophetical power and I will recognise your divinity and you will be entitled to forgive such sins. But if you have got to do the duties of discipline only, not to be a chief but a servant, who or how great are you that you dare condone, who being neither a prophet nor an apostle have not this power, by which you can condone

Exhibe igitur et nunc mihi, apostolice, prophetica exempla, ut agnoscam diuinitatem, et uindica tibi delictorum eiusmodi remittendorum potestatem. Quod si disciplinae solius officia sortitus est, nec imperio praesidere, sed ministerio, quis aut quantus es indulgere, qui neque prophetam nec apostolum exhibens cares ea uirtute cuius est indulgere?.

This is another (unrecognized) manifestation of the strange category of 'apostolic' that creeps up in Marcionite discussions in Tertullian. Let's read what Against Marcion says:

We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel. Since, however, there are apostolics also, they are yet not alone, but appear with apostles and after apostles (Si et apostolicos, non tamen solos, sed cum apostolis et post apostolos); because the preaching of disciples might be open to the suspicion of an affectation of glory, if there did not accompany it the authority of the masters, which means that of Christ, for it was that which made the apostles their masters. Of the apostles (ex apostolis), therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; whilst of apostolic men (ex apostolicis), Luke and Mark renew it afterwards ... Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process. Luke, however, was not an apostle, but only an apostolic (non apostolus sed apostolicus) not a master, but a disciple, and so inferior to a master----at least as far subsequent to him as the apostle whom he followed (non magister sed discipulus, utique magistro minor, certe tanto posterior quanto posterioris apostoli sectator)

... and if Marcion be even a disciple, he is yet not "above his master; " if Marcion be an apostle, still as Paul says, "Whether it be I or they, so we preach; " if Marcion be a prophet, even "the spirits of the prophets will be subject to the prophets," for they are not the authors of confusion, but of peace; or if Marcion be actually an angel, he must rather be designated "as anathema than as a preacher of the gospel," because it is a strange gospel which he has preached.

... [his heresy] too, of course, has its churches, but specially its own----as late as they are spurious; and should you want to know their original, you will more easily discover apostasy in it than apostolicity (facilius apostaticum invenias quam apostolicum), with Marcion forsooth as their founder, or some one of Marcion's swarm. Even wasps make combs; so also these Marcionites make churches. The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage----I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew----whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke's form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul. And it may well seem that the works which disciples publish belong to their masters. Well, then, Marcion ought to be called to a strict account concerning these (other Gospels) also, for having omitted them, and insisted in preference on Luke; as if they, too, had not had free course in the churches, as well as Luke's Gospel, from the beginning. Nay, it is even more credible that they existed from the very beginning; for, being the work of apostles, they were prior, and coeval in origin with the churches themselves. But how comes it to pass, if the apostles published nothing, that their disciples were more forward in such a work; for they could not have been disciples, without any instruction from their masters?

In both texts there is this understanding - a very unusual understanding - that 'apostolic' designates something inferior to the apostles. This was an argument used only against the Marcionite because they - apparently - referred to their collection of letters as 'the apostolicon.'

[Secret Alias]

So let's start at the beginning. The treatise is called De Pudicitia in Latin but like most of Tertullian's works it necessarily goes back to a Greek original. What is the Greek equivalent of pudicitia? αἰδώς? This might be a useful place to start:

Philo of Alexandria (who lived from 20 b.c. to a.d. 50) in his treatise The Special Laws gives an interesting comment about the significance of the Jewish woman's headcovering. Regarding the procedure followed by priests who examined women accused of adultery (cf. Numbers 5:18) he writes, "And the priest shall take the barley and offer it to the woman, and shall take away from her the head-dress on her head, that she may be judged with her head bare, and deprived of the symbol of modesty, which all those women are accustomed to wear who are completely blameless." (13) The Greek word translated "modesty" here is αιδους, the genitive of αιδως (aidos), for which we have no exact equivalent in modern English. It denotes an attitude of humility and a capacity to feel shame, in a good sense, as opposed to shamelessness or impudence. In the writings of ancient moralists this quality of αιδως (or its Latin equivalent verecundia) was often mentioned as being one of the most important feminine virtues. The same word is used by Paul in his instruction concerning women's clothing in 1 Timothy 2:9, where it is translated "shamefastness" in the KJV. But it should not be taken for granted that Jews in general attached any such definite symbolical meaning to the headcovering. Probably most Jews did not feel any need for a symbolical interpretation of the custom, and would have given it no more thought than they gave to any other article of dress.

A fresco painting on the wall of an ancient Jewish synagogue portrays Samuel annointing David.Artistic evidence of the Jewish customs is lacking because the Jews—like the Muslims today—were adverse to the visual arts. Pictures were discouraged because of the commandment against the making of idols. (14) But there is some ancient pictorial evidence. Most notable are the frescos on the walls of an ancient Jewish synagogue in Dura Europos, Syria (dating from the middle of the third century), which portray various biblical characters, presumably in the clothing which was familiar to the Jews who used this synagogue. Here, evidently, was a congregation of deeply Hellenized Jews. Some of the men in the frescos are portrayed clean-shaven, and they do not wear tassels on their garments. (15) The very fact that this synagogue was decorated with pictures indicates that it was the home of an unusually 'liberal' congregation. But for what it is worth, we may note that the men are bare-headed (figures 23 and 24) and the women wear headcoverings (figure 25) in these frescos. This is what we would expect to see in Syria at that time, on the basis of the literary evidence.

also:

A further problem, which renders much of what has been written on this subject almost worthless, is the failure of many commentators to make any distinction between face-veiling and headcovering in the ancient sources. Oepke writes as if he thought Tertullian had in mind face-veiling when he used the words velum and velo, but this cannot be right. The context must be carefully examined to determine what an ancient writer is referring to with various words for veils and coverings.

One also sees some really inexcusable misrepresentations of the ancient evidence, as in Conzelmann's commentary, where he states that "Tertullian (Virg. vel. 8.8) says the Corinthian woman is striking for the fact that she wears a veil." (Cf. note 40 on page 185 of the English edition.) Conzelmann offers this citation as support for his statement that there is evidence for various Greek customs of the first century, which is true, but Tertullian's comments regarding the Corinthian women have no bearing at all on matters of cultural background, because he merely describes the custom observed in the churches of Corinth, in accordance with their understanding of Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians. This may be seen by anyone who takes the trouble to find the citation in Tertullian's treatise. ("So, too, did the Corinthians themselves understand him. In fact, at this day the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples approve.") Yet those who do not take the trouble to find Tertullian's comments will certainly be misled by Conzelmann's satement into thinking that Tertullian's statement pertained to the custom observed by Corinthian women generally.

Another egregious misuse of Tertullian is in Cynthia Thompson's article "Hairstyles, Headcoverings, and St. Paul," in which she quotes a phrase from Tertullian's On the Veiling of Virgins. She says that with his words arbitrio permissa res erat in chapter 3 Tertullian acknowledged that in the churches "until close to his time the matter of women's wearing veils was left to free choice" (p. 112), and thus she supports her idea that in 1 Cor. 11:10 the phrase "a woman ought to have authority over her head" was taken to mean that Christian women had the right to decide for themselves whether or not they would wear a headcovering. Yet anyone who will consult Tertullian will immediately see that when he says, "the matter had been left to choice," he is talking about a difference of practice concerning the veiling of virgins, not women in general. One gets the impression that scholars are shopping for proof-texts for their theories rather than handling the ancient evidence with due care and integrity.

[Secret Alias]

At the beginning of De Pudicitia there can be no doubt that the author is struggling against the bishop of Rome - even the 'bishop of bishops.'

I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too. The Pontifex Maximus ----that is, the bishop of bishops ----issues an edict: "I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication." [7] O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, "Bonum factum!" And where shall this liberality be posted up? On the very spot, I suppose, on the very gates of the sensual appetites, beneath the very titles of the sensual appetites. There is the place for promulgating such repentance, where the delinquency itself shall haunt. There is the place to read the pardon, where entrance shall be made under the hope thereof. [8] But it is in the church that this (edict) is read, and in the church that it is pronounced; and (the church) is a virgin! Far, far from Christ's betrothed be such a proclamation! She, the true, the modest, the saintly, shall be free from stain even of her ears. [9] She has none to whom to make such a promise; and if she have had, she does not make it; since even the earthly temple of God can sooner have been called by the Lord a "den of robbers,"9 than of adulterers and fornicators.

audio etiam edictum esse propositum, et quidem peremptorium. Pontifex scilicet maximus, episcopus episcoporum, edicit: « Ego et moechiae et fornicationis delicta paenitentia functis dimitto. » [7] O edictum cui adscribi non poterit: Bonum factum ! Et ubi proponetur liberalitas ista? Ibidem, opinor, in ipsis libidinum ianuis, sub ipsis libidinum titulis. Illic eiusmodi paenitentia promulganda est, ubi delinquentia ipsa uersabitur. Illic legenda est uenia, quo cum spe eius intrabitur. [8] Sed hoc in ecclesia legitur, et in ecclesia pronuntiatur, et uirgo est. Absit, absit a sponsa Christi tale praeconium ! Illa, quae uera est, quae pudica, quae sancta, carebit etiam aurium macula. [9] Non habet, quibus hoc repromittat, et si habuerit, non repromittit, quod et terrenum Dei templum citius spelunca latronum appellari potuit a Domino quam moechorum et fornicatorum.

[davidmartin]

I don't think orthodoxy grew out of Valentianism, just that when orthodoxy was smaller and less well organised the Valentinians as the most popular and less extreme of the gnostics were interwoven in the laity and priesthood for a while and not separated. that changed later
the same can be said for Marcionism and later Montanism
but i highly suspect that the labels used to define the various sects were that rigid with plenty of overlap in practice
i mean the church fathers couldn't resist giving names to every other group when they just pretty much just called themselves 'Christians', so you have this huge list of heresies, but all that's just to define what orthodoxy is and if your aim is to create a rigid hierarchical structure it makes sense and these guys weren't messing around they meant business and wanted the meat on the pews

i do think orthodoxy existed a little prior to that, springing from Paul's churches and merging with the Ebionites (ie one of Paul opponents) to a degree probably some time in the early 2nd century, then it began to organise and grow more strongly in the mid to late 2nd

I tend to feel that the first Christianity was more prophetic and spirit led and didn't resemble much of any of the 2nd century sects we know about, except maybe the Montanists.. Marcion appears less keen on the prophetic just like his orthodox opponents

[Secret Alias]

I don't think orthodoxy grew out of Valentianism

Not Valentinianism per se but think about it in this way:

The pseudo-tradition of John

1. Polycarp and what we can all 'Polycarpian' Christianity
2. the Quartodeciman churches
3. the churches of Asia Minor
4. kataphrygian churches/Montanism
5. Valentinian Christianity

What I am trying to do is isolate this 'other' tradition which emerges in Christianity. As (3) indicates the tradition in most cases seems to derive its origin from Asia Minor. Why? Probably because of Polycarp's influence. But just look. If you remove Valentinian Christianity from the mix you have basically the elements of Polycarp's church (especially if you see parallels with Lucian's reporting about Peregrinus). But at the very least Polycarp is said to have been a witness to the apostles (John). John's churches are in Asia Minor for the most part. John's gospel seems to reflect Quartodeciman calculation of the Passion. The odd one out is Valentinianism until we remember that Polycarp's most beloved student seems to have been Florinus of Rome who is said to have been a Valentinian.

It is hard to figure out how all these lines intersect. But at the very least I feel confident that Irenaeus's arrangement of the four gospels accounts for some of the difficulties. The Valentinians clearly used the prologue of John. But was it always the prologue attached to the gospel we now know as 'the gospel of John'? For instance, as I have spent a lot of time thinking about gospel harmonies if you look at the preface to Luke (Luke 1.1 - 4) the words take on a DIFFERENT meaning when you see them start a gospel harmony (which they did). The author is basically admitting to constructing a harmony gospel out of bits and pieces of previous gospels like what we see in Codex Fuldensis https://archive.org/details/CodexFulden ... 3/mode/2up:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

The reason that I think Irenaeus wrote these words is that there is a strange obsession that characterizes the Church Fathers writings - namely taking up the challenge of Papias. Papias said that Mark's gospel was acceptable but was arranged incorrectly. 'Luke' says that he gathered together material and made 'an orderly account.' Seems to be a reflection of Irenaeus's obsession with Papias.

[davidmartin]

Interesting about Luke being a gospel harmony SA. I never thought of that
You know what, you could probably say that about Matthew as well!

Polycarp in my mind was more associated with the presbyter John and other early players in what i see as proto-orthadoxy, and inheritors of Paul's churches
I view the apostle John, if still alive in his time, as heading a different church with likely theological differences
It may be true he met him, but that in itself doesn't mean they were all in the same tradition

One reason for thinking this is the 1/2 John letters
I see these as written from the 'Polycarpian' church to an eminant 'other church' which i think could be the Johannanine church or some branch of it. There's no real claim to authority in these letters, just 'elder John', not the apostle
The gospel of John has its origins in the Johannine church around this same time

When I tried to figure out the pieces i had to split these into two groups to make sense of it in my own mind, wrong as I may be!

As to the Valentinians, and gnostics in general this is a hard one
I tend to see the earlier gnostics as being far less 'gnostic' and the tendancy growing stronger over time rather than a pre-existing gnosticism. So they could be part of the churches early on (some more than others) until the differences became too great and a schism occured

Another thing, if you read the epistle of Barnabas it damn well feels like the author is writing to a community with some mystical ideas that get labelled gnostic (although they appear in the shepherd). "Wisdom, Understanding, Science, and Knowledge rejoice along with them", personified 'aeons' or angels. The first chapter is full of this language. Yet another proto-orthadox letter written respectfully without authority yet obviously trying to be the authoritiy of course, to some unspecified community. Easy to imagine proto-Valentinians in this mix

To complete the picture have to add the Nazarene/proto-Ebionites as well

I'm just trying to explain how I see it and possibly badly its not my strong point to analyse in small pieces i tend to put everything in very summed up how it is in my mind

[Secret Alias]

If you look at the other thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7004 it is apparent that the people behind the Timothy tradition used a Diatessaron. If you use a Diatessaron as much as I do you you start thinking about the individual passages differently. It's like if the first time you hear a song was through it being sampled into a newer hit. It changes things. The old people think that the old song sounds better. The younger people the newer song.