Marcionite agreements with Matthew against Luke?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13385
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Marcionite agreements with Matthew against Luke?

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:00 pm

The problem has always been no one has ever asked, is our canon fake?

Stuart
Posts: 672
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Marcionite agreements with Matthew against Luke?

Post by Stuart » Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:37 pm

Matthew 5:18 is a flipping of Romans 10:4, Luke 16:16 and Luke 21:33 which Tertullian tells us also sat at 16:17 in AM 4.33.9 quoting from his source of the Marcionite gospel. (He also mentions 3 other places this)
"More easily, therefore, may heaven and earth pass away----as also the law and the prophets----than that one tittle of the Lord's words should fail."

see also AD 2.15, when the Marcionite champion Marcus says (English, Greek, Rufinus Latin)
The Judaizers wrote this,
I did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it.
But Christ did not speak this way. He says,
I did not come to fulfill the Law but to destroy it.

τοῦτο οἱ Ἰουδαϊσταὶ ἔργαψαν,
τὸ οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι·
οὐκ οὕτως δὲ εἶπεν ὁ Χριστός, λέγει γάρ·
οὐκ ἦλθον πληρῶσαι τὸν νόμον ἀλλὰ καταλῦσαι.

Hoc illi scripsurent qui iudaizabant, hoc est:
Non veni solvere legem sed admiplere.
Christis autem non uta dixit, sed ita dicit:
Non veni adimplere legem sed solvere.

also Irenaeus in Omnium Haeresium Refutio1.27.2
But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judea in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Caesar, was manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judea, abolishing the prophets and the law, and all the works of that God who made the world, whom also he calls Cosmocrator.

Iesum autem ab eo Patre, qui est super mundi fabricatorem Deum, venientem in Iudaeam temporibus Pontii Pilati praesidis, qui fuit procurator Tiberii Caesaris, in hominis forma manifestatum his qui in Iudaea erant, dissolventem prophetas, et Legem, et omnia opera eius Dei qui mundum fecit, quem et Cosmocratorem dicit.

also pseudo Hegemonius commenting on the Manichean's position in Acta Archelai 40
When I heard such a sentiment propounded, I repeated to the people that sentence of the Gospel in which our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself: “I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.” The man, however, averred that He did not utter this saying at all; for he held that when we find that He did abrogate that same law.

Ego audiens dicebam ei sermonem euangelicum, quomodo dixit dominus noster Iesus Christus: Non veni solvere legem, sed ad inplere. Ille vero ait nequaquam eum hunc dixisse sermonem; cum enim ipsam inveniamus eum resolvisse legem

Luke would have changed 16:17 to conform to Matthew 5:18 as part of the rewrite, as this was a position he could not let stand.

It appears from the Church father writings that Matthew 5:18 was written specifically to refute the Marcionite reading of Luke 16:17 (which read closer to 21:33).

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13385
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Marcionite agreements with Matthew against Luke?

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:09 pm

Agreed. But then that suggests the placement of the Antitheses in Matthew was a part of the package too. The Gospel of Matthew is post-Marcionite. Remember Irenaeus wants us to read Papias as if it pertains to (canonical) Matthew, (canonical) Mark and (the evangelist) John.

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Marcionite agreements with Matthew against Luke?

Post by mlinssen » Thu Feb 25, 2021 10:16 pm

rgprice wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:57 am
Thanks Ben.

So this seems like a relevant one:
Matthew 12:
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Luke 8:
19 Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. 20 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.”

21 He replied, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.”
Marcion:
19 ... 20 Some people told him, “Your mother and your brothers stand outside, desiring to see you.” 21 But he answered them, "Who is my mother and who are my brothers except these who hear my words and do them?”
Details can be found in the link Ben provided above.

This would seem to be an agreement between Marcion and Matthew against Luke. A possible explanation is that this text was in Marcion, Matthew copied it from Marcion, but Luke did not. Another would be that Marcion copied this text from Matthew (which seems a bit more unlikely).

It would be very difficult to explain this issue on the basis of Marcion having redacted Luke, since this passage doesn't exist in Luke.
It is surely not a case of agreement against Luke. One can be selective and draw that conclusion, or one can look at the whole.
Luke is doing a near-perfect verbatim copy of Marcion, including changing the very phrase "doing the will of God" to "speaking the word of" that is in Marcion.
Matthew agrees with Thomas here in that regard, and it is a highly peculiar case: "doing the will of my father" and it's astonishing

Luke 8:19 Παρεγένετο δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡ μήτηρ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἠδύναντο συντυχεῖν αὐτῷ διὰ τὸν ὄχλον. 20 ἀπηγγέλη δὲ αὐτῷ “Ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἑστήκασιν ἔξω ἰδεῖν θέλοντές ⇔ σε.” 21 Ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς “Μήτηρ μου καὶ ἀδελφοί μου οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀκούοντες καὶ ποιοῦντες.”

Marcion (Ben's viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765#p39313)

Marcion: 20 ἀπηγγέλη δὲ αὐτῷ Ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἑστήκασιν ἔξω ἰδεῖν θέλοντές σε 21 (...) τίς μοι μήτηρ καὶ τίνες μοι ἀδελφοί, εἰ μὴ οἱ τοὺς λόγους μου ἀκούοντες καὶ ποιοῦντες αὐτούς;

Matthew 12:46 Ἔτι ‹δὲ› αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος τοῖς ὄχλοις ἰδοὺ ἡ μήτηρ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ εἱστήκεισαν ἔξω ζητοῦντες αὐτῷ λαλῆσαι. 47 εἶπεν δέ τις αὐτῷ “Ἰδοὺ ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἔξω ἑστήκασιν ζητοῦντές σοι λαλῆσαι.” 48 Ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν τῷ λέγοντι αὐτῷ “Τίς ἐστιν ἡ μήτηρ μου, καὶ τίνες εἰσὶν οἱ ἀδελφοί μου;” 49 καὶ ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ εἶπεν “Ἰδοὺ ἡ μήτηρ μου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί μου· 50 ὅστις γὰρ ἂν ποιήσῃ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς, αὐτός μου ἀδελφὸς καὶ ἀδελφὴ καὶ μήτηρ ἐστίν.”

Mark 3:31 Καὶ ἔρχονται ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔξω στήκοντες ἀπέστειλαν πρὸς αὐτὸν καλοῦντες αὐτόν. 32 καὶ ἐκάθητο περὶ αὐτὸν ὄχλος, καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ “Ἰδοὺ ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σουa ἔξω ζητοῦσίν σε.” 33 Καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτοῖς λέγει “Τίς ἐστιν ἡ μήτηρ μου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί ‹μου›;” 34 καὶ περιβλεψάμενος τοὺς περὶ αὐτὸν κύκλῳ καθημένους λέγει “Ἴδε ἡ μήτηρ μου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί μου. 35 ὃς ‹γὰρ› ἂν ποιήσῃ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὗτος ἀδελφός μου καὶ ἀδελφὴ καὶ μήτηρ ἐστίν.”

Thomas logion 99: usual first row with transcription, second with KELLIA CDO entry, third with literal translation

ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲙ̄ ⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ ⲛⲁ ϥ ϫⲉ ⲛⲉⲕ` ⲥⲛⲏⲩ ⲙⲛ ̄ ⲧⲉⲕ ⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲥⲉ ⲁϩⲉⲣⲁⲧ ⲟⲩ ϩⲓ ⲡ
ⲡⲉϫⲉ- ⲛ- ⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ ⲛⲁ⸗ ⲛⲧⲟϥ ϫⲉ- ⲛⲉⲕ ⲥⲟⲛ ⲙⲛ- ⲧⲉⲕ ⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲥⲉ- ⲱϩⲉ^ ⲉⲣⲁⲧ⸗ -ⲟⲩ ϩⲓ- ⲡ-
said the(PL) Disciple to him : your(.PL) brother with your(F) mother they standing-on-foot their on the

ⲥⲁ ⲛⲃⲟⲗ ⲡⲉϫⲁ ϥ ⲛⲁⲩ ϫⲉ ⲛⲉⲧ ⲛ̄ ⲛⲉⲉⲓ ⲙⲁ ⲉϯ ⲣⲉ ⲙ̄ ⲡ ⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲙ̄
ⲥⲁ ⲛⲃⲟⲗ ⲡⲉϫⲉ- ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲛⲁⲩ ϫⲉ- ⲛⲉⲧ ⲛ- ⲛⲁⲓ ⲙⲁ ⲉⲧ- ⲉⲓⲣⲉ ⲛ- ⲡ- ⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲛ-
part outside said he behold : they-who of these places who make-be of the desire of

ⲡⲁ ⲉⲓⲱⲧ` ⲛⲁⲉⲓ ⲛⲉ ⲛⲁ ⲥⲛⲏⲩ ⲙⲛ ̄ ⲧⲁ ⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲛ̄ ⲧⲟⲟⲩ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲧ ⲛⲁ ⲃⲱⲕ` ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉ ⲧ
ⲡⲁ- ⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲛⲉ ⲛⲁ- ⲥⲟⲛ ⲙⲛ- ⲧⲁ- ⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲛⲧⲟⲟⲩ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲧ- ⲛⲁ- ⲃⲱⲕ (ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ) ⲉ- ⲧ-
my father these are my(PL) brother with my(F) mother themselves are who will go-inward to the(F)

ⲙⲛ ̄ ⲧ ⲉⲣⲟ ⲙ̄ ⲡⲁ ⲉⲓⲱⲧ`
ⲙⲛⲧ- ⲣⲣⲟ ⲛ- ⲡⲁ- ⲉⲓⲱⲧ
reign-of(F) king of my father

And this is one of the fine examples of order: Mark does a copy of Thomas and inherits the "this/ these" as well as "doing the will of" from Thomas.
Then Marcion comes along and lends the "hear my words" from logion 19, perhaps - but he doesn't like what it says there.
Then Luke copies Marcion and Matthew doesn't like to have that so he reverts to Mark in that regard, and mesmerisingly adds the beautiful καὶ ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ

Matthew does revert to Mark on a few occasions where Luke is not to his liking, and this is a rare occasion in which he actually gets closer to Thomas that way
Last edited by mlinssen on Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Stuart
Posts: 672
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Marcionite agreements with Matthew against Luke?

Post by Stuart » Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:04 pm

Well at least Matthew chapter 5 is post Marcionite split (when they froze their Canon ... only small scribal changes mostly at that point).

The question is, was Matthew a single sitting composition, or like John and Luke and the Pauline epistles repeatedly edited with new versions released?

My own view is Matthew, as the primary gospel -which is why it is placed first in the collection-, likely was the most freely adjusted. The Sermon on the Mount would have been a key place for accumulating adjustments, as it is the perfect place to put sectarian positions in the mouth of Jesus himself. So I don't really know how early chapter 5 is in the composition of Matthew as we have it. But it constitutes a directed element that deserves study.

Stephen, if you will allow me, I can start a thread going verse by verse over chapter 5 of Matthew and demonstrate how it was composed as answer to the Marcionite antithesis, starting with verse 5:8 " Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." This is an extremely subversive verse in that it takes a position in attacking a key Marcion position that was very difficult for Christian theologians to defend.

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Marcionite agreements with Matthew against Luke?

Post by mlinssen » Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:21 pm

Stuart wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:04 pm
Well at least Matthew chapter 5 is post Marcionite split (when they froze their Canon ... only small scribal changes mostly at that point).

The question is, was Matthew a single sitting composition, or like John and Luke and the Pauline epistles repeatedly edited with new versions released?

My own view is Matthew, as the primary gospel -which is why it is placed first in the collection-, likely was the most freely adjusted. The Sermon on the Mount would have been a key place for accumulating adjustments, as it is the perfect place to put sectarian positions in the mouth of Jesus himself. So I don't really know how early chapter 5 is in the composition of Matthew as we have it. But it constitutes a directed element that deserves study.

Stephen, if you will allow me, I can start a thread going verse by verse over chapter 5 of Matthew and demonstrate how it was composed as answer to the Marcionite antithesis, starting with verse 5:8 " Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." This is an extremely subversive verse in that it takes a position in attacking a key Marcion position that was very difficult for Christian theologians to defend.
By all means please, Stuart - I'd love to see this thread not getting derailed any longer by off-topic comments

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13385
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Marcionite agreements with Matthew against Luke?

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:52 am

There is no way to convince me of such a systematic effort as I don't believe Tertullian has the Marcionite gospel when writing or copying Irenaeus's Against Marcion to make his Latin version (cf Adv Marc praef). I don't accept that the gospel text cited in Against Marcion is Marcions. As Tertullian and Irenaeus clearly state over and over again, Marcion allegedly stole Luke and they are citing the text Marcion stole against him. Effort in vain if I am the audience for your labors. I would be an unmoved Hera to your sweaty Herakles.

Stuart
Posts: 672
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Marcionite agreements with Matthew against Luke?

Post by Stuart » Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:32 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:52 am
There is no way to convince me of such a systematic effort as I don't believe Tertullian has the Marcionite gospel when writing or copying Irenaeus's Against Marcion to make his Latin version (cf Adv Marc praef). I don't accept that the gospel text cited in Against Marcion is Marcions. As Tertullian and Irenaeus clearly state over and over again, Marcion allegedly stole Luke and they are citing the text Marcion stole against him. Effort in vain if I am the audience for your labors. I would be an unmoved Hera to your sweaty Herakles.
I'm just asking that you stand aside out of politeness and not attempt to smother each post with twenty replies, often large full of raw dumps of church father writings, as is your tendency when you have a fundamental disagreement.

I think you tend to dismiss textual level evidence too much based on your opinion of specific writers. And I do not rely on Tertullian alone, as with the example of Matthew 5:18, I compile a number of Church Father comments. It is not the individual case that stands, but rather the cumulative evidence of all the verses in chapter 5 of Matthew which will make my case. Were it just one or two verses, then it could be easily explained some other way.

With that request I will begin shortly

Stuart
Posts: 672
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Marcionite agreements with Matthew against Luke?

Post by Stuart » Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:07 am

Starting with the Blessings. Mostly pulled from one of my blog posts some years back.

The first ten verses of the Sermon of the Mount, 5:3-12, are an expansion of the Beatitudes from the Marcionite Gospel, which are attested as they stand in Luke 6:20-24. [1]

One the expanded blessings of Matthew verse 5:8 as shown here

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
μακάριοι οἱ καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ, ὅτι αὐτοὶ τὸν θεὸν ὄψονται.

On the surface this seems a tame enough, but it elicited a considerable and strong reply from the Marcionites. In the pseudo-Clement Recognitions 3.29, Simon Magus takes objection to this blessing, as contradicting Torah Law, specifically Exodus 33:20 [5]

You (Peter) said now that God is visible to no one ... then (you say) those who are pure in heart shall see God; which statement is contrary to the law, for there it is written that God said, 'None shall see my face and live.'"

This objection comes directly from the Antithesis, as Tertullian states in AM 2.27.4-5, which juxtaposes a paraphrase of Luke 10:22 (Matthew 11:27) against Exodus 33:22

With regard, however, to the Father, the very gospel which is common to us will testify that He was never visible, according to the word of Christ: "No man knows the Father, save the Son." For even in the Old Testament He had declared, "No man shall see me, and live."

Ceterum patrem nemini visum etiam commune testabitur evangelium dicente Christo, Nemo cognovit patrem nisi filius. [6] Ipse enim et veteri testamento pronuntiarat, Deum nemo videbit et vivet.

What confirms that this objection was by Marcionites, and not just the much later Manicheans who Simon Magus is championing, becomes clear when we realize that the Marcionites also objected to Matthew 5:17, which we examined before.

Matthew 5:8 created quite a theological problem where Christians can see God –that is the Old Testament God of the Law– and yet not violate the Law of Moses, specifically Exodus 33:20, "no man shall see God and live." Irenaeus dances around the problem in Against All Heresies 4.20.5-12, [2] giving any manner of possibilities for seeing God such as visions. Irenaeus though makes it clear his response is directly to the Marcionite Antithesis as he states 4.20.5 citing Matthew 5:8 and Exodus 33:20, by splitting God into a visible part, and an invisible part (!)

The prophets, then, indicated beforehand that God should be seen by men; as the Lord also says, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." But in respect to His greatness, and His wonderful glory, "no man shall see God and live," for the Father is incomprehensible;

Praesignificabant igitur prophetae quoniam videbitur Deus ab hominibus; quemadmodum et Dominus ait: Beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt. Sed seeundum magnitudinem quidem ejus, et mirabilem gloriam, nemo videbit Deum, et vivit; incapabilis enim Pater.

Origen, in Contra Celsus, introduces the concept of seeing with your heart and not your eyes as means to get around the problem. [3] What is very clear is that while Tertullian simply sees the verse as an example of the Marcionites disagreeing with him about what the Lord did or did not say, but for Origen and Irenaeus this presented a major theological problem, requiring extensive argument to explain away the inconsistency, as they held the Old Testament as accurate on this point about seeing God, forcing them to defend an embarrassing position.

However for the mid-3rd Century the Jewish Christian writer of the pseudo-Clement Recognitions had another way to answer the problem, in 3.21 by turning to Matthew 22:30,

"God is seen by the mind, not by the body; by the spirit, not by the flesh. Whence also angels, who are spirits, see God; and therefore men, as long as they are men, cannot see Him. But after the resurrection of the dead, when they shall have been made like the angels"

This concept in Matthew 22:30 was carried directly into Ebionite thought, and can be seen as a development of the Pauline theology concerning resurrection of the dead on 1 Corinthians 15. It’s a bit convoluted, but presents a way of thinking about seeing God in a new eternal body, and the old mortal body has already perished. Not quite the way Irenaeus or Origen looked at it.

This declaration is not a mistake, as Matthew in the verse 18:10 makes the exact same statement about seeing God, this time it's the "little ones" who do so, also including a warning for heretics thinking themselves better than followers of Matthew's position

See (that) you do not look down upon one of these little ones
For I say to you that their angels in heavens
continually see the face of my father, who is in the heavens.

Ὁρᾶτε μὴ καταφρονήσητε ἑνὸς τῶν μικρῶν τούτων·
λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτῶν ἐν οὐρανοῖς
διὰ παντὸς βλέπουσι τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς.

Matthew in this one statement means to counter the Marcionite view that the OT God cannot be seen. He backed it up with other verses in his gospel, creating a theological problem that the Church Fathers grappled with for a few centuries after.

We also see evidence that the Antithesis continued to evolve, living document that it was, by adding this verse of Matthew to the key points to counter the Orthodox positions. Simon Magus, if I am correct is a stand in for a great Manichean preacher, shows that this evolved document was picked up by the Manicheans (comments from pseudo-Hegemonius seem to confirm this), and continued to be useful for a couple centuries after the rupture.

Notes:
[1] Tertullian AM 4.14 goes through each of the blessings, which are given verbatim, spending the entire chapter claiming that these are not in fact new precepts, but are the same as what can be found in the OT. This leaves us on firm ground, these verses stood in the Marcionite gospel.
[2] The entire fourth book of Irenaeus Against All Heresies appears to be dedicated to refuting Marcion and his followers points and theology.
[3] Origen Contra Celsus 6.4:
for He was seen not by their bodily eyes, but by the pure heart.
For, according to the declaration of our Jesus, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”

ὀφθεὶς αὐτῶν οὐ τοῖς τοῦ σώματος ὀφθαλμοῖς ἀλλὰ τῇ καθαρᾷ καρδίᾳ. Καὶ γὰρ κατὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἡμῶν "μακάριοι οἱ καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ, ὅτι αὐτοὶ τὸν θεὸν ὄψονται"

A protracted explanation of Origen’s view is given in 7.33-35

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Marcionite agreements with Matthew against Luke?

Post by mlinssen » Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:56 pm

Stuart wrote:
Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:07 am
Starting with the Blessings. Mostly pulled from one of my blog posts some years back.

The first ten verses of the Sermon of the Mount, 5:3-12, are an expansion of the Beatitudes from the Marcionite Gospel, which are attested as they stand in Luke 6:20-24. [1]

One the expanded blessings of Matthew verse 5:8 as shown here

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
μακάριοι οἱ καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ, ὅτι αὐτοὶ τὸν θεὸν ὄψονται.

On the surface this seems a tame enough, but it elicited a considerable and strong reply from the Marcionites. In the pseudo-Clement Recognitions 3.29, Simon Magus takes objection to this blessing, as contradicting Torah Law, specifically Exodus 33:20 [5]

You (Peter) said now that God is visible to no one ... then (you say) those who are pure in heart shall see God; which statement is contrary to the law, for there it is written that God said, 'None shall see my face and live.'"

This objection comes directly from the Antithesis, as Tertullian states in AM 2.27.4-5, which juxtaposes a paraphrase of Luke 10:22 (Matthew 11:27) against Exodus 33:22

With regard, however, to the Father, the very gospel which is common to us will testify that He was never visible, according to the word of Christ: "No man knows the Father, save the Son." For even in the Old Testament He had declared, "No man shall see me, and live."

Ceterum patrem nemini visum etiam commune testabitur evangelium dicente Christo, Nemo cognovit patrem nisi filius. [6] Ipse enim et veteri testamento pronuntiarat, Deum nemo videbit et vivet.

What confirms that this objection was by Marcionites, and not just the much later Manicheans who Simon Magus is championing, becomes clear when we realize that the Marcionites also objected to Matthew 5:17, which we examined before.

Matthew 5:8 created quite a theological problem where Christians can see God –that is the Old Testament God of the Law– and yet not violate the Law of Moses, specifically Exodus 33:20, "no man shall see God and live." Irenaeus dances around the problem in Against All Heresies 4.20.5-12, [2] giving any manner of possibilities for seeing God such as visions. Irenaeus though makes it clear his response is directly to the Marcionite Antithesis as he states 4.20.5 citing Matthew 5:8 and Exodus 33:20, by splitting God into a visible part, and an invisible part (!)

The prophets, then, indicated beforehand that God should be seen by men; as the Lord also says, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." But in respect to His greatness, and His wonderful glory, "no man shall see God and live," for the Father is incomprehensible;

Praesignificabant igitur prophetae quoniam videbitur Deus ab hominibus; quemadmodum et Dominus ait: Beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt. Sed seeundum magnitudinem quidem ejus, et mirabilem gloriam, nemo videbit Deum, et vivit; incapabilis enim Pater.

Origen, in Contra Celsus, introduces the concept of seeing with your heart and not your eyes as means to get around the problem. [3] What is very clear is that while Tertullian simply sees the verse as an example of the Marcionites disagreeing with him about what the Lord did or did not say, but for Origen and Irenaeus this presented a major theological problem, requiring extensive argument to explain away the inconsistency, as they held the Old Testament as accurate on this point about seeing God, forcing them to defend an embarrassing position.

However for the mid-3rd Century the Jewish Christian writer of the pseudo-Clement Recognitions had another way to answer the problem, in 3.21 by turning to Matthew 22:30,

"God is seen by the mind, not by the body; by the spirit, not by the flesh. Whence also angels, who are spirits, see God; and therefore men, as long as they are men, cannot see Him. But after the resurrection of the dead, when they shall have been made like the angels"

This concept in Matthew 22:30 was carried directly into Ebionite thought, and can be seen as a development of the Pauline theology concerning resurrection of the dead on 1 Corinthians 15. It’s a bit convoluted, but presents a way of thinking about seeing God in a new eternal body, and the old mortal body has already perished. Not quite the way Irenaeus or Origen looked at it.

This declaration is not a mistake, as Matthew in the verse 18:10 makes the exact same statement about seeing God, this time it's the "little ones" who do so, also including a warning for heretics thinking themselves better than followers of Matthew's position

See (that) you do not look down upon one of these little ones
For I say to you that their angels in heavens
continually see the face of my father, who is in the heavens.

Ὁρᾶτε μὴ καταφρονήσητε ἑνὸς τῶν μικρῶν τούτων·
λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτῶν ἐν οὐρανοῖς
διὰ παντὸς βλέπουσι τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς.

Matthew in this one statement means to counter the Marcionite view that the OT God cannot be seen. He backed it up with other verses in his gospel, creating a theological problem that the Church Fathers grappled with for a few centuries after.

We also see evidence that the Antithesis continued to evolve, living document that it was, by adding this verse of Matthew to the key points to counter the Orthodox positions. Simon Magus, if I am correct is a stand in for a great Manichean preacher, shows that this evolved document was picked up by the Manicheans (comments from pseudo-Hegemonius seem to confirm this), and continued to be useful for a couple centuries after the rupture.

Notes:
[1] Tertullian AM 4.14 goes through each of the blessings, which are given verbatim, spending the entire chapter claiming that these are not in fact new precepts, but are the same as what can be found in the OT. This leaves us on firm ground, these verses stood in the Marcionite gospel.
[2] The entire fourth book of Irenaeus Against All Heresies appears to be dedicated to refuting Marcion and his followers points and theology.
[3] Origen Contra Celsus 6.4:
for He was seen not by their bodily eyes, but by the pure heart.
For, according to the declaration of our Jesus, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”

ὀφθεὶς αὐτῶν οὐ τοῖς τοῦ σώματος ὀφθαλμοῖς ἀλλὰ τῇ καθαρᾷ καρδίᾳ. Καὶ γὰρ κατὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἡμῶν "μακάριοι οἱ καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ, ὅτι αὐτοὶ τὸν θεὸν ὄψονται"

A protracted explanation of Origen’s view is given in 7.33-35
That is very interesting Stuart, I didn't know any of those implications

Oddly, Thomas has this (I'm just being sarcastic, of course he has it)

54 said IS : some(PL) Blessed are the(PL) poor : yours(PL.F) is(F) the(F) reign-of(F) king of the(PL) heaven

68 said IS : yourselves some(PL) Blessed When they "should" hate you or they make-be Persecute you(PL) and they will fall not to Place in the place which did they Persecute within your(PL) upper-part of heart/mind he

69 said IS some(PL) Blessed are these have they Persecute within their upper-part in their heart/mind they-who therein are have known the father in a truth
some(PL) Blessed they-who being-hungry So-that they will make-satisfied the(F) belly of he-who desires

I'm still working on my Commentary, or rather, not while on this forum. But I strive to have legible interpretations within a few months.
This is not an exhaustive list by the way, I just picked three

Post Reply