Gospel of the Hebrews / Marcion parallels

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Gospel of the Hebrews / Marcion parallels

Post by rakovsky »

Peter Kirby wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 6:44 am
It's likely that Epiphanius is preserving the beginning of a gospel in Pan. 30.13.2-3, with the way that it introduces Jesus & the author. This introduction of Jesus makes sense as a start. And the reference to twelve apostles helps explain alternate titles for this gospel. But then this means we have an existing example of a Gospel beginning in Capernaum.
I like how you disect texts like this, Peter, to find references to lost documents. I am thinking especially of how you got into the references to Papias' and Hegesippus' lost texts.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Gospel of the Hebrews / Marcion parallels

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:21 am This is likely because - as I have noted many times before - the source material behind Tertullian is developed from Justin who cited from his own gospel against Marcion presuming the heretic to have corrupted his text. The Syriac fragment which cites from the actual Marcionite gospel presumes he came down between Jericho and Jerusalem where the Good Samaritan episode occurs.
Interesting...

"A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his raiment and wounded him and departed, leaving him half dead." - Luke 10:30

A comment in a 7th century Syriac manuscript connects this to the idea of a Lord who wasn't born from a woman and appeared in human likeness, for the first time, between Jersualem and Jericho. Unfortunately, this source doesn't mention Marcion, although there is definitely a parallel here to the Marcionite idea of Jesus coming down from heaven.

Apparently Clement and Irenaeus, in addition to Origen, were familiar with an allegorical reading that inserted Christ into this story (as the Samaritan):

“The man who was going down is Adam. Jerusalem is paradise, and Jericho is the world. The robbers are hostile powers. The priest is the Law, the Levite is the prophets, and the Samaritan is Christ. The wounds are disobedience, the beast is the Lord’s body, the [inn], which accepts all who wish to enter, is the Church. … The manager of the [inn] is the head of the Church, to whom its care has been entrusted. And the fact that the Samaritan promises he will return represents the Savior’s second coming.” (Origen, Homily 34.3)

It's possible that there were some Manichaeans or Marcionites who reinterpreted the descent of Christ as happening between Jerusalem and Jericho, sometime before the 7th century, but it's hard to say even that much, since the source of this bit isn't given. It might be a little more interesting if we at least had a Diatessaronic text that began with the Good Samaritan story first, but I'm also not familiar with any such text.

The positive evidence for Jesus coming down to Capernaum, in Marcion's text, is quite strong. It's not just in the explicit sources about Marcion. It's also quite well embedded in the texts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. For example, Mark has Jesus coming down to Capernaum as the first really public action of his ministry, after a baptism, temptation, and calling some disciples. Luke has disguised its order, putting Nazareth first. John inserts Cana first but keeps Jesus coming down to Capernaum right after. And this Gospel of the Ebionites quite evidently introduces Jesus as a man who appears by coming down to Capernaum. The ancient reading that Jesus came down to Capernaum appears to be the one familiar to the ancient Marcionites.

I don't like to be rude, but given my past experiences on this forum, a bit of candor here: There isn't much to recommend using this comment from a 7th century Syriac manuscript as coming from the Marcionite gospel. I suppose further that, lacking any real way to argue for the correctness of your preferred hypothesis, this is a good time for one of those famous rants about how we don't really know anything, the sources are hopelessly corrupt, and those trying to interpret them are hopelessly misguided. These, I guess, are the kind of stern warnings that we deserve for not latching onto other ideas, e.g. of a "Syriac fragment which cites from the actual Marcionite gospel," as being the ones which should tickle our fancy.

(Roth, p. 399)
Attachments
betweenjerusalemjericho.png
betweenjerusalemjericho.png (244.63 KiB) Viewed 1868 times
Post Reply