The History of the Short Form of the Tenth Commandment

[Stephan Huller]

But remember Clement's comment (cited earlier) that Paul is citing both the gospel and the ten commandments in the reference from Romans. In other words, Paul knew the gospel, Paul is referencing Jesus's message about the commandments via the gospel.

The important point is that even the smartest thinkers at this forum and scholarship in general can't help but think about the gospels as a literal narrative about the life of a Jewish man named Joshua. If this is true (i.e. that Jesus was a man) he must have a status greater than Moses (a point already made by most early Christian sources). But how? Gentiles (owing to their lack of respect or interest in Moses) don't see this as a big problem. But for Jews this is absurd. It is the kind of argument Muslims make about Muhammad albeit at least Muhammad actually accomplished something which might warrant the superiority claim. How exactly 'Jesus the man' superior to Moses? Surely this had to be demonstrated somewhere. Only the assumption that he was Ishu helps explain that one. After all Moses got the ten commandments from Ishu and Ishu would know what he did and didn't tell Moses.

[Stephan Huller]

Marcion's argument is, again, based on an interesting observation. When according to the Ten Commandments, working on the Sabbath is forbidden, the Creator contradicts himself when in the book of Joshua he orders the people to carry the Ark of the Covenant around the walls of Jericho for eight days, that is, including at least one Sabbath. For Marcion, the conclusion is clear — the Creator cannot be perfect. http://books.google.com/books?id=1GiQqS ... 22&f=false

But could it be that Marcion really argued that the command to destroy Jericho contradicted the ten commandments which alone came from god? Let's see some more of the Marcionite antitheses:

"You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery; but I say unto you, Do not lust (οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις)."

The point seems to be that 'the Jews' hear the first (sixth) but not the tenth. Not contradiction. And then:

Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne;

And Rashi on the third commandment:

You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain: You shall not swear in vain by the name of the Lord, your God. — [Onkelos] לַֹשָוְא -[This word appears twice in this verse.] (The second [mention of לַֹשָוְא is an expression of falsehood, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders: לְֹשִיקְרָא, as it says [in Shavuos 21a]: "What constitutes a vain oath? If one swears contrary to what is known, [for example, saying] about a stone pillar that it is [made of] gold. (The first [mention of לַֹשָוְא is an expression of vanity, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders: [לְמַגָּנָא].) This [refers to] one who swears for no reason and in vain, [for example making an oath] concerning [a pillar] of wood, [saying] that it is wood, and concerning [a pillar] of stone, [saying] that it is stone. — [from Shevuoth 29a, Mechilta]

[Stephan Huller]

From Wikpedia:

Biblical use of antitheses:

Matthew's Antitheses is the traditional name given to a section of the Sermon on the Mount[Matt. 5:17–48] where Jesus takes six well known prescriptions of the Mosaic Law and calls his followers to do more than the Law requires. Protestant scholars since the Reformation have generally believed that Jesus was setting his teaching over against false interpretations of the Law current at the time. "Antithesis" was the name given by Marcion of Sinope to a manifesto in which he contrasted the Old Testament with the New Testament and defined what came to be known as Marcionism.

The Jewish Encyclopedia: Brotherly Love states:


As Schechter in J. Q. R. x. 11, shows, the expression "Ye have heard..." is an inexact translation of the rabbinical formula (שןמע אני), which is only a formal logical interrogation introducing the opposite view as the only correct one: "Ye might deduce from this verse[Lev 19:18] that thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy, but I say to you the only correct interpretation is, Love all men, even thine enemies."

Jesus' six antitheses are on six topics. In each of them, Jesus opens the statement with words to the effect: "You have heard it said...but I say to you...." These antitheses only appear in Matthew. At the outset, Jesus made it clear that he greatly respects Old Testament Law in the Torah, and fulfilling the Law was one of his purposes for coming to Earth.

Daniel Harrington believes that the community for which Matthew wrote primarily but not exclusively Jewish Christians. If so, that may explain why Matthew could use Jewish rhetoric and themes without explanation. Harrington says that is not the case for 21st-century Americans and others who read the Gospel today. In the six antitheses Jesus either extends through the Commandment's scope by going to the root of the abuse (avoiding anger and lust to prevent murder and adultery) or going beyond a biblical commandment as in the case of divorce and oaths. Harrington writes that Matthew presents the six antitheses as examples of the principle that Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfill the Law and the Prophets.[7]


Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

— Jesus, Matthew 5:17-20

Murder[edit]

The first antithesis (vv. 21-22) attacks anger as the root of murder. The two loosely connected illustrations (23-24, 25-26) point out the value of reconciling with one's enemy.[7]


You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, "Do not murder,[Ex 20:13] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment." But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[8] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, "Raca,"[9] is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, "You fool!" will be in danger of the fire of hell.

— Jesus, Matthew 5:21-22

Adultery[edit]

The second antithesis (vv. 27-28) attacks lust as the root of adultery. The sayings about the right eye in the right-hand as causes of scandal (29-30) are further instances of going to the sources of sin.[7]


You have heard that it was said, "Do not commit adultery."[Ex 20:14] But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

— Jesus, Matthew 5:27-30

Divorce[edit]

The third antithesis (vv. 31-32) explains Jesus' prohibition of divorce as a way of avoiding the divorce procedure outlined in Deuteronomy 24:1.[7]


It has been said, "Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce."[Deut. 24:1] But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

— Jesus, Matthew 5:31-32

Oaths[edit]

The fourth antithesis (vv. 33-37) about oaths says to avoid oaths entirely so as never to swear falsely.[7]


Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, "Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord." But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your "Yes" be "Yes," and your "No," "No"; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

— Jesus, Matthew 5:31-32

An eye for an eye[edit]

The fifth antithesis on non-retaliation (vv. 38-39a) also urges the followers of Jesus to not seek revenge through violence. The examples not only prohibit violence, but also require that brutality and force be met with goodness.[7]


You have heard that it was said, "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth."[Ex 21:24] [Lev 24:20] [Deu 19:21] But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

— Jesus, Matthew 5:38-42

Love for enemies[edit]

The final antithesis (vv. 43-48) defines "neighbor". Here Jesus urges that love include even enemies instead of restricting love only to those who either can benefit us or who already love us.[7]


You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor[Lev 19:18] and hate your enemy." But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

— Jesus, Matthew 5:43-47

[Stephan Huller]

Augustine was the first to refer to chapter 5 of Matthew as 'the Sermon on the Mount.' Who was the first to call it 'the Antitheses'?

[Stephan Huller]

The question which has always dogged Marcionite research is whether or not the antitheses of Marcion are to be identified with two important 'antithetical sections' in the canon - (1) Matt 5 or (2) 1 Corinthians 15. Here are the references to the 'antitheses' of Marcion in Tertullian:

Now in the matter of pettinesses and malignities, and the rest of those bad marks, I can myself put together a few rival antitheses in opposition to Marcion (ipse adversus Marcionem antitheses aemulas faciam). If my God was unaware that there was another god above him, yours likewise did not know that there was another beneath him [2.28]

Now if my plea that the Creator combines goodness with judgement had called for a more elaborate demolition of Marcion's Antitheses (Antitheses Marcionis), I should have gone on to overthrow them one by one, on the principle that the instances cited of both aspects are, as I have already proved, jointly in keeping with God. Both aspects, the goodness and the judgement, combine to produce a complete and worthy conception of a divinity to which nothing is impossible: and so I am for the time being content to have rebutted in summary fashion those antitheses which (possum antitheses retudisse), by criticism of the moral value of the Creator's works, his laws, and his miracles, indicate anxiety to establish a division, making Christ a stranger to the Creator—as it were the supremely good a stranger to the judge, the kind to the cruel, the bringer of salvation a stranger to the author of destruction. Instead of dividing, those antitheses do rather combine into unity the two whom they place in such oppositions as, when combined together, give a complete conception of God. Take away Marcion's title, take away the intention (titulum Marcionis et intentionem) and purpose of his work (atque propositum operis ipsius), and this book will provide neither more nor less than a description of one and the same God, in his supreme goodness and in his judgement (et nihil aliud praestaret1 quam demonstrationem eiusdem dei optimi et iudicis)—for these two conceptions are conjoined in God and in him alone. In fact Marcion's very anxiety, by means of the instances cited, to set Christ in opposition to the Creator, does rather envisage their unity [2.29]

For the one and only real and objective divinity showed itself, in these very instances and these very deductions from them, to be both kind and stern: for his purpose was to give evidence of his kindness, particularly in those against whom he had previously shown severity. The change which time brought about is nothing to be wondered at: God subsequently became more gentle, in proportion as things had become subdued, having been at first more strict when they were unsubdued. So Marcion's antitheses make it easier to explain how the Creator's mode of action was by Christ rather refashioned than repudiated, re-stored rather than rejected: especially so when you make your good god exempt from every bitterness of feeling, and, in that case, from hostility to the Creator. If that is the case how can the antitheses prove he has been in opposition to one or another aspect of the Creator's character (quomodo eum antitheses singulas species creatoris aemulatum demonstrant)? To sum up: I shall by means of these antitheses recognize in Christ my own jealous God. He did in the beginning by his own right, by a hostility which was rational and therefore good, provide beforehand for the maturity and fuller ripeness of the things which were his. His antitheses are in conformity with his own world: for it is composed and regulated by elements contrary to each other (cuius antitheses etiam ipse mundus eius agnoscet ex contrarietatibus elementorum), yet in perfect proportion. Therefore, most thoughtless Marcion, you ought rather to have shown that there is one god of light and another of darkness: after that you would have found it easier to persuade us that there is one god of kindness and another of severity. In any case, the antithesis, or opposition (ceterum eius erit antithesis cuius est et in mundo, will belong to that God in whose world it is to be found). [ibid]

Every sentence, indeed the whole structure, arising from Marcion's impiety and profanity, I now challenge in terms of that gospel which he has by manipulation made his own (Omnem sententiam et omnem paraturam impii atque sacrilege Marcionis ad ipsum iam evangelium eius provocamus quod interpolando suum fecit). Besides that, to work up credence for it he has contrived a sort of dowry, a work entitled Antitheses because of its juxtaposition of opposites, a work strained into making such a division between the Law and the Gospel as thereby to make two separate gods, opposite to each other, one belonging to one instrument (alterum alterius instrumenti) or, as it is more usual to say, testament (vel, quod magis usui est dicere, testamenti), one to the other, and thus lend its patronage to faith in another gospel, that according to the Antitheses (ut exinde evangelio quoque secundum Antitheses credendo patrocinaretur). Now I might have demolished those antitheses by a specially directed hand-to-hand attack, taking each of the statements of the man of Pontus one by one (id est per singulas iniectiones
Pontici), except that it was much more convenient to refute them both in and along with that gospel which they serve: although it is perfectly easy to take action against them by counter-claim (quamquam tam facile est praescriptive occurrere), even accepting them as admissible, accounting them valid, and alleging that they support my argument, that so they may be put to shame for the blindness of their author, having now become my antitheses against Marcion (nostrae iam antitheses adversus Marcionem).

1 Action by counterclaim. By the forensic device of exceptio peremptaria, the defendant, arguing that even on his own evidence the claimant must be non-suited, obtains the right to speak first, and becomes in effect the complainant [4.1]

He who ordained the change, also established the difference: he who foretold of the renewal, also told beforehand of the contrariety. Why need you explain a difference of facts as an opposition of authorities (Quid differentiam rerum ad distantiam interpretaris potestatum)? Why need you distort against the Creator those antitheses in the evidences (quid antitheses exemploram distorques adversus creatorem), which you can recognize also in his own thoughts and affections? I will smite, he says, and I will heal: I will slay, he says, and also make alive, by establishing evil things and making peace: because of which it is your custom even to censure him on account of fickleness and inconstancy, in forbidding what he commands and commanding what he forbids. Why then have you not also thought out some antitheses for the essential attributes of a Creator always at variance with himself (Cur ergo
non et antitheses ad naturalia reputasti contrarii sibi semper creatoris)? Not even among your men of Pontus, if I mistake not, have you been able to realize that the world is constructed out of the diversities of substances in mutual hostility (Nec mundum saltim recogitare potuisti, nisi fallor, etiam apud Ponticos ex diversitatibus structum aemularum invicem substantiarum). And so you ought first to have laid it down that there was one god of light and another of darkness: then you could have affirmed that there was one god of the law and another of the gospel (Prius itaque debueras alium deum luminis, alium tenebrarum determinasse, ut ita posses alium legis, alium evangelii asseverasse). For all that, judgement is already given, and that by manifest proofs, that he whose works and ways are consistently antithetic, has also his mysteries consistently of that same pattern. [ibid]

Tertullian is copying some earlier text notice the repetition with the end of Book Two with respect to the 'god of light' and 'god of darkness.' Curious that this becomes the Manichaean belief in the late third century.

You have there my short and sharp answer to the Antitheses. I pass on next to show how his gospel—certainly not Judaic but Pontic—is in places adulterated: and this shall form the basis of my order of approach. [Habes nunc ad Antitheses expeditam a nobis responsionem. Transeo nunc ad evangelii, sane non Iudaici sed Pontici, interim adulterati demonstrationem, praestructuram ordinem quem aggredimur] [4.2]

So then meanwhile, as concerns the gospel of Luke, seeing that the use of it shared between us and Marcion becomes an arbiter of the truth, our version of it is to such an extent older than Marcion that Marcion himself once believed it. That was when in the first warmth of faith he presented the catholic church with that money which was before long cast out along with him after he had diverged from our truth into his own heresy. What now, if the Marcionites are going to deny that his faith at first was with us—even against the evidence of his own letter? What if they refuse to acknowledge that letter? Certainly Marcion's own Antitheses not only admit this, but even make a show of it (Certe Antitheses non modo fatentur Marcionis, sed et praeferunt). Proof taken from them is good enough for me. If that gospel which among us is ascribed to Luke—we shall see <later> whether it is <accepted by> Marcion—if that is the same that Marcion by his Antitheses accuses of having been falsified by the upholders of Judaism with a view to its being so combined in one body with the law and the prophets that they might also pretend that Christ had that origin, evidently he could only have brought accusation against something he had found there already.[4.5]

It would seem the 'Antitheses' was either (a) a name for the Marcionite gospel or (b) another work appended to the canon. It is not the same as the 'letter' mentioned above.

I now advance a step further, while I call to account, as I have promised, Marcion's gospel in his own version of it, with the design, even so, of proving it adulterated. Certainly the whole of the work he has done, including the prefixing (praestruendo) of his Antitheses, he directs to the one purpose of setting up opposition between the Old Testament and the New, and thereby putting his Christ in separation from the Creator, as belonging to another god, and having no connection with the law and the prophets. Certainly that is why he has expunged all the things that oppose his view, that are in accord with the Creator, on the plea that they have been woven in by his partisans; but has retained those that accord with his opinion. [4.6]

Based simply on codicological considerations, if the Antitheses were of modest size, it likely could have easily been bound with his scriptures, probably the Evangelion, but interpretation of the references to the Antitheses is not so straightforward. I noted above that where Tertullian stated that Marcion “set up beforehand the Antitheses,” Evans translated praestruendo as “prefix.” Moll dismisses this reading and instead thinks that “the term praestruendo is probably rather to be interpreted as another way of saying that Marcion composed the Antitheses 'in advance' in order to protect his Gospel?55 There is no reason to object to this interpretation on grammatical or philological grounds, but to my mind when this reference is viewed alongside the numerous others that intimate that the Antitheses had an introductory function, Evans's translation seems quite plausible. That this introduction may have been prefaced to Marcion's Evangelion also accords well with the forementioned anonymous Syriac description of Marcion's book as a proevangelium. [Eric W. Scherbenske, Canonizing Paul 78 - 83] But is these the only possibilities? Holmes translates it as

For it is certain that the whole aim at which he has strenuously laboured even in the drawing up of his Antitheses, centres in this, that he may establish a diversity between the Old and the New Testaments, so that his own Christ may be separate from the Creator, as belonging to this rival god, and as alien from the law and the prophets.

I wonder whether Moll is right here. Could praestruendo merely be a sarcastic reference to Marcion 'establishing' his gospel 'before' Luke? I think so:

prae-strŭo , xi, ctum, 3, v. a.,
I.to build before, as a preparation for other buildings, to lay a foundation: “praestructa (opp. ea) quae superposita incumbent,” Col. 1, 5, 9.—

B. Transf., to build up in front, to block or stop up, to make impassable or inaccessible (mostly poet.): “ille aditum vasti praestruxerat obice montis,” Ov. F. 1, 563: “hospitis effugio praestruxerat omnia Minos,” id. A. A. 2, 21: “porta Fonte praestructa,” stopped up, id. M. 14, 797; cf.: “densato scutorum compage se scientissime praestruebant,” Amm. 14, 2, 10.—

II. Trop., to make ready or prepare beforehand for any thing: fraus fidem in parvis sibi praestruit, prepares or secures for itself credibility in trifles, Liv. 28, 42, 7: “praestruit ad illud quod dicturus est, multa esse crimina in Verre quae, etc.,” Ascon. ad Cic. Div. in Caecil. 8: tacitas vindictae iras. Claud. ap. Ruf. 2, 280: “prius agmina saevo praestrue Marti,” id. IV. Cons. Hon. 319.—

B. To arrange or contrive beforehand: cum praestructum utrumque consulto esset, whereas it had all been concerted beforehand, Suet. Tib. 53: “id scilicet praestruentes,” Amm. 31, 7.—Hence, praestructus , a, um, P. a., prepared: “praestructum bellis civilibus hostem,” Claud. B. Gild. 285.

This seems to be supported by subsequent references to the Marcionite gospel in the book including:

But see, <you say>, Christ loves the little ones, and teaches that all who ever wish to be the greater, need to be as they; whereas the Creator sent bears against some boys, to avenge Elisha the prophet for mockery he had suffered from them. A fairly reckless antithesis, when it sets together such diverse things, little children and boys, an age as yet innocent, and an age now capable of judgement, which knew how to mock, not to say, blaspheme. So then, being a just God, he did not spare even boys when disrespectful, but demanded Honour to old age, and more particularly from the younger: but as a kind God he loves the little ones to such a degree that in
Egypt he dealt well with the midwives who guarded the childbearing of the Hebrews, which was in peril through Pharaoh's edict. [4.23]

He chooses other seventy apostles also, over above the twelve: for to what purpose twelve, after that number of wells in Elim, without adding seventy, after that number of palm-trees?a Antitheses for the most part are produced by diversity of purposes, not of authorities, though he who has not kept in view the diversity of purposes has easily been led to take it for diversity of authorities. When the children of Israel set out from Egypt the Creator brought them forth laden with those spoils of gold and silver vessels and clothing, as well as the dough in their kneading-troughs, whereas Christ told his disciples to carry not even a staff for their journey. [4.24]

So also our Lord told them into whatsoever house they entered, to speak peace to it. He follows the same precedent: for this too was the order Elisha gave, that when he came into the Shunamite's house, he was to say to her, Peace to thy husband, peace to thy son.d These shall be the antitheses we prefer, such as bring Christ into line <with the Creator>, not such as make him separate. But the labourer is worthy of his hire: who has better right to say this than God the Judge? For this very act is an exercise of judgement, to pronounce the labourer worthy of his hire. Every grant of reward is based upon some exercise of judgement. So here too the Creator's law receives attestation, when he judges that even working oxen are labourers worthy of reward: Thou shalt not, he says, muzzle the ox when it is threshing. Who is this so bountiful towards men? He Surely who is also bountiful towards cattle. And as Christ also declares that labourers are worthy of their hire, he sets in a good light that injunction of the Creator about taking away the Egyptians' vessels of gold and silver. For those who had built for the Egyptians houses and cities were certainly labourers
worthy of their hire, and the instruction given them was not for robbery but for recovering the equivalent of their wages, which they could not exact in any other way from those who were lords over them. [ibid]

The kingdom of God, he says, cometh not with observation, neither do they say, Lo here, lo there, for behold the kingdom of God is within you. Surely everyone must interpret these words, Is within you, as 'in your hand', 'within your power', if you give ear, if you do the commandment of God. But if the kingdom of God is in the commandment, set opposite to it Moses, as my antitheses suggest, and there is complete agreement. The commandment, he says, is not on high, nor far from thee. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up to heaven, and bring it down for us, and we will hear it and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea and bring it for us, and we will hear it and do it ? The word is near thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, and in thy hands, to do it.j This will be the meaning of, Not here, not there; for behold the kingdom of God is within you. And to prevent heretical audacity from arguing that our Lord's reply to them was concerned with the Creator's kingdom, about which they consulted him, and not with his own, the words that follow stand in the way. [4.35]

He who wishes to see Jesus, must believe him the son of David by descent from the virgin: he who does not so believe will never be told by him, Thy faith hath saved thee, and consequently will remain blind, falling into the ditch of an antithesis, which itself falls into a ditch. For this is what happens when the blind leads the blind. For if, <as you suggest>, blind men once came into conflict with David at his recapture of Sion,e fighting back to prevent his admission— though these are a figure of that nation equally blind, which was some time to deny admission to Christ the son of David— and therefore Christ came to the blind man's help by way of opposition so that by this he might show himself not the son of David, being of opposite mind, and kind to blind men, such as David had ordered to be slain: <if this is so> why did he say he had granted this to the man's faith, and false faith at that? But in fact by this expression son of David I can, on its own terms, blunt the point of the antithesis. Those who came into conflict with David were blind: but here a man of the same infirmity had presented himself as suppliant to the son of David. [4.37]

The evidence would seem to suggest - in contradiction to those who argue for a 'separate work called the Antitheses' - that the 'Antitheses' was simply the name given to the Marcionite gospel by the original author of the material associated with these sections.

[Stephan Huller]

So once we discard the prevalent view that Marcion wrote a separate work called 'the Antitheses' and after looking carefully at the evidence see that in fact what is meant is that the gospel of Marcion was itself the 'antitheses' referenced we can start to make proper sense of the 'six antitheses' of Matthew must have appeared in the Marcionite gospel in a very different form. Note:

Tertullian reproaches Marcion with having written the work in which he details the contrasts between Judaism and Christianity, of which we have given the briefest sketch, as an introduction and encouragement to belief in his Gospel, which he ironically calls "the Gospel according to the Antitheses;"(3) and the charge which the Fathers bring against Marcion is that he laid violent hands on the Canonical Gospel of Luke, and manipulated it to suit his own views. "For certainly the whole object at which he laboured in drawing up the 'Antitheses.'" says Tertullian, "amounts to this: that he may prove a disagreement between the Old and New Testament, so that his own Christ may be separated from the Creator, as of another God, as alien from the Law and the Prophets. For this purpose it is certain that he has erased whatever was contrary to his own opinion and in harmony with the Creator, as if interpolated by his partisans, but has retained everything consistent with his own opinion."(4) The whole hypothesis that Marcion's Gospel is a mutilated version of our third Synoptic in fact rested upon this accusation. It is obvious that if it cannot be shown that Marcion's Gospel was our Canonical Gospel merely garbled by the Heresiarch for dogmatic reasons in the interest of his system,—for there could not be any other conceivable reason for tampering with it,—the claim of Marcion's Gospel to the rank of a more original and authentic work than Luke's acquires double force. We must, therefore, inquire into the character of the variations between the so-called heretical, and the Canonical Gospels, and see how far the hypothesis of the Fathers accord with the contents of Marcion's Gospel so far as we are acquainted with it. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/37232/37 ... 7232-h.htm

[3] Adv Marc 4.1

[Stephan Huller]

I was wondering where the author got his 'the gospel according to the antitheses' from. Apparently it is a citation of Holmes's translation of Adv Marc 4.1 but the Latin can be read no other way:

Every opinion and the whole scheme of the impious and sacrilegious Marcion we now bring to the test of that very Gospel which, by his process of interpolation, he has made his own. To encourage a belief of this Gospel he has actually devised for it a sort of dower, in a work composed of contrary statements set in opposition, thence entitled Antitheses, and compiled with a view to such a severance of the law from the gospel as should divide the Deity into two, nay, diverse, gods— one for each Instrument, or Testament as it is more usual to call it; that by such means he might also patronize belief in “the Gospel according to the Antitheses.” These, however, I would have attacked in special combat, hand to hand; that is to say, I would have encountered singly the several devices of the Pontic heretic, if it were not much more convenient to refute them in and with that very gospel to which they contribute their support. Although it is so easy to meet them at once with a peremptory demurrer, yet, in order that I may both make them admissible in argument, and account them valid expressions of opinion, and even contend that they make for our side, that so there may be all the redder shame for the blindness of their author, we have now drawn out some antitheses of our own in opposition to Marcion. [Holmes]

Every sentence, indeed the whole structure, arising from Marcion's impiety and profanity, I now challenge in terms of that gospel which he has by manipulation made his own. Besides that, to work up credence for it he has contrived a sort of dowry, a work entitled Antitheses because of its juxtaposition of opposites, a work strained into making such a division between the Law and the Gospel as thereby to make two separate gods, opposite to each other, one belonging to one instrument (or, as it is more usual to say, testament), one to the other, and thus lend its patronage to faith in another gospel, that according to the Antitheses. Now I might have demolished those antitheses by a specially directed hand-to-hand attack, taking each of the statements of the man of Pontus one by one, except that it was much more convenient to refute them both in and along with that gospel which they serve: although it is perfectly easy to take action against them by counter-claim, even accepting them as admissible, accounting them valid, and alleging that they support my argument, that so they may be put to shame for the blindness of their author, having now become my antitheses against Marcion.[Evans]

Omnem sententiam et omnem paraturam impii atque sacrilege Marcionis ad ipsum iam evangelium eius provocamus quod interpolando suum fecit. Et ut fidem instrueret, dotem quandam commentatus est illi, opus ex contrarietatum oppositionibus Antitheses cognominatum et ad separationem legis et evangelii coactum, qua duos deos dividens, proinde diversos, alterum alterius instrumenti, vel, quod magis usui est dicere, testamenti, ut exinde evangelio quoque secundum Antitheses credendo patrocinaretur. Sed et istas proprio congressu cominus, id est per singulas iniectiones Pontici, cecidissem, si non multo opportunius in ipso et cum ipso evangelio cui procurant retunderentur; quamquam tam facile est praescriptive occurrere, et quidem ut accepto eas faciam, ut rato habeam, ut nobiscum facere dicam, quo magis de caecitate auctoris sui erubescant, nostrae iam antitheses adversus Marcionem. [Tertullian]

When you see it staring at you in the face - how can anyone deny that 'Marcion's antitheses' were his gospel text? But there is more here. I have always wondered whether Tertullian was actually a lawyer as is claimed or whether the legal language that characterizes this passage and others was reflective of his source (= Irenaeus).

Also it is noticed that the writings of Tertullian often refer to the canon as an 'instrument.' I think a later hand (perhaps Tertullian's own if he is copying a source) notes that 'instrument' is more commonly referenced as 'testament' in contemporary parlance. But notice the original Latin terminology:

instrūmentum , i, n. id.,
I.an implement of any kind, a utensil, tool, instrument (class.).

I. Lit.: “militare,” Caes. B. G. 6, 30: “culinarum argentea,” Just. 38, 10, 4: “crudelia jussae instrumenta necis,” Ov. M. 3, 698.—

2. Esp., sing. collect., instruments, apparatus, material, stock, furniture (freq. and class.): “instrumentum ac ornamenta villae,” Cic. Dom. 24, 62: “orationes magna impensā magnoque instrumento tueri,” Cic. Verr. 2, 3, 21, § 53: “belli instrumentum et apparatus,” id. Ac. 2, 1, 3: rusticum, Phaedr. 4, 4, 24; Val. Max. 4, 4, 6: “hostium spolia, monumenta imperatorum, decora atque ornamenta fanorum, in instrumento atque in supellectile Verris nominabuntur,” Cic. Verr. 2, 4, 44, § 97; cf. Pall. 1, 43, 1: “hibernorum,” Caes. B. C. 5, 31: “bellicum,” Liv. 42, 53, 4: “nauticum,” id. 30, 10, 3: “venatorium,” Plin. Ep. 3, 19, 3: “piscationis,” Paul. Sent. 3, 6, 41.—Esp., in law, the personalty, chattels, or stock of a farm, business, trade, etc.: “fundo legato, neque instrumentum fundi ... ad legatarium pertinet,” Paul. Sent. 3, 6, 34: “instrumento cauponio legato, ea debentur, quae in cauponis usum parata sunt, velut vasa,” id. ib. 3, 6, 61: “pistoris,” id. ib. § “64: medici,” Dig. 33, 7, 18, § 10; cf.: “in fanis alia vasorum sunt et sacrae supellectilis, alia ornamentorum, quae vasorum sunt instrumenti instar habent, quibus sacrificia conficiuntur,” apparatus, Macr. S. 3, 11, 5. —

II. Trop.

A. Of writings, an instrument, document, record: “opus est intueri omne litis instrumentum,” Quint. 12, 8, 12: “aerearum tabularum tria milia ... instrumentum imperii pulcherrimum ac vetustissimum,” Suet. Vesp. 8: “publici instrumenti auctoritas,” id. Calig. 8: “emtionis,” Dig. 24, 1, 58: “si scriptum fuerit instrumento, promisisse aliquem,” Paul. Sent. 5, 7, 2: “instrumentorum obligatio desideratur,” id. ib. 2, 17, 13. —

B. Store, provision, supply, means, assistance, furtherance, etc.: “oratoris,” provision, supply, Cic. de Or. 1, 36, 165: “causarum,” id. ib. 2, 34, 146.—Absol.: “quid viatici, quid instrumenti satis sit,” i. e. for a journey, Cic. Att. 12, 32, 2: “instrumenta ad obtinendam sapientiam,” means, id. Leg. 1, 22, 59: “virtutis,” id. Cat. 2, 5, 9: “naturae,” id. Brut. 77, 268: “graviorum artium,” id. ib. 97: “dicendi,” Quint. 12, 11, 24: “ciborum,” i. e. organs of digestion, Plin. 7, 50, 51, § 168.—

C. Ornament, embellishment: “felices ornent haec instrumenta libellos,” Ov. Tr. 1, 1, 9: “anilia,” apparel, dress, id. M. 14, 766; Suet. Aug. 73.

So when we look at the sentence:

Besides that, to work up credence for it he has contrived a sort of gift (= dotis), a work entitled Antitheses because of its juxtaposition of opposites, a work strained into making such a division between the Law and the Gospel as thereby to make two separate gods, opposite to each other, one belonging to one record (or, as it is more usual to say, testament), one to the other, and thus lend its patronage to faith in another gospel, that according to the Antitheses.

The assumption has to be then that the two gods are Yahweh and Elohim and the Pentateuch was written by the former, the latter by Elohim. Does it follow though that the ten commandments were attributed to Elohim also?

[Stephan Huller]

Compare the Latin construction:

that by such means he might also patronize belief in “the Gospel according to the Antitheses" (evangelio quoque secundum Antitheses )...

Also, in the Gospel according to Luke, we read: (In Evangelio quoque secundum Lucam) ... [Jerome, Dialogos contra Pelagianos Admonitio Prologue 12]

[Stephan Huller]

So we have now rescued the idea that 'antitheses' was not a separate work which juxtaposed 'what the gospel' said against 'the Law' but the gospel of Marcion itself. 'The Antitheses' seems to have been the Greek name of the text, but was this the original language? It is worth noting that words translated as meaning 'antithesis' in Semitic languages don't always correspond exactly to our idea of that term. For instance the Arabic مطابقة (mutabaqa) is often used to mean 'antithesis' but has a range of meanings which makes it difficult to pin down. It can mean 'conformity' http://books.google.com/books?id=5T5FAQ ... qa&f=false, layered http://books.google.com/books?id=gGnf13 ... qa&f=false, 'side by side' (= "Word and idea depend on each other and stand side by side, mutabaqa) as one knows.) http://books.google.com/books?id=uTRTAQ ... 22&f=false, equivalence http://books.google.com/books?id=q8kLH6 ... qa&f=false

As al-Khattabi uses the term, mutabaqa denotes a word that contains two contrasting or opposed meanings. In the full text of al-Khattabi's discussion of (his tradition (as preserved in Bayhaqi's Asma', 296-297), he gives a number of examples of" mutabaqa'. thus, for example, the term aswad. he says, may be used to mean either serpent or scorpion (cf.. Lane 1463/3), and 'asr may mean either night or day, morning or evening (Lane ). The point of al-Khattabi's argument is that the term sura in this tradition falls into the category of this kind of mutabaqa usage; when applied to the various objects of pagan worship (the mcfbudat mentioned in the tradition), the term is used in its literal sense of form, image or shape (i.e., something external) whereas when applied to God it is used metaphorically to ...

[Stephan Huller]

THE corruption of the Scriptures and of their interpretation must therefore be referred to that quarter where divergence in doctrine is to be found (diuersitas doctrinae inuenitur). Those who proposed to put forth a different teaching were obliged thereby to alter the doctrinal documents. For they would not have been able to teach differently unless they had altered the sources of teaching (eos necessitas institit aliter disponendi instrumenta doctrinae). Just as with them corruption of doctrine could not have succeeded without a corresponding corruption of its documents (Sicut illis non potuisset succedere corruptela doctrinae sine corruptela instrumentorum eius), so also with us integrity of doctrine would not be met with save with the integrity of those documents whence the doctrine is drawn.

For, indeed, what is there opposed to us in our Scriptures ? What have we introduced of our own so that we must remedy by omission or addition or alteration anything contrary to it which we have found in the Scripture? What we are, that the Scriptures are from the very beginning. Of them are we, before there was any divergent
teaching before they were interpolated by you. But since every interpolation must be regarded as later in time (since it arises essentially from hostility, which is in every case neither prior in time to, nor of the same household with that which it opposes), it is as incredible to any one of sense that we should be thought to have introduced a corrupt text into the Scriptures we who have existed from the beginning and are the first in order of time as that those persons should not be thought to have introduced it who are both later in date than, and opposed to the Scriptures.

One man falsifies the Scriptures with his hand: another by his interpretation of their meaning. For although Valentinus appears to use the whole volume (neque enim si Valentinus integro instrumento uti uidetur), he nevertheless laid violent hands on the Truth with a no less cunning bent of mind than did Marcion.1 Marcion openly and nakedly used the knife, not the pen, since he cut the Scriptures to suit his argument; whereas Valentinus spared them, since he did not invent Scriptures to suit his argument, but argument to suit the Scriptures; and yet all the same he took away more and added more in taking away the proper meaning of each particular word, and in adding arrangements of systems which have no existence.

“Instrumentum” (“Instrumenta”) as a Name for the Bible

Zahn (Gesch. des Neutestamentlichen Kanons, i. 106-111) has published a thorough investigation of the term “Instrumentum” as a title of the Bible; but in my opinion he starts from an incorrect premise, and gives to “Instrumentum,” in connection with the Bible, a significance that is more general than is admissible.

On pages 105 ff., Zahn writes: “Tertullian preferred to render Covenant by ‘Instrumentum.’ (In our investigation) we must start from this fact, incidentally revealed by Tertullian, that it was the prevailing custom among his contemporaries to express by ‘Testamentum’ what he preferred to call ‘Instrumentum.’ There is, accordingly, no doubt that in this as in similar cases Διαθήκη lies behind both terms.” He then discusses “Instrumentum” in ordinary use and its relationship with “Documentum”; he asserts that the term not seldom occurs in Tertullian in its original wider connotation, and in conclusion remarks: “We should do injustice to Tertullian if we suspected that the term ‘Instrumentum’ covers a conception of the significance of the Holy Scripture for the Church that is merely legal. The Holy Scriptures were for him by no means mainly documents that could be produced by the Church in her case against heretics (Zahn
210
refers to De Præsc.); though, as a matter of course, they were authorities of the highest value for the Church.” On page 109 Zahn speaks of the elasticity of the concept “Instrumentum” as applied to Holy Scripture.

Three theses are here brought forward: (1) that “Instrumentum” in Tertullian (and when used elsewhere in the Church) is equivalent to “Testamentum”; (2) that “Instrumentum,” like “Testamentum,” is a translation of Διαθήκη; (3) that in Tertullian it has not only the special significance, “a fundamental document to prove doctrine,” but also a more general significance. All these three theses are in my opinion incorrect, as I shall now proceed to prove.

As for the first thesis, it is true that Tertullian writes (Adv. Marc., iv. 1): “Duos deos dividit, proinde diversos, alterum alterius instrumenti, vel, quod magis usui est dicere, Testamenti.” Here it is of course clear that Tertullian (and others here and there) spoke of “Instrumenta” while the usual term was “Testamenta.” And yet it would be a mistake to assert that “Instrumentum” is an equivalent for “Testamentum.” In cursory speech it can serve as such, but in itself is is not. This is most strikingly clear from the three following passages: in Adv. Prax., 20, Tertullian writes: “Totum instrumentum utriusque testamenti”; in De Monog., 4: “Secedat nunc mentio paracleti ut nostri (the Montanists) alicuius auctoris; evolvamus communia (to us and the ‘Psychics’) instrumenta scripturarum pristinarum (i.e. the Old Testament and New Testament)”; and in De Monog., 7: “Vetera instrumenta legalium scripturarum.” Tertullian thus speaks of the “Instrument of the two Testaments,” and of the “Instrument of the Holy Scriptures.”
211
“Instrumentum” cannot, therefore, be an equivalent for “Testamentum.” This also means that we have already disposed of the second thesis which is in itself highly improbable, for how could anyone have arrived at “Instrumentum” as a translation of Διαθήκη? It is true that very remarkable translations are found in the Old Latin of the Church. Why was not “Fœdus” rather than “Testamentum” used for Διαθήκη? Why was Μυστήριον translated by “Sacramentum,” etc.?—but “Instrumentum” has no connection, or only the slightest, with Διαθήκη. Further, Zahn himself is compelled to confess that in quotations from the Bible Tertullian never translates Διαθήκη by “Instrumentum.” Hence the term “Instrumenta” in reference to the Bible is just as independent of Διαθήκη as are the terms “the Holy Scriptures” or “the Books.” The term, therefore, must have its origin in considerations that have absolutely nothing to do with traditional names for the Bible, but are concerned only with its significance—and, indeed, in considerations that are confined to the Western Church; for, so far as I know, throughout the whole range of the Greek Churches no equivalent for “Instrumentum” existed either in the second century or later.

We now come to Zahn’s third thesis that the name “Instrumenta” for the Holy Scriptures is elastic, even if it approaches “Documenta” in meaning, and is not to be understood merely in a limited legal sense (documents to be produced by the Church against heretics). Here Zahn seems to be justified by the whole work, De Præsc. Hær., in which Catholics are earnestly warned not to appeal to the Holy Scriptures when they dispute with heretics; therefore Tertullian cannot have regarded Holy Scripture as the fundamental
212
document for doctrine. But it has long been recognised that Tertullian has been the very last man to heed his own warning, and that this whole work is a masterpiece of advocacy, a piece of special pleading, where the real heart of the author appears in his exposition of the Church’s Rule of Faith. Now chance has so willed that the only passage in the works of Tertullian, in which “Instrumenta,” as applied to the Bible, is simply and plainly defined as “instrumenta doctrinæ,” should be found in this very treatise, De Præsc. Here we read in chapter 28: “Illic et scripturarum et expositionum adulteratio deputanda est, ubi doctrinæ diversitas invenitur. quibus fuit propositum aliter docendi, eos necessitas coëgit aliter disponendi instrumenta doctrinæ. alias enim non potuissent aliter docere, nisi aliter haberent per quæ docerent. sicut illis non potuisset succedere correptula doctrinæ sine corruptula instrumentorum eius, ita et nobis integritas doctrinæ non competisset sine integritate eorum per quæ doctrina tractatur.” There can be no doubt here: The Holy Scriptures are here called “instrumenta,” because they are fundamental documents, with whose help alone doctrine can be expounded and by which it is proved; “instrumenta” and “per quæ doctrina tractatur” are for Tertullian identical conceptions. Naturally the exposition need not always have a polemical character; rather it is true also for the Church that she must in behalf of her own knowledge prove her doctrine “per instrumenta Scripturarum” ; so that the idea of a document is always implied in such proof. The Holy Scriptures are called “Instrumenta,” because they are for the Church the decisive documents for the exposition and the proof of her doctrine.

A survey of the passages in which Tertullian uses
213
“instrumentum” will establish my position more clearly.

Naturally not a few cases also occur in Tertullian of the use of the word in a quite general sense. For instance he writes:

De Resurr., 63.—“Anima habet instrumentum, habet cultum, habet mancipium suum carnem.”

Apol., 17.—“Tota moles ista (the world) cum omni instrumento elementorum.”

Ad Uxor., 1.—“Continentia ad instrumentum æternitatis (pertinet).”

De Cor., 8.—“Communia instrumenta exhibitionis (vitæ) humanæ.”

Again it is found in connection with the Conception “Literature” in general, and here it acquires the idea of a declarative and authoritative document:

De Idol., 10.—“Litteratura instrumentum est ad omnem vitam.”

Apol., 19.—“Multis instrumentis adsidendum est, reserenda antiquissimarum etiam gentium archiva”—here the close relationship of “instrumenta” and “archiva” is noteworthy.

Apol., 10.—“Si conscientia inficias ieret, de suis antiquitatum instrumentis revincetur.”

De Cor., 7 (The question is concerning the origin of garlands).—“Litteræ ad hoc sæculares necessariæ; de suis enim instrumentis sæcularia probari necesse est.”

De Spect., 5 (The question is concerning the origin of the games, this must be investigated)—“de instrumentis ethnicalium litterarum.”

De Testim., 1.—The works of philosophers and poets are the “proprium instrumentum” of the heathen from which their teachings are known.

214

Scorp.,15.—“Si fidem commentarii voluerit hæreticus, instrumenta imperii loquentur ut lapides Hierusalem. ‘Vitas Cæsarum’ legimus.” This use coincides with the common use of the period, especially with the use of the word in the sphere of civil and criminal law. Here it was quite usual to speak of “instrumenta publica, imperii, litis” (vide the Digests, Quintilian, Suetonius; Dirksen, Manuale Lat. Font. Jur. Civ. Rom., p. 484, etc.), indeed it may be said that here also “Instrumenta,” applied to written records, always includes the idea of declarative and authoritative document, of archives as a source of right; at all events the burden of proof lies with him who denies this. I know only one passage in Tertullian where the addition of “doctrina” does not seem to be permissible; De Pud., 1, speaks of “instrumentum prædicationis”; but on closer view one finds here also that it is a question of “prædicatio doctrinæ.”

In the passages now to be mentioned the concept “doctrinæ” either must be supplied to “instrumenta” or is at least not excluded.189 We incidentally remark that the expression “Instrumentum” was so useful because it could be applied to the whole Bible, to each of the two parts, to groups of books, to separate books, and even to separate sections of the books.190

215

It refers to the whole Bible in De Præsc., 38; Adv. Marc., iv. 1; Adv. Prax., 20; De Monog., 4 (passages that have been already quoted); also in—

De Pud., 16.—“Exereitus sententiarum instrumenti totius.”

De Resurr., 21.—“Tot ac talia instrumenta divina.”

De Pud., 10.—“Divinum Instrumentum.”

Adv. Marc., v. 1.—“Omnia apostolatus Pauli instrumenta” (all the sacred writings with the exception of the Pauline Epistles, which could not be used in this argument).

Acta Perpet., 1.—“Instrumentum ecclesiæ.”

It refers to the New Testament in:

De Præsc., 38.—“Integrum instrumentum.”

It very frequently refers to the Old Testament, because the Old Testament played the chief part as a proof-document. Instances are:

Apol., 18.—“Instrumentum litteraturæ” (of the Old Testament as a proof-document).

De Cultu, i. 3.—“Omne instrumentum Judaicæ litteraturæ.”

Apol., 21.—“Antiquissima Judæorum instrumenta.”

Apol., 47.—“Vetus Instrumentum.”

Ad Hermog., 20.—“Evangelium supplementum instrumenti veteris.”

Apol., 19.—“Instrumentis istis auctoritatem suam antiquitas vindicat.”

De Pud., 7.—“Lex et prophetæ = instrumenta.”

De Monog., 7—“Vetera instrumenta legalium scripturarum.”

Adv. Marc., v. 1.—“Instrumentum creatoris” (the Old Testament).

“Instrumentum” is applied to separate books and groups of books in the following passages:

216

Adv. Hermog., 19.—“Instrumentum originale Moysei” (cf. Adv. Marc., i. 10).

De Resurr., 33.—“Propheticum instrumentum.”

Adv. Marc., iv. 10.—“Instrumentum Danielis.”

Adv. Marc., iv. 2.—“Evangelicum instrumentum.”

De Resurr., 39, 40; De Pud., 12.—“Apostolicum instrumentum,” “Apostolica instrumenta.”

Adv. Marc., iv. 3.—“Instrumentum apostolorum.”

De Resurr., 38.—“Instrumentum Joannis.”

Adv. Marc., iv. 2; v. 6.—“Instrumentum Lucæ.”

Adv. Marc., v. 2.—“Instrumentum Actorum.”

Adv. Prax., 28 (De Resurr., 39, 40).—“Tota instrumenta Pauli.”

Adv. Marc., v. 13.—“Instrumentum” in connection with the Epistle to the Romans; but it may also refer to the whole New Testament.

Lastly, “Tot originalia instrumenta Christi” in De Carne, 2, means the separate passages of the story of the Birth.

The name “Instrumentum” (“Instrumenta”), when applied to the Bible, in idea places this book above doctrine—for the Bible is thus made the source of, and documentary authority for, doctrine—but actually it does the reverse. It is a term borrowed by Theology from Law—and therefore so welcome to Tertullian—that ignores the chief significances of the Bible as a book of religious edification. We never find expressions like “Instrumentum lectionis” or “Instrumentum ædificandæ ecclesiæ,” nor could such expressions well be used. It would have been most unfortunate if the name “Instrumentum”—“divinum” would probably have been added—had established itself; but there was no danger that this would happen for it never became a rival of the name “Testamentum.”
217
The word is a creation of the ecclesiastical spirit of the West; as we have already remarked, nothing like it was known in the East.191

It is very remarkable that Cyprian always avoids the word as a title for the Bible, likewise Lactantius, and, unless I mistake, Novatian also. Cyprian was simply not a professed theologian and dogmatic controversialist. The Bible with him ministered to “instructio vitæ,” while its significance as “instrumentum doctrinæ” fell quite into the background. Cyprian, the typical catechist, derives from the Bible “divina testimonia,” which he also calls “magisteria divina” (Testim., i., Præf.; iii., Præf.).

Still the name “Instrumentum” for the Bible occurs not seldom in Jerome, Rufinus, and Augustine. Optatus too speaks of “instrumenta divina legis” (i. 13; vi. 5).192 Thus the juristic spirit of Tertullian and of the West still lived on; nevertheless, at last the title “instrumenta” fell into utter oblivion.