The History of the Short Form of the Tenth Commandment

[Stephan Huller]

Ulan: Didn't the Christians do away with the Mosaic Laws in more general terms? Frex, where did the Sabbath go? And where do the Marcionites come into play here?

It was Abraham Heschel who - to the best of my knowledge - was first to make the connection between the 'only the ten commandments' position of the Christian minim and ideas in the gospels and early Christianity. As Heschel notes the basic understanding comes down to:

1. a division between the attitudes of R Ishmael (Sadducee) vs. R Akiva (Pharisee) on the question of how to define 'heavenly Torah.' The former identified the 'heavenly torah' with the ten commandments and distinguished what was said or given by Moses and the latter who said that the Torah as we know have it was given to Moses at Sinai.
2. the earliest known Karaite exegetes perpetuate the position of the Sadducees at least insofar as emphasizing Moses's role as a 'narrator' throughout the Torah (and thus distinguishing even further between 'what God said' and 'what Moses said' in the Torah
3. I have boiled down a few main arguments which I think are indicative of this position (even though they don't exactly limit themselves to 'the ten commandments' or the gospel per se:
i Moses said 'yes' to divorce, Jesus said 'Moses said x but God said differently' (in Genesis 1) echoed in Qumran (Sadducean literature)
ii ten commandments don't mention circumcision (hence Christians don't need to circumcise) a repeated position associated with proselytes including Agrippa, Aquila and even Hadrian I believe. I think this was the original Pauline understanding
iii sacrifices not part of ten commandments hence Christians are justified in rejecting sacrifices
iv no instruction to build tabernacle in the ten commandments hence Christians don't venerate with an emphasis on physical objects or sacred places
v no subordination of women in the ten commandments hence Jesus was free to talk openly with women
etc
4. If I am right that a short form of the ten commandments existed in the synagogues and that Christians took these shortened forms (almost 'ten words' - compare the dictum 'We have learned that there were ten [words] and the rabbis said that all of them were said in one word') to be the original the development of the gospel scene where Jesus declares that he (formerly) said 'do not lust.'
5. Further Jesus healing on the Sabbath isn't necessarily a contradiction to this theory. The short form of the forth commandment is 'observe (shamar) the Sabbath.' I am certain that this meant more than simply calculate what the seventh day of the week was. But notice what Epiphanius says about the Marcionites and the seventh day:

Celibacy too is preached by Marcion himself, and he preaches fasting on the Sabbath. Marcionite supposed mysteries are celebrated in front of the catechumens. He uses water in the mysteries. He claims that we should fast on the Sabbath for the following reason: 'Since it is the rest of the God of the Jews who made the world and rested the seventh day, let us fast on this day, so as to do nothing congenial to the God of the Jews.'

The Sabbath fast extended well beyond the Marcionites (or at least was retained in the Latin Church which I have always argued to be neo-Marcionite) http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 8437,d.cGE (read this argument especially, very smart scholar especially as he concludes his discussion with mention of the correctness of my teacher and mentor Rory (IRM) Boid). The abandonment of water and meat consumption is widely reported in Jewish sectarian groups immediately following the destruction of the temple.

This idea that the Sabbath fast was rooted in anti-Jewish sentiment is stupid. While the Gemara forbids fasting on the Sabbath the idea existed at one time in Judaism http://books.google.com/books?id=VHt-5N ... ns&f=false and Samaritanism http://books.google.com/books?id=matqZi ... ns&f=false

The reality is that the observed Marcionite practice of fasting on the Sabbath undoubtedly proves once and for all that they were a remnant of a very old form of Judaism, one which believed in two powers in heaven and I believe the sanctity of the ten commandments (and the counterfeit nature of the Torah of Moses written by Ezra).

[Stephan Huller]

I just noticed that Barnabas seems to cite the short form of the fourth commandment:

Moreover concerning the Sabbath likewise it is written in the Ten Words, in which He spake to Moses face to face on Mount Sinai; And ye shall hallow the Sabbath of the Lord with pure hands and with a pure heart. And in another place He saith (15.1)

Ἔτι οὖν καὶ περὶ τοῦ σαββάτου γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς δέκα λόγοις, ἐν οἷς ἐλάλησεν ἐν τῷ ὄρει Σινᾶ πρὸς Μωϋσῆν κατὰ πρόσωπον· Καὶ ἁγιασατε τὸ σάββατον κυρίου χερσὶν καθαραῖς καὶ καρδίᾳ καθαρᾷ. 2. καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ λέγει·

The form in the LXX for the fourth commandment reads - μνήσθητι τὴν ἡμέραν τῶν σαββάτων ἁγιάζειν αὐτήν. But was Barnabas citing the short form from a synagogue display?

Moreover concerning the Sabbath likewise it is written in the Ten Words, in which He spake to Moses face to face on Mount Sinai; And hallow the Sabbath of the Lord with pure hands and with a pure heart. And in another place He saith

No one has any clue what Barnabas is citing.

[Stephan Huller]

There is I believe a subtle attempt by Tertullian to argue against the Marcionite fast on the Sabbath. First the passage in Mark, Luke and Matthew:

Mark:

One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.” Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

Luke:

One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels. Some of the Pharisees asked, “Why are you doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” Jesus answered them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.” 5 Then Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

Matthew:

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.” He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

Now the lengthy commentary in Against Marcion 4:

Concerning the sabbath also I make this preliminary remark, that there could have been no ground for this objection either, except that Christ spread around (circumferret) himself as Lord of the sabbath. There could have been no discussion as to why he was destroying/breaking the sabbath, if it had been his duty to break it (Nec enim disceptaretur cur destrueret sabbatum, si destruere deberet). And it would have been his duty to destroy it (Porro destruere deberet), if he had belonged to that other god, and no one would have been surprised at his doing what it was incumbent upon him to do. The reason for their surprise (mirabantur) then was that it was not his business both to spread around (circumferre) God the Creator and to assail (impugnare) his sabbath.

So then, that we may have a decision on all these primary matters, so as not to have to repeat ourselves at every quibble of our opponent which rests upon some new aspect of Christ's teaching, this postulate shall be taken as established, that the only reason why discussion arose at the novelty of any of his teaching was that nothing had ever yet been said about any novel deity, nor had there been any discussion of it: nor can the retort be made that by the actual novelty of each point of his teaching Christ gave sufficient proof of a different deity, since it is perfectly clear that there is no room
for surprise at the existence in Christ of that novelty which the Creator had actually promised. Surely the natural process would have been for that other god to be first brought to notice, and afterwards for his moral code to be introduced: because it is the god that gives authority to the code, not the code that gives authority to the god—unless of course Marcion did not obtain his perverse writings from a teacher but learned of the teacher through the writings (nisi si et Marcion plane tam perversas non per magistrum litteras didicit, sed per litteras magistrum).

The other considerations regarding the sabbath I set out as follows. If Christ did subvert the sabbath, he acted after the Creator's example: for at the siege of the city of Jericho the carrying of the ark of the covenant round the walls for eight days, including the sabbath, by the Creator's express command, broke the sabbath by working—or so those people think who have the same opinion also of Christ, being unaware that neither did Christ break the sabbath nor did the Creator, as I shall shortly show. Even so, the sabbath was on that occasion broken by Joshua so that this too might be taken as referring to Christ.

Even if it was through hatred that he made an attack on the Jews' most solemn day because he was not the Jews' Christ, even by this hatred of the sabbath he, the Creator's Christ, acknowledged the Creator, following up his cry made by the mouth of Isaiah: Your new moons and sabbaths my soul hateth. Now in whatever sense this was spoken we know that in
circumstances of this kind a sharp reproof has to be put in action against a sharp provocation. Next I shall argue the case in reference to the actual subject in which Christ's rule of conduct has been thought to destroy the sabbath.

The disciples had been hungry: on that very day they had plucked the ears of corn and rubbed them in their hands: by preparing food they had made a breach in the holy day. Christ holds them guiltless, and so becomes guilty of infringing the sabbath: the pharisees are his accusers. Marcion takes exception to the heads (status) of the controversy —if I may play about a bit with the truth of my Lord—written document and intention. A plausible answer is based upon the Creator's written document and on Christ's intention, as by the precedent of David who on the sabbath day [at 1 Sam. 21:3 the sabbath is not mentioned] entered into the temple and prepared food by boldly breaking up the loaves of the shewbread.

For he too remembered that even from the beginning, since the sabbath day was first instituted, this privilege
was granted to it—I mean exemption from fasting. For when the Creator forbade the gathering of two days' supply of manna, he allowed it only on the day before the sabbath, so that by having food prepared the day before he might make immune from fasting the holy day of the sabbath that followed. Well it is then that our Lord followed the same purpose in breaking down the sabbath—if that is what they want it called: well it is also that he gave effect to the Creator's intention by the privilege of not fasting on the sabbath.

In fact he would have once and for all broken the sabbath, and the Creator besides, if he had enjoined his disciples to fast on the sabbath, in opposition to the fact of scripture and of the Creator's intention. So then, as he did not keep his disciples in close constraint, but now finds excuse for them: as he puts in answer human necessity as begging for considerate treatment: as he conserves the higher privilege of the sabbath, of freedom from sorrow rather than abstention from work: as he associates David and his followers with his own disciples in fault and in permission: as he is in agreement with the relaxation the Creator has given: as after the Creator's example he himself is equally kind: is he on that account an alien from the Creator?

After that the pharisees watch if he will heal a man on the sabbath, that they might accuse him—evidently as a breaker of the sabbath, not as the setter forth of a strange god: for perhaps I shall everywhere insist on this point alone, that nowhere was there any prophecy of a different Christ. But the pharisees were utterly in error about the law of the sabbath, having failed to notice that it is under certain conditions that it enjoins abstention from works, under a specific aspect of them. For when it says of the sabbath day, No work of thine shall thou do in it, by saying thine it has made a ruling concerning that human work which any man performs by his craft or business, not divine work. But the work of healing or of rescue is not properly man's work but God's. So again in the law it says, In it thou shall do no manner of work, save that which is to be done for every soul, that is, with the purpose of setting a soul free: for the work of God can be done even by the agency of a man, for the saving of a soul, yet God is the doer of it: and this as Man Christ also was going to do, because he is also God. Because of his desire to lead them towards this understanding of the law by the restoration of the withered hand, he asks them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath, or not ? to set a soul free, or to destroy it?: so that by giving approval to that sort of work which he purposed to do for the soul, he might give them warning of what works the law of the sabbath forbade, human works, and what works it enjoined, divine works, which
were to be done for every soul.

He called himself Lord of the sabbath, because he was protecting the sabbath as belonging to himself. Though even if he had broken it, he would have had the right to, because he who has given a thing existence is even more than lord of it. But he did not, as its Lord, wholly destroy it, and so it can now become clear that not even of old at the carrying of the ark at Jericho was the sabbath destroyed. For that too was a work of God, which he himself had commanded, and which
he had ordained for the sake of the souls of his own men which were exposed to the hazards of war. And even if he has in some place expressed his hatred of sabbaths, by saying Your sabbaths, he reckons as men's sabbaths, not his own, those which are celebrated without the fear of God by a people full of sins, who love God with the lips and not with the heart: while to his own sabbaths, all such as should be kept by his rules, he assigned a different quality, and these he afterwards by that same prophet pronounces true and delightsomee and not to be profaned.

Nor then did Christ in any way revoke the sabbath, but

retained the law of it both just before in the case of the disciples when he performed a work for their soul—for he granted to hungry men the comfort of food—and just now when he heals the withered hand: on each occasion

he insists by his actions, I am not come to destroy the law but to fulfil it, even if Marcion has closed his mouth with this word.

Even in this instance he fulfilled the law by explaining the circumstances which condition it, by throwing light upon different kinds of works, by doing the things which the law exempts from the restraints of the sabbath, by making even more holy by his own kind deeds that sabbath day which since the beginning had been holy by the Father's kind words; for in it he made himself the minister of those divine aids, which an adversary would have provided for on other days to avoid doing honour to the Creator's sabbath and giving back to the sabbath the works which are proper to it. If on that day the prophet Elisha restored to lifeh the Shunamite woman's son that was dead, [at 2 Kings 4: 23 the woman's husband says it is not the Sabbath] you observe, O pharisee, and you too, Marcion, that of old it was the Creator's practice to do good on sabbath days, to set a soul free, not to destroy it, and that Christ introduced nothing new, nothing which was not in line with the example, the gentleness, the mercy, even the prophecies, of the Creator. For here too he puts into present
effect the prophecy of a particular kind of healing: weak hands are strengthened,i as also were enfeebled knees in the sick of the palsy.

It seems to me quite clear that the passage we just read (as with most of Against Marcion 4) was written before the publication of Luke. Tertullian takes the example of David but does not sound as if the reference was even in his gospel. He is just developing a justification for Jesus's actions at this point. After these words were first written they were incorporated into the gospels.

Indeed it would seem to me that this discussion of the disciples doing something offensive on the Sabbath actually followed the allusion to fasting on the Sabbath. This becomes clear if we look at the order in Mark:

Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, “How is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?” Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast. “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. Otherwise, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins.”

One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.” Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

If as I would suggest the "one Sabbath Jesus going through the grainfields" and the entire bit about David's actions with the showbread were added later into the gospel, notice how a third group - 'some people' - are added now to say that the disciples of John and the Pharisees both fast. Clearly once we know that the Marcionites fasted on the Sabbath, the waters begin to clear. The original structure of the section had the Pharisees see Jesus appear before a congregation of ma'aminim (believers) who are fasting on the Sabbath. This is what the Pharisees found offensive not the inserted grain incident.

Subtle confirmation of this reality is evidenced by the fact that Tertullian - preserving and modifying an original anti-Marcionite treatise written before the establishment of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John continually attacks the idea of fasting on the Sabbath. Look at the allusion to the gathering of manna on the sixth day in Exodus 16:

The whole Israelite community set out from Elim and came to the Desert of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had come out of Egypt. In the desert the whole community grumbled against Moses and Aaron. The Israelites said to them, “If only we had died by the Lord’s hand in Egypt! There we sat around pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly to death.”

Then the Lord said to Moses, “I will rain down bread from heaven for you. The people are to go out each day and gather enough for that day. In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions. On the sixth day they are to prepare what they bring in, and that is to be twice as much as they gather on the other days.”

So Moses and Aaron said to all the Israelites, “In the evening you will know that it was the Lord who brought you out of Egypt, and in the morning you will see the glory of the Lord, because he has heard your grumbling against him. Who are we, that you should grumble against us?” Moses also said, “You will know that it was the Lord when he gives you meat to eat in the evening and all the bread you want in the morning, because he has heard your grumbling against him. Who are we? You are not grumbling against us, but against the Lord.”

Then Moses told Aaron, “Say to the entire Israelite community, ‘Come before the Lord, for he has heard your grumbling.’”

While Aaron was speaking to the whole Israelite community, they looked toward the desert, and there was the glory of the Lord appearing in the cloud.

The Lord said to Moses, “I have heard the grumbling of the Israelites. Tell them, ‘At twilight you will eat meat, and in the morning you will be filled with bread. Then you will know that I am the Lord your God.’”

That evening quail came and covered the camp, and in the morning there was a layer of dew around the camp. When the dew was gone, thin flakes like frost on the ground appeared on the desert floor. When the Israelites saw it, they said to each other, “What is it?” For they did not know what it was.

Moses said to them, “It is the bread the Lord has given you to eat. This is what the Lord has commanded: ‘Everyone is to gather as much as they need. Take an omer for each person you have in your tent.’”

The Israelites did as they were told; some gathered much, some little. And when they measured it by the omer, the one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little. Everyone had gathered just as much as they needed.

Then Moses said to them, “No one is to keep any of it until morning.” However, some of them paid no attention to Moses; they kept part of it until morning, but it was full of maggots and began to smell. So Moses was angry with them.

Each morning everyone gathered as much as they needed, and when the sun grew hot, it melted away. On the sixth day, they gathered twice as much—two omers for each person—and the leaders of the community came and reported this to Moses. He said to them, “This is what the Lord commanded: ‘Tomorrow is to be a day of sabbath rest, a holy sabbath to the Lord. So bake what you want to bake and boil what you want to boil. Save whatever is left and keep it until morning.’”

So they saved it until morning, as Moses commanded, and it did not stink or get maggots in it. “Eat it today,” Moses said, “because today is a sabbath to the Lord. You will not find any of it on the ground today. Six days you are to gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will not be any.”

Nevertheless, some of the people went out on the seventh day to gather it, but they found none. Then the Lord said to Moses, “How long will you refuse to keep my commands and my instructions? Bear in mind that the Lord has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Everyone is to stay where they are on the seventh day; no one is to go out.” So the people rested on the seventh day.

It would seem an open and shut case that the manna proved that you weren't supposed to fast on the Sabbath. But for those who rejected Moses's Law as forged, they would merely point to the lack of specificity in the short form of the ten commandments. The underlying point about Jesus's declaration is that as Lord of the Sabbath he established the rules of what wasn't and was permissible.

[Stephan Huller]

Justin "Is there any other matter, my friends, in which we are blamed, than this, that we live not after the law, and are not circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers were, and do not observe sabbaths as you do?" (Dialogue 10)

The Lawgiver is present, yet you do not see Him; to the poor the Gospel is preached, the blind see, yet you do not understand. You have now need of a second circumcision, though you glory greatly in the flesh. The new law requires you to keep perpetual sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded you: and if you eat unleavened bread, you say the will of God has been fulfilled. The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances: if there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him cease to be so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the sweet and true sabbaths of God. If any one has impure hands, let him wash and be pure. (Dialogue 12)

Wash therefore, and be now clean, and put away iniquity from your souls, as God bids you be washed in this layer, and be circumcised with the true circumcision. For we too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined you,--namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts. (Dialogue 18)

But if we do not admit this, we shall be liable to fall into foolish opinions, as if it were not the same God who existed in the times of Enoch and all the rest, who neither were circumcised after the flesh, nor observed Sabbaths, nor any other rites, seeing that Moses enjoined such observances; or that God has not wished each race of mankind continually to perform the same righteous actions: to admit which, seems to be ridiculous and absurd. (Dialogue 23)

And Trypho said, "Why do you select and quote whatever you wish from the prophetic writings, but do not refer to those which expressly command the Sabbath to be observed? ...

And I replied ... these things were enjoined you because of your wickedness, in like manner because of your stedfastness in it, or rather your increased proneness to it, by means of the same precepts He calls you to a remembrance or knowledge of it. But you are a people hard-hearted and without understanding, both blind and lame, children in whom is no faith, as He Himself says, honouring Him only with your lips, far from Him in your hearts, teaching doctrines that are your own and not His. For, tell me, did God wish the priests to sin when they offer the sacrifices on the Sabbaths? or those to sin, who are circumcised and do circumcise on the Sabbaths; since He commands that on the eighth day--even though it happen to be a Sabbath--those who are born shall be always circumcised? or could not the infants be operated upon one day previous or one day subsequent to the Sabbath, if He knew that it is a sinful act upon the Sabbaths? Or why did He not teach those--who are called righteous and pleasing to Him, who lived before Moses and Abraham, who were not circumcised in their foreskin, and observed no Sabbaths--to keep these institutions?" (Dialogue 27)

Be not offended at, or reproach us with, the bodily uncircumcision with which God has created us; and think it not strange that we drink hot water on the Sabbaths ... and the priests, as on other days, so on this, are ordered to offer sacrifices (Dialogue 29)

And I replied, "Let us consider that also together, whether one may now observe all the Mosaic institutions."

And he answered, "No. For we know that, as you said, it is not possible either anywhere to sacrifice the lamb of the passover, or to offer the goats ordered for the fast; or, in short, [to present] all the other offerings."

And I said, "Tell then yourself, I pray, some things which can be observed; for you will be persuaded that, though a man does not keep or has not performed the eternal decrees, he may assuredly be saved."

Then he replied, "To keep the Sabbath, to be circumcised, to observe months, and to be washed if you touch anything prohibited by Moses, or after sexual intercourse."

And I said, "Do you think that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, and Job, and all the rest before or after them equally righteous, also Sarah the wife of Abraham, Rebekah the wife of Isaac, Rachel the wife of Jacob, and Leah, and all the rest of them, until the mother of Moses the faithful servant, who observed none of these [statutes], will be saved?"

And Trypho answered, "Were not Abraham and his descendants circumcised?"

And I said, "I know that Abraham and his descendants were circumcised. The reason why circumcision was given to them I stated at length in what has gone before; and if what has been said does not convince you, let us again search into the matter. But you are aware that, up to Moses, no one in fact who was righteous observed any of these rites at all of which we are talking, or received one commandment to observe, except that of circumcision, which began from Abraham."

And he replied, "We know it, and admit that they are saved."

Then I returned answer, "You perceive that God by Moses laid all such ordinances upon you on account of the hardness of your people's hearts, in order that, by the large number of them, you might keep God continually, and in every action, before your eyes, and never begin to act unjustly or impiously. For He enjoined you to place around you [a fringe] of purple dye, in order that you might not forget God; and He commanded you to wear a phylactery, certain characters, which indeed we consider holy, being engraved on very thin parchment; and by these means stirring you up to retain a constant remembrance of God: at the same time, however, convincing you, that in your hearts you have not even a faint remembrance of God's worship. Yet not even so were you dissuaded from idolatry: for in the times of Elijah, when [God] recounted the number of those who had not bowed the knee to Baal, He said the number was seven thousand; and in Isaiah He rebukes you for having sacrificed your children to idols. But we, because we refuse to sacrifice to those to whom we were of old accustomed to sacrifice, undergo extreme penalties, and rejoice in death,--believing that God will raise us up by His Christ, and will make us incorruptible, and undisturbed, and immortal; and we know that the ordinances imposed by reason of the hardness of your people's hearts, contribute nothing to the performance of righteousness and of piety." (Dialogue 46)

unless you show that you were commanded to observe the Sabbath, and to present offerings, and that the Lord submitted to have a place called by the name of God, in order that, as has been said, you might not become impious and godless by worshipping idols and forgetting God, as indeed you do always appear to have been ... For if this is not the case, God will be slandered, as having no foreknowledge, and as not teaching all men to know and to do the same acts of righteousness (for many. generations of men appear to have existed before Moses); and the Scripture is not true (Dialogue 92)

And we are such; but you cannot comprehend this, because you cannot drink of the living fountain of God, but of broken cisterns which can hold no water, as the Scripture says. But they are cisterns broken, and holding no water, which your own teachers have digged, as the Scripture also expressly asserts, 'teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.' (Dialgoue 140)

[Stephan Huller]

In his first Apology he quotes a number of sayings from the Gospel, and among them, " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve, with all thy heart and with all thy strength, the Lord God that made thee " (63 D). Here he confounds the saying, " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve," with the saying, which he rightly quotes separately from the former in his Dialogue (321 A), " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy strength." Then, knowing (as we may conjecture) another form of the great commandment, namely, " First, thou shalt love God that made thee," he concludes with the words taken from it, rbv ©eov tov iroiyaavrd a-e. In this he differs from the Gospel and agrees with the Teaching.

But was this a 'mistake'? Or did someone - a later editor - deliberately comb through the text and transform and ultimately deflect the original emphasis of the exclusive sacredness of the ten commandments?

The statement in the First Apology is such that the greatest of the commandments is the 'second commandment.' But Justin is a Samaritan and the second commandment is for the Samaritans the first commandment. Thus again Justin betrays his Samaritan roots (Jews say 'I am ...' is the first commandment). Notice that this is yet another example of an early Christian preserving a different form of the ten commandments - read this http://books.google.com/books?id=H9AUAA ... 22&f=false

Thus making Justin appear less a two powers in heaven Jewish heretic. Many of the arguments Justin uses against the Jews sound very much - often exactly - like arguments Tertullian develops against Marcion. In a side by side comparison (as is often noted) Tertullian's Against the Jews is the source of arguments 'Against Marcion' in Book Three of the Five Book series. It's not simply that the Marcionites were Jews (which they certainly were) but that Justin's arguments (as likely a Marcionite/two powers heretic) become arguments against Marcion. It's very, very strange.

[Stephan Huller]

Notice also that the author suggests that Paul shares the same variant Ten Commandment text that Justin had:

There is a remarkable analogy with 1 Cor 8:5, where Paul is discussing a matter connected with idols (cf Ex 20 : eidwlon). This analogy suggests that he (Paul) may well allude to the second commandment in the form in the form we find in Justin — which, as far as the context in Paul is concerned, is not at all surprising.

οὐ ποιήσεις σεαυτῷ εἴδωλον οὐδὲ παντὸς ὁμοίωμα ὅσα ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἄνω καὶ ὅσα ἐν τῇ γῇ κάτω καὶ ὅσα ἐν τοῖς ὕδασιν ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς (Exodus 20:4)

The author connects the same reading with Paul, Justin, Irenaeus and Barnabas - "Yea and further though Moses gave the commandment; Ye shall not have a molten or a carved image for your God, yet he himself made one that he might show them a type of Jesus." (12.6) It would seem I was incorrect about this being the Samaritan first commandment. It is the second.

[Stephan Huller]

Just to make clear to the lazy or incompetent, the implication of Christianity being based on the 'divine torah' of Jesus (= Ishu)'s dispensation of the ten commandments to Moses by implication (it was likely an explicit rather than merely implicit argument) assumes that the Pentateuch was a (Persian-age) forgery. It is not certain that Moses wasn't accused rather than Ezra. But look at the early Karaite interest in 'the narrator' or 'storyteller' (al-muhki) especially in the writings of Yefet ben Eli http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yefet_ben_Ali assumed to be Moses but the ambiguity could well have Ezra as al-muhki. The bottom line is that God is assumed not to be speaking or better yet usually not speaking in the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch develops from a man - i.e. 'the narrator' or 'storyteller.' The position is compatible with a POV which says the Pentateuch is not the Torah from heaven (which is fucking obvious). Are there people at this forum who can grasp the implications of that? The Karaites are demonstrated (once again) to have developed from a known position of the Sadducees.

[Stephan Huller]

The story of God's commandments at the appearance of the manna is not as straightforward as it looks. The narrator (al-muhki) doesn't explicit say that the Israelites ate on the Sabbath. Instead he is careful to construct a scenario where working on the Sabbath is forbidden, meat is eaten at the twilight before the Sabbath and this heavenly food is gathered on the sixth day and implicitly consumed on the Sabbath.

If we assume that the Eucharist is the Christian equivalent of the heavenly manna the question remains were there Christians who fasted on the Sabbath (yes the Marcionites) and assumed that the Eucharist was their only acceptable form of sustenance? The position seems to have been held by the earliest hermits like John from the fourth century (save only for the transposition of the Sabbath to Sunday) http://books.google.com/books?id=tUyWaf ... ay&f=false

[Stephan Huller]

I've been re-reading Tertullian's Against the Jews. It is clearly a reproduction of a second century text directed against the Jews. The probable author is Justin. But what never ceases to amaze me is the manner in which:

(a) part of the original argument 'against the Jews' has been refashioned 'against Marcion' in Book Three of the five part series.
(b) yet more uncanny still the original author's 'positive statements' about the temporal nature of the Sabbath and circumcision (Adv Iud 4.7) become negatively attributed to Marcion in Book Two and Four of Adv Marc:

But the Jews are sure to say, that ever since this precept was given through Moses, the observance has been binding. Manifest accordingly it is, that the precept was not eternal nor spiritual, but temporary,68 which would one day cease. [8] In short, so true is it that it is not in the exemption from work of the sabbath--that is, of the seventh day--that the celebration of this solemnity is to consist, that Joshua the son of Nun, at the time that he was reducing the city Jericho by war. stated that he had received from God a precept to order the People that priests should carry the ark of the testament of God seven days, making the circuit of the city; and thus, when the seventh day's circuit had been performed, the walls of the city would spontaneously fall.69 [9] Which was so done; and when the space of the seventh day was finished, just as was predicted, down fell the walls of the city. Whence it is manifestly shown, that in the number of the seven days there intervened a sabbath-day. For seven days, whencesoever they may have commenced, must necessarily include within them a sabbath-day; on which day not only must the priests have worked, but the city must have been made a prey by the edge of the sword by all the people of Israel. [10] Nor is it doubtful that they "wrought servile work," when, in obedience to God's precept, they drave the preys of war. For in the times of the Maccabees, too, they did bravely in fighting on the sabbaths, and routed their foreign foes, and recalled the law of their fathers to the primitive style of life by fighting on the sabbaths.70 [11] Nor should I think it was any other law which they thus vindicated, than the one in which they remembered the existence of the prescript touching "the day of the sabbaths."

find their way into the mouth of Marcion and are roundly criticized by Tertullian or his source. This is what I can't figure out. Why doesn't Tertullian recognize that a great number of 'negative' arguments against the Jews are turned around into 'negative arguments' against Marcion and at the same time 'positive' statements of faith made by the same author of Adv Iud make their way into Book Two (often attributed to Theophilus):

So also in the rest of his acts you accuse him of inconsequence and inconsistency, alleging that his instructions are in contradiction with one another: he forbids labour on sabbath days, and yet at the storming of the city of Jericho he commands the ark to be carried round during eight days which include the sabbath. This is because you neglect to look closely at the law concerning the sabbath, which forbids not divine but human labours. For it says, Six days shall thou labour, and do all thy works, but on the seventh day are sabbaths to the Lord thy God: on it thou shall not do any work.a
What work? Evidently, 'of your own'. It follows then that he was withdrawing from the sabbath those works which he had just appointed for the six days, 'thy works', meaning human daily tasks. But to carry the ark round cannot be considered a daily task, or a human one, but an infrequent one, a holy one, and, in view of God's actual command, a divine one. I might myself have enlarged upon the significance of this, but that it would take too long to explain the figurative meanings of every one of the Creator's activities—meanings to which perhaps you demur. It is quite enough if you people are refuted by plain facts, by straight-forward truth, with nothing recondite: as in the present instance there is a clear definition of the sabbath as forbidding not divine but human works. Consequently the man who had gone out on the sabbath to gather sticks, was put to death: he had been doing his own work, a thing the law forbade. But those who had carried the ark about on the sabbath, were not punished: it was not their own work, they had been engaged in, but God's, as his actual commandment enjoined.(2.21)

Book Four:

The other considerations regarding the sabbath I set out as follows. If Christ did subvert the sabbath, he acted after the Creator's example: for at the siege of the city of Jericho the carrying of the ark of the covenant round the walls for eight days, including the sabbath, by the Creator's express command, broke the sabbath by working—or so those people think who have the same opinion also of Christ, being unaware that neither did Christ break the sabbath nor did the Creator,
as I shall shortly show. Even so, the sabbath was on that occasion broken by Joshua so that this too might be taken as referring to Christ. Even if it was through hatred that he made an attack on the Jews' most solemn day because <as Marcion alleges> he was not the Jews' Christ, even by this hatred of the sabbath he, the Creator's Christ, acknowledged the Creator, following up his cry made by the mouth of Isaiah: Your new moons and sabbaths my soul hateth. (4.12)

Evans recognizes the recycling of ideas here in Book Four with 2. 21 and adv. Jud. 4 but he doesn't even attempt to tackle the fact that the author of Adv Iud says "I think Joshua circled Jericho eight days to demonstrate the end of the Sabbath" transforms in Adv Marc 2 and 4 to "Marcion wrongly thinks Joshua circled Jericho eight days to demonstrate the end of the Sabbath." Baffling. If the original author is Justin, does that make Justin a Marcionite?

[Stephan Huller]

Here is the smoking gun for the Marcionite interest in fasting on the Sabbath:

"If you do not fast from the world, you will not find the Kingdom. If you do not make the Sabbath the <true> Sabbath, you will not see the Father." (Gospel of Thomas 32)

I am not sure fasting and Sabbath observance were here understood to be separate tasks.