The History of the Short Form of the Tenth Commandment

[Stephan Huller]

More proof that the Marcionites fasted on the Sabbath:

Good reason, therefore, had the Lord for pursuing the same principle in the annulling of the Sabbath (since that is the word which men will use); good reason, too, for expressing the Creator's will, when He bestowed the privilege of not fasting on the Sabbath-day. In short, He would have then and there put an end to the Sabbath, nay, to the Creator Himself, if He had commanded His disciples to fast on the Sabbath-day, contrary to the intention of the Scripture and of the Creator’s will. (Against Marcion 4:12)

[Stephan Huller]

More proof that the Marcionites were especially influential to the Roman Church from Gabriele Bacchiocchi. In 1969 they returned to Rome where Bacchiocchi studied at the Pontifical Gregorian University. He was the first non-Catholic to be admitted since its beginning in the 16th century.[4] He completed a Doctoratus in Church History in 1974 on the subject of the decline of Sabbath observance in the Early Christian church, based on his research in the Vatican libraries. He was awarded a gold medal by Pope Paul VI for the distinction of summa cum laude (Latin for "with highest praise").

Since we noticed that the Liber Pontificalis reports the contemporary decretal of Pope Callystus which enjoined a seasonal Sabbath fast, it would seem then that the custom was not exclusive of the Marcionites, but had been adopted by Catholics (particularly in Rome) as well. This does not exclude the possible influence of Marcion on the Church of Rome on this particular question of Sabbath fasting. Considering, in fact, the acute social and theological tension which, we noticed, existed in Rome at that time between Jews and Christians, it would not be at all surprising if Marcion's anti-Judaic and anti-Sabbath teachings were favorably received. (Samuele Bacchiocchi, Anti-Judaism and the Origin of Sunday p. 81)

Here is the original passage in English from the Book of Popes

He instituted a fast from corn, wine and oil upon the Sabbath day thrice in the year, according to the word of the prophet, of a fourth, of a seventh, and of a tenth.

Zechariah, VIII, 19. Some manuscripts give the reading, "in the fourth, the seventh and the tenth months." If one adds the fast of Lent, which took place during the first month, March, one has the fasts of the four seasons which are mentioned in
early Roman liturgies and in the homilies of St. Leo. Duchesne, Lib. Pont., vol. I, p. 141, n. 4.

Back to the author:

Regan focuses on the difference existing between the East and the West in regard to their respect for the Sabbath, by posing a significant question : Thus while protecting the practices of the Church from false and misleading influences, nevertheless the Church of the East was ever solicitous in preserving the special reverence due to both Saturday (the Sabbath) and the Lord's Day. How is it then one may rightly ask, that the day which the Church of the West kept as a fast day, the Church of the East celebrated as a festival ?

To say that " the Church of the West kept (the Sabbath) as a fast day " seems too broad a generalization, in view of the fact that important Western areas, such as Milan at the time of Ambrose (d. A. D. 397), and certain churches and regions of North Africa did not observe it. Regan himself in fact notes — commenting on the text of Victorinus of Pettau — that especially " in Rome the Sabbath day is a day of rigorous fast, lest there be the slightest suspicion that the Christians might appear to

[Stephan Huller]

So originally the Marcionites fasted on every Sabbath, the third century Roman Church modified that practice. The reference to the importance of fasting in the Marcionite tradition is mentioned in Ephrem Against Marcion.

[Stephan Huller]

In case people at the forum think I was just blowing smoke out of my ass (a strange expression because that would be no mean feat):

During the period of the Second Temple, the Ten Commandments were recited daily.[55] The Mishnah records that in the Temple, it was the practice to recite them every day before the reading of the Shema Yisrael (as preserved, for example, in the Nash Papyrus, a Hebrew manuscript fragment from 150–100 BCE found in Egypt, containing a version of the ten commandments and the beginning of the Shema); but that this practice was abolished in the synagogues so as not to give ammunition to heretics who claimed that they were the only important part of Jewish law,[56][57] or to dispute a claim by early Christians that only the Ten Commandments were handed down at Mount Sinai rather than the whole Torah.[55]

[55] Simon Glustrom, The Myth and Reality of Judaism, pp 113–114. Behrman House (1989). ISBN 0-87441-479-2

David Novak, “Mitsvah,” Tikva Frymer-Kensky, in Christianity in Jewish Terms, ed. David Novak, Peter Ochs, David Fox Sandmel, and Michael A. Signer (Boulder, CO: West- view, 2000), 115–126, at p. 121: “The key Jewish problem with Christian acceptance of the law has been that it seems partial and selective. In fact, one of the reasons the reading of the Ten Commandments is no longer a feature of the daily Jewish liturgy (although they are still read within the full cycle of scripture readings in the synagogue) has to do with the "charges of the sectarians" (minim). These charges are that "only the Ten Commandments were given at Sinai." Even though the meaning of "sectarians" is often unclear, it seems that in this Talmudic discussion the rabbis had the Jewish Christians in mind. The rabbis offer this diminution of the full range of the binding norms of the Torah as the prime reason for the rejection of the Christianity of these Jewish Christians as an acceptable form of Judaism itself. For Christians, of course, their treatment of the Torah is not a diminution of God's law in so much as it is an indication that the Old Law was only a temporal preparation for the full law of God revealed in the New Law of the New Covenant. At this point anyway, there seems to be an unbridgeable gap between what Jews see as partialness and what Christians see as fulfillment.

The Jewish writer here is either dense or deliberately doesn't want to admit that there were two separate Christian traditions - i.e. (a) what amounts to a proper reading of the Pentateuch and the fact that Moses really was only given the Ten Commandments originally and (b) a stupid argument that emerges in Justin and Irenaeus that rather than fulfilling the original understanding, Christian represents a new covenant.

[Stephan Huller]

Torah (Without Specification) Means Ten Commandments

However, just as "Torah" was used in the broadest sense (to mean the Pentateuch), it was also used in a narrow sense to refer to the Ten Commandments alone (by the earliest sources). Based on the tradition that the second set of tablets was given to Moses on Yom Kippur, the Mishnah refers to that day as the day of giving the Torah to Israel. A Baraita that states, "On the sixth day of the month the Torah was given to Israel. A Baraita that states, "On the sixth day of the month the Torah was given to Israel," appears elsewhere as, "On the sixth day of the month the Ten Commandments were given to Israel." In the Avot of Rabbi Nathan, we read, "Moses received Torah at Sinai. How do we know that he wrote it? Because Scripture states, 'He wrote them on two stone tablets' (Deuteronomy 4:13). " It can hardly be supposed that the entire Torah was written on the two tablets.

Note that in the following midrash, Rabbi Ishmael used the word "Torah" to refer to the Ten Commandments: "Moses our Master shattered the tablets, based on a fortiori reasoning: If the paschal sacrifice, a single commandment, is forbidden to aliens (Exodus 12:43), how much more so should the Torah, which includes [by implication] all the commandments!"11 Deuteronomy (17:18-19) commands the king of Israel to write for himself "a copy of this Torah ... let it remain with him and let him read it all his life." The biblical commentary ascribed to the Tosafists cites the view that "this Scroll of Instruction attached to his arm had written on it only the Ten Commandments. However, this excerpt is called 'the Torah Scroll' because it contains 613 letters."

The Sibylline Oracle, composed around 140 C.E., actually uses the phrase "Torah from heaven" in the sense of the Ten Commandments: "At Mount Sinai God gave [to Moses] the Torah from heaven, and he wrote all its judgments on two tablets (3:256).

Rabbi Moses ben Rabbi Joseph of Trani (the "MaBIT")[91 expressed perplexity on the question of whether there are gradations of holiness in the Torah: "On the face of it, it would appear that the highest sanctity pertains only to the commandments and admonitions, not to the narrative and miscellaneous portions. Nor might we regard the Book of Deuteronomy, which contains the addresses of Moses to Israel, as possessing full sanctity. Yet we find that the sacredness of the entire Torah is of one piece, whether it deals with the commandments of God or the marital relations of Cain and his wife. The same scrupulous care applies to all, that they should be written on proper parchment, without an extra or missing letter,[101 and read in synagogue with equal reverence. For it is all the word of the living God, the Sovereign of the Universe, written two thousand years before the creation of our world. All of it contains the names of the Holy and Blessed One."

Nevertheless, at the conclusion of his treatise, the Mabit voices his doubts. "Indeed, narratives such as the lists of kings may contain hidden meaning. But when the Torah quotes the words of ordinary people, such as those spoken between Cain and Abel, or between Lot and the people of Sodom, and many similar ones, we must conclude that these sections possess no sacredness. How can say they were spoken by God before the creation of the world?" To resolve this dilemma, the Mabit suggests, "When we say that the Torah preceded creation, we are referring to the Ten Commandments, which God revealed to Moses at Sinai. The term 'Torah' without specification refers to the Ten Commandments, because they include the 613 mitzvot, and whoever accepts them, implicitly accepts the entire Torah as well."15 The Mabit cites various rabbinic traditions in support of this conclusion. Among them is the aggadah of Moses answering the objections of the angels, against entrusting the heavenly Torah to mortals. "Do you live among idolators, that you need to be warned against idolatry? Do you work, that you need the Sabbath for rest? Have you a father or mother, that you need to honor them? Have you jealousy and hatred, that you need to be commanded against murder, adultery, and theft?" From this it is evident that the hidden treasure, guarded on high since creation, consisted of the Ten Commandments (Heschel Heavenly Torah p 372 - 373)

[Stephan Huller]

Fourth century evidence for Christian-Jewish contact in Babylonia:

And they recite the Ten Commandments and the Shema. . . [They would bless the people with the following three blessings:) “emet veyatziv,” [the blessing of the] Temple service, and the blessings of the priests. [= Mishnah Tamid 5:1]

R. Judah said in the name of Samuel: Outside the Temple they also wanted to do the same (to say the Ten Commandments before the Shema), but they were stopped from doing so because of the arguments of the heretics (minim).Similarly it has been taught in a baraiata (Tanya Nami Hakhi): R. Nathan says: Outside the Temple they also wanted to do the same but they were stopped from doing so because of the arguments of the heretics (minim) ... Amemar attempted to institute it (the recitation of Ten Commandments before the Shema) in Nehardea, but Rav Ashi said to him: they were stopped from doing so because of the arguments of the heretics (minim). (bBerakhot 12a)

A. Berliner, Solomon Funk, Isaac Halevy, Adolf Neubauer and Jacob Obermeyer all used as an indication that there was a large Christian community here in the fourth and fifth centuries. But others have argued that the community were Hellenistic Jews. I think Marcionites.

It has also been noted that Rav Ashi might not be referring to actual heretics living in his own time. Rather he is echoing a Palestinian tradition quoted in the above source by Rabbi Nathan and in the following parallel tradition from the Palestinian Talmud, Berakhot 1:5, 3c:

It would be right to recite the Ten Commandments every day. Why then do they not recite them? Because of the claim of the minim: so that they may not say, “only these were given to Moses on Sinai.”

In anticipation of potential theological claims, which could have been advanced by minim, the rabbis of Palestine omitted the recital of the Ten Commandments, which, in Temple times, was part of the prayer service. Rav Ashi, quoting this tradition, disagreed with Amemar’s attempt to reinstitute the practice in Nehardea.

[Stephan Huller]

Of course for the identification of the Christians with the minim the first few sentences in 2 Corinthians 3 have to be interpolations. But why?

[Stephan Huller]

So if the rabbinic sources are right - or better yet Heschel and many Jewish scholars who followed him - the minim who maintained the distinction between 'the ten commandments' and the Torah of Moses are 'Christians' in some form. While this POV is not universally acknowledged (mostly because those denying the proposition aren't as familiar as they should be with regards the Marcionites and other Christians sects) it does raise an important question. If the minim caused the Jewish community to abandon reciting the ten commandments in synagogues, it would imply (to me at least) that the minim valued the ten commandments. How then do we account for the idea of a 'New Testament' in these same communities? Was this even a Marcionite terminology or a term found in their Pauline letters or was this a specifically Catholic development? In other words, did Jesus introduce 'new commandments' or a 'new covenant' at all?

[Stephan Huller]

I find this passage from the end of the Paedagogue:

Here is then a comprehensive precept, and an exhortation of life, all-embracing: "As ye would that men should do unto you, do ye likewise to,them (Καθὼς θέλετε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑμῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς)." We may comprehend the commandments in two (∆υνατὸν δὲ καὶ διὰ δυεῖν ἐμπεριλαβεῖν τὰς ἐντολάς) as the Lord says,

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy strength; and thy neighbour as thyself."
Ἀγαπήσεις τὸν θεόν σου ἐν ὅλῃ καρδίᾳ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ἰσχύι σου, καὶ τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν

Then from these He infers,

"on this hang the law and the prophets."
ὅλος ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται κρέμανται

Further, to him that asked,

"What good thing shall I do, that I may inherit eternal life? Thou knowest the commandments?
τί ποιήσας ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω Τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδας

He answered,
ἀπεκρίνατο

And on him replying says
ἀπεκρίνατο τοῦ δὲ καταφήσαντος

Yea this do, and thou shalt be saved."
τοῦ δὲ καταφήσαντος, τοῦτο ποίει φησὶ καὶ σωθήσῃ

Especially conspicuous is the love of the Instructor set forth in various salutary commandments,
Οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ διαιρετικώτερον τὸ φιλάνθρωπον τοῦ παιδαγωγοῦ διὰ τῶν ποικίλων καὶ σωτηρίων ἐντολῶν παραθετέον

in order that the discovery may be readier, from the abundance and arrangement of the Scriptures.
ὡς ἔχοιμεν πρὸς ἀφθόνου διατάξεως τῶν γραφῶν καὶ τῆς σωτηρίας ἑτοιμοτέραν τὴν εὕρεσιν

We have the Decalogue given by Moses, which, indicating by an elementary principle, simple and of one kind,
Ἔστιν ἡμῖν ἡ δεκάλογος ἡ διὰ Μωυσέως, ἁπλῷ καὶ μονογενεῖ αἰνιττομένη στοιχείῳ

defines the designation of sins in a way conducive to salvation:
προσηγορίαν σωτήριον ἁμαρτιῶν περιγράφουσα

"Thou shall not commit adultery. Thou shall not worship idols. Thou shalt not corrupt boys. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shall not bear false witness. Honour thy father and thy mother." And so forth.

Οὐ μοιχεύσεις, οὐκ εἰδωλολατρήσεις, οὐ παιδοφθορήσεις, οὐ κλέψεις, οὐ ψευδομαρτυρήσεις· τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα, καὶ τὰ ἀκόλουθα τούτοις.

These things are to be observed, and whatever else is commanded in reading the Bible. And He enjoins on us by Isaiah ...

Ταῦτα ἡμῖν παραφυλακτέον καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα κατὰ τὰς ἀναγνώσεις τῶν βιβλίων παραγγέλλεται

The first thing that struck me about this passage is that a secondary hand has clearly reshaped the original narrative. Look carefully at the important section here:

Ναὶ μὴν καὶ πρὸς τὸν πυθόμενον, τί ποιήσας ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω; Τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδας ἀπεκρίνατο· τοῦ δὲ καταφήσαντος, τοῦτο ποίει φησὶ καὶ σωθήσῃ. 3.12.88.3

The English translation renders it:

Further, to him that asked, "What good thing shall I do, that I may inherit eternal life?" He answered, "Thou knowest the commandments?" And on him replying Yea, He said, "This do, and thou shalt be saved."

But in reality the "he said" appears after the "You know the commandments" (Τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδας). Just look:

τί ποιήσας ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω; Τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδας ἀπεκρίνατο·

So it would be better to translate:

"What good thing shall I do, that I may inherit eternal life? Thou knowest the commandments?" He answered, "

Of course the translator thinks that Clement is reflecting a gospel that read something like:

“what must I do to inherit eternal life? ... You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.

τί ποιήσω ἵνα ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω ... τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδας Μὴ φονεύσῃς, Μὴ μοιχεύσῃς, Μὴ κλέψῃς, Μὴ ψευδομαρτυρήσῃς, Μὴ ἀποστερήσῃς, Τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα.

But he is unaware that the Marcionite gospel read differently. Epiphanius notes (slightly incorrectly):

'One said unto him, Good master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He replied, Call not thou me good. One is good, God.' Marcion added, 'the Father,' and instead of, 'Thou knowest the commandments,' says, 'I know the commandments.'

Similarly the Catholic representative cites the Marcionite reading as his own in the following form:

AD: The Saviour will more clearly convince you of this in the Gospel. Someone came to him and asked "Good Teacher what shall I do to inherit (Petty 'inherent'!) eternal life? And Jesus said, 'Why do you call me good? None is Good except One - God." And he said "I know the commandments, (ὁδὲ ἔφη· τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδα) "Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness. Honor your father and mother." And he said " All these things I have kept from my youth." When Jesus heard this he said to him "One thing you lack: Sell everything you have and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven." (p. 97)

So right off the bat, the Marciophile sees that not only does Adamantius's canon share readings with the Marcionite canon but more importantly we can begin to see that this parallels a number of strange times in the text where explicitly Adamantius reads from the Marcionite canon but declares beforehand something akin to 'let me read from their canon' or the like. Again, we have to begin to suspect that a Catholic editor wondered at the number of times Adamantius's canon resembled the Marcionite against what was then the 'normative' Catholic reading.

Now I think that in reality Adamantius represents a hybrid canon - a corrected Marcionite text - which was further 'purified' in the early third century. Clement's text with its:

What good thing shall I do, that I may inherit eternal life? Thou knowest the commandments?
τί ποιήσας ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω; Τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδας

represents a corrected reading (by a hand subsequent to Clement) of the Marcionite:

What good thing shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? I know the commandments etc.
τί ποιήσας ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω; Τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδα

In other words Adamantius's text represents the transposition of the 'Good Teacher' introduction into the middle of the problematic structure of the original where someone came to him and asked

"what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said, 'Why do you call me good? None is Good except One - God." And he said "I know the commandments, "Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness. Honor your father and mother. All these things I have kept from my youth.

The Good Teacher question likely came at the beginning so someone came running up to him saying:

'Good Teacher'? What shall I do to inherit eternal life? I know the commandments, "Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness. Honor your father and mother. All these things I have kept from my youth." And Jesus said, 'Why do you call me good? None is Good except One - God the Father."

If we incorporate the other fragment which Clement mentions:

"You have heard the injunction of the Law. ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ I say, ‘You shall not lust.’"

we can I believe reconstruct matters further still. There are two significant anomalies that can't be easily explained in the surviving material. Firstly the wrong order of the ten commandments:

Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness. Honor your father and mother.

It is curious that Mark for instance seems only concerned with the last six commandments the last five of which read:

•Honor your father and mother
•You shall not murder.
•You shall not commit adultery.
•You shall not steal.
•You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

For reasons which have never been clear to anyone, Mark has Jesus give the list of commandments as:

•Do not commit adultery,
•Do not kill,
•Do not steal,
•Do not bear false witness,
•Defraud not,
•Honour thy father and thy mother.

'Honor thy father and thy mother' is actually the fourth commandment. 'Defraud not' strangely seems to come from Leviticus (Adamantius knows better). Yet the oldest Syriac tradition cites the commandments starting with 'adultery'

"And again, regarding that rich [man] who came before our Lord, and said to him, 'What shall I do that I may inherit life eternal?'. Our Lord says to him, 'You shall not commit adultery.'" [Aphraates Demonstrations 20]http://books.google.com/books?id=5-c3AA ... 22&f=false

Now let's just leave that for a moment. Why does the fourth commandment get inserted at the end of this list at the end of the existing gospels? I strongly think it has something to do with the deliberate attempt to obscure the fact that the list began with 'do not adultery.' Why so? Well the standard understanding is that there were two tablets with 1 - 5 on one tablet and 6 - 10 on the other. If the man questioning Jesus started with 'do not adulterate' and went through the rest stopping short of 'do not lust':

'Good Teacher'? What shall I do to inherit eternal life? I know the commandments, (ὁδὲ ἔφη· τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδα) "Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness. All these things I have kept from my youth." And Jesus said, 'Why do you call me good? None is Good except One - God the Father."

Then Clement's other gospel fragment starts to look like it belongs right here:

"You have heard the injunction of the Law. ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ I say, ‘You shall not lust.’"

Indeed exactly:

'Good Teacher'? What shall I do to inherit eternal life? I know the commandments, (ὁδὲ ἔφη· τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδα) "Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness. All these things I have kept from my youth." And Jesus said, 'Why do you call me good? None is Good except One - God the Father. You heard the injunction of the Law. ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ I say, ‘You shall not lust.’

In other words, Jesus is addressing the fact that the man started with 'do not adulterate' but deliberately ignored the last commandment because it was too difficult. Indeed we can now see that the purpose of all that follows:

“One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Now is explicitly connected with the tenth and penultimate commandment. Look at the pattern in Clement with respect to this juxtaposition:

How can this fellow still be listed in our church members’ register when he openly does away with the Law and the Gospels alike by these words? The former says, "You shall not commit adultery," the latter, "Everyone who looks with lust has already committed adultery." The words found in the Law, "You shall not lust," show that it is one single God who makes his proclamations through the Law, prophets and Gospels ... [Strom 3.8.4]

If the adulteress and her paramour are both punished with death, it is surely clear that the commandment "You shall not lust for your neighbor’s wife" applies to the gentiles, so that anyone who follows the Law in keeping his hands off his neighbor’s wife and his sister may hear directly from the Lord: "But I say to you, you shall not lust." (i.e. 'in the gospel') The addition of the pronoun "I" shows that the application of the commandment is more rigidly binding, and that Carpocrates and Epiphanes are battling against God. Epiphanes in that notorious book, I mean On Righteousness, goes on like this, and I quote: "So you must hear the words ‘You shall not lust’ as a joke of the Lawgiver (Moses), to which he added the even more ludicrous words ‘for your neighbor’s property.’ The very one who endows human beings with desire to sustain the processes of birth gives orders that it is to be suppressed, though he suppresses it in no other living creature! The words ‘for your neighbor’s wife’ are even more ridiculous since he is forcing public property to become private property" ... [Strom 3.9.1 - 3]

Anyway, there is a story that one of them encountered one of our beautiful virgins and said, "It is written, ‘Give yourself to anyone who asks.’" (i.e. another saying from the gospel misrepresented, according to Clement, by the heretics) She did not understand the fellow’s impudence and replied with the height of propriety, "If the subject is marriage, speak to my mother." What godlessness! These communists in sexual freedom, these brothers in lustfulness, actually pervert the Savior’s words. They are a disgrace not just to philosophy but to the whole of human life. They deface the truth, or rather raze it to the ground insofar as they can. The wretches make a religion out of physical union and sexual intercourse, and think that this will lead them into the kingdom of God. It is to the brothels that that sort of communism leads. Pigs and goats should be their companions. It is the whores who preside over the bordello and indiscriminately receive all comers who have most to hope from them. "That is not how you have learned Christ, if you have been told of him, if you have learned your lessons in him, as the truth is in Jesus Christ – to leave on one side your former way of life, to put off the old human nature, which is deluded by its lusts and on the road to destruction ... [Strom 3.27.3 - 4.2]

How can a combination of immoderation and dirty language be freedom? "Everyone who sins is a slave," says the Apostle. How can the man who has given himself over to every lust be a citizen according to the Law of God when the Lord has declared, "I say, you shall not lust"? Is a person to take a decision to sin deliberately, and to lay it down as a principle to commit adultery, to waste his substance in high living, and to break up other people’s marriages, when we actually pity the rest who fall involuntarily into sin? ... [Strom 3.30.3 - 31.1]

In consequence, some other worthless scoundrels say that humanity was fashioned by different powers, the body down to the navel being the product of divine craftsmanship, and below that of inferior work; which is why human beings yearn for intercourse. They forget that the upper parts of the body call out for food, and in some people show lust. They contradict Christ’s statement to the Pharisees that the same God made our outer and our inner man. In addition, desire does not come from the body, even though it expresses itself through the body ... [Strom 3.34.1, 2]

The person who drifts into pleasures is gratifying his body; the ascetic is freeing his soul from passions, and the soul has authority over the body. If they tell us that we are called to freedom, we are not, as the Apostle puts it, to present that "freedom as an opening for our lower selves." If we are to gratify lust, if we are to think a reprehensible way of living a matter of moral indifference, as they assert, either we ought to obey our lusts at all points and, if so, to engage in the most immoral and irreligious practices in conformity with our teachers, or we shall turn away from some of our desires, no longer compelled to live by amoral standards, no longer in unbridled servitude to our least honorable parts – stomach and sex-organs – pampering our carcass to serve our desire. Lust is nurtured and vitalized if we minister to its enjoyment; on the other hand, it fades away if it is kept in check. [Strom 3.41.2 - 4]

We must follow God’s Scripture, the road taken by the faithful, and we will, so far as possible, become like the Lord. We are not to live amorally. We are, so far as possible, to purify ourselves from pleasures and lusts, and take care of our soul which should continue to be engaged solely with the divine. For if it is pure and freed from all vice, the mind is somehow capable of receiving the power of God, when the divine image is established within it. Scripture says, "Everyone who has this hope in the Lord is purifying himself as the Lord is pure" ... [Strom 3.42,5, 6]

"You have been circumcised in Christ with a circumcision not performed with hands in stripping yourselves of your fleshly body, that is, in Christ’s circumcision." "So if you are risen together with Christ, look for the things above, fix your mind on them, not on earthly things. For you are dead, and your life has been buried in God together with Christ" – this hardly applies to the sexual immorality which they practice! "So mortify your earthly members – fornication, filthiness, passion, lust; through these the visitation of anger is on its way." So they too should put away "anger, temper, vice, slander, dirty talk from their mouths, stripping themselves of the old human nature with its lusts and putting on the new human nature, which is renewed for full knowledge in accordance with the likeness of its creator" ... [Strom 3.43.3 -4]

This is the way to undermine the "righteousness" of Carpocrates and those who match him in sharing in a fellowship of immorality. In the moment of saying, "Give to anyone who asks," Scripture goes on, "and do not turn away anyone who wants a loan." This is the sort of fellowship Scripture teaches, not fellowship in lust. How can there be a person who asks, receives, and borrows if there is no one who possesses, grants, and lends? What does the Lord say? "I was hungry and you gave me food. I was thirsty and you gave me drink. I was a stranger and you took me into your home. I was naked and you gave me clothes to wear." Then he adds, "Insofar as you have done so to one of the humblest of these, you have done so to me" ... [Strom 3.54.1 - 3]

That concludes that demonstration. Now I propose to establish the Scriptures which refute these heretical sophists and expound the norm of self-discipline which we keep in following the Logos. The person of understanding will think out the passage of Scripture that is appropriate to challenge each of the heresies and use it at the apposite moment to refute those who set their dogmas against the commandments. From the very beginning, as I have already said, the Law laid down the injunction "You shall not desire your neighbor’s wife" in anticipation of the Lord’s closely connected dictum in accordance with the New Covenant with the same meaning from his own lips: "You have heard the injunction of the Law. ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ I say, ‘You shall not lust.’" The Law wished males to have responsible sexual relations with their marriage partners, solely for the production of children. This is clear when a bachelor is prevented from enjoying immediate sexual relations with a woman prisoner-of-war. If he once falls in love with her, he must let her cut her hair short and mourn for thirty days. If even so his desire has not faded away, then he may father children by her. The fixed period of time enables the overpowering impulse to be scrutinized and to turn into a rational appetency ... [Strom 3.71.1 - 3]

Similarly, in his Epistle to the Romans, Paul writes [of the Scripture text]: "We are dead to sin: how can we continue to live in it? Our old humanity was crucified with him, so as to destroy the very body of sin" down to "Do not present the parts of your body to sin to be instruments of vice." At this point, I think that I ought not to leave on one side without comment the fact that the Apostle preaches the same God whether through the Law, the prophets, or the gospel. For in his letter to the Romans he attributes to the Law the words "You shall not lust" which in fact appear in the text of the gospel. He does so in the knowledge that it is one single person who makes his decrees through the Law and the prophets, and is the subject of the gospel’s proclamation. He says, "What shall we say? Is the Law sin? Of course not. But I did not know sin except through the Law. I did not know lust, except that the Law said, ‘You shall not lust.’" If the heretics who assail the creator suppose that Paul was speaking against him in the words that follow: "I know that nothing good lodges in me, in my flesh, that is to say," they had better read the words which precede and come after these. He has just said, "Sin lodges in me," which makes it appropriate to go on to, "Nothing good lodges in my flesh." [Strom 3.75.3 - 76.3]

[Stephan Huller]

And then when we look at Tertullian's testimony, he seems to have altered even the original source material - 'correcting' - what was originally written against Marcion and thus obscuring its original meaning. What do you think of:

When afterwards "a certain man asked him,
Denique interrogatus ab illo quodam,

Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? '
Praeceptor optime, quid faciens vitam aeternam possidebo?

he complained that he knew the commandments of the Creator that is to say did/fulfilled
de praeceptis creatoris an ea sciret id est faceret expostulavit

in order to testify that it was by the Creator's precepts that eternal life is acquired. cumque
ad contestandum praeceptis creatoris vitam acquire sempiternam, However

when he affirmed that from his youth up he had kept all the principal commandments,
cumque ille principaliora quaeque affirmasset observasse se ab adulescentia,

(Jesus) said to him: "One thing thou yet lackest: sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." Well now, Marcion, and all ye who are companions in misery, and associates in hatred with that heretic, what will you dare say to this? Did Christ rescind the forementioned commandments: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother? "Or did He both keep them, and then add what was wanting to them? This very precept, however, about giving to the poor, was very largely diffused through the pages of the law and the prophets. This vainglorious observer of the commandments was therefore convicted1451 of holding money in much higher estimation (than charity).