Earthly Stranger vs Heavenly Stranger

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Earthly Stranger vs Heavenly Stranger

Post by stephan happy huller »

Then finally we get to the part of the gospel - after the preamble - that the Marcionites shared with the Catholic Church:
But as often as there is discussion of the nativity, all those who reject it as prejudging the issue concerning the verity of the flesh in Christ, claim that the Lord himself denies having been born, on the ground that he asked, Who is my mother and who are my brethren? So let Apelles too hear what answer I have already given to Marcion in that work in which I have made appeal to the Gospel which he accepts, namely that the background of that remark must be taken into consideration. Well then, in the first place no one would ever have reported to him that his mother and his brethren were standing without unless he were sure that he had a mother and brethren and that it was they whose presence he was then announcing, having either previously known them, or at least then and there made their acquaintance. This I say, in spite of the fact that the heresies have deliberately removed from the Gospel the statements that those who marvelled at his doctrine said that both Joseph the carpenter, his reputed father, and Mary his mother, and his brothers and sisters, were very well known to them.

'But,' they say, 'it was for the sake of tempting him that they announced to him the mother and the brethren whom actually he had not.' Now the Scripture does not say this, though elsewhere it is not silent when any action respecting him was taken with a view to temptation. Behold, it says, there stood up a doctor of the law, tempting him:2 and in another place, And there came to him the Pharisees, tempting him.3 And there was no reason why it should not have been indicated here that this was done to tempt him. I refuse to accept an inference of your own, which is not in Scripture. Secondly, there has to be some ground beneath the temptation. What was it they could think worth tempting in him? 'Whether, of course, he had been born or not: for as his answer constituted a denial of this, this was what the tempter's announcement angled for.' But no temptation, which has in view the ascertainment of that in doubt of which it makes the temptation, proceeds with such abruptness as to dispense with a precedent question which by suggesting doubt may give point to the temptation. Consequently, as there had nowhere been any canvassing of Christ's nativity, how can you argue that these people wished by means of a temptation to elicit something they had never brought into question?

To this we add that, even if there had been a case for tempting him in respect of his nativity, the temptation would certainly not have proceeded on the lines of an announcement of the arrival of persons whose present existence was no necessary consequence of Christ's having been born. All of us are born, yet not all of us have either brothers or a mother: one is more likely at any point to have a father than a mother, and maternal uncles than brothers. Thus there is here no room for a temptation respecting his nativity, for this could quite well be a fact apart from any mention either of mother or of brethren. It is in fact easier to suppose that, being assured that he had both a mother and brethren, they were making trial of his divinity rather than of his nativity, by attempting to discover whether while busy indoors he knew what there was out of doors, when assailed with a lying report of the presence of people who actually were not there. And yet, even in this case the device behind the temptation would have failed of its purpose: for it could have been the case that those whom they reported standing without were known by him to be absent, through the claims of illness or of business or of a long journey, which he was already aware of. No one frames a temptation in terms through which he knows that the embarrassment of the temptation may recoil upon himself. As therefore there existed no pertinent ground of temptation, it remains for us to admit the candour of the messenger and to acknowledge that his mother and his brethren really had come for him.

But let Apelles, as well as Marcion, hear from me what was the reason behind the reply which for the moment denied mother and brethren. Our Lord's brethren did not believe in him:1 this also is included in the Gospel as it was published before Marcion's day. His mother likewise is not shown to have adhered to him, though Martha and other Marys are often mentioned as being in his company.2 At this juncture their unbelief at last comes into the open. When Jesus was teaching the way of life, when he was preaching the Kingdom of God, when he was occupied in healing infirmities and sicknesses, though strangers were intent upon him these near relations were absent. At length they come for him, they stand without and will not enter, evidently not valuing what was being done inside. They do not so much as even wait, but, as though bringing more important business than what he was then engaged upon, they go so far as to interrupt, and wish him to be called away from so great a work.

I put it to you, Apelles, or you if you like, Marcion, if perchance when playing dice or laying bets on actors or jockeys you were called away by such a message, would you not ask, 'Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?'? When Christ was preaching God and giving proof of him, was fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, and was dispelling the darkness of long ages past, was it without justification that he used this expression to castigate the unbelief of those who stood without, or at least to expose their unseasonableness in calling him back from his work? For repudiating nativity, on the other hand, he could have chosen the place and time and occasion of a different discourse, not such as could be uttered by one who had both a mother and brethren. When indignation denies kindred, this is not a denial but a reproof.

Besides, he gave others prior place, and when he reveals what has caused these to deserve preference, namely the hearing of the word, he makes it clear on what terms he has denied having a mother and brethren: for on the terms on which he adopted to himself those others who clave to him, on these he repudiated those who stood apart from him. It is Christ's custom himself to put into practice the teaching he gives to others. Then how could it be possible for him, when teaching men not to value mother or father or brethren so highly as the word of God, himself to desert the word of God when his mother and brethren were reported waiting? So then, he denied his kinsfolk for the reason for which he taught they ought to be denied, for God's work's sake.

And further: in another sense there is in his mother's estrangement a figure of the Synagogue, and in his brethren's unbelief a figure of the Jews. Outside, in them, was Israel: whereas the new disciples, hearing and believing, and being inside, by cleaving to Christ depicted the Church which, repudiating carnal kinship, he designated a preferable mother and a worthier family of brothers. To conclude, it was in this same sense that he answered also that other exclamation1--not as denying his mother's womb and breasts, but as indicating that those are more blessed who hear the word of God.
And also the parallel section in Against Marcion Book Four:
We come now to the standing argument of all those who bring into controversy our Lord's nativity.1 He himself, they say, affirms that he has not been born when he says, Who is my mother and who are my brethren? In this way heretics are always, by their theories, wresting plain and simple expressions in any direction they please, or else, on supposition of simplicity, giving a general meaning to expressions based on special conditions and particular reasons, as on the present occasion. We on the contrary affirm, first, that there
could have been no report brought to him that his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to see him, if he had had no
mother or brethren, and if he who brought the message had not known who they were, either by previous acquaintance or by having then and there been informed, either when they asked to see him or when they themselves sent the messenger. To this first submission of ours our adversaries' usual answer is, What then if the message was brought with the purpose of tempting him? But the scripture does not say so, though its custom is to indicate when anything is done for temptation's sake—Behold a doctor of the law stood up, tempting him,b and in that question about tribute-money, And there came to him pharisees, tempting him—and consequently, where it makes no mention of temptation, it does not admit of its being interpreted as temptation.

For all that, though I have no need to, I demand the reasons for such temptation, in what respect they can have tempted him by the mention of his mother and his brethren. If because they wished to know whether he had been born, or not—had there ever been any doubt of this, which they could resolve by means of that temptation? Yet who could have any doubt of the birth of one who he saw
Was a man, whom he had heard declare himself the Son of man, who in consideration of all his human attributes they hesitated
to believe was God, or the Son of God? They found it easier to esteem him a prophet, some great one no doubt, but one in any
case who had been born. Even if there had been reason to tempt him by investigating his nativity, any other means would have been more in keeping with such temptation than the mention of those relations whom, in spite of having been born, he might by that time have lost.

Tell me, does everybody who has been born, have a mother still living? Does everybody who has been born, have brothers born to him as well? Is it not more likely that people have their fathers living or their sisters, or even no one? Also it is well known that a census had just been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus, and they might have inquired of his ancestry in those records. Thus in no respect has this suggestion of temptation stood up to examination, and it really was his mother and his brethren who stood without. It remains for me to ask what he had in mind when in some figurative manner he used the words, Who is my mother, or my brethren?, giving the
impression of denying both relationship and nativity—yet arising from the requirements of the situation and conditional upon a reasonable explanation. It was that he was rightly displeased that while strangers were within, intent upon his words, such near relations stood without, and what is more, sought to distract him from his appointed work.

This was not so much a denial as a disavowal. And consequently, after his first remark, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?, he added, Those only who hear my words and do them, thus transferring those titles of relationship to others, whom he should judge more closely related to him by their faith. Now no one makes a transference except from one already in possession of that which is transferred. If then he made to be his mother and brethren those who were not, in what sense did he deny those who were? Evidently on conditions of their own deserving, not from denial of those close relations, giving in himself an example of his own teaching, that he who should put father or mother or brethren before the word of God was not a worthy disciple.d For the rest, the admission that they were his mother and his brethren was even more clearly expressed by this refusal to acknowledge them. By adopting others he confirmed those whom through disfavour he denied, and the substitution was not of others more real but of others more worthy. In any
case it is not surprising that he preferred faith to blood-relationship, when <as Marcion will have it> he had no blood.
Most discussions ignore the fact that the question, 'Who is my mother and my brethren?', not recorded by Luke, can only have come
from Matt. 12: 48 and Mark 3: 33 - or the consideration always ignored by scholars, a Diatessaron.
Everyone loves the happy times
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Earthly Stranger vs Heavenly Stranger

Post by stephan happy huller »

And then we can take this one step further and prove once and for all that the debate between Tertullian's source (Irenaeus) and the Marcionites took place with respect to a gospel harmony (= Diatessaron). It would seem that Luke 11:27 and Luke 8:19 - 21 originally formed a unit. Notice this in the Arabic Diatessaron chapter 16:
11 And while he was saying that, a woman from the multitude lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the breasts that nursed thee. But he said unto her, Blessed is he that heareth the word of God, and keepeth it. 13 And while he was speaking unto the multitude, there came unto him his mother and his brethren, and sought to speak with him; and they were not able, because of the multitude; and they stood without and sent, calling him unto them. A man said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren are standing without, and seek to speak with thee. But he answered unto him that spake unto him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he beckoned with his hand, stretching it out towards his disciples, and said, Behold, my mother! and behold, my brethren! And every man that shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven is my brother, and my sister, and my mother.
Compare this with what is noted both in Against Marcion Book Three:
Also that woman Philumena did better in persuading Apelles and the other deserters of Marcion, that Christ was indeed clothed with veritable flesh, yet without nativity, having taken it on loan from the elements. But if Marcion was afraid that belief in the flesh might also carry with it belief in nativity—there is no doubt that he who was seen to be man was naturally thought to have been born. A certain woman cried out, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the breasts which thou hast sucked:a and how comes it that his mother and his brethren are reported standing without?b But we shall consider these texts in their proper place. Certainly when he himself described himself as the Son of man, this was a claim to have been born. For the moment—so that I may defer all these matters until I come to assess the evidence of the gospel—yet which I have already established, that if he who was seen to be a man had without question to be accepted as having been born, to no purpose has conjectured that belief in nativity can be ruled out by the supposition of imaginary flesh
And again On the Flesh of Christ:
But as often as there is discussion of the nativity, all those who reject it as prejudging the issue concerning the verity of the flesh in Christ, claim that the Lord himself denies having been born, on the ground that he asked, Who is my mother and who are my brethren? So let Apelles too hear what answer I have already given to Marcion in that work in which I have made appeal to the Gospel which he accepts, namely that the background of that remark must be taken into consideration. Well then, in the first place no one would ever have reported to him that his mother and his brethren were standing without unless he were sure that he had a mother and brethren and that it was they whose presence he was then announcing, having either previously known them, or at least then and there made their acquaintance. This I say, in spite of the fact that the heresies have deliberately removed from the Gospel the statements that those who marvelled at his doctrine said that both Joseph the carpenter, his reputed father, and Mary his mother, and his brothers and sisters, were very well known to them. 'But,' they say, 'it was for the sake of tempting him that they announced to him the mother and the brethren whom actually he had not.' .... he answered also that other exclamation--not as denying his mother's womb and breasts, but as indicating that those are more blessed who hear the word of God. We have expounded, in terms of the truth of the Gospel as it was until Marcion and Apelles mutilated and corrupted it, those passages which these regard as their most effective armoury: and this by itself ought to have been enough to establish the fact of Christ's nativity, and thereby to prove his possession of human flesh. But inasmuch as these Apelleasts make a special point of sheltering behind the dishonour of the flesh, alleging that it was constructed for seduced souls by that fiery prince of evil and therefore is unworthy of Christ, and therefore he must needs have got him a substance from the stars, I have the task of beating them back with the aid of their own ordnance.
It would seem very clear once this is connected with the consistent 'error' made by Tertullian that Marcion cut things from his gospel which were never in Luke that the original author of the material against Marcion was using a Diatessaron.

In Against Marcion Book Three and On the Flesh of Christ we see Tertullian using a source who originally employed a Diatessaron. In those texts Luke 11:27 (= Blessed be the womb that bore Thee) and Mark 3:32 (= "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you") appeared back to back. We know this because the same pattern appears in the Arabic Diatessaron, Codex Fuldensis and perhaps most importantly Ephrem's Harmony Gospel. In that text we completely tear a whole in the wall that separates us from the truth because it is clear that Ephrem knows that Marcion's text also resembled a Diatessaron when he writes:
Blessed the womb which bore you and the breasts which suckled you. Marcion said, "They were indeed tempting him, as to whether he was born. Similarly in the case of "Behold your mother and brothers are seeking you." What was the purpose of the appearance of his body and nourishment? [Marcion] said, "That he might hide his greatness and make them believe that he was corporeal, because they were not capable of [grasping] it." Why should he have denied his birth? For if, through denying this, he wished to show them that he was not born, he would not have gone on and made himself a brother of his disciples who was born. If, from what he denied above, he refuted the idea that he was not born, then it must be believed, from what he said here, that he was born. Even if [hypothetically] kinship would have been blotted out by his denial of his mother, nevertheless through the acknowledgement of his brothers, the lineage of his paternal ancestry was made known. Moreover, even if he showed that he did not have parents because he did not recognize either his mother or his brothers, nevertheless he did say, "Why do you call me good," which was something he did not say above, namely, "Why do you call me conceived and born"?

Blessed is the womb that bore you. He took blessedness from the one who bore him and gave it to those who were worshipping him. It was with Mary for a certain time, but it would be with those who worshipped him for eternity. Blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it. (Commentary on the Harmony Gospel, McCarthy trans. p. 179 - 180)
It isn't just that all the Gospel Harmonies couple these two sayings, it is that all of our sources demonstrate that Marcion coupled them too. This means that at one time both (a) the anti-Marcionite commentary and (b) the gospels of the Marcionites and the Orthodox resembled the Gospel Harmonies.
Everyone loves the happy times
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Earthly Stranger vs Heavenly Stranger

Post by stephan happy huller »

This leads us back to the original question which started this thread - the Philosophumena's reference to a longer gospel of Mark which included a 'Diatessaronic' reading:
When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge,

Έπειδάν ούν Μαρκίων ή τών εκείνου κυνών τις ύλακτή κατά τοῦ δημιουργού

and from inventing (new) words (through) contrasts of good and bad

τους έκ της αντιπαραθέσεως άγαθοΰ και κακοΰ προφέρων λόγους

we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (words).

δει αύτοΐ(ς) λέγειν ότι τούτους οῦτε Παΰλος ό απόστολος ούτε Μάρκος ό κολοβοδάκτυλος ανήγγειλαν

For none of these (words) have been written in the Gospel according to Mark. But is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum.

τούτων γάρ ούδε(ις) έν τω (κατά) Μάρκον εύαγγελίω γέγραπται -, άλλα Εμπεδοκλής Μ(έ)τωνος Ακραγαντΐνος

And he despoiled this (philosopher), and imagined that up to the present would pass undetected his transference, under the same expressions, of the arrangement of his entire heresy from Sicily into the evangelical words (of Mark).

δν συλαγωγών (Μαρκίων) μέχρι νῦν λανθάνειν ύπελάμβανε την διαταγήν πάσης της κατ' αυτόν αίρέσεως άπό της σικελίας τις τοὺς εὐαγγελικοὺς λόγους μεταφερων αὐταῖς λέςεσι.
= so added many new things not found in canonical Mark which support a wide range of Empedoclean beliefs
= also according to this anti-Marcionite source he deleted the book of geneaologies of Matthew
= preserved 'the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar' from Luke
= plus this Diatessaronic reading - Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθός shared by Justin (Tatian's teacher), the Diatessaron, the followers of Mark (Marcus), the Naasenes and the Pseudo-Clementine literature

Sounds to me like a Diatessaronic text attributed to Mark used by Syrian Marcionites which accounts for the name of their founder being Mark (or 'Mark the less' among the Catholics).
Everyone loves the happy times
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Earthly Stranger vs Heavenly Stranger

Post by stephan happy huller »

Something else which caught my eye. It is curious the way that Tertullian reuses arguments and sayings in his works. Look at his famous statement in Against Marcion 4.5:
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. 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. No one passes censure on things afterwards to be, when he does not know they are afterwards to be. Correction does not come before fault. As corrector apparently of a gospel which from the times of Tiberius to those of Antoninus had suffered subversion, Marcion comes to light, first and alone, after Christ had waited for him all that time, repenting of having been in a hurry to send forth apostles without Marcion to protect them. And yet heresy, which is always in this manner correcting the gospels, and so corrupting them, is the effect of human temerity, not of divine authority: for even if Marcion were a disciple, he is not above his master: and if Marcion were an apostle, Whether it were I, says Paul, or they, so we preach:a and if Marcion were a prophet, even the spirits of the prophets have to be subject to the prophets,b for they are not <prophets> of subversion but of peace: even if Marcion were an angel, he is more likely to be called anathema than gospel-maker, seeing he has preached a different gospel.c And so, by making these corrections, he assures us of two things—that ours came first, for he is correcting what he has found there already, and that that other came later which he has put together out of his corrections of ours, and so made into a new thing of his own.
Now look at the more original statement in De Carne Christi:
It is, I suppose, on these considerations, Marcion, that you have presumed to delete all those documents bearing on Christ's origins, to prevent his flesh being proved to be flesh. On whose authority, pray? Show your credentials. If you are a prophet, foretell something: if an apostle, preach publicly: if an apostolic man, agree with the apostles: if but an ordinary Christian, believe the traditional faith. If you are none of these--I have good reason for saying it--die. Nay, you are already dead, for you are not a Christian, seeing you do not believe that which, when believed, makes men Christians: and you are the more dead as you are the more not a Christian as having been one and having fallen away by annulling what you formerly believed, as you yourself claim in a certain epistle, and as your people do not deny, and ours prove. Therefore, when you annulled what you did believe, you annulled it as no longer believing it. Yet your having ceased to believe was no valid reason for annulling it: on the contrary, by annulling what you did believe you prove that before you annulled it the case was different, and it was that different belief which was the traditional one. But what was traditional was true, as having been handed down by those who had the right to do so: and thus by annulling what was traditional you annulled what was true your act was illegal. But I have already in my book against all the heresies made fuller use of this kind of appeal to fundamental law. That I take for granted as I now of superfluity resume the discussion, demanding the reasons which led you to suppose that the birth of Christ never took place.
Everyone loves the happy times
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Earthly Stranger vs Heavenly Stranger

Post by stephan happy huller »

The more I look at the Latin text of De Carne Christi and Against Marcion 4 the more convinced I become of the fact that 'Luke' and various other themes were added later by a second hand. Just take a look at this line from De Carne Christi:
Marcion, that you have presumed to delete all the documents that demonstrate Christ's human origins , to prevent his flesh being proved to be flesh

his opinor consiliis tot originalia instrumenta Christi delere, Marcion, ausus es, ne caro eius probaretur. [De Carne Christi]
It is impossible not to see that this basic 'building block' of an argument developed between two Diatessaronic texts (i.e. Marcion removed the 'birth narrative' because he was afraid to admit Jesus was human) gets completely reworked into a 'Marcion corrupted Luke' for a specific teleological purpose which was never there before:
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 taking on humanity (Gk = enanthropesis) 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.

Si enim id evangelium quod Lucae refertur penes nos viderimus an et penes Marcionem ipsum est quod Marcion per Antitheses suas arguit ut interpolatum a protectoribus Iudaismi ad concorporationem legis et prophetarum, qua etiam Christum inde confingerent, utique non potuisset arguere nisi quod invenerat [Against Marcion 4.4]
Note that the original reference to one of Tertullian's favorite words 'instrumentum' (in this case Matthew's 'book of generation Mat 1:1) becomes associated with the Antitheses (another book which was found at the head of the Marcionite canon) guiding the alleged deletion from Luke. This is a completely transformation.

Similarly the original accusation that Marcion removed the opening genealogies to 'prevent his flesh being proved' now becomes almost unrecognizable with a claim regarding 'Judaiziers' who deny his having 'become one body' with the law and prophets. What that tells me almost instantly is that this trope is utterly fictitious. The Marcionite had no concern with Judaizers. This was layered into the Pauline corpus in order to subordinate the Pauline tradition. The original question was simply whether Jesus was ever born.

Now look at the next sentence in De Carne Christi which deals with the concept of 'authority':
On whose authority, pray? Show your credentials. If you are a prophet, foretell something: if an apostle, preach publicly: if an apostolic man, agree with the apostles: if but an ordinary Christian, believe the traditional faith. If you are none of these--I have good reason for saying it--die.

ex quo, oro te: exhibe auctoritatem: si propheta es praenuntia aliquid, si apostolus praedica publice, si apostolicus cum. apostolic senti, si tantum Christianus es crede quod traditum est: si nihil istorum es, merito dixerim, morere.
The editor who was reworking this original text adds a lengthy section adding familiar orthodox claims (Marcion later than the apostles) even though we learn from other sources that the Marcionites claimed that their leader was the head of the apostles. But finally when he gets to this stuff notice what happens to it:
But for all it is the effect of human temerity, not of divine authority that heresy, which is always in this manner correcting the gospels, and so corrupting them, : for even if Marcion were a disciple, he is not above his master: and if Marcion were an apostle, Whether it were I, says Paul, or they, so we preach: and if Marcion were a prophet, even the spirits of the prophets have to be subject to the prophets, for they are not <prophets> of subversion but of peace: even if Marcion were an angel, he is more likely to be called anathema than gospel-maker, seeing he has preached a different gospel

Nisi quod humanae temeritatis, non divinae auctoritatis, negotium est haeresis, quae sic semper emendat evangelia dum vitiat; cum et si discipulus Marcion, non tamen super magistrum; et si apostolus Marcion, Sive ego, inquit Paulus, sive illi, sic praedicamus; et si prophetes Marcion, et spiritus prophetarum prophetis erunt subditi, non enim eversionis sunt, sed pacis; etiam si angelus Marcion, citius anathema dicendus quam evangelizator, quia aliter evangelizavit.
But notice again the major difference again between the two texts. In De Carne Christi Marcion used to believe that Jesus was a man, but now by removing the birth narratives in a commonly held 'Diatessaronic' gospel - something he lacked the 'authority' to do - he is free to believe that Jesus was a heavenly being. In Against Marcion the argument has become refined further still a generation later. Marcion knew Luke and removed much more from Luke than simply a birth narrative.

To illustrate the transformation let us note that De Carne immediately goes on to cite a letter allegedly showing Marcion was once orthodox:
Nay, you are already dead, for you are not a Christian, seeing you do not believe that which, when believed, makes men Christians: and you are the more dead as you are the more not a Christian as having been one and having fallen away by annulling what you formerly believed, as you yourself claim in a certain epistle, and as your people do not deny, and ours prove. Therefore, when you annulled what you did believe, you annulled it as no longer believing it. Yet your having ceased to believe was no valid reason for annulling it: on the contrary, by annulling what you did believe you prove that before you annulled it the case was different, and it was that different belief which was the traditional one. But what was traditional was true, as having been handed down by those who had the right to do so: and thus by annulling what was traditional you annulled what was true your act was illegal.

nam et mortuus es, qui non es Christianus, non credendo quod creditum Christianos facit: et eo magis mortuus es quo magis non es Christianus qui cum fuisses excidisti rescindendo quod retro credidisti, sicut et ipse confiteris in quadam epistula et tui non negant et nostri probant. igitur rescindens quod credidisti iam non credens rescidisti: non tamen quia credere desisti recte rescidisti, atquin rescindendo quod credidisti probas ante quam rescinderes aliter fuisse: quod credidisti aliter, illud ita erat traditum. porro quod traditum erat id erat verum, ut ab eis traditum quorum fuit tradere: ergo quod erat traditum rescindens, quod erat verum rescidisti. nullo iure fecisti. sed plenius eiusmodi praescriptionibus adversus omnes haereses alibi iam usi sumus: post quas nunc ex abundanti retractamus, desiderantes rationem qua non putaveris natum esse Christum.

This reference now appears before the discussion we just cited in Against Marcion in part because the letter clearly does not show that Marcion used Luke (the point of the discussion in Against Marcion:
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. Proof taken from them is good enough for me

Quid nunc, si negaverint Marcionitae primam apud nos fidem eius, adversus epistulam quoque ipsius? Quid si nec epistulam agnoverint? Certe Antitheses non modo fatentur Marcionis, sed et praeferunt. Ex his mihi probatio sufficit
Notice time and again that these references to 'the Antitheses' come out of nowhere. They were added to the text. They were not in the original layer of material at the bottom of the reference.
Everyone loves the happy times
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Earthly Stranger vs Heavenly Stranger

Post by stephan happy huller »

Further proof that the one text lay behind the other. But which is it? Because De Carnis seems to indicate that the author had developed 'another' treatise specifically to lay bear Marcion's gospel. Here are the parallels sections in order as they appear in each treatise sectioned off into parallels:
But as often as there is discussion of the nativity, all those who reject it as prejudging the issue concerning the verity of the flesh in Christ, claim that the Lord himself denies having been born, on the ground that he asked, Who is my mother and who are my brethren? [De Carnis]

We come now to the standing argument of all those who bring into controversy our Lord's nativity.1 He himself, they say, affirms that he has not been born when he says, Who is my mother and who are my brethren? [Against Marcion]
So let Apelles too hear what answer I have already given to Marcion in that work in which I have made appeal to the Gospel which he accepts, namely that the background of that remark must be taken into consideration. [De Carnis]

In this way heretics are always, by their theories, wresting plain and simple expressions in any direction they please, or else, on supposition of simplicity, giving a general meaning to expressions based on special conditions and particular reasons, as on the present occasion.
Well then, in the first place no one would ever have reported to him that his mother and his brethren were standing without unless he were sure that he had a mother and brethren and that it was they whose presence he was then announcing, having either previously known them, or at least then and there made their acquaintance. [De Carnis]

We on the contrary affirm, first, that there could have been no report brought to him that his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to see him, if he had had no mother or brethren, and if he who brought the message had not known who they were, either by previous acquaintance or by having then and there been informed, either when they asked to see him or when they themselves sent the messenger.
This I say, in spite of the fact that the heresies have deliberately removed from the Gospel the statements that those who marvelled at his doctrine said that both Joseph the carpenter, his reputed father, and Mary his mother, and his brothers and sisters, were very well known to them. [De Carnis]

no equivalent in Against Marcion
'But,' they say, 'it was for the sake of tempting him that they announced to him the mother and the brethren whom actually he had not.' Now the Scripture does not say this, though elsewhere it is not silent when any action respecting him was taken with a view to temptation. Behold, it says, there stood up a doctor of the law, tempting him: and in another place, And there came to him the Pharisees, tempting him. [De Carnis]

To this first submission of ours our adversaries' usual answer is, What then if the message was brought with the purpose of tempting him? But the scripture does not say so, though its custom is to indicate when anything is done for temptation's sake—Behold a doctor of the law stood up, tempting him,b and in that question about tribute-money, And there came to him pharisees, tempting him—and consequently, where it makes no mention of temptation, it does not admit of its being interpreted as temptation. [Against Marcion]
And there was no reason why it should not have been indicated here that this was done to tempt him. [De Carnis]

For all that, though I have no need to, I demand the reasons for such temptation, [Against Marcion]
I refuse to accept an inference of your own, which is not in Scripture. Secondly, there has to be some ground beneath the temptation. What was it they could think worth tempting in him? 'Whether, of course, he had been born or not: for as his answer constituted a denial of this, this was what the tempter's announcement angled for.' But no temptation, which has in view the ascertainment of that in doubt of which it makes the temptation, proceeds with such abruptness as to dispense with a precedent question which by suggesting doubt may give point to the temptation. Consequently, as there had nowhere been any canvassing of Christ's nativity, how can you argue that these people wished by means of a temptation to elicit something they had never brought into question? [De Carne]

no equivalent in Against Marcion
To this we add that, even if there had been a case for tempting him in respect of his nativity, the temptation would certainly not have proceeded on the lines of an announcement of the arrival of persons whose present existence was no necessary consequence of Christ's having been born. All of us are born, yet not all of us have either brothers or a mother: one is more likely at any point to have a father than a mother, and maternal uncles than brothers. Thus there is here no room for a temptation respecting his nativity, for this could quite well be a fact apart from any mention either of mother or of brethren. [De Carnis]

in what respect they can have tempted him by the mention of his mother and his brethren. If because they wished to know whether he had been born, or not—had there ever been any doubt of this, which they could resolve by means of that temptation? [Against Marcion]
It is in fact easier to suppose that, being assured that he had both a mother and brethren, they were making trial of his divinity rather than of his nativity, by attempting to discover whether while busy indoors he knew what there was out of doors, when assailed with a lying report of the presence of people who actually were not there. [De Carnis]

Yet who could have any doubt of the birth of one who he saw. Was a man, whom he had heard declare himself the Son of man, who in consideration of all his human attributes they hesitated to believe was God, or the Son of God? [Against Marcion]
And yet, even in this case the device behind the temptation would have failed of its purpose: for it could have been the case that those whom they reported standing without were known by him to be absent, through the claims of illness or of business or of a long journey, which he was already aware of. No one frames a temptation in terms through which he knows that the embarrassment of the temptation may recoil upon himself. As therefore there existed no pertinent ground of temptation, it remains for us to admit the candour of the messenger and to acknowledge that his mother and his brethren really had come for him. But let Apelles, as well as Marcion, hear from me what was the reason behind the reply which for the moment denied mother and brethren. Our Lord's brethren did not believe in him:1 this also is included in the Gospel as it was published before Marcion's day. His mother likewise is not shown to have adhered to him, though Martha and other Marys are often mentioned as being in his company.2 At this juncture their unbelief at last comes into the open. When Jesus was teaching the way of life, when he was preaching the Kingdom of God, when he was occupied in healing infirmities and sicknesses, though strangers were intent upon him these near relations were absent. At length they come for him, they stand without and will not enter, evidently not valuing what was being done inside. They do not so much as even wait, but, as though bringing more important business than what he was then engaged upon, they go so far as to interrupt, and wish him to be called away from so great a work. [De Carnis]

They found it easier to esteem him a prophet, some great one no doubt, but one in any case who had been born. Even if there had been reason to tempt him by investigating his nativity, any other means would have been more in keeping with such temptation than the mention of those relations whom, in spite of having been born, he might by that time have lost. Tell me, does everybody who has been born, have a mother still living? Does everybody who has been born, have brothers born to him as well? Is it not more likely that people have their fathers living or their sisters, or even no one? Also it is well known that a census had just been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus, and they might have inquired of his ancestry in those records. Thus in no respect has this suggestion of temptation stood up to examination, and it really was his mother and his brethren who stood without. [Against Marcion]
I put it to you, Apelles, or you if you like, Marcion, if perchance when playing dice or laying bets on actors or jockeys you were called away by such a message, would you not ask, 'Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?'? When Christ was preaching God and giving proof of him, was fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, and was dispelling the darkness of long ages past, was it without justification that he used this expression to castigate the unbelief of those who stood without, or at least to expose their unseasonableness in calling him back from his work? For repudiating nativity, on the other hand, he could have chosen the place and time and occasion of a different discourse, not such as could be uttered by one who had both a mother and brethren. [De Carnis]

It remains for me to ask what he had in mind when in some figurative manner he used the words, Who is my mother, or my brethren?, giving the impression of denying both relationship and nativity—yet arising from the requirements of the situation and conditional upon a reasonable explanation. It was that he was rightly displeased that while strangers were within, intent upon his words, such near relations stood without, and what is more, sought to distract him from his appointed work.
When indignation denies kindred, this is not a denial but a reproof. [De Carnis]

This was not so much a denial as a disavowal. [Against Marcion]
Besides, he gave others prior place, and when he reveals what has caused these to deserve preference, namely the hearing of the word, he makes it clear on what terms he has denied having a mother and brethren: for on the terms on which he adopted to himself those others who clave to him, on these he repudiated those who stood apart from him. It is Christ's custom himself to put into practice the teaching he gives to others. Then how could it be possible for him, when teaching men not to value mother or father or brethren so highly as the word of God, himself to desert the word of God when his mother and brethren were reported waiting? So then, he denied his kinsfolk for the reason for which he taught they ought to be denied, for God's work's sake. And further: in another sense there is in his mother's estrangement a figure of the Synagogue, and in his brethren's unbelief a figure of the Jews. Outside, in them, was Israel: whereas the new disciples, hearing and believing, and being inside, by cleaving to Christ [De Carnis]

And consequently, after his first remark, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?, he added, Those only who hear my words and do them, thus transferring those titles of relationship to others, whom he should judge more closely related to him by their faith. Now no one makes a transference except from one already in possession of that which is transferred. If then he made to be his mother and brethren those who were not, in what sense did he deny those who were? Evidently on conditions of their own deserving, not from denial of those close relations, giving in himself an example of his own teaching, that he who should put father or mother or brethren before the word of God was not a worthy disciple. For the rest, the admission that they were his mother and his brethren was even more clearly expressed by this refusal to acknowledge them. By adopting others he confirmed those whom through disfavour he denied, and the substitution was not of others more real but of others more worthy. [Against Marcion]
depicted the Church which, repudiating carnal kinship, he designated a preferable mother and a worthier family of brothers. To conclude, it was in this same sense that he answered also that other exclamation--not as denying his mother's womb and breasts, but as indicating that those are more blessed who hear the word of God. [De Carnis]

In any case it is not surprising that he preferred faith to blood-relationship, when <as Marcion will have it> he had no blood. [Against Marcion]
Everyone loves the happy times
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Earthly Stranger vs Heavenly Stranger

Post by stephan happy huller »

But there are a number of reasons for knowing straight off that the original treatise can't have been about Marcion corrupting Luke. Just look at what Luke actually has here:
Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.” He replied, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.”
Not only do De Carne Christi and Against Marcion 4 assume Marcion had the text as Mark and Matthew have it, not once in the debate do we find a reference to the opening words of Luke's version - 'Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd.' Clearly if the author knew these words he would have accused the Marcionites of removing them because they settle the issue once and for all. The fact that the Marcionites and the author battle over words found only in Mark and Matthew make clear that the tradition originally fought over Marcion corrupting another gospel and given the survival of this type of treatise in the East (Ephrem, Eznik) and the matter in which Marcion is assumed to have corrupted the Diatessaron, the same must be true here.

The fact that the Diatessaron 'blessed is the womb that bore you' immediately before this saying and all anti-Marcionite texts assume a relationship between these two saying strongly suggests that the original treatise dealing with Marcion's gospel was written by someone who used a Diatessaronic gospel, the lost ancestor of the existing Arabic text. The existing Diatessaron preserves the basic order of the original gospel but with Luke's alteration (highlighted):
And while he was saying that, a woman from the multitude lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the breasts that nursed thee. But he said unto her, Blessed is he that heareth the word of God, and keepeth it. 13 And while he was speaking unto the multitude, there came unto him his mother and his brethren, and sought to speak with him; and they were not able, because of the multitude; and they stood without and sent, calling him unto them. A man said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren are standing without, and seek to speak with thee. But he answered unto him that spake unto him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he beckoned with his hand, stretching it out towards his disciples, and said, Behold, my mother! and behold, my brethren! And every man that shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven is my brother, and my sister, and my mother.
Every single anti-Marcionite treatise assumes a relationship to exist between the two sayings. Ephrem for instance has the exact order of the Diatessaron (while referencing 'blessed is the womb' he acknowledges 'behold your mother and brother' followed) and similarly in Against Marcion Book 3 where we read:
Also that woman Philumena did better in persuading Apelles and the other deserters of Marcion, that Christ was indeed clothed with veritable flesh, yet without nativity, having taken it on loan from the elements.1 But if Marcion was afraid that belief in the flesh might also carry with it belief in nativity—there is no doubt that he who was seen to be man was naturally thought to have been born. A certain woman cried out, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the breasts which thou hast sucked: and how comes it that his mother and his brethren are reported standing without?b But we shall consider these texts in their proper place.
The two passages are connected in our present text, De Carne Christi where it still concludes:
he [Jesus] designated a preferable mother and a worthier family of brothers. To conclude, it was in this same sense that he answered also that other exclamation--not as denying his mother's womb and breasts, but as indicating that those are more blessed who hear the word of God.
How absolutely incredible then that all our anti-Marcionite witnesses developed from a Diatessaronic comparison text but only Against Marcion 4 - which as we have just demonstrated parallels De Carne Christi exactly over and over again and in this particular section - suddenly ignores the original gospel order and posits the Lukan order where the 'Blessed womb' saying now follows 'Behold your brother and mothers'
A woman from the multitude cries out, that blessed was the womb that had borne him, and the breasts which had given him suck. And the Lord answers, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it: because even before this he had rejected his mother and his brethren, because he prefers those who hear God and obey him. For not even on the present occasion was his mother in attendance on him. It follows that neither on the previous occasion did he deny having been born. So now, when he hears this once more, once more he transfers the blessedness away from his mother's womb and breasts and assigns it to the disciples: he could not have transferred it away from his mother if he had had no mother.
Indeed Against Marcion 4 shows signs over and over again that it developed from that same proto-text which compared the Marcionite gospel to a Diatessaron (i.e. when the author accuses Marcion of erasing things from his gospel which were never in Luke).

Given that the Lukan based Against Marcion 4 not only derives from the same anti-Marcionite text as De Carne Christi (the same situation exists with respect to parts of Against Marcion 4 and another Tertullian treatise Against the Jews) but we have also demonstrated that the structure of Against Marcion 4 with its emphasis of Luke is a much later innovation. The original treatise develops from a Diatessaronic based critique of Marcion.

Given the frequent mention of Apelles and the fact that Rhodo wrote not only against Apelles but also against Marcion and the fact that Eusebius says that Rhodo was a student of Tatian the alleged 'father' of the Diatessaron, Rhodo jumps out as a likely author of the proto-text behind De Carne Christi and Against Marcon 4 (and 5 for that matter).
Everyone loves the happy times
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Earthly Stranger vs Heavenly Stranger

Post by andrewcriddle »

stephan happy huller wrote:The interpretation of William Talbot which was published in the Correspondence section of the Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, v. 8 no. 25, April 1861, pp. 175-177.
We see that Hippolytus charges Marcion with having stolen his principal opinions without acknowledgment from Empedocles of Agrigentum, and even given them in that author's very words (αυταις λεξεσι), as if they were a part of the Gospel truth - "whereas it is certain," says Hippolytus, "that neither Paul the apostle, nor Mark with the mutilated fingers (Μαρκος ό κολοβοδακτυλος), have ever promulgated any such opinions. Not any of these things is written in the gospel of Mark."

The opinion which Bunsen formed of this passage, was that the text was entirely corrupted, and that instead of Μαρκος ό κολοβοδακτυλος, we should read Μαρκος ό καλων λογων διδασκαλος.υ

But it seems to me that this is a violent alteration of the text, and recedes too far from the reading in the MS. A more plausible conjecture would be, to omit λογων, and read Μαρκος ό καλο διδασκαλος "Mark the giver of good advice." But even this correction is not very satisfactory. The word καλοδιδασκαλος only occurs once in the New Testament, where it is applied to old women, who are exhorted to be "givers of good advice" to the younger women. - Now in the present passage there is no question of "giving advice" to any one.

It is probable that Marcion professed some particular reverence for the gospel of Mark (from the similar name he bore), and that may be the chief reason why Hippolytus, wishing to refute Marcion, refers to that evangelist rather than the others. "Neither Paul nor Mark have said these things, nor are any of them to be found in Mark's gospel."
The problem with explaining away the reference in Hippolytus to Mark as stubby fingered is that we find similar claims in other sources.

E.G.
Mark made his assertion, who was also named stubby-fingers, on account that he had in comparison to the length of the rest of his body shorter fingers.
from the so-called Anti Marcionite Prologue

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Earthly Stranger vs Heavenly Stranger

Post by stephan happy huller »

Another parallel between the two texts - the reference to 'Caesar's census.'

molestos semper Caesaris census et diversoria angusta [De Carne 2.2]

I think the statement in Against Marcion 4 that the census from that period was still accessible at the time of writing proves that the text was written before 192 CE
Yet again how can he have obtained admittance into the synagogue, appearing so suddenly, so unknown, no one as yet having certain knowledge of his tribe, of his nation, of his house, or even of Caesar's census, which the Roman registry still has in keeping,4 a most
faithful witness to our Lord's nativity?
given that the records of the census were stored at or near the Temple of Peace and that building was destroyed in 192.

http://books.google.com/books?id=67ExAQ ... 22&f=false

The idea that the census could still be available at the time of Against Marcion 4 and this text reworked an older original based on the Diatessaron in favor of a Lukan order tends to argue that this transformation took place before 192 CE rather than closer to the time of Tertullian.
Everyone loves the happy times
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Earthly Stranger vs Heavenly Stranger

Post by stephan happy huller »

If the original text against Marcion's gospel was written by someone who used a Diatessaron and that text was later adjusted c 192 by someone introducing Luke the obvious candidate for this 'second someone' is Irenaeus. Skarsaune has developed a detailed study which shows that Irenaeus adjusted Justin's scriptural readings to match the Septuagint. The same pattern is evidenced in Tertullian's texts which seem to come from Justin.

http://books.google.com/books?id=66SsrI ... 22&f=false
Everyone loves the happy times
Post Reply