Reconstructing Marcionism for Morons

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Reconstructing Marcionism for Morons

Post by Secret Alias »

I love when scholars simply regurgitate textual variants in Tertullian's text of Against Marcion to help 'understand' that the textual variants in the canon were 'minor.' So I am going to periodically (whenever the f I want to waste time here) demonstrating another model.

1. Justin was the original author of the material in Against Marcion Books Four and Five; Tertullian received a corrupted text of that treatise edited by Irenaeus

The first principal of my reconstruction of the Marcionite canon is that a corrupt Justinian text is our principal window into the sect. I think Andrew Criddle will follow me up to this radical supposition. To this end, Justin - a user of a 'harmony' gospel - like Ephrem (another 'harmony' gospel user) recognized the Marcionite text was 'like' his own. Thus 'not like Luke' but like the (lost) apostle gospel text.

2. This 'harmony' gospel did not follow the order of the synoptic gospels.

While there is no explicit reference to this fact, the Epistle of the Apostles used a harmony gospel which had a different ordering (see intro of that text). There can't have been dozens of different gospels in the early second century. The gospel of the author of the Epistle of the Apostles was likely related to Justin and Marcion (as Vinzent has already suggested). When Irenaeus references a heretical gospel whose passages are 'scrambled' into a completely different order - it was this same text (Adv Haer 1:8 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103108.htm).

3. In the same way the gospel was all scrambled; the Pauline epistles were scrambled - meaning material from the original apostolic letters was scattered across the various epistles out of their original order specifically to obscure the original sense of the author.

Look at 2 Corinthians chapter 3. There is no logical continuity between 2 Corinthians 1 - 6 and 7 - 12:
Therefore, since through God’s mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. 2 Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ.

7 But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. 8 We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; 9 persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. 10 We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. 11 For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may also be revealed in our mortal body. 12 So then, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you.
In Justin's original treatise (Tertullian Adv Marc 5.11) it is readily apparent that the original letter immediately shifted to Ephesians 2:12:
And so, even though it were, The god of this world, yet it is of the unbelievers of this world that he blinds the heart, because they have not of their own selves recognized his Christ, whom they ought to have known of from the scriptures ... He (Marcion) in fact has not observed that the conclusion of the sentence is in opposition to him: Because God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, unto the light of the knowledge of himself in the person of Christ who was it that said, Let there be light? And of the giving of light to the world, who was it said to Christ, I have set thee for a light of the gentiles,p those in fact who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death?q To this, by foreknowledge of the future, the Spirit answers in the psalm, There hath been set as a sign above us the light of thy countenance, O Lord. Now the countenance of God is Christ the Lord: and of him the apostle has already said, Who is the image of God. So then if Christ is the countenance of the Creator who says Let there be light, then Christ and the apostles and the gospel and the veil and Moses, and the whole sequence, does on the evidence of the end of the sentence belong to the Creator, the God of this world, and certainly not to him who has never said, Let there be light.

I forbear to treat here of another epistle to which we give the title To the Ephesians, but the heretics To the Laodiceans. For he says that the gentiles remember that at that time when they were without Christ, aliens from Israel, without the association and the covenants and the hope of the promise, they were even without God, were in the world,s even though <they were> of the Creator. So then as he has said the gentiles are without God, and the god they have is the devil, not the Creator, it is clear that the lord of this age must be understood to be he whom the gentiles have accepted instead of God, not the Creator of whom they know nothing.
Of course it is Tertullian or Irenaeus (not Justin) who now claims that the Gentiles are meant. When we reconstruct the original narrative this is clearly not so. Paul is addressing a community who think they are Israel - perhaps 'the new Israel.' In the context of 2 Corinthians 3's reference to the Israelites and what happened on Sinai we read:
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the person of Christ Who said Let there be light?

At that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
This is only one example of how Adv Marc can be used to reconstruct a completely different ordering of the Pauline epistles. But most importantly it identifies Irenaeus as misrepresenting or perhaps filtering what the Marcionites believed through his own theological concerns - i.e. a profound monarchian interest.

So the Marcionites clearly identified a 'god of this world' and a god of heaven in exactly the manner of the ancient Israelites - it was Irenaeus who found this offensive and did his best to obscure their beliefs.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Marcionism for Morons

Post by Secret Alias »

As with all scrambled references there is a consistent pattern where 2 Corinthians 4 is paired with Ephesians 2:12 in the anti-Marcionite literature. From Adamantius:
Again writings to the Corinthians the Apostle says, "For it is the God who said 'Let the light shine out of darkness', who has shone in your hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of His glory in the fact of Christ"113. Upon careful inquiry as to whom the God is who commanded light to shine out of darkness, to whom He spoke, and when; we shall also discover the God whom the Apostle proclaims, and the origin of the light that was given to us from the face of Christ. f If it is the Good God (as Marcus and his party imagine) who is discovered to have said this to someone or ones [although He is 'unknown']114, it must be shown when, what and to whom He spoke115. If He spoke, it is false to claim that He is 'unknown', and has never appeared, nor ever came into anyone's mind. If He used to speak and make promises in former times, He was not unknown, nor did he make His first appearance (as they 869a claim) when he came down and appeared in Capernaum, during the reign of Tiberius. But if He was not the One who promised the light, but the Creator, it is clear that we who are being enlightened belong to Him, and also Christ, in whose face the light from the Creator shines. In writing to the Ephesians, the Apostle says, "And when he came, He preached (104) peace to you who were far off; and to those who were near. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father"116. From whom were we "far off", and to whom were the Jews "near"? Was it, indeed, the strange and unknown God of whom Marcus and his party speak? And how is it that the Jews were nigh to Him of whom (equally with us) they were ignorant; whom they neither obeyed nor followed, since (according to the Marcus party) b they served another god, one who is opposed to the purpose of the the Good God. The Apostle goes on, "through Him we both have access to the Father" To what Father? Is it not clearly to Him who has created us? We will offer, furthermore, an incontrovertible statement from the same Apostle, that there is one God of all things, who has created us and all creatures, the only Good God, to whom has created us and all creatures, the only Good God, to whom belong the world and all things: Paul says, "One God Father of all and in us all."
I will finish transcribing the next page (have to run) but clearly Adamantius is following a continuous citation of material from Paul that was subsequently divided into its relative position in the catholic canon - i.e. 'Corinthians says ...' 'Ephesians says ...' etc.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Marcionism for Morons

Post by Secret Alias »

And when you look at the argumentation in Adamantius you see it over and over again. The argument that the Marcionites believed the Creator was 'evil' was secondary. The reason they were 'heretics' was because they dared to argue that Paul here assumed that there were two gods - the god of this world and the god of heaven. Can't have that and be a good servant of the Emperor. So it is that there was only one God and so - as Irenaeus's critics noted - the Father must have been crucified on the Cross.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Marcionism for Morons

Post by Secret Alias »

So let us start identifying clear examples (i.e. with multiple attestations) of scrambled literary references. Again the likely culprit is Irenaeus who in Against Heresies Book 1 chapter 8 (a) says that the heretical scriptures looked scrambled in order to change Jesus into a 'fox' (or 'dog') and (b) then demonstrates himself to be a master cento poet saying 'see how easy it is to scramble passages and lines in Homer' I can do it so can they (the heretics). The obvious answer of course that it is our canon that is scrambled from the heretical original (something never recognized by scholars). Indeed I have always noticed this 'patchwork' characteristic to the Pauline epistles. Paul rambles in a disjointed fashion from topic to topic with no obvious subject. What has happened of course is that the epistles are now patchworks because Irenaeus has 'centonized' the contents.

We just identified

1. 2 Corinthians 3, 4 followed by Ephesians 2

We should see at once that 2 Corinthians 3, 4 bears no real thematic relation to what comes before and after it. But when it is restored with Ephesians 2 it becomes plain that Paul is saying that Moses obscured Jesus from the Israelites by putting a veil over (i) the Holy of Holies and (ii) Moses himself.

We will continue to identify other passages over the course of this thread.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Marcionism for Morons

Post by Secret Alias »

2. Luke 11:27 followed by Luke 8:19 - 21

As we hope to embody a greater intellectual sophisticated than previous scholarship on the Marcionite gospel, we must refrain from saying that we have uncovered something significant about the Marcionite gospel. Instead our parallel can only be said to go as deep as Irenaeus's original report about the tradition. 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 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.

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)
The truth is that the reader here will not come across a more profound bit of information likely all next year. 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.

The truth is that we already know this from other (ignored) sources. Casey's illuminating article on Eznik of Kolb's citation of the latter portions of the Marcionite gospel and their agreement with what he calls 'an Armenian Diatessaron' is consistent with what we have noted here. The problem isn't that we lack evidence to suggest this situation - it's that scholars are too thick-headed to free themselves from all the nonsense that previous generations have written about Marcion. Let's be honest. You just have to look at pictures of those old German scholars like Harnack and Campenhausen to know that they were complete squares. The point is that while having familiarity with the data is one part of the equation to understand the ancient past having the God-given gift to see patterns in that mess of information is completely lacking in these old fuddy duddies.

What these typical German blockhead types couldn't get over is that Tertullian and Epiphanius could be wrong together. It was one thing to contradict a Church Father but then there was the 'problem' of both of them having similar testimonies about the shape of the Marcionite gospel. Even the modern German scholars like Schmid fell into a trap here. The harmony between Tertullian and Epiphanius led him to develop a thoroughly useless model for understanding the shape of the Marcionite Apostolikon. The same thing we have been discovering here applies fully to the Epistle to the Galatians. There is a common source behind Tertullian and Epiphanius's testimony who is citing from his own Gospel and Apostle to condemn Marcion's 'changes' to the text.

The revelation comes now when you go back to the beginning of Against Marcion and realize that several generations of transformations to that original text have taken place under various author names. To cite Tertullian's own confession:
Nothing I have previously written against Marcion is any longer my concern. I am embarking upon a new work to replace an old one. My first edition, too hurriedly produced, I afterwards withdrew, substituting a fuller treatment. This also, before enough copies had been made, was stolen from me by a person, at that time a Christian but afterwards an apostate, who chanced to have copied out some extracts very incorrectly, and shewed them to a group of people. Hence the need for correction. The opportunity provided by this revision has moved me to make some additions. Thus this written work, a third succeeding a second, and instead of third from now on the first, needs to begin by reporting the demise of the work it supersedes, so that no one may be perplexed if in one place or another he comes across varying forms of it. [Against Marcion 1:1]
The fuddy duddy reads this material and only sees it as a confession that Tertullian 'lost control' of his original composition. But then all the reader has to do and go and see that Epiphanius also claims to have written a text from 'firsthand' information about the Marcion Gospel and Apostle which borrows heavily from this same original source.

Why would both Tertullian and Epiphanius have told a bald-face lie that they were the original authors of this material? The answer should be obvious by now. The original material was being buried, laid to rest, buried at see, cremated - whatever you want to call it. It was useful to have information about the Marcionite canon. But having an original source - Justin Martyr or whomever you want to be the original source of this material - arguing against the Marcionite from his canon which consisted of a Diatessaron and a collection of Pauline letters beginning with the Epistle to the Galatians is a giant problem for Tertullian, Epiphanius and the rest of the orthodox tradition. Why so? Come on now. It destroys the original argument that the author - railing against the Marcionites - was himself 'orthodox.'

The ultimate question becomes - what the hell was a Church Father doing not using the four gospels, not arguing for Marcion corrupting Luke, not using a Romans first collection of Epistles? Not to mention of course that many of the variant readings now attributed to Marcion by Epiphanius actually came from the Church Father fighting against Marcion. It is a massive problem which isn't easily solved. That's why the original text was buried and both Tertullian and Epiphanius try to 'rescue' the argument against Marcion by (a) modifying it to suit an orthodox canon and (b) getting rid of any mention of a previous author.

Tertullian's corrections are more superficial i.e. a fairly sloppy 'Marcion corrupted my Luke' argument which often retains the 'Marcion corrupted my Diatessaron' but still with the Galatians-first ordering. Epiphanius is more thorough - he clearly makes it about corrupting Luke (getting rid of the anomalies) and moreover making specific reference to the correct order of the epistles of Paul. Yet the point of course now is that both 'cover ups' are systematically exposed by the survival of Ephrem's numerous references to the Marcionite canon. For Ephrem used a Diatessaron and a Galatians first canon. He is a surviving remnant of the original cultural that produced the lost material behind what is now works independently claimed to have been written by Tertullian and Epiphanius.

We have already seen that the Gospel Harmony tradition and the actual gospel of Marcion placed the 'Blessed is the womb' material (= Luke 11.27) as the introduction to Question about Jesus's Mother and Brothers (Luke 8:19 - 21). Tertullian's Against Marcion was clearly developed from an original source which used a Diatessaron because his reference to 'Blessed is the Womb' in Book Four Chapter Twenty Seven still 'attaches' it to the Question about Jesus's Mother and Brothers discussed in Book Four Chapter Nineteen. Just look at the reference:
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. [Against Marcion 4:27]
Of course the fuddy duddies will argue that he because Tertullian is denying the association it was never there originally. But this is idiotic. There are hundreds of passages in the gospel he could be talking about. The reason he is denying any association between the two passages is - as we have seen - because it was not only there in the Marcionite gospel but also in his original source.

It can't be coincidence that the two passages are explicitly paired in Against Marcion Book 3 and On the Flesh of Christ. Tertullian's original source - no less than Ephrem - used a Diatessaron and addressed the Marcionite contention that 'Blessed is the womb' and the Question about his Mother and Father being connected for a reason and sought to argue against the idea that together they proved that Jesus was an angel. Of course once we open the flood gates to the idea that our present Against Marcion Book Four is a broken up re-arrangement of an original treatise which argued against Marcion from a Diatessaron it is impossible not to notice at least one other notable anomaly.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Marcionism for Morons

Post by Secret Alias »

3. The Double 'Pushed Off a Precipice' in Two Different Segments of Adv Marc

The point here is that one of the chief arguments for an 'early witness' to the fact that Marcion corrupted Luke is that Tertullian's ordering of gospel passages in Adv Marc follow Luke. How else can the material be interpreted? 'Clearly,' it is argued, 'Tertullian has in front of him a copy of Luke and a copy of Marcion's gospel.' But the difficulties emerge when Tertullian also consistently references and accuses Marcion of cutting things out of Matthew and other gospels. Why if Adv Marc is a simple comparative literary exercise does Tertullian reference things in Matthew and more implausibly Marcion cutting things out of gospels other than Luke?

The best answer would appear to me to be that again Justin wrote an original treatise which did a comparative analysis between a gospel harmony (i.e. one that had 'harmonized' passages from Matthew and Luke) and a Marcionite gospel that appeared 'harmonized.' This original Adv Marc written in Greek (there obvious signs of a Greek original in the present Latin text) followed a very different ordering of gospel material - not all Lukan but also Matthean material which the original author accused Marcion of removing - and then this text of Justin was itself refashioned to follow the ordering of a newly created Luke a text Justin did not know.

The obvious editor of this new text - as well as the new gospel - was Irenaeus. And there are clear signs of a scrambling of an ur-Adv Marc in the present Latin text.

I have always noticed that the idea of the hostile crowd (of Jews) trying to push Jesus off a cliff only to pass through his body and plunge to their deaths appears in both the Diatessaron and Marcionite gospels. Baarda has written a useful discussion of the references in the Diatessaron tradition. But notice that not only does Tertullian reference the appearance of the motive in Against Marcion 4:8:
Here, as I for the first time ob- serve that hands were laid upon him, I am called upon to say something definite about his corporal substance; that he who admitted of contact, contact even full of violence, in being seized and captured and dragged even to the brow of the hill, cannot be thought of as a phantasm. It is true that he slipped away through the midst of them, but this was when he had experienced their violence, and had afterwards been let go: for, as often happens, the crowd gave way, or was even broken up: there is no question of its being deceived by invisibility, for this, if it had been such, would never have submitted to contact at all. Touch or be touched nothing but body may, is a worthy sentence even of this world's philosophy.d In fine, he did himself before long touch others, and by laying his hands upon them—hands evidently meant to be felt—conveyed the benefits of healing, benefits no less true, no less free from pretence, than the hands by which they were conveyed.
It also seems to appear in reference to the 'sign of John' in Against Marcion 4.38:
Christ knew the baptism of John, whence it was. Why then did he ask the question, as though he did not know? He did know that the pharisees would not answer him. Why then did he ask, to no purpose? Was it not that he might judge them out of their own mouth, or even out of their own heart? So take this episode to bear on the justification of the Creator, and on Christ's agreement with him, and ask yourself what the consequence would have been if the pharisees had returned an answer to his question. Suppose they had answered that John's baptism was from men: they would at once have been stoned to death. Some anti-marcionite Marcion would have stood up and said, 'See a god supremely good, a god the opposite of the Creator's doings! well aware that men were going to fall headlong, he himself put them on the edge of a precipice.' For this is how they treat of the Creator, in his law about the tree.a But suppose John's baptism was from heaven. And why, Christ says, did ye not believe him ? So then he whose wish it was that John should be believed, who was expected to blame them for not believing him, belonged to that God whose sacrament John was the minister of. At all events, when they refused to answer what they thought, and he replied in like terms, Neither do I tell you by what power I do these things, he returned evil for evil. [Against Marcion 4.38]
Again we have to use our imagination here. We can't simply deal with what survives in the current text but wonder if it is possible that the idea of Jesus referencing the 'sign of John' somehow incited the crowd to try to kill him. It is also noteworthy that just before the 'Blessed is the womb'/Questions about Jesus mother and brothers is the famous reference to the 'sign of Jonah.' A common original reference to Aramaic yonah (i.e. something which could be read as a diminutive of John and/or 'dove' might be behind both.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Marcionism for Morons

Post by Secret Alias »

4. parallels in 'life' (Luke 18:18 - 30) and 'eternal life' (Luke 10:25 - 28)

In the anti-Marcionite literature (it would seem) Tertullian makes clear that only 'life' appeared in Luke 10:25 - 28 rather than 'eternal life':
In short we shall prove, have already proved, that in Christ those things have been seen which had been prophesied of, yet had been hidden even from the prophets, and consequently were hidden also from the wise and prudent of the world. In the gospel of truth a doctor of the law approaches Christ with the question, What shall I do to obtain eternal life? In the heretic's gospel is written only 'life', without mention of 'eternal', so that the doctor may have the appearance of asking for advice about that life, that long life, which is promised by the Creator in the law,k and the Lord may then seem to have given him an answer in terms of the law, Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, because the question asked was about the law of life.
Let us compare the two references in Luke with virtually the same formula:
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” [Luke 10:25]

A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” [Luke 18:18]
It is interesting to note too that when Tertullian gets around to dealing with Luke 18:18 he doesn't even specify that he is 'ruler' as in Luke. Indeed the gospel resembles the material in the harmony text of Aphrahat and others which
It is another matter if as a god supremely good, and of his own nature kind, he does not wish even to be worshipped. Who, he asks, is supremely good, except one, that is God? Not as though he has indicated by this that one out of two gods is supremely good, but that there is one only supremely good God, who is for this reason the one supremely good because he is the only God. And indeed he is supremely good, sending rain upon the just and the unjust, and making his sun to rise upon the good and the bada—bearing with, and feeding, and helping even Marcionites. So then when he is asked by that certain man, Good Teacher, what shall I do to obtain possession of eternal life?, he inquired whether he knew—which means, was keeping—the Creator's commandments, in such form as to testify that by the Creator's commandments eternal life is obtained
The way Tertullian treats the material could well suggest that:

1. “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone" was NOT a response to the man who asks him the question which follows - i.e. “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

2. The specific reference to Jesus as 'good teacher' might only be there in order to 'rescue' the statement of Jesus “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone." It may have derived its origins from another context entirely and now just stands here as a way of distinguishing Luke 10:25 from Luke 18:18.

Epiphanius tells us -"instead of 'You know the commandments' he says, 'I know the commandments.' (Pan. 42.11.17, S50). So when you take a second look at the material we start to see the following transformation:
Canonical Luke
A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” "Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’” 21 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said. 22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Changes
[Someone] asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. I know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’” “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said. When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

So:

X asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life? I know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’” “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said. When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Indeed it is remarkable how similar Luke 10:25 and Luke 18:18 are. It is as if they were both reworked from the same original passage. Why was the man who questions Jesus saying 'I know the commandments' changed into Jesus saying 'You know the commandments'? Clearly the original material has Jesus encouraging law-breaking. But it goes deeper than this because Origen thankfully cites the Gospel of Hebrews which contains elements of both stories. Here is what Luomanen noted:
In Luke's gospel, the Lawyer's Question is in many respects a twin to the story about the Rich Man. Both stories open with a similar question "(Good) teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life," and both deal with obeying the Jewish Law. Eusebius's canon tables, for instance, give both Luke 10:25-28 and 18:18-21 as parallels for the story about the Rich Man.67 The Lawyer's Question shares several features with the passage in Origen's commentary.68 All these similarities show that the framer of the second story about a rich man in the "Gospel of Hebrews" consulted both the story about the Rich Man and the Lawyer's Question.
But does it? Or does it merely show that both stories of Luke took aspects of an original narrative which was the original template for both - i.e. one shared in a similar form by the Marcionite gospel and the Gospel of the Hebrews. Footnote 68 is especially appropriate:
68 In addition to the participle /acums, which Luke 18:18 and 20:25 share with Origen's passage in contrast to Matthew and Mark, the phrasing of Jesus' rhetorical question is similar. Origen's passage reads: “dixit ad eum dominus: quomodo dicis ... quoniam scriptum est in lege.”Luke : reads in the Vulgate: “Dixit ad eum in Iege quid scriptutn est quomodo legis." Interestingly, the parallel passages in Matthew and Mark do not mention at all “what is written in the law.” Furthermore, Origen's passage and the Lawyer's Question do not discuss individual commandments as all the synoptic gospels in the Rich Man's Question do. Instead, they concentrate only on the (double) love commandment.
FWIW I think we can begin to understand why the Marcionite material was reworked - Jesus was opening encouraging the man to ignore the Law and follow a new path to life. My tentative reconstruction of this passage (which leads directly to the 'antithesis' - antitheses which were clearly associated with Marcion even though they now only appear in Matthew:
X asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life? "I know the commandments - Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. All these have I have observed from my youth up." But Jesus said "You have heard that the law commanded, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say, Thou shalt not lust.
My justification for this reconstruction is here:

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2011/ ... ospel.html

My guess again is that the original 'full restored' passage has been broken from something like:
[lost name/figure] stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit life?” “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.” The man asked "But what must I do to inherit eternal life? I know the commandments - Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. All these have I have observed from my youth up." But Jesus said "You have heard that the law commanded, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say, Thou shalt not lust.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Reconstructing Marcionism for Morons

Post by Bernard Muller »

In the anti-Marcionite literature (it would seem) Tertullian makes clear that only 'life' appeared in Luke 10:25 - 28 rather than 'eternal life':
In short we shall prove, have already proved, that in Christ those things have been seen which had been prophesied of, yet had been hidden even from the prophets, and consequently were hidden also from the wise and prudent of the world. In the gospel of truth a doctor of the law approaches Christ with the question, What shall I do to obtain eternal life? In the heretic's gospel is written only 'life', without mention of 'eternal', so that the doctor may have the appearance of asking for advice about that life, that long life, which is promised by the Creator in the law,k and the Lord may then seem to have given him an answer in terms of the law, Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, because the question asked was about the law of life.
Tertullian made clear that the gospel of Marcion does not have "eternal" associated with "life" in 10:25-28. As compared to what? Of course gLuke, as Tertullian knew it, and evidenced by "eternal life" appearing in every ancient manuscripts of gLuke at 10:25-28.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Marcionism for Morons

Post by Secret Alias »

Tertullian made clear that the gospel of Marcion does not have "eternal" associated with "life" in 10:25-28. As compared to what? Of course gLuke
Yeah ok. No issue there. It may have been Tertullian or some other figure along the chain of the manuscript (Irenaeus) cf. Adv Marc 1:1. How does that factor into the discussion? Remember Criddle and I accept that Justin wrote an original manuscript against Marcion from some sort of 'harmony vs Marcion' comparison. Tertullian or Irenaeus (whom I suppose wrote the Greek original just before Tertullian's again slightly altered Latin manuscript) saw the reference and the debate in Justin and did the comparison with Luke. How is that important?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Marcionism for Morons

Post by Secret Alias »

5. The Massive 'Chasm' Reported in Adv Marc 5.10

Unlike the usual assumptions about 'small' textual variations in Marcion Tertullian reports whole chapters missing from one section of Romans:
For he proceeds: He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies [Rom 8.11]. In this way he confirms the resurrection of the flesh, since apart from flesh nothing else can be described as body, nor anything else be taken for mortal: and he has also given proof of Christ's corporal substance, in that our mortal bodies are to be quickened on the same terms on which he too was raised up again, and on the same terms can only mean in the body. I overleap here an immense chasm left by scripture carved away: though I take note of the apostle giving evidence for Israel that they have a zeal of God [Rom 10.2], their own God of course, though not by means of knowledge. For they, he says, being ignorant of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God: for Christ is the end of the law in righteousness to every one that believeth.
When you look at the 'expunged' material it is simply impossible to believe that this was added by an orthodox source. Surely some of it is authentically Pauline. So what happened to it? It was taken from somewhere else and 'patched up' here:
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.

For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life[d] because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies

because of[e] his Spirit who lives in you.

12 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship.[f] And by him we cry, “Abba,[g] Father.” 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

Present Suffering and Future Glory
18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.

28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

More Than Conquerors
31 What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written:

“For your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”[j]
37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[k] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.

God’s Sovereign Choice
6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”[c]

10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e]

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f]
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25 As he says in Hosea:

“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”
26 and,

“In the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”[j]
27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:

“Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
28 For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”[k]
29 It is just as Isaiah said previously:

“Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah.”[l]
Israel’s Unbelief
30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”[m]

Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2


For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.


Moreover it calls into question how this information got passed along to us. Did Tertullian just see a 'chasm' - i.e. a gap - in Justin's original reporting here or did it come from his source who had the text? Very odd.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply