mlinssen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 2:19 amIn NT terms: Marcion and Thomas agree against the Synoptics on the order of wine(skin) and patch/garment - and agreement vs disagreement is one of the main measures for direction of dependenceMrMacSon wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 9:02 pm I'm not sure the point Roth makes or tries to make needs to be made, unless one is considering why Tertullian and G.Thomas 47 align and/or perhaps considering the relative roles of Mark 2.21 and Matt 9:16 versus Luke 5:36 in being witness to either Tertullian and or G.Thomas (or vice versa)
- Sure. But it's a pity Roth doesn't [seem to] see it, and, as I inferred, he seems to be off on a tangent
First, Martijn's quote of Roth:
Then Ben's work:MrMacSon wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 8:20 pmmlinssen wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 10:13 am
1. Logion 47 has the order of wine skins and patch reversed just like Marcion has:
Concerning Tertullian’s testimony, first, in 4.11.9–10, Tertullian twice makes reference to the wine and then to the patch, which is the order found in Gos. Thomas 47. This is different from Tertullian’s order in 3.15.5, where the reverse order, found in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 2:21–22/Matt 9:16–17/Luke 5:36–37), is followed.
When considering only Tertullian’s testimony, some hesitancy about concluding that Tertullian definitively attests the reverse order of the elements for Marcion’s Gospel arises as Tertullian himself chose the variant order—wine then patch—in Or. 1.1. Second, Tertullian employed a word-play in his accusations levelled against Marcion in 4.11.9 that is suggestive of the underlying reading. The phrase pannum haereticae novitatis59 seems to play on ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου (as in Mark 2:21/Matt 9:16) and not on the Lukan ἐπίβλημα ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ (Luke 5:36).60
(Roth's Marcion, p.97)
In the following, the English texts has been placed first and the Latin or Greek second and the font color made grey.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:09 pm
..... a reconstruction [of the Marcionite Evangelion] of sorts,
..based primarily on the work of Dieter T. Roth - pp.412-436 of The Text of Marcion’s Gospel - and secondarily on the work of Jason BeDuhn ...
- Words or phrases specifically attested to some degree as present in the Marcionite text, according to Roth, are in blue boldface. Roth specifies several degrees of probability for such verbatim attestation, but I do not replicate those degrees here ...
- Words or phrases generically attested as present in the Marcionite text, according to Roth, but with no way of determining exact wording, are in blue italics.
- Words or phrases attested as present in Marcion but either absent from or rendered differently in canonical Luke, according to Roth, are underlined in blue boldface (being, virtually by definition, specifically attested as present in the Marcionite text). If the underlined words are replacing Lucan material (that is, if the underlined words are differently rendered in Luke and not merely absent), that replaced (or differently rendered) Lucan material is given first in blue italics, as described above, and then the Marcionite material is given in brackets immediately thereafter.
- Words or phrases which are not attested either as absent or as present, according to Roth, are in plain black.
- Words or phrases attested as absent from the Marcionite text, according to Roth, are in red.
For posterity:Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:10 pm
Luke 5.33-39
.
33 They said to him, “Why do John’s disciples often fast and pray, likewise also the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink?” 34 He said to them, “The friends of the bridechamber cannot fast as long as [Marcion: while] the bridegroom is with them, can they?
35 But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them. Then they will fast in those days.”
.
.
.
36 He also told a parable to them. “No one puts a piece of unshrunk fabric from a new garment on an old garment, or else he will tear the new, and also the piece from the new will not match the old. 37 No one puts new wine into old wine skins, or else the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. 38 But new wine must be put into fresh wine skins, and both are preserved. 39 No man having drunk old wine immediately desires new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’ ”
..
33 Οἱ δὲ εἶπαν πρὸς αὐτόν, Οἱ μαθηταὶ Ἰωάννου νηστεύουσιν πυκνὰ καὶ δεήσεις ποιοῦνται, ὁμοίως καὶ οἱ τῶν Φαρισαίων, οἱ δὲ σοὶ ἐσθίουσιν καὶ πίνουσιν. 34 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, Μὴ δύνασθε τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ νυμφῶνος ἐν ᾧ ὁ νυμφίος μετ' αὐτῶν ἐστιν ποιῆσαι νηστεῦσαὶ; [Marcion: μὴ δύνανται νηστεύειν οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ νυμφῶνος, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐστιν ὁ νύμφιος.] 35 ἐλεύσονται δὲ ἡμέραι, καὶ ὁταν ἀπαρθῇ ἀπ' αὐτῶν ὁ νυμφίος τότε νηστεύσουσιν ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις.
.
36 Ἔλεγεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι Οὐδεὶς ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ σχίσας ἐπιβάλλει ἐπὶ ἱμάτιον παλαιόν· εἰ δὲ μή γε, καὶ τὸ καινὸν σχίσει καὶ τῷ παλαιῷ οὐ συμφωνήσει τὸ ἐπίβλημα τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ καινοῦ. 37 καὶ οὐδεὶς βάλλει οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς· εἰ δὲ μή γε, ῥήξει ὁ οἶνος ὁ νέος τοὺς ἀσκούς, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκχυθήσεται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπολοῦνται· 38 ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινοὺς βλητέον. 39 [καὶ] οὐδεὶς πιὼν παλαιὸν θέλει νέον· λέγει γάρ, Ὁ παλαιὸς χρηστός ἐστιν.
.
Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.15.5: How is it, again, that he tells us that "a piece of new cloth is not sewed on to an old garment," or that "new wine is not trusted to old bottles," when he is himself patched and clad in an old suit of names? How is it he has rent off the gospel from the law, when he is wholly invested with the law--in the name, forsooth, of Christ? What hindered his calling himself by some other name, seeing that he preached another (gospel), came from another source, and refused to take on him a real body, for the very purpose that he might not be supposed to be the Creator's Christ? / [5] Quomodo denique docet novam plagulam non adsui veteri vestimento, nec vinum novum veteribus utribus credi, adsutus ipse et indutus2 nominum senio? Quomodo abscidit evangelium a lege, tota lege vestitus, in nomine scilicet Christi? Quis illum prohibuit aliud vocari, aliud praedicantem aliunde venientem, cum propterea nec corporis susceperit veritatem ne Christus creatoris crederetur?
Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.11.9-10: You have erred also in that declaration of Christ, wherein He seems to make a difference between things new and old. You are inflated about the old bottles, and brain-muddled with the new wine; and therefore to the old (that is to say, to the prior) gospel you have sewed on the patch of your new-fangled heresy. I should like to know in what respect the Creator is inconsistent with Himself. When by Jeremiah He gave this precept, "Break up for yourselves new pastures," does He not turn away from the old state of things? And when by Isaiah He proclaims how "old things were passed away; and, behold, all things, which I am making, are new," does He not advert to a new state of things? We have generally been of opinion that the destination of the former state of things was rather promised by the Creator, and exhibited in reality by Christ, only under the authority of one and the same God, to whom appertain both the old things and the new. [10] For new wine is not put into old bottles, except by one who has the old bottles; nor does anybody put a new piece to an old garment, unless the old garment be forthcoming to him. That person only does not do a thing when it is not to be done, who has the materials wherewithal to do it if it were to be done. And therefore, since His object in making the comparison was to show that He was separating the new condition of the gospel from the old state of the law, He proved that that from which He was separating His own ought not to have been branded as a separation of things which were alien to each other; for nobody ever unites his own things with things that are alien to them, in order that he may afterwards be able to separate them from the alien things. / [9] Errasti in illa etiam domini pronuntiatione qua videtur nova et vetera discernere. Inflatus es utribus veteribus et excerebratus es novo vino, atque ita veteri, id est priori evangelio, pannum haereticae novitatis assuisti. In quo alter creator, velim discere. Cum per Hieremiam praecepit, Novate vobis novamen novum, nonne a veteribus avertit? cum per Esaiam edicit, Vetera transierunt, et ecce nova quae ego facio, nonne ad nova convertit? Olim hanc statuimus destinationem pristinorum a creatore potius repromissam a Christo exhiberi, sub unius et eiusdem dei auctoritate, cuius sint et vetera et nova. [10] Nam et vinum novum is non committit in veteres utres qui et veteres utres non habuerit, et novum additamentum nemo inicit veteri vestimento nisi cui non defuerit et vetus vestimentum. Ille non facit quid, si faciendum non est, qui habeat unde faciat, si faciendum esset. Itaque si in hoc dirigebat similitudinem, ut ostenderet se evangelii novitatem separare a legis vetustate, suam demonstrabat et illam a qua separabat alienorum separatione non fuisse notandam, quia nemo alienis sua adiungit ut ab alienis separare possit.
Epiphanius, Panarion 42.2.1: And he began—at the very beginning, as it were, and as though at the starting-point of the questions at issue—to put this question to the elders of that time: 'Tell me, what is the meaning of, 'Men do not put new wine into old bottles, or a patch of new cloth unto an old garment; else it both taketh away the fullness, and agreeth not with the old. For a greater rent will be made.' / Καὶ ἄρχεται ὡς εἰπεῖν ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀρχῆς καὶ ὡς ἀπὸ θυρῶν τῶν ζητημάτων προτείνειν τοῖς κατ' ἐκεῖνο καιροῦ πρεσβυτέροις τοῦτο τὸ ζήτημα λέγων «εἴπατέ μοι, τί ἐστι τό· οὐ βάλλουσιν οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιοὺς οὐδὲ ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἐπὶ ἱματίῳ παλαιῷ· εἰ δὲ μή γε, καὶ τὸ πλήρωμα αἴρει καὶ τῷ παλαιῷ οὐ συμφωνήσει. μεῖζον γὰρ σχίσμα γενήσεται».
Philastrius, Book of Diverse Heresies 45.2: What is it, says he, that is written in the gospel, the Lord speaking? "No one puts a piece of raw fabric on an old garment, nor new wine in old skins, or else the skins are ruptured and the wine is poured out." And again: "It is not a good tree which makes evil fruit, nor an evil tree which makes good fruit". / Quid est, inquit [Marcion], quod in evangelio dicente domino scriptum est? "Nemo pannum rudem mittet in vestimentum vetus, neque vinum novum in utres veteres, alioquin rumpuntur utres et effunditur vinum." Et iterum: "Non est arbor bona quae facit malum fructum, neque arbor mala quae faciat bonum fructum.
Adamantius Dialogue, according to Dieter T. Roth (page 359): 90,5–9 (2.16)—[Mark.] [follows citation of John 13:34] . . . λέγει γὰρ πάλιν ὁ σωτήρ βάλλουσιν οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς νέους καὶ ἀμφότεροι συντηροῦνται. . . . πάλιν γὰρ λέγει ὁ σωτήρ οὐδεὶς ἐπιβάλλει ἐπιβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἱματίῳ παλαιῷ. . . . | . . . Dicit enim salvator quia Si mittatur vinum novum in utres novos, utraque conservabuntur. . . . Et iterum: Nemo assuit assumentum panni rudis ad vestimentum vetus. . . . | 90,22–23 (2.16)—[Mark.] . . . οὐδεὶς γάρ, φησίν, ἐπιβάλλει ἀπὸ ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἐπὶ ἱματίῳ παλαιῷ. | . . . Nemo enim, inquit, assuit pannum rudem ad vestimentum vetus.
Pseudo-Ephrem, An Exposition of the Gospel, according to Roth (page 400): 64—You cannot order the bridegroom’s companions to fast, as long as the bridegroom shall be with them.
Ephrem, Hymns Against Heresies, according to Roth (page 400): 47.4—Auch der Fremde . . . kannte . . . als Bräutigam jeden Tag (Freude und) Ergötzen—während Johannes in Trauer, Entsagung und Fasten (lebte).—Nicht können die Söhne des Brautgemaches fasten. Die Leute des Schöpfers sind Faster,—der Fremde, der nicht existiert, ist ein Schlemmer.
Ephrem, Hymns Against Heresies, according to Roth (page 400): 44.6–7—Nicht tut man neuen Wein in abgenützte Schläuche. Er gab (neue) Sinne—wie (neue) Gebote, neues Ohr—wie (neues) Gebot. Denn von einem alt gewordnen Ohr—werden neue Melodien nicht vernommen. Darüber muss man staunen, dass er (neue) Gebote gab,—nicht die alten, und dass er (die alten) Glieder gab,—nicht fremde! Die Sinne, die er heilte,—verkünden laut von ihm: Auch wenn neu sind—die Aussprüche, die er tat, ist er (dennoch) nicht der Fremde!
Roth remarks (page 414) concerning verses 36-38: This parable is attested in multiple sources; however, the precise wording can no longer be reconstructed. It is likely that ὁ οἶνος was discussed before τὸ ἐπίβλημα; and the Matthean ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου may have been present in Marcion’s text. The attestation of v. 38 is uncertain.
MrMacSon wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 8:20 pm
'Or' is De Oratione / On Prayer:
The Spirit of God, and the Word of God, and the Reason of God--Word of Reason, and Reason and Spirit of Word -- Jesus Christ our Lord, namely, who is both the one and the other -- has determined for us, the disciples of the New Testament, a new form of prayer; for in this particular also it was needful that new wine should be laid up in new skins, and a new breadth be sewn to a new garment. Besides, whatever had been in bygone days, has either been quite changed, as circumcision; or else supplemented, as the rest of the Law; or else fulfilled, as Prophecy; or else perfected, as faith itself. For the new grace of God has renewed all things from carnal unto spiritual, by superinducing the Gospel, the obliterator of the whole ancient bygone system; in which our Lord Jesus Christ has been approved as the Spirit of God, and the Word of God, and the Reason of God: the Spirit, by which He was mighty; the Word, by which He taught; the Reason, by which He came. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ian22.html
I. [1] Dei spiritus et Dei sermo et Dei ratio, sermo rationis et ratio sermonis et spiritus utriusque, Iesus Christus Dominus noster, nouis discipulis noui testamenti nouam orationis formam determinauit. Oportebat enim in hac quoque specie nouum uinum nouis utribus recondi et nouam plagulam nouo adsui uestimento. Ceterum quicquid retro fuerat, aut demutatum est ut circumcisio aut suppletum ut reliqua lex aut impletum ut prophetia aut perfectum ut fides ipsa. [2] Omnia de carnalibus in spiritualia renouauit noua Dei gratia, superducto euangelio, expunctore totius retro uetustatis, in quo et Dei spiritus et Dei sermo et Dei ratio approbatus est Dominus noster Iesus Christus, spiritus quo ualuit, sermo quo docuit, ratio qua uenit. http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0350/_P1.HTM