Tertullian, Marcion, novelty, proximity, the Lord's Prayer, new wine & new wineskins, etc

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Tertullian, Marcion, novelty, proximity, the Lord's Prayer, new wine & new wineskins, etc

Post by MrMacSon »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:24 am Early third CE for the Turtle I'd say ;-)
  • Doh! Corrected!

mlinssen wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 11:11 pm And what you REALLY are saying is that they are just protesting against the Chrestian text without having anything else in front of them because no canonical[s] existed at that time - save for John, who is rather irrelevant in this regard
  • Good point about the Fathers not having the synoptics in front of them - and maybe only having access to John or early Johannine literature and Marcion's *Ev and supposedly Luke* - something that Tertullian's Adv. Marcion IV,11 might suggest with its references to Johns then to Marcion (and the wineskins and patches pericopes (see viewtopic.php?p=149253#p149253)

    * Tertullian might have just been setting Luke up or supporting him in reworking Marcion

mlinssen wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:24 am
It perhaps wouldn't be too far-fetched to have the creation of the NT in 4th CE, as it would certainly explain the gross anomalies with regards to time and space involving Palestine. It would also explain the crazy LukeMatthew quotes by Justin Martyr FF - yet if nothing did stir until 300-350 CE then surely all the FF that preceded were retrofitted just like the NT, and perhaps it all started with [the time of] Constantine [ie. Eusebius & Co & their followers]

But I think it much more likely that the FF just kept their foul mouths shut at this, identical to the dozens of cases where they silently attested to *Ev material^

  • Aha! Good point re the fathers wanting to avoid it, other than perhaps wanting to continue to diss Marcion

    There aren't than many significant Fathers b/w Tertullian and Epiphanius, Philastrius and Adamantius, anyway, other than Origen (& Philastrius and Adamantius are relatively minor players)

    ^ I copied part of that post into this thread (at the top of p.2 viewtopic.php?p=149259#p149259)
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2705
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Tertullian, Marcion, novelty, proximity, the Lord's Prayer, new wine & new wineskins, etc

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:44 am
  • Aha! Good point re the fathers wanting to avoid it, other than perhaps wanting to continue to diss Marcion

    There aren't than many significant Fathers b/w Tertullian and Epiphanius, Philastrius and Adamantius, anyway, other than Origen (& Philastrius and Adamantius are relatively minor players)

    ^ I copied part of that post into this thread (at the top of p.2 viewtopic.php?p=149259#p149259)
I have a similar issue with the resurrection...
Yes, the FF pretend that Marcion talks about a resurrection - but could they really afford to point out that he didn't have one?

I mean even if you're not convinced that he ended with the death of IS, then what the hell is Mark doing with his dumb and pointless ending, letting his hero be buried by perfect strangers?

The entire point to all that anonymity is precisely that: deniability. IS died in perfect isolation, alone, as lonely as a teenager on Friday night really.
What does Mark add to *Ev if not the fable of resurrection?

In short, isn't it obvious that the FF pretend that *Ev has a resurrection, while getting just about everything wrong while "attesting to it"?

THERE MUST BE A GODDAMN GOOD REASON TO LEAVE ALL OF THE BURIAL AND RESURRECTION UP TO UNKNOWNS

That starts with the death already, yes - although John makes that very intimate. But the real question is: can the FF even afford to point out what was not in *Ev?!
rgprice
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Tertullian, Marcion, novelty, proximity, the Lord's Prayer, new wine & new wineskins, etc

Post by rgprice »

I disagree with Vinzent's assessment of the Lord's Prayer. The Lord's Prayer is clearly evocative of the prayers and sermons we find in Colossians and Ephesians/Laodiceans, which also praise the Father and address legal concerns. For example:

Luke 11:4 And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us. And do not bring us to the time of trial.


Ephesians 4:32 and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you.


Colossians 2:
13 And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses, 14 erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands.

And note that Ephesians/Laodiceans is a running collection of prayers. Both Colossians and Ephesians/Laodiceans are sermons that were meant to be read aloud to congregations, instructing them on how to pray.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2705
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Tertullian, Marcion, novelty, proximity, the Lord's Prayer, new wine & new wineskins, etc

Post by mlinssen »

rgprice wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:07 am I disagree with Vinzent's assessment of the Lord's Prayer. The Lord's Prayer is clearly evocative of the prayers and sermons we find in Colossians and Ephesians/Laodiceans, which also praise the Father and address legal concerns. For example:

Luke 11:4 And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us. And do not bring us to the time of trial.


Ephesians 4:32 and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you.


Colossians 2:
13 And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses, 14 erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands.

And note that Ephesians/Laodiceans is a running collection of prayers. Both Colossians and Ephesians/Laodiceans are sermons that were meant to be read aloud to congregations, instructing them on how to pray.
Come on Geoff no argument can be this feeble.
How many assumptions can you pile on top of one another without substantiating even a single one before all of it comes tumbling down?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2705
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Tertullian, Marcion, novelty, proximity, the Lord's Prayer, new wine & new wineskins, etc

Post by mlinssen »

A sample for Geoff, from Bilby. There's an echo somewhere when I copy and paste, yes - but let's not be distracted by that, as the level of detail in the footnote is that which matters.
What this highlights (pun) is the futility of the opinions that Geoff disperses, compared to how one really analyses texts.
If one wants that to be in the least convincing, that is

Qn (65Qn (65–69) Lk1 (80s)69) Lk1 (80s) Mt1 1 ( (9 90s)0s) Lk2 (117Lk2 (117–138)138)
QnLk1 10.21. εὐχαριστῶ σοι καὶ ἐξομολογοῦμαί κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὅτι κρυπτὰ ⸄ταῦτα ἀπὸ σοφῶν⸅ καὶ ⸄συνετῶν⸅ ἀπεκάλυψας νηπίοις ναὶ ὁ πατήρ374

Mt1 11.25. ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι, πάτερ, κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, ὅτι ἔκρυψας ταῦτα ἀπὸ σοφῶν καὶ συνετῶν καὶ ἀπεκάλυψας αὐτὰ νηπίοις· [QnLk1‧Mt1]
Mt1 11.26. ναὶ ὁ πατήρ, ὅτι οὕτως εὐδοκία ἐγένετο ἔμπροσθέν σου. [QnLk1‧Mt1]

Lk2 10.21. ἐ ἐν αν αὐ ὐτ τῇ ῇ τ τῇ ῇ ὥ ὥρ ρᾳ ᾳ ἠγαλλιάσατο [ἐν] τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ καὶ ε εἶ ἶπενπεν· ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι, π πά άτερτερ, κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κακαὶ ὶ τ τῆ ῆς γς γῆ ῆς ς, ὅτι ἀ ἀπ πέ έκρυψαςκρυψας ταταῦ ῦτατα ἀπὸ σοφῶν καὶ συνετῶν κακαὶ ὶ ἀπεκάλυψας α αὐ ὐτ τὰ ὰ νηπίοις· ναὶ ὁ πατήρ, ὅ ὅτι οτι οὕ ὕτως τως ε εὐ ὐδοκδοκί ία α ἐ ἐγ γέ ένετο νετο ἔ ἔμπροσθμπροσθέ έν σουν σου. [QnLk1Mt1⁖Lk2]

374 Lk1 10.21 is quoted clearly and restated both in T and E: "Who is the lord of heaven invoked who is not shown previously as maker? 'Thanks indeed', he says, 'I give, and I confess, lord of heaven, because what things have been hidden from the wise and prudent, you have revealed to infants'" / quis dominus caeli invocabitur qui non prius factor ostenditur? gratias enim inquit ago et confiteor domine caeli quod ea quae erant abscondita sapientibus et prudentibus revelaveris parvulis (Marc. 4.25.1; SC 456:314; Evans 396). T specifically faults the absence of the word "father": "Thus neither the lord of heaven nor the father of Christ" / ita nec dominus caeli nec pater Christi (Marc. 4.25.3; SC 456:316; Evans 398). In another treatise, T invokes the overlapping double-tradition, including the word "father": "'I confess,' he says, 'you, father, that you have hidden these things from the wise" / confiteor inquit tibi pater quod absconderis haec a sapientibus (Prax.
26.8; CCSL 2:1197). E also notes the absence of the word "father" and interprets it as if stemming from Marcion's theological agenda: "'I thank you, lord of heaven. He did not have 'and the earth', nor does he have 'father.' But he self-contradicts below, for he has, 'Yes, father'" / εὐχαριστῶ σοι, κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. οὐκ εἶχεν δέ καὶ τῆς γῆς, οὔτε πάτερ εἶχεν. ἐλέγχεται δέ κάτω γὰρ εἶχεν ναὶ, ὁ πατήρ (Pan. 42.11.6 κβ (22); 42.11.17 Σχ. κβ (22); restated in 42.11.17 Ἔλ. κβ (22); GCS 31:110, 132).
Both witnesses confirm that "father" / πάτερ (explicitly) and "even of the earth" / καὶ τῆς γῆς (tacitly) were absent from the opening of the prayer in Lk1. E includes "father" in his quotation of this prayer in other sections (Pan. 21.6.2 in GCS nF 10.1:245; Pan. 40.7.9 in GCS 31:89), whether relying on the Matthean or Lk2 version, which are identical in this regard. While "I give thanks" / εὐχαριστῶ is absent from LkR2 and MtR2, R (420) and V (205*) were correct to keep it as a distinctive tradition, given that both T and E clearly attest to it. While V (206*) and R (420) posit dative forms / σοφοῖς καὶ συνετοῖς for "the wise and prudent" / sapientibus et prudentibus, T was almost certainly using the ablative case here, which fully supports the genitive forms with ablative force / ἀπὸ σοφῶν καὶ συνετῶν found in LkR2 and MtR2. The LkR2 and MtR2 "these things" / ταῦτα is sufficiently confirmed by T, which differs from the more complicated relative clause "whatever things were" / ἅτινα ἦν reconstructed by V and R. The opening and closing phrases are characteristic LkR2: "he rejoiced in the holy spirit" and "because thus it was pleasing before you". This set continues the MtR2 section in the parallel set above.
rgprice
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Tertullian, Marcion, novelty, proximity, the Lord's Prayer, new wine & new wineskins, etc

Post by rgprice »

It's not so simple.

From BeDuhn:
21. . . He said: “I thank you and praise you, Lord of the
celestial sphere, because these things which were hidden
from learned and intelligent people you have revealed to
novices. Yes, Father, because to do thus became gratifying
to you. 22 Everything has been confided to me by the
Father, and no one has known who the Father is except the
Son, nor recognizes who the Son is except the Father, and
the one to whom the Son discloses (it).”

Firstly, the lack of "heaven and earth" actually fits, because even Luke could not have originally considered the Father the Lord of the earth. This is why we have the Temptation scene with Satan.

Luke 4: 5 And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the devil said to Him, “I will give You all this domain and its glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. 7 Therefore if You worship before me, it shall all be Yours.”

This is perfectly in line with Qumranic views that Belial was the "lord of this world". The purpose of this scene was to show that Satan was the "lord of this world". So yes, the writer of the Temptation scene did not consider the Father to be the "lord of this world." The Temptation scene is not present in Marcion's Gospel.

As for knowing, again we find these concepts in Ephesians/Laodiceans and Colossians.

Ephesians 1:
4 By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; 6 to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, 7 of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God’s grace which was given to me according to the working of His power.

Likewise, even Romans talks about the Jews not knowing God:

10 Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.


Romans 10:
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15 How will they preach unless they are sent?

The him who they have not believed in God, not Jesus. And also note that this part of Romans is widely agreed not to have been a part of Marcion's letter.

And indeed this same argument is used by Justin against the Jews. And also Justine, not a Marcionite, argued that the Jews didn't actually know God.

So this is not decisively Marcionite. Yet we can see how it could be open to Marcion's interpretation and is precisely the type of thing that led to Marcion's reading of the scriptures.
robert j
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Tertullian, Marcion, novelty, proximity, the Lord's Prayer, new wine & new wineskins, etc

Post by robert j »

rgprice wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 9:27 am
Romans 10:
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15 How will they preach unless they are sent?

The him who they have not believed in God, not Jesus.
Au contraire.

... if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10for with the heart a person believes, [g]resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, [h]resulting in salvation. 11For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE PUT TO SHAME.” 12For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13for “EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.”

14How then are they to call on Him in whom they have not believed? How are they to believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? (Romans 10:9-14, NASB)

rgprice
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Tertullian, Marcion, novelty, proximity, the Lord's Prayer, new wine & new wineskins, etc

Post by rgprice »

@robertj fair point.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Tertullian, Marcion, novelty, proximity, the Lord's Prayer, new wine & new wineskins, etc

Post by MrMacSon »

rgprice wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:07 am
I disagree with Vinzent's assessment of the Lord's Prayer. The Lord's Prayer is clearly evocative of the prayers and sermons we find in Colossians and Ephesians/Laodiceans, which also praise the Father and address legal concerns.
.
I don't think Vinzent has commented on where Marcion got [his version of what became known as] The Lord's Prayer from: afiak, Vinzent has only ever commented on the Lord's Prayer (1) in relation to Tertullian commenting about it wrt to Marcion (and, even them, favourably); and (2) wrt to the Synoptic Problem (see https://www.academia.edu/45436831/Metho ... rds_Prayer).

But you raise and interesting point (your post slightly reconfigured here):
rgprice wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:07 am
... The Lord's Prayer is clearly evocative of the prayers and sermons we find in Colossians and Ephesians/Laodiceans, which also praise the Father and address legal concerns. For example:

Ephesians 4:32 and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you.


Colossians 2:
13 And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses, 14 erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands.


Luke 11:4 And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us. And do not bring us to the time of trial.

And note that Ephesians/Laodiceans is a running collection of prayers. Both Colossians and Ephesians/Laodiceans are sermons that were meant to be read aloud to congregations, instructing them on how to pray.
.

Luke 11:4 is attested in Marcion's Euangelion according to BeDuhn and Vinzent (I don't have access to Klinghardt at present):

BeDuhn, The First New Testament Canon, 2013, pp. 109; 157-9:

Mcn 11:1-4
.....
1 ...
 When he was in a certain place invoking,
........when he stopped, a certain one of his pupils said to him,
..........“Teach us to invoke, Master, just as John also taught his pupils.”
.....2 .Then he said to them, “Whenever you may invoke, say,
..........‘Father, let your sacred spirit come upon us ... Let your realm come.
.....3 ...‘Give us your sustaining bread day by day.
.....4 ...‘And dismiss for us our misdeeds. And do not permit us to be brought to a trial’.”


11.1 Tertullian, Marc. 4.26.1–5; Origen, Fr. Luc. (Rauer) 180.
11.2 Tertullian, Marc. 4.26.1–5; Origen, Fr. Luc. (Rauer) 180.
The Evangelion is one of a handful of witnesses to what are generally regarded as original and better readings within this passage, while also showing some rare readings whose standing in the textual tradition is actively debated. The most likely reconstruction of the Evangelion’s text of the prayer has a clear pattern: a pair of couplets with repeated verbs in the primary position (elthetō + elthetō; aphes + aphes) framing a middle clause with the verb following its object phrase (this pattern is missed by Delobel, “Extra-Canonical Sayings of Jesus,” 296 and Amphoux, “Les premières editions de Luc,” 110, both cited below).
The Evangelion read simply “Father,” lacking “our ... who is in heaven,” in agreement with P75, several other key Greek manuscripts (including ms 700), the SSyr, and Origen; the longer text derives from Matt 6.9–10 (and is given in this form in the Diatessaron). Based on Tertullian’s reference, the Evangelion lacked “Hallowed be thy name,” and instead had a request concerning “your spirit” as the first petition, followed by the request for God’s realm to come. This reading seems to be related, but not identical, to that found (in slightly varying forms) in the Gk mss 700 (eleventh century) and 162 (twelfth century), Gregory of Nyssa, De oratione dominica, 3.737f. (PG 44, col. 1157C) (fourth century), and Maximus the Confessor, Expositio orationis dominicae 1.350 (PG 110, col. 884B) (seventh century), all of which have a petition for the spirit following “Hallowed be thy name” and instead of a request for the God’s realm to come. Delobel is correct to fault citing Marcion as a witness to this latter reading without further qualification (“The Lord’s Prayer in the Textual Tradition,” 296–98). ... [continues] ...
11.3 Tertullian, Marc. 4.26.1–5; Origen, Fr. Luc. (Rauer) 180.
The Evangelion read “your ... bread” rather than “our bread” according to Origen; the SSyr and CSyr have simply “the bread,” which may be the reading Tertullian had before him.
11.4 Tertullian, Marc. 4.26.1–5; Origen, Fr. Luc. (Rauer) 180.
The justifying clause, “for we ourselves also forgive everyone that is in debt to us,” is unattested for the Evangelion. It also had the probably more original shorter text omitting “but deliver us from evil” found in many manuscripts of Luke borrowed from Matthew; likewise P75, Sinaiticus, 700, and other Greek manuscripts, SyriacS, the Coptic and Armenian versions, and Origen. Harnack reconstructed the wording “Do not permit us to be brought,” which would be a pious emendation from the more original “do not bring us” attested as early as Pol.Phil 7.2.
But Schmid, “How Can We Access Second Century Gospel Texts?” 143–44, argues against this reconstruction, maintaining that Tertullian’s rephrasing of the text into a rhetorical question masks the original wording, and brings it into line with his own pious exegesis of this phrase of Luke elsewhere in his writings. While Schmid’s observations are perfectly valid, it cannot be ruled out that both Tertullian and the redactor of the Evangelion embraced a widespread avoidance of directly attributing testing to God (all the more so if Marcion was that redactor, but I do not assume that). The clear parallelism of structure with the repeated use of aphes matching the prior repetition of elthetō, inclines me to follow Harnack’s reconstruction.

For Vinzent's reproductions and side-by-side comparisons of Mcn 11:1-4, Luke 11:1-4, Matt 6:5-13, Didache 8,2-3 9 and Q 11:2b-4), see pp.216-9 here: https://www.academia.edu/45436831/Metho ... rds_Prayer

[I may reproduce Vinzent's table here]
Last edited by MrMacSon on Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rgprice
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Tertullian, Marcion, novelty, proximity, the Lord's Prayer, new wine & new wineskins, etc

Post by rgprice »

Also, regarding Luke 10:21, we have to be very careful about classifying something as "Marcionite", because what we mainly know as Christianity is just orthodoxy. But prior to the Gnostic vs Orthodox feuds of the mid 2nd century, there was neither orthodoxy nor gnostic/Marcionite scriptures. Paul is clearly neither Marcionite nor orthodox. Yet, whatever existed must have been open to both gnostic and orthodox interpretations.

Now, the fact is that Matthew retains this passage, and that should be a big indication.

Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. 26 Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. 27 All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

Unless one wants to ague that Matthew was an idiot or that Matthew made a mistake or that Matthew glossed over this, then one has to acknowledge that Matthew saw fit to retain this passage. AND Matthew did change 11:25, while retaining 11:27. Surely Matthew was no fool. Matthew is the most anti-Marcionite of all the writers! Matthew was meticulous, re-working virtually every passage in detail. Yet we are to think that Matthew just accidently let some Marcionism slip in here? Come on.

The fact that Matthew has retained this tells us that he did not view it as Marcionite, and surely we can agree that Matthew would have recognized Marcionism better than us no? Or does anyone really think that the leading anti-Marcionite evangelist allowed a stick of dynamite to pass right on through?
Post Reply