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: 8134
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

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

Post by MrMacSon »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 6:54 am Tertullian was more Marcionite than one can think. His late conversion to Montanism proves this fact: despite of all that apology of apostolic tradition, etc., for Tertullian
In agreement with Giuseppe


Why did Tertullian make such an effort to refute Marcion, [ to] make the fight against Marcion almost 'his life passion'?9 Especially at a time when he himself had already joined the prophetic movement of the so-called Montanists?10 Was it because Marcion had rejected any prophetism except that of Christ himself,11 had criticized the Jewish Prophets for not knowing anything of Christ Jesus,12 [and] had denied the authority of John the Baptist for having taken offence at Jesus? Was it because Montanists were in rivalry with Marcionites about the number of martyrs, [as] indicated by Eusebius?13 In my eyes, Tertullian's preface to his work on the Lord's Prayer reveals a potential answer; namely, the proximity in thinking between Tertullian and his theological arch-rival Marcion. In his On Prayer, Tertullian praised the 'novelty' of this form of prayer together with the novelty of the 'New Testament.'

Perhaps strange for us, but, as van der Geest has shown, the understanding of 'New Testament' changed during the life of Tertullian.14 While generally in his pre-Marcionite writings ‘testamentum’ had the meaning of God’s ordinance; after he [started] dealing with Marcion, Tertullian started mentioning Marcion’s use of ‘New Testament’ for the collection of the Gospel and Pauls letters; a terminology which he sometimes adopted himself, albeit rarely.15 Yet, as Tertullian also explained in his commentary on Marcion's Gospel, he too embraced from Marcion this notion of novelty: "So then I do admit that there was a different course followed in the old dispensation under the Creator, from that in the new dispensation under Christ." And Tertullian added:
"I do not deny difference in records of these of things spoken, in precepts for good behaviour, and in rules of Law, provided that all these differences have reference to one and the same God, that God by whom it is acknowledged that they were obtained and also foretold." [Adv. Marcion IV 1,3]

Neither Marcion’s claim of Christianity’s novelty or the difference between the Gospel and the Torah bothered Tertullian, but [Marcion’s] claim that the two testaments referred to two different Gods did. In contrast, Tertullian underlined that Christianity’s novelty was already ‘ordained and foretold’ by God; namely, precisely through the message of profits [prophets(?)], when, he added:
"Long ago did Isaiah proclaim that the law will go forth from Sion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem - another law, he means, and another word. In fact, he says, he shall judge among the gentiles, and shall convict many people (Isaiah 2:3), meaning not of the one nation of the Jews, but of the gentiles who, by the new law of the gospel and the new word of the Apostles, are being judged and convicted in their own sight in respect of their ancient error, as soon as they have believed, and thereupon beat their swords into ploughshares." [Adv. Marcion IV 1,4]

In fact, one of the big novelties in Marcion's gospel was the introduction of a new form of prayer which was meant to contrast that of John the Baptist and his disciples, namely the Lord’s Prayer.18 Against this background, Tertullian’s preface to his own prayer was revelatory. He says:
"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." [De. or. 1]

Tertullian starts with the ‘new form of prayer’ which the Lord Jesus Christ has ‘determined’ for the disciples of the New Testament. Not only did Tertullian stress the notion of ‘novelty’, which he saw as one of the typical characteristics of Marcion, he also added a biblical reference of Marcion’s Gospel (Mcn 5:36. par. Luke; Matthew. 9:17) on the new wine and the new skins, which, according to Tertullian, was one of the core passengers from which Marcion developed his idea of novitas Christiana and, therefore the distinction between Judaism and what Marcion coined in antithesis to it, Christianity [see Tert. Adv. Marcion III 16 and IV 11].

Here, however, Tertullian deviated from Marcion, when, similar to Justin, he changed Marcion's antithesis for the notions of ‘change’, ‘supplement’, ‘fulfilment’ and ‘perfection’. Strangely enough, for a rhetorician who strived to paint the world in black or white and, therefore, was certainly not only attracted by the Montanist oracles, but also by the antithetical thinker Marcion, when it comes to the relation between the historical past and Christian novelty, Tertullian became a nuanced interpreter who consciously forwent consistency. While he claimed that the superseded Gospel obliterated ‘the whole ancient bygone’ system, he maintained that the prophetism of bold and that of the present are the basis on which the New Testament stands. If faceless, Tertullian did not seem to be without contours; and his ambiguities and inconsistencies may perhaps even make him the more likeable than the contrasts which he is often attempting in his designs.



9 So U.M.S. Rohl, Der Paulusscheruler Markion (2014), 65.[/i]
10 On the chronology see T.D. Barnes, Tertullian (1985), 32-5, 326-8; also compare J.-C. Fredoulle, Tertullien... (1972), 487-8; Rankin, Tertullian and the Church (19950, xv; G.D. Dunn Tertullian (2004), 7-8.
11 one of the main reasons that turned Tertullian against Praxeas: see his Adv. Prax. 1,4-5.
12 on Tertullian's concept of prophetism, see van Geest, Le Christ et l'Ancien Testament chez Tertullien (1972), 99-131.
13 Eusebius, De eccl. hist. V 16,21.
14 see van Geest, Le Christ et l'Ancien Testament chez Tertullien (1972), 30-1, and 30, n.2.
15 See W. Kinzig, 'H καινη διαθήκή' (1994), 530.

18 See E. Osborn, Tertullian (1997), 145-51 on 'the New Prayer'
.

(Markus Vinzent (2016) 'Tertullian's Preface to Marcion's Gospel', pp. 349-52
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Jan 23, 2023 8:29 am, edited 15 times in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8134
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 »

This article by Vinzent may or may not be relevant:
Markus Vinzent, Methodological Assumptions in the Reconstruction of Marcion’s Gospel (Mcn). The Example of the Lord’s Prayer’, in Jan Heilmann, Matthias Klinghardt (eds), Das Neue Testament und sein Text im 2. Jahrhundert, TANZ 61 (Tübingen, 2018); pp.183-222.

https://www.academia.edu/45436831/Metho ... rds_Prayer


Section 3: the additional ε᾽λθε´τω σου η῾ βασιλει´α

The Lord’s Prayer was meant to be an alternative prayer to that of John and it was directed to a different god than to the god of John. The novel character was not only marked by the shorter text, it was also recognisable by Marcion addressing the ‘Father’ as the Father of his community, not the Creator of this earth, but the higher God of the heavens: ‘Our Father who is in heaven’. The opening of the pericope, hence, was meant to distance Jesus from John, his disciples from those others of John (οι῾λοιποι´), this other, previously unknown god who was made public by Christ, from the one of John.

Tertullian retorts, that contrary to Marcion’s reading, one should understand this passage – and he certainly thinks like some modern scholar shave done too, as shown above– that the καθω` ςκαι` ᾽Ιωα´ννης refers to a disciple asking the Lord for teaching him a Johannine prayer to address the God of John. He concedes, however, and acknowledges, as he does in his De oratione, that the Lord’s Prayer is a new form of worship in which God is praised differently. No surprise, therefore, that Tertullian only mentions the term ‘Father to stress the familiarity with him as the God ‘who by making me and fashioning me became my begetter’.
.



4 The Lord’s Prayer in Mcn

What, then, was the content of the Lord’s Prayer in Mcn? We have to start with the frame: First, Mcn had recounted the coming down of the Lord and his sudden and unexpected appearance in Capharnaum, then he introduces Jesus with his many titles: ‘the medic’ (Mcn 4:23 ᾽Ιατρο´ς ), ‘the Holy of God’ (Mcn 4:34 ο῾ α῞γιοςτου῀ θεου῀ ), the ‘Prophet’ (Mcn 4:24 προφη´της), ‘the Son of God’ (Mcn 4:41 ο῾ υι῾ο`ςτου῀ θεου῀), ‘the Christ’ (Mcn 4:41 ο῾ Χριστο´ς ), ‘the Αngelic Messenger for the kingdom of God’ (Mcn 4:43 α᾽ παγγελι σασθαιτη`νβασιλει´αντου῀ θεου῀),‘the Preacher’ (Mcn 4:44 κηρυ´σσων), ‘the Teacher’ (Mcn 5:5 διδα´σκαλος , ‘the Groom’ (Mcn 5:34 ο῾ νυµφιο´ς), somebody who prays (Mcn 6:12), one who sees, who is perfect just like his own teacher (Mcn 6:39f.), ‘the Son of Man’ (Mcn 9:18), ‘the Master of David’ (Mcn 20:41–44, not David’s son), ‘the Son’ (Mcn 9:20), the ‘beloved Son who is to be followed instead of following Mose (or the Torah) and Elija (or the Prophets) (Mcn 9:28–36).

When he is introduced as ‘the Great Prophet’(Mcn 7:16 Με´γας προφη´της), a message that has made its way everywhere into Judaea and to John the Baptist, the reaction of John is made plain: ‘When he heard of his deeds, he was scandalized’ (Mcn 7:18).

As stated before, this statement was cut out by Luke, yet John’s rejection of Jesus sets the tone for the pericopes that follow. In these, Marcion explains what kind of a Great Prophet Jesus is: The Lord is not one like John who claimed to prepare the way for the Lord (Mcn 7:27), he is not a prophet who shrinks away from sinners and women. Instead Jesus is the one who teaches and commands the powers of this earth (Mcn 8:25), who works wonders and who himself is the sole revelator (Mcn 10:22). The frame of the Lord’s Prayer, therefore, is picking up on the previous passage on John and the contrast set between John and Jesus.

The Lord’s Prayer in Mcn, therefore, develops further the newness of Jesus’ message and introduces this text as a novel prayer which in its conciseness contrasts with the long prayers attributed to John, although the antithesis relates less to the content of the prayer, but rather to its performance. It is more about the ‘how’, less about the ‘what’. While the Didache had left the question open who the hypocrites are that are criticised, Matthew was more to the point, when the hypocrites are identified with those who prefer long prayers in synagogues and streets, in order to be admired by people.

In Mcn, however, it is John and his disciples who are the targets.

This antithesis fits, as we have shown, the distinction that Marcion introduced between John and Jesus, and on which he insisted in his preface (Antitheses) between ‘Christ who in the time of Tiberius was revealed by a god formerly unknown, for the salvation of all the nations, and another Christ who is destined by God the Creator to come at some time still future for the reestablishment of the Jewish kingdom’, ‘between justice and kindness, between law and gospel, be-tween Judaism and Christianity’, hence, between old and new.

The performance of the Lord’s Prayer, then, becomes the new practice of Jesus and his followers who believe in their transcendant Father of the heaven who comes onto them, purifies them, establishes his kingdom, offers his heavenly bread, removes debts and bewares from temptation. One may wonder how the performance of such a short prayer creates a contrast to John. Unfortunately, we do not know of a specific prayer of John.

And yet we find the title in Philo related to God’s creation, in Qumran (within the book of Tobit), and even in Rabbinic literature we read the ‘Father in heaven’. Tertullian explains, as shown, that Marcion understood this expression, however, to distinguish his god as the entirely transcendant, unknown god from the Creator, the God of Israel ...

Instead of an all forgiving god of Marcion, as expressed in this prayer, Luke 3:1–9 and Matth. 3:1–10 (see also Mark 1:2–6)...introduced John the Baptist who preached repentance. Purification does not come from above, as in Mcn, but is mediated by the Baptist, even to Jesus, hence we are faced in Luke and Matthew with radical corrections not only of Mcn, but of its author Marcion.

This is not the place to give a synoptic reading and interpretation of all these texts, instead, I wanted to show, how assumptions on the synoptic relation between them impacted on the qualification of the relevant source material and the subsequent use of it for the reconstruction of Mcn. Reconstructing (and interpreting) Mcn is, therefore, not primarily a matter of available sources, but rather of a methodological decision.
.

schillingklaus
Posts: 583
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

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

Post by schillingklaus »

Already Jean Magne realized the oriogin of the LP as a baptismal epiclesis, as explained in LOGIQUE DES SACREMENTS.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8134
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 »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:45 pm

... one of the big novelties in Marcion's gospel was the introduction of a new form of prayer which was meant to contrast that of John the Baptist and his disciples, namely the Lord’s Prayer.18 Against this background, Tertullian’s preface to his own prayer was revelatory. He says:
"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." [De. or. 1]

Tertullian starts with the ‘new form of prayer’ which the Lord Jesus Christ has ‘determined’ for the disciples of the New Testament. Not only did Tertullian stress the notion of ‘novelty’, which he saw as one of the typical characteristics of Marcion, he also added a biblical reference of Marcion’s Gospel (Mcn 5:36. par. Luke; Matthew. 9:17) on the new wine and the new skins, which, according to Tertullian, was one of the core passengers from which Marcion developed his idea of novitas Christiana and, therefore the distinction between Judaism and what Marcion coined in antithesis to it, Christianity [see Tert. Adv. Marcion III 16 and IV 11].
.

For posterity:
(the Lord's Prayer is in Matthew 6 and Luke 11)
mlinssen wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 1:24 am
... The Thomas translation is Lambdin’s and the NT’s is WEB, so it’s all very inaccurate but it’ll have to do

(47a) Jesus said, "It is impossible for a man to mount two horses or to stretch two bows.
(47b) And it is impossible for a servant to serve two masters; otherwise, he will honor the one and treat the other contemptuously.
(47c) No man drinks old wine and immediately desires to drink new wine.
(47d) And new wine is not put into old wineskins, lest they burst; nor is old wine put into a new wineskin, lest it spoil it.
(47e) An old patch is not sewn onto a new garment, because a tear would result."

Mark 2:21 No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, or else the patch shrinks and the new tears away from the old, and a worse hole is made. 22 No one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine will burst the skins, and the wine pours out, and the skins will be destroyed; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins."

Luke 5:36 He also told a parable to them. "No one puts a piece 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.'"

Matthew 9:16 No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch would tear away from the garment, and a worse hole is made. 17 Neither do people put new wine into old wine skins, or else the skins would burst, and the wine be spilled, and the skins ruined. No, they put new wine into fresh wine skins, and both are preserved."

==================================================

Well, that is it. Luke always has the most verbatim copy of Thomas and Matthew always fixes what is amiss in Mark and Luke – and he sometimes rambles on quite a bit as well. But Matthew always has the most legible copy, the semantically perfect one, and he is always farthest away from Thomas when compared to Mark or Luke...


nb. wrt Tertullian and Luke versus Marcion:

(47a) Jesus said, "It is impossible for a man to mount two horses or to stretch two bows.
(47b) And it is impossible for a servant to serve two masters; otherwise, he will honor the one and treat the other contemptuously.

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2777
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

The new covenant, kainos, comes from logion 47

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 8:55 am nb. wrt Tertullian and Luke versus Marcion:

(47a) Jesus said, "It is impossible for a man to mount two horses or to stretch two bows.
(47b) And it is impossible for a servant to serve two masters; otherwise, he will honor the one and treat the other contemptuously.

καινὴ διαθήκη - the new covenant

Kainos is a strange word and it appears here, and I believe it to originate here, right here, because of:

Thomas has two words for 'new' and in my Translation it is marked with an asterisk: ϣⲁⲉⲓ is unattested in Crum and I think it is another wordplay in Thomas for ϣⲁ ⲉⲓ, "towards me" even though that would be grammatically incorrect as the pronominal form would be required, ϣⲁⲣⲱ.
The thing is, this word occurs uniquely in Thomas, in the last seven words of this logion.
Yet what happens when you invert the order?! You move the word up front - and indeed, every single canonical copy also contains two different words for 'new', with one great distinction:

καινος - Luke 5:36, 38
νέος - Luke 5:37, 38, 39
Both: Luke 5:38

καινος - Mark 2:21, 22
νέος - Mark 2:22
Both: Mark 2:22

καινος - Matthew 9:17
νέος - Matthew 9:17
Both: Matthew 9:17

The FF support us here: none of them attests to a kainos wine or wineskin, whereas the canonicals do:

Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.15.5: patch-wine
novam plagulam - vinum novum

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.11.9: wine-patch
novo vino - pannum haereticae novitatis

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.11.10: wine-patch
vinum novum - novum additamentum

Epiphanius, Panarion 42.2.1: wine-patch
οἶνον νέον - ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου

Philastrius, Book of Diverse Heresies 45.2: patch-wine
pannum rudem - vinum novum

Adamantius Dialogue, according to Roth: wine-patch (οἶνον νέον, ἀσκοὺς νέους - ἐπιβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου)

Tertullian De Oratione 1: wine-patch (nouum uinum, nouis utribus - nouam plagulam, nouo uestimento)

Now the real question is: *Ev evidently swapped Thomas' old patch on new garment because he wanted to emphasise that his new religion wasn't fit for Judaism - but why didn't they undo that?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8134
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 »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 8:55 am
MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:45 pm

Tertullian starts with the ‘new form of prayer’ which the Lord Jesus Christ has ‘determined’ for the disciples of the New Testament. Not only did Tertullian stress the notion of ‘novelty’, which he saw as one of the typical characteristics of Marcion, he also added a biblical reference of Marcion’s Gospel (Mcn 5:36. par. Luke; Matthew. 9:17) on the new wine and the new skins, which, according to Tertullian, was one of the core passengers from which Marcion developed his idea of novitas Christiana and, therefore the distinction between Judaism and what Marcion coined in antithesis to it, Christianity [see Tert. Adv. Marcion III 16 and IV 11].
.



[the end of III, XV]
...
they were more apt to suppose either that Christ was their own, or rather was some deceiver, than that He was the Christ of the other god; and this the gospel will show.


III, XVI. The Sacred Name Iesous Most Suited to The Christ of The Creator. Yeshua a Type of Him.

Now if he caught at the name Christ, just as the pickpocket clutches the dole-basket, why did he wish to be called Iesous too, by a name which was not so much looked for by the Jews? For although we, who have by God's grace attained to the understanding of His mysteries, acknowledge that this name also was destined for Christ, yet, for all that, the fact was not known to the Jews, from whom wisdom was taken away. To this day, in short, it is Christ that they are looking for, not Iesous; and they interpret Elias to be Christ rather than Iesous. He, therefore, who came also in a name in which Christ was not expected, might have come only in that name which was solely anticipated for Him.

But since he has mixed up the two, the expected one and the unexpected, his twofold project is defeated. For if he be Christ for the very purpose of insinuating himself as the Creator's, then Iesous opposes him, because Iesous was not looked for in the Christ of the Creator; or if he be Iesous, in order that he might pass as belonging to the other (God), then Christ hinders him, because Christ was not expected to belong to any other than the Creator. I know not which one of these names may be able to hold its ground. In the Christ of the Creator, however, both will keep their place, for in Him a Iesous too is found. Do you ask, how?

Learn it then here, with the Jews also who are panakers of your heresy. When Oshea the son of Nun was destined to be the successor of Moses, is not his old name then changed, and for the first time he is called Yeshua/Iesous? It is true, you say. This, then, we first observe, was a figure of Him who was to come. For inasmuch as Iesous Christ was to introduce a new generation (because we are born in the wilderness of this world) into the promised land which flows with milk and honey, that is, into the possession of eternal life, than which nothing can be sweeter; inasmuch, too, as this was to be brought about not by Moses, that is to say, not by the discipline of the law, but by Yeshua, by the grace of the gospel, our circumcision being effected by a knife of stone, that is, (by the circumcision) of Christ, for Christ is a rock (or stone), therefore that great man, who was ordained as a type of this mystery, was actually consecrated with the figure of the Lord's own name, being called Yeshua. This name Christ Himself even then testified to be His own, when He talked with Moses.

For who was it that talked with him, but the Spirit of the Creator, which is Christ? When He therefore spake this commandment to the people, "Behold, I send my angel before thy face, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee; attend to him, and obey his voice and do not provoke him; for he has not shunned you, since my name is upon him,"

He called him an angel indeed, because of the greatness of the powers which he was to exercise, and because of his prophetic office, while announcing the will of God; but Yeshua also (Iesous), because it was a type of His own future name. Often did He confirm that name of His which He had thus conferred upon (His servant); because it was not the name of angel, nor Oshea, but Yeshua (Iesous), which He had commanded him to bear as his usual appellation for the time to come. Since, therefore, both these names are suitable to the Christ of the Creator, they are proportionately unsuitable to the non-Creator's Christ; and so indeed is all the rest of (our Christ's) destined course.

In short, there must now for the future be made between us that certain and equitable rule, necessary to both sides, which shall determine that there ought to be absolutely nothing at all in common between the Christ of the other god and the Creator's Christ. For you will have as great a necessity to maintain their diversity as we have to resist it, inasmuch as you will be as unable to show that the Christ of the other god has come, until you have prvoed him to be a far different being from the Creator's Christ, as we, to claim Him (who has come) as the Creator's, until we have shown Him to be such a one as the Creator has appointed. Now respecting their names, such is our conclusion against (Marcion). I claim for myself Christ; I maintain for myself Iesous.

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... an123.html




IV, XI. The Call of Levi the Publican. Christ in Relation to The Baptist. Christ as The Bridegroom. The Parable of the Old Wine and the New. Arguments Connecting Christ with The Creator.

The publican who was chosen by the Lord, he adduces for a proof that he was chosen as a stranger to the law and uninitiated in Judaism, by one who was an adversary to the law. The case of Peter escaped his memory, who, although he was a man of the law, was not only chosen by the Lord, but also obtained the testimony of possessing knowledge which was given to him by the Father. He had nowhere read of Christ's being foretold as the light, and hope, and expectation of the Gentiles! He, however, rather spoke of the Jews in a favourable light, when he said, "The whole needed not a physician, but they that are sick." For since by "those that are sick" he meant that the heathens and publicans should be understood, whom he was choosing, he affirmed of the Jews that they were "whole" for whom he said that a physician was not necessary. This being the case, he makes a mistake in coming down to destroy the law, as if for the remedy of a diseased condition. because they who were living under it were "whole," and "not in want of a physician." How, moreover, does it happen that he proposed the similitude of a physician, if he did not verify it?

For, just as nobody uses a physician for healthy persons, so will no one do so for strangers, in so far as he is one of Marcion's god-made men, having to himself both a creator and preserver, and a specially good physician, in his Christ. This much the comparison predetermines, that a physician is more usually furnished by him to whom the sick people belong. Whence, too, does John come upon the scene? Christ, suddenly; and just as suddenly, John!

After this fashion occur all things in Marcion's system. They have their own special and plenary course in the Creator's dispensation. Of John, however, what else I have to say will be found in another passage. To the several points which now come before us an answer must be given. This, then, I will take care to do--demonstrate that, reciprocally, John is suitable to Christ, and Christ to John, the latter, of course, as a prophet of the Creator, just as the former is the Creator's Christ; and so the heretic may blush at frustrating, to his own frustration, the mission of John the Baptist. For if there had been no ministry of John at all - "the voice," as Isaiah calls him, "of one crying in the wilderness," and the preparer of the ways of the Lord by denunciation and recommendation of repentance; if, too, he had not baptized (Christ) Himself along with others, nobody could have challenged the disciples of Christ, as they ate and drank, to a comparison with the disciples of John, who were constantly fasting and praying; because, if there existed any diversity between Christ and John, and their followers respectively, no exact comparison would be possible, nor would there be a single point where it could be challenged.

For nobody would feel surprise, and nobody would be perplexed, although there should arise rival predictions of a diverse deity, which should also mutually differ about modes of conduct, having a prior difference about the authorities upon which they were based. Therefore Christ belonged to John, and John to Christ; while both belonged to the Creator, and both were of the law and the prophets, preachers and masters. Else Christ would have rejected the discipline of John, as of the rival god, and would also have defended the disciples, as very properly pursuing a different walk, because consecrated to the service of another and contrary deity.

But as it is, while modestly giving a reason why "the children of the bridegroom are unable to fast during the time the bridegroom is with them," but promising that "they should afterwards fast, when the bridegroom was taken away from them," He neither defended the disciples, (but rather excused them, as if they had not been blamed without some reason), nor rejected the discipline of John, but rather allowed it, referring it to the time of John, although destining it for His own time. Otherwise, His purpose would have been to reject it, and to defend its opponents, if He had not Himself already belonged to it as then in force. I hold also that it is my Christ who is meant by the bridegroom, of whom the psalm says: "He is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and His return is back to the end of it again."

By the mouth of Isaiah He also says exultingly of the Father: "Let my soul rejoice in the Lord; for He hath clothed me with the garment of salvation and with the tunic of joy, as a bridegroom. He hath put a mitre round about my head, as a bride." To Himself likewise He appropriates the church, concerning which the same Spirit says to Him: "Thou shall clothe Thee with them all, as with a bridal ornament."

This spouse Christ invites home to Himself also by Solomon from the call of the Gentiles, because you read: "Come with me from Lebanon, my spouse." He elegantly makes mention of Lebanon (the mountain, of course) because it stands for the name of frankincense with the Greeks; for it was from idolatry that He betrothed Himself the church. Deny now, Marcion, your utter madness, (if you can)! Behold, you impugn even the law of your god. He unites not in the nuptial bond, nor, when contracted, does he allow it; no one does he baptize but a coelebs or a eunuch; until death or divorce does he reserve baptism.

Wherefore, then, do you make his Christ a bridegroom? This is the designation of Him who united man and woman, not of him who separated them. 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's 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.

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.

A separation is possible by help of the conjunction through which it is made. Accordingly, the things which He separated He also proved to have been once one; as they would have remained, were it not for His separation. But still we make this concession, that there is a separation, by reformation, by amplification, by progress; just as the fruit is separated from the seed, although the fruit comes from the seed.

So, likewise, the gospel is separated from the law, whilst it advances from the law - a different thing from it, but not an alien one; diverse, but not contrary. Nor in Christ do we even find any novel form of discourse. Whether He proposes similitudes or refute questions, it comes from the seventy-seventh Psalm. "I will open," says He, "my mouth in a parable" (that is, in a similitude); "I will utter dark problems" (that is, I will set forth questions). If you should wish to prove that a man belonged to another race, no doubt you would fetch your proof from the idiom of his language.

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... an124.html


User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8134
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The new covenant, kainos, comes from logion 47

Post by MrMacSon »

mlinssen wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 10:07 am
MrMacSon wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 8:55 am nb. wrt Tertullian and Luke versus Marcion:

(47a) Jesus said, "It is impossible for a man to mount two horses or to stretch two bows.
(47b) And it is impossible for a servant to serve two masters; otherwise, he will honor the one and treat the other contemptuously.

καινὴ διαθήκη - the new covenant

Kainos is a strange word and it appears here, and I believe it to originate here, right here, because of:

Thomas has two words for 'new' and in my Translation it is marked with an asterisk: ϣⲁⲉⲓ is unattested in Crum and I think it is another wordplay in Thomas for ϣⲁ ⲉⲓ, "towards me" even though that would be grammatically incorrect as the pronominal form would be required, ϣⲁⲣⲱ.

The thing is, this word occurs uniquely in Thomas, in the last seven words of this logion.

Here?

(47e) An old patch is not sewn onto a new garment, because a tear would result."

ϣⲁⲉⲓ ?

mlinssen wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 10:07 am
Yet what happens when you invert the order?! You move the word up front - and indeed, every single canonical copy also contains two different words for 'new', with one great distinction:

καινος - Luke 5:36, 38
νέος - Luke 5:37, 38, 39
Both: Luke 5:38

καινος - Mark 2:21, 22
νέος - Mark 2:22
Both: Mark 2:22

καινος - Matthew 9:17
νέος - Matthew 9:17
Both: Matthew 9:17

The FF support us here: none of them attests to a kainos wine or wineskin, whereas the canonicals do:

Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.15.5: patch-wine
novam plagulam - vinum novum

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.11.9: wine-patch
novo vino - pannum haereticae novitatis

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.11.10: wine-patch
vinum novum - novum additamentum

Epiphanius, Panarion 42.2.1: wine-patch
οἶνον νέον - ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου

Philastrius, Book of Diverse Heresies 45.2: patch-wine
pannum rudem - vinum novum

Adamantius Dialogue, according to Roth: wine-patch (οἶνον νέον, ἀσκοὺς νέους - ἐπιβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου)

Tertullian De Oratione 1: wine-patch (nouum uinum, nouis utribus - nouam plagulam, nouo uestimento)

Now the real question is: *Ev evidently swapped Thomas' old patch on new garment because he wanted to emphasise that his new religion wasn't fit for Judaism - but why didn't they undo that?

By they are you referring to the canonical Gospel writers (or the Patristic Fathers?) ?
(I suspect the former, the Gospel writers)
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8134
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 »



καινός • (kainós) m (feminine καινή, neuter καινόν); first/second declension

Adjective
  1. new, novel, recent
  2. fresh, unused
  3. strange, unusual
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%C ... F%8C%CF%82




νέος • (néos) m (feminine νέᾱ, neuter νέον); first/second declension

Adjective
  1. new, fresh
  2. young
  3. (pertaining to young people) youthful
  4. (euphemistic, especially in comparative) unexpected, strange, evil
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BD%CE%AD%CE%BF%CF%82



Quotation given for καινός are Josephus, Antiquities 7.265:

μὴ κινήσητε πάλιν ἡμῖν καινὰς ἐπὶ ταῖς πρώταις ταραχὰς καὶ στάσεις
mḕ kinḗsēte pálin hēmîn kainàs epì taîs prṓtais tarakhàs kaì stáseis
Do not raise new troubles or rebellions now that the last ones are behind us

And Josephus, Antiquities 14.104:

περὶ δὲ τῆς Πομπηίου καὶ Γαβινίου στρατείας ἐπὶ Ἰουδαίους γράφει Νικόλαος ὁ Δαμασκηνὸς καὶ Στράβων ὁ Καππάδοξ οὐδὲν ἕτερος ἑτέρου καινότερον λέγων
perì dè tês Pompēíou kaì Gabiníou strateías epì Ioudaíous gráphei Nikólaos ho Damaskēnòs kaì Strábōn ho Kappádox oudèn héteros hetérou kainóteron légōn
Whilst Nicolaus of Damascus and Strabo of Cappadocia both describe Pompey's and Gabinius' expeditions against the Jews, none tells anything new that is not in the other (description)

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2777
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The new covenant, kainos, comes from logion 47

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 10:49 am Here?

(47e) An old patch is not sewn onto a new garment, because a tear would result."

ϣⲁⲉⲓ ?
Yup
By they are you referring to the canonical Gospel writers (or the Patristic Fathers?) ?
(I suspect the former, the Gospel writers)
Yup
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2777
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: Mon Jan 23, 2023 10:23 am
MrMacSon wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 8:55 am
MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:45 pm

Tertullian starts with the ‘new form of prayer’ which the Lord Jesus Christ has ‘determined’ for the disciples of the New Testament. Not only did Tertullian stress the notion of ‘novelty’, which he saw as one of the typical characteristics of Marcion, he also added a biblical reference of Marcion’s Gospel (Mcn 5:36. par. Luke; Matthew. 9:17) on the new wine and the new skins, which, according to Tertullian, was one of the core passengers from which Marcion developed his idea of novitas Christiana and, therefore the distinction between Judaism and what Marcion coined in antithesis to it, Christianity [see Tert. Adv. Marcion III 16 and IV 11].
.



[the end of III, XV]
...
they were more apt to suppose either that Christ was their own, or rather was some deceiver, than that He was the Christ of the other god; and this the gospel will show.


III, XVI. The Sacred Name Iesous Most Suited to The Christ of The Creator. Yeshua a Type of Him.

Now if he caught at the name Christ, just as the pickpocket clutches the dole-basket, why did he wish to be called Iesous too, by a name which was not so much looked for by the Jews? For although we, who have by God's grace attained to the understanding of His mysteries, acknowledge that this name also was destined for Christ, yet, for all that, the fact was not known to the Jews, from whom wisdom was taken away. To this day, in short, it is Christ that they are looking for, not Iesous; and they interpret Elias to be Christ rather than Iesous. He, therefore, who came also in a name in which Christ was not expected, might have come only in that name which was solely anticipated for Him.

But since he has mixed up the two, the expected one and the unexpected, his twofold project is defeated. For if he be Christ for the very purpose of insinuating himself as the Creator's, then Iesous opposes him, because Iesous was not looked for in the Christ of the Creator; or if he be Iesous, in order that he might pass as belonging to the other (God), then Christ hinders him, because Christ was not expected to belong to any other than the Creator. I know not which one of these names may be able to hold its ground. In the Christ of the Creator, however, both will keep their place, for in Him a Iesous too is found. Do you ask, how?

Learn it then here, with the Jews also who are panakers of your heresy. When Oshea the son of Nun was destined to be the successor of Moses, is not his old name then changed, and for the first time he is called Yeshua/Iesous? It is true, you say. This, then, we first observe, was a figure of Him who was to come. For inasmuch as Iesous Christ was to introduce a new generation (because we are born in the wilderness of this world) into the promised land which flows with milk and honey, that is, into the possession of eternal life, than which nothing can be sweeter; inasmuch, too, as this was to be brought about not by Moses, that is to say, not by the discipline of the law, but by Yeshua, by the grace of the gospel, our circumcision being effected by a knife of stone, that is, (by the circumcision) of Christ, for Christ is a rock (or stone), therefore that great man, who was ordained as a type of this mystery, was actually consecrated with the figure of the Lord's own name, being called Yeshua. This name Christ Himself even then testified to be His own, when He talked with Moses.

For who was it that talked with him, but the Spirit of the Creator, which is Christ? When He therefore spake this commandment to the people, "Behold, I send my angel before thy face, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee; attend to him, and obey his voice and do not provoke him; for he has not shunned you, since my name is upon him,"

He called him an angel indeed, because of the greatness of the powers which he was to exercise, and because of his prophetic office, while announcing the will of God; but Yeshua also (Iesous), because it was a type of His own future name. Often did He confirm that name of His which He had thus conferred upon (His servant); because it was not the name of angel, nor Oshea, but Yeshua (Iesous), which He had commanded him to bear as his usual appellation for the time to come. Since, therefore, both these names are suitable to the Christ of the Creator, they are proportionately unsuitable to the non-Creator's Christ; and so indeed is all the rest of (our Christ's) destined course.

In short, there must now for the future be made between us that certain and equitable rule, necessary to both sides, which shall determine that there ought to be absolutely nothing at all in common between the Christ of the other god and the Creator's Christ. For you will have as great a necessity to maintain their diversity as we have to resist it, inasmuch as you will be as unable to show that the Christ of the other god has come, until you have prvoed him to be a far different being from the Creator's Christ, as we, to claim Him (who has come) as the Creator's, until we have shown Him to be such a one as the Creator has appointed. Now respecting their names, such is our conclusion against (Marcion). I claim for myself Christ; I maintain for myself Iesous.

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... an123.html




IV, XI. The Call of Levi the Publican. Christ in Relation to The Baptist. Christ as The Bridegroom. The Parable of the Old Wine and the New. Arguments Connecting Christ with The Creator.

The publican who was chosen by the Lord, he adduces for a proof that he was chosen as a stranger to the law and uninitiated in Judaism, by one who was an adversary to the law. The case of Peter escaped his memory, who, although he was a man of the law, was not only chosen by the Lord, but also obtained the testimony of possessing knowledge which was given to him by the Father. He had nowhere read of Christ's being foretold as the light, and hope, and expectation of the Gentiles! He, however, rather spoke of the Jews in a favourable light, when he said, "The whole needed not a physician, but they that are sick." For since by "those that are sick" he meant that the heathens and publicans should be understood, whom he was choosing, he affirmed of the Jews that they were "whole" for whom he said that a physician was not necessary. This being the case, he makes a mistake in coming down to destroy the law, as if for the remedy of a diseased condition. because they who were living under it were "whole," and "not in want of a physician." How, moreover, does it happen that he proposed the similitude of a physician, if he did not verify it?

For, just as nobody uses a physician for healthy persons, so will no one do so for strangers, in so far as he is one of Marcion's god-made men, having to himself both a creator and preserver, and a specially good physician, in his Christ. This much the comparison predetermines, that a physician is more usually furnished by him to whom the sick people belong. Whence, too, does John come upon the scene? Christ, suddenly; and just as suddenly, John!

After this fashion occur all things in Marcion's system. They have their own special and plenary course in the Creator's dispensation. Of John, however, what else I have to say will be found in another passage. To the several points which now come before us an answer must be given. This, then, I will take care to do--demonstrate that, reciprocally, John is suitable to Christ, and Christ to John, the latter, of course, as a prophet of the Creator, just as the former is the Creator's Christ; and so the heretic may blush at frustrating, to his own frustration, the mission of John the Baptist. For if there had been no ministry of John at all - "the voice," as Isaiah calls him, "of one crying in the wilderness," and the preparer of the ways of the Lord by denunciation and recommendation of repentance; if, too, he had not baptized (Christ) Himself along with others, nobody could have challenged the disciples of Christ, as they ate and drank, to a comparison with the disciples of John, who were constantly fasting and praying; because, if there existed any diversity between Christ and John, and their followers respectively, no exact comparison would be possible, nor would there be a single point where it could be challenged.

For nobody would feel surprise, and nobody would be perplexed, although there should arise rival predictions of a diverse deity, which should also mutually differ about modes of conduct, having a prior difference about the authorities upon which they were based. Therefore Christ belonged to John, and John to Christ; while both belonged to the Creator, and both were of the law and the prophets, preachers and masters. Else Christ would have rejected the discipline of John, as of the rival god, and would also have defended the disciples, as very properly pursuing a different walk, because consecrated to the service of another and contrary deity.

But as it is, while modestly giving a reason why "the children of the bridegroom are unable to fast during the time the bridegroom is with them," but promising that "they should afterwards fast, when the bridegroom was taken away from them," He neither defended the disciples, (but rather excused them, as if they had not been blamed without some reason), nor rejected the discipline of John, but rather allowed it, referring it to the time of John, although destining it for His own time. Otherwise, His purpose would have been to reject it, and to defend its opponents, if He had not Himself already belonged to it as then in force. I hold also that it is my Christ who is meant by the bridegroom, of whom the psalm says: "He is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and His return is back to the end of it again."

By the mouth of Isaiah He also says exultingly of the Father: "Let my soul rejoice in the Lord; for He hath clothed me with the garment of salvation and with the tunic of joy, as a bridegroom. He hath put a mitre round about my head, as a bride." To Himself likewise He appropriates the church, concerning which the same Spirit says to Him: "Thou shall clothe Thee with them all, as with a bridal ornament."

This spouse Christ invites home to Himself also by Solomon from the call of the Gentiles, because you read: "Come with me from Lebanon, my spouse." He elegantly makes mention of Lebanon (the mountain, of course) because it stands for the name of frankincense with the Greeks; for it was from idolatry that He betrothed Himself the church. Deny now, Marcion, your utter madness, (if you can)! Behold, you impugn even the law of your god. He unites not in the nuptial bond, nor, when contracted, does he allow it; no one does he baptize but a coelebs or a eunuch; until death or divorce does he reserve baptism.

Wherefore, then, do you make his Christ a bridegroom? This is the designation of Him who united man and woman, not of him who separated them. 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's 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.

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.

A separation is possible by help of the conjunction through which it is made. Accordingly, the things which He separated He also proved to have been once one; as they would have remained, were it not for His separation. But still we make this concession, that there is a separation, by reformation, by amplification, by progress; just as the fruit is separated from the seed, although the fruit comes from the seed.

So, likewise, the gospel is separated from the law, whilst it advances from the law - a different thing from it, but not an alien one; diverse, but not contrary. Nor in Christ do we even find any novel form of discourse. Whether He proposes similitudes or refute questions, it comes from the seventy-seventh Psalm. "I will open," says He, "my mouth in a parable" (that is, in a similitude); "I will utter dark problems" (that is, I will set forth questions). If you should wish to prove that a man belonged to another race, no doubt you would fetch your proof from the idiom of his language.

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... an124.html


Ta! It would seem indeed that the text of Marcion is gratefully copied, and even if they did know that Thomas had the opposite, why would they care to bring it up?
The old patch on a new garment In Thomas becomes a new patch (Chrestianity) that is not sewn onto Judaism (the old garment) yet the FF interpret it as the new gospel that derives from yet is not to be applied to the old Law.
Which is fairly crooked of course, but hey - let's try to make sense of that

The patch is part of the garment, gospel is part of Judaism. Garment is old, patch is new, okay. Now I get it why they turn *Ev's new patch into an unshrunk one, if that weren't caused by Mark's good husbandry perhaps
Post Reply