Markan Marcion: A Contrarian Synopsis

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Markan Marcion: A Contrarian Synopsis

Post by Peter Kirby »

Here is another occasion in which Tertullian has transposed an argument that originally appeared elsewhere (pg. 391).

He chooses other seventy apostles also, over above the twelve: for to what purpose twelve, after that number of wells in Elim, without adding seventy, after that number of palm-trees? Antitheses for the most part are produced by diversity of purposes, not of authorities, though he who has not kept in view the diversity of purposes has easily been led to take it for diversity of authorities. When the children of Israel set out from Egypt the Creator brought them forth laden with those spoils of gold and silver vessels and clothing, as well as the dough in their kneading-troughs, whereas Christ told his disciples to carry not even a staff for their journey.

This occurs in Tertullian's discussion of Luke 10:1-20, the sending of the seventy. The reference to "antitheses" and the contrast with the Exodus story assures us that we are dealing with a reference to the Antitheses or, at least, a Marcionite argument. A common pattern of these Marcionite arguments is to set side by side something from the Bible with something from their Gospel. The only detail we are given about this antithesis argument is that Christ had told the disciples not to carry even a staff for the journey.

Mark Luke Luke Matthew
6.7 And he called to him the twelve, and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. 6.8 He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; 6.9 but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics. 6.10 And he said to them, "Where you enter a house, stay there until you leave the place. 6.11 And if any place will not receive you and they refuse to hear you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet for a testimony against them." 6.12 So they went out and preached that men should repent. 6.13 And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them. 9.1 And he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, 9.2 and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal. 9.3 And he said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics. 9.4 And whatever house you enter, stay there, and from there depart. 9.5 And wherever they do not receive you, when you leave that town shake off the dust from your feet as a testimony against them." 9.6 And they departed and went through the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. 10.2 And he said to them, "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; pray therefore the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest. 10.3 Go your way; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. 10.4 Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals; and salute no one on the road. 10.5 Whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace be to this house!' 10.6 And if a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest upon him; but if not, it shall return to you. 10.7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages; do not go from house to house. 10.8 Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you; 10.9 heal the sick in it and say to them, 'The kingdom of God has come near to you.' 10.10 But whenever you enter a town and they do not receive you, go into its streets and say, 10.11 ' Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off against you; nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near.' 10.5 These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, 10.6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 10.7 And preach as you go, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' 10.8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying, give without pay. 10.9 Take no gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts, 10.10 no bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor a staff; for the laborer deserves his food. 10.11 And whatever town or village you enter, find out who is worthy in it, and stay with him until you depart. 10.12 As you enter the house, salute it. 10.13 And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 10.14 And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.

This reference is based on the parallel passages in Matthew 10:10 // Luke 9:3. Whichever one it is, it isn't the sending of the seventy. So once more we see that Tertullian has set about to try to bring arguments found in other contexts into the order of Luke, frequently with dislocations.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Markan Marcion: A Contrarian Synopsis

Post by Peter Kirby »

It is by now no mystery that Tertullian is setting side by side, not necessarily a Marcionite Gospel and his Luke, but his Luke and Marcionite arguments, whether gleaned from contemporary debate, the Antitheses, or a previous Against Marcion. We shouldn't be very surprised that this is the case if we read the beginning of the book a bit more carefully.

Every sentence, indeed the whole structure, arising from Marcion's impiety and profanity, I now challenge in terms of that gospel which he has by manipulation made his own. Besides that, to work up credence for it he has contrived a sort of dowry, a work entitled Antitheses because of its juxtaposition of opposites, a work strained into making such a division between the Law and the Gospel as thereby to make two separate gods, opposite to each other, one belonging to one instrument (or, as it is more usual to say, testament), one to the other, and thus lend its patronage to faith in another gospel, that according to the Antitheses. Now I might have demolished those antitheses by a specially directed hand-to-hand attack, taking each of the statements of the man of Pontus one by one, except that it was much more convenient to refute them both in and along with that gospel which they serve: although it is perfectly easy to take action against them by counter-claim, even accepting them as admissible, accounting them valid, and alleging that they support my argument, that so they may be put to shame for the blindness of their author, having now become my antitheses against Marcion.

We could have gotten a book that took each of the Antitheses one by one and refuted them out of the quotes they retain from the Gospel. Instead, because Tertullian preferred to set these arguments in the context of the gospel that he believed Marcion manipulated (i.e. Luke), we have gotten those arguments placed in the context of Luke according to Tertullian's judgment. Tertullian indeed says that he could have gone through the Antitheses "one by one" and refers to them frequently, showing that he most likely did work from such a document. So we already know that Tertullian has taken at least one document (the Antitheses) and transposed its arguments into the order of Luke.

It is my argument here that, by examining the explicit references to controversies and disagreements about the text of the Gospel throughout this book, it is not best understood as the work of someone who had placed two versions of Luke side by side. In addition to the difficulties that Tertullian encountered trying to locate the arguments of the Antitheses in the text of Luke, we have frequently seen as another source the work of someone comparing the Gospel to a text like Matthew. As many have observed, the references to differences between the heretic's Gospel and Luke are scant, which is certainly consistent with happening upon such notices in other sources, instead of making a fresh comparison. When we have found such rare notices of differences, we've consistently found that they show a more complex picture than a source that is either after Luke (with noncanonical subtractions) or before Luke (with canonical additions). Instead, we have a Gospel that has literary relationships with Mark or Matthew also, and a different source behind Against Marcion comparing this Gospel to something other than Luke.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Markan Marcion: A Contrarian Synopsis

Post by Peter Kirby »

Let us consider now the birds of the air and the flowers of the field.

Luke Matthew Thomas
12.22 And he said to his disciples, "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat, nor about your body, what you shall put on. 12.23 For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. 12.24 Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds! 12.25 And which of you by being anxious can add a cubit to his span of life? 12.26 If then you are not able to do as small a thing as that, why are you anxious about the rest? 12.27 Consider the lilies, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 12.28 But if God so clothes the grass which is alive in the field today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O men of little faith! 12.29 And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be of anxious mind. 12.30 For all the nations of the world seek these things; and your Father knows that you need them. 12.31 Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things shall be yours as well. 12.32 Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." 6.25 "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 6.26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 6.27 And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his span of life? 6.28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; 6.29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 6.30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith? 6.31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 6.32 For the Gentiles seek all these things; and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 6.33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well. 6.34 Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let the day's own trouble be sufficient for the day." 36 Jesus said, "Do not be concerned from morning until evening and from evening until morning about what you will wear."

Previously, in the context of the sending of the twelve, Tertullian accused Marcion of deleting such matters, yet retaining their spirit in telling the disciples not to take food or clothing with them on the road. We previously saw that the alleged deletion of the labourer is worthy of his hire was based on a comparison to Matthew's version of the sending of the twelve (pg. 371).

He sends out the disciples to preach the kingdom of God. Has he indicated here at least, which God? He forbids them to take for the journey anything for food or clothing. Who could have given this command, but he who feeds the ravens and clothes the flowers of the field, who of old gave orders that the ox treading out the corn must have unmuzzled mouth, as licence to filch fodder from his labour—because the labourer is worthy of his hire? Let Marcion delete such matters, so long as their meaning is preserved.

So we have here indication of a shorter version of Matthew 6:25-34 // Luke 12:22-32, which did not have the comparison about feeding the birds and clothing the flowers of the field. Perhaps something slightly more elaborated than what's in Thomas, which also omits the comparison.

At this point, we are not surprised if Tertullian later contradicts the accusation of deletion, when he comes to this passage according to the order of Luke, since he's working from his text of Luke (pg. 426).

Who is this that would have us not be concerned for our life, in the matter of feeding, or for our body in the matter of clothing? Surely he who has of old made provision of these things for man, and as he continually supplies us with them does with good reason forbid concern for them, as a challenge to his generosity. To the substance of the soul itself he has given a value better than meat, and to the material of the body a shape better than a garment: for his ravens neither sow nor reap nor gather into storehouses, and yet receive nourishment from him, whose lilies and whose grass neither weave nor spin and yet are clothed by him: his Solomon too was of excellent glory, yet was not better arrayed than one little flower. However, there is nothing so easy as that one should make provision, and a different one should command us not to be anxious about that provision, even when the latter is a disparager of the former.

Tertullian wouldn't have contradicted himself here if he were actually comparing the Gospel of the Marcionites to canonical Luke. So we have more evidence that this accusation of deletion was carried over from an earlier source and, further, that Tertullian himself is ordinarily working from his version of Luke.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Markan Marcion: A Contrarian Synopsis

Post by Peter Kirby »

Here we once again find that when Tertullian accuses Marcion of an alteration, he does so according to a comparison with a text like Matthew. Once more we have reason to think that Tertullian, who says that Marcion edited Luke, inherited specific claims of alteration from a source.

He will himself be found to give a better explanation of the character of that fire when he proceeds, Suppose ye that I am come to send peace on earth? I tell you, Nay: but division (separationem). The book says, A sword (Machaeram quidem scriptum est): but Marcion corrects it, as though division (separatio) were not the function of a sword (machaerae).

This corrects the text of the Gospel (reflected in Luke) with comparison to the text found in Matthew.

Luke Matthew Thomas
12.51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; 12.52 for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; 12.53 they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 10.34 Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 10.35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 10.36 and a man's foes will be those of his own household. Jesus said, "Men think, perhaps, that it is peace which I have come to cast upon the world. They do not know that it is dissension which I have come to cast upon the earth: fire, sword, and war. For there will be five in a house: three will be against two, and two against three, the father against the son, and the son against the father. And they will stand solitary."

And this shows once more that Tertullian is not comparing canonical Luke with a copy of the Gospel used by Marcionites. Given that the comparison is inconsistent with Tertullian's stated aims but consistent with the aims of an earlier Greek Against Marcion that may have regarded Matthew (or possibly - it must be admitted - a text like a harmony that has the same wording as Matthew) as the yardstick for comparison with this Gospel, this is likely inherited from such a source like the ones we know Justin and Theophilus wrote.

This reference from Tertullian in Against Marcion, Book 4 to a gospel simply as scriptum is interesting. This reference is in the context of a claim most likely inherited from a source, specifically an earlier Greek Against Marcion, whether Justin or Theophilus. The equivalent Greek word is "scripture" or "writing" (γραφή), something we never find Justin using with reference to a gospel (as recently explored with reference to Cosgrove's 1982 article "Justin Martyr and the Emerging Christian Canon"). We do find this word repeatedly in Theophilus, especially in his book 3 of To Autolycus, where he set out to refute those "considering them to be recent and novel, the writings among us" (παρ' ἡμῖν γραφάς). In the previous book, Theophilus quoted from the prologue of John (attributing it to John), and, in this book, he quotes words from Matthew as "the Gospel" and "voice of the Gospel." Most significantly, he yokes together "the prophets and the gospels" as both inspired by the one Spirit of God as the law also is: "Moreover, concerning the righteousness which the law enjoined, confirmatory utterances are found both with the prophets and in the Gospels, because they all spoke inspired by one Spirit of God." We can conclude that Theophilus would have regarded both gospels of John and Matthew as "scripture" (γραφή), translated scriptum in Latin. This tends to indicate the likelihood that the Greek Against Marcion upon which Tertullian depended was the well-regarded one written by Theophilus of Antioch. This Greek Against Marcion from Theophilus was known both to Eusebius (Church History 4.24.3) and Jerome (Lives of Illustrious Men 25).
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Markan Marcion: A Contrarian Synopsis

Post by Peter Kirby »

I have tried to improve a little on the translation (using the Latin textual variant aliunde, "from elsewhere").

For if, as I have proved, it was the Creator who prophesied that old things would pass away and new things take their place; and if John is set forth as the forerunner who prepares the ways of that Lord who will bring in the gospel and proclaim the kingdom of God, and from the fact that John is now come, this must be that Christ who was to come after John as forerunner; and if old things have come to an end, and new things have begun, with John as the point of division: then that which conforms to the Creator's ordinance will not be so unexpected as to amount to proof that the kingdom of God takes its origin from every imaginable source except the sunset of the law and the prophets upon John, and the daybreak that came after. So then let heaven and earth pass away, as have the law and the prophets, more quickly than one tittle of the words of the Lord: for Isaiah says, The word of our God abideth for ever. For Christ, who is the Word and Spirit of the Creator, had in Isaiah so long before prophesied of John as the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, and as one who was to come for this end, that the sequence of law and prophets should from that time cease—by being fulfilled, not by being destroyed—and that the kingdom of God should be proclaimed by Christ: which is why he appended the statement that it would be easier for the heavenly bodies than for his words to pass away, so affirming that this too which he had spoken of John had not passed into abeyance.

I have chosen to translate it this way instead:

It will not be surprising that, according to the arrangement of the Creator, the Kingdom of God may be proven more from elsewhere than the Law and the Prophets (with their sunset upon John) and in the daybreak that came after. Thus let heaven and earth pass away, as have the law and the prophets, more quickly than one tittle of the words of the Lord.

This is essentially an agreement between Tertullian and Marcion, stating that this design was the arrangement of the Creator. Tertullian here agrees that "the law and the prophets" have had their sunset on John, having now passed away, and that "the daybreak that came after" was the best proof of the arrival of the "Kingdom of God." He just says that this is all the plan of the Creator, rather than a different god.

More later.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Markan Marcion: A Contrarian Synopsis

Post by Peter Kirby »

Tertullian has an otherwise unknown variant in the context of Marcionite argument, where Jesus says "mine" (pg. 446):

If then these expressions do not apply to the Creator but to mammon, the questions Who will entrust to you that which is more true? [Lk 16:11] and, Who will give you that which is mine? [Lk 16:12 - "that which is your own" / "ours" in manuscripts] cannot be taken for questions by one god about another god's grace.

We previously saw another example where Tertullian has a variant with "my words" not found in the New Testament (pg. 363):

3.32 And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you." 3.33 And he replied, "Who are my mother and my brothers?" 3.34 And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 3.35 Whoever does the will of God [Tert. hears my words and does them] is my brother, and sister, and mother."

So likewise here (pg. 448):

So then let heaven and earth pass away, as have the law and the prophets, more quickly than one tittle of the words of the Lord ...
he appended the statement that it would be easier for the heavenly bodies than for his words to pass away

Tertullian himself thought of this phrase with reference to the verse that has, "The law and the prophets were until John," which is the substance of the controversy and appeared in the Gospel, given this reference to Marcionite argument (pg. 447).

I can now find out why Marcion's god remained all those long ages in hiding. He was waiting, I suspect, until he should learn all these things from the Creator. So he learned them, right down to the time of John, and then after that came forth to announce the kingdom of God, saying, The law and the prophets were until John, since which time the kingdom of God is announced.

Given the presence of this phrase here in Tertullian, which is not here in the order of Luke, it seems likely that Tertullian has transposed a version of the saying from the Gospel here, where the first Lukan parallel occurs. This also explains why Tertullian doesn't cite the juicy proof text from Luke here; he knows of a version used by Marcionites that is different.

Matthew and Luke both have a doublet, preserving in some form both versions of the saying. Mark has only one version of the saying, similar to the one in the Gospel. It's another example of how Matthew and Luke develop in ways that would undercut Marcionite argument.

Mark Luke Luke Matthew Matthew Thomas
13.31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. 16.17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become void. 21.33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. 5.18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 24.35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. 11 Jesus said, This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away.

Based on the second reference from Tertullian especially, and combining the wording of Mark 13:31 and Luke 16:17, one possibility (and the one that I think is more likely) is that the text of the Gospel had something like this somewhere.

It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for my words to pass away.

This is only slightly different than the wording in Mark. However, it could also have been more expansive like the first reference.

It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, as have the law and the prophets, than for my words to pass away.

This would make the Gospel version of this saying more of a development when compared to Mark (or more of a negation, when compared to Matthew and Luke). This can then serve as an example of the difficulty of working with inexact citations. The phrase "as have the law and the prophets" is just so deeply embedded in Tertullian's own argument that it is his own: he had already said "that old things would pass away," "old things have come to an end," and "the sunset of the law and the prophets"; soon after he will say "the sequence of law and prophets should from that time cease." And then when referencing back to what he had said, the phrase disappears. This is most likely because it is Tertullian's own phrase, added to elucidate the meaning for his argument rather than simply found there in a quote from the Gospel.

We can't know where any of this appeared based on Tertullian alone because of his general procedure to rearrange second hand material.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Markan Marcion: A Contrarian Synopsis

Post by Peter Kirby »

Here are the parallel passages on marriage and divorce.

Mark (A) Mark (B) Luke Matthew (A) Matthew (B) Matthew (C) Matthew (D) 1 Corinthians
10.2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 10.3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" 10.4 They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away." 10.5 But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 10.6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 10.7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 10.8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 10.9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." 10.11 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 10.12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." 16.18 "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery." 5.31 "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' 5.32 But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." 19.3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" 19.4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 19.5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 19.6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." 19.7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" 19.8 He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 19.9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery." 19.10 The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry." 19.11 But he said to them, "Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 19.12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." 7.10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 7.11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

We can identify these elements of prohibition and exhortation - for simplicity, ignoring gender variations here:

(a) divorce is forbidden (Paul, Mark-A, Matthew-B)
(b) divorce and marrying another is adultery (Mark-B, Luke)
(c) divorcing someone is adultery, except for unchastity (Matthew-A, Matthew-C)
(d) marrying someone who is divorced is adultery (Luke, Matthew-A)
(e) become "eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew-D)

Notice that (b) and (c) are both ways to soften the injunction (a). Yet (d) and (e) harden it with another prohibition and an exhortation.

Matthew switches among several positions:

(1) Matthew receives the Lord's absolute prohibition from Mark (Mark-A // Matthew-B).
(2) Matthew softens it with a unique exception for unchastity (Matthew-A // Matthew-C).
(3) Matthew hardens it by forbidding marriage of a divorcee (Luke // Mathew-A) and exhorting against marriage (Matthew-D).

Luke also hardens (d) while receiving Mark's softened prohibition (b).

Addressed to those who can accept it, Matthew-D disrupts the institution of marriage entirely. This goes well beyond even the absolute prohibition on divorce in Mark-A // Matthew-B and its extension in Matthew-A. The softer, exception-seeking Matthew-A // Matthew-C didn't come from the same mind that issued the absolute prohibition on divorce in Mark-A // Matthew-B and the marriage-negating exhortation in Matthew-D.

Matthew is engaged in a project to reconcile his source material and wed it to scripture. Obviously inspired by the ample precedent in scripture for some grounds for divorce being acceptable, Matthew has contributed to the gospels the exception for unchastity (Matthew-A // Matthew-C). In this way, Matthew has taken the prohibition in a less severe direction and attempted to harmonize it with scripture.

This leaves the material that didn't come from Matthew: obviously the simple absolute prohibition (a) itself (Mark-A // Matthew-B), the extension of the prohibition (d) in Matthew-A also found in Luke, and the unique exhortation against marriage (e) in Matthew-D. This material, I would think, came from a source that Matthew wanted to incorporate and, in so doing, obfuscate the absoluteness of the original message by placing it side by side with the material that connected this to scripture and offered the less austere teachings on marriage. Placed in Matthew's context, the exception becomes the rule, and the new is thrown out to be replaced by the old.

Simply from analysis of Matthew and Luke relative to other sources, we can imagine that they shared a source that had (d) and that Matthew also endeavored to retain (e) from this more severe, practically ascetic source. If so, then this is a source that Matthew struggled against and that Luke perhaps thought better of reproducing.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Markan Marcion: A Contrarian Synopsis

Post by Peter Kirby »

From Tertullian, we can tell that there was a Marcionite antithesis based on the prohibition of divorce (pg. 450).

But, <you allege>, Christ forbids divorce: ... Moses however permits divorce, in Deuteronomy: "If any man hath taken a wife, and hath dwelt with her, and it come to pass that she find not favour with him because some unseemly thing hath been found in her, he shall write a bill of divorcement and give it into her hand and send her away from his house." You notice the contrast between law and gospel, between Moses and Christ? To be sure I do.

Tertullian provides a textual analysis (to which we'll return) before providing his most informative notice here (pg. 452):

If however you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ, how comes it that you yourself make separation between married people? For you neither allow the conjunction of male and female, nor do you admit to the sacrament of baptism and the eucharist persons married elsewhere, unless they have made conspiracy between themselves against the fruit of matrimony, and so against the Creator himself.

Here we see that Tertullian's Marcionites "deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ." For those who were already "married elsewhere," they are required to make a "conspiracy between themselves against the fruit of matrimony" (pledge to be celibate) before they are admitted to "the sacrament of baptism and the eucharist." Several other passages, of course, refer to the prohibition of marriage, so the Marcionites needed only to have a way to handle those who were already "married elsewhere."

This is no doubt why Stephan has drawn our attention to this passage from Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 6.12), which I have now supplemented with references. Clement begins with the commonplace topos of moderation but clearly shows a preference.

Wherefore the Gnostic circumscribes his desires in reference both to possession and to enjoyment, not exceeding the limit of necessity. Therefore, regarding life in this world as necessary for the increase of science and the acquisition of knowledge, he will value highest, not living, but living well.

He will therefore prefer neither children, nor marriage [1 Corinthians 7:7, 7:8, 7:32, 7:38, 7:40; cf. Matthew 19:12], nor parents, to love for God, and righteousness in life. To such an one, his wife, after conception, is as a sister [cf. 1 Corinthians 7:1, 7:5], and is judged as if of the same father; then only recollecting her husband, when she looks on the children; as being destined to become a sister in reality after putting off the flesh [Colossians 2:11], which separates and limits the knowledge [Colossians 3:10] of those who are spiritual [1 Corinthians 2:15, 3:1] by the peculiar characteristics of the sexes.

For souls, themselves by themselves, are equal. Souls are neither male nor female [Galatians 3:28], when they no longer marry nor are given in marriage [Mark 12:25 // Luke 20:35 // Matthew 22:30]. And is not woman translated into man [Thomas 22, 114; Mary 9:8; 2 Clement 12], when she is become equally unfeminine, and manly, and perfect [Matthew 5:48; Mary 9:9]? Such, then, was the laughter of Sarah [Genesis 18:12] when she received the good news of the birth of a son; not, in my opinion, that she disbelieved the angel, but that she felt ashamed of the intercourse by means of which she was destined to become the mother of a son.

An interesting connection between the passages from Tertullian and Clement are the references, explicit and implicit respectively, to baptism. Tertullian refers to committing to celibacy before being admitted to "the sacrament of baptism and the eucharist." Clement refers to "putting off the flesh," which is also a way of speaking about baptism (Colossians 2:11-12): "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." Clement says that they are "destined" for this, which gives a little more weight to a sacramental allusion here.

Now, as for the textual analysis? Tertullian simply quotes from Luke and Matthew.

his words are, Whosoever sendeth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth one that is sent away by her husband, is no less an adulterer. [Luke 16:18] ...

For you have not accepted that other gospel, of equal truth, and of the same Christ, in which while forbidding divorce he answers a particular question concerning it: Moses because of the hardness of your heart commanded to give a bill of divorcement, but from the beginning it was not sob—because in fact he who made them male and female had said The two of them shall become one flesh. [Matthew 19:4-6] ...

His words are, Whosoever sendeth away his wife and marrieth another hath committed adultery, and whosoever marrieth one sent away by her husband is no less an adulterer [Luke 16:18] ...

For in Matthew's gospel Christ says, Whosoever shall send away his wife, saving for the cause of adultery, causeth her to commit adultery [Matthew 5:32] ...

It is interesting that Tertullian is again comparing this gospel to Matthew, which (even when made explicit) can count as a repetition of the same theme seen elsewhere when done unwittingly. Tertullian goes on to identify the basis on which Luke 16:18 undercuts the Marcionites:

Thus if it was under these conditions that he prohibited sending away a wife, this was not a total prohibition: and this that he has not totally prohibited he has permitted under other conditions, where the reason for the prohibition is absent. Thus his teaching is not in opposition to Moses ... If however you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ ...

We therefore have two alternatives. On the one hand, the Gospel used by Marcionites could have had Luke 16:18 exactly, which Tertullian quotes twice exactly in agreement with the text of Luke. This isn't impossible. They could have leaned harder on the passages in Paul, for example, and said that the words of Christ here are true but not the whole truth. On the other hand, Tertullian could just have no idea what the Gospel used by Marcionites said here and simply quoted from Luke because that's what he does when he doesn't have another source.

In favor of the second alternative, there are a couple things. Even more than usual, Tertullian shows in this passage that he's referencing Luke and Matthew. Tertullian explicitly brings them into equality ("you have not accepted that other gospel, of equal truth, and of the same Christ"), lapsing momentarily from distancing the gospel that they have accepted from Luke (which could be described by Tertullian as "of equal truth"), which is the one Tertullian is implying here that they have accepted.

The other thing is just the flurry of activity in Matthew to tame a bunch of material related to marriage, divorce, and celibacy (perhaps even becoming a eunuch). If we are looking for an explanation of the discordant material that Matthew has harmonized, and in the last post we were, then we find a natural one in saying that Matthew has been dealing with the Gospel that was also used by Marcion. This is of course not extraordinary; there are many occasions in which Matthew and Luke are seen to be developing material in way that would, if they were in view, undercut Marcionites.

Accordingly, if we accept this argument, we are led once again to suspect that Tertullian doesn't regularly refer to the Gospel used by Marcion. If he had, then he would have been able to find something somewhere a little more discordant with his own gospel than an exact quote of Luke 16:18. Perhaps a saying that divorce is in no way permitted by Christ, which Tertullian says the Marcionites believed, or perhaps some reference to becoming eunuchs or eschewing marriage, which Tertullian says at least some Marcionites did. There is, of course, a continuous gospel text that Tertullian has readily available to him and which Tertullian follows in order. That gospel is Luke.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Markan Marcion: A Contrarian Synopsis

Post by Peter Kirby »

Edited to add: this was difficult to understand in the first place, and I now regard this post as a misinterpretation of Tertullian. See this later post instead: viewtopic.php?p=157721#p157721

What we encounter next is a tangled web, so I will provide a signpost to the conclusion here. The Gospel used by Marcion had both the original leper story (Mark 1:40-45) and the story of the ten lepers (Luke 7:11-19). In the story of the ten lepers, this Gospel has an injunction to show themselves to the priests. In the original story, this Gospel doesn't have such an injunction. The reasoning here will be apparent soon, but it is essentially this: the injunction appears in one of these stories, and it doesn't appear in the original leper story.

Here's the first story of the cleansing of the leaper.

Mark Luke Matthew
1.40 And a leper came to him beseeching him, and kneeling said to him, "If you will, you can make me clean." 1.41 Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, "I will; be clean." 1.42 And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean. 1.43 And he sternly charged him, and sent him away at once, 1.44 and said to him, "See that you say nothing to any one; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to the people." 1.45 But he went out and began to talk freely about it, and to spread the news, so that Jesus could no longer openly enter a town, but was out in the country; and people came to him from every quarter. 5.12 While he was in one of the cities, there came a man full of leprosy; and when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and besought him, "Lord, if you will, you can make me clean." 5.13 And he stretched out his hand, and touched him, saying, "I will; be clean." And immediately the leprosy left him. 5.14 And he charged him to tell no one; but "go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as Moses commanded, for a proof to the people." 5.15 But so much the more the report went abroad concerning him; and great multitudes gathered to hear and to be healed of their infirmities. 5.16 But he withdrew to the wilderness and prayed. 8.1 When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him; 8.2 and behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, if you will, you can make me clean." 8.3 And he stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, "I will; be clean." And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. 8.4 And Jesus said to him, "See that you say nothing to any one; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to the people."

Tertullian clearly knows of an argument from Marcion about a leper (or lepers) showing themselves to a priest (pg. 294).

Go, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift which Moses commanded. Knowing that the law was in the form of prophecy, he was safeguarding its figurative regulations even in his own mirrored images of them, which indicated that a man who has been a sinner, as soon as he is cleansed by the word of God, is bound to offer in the temple a sacrifice to God, which means prayer and giving of thanks in the church through Christ Jesus, the universal high priest of the Father. This is why he added, That it may be to you for a testimony—no doubt by which he testified that he did not destroy the law but fulfilled it, a testimony that it was he and no other of whom it was foretold that he would take upon him their diseases and sicknesses.

This entirely adequate and necessary interpretation of that testimony Marcion, in subservience to his own Christ, seeks to discount under the pretence of consideration and gentleness. For, says he, being kind, and knowing besides that every man set free from leprosy would follow out the observances of the law, he for that reason ordered him to do so.

When we come to the passage about the ten lepers, in the order of Luke, Tertullian doesn't know the Marcionite explanation for this part of the story in the context of the ten lepers. He speculates (pg. 461).

But he also gave them the order which was in the surface meaning of the law: Go, shew yourselves to the priests. [Luke 17:14] Why so, if his intention was to cleanse them first? Was it perhaps as one casting scorn on the law, so as to let them see, as they were healed on the way, that the law was nothing to them, nor the priests either?

Tertullian suggests to the reader that he doesn't quite know how someone could interpret this in accordance with what he saw as Marcionite belief, so he creates the most plausible Marcionite reading on the spot, as something "perhaps" answering his question of "Why so...?"

Tertullian then makes this reference back to the original leper story (pg. 461):

But why did he give no such order to the original leper? Because neither did Elisha to Naaman the Syrian: but that does not mean he was not the Creator's prophet.

Here Tertullian has inherited a reference to the omission of this injunction in that story, given that we know that Tertullian's text (whether Luke, Matthew, or Mark) had this part of the story. So we can know that Tertullian was working from his copy of Luke, instead of Marcion's Gospel, in the discussion of the original leper story in the Lukan order (Mark 1:40-45 // Luke 5:12-16 // Matthew 8:1-4) because the notice of omisssion that is about Marcion's Gospel doesn't have this injunction, but Tertullian included it from Luke anyway.

This leaves us with explaining how Tertullian found an argument from Marcion about a leper or lepers showing themselves to priests. If not in the original leper story, where? Most likely, here, in the only other story in the synoptics about the healing of lepers, indicating that this story was part of the Gospel.

In any case, we see once again that Tertullian has often struggled to find the appropriate place in Luke to bring into view the notices he encounters about Marcion's arguments. This wouldn't lead to contradictions like this one if he were comparing Luke to Marcion's Gospel directly. It's naturally explained if Tertullian is referring regularly to the text of Luke and taking things in the order of Luke.

Last but not least, we get a rare indication regarding the order of Marcion's Gospel. The "original leper" story (without this injuction) occurred before the ten leper story (with this injunction). This is entirely consistent with a Markan order due to the fact that Mark 1:40-45 appears near the very start of Mark. It is the third specific healing story (Mark 1:21 - 1:45, with an exorcism at Capernaum where teaching with authority, Peter's sick mother-in-law, then the leper). With the interposition of a miraculous catch of fish, Luke 4:31 - 5:26 has the same sequence. And they also agree in sequence here for some passages following. Matthew has this material later and in a different arrangement.

Our notices about the incipit to Marcion's Gospel has it starting with 4:31 after the mention of the year. This is also equivalent to starting at the beginning of Mark and removing the baptism and the temptation, with the exception of the entrance into Galilee and calling of the disciples (Mark 1:14-20). There's a close relationship between the beginning of Mark and the beginning, according to Marcion's order, of Luke. All of this suggests the hypothesis that Marcion's Gospel opened with a sequence of episodes starting at Capernaum, like the parallels in Mark and Luke.
Post Reply