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
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Markan Marcion: A Contrarian Synopsis

Post by mlinssen »

And the XLSX source to my paper on the 72 logia, with a few handy calculations

viewtopic.php?p=123555#p123555
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8020
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Markan Marcion: A Contrarian Synopsis

Post by Peter Kirby »

I'm pulling some of my recent posts (and replies to them) over here so that they are easy to reference. I've been hesitant because they are a bit off-the-cuff, but that's the nature of trying to work something out for the first time for one's self.

I switched gears to try to understand Tertullian's Against Marcion, book 4. I am still spending time on that, and I will post more in this thread. Then I will return again to Epiphanius and other considerations.
Secret Alias wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:32 am 1. Tertullian does not say he has the Marcionite gospel in his possession, only that (a) the Marcionite gospel is a corrupt Luke and (implicitly) makes the case that he will fulfil the promise of Irenaeus to demonstrate the falsity of Marcion from the portion of Luke that he still retains.
Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:48 pm Here's one of those smoking guns, by the way:

page 277: https://www.tertullian.org/articles/eva ... k4_eng.htm
"It is no matter if somewhere the word 'appeared' is used."

Tertullian doesn't know if the word "appeared" is used at the beginning of Marcion's Gospel. Like.. wtf?
Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:17 pm A bit more of an interpretation here, but Tertullian doesn't say that he understands why he's taking Luke "out of order" (pg 283):

With what purpose have I begun with this episode? To show you that Jesus was acknowledged by the demon, and affirmed by himself, to belong to none other than the Creator.

Tertullian neglects to point out that gMarcion "reversed" the order of these episodes. This suggests an explanation according to which (a) the more correct gMarcion order came to Tertullian somehow but (b) Tertullian was unaware that this was because it was the gMarcion order. After offering some feint for why he is taking Luke out of order, Tertullian reverts to Luke's order, as if refusing to allow further lapses of order to occur, for which he would find no explanation.
Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 8:18 pm While I'm at it, I discerned some approximate statistics from one of Klinghardt's lists in The Oldest Gospel. It's about the wording of their quotes from gMarcion (as Klinghardt sees them) and when they agree with Mark or Matthew instead of Luke.

Matthean Markan
Tertullian 14 6
Epiphanius 3 6

I make two inferences from this:

(1) This doesn't seem random. The chi-square test is significant at <0.1.

(2) The quotes from Epiphanius are more likely to be accurate. This is both because (a) conformity in inaccurate citation to Mark is far less likely than conformity in inaccurate citation to Matthew and (b) Epiphanius expresses more concern with the actual words of the text anyway.

Remember, these are the quotes that Klinghardt detects in Tertullian of gMarcion. It's not the stuff that Klinghardt doesn't see as quoting gMarcion. So, however Klinghardt is finding these quotes in Tertullian, they don't always seem that reliable as to the exact words of gMarcion.
Secret Alias wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:45 pm Irenaeus speaks of the Antitheses (i.e. Matthew 5:17 - 44) as if they were in Marcion's gospel. This would explain why Matthew 5:17 is the single most common Marcionite gospel scripture. It is referenced over 15 times in relation to Marcion in Against Marcion alone.

Adversus Marcionem
1 23 § 4 (p.465, l.9) BP1
4 2 § 2 (p.547, l.16) BP1
4 6 § 4 (p.553, l.9) BP1
4 7 § 4 (p.554, l.22) BP1
4 7 § 4 (p.554, l.23 - *) BP1
4 9 § 10 (p.560, l.5) BP1
4 9 § 15 (p.561, l.8) BP1
4 16 § 5 (p.582, l.22) BP1
4 22 § 11 (p.603, l.1) BP1
4 33 § 9 (p.634, l.22) BP1
4 36 § 6 (p.644, l.4) BP1
4 39 § 17 (p.655, l.1) BP1
4 39 § 19 (p.655, l.25) BP1
4 42 § 6 (p.660, l.23) BP1
5 14 § 14 (p.708, l.20) BP1
De carne Christi (1)
7 § 11 (p.889, l.66) BP1 (in relation to Marcion)
Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:29 pm
Secret Alias wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:18 pm Take the gospel [or the evangelicon] of Marcion, and you will presently see at the very beginning a proof of their impudence. For they have left out our Lord's genealogy from and Abraham. And if you proceed a little farther, you will see another instance of their wickedness, in altering our Lord's words. "I came not," says he, "to destroy the law or the prophets." But they have ' made it thus: " Think ye, that I came to fulfil the law or the prophets? I am come to destroy, ' not to fulfil.'" [Isidore of Pelusium (Ep., 1, 371]
And as you say on your blog:
(twice mentioned by the Marcionite Marcus in Adamantius) De recta in deum fide XV: "This is what the Judaists wrote the (version): 'I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill (it).' But Christ did not speak in this way; he said rather: 'I have not come to fulfill the law but to abolish (it)
This is another great proof that Tertullian isn't working from gMarcion. How else do you explain complaining 15 times about this, calling it an "interpolation" from Marcion to omit it, and never quoting the impudence of what gMarcion had here?
Secret Alias wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:18 pm Irenaeus AH 4:13 [abbreviated -PK]
... For," He remarks, "it has been said to them of old time, Do not commit adultery. But I say unto you, That every one who hath looked upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."(3) And again: "It has been said, Thou shalt not kill. But I say unto you, Every one who is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment."(4) And, "It hath been said, Thou shalt not forswear thyself. But I say unto you, Swear not at all; but let your conversation be, Yea, yea, and Nay, nay."(5) And other statements of a like nature. For all these do not contain or imply an opposition to and an overturning of the [precepts] of the past, as Marcion's followers do strenuously maintain; but [they exhibit] a fulfilling and an extension of them
... is not contrary to [the law], as I have remarked, neither is it the utterance of one destroying the law, but of one fulfilling, extending, and affording greater scope to it.

Take the gospel [or the evangelicon] of Marcion, and you will presently see at the very beginning a proof of their impudence. For they have left out our Lord's genealogy from and Abraham. And if you proceed a little farther, you will see another instance of their wickedness, in altering our Lord's words. "I came not," says he, "to destroy the law or the prophets." But they have ' made it thus: " Think ye, that I came to fulfil the law or the prophets? I am come to destroy, ' not to fulfil.'" [Isidore of Pelusium (Ep., 1, 371]
Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:05 pm I agree with the weight of your evidence. I also believe it has another interpretation. If "Antitheses" was an actual affixed but separate text from Marcion (and I'm struggling to understand how it isn't), then this could still suggest that some form of Matthew 5:17-44 were in the Gospel, being a natural part of the Gospel and used only as a subset of a longer text of the Antitheses.

Therefore, there's this long part of what's now Matthew that is in gMarcion. This either means gMarcion was a source to both canonical Matthew and canonical Luke (where I'm landing), or some hypothesis where gMarcion was an adaptation of both Matthew and Luke (where I'm not).

I'm in fact just coming to this part of Against Marcion (pg 338):

Admittedly Christ teaches a new degree of forbearance, when he puts restraint on that retaliation for injury which the Creator permitted by demanding an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth [Matthew 5:38]: for he on the contrary orders us rather to offer the other cheek [Matthew 5:39], and in addition to the coat to let go of the cloak also [Matthew 5:40].

This falls in the same order of this passage from Luke, which, however, does not have a parallel to Matthew 5:38:

“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either

Tertullian has taken a Marcionite argument that had something to do with what we see in Matthew 5:38 and transposed it here, to the parallel in Luke. The whole passage that follows from Tertullian is a discussion of "the demand of tooth for tooth and eye for eye in return for an injury." This leaves two options:

(1) The Antitheses is the source of this, in which case the Antitheses were incorporated into canonical Matthew.
(2) The Gospel is the ultimate source of this (mediated through one of Tertullian's sources), in which case the Gospel is more than a reduced form of Luke and contains verses that are now found in canonical Matthew.

I believe you're arguing for (1). I am considering (2).
Secret Alias wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 5:46 am How can it be that the most Marcionite sections of the gospel all appear in Matthew? Obvious, the editors of the canon made the arrangement of the fourfold canon itself an "anti-Marcionite" project. Don't people see? Against Marcion argues that Marcion's claim to "antitheses" to be without foundation. The gospel is compatible with the Creator etc. But in a sloppy sense (the way most moronic scholars speak) it is about whether the gospel is compatible "with Judaism." That's why the most Marcionite passages were put in Matthew the supposed "Jewish-Christian gospel" (Papias's Matthew was different as was his Mark). By putting the Antitheses and the criticism of Moses's acceptance of divorce in Matthew, Matthew 19 "eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom" - MARCIONITE CORNERSTONES - in Matthew they redefined the most Marcionite passages "harmonizing them" in effect with Judaism. As such the creation of Luke was part of a broader pattern - a strategy for neutralizing what was "ur-Christianity" viz. Marcionism.
Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 8:03 pm Tertullian does refer to the Antitheses, claiming to be able to go through them one by one. It's not clear to me yet whether at first hand. In the places where Tertullian is explicit about what was in the text of gMarcion, this is often inferred from such a reference to those Antitheses.

Even in this Marcion sees an 'opposition', that whereas Elisha needed a material help, and made use of water, seven times at that, Christ by the act of his word alone [Luke 5:13], without repeating it, immediately put the healing into effect—as though I were not bold enough to claim even the word he used, as part of the Creator's property.

It remains an open question for me about whether (a) all claims of omission in gMarcion come from another Against Marcion [or possibly Antitheses] and (b) all claims of presence in gMarcion come from another Against Marcion or possibly Antitheses.

Generally, however, it does read like a commentary on Luke, both in order and in not usually discussing gMarcion explicitly. Except where it doesn't, of course, e.g., where the claim of omission is against not-Luke (whether Matthew or a text that has material known from Matthew). There are a few examples of this type, which best admit of a previous source.
Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:33 pm In his discussion on the woe of Luke 6:26, Tertullian suggests also a third possible source, i.e. arguments with other Marcionites (pg. 331):

There are others indeed who admit the word involves cursing, but will have it that Christ uttered the word Woe not as proceeding strictly from his own judgement, but because the word woe comes from the Creator, and he wished to set before them the Creator's severity, and so give greater commendation to his own tolerance previously in the beatitudes.

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:46 am Here is something to consider Peter. In the section just before Jesus's visit to the synagogue of Nazareth/Capernaum:
Yet since both that locality and that function of enlightenment do according to the prophecy have their bearing upon Christ, we at once begin to discern that it was he of whom the prophecy was made, when he makes it clear on his first appearance that he is come not to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them.b For Marcion has blotted this out as an interpolation. But in vain will he deny that Christ said in words a thing which he at once partly accomplished in act. For in the meanwhile he fulfilled the prophecy in respect of place. From heaven straightway into the synagogue. As the saying goes, let us get down to it: to your task, Marcion: remove even this from the gospel, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and, It is not <meet> to take away the children's bread and give it to dogs:c for this gives the impression that Christ belongs to Israel. I have plenty of acts, if you take away his words. Take away Christ's sayings, and the facts will speak; See how he enters into the synagogue: surely to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. See how he offers the bread of his doctrine to the Israelites first: surely he is giving them preference as sons. See how as yet he gives others no share of it: surely he is passing them by, like dogs. Yet on whom would he have been more ready to bestow it than on strangers to the Creator, if he himself had not above all else belonged to the Creator? Yet again how can he have obtained admittance into the synagogue, appearing so suddenly, so unknown, no one as yet having certain knowledge of his tribe, of his nation, of his house, or even of Caesar's census, which the Roman registry still has in keeping,4 a most faithful witness to our Lord's nativity?
This is Matthew chapter 5 followed by Matthew chapter 15. Why is this material here? Chapter 15 is a long ways from the parallel passages of Matthew and Luke. The answer is the Gospel Harmony of Ephrem where this material from chapter 15 is placed in same section from Luke 4 - chapter 5. What does this mean?

Let's suppose that we don't know the answer. The one thing we do know is that Against Marcion is not a straight forward examination of Luke and Marcion's gospel. This fits with what we are told in the beginning - in the incipit - where the text is said to have been written and rewritten three times with more than one author. This fits the general pattern in Tertullian. He plagiarized. But more importantly one of the layers used an Eastern Gospel Harmony.
Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:34 am I have been wondering where we can situate an "Against Marcion" that accuses him of mauling the Gospel (Matthew). Here are the known candidates:

Justin Martyr of Rome (ca. 160)
Theophilus of Antioch (ca. 170-180)
Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 180-190)

In favor of Justin: nothing really. Justin does not show clear knowledge of canonical Matthew. Justin does show knowledge and use of various texts, with none of the later concern for that which is apocryphal. Justin knows of narratives that disagree with Matthew, using them with no concern. Justin does not regard these texts as scripture, thus making it difficult to imagine him being overly concerned with their exact text. Justin instead focuses on the traditional scriptures. This method of proof is seen in the Dialogue and influences Tertullian's first revision of the Latin Against Marcion, which consists of two books, our 1 and 3. Justin's stamp is on book 3, although it has itself received revisions in Tertullian's second and third versions.

In favor of Theophilus of Antioch: everything. Theophilus quotes solely from Matthew as "the Gospel." Theophilus includes John among the "writings," as in the "prophets and the writings," in addition to the Law. Theophilus doesn't quote from Mark (which must have existed, if Markan priority over Matthew is true) or Luke. Theophilus wrote a well-regarded work in Greek "Against Marcion," as referenced by Eusebius. The location of Antioch is consistent with use of Matthew (thought to be written there), docetic ideas (Serapion his predecessor and the Gospel of Peter), and Marcionite thought (given the examples it in the Syrian east).

In favor of Irenaeus of Lyons: precious little. The hypothesis requires an earlier stage of thought for Irenaeus never witnessed in his writings. Irenaeus is of the opinion that Marcion used Luke (not Matthew). Irenaeus proposes a fourfold Gospel. Irenaeus quotes from Matthew most often but Luke second most and nearly as much. All the criticism that applies (mutatis mutandis) to condemn Luke as well as gMarcion would be daft from the view of a fourfold Gospel. Irenaeus himself seems busier with Valentinians.

So I am thinking that Theophilus would necessarily compare the Gospel of Marcion to Matthew, since he regards Matthew as "the Gospel" and wrote "Against Marcion." This much is evident. The other candidates are not evident, and from what is known of those authors, such an approach did not fit their authorial aims.
Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:27 pm
Secret Alias wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:12 pm The thing about Theophilus using a gospel harmony is on your page for Theophilus http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/i ... athen.html
Jerome, though, talks about it in the way he talks about misattributions [more likely] and forgeries [less likely] (and he seemed pretty good on picking up on that stuff sometimes):
I have read, under his name, commentaries On the Gospel and On the proverbs of Solomon which do not appear to me to correspond in style and language with the elegance and expressiveness of the above works.
andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:38 am One possibility is that Justin knew and valued a harmony of the Synoptic Gospels. Justin compared Marcion's Gospel to this harmony and criticised Marcion for leaving bits out. Some of the bits that Justin complained about being omitted came from Matthew but Justin was uninterested or unaware of this.
Secret Alias wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:56 am As such I identify the three layers of Against Marcion mentioned at the beginning of Book One as:

Justin (edition 1)
Irenaeus (edition 2)
Tertullian (edition 3)
Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:12 pm I'm assuming you mean: (a) it's naive to assume the gospel of Luke existed when Against Marcion was originally written, etc. because:
(b) it started as a comparison between a gospel harmony and Marcion's gospel [Justin]
(c) based on Justin's answers a new "counter" gospel against Marcion was developed by Irenaeus
(d) the final draft of Against Marcion was reshaped to match the order of Luke [also initially by Irenaeus]

Drawing largely on the same evidence, I am starting to think about this alternative:
(a) it started as a comparison between Matthew and Marcion's gospel [Theophilus]
(b) based on the well-known incipit, Irenaeus started the gMarcion = gLuke rumor with the 1 gospel = 1 heresy scheme
(c) based on this rumor, Tertullian took the Against Marcion of Theophilus and reshaped it on Luke

I leave open the question of the composition of Luke, which may be independent of these heresiologists.

Because this is in many respects similar to your scheme in what it tries to explain, it may be difficult to sort out. I need to read Ephrem.
Secret Alias wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 2:19 pm It has to be Irenaeus. The methodology for "Against Marcion" in Against Heresies is EXACTLY what I am proposing for Tertullian's text of the same name:
But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains.
What is he saying here? You can disprove Marcion from Luke. And then a few lines later:
Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all; and, curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these are alone authentic, which they have themselves thus shortened. In another work,(1) however, I shall, God granting [me strength], refute them out of these which they still retain.
He is saying not only CAN you refute Marcion from Luke now he is saying he WILL write a treatise to this effect. Tertullian's Against Marcion demonstrates this was ultimately carried out. Note that he says the orthodox Epistles of Paul too WILL be used to refute Marcion in this "Against Marcion."
Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 3:14 pm I think I can see a different process at work in Book 4 and in Book 5. So does Klinghardt, although not quite fitting into his argument:

"Opposed to the Apostolos (featuring a relatively large portion of direct quotations and thus more reliable data for a comparison between the quoted text and his own argumentation) Tertullian’s treatment of the Gospels is kept more open. The *Ev-references are woven much more deeply into Tertullian’s argumentation, making it often difficult distinguishing formulations of *Ev from Tertullian’s own." (The Oldest Gospel, p. 70)

Book 5 reads like exactly what it says on the tin. Book 4 is far more muddled.
Secret Alias wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:02 pm Actually Eusebius DOES SAY Irenaeus completed his work Against Marcion. From Book 4:
Philip who, as we learn from the words of Dionysius, was bishop of the parish of Gortyna, likewise wrote a most elaborate work Against Marcion, as did also Irenæus and Modestus. 4.24 https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm
Case closed I think.
Peter Kirby wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 9:39 pm
Nothing I have previously written against Marcion is any longer my concern. I am embarking upon a new work to replace an old one. My first edition, too hurriedly produced, I afterwards withdrew, substituting a fuller treatment. This also, before enough copies had been made, was stolen from me by a brother, at that time a Christian but afterwards an apostate, who chanced to have copied out some extracts very incorrectly, and shewed them to a group of people. Hence the need for correction. The opportunity provided by this revision has moved me to make some additions. Thus this written work, a third succeeding a second, and instead of third from now on the first, needs to begin by reporting the demise of the work it supersedes, so that no one may be perplexed if in one place or another he comes across varying forms of it.

This tells us four things:

(1) the second edition was "a fuller treatment"
(2) someone made extracts from the second edition
(3) the third edition "made some additions"
(4) Tertullian expects that someone may come across various forms of it

None of this admits of any natural reading that does not have Tertullian as author of all three editions.

At the end of book one, we have this:

So much concerning Marcion's god. Our postulate that deity necessarily implies unity, as well as the limitations of Marcion's god's character, prove him entirely non-existent. The continuation of my treatise as a whole follows closely upon this fact. So then if anyone thinks I have accomplished too little, let him wait for what is kept in reserve until its proper time, as well as for my discussion of those scriptures which Marcion makes uses.

At the start of book two, we have this notice:

The fortunes of this work have been described in the preface to Book I. The opportunity of revision gives me this further advantage, that in the discussion of two gods, in opposition to Marcion, I am now able to assign to each of them a separate book with its distinctive heading: for so does the subject-matter naturally divide.

This refers to the preface, so it belongs to the third edition. As such, it was the third edition that divided Books I and II. So the conclusion to Book I also belongs to the third edition, meaning that the reference to delaying "discussion of those scriptures which Marcion makes uses" belongs to the third edition.

What other notices can we find of deferring discussion? In book 3, we have:

Certainly when he himself described himself as the Son of man, this was a claim to have been born. For the moment—so that I may defer all these matters until I come to assess the evidence of the gospel—


Since I have thought it well that Marcion's own gospel should be brought under discussion, I shall defer until then my treatment of various aspects of his teaching and miracles, as for the matter then in hand.

These references are to taking up a treatment of the gospel, which (unlike "those scriptures") doesn't also refer to Paul.

The conclusion of the second book says this:

To sum up: I shall by means of these antitheses recognize in Christ my own jealous God. He did in the beginning by his own right, by a hostility which was rational and therefore good, provide beforehand for the maturity and fuller ripeness of the things which were his. His antitheses are in conformity with his own world: for it is composed and regulated by elements contrary to each other, yet in perfect proportion. Therefore, most thoughtless Marcion, you ought rather to have shown that there is one god of light and another of darkness: after that you would have found it easier to persuade us that there is one god of kindness and another of severity. In any case, the antithesis, or opposition, will belong to that God in whose world it is to be found.

The references to summing up and the claim to have written the true antitheses suggest that this is an earlier conclusion.

The conclusion of the fourth book says this:

I have, I think, fulfilled my promise. I have set before you Jesus as the Christ of the prophets in his doctrines, his judgements, his affections, his feelings, his miracles, his sufferings, as also in his resurrection, none other than the Christ of the Creator. And so again, when sending forth his apostles to preach to all the nations, he fulfilled the psalm by his instruction that their sound must go out into all the world and their words unto the ends of the earth. I am sorry for you, Marcion: your labour has been in vain. Even in your gospel Christ Jesus is mine.

There's some finality in the rhetoric suggesting it could have been an earlier conclusion to the work.

The conclusion of the fifth book says this:

Take note, examiner, that the matters discussed in the previous part of this treatise I have now proved from the apostle's writings, and have completed such parts as were reserved for the present work. So then you are not to think superfluous the repetition by which I have confirmed my original intention, nor are you to doubt the legitimacy of the delay from which I have at length rescued these subjects. If your examination covers the whole work, you will censure neither superfluity in the present nor lack of conviction in the past.

The references to "now," "the present work," "the present," and "the past" marks out the fifth book on the apostle as an addition.

So I'm now led to this hypothesis:

First Edition: in one book, presents the material that would become books I and II
Second Edition: added books III and IV (where III refers in anticipation to IV), other edits
Third Edition: added prologue, split books I and II, added ending to I and intro to II, added book V, other edits

This would also help explain the fact that book IV retains so many muddled indications comparing Marcion's Gospel to Matthew, given that Irenaeus regarded Marcion's Gospel as a version of Luke. The explanation is that, in book IV, Tertullian was relying on some other Against Marcion besides the one written by Irenaeus. When it came time to write Book V, only then would Tertullian have been familiar with the Against Marcion from Irenaeus, with its attempt to discuss the "scriptures" that Marcion uses, including Paul.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8020
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Markan Marcion: A Contrarian Synopsis

Post by Peter Kirby »

Here's a clear example of how gMarcion has a literary relationship with gMark or gMatthew (pg 361).

https://www.tertullian.org/articles/eva ... k4_eng.htm
He himself, they say, affirms that he has not been born when he says, "Who is my mother and who are my brethren?" In this way heretics are always, by their theories, wresting plain and simple expressions in any direction they please, or else, on supposition of simplicity, giving a general meaning to expressions based on special conditions and particular reasons, as on the present occasion.

And in a footnote to this translation:

Cf. de carne Christi 7, in controversy with Apelles. The question, 'Who is my mother and my brethren?', not recorded by St. Luke, was taken over by Marcion from Matt. 12: 48 and Mark 3: 33.

Here are these versions in the RSV for the synoptics:

Mark Luke Matthew
3.31 And his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him. 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 is my brother, and sister, and mother." 8.19 Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him for the crowd. 8.20 And he was told, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you." 8.21 But he said to them, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it." 12.46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him 12.47 [omitted] 12.48 But he replied to the man who told him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" 12.49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 12.50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother."

Of these three, gLuke is the most distant because it omits the question quoted in the controversy as well as the stark declaration from Jesus ("Here are my mother and my brothers!"). All of these texts have a reference in the authorial voice to "his mothers and his brothers," which is natural for an author who considered them such but also destroys the argument before it can get off the ground. If we have a text like gMarcion and if its author did not have a belief in Jesus having a true mother or brothers, then it could have been removed by way of redaction. So we can suggest that gMarcion looked like Mark but without verse 31.

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."

With the reply to the question about the will of God/my Father or doing "my words" (and not the "word of God" as in Luke 8:21 with its stronger overtones of scriptural association) and with the omission of the authorial admission of a true family (Luke 8:19 // Mark 3:31 // Matthew 12:46), the argument of Apelles would not be absurd, given his text of the Gospel. If the omission of verse 47 in gMatthew is correct, then gMark seems closest to gMarcion here, since gMark has both the question in response and the ambiguous third person address to Jesus, one or the other dropped by gLuke and gMatthew.

This particular example doesn't prove that gMarcion isn't posterior to all three synoptics, but that's not my point here. My point is that gMarcion has a literary relationship with gMark or gMatthew because its material is in those gospels but not gLuke at times. Likewise, the controversies reflect that and don't support the idea that it's just gLuke with subtractions.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Markan Marcion: A Contrarian Synopsis

Post by Secret Alias »

I think Tertullian says that a mother of the disciples said "Blessed is the womb which bore you."
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8020
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Markan Marcion: A Contrarian Synopsis

Post by Peter Kirby »

Tertullian has been following Luke in order, after the initial swapping of the first two episodes. After the story of the woman's faith and before Peter's confession, i.e. in Luke 9:1-6, Tertullian has occasion to mention one of the things that Marcion allegedly deleted (having previously mentioned the other one repeated here, leaving out the birds and the flowers).

Here's Tertullian (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.

Previously we heard of the deletion of a necessarily connected Gospel saying in Matthew 15:24 (pg. 279), likewise missing from Matthew 10:6:
As the saying goes, let us get down to it: to your task, Marcion: remove even this from the gospel, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel [Matthew 15:24], and, It is not <meet> to take away the children's bread and give it to dogs: for this gives the impression that Christ belongs to Israel.

Here are the synoptics in the RSV translation:

Mark 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. 10.5 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.

Given the position of this in Tertullian's argument, this arises here because of the sending of the twelve disciples (not the seventy, where gLuke has put this saying omitted here). And this shows how Tertullian has taken up issues of deletions that are mentioned by his source, which compared gMarcion either to gMatthew or another text that has the words we now see in gMatthew. That's why this source complains of deleting "for the laborer deserves his food," which makes sense if the comparison is with a text like gMatthew. This source had elsewhere complained about deleting the verses about going "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," and here it complains about deleting the saying about the laborer in Matthew 10:10 in the story of the sending of the twelve. Tertullian's procedure has been to take this source and move its arguments to the corresponding places in Luke, where Tertullian found that correspondence by searching for the sending of the twelve.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8020
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Markan Marcion: A Contrarian Synopsis

Post by Peter Kirby »

Now consider the notice about how Marcionites use the story of Peter's confession. Here's the synopsis in the RSV.

Mark Luke Matthew
8.27 And Jesus went on with his disciples, to the villages of Caesare'a Philip'pi; and on the way he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that I am?" 8.28 And they told him, "John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others one of the prophets." 8.29 And he asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered him, "You are the Christ." 8.30 And he charged them to tell no one about him. 8.31 And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. 8.32 And he said this plainly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. 8.33 But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter, and said, "Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men." 9.18 Now it happened that as he was praying alone the disciples were with him; and he asked them, "Who do the people say that I am?" 9.19 And they answered, "John the Baptist; but others say, Eli'jah; and others, that one of the old prophets has risen." 9.20 And he said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" And Peter answered, "The Christ of God." 9.21 But he charged and commanded them to tell this to no one, 9.22 saying, "The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised." 16.13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare'a Philip'pi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" 16.14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli'jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 16.15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16.16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 16.17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 16.18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 16.19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 16.20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. 16.21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised 16.22 And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, "God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you." 16.23 But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men."

The author of gMatthew took the statement of Jesus, against Peter, about "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men" and tried to clarify it substantially. That's because the author of gMatthew interposes another saying from Peter, to wit, "God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you." This allows the hard saying of Jesus to be rebuking only Peter's disbelief about what will happen to Jesus, totally divorcing it from the answer, "You are the Christ."

The author of gLuke engages in no such artistry and just deletes "Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men."

The author of gMark preserves the text that could be used most easily to support the Marcionite argument here. In the text of gMark, Peter says only "You are the Christ" and an unspecified rebuke. This is met by Jesus with both "he charged them to tell no one about him" and even "Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men." This could be used to support the idea that Jesus was rebuking Peter for seeing him as a kind of Christ after human understanding (the warrior), instead of being on "the side of God."

And so we find the command to silence as an argument from Marcionites (pg. 374):

For if Peter was not in a position to affirm that he was any other than the Creator's, and Christ himself gave orders that they were to tell no man of this, evidently he was unwilling for Peter's supposition to be published abroad. Quite so, you say: because that supposition was incorrect, and he did not wish a lie to be spread abroad.

And the argument which belonged to the Marcionites, consistent with gMark, but contradicted by gMatthew:

Certainly even if they had not been prophesied, the reason he gave for commanding silence was not one which proved Peter mistaken: it was the call to undergo sufferings.

If we're looking for the form of the synoptic text that most understandably allows the Marcionite approach here, it's gMark. The other two synoptics improve on that text in ways that would undercut the Marcionite argument.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8020
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Markan Marcion: A Contrarian Synopsis

Post by Peter Kirby »

There is another accusation of deletion in the Transfiguration scene.

Mark Luke Matthew
9.4 And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses; and they were talking to Jesus. 9.30 And behold, two men talked with him, Moses and Elijah, 9.31 who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem. 17.3 And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Eli'jah, talking with him.
9:4 καὶ ὤφθη αὐτοῖς Ἠλίας σὺν Μωσεῖ, καὶ ἦσαν συλλαλοῦντες τῷ Ἰησοῦ 9:30 καὶ ἰδού, ἄνδρες δύο συνελάλουν αὐτῷ οἵτινες ἦσαν Μωσῆς καὶ Ἠλίας 9.31 οἳ ὀφθέντες ἐν δόξῃ ἔλεγον τὴν ἔξοδον αὐτοῦ ἣν ἔμελλεν πληροῦν ἐν Ἰερουσαλήμ 17:3 καὶ ἰδού, ὤφθησαν αὐτοῖς Μωσῆς καὶ Ἠλίας μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ συλλαλοῦντες

Here is what Tertullian says (pg. 385):

For even if Marcion has refused to have him shown conversing with the Lord, but only standing there...

I bolded the words that would be dropped in order to remove all mention of conversing.

Tertullian's accusation here says nothing of the content of that conversation, a detail only in Luke. The omission of the bare fact of conversation would have been most complicated when applied to Luke, as it would require two edits and taking away the main verb ("talked," συνελάλουν). This kind of edit, however, would have been quite simple if it occurred against Mark or Matthew. The hypothesis that Tertullian has inherited his accuasations of omission from a source that compared against Matthew is not the only way to understand this passage in Tertullian, but it does make a little more sense given that there's no reference to what was allegedly said to Jesus (which is only in Luke), and removing the bare mention of conversing would be the natural way to describe a simple edit to Mark (just "And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses"), which would stand out to the author of a Greek Against Marcion when compared against Matthew.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8020
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Markan Marcion: A Contrarian Synopsis

Post by Peter Kirby »

Here we can again see a literary relationship between gMarcion and gMatthew (pg. 388).

But see, <you say>, Christ loves the little ones, and teaches that all who ever wish to be the greater, need to be as they; whereas the Creator sent bears against some boys, to avenge Elisha the prophet for mockery he had suffered from them. A fairly reckless antithesis...

In the context of who wishes to be the greater (not in Thomas), only Matthew says specifically that you need to be as a little one (not in Mark or Luke, which have only a different saying about receiving). It's only Matthew that says being greater is to be like children. The reference to children must be part of the antithesis in order for it to be contrasted effectively to the episode with Elisha.

Mark Luke Matthew Thomas
9.33 And they came to Caper'na-um; and when he was in the house he asked them, "What were you discussing on the way?" 9.34 But they were silent; for on the way they had discussed with one another who was the greatest. 9.35 And he sat down and called the twelve; and he said to them, "If any one would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all." 9.36 And he took a child, and put him in the midst of them; and taking him in his arms, he said to them, 9.37 "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me." 9.46 And an argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest. 9.47 But when Jesus perceived the thought of their hearts, he took a child and put him by his side, 9.48 and said to them, "Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me; for he who is least among you all is the one who is great." 18.1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" 18.2 And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them, 18.3 and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 18.4 Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 18.5 "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to His disciples, "These infants being suckled are like those who enter the Kingdom." They said to Him, "Shall we then, as children, enter the Kingdom?" Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter [the Kingdom]."

I consider the reference to an "antithesis" to establish that Tertullian is working from the Antitheses. At this point, I'm inclined to believe that Tertullian had a copy of the Antitheses and used it as a primary source for Marcionite argument, which explains his frequent references to Marcionite oppositions and substantiates his claim to be able to go through them one by one. This in turn suggests that the wording of the episode now found in Matthew goes back to the Antitheses of Marcion and, therefore, the Gospel utilized by Marcion. Specifically, the Antitheses likely quote a form of the saying now found in Matthew 18:4, which has both the elements here in one saying.

As always, Tertullian's procedure has transposed an argument found in another context to appear in the order of Luke.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8020
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Markan Marcion: A Contrarian Synopsis

Post by Peter Kirby »

Peter Kirby wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 4:57 pm Tertullian has been following Luke in order, after the initial swapping of the first two episodes. After the story of the woman's faith and before Peter's confession, i.e. in Luke 9:1-6, Tertullian has occasion to mention one of the things that Marcion allegedly deleted (having previously mentioned the other one repeated here, leaving out the birds and the flowers).

Here's Tertullian (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.

In case there was any doubt, the text confirms the procedure undertaken when it comes to the sending of the seventy (pg. 393).

But the labourer is worthy of his hire: who has better right to say this than God the Judge? For this very act is an exercise of judgement, to pronounce the labourer worthy of his hire. Every grant of reward is based upon some exercise of judgement. So here too the Creator's law receives attestation, when he judges that even working oxen are labourers worthy of reward: Thou shalt not, he says, muzzle the ox when it is threshing.

Compare to Luke and the sending of the seventy:

Luke 10.1 After this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come. ... Luke 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.

Previously, in the context of the sending of the twelve, Tertullian had accused Marcion of deleting this phrase, which is found only in Matthew in this context, not Mark or Luke. I said that this must have been inherited from his source (since it doesn't compare against Luke) and argued that Tertullian must have brought it to attention there because his source had connected it to the sending of the twelve.

Now we can see how Tertullian has treated the sending of the seventy. Apparently forgetting the earlier claim of deletion inherited from his source, Tertullian here relies on the appearance of this phrase, which is found in the sending of the seventy in Luke. How should we explain this? If we think that Tertullian was everywhere comparing Luke to Marcion's Gospel, then it's difficult to explain the earlier claim of deletion, for that which is also absent in Luke. If we think that Tertullian was very careful to quote only from Marcion's Gospel and never from Luke instead, then it is difficult to explain this tacit claim of the phrase being present, which Tertullian already claimed to have been deleted. Neither of these ideas explain the procedure of Tertullian very well. What does explain it is that Tertullian has inherited a source that compared Marcion's Gospel to Matthew, or a text like Matthew, and that Tertullian has supplemented it by reading through Luke.

Therefore, we must be careful when reading Tertullian to look for indications that he is referring to a Marcionite controversy or is providing some other kind of indication that he is using a source, such as an earlier Greek Against Marcion or the Antitheses. Where Tertullian's text has no indication of the use of a source, it is less reliable as a guide to the text of Marcion's Gospel. As such, we cannot for example claim (based on Tertullian) that the sending of the seventy was in Marcion's Gospel. Tertullian is referencing that story because it appears here in the order of Luke, but what he says about it contradicts his earlier claim that Marcion's Gospel deleted this phrase.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8020
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Markan Marcion: A Contrarian Synopsis

Post by Peter Kirby »

I have found something interesting and unexpected every single time Tertullian accuses the Gospel of Marcion of an omission. Tertullian's Against Marcion Book 4 is a bit of a slog, but it's worth it for these little gems. Here Tertullian accuses the heretic's Gospel of a missing word (pg. 404).

In the gospel of truth a doctor of the law approaches Christ with the question, "What shall I do to obtain eternal life?" [Mk 10:17 // Lk 10:25 // Lk 18:18 // Mt 19:16] In the heretic's gospel is written only 'life', without mention of 'eternal', so that the doctor may have the appearance of asking for advice about that life, that long life, which is promised by the Creator in the law, and the Lord may then seem to have given him an answer in terms of the law, "Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength," because the question asked was about the law of life.

Tertullian himself recognizes what inanity it would be if heretics were arguing on the basis of Luke 10:25 here (pg. 406).

It is by now no matter if our people have added 'eternal'. For me it is enough that that Christ of yours, who calls men not to a long life but to eternal life, when asked for advice about the long life which he was putting an end to, did not instead exhort the man to the eternal life which he was introducing.

Both by position and by the additional detail that Tertullian adds, this is supposed to be a reference to Luke 10:25. Yet the parallels to this passage in the other synoptics do not have the phrase "eternal life." And only Luke has this question appear in two different locations.

Mark Luke Matthew
12.28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the first of all?" 12.29 Jesus answered, "The first is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; 12.30 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' 12.31 The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." 12.32 And the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he; 12.33 and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." 12.34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And after that no one dared to ask him any question. 10.25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 10.26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read?" 10.27 And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself." 10.28 And he said to him, "You have answered right; do this, and you will live." 22.35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, to test him. 22.36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" 22.37 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 22.38 This is the great and first commandment. 22.39 And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 21.40 On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."

So consider then the other passage, in which the phrase appears twice in all three synoptics.

Mark Luke Matthew
10.17 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 10.18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. 10.19 You know the commandments: 'Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'" 10.20 And he said to him, "Teacher, all these I have observed from my youth." 10.21 And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." 10.22 At that saying his countenance fell, and he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions. 10.23 And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!" 10.24 And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 10.25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 10.26 And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, "Then who can be saved?" 10.27 Jesus looked at them and said, "With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God." 10.28 Peter began to say to him, "Lo, we have left everything and followed you." 10.29 Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, 10.30 who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. 10.31 But many that are first will be last, and the last first." 18.18 And a ruler asked him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 18.19 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. 18.20 You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.'" 18.21 And he said, "All these I have observed from my youth." 18.22 And when Jesus heard it, he said to him, "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." 18.23 But when he heard this he became sad, for he was very rich. 18.24 Jesus looking at him said, "How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! 18.25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 18.26 Those who heard it said, "Then who can be saved?" 18.27 But he said, "What is impossible with men is possible with God." 18.28 And Peter said, "Lo, we have left our homes and followed you." 18.29 And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 18.30 who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life." 19.16 And behold, one came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?" 19.17 And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments." 19.18 He said to him, "Which?" And Jesus said, "You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19.19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 19.20 The young man said to him, "All these I have observed; what do I still lack?" 19.21 Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." 19.22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions. 19.23 And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven 19.24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 19.25 When the disciples heard this they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?" 19.26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." 19.27 Then Peter said in reply, "Lo, we have left everything and followed you. What then shall we have?" 19.28 Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 19.29 And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. 19.30 But many that are first will be last, and the last first.

A couple things here. In this other episode, the phrase "eternal life" appears twice in the canonical text. This allows a contrast between the initial question about "life" and the final statement about "eternal life." Something like this would better explain an argument of the heretics about the meaning of having only the word "life" in the initial question. The Luke 10:25 passage just repeats "life" limply with "you will live."

Moreover, the Luke 10:25 passage provides no grist for the mill of the heretical controversy. It answers about the law and only the law, with nothing but positive regard for the law. Yet such a passage would be more likely to show up in discussions, as we have seen previously, if Marcionites were appealing to it for their ideas. For this, we would need to turn to the other passages, which offer much more than an affirmative comment on the law, saying that an answer about the law is correct and the way to life.

And we already know that this other passage was appearing in controversy with Marcionites because this is one of the most quoted phrases out of all phrases in discussions of Marcion: "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." (Origen, Princ. 2.5.1, 4; Hippolytus, Haer. 7.31.6; Marc. 4.36.3, 6; Pan. 42.11.6; Adam. 2.18–19, 92.26–27)

So what is the structure of this other passage, and of the Marcionite argument based on it?

A - a question (from a rich man / ruler) about how to have life
B - an answer to the man, subverting social relationships ("good teacher"), referring to the good God
C - a noncommittal answer saying the man already knows the commandments
D - a teaching the man lacked that says to sell everything to have treasure in heaven
D' - a teaching to the disciples about how hard it is for the rich man to enter the kingdom of God
C' - an answer to the disciples that all things are possible with God, unlike men (who have the commandments)
B' - an answer to Peter, that leaving family for the gospel will have reward
A' - a statement that the last will be first and have eternal life

Don't trip on the presentation in terms of chiasm; I recognize how fragile such are. Just observe the build-up and denouement of the episode. From a Marcionite perspective, the questioner is wrong in several ways: they are asking the wrong question ("life"), they are misunderstanding relations ("good teacher"), they are relying on insufficient teaching ("the commandments"), and they ultimately cannot accept true teaching (and have "treasure in heaven"). There's nothing flattering here about the man who knew the commandments and didn't recognize the God who is good. Those who leave family for the sake of the gospel, however, will have "eternal life." The episode is valuable to the Marcionites for its repudiation of family, for its reference to the unrecognized God who is good, and for its contrast of the gospel with the commandments.

Unexpectedly, then, this too is an example of how Tertullian has transposed an argument in another context into the order of Luke.
Post Reply