The Ultimate Question With Patristic Commentary on the Marcionite Canon

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

The Ultimate Question With Patristic Commentary on the Marcionite Canon

Post by Secret Alias »

It is, did the various accounts come from actual encounters with the text(s) or did Tertullian, Epiphanius merely borrow from others.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Ultimate Question With Patristic Commentary on the Marcionite Canon

Post by Secret Alias »

The supposition is that the Church Fathers are all citing from a Luke-like Marcionite text. It is claimed at the start of the investigation that Marcion is this "mad excisor" someone who cut tons of material from the gospel. Yet Tertullian and Epiphanius cite very minor textual differences, most being attributable to Western readings. So the question comes down to whether Tertullian or Epiphanius really had the Marcionite text in front of them or - as I would have it - that they (or Tertullian in particular) were/was working from a text of Against Marcion written by Irenaeus which argued from a Western text of Luke, Luke being "the true text of Marcion," that even "Marcion's gospel" (i.e. Luke) was compatible with the Law and prophets. The idea that the Church Fathers operated in good faith is plainly disproved by many examples and we must also note that Tertullian's version of Against Marcion is admittedly two steps removed from the original, so the original "silly" argument (i.e. that I am going to argue from Luke to prove Marcion's gospel is the Creator) might have been "straightened" or made less ridiculous.
vocesanticae
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:10 pm

Re: The Ultimate Question With Patristic Commentary on the Marcionite Canon

Post by vocesanticae »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 5:06 pm Yet Tertullian and Epiphanius cite very minor textual differences, most being attributable to Western readings.
That's grossly inaccurate, as a quantitative analysis quickly reveals. Epiphanius and Tertullian together attest to over 4000 words of material in canonical Luke being missing from Marcion's Evangelion. More than 4000 words of additional content is unattested, some of which may align with canonical Luke, but most of which likely did not, even if merely by virtue of absence. That's around 8000 words of difference compared to a text that is about 19,500 words long.

The variations in the content indicated as present themselves likely number in the thousands of words, and most of these differences are not preserved in the western mss of canonical Luke. For hundreds of words, the wording attested for the Evangelion is much closer to canonical Mark than to canonical Luke, and the same is true, though far less often, regarding the Evangelion's alignments with canonical Matthew against canonical Luke.

The signal transmission tags in my open science book allow for these phenomena to be quantified and each tag to be evaluated and validated or invalidated.

While Marcion's Gospel can reasonably be called a version of Luke, and its text certainly has affinities with the western mss of canonical Luke, there is zero evidence for, and no compelling reason to postulate, an intermediary text by Irenaeus as the means by which Tertullian and/or Epiphanius and/or pseudo-Adamantius wrote their polemics (not to mention Ephrem, Jerome, Hippolytus, Eznik, et al). This presumes a scarcity of the text that does not align with the clear popularity of the Marcionite movement according even to its most staunch detractors from the late 2nd century to 4th century and beyond. Yes, the detractors are clearly prejudiced, but that prejudice comes out in their often line by line and word for word treatment of the Marcionite texts text, not in any supposed lack of access or any mediated access to the text.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Ultimate Question With Patristic Commentary on the Marcionite Canon

Post by Secret Alias »

When you read Tertullian it sounds more like an "I'm arguing from Luke which Marcion falsified to prove that even Marcion's god is the creator" that it sounds like Tertullian has the Marcionite text in front of him. Let's take the example of the apparent citation from Matthew in chapter 7:
7. [Luke 4: 31-7.] Marcion premises that in the fifteenth year of the principate of Tiberius he came down into Capernaum, a city of Galilee—from the Creator's heaven, of course, into which he had first come down out of his own.1 Did not then due order demand that it should first be explained how he came down from his own heaven into the Creator's? For why should I not pass censure on such matters as do not satisfy the claims of orderly narrative, <but let it> always tail off in falsehood? So let us ask once for all a question I have already discussed elsewhere, whether, while coming down through the Creator's territory and in opposition to him, he could have expected the Creator to let him in, and allow him to pass on from thence into the earth, which no less is the Creator's. Next however, admitting that he came down, I demand to know the rest of the order of that descent. It is no matter if somewhere the word 'appeared' is used. 'Appear' suggests a sudden and unexpected sight, <by one> who at some instant has cast his eyes on a thing which has at that instant appeared. To have come down, however—when that takes place the fact is in view and comes beneath the eye: it also puts the event into sequence, and enforces the inquiry in what sort of aspect, in what sort of array, with how much speed or moderation, as also at what time of day, or of night, he came down: and besides that, who saw him coming down, who reported it, and who gave assurance of a fact not easily credible even to him who gives assurance. It is quite wrong in fact, that Romulus should have had Proculus to vouch for his ascent into heaven,3 yet that Christ should not have provided himself with a reporter of his god's descent from heaven—though that one must have gone up by the same ladder of lies by which this one came down. Also what had he to do with Galilee, if he was not the Creator's Christ, for whom that province was predestined <as the place> for him to enter on his preaching? Also what had he to do with Galilee, if he was not the Creator's Christ, for whom that province was predestined <as the place> for him to enter on his preaching? For Isaiah says: Drink this first, do it quickly, province of Zebulon and land of Naphtali, and ye others who <dwell between> the sea-coast and Jordan, Galilee of the gentiles, ye people who sit in darkness, behold a great light: ye who inhabit the land, sitting in the shadow of death, a light has arisen upon you.a It is indeed to the good that Marcion's god too should be cited as one who gives light to the gentiles, for so there was the greater need for him to come down from heaven—though, if so, he ought to have come down into Pontus rather than Galilee.
The Western text of Luke 4:31

Following the notice of Jesus’ arrival in Capernaum, a city of Galilee, D adds an additional phrase from gospel-parallels:

την παραθαλασσιον εν οριοις Ζαβουλων και Νεφθαλιμ (“which is upon the sea-coast within the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim”)

The reading, from Matt. 4:13, differs only slightly in reading τὴν παραθαλασσίαν.

I find this very difficult to explain as being anything other than someone using a Western text of Luke. I see no evidence of a Marcionite text present here. So the "He came down to Capernaum" and the reference to Isaiah in Against Marcion is explained by the Western text of Luke. The only way Against Marcion makes any sense as if the person writing the account was arguing from a text that read as Bezae:
"And he went down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee situated beside the sea in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, and he was teaching them on the Sabbath."
Is anyone seriously telling me that the Marcionite gospel read:

"And he went down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee situated beside the sea in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, and he was teaching them on the Sabbath."

Then what prompts Against Marcion to write, immediately after its take on "he came down to Capernaum" the words:
Also what had he to do with Galilee, if he was not the Creator's Christ, for whom that province was predestined <as the place> for him to enter on his preaching? For Isaiah says: Drink this first, do it quickly, province of Zebulon and land of Naphtali, and ye others who <dwell between> the sea-coast and Jordan, Galilee of the gentiles, ye people who sit in darkness, behold a great light: ye who inhabit the land, sitting in the shadow of death, a light has arisen upon you.a It is indeed to the good that Marcion's god too should be cited as one who gives light to the gentiles, for so there was the greater need for him to come down from heaven—though, if so, he ought to have come down into Pontus rather than Galilee.
Clearly the person saw "And he went down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee situated beside the sea in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali" and connected it with the prophesy in Isaiah as we read in Matthew. It is complete bullshit to assume that the person was using Marcion's gospel.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Ultimate Question With Patristic Commentary on the Marcionite Canon

Post by Secret Alias »

So these "Marcionite scholars" tell us that this is coincidence (or never considered the parallels with the Western text). They never acknowledge the Marcionite text, if we are using Tertullian as our guide must have read:
"And he went down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee situated beside the sea in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, and he was teaching them on the Sabbath."
How does Tertullian "deal" with the line "and he was teaching them on the Sabbath? Let's see what follows in Against Tertullian immediately after the last citation:
It is indeed to the good that Marcion's god too should be cited as one who gives light to the gentiles, for so there was the greater need for
him to come down from heaven—though, if so, he ought to have come down into Pontus rather than Galilee. 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. 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 way 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? They remembered, surely, that unless they knew he was circumcised he must not be admitted into the most holy places. Or again, even if there were un-limited access to the synagogue, there was no permission to teach, except for one excellently well known, and tried, and approved, and already either for this occasion or by commendation from elsewhere invested with that function. 'But they were all astonished at his doctrine.' Quite so. Because, it says, his word was with power, not because his teaching was directed against the law and the prophets. For in fact his divine manner of speaking did afford both power and grace, building up, much more than pulling down, the substance of the law and the prophets. Otherwise they would not have been astonished but horrified; would not have marvelled at, but immediately shrunk from, a destroyer of the law and the prophets—and above all else the preacher of a different god, because he could not have given teaching contrary to the law and the prophets, and, by that token, contrary to the Creator, without some previous profession of belief in an alien and hostile deity. As then the scripture gives no indication of this kind, but only that the power and authority of his speech were a matter of wonder, it more readily indicates that his teaching was in accordance with the Creator, since it does not deny that, than that it was opposed to the Creator, since it has not said so. It follows that he must either be acknowledged to belong to him in accordance with whom his teaching was given, or else judged a turn-coat if his teaching was in accordance with him whom he had come to oppose.
Yes Tertullian is ostensibly dealing with Luke 4: 31-7. But the understanding of Jesus "Sabbath breaking" (4:31) is coloring the entire discussion. Of course Jews can't travel on the Sabbath. So Jesus traveling to the synagogue on the Sabbath is the proper context for the discussion about the teaching being "contrary to the Law and the prophets." How would anyone be mistaken for noticing this?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Ultimate Question With Patristic Commentary on the Marcionite Canon

Post by Secret Alias »

The difficulty is explaining what Against Marcion reverses the order of Luke. Why does it go

Chapter 7 Luke 4: 31-7
Chapter 8 Luke 4: 16-43

and everything else follows Luke?

Chapter 9 Luke 5: 1-15
Chapter 10 Luke 5: 18-26

I have a feeling it has something to do with the Lamentations reference at the beginning of Chapter 8:

8. [Luke 4: 16-43.] According to the prophecy, the Creator's Christ was to be called a Nazarene. For that reason, and on his account, the Jews call us by that very name, Nazarenes. For we are also those of whom it is written, The Nazarenes were made whiter than snow,b having previously of course been darkened with the stains of sin, and blackened with the darkness of ignorance. But to Christ the appellation of Nazarene was to apply because of his hiding-place in infancy, for which he went down to Nazareth, to escape from Archelaus, the son of Herod.c My reason for not leaving this out is that Marcion's Christ ought by rights to have forsworn all association even with the places frequented by the Creator's Christ, since he had all those towns of Judaea, which were not in the same way conveyed over to the Creator's Christ by the prophets. But Christ has to be the Christ of the prophets, wherever it is that he is found to accord with the prophets. Even at Nazareth there is no indication that his preaching was of anything new, though for all that, by reason of one single proverb, we are told that he was cast out.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: The Ultimate Question With Patristic Commentary on the Marcionite Canon

Post by lsayre »

Was Marcion's Evangelion violently suppressed and quite intentionally eradicated? If so, by Tertullian's time it may no longer have been available.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Ultimate Question With Patristic Commentary on the Marcionite Canon

Post by mlinssen »

lsayre wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 5:08 am Was Marcion's Evangelion violently suppressed and quite intentionally eradicated? If so, by Tertullian's time it may no longer have been available.
That is an option and a likely possibility - yet the "Marcion-bashing" continues well into 400 CE and it seems unlikely that they couldn't have laid hands on a single copy, which presumably was present in fair (relative) abundance given the alleged size of its followers

It's an oxymoron really: if something is non-existent then it doesn't need refutation - that is only the case when its presence is "large enough".
Yet when a movement is large enough, there must be texts that underlie it, support it, document its changes, directions, voyages.
I always use the allegory of looking from space at the Amazon river or the Nile; a simple single line is visible, and nothing more. But the more you zoom in, the wider it gets and all branches become visible, while the straight line changes into a swirl. It is inconceivable that not a single text would be available by 200 CE, or even 400 CE: with the history of Marcionism / Chrestianity getting longer and longer, at least someone would have started to write it all down again, ex/including variations / creative ideas and so on

Then again, the FF must have been aware that it was them who engaged in falsifying, so they could relatively easily restore what *Ev looked like.
But were they at all interested in doing so, or did they merely aim at *Ev-bashing? Why was there even more than one attempt at kicking *Ev around, what was the need for round 2 and other sequels?
The entire question that MUST be answered first and foremost is:

1. Why did Churchianity redact *Ev into Luke?
2. Apart from lying that they were original, what REALLY was the top 5 of prime directives and goals for the FF in writing about *Ev?

I can think of a few:

a) (Ab)use Marcion as sock puppet for Chrestianity and scapegoat him/it, ridicule him/it, and so forth;
b) (Ab)use Marcion to "historicise" Christianity by making claims about "his" moment in time and so forth;
c) (Ab)use Marcion by having him/it contain text that supports Christianity and either emphasise that or not comment at all about it;
d) (Ab)use Marcion by having him/it contain text that contradicts Chrestianity and either emphasise that or not comment at all about it

And the real question is: did they even need to read from a text - whereas the proper question would be which variant text of all they would pick. Apart from where they could lay their hands on a full and complete one - because it might just be a fact that it was so closely guarded that all they had was some 175 CE copy (I'm just making that date up)
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Ultimate Question With Patristic Commentary on the Marcionite Canon

Post by Secret Alias »

Was Marcion's Evangelion violently suppressed and quite intentionally eradicated?
I think Alexandrian Christianity was Marcionism and the Marcionite gospel was likely related to or identified with Secret Mark. Look at the "anonymous" nature of both gospels, i.e. lacking a superscript, lacking any identification of authorship. Look at "the gospel of Jesus (Christ)" as a title of both texts. Look at the suffix ίων as a patronymic https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-%CE%AF%CF%89%CE%BD. In other words, this isn't Mark, i.e. the real Mark, but a subordinate or lesser Mark. Something like that. What Papias says about Mark's relationship to Matthew is the inverse of Tertullian's understanding of Marcion's gospel to the Hebrew gospel of the Jerusalem Church (in his study of Galatians chapter 2). It's all vague but valid. It's just there isn't good information (deliberately).
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Ultimate Question With Patristic Commentary on the Marcionite Canon

Post by Secret Alias »

Another point worth considering. The curious mention of Matthew chapter 15 at the very beginning of Tertullian's treatment of Luke as the "true gospel of Marcion." This is actually paralleled in the Syriac Diatessaron. In Ephrem the bit about the Canaanite woman sits between the Nazareth synagogue/Capernaum and Luke 5:1 - 10. There is something here. Tertullian is at once following a Western reading of Luke but developing his argument for Luke being the true Marcion gospel from a text by Justin which compared Marcion's gospel to Matthew or the gospel harmony he used.
Post Reply