Enough of "Textual Criticism"! What Do People Imagine Marcionism Looked Like If You Visited Their Synagogues?

[Secret Alias]

Marcion and Matthew 5:17 - 47 in a Commentary on Matthew https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ma ... frontcover

[Peter Kirby]

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]

They're full of shit these Marcionite scholars. They're playing a sport with no ball, rules and no referees. Everyone gets sand, everyone gets to make their own castle and call it "Marcion's gospel." Yay! Just play nice.

[Secret Alias]

I wonder whether "fulfill/complete" has something to do with the 10th commandment (i.e the last one) being "do not lust" (Philo). Look at the antitheses in Matthew. It's all, "if you don't lust you fulfill all the commandments." Marcionites chopped their balls off like Origen and virtually every other Christian. No balls, no lust, no sin. Restore divinity to man.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skoptsy those nutty Russians

[Peter Kirby]

In case anyone doubts the texts are there for this too:

More ill-conducted also is Marcion than the wild beasts of that barbarous land: for is any beaver more self-castrating than this man who has abolished marriage?

Among that god's adherents no flesh is baptized except it be virgin or widowed or unmarried, or has purchased baptism by divorce: as though even eunuch's flesh was born of anything but marital intercourse.

Or any bridling of passion in castration?

The last one is most telling, as it accuses them of taking the easy way out of temptation.

[mlinssen]

In case anyone doubts the texts are there for this too:

More ill-conducted also is Marcion than the wild beasts of that barbarous land: for is any beaver more self-castrating than this man who has abolished marriage?

Among that god's adherents no flesh is baptized except it be virgin or widowed or unmarried, or has purchased baptism by divorce: as though even eunuch's flesh was born of anything but marital intercourse.

Or any bridling of passion in castration?

The last one is most telling, as it accuses them of taking the easy way out of temptation.

This is the sole reason that these texts are there: they're primarily propaganda, legitimate libel

Over 250 consecutive years of anti-Marcion writings, Peter - what do you think their primary goal was?

[Ken Olson]

(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?

You could explain it by positing that the Marcionite gospel was not a stable entity and contained textual variants in the same way the canonical gospels do. The saying attested by Marcus in the Adamantius Dialogue could perhaps have been an addition that was not in Tertullian's copy of the text.

But I take your overall point. The recent reconstructions of BeDuhn, Roth, and Klinghardt are all premised on the assumption that Tertullian and Epiphanius give us accurate information on the text of the Evangelion, and that assumption could plausibly be wrong. I have been willing to evaluate the arguments for the priority of the Evangelion, to Luke or to all the Synoptics, that are based on the presumption that Tertullian and Epiphanius give us accurate information about the text of the Evangelion, and that presumption could plausibly be wrong. If it is wrong, I don't see how an effective argument for the priority of the Evangelion could be made - it's just too nebulous.

Best,

Ken

PS I tried to send a version of this post earlier, but it disappeared into cyberspace.

[mlinssen]

(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?

You could explain it by positing that the Marcionite gospel was not a stable entity and contained textual variants in the same way the canonical gospels do. The saying attested by Marcus in the Adamantius Dialogue could perhaps have been an addition that was not in Tertullian's copy of the text.

But I take your overall point. The recent reconstructions of BeDuhn, Roth, and Klinghardt are all premised on the assumption that Tertullian and Epiphanius give us accurate information on the text of the Evangelion, and that assumption could plausibly be wrong. I have been willing to evaluate the arguments for the priority of the Evangelion, to Luke or to all the Synoptics, that are based on the presumption that Tertullian and Epiphanius give us accurate information about the text of the Evangelion, and that presumption could plausibly be wrong. If it is wrong, I don't see how an effective argument for the priority of the Evangelion could be made - it's just too nebulous.

Best,

Ken

PS I tried to send a version of this post earlier, but it disappeared into cyberspace.

Now you're putting words into their mouth Ken - are you really willing to go this far?

BeDuhn, page 31:

For these reasons, the testimony of these opponents of Marcion on this question is utterly without merit. Many other critics of Marcion (e.g., Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Ephrem Syrus) say nothing about any tampering with texts. 32 Even Tertullian himself, in the heat of polemic, acknowledged that he could not actually prove the priority of his community’s versions of the texts over Marcion’s. Modern commentators rarely have been as careful to qualify their assertions. In short, the acceptance by modern researchers of the claims made about Marcion’s handling of the texts included in his New Testament is an example of uncritical adoption of polemic as history. 33

I'll let you come up with a quote from Klinghardt that supports your, well, whatever it is

[Ken Olson]

(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?

You could explain it by positing that the Marcionite gospel was not a stable entity and contained textual variants in the same way the canonical gospels do. The saying attested by Marcus in the Adamantius Dialogue could perhaps have been an addition that was not in Tertullian's copy of the text.

But I take your overall point. The recent reconstructions of BeDuhn, Roth, and Klinghardt are all premised on the assumption that Tertullian and Epiphanius give us accurate information on the text of the Evangelion, and that assumption could plausibly be wrong. I have been willing to evaluate the arguments for the priority of the Evangelion, to Luke or to all the Synoptics, that are based on the presumption that Tertullian and Epiphanius give us accurate information about the text of the Evangelion, and that presumption could plausibly be wrong. If it is wrong, I don't see how an effective argument for the priority of the Evangelion could be made - it's just too nebulous.

Best,

Ken

PS I tried to send a version of this post earlier, but it disappeared into cyberspace.

Now you're putting words into their mouth Ken - are you really willing to go this far?

BeDuhn, page 31:

For these reasons, the testimony of these opponents of Marcion on this question is utterly without merit. Many other critics of Marcion (e.g., Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Ephrem Syrus) say nothing about any tampering with texts. 32 Even Tertullian himself, in the heat of polemic, acknowledged that he could not actually prove the priority of his community’s versions of the texts over Marcion’s. Modern commentators rarely have been as careful to qualify their assertions. In short, the acceptance by modern researchers of the claims made about Marcion’s handling of the texts included in his New Testament is an example of uncritical adoption of polemic as history. 33

I'll let you come up with a quote from Klinghardt that supports your, well, whatever it is

What gives Martijn? I think I have four posts from you from last night accusing me of misrepresenting the arguments of others and all of them - like this one - misrepresent or wildly misinterpret what I wrote.

The recent reconstructions of BeDuhn, Roth, and Klinghardt are all premised on the assumption that Tertullian and Epiphanius give us accurate information on the text of the Evangelion, and that assumption could plausibly be wrong.

I did not say that BeDuhn, Roth, and Klinghardt presume the complete accuracy of everything Tertullian and Epiphanius wrote. They definitely don't.

But their reconstructed text depends largely on the witness of Tertullian and Epihanius as to what was in, or not in, the text of the Evangelion.

In the quotation you cherry-picked from BeDuhn (31) he's dealing with a particular issue which he explained in the previous sentence (which you omitted from your quotation):

Few researchers seem to have considered the fact that writers such as Tertullian were in no position to know the state of texts before the time of Marcion, nor did they have independent information that told them whether Marcion's or their versions of these writings were the earlier one.

BeDuhn is not talking about Tertullian's witness to the contents of the text of the Evangelion there.

To be sure, BeDuhn recognizes that there are problems with using Tertullian and Epiphanius, but that does prevent hi from using them in his reconstruction:

As Joseph Tyson observes: 'if Marcion's opponents refer to a sentence that is included in his gospel, with or without variations, it is reasonable to conclude that the pericope which surrounds the sentence was in Luke, or something very much like it, also appeared in Marcion's gospel. Williams' issues make us rightly dubious about determining the wording of Marcion's gospel, but we can be reasonably confident about the inclusion or exclusion of the larger discourses and narratives. In most cases, there is little doubt that Tertullian or Epiphanius actually saw the passage to which they refer in the Marcionite New Testament, even if we have reason to question the accuracy of their transcription of it.[51].

So BeDuhn is presuming that Tertullian and Epiphanius had a copy of the Evangelion and that we can be reasonably confident about what was in it or not in it based on their testimony (i.e., they give us accurate information on the text of the Evangelion). And BeDuhn's presumption is plausibly wrong (which is not the same as probably wrong).

You can read the 5 step method BeDuhn employs in utilizing the witnesses to the text of the Evangelion (which would include Tertullian and Epiphanius) (54-55) and look at the places where he cites them in the margins in his reconstruction (99-127) and again the places he cites them in the Text Notes (128-200). He must think they give him accurate information about the text of the Evangelion (which is not to be confused with *entirely* accurate information) or he would not be citing them to justify wha he has in his reconstruction.

You gave what I wrote a very uncharitable, or possibly deliberately polemical, (mis)interpretation and this is something you do pretty often with my posts (and others too, I imagine). The thread I started on Melito of Sardis Peri Pascha is a case in point:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8149

I didn't respond to your last post there because I didn't want to draw out the conversation, but I think you made some unfounded accusations against or inferences about my argument there and in the thread from which it derived.

I'd ask for you to do better in the future, but I don't really expect that you'll turn over a new leaf. Your constant straw manning makes me not want to deal with you at all. I was hoping the that the recent Klinghardt thread(s), in which you started off with a fairly innocuous question, might be different, but apparently not.

How can you expect others to give your work a charitable hearing when you don't give others one? (Maybe you don't expect it).

[Secret Alias]

ὁ δὲ κύριος "οὐ καταλύειν τὸν νόμον ἀφικνεῖται, ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι." (and various other allusions in the previous section)

Clement of Alexandria's Matthew 5:17.

Other examples of Epictetus

That some persons, failing to fulfil what the character of a man implies, assume that of a philosopher

It were no slight attainment, could we merely fulfil what the nature of man implies (ὅτι οὐ δυνάμενοι τὴν ἀνθρώπου ἐπαγγελίαν πληρῶσαι τὴν φιλοσόφου προσλαμβάνομεν. οὐκ ἔστι τὸ τυχὸν αὐτὸ μόνον ἀνθρώπου ἐπαγγελίαν πληρῶσαι). For what is man? A rational and mortal being. Well; from what are we distinguished by reason? From wild beasts. From what else? From sheep, and the like ... For what difference does it make whether you discourse on these doctrines, or those of the heterodox? Sit down and comment skilfully on Epicurus, for instance; perhaps you may comment more profitable [p. 1140] than himself. Why then do you call yourself a Stoic? Why do you act like a Jew, when you are a Greek? Do not you see on what terms each is called a Jew, a Syrian, an Egyptian? And when we see any one wavering, we are wont to say, This is not a Jew, but only acts like one. But, when he assumes the sentiments of one who has been baptized and circumcised, then he both really is, and is called, a Jew. Thus we, falsifying our profession, may be Jews in name, but are in reality something else. We are inconsistent with our own discourse; we are far from practising what we teach, and what we pride ourselves on knowing. Thus, while we are unable to fulfil what the character of a man implies, we are ready to assume besides so vast a weight as that of a philosopher. As if a person, incapable of lifting ten pounds, should endeavor to heave the same stone with Ajax (οὕτως οὐδὲ τὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπαγγελίαν πληρῶσαι δυνάμενοι προσλαμβάνομεν τὴν τοῦ φιλοσόφου, τηλικοῦτο φορτίον οἷον εἴ τις δέκα λίτρας ἆραι μὴ δυνάμενος τὸν τοῦ Αἴαντος λίθον βαστάζειν ἤθελεν).

Notice the reference to Jews "baptizing" before circumcision. I think πληρόω means "to carry through to the end." As such Jesus was understood by the Marcionites to mean "I have not come to destroy the Law (the ten commandments) but to carry it through to the end" i.e. to the 10th commandment "do not lust."