Re: Enough of "Textual Criticism"! What Do People Imagine Marcionism Looked Like If You Visited Their Synagogues?
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2023 5:46 am
And before I try to work today. Things that "Marcionite scholars" never say:
1. the apostle wrote the gospel and thus the Marcionite canon as a whole is an "Apostolikon" - why can't people say this? All these books. All these dead trees. Never can they articulate the basic "concept" of the Marcionites. As Moses wrote the Pentateuch (or was understood to) and was subsequently called "THE apostle" because of it Paul wrote the gospel. The Marcionites understood their gospel to be "first" because Paul wrote it. That's the whole point of Galatians. Paul brings his WRITTEN gospel (even Tertullian sees this) to the Jerusalem Church and they copied it and "Judaized "it (with dominical logoi). Say it with me, one two three ... "the Marcionites thought Paul wrote the gospel." Yes the Church Fathers never quite spell it out ... because it is the death knell of their tradition. It necessarily shines a spotlight on the fact that their Luke was a secondary composition. And remember "apostolic" for the orthodox means "subordinate" to the apostles. For the Marcionites "of or pertaining to" the apostle.
2. there were two laws in Israel - the ten commandments and Mosaic Law. Marcion accepted the former but denied the latter. When Heschel notes this dichotomy is widely reported in the rabbinic literature. However the clearest example of this phenomenon is the prohibition from divorce (Qumran equates with "be fruitful and multiple" and that section. 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.
3. If I am right about Marcionism accepting or tolerating the ten commandments but opposing specifically "Mosaic law" (i.e. those commandments seen to be established only by the authority of Moses) then it necessarily points to a Samaritan origin for the tradition and Christianity. We get a glimpse of this in Ephrem's Against Marcion where a lot of time is spent with the notion of a "mountain" which reaches from the earth into heaven and which the Jewish god was associated and Moses and the Patriarchs. These are Samaritan concepts. The Samaritans thought that the visible Mount Gerizim was only the bottom part of "the tallest mountain in the world' - one whose summit was "Paradise" and extended to upper reaches of the heavens. One could in effect be "pro-Israelite" i.e. a Hebrew religion and at the same time opposed to the Pharisees and specifically Jewish religious practices viz. "the temple" embodied in the hope for the destruction of this "demon house" and false place of worship.
4. expertise on "what scriptural passages the Church Fathers used when combatting Marcionism" is not the same thing as knowing the Marcionite gospel. Yes Epiphanius is the one who got the ball rolling saying (a) he had the Marcionite gospel and (b) he was providing a list of the corruptions Marcion made but it is not that simple. First of all, for some unexplained reason he decided to take a SPECIFIC NUMBER of corruptions which adds up to a Greek word (I forget which I think it was 114 variants from memory). How and why was this accomplished? For instance let's suppose you or I were going through a specific recension of Matthew and the Pauline letters and we were going to summarize all the variants in each. How would we deign to make the notes correspond to a specific number? If you had the canon you'd presumably start from the beginning. So you'd open up the Marcionite gospel and start from the first line. What's Epiphanius's first variant:
“Go shew thyself unto the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded—that this may be a testimony unto you,”34 instead
of the Savior’s “for a testimony unto them.”
This is from Tertullian (or Irenaeus's Greek text of Against Marcion that was common to both). But surely this can't be the first "variant" in the Marcionite gospel. It is impossible. Tertullian mentions many things that Marcion "cut" by the time he gets to this story. So he's not actually going through the Marcionite gospel. He's compiling a list of obvious Lukan alterations to fit the claim that Marcion's gospel was Luke. Then we have him go through (supposedly) the Marcionite gospel that is in front of him - "miss" variants known elsewhere and proceed right to end of the gospel (Luke 24:38-39) which is again found at Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.43.6 and then proceed to go through the Pauline epistles and arrive at the magic gematria he intended (if we believe he had the Marcionite canon in front of him). How did he "magically" arrive at 114 if he was actually picking up variants with a text right in front of him. Obviously he did not have the Marcionite gospel in front of him. He or an assistant culled references to Marcion gospel reading from various sources.
Also, and this is more problematic. He repeated follows Irenaeus's Pauline epistles ordering. He tells us over and over again what he claims is the order of the Pauline epistles "right in front of him":
1. the apostle wrote the gospel and thus the Marcionite canon as a whole is an "Apostolikon" - why can't people say this? All these books. All these dead trees. Never can they articulate the basic "concept" of the Marcionites. As Moses wrote the Pentateuch (or was understood to) and was subsequently called "THE apostle" because of it Paul wrote the gospel. The Marcionites understood their gospel to be "first" because Paul wrote it. That's the whole point of Galatians. Paul brings his WRITTEN gospel (even Tertullian sees this) to the Jerusalem Church and they copied it and "Judaized "it (with dominical logoi). Say it with me, one two three ... "the Marcionites thought Paul wrote the gospel." Yes the Church Fathers never quite spell it out ... because it is the death knell of their tradition. It necessarily shines a spotlight on the fact that their Luke was a secondary composition. And remember "apostolic" for the orthodox means "subordinate" to the apostles. For the Marcionites "of or pertaining to" the apostle.
2. there were two laws in Israel - the ten commandments and Mosaic Law. Marcion accepted the former but denied the latter. When Heschel notes this dichotomy is widely reported in the rabbinic literature. However the clearest example of this phenomenon is the prohibition from divorce (Qumran equates with "be fruitful and multiple" and that section. 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.
3. If I am right about Marcionism accepting or tolerating the ten commandments but opposing specifically "Mosaic law" (i.e. those commandments seen to be established only by the authority of Moses) then it necessarily points to a Samaritan origin for the tradition and Christianity. We get a glimpse of this in Ephrem's Against Marcion where a lot of time is spent with the notion of a "mountain" which reaches from the earth into heaven and which the Jewish god was associated and Moses and the Patriarchs. These are Samaritan concepts. The Samaritans thought that the visible Mount Gerizim was only the bottom part of "the tallest mountain in the world' - one whose summit was "Paradise" and extended to upper reaches of the heavens. One could in effect be "pro-Israelite" i.e. a Hebrew religion and at the same time opposed to the Pharisees and specifically Jewish religious practices viz. "the temple" embodied in the hope for the destruction of this "demon house" and false place of worship.
4. expertise on "what scriptural passages the Church Fathers used when combatting Marcionism" is not the same thing as knowing the Marcionite gospel. Yes Epiphanius is the one who got the ball rolling saying (a) he had the Marcionite gospel and (b) he was providing a list of the corruptions Marcion made but it is not that simple. First of all, for some unexplained reason he decided to take a SPECIFIC NUMBER of corruptions which adds up to a Greek word (I forget which I think it was 114 variants from memory). How and why was this accomplished? For instance let's suppose you or I were going through a specific recension of Matthew and the Pauline letters and we were going to summarize all the variants in each. How would we deign to make the notes correspond to a specific number? If you had the canon you'd presumably start from the beginning. So you'd open up the Marcionite gospel and start from the first line. What's Epiphanius's first variant:
“Go shew thyself unto the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded—that this may be a testimony unto you,”34 instead
of the Savior’s “for a testimony unto them.”
This is from Tertullian (or Irenaeus's Greek text of Against Marcion that was common to both). But surely this can't be the first "variant" in the Marcionite gospel. It is impossible. Tertullian mentions many things that Marcion "cut" by the time he gets to this story. So he's not actually going through the Marcionite gospel. He's compiling a list of obvious Lukan alterations to fit the claim that Marcion's gospel was Luke. Then we have him go through (supposedly) the Marcionite gospel that is in front of him - "miss" variants known elsewhere and proceed right to end of the gospel (Luke 24:38-39) which is again found at Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.43.6 and then proceed to go through the Pauline epistles and arrive at the magic gematria he intended (if we believe he had the Marcionite canon in front of him). How did he "magically" arrive at 114 if he was actually picking up variants with a text right in front of him. Obviously he did not have the Marcionite gospel in front of him. He or an assistant culled references to Marcion gospel reading from various sources.
Also, and this is more problematic. He repeated follows Irenaeus's Pauline epistles ordering. He tells us over and over again what he claims is the order of the Pauline epistles "right in front of him":
Notice the Irenaean/Tertullian language i.e. the portions of the letters which Marcion still "retains." But isn't it strange that if he has the actual Marcionite canon in front of him that the ACTUAL ORDERING OF THE VARIANTS doesn't follow from a collection that went Galatians, Corinthians 1, Corinthians 2, Romans etc. Instead his ordering is:Here are what he calls Epistles:
1. Galatians.
2. Corinthians.
3. Second Corinthians.
4. Romans.
5. Thessalonians.
6. Second Thessalonians.
7. Ephesians.
8. Colossians.
9. Philemon.
10. Philippians.
He also has parts of the so-called Epistle to the Laodiceans.
9,5 From the very canon that he retains, of the Gospel and the Pauline Epistles, I can show with God’s help that Marcion is a fraud and in error, and can refute him very effectively
How on earth can Epiphanius claim that he has the Marcionite canon in front of him and he is going through that canon to compile the variants (and arrive at exactly 114 of them to satisfy from craving for gematria) and then say that the Marcionite Pauline letters are ordered Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians etc. and end up with a completely different ordering in his alleged Marcionite canon i.e. Romans, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians etc. It's complete bullshit. If he had a Marcionite gospel ACCORDING TO HIS OWN TESTIMONY(!) he'd have in front of him a collection of letters that went one way AND THEN FOR NO EXPLICABLE REASON HE DECIDED TO RE-ARRANGE THE ORDER OF HIS CITATIONS ACCORDING TO A NON-SENSICAL ARRANGEMENT THAT FOLLOWS NO KNOWN ORDERING OF THE LETTERS OF PAUL. Ridiculous! This is the second known instance where Epiphanius is lying about having heretical gospels and texts. He doesn't have a Marcionite canon in front of him but just compiled exactly 114 (or whatever) references to complete his now borrowing and regurgitation from previous writers.From the Epistle to the Romans, number four in Marcion’s canon but number one in the Apostolic Canon ...
The First Epistle to the Thessalonians, < number fi ve in Marcion’s canon >, but number eight in ours (no citations)
The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, < number six in Marcion’s canon >, but number nine in ours (no citations)
From the Epistle to Ephesians, number seven < in Marcion’s canon >, but number fi ve in ours ...
< From the Epistle > to the Colossians, number eight < in Marcion’s canon >, but number seven in ours. 1(39). “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon and sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come.”122
The Epistle to Philemon, number nine < in Marcion’s canon >, but number thirteen, or even fourteen, in ours. (no citations)
The Epistle to the Philippians, number ten < in Marcion’s canon >, but number six in ours. (no citations)
< From the Epistle > to the Laodiceans, number eleven < in Marcion’s canon > (totally mistaken interpretation of what Tertullian says about Ephesians being called to the Laodiceans another proof he didn't have the canon in front of him ...
From the Epistle to the Galatians, number one < in Marcion’s canon >, but number four in ours ...
< From the > First < Epistle > to the Corinthians, number two in Marcion’s own canon and in ours ...
From the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, number three in Marcion’s canon and ours