Re: Marcionite agreements with Matthew against Luke?
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2021 12:03 pm
I will come back to the skipped over verses and move on to the antithesis pairs as they appear in Matthew (six in all, 5:21-22, 5:27-28, 5:31-32, 5:33-37, 5:38-42, and 5:43-48). But first some background into what the antithesis pairs looked like, drawing mostly from Dialogue Adamantius. We'll let the Marcionite champions state it in their own words:
Megethius on the
Tertullian confirms this [1]
now some of the pairs (still Megethius, DA 1.10)
2nd pair (DA 1.11):
3rd pair (DA 1.12):
4th pair (DA 1.13):
5th pair (DA 1.15):
6th pair (DA 1.16):
7th pair (DA 1.17):
8th pair (DA 1.18):
9th pair (DA 1.19):
10th pair (DA 1.20):
11th pair (DA 1.23):
****** Main takeaway from the above !!!
The list of antithesis comparisons from chapter one of DA is certainly incomplete. But there are a couple clear takeaways about the form of the document these pairs were taken from. The key one (for the Matthew examination) is the presentation by formula:
"The God of Creation" (ὁ θεὸς τῆς γενέσεως) ... or "the prophet of the God of Creation" (ὁ προφήτης τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς γενέσεως)
"But our Lord, because He is good" (ὁ δὲ κύριος ἡμῶν ὁ ἀγαπός) ...
While the formula is no more consistent than the Pauline letters, we can see that a basic form is present. This strongly suggests that DA chapter one was working from a document, and not the free association of the writer, which would not provide any structure.
******* End of main takeaway
Dialogue Adamantius is a rather artificial debate. Essentially the Marcionite champions announce a particular point in of their argument in brevity then fall silent to an extended response, and move on to the next one, refuted in turn while they remain silent. It's pretty obvious what is going on: the Marcionite champion Megethius is a straw man, gives the minimum conversation to present bullet points from the antithesis more or less verbatim, then because he is straw sits back and allows an extended retort to go without more than a cursory response.
Curiously Tertullian's approach was very different. Rather than actually quote the pairs, he instead takes up many of the same OT verses and stories used by the Marcionites and attempts to show they are consistent with the NT text and concepts. He is thus not a very useful source for the antithesis overall, merely a supporting element here and there. He does however introduce one Marcionite pair in AM 1.2.1-3, which Harnack proposed was the opening salvo used by the Marcionites to start the antithesis:
Note, the unsound tree parable is also mentioned in Dialogue Adamantius 1.28, but in conjunction with serving two masters parable (Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13) to claim there are two different deities, one of creation who made evil (unsound tree) and one who is all good to whom Christ belongs. But this seems to be part of a different section of the antithesis, which concerns the nature of the two gods, that runs from DA 1.23 to the end of the chapter, and is taken up also in chapter two of DA.
Tertullian doesn't use a dialogue form, nor does he choose to refute the antithesis, one by one. So the evidence he provides is more of the theological counter points. Tertullian takes on a different part of the antithesis than the pairs, rather the second part of it we find in DA. I have no idea which part headed the document.
Next up the pairs in Matthew ...
Notes:
[1] see also Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies 7.25, Irenaeus Against All Heresies 1.27
[2] this is the same wording of Matthew 5:43, which will become important later
[3] Compare to the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions Book 2, Chapter XLVIII and Homilies Book 17, chapter IV which also read ἔγνω
also A.M. 2.27.4 "No man knows the Father, except the Son." Nemo cognovit patrem nisi filius = οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς
Megethius on the
I maintain that the Demiurge framed one set of laws, and that Christ made another set oppose to him. (DA 1.9)
... No one ever contradicted or opposed himself in the way that the Gospel opposes the Law. (DA 1.9)
The God of the Jews is a unity. (DA 1.9)
The God of the Jews and the Demiurge are one and the same, but our God is not His son. (DA 1.10)
Christ destroyed the works of the Demiurge, and I will prove the He destroyed them. (DA 1.10)
... No one ever contradicted or opposed himself in the way that the Gospel opposes the Law. (DA 1.9)
The God of the Jews is a unity. (DA 1.9)
The God of the Jews and the Demiurge are one and the same, but our God is not His son. (DA 1.10)
Christ destroyed the works of the Demiurge, and I will prove the He destroyed them. (DA 1.10)
Tertullian confirms this [1]
For it is certain that the whole aim at which he has strenuously labored even in the drawing up of his Antitheses, centers in this, that he may establish a diversity between the Old and the New Testaments, so that his own Christ may be separate from the Creator, as belonging to this other god, and as alien from the law and the prophets. (AM 4.6.1)
now some of the pairs (still Megethius, DA 1.10)
The Creator God (ὁ θεὸς τῆς γενεσεως – note that Megethius always says, ‘the God of the Genesis’) commanded Moses when he was leaving the land of Egypt, “Be ready; gird your loins; put shoes on your feet; have your staffs in your hands and your knapsacks on you; carry away gold, silver and all the other things from the Egyptians.” (Paraphrased LXX Exodus 12:11, 3:22, 11:2, 12:35)
But our good Lord, when He was sending His disciples into the world, said, “Neither shoes on your feet, nor knapsack, nor two tunics, nor gold in your belts.” (Matthew 10:9, Luke 9:3, 10:4)
See how clearly the good Lord is opposed to the teachings of the Creator God!
But our good Lord, when He was sending His disciples into the world, said, “Neither shoes on your feet, nor knapsack, nor two tunics, nor gold in your belts.” (Matthew 10:9, Luke 9:3, 10:4)
See how clearly the good Lord is opposed to the teachings of the Creator God!
2nd pair (DA 1.11):
The prophet of the God of Creation, when war came upon the people, went up to the top of the mountain and stretched out his hands to God so that he might destroy many in battle. (Exodus 17:8ff)
But our Lord, because He is good, stretched out his hands, not to destroy, but to save men.
But our Lord, because He is good, stretched out his hands, not to destroy, but to save men.
3rd pair (DA 1.12):
The Lord brought to view in the Law say, ‘You shall love him who loves you and you shall hate your enemy.” (Leviticus 19:18 LXX with τὸν ἀγαπῶντα σε for τὸν πλησίον σου[2])
But our Lord, because He is good, says “Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.”
(Matthew 5:44; see also Luke 6:27-28; Matthew 8:12, 22:13, 25:30, 41)
But our Lord, because He is good, says “Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.”
(Matthew 5:44; see also Luke 6:27-28; Matthew 8:12, 22:13, 25:30, 41)
4th pair (DA 1.13):
Megethius: The prophet of the God of Creation, so that he might destroy more of the enemy, stopped the sun from setting until he should finish slaying those who were fighting against his people. (Joshua 10:12-14)
But the Lord, because He is good, says, “Let not the sun go upon you in anger.” (Ephesians 4:26)
But the Lord, because He is good, says, “Let not the sun go upon you in anger.” (Ephesians 4:26)
5th pair (DA 1.15):
It says in the Law, ‘Eye for Eye and tooth for tooth,’ (Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21 LXX, Matthew 5:38)
but the Lord, because He is good, says in the Gospel, "If anyone should slap you on the cheek, turn the other one to him." (Matthew 5:39, Luke 6:29)
but the Lord, because He is good, says in the Gospel, "If anyone should slap you on the cheek, turn the other one to him." (Matthew 5:39, Luke 6:29)
6th pair (DA 1.16):
The prophet of the God of Creation told a bear to come out of a thicket and devour the children who met him (see LXX 4 kings 2:24),
but the good Lord says, "Let the children come to me, for such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16)
but the good Lord says, "Let the children come to me, for such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16)
7th pair (DA 1.17):
The Creator God did not know where Adam was, when he asks, "Where are you?" (Genesis 3:9)
Christ, however, knew even men's thoughts. (compare Luke 6:8, 9:17)
Christ, however, knew even men's thoughts. (compare Luke 6:8, 9:17)
8th pair (DA 1.18):
What then does it mean in the Law when it says, "cloak for a cloak" (Admanatius replies that this is similar to "tooth for a tooth" found in Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Pretty guesses Leviticus 6:11; 16:23-24),
while the good Lord says, "If anyone should take your cloak, give him your tunic also?" (Luke 6:29, c.f. Matthew 5:40)
while the good Lord says, "If anyone should take your cloak, give him your tunic also?" (Luke 6:29, c.f. Matthew 5:40)
9th pair (DA 1.19):
The prophet of the god of Creation records, "My bow is bent, and my arrows are sharpened." (Isaiah 5:28 combined with Deuteronomy 32:23 LXX)
But the Apostle says, "Put on the armor of God, that you may be able to extinguish the fiery darts of the wicked one." (Ephesians 6:13, 16)
But the Apostle says, "Put on the armor of God, that you may be able to extinguish the fiery darts of the wicked one." (Ephesians 6:13, 16)
10th pair (DA 1.20):
After Isaac became partially blind, (ὐποχυθέντα but otherwise refers to Genesis 27:1) the God of Creation did not restore his sight,
but our Lord, because he is good, opened the eyes of many blind.
but our Lord, because he is good, opened the eyes of many blind.
11th pair (DA 1.23):
I will prove from the Scriptures that there is one God who is the father of Christ, and another who is the Demiurge.
The Demiurge was known to Adam and his contemporaries – this is made clear from the Scriptures.
But the Father of Christ is unknown, just as Christ himself declared when he said of him, “No one knows the Father, except the Son, neither does anyone know the son, except the Father.” (Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22 note ἔγνω instead of ἐπιγινώσκει)
The Demiurge was known to Adam and his contemporaries – this is made clear from the Scriptures.
But the Father of Christ is unknown, just as Christ himself declared when he said of him, “No one knows the Father, except the Son, neither does anyone know the son, except the Father.” (Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22 note ἔγνω instead of ἐπιγινώσκει)
****** Main takeaway from the above !!!
The list of antithesis comparisons from chapter one of DA is certainly incomplete. But there are a couple clear takeaways about the form of the document these pairs were taken from. The key one (for the Matthew examination) is the presentation by formula:
"The God of Creation" (ὁ θεὸς τῆς γενέσεως) ... or "the prophet of the God of Creation" (ὁ προφήτης τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς γενέσεως)
"But our Lord, because He is good" (ὁ δὲ κύριος ἡμῶν ὁ ἀγαπός) ...
While the formula is no more consistent than the Pauline letters, we can see that a basic form is present. This strongly suggests that DA chapter one was working from a document, and not the free association of the writer, which would not provide any structure.
******* End of main takeaway
Dialogue Adamantius is a rather artificial debate. Essentially the Marcionite champions announce a particular point in of their argument in brevity then fall silent to an extended response, and move on to the next one, refuted in turn while they remain silent. It's pretty obvious what is going on: the Marcionite champion Megethius is a straw man, gives the minimum conversation to present bullet points from the antithesis more or less verbatim, then because he is straw sits back and allows an extended retort to go without more than a cursory response.
Curiously Tertullian's approach was very different. Rather than actually quote the pairs, he instead takes up many of the same OT verses and stories used by the Marcionites and attempts to show they are consistent with the NT text and concepts. He is thus not a very useful source for the antithesis overall, merely a supporting element here and there. He does however introduce one Marcionite pair in AM 1.2.1-3, which Harnack proposed was the opening salvo used by the Marcionites to start the antithesis:
(Marcion by way of) the simple passage of our Lord's saying, "the good tree brings not forth corrupt fruit, neither the corrupt tree good fruit." (Luke vi.43 sq)
... he found the Creator declaring, "I am He that createth evil," [Isaiah xlv.7]
he had already concluded from other arguments, which are satisfactory to every perverted mind, that God is the author of evil, so he now applied to the Creator the figure of the corrupt tree bringing forth evil fruit, that is, moral evil, and then presumed that there ought to be another god, after the analogy of the good tree producing its good fruit. Accordingly, finding in Christ a different disposition, as it were--one of a simple and pure benevolence --differing from the Creator, he readily argued that in his Christ had been revealed a new and strange divinity; ...
... he found the Creator declaring, "I am He that createth evil," [Isaiah xlv.7]
he had already concluded from other arguments, which are satisfactory to every perverted mind, that God is the author of evil, so he now applied to the Creator the figure of the corrupt tree bringing forth evil fruit, that is, moral evil, and then presumed that there ought to be another god, after the analogy of the good tree producing its good fruit. Accordingly, finding in Christ a different disposition, as it were--one of a simple and pure benevolence --differing from the Creator, he readily argued that in his Christ had been revealed a new and strange divinity; ...
Note, the unsound tree parable is also mentioned in Dialogue Adamantius 1.28, but in conjunction with serving two masters parable (Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13) to claim there are two different deities, one of creation who made evil (unsound tree) and one who is all good to whom Christ belongs. But this seems to be part of a different section of the antithesis, which concerns the nature of the two gods, that runs from DA 1.23 to the end of the chapter, and is taken up also in chapter two of DA.
Tertullian doesn't use a dialogue form, nor does he choose to refute the antithesis, one by one. So the evidence he provides is more of the theological counter points. Tertullian takes on a different part of the antithesis than the pairs, rather the second part of it we find in DA. I have no idea which part headed the document.
Next up the pairs in Matthew ...
Notes:
[1] see also Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies 7.25, Irenaeus Against All Heresies 1.27
[2] this is the same wording of Matthew 5:43, which will become important later
[3] Compare to the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions Book 2, Chapter XLVIII and Homilies Book 17, chapter IV which also read ἔγνω
also A.M. 2.27.4 "No man knows the Father, except the Son." Nemo cognovit patrem nisi filius = οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς