Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posteriority?

Covering all topics of history and the interpretation of texts, posts here should conform to the norms of academic discussion: respectful and with a tight focus on the subject matter.

Moderator: andrewcriddle

Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Michael BG »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote:As I said you have not convinced me that having “you” then "so also you" is wrong. (I wonder if it is an Aramaicism?)
Even with the emphatic "you" in the Greek? Why is that emphatic "you" there if the previous subject was also "you"?
The more I think about this, the more I suspect you are simply not hearing the emphatic "you" in the text, since in English we have to express the pronoun, no matter what, whereas in Greek the pronoun does not generally get expressed unless the idea is emphatic. To convey the same sense in English, you have to imagine the word "you" with some sort of emphatic formatting:

You already know how to read agricultural signs; so also YOU ought to read apocalyptic signs.

I am betting what you have been hearing is this:

You already know how to read agricultural signs; so you ALSO ought to read apocalyptic signs.

Ben.
My problem starts with your discussion of the evidence, let alone your interpretation that the emphasis is on YOU rather than ALSO.
However I am not sure you understood what I mean by my idea that the only reason Marcion has the word “men” in 21:30 is in the words of Catchpole that he caught it from 21:26. That if “men” was not in 21:26 then it wouldn’t be in 21:30. It is the opposite of “fatigue”. I am content to put this discussion to one side and return to it, if necessary in the future.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tertullian is in Latin and he says the text of Marcion includes according to your translation, “the children of the bridegroom are unable to fast during the time the bridegroom is with them," and "they should afterwards fast, when the bridegroom was taken away from them,". So where does the change from “cannot” in Luke to “can” happen here? Where is the “make” here? Where is the change from Luke’s “in which” to “while” here? They do not seem to be present in the Latin. I am questioning that the Greek you are quoting as being in Marcion is there, because the words are not there in the Latin from which the Greek is meant to reflect.
I see now. Thanks for explaining again. It was actually a botched job on my part getting the information in the Greek into the English translation, resulting mainly from the fact that the WEB translation reflects a different text than Nestle at that point. I have fixed it now. You will see a lot more differences on the Greek side of that verse now compared to the English, since the latter was already primed in the direction of Marcion's text to begin with while the former was not. Again, thanks for spotting that. I am sure there are going to be errors of that kind remaining.
I can’t see any difference in the English. Please accept my apologies for my poor explanation. I think I will have to get down into the Latin and Greek.

Tertullian has “non possent ieiunare filii sponsi quamdiu cum eis esset sponsus, postea vero ieiunaturos promittens cum ablatus ab eis sponsus esset,”(no they to-fast sons bridegroom as-long-as with them it-was bridegroom afterwards [but] fast [promising] with withdrawn from them bridegroom it-was)

Luke has “δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, Μὴ δύνασθε τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ νυμφῶνος ἐν ᾧ ὁ νυμφίος μετ' αὐτῶν ἐστιν ποιῆσαι νηστεῦσαι;
(Now Jesus said to them, “No you-can the sons of-the bridechamber in which the bridegroom with them is to-make fast.)
ἐλεύσονται δὲ ἡμέραι, καὶ ὅταν ἀπαρθῇ ἀπ' αὐτῶν ὁ νυμφίος τότε νηστεύσουσιν ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις.
(Shall-be-coming yet days also whenever may-be-taken-away from them the bridegroom then they-shall-be-fasting in those the days.)

The differences are Marcion has “they” (possent), “sons bridegroom” (filii sponsi) instead of “sons bridechamber” “as-long-as” (quamdiu) instead of “in which” in the first clause. And “afterwards” instead of “Shall-be-coming yet days also” and no “in those the days”.

The change from sons of the bridechamber to sons of the bridegroom I think makes it later, not earlier and the other two changes in the first clause make little difference. The change from “in the future will come the time when” to “afterwards” I suggest is a later change. It is highly unlikely it would be changed the other way round.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
But Bezae does not have Matthew’s “ῥάκους ἀγνάφου” = “cloth unshrunk”. Sorry that theory does not apply here.
What theory are you referring to? You mentioned Bezae, so I gave you the full text. I was not sure what you were going to do with it.

Ben.
I am sorry I thought I had been clear, but I had only implied it. I was saying that if the Matthean words “ῥάκους ἀγνάφου” were in Marcion, they could be there because they were present in the version of Luke that Marcion was using (i.e. he was using Bezae). This cannot be the case because they are not present in Bezae. However I don’t think they are present in Marcion because Tertullian, Epiphanius and Philastruis don’t have them.

Therefore there is no evidence that the Marcion version of Lk 5:33-39 is earlier than Luke’s version.

The next variation is Lk 6:1-19

There appears to be only weak attestations to any Marcion text from those you give and even then there are no significant variations from Luke which might be considered older.

The beatitudes and the woes Lk 6:20-26 might have some variations

Lk 6:20-26 (RSV)

[20] And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
[21] "Blessed are you that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. "Blessed are you that weep now, for you shall laugh.
[22]"Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man!
[23] Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets.

[24] "But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation.
[25] "Woe to you that are full now, for you shall hunger. "Woe to you that laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.
[26] "Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.

The Marcion text might be:

20 He lifted up his eyes and said, “Blessed are the poor, God’s Kingdom is theirs. 21 Blessed are they who hunger, for they will be filled. Blessed are you they who weep, for they will laugh.
22 Blessed are you when men shall hate you, … and mock you, and throw out your name as evil, for the Son of Man’s sake.
23 … for their fathers did the same thing to the prophets.

24 “But woe to you who are rich! For you have received your consolation.
25 Woe to you, you who are full, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.
26 Woe to you when ~all~ men speak well of you, for their fathers did the same thing also to the false prophets.

It is generally accepted that Q had “you” and Matthew changed it to “theirs etc. as here in Marcion. The proof is the fatigue in Mt 5:11, 12. Also the beatitudes have been changed but not the woes (the woes are not in Matthew). It has been suggested that priests often prefer Matthew’s version of the stories in Mark and Luke. I don’t know if this goes back to the second century but it could. Therefore either Marcion was influenced by Church usage to change to the Matthean version, or those writing about Marcion misquoted him because of Church usage.

There is no older tradition here in Marcion than in Luke.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Michael BG wrote:Tertullian has “non possent ieiunare filii sponsi quamdiu cum eis esset sponsus, postea vero ieiunaturos promittens cum ablatus ab eis sponsus esset,”(no they to-fast sons bridegroom as-long-as with them it-was bridegroom afterwards [but] fast [promising] with withdrawn from them bridegroom it-was)

Luke has “δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, Μὴ δύνασθε τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ νυμφῶνος ἐν ᾧ ὁ νυμφίος μετ' αὐτῶν ἐστιν ποιῆσαι νηστεῦσαι;
(Now Jesus said to them, “No you-can the sons of-the bridechamber in which the bridegroom with them is to-make fast.)
ἐλεύσονται δὲ ἡμέραι, καὶ ὅταν ἀπαρθῇ ἀπ' αὐτῶν ὁ νυμφίος τότε νηστεύσουσιν ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις.
(Shall-be-coming yet days also whenever may-be-taken-away from them the bridegroom then they-shall-be-fasting in those the days.)

The differences are Marcion has “they” (possent),
The "they" is simply coming from the English wording of a rhetorical question; the Greek does not need the extra clause to form the rhetorical question (which is one way of interpreting the Greek here). It just needs to use the right word for "no" (μὴ).
“sons bridegroom” (filii sponsi) instead of “sons bridechamber”
Yes, and that is because the English translation I used and the Greek text I used differ on that point. I made no attempt to retranslate everything. The English is there for the general idea only; the Greek is what needs to accurately reflect Roth, and here it does.
“as-long-as” (quamdiu) instead of “in which” in the first clause.
The "in which" does not mean "in which" here; it is idiomatic for "as long as."
And “afterwards” instead of “Shall-be-coming yet days also” and no “in those the days”.
Neither ἐλεύσονται δὲ ἡμέραι nor ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις are highlighted as Marcionite in the text I gave. Roth probably regarded the postea as going with Tertullian's "promising", which is just part of how he is constructing the sentence: "afterward promising," and not a reflection of the Marcionite text.
The change from sons of the bridechamber to sons of the bridegroom I think makes it later, not earlier and the other two changes in the first clause make little difference. The change from “in the future will come the time when” to “afterwards” I suggest is a later change. It is highly unlikely it would be changed the other way round.
So are saying that "sons of the bridegroom" is earlier than "sons of the bridechamber"?

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Michael BG »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
“sons bridegroom” (filii sponsi) instead of “sons bridechamber”
Yes, and that is because the English translation I used and the Greek text I used differ on that point. I made no attempt to retranslate everything. The English is there for the general idea only; the Greek is what needs to accurately reflect Roth, and here it does.
I have no problem with Roth’s translation and I can even live with the RSV translation that has “wedding guests”.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
And “afterwards” instead of “Shall-be-coming yet days also” and no “in those the days”.
Neither ἐλεύσονται δὲ ἡμέραι nor ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις are highlighted as Marcionite in the text I gave. Roth probably regarded the postea as going with Tertullian's "promising", which is just part of how he is constructing the sentence: "afterward promising," and not a reflection of the Marcionite text.
Tertullian doesn’t include these words, so we don’t know if they were present in Marcion or not. (I am getting to understand why Secret Alias said it is difficult to discover the Marcion text.)
Ben C. Smith wrote:
The change from sons of the bridechamber to sons of the bridegroom I think makes it later, not earlier and the other two changes in the first clause make little difference. The change from “in the future will come the time when” to “afterwards” I suggest is a later change. It is highly unlikely it would be changed the other way round.
So are saying that "sons of the bridegroom" is earlier than "sons of the bridechamber"?

Ben.
Sorry I thought I was clear “sons of the bridechamber” (Luke) I think is earlier than “sons of the bridegroom” (Marcion).

I think we agree that in this section of Marcion there is nothing that we think is earlier than what we have in Luke.

Turning now to Luke 6:27-36 (RSV)

[27] "But I say to you that 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 him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt.
[30] Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again.
[31] And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.
[32] "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.

[33] And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
[34] And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
[35] But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish.
[36] Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

I think the Marcion text is difficult to discover here and there are difference between Dieter T Roth and Jason Beduhn (as there was with the Beatitudes, which I ignored) –

27 “But I tell you who hear: love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who [Beduhn] curse [Roth: hate] you, and pray for those who mistreat you. 29 To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer also the other; and from him who takes away your cloak, don’t withhold your coat also offer your cloak to him. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and don’t ask him who takes away your goods to give them back again. 31 “As you would like people to [Beduhn] do [Roth: happen] to you from men, do so to them also. … 34 If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back again, what credit is that to you? … 35 But … and you are to lend without despairing, … and you will be children of [Beduhn] the Most High [Roth: of God]; for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil. 36 “Therefore be merciful, even as your Father is ~also~ merciful to you.

As far as I can tell the supportive text that you give from Tertullian supports nothing. From reading the English translation at no point does Tertullian state the wording of Marcion, I can’t even see him hinting at it either. He quotes from the Old Testament, but the rest is just chit-chat.

You then quote Roth quoting Adamantius in both Greek and Latin (which I think you state is the translation by Rufinus).

ὁ δὲ κύριος ἡμῶν, ἀγαθὸς ὤν, λέγει ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν καὶ εὔχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς.
But the Lord who is good, says love your enemies and pray for enemies the ones persecuting you.

ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
You love your enemies

ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν, ὑπὸ τοῦ σωτῆρος λεγόμενον οὐκ ἔστι ξένον
You love your enemies, Under the Saviour said yet is stranger

ὁ δὲ κύριος, ἀγαθὸς ὤν,
But the Lord is good

λέγει ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ ἐάν τίς σε ῥαπίσῃ εἰς τὴν σιαγόνα, παράθες αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην.
Says in the gospel if anyone strikes you on the cheek turn to him also the other (in the Latin Rufinus has added “right” so it agrees more with Matthew!)

ὁ δὲ ἀγαθὸς κύριος λέγει ἐάν τίς σου ἄρῃ τὸ ἱμάτιον, πρόσθες αὐτῷ καὶ τὸν χιτῶνα;
But the good Lord says if the you man takes away the clothing you give to him also the shirt

άν τίς σου ἄρῃ τὸ ἱμάτιον
If you took away any clothing

There are some difference here, but nothing to make me think the Adamantius version is older than the Lucan one. There is “persecuting” (διωκοντων), which Matthew has, but it is generally accepted this is a change from the earlier Lucan version “abuse” in verse 28. I have no idea what I have translated as “Under the Saviour said yet is stranger” means or where it fits. I have translated "ἱμάτιον" as “clothing” but note is normally translated as “cloak”. The Adamantius version has “πρόσθες” which I have translated as “give” Matthew has "αφες", which can be translated as “leave”, while Luke has “μη κωλυσης”, which can be translated as “not withhold”. A case could be made that “give” is earlier because it is more of a parallel of when forced to go one mile, go two, i.e. do more than is requested. However it could also have been changed to “give” to reflect the mile parallel. I must admit I was surprised that neither Luke nor Matthew had “give” because I have an impression it is interpreted as “give” by Christian priests and ministers.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Ben C. Smith wrote:However, we find a somewhat unusual situation when we come to Matthew 24.32-34 = Mark 13.28-30 = Luke 21.29-31. These three parallel passages are laid out in the following table, alongside the Marcionite version of the same passage, for comparison:

Matthew 24.32-34 (NASB).Mark 13.28-30 (NASB).Luke 21.29-31 (NASB).Luke 21.29-31 (Marcion).
32 “Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know [γινώσκετε] that summer is near;
33 so, you too [οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς], when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.
34 Truly I say to you, this generation [ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη] will not pass away until all these things take place.
28 “Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know [γινώσκετε] that summer is near.
29 Even so, you too [οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς], when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door.
30 Truly I say to you, this generation [ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη] will not pass away until all these things take place.
29 Then He told them a parable: “Behold the fig tree and all the trees; 30 as soon as they put forth leaves, you see it and know [γινώσκετε] for yourselves that summer is now near.
31 So you also [οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς], when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near.
32 Truly I say to you, this generation [ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη] will not pass away until all things take place.
29 {He told them} a parable. “See the fig tree and all the trees. 30 When they are budding forth fruit, men know [γινώσκουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι] that the summer is nearing.
31 Even so you also [οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς], when you see these things happening, know that God’s Kingdom is near.
32 ...the heaven and the earth [ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ] will not pass away except all things be accomplished.

The close verbal similarities are indicative of the usual textual interrelationships amongst the synoptic gospels. In this case, however, to what is the emphatic you also comparing itself in the preceding material? The previous line affirms that you know that summer is near; it seems quite redundant to now emphatically say: "So you also recognize that he is at the door." You is awkwardly being compared to you. (The "also" might be explained as leading to a new action required of the readers: you read fig trees just fine, so now you ought also to read the signs of the times. But the emphatic ὑμεῖς does not easily yield to this explanation.)
Bernard Muller wrote:Again, I do not see a problem here.
"and you also" started with gMark with "you" being the later Christians but the other "you" in 13:32 means the disciples with Jesus on the mount of olives.
"Mark" got carried away and had Jesus addressing later Christians. This is not unique in gMark mini-apocalypse. Actually it is all over it, but most obvious in 13:14 ("let the reader understand") and "now" in 13:19. See http://historical-jesus.info/appd.html for details.
"Matthew" and "Luke" basically copied gMark on that matter (the two "you") but Marcion made a correction and replaced the first "you" by "men".
And why would "Luke", if writing her/his gospel from gMarcion, would replace "men" by "you", rendering "and you also" very awkward? "Luke", a good Greek writer, would not make that mistake, except if copying something from gMark.
I found this case extremely interesting and want to add another possibility.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mark 7.17-18a (NASB, slightly modified): 17 When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18a And He said to them, “Are you also so [οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς] lacking in understanding?

... in Mark 7.17-18a it compares with the crowds outside ...
The "also" could also refer to the fig-tree in the sense of: "When also your branchs (the branchs of the disciples) has already become tender and puts forth its leaves ..."
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Michael BG »

The next section with Marcionite differences is Luke 6:37-38 (RSV)

[37]"Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;
[38] give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For the measure you give will be the measure you get back."

The Marcion recreated by Jason BeDuhn and Dieter T. Roth

37 Don’t judge, [BeDuhn] and [Roth: so that] you won’t be judged. Don’t condemn, [BeDuhn] and [Roth: so that] you won’t be condemned. Set free, and you will be set free. 38 “Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over, will be given to you. For with the same measure you measure it will be measured back to you.”

Tertullian has:

Nolite iudicare, ne iudicemini. Nolite condemnare, ne condemnemini. Dimittite, et dimittemini. Date, et dabitur vobis, mensuram bonam, pressam ac fluentem, dabunt in sinum vestrum. Eadem qua mensi eritis mensura, remetietur vobis.”

Which can be translated as:

[37]"do not Judge, lest you be judged; do not condemn, lest condemned; forgive, and be forgiven;
[38] give, and given to you; measure good, pressed, and flowing, give into jar yours. The same which measure will be measure measured to you”

Luke in Greek

[37] μὴ κρίνετε, καὶ οὐ μὴ κριθῆτε: καὶ μὴ καταδικάζετε, καὶ οὐ μὴ καταδικασθῆτε.
ἀπολύετε, καὶ ἀπολυθήσεσθε:
[38] δίδοτε, καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν: μέτρον καλὸν πεπιεσμένον σεσαλευμένον ὑπερεκχυννόμενον δώσουσιν εἰς τὸν κόλπον ὑμῶν: ᾧ γὰρ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτεἀντιμετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν.

No judging, and not no you-be-judged, and no you-be-convincing, and not no you-be-convicted, you-be-forgiving and you-be-forgiven
You-be-giving and it-shall-be-given to-you, measure good, pressed and shaken and overflowed they-shall-be-given into the bosom of-you to-the for same measure to-which you-are-measuring shall-be-measured-again to-you.

Matthew has (7:1)

Μὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε:

No judging, that (lest) no you-may-be-jugded.

It is clear that the Latin reflects Matthew’s “lest” or “so that” in relation to judging and condemning. The Lucan version is usually considered the earlier, and again we might be seeing the influence of Matthew on the text of Marcion.

With reference to Lk 6:47 the Marcion version is supposed to contain “αὐτοῦ” after “καρδίας”, but the Lucan version has it after “ἀγαθοῦ”. So the Lucan version can be read as “treasure of him of the heart” verses the Marcion “treasure of the heart of him”. I don’t see much difference.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Michael BG »

Moving on to Luke 7:18-28 the inquiry from John the Baptist

Dieter T. Roth does not have any text not from Luke, while Jason DeBuhn has “in prison” in verse 18 and “Go and ask him,” in verse 19 before the main question. Matthew has “ἐν τῷ δεσμωτηρίῳ” – “in the prison” (11:2) after “Now John hearing”. It is likely that the Q saying we have here does not have John in prison as in Luke. Luke has a very much shortened version of the imprisonment of John (3:19-20), while Matthew (14:3-12) follows Mark’s story (6:17-29) including John’s death. It is therefore likely Matthew has added “in the prison” because it would also make sense for Luke to have John in prison in 7:18.

The “Go and ask him,” in verse 19 looks like an addition to what both Luke and Matthew have to parallel “Πορευθέντες ἀπαγγείλατε Ἰωάννῃ”, (Go and tell John) in Mt 11:4 and Lk 7:22.

With regard to the woman anointing Jesus in the Pharisee’s house (Lk 7:36-50) the Marcion gospel has no differences. This is either a “L” tradition or Luke has heavily expanded the Marcan story (Mk 14:3-9) – in both stories the householder is named as Simon.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8483
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posteriority?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Post Reply