Because we really need another thread on John the Baptist and Jesus in Luke 7 and Marcion’s Evangelion
Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2023 10:53 am
Matthias Klinghardt gives the witnesses to the Evangelion’s version of Luke 7.17-23 (most would probably count 7.17 as belonging to the previous pericope) as: Tertullian Against Marcion 4.18, Adamantius Dialogue 1.26 (819c), Epiphanius Scholion 8, and Ephraem Adv. Marc I (that’s in C.W. Micthell, S. Ephriam’s Prose Refutations vol. 2 (1912, reprinted Gorgias 2008) if you want to look it up. [Oldest Gospel 2, 638-639].
I’ve already discussed Tertullian Against Marcion 4.18.4-8 in this post (and elsewhere in the same thread)
viewtopic.php?p=159096#p159096
Epihanius, Scholion 8 has:
So Epiphanius attests that Marcion/The Evangelion has altered Luke 7.23 in some unspecified way so that it refers to John.
Ephraem Adv. Marc. I has:
From the first sentence we can see a variant text of Luke 7.23 in which the verse is said of John instead of to John.
But by far the most interesting of the witnesses (at least to me) was Adamantius Dialogue 1.26 (819c):
The reason I find this passage fascinating is that, though the Adamantius Dialogue was probably written in the third or early fourth century, the argument put forward by the Marcionite speaker MEG (Megethius) is the argument Tertullian is answering in Against Marcion 4.4-8 (c. 208 CE): why didn’t John the Baptist, who was a prophet, know that Jesus was the one who was to come (i.e., the Christ). Why did he need to ask? Megethius’ argument must al least predate Tertullian and may go back to Marcion himself.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm
Best,
Ken
I’ve already discussed Tertullian Against Marcion 4.18.4-8 in this post (and elsewhere in the same thread)
viewtopic.php?p=159096#p159096
Epihanius, Scholion 8 has:
“Blessed is he who shall not be offended in me,” is altered.
For he had it as though with reference to John.
(a) Whether this refers to John or to the Savior himself, he still says
“blessed” of those who do not stumble, whether at him or at John,
so that they will not make things up which they do not learn from him.
(b) But there is a more important consideration here, the real reason
why the Savior spoke. Lest it be thought that John, whom he had ranked
as the greatest of those born of woman, was greater even than the Savior
himself—since he too was born of woman—he says as a safeguard, “And
blessed is whoso shall not be offended in me.”
(c) Hence he says, “He that is less in the kingdom is greater than he.”
Chronologically, counting from his birth in the fl esh, he was six months
“less” than John; but as John’s God he was plainly “greater” in the kingdom.
(d) For the Only-begotten did not come to say anything in secret, or to tell
any lie about his own message. He says, “I have not spoken in secret, but
openly.”156 For he is truth, as he says, “I am the way and the truth.”157 The
way, then, contains no error; nor does the truth lie by concealing itself. [Frank Williams translation pp 317-318].
For he had it as though with reference to John.
(a) Whether this refers to John or to the Savior himself, he still says
“blessed” of those who do not stumble, whether at him or at John,
so that they will not make things up which they do not learn from him.
(b) But there is a more important consideration here, the real reason
why the Savior spoke. Lest it be thought that John, whom he had ranked
as the greatest of those born of woman, was greater even than the Savior
himself—since he too was born of woman—he says as a safeguard, “And
blessed is whoso shall not be offended in me.”
(c) Hence he says, “He that is less in the kingdom is greater than he.”
Chronologically, counting from his birth in the fl esh, he was six months
“less” than John; but as John’s God he was plainly “greater” in the kingdom.
(d) For the Only-begotten did not come to say anything in secret, or to tell
any lie about his own message. He says, “I have not spoken in secret, but
openly.”156 For he is truth, as he says, “I am the way and the truth.”157 The
way, then, contains no error; nor does the truth lie by concealing itself. [Frank Williams translation pp 317-318].
So Epiphanius attests that Marcion/The Evangelion has altered Luke 7.23 in some unspecified way so that it refers to John.
Ephraem Adv. Marc. I has:
And if they say that the sole reason that Isu said concerning
John ' Blessed is he, if he is not offended in me, was in order
that he might show that he did not communicate (lit. deliver over)
to him that other (utterance) which he said concerning him, that
he was not a reed—why did he say it 1 But if the sole reason
of his saying it was in order to show that John was true in his
teaching, then he did not send to Isu, and Isu himself made him
(i.e. the Evangelist) a liar who recorded that John sent to him,
when (in reality) John did not send to him. And if what he said
is true, namely that he sent to him, then is not John true ? And
if Isu had wished to send to him (saying) ' I am He,' would he
not have been going astray after him ? But he said ' Blessed is
he if he is not offended in me.' Whom then do they call a
stumbling-block ? Is it not he who turned back from (being)
with him ? John therefore was one who believed in Isu, and on
that account Isu sent (saying) ' Blessed is he if he remains steadfast
and is not offended in me.' Or can it be that by means of
the beatitude he actually wished to deceive John ? And was P. 87.
John deceived or not ? If he was not deceived, then the bribe
of the Stranger was lost. And did not the Stranger know that
his bribe would not be accepted by John ? And if he knew, why
did he allow his bribe to be lost, that is to say, the bribe of that
praise of his ? [Mitchell,pp. xxxviii – xxxix]
John ' Blessed is he, if he is not offended in me, was in order
that he might show that he did not communicate (lit. deliver over)
to him that other (utterance) which he said concerning him, that
he was not a reed—why did he say it 1 But if the sole reason
of his saying it was in order to show that John was true in his
teaching, then he did not send to Isu, and Isu himself made him
(i.e. the Evangelist) a liar who recorded that John sent to him,
when (in reality) John did not send to him. And if what he said
is true, namely that he sent to him, then is not John true ? And
if Isu had wished to send to him (saying) ' I am He,' would he
not have been going astray after him ? But he said ' Blessed is
he if he is not offended in me.' Whom then do they call a
stumbling-block ? Is it not he who turned back from (being)
with him ? John therefore was one who believed in Isu, and on
that account Isu sent (saying) ' Blessed is he if he remains steadfast
and is not offended in me.' Or can it be that by means of
the beatitude he actually wished to deceive John ? And was P. 87.
John deceived or not ? If he was not deceived, then the bribe
of the Stranger was lost. And did not the Stranger know that
his bribe would not be accepted by John ? And if he knew, why
did he allow his bribe to be lost, that is to say, the bribe of that
praise of his ? [Mitchell,pp. xxxviii – xxxix]
From the first sentence we can see a variant text of Luke 7.23 in which the verse is said of John instead of to John.
But by far the most interesting of the witnesses (at least to me) was Adamantius Dialogue 1.26 (819c):
MEG. I will offer you exact proof that the Christ of the Law and
the Prophets belonged to another: John did not recognize Him (for it
would be impossible for the prophet of the God of Creation to be ignorant
of his own Christ): "Now when he had heard in prison the works of
Christ, he sent his disciples to Him, saying, 'Are You He who is to come, or
look we for another?'" [Prettyman translation, 70].
the Prophets belonged to another: John did not recognize Him (for it
would be impossible for the prophet of the God of Creation to be ignorant
of his own Christ): "Now when he had heard in prison the works of
Christ, he sent his disciples to Him, saying, 'Are You He who is to come, or
look we for another?'" [Prettyman translation, 70].
The reason I find this passage fascinating is that, though the Adamantius Dialogue was probably written in the third or early fourth century, the argument put forward by the Marcionite speaker MEG (Megethius) is the argument Tertullian is answering in Against Marcion 4.4-8 (c. 208 CE): why didn’t John the Baptist, who was a prophet, know that Jesus was the one who was to come (i.e., the Christ). Why did he need to ask? Megethius’ argument must al least predate Tertullian and may go back to Marcion himself.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm
Best,
Ken
