Was Irenaeus's Against Marcion Written Against Clement?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 21151
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Irenaeus's Against Marcion Written Against Clement?

Post by Secret Alias »

Antitheses in Book 4 Chapter 1:
Besides that, to work up credence for it he has contrived a sort of dowry, a work entitled Antitheses because of its juxtaposition of opposites, a work strained into making such a division between the Law and the Gospel as thereby to make two separate gods, opposite to each other, one belonging to one instrument (or, as it is more usual to say, testament), one to the other, and thus lend its patronage to faith in another gospel, that according to the Antitheses. Now I might have demolished those antitheses by a specially directed hand-to-hand attack, taking each of the statements of the man of Pontus one by one, except that it was much more convenient to refute them both in and along with that gospel which they serve: although it is perfectly easy to take action against them by counter-claim,1 even accepting them as admissible, accounting them valid, and alleging that they support my argument, that so they may be put to shame for the blindness of their author, having now become my antitheses against Marcion.So then I do admit that there was a different course followed in the old dispensation under the Creator, from that in the new dispensation under Christ. I do not deny a difference in records of things spoken, in precepts for good behaviour, and in rules of law, provided that all these differences have reference to one and the same God, that God by whom it is acknowledged that they were ordained and also foretold. Long ago did Isaiah proclaim that the law will go forth from Sion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem— another law, he means, and another word. In fact, he says, he shall judge among the gentiles, and shall convict many people,a meaning not of the one nation of the Jews, but of the gentiles who by the new law of the gospel and the new word of the apostles are being judged and convicted in their own sight in respect of their ancient error, as soon as they have believed, and thereupon beat their swords into ploughshares, and their zibynae (which is a sort of hunting-spear) into pruning-hooks—that is, they are converting their formerly fierce and savage minds into honest thoughts productive of a good result. And again: Hearken to me, hearken to me, my people; and ye kings incline your ears to me: because a law will go forth from me, my judgement also for a light of the gentiles - that by which he had judged and decreed that the gentiles also should be enlightened by the law and word of the gospel. This will be the law also in David, an unassailable law, because it is perfect, converting the soul,c from idols unto God. This also will be the word, of which Isaiah says again, Because the Lord will make a decisive word upon the earth:d for the new testament is made very concise, and is disentangled from the intricate burdens of the law.
and then
Why need you explain a difference of facts as an opposition of authorities? Why need you distort against the Creator those antitheses in the evidences, which you can recognize also in his own thoughts and affections? I will smite, he says, and I will heal:k I will slay, he says, and also make alive, by establishing evil things and making peace:l because of which it is your custom even to censure him on account of fickleness and inconstancy, in forbidding what he commands and commanding what he forbids. Why then have you not also thought out some antitheses for the essential attributes of a Creator always at variance with himself? Not even among your men of Pontus, if I mistake not, have you been able to realize that the world is constructed out of the diversities of substances in mutual hostility. And so you ought first to have laid it down that there was one god of light and another of darkness: then you could have affirmed that there was one god of the law and another of the gospel. For all that, judgement is already given, and that by manifest proofs, that he whose works and ways are consistently antithetic, has also his mysteries <of revelation> consistently of that same pattern.
End of chapter 1. Suddenly in chapter 2 there is the statement:
2. You have there my short and sharp answer to the Antitheses. I pass on next to show how his gospel—certainly not Judaic but Pontic—is in places adulterated
So Adversus Marcionem veers off to a different direction. But notice this a little later written clearly by the third editor, Tertullian:
So then meanwhile, as concerns the gospel of Luke, seeing that the use of it shared between us and Marcion becomes an arbiter of the truth, our version of it is to such an extent older than Marcion that Marcion himself once believed it. That was when in the first warmth of faith he presented the catholic church with that money which was before long cast out along with him after he had diverged from our truth into his own heresy. What now, if the Marcionites are going to deny that his faith at first was with us—even against the evidence of his own letter? What if they refuse to acknowledge that letter? Certainly Marcion's own Antitheses not only admit this, but even make a show of it. Proof taken from them is good enough for me. If that gospel which among us is ascribed to Luke—we shall see <later> whether it is <accepted by> Marcion—if that is the same that Marcion by his Antitheses accuses of having been falsified by the upholders of Judaism with a view to its being so combined in one body with the law and the prophets that they might also pretend that Christ had that origin, evidently he could only have brought accusation against something he had found there already.
What about the "Antitheses" once added to Luke "betrays" Marcion's origin in the Catholic Church? It might be that they resembled Matthew's Antitheses, though Tertullian seems to avoid acknowledging this. Marcion "adding" Matthew's antitheses to Luke might explain why Matthew is mentioned throughout Adversus Marcionem.

Book Four Chapter 6 is the last chapter before Irenaeus's original (as I propose) treatment of Luke 6 not surprising ends with mention of the Antheses. Chapter 7 is the beginning of his treatment of the gospel. We read in Chapter 6 (fully cited here):
6. I now advance a step further, while I call to account, as I have promised, Marcion's gospel in his own version of it, with the design, even so, of proving it adulterated. Certainly the whole of the work he has done, including the prefixing of his Antitheses, he directs to the one purpose of setting up opposition between the Old Testament and the New, and thereby putting his Christ in separation from the Creator, as belonging to another god, and having no connection with the law and the prophets. Certainly that is why he has expunged all the things that oppose his view, that are in accord with the Creator, on the plea that they have been woven in by his partisans; but has retained those that accord with his opinion. These it is we shall call to account, with these we shall grapple, to see if they will favour my case, not his, to see if they will put a check on Marcion's pretensions. Then it will become clear that these things have been expunged by the same disease of heretical blindness by which the others have been retained. Such will be the purpose and plan of my treatise, on those precise terms which have been agreed by both parties. Marcion lays it down that there is one Christ who in the time of Tiberius was revealed by a god formerly unknown, for the salvation of all the nations; and another Christ who is destined by God the Creator to come at some time still future for the re-establishment of the Jewish kingdom. Between these he sets up a great and absolute opposition, such as that between justice and kindness, between law and gospel, between Judaism and Christianity. From this will also derive my statement of claim, by which I lay it down that the Christ of a different god has no right to have anything in common with the Creator; and again, that Christ must be adjudged to be the Creator's if he is found to have administered the Creator's ordinances, fulfilled his prophecies, supported his laws, given actuality to his promises, revived his miracles, given new expression to his judgements, and reproduced the lineaments of his character and attributes. I request you, my reader, always to bear in mind this undertaking, this statement of my case, and begin to be aware that Christ belongs either to Marcion or the Creator, <but not to both>.
I propose that Irenaeus's Adversus Marcionem originally went from here to the material in Chapter 14:
13. [Luke 6: 12-19.] Open then the prophets, and you will find it all set in order there. Get thee up, says Isaiah, into the high mountain, O thou that bringest good tidings to Sion, lift up thy voice with strength, thou that bringest good tidings to Jerusalem.a Even now with strength were they astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had power.b And again: Therefore my people shall know my name at that day—what name, unless it be Christ's?—because it is I myself who speak:c because it was he himself who was then speaking in the prophets, the Word, the Son of the Creator. I am here, while the time is, upon the mountains, as one that bringeth good tidings of the hearing of peace, as bringing good tidings of good things.d Also Nahum, one of the twelve, For behold, swift upon the mountain are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings of peace:e But concerning the voice of prayer all night to the Father, the psalm manifestly speaks: O my God, I will cry throughout the day, and thou wilt hear, and at night, and it shall not be to me for vanity.f And in another place a psalm speaks of the same place and voice: With my voice I cried unto the Lord, and he heard me from his holy mountain.g So you have his name made present, you have the action of one who brings good tidings, you have his place on the mountain, and the time at night, and the sound of the voice, and the Father hearing him: you have the Christ of the prophets. But why did he choose twelve apostles, and not some other number? Nay but even from this I could find that my Christ is indicated, one foretold not only by the voices of the prophets but also by the evidences of facts. I find figurative indications of this number in the Creator's scriptures, the twelve springs at Elim, the twelve jewels on Aaron's priestly garment, and the twelve stones chosen by Joshua out of Jordan and laid up in the ark of the covenant.h For this was a previous indication that apostles to that number would like fountains and rivers irrigate the world of the gentiles which had formerly been dried up and deserted of knowledge— as he also says in Isaiah, I will place rivers in a waterless landi—and would like jewels shed light upon the holy vesture of the church, that vesture which Christ the Father's high priest has put on, and would be firm in the faith like stones which the true Joshua has chosen out of the baptism of Jordan and received into the holy place of his own covenant. Has Marcion's Christ anything that justifies his retention of that number? It cannot be thought that a thing was done by him without special meaning, which can be seen to have been done by my Christ with special meaning. The fact itself must belong to the one with whom is found the preparation for the fact. Also he changes Simon's name to Peter, because the Creator too had altered the names of Abraham and Sarah and Auses, calling this last one Joshua [Jesus], adding syllables to the other two. Also why Peter? If because of forcefulness of faith, there were many firm and solid materials to lend a name of their own. Or was it because Christ is both rock and stone? For we do indeed find it written that he is set for a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence.j I leave out the rest. And so he made a point of passing on to the dearest of his disciples a name specially connected with the types of himself, a closer name, I imagine, than one drawn from other types than his. There come together from Tyre and Sidon, and from other countries, a multitude even from over the sea. This the psalm had in mind: And behold, the Philistines and Tyre and the people of the Morians, these have been there: Mother Sion, a man will say, and he became man in her— because God as man was born—and he hath builded her by the will of the Fatherk—that you may know that the reason why the gentiles then came together to him was that God as Man had been born and was to build up the church by the Father's will, even from among the Philistines. So also Isaiah, Lo, these do come from far, and these come from the north and from the sea, and others from the land of the Persians.l Of these he says again, Lift up thine eyes round about and see, all these are gathered together.m And of the same a little later, when she sees the unknown and the strangers: And thou shall say to thine heart, Who hath begotten me these? and who hath brought me up these? and these, tell me, where have they been?n Must not this be the Christ of the prophets? So who can the Christ of the Marcionites be? If perversity is to their mind, the Christ who was not of the prophets.

14. [Luke 6: 20-2.] I come next to those customary judgements by which he builds up his own special doctrine, what I may call the magisterial edict of Christ.1 Blessed are the indigent—for the translation of the word which is in the Greek requires it so—for theirs is the kingdom of God. Now this very fact that he begins with blessings is characteristic of the Creator, who with no other voice than of benediction gave sanctity to the universe of things as soon as he made them. For he says, My heart hath disgorged a supremely good word.a This must be that excellent Word, of benediction surely, who by the precedent of the old covenant is recognized as the initiator of the new covenant as well. What wonder is it then, if he also by words of this kind begins his discourse with the Creator's affections, the Creator who always expresses his love for the indigent, the poor, the humble, and the widows and orphans, comforting, protecting, and avenging them—so that you may take this (as it were) private bounty of Christ to be a stream from the Saviour's fountains?
If you look at the material emboldened in red it is plain that it follows the argument made at the very beginning. Adversus Marcionem is claiming that the beatitudes are, to cite Evans "that the beatitudes and the woes, after the manner of the praetor's perpetual edict, are Christ's statement of the principles on which he will act when he comes to judge the world." Marcion's point of view was that it was the exact opposite of "judgement" but a statement of mercy. Irenaeus's ideas are crazy. But they follow from "turning upside down" i.e. making "antitheses of the antitheses" as he says somewhere, the original principles of Marcion's gospel.
Secret Alias
Posts: 21151
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Irenaeus's Against Marcion Written Against Clement?

Post by Secret Alias »

The beginning of the discussion then in Irenaeus's proposed Adversus Marcionem:
6:13 When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: 14 Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, 15 Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, 16 Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

Blessings and Woes
17 He went down with them and stood on a level place. A large crowd of his disciples was there and a great number of people from all over Judea, from Jerusalem, and from the coastal region around Tyre and Sidon, 18 who had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases. Those troubled by impure spirits were cured, 19 and the people all tried to touch him, because power was coming from him and healing them all.

20 Looking at his disciples, he said:

“Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
21 Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.
22 Blessed are you when people hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil,
because of the Son of Man.

23 “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.

24 “But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
25 Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.
26 Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,
for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

Love for Enemies
27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

37 “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38 Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

39 He also told them this parable: “Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into a pit? 40 The student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher.

41 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42 How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

A Tree and Its Fruit
43 “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44 Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. 45 A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

The Wise and Foolish Builders
46 “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? 47 As for everyone who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice, I will show you what they are like. 48 They are like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49 But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.”
Compare this to Epiphanius's "Matthew" Gospel of the Ebionites:
But I shall resume the thread of my argument against Ebion— because of the Gospel according to Matthew the course of the discussion obliged me to insert the whole of the knowledge which I had gained. (2) Now in what they call a Gospel according to Matthew, though it is not the entire Gospel but is corrupt and mutilated—and they call this thing “Hebrew”!—the following passage is found: “There was a certain man named Jesus, and he was about thirty years of age,20 who chose us. And coming to Capernaum he entered into the house of Simon surnamed Peter, and opened his mouth and said, (3) Passing beside the Sea of Tiberias I chose John and James, the sons of Zebedee,21 and Simon and Andrew and < Philip and Bartholomew, James the son of Alphaeus and Thomas >, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot.22 Thee too, Matthew, seated at the receipt of custom, did I call, and thou didst follow me.23 I will, then, that ye be twelve apostles24 for a testimony to Israel.” (4) And, “John came baptizing, and there went out unto him Pharisees and were baptized, and all Jerusalem. And John had a garment of camel’s hair, and a girdle of skin about his loins. And his meat,” it says, “was wild honey, whose taste was the taste of manna, as a cake in oil.”25 (5) This, if you please, to turn the account of the truth into falsehood, and substitute “a cake in honey” for “locusts”! ...

13,6 But the beginning of their Gospel is, “It came to pass in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, < in the high-priesthood of Caiaphas >, that < a certain > man, John < by name >, came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan, and he was said to be of the lineage of Aaron the priest, the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth, and all went out unto him.”26 (7) And after saying a good deal it adds, “When the people had been baptized Jesus came also and was baptized of John. And as he came up out of the water the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove which descended and entered into him. And (there came) a voice from heaven saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased,27 and again, This day have I begotten thee.28 And straightway a great light shone round about the place.29 Seeing this,” it says, “John said unto him, Who art thou, Lord?30 And again (there came) a voice to him from heaven, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.31 (8) And then,” it says, “John fell down before him and said, I pray thee, Lord, do thou baptize me. But he forbade him saying, Let it alone, for thus it is meet that all be fulfi lled.”
Secret Alias
Posts: 21151
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Irenaeus's Against Marcion Written Against Clement?

Post by Secret Alias »

I have always noticed a "Matthew versus another gospel" dimension to Adversus Marcionem. It is certainly here in the introduction to the gospel commentary in Book Four:
We must follow, then, the clue of our discussion, meeting every effort of our opponents with reciprocal vigor. I say that my Gospel is the true one; Marcion, that his is. I affirm that Marcion's Gospel is adulterated; Marcion, that mine is. Now what is to settle the point for us, except it be that principle of time, which rules that the authority lies with that which shall be found to be more ancient; and assumes as an elemental truth,84 that corruption (of doctrine) belongs to the side which shall be convicted of comparative lateness in its origin.
Of course Adversus Marcionem goes on to claim that Marcion "invented" his understanding of his gospel being an apostolic gospel from reading the first two chapters of Galatians. As a sidebar, this is a REALLY odd claim. Ok so Marcion was supposedly an orthodox bishop of some sort, he's reading Galatians and exclaims "here's the basis for a new gospel." Bam! Invents "the gospel of Marcion" on the basis of "pretending" that Paul brought a gospel to the pillars at Jerusalem. But I digress.

IF Marcion read Galatians as if there were two gospels. The gospel of Marcion, then the gospel of the pillars of Jerusalem was clearly Matthew not Luke. So the Marcionites and Marcion weren't inveighing against Luke. This is a simple fact. Marcion didn't find a four gospel set in 140 CE and "decide" to falsify Luke and Luke alone. There is no evidence for a "Gospel of Luke" until Clement of Alexandria in 193 CE. It's as simple as that. So it isn't crazy to speculate that there is this Matthew vs the gospel of Marcion dimension to history before Luke and more importantly to Adversus Marcionem.

But then we have to go back to Clement developing all these chronological tables at the beginning of the Stromata. If the Stromata is a "weaving together" of old things Clement wrote then this even pushes back Irenaeus's commentary even further. But let's leave it that Clement publishes the Stromata in 193 CE, grabs a bunch of books that have historical chronologies, one of which was Luke. Luke is the gospel with the date "the fifteenth of Tiberius." Clement incorporates this date into his chronology of events leading from the crucifixion. He also takes a few other pieces of evidence from Luke. I say Irenaeus or Adversus Haereses written in 195 - 197 CE knows of Clement of Alexandria, knows of the Stromata and is to some degree directed against author and chronology.

Adversus Marcionem seems to have originally been written against the "Antitheses." If I am right about an underlying comparison of the Ebionite Gospel of Matthew (which would have been known to Papias) then it makes sense that Irenaeus begins Adversus Marcionem by basically asserting that:

1. Marcion was wrong for seeing that the "Antitheses" were "antithetical" to judgment. This has to be the original dimension that Adversus Marcionem operated on. Evans notes that Irenaeus sees the "Sermon on the Mount" as essentially the laying down of God's future judgment. What an alien concept to our ordinary reading of the Beatitudes! We read Matthew chapter 5 and Luke chapter 6 as Jesus laying down a doctrine of love or if you prefer the Jewish dichotomy of Philo - of mercy. Jesus has come to forgive everyone. But Irenaeus says no. The Sermon on the Mount is a continuation of the same god the Jews knew because there is only one God! So God is saying "hey poor people, you are going to escape my judgement because you are blessed but now I am going to judge all those who have money, all the rich, all the powerful etc etc. So there is a very obvious connection between Irenaeus and the unnamed "communist" group in Clement's Can the Rich Man be saved. Clement is advocating for the possibility of rich people to keep their money and "manage" the poor. Irenaeus says no. God will judge the world by means of "decrees" uttered in the Sermon on the Mount. The rich have woe, the poor are blessed.
2. The emphasis in the first lines of Adversus Marcionem are such that BOTH the Law and the prophets AND the gospel come out of Jerusalem. This presupposes to some degree that Irenaeus's use of Hegesippus and the schema he creates regarding Matthean primacy were connected with a Jerusalem's bishop line. We have to think about this. The "we" at the start of Epiphanius's gospel of the Ebionites must be for the Jerusalem bishopric. They are speaking at the start of the gospel. "We" came from the apostles. Luke's Acts seems to know about this Jerusalem Church but was written either at after a time when the Church had been destroyed (this idea seems to have been in Hegesippus explicitly or implicitly i.e. that after 147 CE there was no more Jerusalem apostolic community) or never existed but could be demonstrated to no longer exist (i.e. that in previous generations one could just pretend that there was an apostolic community in Jerusalem).

Back to work.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 3583
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Was Irenaeus's Against Marcion Written Against Clement?

Post by StephenGoranson »

If Irenaeus wrote against Clement, why wouldn't he just say so?
Secret Alias
Posts: 21151
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Irenaeus's Against Marcion Written Against Clement?

Post by Secret Alias »

Everything about the Patristic literature goes back to the same question. Is Adversus Haereses a "photograph" of what one Church Father wrote at one time in history about a subject? The answer is "no." Many different levels to the problem.

1. on some level Adversus Haereses is a reworking of Justin's Syntagma. We say that but what does it really mean? It means Justin wrote something and someone else - Irenaeus - corrected it. How much did Justin write in Adversus Haereses? Don't know. Let's assume Book 1. Still. Justin saw something, wrote something, interpreted something and Irenaeus just "stole it" and somehow altered it to suit whatever agenda he wanted.

2. people were correcting Irenaeus. The Philosophumena plainly speaks of "the blessed presbyter" Irenaeus writing this or that about the Marcosians and ultimately admitting he got some of his facts wrong and correcting them. The Philosophumena is from beginning to end a "correction" of Irenaeus. The accounts of the Basilideans, Marcionites, Valentinians etc are all different. The Marcionites are said to use Mark rather than Luke. So the idea that "errors" existed in Adversus Haereses were corrected. Other repurposings of Irenaeus add heresies he didn't consider to be heresies like the Montanists.

3. the structure of the five volume work. Did Irenaeus simply take pen to paper and set out to write a 5 volume work? Is the parallel five volume Adversus Marcionem a similar pattern? I think so. I don't think Tertullian wrote the individual components of the five books. Books 1 and 4 and 5 go back to Irenaeus. Book Two is likely from Theophilus of Antioch. Book Three and Adversus Marcionem Book Three goes back to something written by Justin and was added by Tertullian not Irenaeus so their "fivefoldness" wasn't set up by Irenaeus. I tend to think of Adversus Haereses as a "greatest hits" of Irenaeus developed by a third century redactor of "writings" or things written by Irenaeus.

4. Defense of the Apostolic Preaching. There are clear stolen lines, arguments from Justin Martyr and Jason and Papiscus scattered throughout. What do you call that? It's Irenaeus's treatise in theory but how Christian was Irenaeus really? What I mean is that if he's cobbling things written or said by Papias, Justin and a host of other authors WITHOUT attestation why should he name Clement of Alexandria as the point of his criticism in 1.13 - 21 and 2.22 and heaven knows where else? It works both ways.

As I see it then (a) there was "something" or "somethings" written by Irenaeus in antiquity (b) Photius mentions a collection of "letters" https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/phot ... ca.htm#120 (I remember the Greek saying "lectures" but that's what the translator renders it) which had all sorts of heretical ideas in his Biblioteca (c) his writings were filled with unattested references both positive and presumably negative and (d) there was a final editor or editors who compiled these writings filled with "wrong ideas" and plagiarism into a five volume tome called Adversus Haereses.

I hope I answered your question in the 5 minutes allowed by my job.

Also I think the Stromata was similarly developed as a "headcheese." I think what is now called Basil's 364th (I forget the number) letter was repurposed in the Stromata and so were other letters. An example from Stromata 3.36:
Well? Can’t you see, good people (I want to speak as if you were here with me), that in fighting against these excellent commandments, you are in conflict 123 with your own salvation? It is not these admirable directions you are undermining.
I would suggest Adversus Haereses was similarly cobbled together in the third century from letters. We're not getting Clement or Irenaeus directly as they were writing, their published writings aren't "snapshots" or photographs of who they were but processed "idealized" books now. Same thing will Paul's letters, Ignatius's letters etc. It's like Hollywood PR. It's all staged and processed.
Secret Alias
Posts: 21151
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Irenaeus's Against Marcion Written Against Clement?

Post by Secret Alias »

And this is why I tend to detest many "experts" in Patristics (not all but a lot of the younger ones, I am an old bag now). The situation is VERY COMPLEX. It's not "Irenaeus this or that" or "Clement this or that." It's this processed work in the name of this or that Church Father. Look at what Jerome says about Origen's writings. I wasn't just Origen's writings. We don't get the "real" any of the Church Fathers. We get a polished and highly refined version of second century writers so-that-it-doesn't-conflict with fourth and fifth century dogma. Above all else the scribes wanted to pass on a "Holy Spirit" manifesting itself from the time of Jesus down through a series of writers. That doesn't mean that there is nothing of Clement or nothing of Irenaeus that isn't real. It's just like McDonald's. It's a hamburger. It's a chicken something or other. But it's a very processed version of what it claims to be and it isn't that nutritious.
Secret Alias
Posts: 21151
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Irenaeus's Against Marcion Written Against Clement?

Post by Secret Alias »

Here's Clement's first citation of Luke (after the introduction). He doesn't mention any material from the latter parts of Luke chapter 4 or chapter 5:
4:15 He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.

16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

22 All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked.

23 Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’”

24 “Truly I tell you,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown. 25 I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. 26 Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. 27 And there were many in Israel with leprosy[g] in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”

28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. 30 But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.

31 Then he went down to Capernaum, a town in Galilee, and on the Sabbath he taught the people. 32 They were amazed at his teaching, because his words had authority.

33 In the synagogue there was a man possessed by a demon, an impure spirit. He cried out at the top of his voice, 34 “Go away! What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”

35 “Be quiet!” Jesus said sternly. “Come out of him!” Then the demon threw the man down before them all and came out without injuring him.

36 All the people were amazed and said to each other, “What words these are! With authority and power he gives orders to impure spirits and they come out!” 37 And the news about him spread throughout the surrounding area.

Jesus Heals Many
38 Jesus left the synagogue and went to the home of Simon. Now Simon’s mother-in-law was suffering from a high fever, and they asked Jesus to help her. 39 So he bent over her and rebuked the fever, and it left her. She got up at once and began to wait on them.

40 At sunset, the people brought to Jesus all who had various kinds of sickness, and laying his hands on each one, he healed them. 41 Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, “You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Messiah.

42 At daybreak, Jesus went out to a solitary place. The people were looking for him and when they came to where he was, they tried to keep him from leaving them. 43 But he said, “I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent.” 44 And he kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea.

5 One day as Jesus was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret,[a] the people were crowding around him and listening to the word of God. 2 He saw at the water’s edge two boats, left there by the fishermen, who were washing their nets. 3 He got into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, and asked him to put out a little from shore. Then he sat down and taught the people from the boat.

4 When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out into deep water, and let down the nets for a catch.”

5 Simon answered, “Master, we’ve worked hard all night and haven’t caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets.”

6 When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish that their nets began to break. 7 So they signaled their partners in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and filled both boats so full that they began to sink.

8 When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus’ knees and said, “Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!” 9 For he and all his companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had taken, 10 and so were James and John, the sons of Zebedee, Simon’s partners.

Then Jesus said to Simon, “Don’t be afraid; from now on you will fish for people.” 11 So they pulled their boats up on shore, left everything and followed him.

Jesus Heals a Man With Leprosy
12 While Jesus was in one of the towns, a man came along who was covered with leprosy. When he saw Jesus, he fell with his face to the ground and begged him, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.”

13 Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” And immediately the leprosy left him.

14 Then Jesus ordered him, “Don’t tell anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.”

15 Yet the news about him spread all the more, so that crowds of people came to hear him and to be healed of their sicknesses. 16 But Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed.

Jesus Forgives and Heals a Paralyzed Man
17 One day Jesus was teaching, and Pharisees and teachers of the law were sitting there. They had come from every village of Galilee and from Judea and Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was with Jesus to heal the sick. 18 Some men came carrying a paralyzed man on a mat and tried to take him into the house to lay him before Jesus. 19 When they could not find a way to do this because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and lowered him on his mat through the tiles into the middle of the crowd, right in front of Jesus.

20 When Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”

21 The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

22 Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked, “Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? 23 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 24 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 25 Immediately he stood up in front of them, took what he had been lying on and went home praising God. 26 Everyone was amazed and gave praise to God. They were filled with awe and said, “We have seen remarkable things today.”

Jesus Calls Levi and Eats With Sinners
27 After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth. “Follow me,” Jesus said to him, 28 and Levi got up, left everything and followed him.

29 Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them. 30 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”

31 Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Jesus Questioned About Fasting
33 They said to him, “John’s disciples often fast and pray, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours go on eating and drinking.”

34 Jesus answered, “Can you make the friends of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? 35 But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; in those days they will fast.”

36 He told them this parable: “No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. 37 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. 38 No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. 39 And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better.’”

6 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels. 2 Some of the Pharisees asked, “Why are you doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

3 Jesus answered them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.” 5 Then Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

6 On another Sabbath he went into the synagogue and was teaching, and a man was there whose right hand was shriveled. 7 The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal on the Sabbath. 8 But Jesus knew what they were thinking and said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Get up and stand in front of everyone.” So he got up and stood there.

9 Then Jesus said to them, “I ask you, which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?”

10 He looked around at them all, and then said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He did so, and his hand was completely restored. 11 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law were furious and began to discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus.

The Twelve Apostles
12 One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. 13 When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: 14 Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, 15 Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, 16 Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

Blessings and Woes
17 He went down with them and stood on a level place. A large crowd of his disciples was there and a great number of people from all over Judea, from Jerusalem, and from the coastal region around Tyre and Sidon, 18 who had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases. Those troubled by impure spirits were cured, 19 and the people all tried to touch him, because power was coming from him and healing them all.


20 Looking at his disciples, he said:

“Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
21 Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.
22 Blessed are you when people hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil,
because of the Son of Man.


Luke 6:20 Stromata 2.5.22.4 Much more, then, is the Scripture to be believed which says, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man " to lead a philosophic life. But, on the other hand, it blesses "the poor;" as Plato understood (μακαρίζει δ' ἔμπαλιν τοὺς πένητας, ὡς συνῆκεν Πλάτων λέγων) when he said, "It is not the diminishing of one's resources, but the augmenting of insatiableness, that is to be considered poverty; for it is not slender means that ever constitutes poverty, but insatiableness, from which the good man being free, will also be rich." And in Alcibiades he calls vice a servile thing, and virtue the attribute of freemen

Luke 6:20 - 1 Stromata 4.6.25.2 Our holy Saviour applied poverty and riches, and the like, both to spiritual things and objects of sense. For when He said, "Blessed are they that are persecuted for righteousness' sake," He clearly taught us in every circumstance to seek for the martyr who, if poor for righteousness' sake, witnesses that the righteousness which he loves is a good thing; and if he "hunger and thirst for righteousness' sake," testifies that righteousness is the best thing. Likewise he, that weeps and mourns for righteousness' sake, testifies to the best law that it is beautiful (εἰπὼν γὰρ μακάριοι οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης σαφῶς ἡμᾶς διδάσκει ἐν πάσῃ περιστάσει τὸν μάρτυρα ζητεῖν· ὃς ἐὰν πτωχὸς ᾖ διὰ δικαιοσύνην, μαρτυρεῖ δικαιοσύνην ἀγαθὸν εἶναι ἣν ἠγάπησεν, κἂν πεινῇ κἂν διψῇ διὰ δικαιοσύνην, μαρτυρεῖ δικαιο4.6.26.1 σύνην τὸ ἄριστον τυγχάνειν. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὁ κλαίων καὶ ὁ πενθῶν 4.6.26.2 διὰ δικαιοσύνην μαρτυρεῖ τῷ βελτίστῳ νόμῳ εἶναι καλῷ). As, then, "those that are persecuted," so also "those that hunger and thirst" for righteousness' sake, are called "blessed" by Him who approves of the true desire, which not even famine can put a stop to. And if "they hunger after righteousness itself," they are blessed. "And blessed are the poor," whether "in spirit" or in circumstances -- that is, if for righteousness' sake (ὡς οὖν τοὺς δεδιωγμένους, οὕτω δὲ καὶ τοὺς πεινῶντας καὶ τοὺς διψῶντας διὰ δικαιοσύνην μακαρίους λέγει ὁ τὸν γνήσιον ἀποδεχόμενος πόθον, 4.6.26.3 ὃν οὐδὲ λιμὸς διακόψαι ἴσχυσεν. κἂν τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτὴν πεινῶσι, μακάριοι· μακάριοι δὲ καὶ οἱ πτωχοὶ εἴτε πνεύματι εἴτε περιουσίᾳ 4.6.26.4 διὰ δικαιοσύνην δηλονότι). It is not the poor simply, but those that have wished to become poor for righteousness' sake, that He pronounces blessed -- those who have despised the honours of this world in order to attain "the good" likewise also those who, through chastity, have become comely in person and character, and those who are of noble birth, and honourable, having through righteousness attained to adoption, and therefore "have received power to become the sons of God," and "to tread on serpents and scorpions," and to rule over demons and "the host of the adversary."

Luke 6:20 Stromata 20 4.6.34.1 "For I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," saith the Lord. And they say those things to those who wish to be poor for righteousness' sake. For they have heard in the commandment that "the broad and wide way leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in by it." It is not of anything else that the assertion is made, but of profligacy, and love of women, and love of glory, and ambition, and similar passions.ἐλεήσω ὃν ἂν ἐλεῶ φησὶ κύριος. λέγει δὲ ταῦτα καὶ τοῖς θέλουσι διὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην πτωχεῦσαι· ἀκηκόασι γὰρ διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς, ὅτι πλατεῖα καὶ εὐρύχωρος ὁδὸς ἀπάγει εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν καὶ πολλοὶ 4.6.34.2 οἱ διερχόμενοι δι' αὐτῆς· οὐ περὶ ἄλλου τινός, ἀλλὰ περὶ ἀσωτίας καὶ φιλογυνίας, φιλοδοξίας, φιλαρχίας καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων διαλέγεται παθῶν·

Luke 6:21 Stromata . "For blessed are all those that fear the Lord." You see the corresponding blessing in the Gospel. "Fear not," it is said, "when a man is enriched, and when the glory of his house is increased: because when he dieth he shall leave all, and his glory shall not descend after him." " μακάριοι γὰρ πάντες οἱ φοβούμενοι τὸν 2.13.59.4 κύριον. ὁρᾷς τὸν <τοῖς> ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ ἐμφερῆ μακαρισμόν; μὴ φοβοῦ, φησίν, ὅταν πλουτήσῃ ἄνθρωπος, καὶ ὅταν πληθυνθῇ ἡ δόξα τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ· ὅτι οὐκ ἐν τῷ ἀποθνῄσκειν αὐτὸν λήψεται 2.13.59.5 τὰ πάντα, οὐδὲ συγκαταβήσεται αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα αὐτοῦ. "But I in Thy I mercy will enter into Thy house. I will worship I toward Thy holy temple, in Thy fear: Lord, lead me in Thy righteousness.

Luke 6:22 Stromata And it is the sum of all virtue, in my opinion, when the Lord teaches us that for love to God we must gnostically despise death. "Blessed are they," says He, "who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for they shall be called the sons of God;" or, as some of those who transpose the Gospels say, "Blessed are they who are persecuted by righteousness, for they shall be perfect." And, "Blessed are they who are persecuted for my sake; for they shall have a place where they shall not be persecuted." And, "Blessed are ye when men shall hate you, when they shall separate you, when they shall cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake;" (καὶ μακάριοι οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκα ἐμοῦ, 4.6.41.3 ὅτι ἕξουσι τόπον ὅπου οὐ διωχθήσονται. καὶ μακάριοί ἐστε, ὅταν οἱ ἄνθρωποι μισήσωσιν ὑμᾶς, ὅταν ἀφορίσωσιν, ὅταν ἐκβάλωσι τὸ 4.6.41.4 ὄνομα ὑμῶν ὡς πονηρὸν ἕνεκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) if we do not detest our persecutors, and undergo punishments at their hands, not hating them under the idea that we have been put to trial more tardily than we looked for; but knowing this also, that every instance of trial is an occasion for testifying.
Secret Alias
Posts: 21151
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Irenaeus's Against Marcion Written Against Clement?

Post by Secret Alias »

Tertullian Adversus Marcionem 4:14. I am going to try to break this down line by line:
14. [Luke 6: 20-2.] I come next to those customary judgements (ordinarias sententias) by which he builds up his own special doctrine (proprietatem doctrinae), what I may call the magisterial edict (ad edictum) of Christ.
The beatitudes aren't "edicts" preparing for the judgement of Christ at the end times. Completely nuts. But this is Irenaeus's point. Next line.
Blessed are the indigent (Beati mendici) —for the translation of the word which is in the Greek requires it so—for theirs is the kingdom of God.
First of all, those who have argued that Tertullian has before him a "ready made" Latin Bible. Impossible. You wouldn't be justifying the translation if it was already set and in use by his community. He's translating the Greek. But then let's take it a step further. If he has a Marcionite gospel, an actual gospel from a Marcionite canon, there are people who seriously consider that Tertullian is arguing for the correct interpretation of a term from a heretical gospel? Give me a break. He's translating his gospel, his canon. Mendicus = beggarly, needy, indigent. This is a correct translation of Luke 6:22's πτωχοί. You know the "Ebionites" have something to do with matters here. As Ben showed:

Exodus 23.10-22: 10 For six years you shall sow your land and gather in its yield; 11 but the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, that the poor [אֶבְיֹנֵי, πτωχοί] of your people may eat; and what they leave the wild beasts may eat. You shall do likewise with your vineyard, and with your olive orchard.

Of course monotonous minded Irenaeus wants to drag this back to monotheism so he immediately goes on to say:
Now this very fact that he begins with blessings is characteristic of the Creator, who with no other voice than of benediction gave sanctity to the universe of things as soon as he made them (Iam hoc ipsum, quod a benedictionibus coepit, creatoris est, qui universa, prout edidit, nulla alia voce quam benedictionis dedicavit. Eructavit enim, inquit, cor meum sermonem optimum). For he says, My heart hath disgorged a supremely good word. This must be that excellent Word, of benediction surely, who by the precedent of the old covenant is recognized as the initiator of the new covenant as well.
Hold on there. This is another example where two different ideas by likely two different authors. God does indeed "bless" in Hebrew ברך. But ברך literally means to kneel. This might be the source of Tatian's understanding of a subordinate god "pleading" or begging for the light (although ברך doesn't appear here). Even still, maybe I am not understanding things correctly (always a possibility). But it seems to me that Adversus Marcionem is noting that God "saw that it was good." Benedictus is used to translate barak. So he's not getting the idea from the Latin text. Same for εὐλογέω in the LXX. Not sure what was originally meant. But the citation of Psalm 45:1 seems to be a completely different idea.

Adversus Marcionem continues immediately with:
What wonder is it then, if he also by words of this kind begins his discourse with the Creator's affections, the Creator who always expresses his love for the indigent, the poor, the humble, and the widows and orphans, comforting, protecting, and avenging them—so that you may take this (as it were) private bounty of Christ to be a stream from the Saviour's fountains? Truly I do not know which way to turn among so great a multitude of words such as these, as it might be in a thicket or a meadow or an orchard of fruits.
Yes we can follow the train of thought here. Clearly the author is comparing the Beatitudes to the trees of Paradise. Now things are starting to click. So clearly when we go back to what was said a line earlier AND SUBTRACT THE REFERENCE TO PSALM 45 we get:
Now this very fact that he begins with blessings is characteristic of the Creator, who with no other voice than of benediction gave sanctity to the universe of things as soon as he made them (Iam hoc ipsum, quod a benedictionibus coepit, creatoris est, qui universa, prout edidit, nulla alia voce quam benedictionis dedicavit) ... What wonder is it then, if he also by words of this kind begins his discourse with the Creator's affections, the Creator who always expresses his love for the indigent, the poor, the humble, and the widows and orphans, comforting, protecting, and avenging them (Quid ergo mirum est, si et ab affectibus creatoris ingressus est per huiusmodi dictionem, semper mendicos et pauperes et humiles ac viduas et pupillos usque diligentis, consolantis, asserentis, vindicantis?)—so that you may take this (as it were) private bounty of Christ to be a stream from the Saviour's fountains? (ut hanc Christi quasi privatam benignitatem rivulum credas de fontibus salvatoris) Truly I do not know which way to turn among so great a multitude of words such as these, as it might be in a thicket or a meadow or an orchard of fruits.
So clearly we are starting off in Paradise and Adversus Marcionem wants us to see Jesus as the god who was the protagonist in Genesis 1. Why was Psalm 45:1 introduced? Clearly this is the clue to understanding Irenaeus. The original discussion has God almighty as the Creator without an intermediary assisting him. This must have seemed to smack of radical monarchianism so a later editor added the line from Psalm 45:1.

We continue with what follows:
I must take up each instance at random, as chance suggests it (Passim prout incidit res petenda est).
Each instance of what? Clearly it would be the various "blessed" statements in the Beatitudes. Which is why it is so strange there is this extended reference to scriptural quotes that interrupt the natural flow of the original narrative. I think all of this then is secondary:
The psalm calls out, Judge for the fatherless and indigent, and treat with justice the humble and poor: deliver the poor, and rend the indigent out of the hand of the sinner.b Also the seventy-first psalm, With righteousness shall he judge the indigent of the people, and shall make safe the sons of the poor. And in what follows, it refers to Christ: All the gentiles shall serve him.c Now David had power over the Jewish people only: so let no one think it was said with reference to David that he had taken to himself the humble and those who were borne down by need and want. Because, he says, he hath delivered the indigent from the mighty: he shall spare the indigent and poor, and shall make safe the souls of the poor, and shall redeem their souls from usury and injustice, and honoured shall their name be in his sight. Also: Let the sinners be turned aside into hell, all the gentiles who forget God, because the indigent man shall not for ever be kept for oblivion, the patient abiding of poor men shall not for ever perish.e Also, Who is like our God, who hath his dwelling on high, and hath regard for humble things in heaven and on earth: who lifteth up the indigent from the earth, and exalteth the poor out of the dunghill, that he may make him to sit with the princes of the people?—meaning, in God's own kingdom. Also, further back, in Kingdoms, Hannah, the mother of Samuel, in the Spirit gives glory to God and says, He lifteth up the poor from the earth, the indigent also, that he may make him to sit with the mighty ones of the people, evidently in his own kingdom, and upon thrones of glory,g royal thrones. And in Isaiah also how does he lash out against the oppressors of the needy: Ye then, what mean ye that ye set fire to my vineyard, and the spoil of the indigent is in your houses? Wherefore do ye oppress my people, and shame the face of the indigent ?h And again, Woe to them that write down iniquity, for in writing they write down wickedness, avoiding the judgements of the indigent, and ravaging the rights of the poor of my people.i These judgements he also demands on behalf of orphans and widows, these too being in need of consolation: Do judgement for the orphan, and deal justly with the widow, and come, let us be reconciled, saith the Lord. Whosoever has that great affection which the Creator has for every rank of humble estate, his also will be the kingdom promised by Christ, whose affection all those already enjoy to whom the promise is made. Even if you suppose the Creator's promises were earthly, while Christ's are heavenly, it is well enough that until now there is no indication of heaven belonging to any other god but the God to whom earth belongs: it is well enough that the Creator has made promises of even lesser things, because this makes it easy for me to believe him in respect of greater things, rather than one who has not previously on a foundation of lesser things built up faith in his liberality.
All of this represents a secondary addition to distract ourselves from the fact that the order of "blessed" statements doesn't match Luke or Matthew:
Blessed are they that hunger, for they shall be filled. I should have been able to attach this clause to the one before, because they that hunger are precisely the same as the poor and the indigent, except that the Creator had particularly designed this promise as preparatory work for that gospel which in fact is his own: because by Isaiah he speaks thus of those, meaning the gentiles, whom he would call to him from the end of the earth: Behold swiftly, lightly, will they comek—swiftly because they are in haste, towards the end of the times, lightly because they are free of the burdens of the ancient law. They shall not hunger nor thirst—which means they will be filled, and a promise like this is only made to such as are hungry and thirsty.
Luke's order:
“Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
21 Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.
22 Blessed are you when people hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil,
because of the Son of Man.

23 “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.
Matthew's order:
“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
So in either case the citation in Adversus Marcionem doesn't match the order in either Beatitudes. But there is the line of introduction to the Beatitude section as a whole:
I must take up each instance at random, as chance suggests it (Passim prout incidit res petenda est).
But I wonder. At the end of the long section of scriptural references there is this to consider:
Whosoever has that great affection which the Creator has for every rank of humble estate, his also will be the kingdom promised by Christ, whose affection all those already enjoy to whom the promise is made. Even if you suppose the Creator's promises were earthly, while Christ's are heavenly, it is well enough that until now there is no indication of heaven belonging to any other god but the God to whom earth belongs: it is well enough that the Creator has made promises of even lesser things, because this makes it easy for me to believe him in respect of greater things, rather than one who has not previously on a foundation of lesser things built up faith in his liberality.
The emboldened line seems to be reflective of a twofold blessing which seems to have been in most "heretical" schools i.e. Christ giving the heavens and the Creator giving the earth:
Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
I would suggest that "Marcion" is really citing Matthew to the effect that there was one reward for Christ-believers and another for Creator-believers, heaven and the earth. Have to walk. Bye.
Secret Alias
Posts: 21151
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Irenaeus's Against Marcion Written Against Clement?

Post by Secret Alias »

So to repeat. There is a consistent interest in Matthew throughout Adversus Marcionem. So the order of material is as follows as I see it now:
Blessed are the indigent—for the translation of the word which is in the Greek requires it so—for theirs is the kingdom of God.

Beati mendici (sic enim exigit interpretatio vocabuli quod in Graeco est), quoniam illorum est regnum dei.
The next statement however is pure Matthew.
Even if you suppose the Creator's promises were earthly, while Christ's are heavenly, it is well enough that until now there is no indication of heaven belonging to any other god but the God to whom earth belongs.

Nam et si putas creatoris quidem terrenas promissiones fuisse, Christi vero caelestes, bcne quod caelum nullius alterius usque adhuc dei apparet nisi cuius et terra, bene quod creator vel minora promisit
As noted above Matthew - at least as interpreted by "heretics" - has two implied "destinations" for Christians. For the mere "poor" the earth, for the "spiritually poor" heaven. Interestingly Clement repeats the last interpretation many times in his works.
In the same way spiritual poverty is blessed. Wherefore also Matthew added, Blessed are the poor. How? In spirit. And again, Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after the righteousness of God. Wherefore wretched are the contrary kind of poor, who have no part in God, and still less in human property, and have not tasted of the righteousness of God.
Wait a minute. The impression is here quite clearly that:
Blessed are the meek (πραεῖς), for they will inherit the earth.
Applies to one class of person and "heaven" applies ONLY to the "spiritually poor." In the Stromata Book 4 there is this notion of TWO mentions of the poor in the gospel. Clement writes:
Our holy Saviour applied poverty and riches, and the like, both to spiritual things and objects of sense. For when He said, "Blessed are they that are persecuted for righteousness' sake," He clearly taught us in every circumstance to seek for the martyr who, if poor for righteousness' sake, witnesses that the righteousness which he loves is a good thing; and if he "hunger and thirst for righteousness' sake," testifies that righteousness is the best thing. Likewise he, that weeps and mourns for righteousness' sake, testifies to the best law that it is beautiful. As, then, "those that are persecuted," so also "those that hunger and thirst" for righteousness' sake, are called "blessed" by Him who approves of the true desire, which not even famine can put a stop to. And if "they hunger after righteousness itself," they are blessed. "And blessed are the poor," whether "in spirit" or in circumstances -- that is, if for righteousness' sake. It is not the poor simply, but those that have wished to become poor for righteousness' sake, that He pronounces blessed -- those who have despised the honours of this world in order to attain "the good;" likewise also those who, through chastity, have become comely in person and character, and those who are of noble birth, and honourable, having through righteousness attained to adoption, and therefore "have received power to become the sons of God," and "to tread on serpents and scorpions," and to rule over demons and "the host of the adversary."
So for Clement there appear to be two classifications of people - one who are poor "spiritually" and another who are poor with respect to material goods for the sake of righteousness. The question now is whether Clement associates two different gods, two different powers with each situation and thus two different "ends" - i.e. heaven or the earth - for each. I think I am not stretching the bounds of credulity when I suggest that "for righteousness" has something to do with the power of "justice" and judgment - i.e. Yahweh - and that "in spirit" poor is an initiate into the mysteries of Christ and the attainment of heaven. Have to go through all the statements of the gnostics regarding different abodes for different believers and of course Philo where all these understandings ultimately derive.
Secret Alias
Posts: 21151
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Irenaeus's Against Marcion Written Against Clement?

Post by Secret Alias »

And the idea that, as Adversus Marcionem claims, that "there is no connection" between the Creator and the earth is just fucking dishonest beyond compare. I am Jewish. I know what Jews and modern Israelites believe. The Land, "the earth" is the promise of Yahweh. The ground of Israel. This hasn't changed in a fucking thousand years let alone two thousand years. These Church Fathers are such bullshit artists when they want to be. Of course "Marcion" is right here. The Jews want THEIR land, the land promised us by the Penateuch. End of story. Fuck heaven. We want the land. That's what Gaza is all about today. It's what Zionism was about before the creation of Israel. It's in the Pentateuch over and over again. The promise of the Lord is the land. Let's call bullshit out when we read it. That's what the "Bible" says. That's what Judaism has always been about. The idea that Adversus Marcionem tries to argue against the plain meaning of the Penateuch is laughable. Back to work.
Post Reply