Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

mbuckley3 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 11:08 am RGP

Forum Guide to the Perplexed :

©Secret Alias : Clement of Alexandria

©Peter Kirby : Clement of Rome

Now if any man set Luke aside, as one who did not know the truth, he will, [by so acting,] manifestly reject that Gospel of which he claims to be a disciple. For through him we have become acquainted with very many and important parts of the Gospel; for instance, the generation of John, the history of Zacharias, the coming of the angel to Mary, the exclamation of Elisabeth, the descent of the angels to the shepherds, the words spoken by them, the testimony of Anna and of Simeon with regard to Christ, and that twelve years of age He was left behind at Jerusalem; also the baptism of John, the number of the Lord's years when He was baptized, and that this occurred in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar. And in His office of teacher this is what He has said to the rich: "Woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation;"(6) and "Woe unto you that are full, for ye shall hunger; and ye who laugh now, for ye shall weep;" and, "Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you: for so did your fathers to the false prophets." All things of the following kind we have known through Luke alone (and numerous actions of the Lord we have learned through him, which also all [the Evangelists] notice): the multitude of fishes which Peter's companions enclosed, when at the Lord's command they cast the nets;(7) the woman who had suffered for eighteen years, and was healed on the Sabbath-day;(8) the man who had the dropsy, whom the Lord made whole on the Sabbath, and how He did defend Himself for having performed an act of healing on that day; how He taught His disciples not to aspire to the uppermost rooms; how we should invite the poor and feeble, who cannot recompense us; the man who knocked during the night to obtain loaves, and did obtain them, because of the urgency of his importunity;(9) how, when [our Lord] was sitting at meat with a Pharisee, a woman that was a sinner kissed His feet, and anointed them with ointment, with what the Lord said to Simon on her behalf concerning the two debtors;(10) also about the parable of that rich man who stored up the goods which had accrued to him, to whom it was also said, "In this night they shall demand thy soul from thee; whose then shall those things be which thou hast prepared?"(11) and similar to this, that of the rich man, who was clothed in purple and who fared sumptuously, and the indigent Lazarus;(12) also the answer which He gave to His disciples when they said, "Increase our faith;"(13) also His conversation with Zaccheus the publican;(14) also about the Pharisee and the publican, who were praying in the temple at the same time;(1) also the ten lepers, whom He cleansed in the way simultaneously;(2) also how He ordered the lame and the blind to be gathered to the wedding from the lanes and streets;(3) also the parable of the judge who feared not God, whom the widow's importunity led to avenge her cause;(4) and about the fig-tree in the vineyard which produced no fruit. There are also many other particulars to be found mentioned by Luke alone, which are made use of by both Marcion and Valentinus. And besides all these, [he records] what [Christ] said to His disciples in the way, after the resurrection, and how they recognised Him in the breaking of bread.(5)

4. It follows then, as of course, that these men must either receive the rest of his narrative (i.e. the things in the first chapters of Luke up to and including "the fifteenth of Tiberius") or else reject these parts also. (i.e. the long list of things shared with the Marcionite gospel) For no persons of common sense can permit them to receive some things recounted by Luke as being true, and to set others aside, as if he had not known the truth. And if indeed Marcion's followers reject these, they will then possess no Gospel; for, curtailing that according to Luke, as I have said already, they boast in having the Gospel [in what remains]. But the followers of Valentinus must give up their utterly vain talk; for they have taken from that [Gospel] many occasions for their own speculations, to put an evil interpretation upon what he has well said. If, on the other hand, they feel compelled to receive the remaining portions also, then, by studying the perfect Gospel, and the doctrine of the apostles, they will find it necessary to repent, that they may be saved from the danger [to which they are exposed].

Every opinion and the whole scheme2 of the impious and sacrilegious Marcion we now bring to the test3 of that very Gospel which, by his process of interpolation, he has made his own. To encourage a belief of this Gospel he has actually4 devised for it a sort of dower,5 in a work composed of contrary statements set in opposition, thence entitled Antitheses, and compiled with a view to such a severance of the law from the gospel as should divide the Deity into two, nay, diverse, gods----one for each Instrument, or Testament6 as it is more usual to call it; that by such means he might also patronize7 belief in "the Gospel according to the Antitheses." [2] These, however, I would have attacked in special combat, hand to hand; that is to say, I would have encountered singly the several devices of the Pontic heretic, if it were not much more convenient to refute them in and with that very gospel to which they contribute their support. Although it is so easy to meet them at once with a peremptory demurrer,8 yet, in order that I may both make them admissible in argument, and account them valid expressions of opinion, and even contend that they make for our side, that so there may be all the redder shame for the blindness of their author, we have now drawn out some antitheses of our own in opposition to Marcion. [3] And indeed9 I do allow that one order did run its course in the old dispensation under the Creator,10 and that another is on its way in the new under Christ. I do not deny that there is a difference in the language of their documents, in their precepts of virtue, and in their teachings of the law; but yet all this diversity is consistent with one and the same God, even Him by whom it was arranged and also foretold. [4] Long ago11 did Isaiah declare that "out of Sion should go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem"12 ----some other law, that is, and another word.

For no one who was acquainted with the statements of the Christians, that many prophets foretold the advent of the Saviour, would have ascribed to a Jew sentiments which it would have better befitted a Samaritan or a Sadducee to utter; nor would the Jew in the dialogue have expressed himself in language like the following: But my prophet once declared in Jerusalem, that the Son of God will come as the Judge of the righteous and the Punisher of the wicked. Now it is not one of the prophets merely who predicted the advent of Christ. But although the Samaritans and Sadducees, who receive the books of Moses alone, would say that there were contained in them predictions regarding Christ, yet certainly not in Jerusalem, which is not even mentioned in the times of Moses, was the prophecy uttered.

F) Marcion's 'Antitheses' were the original version of Matthew 5:21 - 49

I have never been convinced by scholarly reconstructions of the 'Antitheses' of Marcion. Evans translation of Adversus Marcionem makes it seem plausible that this 'written text' highlighting the differences between the gospel of Jesus and the Law of Moses placed in front of the gospel in the canons of the Marcionites. But a careful examination of the evidence reveals that the Marcionite gospel certainly contained the so-called 'Antitheses' of Matthew. Betz goes so far as to say that Marcion was the first to coin this name in relation to the Sermon on the Mount (The Sermon on the Mount 200 - 201).. It was only was only when Tertullian's ur-text - the Diatessaron-rooted Against Marcion - was transformed by Irenaeus into a Luke-based critique of Marcion that the references became obscured. Nevertheless there is ample evidence that Marcion's gospel contained these 'Antitheses'

50. the testimony of Irenaeus - Irenaeus while saying that Marcion 'circumcized' the gospel of Luke also implies Marcion used or knew Matthew
And that the Lord did not abrogate the natural [precepts] of the law, by which man is justified, which also those who were justified by faith, and who pleased God, did observe previous to the giving of the law, but that He extended and fulfilled them, is shown from His words. "For," He remarks, "it has been said to them of old time, Do not commit adultery. But I say unto you, That every one who hath looked upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." And again: "It has been said, Thou shalt not kill. But I say unto you, Every one who is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment." And, "It hath been said, Thou shalt not forswear thyself. But I say unto you, Swear not at all; but let your conversation be, Yea, yea, and Nay, nay." And other statements of a like nature. For all these do not contain or imply an opposition to and an overturning of the [precepts] of the past, as Marcion's followers do strenuously maintain; but [they exhibit] a fulfilling and an extension of them, as He does Himself declare: "Unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." For what meant the excess referred to? In the first place, [we must] believe not only in the Father, but also in His Son now revealed; for He it is who leads man into fellowship and unity with God. In the next place, [we must] not only say, but we must do; for they said, but did not. And [we must] not only abstain from evil deeds, but even from the desires after them. Now He did not teach us these things as being opposed to the law, but as fulfilling the law, and implanting in us the varied righteousness of the law. That would have been contrary to the law, if He had commanded His disciples to do anything which the law had prohibited. But this which He did command--namely, not only to abstain from things forbidden by the law, but even from longing after them--is not contrary to [the law], as I have remarked, neither is it the utterance of one destroying the law, but of one fulfilling, extending, and affording greater scope to it. For the law, since it was laid down for those in bondage, used to instruct the soul by means of those corporeal objects which were of an external nature, drawing it, as by a bond, to obey its commandments, that man might learn to serve God. But the Word set free the soul, and taught that through it the body should be willingly purified. Which having been accomplished, it followed as of course, that the bonds of slavery should be removed, to which man had now become accustomed, and that he should follow God without fetters: moreover, that the laws of liberty should be extended, and subjection to the king increased, so that no one who is convened should appear unworthy to Him who set him free, but that the piety and obedience due to the Master of the household should be equally rendered both by servants and children; while the children possess greater confidence [than the servants], inasmuch as the working of liberty is greater and more glorious than that obedience which is rendered in [a state of] slavery. And for this reason did the Lord, instead of that [commandment], "Thou shalt not commit adultery," forbid even concupiscence; and instead of that which runs thus, "Thou shalt not kill," He prohibited anger; and instead of the law enjoining the giving of tithes, [He told us] to share(7) all our possessions with the poor; and not to love our neighbours only, but even our enemies; and not merely to be liberal givers and bestowers, but even that we should present a gratuitous gift to those who take away our goods. For "to him that taketh away thy coat," He says, "give to him thy cloak also; and from him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again; and as ye would that men should do unto you, do ye unto them:" so that we may not grieve as those who are unwilling to be defrauded, but may rejoice as those who have given willingly, and as rather conferring a favour upon our neighbours than yielding to necessity. "And if any one," He says, "shall compel thee [to go] a mile, go with him twain;"(9) so that thou mayest not follow him as a slave, but may as a free man go before him, showing thyself in all things kindly disposed and useful to thy neighbour, not regarding their evil intentions, but performing thy kind offices, assimilating thyself to the Father, "who maketh His sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and sendeth rain upon the just and unjust." Now all these [precepts], as I have already observed, were not the injunctions] of one doing away with the law, but of one fulfilling, extending, and widening it among us; just as if one should say, that the more extensive operation of liberty implies that a more complete subjection and affection towards our Liberator had been implanted within us. For He did not set us free for this purpose, that we should depart from Him (no one, indeed, while placed out of reach of the Lord's benefits, has power to procure for himself the means of salvation), but that the more we receive His grace, the more we should love Him. Now the more we have loved Him, the more glory shall we receive from Him, when we are continually in the presence of the Father. [Adv Haer 4.13]
51. the testimony of Tertullian:
For if they who are our enemies, and hate us, and speak evil of us, and calumniate us, are to be called our brethren, surely He did in effect bid us bless them that hate us, and pray for them who calumniate us, when He instructed us to reckon them as brethren (= Marcionites). Well, but Christ plainly teaches a new kind of patience, when He actually prohibits the reprisals which the Creator permitted in requiring "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," (Mt 5:38) and bids us, on the contrary, "to him who smiteth us on the one cheek, to offer the other also, and to give up our coat to him that taketh away our cloak." No doubt these are supplementary additions by Christ, but they are quite in keeping with the teaching of the Creator ... Therefore, inasmuch as it is incredible that the same (God) should seem to require “a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye,” in return for an injury, who forbids not only all reprisals, but even a revengeful thought or recollection of an injury, in so far does it become plain to us in what sense He required “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,”—not, indeed, for the purpose of permitting the repetition of the injury by retaliating it, which it virtually prohibited when it forbade vengeance; but for the purpose of restraining the injury in the first instance, which it had forbidden on pain of retaliation or reciprocity; so that every man, in view of the permission to inflict a second (or retaliatory) injury, might abstain from the commission of the first (or provocative) wrong. For He knows how much more easy it is to repress violence by the prospect of retaliation, than by the promise of (indefinite) vengeance. Both results, however, it was necessary to provide, in consideration of the nature and the faith of men, that the man who believed in God might expect vengeance from God, while he who had no faith (to restrain him) might fear the laws which prescribed retaliation. This purpose of the law, which it was difficult to understand, Christ, as the Lord of the Sabbath and of the law, and of all the dispensations of the Father, both revealed and made intelligible, when He commanded that “the other cheek should be offered (to the smiter),” in order that He might the more effectually extinguish all reprisals of an injury, which the law had wished to prevent by the method of retaliation, (and) which most certainly revelation had manifestly restricted, both by prohibiting the memory of the wrong, and referring the vengeance thereof to God. Thus, whatever Christ introduced, He did it not in opposition to the law, but rather in furtherance of it, without at all impairing the prescription of the Creator. [Tertullian Adv Marc 4.17]
52. the testimony of De Recta in Deum Fide - Megethius: It says in the Law, "Eye for eye and tooth for tooth', but the Lord, because He is good, says in the Gospel, "If anyone should slap you on the cheek, turn the other one as well." [Pretty p. 57]

53. the testimony of De Recta in Deum Fide - Megethius: What then does it mean in the Law when it says, "Cloak for cloak", while the good Lord says, "If anyone should take your cloak, give him your tunic also [Petty p. 60]

54. - the testimony of De Recta in Deum Fide -
Adamantius: It is evident then that Marcus wants things to exist that are opposed to what has been commanded.
[MK:] But to commit adultery is opposed to the command, "You shall not commit adultery" murder opposes "You shall not murder" and in the same way stealing is against the command not to steal. Presumably then the rest of the commandments have been abrogated.
[AD:] But how could it be that Christ abrogated the Law? Let Marcus explained, please. For in the Law it stands written you shall not commit adultery you shall not bear false witness. Let him say then which one of these Christ abrogated? Whom does He order to commit adultery - he indeed who had actually rejected the more lustful look as unchastity? Whom did He command to kill - he who directed not to resist the evil man? Whom did the Saviour teach to steal in order that He might oppose the Lawmaker? These commands of the Saviour are not new but are from the Law and the prophets. The Saviour asserts "But I say to you not to resist evil" while the Old Scripture says "Say to those who hate and detest you, 'You are our brethren'" (Isa 66.5 LXX)
[MK:] When the Law again said, "do not steal," the Saviour said "Sell your possessions and give to the poor."
[AD:] But giving to the poor is not new teaching for it was commanded in the Old Testament "Do not refrain from doing good to the needy one whenever you hand can help." The Saviour's 'Love your enemies" is not new, but required in the Prophets: "If your enemy be hungry get him to eat: if he thirst give him to drink." But why must we prolong the discussion? It is at least clear that although the Saviour came to fulfil the Law, Marcus' people assert that he came to destroy it! It is like your party's audacity — to reverse (90) this statement, just as you have tampered with others! However, let the Apostle come forward to reprove your dishonesty.
MK. The Saviour clearly says, "A new commandment I give to you"(Jn 13:34 Petty's note Intriguingly Marcus again quotes from a gospel outside of Marcion's Luke as he does further on cf. the next note) The new one is not the same as the old, for the Saviour says again, "New wine they put into new wineskins, and both are preserved" The new commandment is not the complement of the old one, for the Saviour says again, "Nobody puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment" (Matt 9:16) Neither Christ nor the Apostle is the complement of the Law.
AD. Observe as judge noble Eutropius how my opponent hunting after words takes in a wrong sense instructions so clearly laid down! Please request the Gospel to be read, and it will be revealed what new commandment the Saviour enjoined.
EUTR: Let it be read!
AD. I will read: "A new commandment" he says "I give to you that you love one another as the Father has loved you" (cf. Jn 13:34 different than main recension)
EUTR. It is plain that He designated Love as a new commandment.
AD. Yet the new command is no stranger to the old one previously existing.
MK. The old command of the Law belongs to the Creator God, but the new one comes from the Good God, for He says "Nobody puts unshrunk cloth on an old garment"
AD. How can the new cloth possibly be foreign to the old garment when it is one and the same substance (ousia cf. Arianism) natural to sheep from which woolen are made? But even the art of working in wool had to do with one and the same thing, for it makes both the old and the new. But then even wine is from the same vine that produces both the old and the new. Yet so that I may the more clearly establish the fact that the Saviour did not enjoin anything unheard of before when He said, "A new commandment I give unto you: That you love another" let me read what is written in the Law "You shall love the Lord God with your whole mind and secondly "Your neighbor as yourself."
MK: How it then that the Apostle says "If anyone is in Christ he is a new creature the old things have passed away. Behold all things have become new?"
AD. Please show Marcus what new creature He created; what new heaven or earth, and what new human being. Surely you realize that old things renewed are called 'new' although the same substance still exists? E
UTR. The new things are not different from the old ones in material or kind. The case is like that of a man who should want to remodel one of his vessels that has become old. Using his skill anew, he made out of a piece of material different from that of the old. So what you thought to offer, Marcus, as fresh, new proof, will be found written in the Law, and to assert that there is a God previously unknown who lays down decrees previously unknown is inconceivable.
AD. Paul will demonstrate to you very clearly that love is the fulfilling of the Law. With your permission, I now read the passage referring to this: for "You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal' and if there be any other commandment it is comprised of this word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" Love works no evil to one's neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the Law. (Rom 13.9 - 10 with slight variation from the main recension)
MK. The word 'comprised' shows that the former law has been annulled.
EUTR. I have listened to the Apostle speaking of the fulfillment of the Law. If what is lacking is made up what is already there is not different from what is supplied but is united with it and the completed whole will not be different from what was there before.
AD: The Saviour will more clearly convince you of this in the Gospel. Someone came to him and asked "Good Teacher what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said, 'Why do you call me good? None is Good except One - God." And he said "I know the commandments, (ὁδὲ ἔφη· τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδα) "Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness. Honor your father and mother." And he said " All these things I have kept from my youth." When Jesus heard this he said to him "One thing you lack: Sell everything you have and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven." EUTR. See Marcus! All the audience is astounded at your incredible proofs! He who came as you said to annul the Law and to lay down decrees previously unknown, stated, "You will still lack one thing so that you may receive treasure in heaven?" Therefore the "one thing" is quite clearly revealed as a 'fulfilling' of the others. The Apostle is in complete agreement with this statement when he sets forth "one thing" as the fulfilling of many, that is Love. [ibid p. 95 - 98]
55. Theodoret's account of Cerdon - Cerdon lived under Antoninus I and claimed that God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and unknown to the prophets, was different from the creator of all and giverof Moses' law. And that the one was righteous, whilst the other one good. He says that [the just one] ordered in the law the excision of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, yet the good one ordered in the Gospels turning theother cheek to anyone who hits the right cheek, and to someone who wants to take one's tunic giving the mantle also (cf Matt 5:43, 44). And the utterly crack-brained one did not realise that in the law [God] also commanded people to bring back the wandering ox of the enemy (cf.Exod. 23:4), and to help the [enemy's] fallen animal to stand up (cf.Exod. 23:5), and not to overlook the enemy in need of help. And the one called 'good' by him [declared that] whoever calls his brother a fool is threatened by Gehenna (cf. 5.22). And showing himself [as] just, he said, 'for with the measure that you use it will be measured back to you' (Luke 6:38). Nevertheless, confuting these [things] is not a task for the present, the more so since the blasphemy is very easily detectable by those who read the Divine Scriptures. Now Marcion of Pontus, being educated in these things by Cerdon, was not content with the teaching transmitted to him, but augmented the impiety. [Theodore of Cyrrhus chapter 24 (PG 83 (172 - 177)]
Theodoret's account of Cerdon is to this effect: "He was in the time of tie first Antonius. He taught that there is one God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, unknown to the prophets; another, the Maker of the universe, the giver of the Mosaic law; and this last is just, the other good. For he in the law orders 'that an eye should be given for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth;' but the good God in the Gospels commands that 'to him who smiteth thee on the right cheek, turn the other also;' and that to him who would take away thy coat, thou shouldest give thy cloak also. He in the law directs to love a friend and hate an enemy; but the other, to love even our enemies. 'Not observing,' says Theodoret, 'that in the law it is directed that if a man meet his enemy's ox going astray, he should bring him back; and not forbear to help his beast when Iving under his burden;' and that he who, according to him, is alone good, threatens 'hell-fire to him who calls his brother fool;' and showing himself to be just, said, 'With what measure ye mete, it shall be meted to you again.' " [Nathaniel Lardner the Works of p. 589]
Finally, there is Theodoret of Cyrus, who provides two antitheses in connection with Marcion (Haer. fab. com. I.24. Technically, Theodoret attributes these antitheses to Marcion’s teacher Cerdo, however, there can be no doubt that we are dealing with a re-projection of Marcion’s theology onto Cerdo here, cf. Chapter II): the first is the contrast between the Law’s demand “an eye for an eye” and Christ’s command to turn the other cheek to anyone who hits the right cheek, the second is the opposition between the Law’s demand to love one’s friends and to hate one’s enemies compared to Christ’s command to love one’s enemies also. The fact that Theodoret’s Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium forms a very late source for the analysis of Marcionism (ca. 452/453) makes it all the more striking that the two antitheses which the bishop of Cyrus mentions are also to be found in similar form in the Adamantius-Dialogue and in Tertullian (see above). We can also see once more that the original Marcionite form of these antitheses probably consisted of rather precise statements from both the Old Testament and the Gospel. [Sebastian Moll Marcion p. 156 - 157]
Again, keep in mind that Irenaeus's specific claim is that Marcion adapted a pre-existent understanding developed by a certain 'Cerdo' by Marcion according to one gospel and then Luke was deliberately falsified according to these principles. It gets sillier and sillier the more you look at the evidence. Luke was clearly post-Marcion.

56. - Modern scholarly analysis:
For this Marcion relied upon the antitheses of Matt. 5:21-49, indicating that this book was probably issued (or revised) in Rome.[Richard Pervo, the Making of Paul p. 351]
Some scholars have viewed the Antitheses (in Matthew) as attacks on the law or as enunciations of Jesus nullification of at least certain aspects of the Law. R. Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, trans. L. P. Smith and E. H. Lantero (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958), 89–90; Luz, Matthew: A Commentary, 1:228–30; G. Strecker, “Die Antitheses der Bergpredigt (Mt 5:21–48 par),” ZNW 69 (1978):71. This position is most often affirmed for Matt 5:38 - 42. See W. Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1975), 133; Meier, Law and History, 157 (who describes Matt 5:38–42 as "the clearest and least disputable case of annulment in the antitheses) and F. Thielman, The Law and the New Testament: The Question of Continuity (New York: Crossroad, 1999), 49–60. [Charles Quarles Sermon on the Mount p. 105]
The title “antitheses” seems to have first been used by Marcion; see Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 200. Betz argues that this last antithesis is intended to sum up the five previous antitheses; see ibid., 204–205. [Beth A. Berkowitz Assistant Professor of Talmud and Rabbinics Jewish Theological Seminary Execution and Invention p. 298]
Marcion was an early Christian theologian who was expelled from the Church for advocacy of this idea. Marcionite views, however, predate Marcion. Perhaps the earliest statement of the "heresy" may be found in Matthew 5:21-48. [New Outlook Vol 8 p. 679]
Marcion also showed a discrepancy between the Hebrew and the Christian Bibles when he compared Exodus 21:23–25 and Matthew 5:38–45. Exodus 21:23–25 states: “If any harm follows [a crime], then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise" To Marcion, such laws were cruel and should not apply to Christians. He then compared the Exodus passage to Matthew 5:38–45, where Jesus specifically counters the law found in Exodus [Kevin Kaatz the Early Controversies and Growth of Christianity p. 50]
With Marcion's Antitheses and Adda/Adimantus' adoption of that model, in both cases it appears that the task of problematising the status of the Jewish Bible was indicated not by any authority external to the text, but by the teachings of Jesus himself and the 'antitheses' in Mt. 5. 21-48, which indicated that the teaching of the Gospel superseded the injunctions of the Mosaic Law. Indeed, we know that Marcion's attentions were drawn to this section of the Gospel in particular; however, it is difficult to gauge the extent of the influence of this section in Matthew on Marcion's theological and literary model, with his apparent rejection of this gospel in toto in favor of Luke. Nevertheless, Marcion clearly paid close attention to this section, and he was drawn in particular to Mt. 5.17 158 the proof supplied by the Matthean antitheses indicates that Jesus did come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, although ol lovba'ioxai had tried to indicate otherwise.159 Identical concerns are evident in the exegetical work of Adimantus. Thus, beyond positing simple statements of comparison between Marcion's Antitheses and the work of Adimantus, the presence of the antithetical argument Ex. 21 . 24 v. Mt. 5. 38-40, in Adimantus' work (c. Adim. 8), together with the extensive treatment of Mt. 5. [157] Later Marcionite exegetes identified the antithetical pairing of Lk. 6. 29 and Ex. 21 . 24, as suggested by Mt. 5. 38-39; see A. von Harnack, Marcion, 280*-28 1. ls8 verse, see Tertullian, adv. Marc. IV. 7 (ed. E. Evans, 278-9); for the verse as a focus for Marcion's polemic, see adv. Marc. V. 14 (ed. E. Evans, 602-3): Dixerit Christus an non, Ego non veni legem disolvere sed implere, frustra de ista sententia neganda Pontus laboravit. Additional material concerning the heterodox reception of the vs. is provided by H. Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 1 73-1 76. 159 See Adamantius, De recta in deum fide U. 15, cited in A. von Harnack, Marcion, 252, nt. 3 [Nicholas Baker-Brian Manichaeanism in the Later Roman Empire, p. 56]
Marcion's reading of the Old Testament convinced him that the principle of retributive justice found in the Old Testament could not be reconciled with that of love and goodness as represented by the God of the new cove¬nant (Tertullian, " Against Marcion," I., vi.; ANF, iii. 275). The creating God is just according to the maxim, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"; this maxim was expressly annulled by the good God (Matt. v. 38 39). [New Schaff-Herzog Encylopedia p. 179]
Marcion did not create his system himself. Before him, Cerdo, according to Theodoret's account (Hceret. fabulce, i. 24), proved by the Gospels that the just God of the old covenant and the good God of the new are different beings ; and he founded this contrariety on the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. v. 38-48 ; Luke vi. 27-38). [Frédéric Louis Godet Commentary on the Gospel of St Luke p. 6]
G) the gospel of Marcion referenced things 'according to Matthew'

57. Matthew and Marcion agree that Jesus's first miracle was performed in Capernaum -

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus does not commence his preaching until after he takes up his residence in Capernaum. ~Matthew 4:13-17. Mark and Luke confirm this, but Matthew and Marcion were most likely from a common manuscript, as in the Gospel of John, Jesus is represented as performing his first miracle in Cana of Galilee, after which he traveled to Capernaum [E Christopher Reyes In His Name p. 230]
John only thrice describes Jesus as "teaching," and only once as "teaching in synagogue." Comparing this with the frequency of the Synoptic traditions about Christ's teaching, we ought to be prepared to suppose that John attached special importance to this particular "teaching in synagogue" and some importance to the fact that it was at " Capernaum."This supposition is confirmed by the fact that John agrees with Luke in using the phrase "went down (or, came down) to Capernaum" to introduce (apparently) a new stage in the proclamation of the Gospel . It is also confirmed (not weakened) by the fact that the compiler of the Diatessaron omits the phrase in Luke , and not only the phrase, but also the context in John. That indicates for those at least who have studied the Diatessaron and its ways that in early times discussion was probably frequent about this "going down to Capernaum" and about the questions "Whence did He come down?" and "What did He do when He had come down ?" According to Tertullian, Marcion so mutilated the Gospel of Luke as to make it appear that Jesus came down "from heaven, straight to the synagogue" in Capernaum . Heracleon, dealing with the Johannine "going down to Capernaum," said that "the beginning of another dispensation was indicated, since 'went down' is not without significance." He added that Capernaum signifies "the uttermost parts of the Cosmos, the regions of matter into which He 'came-down .'" So far, Origen, who quotes Heracleon as above, might agree with Heracleon as to the inferior and negative character of the revelation at Capernaum. But he demurs to what Heracleon says concerning the following words "and there [i.e. at Capernaum] they abode not many days. And the passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up. . ." on which Heracleon says "By reason of the strange and alien nature of the place, He is not even said to have done or spoken anything in it [i.e. in Capernaum]." Yet Origen's only ground for demurring is that Mark and Luke relate, as occurring during this visit, the exorcism in the Capernaum Synagogue. To this Heracleon would have an obvious reply : "The Marcan exorcism could not have occurred during the Johannine visit to Capernaum; for Mark says clearly that what he relates about Capernaum took place after the Baptist's arrest ; John makes it no less clear that what he relates here about Capernaum took place before the Baptist's arrest." It is hardly possible to doubt that Heracleon is right at all events in calling attention to the fact that Jesus "is not even said to have done or spoken anything" in the first brief (Johannine) visit to Capernaum. But about the Evangelist's motive in thus recording an apparently resultless action of Christ there may very well be doubt or, at least, doubt at the first view of the subject. [Abbott Diatessarica III p. 99] [foot note] See Origen on Jn ii. 12 (Lomm. i. 291) quoting Heracleon to this effect. Origen himself says (Lomm. i. 288) that Capernaum means "field (agros) of Consolation." Jerome calls it (Onomast. 64) " ager vel villa consolationis." In his comment on Mt. iv. 13, viii. 5. Jerome is silent as to its meaning. Pseudo- Jerome, on Mk i. 21, calls it "villa consolationis. [Edwin Abbott the Fourfold Gospel p. 179]
58. the gospel of Marcion contained a variant of Matthew 5:3:
Ephraim quotes ' Blessed are the meek in their spirit ' : this is an inaccurate combination of Matt, v 5 and Matt, v 3, but neither element of the quotation is represented in the Lucan Beatitudes, accepted by Marcion. [Charles W Mitchell, S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan p. cxix]
from David Inglis, Tertullian then intersperses quotes from Isa 61 and 65 with vv. 6:21-22 (emphasis added): "Blessed are they that hunger, for they shall be filled." [6:21a] "Blessed are they that weep, for they shall laugh." [6:21b] As in v. 6:20b Tertullian uses the 3rd person rather than Lk’s 1st person, and he also omits “now” after both “hunger” and “weep,” but again Tertullian does not suggest that Marcion had changed any text. The parallel verses in both Mt and Thomas also have similar differences: Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. [Mt 5:3] Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. [Mk 5:4] and again "Tertullian believes that the usual translation of “hoi ptōchoi” as “the poor,” does not correctly identify the people whom Jesus is blessing, and according to him, the meaning is: “Blessed are the beggars, for theirs is the kingdom of God.” It is not completely clear what source Tertullian is quoting here, as he uses the 3rd person (the beggars, for theirs is …) as we see in Mt 5:3, while having “kingdom of God,” as in Lk. This makes it unlikely that he is quoting directly from either Mt or Lk."

59. the gospel of Marcion contained a variant of Matthew 5:17 (twice mentioned by the Marcionite Marcus in Adamantius) De recta in deum fide XV: "This is what the Judaists wrote the (version): 'I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill (it).' But Christ did not speak in this way; he said rather: 'I have not come to fulfill the law but to abolish (it). Also Isidore of Pelusium:
Take the gospel [or the evangelicon] of Marcion, and you will presently see at the very beginning a proof of their impudence. For they have left out our Lord's genealogy from and Abraham. And if you proceed a little farther, you will see another instance of their wickedness, in altering our Lord's words. "I came not," says he, "to destroy the law or the prophets." But they have ' made it thus: " Think ye, that I came to fulfil the law or the prophets? I am come to destroy, ' not to fulfil.'" [Isidore of Pelusium (Ep., 1, 371]
For Marcion, Matthew 5:17 was proof that the Torah ['Law'] had been done away with the coming of [Jesus] and replaced it with grace. According to Marcion's interpretation of Matthew 5:17, Jesus said: “Think not that I have come to fulfill the Law but to abolish it." Today, most theologians agree that Marcion was a Heretic, who changed the original meaning of Scripture. The British scholar E. C. Blackman tells us that Marcion changed the meaning of Matthew 5:17 by “inverting the order of the clauses so as to give exactly an opposite sense." [Richard Rhoades, Faith of Ages p. 3]
Schaff says that Marcion rewrote Matthew 5:17 to say, “I am come not to fulfill the law and the prophets, but to destroy them. [Randy Colver Heroes and Heretics in the Early Church p. 32]
A well-attested verbal difference between the Gospel of Marcion and canonical Luke is in Gos. Mar. 16:17. Marcion's gospel apparently read: "But it is easier for heaven and earth to go away than for one of my words to fall.""2 In canonical Luke at this point we have: "It is easier for heaven and earth to go away, than for one stroke of the Torah to fall" (Luke 16:17). Later, however, canonical Luke and Marcion seem to agree on wording that supports Marcion's reading: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my word remains forever" (Gos. Mar. 21:33 = Luke 21:33: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away"). For Marcion it is Jesus' words that are eternal; canonical Luke has two sayings, one supporting the eternality of Torah and one in agreement with Marcion." [Joseph Tyson, Marcion. p.45]
60. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 5:22 - Cerdon lived under Antoninus I and claimed that God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and unknown to the prophets, was different from the creator of all and giverof Moses' law. And that the one was righteous, whilst the other one good. He says that [the just one] ordered in the law the excision of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, yet the good one ordered in the Gospels turning theother cheek to anyone who hits the right cheek, and to someone who wants to take one's tunic giving the mantle also (cf Matt 5:43, 44). And the utterly crack-brained one did not realise that in the law [God] also commanded people to bring back the wandering ox of the enemy (cf.Exod. 23:4), and to help the [enemy's] fallen animal to stand up (cf.Exod. 23:5), and not to overlook the enemy in need of help. And the one called 'good' by him [declared that] whoever calls his brother a fool is threatened by Gehenna (cf. 5.22). And showing himself [as] just, he said, 'for with the measure that you use it will be measured back to you' (Luke 6:38). Nevertheless, confuting these [things] is not a task for the present, the more so since the blasphemy is very easily detectable by those who read the Divine Scriptures. Now Marcion of Pontus, being educated in these things by Cerdon, was not content with the teaching transmitted to him, but augmented the impiety. [Theodore of Cyrrhus chapter 24 (PG 83 (172 - 177)]

61. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 5:43, 44 - Megethius: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt 5:43) [Pretty p. 35] See Theodore of Cyrrhus Matthew 5:22 above. Also from David Inglis:

Tertullian begins his chapter 16 by quoting from most of vv. 6:27-29. Although the sense of these verses is the same as in Lk, he gives a shorter version of vv. 6:27-28: "But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, and bless those which hate you, [6:27], and pray for them which calumniate [Latin ‘calumniantur’: falsely accuse or speak evil of] you. [6:28]" These two verses have a parallel at Mt 5:44, which in the KJV reads: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. In the NET this verse in Mt is much shorter, reading just: “But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you.” The NET adds this note: Most mss ([D] L [W] Θ Ë13 33 Ï lat) read “bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you,” before “those who persecute you.” ... The shorter text is found in א B Ë1 pc sa, as well as several fathers and versional witnesses. In Lk the text is similar to the longer variant in Mt, except that “bless them that curse you” is swapped with “do good to them that hate you,” and Lk does not have: “and persecute you.” The longer variant in Mt is taken to be an assimilation to Lk, but this does not explain why anyone would swap the two phrases instead of just adding the text from Lk unchanged. Assuming that Marcion edited Lk we have a hard to explain omission plus a change of order, from: “do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you” to just ”bless those which hate you,” but it is also hard to see why aLk would make the reverse change if Lk is an expanded version of Mcg. However, if Mcg was earlier than Mt, then it is possible to see how two independent changes could occur: an expansion from Mcg (without a change of order) by aMt; and a later change of order by aLk."
62. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 5:45 (see previous discussion) Marcion, too, was acquainted with our Matthew. For according to Tertullian (Mark ii.7), he denied that Christ uttered the words contained in Matt. v. 45 (to be found in no other Gospel) ; also those in Matt. v. 17 (Tert. 4, 7, cf. 3, 2 and 12 seq.).[J. H. A. Ebrard The Gospel History p. 545]

63. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 6:25 - Megethius- "Christ distinctly says, No man can serve two masters." (Luke 16:13 has οἰκέτης = servant) [Pretty p. 45]