Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Secret Alias wrote:There is more.

1. If you look at Against Marcion Book Three and Against the Jews (both copied out by Tertullian) there is a common ur-text. This is more or less universally acknowledged. That text was undoubtedly written by Justin. It's not that the entire work was copied out. Just a portion.

Following the track of my original treatise, the loss of which we are steadily proceeding to restore ...

Secret Alias wrote:2. if you look at Against Marcion Book Four there are sections which seem to be derived from a text written against the Jews (not the Marcionites). This is odd again because the work as it now stands seems to be directed against the Marcionites. Again not the whole work. Just sections or chapters or parts of chapters.

Secret Alias wrote:3. The Dialogue with Trypho is directed against the Jews or at least leaders of the Jews in the period.

Secret Alias wrote:When this is all taken together it appears that the forger (Irenaeus) takes bits and pieces of original works (in this case all written against 'the Jews') and repurposed them.

there are indications from both Ephrem and the Syriac canon list that the Old Syriac had the letters of Paul in the order Galatians, Corinthians, Romans ... https://books.google.com/books?id=eJMDC ... ac&f=false

9. [1 Cor. 15: 12-28.] Meanwhile the Marcionite will put in evidence nothing of this nature, for he has no longer courage to state whose Christ for preference it is who is not yet revealed. Just as mine is to be expected, having been prophesied of since the beginning, so his for that reason is not to be expected, seeing he has not existed since the beginning. We have better right to believe in a Christ to come than the heretic in no Christ at all.1
We have first to inquire in what sense at that time some said there was no resurrection of the dead. Surely in the same sense as even now, seeing that the resurrection of the flesh is always under denial. The soul indeed certain of the philosophers claim is divine, and vouch for its salvation, and even the common man on that assumption pays respect to his dead, in that he is confident that their souls remain: their bodies however are manifestly re-
duced to nothing, either immediately by fire or wild beasts, or even when carefully embalmed at length by passage of time. If then the apostle is refuting people who deny the resurrection of the dead, evidently he is defending against them that which they were denying, which is the resurrection of the flesh.2 There, in brief, is my answer. What follows is more than was necessary. For the fact that the expression used is 'resurrection of the dead' demands insistence on the precise meaning of the terms. So then 'dead' can only be that which is deprived of the soul by whose energy it was once alive. It is the body which is deprived of the soul and by that deprivation becomes dead: so that the term 'dead' applies to the body. So then if the resurrection is of something dead, and the dead thing is no other than the body, it will be a resurrection of the body. So too the term 'resurrection' lays claim to no other object than one that has fallen down. The verb 'rise' can be used of something which has in no sense fallen down, something which in the past has always lain there. But 'rise again' applies only to that which has fallen down, since by rising again, because it has fallen down, it is said to experience resurrection: for the syllable 're' is always applied to some act of repetition. So we affirm that the body falls down to earth by death, as the fact
itself bears witness, by the law of God. For it was to the body that God said, Earth thou art, and into earth shall thou go:a so that that which is from the earth will go into the earth. The falling down is of that which departs into the earth, the rising again is of that which falls down. Since by man <came> death, by man <came> also the resurrection. Here I find that Christ's body is indicated by the designation 'man', for man consists of body, as I have already several times shown. But if as in Adam we are all brought to death, and in Christ are all brought to life, since in Adam we are brought to death in the body it follows of necessity that in Christ we are brought to life in the body. Otherwise the parallel does not hold, if our bringing to life in Christ does not take effect in the same substance in which we are brought to death in Adam. But he has added here another reference to Christ, which for the sake of the present discussion must not be overlooked: for there will be even more cogent proof of the resurrection of the flesh, the more I show that Christ belongs to that God in whose presence the resurrection of the flesh is an object of belief. When he says, For he must reign until he place God's enemies under his feet, here again by this saying he declares God an avenger, and consequently the same who has made Christ this promise, Sit thou at my right hand until I place thine enemies as a footstool of thy feet: the Lord shall send the rod of thy power out of Sion, and be the ruler with thee in the midst of thine enemies.b But it is necessary for me to claim for the support of my point of view those scriptures of which even the Jews attempt to deprive us. These say that he composed this psalm with reference to Hezekiah, because it was he who set his throne at the right side of the temple, and because God turned back his enemies and consumed them: and therefore again what follows, Before the dawn out of the womb have I begotten thee,c also applies to Hezekiah, and to Hezekiah's nativity. We produce the gospels—of their credibility we must at least in the course of this long work have given these people some assurance—which make it clear that our Lord was born at night, which is the meaning of before the dawn, indicated even more clearly by the star, and by the evidence of the angel who at night reported to the shepherds that Christ had just then been born, and by the place of his birth, since an inn is where people come together at night. Perhaps also there was a mystic meaning in Christ being born at night, to be himself the light of truth to the darkness of ignorance. Also God would not have said, I have begotten thee, except to a real son. For although it was with reference to the whole nation that he said, I have begotten sons,d he did not go on to say, Out of the womb. But why did he go on to say Out of the womb, quite unnecessarily, as though there were any doubt that any one of mankind was born out of a womb, unless because the Spirit intended it to have a more subtle reference to Christ— Out of the womb have I begotten thee, that is, 'out of the womb alone', without the seed of a man—ascribing to the flesh that which is from the womb, to the spirit that which is from himself. To this is added: Thou art a priest for ever.e But Hezekiah was not a priest: and even if he had been, it would not have been 'for ever'. According to the order of Melchizedek,e he says. What had Hezekiah to do with Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High, who himself was not circumcised, yet on accepting the offering of tithes blessed Abrahamf who was circumcised?3 But to Christ the order of Melchizedek will be applicable, for Christ, the particular and legitimate minister of God, the pontifex of the uncircumcised priesthood, was there established among the gentiles from whom he was destined to find better acceptance, and will when he comes at the last time vouchsafe acceptance and blessing to the circumcision, the offspring of Abraham, which will at long last acknowledge him. There is also another psalm which begins, O God, give thy judgement unto the king, to Christ who is to become a king: and thy righteousness unto the king's son,g that is, to Christ's people— for those reborn in him are his sons. Yet this psalm too will be alleged to prophesy of Solomon. But must not those expressions which are appropriate only to Christ make it plain that the rest also apply to Christ and not to Solomon? He cometh down, it says, like rain on to a fleece of wool, even as the drops that water the earth,h
describing his quiet and imperceptible descent from heaven into the flesh. As for Solomon, although he did come down from somewhere, yet it was not like the rain, because it was not out of heaven. But I will set out all the more straightforward passages.

His dominion, it says, shall be from the one sea to the other, and from the flood unto the world's ends. This has been granted to Christ alone, whereas Solomon had command only of that tiny country of Judaea. All kings shall give him worship: whom do all worship, except Christ? And all the gentiles shall do him service: whom, except Christ? Let his name remain for ever: whose name is eternal, except Christ's? His name shall remain before the sun, for the Word of God, which is Christ, was before the sun. And in him shall all the nations be blessed: in Solomon no gentile nation is blessed, but in Christ every one of them. What again, if this psalm also proves he is God? And they shall call him blessed: because, Blessed is the Lord God of Israel, who only doeth wondrous things: blessed is the name of his glory, and the whole earth shall be filled with his glory. Solomon on the other hand, I boldly say, lost even that glory which he had in God when he was dragged the whole way into idolatry by his wife. And so when this too is written down in the middle of the psalm, His enemies shall lick the dust,i being put underneath his feet, it will have application to that for which I have both quoted this psalm and claimed it in support of my position: and so I shall have made out my case that the glory of his kingdom and the subjection of his enemies are in accordance with the Creator's design, and I shall establish my further claim that there is no room for belief in any other Christ than the Creator's.

Let us return now to the resurrection. I have already, in opposition to all sorts of heretics, given this sufficient attention in a volume of its own:1 though here again I do not neglect it, for the benefit of people unaware of that little work. What, he asks, shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not? That practice must speak for itself. Perhaps the kalends of February will answer him: pray for the dead.2 Abstain then from at once blaming the apostle as either having recently invented this or given it his approval, with intent to establish the resurrection of the flesh more firmly in that those who without any effect were having themselves baptized for the dead were doing so by faith in the resurrection. We see him in another
context setting a limit, of one baptism.a Consequently, to be baptized for the dead is to be baptized for bodies: for I have shown that what was dead is the body. What shall they do who are baptized for bodies, if bodies do not rise again? And so with reason we here take our stand, to let the apostle introduce his second point of discussion, this too with reference to the body. But some men will say, How will the dead rise again ? And with what
body will they come?

But if as in Adam we are all brought to death, and in Christ are all brought to life, since in Adam we are brought to death in the body it follows of necessity that in Christ we are brought to life in the body. Otherwise the parallel does not hold, if our bringing to life in Christ does not take effect in the same substance in which we are brought to death in Adam. But he has added here another reference to Christ, which for the sake of the present discussion must not be overlooked: for there will be even more cogent proof of the resurrection of the flesh, the more I show that Christ belongs to that God in whose presence the resurrection of the flesh is an object of belief.

For after the defence of the resurrection, which was under denial, his next step was to discuss those attributes of the body, which were not open to view. But concerning these we have to join issue with other opponents: for since Marcion entirely refuses to admit the resurrection of the flesh, promising salvation to the soul alone, he makes this a question not of attributes but of substance. For all that, he is most evidently discredited by the things the apostle says with reference to the attributes of the body for the benefit of those who do ask, How will the dead rise again, and with what body will they come ? For he has already declared that the body will rise again, by having discussed the body's attributes. Again if he proposes the examples
of the grain of wheat, or something of that sort, things to which God gives a body, as it shall please him, and if he says that to every seed there is its own particular body, as there is one kind of flesh of men, and another of beasts and birds, and bodies celestial and terrestrial, and one glory of the sun and another of the moon and another of the stars, does he not indicate that this is a carnal and corporeal resurrection, which he commends by carnal and corporeal examples? And is he not giving assurance of it on behalf of that God from whom come the examples he adduces? So also, he says, is the resurrection. How so? Like the grain of wheat, as a body it is sown, as a body it rises again. Thus he has described the dissolution of the body into earth as the sowing of a seed, because it is sown in corruption, <in dishonour, in weakness, but is raised to incorruption>, to honour, to power. The process followed at the resurrection is the act of that same <God> whose was the course taken at the dissolution—-just like the grain.