Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

So as a recap we have three principle pieces of evidence (four once I get my hands on the Latin translation of Origen's Commentary on Matthew) which demonstrates it is almost certain that the Marcionite gospel AND the parallel harmony of the circle of Justin blended Jesus's commentary on Psalm 110:1 into the story about the blind beggar. In fact it is a little misleading to put it that way - i.e. that the earliest sources 'blended' stories that appear separate in our canon of later gospels. The reality is that someone subsequent to Marcion and Justin and their circles 'separated' the two stories in order to allow for the identification of Jesus as the 'son of David.' The first piece of evidence we saw was Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem. The second De Recta in Deum Fide. The third and perhaps most interesting is the Epistle of Barnabas which develops the understanding from a discussion of Moses sending Joshua into the promised land. We read:

Moses therefore saith to Jesus the son of Nun, giving him this name, when he sent him as a spy on the land; Take a book in thy hands, and write what the Lord saith, how the Son of God shall cut up by the roots all the house of Amalek in the last days.

Behold again it is Jesus, not a son of man, but the Son of God, and He was revealed in the flesh in a figure (of Joshua). Since then men will say that Christ is the son of David, David himself prophesieth being afraid and understanding the error of sinners; The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on My right hand until I set thine enemies for a footstool under Thy feet.

And again thus sayith Isaiah; The Lord said unto my Christ the Lord, of whose right hand I laid hold, that the nations should give ear before Him, and I will break down the strength of kings. See how David calleth Him Lord, and calleth Him not Son.

The clear point of Barnabas is that (a) Jesus was a heavenly being who was symbolized in the story about the change of names associated with the patriarch Joshua and that (b) 'since that time' (i.e. the time of the Patriarch) men have wrongly said that the awaited Christ is the 'son of David' but that David in Psalm 110:1 prophesied against them - a theme we've seen in the heretical exegesis of the blind man narrative in the gospel.

Once we accept that originality of the understanding that Jesus was not the 'son of David' but rather than ONLY the Son of God the question naturally arises - why did the identification of Jesus as 'son of David' ORIGINALLY EXPLICITLY DENIED IN THE GOSPEL come to obscure the original identification of him as 'the Son of God' who visited with the Patriarchs and was depicted active in the world in the Jewish Scriptures? One reason which emerges from the treatise entitled Against Praxeas (again not originally written by Tertullian by transcribed by him from a lost Greek exemplar) is that the traditional emphasis of Jesus as 'the Son of God' brought Christianity into conflict with a monarchian understanding of the Godhead. By emphasizing the humanity of Jesus it helped make the conflicts of a passive Father and an active Son in the universe with the idea of a monarchy in heaven.

The 'son of David' formula imagines that the Son of God essentially lay dormant while Jesus was placed in the womb of Mary and grew into maturity only to assume the throne in heaven (again) after the resurrection. Now the tables have turned. The Father must have been active in the universe and the Son a passive 'instrument' for at least this period - it was reasoned. To this end, it was easier to argue that the Father must also have been active in the universe BEFORE the Incarnation too given that 'fact' that God always remained consistent with himself and his actions never changing.

To this end it is interesting to look at the arguments of the author of Against Praxeas as a lost glimmer of the tradition understanding of the gospel especially the blind man narrative and Jesus's exegesis of Psalm 110:1. Under this scenario, not only was Jesus active in the universe as the Son throughout the gospel the author argues that he constantly gives clues as to the existence of a separate and distinct second power in heaven. Consider the following in light of this argument. The author - who bears a striking resemblance to what we know of Apelles the Marcionite - is making a defense of the tradition understanding of the gospel (i.e. a wholly divine Jesus) and that such an understanding was still in keeping with venerating a monarchy in heaven. We read:

Look to it then, that it be not you rather who are destroying the Monarchy, when you overthrow the arrangement and dispensation of it, which has been constituted in just as many names as it has pleased God to employ. But it remains so firm and stable in its own state, notwithstanding the introduction into it of the Trinity, that the Son actually has to restore it entire to the Father; even as the apostle says in his epistle, concerning the very end of all: "When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; for He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet; "34 following of course the words of the Psalm: "Sit Thou on my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool."35 "When, however, all things shall be subdued to Him, (with the exception of Him who did put all things under Him, ) then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."36 We thus see that the Son is no obstacle to the Monarchy, although it is now administered by37 the Son; because with the Son it is still in its own state, and with its own state will be restored to the Father by the Son. No one, therefore, will impair it, on account of admitting the Son (to it), since it is certain that it has been committed to Him by the Father, and by and by has to be again delivered up by Him to the Father. Now, from this one passage of the epistle of the inspired apostle, we have been already able to show that the Father and the Son are two separate Persons, not only by the mention of their separate names as Father and the Son, but also by the fact that He who delivered up the kingdom, and He to whom it is delivered up-and in like manner, He who subjected (all things), and He to whom they were subjected-must necessarily be two different Beings.

But almost all the Psalms which prophesy of120 the person of Christ, represent the Son as conversing with the Father-that is, represent Christ (as speaking) to God. Observe also the Spirit speaking of the Father and the Son, in the character of121 a third Person: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. "122 Likewise in the words of Isaiah: "Thus saith the Lord to the Lord123 mine Anointed. "124 Likewise, in the same prophet, He says to the Father respecting the Son: "Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? We brought a report concerning Him, as if He were a little child, as if He were a root in a dry ground, who had no form nor comeliness."125 These are a few testimonies out of many; for we do not pretend to bring up all the passages of Scripture, because we have a tolerably large accumulation of them in the various heads of our subject, as we in our several chapters call them in as our witnesses in the fulness of their dignity and authority.

Accordingly, Isaiah also says to the Person of Christ: "The Sabaeans, men of stature, shall pass over to Thee; and they shall follow after Thee, bound in fetters; and they shall worship Thee, because God is in Thee: for Thou art our God, yet we knew it not; Thou art the God of Isreal."141 For here too, by saying, "God is in Thee, and "Thou art God," he sets forth Two who were God: (in the former expression in Thee, he means) in Christ, and (in the other he means) the Holy Ghost. That is a still grander statement which you will find expressly made in the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."142 There was One "who was," and there was another "with whom" He was. But I find in Scripture the name Lord also applied to them Both: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand."143 And Isaiah says this: "Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? "144 Now he would most certainly have said Thine Arm, if he had not wished us to understand that the Father is Lord, and the Son also is Lord. A much more ancient testimony we have also in Genesis: "Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven."145 Now, either deny that this is Scripture; or else (let me ask) what sort of man you are, that you do not think words ought to be taken and understood in the sense in which they are written, especially when they are not expressed in allegories and parables, but in determinate and simple declarations?

However, if you persist in pushing your views further, I shall find means of answering you with greater stringency, and of meeting you with the exclamation of the Lord Himself, so as to challenge you with the question, What is your inquiry and reasoning about that? You have Him exclaiming in the midst of His passion: "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me? "420 Either, then, the Son suffered, being "forsaken" by the Father, and the Father consequently suffered nothing, inasmuch as He forsook the Son; or else, if it was the Father who suffered, then to what God was it that He addressed His cry? But this was the voice of flesh and soul, that is to say, of man-not of the Word and Spirit, that is to say, not of God; and it was uttered so as to prove the impassibility of God, who "forsook" His Son, so far as He handed over His human substance to the suffering of death. This verity the apostle also perceived, when he writes to this effect: "If the Father spared not His own Son."421 This did Isaiah before him likewise perceive, when he declared: "And the Lord hath delivered Him up for our offences."422 In this manner He "forsook" Him, in not sparing Him; "forsook" Him, in delivering Him up. In all other respects the Father did not forsake the Son, for it was into His Father's hands that the Son commended His spirit.423 Indeed, after so commending it, He instantly died; and as the Spirit424 remained with the flesh, the flesh cannot undergo the full extent of death, i.e., in corruption and decay. For the Son, therefore, to die, amounted to His being forsaken by the Father. The Son, then, both dies and rises again, according to the Scriptures.425 It is the Son, too, who ascends to the heights of heaven,426 and also descends to the inner parts of the earth.427 "He sitteth at the Father's right hand "428 -not the Father at His own. He is seen by Stephen, at his martyrdom by stoning, still sitting at the right hand of God429 where He will continue to sit, until the Father shall make His enemies His footstool.430 He will come again on the clouds of heaven, just as He appeared when He ascended into heaven.431 Meanwhile He has received from the Father the promised gift, and has shed it forth, even the Holy Spirit-the Third Name in the Godhead, and the Third Degree of the Divine Majesty; the Declarer of the One Monarchy of God, but at the same time the Interpreter of the Economy, to every one who hears and receives the words of the new prophecy;432 and "the Leader into all truth,"433 such as is in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, according to the mystery of the doctrine of Christ.

So the question is whether - as DCH and outhouse would have us believe - that Jesus goes back to a historical 'zealot' who's 'story' become 'corrupted' with high Christology - or as I am beginning to argue, Jesus was the second God of the traditional Jewish godhead WHO NEEDED TO BE MADE SUBORINATE TO THE FATHER through a process of Incarnation, Death, Resurrection and ultimately Enthronement. While Irenaeus and company paid lip service to the original 'pre-Incarnational' existence of the Logos the emphasis is inevitably on the period that Jesus appeared in the flesh as described in the gospel. The pre-Incarnation period is entirely theoretical. It is something that was 'believed by the Jews' (still according to the second through fourth century Church Fathers). The Jews might have abandoned that understanding (according to the Post-Nicene Church Fathers). Yet the Jews are rarely condemned for this because in essence the Christians make the appearance of Jesus in the flesh in Galilee as the only test of the 'true faith' (see the various creeds).

This might seem puzzling at first. Celsus asks whether Jesus appeared before among men, knowing that the Christians acknowledged this fact, with the sole purpose of questioning what about the most recent theophany was so special or unusual. There was an emphasis on the most recent appearance among some Christians - i.e. orthodox Christians - because of the (alleged) Incarnation. Jesus is not fully human, we are told, and so 'distinct' from the times that he appeared to Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and the rest of the Patriarchs.

IMO the emphasis on 'the flesh' is solely to establish the subordination of the Logos. The argument for his status as 'son of David' is only means to an end. By envisioning him as 'fully human' we necessarily also accept limitations placed upon his person. This may not have been expressed in Platonic/philosophical concepts (i.e. this limitation wasn't developed in any great detail). Rather the concept that is being pushed to the background is a second divine being referencing the first divine being as the only one who is good. In the original conception the Son is somehow less than perfectly good. Only the Son suffers. In the new conception he is imagined as a divine vessel of the Father entering the flesh and ultimately perfecting it.

The kind of 'many gods in heaven' speculation that the traditional Christian interpretation of Psalm 110:1 leads to. From Justin the gnostic (perhaps identified as Justin Martyr):

When Elohim had prepared and created the world as a result from joint pleasure, He wished to ascend up to the elevated parts of heaven, and to see that not anything of what pertained to the creation laboured under deficiency. And He took His Own angels with Him, for His nature was to mount aloft, leaving Edem below: for inasmuch as she was earth, she was not disposed to follow upward her spouse. Elohim, then, coming to the highest part of heaven above, and beholding a light superior to that which He Himself had created, exclaimed, "Open me the gates, that entering in I may acknowledge the Lord; for I considered Myself to be Lord." A voice was returned to Him from the light, saying, "This is the gate of the Lord: through this the righteous enter in." And immediately the gate was opened, and the Father, without the angels, entered, (advancing) towards the Good One, and beheld "what eye hath not seen, and ear hath not heard, and what hath not entered into the heart of man to (conceive)."

Then the Good One says to him, "Sit thou on my right hand." And the Father says to the Good One, "Permit me, Lord, to overturn the world which I have made, for my spirit is bound to men.

Justin Martyr on the two powers interpretation of Psalm 110:1:

Then the fourth of those (Jews) who had remained with Trypho said, "It must therefore necessarily be said that one of the two angels who went to Sodom, and is named by Moses in the Scripture Lord, is different from Him who also is God and appeared to Abraham."

"It is not on this ground solely," I said, "that it must be admitted absolutely that some other one is called Lord by the Holy Spirit besides Him who is considered Maker of all things; not solely by Moses, but also by David. For there is written by him: 'The Lord says to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool,' as I have already quoted. [Dial 56]

It is commonly held that the denigration of the 'Jewish god' is the key feature of Marcionite heresy. But is that really true? Or is that the simplest, easiest thing to latch on to with respect to the heresy. If we take Adversus Marcionem as our yardstick the controversy over the Marcionite rejection of the divine monarchy (= acknowledging a plurality of gods in the godhead) is far more prevalent. For instance a quick search of Book One reveals over a 104 hits for 'other' while 'Jew' only comes up six times and of these only one expresses hostility of any sort to Judaism (= "for their souls call the God of the Jews their God" Adv Marc 1.10). Similarly there is only one hit for 'Judaism' in the book and it is negative "Therefore because, in the eagerness of his zeal against Judaism as a neophyte, he thought that there was something to be blamed in their conduct" (1.20).

But compare this with the over 100 references to the concept of '(an)other' in the book:

[he] presumed that there ought to be another god (ibid 1.2)
One of his gods, therefore, whom he was obliged to acknowledge, he destroyed by defaming his attributes in the matter of evil; the other, whom he laboured so hard to devise, he constructed, laying his foundation39 in the principle of good. (ibid)
For such a condition as this must needs be ascribed to that eternity which makes God to be the great Supreme, because for such a purpose as this is this very attribute44 in God; and so on as to the other qualities: so that God is the great Supreme in form and in reason, and in might and in power.45 [3] Now, since all are agreed on. this point (because nobody will deny that God is in some sense46 the great Supreme, except the man who shall be able to pronounce the opposite opinion, that God is but some inferior being, in order that he may deny God by robbing Him of an attribute of God), what must be the condition of the great Supreme Himself? (1.3)
Surely it must be that nothing is equal to Him, i.e. that there is no other great supreme; because, if there were, He would have an equal; and if He had an equal, (ibid)
This Unique Being, therefore, will be God--not otherwise God than as the great Supreme; and not otherwise the great Supreme than as having no equal; and not otherwise having no equal than as being Unique (ibid)
Whatever other god, then, you may introduce, you will at least be unable to maintain his divinity under any other guise,50 than by ascribing to him too the property of Godhead--both eternity and supremacy over all. How, therefore, can two great Supremes co-exist, when this is the attribute of the Supreme Being, to have no equal,--an attribute which belongs to One alone, and can by no means exist in two? (ibid)
God is one thing, and what belongs to God is another thing. (ibid 1.4)
But even in the case of rulers of that other form of government, where they one by one preside in a union of authority, if with their petty58 prerogatives of royalty, so to say, they be brought on all points59 into such a comparison with one another as shall make it clear which of them is superior in the essential features60 and powers of royalty, it must needs follow that the supreme majesty will redound61 to one alone,--all the others being gradually, by the issue of the comparison, removed and excluded from the supreme authority. (ibid) ...

And on and on it goes. If we weren't prejudiced at the outset it would be obvious that Marcionism is original defined by its 'rejection' of the monarchia (like Apelles) rather than its being 'anti-Jewish). References to the former far out number references to the latter.

So if Book 1 is absolutely focused on the Marcionite departure from divine monarchia rather than hatred for the Jews what about the other books?

Book 2

'Jew' (1 appearance)

but the substance of the charge against the Marcionite is that their 'supreme God' isn't biased in favor of the Egyptians. It is not 'anti-Semitic' per se - "What award are you to make, you that have found for yourself a god supremely good? That the Hebrews ought to admit the damage done, or the Egyptians the compensation due?For they report that the case was so stated by agents from the two sides, the Egyptians claiming the return of their vessels, and the Jews demanding the wages of their work: yet that there the Egyptians with justice renounced their claim to the vessels." (2.20)

'Judaism' (0 appearances)

'other god' 'another god' (dozens and dozens of references) including

" It ought to have been possible to confine my argument to this single theme, that the god brought in to supersede the Creator is no god at all. In that case, when the false god had been overthrown by those clear definitions which require deity to be both singular and complete, no further discussion of the true God would have been called for. As his existence would have been proved by the disproval of the other, so it would have been right that, whatever sort of God he was, he should be accepted without argument, to be worshipped and not judged, to be obeyed rather than discussed, and even feared for his severity. For what could be more to a man's interest than regard for the true God, Under whose control he had come, so to speak, because no other god was there?" (2.1)
Marcion's disciples can now take cognizance of our God's goodness, while acknowledging also that it is such a goodness as is worthy of God, under those same headings by which we have proved goodness to be unworthy in the case of their god. And this now in particular, which is the raw material of man's knowledge of him, he did not discover in another's possession, but made it for himself, of his own. (2.4)

etc. etc.

Book 3 is derived from a treatise called 'Against the Jews' so this is not an 'anti-Marcionite' treatise per se.

Book 4
'Jew' (40 references) but most 'positive' references amounting to 'confession of faiths' on the part of the author or explanations of the 'true faith' such as:

NON-HOSTILE OR NON-MARCIONITE 'Jew' REFERNCES:

In fact, he says, he (Jesus/God) 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 (4. 1)
At length, when he had conferred with the original <apostles>, and there was agreement concerning the rule of the faith, they joined the right hands <of fellowship>, and from thenceforth divided their spheres of preaching, so that the others should go to the Jews, but Paul to Jews and gentiles. If he therefore who gave the light to Luke chose to have his predecessors' authority for his faith as well as his preaching, much more must I require for Luke's gospel the authority which was necessary for the gospel of his master. (4.2)
And besides, if false apostles also had crept in, their character too is indicated: they were insisting on circumcision, and the Jewish calendar. (4.3)
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.(4.6)
According to the prophecy, the Creator's Christ was to be called a Nazarene.a For that reason, and on his account, the Jews call us by that very name, Nazarenes. (4.7)

etc. etc.

I don't see any explicitly 'anti-Jewish' or 'anti-Judaism' references here either. Instead there are dozens and dozens of 'Marcion venerates another god' reference (as above).

At best it can be said that in Adversus Marcionem:

1. the most consistent focus of the treatise is to attack the Marcionites for diverging from monarchia through their veneration of another god superior than the Creator
2. the Jews are assumed to have always venerated only one God; the Marcionite interest in 'another god' is presented as an innovation.
3. there are occasions where it is inferred that the innovation was motivated by a hatred of the Law, hatred of the Creator, but never hatred of the Jews. In fact Marcion is more often than not accused of borrowing from the Jews or being influenced by Judaism.

Secret Alias wrote:At best it can be said that in Adversus Marcionem:

1. the most consistent focus of the treatise is to attack the Marcionites for diverging from monarchia through their veneration of another god superior than the Creator
2. the Jews are assumed to have always venerated only one God; the Marcionite interest in 'another god' is presented as an innovation.
3. there are occasions where it is inferred that the innovation was motivated by a hatred of the Law, hatred of the Creator, but never hatred of the Jews. In fact Marcion is more often than not accused of borrowing from the Jews or being influenced by Judaism.

Wow, you are finally at class 101 of Marcionite theory. #3 shows you can separate the Gospel of John's author from Marcionism. Well maybe not, as the Jews in the Gospel of John are in fact Jewish Christian = Orthodox (same for Galatians 2:13 if it was present in Marcion). As far back as Harnack it was noted that Marcion revered the OT but also rejected its author as not being the supreme God (hence Romans 7:12 is attested as in the Marcionite, and that is not disputed by the Marcionites).

Were your link falls to pieces is claiming Marcion is Jewish. That is the leap of your creation.

The basic problem we have is Christian texts appear in the mid-2nd century, and from the very first writing there is evident a division, that is two distinct camps, over this very issue of the Jewish God and the unknown supreme God. The Marcionites and the Valentinians and other Gnostics separate the judicial and the good. This is why all the heretics are attacked as defaming the creator. The problem comes in trying to tie this back to Judaism. In Galatians 2:14 Paul refers to Cephas as gentile like himself. Living as Jews means following the rules and ordinances of Jewish Law, most prominently circumcision and dietary restrictions. (Barnabas is not part of the Marcionite text in verse 2:13, or seems to be missing in all accounts we have from the church fathers, and Detering argues the same about "from James" in 2:12). So the presentation in 2:11-14. 16-21 (2:15 is not attested in Marcion) puts these ordinances and indeed the entire Law (books of Moses) in opposition to Christ on the cross. But this division is entirely within the Christian camp.

How do we bridge back to the Jewish when the Marcionite Paul champions himself as a Gentile and the movement as not Jewish? It is far enough removed that Paul defines the orthodox Christians as essentially false Jews. The fact that the texts are from an era long after the split occurred makes it very difficult to find the common start point. And without that it's very difficult to say this started from Judaism or from something else and added Judaism. We are missing something over half a century to maybe a century of literature from before the Marcionite rupture. All we have is legend, and dubious legend at that of Paul, and Simon and Peter and such. All have been usurped by later writers as characters to fill the role of heroes with modern dialogue and concerns (modern as in mid-2nd to mid-5th century depending on source); that tells us more about the writers lens than the "historical" character.

Now when you argue that the church fathers, from this Judiazing wing of Christianity, who make arguments about Marcionism from the position of defending the OT as the same and the root of Marcionism, you seem to be mistaking the orthodox arguments as the Marcionite source. Again I suspect by the time of the writings both camps had already lost sight of their own origins and where winging it with polemics.

I am disappointed also that your Gospel reconstruction makes no effort to isolate the Marcionite text, even if deficient, and consider the impact of what it says separate from the polemic commentary. It is only by comparing these that you can gauge the accuracy or not of the church father's arguments, or if they are accidental or purposeful mischaracterizations. This is a better filter than relying on one's own bias.

Were your link falls to pieces is claiming Marcion is Jewish. That is the leap of your creation.

Am not claiming that here. Who Marcion is, is not a part of the investigation, only - and I want to be precise about this BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE NEVER THIS PRECISE - I am interested in an inexact but ultimately discernable 'agreement' between the harmony gospel of the Justin/Tatian tradition (= the gospel text used by the original anti-Marcionite writer) and the gospel of Marcion. I have said time and again to you that it is reckless to pretend we can go beyond 'the source' of Adversus Marcionem. The source isn't arguing per se = 'I am studying and laying down THE MARCIONITE GOSPEL.' His argument and approach is very similar to Ephrem's - i.e. he is commenting on a gospel text which is (a) a 'harmony' or 'super gospel' of some sort and (b) is similar but ultimately different from the Marcionite gospel. To argue that we can equate the source's gospel with Marcion's is pure folly, let alone the hopelessly naive (but never called out) implicit claim that we can get beyond the three other layers of interpolation that are acknowledged at the beginning of Adversus Marcionem (and which I roughly equate with 'source' = circle of Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian). All that we can hope to do is get a general 'sense' of what this/these gospels looked him (i.e. how components were separated into 'isolated' sections in the canonical texts). That's all.

The interesting fact is that there exists a 'separated gospel' versus 'complete (harmony) gospel' in the Syriac tradition. If the sections were separated they were also necessarily 'scrambled' like a cento text. You can't 'separate' stories in the original order. This parallel is interesting given that it exists from one side of the mirror (= the 'imperfect' mirror which is the rough symmetry between gospel of the source and the gospel of Marcion) i.e. the canonical gospels are 'separated' and scrambled from one of the 'super gospels.' They must have maintained this appearance also in relation to the Marcionite gospel that both the source and Ephrem felt closely resembled their own super gospel.