Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I have had to endure all these mindlessly uncritical reconstructions of Marcion's gospel so please indulge me with what I consider to be - with my years of experience - what is the correct answer. Here are the principles of my reconstruction:

1. The ur-text to Adversus Marcionem was based on lost text a commentary on a 'gospel harmony' written from the circle of Justin Martyr (Criddle agrees here)
2. This harmony text was transformed likely under the influence of Irenaeus into an anti-Marcionite treatise arranged according to the order of the newly fabricated 'according to Luke.' The underlying argument to the new treatise written in Greek was that Marcion corrupted Luke, that Luke had primacy and that Luke was an 'apostolic' (i.e. one 'of the apostles' rather than an apostle).
3. Most controversial of our assumptions is that 'according to Luke' was constructed and developed from ideas and arguments developed from the ur-text of Adversus Marcionem. Many of the scriptural-based arguments made by the original author from the circle of Justin (or perhaps Justin himself) were incorporated directly into the gospel.
4. Similarly and more critically (it takes some imagination to see this because of its theoretical conception) once Luke was fashioned out of the bits and pieces of the original ur-commentary the ur-commentary itself was refashioned after the newly assembled 'according to Luke.' Our Luke was not manufactured solely from the harmony gospel or its original ur-commentary from the circle of Justin. But the manufacture of Irenaeus's (lost) Adversus Marcionem the immediate precursor of Tertullian's Latin loose translation was sliced and above all else hastily reassembled according to the new ordering of Luke with nevertheless much of the connecting tissue from the original commentary and reflecting the order and shape of the original harmony itself.

To this end it is not coincidental that BOTH Adversus Marcionem and De Recta in Deum Fide intimate that the Marcionite gospel (and the lost related harmony) had for instance the blind beggar in the same breath with the discussion of Psalm 110.1 that makes itself way to the end of Luke 21. I've cited some of the material in another thread. But I'd like to start this thread by noting the argument in Adversus Marcionem.

The Jewish race was from the beginning so clearly distinguished into tribes and communes and families and households, that no man could easily be of unknown descent, at least from the recent census of Augustus, of which perhaps the records were still on display. But Marcion's Jesus—yet there could be no doubt that one had been born, who was seen to be a man—he indeed, not having been born, could have had in the public records no note of his descent, but would have had to be reckoned as one from among those persons who in some way or other were classed as unknown. When then that blind man had been told that he was passing by, why did he cry out, Jesus thou son of David, have mercy on me, except that he was with good reason regarded as the son of David, which means, of the family of David, in consideration of his mother and his brethren, who had in fact on one occasion because of people's knowledge of them, been reported to him as being present? But they that went before rebuked the blind man, that he should hold his peace. Quite properly: because he was making a noise, not because he was wrong about the son of David. Or else you must prove that those who rebuked were convinced that Jesus was not the son of David, if you wish me to believe that that was their reason for putting the blind man to silence. Yet even if you did prove this, the man would more readily assume that those people were in ignorance, than that the Lord could have allowed to pass a false description of himself. But the Lord is patient.d He is not however one who stands surety for error—but rather a revealer of the Creator—so that he would not have failed first to take away the cloud of this aspect of that man's blindness, and so prevent him from thinking any longer that Jesus was the son of David. Far from it: to preclude you from speaking ill of his patience, or from attaching to him any charge of keeping back the truth, or from saying he is not the son of David, he expressed the clearest possible approval of the blind man's commendation, rewarding it with the gift of healing, and with witness to his faith. Thy faith, he says, hath made thee whole. What do you say was the substance of that blind man's faith? That Jesus had come down from that god of yours with intent to overthrow the Creator and destroy the law and the prophets? that he was not the one foreordained to come forth from the root of Jesse and from the fruit of David's loins, a giver of gifts also to the blind? No, there did not yet exist, I think, people of Marcion's sort of blindness, that such should have been the content of that blind man's faith which he expressed in the cry, Jesus, thou son of David. Jesus knew that this was what he is, and wished it to be known of all men, so that although the man's faith was based on better eyesight, although it was possessed of the true light, he gave it the further gift of external vision, so that we too might be taught what is the rule, and also the reward, of faith. He who wishes to see Jesus, must believe him the son of David by descent from the virgin: he who does not so believe will never be told by him, Thy faith hath saved thee, and consequently will remain blind, falling into the ditch of an antithesis, which itself falls into a ditch. For this is what happens when the blind leads the blind. For if, blind men once came into conflict with David at his recapture of Sion,e fighting back to prevent his admission— though these are a figure of that nation equally blind, which was some time to deny admission to Christ the son of David— and therefore Christ came to the blind man's help by way of opposition so that by this he might show himself not the son of David, being of opposite mind, and kind to blind men, such as David had ordered to be slain: why did he say he had granted this to the man's faith, and false faith at that? But in fact by this expression son of David I can, on its own terms, blunt the point of the antithesis. Those who came into conflict with David were blind: but here a man of the same infirmity had presented himself as suppliant to the son of David. Consequently, when he gave this satisfaction, the son of David was in some sort appeased and restored his sight, adding also a testimony to the faith by which he had believed this very fact, that he must address his prayer to the son of David. For all that, David I think will have been offended by the insolence of those Jebusites, not by the state of their health.

Salvation also comes to the house of Zacchaeus. How did he earn it? Was it that even he believed that Christ was come from Marcion? No, for there remained still in the ears of all of them that blind man's cry, Have mercy upon me, Jesus thou son of David,a and all the people were giving praises to
God—not Marcion's god, but David's. For in fact Zacchaeus, though a foreigner,1 yet perhaps had breathed in some knowledge of the scriptures by converse with Jews, or, what is more, without knowing about Isaiah, had fulfilled his instructions. Break thy bread, he says, to the hungry, and bring into thy house them that have no covering—and this he was even then doing when he brought the Lord into his house and gave him to eat. [Adv Marc 4.36 - 37.2]

and then at the end of chapter 37 again:

For he had agreed with them about the resurrection, explaining the manner of it, as against the heresy of the sadducees. And here too he did
not refuse the commendation of those who took it that that was what his answer meant. If now the scribes regarded Christ as the son of David, and David himself calls him Lord, what does this mean to Christ? It was not that David was correcting a mistake of the scribes, but that David was paying respect to Christ, when David affirmed that Christ was his Lord even more than his son—and this would not be in character with a destroyer of the Creator.
But on my side how very apposite an interpretation. He had recently been called upon by that blind man as son of David: what he then refrained from saying, as he had no scribes present, he now in their presence brings forward without suggestion from them, so as to indicate that he whom the blind man, following the scribes' doctrine, had called merely David's son, was also David's Lord. So he rewards that blind man's faith, by which he had
believed him the son of David, but criticizes the tradition of the scribes, by which they failed to know him also as Lord. Anything that had bearing on the glory of the Creator's Christ, could only have been sustained in this form by one who was himself the Creator's Christ.[ibid 37.10 - 12]

I will argue at the very outset that while there are superficial signs of the reworking of the commentary 'according to Luke' the original structure is still here too - i.e. that the discussion of Ps 110.1 was originally part of the blind beggar narrative.

So let's start with what IMMEDIATELY PRECEDES the blind beggar section in Adversus Marcionem. The discussion is about the rich man/youth/ruler where it is noted that Jesus declares the bit about the 'good god' which clearly was important to the Marcionite system. The author concludes:

At the same time also he (Jesus) relieved of doubt those other questions, by making it clear that the name of God, and of supremely good, belongs to
one (god) only, and that eternal life and treasure in heaven, and himself besides, pertain to that one, whose commandments, by adding what was lacking, he both conserved and enriched. So he is to be recognized as in agreement with Micah, in this passage where he says, Hath he then shewed thee, O man, what is good? Or what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justice, to love mercy, and to be prepared to follow the Lord thy God [Micah 6:8 LXX modified]? For Christ is that Man, declaring what is good: the knowledge of the law, Thou knowest the commandments: to do justice, Sell the things thou hast: to love mercy, And give to the poor: to be prepared to go with the Lord, And come, follow me. [Adv Marc 36.6]

It is important to note what Tertullian is doing here. He is making the argument against the Marcionite claim that Jesus was depreciating the Law by citing Micah 6:8 and matching parts of the modified citation (πορεύεσθαι = to walk not follow) to the gospel. This argument was likely made first by his immediate predecessor. But it is worth paying attention to brevity of the argument. Very little effort is made to show the reader exactly what Jesus means. The substance seems to be (a) to take for granted that Jesus was the god who spoke both through Micah and in the gospel and (b) once that it taken for granted simply notes a general similarity to make his point.

But the lack of attention paid to the actual gospel is quite puzzling. The rest of the work shows signs of being a commentary. The author from the circle of Justin takes time to cite what the gospel says and then back up his interpretation with scriptural material. In this case the controversial implication of Jesus's speech (i.e. that Jesus is not god only another god other than Jesus) is completely sidestepped. Even if Jesus is the Creator and the god of the Jews he clearly advocates the existence of another god. It is difficult then to believe that Justin or the circle of Justin wrote this argument or this sidestepping. This clearly a point made by Irenaeus as Justin is quite happy to argue with Trypho in favor of the existence of two gods from scriptural passages.

We must assume then that Justin's original argument here were abandoned in favor of this dogmatic monarchian use of scripture.

At the same time also he (Jesus) relieved of doubt those other questions, by making it clear that the name of God, and of supremely good, belongs to one (god) only, and that eternal life and treasure in heaven, and himself besides, pertain to that one, whose commandments, by adding what was lacking, he both conserved and enriched.

This is a STUPENDOUS statement! The Ascension to Godhood is given to Jesus for the Purpose of revealing that which was lacking in "God's Holy Word". There is simply no argument against this - "Paul, call your office"! Paul's hi-jacking has been hi-jacked.

So he is to be recognized as in agreement with Micah...

The "So", however, does not follow in the least! If all is in agreement with Micah here, then "SO WHAT?" If there is a contradiction with Micah then so much the worse for Micah.

Golly! I wonder what Organization would keep track of all of this...

CW

The transition to the blind beggar commentary is unusual. From the fleeting comparison of Micah and the rich youth 'discussion' Adversus Marcionem makes reference to one of Justin/Irenaeus's favorite topics - the alleged Roman census:

The Jewish race was from the beginning so clearly distinguished into tribes and communes and families and households, that no man could easily be of unknown descent, at least from the recent census of Augustus, of which perhaps the records were still on display. But Marcion's Jesus—yet there could be no doubt that one had been born, who was seen to be a man—he indeed, not having been born, could have had in the public records no note of his descent, but would have had to be reckoned as one from among those persons who in some way or other were classed as unknown.[Adv Marc 36.7]

This transition is important because it addresses the puzzling question of how the blind man 'knew' about Jesus's alleged descent from David.

When then that blind man had been told that he was passing by, why did he cry out, Jesus thou son of David, have mercy on me, except that he was with good reason regarded as the son of David, which means, of the family of David, in consideration of his mother and his brethren, who had in fact on one occasion because of people's knowledge of them, been reported to him as being present? [ibid 36.8]

The transition then seems likely to have been written by not by the original harmony commentary writer - for the census is introduced by Luke - but by the second writer/first editor Irenaeus.

Now when we get to the heart of the commentary on the blind beggar it is surprising how similar the text is to what appears out of the De Recta in Deum Fide. In the first part we learn something new. The heretics believed the rebuking of the blind man by the crowd was because by then they knew that Jesus was god or a god and not a son of David:

But they that went before rebuked the blind man, that he should hold his peace. Quite properly: because he was making a noise, not because he was wrong about the son of David. Or else you must prove that those who rebuked were convinced that Jesus was not the son of David, if you wish me to believe that that was their reason for putting the blind man to silence. Yet even if you did prove this, the man would more readily assume that those people were in ignorance, than that the Lord could have allowed to pass a false description of himself. But the Lord is patient. He is not however one who stands surety for error—but rather a revealer of the Creator—so that he would not have failed first to take away the cloud of this aspect of that man's blindness, and so prevent him from thinking any longer that Jesus was the son of David. Far from it; to preclude you from speaking ill of his patience, or from attaching to him any charge of keeping back the truth, or from saying he is not the son of David, he expressed the clearest possible approval of the blind man's commendation, rewarding it with the gift of healing, and with witness to his faith. Thy faith, he says, hath made thee whole. What do you say was the substance of that blind man's faith? That Jesus had come down from that god of yours with intent to overthrow the Creator and
destroy the law and the prophets? that he was not the one foreordained to come forth from the root of Jesse and from the fruit of David's loins, a giver of gifts also to the blind? No, there did not yet exist, I think, people of Marcion's sort of blindness, that such should have been the content of that blind man's faith which he expressed in the cry, Jesus, thou son of David. Jesus knew that this was what he is, and wished it to be known of all men, so that
although the man's faith was based on better eyesight, although it was possessed of the true light, he gave it the further gift of external vision, so that we too might be taught what is the rule, and also the reward, of faith.

And then Eutropios the (allegedly impartial) judge in the Dialogue of Adamantius:

It appears to me that it was because he had the right faith that the blind man justly received his sight. He was obviously far removed from the faith held by Megethios and Valens, or by Droserios and Marinos. In his case because he had the appropriate faith he received his sight; in theirs because they are impelled by ignorance, they are blind in mind in face of the fact that Christ so clearly commends the blind man's faith when he says "Receive thy sight; your faith has saved you." The believing blind man confessed His advent both according to the flesh and according to the spirit, accepting it that in both respects God was in man. In fact he perceived the man first and then immediately recognized the Lord. Acknowledging the man he says "Son of David have mercy on me" and confessing God "Lord, what I may receive my sight!" Thus judged by the view of Marinos if he is not son of David Christ contradicts Himself, partly in commanding a blind man who had fully believed that he was to receive his sight; partly through denying that he was son of David in His question to the Jews. Quite certainly by your theory, Marinos, Christ is contrary to and acts against Himself! This dilemma comes to attempt to use illogical and fictitious arguments such absurdities must met them. We should then follow that belief by means of which the blind man had his eyes restored safe and sound the belief by which Christ also testified that his faith was well founded.

Again there certainly is a relationship what is said in Adversus Marcionem and the argument put into the mouth of Eutropios the fictional judge in the Dialogue of Adamantius. At the very least two different source understand and report on the Marcionite interpretation of this passage and then refute the understanding in the exact same way.

Yet there is a slight difference between the two texts. Adversus Marcionem emphasizes the Marcionites believed that those who silenced the blind man did so because they knew that Jesus wasn't the son of David. De Recta in Deum Fide interestingly connects the story of the blind man with the (brief) discussion of Psalm 110.1 in the gospels saying that Jesus is demonstrated:

commanding a blind man who had fully believed that he was to receive his sight ... [and] denying that he was son of David in His question to the Jews.

While it can be argued that Eutropios is just responding to the coincidence that both the blind beggar narrative and the commentary on Psalm 110:1 happen to be brought up back to back in the debate. It is not hard to dispel this understanding .

Adamantius and his heretical opponent are having a debate. It has long been noted that the addition of Eutropios as a 'judge' is entirely artificial. The original dialogue likely closely resembled Justin's debate with Trypho. In other words it was just two opponents going back and forth with no clear winner. Now with Eutropios there is an ongoing 'score' throughout the debate with the orthodox representative not surprisingly always wins. This is undoubtedly why the Lukan version of the blind beggar narrative is read verbatim from the Marcionite canon (allegedly) even though there are no noticeable variants in the reading.

The reason the reading is introduced is that Eutropius can't be made to know the blind beggar narrative before the debate. That would shatter the claim that he is an impartial observer. Indeed if you look at the argument that comes out of Eutropios's mouth (above) this is far too sophisticated for anyone to come up with on their own just from a 'first time' reading of Luke 18. Clearly and certainly the words put into the mouth of the 'impartial judge' Eutropios actually belong to Adamantius in the lost original dialogue. And as such, the reason why the blind beggar narrative and the gospel commentary on Psalm 110:1 are coupled together is because they appeared that way in the shared gospel of early Christianity. The reason why Megethios and Adamantios bring up both passages side by side is because they appeared together in their shared gospel.

So just to recap what is said in De Recta in Deum Fide:

MAR. Of what man is He the son?
AD. Of the seed of David, according to the flesh, just as the Gospel states.
MAR. In the Gospel it is recorded that when the Jews said that Christ was son of David, Christ Himself gave judgement against them; if you will allow me, I will read it.
EUTR. Read it please.
MAR. Jesus says, "What do you think of Christ? Whose son is He? They say to Him: David's. Jesus says to them: How then does David in spirit call Him Lord, saying, 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit on My right hand"'? If David then in spirit calls Him Lord, how is He his son?"88 Observe that He gives judgement against those who said that he was son of David by denying it Himself.
AD. The "how" is not a denial but an inquiry. In (200) fact, this word occurs in the Scriptures, not once, but often, to express not denial but an inquiry. For instance: "how can one chase a thousand?"89 Again ["How has the faithful city Sion become a prostitute?] 90 And, "How has Lucifer fallen from heaven who used to rise in the morning?"91 Christ did not say 'how' to deny but to make an inquiry.
MAR: David acknowledges Him to be Lord92, not Son.
AD. David does not acknowledge Him to be Lord according to the flesh, but according to the spirit, which means that the Word of God is Lord, not only of David, but also of "all rule, authority and dominion and every name called upon, not only in this age but also in that which is to come" 93 He knew, since he had foreknowledge94, that the Jews were sceptical of what was "according to the spirit"95. So He asked, "If David then, in spirit96 calls Him Lord, how is He his son?"97 Christ did not say, "If David, then, in the flesh calls Him Lord" but "in spirit" so acknowledging Him to be Lord in the spirit but son according to the flesh. I will demonstrate more clearly from the Gospel how Christ himself agrees that this is the saving and steadfast faith. With your permission I read.
EUTR. Read, please.
AD. Because Megethius98, who holds Marcion's teaching, is present, I will read from their Gospel: [unremarkable reading of Luke 18 narrative of the blind man follows]
EUTR. It appears to me that it was because he had the right faith that the blind man justly received his sight. He was obviously far removed from the faith held by Megethios and Valens, or by Droserios and Marinos. In his case because he had the appropriate faith he received his sight; in theirs because they are impelled by ignorance, they are blind in mind in face of the fact that Christ so clearly commends the blind man's faith when he says "Receive thy sight; your faith has saved you." The believing blind man confessed His advent both according to the flesh and according to the spirit, accepting it that in both respects God was in man. In fact he perceived the man first and then immediately recognized the Lord. Acknowledging the man he says "Son of David have mercy on me" and confessing God "Lord, what I may receive my sight!" Thus judged by the view of Marinos if he is not son of David Christ contradicts Himself, partly in commanding a blind man who had fully believed that he was to receive his sight; partly through denying that he was son of David in His question to the Jews. Quite certainly by your theory, Marinos, Christ is contrary to and acts against Himself! This dilemma comes to attempt to use illogical and fictitious arguments such absurdities must met them. We should then follow that belief by means of which the blind man had his eyes restored safe and sound the belief by which Christ also testified that his faith was well founded.

If as I argued above the public reading from the Marcionite gospel is just a contrivance to allow for Adamantius's original arguments to become transferred to Eutropios the allegedly impartial 'judge' we can imagine the more original text read (with all reference to public readings of the gospel removed):

MAR. Of what man is He the son?
AD. Of the seed of David, according to the flesh, just as the Gospel states.
MAR. In the Gospel it is recorded that when the Jews said that Christ was son of David, Christ Himself gave judgement against them; "how is He his son?" Observe that He gives judgement against those who said that he was son of David by denying it Himself.
AD. The "how" is not a denial but an inquiry. In fact, this word occurs in the Scriptures, not once, but often, to express not denial but an inquiry. For instance: "how can one chase a thousand?" And, "How has Lucifer fallen from heaven who used to rise in the morning?"91 Christ did not say 'how' to deny but to make an inquiry.
MAR: David acknowledges Him to be Lord, not Son.
AD. David does not acknowledge Him to be Lord according to the flesh, but according to the spirit, which means that the Word of God is Lord, not only of David, but also of "all rule, authority and dominion and every name called upon, not only in this age but also in that which is to come" He knew, since he had foreknowledge, that the Jews were sceptical of what was "according to the spirit". So He asked, "If David then, in spirit calls Him Lord, how is He his son?" Christ did not say, "If David, then, in the flesh calls Him Lord" but "in spirit" so acknowledging Him to be Lord in the spirit but son according to the flesh. The believing blind man confessed His advent both according to the flesh and according to the spirit, accepting it that in both respects God was in man. In fact he perceived the man first and then immediately recognized the Lord. Acknowledging the man he says "Son of David have mercy on me" and confessing God "Lord, what I may receive my sight!" Thus judged by the view of Marinos if he is not son of David Christ contradicts Himself, partly in commanding a blind man who had fully believed that he was to receive his sight; partly through denying that he was son of David in His question to the Jews. Quite certainly by your theory, Marinos, Christ is contrary to and acts against Himself! This dilemma comes to attempt to use illogical and fictitious arguments such absurdities must met them. We should then follow that belief by means of which the blind man had his eyes restored safe and sound the belief by which Christ also testified that his faith was well founded.

As such once the artificiality of having Adamantius read from the Marcionite gospel to the judge is removed the text starts to make sense. The two engaged in the debate accept the shape of the Marcionite gospel - which Jesus direct a reading of Ps 110:1 at the Jews to make it plain that he was not the son of David. That's why the later text has the Marcionite gospel allegedly 'read' (it's not the Marcionite gospel but Luke).

If this evidence from Adamantius is accepted as at least suggesting the possibility of an original gospel narrative shared by the Marcionite gospel and the harmony gospel of the circle of Justin let me cement the deal by showing the reader that in no uncertain terms the original commentary on the harmony gospel upon which Adversus Marcionem testifies to the same situation.

Let's start with the material which immediately follows our last citation from Adversus Marcionem. It is noteworthy that the section closes with an argument on behalf of an 'antithesis' between David's treatment of blind and Jesus's. It is said by scholars that the antithesis belongs to Marcion. But does the author actually say so? Let's cite the translation of Evans:

He who wishes to see Jesus, must believe him the son of David by descent from the virgin: he who does not so believe will never be told by him, Thy faith hath saved thee, and consequently will remain blind, falling into the ditch of an antithesis, which itself falls into a ditch. For this is what happens when the blind leads the blind. For if, blind men once came into conflict with David at his recapture of Sion, fighting back to prevent his admission— though these are a figure of that nation equally blind, which was some time to deny admission to Christ the son of David— and therefore Christ came to the blind man's help by way of opposition so that by this he might show himself not the son of David, being of opposite mind, and kind to blind men, such as David had ordered to be slain: why did he say he had granted this to the man's faith, and false faith at that? But in fact by this expression son of David I can, on its own terms, blunt the point of the antithesis. Those who came into conflict with David were blind: but here a man of the same infirmity had presented himself as suppliant to the son of David. Consequently, when he gave this satisfaction, the son of David was in some sort appeased and restored his sight, adding also a testimony to the faith by which he had believed this very fact, that he must address his prayer to the son of David. For all that, David I think will have been offended by the insolence of those Jebusites, not by the state of their health.

In point of fact there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that the Marcionites ever developed this antithesis. They are nowhere referenced at all here. Instead the original author from the circle of Justin seems to be so enthralled with finding parallels between the gospel and the Jewish writings, supposing that they are woven together according to the very fabric of the universe, that he tries on his own to reconcile Christ and David. This is not a Marcionite antithesis. There can be no doubt about it.

As such the discussion of the blind beggar narrative in both Adversus Marcionem and De Recta in Deum Fide are demonstrated to likely be quite similar and quite closely related. But did the text behind Adversus Marcionem originally testify to Jesus referencing Psalm 110:1 in the the blind beggar narrative? I think so. Let's look carefully at the next chapter.

Chapter 37 begins by making reference to the Lukan transition from the blind man narrative to Zacchaeus:

Salvation also comes to the house of Zacchaeus. How did he earn it? Was it that even he believed that Christ was come from Marcion? No, for there remained still in the ears of all of them that blind man's cry, Have mercy upon me, Jesus thou son of David, and all the people were giving praises to
God—not Marcion's god, but David's. For in fact Zacchaeus, though a foreigner, yet perhaps had breathed in some knowledge of the scriptures by converse with Jews, or, what is more, without knowing about Isaiah, had fulfilled his instructions.

Now we have already noted that Criddle agrees that the original text behind Adversus Marcionem did not follow Luke's order and it is well established that the Diatessaronic order does not have Zacchaeus follow the blind man narrative. The Arabic Diatessaron reads:

And when Jesus entered and passed through Jericho, there was a man named Zac- chaeus, rich, and chief of the publicans. And he desired to see Jesus who he was; and he was not able for the pressure of the crowd, because Zacchaeus was little of stature. Arabic, And he hastened, and went before Jesus, and went up into an unripe fig tree to see Jesus: for he was to pass thus. And when Jesus came to that place, he saw him, and said unto him, Make haste, and come down, Zacchaeus: to-day I must be in thy house. And he hastened, and came down, and received him joyfully. And when they all saw, they murmured, and said, He hath gone in and lodged with a man that is a sinner. So Zacchaeus stood, and said unto Jesus, My Lord, now half of my possessions I give to the poor, and what I have unjustly taken from every man I give him fourfold. Jesus said unto him, To-day is salva- tion come to this house, because this man also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man came to seek and save the thing that was lost.

25 And when Jesus went out of Jericho, he and his disciples, there came after him a great multitude. And there was a blind man sitting by the way side begging. And his name was Timaeus, the son of Timaeus. And he heard the sound of the multitude passing, and asked, Who is this? They said unto him, Jesus the Naza- rene passeth by. And when he heard that it was Jesus, he called out with a loud voice, and said, Jesus, son of David, have mercy on me. And those that went before Jesus were rebuking him, that he should hold his peace: but he cried the more, and said, Son of David, have mercy on me. And Jesus stood, and commanded that they should call him. And they called the blind man, and said unto him, Be of good courage, and rise; for, behold, he calleth thee. And the blind 33 man threw away his garment, and rose, and came to Jesus. Jesus said unto him, What dost thou wish that I should do unto thee? And that blind man said unto him, My Lord and Master, that my eyes may be opened, so that I may see thee. Arabic, And Jesus had compassion on him, and touched his eyes, and said unto him, See; for thy faith hath saved thee. And immediately he received his sight, and came after him, and praised God; and all the people that saw praised God.

In other words, it is very unlikely that a commentary developed from a gospel harmony would have said that Zacchaeus was influenced by what happened in what immediately precedes the narrative when in fact the order was reversed. As such we should be immediately suspicious of that what is written in Adversus Marcionem. It undoubtedly reflects the reworking of the text according to the order of Luke and thus represents Irenaeus's hand.

Indeed we have to remember that the Lukan reworking of the commentary was fixated on the question of how the blind man knew that Jesus was the son of David. He begins his discussion of the blind man narrative by inferring that the blind man must have known the details of the Roman census. Yes it's a stupid argument but now that we see the claim that Zacchaeus has just 'heard' or been influence by the blind man it strengthens Morton Smith's argument that the blind man has been influenced by what just happened in the immediately preceding narrative in Secret Mark where it is said that the disciples rebuked the woman for saying that Jesus was the Son of David:

And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

We can infer that Clement goes on to say that in the next narrative - the blind man narrative:

And after the words, "And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only, "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them."

To this end the blind man coming up again after Jesus and his disciples rebuked her for saying that he was the 'son of David' helps contextualize not only the blind man narrative but also many of the statements in Adversus Marcionem and even De Recta in Deum Fide.

For we noted that Adversus Marcionem began its treatment of the blind man narrative by saying that the Marcionites assumed that the disciples rebuked the blind man because they knew that Jesus wasn't the 'son of David.' This would also make sense given what we see in Secret Mark. Moreover the bit about the Roman census influencing the blind man's understanding of Jesus as the 'son of David' - as stupid as it is - can be seen as an attempt at answering a question which the removal of the sequence found in Secret Mark originally explained - i.e. the blind man likely heard of Jesus being called 'the son of David' by the sister of the disciple Jesus loved. Moreover the criticism that Jesus didn't rebuke people for saying that he was the 'son of David' is immediately answered too as he originally rebuked other people for saying it. He doesn't attack the blind man because he about to use him to demonstrate a miracle - i.e. what happens when you receive knowledge (viz. you no longer call Jesus 'son of David' but Lord. Finally it also explains why the second author (and first editor) of Adversus Marcionem adds the bit about Zacchaeus being influenced by what happened just before in the gospel of Luke - viz. that kind of argument must have been used by the ancient users of the secret gospel of Mark saying that the blind man heard the title from what just happened with respect to the sister of the disciple Jesus loved.

Once we pass over the discussion of Zacchaeus in Adversus Marcionem we end up at chapter 38. At the end of this chapter the blind man narrative resurfaces and not surprisingly it is coupled with the commentary on Psalm 110:1 which appears in chapter 21 of Luke. To be certain the rest of the chapter (as with everything in Book Four of Adversus Marcionem) follows the basic outline of Luke:

Chapter 38. (1) Christ knew the baptism of John, whence it was. Why then did he ask the question, as though he did not know? He did know that the pharisees would not answer him. Why then did he ask, to no purpose? Was it not that he might judge them out of their own mouth, or even out of their own heart? So take this episode to bear on the justification of the Creator, and on Christ's agreement with him, and ask yourself what the consequence would have been if the pharisees had returned an answer to his question. Suppose they had answered that John's baptism was from men: they would at once have been stoned to death. Some anti-marcionite Marcion would have stood up and said, 'See a god supremely good, a god the opposite of the Creator's doings! well aware that men were going to fall headlong, he himself put them on the edge of a precipice.' (2)For this is how they treat of the Creator, in his law about the tree.a But suppose John's baptism was from heaven. And why, Christ says, did ye not believe him ? So then he whose wish it was that John should be believed, who was expected to blame them for not believing him, belonged to that God whose sacrament John was the minister of. At all events, when they refused to answer what they thought, and he replied in like terms, Neither do I tell you by what power I do these things, he returned evil for evil. [Luke 21:1 - 8] (3) Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's. Which shall be the things that are God's? Those that are like Caesar's penny, God's own image and likeness. So his command means that man must be given back to his Creator, in whose image and likeness and name and metal he was stamped into shape. Let Marcion's god go and fetch coinage for himself—Christ's command is for the penny, which is man, to be rendered to its own Caesar, not to a stranger—except that one has to do this, who has not a penny of his own. (4) It is a just and creditable rule that whenever a question is asked the meaning of the reply must be pertinent to the purpose of the inquiry. It is the act of a madman, when a person asks for judgement on one matter, to answer him about something different. So let us not attribute to Christ an act unseemly even for a man. [Luke 21:21 - 26] The sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, having a question to ask about this, set before our Lord a case out of the law, touching a woman who according to legal requirement had married seven brothers who died one after the other, and asked which man's wife she would be reckoned to be at the resurrection. (5) This was the subject of the question, the object of their consultation. Christ's answer must have been on the same terms. He had no fear of anyone, nor any reason why we should think he either refused their questionings, or used them as an opportunity for giving secret hints of things which in other circumstances he did not teach openly. His answer then was, that the children of this world marry. You see how pertinent to the case: because the question asked was about the world to come, in which he was going to define the rule that no one marries, he first stated the fact that marriage does take place here where there is also death. Those however whom God has accounted worthy of the inheritance of that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, <he says,> nor are given in marriage, because they cannot die any more, since they become like the angels, being made the sons of God and of the resurrection. (6) Since then the meaning of the reply must be turned in no other direction than the purpose of the inquiry, if by this meaning of the reply the purpose of the inquiry is satisfactorily met, then our Lord's reply has no other meaning than that by which the question receives an answer. You have the times during which marriage is permitted and those in which it is not, arising not from a question about this in itself, but about the resurrection. You have also a confirmation of the resurrection in itself, and the whole of what the sadducees were asking questions about: for they were not asking questions about a different god, nor did they seek to know about their own particular law of marriage. (7) If however you make Christ give an answer to questions that were not submitted to him, you are saying that he was incapable of answering the questions he was asked about—that in fact he was trapped by the sadducees' cleverness. Beyond now what is strictly necessary, having dealt with the main question, I shall take up the discussion against the quibbles they attach to it. They have seized upon the text of scripture, and have read on like this: 'Those whom the god of that world has counted worthy'. They attach 'of that world' to 'god', so as to make out that there is another god, 'of that world'. Whereas it ought to be read, Those whom God has counted worthy, so that by punctuating after 'God', 'of that world' belongs to what follows, that is, Those whom God hath counted worthy of the inheritance of that world, and of the resurrection. (8) For the question he was asked was not about the god of that world, but about its conditions, whose wife the woman was to be in that world, after the resurrection. So again, on the subject of marriage, they misrepresent his answer, so as to make out that, The children of this world marry and are given in marriage, refers to the Creator's men whom he allows to marry, whereas they themselves, whom the god of that world, that other god, has counted worthy of the resurrection, even here and now do not marry, because they are not the children of this world—although it was the marriage of that world he was asked about, not this, and the marriage he said there was not, was that about which he was consulted. (9) So then those who had taken in the real force of his words and their expression and punctuation, understood no other meaning than that which was pertinent to the subject he was asked about. And so the scribes comment, Master, thou hast well said. For he had agreed with them about the resurrection, explaining the manner of it, as against the heresy of the sadducees.[Luke 21:27 - 40]And here too he did not refuse the commendation of those who took it that that was what his answer meant. (10) If now the scribes regarded Christ as the son of David, and David himself calls him Lord, what does this mean to Christ? It was not that David was correcting a mistake of the scribes, but that David was paying respect to Christ, when David affirmed that Christ was his Lord even more than his son—and this would not be in character with a destroyer of the Creator. But on my side how very apposite an interpretation. He had recently been called upon by that blind man as son of David: what he then refrained from saying, as he had no scribes present, he now in their presence brings forward without suggestion from them, so as to indicate that he whom the blind man, following the scribes' doctrine, had called merely David's son, was also David's Lord. So he rewards that blind man's faith, by which he had believed him the son of David, but criticizes the tradition of the scribes, by which they failed to know him also as Lord. Anything that had bearing on the glory of the Creator's Christ, could only have been sustained in this form by one who was himself the Creator's Christ.

The facts are that we end up at the end of chapter 38 exactly where we left off in chapter 36 - with a discussion of the blind man. Only now the blind man narrative is juxtaposed with the commentary on Psalm 110:1 in Luke 21:41 - 44]. We already have the answer for this juxtaposition - the Marcionite gospel's blind man narrative incorporated the discussion about Psalm 110 verse 1.

Of course the obvious question would then by - why did (a) the question about the baptism of John [Luke 21:1 - 8] (b) the question about rendering to Caesar [Luke 21:21 - 26] and (c) the question about marriage [Luke 21:27 - 41] all get inserted between the original whole of the blind man narrative [Luke 18:35 - 44] and the discussion of Psalm 110:1 [Luke 21:41 - 44]? The answer should be immediately quite obvious. Each one of these narratives take the form of a question. The main difficulty that both Adversus Marcionem had with the Marcionite interpretation of the blind man narrative is that the orthodox authors suppose that if Jesus disagreed with the blind man's claim that he was the son of David he would have told him that he wasn't the son of David or at least would have said something. Adversus Marcionem wrote:

He (Jesus) is not however one who stands surety for error—but rather a revealer of the Creator—so that he would not have failed first to take away the cloud of this aspect of that man's blindness, and so prevent him from thinking any longer that Jesus was the son of David.

As such the issue between the orthodox and the heretics was whether Jesus could have avoided explicitly telling the blind man he wasn't the 'son of David.'

This is why it would seem (a) and (b) and (c) listed above immediately precede what is now the 'second discussion' of the blind man narrative only now in its proper relationship to the commentary on Psalm 110.1. Each are used by the author (or editor) of Adversus Marcionem to make clear that Jesus always responded to things he didn't agree with. He may not have told the people exactly what they thought they were going to hear. But the author's point is that he responded to each question.

So it is that Jesus's failure to expound the 'true faith' (to borrow the language of De Recta in Deum Fide) that is behind each of these references. Let's bring forward some highlights from each one of the three gospel references which underscore the tie back to the blind man narrative. First the beginning of the question of the baptism of John:

Christ knew the baptism of John, whence it was. Why then did he ask the question, as though he did not know? He did know that the pharisees would not answer him. Why then did he ask, to no purpose? Was it not that he might judge them out of their own mouth, or even out of their own heart?

So while the author of Adversus Marcionem would agree that Jesus does not answer this question from the Pharisees directly it is claimed there is a reason for this - he wants to 'judge them out of their mouth.' Now the question about marriage:

It is a just and creditable rule that whenever a question is asked the meaning of the reply must be pertinent to the purpose of the inquiry. It is the act of a madman, when a person asks for judgement on one matter, to answer him about something different. So let us not attribute to Christ an act unseemly even for a man ... This was the subject of the question ]from the Sadducees], the object of their consultation. Christ's answer must have been on the same terms. He had no fear of anyone, nor any reason why we should think he either refused their questionings, or used them as an opportunity for giving secret hints of things which in other circumstances he did not teach openly ... Since then the meaning of the reply must be turned in no other direction than the purpose of the inquiry, if by this meaning of the reply the purpose of the inquiry is satisfactorily met, then our Lord's reply has no other meaning than that by which the question receives an answer.

So clearly the heretics understood the opposite of this - especially with respect to the blind man. The blind man begins by crying out his identification of Jesus as the 'son of David.' The orthodox argue that this is the correct identification and Jesus approved of it by crediting his faith. But the heretics said that this was wrong. Jesus ignored the reference to the 'son of man' and seized instead upon his identification of Jesus as 'Lord.' The subsequent discussion of Psalm 110:1 was a revealing of 'secret things' about the person of Christ.

To this end it is worth noting that at the end of chapter 38 the interconnection between the narrative of the blind man and the discussion of Psalm 110:1 is confirmed just as we saw in De Recta in Deum Fide:

And here too he did not refuse the commendation of those who took it that that was what his answer meant. If now the scribes regarded Christ as the son of David, and David himself calls him Lord, what does this mean to Christ? It was not that David was correcting a mistake of the scribes, but that David was paying respect to Christ, when David affirmed that Christ was his Lord even more than his son—and this would not be in character with a destroyer of the Creator. But on my side how very apposite an interpretation. He had recently been called upon by that blind man as son of David: what he then refrained from saying, as he had no scribes present, he now in their presence brings forward without suggestion from them, so as to indicate that he whom the blind man, following the scribes' doctrine, had called merely David's son, was also David's Lord. So he rewards that blind man's faith, by which he had believed him the son of David, but criticizes the tradition of the scribes, by which they failed to know him also as Lord. Anything that had bearing on the glory of the Creator's Christ, could only have been sustained in this form by one who was himself the Creator's Christ.

We should have no doubt whatsoever that Psalm 110:1 (Luke 21:41 - 44) was part of the blind man narrative (Luke 18:35 - 43) in the Marcionite gospel. We have at least two sources that demonstrate that.

The statement made by Mani in the Acts of Archelaus seem to reflect Marcionite exegesis of other passages. Worth noting (emboldened) in so far as Jesus rejected the title of 'son of David' applied to himself:

Yet, although that man was bold enough to address Him thus, no one can be mightier or greater than this same person Himself who shows us His mother or His brethren. Nay, He does not deign even to hear it said that He is David's son. The Apostle Peter, however, the most eminent of all the disciples, was able to acknowledge Him on that occasion, when all were putting forth the several opinions which they entertained respecting Him: for he said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God; and immediately He names him blessed, addressing him thus: For my heavenly Father has revealed it unto you. Observe what a difference there is between these two words which were spoken by Jesus. For to him who had said, Behold, Your mother stands without, He replied, Who is my mother, or who are my brethren? But to him who said, You are the Christ the Son of the living, God, He makes the return of a beatitude and benediction. Consequently, if you will have it that He was born of Mary, then it follows that no less than Peter, He is Himself thus proved to have spoken falsely. But if, on the other hand, Peter states what is true, then without doubt that former person was in error. And if the former was in error, the matter is to be referred back to the writer. We know, therefore, that there is one Christ, according to the Apostle Paul, whose words, as in consonance at least with His advent, we believe.

It is interesting to consider what passage 'Mani' has in mind here. Is he paraphrasing the discussion of Psalm 110:1? That would be the closest I suppose but in all of its present forms of the passage Jesus is not reacting to someone else saying that he was 'son of David.' Indeed the closest things we have to that - i.e. Jesus denying that he was the son of David is referenced in Clement's retelling of Secret Mark.

However another possibility clearly is that 'Mani' knows that the discussion of Psalm 110:1 was originally part of the blind beggar narrative. To this end Jesus would properly be understood to reject 'someone saying' that he was the 'son of David' (= the blind beggar) through his citation of Psalm 110:1 if it was originally (as I suggest here) part of the same narrative.

If we follow this logic to its ultimate consequences the editor of the canonical gospels by removing the discussion of Psalm 110:1 from the blind beggar narratives effectively creates a situation where Jesus does not respond to the blind beggar saying 'son of David.' Indeed like many passages in our canonical gospels the discussion of Psalm 110:1 is without context. It's just plopped at the end of a chapter (in Matthew and near the end in Luke). To this end he cultivates a situation where Jesus does not react to the statement in order - it would seem - to say that by his silence he agreed with the blind beggar. This argument from silence (quite literally) is enhanced by the stacking of a series of passages where Jesus responds to questions being put toward him by strangers (Luke 20). It would seem then that the gospel editor wanted to establish Jesus as the 'son of David' knowing that in earlier forms of gospel exegesis this was explicitly denied. To this end, he arranged for a literary 'argument from silence' which served as the basis for this rejected theological claim.

Peter in the Clementine Homilies (Recognitions apparently has a similar passage but it is not translated by any English text):

And Peter said: I shall reply to that which you wish me to speak of,—namely, the passage, 'No one knows the Father but the Son, nor does any one know the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son may wish to reveal Him.' First, then, I am astonished that, while this statement admits of countless interpretations, you should have chosen the very dangerous position of maintaining that the statement is made in reference to the ignorance of the Creator (Demiurge), and all who are under him. For, first, the statement can apply to all the Jews who think that David is the father of Christ, and that Christ himself is his son, and do not know that He is the Son of God. Wherefore it is appropriately said, 'No one knows the Father,' since, instead of God, they affirmed David to be His father; and the additional remark, that no one knows even the Son, is quite correct, since they did not know that He was the Son.

Apparently the rejection of the seemingly straightforward idea that Christ = the son of David is widespread meaning the Marcionite interpretation wasn't just a Marcionite interpretation.

It can't be overstated how important this original 'literary unit' of the blind man + the scriptural proof from Psalm 110.1 was in antiquity. We have already noted that by 'disconnecting' the two an argument from silence developed - i.e. the blind man calls Jesus 'son of David' and Jesus appears to stay silent thus leaving open the argument that his approval of the faith of the blind man was an acknowledgement of his status as the awaited Davidic messiah. But more importantly also the 'disconnection' of the blind man and Jesus's scriptural rebuff ultimately opened the door to the longer ending of Mark. In other words, Irenaeus - the man who undoubtedly reorganized the gospels and did the original 'disconnection' here - could not only open an argument from silence but also a conclusion where Jesus appears to go up to heaven and sit FOR THE FIRST TIME on the right hand of God:

Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; " confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool." Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.

https://books.google.com/books?id=3z9hz ... 22&f=false

It is difficult to overstate the importance of identifying Jesus as the 'son of David' and the man who was God who sat in the throne at the right hand of God for Irenaeus. The scriptural argument appears no less than 11 times in Book Three of Adversus Haereses alone! The corruption effort to 'disconnect' the blind man narrative from the negative (= Jesus was not the son of David) scriptural arguments from Psalm 110 must have been carried out by Irenaeus.