Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

And then there is the age old question of whether Adversus Marcionem 3 is based on an original Greek text closer to Adversus Iudaeos:

Our heretic will now have the fullest opportunity of learning the clue of his errors along with the Jew himself, from whom he has borrowed his guidance in this discussion. Since, however, the blind leads the blind, they fall into the ditch together. We affirm that, as there are two conditions demonstrated by the prophets to belong to Christ, so these presignified the same number of advents; one, and that the first, was to be in lowliness, when He had to be led as a sheep to be slain as a victim, and to be as a lamb dumb before the shearer, not opening His mouth, and not fair to look upon. For, says (the prophet), we have announced concerning Him: He is like a tender plant, like a root out of a thirsty ground; He has no form nor comeliness; and we beheld Him, and He was without beauty: His form was disfigured; marred more than the sons of men; a man stricken with sorrows, and knowing how to bear our infirmity; placed by the Father as a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense; Isaiah 8:14 made by Him a little lower than the angels; declaring Himself to be a worm and not a man, a reproach of men, and despised of the people. Now these signs of degradation quite suit His first coming, just as the tokens of His majesty do His second advent, when He shall no longer remain a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, but after His rejection become the chief corner-stone, accepted and elevated to the top place of the temple, even His church, being that very stone in Daniel, cut out of the mountain, which was to smite and crush the image of the secular kingdom. [Adversus Marcionem]

Since, therefore, the Jews were predicted as destined to suffer these calamities on Christ's account, and we find that they have suffered them, and see them sent into dispersion and abiding in it, manifest it is that it is on Christ's account that these things have befallen the Jews, the sense of the Scriptures harmonizing with the issue of events and of the order of the times. [29] Or else, if Christ is not yet come, on whose account they were predicted as destined thus to suffer, when He shall have come it follows that they will thus suffer. And where will then be a daughter of Sion to be derelict, who now has no existence? where the cities to be exust, which are already exust and in heaps? where the dispersion of a race which is now in exile? Restore to Judea the condition which Christ is to find; and (then, if you will), contend that some other (Christ) is coming.

Learn now (over and above the immediate question) the clue to your error. We affirm, two characters of the Christ demonstrated by the prophets, and as many advents of His forenoted: one, in humility (of course the first), when He has to be led "as a sheep for a victim; and, as a lamb voiceless before the shearer, so He opened not His mouth," not even in His aspect comely. [2] For "we have announced," says the prophet, "concerning Him, (He is) as a little child, as a root in a thirsty land; and there was not in Him attractiveness or glory. And we saw Him, and He had not attractiveness or grace; but His mien was unhonoured, deficient in comparison of the sons of men,"320 "a man set in the plague,321 and knowing how to bear infirmity: "to wit as having been set by the Father "for a stone of offence,"322 and "made a little lower" by Him "than angels,"323 He pronounces Himself "a worm, and not a man, an ignominy of man, and the refuse of the People."324 [3] Which evidences of ignobility suit the First Advent, just as those of sublimity do the Second; when He shall be made no longer "a stone of offence nor a rock of scandal," but "the highest corner-stone,"325 after reprobation (on earth) taken up (into heaven) and raised sublime for the purpose of consummation,326 and that "rock"--so we must admit--which is read of in Daniel as forecut from a mount, which shall crush and crumble the image of secular kingdoms.327 [4] Of which second advent of the same (Christ) Daniel has said: "And, behold, as it were a Son of man, coming with the clouds of the heaven, came unto the Ancient of days, and was present in His sight; and they who were standing by led (Him) unto Him. And there was given Him royal power; and all nations of the earth, according to their race, and all glory, shall serve Him: and His power is eternal, which shall not be taken away, and His kingdom one which shall not be corrupted."328 [5] Then, assuredly, is He to have an honourable mien, and a grace not "deficient more than the sons of men; "for (He will then be) "blooming in beauty in comparison with the sons of men." [Adversus Iudaeos]

The same passage keeps coming up over and over again in discussions of Marcion - right to our earliest source Tertullian. Clearly Marcionites 'discovered' the text as early as the second century. But to argue down your road, pretending to 'reconstruct' a gospel without Daniel is silly and subjective.

Notice that Megethius cites from Theodotion, the Marcionite from the Marcionite Targumist. https://books.google.com/books?id=KI6Bu ... ta&f=false There is something to this swirling collection of Marcionite 'identifications'.

And notice that Anastasius of Sinai had an earlier version of Adamantius where the Marcionite Megethius cites more from Daniel positively - https://books.google.com/books?id=KI6Bu ... 22&f=false Our present text(s) of the Dialogue represent a reworking of a lost original text which Anastasius's texts is certainly closer to that original.

As it stands both Tertullian and the Dialogue have Marcionites doing 'Jewish things' with Daniel. They looked to Daniel to help sort out 'the kingdom of God/the Church' in the history after Jesus's advent. No question about this. Even the bit about two Christs or a divided 'Jesus' and 'Christ' (which Tertullian also seems to acknowledge in his Two Advent theology and before him Justin) all seem to belie some lost Jewish (perhaps Jewish sectarian) origin - undoubtedly in my opinion originating from the two powers tradition and ultimately Daniel and especial his chapter 7.

Tertullian is very clear Marcion represents the Good God as having been totally unknown before being revealed in Christ. He's not the idiotic bastardization of the "one like a son of man" into "the son of man" that we see in the catholicized synoptics. Period. That Marcion read the OT like a Jew rather than like a Catholic, is shown by your quotation of the text of Tertullian that is recycled from his treatise Against the Jews "Our heretic will now have the fullest opportunity of learning the clue of his errors along with the Jew himself, from whom he has borrowed his guidance in [rejecting any interpretation that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah]..." Yes, Marcion interprets OT prophecies literally rather than allegorically, and sees, as any reasonable modern does, that passages like Isaiah 7, Micah 5, and so on, cannot possibly be about Jesus. So what? There is zero evidence in this or anything else that Marcion based his theology on the book of Daniel. There is zero evidence that he knew the book of Daniel, quite frankly. There is zero evidence Paul knew the book of Daniel. That later catholics used it, and therefore later Marcionites used it back in retaliation against the Catholic claims that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, is obvious, but it means nothing. And which translation of Daniel a later Marcionite quotes in his polemics against Jesus being the Jewish Messiah is irrelevant to anything. Does it matter if a modern Jew quotes from the KJV or the NIV when arguing with a Christian against Jesus being the Messiah? Does it somehow prove that Judaism developed out of the NIV? Give me a break!

Yes but you have to take one thing at a time. How many gods did you think the Jews had or are manifest in the Pentateuch? Regardless of what Tertullian says (and we haven't even begun to sort that out yet) anyone who figures out Yahweh wasn't the only Jewish God or that there are two powers is in essence doing what Tertullian claims Marcion was doing. It's all a matter of contextualizing those statements properly

John2 wrote:As I was reading Boyarin's The Jewish Gospels the other day I noticed that he refers to the "two powers in heaven" tradition in Rabbinic Judaism, which is something I've never investigated before (or even heard of except from Stephan Huller on this forum). As Boyarin puts it:

Throughout the Gospel, whenever Jesus claims [authority] to perform that which appears to be the prerogative of the divinity, it is that very [authority] of the Son of Man that is being claimed, which is to say, a scriptural authority based on a very close reading of Daniel 7. We see now why the later Rabbis, in naming this very ancient religious view a heresy, refer to it as "two powers in heaven."

https://books.google.com/books?id=Rd48n ... al&f=false

I have to leave the library and intend to start looking into this subject when I'm at work later, but I thought I'd go ahead and start the thread now.

What is Boyarin saying about " the two powers in heaven "? . The introduction to his book speaks of a messiah .see attached file
When in Judaism was the messiah identified as ' one of the powers in heaven' as opposed to a special man sent by the only power in heaven.?

The two power theory is a hyperbolic naming of the yearning that religious men and women have for personal contact with Power.(Messiah = Avatar )
Where did the rabbis declare the two powers theory to be a heresy?

The Messiah in Judaism is one like a man with divine power; the one like a man is also one like a God.
Other religions also have one like a man who is also one like a God : avatar .


Amśa-avatāra: (partial descend of the Lord) the Lord incarnates to inspire the inner life, but then for one particular purpose only

I finally had a chance to look at Segal's book (Ben sent me a better link to it but I could only open it at the library and not on my work computer). I'm not good at giving book reports (beyond saying "It was good"). Well, I thought it was good and it's packed with information, but I found myself losing interest in the subject and ended up skimming through it. And while it's difficult to determine which specific group(s) the rabbis are referring to (and exactly when), I came away with impression that it at least includes Jewish Christians, like Hurtado mentioned in his review.

In an analysis that I found (and still find) persuasive, Segal identified two types of such “heretics” in these rabbinic reports: (1) an earlier type in which two “complementary” divine figures are involved, and (2) a later type in which two opposing divine figures are pictured. Segal cogently proposed that the latter type was likely Jewish “gnostics”, who referred to a good/high deity and an inferior/evil creator-deity (“demiurge”), and that the earlier type was likely Jewish Christians, who pictured Jesus as sharing divine glory and status with “God” (“the Father”).

The "Two Powers" tradition appears to have at least been aimed at groups like Jewish Christians that had an interest in binitarianism. But I think binitarianism is a valid interpretation of angels and Daniel's "one like a son of man" in the OT and that the heart of this issue for Rabbinic Jews was their opposition to messianism/apocalypticism.

And it does look to me like Daniel's "one like a son of man" is divine (i.e., the archangel Michael), and that this is taken up by 1 Enoch (and where it becomes "the Son of Man") and that this became the blueprint for Christianity (even if we can't know for certain if Jesus existed and saw it this way), which in turn was anathema to the Pharisees/post-70 CE rabbis. I think Boyarin makes a good case for this, particularly his observation of the "authority" that Jesus claims throughout the gospels, which is the same word that the LXX Daniel uses for the divine authority that is given to Daniel's one like a son of man).

I see that Hurtado disagrees with this in his review of Boyarin's article "How Enoch Can Teach Us About Jesus":

...in the reception-history of Daniel 7, there is no evidence that the figure described as “one like a son of man” was ever referred to as “the Son of Man”. Here, I can commend Maurice Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: SPCK, 1979), who shows that the figure was sometimes seen as a messianic figure but the title “The Son of Man” isn’t found.

https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2012 ... on-of-man/

1 Enoch would be the development from "one like a son of man" to "the Son of Man," as per Hurtado's citation of Boyarin:

Essentially, Boyarin contends that in the “Similitudes” (or “Parables) of 1 Enoch we see reflected “the development of ‘The One Like a Son of Man’ of Daniel 7 [vv. 13-14] from a simile into a title” [specifically in 1 Enoch 71:14], and that “All the elements of Christology are essentially in place then in the Parables [of 1 Enoch],” “a pre-existent heavenly figure, identified as well with Wisdom, who is the Son of Man” (74).

I want to read Casey's book though, but in the meantime this is how it looks to me.

Always flip through the original source. The Mekhilta has been translated into English a long time ago. Widely available. If you look carefully it is apparent (at least to me) that the Mekhilta was likely reworked by the later orthodoxy. I accept that it really was associated with the circle of R Ishmael. I even think the citation of Exodus likely resembles the Qumran/Samaritan model. R Ishmael likely accepted the two powers and the 'corrections' were added by the editor.