Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The Marcionite is not so much interpretting (sic) the text as RESPONDING to the catholic interpretation.

Not quite. Tertullian twice makes clear that the Marcionite interpretation of this passage and many others is developed from 'the Jews.' This is clear from Adamantius's reference even taken at it's plainest - Marcion clearly understands Dan 2.34 - 35 in a way which is identical with the Jews, so too Justin, Irenaeus etc. There is this consistent notion that the Marcionites were more Jewish than the Catholics. Important to take note of this and consider the implications.

We should also consider whether Adamantius and Tertullian AM 3.7, AI and Justin all come from some lost source.

It is now possible for the heretic to learn, and the Jew as well, what he ought to know already, the reason for the Jew's errors: for from the Jew the heretic [Marcion] has accepted guidance in this discussion, the blind borrowing from the blind, and has fallen into the same ditch. I affirm that two descriptions of Christ, set forth by the prophets, indicated beforehand an equal number of advents: one of them, the first, in humility, when he was to be led like a sheep to sacrifice, and as a lamb before his shearer is voiceless so he opens not his mouth, and not even in form was he comely. For, he says, We have announced concerning him: as a little boy, as a root in thirsty ground: and he has no appearance nor glory, and we saw him, and he had no appearance or beauty, but his appearance was unhonoured, defective more than the sons of men, a man in sorrow, and knowing how to bear infirmity:a because set by the Father for a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence.b Made by him a little lower than the angels :c declaring himself a worm and no man, the scorn of man and the outcast of the people.d These tokens of ignobility apply to the first advent, as the tokens of sublimity apply to the second, when he will become no longer a stone of stumbling or a rock of offence, but the chief corner-stone, after rejection taken back again and set on high at the summit of the temple—that is, the Church—that rock in fact mentioned by Daniel, which was carved out of a mountain, which will break in pieces and grind to powder the image of the kingdoms of this world.2,e Concerning this advent the same prophet speaks: And behold, one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven, came even to the Ancient of days: he was in his presence: and the attendants brought him forward, and there was given to him royal power, and all nations of the earth after their kinds, and all glory to serve <him>, and his power even for ever, that shall not be taken away, and his kingdom, that shall not be destroyed:f then, it means, he will have an honourable appearance, and beauty unfading, more than the sons of men. [AM 3.7]

It is simply incredible that both Adamantius and Adversus Marcionem have what was obviously a reference to the 'stone' in Daniel as Christ changed to 'kingdom of God' and 'church' respectively. Look at the context of the passage. Clearly the original author said 'Christ' was the stone. Why was the reference consistently changed by a later editor? The most obvious answer is that the Jewish interpretation was identified as heretical and specifically 'Marcionite.'

The parallel passage in Adversus Iudaeos implicitly refers to Christ as the stone but it is not explicit:

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.

I stand by my conclusion that Marcionism was originally aligned with 'the Jewish interpretation' or at least 'a Jewish-sounding interpretation'

Compare the unmistakable fact that Adamantius, AI and AM all come from a lost common second century source:

First sentence

AI - [Jew] learn now the clue to your error.
AM - It is now possible for the heretic to learn, and the Jew as well, what he ought to know already, the reason for the Jew's errors: for from the Jew the heretic [Marcion] has accepted guidance in this discussion, the blind borrowing from the blind, and has fallen into the same ditch.
Adamantius - What has been reasonably stated in the Scriptures you want to interpret unreasonably
Adamantus (in Anastasius) - But as it seems, you say the Scriptures are to be understood in the literal sense, and not in the spiritual.

Second sentence

AI - 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) ...
AM - I affirm that two descriptions of Christ, set forth by the prophets, indicated beforehand an equal number of advents: one of them, the first, in humility ...
Adamantius - The Prophets and the Gospel plainly speak of two Advents of Christ — the first in humility, and after this, the second, glorious.

Third sentence

AI - 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. 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,"
AM - when he was to be led like a sheep to sacrifice, and as a lamb before his shearer is voiceless so he opens not his mouth, and not even in form was he comely. For, he says, We have announced concerning him: as a little boy, as a root in thirsty ground: and he has no appearance nor glory, and we saw him, and he had no appearance or beauty, but his appearance was unhonoured, defective more than the sons of men
Adamantius - Isaiah spoke in this way of the first: "We saw Him, and He had neither beauty nor form. But His form was despised and more abject than the sons of men"

At this point AI and AM differ from Adamantius likely both showing additional developments. But then a few lines later (after the interpolations) they become very similar again in structure:

AI - 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," after reprobation (on earth) taken up (into heaven) and raised sublime for the purpose of consummation, 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. 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.
AM - These tokens of ignobility apply to the first advent, as the tokens of sublimity apply to the second when he will become no longer a stone of stumbling or a rock of offence, but the chief corner-stone, after rejection taken back again and set on high at the summit of the temple—that is, the Church—that rock in fact mentioned by Daniel, which was carved out of a mountain, which will break in pieces and grind to powder the image of the kingdoms of this world Concerning this advent the same prophet speaks: And behold, one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven, came even to the Ancient of days: he was in his presence: and the attendants brought him forward, and there was given to him royal power, and all nations of the earth after their kinds, and all glory to serve <him>, and his power even for ever, that shall not be taken away, and his kingdom, that shall not be destroyed:f then, it means, he will have an honourable appearance, and beauty unfading, more than the sons of men.
Adamantius - It is plain, then, that He comes in glory, and once in humility ... This is similar to what Daniel says: "I saw One like a son of man coming though the clouds."

Secret Alias wrote:

The Marcionite is not so much interpretting (sic) the text as RESPONDING to the catholic interpretation.

Not quite. Tertullian twice makes clear that the Marcionite interpretation of this passage and many others is developed from 'the Jews.'

All that Marcion's interpretation coming from the Jews means to Tertullian is that, like the Jews, Marcion denies that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. That's it.

Its not like Tertullian is some Talmud expert or something. He simply recognizes an interpretation as Jewish if it says "No, that prophecy is NOT about Jesus."

This is clear from Adamantius's reference even taken at it's plainest - Marcion clearly understands Dan 2.34 - 35 in a way which is identical with the Jews,

Yes, he interprets it so that there is no way it means that Jesus is the Messiah. That's the Jewish way to interpret it.

so too Justin, Irenaeus etc. There is this consistent notion that the Marcionites were more Jewish than the Catholics.

They were more Jewish than the Catholics because they didn't interpret Jesus to be the Messiah.

Important to take note of this and consider the implications.

There's only one implication: they denied that Jesus is the Messiah.

AND as a result, they don't have to say something to the Jew (as Tertullian does) to the affect of "Stupid Jew I will school you on your error, for it is crystal clear that Jesus is the Messiah and you must be children of the devil who purposefully reject this great truth because its soooooooo obvious" (this line of argument is all that ties the three sources together that you cited a while ago:

Secret Alias wrote:Compare the unmistakable fact that Adamantius, AI and AM all come from a lost common second century source:

First sentence

AI - [Jew] learn now the clue to your error.
AM - It is now possible for the heretic to learn, and the Jew as well, what he ought to know already, the reason for the Jew's errors: for from the Jew the heretic [Marcion] has accepted guidance in this discussion, the blind borrowing from the blind, and has fallen into the same ditch.
Adamantius - What has been reasonably stated in the Scriptures you want to interpret unreasonably
Adamantus (in Anastasius) - But as it seems, you say the Scriptures are to be understood in the literal sense, and not in the spiritual.

There is no need to suppose literary dependence on a source text. All these texts just use the same stock orthodox arguments in favor of Jesus being the Messiah, and that belief that Jesus is the Messiah necessitates calling the Jews stupid for not believing it and telling them how you will now school them.

(Also, you seem to be oblivious to the fact that to Tertullian (or really any orthodox writer), "the error of the Jews" (whether in the singular or the plural) is always their rejection of the notion that Jesus fullfills the prophecies or that Jesus is their Messiah. He doesn't have a specific contextual error in mind for each prophecy, but the overarching error of refusing to acknowledge that all the prophecies are about Jesus. Marcion shares this "error.")

Second sentence

AI - 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) ...
AM - I affirm that two descriptions of Christ, set forth by the prophets, indicated beforehand an equal number of advents: one of them, the first, in humility ...
Adamantius - The Prophets and the Gospel plainly speak of two Advents of Christ — the first in humility, and after this, the second, glorious.

Because what are you going to tell the Jew right after informing them that you will school them? That Jesus is the Messiah and I'm gonna prove it from the prophets. And since the Jews will object that Jesus didn't fullfill the militaristic prophecies, the number one thing to convince them of is that the prophets speak of two advents, one for suffering, one for conquering, and not just one for conquering as they believe.

Third sentence

AI - 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. 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,"
AM - when he was to be led like a sheep to sacrifice, and as a lamb before his shearer is voiceless so he opens not his mouth, and not even in form was he comely. For, he says, We have announced concerning him: as a little boy, as a root in thirsty ground: and he has no appearance nor glory, and we saw him, and he had no appearance or beauty, but his appearance was unhonoured, defective more than the sons of men
Adamantius - Isaiah spoke in this way of the first: "We saw Him, and He had neither beauty nor form. But His form was despised and more abject than the sons of men"

Start with the most obvious prophecy, the one that can be pretended to be the most detailed, i.e. Isaiah 53. This is all just standard orthodox polemics. No need to suppose they're basing this off a common written source.

Of course Against the Jews and Against Marcion 3 come from a common source nitwit

All that Marcion's interpretation coming from the Jews means to Tertullian is that, like the Jews, Marcion denies that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.

And this is the problem with NOT HAVING FAMILIARITY WITH THE MATERIAL. You've basically stumbled across internet references to 'Marcion' and reconstructed an oversimplistic model for the reconstruction of 'lost Marcionite material.' The reality - as is inevitable - is much more complicated. There are many passages in Tertullian where this strange theme of the Jewishness of Marcion is referenced which is difficult to explain (and which has been the subject of much academic discussion).

The problem of course is - and you'll never recognize this until you get your head out of your ass - is if Judaism is identified with monotheism or monarchianism then any positing of a 'second god' can and was identified as implicitly hostile to the 'god of the Jews.' It's much like if your wife catches you in bed with another woman - let's suppose for argument sake, her sister. She will say that sleeping with her sister is an affront against her - viz. you did this because you secretly 'hate' her. But is that necessarily true? Isn't there some scenario (i.e. you came home from work or came home from the bar, your wife was on a business trip your wife's sister came over to take a shower, she comes out of the bathroom, her towel slips off etc) where adultery is simply innocent fun or a necessary byproduct of 'being human.' Of course that can be true.

However if your friends meet your wife and learn about your adultery from your wife, it is quite conceivable that they will here how it was your 'hate' for her that led you to cheat with her sister. My point is that all we know if that the Marcionites weren't exclusive monotheists, they seemed less 'monarchian' at least on the surface than their orthodox cousins. This is undoubtedly why Marcionism disappeared and orthodox Christianity was allowed to thrive. But at the same time as they emphasized a 'second god' - usually defined as a dichotomy of a 'merciful' and a 'just' god - the tradition was overtly 'more Jewish' than orthodoxy.

How was it more Jewish? Well it would seem that the orthodox applied the 'messianic prophesies' to Jesus which the Marcionites applied the messianic prophesies to 'another' (called) Christ. What's the solution then to the intriguing question of 'what the Marcionites actually believed'? This is the million dollar question but it won't be uncovered by your rather over-simplistic and uninformed attempt at reconstruction. Any model for Marcionism needs to incorporate the 'Marcion the Jew' or at least 'the Jewishness of Marcionism' into its formulation. You haven't done that mostly likely because you weren't even aware of it.

I have a strong suspicion that Alexandrian Christianity = Marcionism. The reason for this is that many of the same charges against Marcion inevitably apply against Origen. Of all the Church Fathers Origen demonstrates himself to have had the greatest contact with Jews and Jewish interpretation of the scriptures. He speaks most openly about Christ as a 'second god.' He and Clement were most influenced by the Jewish concept of two powers, one merciful, the other just. Marcionism was overtly Platonic as was the entire Alexandrian tradition. Marcion cut off his penis, Origen and many members of the Alexandrian tradition castrated themselves. The list goes on and on. It's the most obvious and simplistic solution to the difficulty of Marcionite provenance but it requires us to posit an external influence upon Alexandrian Christianity changing the tradition away from Marcionism and towards a new ecumenical 'orthodoxy' emanating from Rome.

Another reason why Alexandrian Christianity = Marcionism makes sense is that it is difficult to imagine dozens of different sects emanating from different parts of the Empire by 180 CE. This is a particularly difficult problem for those who posit the origins of Christianity c. 140 CE. How do you explain Irenaeus's (borrowed in part from Justin and Hegesippus) multitude of sects forty years later? That's why I subscribe to the idea that Clement's report about an Alexandrian Christian community by 70 CE or even earlier (i.e. some sect within the existing Alexandrian Jewish community) and that over time (a century) some variation emerged which explains the multitude of sects referenced in Irenaeus.

But the point is that the complete lack of mention of Alexandrian Christianity outside of Clement's oblique references (some of the them controversial) is the reason Church history is so difficult to reconstruct. The whole 'heresy' concept viz. the philosophical school is the missing link for Christian origins. Heresies were extensions of Philo's approach and fusion of Platon and Judaism. Rather than the philosophical schools 'corrupting' a 'primitive' Church I think it is highly probable that Christianity originated as a 'Marcionite tradition' that is an apostle (called Paul in the orthodox tradition) wrote a gospel as a mystery gospel overtly 'simplistic' but shielding deeper philosophical concepts.

If people view Philo's Platonic interpretation of the Jewish scriptures as a 'corruption' of primitive Judaism so much more Marcion's understanding of two gods and a primal myth where one of the two gods ends up crucified on a cross i.e. there was 'hostility' in his understanding. Nonsense.

Secret Alias wrote:

All that Marcion's interpretation coming from the Jews means to Tertullian is that, like the Jews, Marcion denies that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.

And this is the problem with NOT HAVING FAMILIARITY WITH THE MATERIAL. You've basically stumbled across internet references to 'Marcion' and reconstructed an oversimplistic model for the reconstruction of 'lost Marcionite material.' The reality - as is inevitable - is much more complicated. There are many passages in Tertullian where this strange theme of the Jewishness of Marcion is referenced which is difficult to explain (and which has been the subject of much academic discussion).

Quit being a condescending jerk. I know eveything you know. You're referring to rabbinic paralells in saying Moses was more merciful than God after the golden calf incident, for instance. Easily accounted for simply on the basis that per a literal reading of the narrative that is true. And therein, in fact, lies Marcion's Jewishness, he reads the OT literally rather than allegorically about Jesus. Anyone doing that will (1) not see Jesus as thr Messiah, (2) not see Jesus as the God of the OT, and (3) due to not seeing Jesus as the God of the OT will not have to harmonize the OT God's actions to Jesus' personality.

Point number 3 is extremely important when it comes to both Marcion and some rabbi admitting that Moses was more merciful than his god in a particular passage. An orthodox Christian who believes that Moses' god is Jesus cannot do that precisely because they must somehow harmonize the OT god's actions to the personality of Jesus meek and mild the ultimate personification of mercy. But anyone not bound by that constraint can simply admit what is obvious in the text, i.e. Moses acted more merciful than his god here. Marcion didn't have to go to yeshiva for that. I'm as Jewish as Marcion, simply because I read the OT literally without catholic constraints, so Tertullian would say the same about me. I'm not denying the possibility that Marcion was in fact ethnically Jewish, but Tertullian has no secret info on that and is merely going by the literalness of Marcion's interpretations of the OT.

I have a strong suspicion that Alexandrian Christianity = Marcionism. The reason for this is that many of the same charges against Marcion inevitably apply against Origen. Of all the Church Fathers Origen demonstrates himself to have had the greatest contact with Jews and Jewish interpretation of the scriptures. He speaks most openly about Christ as a 'second god.'

Nope! Origen could maybe be a Valentinian though. He is way too allegorical in his OT interpretation to be Marcionite. There was a passage I read a few weeks ago in his commentary on Luke that was the most hideous example I have ever seen (worse than Tertullian!) of allegorizing an OT text to deny the literal meaning AND using that as a basis for some horribly antisemitic vitriol. Saying stuff like "Tell me Jews what this means. You cannot because it can only be understood by the gospel." I wish I could remember what passage he was twisting. In any case he claimed no Jew could explain the meaning of some statement in Deuteronomy or Exodus, and he gave some horribly allegory, but if you read the next verse (the very next verse!) It was fully explained right there as any Jew would explain it (I dare say as anyone with a brain would explain it because its what the text freaking says). Anyway my point, you claim I know nothing about Marcionism or haven't read Tert's Against Marcion (which I can nearly quote in my sleep)....well you obviously know nothing about Origen! And you've proven it here; you've never read Origen!