What Would a Patripassian Gospel Look Like?

[Secret Alias]

Good question. I really don't know. I've never even considered this possibility before. I think that the construct as such was still influential because Daniel 7 might have been read in the Jewish manner - i.e. a human 'son of man' being divinized from contact with the 'divine Father' figure. Maybe they read Daniel 7 as if a human archetype was being prepared in the gospel (the youth) in order to replace the anthropomorphic Yahweh in the Pentateuch, the god who originally created Adam in order to establish a new paradigm for human perfection. I really don't know.

[Secret Alias]

Evans says in a note in Book Three that we should distinguish between things affirmed by Tertullian in the treatise (i.e. as his own belief) about Son and Father:

Now for my first line of attack. I suggest that he (Jesus) had no right to come so unexpectedly. For two reasons. First because he too was the son of his own god.1 Proper order required that father should tell of son's existence before son told of father's, and father bear witness to son before son bore witness to father. Secondly, besides this matter of sonship, he was an emissary. The sender's acknowledgement ought to have come first, in commendation of the one who was sent. No one who comes by another's authority
lays claim to it for himself, on his own bare statement, but looks for his credentials to the authority itself, headed by the style and
title of the person who grants the authority. Moreover none can be recognized as a son unless a father has given him that name,
nor can any be accepted as messenger unless he has been nominated by some person whose commission he holds. The naming
and the nomination would certainly have been on record if there had been a father, or one to grant a commission. Anything that
diverges from the rule is bound to be suspect: and the primary rule of all is that which does not permit son to vouch for father,
or agent for principal, or Christ for god. As that from which a thing originates came first in the ordaining of it, so it comes first in men's knowledge of it. Here you have a son unexpected, an agent unexpected, a Christ unexpected. But I suggest that with God nothing is unexpected, because with God nothing exists unordained. If then it was ordained beforehand, why was it not also announced beforehand, so that the announcement might prove it ordained, and the ordaining prove it divine? And surely there is another reason why so great a work, one taken in hand for man's salvation, could not have been unexpected—that it was to become effective through faith. It had to be believed, or remain ineffective. And so it required preparatory work in order to be credible—preparatory work built upon foundations of previous intention and prior announcement. Only by being built up in this order could faith with good cause be imposed upon man by God, and shown towards God by man—a faith which, since there was knowledge, might be required to believe because belief was a possibility, and in fact had learned to believe by virtue of that previous announcement.

Evans notes however that:

1 Elsewhere, e.g. at I. 11. 8, it is implied that Marcion's superior god came down in person as Christ.

The ' superior god' necessarily has to be the Father (even though that appellation is never used by Tertullian in his discussion. We read in that section starting from the end of chapter ten (which initiates the discussion of the foreknowledge humanity had of Jesus):

God can never keep himself hidden, can never be unattainable: he must at all times be understood, be heard, even be seen, in such manner as he will. God has his evidences, all this that we are, and in which we are. Such is the proof that he is God, is the one God, this fact that he is not unknown, while that other one is even yet struggling after recognition. 'And so he ought to be', they reply: 'any man is better known to his own than to aliens.' I admit that: I insist on it. For how can there be anything alien to God, when any god there were could have nothing alien to him? For it is characteristic of God that all things are his, and all things his concern. If they were not, we should at once object, 'What then has he to do with things alien to him?' But we shall deal with this more fully in its own context. For the moment it is enough that one is proved to be nobody if nothing is proved to belong to him. For just as the Creator is God, and God beyond all doubt, for the reason that all things are his and that nothing is alien to him, so also any other is not a god, precisely because all things are not his, and therefore are alien to him. In fact, if the whole universe belongs to the Creator, I see no room at all for a second god: all things are fully occupied by their own begetter. If there is among created things any empty space for some divinity, evidently it must be empty for a false divinity. The truth is made manifest by the lie. All that great multitude of false gods ought somewhere to have found room for Marcion's god. This too I postulate after the pattern set by the Creator, that <this other one> ought to have been recognizable as a god by reason of his creation of some world and man and time of his own: for even this world's wrong-headedness has made into gods those who it acknowledges were once men, precisely because it appears that by each of them some provision has been made for life's utilities and pleasures.1 Thus then it was from the precedent God set, that there arose the belief that it is a divine function to invent or discover something suitable and essential for human life. In this way even false divinity has borrowed proof of its existence from that which was already the proof of true divinity. One solitary little chick-pea of his own ought Marcion's god to have brought to light, and he might then have been proclaimed a sort of new Triptolemus.2 Else you have to propound some reason, a reason worthy of a god, why, if he exists, he has done no creating: because he would have created something, if he had existed, by our previous ruling, of course, that it is only because he has created all this that our own God's existence is clearly seen. For the established rule must be upheld, that these people are not allowed, while admitting that the Creator is God, to omit to prove the godhead of that other—whom they no less wish to have regarded as a god— conformably to the pattern set by that one whom they and all men recognize as God. And so it follows that just as no one doubts that the Creator is God—for he has created all this—so no one has the right to believe the godhead of that other, who has created nothing: unless perchance some reason is alleged. And that reason has to have a double bearing—either that he had no wish to create anything, or that he had no power: there is no third possibility. But to have no power is unworthy of a god. To have had no wish—whether this was worthy, I proceed to discuss. Tell me, Marcion, was it, or was it not, your god's wish ever to become known at any time? Was it with any other intent that he came down, and taught, and suffered, and rose again, except that he might become known?3 Certainly, if he did become known, he was willing: for nothing could have been done with respect to him unless he had been willing. Why was he so intent upon providing evidence of himself by being put on display in the dishonour of flesh—a dishonour even greater if that flesh was no true flesh? For it adds to the disgrace if he made the substance of his body into a lie—and he even took upon himself the Creator's curse by being hung from a tree. How much more reputably could he have contrived beforehand for men to have knowledge of him by some evidences of his own craftsmanship, especially as he needed to become known in opposition to that one to whom since
the beginning he had remained unknown because he had done nothing! For it is quite incredible that the Creator, ignorant, as the Marcionites allege, that there was another god above him, and affirming even with an oath that he himself was the only God, should have equipped the knowledge of himself with all these great works—knowledge which, on the assumption of his singularity he had no need to make this kind of provision for—yet that that more sublime god, knowing that the inferior God was so endowed, should have provided no handiwork to ensure his own recognition. Really it would have been his duty to create even more significant, even more impressive, works, so that through works he might be recognized as a god, like the Creator, and through more honourable works be seen to be more eminent and more noble than the Creator.

Clearly if we were to try to make the Marcionite and even heretical belief the most sensibility we would argue that 'the unknown god' was the Father and the Son was the Creator, the Jewish god, Yahweh. In short, it is just a natural extension of the framework of Philo save for the fact that the Creator was unaware of the Most High Father.

What is so striking however is how rare the explicit confirmation of this 'unknown Father' 'known Son who is ignorant of the Father' is ever referenced by the Church Fathers. It does appear. But it is rare.

[Secret Alias]

It is amazing to see how unable Tertullian is to nail down what the Marcionite belief was with respect to Jesus being the Son of God. For instance in Book Four all he is willing to admit is that the text of the gospel had 'Son of Man' in it:

But if the distinctions are made in this form, that is, if on his mother's side he is the Son of man because he is not the Son of man on his father's side, and if his mother is a virgin because he has no man for his father, this must be Isaiah's Christ whom he prophesies that a virgin will conceive. By what reasoning then, Marcion, you accept Son of man <into the text of your gospel> I am unable to understand. If <you mean> son of a human father, you deny that he is the Son of God: if <you mean> son of God as well, you are making Christ into Hercules out of the old story: if only his mother was human, you admit that he is mine: if neither father nor mother was human, then he is not the son of man at all, and we must conclude that he told a lie when he called himself something that he was not. One thing alone can get you out of these straits—if you are bold enough either to give your god, the father of Christ, the name of Man, which is what Valentinus did with the aeon,1 or else to deny that the virgin is human, which is a thing not even Valentinus has done. Next, what if in Daniel Christ is dignified with this actual title, Son of man ? i Is not this good enough proof that Christ is the subject of prophecy? For when he calls himself by that title which was in prophecy applied to the Christ of the Creator, without question he offers himself for recognition as that one to whom the prophecy applied. Joint possession of names, perhaps, can be regarded as having no special significance—though even so I maintain that persons possessed of opposite characteristics had no right to be called either Christ or Jesus.

Doesn't Tertullian know whether or not the Marcionites called Jesus 'Son of God' or 'the Son'? Doesn't he know if the Marcionites accepted the book of Daniel? The degree of ambiguity in Against Marcion is quite startling. It is almost as if Tertullian is wrestling with a theoretical understanding of what the Marcionites believed. It's as if he doesn't know.

In the same passage there is a still stranger reference to the Jews only recognizing his 'manhood':

When the Jews were taking account only of his manhood (Nam cum Iudaei solummodo hominem eius intuentes), not yet aware that he was also God, as being also God's Son, and were (as might be expected) arguing that a man cannot forgive sins (non posse hominem delicta dimittere), but only God can, how is it that the answer he gave them concerning man (de homine eis respondit habere eum), that he has power to forgive sins—when by using the expression 'Son of man' he implied 'man' as well (quando et filium hominis nominans hominem nominaret —was not in terms of their objection? Was it not that it was his wish by this title Son of man from the book of Daniel to turn their complaint back upon them in such form as to prove that he who was forgiving sins was both God and Man—that one and only Son of man in terms of Daniel's prophecy, who had obtained power to judge, and by it of course the power to forgive sins (for he who judges also acquits)—and so after that cause of offence had been dispersed by his citation of scripture, they might the more readily recognize from that very act of forgiving sins that he and no other was the Son of man? (Evans translation)

For when the Jews, who looked at Him as merely man, and were not yet sure that He was God also, as being likewise the Son of God, rightly enough said that a man could not forgive sins, but God alone, why did He not, following up their point about man, answer them, that He had power to remit sins; inasmuch as, when He mentioned the Son of man, He also named a human being? except it were because He wanted, by help of the very designation "Son of man" from the book of Daniel, so to induce them to reflect as to show them that He who remitted sins was God and man----[14] that only Son of man, indeed, in the prophecy of Daniel, who had obtained the power of judging, and thereby, of course, of forgiving sins likewise (for He who judges also absolves); so that, when once that objection of theirs was shattered to pieces by their recollection of Scripture, they might the more easily acknowledge Him to be the Son of man Himself by His own actual forgiveness of sins. (Holmes translation)

I've mentioned this passage before. It begins with the strange reference to the Marcionites possibly identifying Jesus as a god named 'Man' saying that the Valentinians also did that with their hypostasis Anthropos and then the issue of the "the Son of Man" is raised. It is true that Jesus makes reference to the 'Son of Man' in the story of Mark 2/Luke 5 and that in much of what follows this is discussed. Yet what is rarely noticed - and this is essential for understanding Adversus Marcionem - before Jesus mentions the 'Son of Man' with respect to the healing the paralytic he actually calls the paralytic either 'Son' (Τέκνον) or 'Man' (Ἄνθρωπε) in Mark 2:5/Luke 5:20:

When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son (Τέκνον), your sins are forgiven.”
When Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Friend (Ἄνθρωπε), your sins are forgiven.”

What are the odds that this would happen? What are the odds that Tertullian would (a) vehemently argue for Jesus being identified as the 'Son of Man' from Daniel against possible Marcionite objection (b) infer that the Marcionites regarded Jesus as Man and possibly that their unknown god was named 'Man' and (c) argued on behalf of 'Son of Man' confirming that Jesus was 'man' (hominem) when Mark and Luke strangely 'split the difference' on what must have been the Marcionite understanding that the healed paralytic was the Son of Man and Jesus was Man (i.e. his Father).

You see I've never accepted the idea that the variants between the synoptic readings are accidental. There must have been variants to be sure among all the different sects before Irenaeus or whomever else codified the three synoptics. But clearly variants were created to confound the heresies. Moreover I've also argued that Adversus Marcionem is a reworked text but more importantly that the synoptic variants were related to the arguments laid out in Irenaeus's original text (preserved in a somewhat modified form in Latin by Tertullian). So in this case we have the clearest confirmation that the Marcionites identified Jesus as 'Man' (ish/ishu) and the paralytic as his 'son.' Indeed the encounter between Man and Son of Man here is very profound. It is ultimately a poetic allusion to the creation of Adam where in the gnostic accounts the Creator sees the still body made of earth lying still on the ground before the Holy Spirit vivifies his arms and legs.

Indeed even the fact that the 'Son of Man' here comes over a 'roof' (στέγην) or 'cover' (c.f στεγάζω) seems to allude to the 'cloud' (ענני) of Daniel - http://cal.huc.edu/showjastrow.php?page=1095 which was used to mean 'covering' in Aramaic:

ענני covering PTA. TN Ex16:13 : ובצפרא הוות עננית טלא חזור חזור למשריתא ‏ While in the morning there was a covering of dew around the camp. TN Ex16:14 : וסלקת עננית טלא ‏ then the covering of dew went up.

So the strange scene in the gospel where mean carry an individual later identified as Jesus's son over a roof and then he descends from above, lowered into Jesus's presence is likely in my mind a recreation of Daniel 7:13 where the 'Son of Man' means the 'Ancient of Days.' This secret 'youth' is initiated into the mystery of the kingdom of God in order to take his seat on the throne.

[Secret Alias]

An interesting reading of the section here - https://books.google.com/books?id=9cL_k ... 22&f=false

The Son of Man in Dn. 7:13-14 is given authority (e^ouaia in the Greek texts as in Matthew); the Daniel links for Matthew's use of Son of Man will become clear as the story progresses. Both Matthew and Luke see that Mark's text could be read as joining 'on earth' to 'sins' rather than to the Son of Man's dispensing of forgiveness. So they bring the phrase 'on earth' back to a position immediately after 'the Son of Man.' Does 'on earth' operate with an implicit contrast/comparison between the Son of Man at work on earth and God who acts in heaven? Or is there a contrast between the present period of life on earth and the coming eschatological period? The language of earth and heaven in 16:19; 18:18 stands in favour of the former: 'done on earth but with full effect in heaven as well'. The language of 28:18, which says that the authority is operative in heaven and on earth, points in the same direction.

So one may see this in the context of the entire narrative being a deliberate reconstruction or fulfillment of Daniel chapter 7. The paralytic is the new proto-Adam/Man limp and unable to move (like a protoplasm) coming across a 'covering/cloud' and lowered from the sky/heaven to earth. He is there to meet the Ancient of Days and receive authority and living spirit.

[davidbrainerd]

Yes there is a funny David Allen skit about this very subject. Three is not one. It's not important what Tertullian or anyone else says on the subject - it's an ancient precursor to Trump's 'fake news.' Three is not one. Even Siamese twins are still two individuals not one.

This is why I call Tertullian's theory a "theory." By his logic if I have two apples they are one because equal (in substance, i.e. both are apple substance). He's creating a theory of oneness that will support building the Trinity doctrine. Why doesn't he just rehabilitate Marcion by applying this theory to his two gods? Then he could use Marcion against non-Trinitarian opponents, "even Marcion believed the Trinity!" He can't (and believe me he would if he could) because its well known Marcion's two gods are rivals.

[Secret Alias]

I have a suspicion he either (a) doesn't know what the Marcionite beliefs are (undoubtedly because he is using an earlier text likely written by Irenaeus) or (b) he doesn't want to be too exact about their beliefs because of fear that they might make too much sense for his readers. In the end I see (a) as more likely and that (b) applies to Irenaeus's motivation, the author of the previous version of Adversus Marcionem which was used as the original Greek 'base text' for the current Latin MS (much like Against the Valentinians or the Prescription Against Heresies came from a Greek text of Irenaeus). There are numerous clues that the original text was Greek especially when he uses basically untranslatable Greek words embedded still in the Latin MS. That the text was originally written by Irenaeus has already been suspected by many scholars.

Interestingly Andrew Criddle and I have had a long discussion about Book 4 and come to the basic agreement that the underlying text was a commentary on a 'gospel harmony' written by someone related to Justin. This of course complicates any further discussion on motives because Irenaeus likely introduced the anti-Marcionite argument to a text that wasn't originally written with Marcion in mind or as a secondary consideration (look at the way Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron makes occasional reference to Marcion but is first and foremost a commentary). If you are saying that Tertullian was presenting a 'theory' about Marcion I am good with that because he really doesn't know anything more than what Irenaeus told him about the sect and any further 'riffing' on his part is pure nonsense and ultimately distraction. But again if you are arguing that Tertullian is 'theorizing' about the godhead and how it is one, this is less easy to accept. Irenaeus would have been absolutely firm on the truth of the 'one rule' (monarchian) in the divine household. It wouldn't have been 'theorized' in anyway. It was an absolute fact. I don't see Tertullian softening that 'rule.' The only time he speaking vaguely is about Marcion's belief undoubtedly because he hasn't fucking clue what the Marcionites were or why they believed what they believed or how they justified it.

[davidbrainerd]

I would also point out that Justin actually holds the view that you want to attribute to Marcion. Justin views Jesus as a "second god" (he uses this term in the Dialogue with Trypho when discussing Jesus being the Angel of the Lord) who is nonetheless the same god because its like fire from fire, etc. This is well known to anyone who has studied the dialogue. So why would Justin in the Apology accuse Marcion of convincing men in every nation to worship a god other than the creator and father of christ, if Marcion actually holds the same position as Justin? Your theory falls apart.

[Secret Alias]

Right but again at least some of the texts of Justin (and specifically the Dialogue) was/were altered c. 195 CE - the time of Irenaeus - as even a conservative scholar like Craig Evans acknowledges. So with all of these texts you have to apply the same doubt and sophisticated 'extraction methods' as with the gospel. Since Irenaeus likely reworked a commentary on the harmony gospel of Justin into a commentary which supported the crazy claim that Marcion developed his gospel from Luke (a text wholly unknown to Justin) it wouldn't be surprising if all references to Marcion that are found in Justin were later interpolations.

[Secret Alias]

Marcion actually holds the same position as Justin

Not the same but similar or at least closer to each other than either was to Irenaeus.

[davidbrainerd]

So according to you, Marcion believed in two friendly powers who are really one god, as fire from fire, but then you say "Irenaeus" basically forged Justin's works to attribute this position to Justin and make Justin say that Marcion taught two rival powers. If "Irenaeus" agreed with Marcion he could have just recommended Marcion's texts. Do you also think that Justin is the one who held rival powers views since you think Marcion held friendly powers views that are now attributed to Justin?