Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I will add an apostolic saying (ῥητὸν ἀποστολικὸν) not understood by the followers of Marcion (ὑπὸ τῶν Μαρκίωνος), who therefore reject the Gospels (καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀθετούν των τὰ εὐαγγέλια); for whereas the Apostle says, "According to my gospel in Christ Jesus (Κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ)" and does not speak of gospels, they oppose us, and maintain that if there were several gospels the Apostle would not have used the word in the singular (οὐκ ἂν πλειόνων ὄντων εὐαγγελίων τὸν ἀπόστολον ἑνικῶς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον εἰρηκέναι).

They do not understand that as He is one, so the Gospel written by its many authors is one in effect, and the Gospel truly delivered by four evangelists is one Gospel (οὐ συνιέντες ὅτι, ὡς εἷς ἐστὶν ὃν εὐαγγελίζονται πλείονες, οὕτως ἕν ἐστι τῇ δυνάμει τὸ ὑπὸ τῶν πολλῶν εὐαγγέλιον ἀναγεγραμμένον, καὶ τὸ ἀληθῶς διὰ τεσσάρων ἕν ἐστιν εὐαγγέλιον). Wherefore, if this has brought us conviction as to what the one book means, and what the many, I am now not so much concerned for the quantity of the copy as for the quality of the same, lest I fall into the transgression of the commandment, if I put forth anything as truth which is contrary to the truth even in a single detail of what is written; for I shall then prove myself to be a writer of many books (ἐκεῖ γὰρ ἔσομαι γράψας βιβλία πολλά).

And just now, when, with a show of knowledge, men who hold false opinions are rising up against the holy Church of Christ (τῶν ἑτερο δόξων τῇ ἁγίᾳ τοῦ χριστοῦ ἐκκλησίᾳ), and publishing book after book (καὶ πολυβίβλους συντάξεις) which professes to expound the Evangelikon and Apostolikon (τῶν τε εὐαγγελικῶν καὶ ἀποστολικῶν λέξεων), if we hold our peace, and do not meet them with the true and sound doctrines, they will prevail over gluttonous souls which, for want of wholesome food, rush to things forbidden, to utterly unclean and abominable meats.

It therefore seems to me to be necessary, that he who can genuinely plead for the doctrine of the Church and refute the handlers of knowledge falsely so-called, should withstand the inventions of the heretics, opposing to them the elevation of the preaching of the Gospel, inasmuch as he is satisfied with the harmony of doctrines common to the Old Testament and to the New, as they are respectively called. At all events, you yourself, when advocates of the good cause were scarce, because you could not endure an irrational and commonplace faith, in your love for Jesus embraced opinions which you afterwards, when you had fully exercised the understanding given to you, condemned and forsook. This I say, according to my light, by way of excuse for men who can speak and write, and also by way of apology for myself, lest, perhaps, not being equipped as a man should be who is enabled by God to be a minister of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit, I too boldly apply myself to composition. [Origen, Commentary on John Chapter Five; Philocalia 5.7]

To the man who is both ways a peacemaker, there is no longer anything in the Divine oracles crooked or perverse, for all things are plain to those who understand; and since to such an one there is nothing crooked or perverse, he sees abundance of peace everywhere in Scripture, even in those parts which appear not to agree and to be contradictory to one another. But there is also a third peacemaker, he, viz. who shows that what to the eyes of others seems like disagreement in the Scriptures is not really so, and who proves that harmony and concord exist, whether between the Old and the New, or the Law and the Prophets, or Evangelikon and Gospels (εὐαγγελικῶν πρὸς εὐαγγελικὰς), or Evangelikon and Apostles (ἢ εὐαγγελικῶν πρὸς ἀποστολικὰς), or Apostolikon and Apostles (ἢ ἀποστολικῶν πρὸς ἀποστολικάς).

AD. If I should prove that the Good God does judge, would you be convinced that God is a Unity, and that there is not another?

MK. You cannot prove it.

AD. Would you be convinced by the Apostle?

MK. I would be convinced by my Apostolicon.

AD. I have your Apostolicon here, and I read: "God will judge the secrets of men through Jesus Christ, according to my Gospel"

MEG. It is impossible that these men ever saw Paul.

AD. I can show the apostle himself testifying to Mark and Luke.

MEG. I do not accept your spurious Apostolicon

AD. Produce your Apostolicon — even though it is much mutilated and I will prove that Mark and Luke worked with Paul.

MEG. Prove it.

AD. I read at the end of Paul's letter to the Colossians ...

For in the first Epistle to the Corinthians the divine apostle (ὁ θεῖος ἀπόστολος) says: "Dare any of you, having a matter against the other, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Know ye not that the saints shall judge the world?" and so on. The section being very long, we shall exhibit the meaning of the apostle's utterance (τοῦ ἀποστόλου παραστήσομεν) by employing such of the expressions of the Apostolikon (τῶν ἀποστολικῶν) as are most pertinent, and in the briefest language, and in a sort of cursory way, interpreting the discourse in which he describes the perfection of the Gnostic. [Strom 7.14]

Bernard Muller wrote:to Neil,

This is a very common argument but the problem I've always had with it is that once Mark 13 was presumably found to be false then why was it not redacted to explain away the failure? Why was the supposedly failed prophecy then repeated by Matthew and Luke? Why was the embarrassing prophecy not re-written or removed altogether?
The implications of those questions make even less sense to me.

"Luke" did not say the "second coming" will happen soon after the fall of Jerusalem.

He (Celsus) asserts, moreover, that "the body of a god is not nourished with such food (as was that of Jesus)," since he is able to prove from the gospel literature (τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν γραμμάτων) both that He partook of food (σιτούμενον), and food of a particular kind (καὶ ποῖα σιτούμενον). [Origen Against Celsus 1.70]

Let Celsus produce any instance of such, and make good his charge. But he will be unable to do so, especially since it is from mistakes, arising either from misapprehension of the Evangelikon (εὐαγγελικῶν), or from Jewish stories, that he thinks to derive the charges which he brings against Jesus or against ourselves. [ibid 2.10]

To the preceding remarks he (Celsus) adds the following: "Since a divine Spirit inhabited the body (of Jesus), it must certainly have been different From that of other beings, in respect of grandeur, or beauty, or strength, or voice, or impressiveness, or persuasiveness. For it is impossible that He, to whom was imparted some divine quality beyond other beings, should not differ from others; whereas this person did not differ in any respect from another, but was, as they (i.e. the Christians) report, little, and ill-favoured, and ignoble (τοῦτο δὲ οὐδὲν ἄλλου διέφερεν, ἀλλ' ὥς φασι, μικρὸν καὶ δυσειδὲς καὶ ἀγεννὲς ἦν)."

... And if it were to be clearly ascertained from the Gospels that "He had no form nor beauty, but that His appearance was without honour, and inferior to that of the sons of men," it might be said that it was not with reference to the prophetic writings, but to the Evangelikon (τὸ εὐαγγελικόν), that Celsus made his remarks. But now, as neither the Gospels nor the apostolic writings (τῶν εὐαγγελίων ἀλλ' οὐδὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων) indicate that "He had no form nor beauty," it is evident that we must accept the declaration of the prophets as true of Christ, and this will prevent the charge against Jesus from being advanced. [ibid 6.75,77]

Such, then, is the account which they all give of their Pleroma, and of the formation of the universe, striving, as they do, to adapt the good words of revelation to their own wicked inventions. And it is not only from the Evangelic and the Apostolic (τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν καὶ τῶν ὰποστολικών) that they endeavour to derive proofs for their opinions by means of perverse interpretations and deceitful expositions: they deal in the same way with the law and the prophets, which contain many parables and allegories that can frequently be drawn into various senses, according to the kind of exegesis to which they are subjected. And others of them, with great craftiness, adapted such parts of Scripture to their own figments, lead away captive from the truth those who do not retain a stedfast faith in one God, the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. [Against Heresies 1.3.6]

Let us see what it (the Roman Church) has learned, what it has taught, and what fellowship it has likewise had with the African Churches. It acknowledges one God the Lord, the creator of the universe, and Jesus Christ, the Son of God the creator, born of the Virgin Mary, as well as the resurrection of the flesh. It unites the Law and the Prophets with the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles (cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet). From these it draws its faith, and by their authority it seals this faith with water, clothes it with the Holy Spirit, feeds it with the eucharist, and encourages martyrdom. Hence it receives no one who rejects this institution. [Prescription 36]

theomise wrote:I don't see how Marcion could have written the original Pauline letters, given that he appeared to endorse a gospel story.

If the Evangelikon was anything like a canonical gospel - (i.e., a story involving a mysterious figure wandering around the Levant, performing miracles and saying 'wise' things) - then why would Marcion's own letters completely avoid mention of these wondrous deeds and teachings?

Stephan Huller wrote:Stupid logic which falls flat on its face. Next ...

book 3, chapter 25: But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition (κατὰ τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν παράδοσιν) are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical (τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν) writers— we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical (ἐκκλησιαστικῶν) writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.

7. And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic (τὸ ἀποστολικὸν) usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.

book 3, chapter 36: These things he wrote from the above-mentioned city to the churches referred to. And when he had left Smyrna he wrote again from Troas to the Philadelphians and to the church of Smyrna; and particularly to Polycarp, who presided over the latter church. And since he knew him well as an apostolic man) (ἀποστολικὸν), he commended to him, like a true and good shepherd, the flock at Antioch, and besought him to care diligently for it.

book 4, chapter 15: Of such an end was the admirable and apostolic Polycarp (καὶ ἀποστολικὸν Πολύκαρπον) deemed worthy, as recorded by the brethren of the church of Smyrna in their epistle which we have mentioned. In the same volume concerning him are subjoined also other martyrdoms which took place in the same city, Smyrna, about the same period of time with Polycarp's martyrdom. Among them also Metrodorus, who appears to have been a proselyte of the Marcionitic sect, suffered death by fire.

book 7, chapter 32: ... τοῦ καθ̓ ἡμᾶς διωγμοῦ τὸν εἰς ἔτι νῦν ἐκεῖσε πεφυλαγμένον ἀποστολικὸν διαδέχεται θρόνον. Καὶ ἐπ̓ Ἀλεξανδρείας δὲ Μάξιμον ὀκτωκαίδεκα ἔτεσιν