Re: Marcionite agreements with Matthew against Luke?
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:00 pm
The problem has always been no one has ever asked, is our canon fake?
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
It is surely not a case of agreement against Luke. One can be selective and draw that conclusion, or one can look at the whole.rgprice wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:57 am Thanks Ben.
So this seems like a relevant one:
Matthew 12:
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”Luke 8:
19 Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. 20 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.”
21 He replied, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.”Details can be found in the link Ben provided above.Marcion:
19 ... 20 Some people told him, “Your mother and your brothers stand outside, desiring to see you.” 21 But he answered them, "Who is my mother and who are my brothers except these who hear my words and do them?”
This would seem to be an agreement between Marcion and Matthew against Luke. A possible explanation is that this text was in Marcion, Matthew copied it from Marcion, but Luke did not. Another would be that Marcion copied this text from Matthew (which seems a bit more unlikely).
It would be very difficult to explain this issue on the basis of Marcion having redacted Luke, since this passage doesn't exist in Luke.
By all means please, Stuart - I'd love to see this thread not getting derailed any longer by off-topic commentsStuart wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:04 pm Well at least Matthew chapter 5 is post Marcionite split (when they froze their Canon ... only small scribal changes mostly at that point).
The question is, was Matthew a single sitting composition, or like John and Luke and the Pauline epistles repeatedly edited with new versions released?
My own view is Matthew, as the primary gospel -which is why it is placed first in the collection-, likely was the most freely adjusted. The Sermon on the Mount would have been a key place for accumulating adjustments, as it is the perfect place to put sectarian positions in the mouth of Jesus himself. So I don't really know how early chapter 5 is in the composition of Matthew as we have it. But it constitutes a directed element that deserves study.
Stephen, if you will allow me, I can start a thread going verse by verse over chapter 5 of Matthew and demonstrate how it was composed as answer to the Marcionite antithesis, starting with verse 5:8 " Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." This is an extremely subversive verse in that it takes a position in attacking a key Marcion position that was very difficult for Christian theologians to defend.
I'm just asking that you stand aside out of politeness and not attempt to smother each post with twenty replies, often large full of raw dumps of church father writings, as is your tendency when you have a fundamental disagreement.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:52 am There is no way to convince me of such a systematic effort as I don't believe Tertullian has the Marcionite gospel when writing or copying Irenaeus's Against Marcion to make his Latin version (cf Adv Marc praef). I don't accept that the gospel text cited in Against Marcion is Marcions. As Tertullian and Irenaeus clearly state over and over again, Marcion allegedly stole Luke and they are citing the text Marcion stole against him. Effort in vain if I am the audience for your labors. I would be an unmoved Hera to your sweaty Herakles.
That is very interesting Stuart, I didn't know any of those implicationsStuart wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:07 am Starting with the Blessings. Mostly pulled from one of my blog posts some years back.
The first ten verses of the Sermon of the Mount, 5:3-12, are an expansion of the Beatitudes from the Marcionite Gospel, which are attested as they stand in Luke 6:20-24. [1]
One the expanded blessings of Matthew verse 5:8 as shown here
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
μακάριοι οἱ καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ, ὅτι αὐτοὶ τὸν θεὸν ὄψονται.
On the surface this seems a tame enough, but it elicited a considerable and strong reply from the Marcionites. In the pseudo-Clement Recognitions 3.29, Simon Magus takes objection to this blessing, as contradicting Torah Law, specifically Exodus 33:20 [5]
You (Peter) said now that God is visible to no one ... then (you say) those who are pure in heart shall see God; which statement is contrary to the law, for there it is written that God said, 'None shall see my face and live.'"
This objection comes directly from the Antithesis, as Tertullian states in AM 2.27.4-5, which juxtaposes a paraphrase of Luke 10:22 (Matthew 11:27) against Exodus 33:22
With regard, however, to the Father, the very gospel which is common to us will testify that He was never visible, according to the word of Christ: "No man knows the Father, save the Son." For even in the Old Testament He had declared, "No man shall see me, and live."
Ceterum patrem nemini visum etiam commune testabitur evangelium dicente Christo, Nemo cognovit patrem nisi filius. [6] Ipse enim et veteri testamento pronuntiarat, Deum nemo videbit et vivet.
What confirms that this objection was by Marcionites, and not just the much later Manicheans who Simon Magus is championing, becomes clear when we realize that the Marcionites also objected to Matthew 5:17, which we examined before.
Matthew 5:8 created quite a theological problem where Christians can see God –that is the Old Testament God of the Law– and yet not violate the Law of Moses, specifically Exodus 33:20, "no man shall see God and live." Irenaeus dances around the problem in Against All Heresies 4.20.5-12, [2] giving any manner of possibilities for seeing God such as visions. Irenaeus though makes it clear his response is directly to the Marcionite Antithesis as he states 4.20.5 citing Matthew 5:8 and Exodus 33:20, by splitting God into a visible part, and an invisible part (!)
The prophets, then, indicated beforehand that God should be seen by men; as the Lord also says, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." But in respect to His greatness, and His wonderful glory, "no man shall see God and live," for the Father is incomprehensible;
Praesignificabant igitur prophetae quoniam videbitur Deus ab hominibus; quemadmodum et Dominus ait: Beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt. Sed seeundum magnitudinem quidem ejus, et mirabilem gloriam, nemo videbit Deum, et vivit; incapabilis enim Pater.
Origen, in Contra Celsus, introduces the concept of seeing with your heart and not your eyes as means to get around the problem. [3] What is very clear is that while Tertullian simply sees the verse as an example of the Marcionites disagreeing with him about what the Lord did or did not say, but for Origen and Irenaeus this presented a major theological problem, requiring extensive argument to explain away the inconsistency, as they held the Old Testament as accurate on this point about seeing God, forcing them to defend an embarrassing position.
However for the mid-3rd Century the Jewish Christian writer of the pseudo-Clement Recognitions had another way to answer the problem, in 3.21 by turning to Matthew 22:30,
"God is seen by the mind, not by the body; by the spirit, not by the flesh. Whence also angels, who are spirits, see God; and therefore men, as long as they are men, cannot see Him. But after the resurrection of the dead, when they shall have been made like the angels"
This concept in Matthew 22:30 was carried directly into Ebionite thought, and can be seen as a development of the Pauline theology concerning resurrection of the dead on 1 Corinthians 15. It’s a bit convoluted, but presents a way of thinking about seeing God in a new eternal body, and the old mortal body has already perished. Not quite the way Irenaeus or Origen looked at it.
This declaration is not a mistake, as Matthew in the verse 18:10 makes the exact same statement about seeing God, this time it's the "little ones" who do so, also including a warning for heretics thinking themselves better than followers of Matthew's position
See (that) you do not look down upon one of these little ones
For I say to you that their angels in heavens
continually see the face of my father, who is in the heavens.
Ὁρᾶτε μὴ καταφρονήσητε ἑνὸς τῶν μικρῶν τούτων·
λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτῶν ἐν οὐρανοῖς
διὰ παντὸς βλέπουσι τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς.
Matthew in this one statement means to counter the Marcionite view that the OT God cannot be seen. He backed it up with other verses in his gospel, creating a theological problem that the Church Fathers grappled with for a few centuries after.
We also see evidence that the Antithesis continued to evolve, living document that it was, by adding this verse of Matthew to the key points to counter the Orthodox positions. Simon Magus, if I am correct is a stand in for a great Manichean preacher, shows that this evolved document was picked up by the Manicheans (comments from pseudo-Hegemonius seem to confirm this), and continued to be useful for a couple centuries after the rupture.
Notes:
[1] Tertullian AM 4.14 goes through each of the blessings, which are given verbatim, spending the entire chapter claiming that these are not in fact new precepts, but are the same as what can be found in the OT. This leaves us on firm ground, these verses stood in the Marcionite gospel.
[2] The entire fourth book of Irenaeus Against All Heresies appears to be dedicated to refuting Marcion and his followers points and theology.
[3] Origen Contra Celsus 6.4:
for He was seen not by their bodily eyes, but by the pure heart.
For, according to the declaration of our Jesus, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”
ὀφθεὶς αὐτῶν οὐ τοῖς τοῦ σώματος ὀφθαλμοῖς ἀλλὰ τῇ καθαρᾷ καρδίᾳ. Καὶ γὰρ κατὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἡμῶν "μακάριοι οἱ καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ, ὅτι αὐτοὶ τὸν θεὸν ὄψονται"
A protracted explanation of Origen’s view is given in 7.33-35