Duvduv

Well, Andrew, maybe you can clarify some basic points.
How is it that Marcion supposedly existed in the same time and town as Justin Martyr in the second century and yet Justin Martyr says nothing about any texts or writings in the possession of Marcion. Surely, Justin should have known about epistles or the so-called Marcion gospel, but there is no indication about it.

There is therefore no independent information about what Marcion or his followers did or did not believe, or what texts they had. Or whether they even existed (or at least as described by the church propagandists).

Surely, Justin would have discussed the differences between the Marcion gospel of "Luke" and the Memoirs of the Apostles, and the significance of epistles written by somebody named Paul.

For that matter there is even reason to question the existence of a Tertullian in the second century, unless, of course, you take the statements of the heresiologists at face value - for which there are good reasons not to.

Yes, yes, I know we are assured by the ancient heresiologists that Justin wrote a whole book about Marcion - of which not even a quote or paraphrase survives, much less a few pages. An entire book allegedly written by this Justin against the Jews survives and yet not even a single page of the book against Marcion survives. Hmmm.......

stephan huller

Andrew,

I really don't think I am misunderstanding the material. I think Tertullian's argument is entirely superficial. It is his point that because 'son of David' appears there, the understanding is settled. We have to give the Marcionites a bit of credit. Tertullian et al simply want to present them as raving lunatics. But it is utterly incredible to suggest that the Marcionites - who held that Jesus was all God and not man - would simply have held that "a blind man is healed after (wrongly according to the Marcionites) calling Jesus "Son of David".

Within Tertullian's argument is the reflection of the original Marcionite emphasis that Jesus was a god. This was 'the truth' according to them and it immediately appears in front of the healing portion. Yes I think this is important because I am trying to understand what the Marcionites likely believed with respect to the material. I don't think you are trying as hard, being content to share in Tertullian's disdain for the sect.

Let's look line by line at the critical portion of the reference:

This is the Catholic interpretation. Jesus was the 'son of David' Adamantius and others consistently show that this was not the Marcionite understanding. Jesus was the Lord.

By Tertullian's language it is clear that he is reflecting the Marcionites took interest in the rebuke. You have to acknowledge as the starting point to the Marcionite interpretation that 'son of David' was mistakenly applied to the Lord. This is consistently represented in the literature related to the Marcionites. To stop short of doing this is to go along with Tertullian and that is unproductive to truth-seeking.

Clearly again the Marcionites held that 'son of David' was misapplied. I don't see how you can deny this.

Again I don't know how you pretend this wasn't the Marcionite interpretation.

This is another argument very similar in nature to what Irenaeus says at the beginning of Book Three of Against Heresies - "Neither did His disciples make mention of any other God, or term any other Lord, except Him, who was truly the God and Lord of all, as these most vain sophists affirm that the apostles did with hypocrisy frame their doctrine according to the capacity of their hearers, and gave answers after the opinions of their questioners,--fabling blind things for the blind, according to their blindness; for the dull according to their dulness; for those in error according to their error. And to those who imagined that the Demiurge alone was God, they preached him; but to those who are capable of comprehending the unnameable Father, they did declare the unspeakable mystery through parables and enigmas: so that the Lord and the apostles exercised the office of teacher not to further the cause of truth, but even in hypocrisy, and as each individual was able to receive it! Such [a line of conduct] belongs not to those who heal, or who give life: it is rather that of those bringing on diseases, and increasing ignorance; and much more true than these men shall the law be found, which pronounces every one accursed who sends the blind man astray in the way. For the apostles, who were commissioned to find out the wanderers, and to be for sight to those who saw not, and medicine to the weak, certainly did not address them in accordance with their opinion at the time, but according to revealed truth. For no persons of any kind would act properly, if they should advise blind men, just about to fall over a precipice, to continue their most dangerous path, as if it were the right one, and as if they might go on in safety. Or what medical man, anxious to heal a sick person, would prescribe in accordance with the patient's whims, and not according to the requisite medicine? But that the Lord came as the physician of the sick, He does Himself declare saying, "They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." I think these reports are related. The business about the precipice is the Marcionite interpretation of Jesus standing next to a cliff and the Jews rush to push him over and pass through him and plunge to their death. Irenaeus doesn't like this nor any examples of Jesus hiding things from the people he is supposedly healing.

Again the issue for Tertullian is that Jesus doesn't openly tell the people 'hey you are supposed to call me Lord rather than Son of David.' But this is how the gnostics - not just 'the heretics' but Clement and Origen too - interpreted the material. There was a gospel secret, there was something that Jesus was keeping from people - a secret such as the fact that he was a wholly divine hypostasis rather than a man.

This has to be a reference to the fact that the blind man says 'the Lord' here and is healed. I can't believe that you don't believe that the heretics interpreted the text this way. How do you think the Marcionites interpreted the material? Again I am not interest in how Tertullian interprets the material - tell me what the Marcionites believed.

anethema

i never thought it was bizzarre at all.when i was a young alter boy this was great theater. the priest incanted it in latin. as ahigh school student (catholic of course) i took 2 years of latin and became pretty proficient at it. that combined with my raging interest in ancient near eastern history made me look at what they were actually propounding. for a thousand years people who didnt know latin went to church lived and died etc. and not a whisper of dissent, because it was about community imho. wycliffe was the the one that let the cat out of the proverbial bagso to speak. the reformation is where you need to look for the philisophical underpinnings of your arguments imho.

andrewcriddle

Hi Stephan

One of my problems is that I think that Tertullian is going through what he sees as the possible Marcionite options when dealing with this passage. I doubt whether he provides good evidence of actual Marcionite exegesis.
On the basis of their known beliefs the Marcionites must have regarded 'son of David' as inappropriate. Tertullian would have known this on general principles without needing a detailed knowledge of actual Marcionite exegesis.
I think your paraphrase is wrong here. It should be: Tertullian's point is that accepting FTSOA that the crowd disapproved of Jesus being called 'son of David' Jesus himself was apparently quite happy with the title.

The Marcionites seem to have been less into secret teachings than some of the other early Christian groups.
I don't think we really know. Your suggestion is quite possible. If I had to guess, I would suggest that Marcion read (with the Diatessaron) Lord that I may see thee (instead of just Lord that I may see) and interpreted the text on that basis.

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv

Andrew, are you not interested in addressing my substantive questions?

stephan huller

thanks Andrew, that is a quite useful suggestion. As you know there are numerous points of contact between the Marcionite gospel/gospel interpretation and the Diatessaron gospel/gospel interpretation. The passing through the crowd/flying Jesus narrative mentioned in Baarda's article being only the most obvious.

It is also interesting that Mark inserts 'rabboni' here. I would argue that this demonstrates that Luke's reading here is more original but I am biased.

stephan huller

And notice how much additional information is in the Diatessaron. First the Zacchaeus story is added to the same place where Secret Mark adds that Salome episode:

And then in the blind man narrative the Diatessaron mixes Mark and Luke (or Mark and Luke divide the original).

sotto voce

Inserts. Don't be deceived by stephan's youthful looks. stephan was there. Bartimaeus said only that he wanted to receive his sight, without appellation of Jesus. Now we know.

Which means that Luke 'inserted', also.

But stephan actually means that Mark deliberately altered a word, or was misinformed of it. Now the word Mark indicates was used by the blind man is found elsewhere only once in all the gospels, used by one very familiar to Jesus; whereas Luke's word is very common, that many used, and not always with conviction. So the strong likelihood is that Mark was perfectly accurate, and that Bartimaeus, whom, after all, Mark named, was not only aware of Jesus' messiah-hood, but was also much devoted to him personally, even before meeting him. This is why many have found Mark's story of Bartimaeus particularly touching.

There is no doubt that 'Son of David' referred to the long-awaited Messiah. Of course there were many men alive who could say that David was their ancestor, and many more of David's 'sons' who had died, but the Hebrew scripture made it clear enough that just one of them was to be the 'anointed':

'The Lord swore an oath to David, a sure oath that he will not revoke: "One of your own descendants I will place on your throne... I will make a horn grow for David and set up a lamp for my anointed one. I will clothe his enemies with shame, but the crown on his head shall be resplendent."' Ps 132:11...18 NIV

Surely the wearer of a resplendent crown deserved the appellation 'great master', as used by Bartimaeus. Now with the Roman Gentiles very much in charge, it was obvious that the throne could not be a worldly one. Unless the Lord had broken his oath, the anointed one must have been anointed only in a spiritual sense, a spiritual ruler, with a spiritual crown. So 'Son of David' was (and remains) approximately synonymous with rhabbouni as well as kúrie, and any issue that is contingent on difference between them is liable to be specious. It should also be noted that they were both uttered before healing.

stephan huller

not so youthful any more. i'm as ugly as j p holding now

Duvduv

Some of the more creative Sabbatians believed that the final Messiah did not have to literally be a physical descendant of David since David's soul was divided among various people including nondavidic descendants. Thus Shabtai Zvi or his successors (depending on the sect ) did not have to be the descendant of David.