stephan huller

Right Jake, I have found at least six exact parallels between known Marcionite readings of Romans and the Romans text which appears in Clement of Alexandria. If the Romans text of Marcion and Clement are related then it would stand that the Marcionite Romans text had chapter 15 and 16. I have already noted that the side by side double negation in Origen (i.e. that the Marcionite gospel both was 'cut up' after the end of chapter 14 and that the close of chapter 16 was 'complete removed') implies that something from the two chapters must have been 'retained.' Also it must be noted that neither Clement nor Marcion has any reference to any of the addresses to people that appear in 15 and 16. I suspect that all the evidence suggests that just a few lines (maybe two paragraphs) from the entire two chapters was retained.

archibald

I am out of my depth, but there are at least three people here on this thread who should consider getting together and coming up with a Marcionite gospel, based on good strong evidence from the pattern and constitution of actual, evidenced, references to it. I know it would not be uncontentious, given that even the heresiologies may be corrupted, but on the basis of what I've read, youse could have a good go at it.

If you could set mythicist or historicist conclusions temporarily aside while doing so, that would be even more interesting. :]

stephan huller

It is impossible to put together the Marcionite gospel. There are just too many unknown variables. I have thought for a long time a surer bet would be the Marcionite Apostolikon but even that is fraught with difficulties. There is just too much we don't know. Yet the cop out is just to go along with the attacks of the Church Fathers. But systematizers do love certainty, so much so they would sacrifice the truth for it.

jakejonesiv

Hi Archibald,

This is quite a good request. While Stephan may want to view this as an impossible task, I do not. Of course, there will remain larger areas of uncertainty and disagreement, but we can do a whole lot better than nothing!

Here is an attempt at such a reconstruction. The Gospel of Marcion .

AM 4.4.1 Tertullian states "I say that my Gospel is the true one; Marcion, that his is. I affirm that Marcion's Gospel is adulterated; Marcion, that mine is...." Most likely both are right. The doctrinal battles of the second century were fought in the “scriptures”.

This is a very important point to comprehend. Most traditional scholars like to pretend that the texts of the New Testament we find in our Bibles today are very very close to the "original autographs" as they came from the pens of the evangelists and Apostles assumed to be writing in the first century. This naive assumption is responsible for most of the mischief we see in studies of Christian origins.

Marcion's gospel was a substratum of Luke. Canonical Luke is a redacted verion of Marcion's gospel. Whatever the actual percentages, a major portion of the Lukan Sondergut can be viewed as anti-Marcionite material. This includes the nativity and the anti-docetic resurrection appearances. The Sondergut also tends to make Jesus appear more Jewish. (John Knox). The best explanation to me is that most of the Sondergut was added last. In other words, the ecclesiastical redactor added anti-Marcionite material to Marcion's gospel. Hence, Marcion’s gospel was more original than the catholic/canonical version.

It is possible that Marcion's gospel was a source for both canonical Luke and canonical Matthew. Matthias Klinghardt has suggested this solution to the synoptic problem with Marcion's gospel at an early stage (and no Q!). “The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic: A New Suggestion,” NovT 50 (2008): 1-27. This solves quite a few of the synoptic problems that plague both the Two Document Hypothesis and the Farrer/Goulder/Goodacre alternative.
I asked Dr. Mark Goodacre if he was familiar with Klinghardt's work, and he replied that he was, and "found it stimulating even if ... not yet persuaded by it. "

Probably no simplified solution to the synoptic problem can be more than an approximation. It may be that the priority of Mark only indicates that canonical Mark more closely reflects an urgospel than canonical Luke and canonical Matthew. This was Lachman’s observation so many years ago, and the so called “Lachmann Fallacy” is itself a misunderstanding by those (B. C. Butler, W. R. Farmer, Matthew priortists et. al.) who thoroughly misinterpreted Lachmann’s work.

A recent trend is to return to the later dates for the New Testament texts already established by 19th century rationalism. Richard Pervo has demonstrated a strong case that Acts is a second century composition. Joseph Tyson has presented a plausible case that Luke/Acts were composed in response to Marcion, with canonical Luke being a redaction of Marcion's gospel. Indeed, no one had ever mentioned a gospel attributed to Luke before Irenaeus about 180 CE.

We may have a hint of this when Tertillian accused Marcion of omitting "M" material from his gospel! If Klinghardt is correct, the need for an unknown "Q" document (and all the hypothetical communities created to write it) disappear.

Best Regards,
Jake

aa5874

There is a MASSIVE problem with "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian.

The author ADMITTED that he was really ARGUING against an ANONYMOUS writing.

"Against Marcion" 3 It would appear that the writer called Tertullian was using books found in the NT Canon and NOT the writings of Marcion.

There was NOT NT Canon in the 2nd century. "Against Marcion" is historically BOGUS.

Marcion's writings were DERIVED from EMPEDOCLES according to Hippolytus.

archibald

Two very interesting posts, Jake. I enjoyed reading them. Not sure my knowledge is up to the complex task of coming to any conclusions or even awarding probabilities, but it all sounds possible. Nothing outlandish, sublunar or way-out-on-an-unlikely-speculative limb, as far as I can see.

DCHindley

I wonder about this kind of statement. The original Latin does use the term Adulteratum

According to the dictionary, English "adulterate" means "To make impure by adding extraneous, improper, or inferior ingredients." In short, it is additive in nature.

Tertullian says that Marcion omitted things that were in Tertullian's copies of Luke and the Pauline letters to churches. However, the Latin word has the following meaning:

ădultĕro , āvi, ātum, 1, v. n. and
I. a. [id.], to commit adultery, to pollute, defile.
I. Lit., absol. or with acc.: “latrocinari, fraudare, adulterare,” Cic. Off. 1, 35: “jus esset latrocinari: jus adulterare: jus testamenta falsa supponere,” id. de Leg. 16, 43: “qui dimissam duxerit, adulterat,” Vulg. Matt. 5, 32: “matronas,” Suet. Aug. 67; cf. id. Caes. 6.—Also of brutes: “adulteretur et columba milvio,” Hor. Epod. 16, 32.—As verb. neutr. of a woman: “cum Graeco adulescente,” Just. 43, 4.—Freq.,
II. Fig., to falsify, adulterate, or give a foreign nature to a thing, to counterfeit: “laser adulteratum cummi aut sacopenio aut fabā fractā,” Plin. 19, 3, 15, § 40: “jus civile pecuniā,” Cic. Caecin. 26: “simulatio tollit judicium veri idque adulterat,” id. Lael. 25, 92; id. Part. 25, 90: “adulterantes verbum,” Vulg. 2 Cor. 2, 17.—Poet. of Proteus: “faciem,” changes his form, Ov. F. 1, 373.

As one can see from the exerpt below, Tertullian is claiming that it was Marcion who polluted the truth of a gospel and the letters of Paul that be at least believes are more ancient than Marcion's edition.

AM 4.4.1 We must follow, then, the clue of our discussion, meeting every effort of our opponents with reciprocal vigor. I say that my Gospel is the true one; Marcion, that his is. I affirm that Marcion's Gospel is adulterated; Marcion, that mine is. Now what is to settle the point for us, except it be that principle of time, which rules that the authority lies with that which shall be found to be more ancient; and assumes as an elemental truth, that corruption (of doctrine) belongs to the side which shall be convicted of comparative lateness in its origin. For, inasmuch as error is falsification of truth, it must needs be that truth therefore precede error. A thing must exist prior to its suffering any casualty; and an object must precede all rivalry to itself. Else how absurd it would be, that, when we have proved our position to be the older one, and Marcion's the later, ours should yet appear to be the false one, before it had even received from truth its objective existence; and Marcion's should also be supposed to have experienced rivalry at our hands, even before its publication; and, in fine, that that should be thought to be the truer position which is the later one— a century later than the publication of all the many and great facts and records of the Christian religion, which certainly could not have been published without, that is to say, before, the truth of the gospel.

Tertullian could be mistaken about the ancientness of the proto-orthodox versions of the Gospel of Luke and the Pauline letters to churches. A careful analysis of the passages cited by early Christian writers compared to the Marcionite version (where we have enough info to do so) would be necessary to settle the matter of whether these allegedly earlier proto-orthodox writers were citing something closer to the received texts or the Marcionite texts, and may already have been done.

Marcion may well be right that someone among the proto-orthodox formally published books held in special reverence by the proto-orthodox Christians, following his own edition of the Gospel and the Letters of Paul. There is no way to really know whether the forms of the proto-orthodox edition of these books were "enhanced" in some way to fight "error," or not.

Then again, if the Letters of Paul circulated in an earlier form, not too far removed from what they are like today, but Marcion had heard that they had been edited heavily in the process, he may cut away what he was sure was added by the proto orthodox.

However, if Marcion had no clear idea what actually was changed or added by an editor, his imagination has to rule his own editorial changes. I myself have proposed that an original work had been edited by the very early proto-orthodox, but what Marcion cuts what was part of what I would say is from an original letter, and retained the high Christology, which I think was added to the original by the early proto-orthodox.

DCH

stephan huller

There is a way to know which version came first. Follow the transformation of Christianity away from its vegetarian (or 'meatless') roots. Let me show you what I mean. Here is the standard orthodox version of Romans chapter 14:

I will make the case that there is no way to make sense of this material. It just meanders and goes off on tangents without any discernible point. There is a general sense that 'people shouldn't make a big deal about eating habits' which is the Catholic position. The vegetarian (or more precisely meatless) diet of the Marcionites and other heresies seems nowhere to be found.

Now if we highlight only those sections cited by (a) Clement of Alexandria or (b) neo-Marcionite sources (loosely defined as Patristic references to the Marcionite or surviving traditions closely related to Marcion) we end up with the following:

We have half (= eleven of the twenty two) lines witnessed in our sources. The majority of these references are found in Clement of Alexandria. As I am demonstrating at my blog, Clement of Alexandria's references to the material here almost inevitably are placed in a context where he seems to support the sanctity of meat abstention.

Yet one has to see how many times the almost one hundred citations of Romans in Clement follow the pattern of the Marcionite version of the text (i.e. most of chapter 3 and 9 missing, two important omissions noted by Origen, the way chapter 12 leads to chapter 13 etc.). Clement's version of Romans was clearly related to the Marcionite text.

As such we have not only the Marcionites and Clement of Alexandria likely witnessing the idea that chapter 14 supported Christian meat abstention but more significantly the otherwise unknown 'Clementine Epistles on Virginity' make repeated reference to 'meatless' Pauline epistles with the very wording of familiar lines slightly altered to support support the sanctity of meat abstention. Notice their variant text of 1 Corinthians chapter 8:

Now we have three different groups - i.e. early Alexandrian, Marcionite and these otherwise unknown texts - witnessing the existence of a variant Romans chapter 14. If the Clementine Epistles are not associated with Tatian, then we can add a Tatianic Romans which undoubtedly supported these same ideas. The Valentinian and Basilidean versions of Romans undoubtedly at least retained the meatless doctrine. There must have been countless other heretical communities with similar New Testaments.

The question then is how is it possible to argue that Marcion 'altered' the Epistle to the Romans? The evidence points instead to a Catholic alteration of the meatless doctrine to allow for a complete abandonment of any dietary restrictions whatsoever. If this is true for the Epistle for the Romans how on earth is it possible to believe that Marcion altered or adulterated the gospel?

DCHindley

Ted,

I am going to get away from Vegetarianism and other crazy stuff, and show a short comparison between Detering's reconstruction of the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans, and my equally crazy scheme in which Christology was interpolated into letters that originally had nothing to do with it.

Marcion's Romans per Herman Detering/Fabrizio Palestini (black = Marcion's text, red = orthodox additions or [Marcionite omission of orthodox text])	My analysis of Romans (black = original Paul, red = Christian redactor's interpolations)
1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God	ROM 1:1a Paul, 1b a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the good news of God
1:2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures,	1:2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures,
1:3 the good news concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh	1:3 the good news concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh
1:4 and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,	1:4 and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,
1:5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,	1:5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,
1:6 including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ;	1:6 including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ;
1:7 To all God's beloved, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.	1:7a To all God's beloved in Rome, who are called to be saint 7b Grace to you and peace 7c from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world.	8a First, I thank my God 8b through Jesus Christ 8c for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world.
1:9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers,	9a For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the good news 9b of his Son 9c that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers,
1:10 asking that somehow by God's will I may now at last succeed in coming to you.	10 asking that somehow by God's will I may now at last succeed in coming to you.
1:11 For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you,	11 For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you,
1:12 that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine.	12 that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine
1:13 I want you to know, brethren, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles.	13a I want you to know, brethren, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Nations
1:14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish:	14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish:
1:15 so I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.	1:15 so I am eager to preach the good news to you also who are in Rome.
1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew and also to the Greek.	1:16 For I am not ashamed of the good news: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith. As it is written, "He who is righteous shall live through faith." (Habakuk 2:4)	1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, "He who is righteous shall live through faith." (Habakuk 2:4)
1:18 For the wrath [of God] is revealed from heaven against ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.	1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all unGodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.	1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
1:20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;	1:20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
1:21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as (a) God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.	1:21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as (a) God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,	1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.	1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,	1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.	1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,	1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.	1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
1:28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.	1:28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
1:29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,	1:29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,
1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,	1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
1:31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.	1:31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
1:32 Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.	1:32 Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

I don't know how reliable the reconstruction of Detering is, but it appears that if the Marcionite text is an edited form of the proto-orthodox edition of Romans, the editing seems deliberate to support his theological stance that the Creator God of the Jews is not the True God who is Father of Jesus Christ.

If the Marcionite text is original and the proto-orthodox added to it, there seems to be no rhyme or reason to why the proto orthodox editor would add inconsistent material to it: a thread which serves as a rhetorical build-up directed towards fellow Jews to serve as an introduction to Paul's mission to gentiles, interspersed with Christ theology (1:3-6), and a little vignette against Jews (1:15-18, 29-31) that interrupt it: "the Jews had their chance, but due to their unGodliness and the wickedness of Jewish men who suppressed the truth, the wrath of God was revealed against them in the recent War, and now the Greeks have received God's favor instead."

DCH

stephan huller

Why is the vegetarian argument 'craziness'? We have eleven citations of the twenty two lines of text of Romans chapter 14. The Marcionites had a meatless diet and ALL the early citations of the material indicate that the apostle reinforces the Marcionite practice of meat abstention. The orthodox text is senseless. To argue that the Marcionites 'chopped up' (Origen's words with respect to chapter 14 in Commentary on Romans) chapter 14 to make it 'vegetarian' is ludicrous. The apostle was a vegetarian as Clement of Alexandria makes reference with respect to other apostles. If the Marcionite text is original here, it stands to reason it was more original elsewhere. The meatless argument is very important. The Catholics were inventing a new form of Christianity as they added material to the original Apostolikon. I can go through Romans chapter by chapter to demonstrate that Clement of Alexandria's Romans resembled what we know of the Marcionite epistle.

Taking Detering's reconstruction is misleading and ultimately worthless because its all based on mere speculation. In other words, its what modern scholars 'think' was the Marcionite text. My analysis of Clement vs. Marcion is much better and more scientific. Taking those references that Detering compiles alongside the citation of Romans and comparing them to Clement removes the speculation. Here is the final reconstruction of Romans:

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...-excavate.html

Here are the side by side comparisons chapter by chapter:

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...n-epistle.html

And here are the original references to Clement and other sources:

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...of-romans.html

This clearly shows that Clement of Alexandria's Epistle to the Romans agreed in basic form and theological interest with that of the Marcionites and that - by consequence - the orthodox text is a development of that common textual heritage = a corruption.