aa5874

There are no records of antiquity that Marcion had 10 Epistles of his own. The very same apologetics sources, Tertullian and Irenaeus, do NOT support you.

You are asking questions that you yourself cannot answer.

We have the Pauline writings with anti-Marcionite material but none have been found without anti-Marcionite material to support your claim.

Your argument is extremely weak since you have not been able to support your assertions.

We have P 46.

We have Justin's First Apology.

We haveIrenaeus' "Against Heresies" 2.22.

We have Hippolytus' "Refutation Against All Heresies" 7

We have Ephraim's "Against Marcion"

What do you have??

Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian,Hippolytus, Origen, Eusebius, Ephraim, Jerome and others mentioned Marcion and did not claim he had 10 Epistles of his own.

jakejonesiv

Why do you keep posting horse crap?

Tertullian AM 5.1.9 thru 5.21.1, Ephanius Parinon 42.9.3-4, 42.11.9-11.

jakejonesiv

Any further discussion with you is a waste of effort.

jakejonesiv

One quick example for now.

I will argue that the authentic Pauline Gal 4:4 was merely "God sent his son." Indeed, we find that "made (or born) of a woman" does absolutely nothing to distinguish Jesus from any other human being.

Likewise, we find "made (or born) under the law" does absolutely nothing to distinguish a presumed human Jesus from any Jew.

Why bother to state the obvious, unless someone else was teaching that Jesus had not been born and that Jesus was not under the Law? Do we know of any sect that taught these exact doctrines? After we cut anchor with the first century, the answer is obvious, the Marcionites.

The extra phrases are meaningful if they are seen to be anti-docetic and "anti-antinomium" interpolations by the proto-orthodox of the late 2c/early 3c.

We can reconstruct Marcion’s text of Gal 4:4 from Tertullian AM 5.4.2.
“But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son”— the God, of course, who is the Lord ……"

If Marcion’s text had contained “born of a woman, born under the law” Tertullian would certainly have used it to refute Marcion’s docetism and antiomianism. Indeed, I am not aware of a single scholar who argues that Marcion’s text of Gal 4:4 was other than “God sent forth his son.”
Cmp Van den Bergh, Marcion 1, S.34 „ Daß Christus als „unter das Gesetz getan“ bezeichnet wird (Gal 4,4), steht im Gegensatz zu 3,10, wo Marcion nicht las, was der Redaktor daraus gemacht hat und was offensichtlich einer fremden Ausdrucksweise entspricht: „Alle, die aus den Werken des Gesetzes sind, sind unter dem Fluch.“ Marcion las deutlicher: „Alle, die unter dem Gesetz sind, sind unter dem Fluch.“ Hätte Christus, wie die kirchliche Lesart es will, unter dem Gesetz gestanden bzw. wäre er darunter geboren, dann hätte er selber unter dem Fluch gestanden und hätte andere nicht erlösen können. Erst am Kreuz wurde Christus zum Fluch (3,13). Die Lesart des Marcion: „Gott sandte Gott seinen Sohn, damit er die unter dem Gesetz loskaufte, damit wir die Sohnschaft erlangten.“ Das Gesetz als eine gottfeindliche Macht, die zu den stoicheia oder Elementen dieser Welt gehört, das ist gnostischer Dualismus.“

Bart D. Ehrman was position to know this as well as anyone! In his _The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament_, in the chapter "Anti-Docetic Corruptions of Scriptures" page 238 documents that orthodox scribes continued to tamper with Galatians 4:4 and Romans 1:3-4 even *after* we reach the extant texts (3rd century and later), and comments on how likely this makes it that tampering occurred in the second century when the stakes were even higher.

Bernard Muller

to Jake,
Why do you assume the author had to distinguish here Christ from any other human being or Jews?
The point here is that the Son of God came, as a seed of Abraham (that is as a human and Jew, to whom (Abraham & his seed) the Promise was made.

Let's examine Galatians 3:7-4:7.

Paul started by making a claim: "But to Abraham were the promises addressed, and to his seed: he does not say, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed; which is Christ." (3:16 Darby). That seems to refer to Genesis 17-22 but it is never specified here according to Paul's words.

Anyway, the promise is about inheritance (3:18) for all (Gentiles and Jews --3:8, 14, 28-29) but that is put on hold by the Law "until the seed [Christ] came ['erchomai', clear expression of a coming to occur] to whom the promise was made" (3:16, 19). Then everyone would be liberated from the Law by Christ (3:13, 22-25) & his crucifixion (3:13) and "the promise, on the principle of faith of Jesus Christ, should be given to those that believe." (3:22), allowing Paul's Galatians to be God's sons & heirs and (by "adoption"?) seed of Abraham (3:7, 29).

What remains is for the Son/Christ to come as the seed of Abraham, that is as a Jew and earthly human (as other seeds of Abraham, like Paul (Ro 11:1), Jews of Israelite descent (Ro 9:7), other apostles (2 Cor 11:20)), in order to enable the promise. So we have:
Gal 4:4-7 Darby "but when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, come of woman [as an earthly human], come under law [as a Jew would be], that he might redeem those under law, that we might receive sonship. But because you are [Greek present tense] sons ... So you are [present again] no longer bondman, but son ..."

Of course Marcion cut off "come from a woman, come under the law". That was completely against his theories. Actually, Tertullian said Marcion cut off what follows, from AM 5.4.:
But indeed it is superfluous to dwell on what he has erased, when he may be more effectually confuted from that which he has retained. "But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son"

Why do you assume "the God, of course, who is the Lord ..." was part of Marcion's Galatians?
That was a start for Tertullian's comments, which I quote now:
"the God, of course, who is the Lord of that very succession of times which constitutes an age; who also ordained, as "signs" of time, suns and moons and constellations and stars; who furthermore both predetermined and predicted that the revelation of His Son should be postponed to the end of the times. "It shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain (of the house) of the Lord shall be manifested"; "and in the last days I will. pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh" as Joel says. It was characteristic of Him (only) to wait patiently for the fulness of time, to whom belonged the end of time no less than the beginning. But as for that idle god, who has neither any work nor any prophecy, nor accordingly any time, to show for himself what has he ever done to bring about the fulness of time, or to wait patiently its completion? If nothing, what an impotent state to have to wait for the Creator's time, in servility to the Creator! But for what end did He send His Son? "To redeem them that were under the law, ..."

Are you saying that Marcion added all that, which Tertullian faithfully quoted?

Cordially, Bernard

jakejonesiv

Dave, I know who you are now! Since I wasted about a year elsewhere answering your endless questions (all biased toward Orthodox Judaism being the only True Religion), I will not repeat the same process here.

aa5874

It is expected that you would not discuss your unsubstantiated claims with me after I have exposed your errors.

You claimed that Tertullian's "Against Marcion" 5 showed that Marcion had 10 Epistles of his own but when I EXAMINED "Against Marcion" 5 NO such thing was stated.

In fact, it is stated the Marcion REJECTED them because they declare No other God than the Creator.

Tertullian's "Against Marcion 5.2Marcion REJECTED the Epistles he did NOT write 10 Epistles.

The Pauline Epistles mentioned the God of the Jews alone over 400 times.

Not one time do they ever mention the God of Marcion.

Romans 3:23 KJVRomans 10:9 KJVBased on "Against Marcion" 5.2, it can be deduced that Marcion REJECTED Hebrew Scripture also because Hebrew Scripture declares ONE GOD should be worshiped--the God of the Jews.

Exodus 34:14 KJV

jakejonesiv

Marcion’s Galatians did not contain the mentions of Abraham in 3:6- 4:2 (Christians are the seed of Abraham, not Jews). This interpolation is derived from Catholic theologeum typified by Justin Dial 119.4 .

We see the proto-Catholic Justin “Dialogue with Trypho” the issue under question clearly at work. Justin tells his Jewish interlocutor that Christians are the true seed of Abraham, not the Jews. Justin wrote “FOR THE TRUE SPIRITUAL ISRAEL, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), ARE WE WHO HAVE BEEN LED TO GOD THROUGH THIS CRUCIFIED CHRIST.” [Emphasis added.] Israel’s history is thus stolen as a mere typology prefiguring the nascent catholic Church. Both Judaism and orthodox Christianity couldn't be right about the Jewish scriptures. The result was anti-Semitism, and we can see the dire consequences of that decision to this day.


Tertullian called the Jews and Marcion the "blind leading the blind" because neither group thought the prophecies of the Jewish scriptures applied to Jesus Christ (and hence to the church). But the proto-orthodox did.

As the Dutch Radikals discovered, the Marcionite version is much cleaner and clearer than the hodge podge canonical version we find in our Bibles today. Our canonical text often has Paul talking out of both sides of his mouth.


You can view the best (IMO) English version of Galatians at Hermann Detering's site here:
The Epistle to the Galatians English version of the translation by Hermann Detering provided by Frans-Joris Fabri (based on RSV)



This link shows in detail how the Marcionite text of Galatians above was recreated.
"The Original Version of the Epistle to the Galatians - Explanations" translated into English by Frans-Joris Fabri.


Jake

Bernard Muller

to Jake,
I agree that Marcion’s Galatians was expurgated of the mentions of Abraham in 3:6- 4:2. (and mention of Christ as the seed of Abraham: one more reason for Marcion to cut off "made from a woman, ...").

In the Pauline epistles, Jews are seed of Abraham also, not only Christians.
- Romans 11:1 Darby "I [Paul] say then, Has God cast away his people [Israel]? Far be the thought. For *I* also am an Israelite, of [the] seed of Abraham, of [the] tribe of Benjamin."
- Romans 9:7 NKJV "nor are they all children because they [Jews of Israelite descent] are the seed of Abraham ..."
- 2 Corinthians 11:22 NKJV "Are they [other apostles] Hebrews? So am I [Paul]. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I."

As for Justin Martyr, he seems to be fully aware of the "catholic" version of Galatians, as also he did about 'Hebrews'. Even if he does not acknowledge Paul's epistles (& Paul), that does not mean he could not use parts of them as inspirations for his arguments, more so because Galatians and Dial. touch on the same themes.

This is to be expected as propaganda against opponents.

If you eliminate wordings you choose, the left product will always look cleaner. However, despite all the cuts in Galatians, and Marcion's aversion for anything Jewish, there is still a mention of Abraham, and the mothers of his children, using the Jewish scriptures as authority:
4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman.
4:23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise.
Even Marcion's version is not too clean.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller

to Jake,
The tempering came late and consisted as replacing "come from a woman" to "born of a woman" for Gal 4:4 and "coming from the seed of David" to "being born of the seed of David" for Rom 1:3-4. It's relatively minor. Both would have been unacceptable for Marcion.
I already explained why Paul would have used "become" instead of "born" in these two cases. "become" suggests a change of state (from heavenly to earthly human, either "from a woman" or "according to the flesh") when "born" would allude that Christ/Son of God started his life as a baby (with no pre-existence).

Cordially, Bernard