Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 03-20-2013, 10:27 AM

Now there is one further wrinkle before we return to Tertullian's text. In Clement of Alexandria there is an unusual citation of this same section from Luke which deserves to be looked at. Clement says:

Quote:

From Julius Caesar, therefore, to the death of Commodus, are two hundred and thirty-six years, six months. And the whole from Romulus, who founded Rome, till the death of Commodus, amounts to nine hundred and fifty-three years, six months. And our Lord was born in the twenty-eighth year, when first the census was ordered to be taken in the reign of Augustus. And to prove that this is true, it is written in the Gospel by Luke as follows: "And in the fifteenth year, in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias." And again in the same book: "And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old," and so on. And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: "He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." This both the prophet spake, and the Gospel.

Both the references from 'Luke' are strange and demonstrate IMO that a variant text existed in the second century. In place of Jesus's original statement "He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord" (which doesn't appear in our Luke) canonical Luke now has a lengthy reading from Isaiah chapter 61. Clearly this was not in the Marcionite gospel of Luke nor was it likely to have been in Clement's text. The citation of Isaiah (where Jesus is now standing in a synagogue in Nazareth but in 'Bethsaida' in the Marcionite text) from a scroll in the synagogue is so artificial it is hard to believe it was not fabricated by the Orthodox.

stephan huller · 03-20-2013, 10:35 AM

What I am proposing of course is that there was at one time a shorter gospel of Luke. The text was known to Ephrem and Clement. Ephrem says that Luke begins with the baptism of John. Clement says:

Quote:

"And in the fifteenth year, in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias." And again in the same book: "And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old," and so on. And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: "He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."

Just as we see Luke insert Isaiah 61 in the place of this saying - almost layering the prophetic text over the original gospel (of course to prove that the evangelist cited the gospel) the Diatessaron must originally witness the original reading of what immediately followed Jesus's statement that "He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord" namely - "(and) there appeared to them a light." Tertullian knows this reading and it appears in his gospel too but - and this is very important - his source textmakes the argument that there is a parallel here between what is written in Isaiah 9:1 - 2 and so it is subsequently added to the text in the manner of Isaiah 61 in Luke.

Look at the words very carefully in Against Marcion, he does not say that Matthew had these words but that Isaiah 9:1 - 2 complements the gospel reading which the Marcionites apparently used to argue that Jesus was a supernatural light being, but really according to Tertullian or his source - it only proves that Jesus's coming was predicted by the prophets.

Look at the words very carefully from Tertullian:

Quote:

Next however (after 'in the fifteenth year ...') , admitting that he came down, I demand to know the rest of the order of that descent. It is no matter if somewhere the word 'appeared' is used. 'Appear' suggests a sudden and unexpected sight, <by one> who at some instant has cast his eyes on a thing which has at that instant appeared. To have come down, however—when that takes place the fact is in view and comes beneath the eye: it also puts the event into sequence, and enforces the inquiry in what sort of aspect, in what sort of array, with how much speed or moderation, as also at what time of day, or of night, he came down: and besides that, who saw him coming down, who reported it, and who gave assurance of a fact not easily credible even to him who gives assurance. It is quite wrong in fact, that Romulus should have had Proculus to vouch for his ascent into heaven,3 yet that Christ should not have provided himself with a reporter of his god's descent from heaven—though that one must have gone up by the same ladder of lies by which this one came down. Also what had he to do with Galilee, if he was not the Creator's Christ, for whom that province was predestined <as the place> for him to enter on his preaching? For Isaiah says: Drink this first, do it quickly, province of Zebulon and land of Naphtali, and ye others who <dwell between> the sea-coast and Jordan, Galilee of the gentiles, ye people who sit in darkness, behold a great light: ye who inhabit the land, sitting in the shadow of death, a light has arisen upon you.a It is indeed to the good that Marcion's god too should be cited as one who gives light to the gentiles, for so there was the greater need for him to come down from heaven—though, if so, he ought to have come down into Pontus rather than Galilee.

As noted earlier, the text of Against Marcion witnesses a twilight 'proto-gospel' that stood halfway between Matthew and Luke and betrays the fact that the scriptural references were added in the late second century (much in the manner we see in the Ignatian writings in the longest version). The methodology is rather simple. The editor of both Against Marcion and the gospels (= Irenaeus) originally (= Against Marcion) made the case that what was written in the gospel (= shared by the Marcionites and his community) had scriptural parallels (= cf. similar arguments throughout Book Three of Irenaeus's Against Heresies). At some point after the publication of the original Against Marcion by Irenaeus, either Irenaeus or his students simply injected the scriptural references directly into the gospel to make the case absolute and unassailable.

A similar example can be demonstrated in the example of Jesus walking through the grain fields on the Sabbath. Tertullian writes:

Quote:

Next I shall argue the case in reference to the actual subject in which Christ's rule of conduct has been thought to destroy the sabbath. The disciples had been hungry: on that very day they had plucked the ears of corn and rubbed them in their hands: by preparing food they had made a breach in the holy day. Christ holds them guiltless, and so becomes guilty of infringing the sabbath: the pharisees are his accusers. Marcion takes exception to the heads of the controversy —if I may play about a bit with the truth of my Lord—written document and intention. A plausible answer is based upon the Creator's written document and on Christ's intention, as by the precedent of David who on the sabbath day entered into the templeb and prepared food by boldly breaking up the loaves of the shewbread. For he too remembered that even from the beginning, since the sabbath day was first instituted, this privilege was granted to it—I mean exemption from fasting. For when the Creator forbade the gathering of two days' supply of manna, he allowed it only on the day before the sabbath, so that by having food prepared the day before he might make immune from fasting the holy day of the sabbath that followed. Well it is then that our Lord followed the same purpose in breaking down the sabbath—if that is what they want it called: well it is also that he gave effect to the Creator's intention by the privilege of not fasting on the sabbath. In fact he would have once and for all broken the sabbath, and the Creator besides, if he had enjoined his disciples to fast on the sabbath, in opposition to the fact of scripture and of the Creator's intention. So then, as he did not keep his disciples in close constraint, but now finds excuse for them: as he puts in answer human necessity as begging for considerate treatment: as he conserves the higher privilege of the sabbath, of freedom from sorrow rather than abstention from work: as he associates David and his followers with his own disciples in fault and in permission: as he is in agreement with the relaxation the Creator has given: as after the Creator's example he himself is equally kind: is he on that account an alien from the Creator? [4:12]

I am the first scholar (or whatever you want to call me) who noticed that Tertullian - though claiming to work from Luke - does not know the text as we have it. For he again makes the argument - he contends - that what is written in 'the gospel' shared in some sense with the Marcionites should be read with the narrative of king David in mind. He doesn't say 'the Marcionites cut out the narrative.' Indeed he makes clear the emboldened text below did not appear in his Luke:

Quote:

One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels. 2 Some of the Pharisees asked, “Why are you doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” 3 Jesus answered them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.” 5 Then Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

In short, Tertullian's gospel - or better yet the gospel of his source - is older than canonical Luke and represents some sort of fusion with Matthew which is properly identified as a Diatessaron (see above). Along came Irenaeus who not only took over the original 'Against Marcion' (probably written by Justin) but specifically made the argument that the readings do not lead to the supernatural and radical conclusions of the Marcionites regarding a 'separate' god but in fact are supported by prophetic readings which he offered up as complementing or providing the proper context for the gospel narrative. Then at some point subsequent to the publication of Irenaeus's Against Marcion these 'suggested scriptures' were directly incorporated into the gospel narrative, into the canonical texts as we know them.

Bernard Muller · 03-20-2013, 11:00 AM

to aa,

Quote:

"Your claim that the Epistula Apostolorum can be dated NO later than 156 is utterly illogical and unsubstantianted.
We have NO manuscripts of the Epistula Apostolorum dated to the 2nd century and NO data in the Epistula Apostolorum that could NOT have been written or inserted after 156.
In fact, the earliest Manuscript of the Epistula Apostolorum is dated to the Late 4th-5th century.

Back to your flawed methodology again! Did you notice that the earliest known manuscript with gMark text is dated later than the earliest known manuscript with Pauline epistles texts? So, according to your methodology, gMark came (around 250) after the Pauline epistles.

As for the Epistula Apostolorum, the dating comes from internal evidence:
16-17 Coptic version "... The wings of the clouds shall bear me in brightness, and the sign of the cross shall go before me, and I shall come upon earth to judge the quick and the dead.
We said unto him: Lord, after how many years shall this come to pass ? He said unto us: When the hundredth part and the twentieth part is fulfilled, between the Pentecost and the feast of unleavened bread, then shall the coming of my Father be"
This could not have been written after 150-156. That would have been stupid to claim that after the deadline went by.
When the Ethiopic version was written, the 120 years after Pentecost got increased to 150 years.

Cordially, Bernard

stephan huller · 03-20-2013, 12:04 PM

So to recap, Tertullian lays clear that his 'Luke' started with 'in the fifteenth year of Tiberius' and had a truncated version of what follows in our text save for some important differences. Whereas our text goes - appearance to John, Nazareth (4:14 - 30), Capernaum (4:31 - 36) Tertullian seems to skip the initial Nazareth appearance and makes it seem as Jesus appeared at Capernaum (= 'came down'). But Ephrem makes clear that the initial Nazareth narrative was indeed there albeit specifically identified as 'Bethsaida.'

Some more wrinkles already mentioned. Since Tertullian omits reference to the switch to Bethsaida many have assumed that the Marcionite gospel inverted the order here. But I am not sure it is that simply explained. Origen in his Commentary on John makes clear that the problem of how to fit the various narratives together is a problem:

Quote:

Those who accept the four Gospels, and who do not consider that their apparent discrepancy is to be solved anagogically (by mystical interpretation), will have to clear up the difficulty, raised above, about the forty days of the temptation, a period for which no room can be found in any way in John's narrative; and they will also have to tell us when it was that the Lord came to Capernaum. If it was after the six days of the period of His baptism, the sixth being that of the marriage at Cana of Galilee, then it is clear that the temptation never took place, and that He never was at Nazara, and that John was not yet delivered up

He goes on a little later to argue further more:

Quote:

Now, if we ask when Christ was first in Capernaum, our respondents, if they follow the words of Matthew, and of the other two, will say, After the temptation, when, " leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea. " But how can they show both the statements to be true, that of Matthew and Mark, that it was because He heard that John was delivered up that He departed into Galilee, and that of John, found there, after a number of other transactions, subsequent to His stay at Capernaum, after His going to Jerusalem, and His journey from there to Judæa, that John was not yet cast into prison, but was baptizing in Ænon near Salim? There are many other points on which the careful student of the Gospels will find that their narratives do not agree

The solution I believe is to recognize that all the gospels disagreed from the Marcionite gospel and the proto-Catholic text referenced throughout Against Marcion Book Four. For it is important to note that before the first reference to Nazareth in the narrative Tertullian writes immediately following our last citation (= i.e. the allusion to Isaiah 9:1 -2/Matthew 4:15 - 16) we read:

Quote:

Yet since both that locality (= Galilee cf. Isa 9:1 - 2/Matthew 4:15 - 16) and that function of enlightenment (= the variant Diatessaronic reading 'there appeared to them a light') do according to the prophecy have their bearing upon Christ, we at once begin to discern that it was he of whom the prophecy was made, when he makes it clear on his first appearance that he is come not to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them. For Marcion has blotted this out as an interpolation. But in vain will he deny that Christ said in words a thing which he at once partly accomplished in act. For in the meanwhile he fulfilled the prophecy in respect of place. From heaven straightway into the synagogue. As the saying goes, let us get down to it: to your task, Marcion: remove even this from the gospel, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and, It is not <meet> to take away the children's bread and give it to dogs:c for this gives the impression that Christ belongs to Israel. I have plenty of acts, if you take away his words. Take away Christ's sayings, and the facts will speak; See how he enters into the synagogue: surely to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. See how he offers the bread of his doctrine to the Israelites first: surely he is giving them preference as sons. See how as yet he gives others no share of it: surely he is passing them by, like dogs. Yet on whom would he have been more ready to bestow it than on strangers to the Creator, if he himself had not above all else belonged to the Creator? Yet again how can he have obtained admittance into the synagogue, appearing so suddenly, so unknown, no one as yet having certain knowledge of his tribe, of his nation, of his house, or even of Caesar's census, which the Roman registry still has in keeping,4 a most faithful witness to our Lord's nativity? They remembered, surely, that unless they knew he was circumcised he must not be admitted into the most holy places. Or again, even if there were unlimited access to the synagogue, there was no permission to teach, except for one excellently well known, and tried, and approved, and already either for this occasion or by commendation from elsewhere invested with that function. 'But they were all astonished at his doctrine.'

According to my understanding this is yet another example of a systematic attempt to Judaize the gospel. For as we noted in our examination of the material of Clement from 'Luke' Jesus announces 'He (= the Father) hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.' This clearly takes the place of the Nazareth synagogue reading.

Tertullian makes plain that the heavenly descent is immediately followed by the Capernaum synagogue narrative. Nevertheless there are a number of clues in his writing that the Marcionite text not only took out things but added others. For instance just before the citation of Isaiah 9:1 - 2/Matthew 4:15 - 16 Tertullian makes reference to a 'lie' which appears in the Marcionite gospel:

Quote:

It is quite wrong in fact, that Romulus should have had Proculus to vouch for his ascent into heaven,3 yet that Christ should not have provided himself with a reporter of his god's descent from heaven—though that one must have gone up by the same ladder of lies by which this one came down.

The idea that Jesus came down a 'heavenly ladder' squares with the idea that John 4 might have appeared between the synagogue appearance from heaven. Remember the Catholics - and Tertullian included - don't believe that Jesus came down from heaven. 'Came down' is just a geographical reference (i.e. from some region north of Capernaum). But for the Marcionites as Ephrem testifies there is a consistent interest in a mountain by which or from which Jesus descended and ascended - presumably the same heavenly ladder seen by Jacob at Bethel.

Whatever the case may be it is clear that the Marcionite text not only did not have Nazareth (= Ephrem) as a place here, but even Capernaum seems dubious. If Tertullian's gospel was like the Marcionite gospel and Tertullian's gospel has Jesus descend to Capernaum and immediately into the synagogue, there simply isn't any room in the narrative for a descent and then Capernaum and then the Nazareth Bethsaida synagogue narrative. Capernaum did not appear in the narrative.

What makes this virtually certain is the fact that Tertullian makes explicit that in his gospel it is 'in the fifteenth year' to the 'descent' to the synagogue in Capernaum. The Marcionite gospel simply must have had the synagogue located at Capernaum now at Bethsaida. It is important to note that Origen testifies that at least one early witness interpret 'Capernaum' not as a city in Galilee but the entire region of the earth (!):

Quote:

But Heracleon, dealing with the words, " After this He went down to Capernaum, " declares that they indicate the introduction of another transaction, and that the word " went down " is not without significance. " Capernaum, " he says, " means these farthest-out parts of the world, these districts of matter, into which He descended, and because the place was not suitable, he says, He is not reported either to have done anything or said anything in it. " Now if the Lord had not been reported in the other Gospels either as having done or said anything at Capernaum, we might perhaps have hesitated whether this view ought or ought not to be received. But that is far from being the case. Matthew says our Lord left Nazareth and came and dwelt at Capernaum on the seaside, and that from that time He began to preach, saying, " Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. " And Mark, starting in his narrative from the temptation by the devil, relates that after John was cast into prison, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the Gospel of God, and after the call of the four fishermen to the Apostleship, " they enter into Capernaum; and straightway on the Sabbath day He taught in the synagogue, and they were astonished at His doctrine. " And Mark records an action of Jesus also which took place at Capernaum, for he goes on to say, " In their synagogue there was a man with an unclean spirit, and he cried out, saying, Ah! what have we to do with Thee, Thou Jesus of Nazareth? Art Thou come to destroy us? We know Thee who Thou art, the Son of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold your peace and come out of him; and the unclean spirit, tearing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him. And they were all amazed. " And at Capernaum Simon's mother-in-law is cured of her fever. And Mark adds that when evening was come all those were cured who were sick and who were possessed with demons. Luke's report is very like Mark's about Capernaum. He says, " And He came to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and He was teaching them on the Sabbath day, and they were astonished at His teachings, for His word was with power. And in the synagogue there was a man having a spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice, Ah! what have we to do with Thee, Thou Jesus of Nazareth? Hast Thou come to destroy us? I know Thee who Thou art, the holy one of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold your peace and come out of him. Then the demon having thrown him down in the midst, went out of him, doing him no harm. " And then Luke reports how the Lord rose up from the synagogue and went into the house of Simon, and rebuked the fever in his mother-in-law, and cured her of her disease; and after this cure, " when the sun was setting, " he says, " all, as many as had persons sick with divers diseases, brought them to Him, and He laid his hands on each one of them and cured them. And demons also went out from many, crying and saying, You are the Son of God, and He rebuked them and suffered them not to speak because they knew that He was the Christ. " We have presented all these statements as to the Saviour's sayings and doings at Capernaum in order to refute Heracleon's interpretation of our passage, " Hence He is not said to have done or to have spoken anything there. " He must either give two meanings to Capernaum, and show us his reasons for them, or if he cannot do this he must give up saying that the Saviour visited any place to no purpose. We, for our part, should we come to passages where even a comparison of the other Gospels fails to show that Jesus' visit to this place or that was not accompanied by any results, will seek with the divine assistance to make it clear that His coming was not in vain.

Heracleon's gospel was not 'John.' His commentary was not exclusively devoted to John despite what appears in Origen's Commentary. His master Clement makes what is clearly evidence that Heracleon's original commentary included references to Luke. Even if it is argued that he wrote two commentaries it is impossible that Heracleon could have thought that John 2:11 - 12 wasn't the parallel to Luke 4:31. Origen does what Heracleon would have done if he had before him two separate gospels - one John, one Luke. In short - Heracleon couldn't have said "He (Jesus) is not reported either to have done anything or said anything in it (Capernaum)" unless his gospel - whether Luke or a Diatessaron - did not have the synagogue announcement in Capernaum.

stephan huller · 03-20-2013, 01:01 PM

So before we wonder about how Heracleon reconciled the difficulties of the four gospels let's see how the Diatessaron squared all the disparate accounts. Interestingly, since there would be two 'and he came down to Capernaum' references if both Luke 4:31 and John 2:12 were included it is worth noting that the Diatessaron deletes all reference to Jesus 'descending' and inserts instead the king's servant at Capernaum in the place of John 2:12 so we read:

Quote:

And when Jesus heard that John was delivered up, he went away to Galilee. And he entered again into Cans, where he had made the water wine. And there was at Capernaum a king's servant, whose son was sick. And this man heard that Jesus was come from Judaea to Galilee; and he went to him, and besought of him that he would come down and heal his son; for he had come near unto death. 28, Jesus said unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye do not believe. The Arabic, king's servant said unto him, My Lord, come down, that the child die not. Jesus said unto him, Go; for thy son is alive. And that man believed the word which Jesus spake, and went. And when he went down, his servants met him and told him, and said unto him, Thy son is alive. And he asked them at what time he recovered. They said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him. And his father knew that that was at that hour in which Jesus said unto him, Thy son is alive. And he believed, he and the whole people of his house. And this is the second sign which Jesus did when he returned from Judaea to Galilee. And he was preaching in the synagogues of Galilee.

36 And he left Nazareth, and came and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea shore, in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali: that it might be fulfilled which was said in Isaiah the prophet, who said, The land of Zebulun, the land of Naphtali, The way of the sea, the passage of the Jordan, Galilee of the nations:

39 The people sitting in darkness Saw a great light, And those sitting in the region and in the shadow of death, There appeared to them a light.

40 And he taught them on the sabbaths. And they wondered because of his doctrine: for his word was as if it were authoritative. And there was in the synagogue a man with an unclean devil, and he cried out with a loud voice, and said, Let me alone; what have I to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come for our destruction? I know thee who thou art, thou Holy One of God. And Jesus rebuked him, and said, Stop up thy mouth, and come out of him. And the demon threw him in the midst and came out of him, having done him no harm. And great amaze- Arabic, ment took hold upon every man. And they talked one with another, and said, What is this word that orders the unclean spirits with power and authority, and they come out? And the news of him spread abroad in all the region which was around them.

46 And when Jesus went out of the synagogue, he saw a man sitting among the publicans, named Matthew: and he said unto him, Come after me. And he rose, and followed him.

47, And Jesus came to the house of Simon and Andrew with James and John. And Simon's wife's mother was oppressed with a great fever, and they besought him for her. And he stood over her and rebuked her fever, and it left her, and immediately she rose and ministered to them. And at even they brought to him many that had demons: and he cast out their devils with the word. And all that had sick, their diseases being divers and malignant, brought them unto him. And he laid his hand on them one by one and healed them: that that might be fulfilled which was said in the prophet Isaiah, who said, He taketh our pains and beareth our diseases. And all the city was gathered together unto the door of Jesus. And he cast out devils also from many, as they were crying out and saying, Thou art the Messiah, the Son of God; and he rebuked them. And he suffered not the demons to speak, because they knew him that he was the Lord the Messiah.

Interestingly Origen's commentary - now criticizing Heracleon's interpretation of John 2:12 - can be read as supporting the Diatessaron insertion here. This is relatively consistent throughout the two Commentaries (= Matthew, John). Origen either used a Diatessaron (= Ammonius Sacca) or had the most amazing 'luck' in approximating its order for he writes:

Quote:

We have presented all these statements as to the Saviour's sayings and doings at Capernaum in order to refute Heracleon's interpretation of our passage, " Hence He is not said to have done or to have spoken anything there. " He must either give two meanings to Capernaum, and show us his reasons for them, or if he cannot do this he must give up saying that the Saviour visited any place to no purpose. We, for our part, should we come to passages where even a comparison of the other Gospels fails to show that Jesus' visit to this place or that was not accompanied by any results, will seek with the divine assistance to make it clear that His coming was not in vain.

Matthew for his part adds, that when the Lord had entered into Capernaum the centurion came to him, saying, " My boy is lying in my house sick of the palsy, grievously tormented, " and after telling the Lord some more about him, received the reply, " Go, and as you have believed, so be it unto you. " And Matthew then gives us the story of Peter's mother-in-law, in close agreement with the other two. I conceive it to be a creditable piece of work and becoming to one who is anxious to hear about Christ, to collect from the four Gospels all that is related about Capernaum, and the discourses spoken, and the works done there, and how many visits the Lord paid to the place, and how, at one time, He is said to have gone down to it, and at another to have entered into it, and where He came from when He did so. If we compare all these points together, we shall not go astray in the meaning we ascribe to Capernaum. On the one hand, the sick are healed, and other works of power are done there, and on the other, the preaching, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, begins there, and this appears to be a sign, as we showed when entering on this subject, of some more needy place of consolation, made so perhaps by Jesus, who comforted men by what He taught and by what He did there, in that place of consolation.

Now admittedly the Diatessaron has the man go from Capernaum to see Jesus and deletes the reference to 'descending' to Capernaum, but it is a strange coincidence - and there are so many of these coincidences in Origen's commentary it is hard not to believe that he knows something but isn't saying.

stephan huller · 03-20-2013, 01:09 PM

No idea how Heracleon interpreted 'Capernaum' to mean what he says it does. Probably never figure it out. Most or many commentators see a link between John 2:12 and the synoptics.

tanya · 03-20-2013, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The Marcionite recension of the epistles were more original than the catholic version we have today.

Where is the evidence, Jake, that the Marcionists possessed a copy, any copy, of "Paul's" epistles? How did they get a copy? Were they on a mailing list? Did the Roman Occupation Army deliver the epistles to Marcion, living in Turkey, on horseback? The whole business of Marcion is simply vaporware, unless you can identify some of these documents supposedly "more original" than what we possess today.

How would we know, today, that the Marcionist recension had been "more original"?

andrewcriddle · 03-20-2013, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Now there is one further wrinkle before we return to Tertullian's text. In Clement of Alexandria there is an unusual citation of this same section from Luke which deserves to be looked at. Clement says:

Quote:

From Julius Caesar, therefore, to the death of Commodus, are two hundred and thirty-six years, six months. And the whole from Romulus, who founded Rome, till the death of Commodus, amounts to nine hundred and fifty-three years, six months. And our Lord was born in the twenty-eighth year, when first the census was ordered to be taken in the reign of Augustus. And to prove that this is true, it is written in the Gospel by Luke as follows: "And in the fifteenth year, in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias." And again in the same book: "And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old," and so on. And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: "He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." This both the prophet spake, and the Gospel.

Both the references from 'Luke' are strange and demonstrate IMO that a variant text existed in the second century. In place of Jesus's original statement "He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord" (which doesn't appear in our Luke) canonical Luke now has a lengthy reading from Isaiah chapter 61. Clearly this was not in the Marcionite gospel of Luke nor was it likely to have been in Clement's text. The citation of Isaiah (where Jesus is now standing in a synagogue in Nazareth but in 'Bethsaida' in the Marcionite text) from a scroll in the synagogue is so artificial it is hard to believe it was not fabricated by the Orthodox.

Isn't Clement just leaving out part of the quotation ?

We would say "He hath sent Me ... to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv · 03-20-2013, 02:48 PM

Tanya, there is no evidence at all, but in some quarters of the "Church of Academia" that is unimportant. It is accepted as religious faith but dressed in secular empiricism. I don't even mind it being accepted as faith AS LONG as they admit that they accept it as a matter of faith.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The Marcionite recension of the epistles were more original than the catholic version we have today.

Where is the evidence, Jake, that the Marcionists possessed a copy, any copy, of "Paul's" epistles? How did they get a copy? Were they on a mailing list? Did the Roman Occupation Army deliver the epistles to Marcion, living in Turkey, on horseback? The whole business of Marcion is simply vaporware, unless you can identify some of these documents supposedly "more original" than what we possess today.

How would we know, today, that the Marcionist recension had been "more original"?

jakejonesiv · 03-20-2013, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The Marcionite recension of the epistles were more original than the catholic version we have today.

Where is the evidence, Jake, that the Marcionists possessed a copy, any copy, of "Paul's" epistles? How did they get a copy? Were they on a mailing list? Did the Roman Occupation Army deliver the epistles to Marcion, living in Turkey, on horseback? The whole business of Marcion is simply vaporware, unless you can identify some of these documents supposedly "more original" than what we possess today.

How would we know, today, that the Marcionist recension had been "more original"?

Hi Tanya,

Great questions.

As I mentioned before, I am not making this up on the fly. If you gat get a copy of "The Amazing Colossal Apostle" by R.Price, it is well worth the investment.

Please see The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles

Here are a few links that show how the Marcionite text has been reconstructed.

Marcion: Gospel of the Lord and Other Writings

A RECONSTRUCTION OF MARCION'S TEXT TO THE GALATIANS
English version of the translation by Hermann Detering provided by Frans-Joris Fabri (based on RSV)

The Original Version of the Epistle to the Galatians - Explanations, translated by Frans Joris Fabri, 2003 - English translation of: "Erläuterungen" - pdf

We can also study the Epistle to the Romans, but you need a little German for this one. Luckily there is an English version of the epistle to the Romans on Jesus Mysteries. This is the only place htat you can find it, but what with people copying without permission, who knows?

Der Römerbrief in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt (pdf) 2005

1 a) Einleitung

1 b) Rekonstruktion

2 Übersicht über die marcionitischen Textvarianten zum Römerbrief http://www.radikalkritik.de/Roemerbrief_2.pdf

3 MR und KRed – unterschiedlicher Sprachgebrauch - Tabellen -
Marcionitische und Katholische Rezension des Römerbriefs – ein Vergleich

4 Rekonstruierter Text

5 Deutsche Übersetzung
5a) MR und KR synoptisch

5b) MR (Marcionite Recension)

6. Anhang: Echte und vermeintliche Pauluszitate bei den Apostolischen Vätern

Most recently, we have a reconstruction of 1 Corinthians by Stuart G. Waugh.

Marcionite 1 Corinthians Interlinear - Reconstruction

1 Corinthians – Catholic addictions

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-20-2013, 01:09 PM	#626
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	No idea how Heracleon interpreted 'Capernaum' to mean what he says it does. Probably never figure it out. Most or many commentators see a link between John 2:12 and the synoptics.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.