stephan huller

As many people may be aware, Irenaeus's Against Heresies mostly survive in Latin. It is generally presumed that Irenaeus wrote in Greek although it is conceded the Latin translation appeared very soon after the time he wrote. It is Harvey who argues most strenuously for consideration to be given for Irenaeus using a Syriac version of the New Testament. I have always thought this must be the case based on the way Aramaic sections of the text are garbled by the translator.

In any event, he does apologize at the beginning of the book for writing in a barbarous tongue. I can't see how this reference would be to Greek or Latin. But here is what struck me tonight. The Latin text makes continual reference to Marcion 'circumcising' the gospel:

circumcidens under ordinary circumstances in Latin simply means 'to circumcise.' Harvey connects this 'circumcizing' of the gospel with Hippolytus's idea that the Marcionites used two gospels (Phil 7.18). But why use the description of circumcizing the gospel rather than simply saying he divided it?

The only thing I can come up with is that Irenaeus might have used the word gazar in Syriac which means to divide but also has the implication of 'circumcise.' In Hebrew it usually means circumcise.

Roger Pearse

"But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains." - ANF

"ex his quae adhuc servantur penes eum" - from (ex) these things (his) which (quae) still (adhuc) they are preserved (servantur) in the hands of (penes) him (eum)"

He isn't dividing the gospel, but chopping bits off. The point about circumcidens is perhaps that he is chopping off the Jewish bit.

Duvduv

The usual word for circumcise is the Hebrew root "mal" which is the source for the word Mila. Anyway, virtually nothing is known about this Irenaeus, so he probably didn't exist in the second century.

stephan huller

But it is a consistent pattern in Irenaeus's references to the 'cutting' - to use terms that could apply to circumcision. Take the example which almost immediately follows in Book Three:

The same kind of description is referenced in Tertullian's writings. At the beginning of Book One of Against Marcion there is this image of a rodent using its teeth to simultaneous gnaw off bits of its genitals and the gospel:

I just wonder if all of this is coincidence or did the Marcionites - rather than reject circumcision apply the principle to the gospel - i.e. that the shorter publicly circulating text was the 'foreskin' of the larger body of the main text that was kept secret. While it is not identical, the author of the Philosophumena (presumably Hippolytus) speaks of the Marcionites possessing a second gospel - the Gospel of Mark - but mentions the author as him of the 'cut fingers.' Finger in Latin, no less than Hebrew, Aramaic and other languages is a euphemism for the male member.

I don't actually know if digitus can be used in this way in Latin. I am just basing my guess on Corssen who refers digitus to root dik-, dico, δείκνυμι, as the pointer, indicator, Ausspr. 1, 380. Perhaps I am biased because of the English word 'dick' and the common phrase 'digitus impudicus' for the middle finger. I don't know.