Amaleq13

Layman,


The earliest evidence of the passage-in-question comes from Tertullian (197-220) and he uses it to argue against Marcion’s claim that the God of Christ was different from the Jewish God. He quotes “"Who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets," but claims that “their own” is an interpolation by heretics. Thus, he is observing that the passage is accusing the Jews of killing Jesus and the prophets and that, according to Tertullian, means Paul believed they were all working for the same God.

There are a couple of interesting points about this reference that I think are relevant:

1) Marcion produced the first collection of Paul’s letters. He is also suspected to have altered the text to suit his purposes.

2) Tertullian repeats the interpolated words and then adds his comment. Is he arguing against Marcion with Marcion’s “canon” of Paul’s letters? Regardless, he appears to assume that his readers will also be familiar with the interpolated version though not, apparently, that it included an interpolation.

3) The interpolators were, presumably, trying to create the impression that Paul believed the God of the prophets was different from the God of Jesus. They are clearly assumed to be in agreement with Marcion though no specific claim is made against him. While Tertullian only identifies two words as interpolated, it is foolish to ignore the fact that the entire passage is consistent with the beliefs of the Marcionites. The repudiation of the Jews was, after all, a central theme to Marcion’s “heresy”.


This is exactly the kind of anti-semitism that could produce the entire passage with the desire to make it appear that Paul shared their views. Tertullian would have no motivation to identify the entire passage as an interpolation because that would prevent him from creating evidence in his favor by only removing two words. While supporting his attempts to dispute Marcion’s belief in dual gods, Tertullian has indirectly given the rest of the interpolation the appearance of credibility by not denouncing the whole.

Origen (203-250) is the next to refer to the passage in two different texts. It is interesting to note that in one he repeats Tertullian’s “edited” version and in another he provides the full text. In addition, he appears to have been a contemporary of Cyprian.

Where did you obtain the 100 year interval between the earliest evidence of the passage and Cyprian’s alleged silence? It would appear to be less than half that at the most.

Layman

Tertullian is noting how Marcion's texts differ from Orthodox texts. Thus, the passage was in both manuscript traditions. The difference, as Tertullian points out, is that the heretics have added "their own" to "prophets."

Marcionite did his hatchet job around 130 CE or so.

You appear to be adopting Toto's idea that Marcion added the passage. That is unreasonable. You are basically arguing that the text was not there, Marcion added it, the Church adopted his heresy BUT could not stomach the phrase "their own" for some reason, so they attacked Marcion for that phrase while accepting his invention in its otherwise totality. And this while Tertullian spends much of his diatribe against Marcion accusing him of manipulating the holy texts. And Origen, who was not writing about Marcion, also felt some need to use Marcion's texts?

Besides, Marcionite was much better known for deleting and manipulating than for adding complete phrases. What other phrases do you suspect Marcion added?

How do you know that Marcion produced the first collection of Paul's letters?

Amaleq13

What "Orthodox text"? Tertullian refers to a passage from a single text and claims it includes two interpolated words. If there were an "Orthodox" version without the interpolated words, Tertullian would have quoted that and then added a comment about what "heretical texts" included. The quote he provided is the quote he expected his audience to know.

This is an inaccurate summary of my argument. Obviously, I am arguing that the text was originally not present but I don't know where you get "the Church adopted his heresy". The Church eventually adopted the interpolation but Tertullian rejected the only "heresy" with the elimination of the two words. As I already explained, he considered these to be interpolations intended to create the appearance that Paul believed the dual-gods heresy. That is clear from the way he argues that the "original" reading establishes precisely the opposite.

Does he compare what Marcion has against another version or does he identify alterations in a single text?

No, Origen wrote later so that suggests the version Tertullian held was still extant but so, apparently, was a post-Tertullian "redaction". He gives the passage both ways. In one instance, he is supporting the historicity of the "Jews killed their prophets" statement in Acts. In the other, he is defending the truth of Matthew 13:57 as a statement spoken by Jesus.

I'm only responding to this tangential question so as to avoid being accused of "ignoring points" but it is not relevant. Focus on the passage currently in question.

Researching him on and through Kirby’s website. A collection of Paul’s letters was part of what is considered the first New Testament canon. It inspired the subsequent creation of an Orthodox canon in response.

Where did you obtain the 100 year interval between the earliest evidence of the passage and Cyprian’s alleged silence?

Layman

Tertullian is writing a treatise "Against Marcion." That is why he's referring to Marcion's texts. He does so throughout the work and often notes where Marcion has deviated from the texts in the "orthodox" text.

I do not see how "their own" creates any more support for the two god theory.

Why not try and read him if you are this confused?

What is your evidence that Origen was using a manuscript tampered with by Tertullian?

This makes no sense. No one has discussed this in several posts and I obviously thought it was a silly point.

So, if you think this argument worthwhile, please provide evidence that Marcion added entire passages to the texts.

Yes, I know. I wrote that article.

http://christianorigins.com/marcion.html

But that was not my question. You said he was the first to have a collection of Paul's letters. That does not appear to be the case.

I told you. Marcion wrote in 130 CE. The idea that he invented the passage and the early Church coopted it while it was trying to stress its Jewish roots is unreasonable. Not only that, you've provided not one shred of evidence for it. You are grasping at other people's straws here.

Layman

Vinnie,

Have you seen Dr. Wallace's argument? I don't remember having seen it in your article, but it's been a while:

http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/1thotl.htm#P48_6542

Amaleq13

The passage in question is clearly not an example, then. There is no comparison to an "orthodox text". You insist that Tertullian makes this comparison elsewhere yet you are apparently reluctant to provide examples.

When I asked:
Does he compare what Marcion has against another version or does he identify alterations in a single text?

Layman replied:
I'm not "confused", I'm curious whether you know of specific examples or if this is yet another unsubstantiated assertion.

Layman wrote:
It apparently made sense to Tertullian. "Why not try and read him if you are this confused?"

I wrote:
No, Origen wrote later so that suggests the version Tertullian held was still extant but so, apparently, was a post-Tertullian "redaction". He gives the passage both ways. In one instance, he is supporting the historicity of the "Jews killed their prophets" statement in Acts. In the other, he is defending the truth of Matthew 13:57 as a statement spoken by Jesus.

Layman replied:
None, since that isn't anything I have suggested. Origen, writing later than Tertullian, repeats the passage in separate locations both with and without the interpolated words. The version with the words is consistent with Tertullian's quote. The version without the words is consistent with how Tertullian suggested the text originally read.

Yes, you wrote one of the articles I read.

Regarding my comment about Marcion, Layman wrote:
Who collected Paul's letters earlier?

Regardless, the point holds even if we only note that Marcion produced the first NT canon.

I asked:
Where did you obtain the 100 year interval between the earliest evidence of the passage and Cyprian’s alleged silence?

Layman replied:
You simply stated that Marcion wrote in 130 CE in the middle of your previous post but you didn't indicate it was a response to the question.

You seem to have changed your "methodology". Originally, the 100 year interval was from the first evidence of the passage (i.e. Tertullian) until Cyprian's "silence". Why should the "clock" start with Marcion rather than the earliest evidence of the passage?

Actually, identifying the specific interpolator is hardly necessary but there is nothing obviously "unreasonable" about the suggested scenario. Rather than simply assert it is unreasonable, why not try to explain exactly what is unreasonable about it?

Layman

I'm not sure what you are talking about. When Tertullian notes that the heretics had added "their own" to the text, what do you think he means they are adding "their own" to? Obviously he means his version of that passage does not include a phrase that Marcion's does include.

What is confusing about this? Tertullian was aware of manuscripts that had the passage without "their own" and he was noting that Marcion's manuscripts apparently had added "their own" to a passage familiar to him.

Your argument appears to be that Tertullian was lying. That he had no such passage in his texts and instead was stealing it from his archnemesis heretic foe.

Examples of what? And what other "unsubstantiated assertsions" do you refer to? I'm not the one claiming to have identified the interpolator himself!

Please provide a cite and I'll be happy to.

Please clarify your latest theory. Was Marcion the interpolator or not? And please provide citations to Origen and Tertullian.

Right. And it says nothing about the first collection of Paul's letters.

Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp. It's pretty widely recognized that collections of Paul's letters were circulating through the church by the end of the first century. Clement, for example, when writing the Corinthians, is able to refer explicitly to a letter he knew Paul had written to them (1 Corinthians) and to quote from it. Obviously, since he was not the receipient of said letter someone had provided him or his church a copy. He also alludes to Hebrews and , possibly, Titus. Ignatius quotes from Romans and 1 Corinthians, and possibly others, despite having been Bishop of Antioch. Polycarp refers to others.

And just were do you think Marcion got his letters? Do you really think he travelled to each of the cities they were written to and asked the Orthodox churches there politely for copies?

How so? What exactly is the point here?

I thought it was pretty obvious. Even if we assume that Marcion invented the thing, he would have done so in 130 CE.


Not sure what you mean. I've maintained for several posts now that Marcion provides manuscript attestation back more than 100 years.

Since I noticed Tertullian's reference to Marcion's corruption of the text I have consistently maintained that the existence of this text in Marcion's canon extends the manuscript tradtion back to him. So long as I have claimed 100 years, I have been referring to Marcion. You simply have misunderstood this point.

I have done so many times.

First, there is zero evidence for such a theory.

Second, Tertullian is quite clear that his version of Thess. has the text in it but in a different form than Marcion's. You assume Tertullian to be a liar with zero evidence.

Third, Marcion was a heretic. Tertullian devoted an entire treatise to debunking Marcion and pointing out how Marcion corrupted his version of the Bible. He points out again and again how Marcion alters or deletes the orthodox scriptures. Yet you think that Tertullian adopted one an invented passage by Marcion while quibbling with one part of it. Then he highlights this in his publicized works so that all Christians who did not have this passage in their manuscripts could see that Tertullian--the defender of the faith--is adopting Marcion's version of the Bible. Again, all with no evidence.

Fourth, I'm much more familiar with Marcion's obvious deletions and distortions of the Canon than I am with alleged interpolations. I'm open to the possibility given Marcion's radical objectives and means, but until I'm shown some sort of track record here I'm somewhat skeptical of this point.

Amaleq13

The text Tertullian is reading and, apparently, the text he expects his audience to be familiar with. His reference indicates Tertullian expected his readers to be familiar with the passage including the interpolation. There is no suggestion that he is comparing against another version.

There is nothing "obvious" about this since it is nowhere indicated by Tertullian's reference. He refers only to the passage with the interpolated words and claims they have been added. He doesn't say "This is how Marcion's version reads and we can see by comparing it to our version that there have been additions". He identifies the passage as his audience knows it, then adds a comment. Your interpretation is not credible.

Again, you are reading facts into Tertullian. He does not say how he knows these words have been interpolated but it is clear that it is not because there exists an agreed-upon, "orthodox" version of Paul's letters.

This is yet another example of you misinterpreting my argument so that it appears to make extreme claims. I can't call him a "liar" for identifying theses words as interpolated because he doesn't provide the basis for his conclusion. At worst, my argument suggests he is guilty of selectively identifying only part of the larger interpolation to serve his purposes but I'm not sure we can assume what he thought of the rest of the passage.

Again, there is no evidence in Tertullian's reference that suggests he held a text which read differently. As I have already shown, the evidence of his reference indicates there is only one text being discussed (shared by Tertullian and his readers) and it contained the allegedly interpolated words. Perhaps this shared text is Marcion's but, if that is the case, his reference suggests he expected his readers to be using it as well.

I wrote:
I'm curious whether you know of specific examples or if this is yet another unsubstantiated assertion.

Layman replied:
For someone who rejects "forensic posting" you certainly require it a great deal from others. As should be clear to anyone carefully following this discussion, I asking for examples of what you falsely claim is taking place in this reference by Tertullian (i.e. comparison with an assumed genuine text). I do not doubt that Tertullian and others had access to copies of Paul's letters and that they used those contents to argue that Marcion had edited his version. What is clearly in question, however, is your assertion that this is the case with regard to the current reference under discussion. Tertullian makes no reference to having a different text before him and it is clear that he assumed his audience was familiar with the same text he quoted.

In reply to your first question, I would be happy to repeat the two examples I have already given but I wouldn't want to indulge in "forensic posting".

I did not claim to have identified the interpolator. Whoever introduced the interpolation, it is clear that it agreed with Marcionite beliefs. I noted that Tertullian claims the passage contains interpolations. I noted that, beyond the two words he identifies, that the entire disputed passage is consistent with Marcionite agendas (i.e. showing Paul to hold the same beliefs). I also noted that Tertullian does not accuse Marcion specifically but only "heretics". I later noted that identifying the specific interpolator is ultimately irrelevant to concluding that the passage cannot be trusted as genuine.

This is yet another examples of distortion to extremes. I suggest a potential source for the interpolation and you alter that to a claim of specific identification.

In reply to Layman's confusion about Tertullian's identification of the words as interpolated, I wrote:
It apparently made sense to Tertullian. "Why not try and read him if you are this confused?"

Layman replied:
Are you kidding? You’re the one who originally introduced the text in this thread!! Did you not bother to consider the context of the verse or were you simply extracting the reference from a secondary text? Either way, do your own research and consider the context of Tertullian’s reference. It does not support your interpretation.

I asked Layman to identify earlier collections of Paul's letter, he wrote:
You misstate the actual consensus. It is widely recognized that individual Church Fathers held copies of several of Paul's letters. It is debated whether there existed a formal collection prior to Marcion's. I should have been more specific and included the word "published".

Tertullian, in The Prescription against Heretics, c.200ce, gives indirect evidence that no such published collection existed at that time when he encourages his readers to visit the individual cities to which Paul's letters were sent to see what was said. That advice makes no sense if we assume there existed a published collection of all them.

Certainly, Tertullian did not think this was an unreasonable possibility since he suggests that his readers do exactly that.

I wrote:
Regardless, the point holds even if we only note that Marcion produced the first NT canon.

Layman replied:
The point is Marcion was the first to publish a canon and the creation of the "orthodox" canon was an eventual reaction against it but first came the efforts of Tertullian, etc. The "orthodox" canon was the eventual result of these disputes with Marcion. Marcion started the debate with his implied assertion that his canon contained the actual words of Paul.

While it is possible that Tertullian is quoting from a text used by Marcion, we have no direct evidence that it existed as early as 130ce. There is a gap of at least 70 years between Marcion’s published canon and Tertullian’s response to it. The actual evidence only supports the existence of the passage c.200-220. That leaves open the possibility that it was introduced to Marcion’s collection by a later Marcionite.

And this is the first time you have explicitly identified “Marcion” as the earliest evidence. Had you done so earlier, I would have corrected you then. Tertullian is the oldest manuscript attestation and that is what I assumed you meant.

The evidence is clearly available to anyone who has read the preceding posts. That evidence convincingly argues that 1Thess has been interpolated at verses 15-16. The first verse contains sentiments unique to Paul’s letters and, as was argued with specific examples, contrary to Paul’s expressed sentiments. The second verse contains a declaration that God’s final wrath has fallen upon the Jews and this cannot be credibly argued to refer to any event prior to the destruction of the Temple. Tertullian offers the earliest evidence of this passage (c.200-220) and, in that reference, claims that the passage has been tampered with by heretics. He specifies only two words but the entire contents of the disputed passage can be seen to be consistent with the views of those same heretics. It is entirely reasonable, therefore, to suggest that Tertullian chose to redact only those words that served his purpose (i.e. refuting the appearance Paul believed in the dual-gods idea). There is no reason to suspect he would object to the idea of Paul blaming the Jews for the murder of Jesus and removing it would have prevented him from using it as an argument against Marcion. Thus, the evidence cannot be said to contradict the possibility that the interpolation extended beyond the identified two words. There is nothing obviously unreasonable about this argument.

That is only “clear” to someone who has not read the context of the reference. Consideration of the actual text, however, provides absolutely no support for this contention. Tertullian gives no indication he has a version without the words and his use of the full quote suggests he assumed his readers knew no other version either.

The way Tertullian quotes the reference indicates he assumed his readers to have the same version. If this is from Marcion’s canon, then Marcion’s canon was being widely used even by those opposed to Marcionite beliefs. I have already pointed out there is a good reason for Tertullian to retain the accusation against Jesus even if he questioned its authenticity but it is not necessary to assume he knew what was genuine. Did he reject the two words simply because they supported Marcionite beliefs and their removal would support Tertullian’s claims? He doesn’t say. Did he reject the two words because he knew of versions of Paul’s letters that didn’t include them? He also doesn’t say.

As Kirby points out, it is sometimes difficult to determine what Paul’s original letters contained:

“There is debate over whether Marcion truncated Luke and Paul or whether later orthodox scribes may have expanded them in some cases.”

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/marcion.html

Carrier extends that caution to the entire New Testament:
“Nevertheless, any number of unknown alterations could still have been made that have not been detected (a great many have been--both errors and deliberate alterations or omissions), and it is important to note that the ancients did not have at one glance the scope of manuscript data we have, nor did they (with a few exceptions) even have the analytical and palaeographical skills now employed to derive a reliable manuscript archetype from a scientific collation of numerous exemplars. In other words, no one in antiquity ever saw a completely accurate collection of what would eventually become the 27 New Testament books, until perhaps the time of Origen or Clement of Alexandria (see XII and XIV), and even then most likely only those few scholars would have enjoyed the privilege. But this is still doubtful--it does not appear that either man went out of his way to find and trace the history of all existing manuscripts, in all churches, and in all translations, yet that is what would have been required to decisively collate a close approximation to the original texts (and with regard to facing an even worse problem today, cf. M 267ff.; and for an example, see Bible). “

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html

You seem to be operating under the unsubstantiated assumption that there existed some sort of "orthodox" agreement on the contents of Paul's letters prior to Marcion. This does not appear to be consistent with the actual evidence.

Vinnie

I never said there were an exact paralle. Just that there are instances in the Pauline corpus where Paul only mentions an item once and we might think he should have mentioned it more. Paul also mentions the "twelve" once as wel.. I could go on but I won't. Your argument from silence is highly speculative and worthless. You have to demonstrate that Paul would have mentioned Jewish involvement more if he knew about. I do not. I am content to let the record speak for itself and not pose anachroniostic eisegesis back onto the author's hands as he was writing.

You have a reading comprehension problem. I never stated we should expect Paul to mention Jewish involvement only once. I would go on to say that of all the letters that survive, Paul does only mention it once explciitly. It might come implicit with some of the theological "end of the law" type stuff as well.

I never made a false analogy. I pointed out the problems with appealing toi silences in Pauline epistlkes. You choose to ignore them as all ignoran psuedo-scholars do.

Does Paul mention the Jewish killing of prophets often? I myself am aware of two spots? Not that the question matters. Here is a funny thing though. Paul mentions Jesus was crucified a bunch of times but he never mentions Pilate or the Romans. As I said, his one reference to Jewish involvement simply shows the info was common knowledge. Its a powerful argument for its historicity. Unless you want to deny the crucifixion of Jesus and Pilate's involvement as well. Maybe your shcolarship is actually much worse than I would give you credit for....

Paul doesn't mention Pilate. Neither do the other epistles with the exception of 1 Tim 6:13 (which is not an interpolation as Doherty thinks). Paul mentions the death of Jesus a lot but he never mentions the Romans of Pilate. I suppose mythicists would use nonsensical arguments like this to assert the non-historicity of Jesus.

Earth to Steven Carr!!! The argument is that Paul would never refer to his Jewish brethen as "the Jews". I pointed out that this is false. Not that the passages are identical.


Can we all say non-sequitur?

Vinnie

Vinnie

Thanks for the cite. I am adding a pinch to the article tonight