Sheshbazzar

Care to name these fake and false prophets in Hebrew Scripture aa?

Duvduv

THAT is not what this thread is about, so quit changing the subject......
at least here.......

Chili

What do you mean? The Catholics have been stacking heaven with Saints. It is only curious readers have been deceived, as I wrote you before that: the little light they follow will always lead them wrong because what they see is an illusion that they magnify and will wear like stripes on they sholders and then, and only then, are ready to die.

I also wrote you before that are your own enemy in trying to prove that you were deceived and now are trying to prove the historicity wrong that you once believed.

andrewcriddle

It seems likely that Tertullian is using Marcion's own NT text in "Against Marcion" to try and show that Marcion can be refuted from his own version of Scripture. i.e. he leaves out "born of a woman" because Marcion left it out.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

That's entirely possible Andrew and I must admit that would be the 'natural' interpretation here. Instances like this led Schmid and those before him to think 'Tertullian (or his source) knew or cited the Marcionite reading here. The truth is however that you could have a long debate with yourself - an almost never ending debate - trying to decide whether the evidence sufficiently justifies that assumption.

As you know, Tertullian agrees with Irenaeus's reversal of the negation at Galatians 2:5:

rather than:

This can't be the Marcionite reading. It is a reflection of the Irenaean interpretation of the passage - and moreover I would argue - sympathetic with Polycarp's own actions in the Easter dispute with Anicetus (maybe I am reading too much into this).

When you think about it, Irenaeus at every turn portrays Polycarp as utterly inflexible on points of doctrine - but here strangely he 'gives in' to a pillar of the Church. The Marcionites of course could not have imagined Paul to have agreed with 'giving in' to the authorities hence our reading. But even this doesn't completely settle the issue. Aside from Galatians 1:1 I can't find a 'Marcionite reading' or 'Marcionite variant' anywhere up to the end of chapter two and this follows a pattern of Marcionite silence wherever the letters reference personal details of the life of the apostle.

This goes hand in hand I think with Origen's testimony about the length of the epistle to the Romans and moreover Tertullian's complaint that the Marcionites don't know or don't say anything about their apostle and that - presumably - these details weren't reflected in their manuscripts of his letters. In short, Origen's Commentary on Galatians (= Jerome), Tertullian and Epiphanius could be used to argue that chapter 1 (aside from 1:1) and most of chapter 2 did not appear in the Marcionite recension. This in turn argues for going against assuming that wherever Tertullian references text from the Pauline letters = Marcionite readings (like Schmid and others).

Perhaps you might think this is going too far but even still - the point here is that Irenaeus and Tertullian's reversal of the negation in Galatians 2:5 argue against assuming they/he are citing from the Marcionite text. The Marcionite text and the Old Latin or the Marcionite text and the Old Syriac might have been very closely related. I happen to hold the view that Against Marcion developed from an original text (Theophilus?) which compared the Marcionite gospel to a Diatessaron and the Marcionite Apostolikon to the Old Syriac collection (which was Galatians first).

As such anomalies cannot simply be assumed to be 'Marcionite.'

BTW I have been going through your friend Stephen Carlson's abstract for his dissertation on Galatians whenever I have a spare moment. It's really great.

stephan huller

And then there is the question of the inconsistencies in the writings of Irenaeus such as Galatians 4:4

As you are are well aware there are other examples where the same citation from Jewish scriptures are assigned two different authors (Isaiah, Jeremiah etc). Irenaeus cites the opening lines of Mark in two different ways in Book Three as well - i.e. 'according to Isaiah' and 'according to the prophets' and both are known variants in existing manuscripts.

Clearly then Irenaeus's inconsistencies are not 'slips of the mind' or the hand but something more unusual. I suspect that - like with Book One's assumed use of Justin - various source material were incorporated into this volume and the compilation of five books was not carried out by Irenaeus but by a third century compiler - perhaps Hippolytus, Callixtus, Zephyrinus - who knows? But the writings as we know have them are not 'purely' Irenaeus's own. Justin is certainly in there and who knows who else.

I think this example encapsulates Irenaeus using the original reading (= no mention of 'born of woman') and then this argument or lecture (cf Photius) was incorporated into Book Three alongside later writings or lectures which quote from the 'corrected' reading (clearly implying Irenaeus made the changes). Similar ideas are found in Book Three where we see the four gospels being cited as a set for the first time but then in other places Irenaeus does not seem to know the four gospels - or again cites the texts in the wrong order.

stephan huller

Unrecognized fact about Galatians 4:4:

Coincidence? I am not so sure. Could be the key for understanding the heresies. Indeed if you take 'fullness' on its own (without the 'the time' reference) it naturally relates to 'eating' - i.e. 'being full.'

aa5874

An examination of "Against Heresies" does show massive manipulation. "Against Heresies" is a product of multiple authors and is historically bogus.

Duvduv

AA, have you managed to figure out corroboration for the Justin texts based on poorly written and poorly preserved singular manuscripts as a basis for arguing for the existence of Christians in the second century?!

aa5874

You don't know what you are talking about. How in the world can you tell what is poorly written in the writings attributed to Justin Martyr??

Justin simply appeared to have been deceived by Jewish writings or sources.