antithesis-y bits of the gospel

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
RandyHelzerman
Posts: 515
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2023 10:31 am

Re: The Antitheses and the origin of Luke

Post by RandyHelzerman »

I'm still kicking myself that I never thought there might be a connection between the Antithesis and the Sermon on the Mount/Plain. One of those things which just seem so obvious in hindsight--but somehow, you just gotta wait until somebody smarter than you thinks it up...

Most striking to me is that section of "you have heard (some bogus OT law) but I say (screw that)". For example:
DoceticJesus wrote: You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies...that you may be children of your Father in heaven.
Very antithesis-y. For one thing, they *are* antithesis, juxtaposing an OT truism with a teaching of Jesus which supersedes it. But no matter how much "I didn't come to change the law" disclaimers you put in front of them, they are about as Marcionite as can be because---

---They say as explicitly, directly, and unmistakable as possible that BOTH Jesus AND his Father are opposed to the laws of the OT God.

So just where are we going with this? Are the beatitudes a poetic re-working of the antithesis? Or were the antithesis just the logical consequences of the sermon on the mount? Have the antithesis just been staring us in the face this whole time?

Maybe Marcion BOTH didn't change the gospel he found, AND larded it up with his own Doctrine like this: Marcion or his grandfather published the gospel of Mark and the antithesis in one volume, and eventually the antithesis were put on the lips of Jesus, and then just worked into the gospel to form the Evangelion.
Last edited by RandyHelzerman on Sat Apr 20, 2024 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Antitheses and the origin of Luke

Post by Secret Alias »

Yup that's me.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Antitheses and the origin of Luke

Post by Secret Alias »

Remember what Papias says about the difference between Mark and Matthew. Similar content Mark's just wasn't properly "ordered." The ordering that Papias speaks about is the dominical logoi, the Jewish prophesies of Christ. What better way to prove Mark's lack of "ordering" from the dominical logoi than having "antitheses" which go so far as to contradict the Pentateuch. I say is over and over again. These guys don't know the controversies among the Jews at the time of early Christianity. The Samaritans and Sadducees say that God only wrote the Ten Commandments the rest were written by Moses on a lesser authority. The Samaritan liturgy celebrates the Ten Commandments with a different level of authenticity than the rest of the Pentateuch and even less for the books outside of the Pentateuch (= zero). What happens when you adhere only to the Ten Utterances? No circumcision. No sacrifices. No dietary restrictions. etc etc.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Sat Apr 20, 2024 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Antitheses and the origin of Luke

Post by Secret Alias »

Matthew 5:17 - 44 are commonly known as "the Antitheses."
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8651
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Antitheses and the origin of Luke

Post by Peter Kirby »

RandyHelzerman wrote: Sat Apr 20, 2024 2:30 pm I'm still kicking myself that I never thought there might be a connection between the Antithesis and the Sermon on the Mount/Plain. One of those things which just seem so obvious in hindsight--but somehow, you just gotta wait until somebody smarter than you thinks it up...

Most striking to me is that section of "you have heard (some bogus OT law) but I say (screw that)". For example:
DoceticJesus wrote: You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies...that you may be children of your Father in heaven.
Very antithesis-y. For one thing, they *are* antithesis, juxtaposing an OT truism with a teaching of Jesus which supersedes it. But no matter how much "I didn't come to change the law" disclaimers you put in front of them, they are about as Marcionite as can be because---

---They say as explicitly, directly, and unmistakable as possible that BOTH Jesus AND his Father are opposed to the laws of the OT God.

So just where are we going with this? Are the beatitudes a poetic re-working of the antithesis? Or were the antithesis just the logical consequences of the sermon on the mount? Have the antithesis just been staring us in the face this whole time?

Maybe Marcion BOTH didn't change the gospel he found, AND larded it up with his own Doctrine like this: Marcion or his grandfather published the gospel of Mark and the antithesis in one volume, and eventually the antithesis were put on the lips of Jesus, and then just worked into the gospel to form the Evangelion.
I'm cool with anything that acknowledges that there is a written document called the Antitheses by Marcion and that this is the primary source of material for much of the polemic written against Marcion.

So there could be 23 different things that are also 'antitheses', but our right brain happiness at seeing them doesn't overrule our left brain understanding of what Marcion's text called the Antitheses was.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8651
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Antitheses and the origin of Luke

Post by Peter Kirby »

That Marcion had a separate written text of the Antitheses is as secure as anything (which SA will tell you, is nothing).

Here's something on my understanding here of the more-speculative topic of the lower-case gospel antitheses.
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2024 8:04 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2024 12:43 am We must wonder: who does Μάρκος ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος describe, and who came up with this description?

(a) does this describe the author of "ἐν τῷ <κατὰ> Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ"?
(b) does this describe Μαρκίων or "Marcion's reputation as the abbreviator of a gospel"?
(c) both?

And if it describes an author of the gospel text, could Μάρκος ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος be a Marcionite reference against Mark?
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2024 12:43 am
for none of them is written in the gospel according to Mark

I am left wondering: none of what? None of the arguments? Why are we talking about Antitheses-style arguments either being in, or not being in, the gospel according to Mark? Is this simply a reference to the fact that the gospel didn't have such arguments because they were part of a separately attached Antitheses? Perhaps.

Let's try out the idea that there's more to it, seeing if it is a productive hypothesis. If there is more to it, then a few things are entailed: (a) gospel-like material that reads like Antitheses-style arguments, (b) the absence of such material in the gospel according to Mark, and (c) the presence of this material in other gospel texts. Tentatively (there are other possibilities), I would also suggest that the most obvious consequence would be that (d) Marcionites being able to recognize the strength of the retort because their gospel didn't have this material but their Antitheses text did.
Harnack writes that the "antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 provide the nearest parallel to these" from Marcion (Marcion: the gospel of the alien God, chapter 5, note 29). Harnack identifies a couple contradictions that are already in Matthew:

(viii) In the law it is said, ''An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth;' but the Lord, the Good, says in the gospel, "If anyone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also." 38 "You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."
(xxiv) In the law God (the creator of the world) says, "You shall love the one who loves you and hate your enemy." But our Lord, the Good One, says, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

In these cases, Matthew has phrasing that includes a contrast of what "you have heard that it was said" and what "I tell you."

According to my four points above: (a) this is gospel-like material that reads like Antitheses-style arguments, (b) such material is absent in the gospel according to Mark, and (c) this material is present in Matthew.

Would it also be true that (d) Marcionites would be able to recognize the strength of the retort, as if their gospel didn't have this material but their Antitheses text did? We can keep it as an open question as we continue to try to dive deeper into the meaning of this passage. Let's set it out again.

"When, therefore, Marcion, or any of his dogs, shall bay against the Demiurge, bringing forward arguments from the comparison of good and evil, they should be told that neither the apostle Paul nor 'short-measure' Mark reported these things — for none of them is written in the gospel according to Mark."
Ἐπειδὰν οὖν Μαρκίων ἢ τῶν ἐκείνου κυνῶν τις ὑλακτῇ κατὰ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ [dēmiourgôu], τοὺς ἐκ τῆς ἀντιπαραθέσεως ἀγαθοῦ καὶ κακοῦ προφέρων λόγους, δεῖ αὐτοῖ(ς) λέγειν ὅτι τούτους οὔτε Παῦλος ὁ ἀπόστολος οὔτε Μάρκος ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος ἀνήγγειλαν —τούτων γὰρ οὐδε<ὶς> ἐν τῷ <κατὰ> Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται

The reference is that "none of them" is written in canonical Mark. As we saw above, some of them (at least two) are written in Matthew. And, of course, in general they are written in the Antitheses, which is neither the Apostle nor the Gospel. The rhetorical power of the retort is that the Marcionites are advancing things that aren't in the gospel (the things in the Antitheses). Furthermore, some specificity is added to the retort by pointing out that none of them are in Mark, which must have been able to weigh on Marcionites somehow as potentially upsetting. So even if some of them could have been in a gospel (Matthew), that is a gospel that Marcionites spurn.

Were any of these antitheses in the gospel used by Marcionites? I would suggest so. Perhaps the absence of the contrasts with the law as it had been "heard" (Matthean antitheses) in the parallel passages of Luke can be understood partly as an attempt to avoid the interpretation given to these passages by Marcionites (whereas Matthew goes in a different direction and turns it into a commentary on the fulfillment of the law). These can be seen as two different redactional strategies in response to a text that was read in a Marcionite way, which would make more sense if this was in a gospel.

So we're in a situation where the Marcionites knew that some of their "comparisons" (antitheses) are in the gospel, which is associated with Mark, rather than with the apostles Matthew or John. At the same time, we're in a situation where there is also a form of Mark that is known to have none of them. In short, a situation where there were two different versions of Mark, one of them being the one accepted by the anti-Marcionites, another one being used among the Marcionites.

This is all before we come to the word ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος, which is the initial subject of this thread. In other words, even before considering the meaning of this word here, we have found reason to believe that this passage supports the idea, not only of the Marcionite gospel being most closely associated with Mark, but of there being two different known forms of this Mark.
Short story: Marcion had a substantial text of Antitheses that contrasted with the OT god and used other arguments. A couple things in Marcion's Antitheses correspond pretty directly to sayings of Jesus in the gospel, which we could call Jesus' antitheses.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Antitheses and the origin of Luke

Post by Secret Alias »

It's Matthew chapter 5.
RandyHelzerman
Posts: 515
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2023 10:31 am

Re: The Antitheses and the origin of Luke

Post by RandyHelzerman »

Secret Alias wrote: Sat Apr 20, 2024 4:43 pm It's Matthew chapter 5.
What is Matthew, chapter 5?

P.S. I'm still trying to get my arms around exactly what you believe re the whole Marcion thing. And the biggest obstacle is that you believe *so much* about Marcion :-) that any individual post you make must needs be elliptical. Sometimes to the point of obscurity, as in the instant case.

Did you ever write out your whole position on Marcion, in enough detail that a bonehead like me can follow the arguments, everything you believe about it and why? If such a thing exists I'd love to read it.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

antithesis-y bits of the gospel

Post by Secret Alias »

Match, set, point.
Now, that the law did beforehand teach mankind the necessity of following Christ, He does Himself make manifest, when He replied as follows to him who asked Him what he should do that he might inherit eternal life: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."(8) But upon the other asking "Which?"" again the Lord replies: "Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, hon-our father and mother, and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,"--setting as an ascending series (velut gradus) before those who wished to follow Him, the precepts of the law, as the entrance into life; and What He then said to one He said to all. But when the former said, "All these have I done" (and most likely he had not kept them, for in that case the Lord would not have said to him, "Keep the commandments"), the Lord, exposing his covetousness, said to him, "If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all that thou hast, and distribute to the poor; and come, follow me;" promising to those who would act thus, the portion belonging to the apostles (apostolorum partem). And He did not preach to His followers another God the Father, besides Him who was proclaimed by the law from the beginning; nor another Son; nor the Mother, the enthymesis of the AEon, who existed in suffering and apostasy; nor the Pleroma of the thirty AEons, which has been proved vain, and incapable of being believed in; nor that fable invented by the other heretics. But He taught that they should obey the commandments which God enjoined from the beginning, and do away with their former covetousness by good works,(9) and follow after Christ. But that possessions distributed to the poor do annul former covetousness, Zaccheus made evident, when he said, "Behold, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have defrauded any one, I restore fourfold."

And that the Lord did not abrogate the natural [precepts] of the law, by which man is justified, which also those who were justified by faith, and who pleased God, did observe previous to the giving of the law, but that He extended and fulfilled them, is shown from His words. “For,” He remarks, “it has been said to them of old time, Do not commit adultery. But I say unto you, That every one who hath looked upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” And again: “It has been said, Thou shalt not kill. But I say unto you, Every one who is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment.” And, “It hath been said, Thou shalt not forswear thyself. But I say unto you, Swear not at all; but let your conversation be, Yea, yea, and Nay, nay.” And other statements of a like nature. For all these do not contain or imply an opposition to and an overturning of the [precepts] of the past, as Marcion’s followers do strenuously maintain; but [they exhibit] a fulfilling and an extension of them, as He does Himself declare: “Unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” For what meant the excess referred to? In the first place, [we must] believe not only in the Father, but also in His Son now revealed; for He it is who leads man into fellowship and unity with God. In the next place, [we must] not only say, but we must do; for they said, but did not. And [we must] not only abstain from evil deeds, but even from the desires after them. Now He did not teach us these things as being opposed to the law, but as fulfilling the law, and implanting in us the varied righteousness of the law. That would have been contrary to the law, if He had commanded His disciples to do anything which the law had prohibited. But this which He did command—namely, not only to abstain from things forbidden by the law, but even from longing after them—is not contrary to [the law], as I have remarked, neither is it the utterance of one destroying the law, but of one fulfilling, extending, and affording greater scope to it.

2. For the law, since it was laid down for those in bondage, used to instruct the soul by means of those corporeal objects which were of an external nature, drawing it, as by a bond, to obey its commandments, that man might learn to serve God. But the Word set free the soul, and taught that through it the body should be willingly purified. Which having been accomplished, it followed as of course, that the bonds of slavery should be removed, to which man had now become accustomed, and that he should follow God without fetters: moreover, that the laws of liberty should be extended, and subjection to the king increased, so that no one who is converted should appear unworthy to Him who set him free, but that the piety and obedience due to the Master of the household should be equally rendered both by servants and children; while the children possess greater confidence [than the servants], inasmuch as the working of liberty is greater and more glorious than that obedience which is rendered in [a state of] slavery.

3. And for this reason did the Lord, instead of that [commandment], “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” forbid even concupiscence; and instead of that which runs thus, “Thou shalt not kill,” He prohibited anger; and instead of the law enjoining the giving of tithes, [He told us] to share all our possessions with the poor; and not to love our neighbours only, but even our enemies; and not merely to be liberal givers and bestowers, but even that we should present a gratuitous gift to those who take away our goods. For “to him that taketh away thy coat,” He says, “give to him thy cloak also; and from him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again; and as ye would that men should do unto you, do ye unto them:” so that we may not grieve as those who are unwilling to be defrauded, but may rejoice as those who have given willingly, and as rather conferring a favour upon our neighbours than yielding to necessity. “And if any one,” He says, “shall compel thee [to go] a mile, go with him twain;”3955 so that thou mayest not follow him as a slave, but may as a free man go before him, showing thyself in all things kindly disposed and useful to thy neighbour, not regarding their evil intentions, but performing thy kind offices, assimilating thyself to the Father, “who maketh His sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and sendeth rain upon the just and unjust.” Now all these [precepts], as I have already observed, were not [the injunctions] of one doing away with the law, but of one fulfilling, extending, and widening it among us; just as if one should say, that the more extensive operation of liberty implies that a more complete subjection and affection towards our Liberator had been implanted within us. For He did not set us free for this purpose, that we should depart from Him (no one, indeed, while placed out of reach of the Lord’s benefits, has power to procure for himself the means of salvation), but that the more we receive His grace, the more we should love Him. Now the more we have loved Him, the more glory shall we receive from Him, when we are continually in the presence of the Father.

4. Inasmuch, then, as all natural precepts are common to us and to them (the Jews), they had in them indeed the beginning and origin; but in us they have received growth and completion. For to yield assent to God, and to follow His Word, and to love Him above all, and one’s neighbour as one’s self (now man is neighbour to man), and to abstain from every evil deed, and all other things of a like nature which are common to both [covenants], do reveal one and the same God. But this is our Lord, the Word of God, who in the first instance certainly drew slaves to God, but afterwards He set those free who were subject to Him, as He does Himself declare to His disciples: “I will not now call you servants, for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth; but I have called you friends, for all things which I have heard from My Father I have made known.”3957 For in that which He says, “I will not now call you servants,” He indicates in the most marked manner that it was Himself who did originally appoint for men that bondage with respect to God through the law, and then afterwards conferred upon them freedom. And in that He says, “For the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth,” He points out, by means of His own advent, the ignorance of a people in a servile condition. But when He terms His disciples “the friends of God,” He plainly declares Himself to be the Word of God, whom Abraham also followed voluntarily and under no compulsion (sine vinculis), because of the noble nature of his faith, and so became “the friend of God.”3958 But the Word of God did not accept of the friendship of Abraham, as though He stood in need of it, for He was perfect from the beginning (“Before Abraham was,” He says, “I am”), but that He in His goodness might bestow eternal life upon Abraham himself, inasmuch as the friendship of God imparts immortality to those who embrace it.
RandyHelzerman
Posts: 515
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2023 10:31 am

Re: The Antitheses and the origin of Luke

Post by RandyHelzerman »

Secret Alias wrote: Sat Apr 20, 2024 4:52 pm Match, set, point.
Just to confirm whether I got you or not, you are pointing out how Irenaeus has to post a big, hand-wavy, wall-of-text to try to convince us that all those "ye have heard...but I say..." bits don't actually mean that Jesus and his Father are opposed to the OT God's laws? As Marcion claims?

That when Jesus says that in order to be like his Father, you have to *ignore* a command by the OT God to hate your enemies? And when he commands that you love your enemies instead, so you can be like Jesus's Father, Jesus *doesn't really* mean that Jesus's Father sent him into the world specifically to get people to stop obeying the OT god, and start obeying Him? As Marcion claims?

Which is to say, that when Irenaeus is purporting to refute the doctrines of Marcion which are customarily considered to find their locus classicus in "The Antitheses", that Irenaeus---curiously--does not actually attack any document which is at all recognizable as the Antitheses, but--even more curiously-- to all appearances, attacks the plain meaning of scripture, yay, even the very words of Jesus himself, as delivered in the Sermon on the Mount? In the form and order in which they appear--curiously--in Matthew's version, not Luke's version?
Post Reply