Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posteriority?

[Ben C. Smith]

When you say “does not have to mean” are you saying it can be translated as "then" in the sense of "after"?

It can be translated as "then" in the sense of "the next thing". "After" might imply a gap that the Greek word does not necessarily imply.

“And there will be signs … men fainting etc. at that which is coming … And “at that time” they will see the Son of Man”. This would mean that the Son of Man will come at the same time as the signs are seen.

In many cases it is not completely clear whether we should translate it as "at that time" or "then" in the sense of "next". In this particular case the signs may very well still be going on when the Lord arrives, right? I do not think the signs are envisioned as pausing for a bit, and then after a little while he shows up.

Why would I want to discuss “οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς”, which is in Mark and Luke? It is not a Marcion variation and cannot be used as evidence of older tradition.

That is not the phrase that implies a previous tradition. The word that does that is "men" in the preceding verse. The phrase "so also you" is simply the one that points up the awkwardness of having "you" in the previous verse instead of "men".

How does a “might” prove either way what was in Proto-Luke-Marcion? And even if I provide evidence that Luke’s resurrection stories fit with his birth narratives how would that disprove a Proto-Luke-Marcion?

We can only discuss what we have.

Exactly so.

I think the next difference is Lk 5:24 (RSV)

‘But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" -- he said to the man who was paralyzed -- "I say to you, rise, take up your bed and go home."’

For Marcion you have:

“But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins(,) arise, and take up your mat.”

“κλινιδιον” the word Luke has, could be translated as “little couch”. Mark has “κραβαττον”, which is normally translated as pallet. Strongs says “probably of foreign origin”. Matthew has “κλινην”, which means “couch”. Tertullian seems to have “Exsurge, et tolle dicturi erant,” (Rise, and take up he said to be) – “He said, Rise and take up to live”. So where is the couch or bed or mat? Is it assumed?

No. A line was missing from that copy of Tertullian. I found the missing piece on Google Books (since all the regular HTML internet texts are apparently of the same defective copy of Tertullian) and edited it into the post. I am glad you pointed it out.

Tertullian has: Exsurge, et tolle grabattum tuum. Grabattum is a simple transliteration of κραβαττον, so it certainly looks like Marcion agrees with Mark here, not with Matthew or Luke.

I expected that Tertullian was using a word that came from Mark’s pallet. Matthew uses “κλινην” in Mt 9:2 as does Luke in 5:18.

You were correct.

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

Not surprisingly "the term used for the "stretcher" that bore the man is κραβαττον, which is in fact a Latinism usually used to describe a poor man's mattress or even a spartan bedroll of a soldier." As such both the Latin text of Against Marcion = Exsurge, et tolle grabattum tuum and Mark are translating a pro-text (probably Marcion's but we can't be sure if there aren't others = Justin's in the mix which agreed or disagreed with both Marcion's text and the other canonical texts) which may or may not agree with Luke. Once again this whole endeavor is demonstrated to be an exercise in futility. Tertullian isn't 'giving you' Marcion's text, he's re-rendering a lost Greek anti-Marcionite treatise developed from Justin in Latin. Again, good luck figuring out the original Marcionite reading.

[Michael BG]

When you say “does not have to mean” are you saying it can be translated as "then" in the sense of "after"?

It can be translated as "then" in the sense of "the next thing". "After" might imply a gap that the Greek word does not necessarily imply.

In many cases it is not completely clear whether we should translate it as "at that time" or "then" in the sense of "next". In this particular case the signs may very well still be going on when the Lord arrives, right? I do not think the signs are envisioned as pausing for a bit, and then after a little while he shows up.

Why would I want to discuss “οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς”, which is in Mark and Luke? It is not a Marcion variation and cannot be used as evidence of older tradition.

That is not the phrase that implies a previous tradition. The word that does that is "men" in the preceding verse. The phrase "so also you" is simply the one that points up the awkwardness of having "you" in the previous verse instead of "men".

We have a difference of opinion, you think the signs continue to the event and I think the signs end and then the event happens. And therefore “men” in the text later can be explained by its earlier use (men – they, men – you), but you are not convinced. You think “men” goes with “οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς”, but I am not convinced. I think we should leave it there and we might wish to return to it if it is one of only of few instances of the possibility of the Marcion tradition being older than Luke.

No. A line was missing from that copy of Tertullian. I found the missing piece on Google Books (since all the regular HTML internet texts are apparently of the same defective copy of Tertullian) and edited it into the post. I'm glad you pointed it out.

Tertullian has: Exsurge, et tolle grabattum tuum. Grabattum is a simple transliteration of κραβαττον, so it certainly looks like Marcion agrees with Mark here, not with Matthew or Luke.

I expected that Tertullian was using a word that came from Mark’s pallet. Matthew uses “κλινην” in Mt 9:2 as does Luke in 5:18.

You were correct.

Ben.

OK.

Moving on to the next difference, which I think is Lk 5:33-39 (RSV)

‘[33]And they said to him, "The disciples of John fast often and offer prayers, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink."
[34] And Jesus said to them, "Can you make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? (Note should be “You cannot …”)
[35] The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days."
[36] He told them a parable also: "No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it upon an old garment; if he does, he will tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old.
[37] And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed.
[38] But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins.
[39] And no one after drinking old wine desires new; for he says, `The old is good.'"’

For Marcion you have:

‘33 “Why do John’s disciples often fast and pray, but yours eat and drink?” 34 … Can you make the friends of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them? 35 when the bridegroom will be taken away from them. they will fast 36 He also told a parable to them. “No one puts a piece of unshrunk fabric from a new garment on an old garment, or else he will tear the new, and also the piece from the new will not match the old. 37 No one puts new wine into old wine skins, or else the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed’ (underlining where you say Marcion deviates from Luke, I think verses 36-37 are only generically attested).

Luke has “μη δυνασθε”, which can be translated as “not you-able” and later “ποιησαι”, which can be translated as “to-make” and “εν ω”, which can be translated as “in which”. Tertullian has “quod non possent ieiunare filii sponsi quamdiu cum eis esset sponsus, postea vero ieiunaturos promittens cum ablatus ab eis sponsus esset,”(why no they to-fast sons bridegroom as-long-as with them it-was bridegroom afterwards but fast promising with withdrawn from them bridegroom it-was) You translates it as:

‘why "the children of the bridegroom are unable to fast during the time the bridegroom is with them," but promising that "they should afterwards fast, when the bridegroom was taken away from them,"’

I do not understand why the Greek is not created to match the Lucan Greek.

With regard to verses 36-37, you have “Dieter T. Roth remarks (page 414) concerning verses 36-38: This parable is attested in multiple sources; however, the precise wording can no longer be reconstructed. It is likely that ὁ οἶνος was discussed before τὸ ἐπίβλημα and the Matthean ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου may have been present in Marcion’s text.”

With regard to the Matthean version being there I have the impression from reading Roli Garcia Dela Cruz that the Codex Bezae (D) has changes to these verses to bring it closer to the Matthean version (I did not manage to understand exactly which words were changed). “Nevertheless, the distinctive reading of D favours the view that the harmonisation that has been done followed Matthew instead of Mark.” (p 161 - http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/177/1/DelaCruz05PhD.pdf). It seems that Tertullian has the same order as Luke and doesn’t have “unshrunk”. Also Epiphanius and Philastruis don’t have “unshrunk”.

It seems safe to conclude that Marcion does not deviate significantly from the Lucan text here.

[Ben C. Smith]

We have a difference of opinion, you think the signs continue to the event and I think the signs end and then the event happens.

Actually, I said that they "may well" continue. I am giving the parameters of what the Greek is allowing. I have no special opinion on this.

And therefore “men” in the text later can be explained by its earlier use (men – they, men – you), but you are not convinced. You think “men” goes with “οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς”, but I am not convinced.

The men who are watching for summer are not necessarily doing it at the end of the world. They are part of a parable, if you will, an analogy. (Just like men are able to read agricultural signs, so also you should be reading apocalyptic signs.) "Men" going together (if I understand what you mean by that phrase) with "so also you" is hardly controversial, right? The two are explicitly related by the "also," right?

For Marcion you have:

‘33 “Why do John’s disciples often fast and pray, but yours eat and drink?” 34 … Can you make the friends of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them? 35 when the bridegroom will be taken away from them. they will fast 36 He also told a parable to them. “No one puts a piece of unshrunk fabric from a new garment on an old garment, or else he will tear the new, and also the piece from the new will not match the old. 37 No one puts new wine into old wine skins, or else the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed’ (underlining where you say Marcion deviates from Luke, I think verses 36-37 are only generically attested).

I am underlining where Roth says Marcion deviates from Luke (that thread was summarizing research, not researching it anew), but yes, other than that, correct.

Luke has “μη δυνασθε”, which can be translated as “not you-able” and later “ποιησαι”, which can be translated as “to-make” and “εν ω”, which can be translated as “in which”. Tertullian has “quod non possent ieiunare filii sponsi quamdiu cum eis esset sponsus, postea vero ieiunaturos promittens cum ablatus ab eis sponsus esset,”(why no they to-fast sons bridegroom as-long-as with them it-was bridegroom afterwards but fast promising with withdrawn from them bridegroom it-was) You translates it as:

‘why "the children of the bridegroom are unable to fast during the time the bridegroom is with them," but promising that "they should afterwards fast, when the bridegroom was taken away from them,"’

I do not understand why the Greek is not created to match the Lucan Greek.

I am not sure what you are asking here. I am using the WEB translation and Nestle 1904 (because of copyright issues). What do you mean by the Greek being created?

With regard to verses 36-37, you have “Dieter T. Roth remarks (page 414) concerning verses 36-38: This parable is attested in multiple sources; however, the precise wording can no longer be reconstructed. It is likely that ὁ οἶνος was discussed before τὸ ἐπίβλημα and the Matthean ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου may have been present in Marcion’s text.”

With regard to the Matthean version being there I have the impression from reading Roli Garcia Dela Cruz that the Codex Bezae (D) has changes to these verses to bring it closer to the Matthean version (I did not manage to understand exactly which words were changed). “Nevertheless, the distinctive reading of D favours the view that the harmonisation that has been done followed Matthew instead of Mark.” (p 161 - http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/177/1/DelaCruz05PhD.pdf). It seems that Tertullian has the same order as Luke and doesn’t have “unshrunk”. Also Epiphanius and Philastruis don’t have “unshrunk”.

Well, here is the text of D (Bezae) for these verses:

33 Οι δε ειπαν προς αυτον Δια τι οι μαθηται Ιωανου και οι μαθηται των Φαρισαιων νηστευουσιν πυκνα και δεησεις ποιουνται οι δε μαθηται σου ουδεν τουτων ποιουσιν 34 Ο δε Ι̅Η̅Σ̅ ειπεν προς αυτους Μη δυνανται οι υιοι του νυνφωνος εφ οσον εχουσιν τον νυμφιον μεθ εαυτων νηστευειν 35 Ελευσονται δε ημεραι και οταν απαρθη απ αυτων ο νυμφιος τοτε νηστευσουσιν εν εκειναις ταις ημεραις 36 Ελεγεν δε και παραβολην προς αυτους οτι Ουδεις επιβλημα απο ιματιου καινου σχισας επιβαλλει επι ιματιον παλαιον ει δε μηγε και το καινον σχεισει και τω παλαιω ου συνφωνησει το απο του καινου επιβλημα 37 Και ουδεις βαλλει οινον νεον εις ασκους παλαιους ει δε μηγε ρηξει ο οινος ο νεος τους ασκους τους παλαιους και αυτος εκχυθησεται και οι ασκοι απολουνται 38 Αλλα οινον νεον εις ασκους καινους βαλλουσιν και αμφοτεροι τηρουνται 39 -

Bezae omits verse 39.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

"Men" going together (if I understand what you mean by that phrase) with "so also you" is hardly controversial, right? The two are explicitly related by the "also," right?

Are you saying now that "you" in "so you also" means "men" in gMarcion? Before you said that "you" here meant the disciples with Jesus at the mount of olives.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Are you saying now that "you" in "so you also" means "men" in gMarcion?

No, that is not what I said or am saying at all.

[Ben C. Smith]

I am saying that the sense is: "just as men (in general) watch for agricultural signs, so also you (my disciples) should watch for apocalyptic signs." I am saying that "men" and "you" go together by way of contrast.

[Michael BG]

The most likely scenario IMO is that the original text had עֶ֣רֶשׂ = bed and everyone translated as best he could. Aquila in Psalm 41:3 translates עֶ֣רֶשׂ with grabatum https://books.google.com/books?id=JNNDA ... um&f=false the LXX κλίνης. What could be more fucking obvious? What could more exactly describe the situation here in the gospels? As such there was a Hebrew original text which was rendered in a multitude of ways. I wonder whether Black has that one (he probably does). But you will continue wasting your time arguing over the shadow of an ass.

I am happy for Mark to have translated עֶ֣רֶשׂ as “κραβαττον”. I had a quick look in my copy of Black – An Aramaic Approach … and I couldn’t find him discussing it.

We have a difference of opinion, you think the signs continue to the event and I think the signs end and then the event happens.

Actually, I said that they "may well" continue. I am giving the parameters of what the Greek is allowing. I have no special opinion on this.

Sorry I thought you had a preference and that was why you rejected the idea that “men” could have been carried down the text to 21:30.

And therefore “men” in the text later can be explained by its earlier use (men – they, men – you), but you are not convinced. You think “men” goes with “οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς”, but I am not convinced.

The men who are watching for summer are not necessarily doing it at the end of the world. They are part of a parable, if you will, an analogy. (Just like men are able to read agricultural signs, so also you should be reading apocalyptic signs.) "Men" going together (if I understand what you mean by that phrase) with "so also you" is hardly controversial, right? The two are explicitly related by the "also," right?

As I said you have not convinced me that having “you” then "so also you" is wrong. (I wonder if it is an Aramaicism?)

Luke has “μη δυνασθε”, which can be translated as “not you-able” and later “ποιησαι”, which can be translated as “to-make” and “εν ω”, which can be translated as “in which”. Tertullian has “quod non possent ieiunare filii sponsi quamdiu cum eis esset sponsus, postea vero ieiunaturos promittens cum ablatus ab eis sponsus esset,”(why no they to-fast sons bridegroom as-long-as with them it-was bridegroom afterwards but fast promising with withdrawn from them bridegroom it-was) You translates it as:

‘why "the children of the bridegroom are unable to fast during the time the bridegroom is with them," but promising that "they should afterwards fast, when the bridegroom was taken away from them,"’

I do not understand why the Greek is not created to match the Lucan Greek.

I am not sure what you are asking here. I am using the WEB translation and Nestle 1904 (because of copyright issues). What do you mean by the Greek being created?

Tertullian is in Latin and he says the text of Marcion includes according to your translation, “the children of the bridegroom are unable to fast during the time the bridegroom is with them," and "they should afterwards fast, when the bridegroom was taken away from them,". So where does the change from “cannot” in Luke to “can” happen here? Where is the “make” here? Where is the change from Luke’s “in which” to “while” here? They do not seem to be present in the Latin. I am questioning that the Greek you are quoting as being in Marcion is there, because the words are not there in the Latin from which the Greek is meant to reflect.

Bezae:

36 Ελεγεν δε και παραβολην προς αυτους οτι Ουδεις επιβλημα απο ιματιου καινου σχισας επιβαλλει επι ιματιον παλαιον ει δε μηγε και το καινον σχεισει και τω παλαιω ου συνφωνησει το απο του καινου επιβλημα -

Luke 5:36

Ἔλεγεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι Οὐδεὶς ἐπίβλημα ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ σχίσας ἐπιβάλλει ἐπὶ ἱμάτιον παλαιόν: εἰ δὲ μή γε, καὶ τὸ καινὸν σχίσει καὶ τῷ παλαιῷ οὐ συμφωνήσει τὸ ἐπίβλημα τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ καινοῦ.

But Bezae does not have Matthew’s “ῥάκους ἀγνάφου” = “cloth unshrunk”. Sorry that theory does not apply here.

[Ben C. Smith]

As I said you have not convinced me that having “you” then "so also you" is wrong. (I wonder if it is an Aramaicism?)

Even with the emphatic "you" in the Greek? Why is that emphatic "you" there if the previous subject was also "you"?

Tertullian is in Latin and he says the text of Marcion includes according to your translation, “the children of the bridegroom are unable to fast during the time the bridegroom is with them," and "they should afterwards fast, when the bridegroom was taken away from them,". So where does the change from “cannot” in Luke to “can” happen here? Where is the “make” here? Where is the change from Luke’s “in which” to “while” here? They do not seem to be present in the Latin. I am questioning that the Greek you are quoting as being in Marcion is there, because the words are not there in the Latin from which the Greek is meant to reflect.

I see now. Thanks for explaining again. It was actually a botched job on my part getting the information in the Greek into the English translation, resulting mainly from the fact that the WEB translation reflects a different text than Nestle at that point. I have fixed it now. You will see a lot more differences on the Greek side of that verse now compared to the English, since the latter was already primed in the direction of Marcion's text to begin with while the former was not. Again, thanks for spotting that. I am sure there are going to be errors of that kind remaining.

Bezae:

36 Ελεγεν δε και παραβολην προς αυτους οτι Ουδεις επιβλημα απο ιματιου καινου σχισας επιβαλλει επι ιματιον παλαιον ει δε μηγε και το καινον σχεισει και τω παλαιω ου συνφωνησει το απο του καινου επιβλημα -

Luke 5:36

Ἔλεγεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι Οὐδεὶς ἐπίβλημα ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ σχίσας ἐπιβάλλει ἐπὶ ἱμάτιον παλαιόν: εἰ δὲ μή γε, καὶ τὸ καινὸν σχίσει καὶ τῷ παλαιῷ οὐ συμφωνήσει τὸ ἐπίβλημα τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ καινοῦ.

But Bezae does not have Matthew’s “ῥάκους ἀγνάφου” = “cloth unshrunk”. Sorry that theory does not apply here.

What theory are you referring to? You mentioned Bezae, so I gave you the full text. I was not sure what you were going to do with it.

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

As I said you have not convinced me that having “you” then "so also you" is wrong. (I wonder if it is an Aramaicism?)

Even with the emphatic "you" in the Greek? Why is that emphatic "you" there if the previous subject was also "you"?

The more I think about this, the more I suspect you are simply not hearing the emphatic "you" in the text, since in English we have to express the pronoun, no matter what, whereas in Greek the pronoun does not generally get expressed unless the idea is emphatic. To convey the same sense in English, you have to imagine the word "you" with some sort of emphatic formatting:

You already know how to read agricultural signs; so also YOU ought to read apocalyptic signs.

I am betting what you have been hearing is this:

You already know how to read agricultural signs; so you ALSO ought to read apocalyptic signs.

Ben.