Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posteriority?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12241
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Aug 25, 2015 1:56 pm

They both look like quotes from Marcion
They both look like quotes from Marcion because the work as a whole has been remade into something it likely wasn't originally. A lot of this reminds me of going food shopping when you haven't eaten all day. You grab way too much stuff. If Tertullian doesn't say 'this is Marcion's' you can't be sure it's from Marcion. This especially given the fact that (a) the author has very strange variants of his own (i.e. Paul saying 'we did submit for an hour' as an example) and (b) the treatise has been written by at least two (likely three) different people (see the beginning and end of Adv Marc). Keep on shopping though. It's fun to end up with four different kids of fruit flavored potato chips.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3320
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Bernard Muller » Tue Aug 25, 2015 5:05 pm

to Ben,
So "men" does not appear in the manuscripts, and Tertullian must have introduced it. "Fruits" do appear in the manuscripts... and Tertullian must have introduced it.
"Fruits" appears in some manuscripts, which are most likely late. Do we know the gospels were translated in Latin or Syriac before Tertullian's times? And the Bezae is rather oddball.
Good find, Bernard. Tertullian does indeed elaborate on Luke 21.30, and he does so by verbosely and strongly emphasizing a stage of growth long before fruit. This makes it less likely that he is responsible for introducing fruits.
Here Tertullian said what is sprouting/budding/putting forth is a flower-stalk ("the trees which are tenderly sprouting into a flower-stalk, and then developing the flower, which is the precursor of the fruit."), nor a fruit. That's quite different than "“See the fig tree and all the trees. When they are budding forth fruit, men know that the summer is nearing."
I think now that Tertullian, because of his explanation in 'On the Resurrection of the Flesh', considered the budding/putting forth in AM (when the summer is near) as the start of the process which eventually will produce fruit, but not the immediate production of the fruit.
I can see the reason for a change: the budding indicates that fruit & summer (two good things as the Kingdom of God is) is approaching. Furthermore, "fruit(s)" is often used in the NT as a metaphor for "good" Christian elects, generated from "good" preaching or "good" Christian community (a good tree).
It looks to me first what was budding were leaves (gMark), then a blank (gLuke, most ancient manuscripts and the earliest), then the blank was replaced in gLuke by "fruit" in some less ancient manuscripts.
Was Tertullian trying to explain in 'On the Resurrection of the Flesh' what he wrote in AM? Did Tertullian inadvertently propose filling up the blank in gMarcion with "fruit", in a rather abrupt and stupid way (most fruit trees do not sprout/put forth fruit before the summer)? I think it is probable.
Furthermore, if Tertullian was translating the Greek (I assume Marcion wrote in Greek), Tertullian might have been interpreting the blank as "fruit" and thought that "men" was more adequate that "you". Using Google Translate on the Latin of Tertullian, I saw some marked differences with the Greek translation of Lk 21:30-31, other than "fruit" & "men". Of course, Google Translate is a rather far from perfect, but I wonder: how close are the translation of Tertullian to the Greek original?
Also, I would be interested to know if some ancient manuscripts have 'fruit" replacing "leaves" in Mt 24:32 & Mk 13:28.
And from where did the NASB get "leaves" in Lk 21:30, according to your translation?
I think you are dating traditions inside the gospels, not the gospels themselves. But that discussion is too complex and too far afield for this discussion. If this particular point ends up being your main reason for holding your current position, so be it. I will leave it for now
I do not know what you are talking about. My dating of the composition of the Synoptics is not a secret (70-71 for gMark and around 85-90 for gLuke & gMatthew) and of course, I trust that gMarcion came about around 130, well after the Synoptics. I was saying, for gMarcion for example, it did not make any sense to imply the four disciples/fishermen (Peter, Andrew, John and James) were still alive in 130, when the Kingdom did not arrive yet. Of course, gMarcion was presented written well before that but an author would be foolish in suggesting around 130 that the four disciples will still be alive when the Kingdom come. That would make Jesus a false prophet, not what the author of the gospel would want to convey.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3320
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Bernard Muller » Tue Aug 25, 2015 5:12 pm

to Kunigunde Kreuzerin,
... and 13:37 - "What moreover to you I say, to all I say: Watch!"
Yes, I forgot to mention that one. Thanks

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12241
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Aug 25, 2015 6:04 pm

What I always find hilarious about these discussions is that it is based on the (unrecognized) assumption that when Tertullian (or his source) makes reference to something or other it has to be an accurate reflection of what the Marcionites believed. Indeed this works two ways. On the one hand there are the explicit references to the Marcionites. That they said X or believed Y. The idea that in antiquity rhetoric strictly adhered to the facts is laughable. It was instead developed mostly from hyperbole. Why for instance should we allow for Marcus Minucius Felix to lie about this or that about 'Christianity' - i.e our religion - but when Tertullian says X or Y about the Marcionites it always has to be factual. In the old days the assumption was that pagans were 'sinners' and Church Fathers 'saints' or something close. But now why do we perpetuate this nonsense? Because they were 'good scholars'? Ha ha ha.

And then there is about three times as much in Tertullian where the Church Father just starts riffing about some concern or other - not specifically saying what the Marcionites believe - but the assumption is that whatever he is saying must have some basis in reality because again ... well ... we wouldn't have anything to talk about! :banghead:
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7628
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Aug 25, 2015 6:29 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:And from where did the NASB get "leaves" in Lk 21:30, according to your translation?
The NASB puts leaves in italics, meaning that the translation has supplied it; the Greek simply has "put forth", with no object, much as we might wonder when our garden will "start producing", and what we mean is "start producing vegetables". I failed to pick up on the italics when I copied and pasted.
"Fruits" appears in some manuscripts, which are most likely late. Do we know the gospels were translated in Latin or Syriac before Tertullian's times?
Well, Augustine writes in On Christian Doctrine 2.11: “Translators from Hebrew into Greek can be numbered, but Latin translators by no means. For whenever, in the earliest years of the faith, a Greek manuscript came into the hands of anyone who happened to have a little skill in both languages, he made bold to translate it forthwith.”

Along more scholarly lines, Metzger and Ehrman have this to say on pages 100-101 of The Text of the NT: "In the opinion of most scholars today, the Gospels were first rendered into Latin during the last quarter of the second century in North Africa, where Carthage had become enamored of Roman culture. Not long afterward, translations were also made in Italy, Gaul, and elsewhere."
And the Bezae is rather oddball.
Bezae is a lot of fun, yes; but it has lots of Latin and Syriac support in the case of "fruits".
Here Tertullian said what is sprouting/budding/putting forth is a flower-stalk ("the trees which are tenderly sprouting into a flower-stalk, and then developing the flower, which is the precursor of the fruit."), nor a fruit. That's quite different than "“See the fig tree and all the trees. When they are budding forth fruit, men know that the summer is nearing."
Yes. Very different. All easily explained if the wordy paraphrase is Tertullianic elaboration, while the "fruits" are from the Marcionite text.
It looks to me first what was budding were leaves (gMark), then a blank (gLuke, most ancient manuscripts and the earliest), then the blank was replaced in gLuke by "fruit" in some less ancient manuscripts.
As well as in Marcion, in my view.
Was Tertullian trying to explain in 'On the Resurrection of the Flesh' what he wrote in AM? Did Tertullian inadvertently propose filling up the blank in gMarcion with "fruit", in a rather abrupt and stupid way (most fruit trees do not sprout/put forth fruit before the summer)? I think it is probable.
I think your explanations are becoming quite farfetched.

There is no grammatical blank in Luke, by the way; the verb is just used intransitively, much like in my example above of a garden producing.
Using Google Translate on the Latin of Tertullian, I saw some marked differences with the Greek translation of Lk 21:30-31, other than "fruit" & "men". Of course, Google Translate is a rather far from perfect, but I wonder: how close are the translation of Tertullian to the Greek original?
Bear in mind that Latin has no articles; I have italicized the Greek articles which cannot therefore be rendered in Latin, as well as two other words which we would not expect in the other language because of the construction. I have marked with a tilde ~ words that are in a different order. I have underlined words other than articles which are missing in the other language.

Aspice = ἴδετε [observe/look at]
ficum = τὴν συκῆν [the fig or fig tree]
et = καὶ [and]
arbores = ~τὰ δένδρα· [the trees]
omnes: = ~πάντα [all]
cum = ὅταν [when]
fructum = - [fruit]
protulerint, = προβάλωσιν [it puts forth]
- = ἤδη [already]
- = βλέποντες [seeing]
- = ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν [from yourselves]
intellegunt = γινώσκετε [you/they understand/know]
homines = - [men]
aestatem = ὅτι... τὸ θέρος [the summer]
- = ~ἤδη [already]
appropinquasse; = ~ἐγγὺς ἐστίν. [is near]
sic = οὕτως [so]
et = καὶ [also]
vos, = ὑμεῖς, [you]
cum = ὅταν [when]
videritis = ἴδητε [you see]
haec = ταῦτα [these things]
fieri, = γινόμενα, [happen]
scitote = γινώσκετε [know]
in proximo = ὅτι ἐγγύς [that near]
esse = ἐστιν [is]
regnum = βασιλεία [the kingdom]
dei. = τοῦ θεοῦ. [of God]

I am not sure what you will get out of such a comparison, though; where the wording is more exact, we will agree that Luke, Marcion, and Tertullian agree; and where the wording is less exact, I will attribute to Tertullian quoting Marcion while you may attribute it to Tertullian being inexact.
Also, I would be interested to know if some ancient manuscripts have 'fruit" replacing "leaves" in Mt 24:32 & Mk 13:28.
Bibleworks 9 does not show any.
I think you are dating traditions inside the gospels, not the gospels themselves. But that discussion is too complex and too far afield for this discussion. If this particular point ends up being your main reason for holding your current position, so be it. I will leave it for now
I do not know what you are talking about. My dating of the composition of the Synoptics is not a secret (70-71 for gMark and around 85-90 for gLuke & gMatthew) and of course, I trust that gMarcion came about around 130, well after the Synoptics.
You misunderstood; or I was unclear; or both. Again, however, this line of inquiry is too far afield for me at this time.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7628
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:16 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Bernard Muller wrote:Also, I would be interested to know if some ancient manuscripts have 'fruit" replacing "leaves" in Mt 24:32 & Mk 13:28.
Bibleworks 9 does not show any.
Just checked Nestle-Aland, and no variants appear there, either.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3320
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Bernard Muller » Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:06 pm

Thanks, Ben

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7628
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:39 am

Here are two other possible indications of Marcionite priority over Luke; these rest on slender grounds, however, since they both depend on unattested material being absent from Marcion and not merely unmentioned by Tertullian and Epiphanius (and the other church fathers).

First, in Luke 4.23, Jesus is preaching in the synagogue at Nazara, and he imagines his listeners saying to him, "Physician, heal yourself! Whatever we heard was done at Capernaum, do here in your home town as well." Luke, however, has not yet narrated anything about Capernaum; this is its first mention. Awkward.

By contrast, both Matthew and Mark locate this preaching at Nazareth much later in their respective narratives (Matthew 13.53-58 = Mark 6.1-6a), well after Jesus has performed many miracles in Capernaum (Matthew 7.28-29; 8.5-17; Mark 1.21-38). Neither Matthew nor Mark, however, record anything like Luke 4.23, so the order in which Jesus does things at the two towns does not come into play anyway. Yet the order is an issue in Luke: did the same author (Luke or pseudo-Luke or whoever) both add the line hearkening back to miracles in Capernaum and also move the entire pericope back to before any miracles were performed in Capernaum?

The Marcionite gospel has Jesus appearing in Capernaum first and performing an exorcism there before moving on to Nazareth. Now, on the one hand, perhaps one exorcism is not enough to merit the saying in Luke 4.23, which actually uses the plural (ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν γενόμενα, as many things as we have heard were done). On the other hand, however, the particular line of Luke 4.23 which refers back to things done in Nazareth is not attested as either present in or absent from the Marcionite gospel. One wonders what the relationship of Matthew and Mark to Marcion might be in this case, since in Marcion the Nazareth trip seems to come very early, as in Luke, but not until after Capernaum, as in Matthew and Mark.

There is more. Luke 4.31 reads, "And he came down into Capernaum, a city of Galilee." The extra descriptor certainly makes it sound as if this is the first mention of Capernaum... but of course we already have that earlier mention in the dominical saying of Luke 4.23. In Mark 1.21, the Marcan parallel to Luke 4.31, it is the first mention of Capernaum in that gospel; yet Mark simply says, "And he went into Capernaum," with no further description (that happens with some frequency in Mark). The Marcionite parallel to Luke 4.31 is the first mention of Capernaum in that gospel, as well. In the ever intriguing codex Bezae (D), Luke 4.31 comes off even more like the first mention of Capernaum: "And he came down into Capernaum, a city of Galilee, near the sea, in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali. Compare Matthew 4.13: "And he left Nazareth and came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali." This, of course, is the first mention of Capernaum in Matthew, just like it sounds. (Notice that, in Matthew, Jesus actually hits Nazareth first, yet this visit is not described at all; after the temptation, Jesus comes into Galilee, specifically Nazareth, then leaves with no description of events at all and settles in Capernaum.)

There is more. Irenaeus writes in Against Heresies 4.23.1:

For this reason, too, did the Lord Himself read at Capernaum the prophecies of Isaiah: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me; to preach the Gospel to the poor hath He sent Me, to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and sight to the blind [Is. 61:1]." At the same time, showing that it was He Himself who had been foretold by Isaiah the prophet, He said to them: "This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears."

But these quotations come from Luke 4.18 and 4.21, from the visit to Nazareth, not to Capernaum.

Regardless of what we may think of the quote from Irenaeus, it seems clear that the Marcan and Matthean order of events (Capernaum first, then later Nazareth) is the more original, and that Luke has created an inconcinnity in both affirming it in 4.23 and altering it by moving the rejection at Nazareth forward in his gospel. Marcion, however, is closer in order on this point to Mark and Matthew than to Luke, showing no signs of the Lucan inconcinnity.

Second, Luke again suffers a bit of incongruity by having Simon Peter's mother-in-law healed in Luke 4.38-39, at Simon's house... before Simon has even been introduced to us, and certainly before his call to discipleship in Luke 5.1-11. Obviously Matthew and Mark can both claim priority in this case over Luke, since they relate the call before the healing, but it is possible that Marcion can, as well, because the healing of Simon's mother-in-law is not attested (either as present or as absent) for the Marcionite gospel; if it was absent, then Simon is introduced at his call to discipleship, just as in Mark and Matthew.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12241
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:35 am

This illustrates how pointless this whole approach is. For Ephrem says that the 'super-gospel' he shared with Marcion (*cough*) Nazareth https://books.google.com/books?id=Ad1JA ... &q&f=false was replaced by Bethsaida in at least part of this early section. We wouldn't know that from Tertullian. So what is the point of this massive endeavor? You're chasing after shadows, phantasms and will'o wisps.

Which of the two meets the criterion of 'priority' or 'posteriority'? Nazareth or Bethsaida? Hard to have a fishing village situated on a precipice, if you asked me. Oh, that must mean that Nazareth is the original. But Nazareth sounds suspiciously like an attempt to re-identify the Nazarenes as 'those of (Jesus of) Nazareth.' Hmmm. Maybe Nazareth is only in Ephrem's gospel but the Marcionite text reads as Tertullian has it. Yes that's the ticket because that means we can continue to believe that all the 'discovered' anomalies in Tertullian and Epiphanius lead us to the promised land. And believing you're going to the promised land is the basis of our inherited religious hope.

Continue if you must with the fruitless endeavor but you aren't 'getting at' Marcion's gospel. You're simply reaching into muddy waters and haphazardly grabbing (a) off-handed things said by Tertullian's source (b) corrections made by a second and (c) third editor of the work and (d) Epiphanius's typical misunderstandings and misrepresentations. There is no way to know what Marcion's text looked like. Continue this if you must but thrusting your pelvis into a love doll in the shape of a supermodel isn't the same as being intimate with the actual supermodel. It might be better. I don't know. I guess its a matter of perspective (for one the doll won't talk back to you like this phantom text that's been created allegedly 'Marcion's gospel') But the copy isn't the original thing. We can be certain of that.

What a universe it would be if one could know with exact precision a lost holy text from a thrice copied work antagonistically referencing (not - as you would have it - copying exactly) the differences between 'the correct' text and the 'false text' of the gospel of Paul and at the same time never exactly specifying which is being described (because the author has a habit of citing material which 'proves' his case). Yes what an amazing world that would be! That same world would have it that not a single drop of gasoline would escape out of the nozzle when you go to the station. That same world would have it that your hard drive only crashes AFTER you've backed up all the information that was on said hard drive. In that same world love is always answered with love, justice rules and good always triumphs over evil. Sadly though, the text is lost never to be recovered. Get over it.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12241
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:56 am

And what are the odds that the best arguments for Marcionite priority are presented in a thrice corrected book whose sole purpose is to demonstrate Marcionite posteriority? So you are settling the question of which came first based on the hope that the three editors of Adv Marc and Epiphanius are honest brokers and decided to 'play fair' with the evidence? How do you arrive at a fair opinion about the role of Jews in late nineteenth/early 20th century Europe writing two thousand years after the fact and using only Mein Kampf and the Protocols of Zion as the basis to your understanding? What safe guards are in place to arrive at a fair result? I think the whole point of this exercise is merely to act the part of arbiter in some debate. Like a play exercise in school. Fine. Go on pretending.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Post Reply