Antithesis (Clean thread)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Antithesis (Clean thread)

Post by Secret Alias »

So let's see whether we can begin to understand the Marcionite notion of Jesus being a separate power from Yahweh. In other words - that is not an anti-Jewish position but an understanding current in the Alexandrian community at the time of the gospel.

Let's begin by deciphering some clues that Philo understood each tablet to correspond to a different power. Philo uses the cognate verb monarcheo ("rule as monarch") of God, as well as the noun monarchia ("monarchy"); for instance, speaking of the first five commandments, he explains that they concern the divine "monarchical principle by which the world is governed" (Decal. 51). The first commandment, located on the "superior set of five," treats "the monarchical principle by which the world is governed" (περὶ µοναρχίας, ᾗ µοναρχεῖται ὁ κόσµος)
δέκα τοίνυν ὄντα διένειμεν εἰς δύο πεντάδας, ἃς δυσὶ στήλαις ἐνεχάραξε, καὶ ἡ μὲν προτέρα πεντὰς τὰ πρωτεῖα ἔλαχεν, ἡ δ᾿ ἑτέρα δευτερείων ἠξιοῦτο· καλαὶ δ᾿ ἀμφότεραι καὶ βιωφελεῖς, εὐρείας ὁδοὺς καὶ λεωφόρους ἑνὶ τέλει περατουμένας ἀναστέλλουσαι πρὸς ἄπταιστον ψυχῆς ἐφιεμένης ἀεὶ 51τοῦ βελτίστου πορείαν. ἡ μὲν οὖν ἀμείνων πεντὰς τοιάδε ἦν· περὶ μοναρχίας, ᾗ μοναρχεῖται ὁ κόσμος· περὶ ξοάνων καὶ ἀγαλμάτων καὶ συνόλως ἀφιδρυμάτων χειροκμήτων· περὶ τοῦ μὴ λαμβάνειν ἐπὶ ματαίῳ θεοῦ πρόσρησιν· περὶ τοῦ τὴν ἱερὰν | [189]ἑβδόμην ἄγειν ἱεροπρεπῶς· περὶ γονέων τιμῆς καὶ ἰδίᾳ ἑκατέρου καὶ ἀμφοτέρων κοινῇ

We find that He divided the ten into two sets of five which He engraved on two tables, and the first five obtained the first place, while the other was awarded the second. Both are excellent and profitable for life; both open out broad highroads leading at the end to a single goal, roads along which a soul which ever desires the best can travel without stumbling. The superior set of five51 treats of the following matters: the monarchical principle by which the world is governed: idols of stone and wood and images in general made by human hands: the sin of taking the name of God in vain: the reverent observance of the sacred seventh day as befits its holiness: the duty of honouring parents, each separately and both in common.
A little later in the same treatise he returns to this subject:
Τέτταρα εἴδη πρότερον ὑπειπών, ἃ καὶ τῇ τάξει καὶ τῇ δυνάμει πρῶτα ἦν ὡς ἀληθῶς, τό τε περὶ μοναρχίας ᾗ μοναρχεῖται ὁ κόσμος, καὶ τὸ περὶ τοῦ μηδὲν ἀπεικόνισμα καὶ μίμημα δημιουργεῖν θεοῦ, καὶ τὸ περὶ τοῦ μὴ ψευδορκεῖν ἢ συνόλως μάτην ὀμνύναι, καὶ τὸ περὶ τῆς ἱερᾶς ἑβδόμης, ἅπερ σύμπαντα τείνει πρὸς εὐσέβειαν καὶ ὁσιότητα, μέτειμι ἐπὶ τὸ πέμπτον τὸ περὶ γονέων τιμῆς, ὅ, καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς ἰδίᾳ περὶ αὐτοῦ λόγοις 225ἔδειξα, μεθόριον ἀνθρωπείων τε καὶ θείων.

AgaIn my previous remarks I have sketched 224 the four divisions which both in order and importance stand undoubtedly first. They comprise the assertion of the absolute sovereignty by which the universe is governed, the prohibition against making any image or likeness of God and against perjury or vain swearing in general and the doctrine of the sacred seventh day, all of them tending to promote piety and religion. I now proceed to the fifth, which states the duty of honouring parents, a matter which, as I have shewn in the discussion devoted to this in particular,b stands on the border-line between the human and the divine.
But clearly the royal power is not the absolute god but only the god of this world. As we read in what again follows:
Τούτων μὲν δὴ πέρι τοσαῦτα· τρεπτέον δ᾿ ἐπὶ τοὺς κατὰ μέρος ἤδη νόμους καὶ πρώτους, ἀφ᾿ ὧν ἄρχεσθαι καλόν, τοὺς περὶ μοναρχίας ὁρισθέντας.[213] Τινὲς ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀστέρας ὑπέλαβον εἶναι θεοὺς αὐτοκράτορας, οἷς τὰς τῶν γινομένων ἁπάντων αἰτίας ἀνέθεσαν. Μωυσεῖ δ᾿ ὁ κόσμος ἔδοξεν εἶναι καὶ γενητὸς καὶ καθάπερ πόλις ἡ μεγίστη, ἄρχοντας ἔχουσα καὶ ὑπηκόους, ἄρχοντας μὲν τοὺς ἐν οὐρανῷ πάντας ὅσοι πλάνητες καὶ ἀπλανεῖς ἀστέρες, ὑπηκόους δὲ τὰς μετὰ σελήνην ἐν ἀέρι καὶ περιγείους φύσεις· 14τοὺς δὲ λεχθέντας ἄρχοντας οὐκ αὐτεξουσίους, ἀλλ᾿ ἑνὸς τοῦ πάντων πατρὸς ὑπάρχους, οὗ μιμουμένους τὴν ἐπιστασίαν κατορθοῦν πρυτανεύοντος1 κατὰ δίκην καὶ νόμον ἕκαστον τῶν γεγονότων· τοὺς δὲ μὴ βλέποντας τὸν ἐπιβεβηκότα ἡνίοχον τοῖς ὑπεζευγμένοις ὡς αὐτουργοῖς τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ γινομένων 15ἀνάψαι τὰς αἰτίας.

We must now turn12 to the particular laws, taking those first with which it is well to begin, namely those the subject of which is the sole sovereignty of God. Some have supposed that the sun and moon13 and the other stars were gods with absolute powers and ascribed to them the causation of all events. But Moses held that the universe was created and is in a sense the greatest of commonwealths, having magistrates and subjects; for magistrates, all the heavenly bodies, fixed or wandering; for subjects, such beings as exist below the moon, in the air or on the earth. The said magistrates, however, in his view14 have not unconditional powers, but are lieutenants of the one Father of All, and it is by copying the example of His government exercised according to law and justice over all created beings that they acquit themselves aright; but those who do not descry the Charioteer mounted above attribute the causation of all the events in the universe to the team that draw the chariot as though they were sole agents.
It is important to note that in all of these passages the world ruler is not the absolute god. He is rather a god that can be comprehend or known by non-Jews as Philo writes:
Ταύτην τὴν εὐγένειαν οὐ μόνον θεοφιλεῖς ἄνδρες ἀλλὰ καὶ γυναῖκες ἐζήλωσαν, ἀπομαθοῦσαι μὲν ἀμαθίαν τὴν σύντροφον περὶ τιμῆς τῶν χειροκμήτων, παιδευθεῖσαι δὲ τὴν περὶ μοναρχίας ἐπιστήμην, ᾗ[221] μοναρχεῖται ὁ κόσμος. Θάμαρ ἦν τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς Παλαιστίνης Συρίας γύναιον, ἐν οἰκίᾳ καὶ πόλει τραφὲν πολυθέῳ γεμούσῃ ξοάνων καὶ ἀγαλμάτων καὶ συνόλως ἀφιδρυμάτων. ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ καθάπερ ἐκ σκότους βαθέος ἐδυνήθη βραχεῖαν αὐγὴν ἀληθείας ἰδεῖν, θανάτου κινδύνῳ πρὸς εὐσέβειαν ηὐτομόλησεν ὀλίγα φροντίσασα τοῦ ζῆν, εἰ μὴ μέλλοι καλῶς ζῆν· τὸ δὲ καλῶς ἀνέφερεν ἐπ' οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἢ τὴν θεραπείαν καὶ [222] ἱκεσίαν τοῦ ἑνὸς αἰτίου.

This nobleness has been an object of desire not only to God-loving men, but likewise to women, who have discarded the ignorance in which they have been bred up, which taught them to honour, as deities, creatures made with hands, and have learnt instead that knowledge of there being only one supreme Ruler of the universe, by whom the whole world is governed and regulated; (221) for Tamar was a woman from Syria Palestina, who had been bred up in her own native city, which was devoted to the worship of many gods, being full of statues, and images, and, in short, of idols of every kind and description. But when she, emerging, as it were, out of profound darkness, was able to see a slight beam of truth, she then, at the risk of her life, exerted all her energies to arrive at piety, caring little for life if she could not live virtuously; and living virtuously was exactly identical with living for the service of and in constant supplication to the one true God.
Perhaps the conclusion of the Decalogue helps demonstrate once and for all that Yahweh is second god, the ruler of the world:
The first table of five, then, is completed in these commandments, exhibiting a comprehensive character; but of the special and particular laws the number is very great. Of the second table, the first commandment is that against adulterers, under which many other commands are conveyed by implication, such as that against seducers, that against practisers of unnatural crimes, that against all who live in debauchery, that against all men who indulge in illicit and incontinent connections; (169) but the lawgiver has set down all the different species of such intemperance, not for the sake of exhibiting its manifold, and diverse, and ever-changing varieties, but in order to cause those who live in an unseemly manner to show most evident signs of depression and shame, drinking in with their ears all the reproaches heaped together which they incur, and which may well make them blush. (170) The second brief commandment, the prohibition of slaying men, is that under which are implied all those necessary and most universally advantageous laws, relating to acts of violence, to insults, to assaults, to wounds, to mutilation. (171) The third, that which forbids stealing, is the one under cover of which are enacted all the regulations which have been laid down, respecting the repudiation of debts, and those who deny what has been deposited with them, and who form unhallowed partnerships, and indulge in shameless acts of rapine, and, in short, in any kind of covetousness by which some person are induced, either openly or secretly to appropriate the possessions of others. (172) The fourth, that which is concerning the duty of not bearing false witness, is one under which many other prohibitions are conveyed, such as that of not deceiving, of not bringing false accusations, of not co-operating with those who are committing sin, of not making a pretence of good faith a cloak for faithlessness; for all which objects suitable laws have been enacted. (173) The fifth is that which cuts off desire, the fountain of all iniquity, from which flow all the most unlawful actions, whether of individuals or of states, whether important or trivial, whether sacred or profane, whether they relate to one's life and soul, or to what are called external things; for, as I have said before, nothing ever escapes desire, but, like a fire in a wood, it proceeds onward, consuming and destroying everything; (174) and there are a great many subordinate sins, which are prohibited likewise under this commandment, for the sake of correcting those persons who cheerfully receive admonitions, and of chastising those stubborn people who devote their whole lives to the indulgence of passion.

XXXIII. (175) I have now spoken in this manner, at sufficient length, concerning the second table of five commandments, which make up the whole number of ten, which God himself promulgated with the dignity befitting their holy character; for it was suitable to his own nature to promulgate in his own person the heads and principles of all particular laws, but to send forth the particular and special laws by the most perfect of the prophets, whom he selected for his preeminent excellence, and filled with his divine spirit, and then appointed to be the interpreter of his holy oracles. (176) After having explained these matters, let us now proceed to relate the cause for which God, having pronounced these ten commandments or laws, in simple injunctions and prohibitions, appointed no punishment for those who should violate them, as lawgivers usually do. The reason is this: he was God, and being so he was at once the good Lord, the cause of good alone, and of no evil; (177) therefore, thinking it most appropriate to his own nature to deliver saving commands unalloyed, and partaking of no punishment, so that no one yielding to a foolish counsellor might accidentally choose what is best, but might do so from wise consideration and of his own deliberate purpose, he did not think fit to give his oracles to mankind in connection with any denunciation of punishment; not because he meant to give immunity to transgressors, but because he knew that justice was sitting by him, and surveying all human affairs, and that she would never rest, as being by nature a hater of evil and looking upon the chastisement of sinners as her own most appropriate task. (178) For it is proper for all the ministers and lieutenants of God, just as for generals in war, to put in practice severe punishments against those deserters, who forsake the ranks of the just one; but it becomes the great King, that general safety should be ascribed to him, as preserving the universe in peace, and giving at all times, to all people, in all riches and abundance, all the blessings of peace: for, in truth, God is the president of peace, but his subordinate ministers are the chiefs of war.
Clearly Philo has stolen this motif from the Greek poets where Δίκη, the Divine Justice or Law, is ever sitting on the right hand of Jove and sharing his throne. Hesiod tells us that she watches and judges 'gift-eating' or 'bribe-swallowing' lords who use their judicial prerogatives to exploit the peasantry by means of 'crooked' judgments. Dike ̄, Hesiod warns, will make sure that the crooked lords get their come-uppance. The poet, to be sure, is not calling for a peasant revolt, but he is certainly doing something of great conceptual significance. He is proposing a concept of justice that stands apart from the jurisdiction of the lords, a standard against which they and their judgments can and must themselves be judged.

But the point still certain is that Philo understands that the first tablet inscribed with the first five commandments represents Yahweh's rules. While he does not specifically identify the second set of commandments with the second power, this will become clearer when we take a closer look. Kensky notes that the pattern of two powers pervades the Pentateuch:
Only an understanding of the divine courtroom as a deeply ingrained feature of the religious imagination of ancient Israel can reveal the importance of these texts. One such example occurs on Mount Sinai. Having displayed extraordinary boldness before God, advocating for Israel after the Golden Calf, Moses insists that God show him his ways, so that he may know him (Ex 33:13). The request to know "your ways" is nothing less than a desire to penetrate the workings of the divine mind, to understand the process of divine decision making, to perceive how God functions. After some negotiation, God acquiesces, and makes the following proclamation to Moses: "YHWH, YHWH, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, full of hesed and truth. Bearing hesed for thousands, bearing iniquity, and transgression, and sin. But he shall surely not wipe clean, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, to the third and fourth generation" (Ex 34:6-7). These attributes become central in later rabbinic depictions of the divine courtroom, as they are figured as full fledged beings, the Attribute(s) of Mercy and the Attribute(s) of Justice, arguing it out for preeminence before God in the divine judicial system. It is not an accident that Moses has the two tablets of stone when he receives this revelation. The attributes are intricately bound up with the covenant, taken as representing a promise from God that he will continue to function in this manner with relation to the people of Israel. https://books.google.com/books?id=SJxhm ... MQ6AEIKTAA
Kensky ignored Philo as preceding the rabbinic conception but still it is at least a recognition - perhaps intuitively - of what also appears in Philo - namely that the two powers somehow correspond to the two tablets.

I can't locate a specifically ancient witness to this idea but the Zohar emphasizes that all of the Ten Words could be seen on the right tablet and were given by God's right hand (Deut. 33.2), and hence this shows that the left, the side of power/justice, corresponding to Geburah, the fifth sephirah, is incorporated within and tempered by the right, the side of mercy corresponding to Hesed, the fourth sephirah.
Because from these two tablets, Moses gave the Torah to Yisrael, NAMELY BlNAH AND MALCHUT. THE RIGHT TABLET IS BlNAH, AND THE LEFT IS MALCHUT, CORRESPONDING TO THE TWO eyes.
The Zohar invokes the rabbinic tradition that the Torah was written with black fire on white fire to make a similar point: the black fire represents power (Geburah) and the white fire mercy (Hesed), and thus the left and right were united, with justice tempered by mercy.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:49 pm, 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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Antithesis (Clean thread)

Post by Secret Alias »

Pseudo-Chrysostom seems to identify 'do not lust' - the tenth commandment - as the least commandment of Matthew 5.
Otherwise; the precepts of Moses are easy to obey ; Thou shalt not kill. Thou shall not commit adultery. The very greatness of the crime is a check upon the desire of committing it ; therefore the reward of observance is small, the sin of transgression great. But Christ's precepts, Thou shalt not be angry } Thou shalt not lust, are hard to obey, and therefore in their reward they are great, in their transgression, ' least.' It is thus He speaks of these precepts of Christ, such as Tfiou shall not be angry, Thou shalt not lust,' as the least;' and they who commit these lesser sins, are the least in the kingdom of God; that is, he who has been angry and not sinned grievously is secure from the punishment of eternal damnation; yet he does not attain that glory which they attain who fulfil even these least. https://books.google.com/books?id=_4y3C ... st&f=false
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Antithesis (Clean thread)

Post by Secret Alias »

I am going to bed but I think Irenaeus seems to acknowledge some connection between the Marcionite antitheses and the antitheses now preserved in Matthew. From Book 4 he first cites the sayings as they appears in Matthew but later the form known to Clement seems to be intimated:
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."(3) 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."(4) 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.

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 convened 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.

And for this reason did the Lord, instead of that [commandment], "Thou shalt not commit adultery," forbid even lust; 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:"(Luke 6:29-31) 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;" 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."(1) 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.
It is very interesting that in the middle of a citation of material seemingly exclusively from Matthew we find a Lukan passage. The idea that the Marcionites knew and used the Matthean Antitheses is clearly intimated here. I have succeeded I think in justifying my identification of a parallel text to Matthew 5's antitheses as being present in the Marcionite gospel.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Antithesis (Clean thread)

Post by Secret Alias »

So step by step argument before I take my son to his soccer game. Book 4 of Against Marcion references a 'gospel' according to the antitheses:
Every opinion and the whole scheme of the impious and sacrilegious Marcion we now bring to the test of that very Gospel which, by his process of interpolation, he has made his own. To encourage a belief of this Gospel he has actually devised for it a sort of dower [= endowment, dotem quandam], in a work composed of contrary statements set in opposition, thence entitled Antitheses, and compiled with a view to such a severance of the law from the gospel as should divide the Deity into two, nay, diverse, gods----one for each Instrument, or Testament6 as it is more usual to call it; that by such means he might also patronize belief in "the Gospel according to the Antitheses." [Holmes]

Every sentence, indeed the whole structure, arising from Marcion's impiety and profanity, I now challenge in terms of that gospel which he has by manipulation made his own. Besides that, to work up credence for it he has contrived a sort of dowry, a work entitled Antitheses because of its juxtaposition of opposites, a work strained into making such a division between the Law and the Gospel as thereby to make two separate gods, opposite to each other, one belonging to one instrument (or, as it is more usual to say, testament), one to the other, and thus lend its patronage to faith in another gospel, that according to the Antitheses.[Evans]

Omnem sententiam et omnem paraturam impii atque sacrilegi Marcionis ad ipsum iam evangelium eius provocamus quod interpolando suum fecit. Et ut fidem instrueret, dotem quandam commentatus est illi, opus ex contrarietatum oppositionibus Antitheses cognominatum et ad separationem legis et evangelii coactum, qua duos deos dividens, proinde diversos, alterum alterius instrumenti, vel, quod magis usui est dicere, testamenti, ut exinde evangelio quoque secundum Antitheses credendo patrocinaretur.
To understand the context of these opening words I have Cooper to walk us through the text as it now reads:
Book 4 opens on an inquisitorial note, with an abrupt summons of Marcion's gospel text as evidence against him: “Every sentence, indeed the whole structure, I now challenge (provocamus)49 in terms of that gospel which he has by manipulation made his own” (Adv. Marc. 4.1.1). To make this gospel seem plausible—Tertullian avers—Marcion prefixed to it his Antitheses as “a sort of dowry” (dotem quondam), he mocks. Tertullian declines to enter into a point-by-point refutation of the Antitheses or to invoke his praescriptio ruling out scriptural discussion with heretics (quamquam tam facile est praescriptive occurrere). The Antitheses are much more conveniently refuted by the evidence in Marcion's own gospel (examined at length in book 4), which material in book 4), which material Tertullian will convert into his own “antitheses” against Marcion. [Cooper p. 253 - 54 https://books.google.com/books?id=tXnQj ... 2in+book+4),+which+material%22&source=bl&ots=98-oAkRflw&sig=cnwdpq8qOj5LBeOZUFMA744UmTY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUiovqiuLZAhVR5GMKHdK2D-gQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22in%20book%204)%2C%20which%20material%22&f=false]
The key stumbling block is the sense in which the Antitheses were 'prefixed' to the gospel. As Scherbenske outlines:
Marcion's order, exemplar, and other early Christian manuscripts bolster the case for his use of the codex for his scripture, with the Evangelion (if our reading of Tertullian and other sources is accepted) possibly prefaced by the Antitheses. This interpretation receives support from an offhand ref- erence to this work where Tertullian discusses Marcion's letter60 and claims that the Antitheses “extend”/“display” (praefero) his theology.61 This letter is not to be confused with accusations that Marcion forged a letter to the Laodiceans or Alexandrians reported in the Muratorian Canon;62 rather, this letter was allegedly composed by Marcion himself.63 Tertullian's reference to this letter in book four of his Adversus Marcionem is particularly important since it relates that, while this letter's authenticity may be disputed by Marcion’s followers, the Antitheses are acknowledged as authentic. In order to prove that Marcion represents a heretical deviation from his allegiance to the original Christian message, Tertullian argues: “What now if, in contrast to his own letter, the Marcionites deny his faith first belonged to us? What if they do not acknowledge the letter? They clearly acknowledge (fatentur) and even display (praeferunt) Marcion's Antitheses. My proof from these suffices.”64 While this passage raises many issues, most important for our argument that the Antitheses was an isagogic (and possibly prefatory) text is Tertullian's offhand comment that “they clearly acknowledge and even display” this text.65 Interpretation of this passage hinges on the meaning of the word praeferunt, translated neutrally above as “display”; alternatively, it could be translated as “they offer” or “they place before” in order to capture the prefatory aspect of this verb more precisely.66 Whatever the translation, praeferunt supports connecting the Antitheses to the isagogic genre: “they offer” aligns nicely with the catechetical aspects of the Antitheses designed to guide readers into Marcion's foundational texts through his interpretation; “they place before” reinforces the possible prefatory aspect of the Antitheses suggested by multiple passages in the Adversus Marcionem;67 even the neutral “they display” connotes a prominent and public introductory role for this tract. In fact, when coupled with the description that Marcion “set up the Antitheses beforehand (praestruendo)”68 —it should be recalled here that Evans translated praestruendo as “prefix”—the use of praeferunt strengthens the argument that this work served as an elementary work designed to introduce his canon. While it is not necessary to insist that the Antitheses could only function isagogically if prefaced to Marcion's Evangelion, this passage from book four of Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem speaks to the importance of the Antitheses for transmitting Marcion's foundational precepts. [Scherbenske p. 83]
So let me break it down for non-Marcionite geeks - the idea that the Antitheses was a separate work from the gospel comes from one passage and one passage alone - and it is above all else a 'contentious' passage as Marcionites clearly would have objected to the claim made in it.

Let's look at that passage:
Quod ergo pertinet ad evangelium interim Lucae, quatenus communio eius inter nos et Marcionem de veritate disceptat, adeo antiquius Marcione est quod est secundum nos, ut et ipse illi Marcion aliquando crediderit, cum et pecuniam in primo calore fidei catholicae ecclesiae contulit, proiectam mox cum ipso, posteaquam in haeresim suam a nostra veritate descivit. Quid nunc, si negaverint Marcionitae primam apud nos fidem eius, adversus epistulam quoque ipsius? Quid si nec epistulam agnoverint? [4] Certe Antitheses non modo fatentur Marcionis, sed et praeferunt. Ex his mihi probatio sufficit. Si enim id evangelium quod Lucae refertur penes nos (viderimus an et penes Marcionem) ipsum est quod Marcion per Antitheses suas arguit ut interpolatum a protectoribus Iudaismi ad concorporationem legis et prophetarum, qua etiam Christum inde confingerent, utique non potuisset arguere nisi quod invenerat.

So then meanwhile, as concerns the gospel of Luke, seeing that the use of it shared between us and Marcion becomes an arbiter of the truth, our version of it is to such an extent older than Marcion that Marcion himself once believed it. That was when in the first warmth of faith he presented the catholic church with that money which was before long cast out along with him after he had diverged from our truth into his own heresy. What now, if the Marcionites are going to deny that his faith at first was with us—even against the evidence of his own letter? What if they refuse to acknowledge that letter? Certainly Marcion's own antitheses not only admit this, but even make a show of it. Proof taken from them is good enough for me. If that gospel which among us is ascribed to Luke—we shall see <later> whether it is <accepted by> Marcion—if that is the same that Marcion by his antitheses accuses of having been falsified by the upholders of Judaism with a view to its being so combined in one body with the law and the prophets that they might also pretend that Christ had that origin, evidently he could only have brought accusation against something he had found there already. [Evans]

With regard, then, to the pending91 question, of Luke's Gospel (so far as its being the common property92 of ourselves and Marcion enables it to be decisive of the truth,93 ) that portion of it which we alone receive94 is so much older than Marcion, that Marcion, himself once believed it, when in the first warmth of faith he contributed money to the Catholic church, which along with himself was afterwards rejected,95 when he fell away from our truth into his own heresy. What if the Marcionites have denied that he held the primitive faith amongst ourselves, in the face even of his own letter? What, if they do not acknowledge the letter? [4] They, at any rate, receive his Antitheses; and more than that, they make ostentatious use96 of them. Proof out of these is enough for me. For if the Gospel, said to be Luke's which is current amongst us97 (we shall see whether it be also current with Marcion), is the very one which, as Marcion argues in his Antitheses, was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism, for the purpose of such a conglomeration with it of the law and the prophets as should enable them out of it to fashion their Christ, surely he could not have so argued about it, unless he had found it (in such a form). [Holmes]
I see no evidence that 'the letter' of Marcion should be equated with the antitheses. Instead I read this passage as saying you can see confirmation of what I am saying by what is in this letter of Marcion we have in our possession or from his antitheses - both of which make clear that Marcion was once a part of our church. In the case of the letter there is an open confession to this effect, with the antitheses the argument seems to be that the antitheses - once the reader scrutinizes the passages in question - were plainly added to the gospel of Luke. In other words, that Marcion simply took Luke and added the antitheses.

Once we see through the claim that the letter of Marcion = the Antitheses there is no reason whatsoever to see the antitheses as a separate work 'pre-fixed' to the front of the canon. This is a stupid suggestion anyway already trashed by Moll among others. The sense in which praeferō can mean simply 'display' is demonstrable from any Latin dictionary:

I bear, hold or carry before or forth
I carry before, place or set before, offer, present
I place someone or something before another
I prefer, like
I take beforehand, anticipate
I show, display, exhibit, discover, expose, reveal, betray

To this end I think - like most Marcionite scholarship - the idea that Marcion authored a separate work called the Antitheses is a bunch of hooey. Much ado about nothing. The plain sense from the various passages which mention these 'anitheses' (no capital 'A') is that Marcion added something to a commonly held gospel (I would argue a gospel harmony at least relative to the canonical four) which scandalized Justin Martyr the original author of the proto-text behind AM. This text was modified by Irenaeus into the Greek proto-type of Tertullian's Latin text. The introduction (AM 1.1) which mentions alternative versions of AM floating around modified or altered by an 'apostate' is Irenaeus's acknowledging Justin's original text.

So it is that we see Irenaeus make plain that Marcion's antitheses are in fact a variant of the Matthean antitheses. In Book Four of AH he cites Matthew against the Marcionite gospel harmony noting:
"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."(3) 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."(4) 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?
This formulation IMHO is the most reasonable explanation to the identity of the 'antitheses' of Marcion. The Marcionite text is attested by Clement who used a gospel very similar - if not identical - with the Marcionite gospel.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Sat Mar 10, 2018 7:00 pm, 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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Antithesis (Clean thread)

Post by Secret Alias »

Another argument for the Matthean antitheses being present in the Marcionite gospel. The repeated (and seemingly illogical) assertion of the AM - that Marcion on the one hand 'exclusively' tampered with the gospel of Luke and the repeated claim that Marcion removed Matthew 5:17
Matthean Antitheses

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. 21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. 23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift. 25 “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny. 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. 31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’[f] 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. 33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 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. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. 43 “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, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
So we've see that Irenaeus explicitly states that Marcion knew and appealed to the Matthean antitheses to support his arguments against the Law - "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 a fulfilling and an extension of them, as He does Himself declare ..." The slam dunk, the sledgehammer - whatever you want to call it is the number of times that AM says that Marcion deleted the first sentence of the Matthean Antitheses - i.e. Matt 5.17. It has long been the defining enigma of AM - why, if Tertullian is accusing Marcion of corrupting Luke exclusively does he make upwards of a half a dozen references to Marcion deleting - not just 'things from Matthew' - but Mathew 5.17 specifically?

The answer becomes readily apparent when we realize at once that the half dozen references to the deletion of Matthew 5.17 are inevitably also rebuttals of - or related to rebuttals of - Marcion's antitheses. It all comes together when we realize (or I realized) that Matthew 5:17 is in fact the first line of the Matthean antitheses. So this explains AM's focus on Marcion's deletion of Matthew 5:17. It goes hand in hand with the innumerable references to Marcion's antitheses. Much like what we saw in Irenaeus's treatment of Marcion's employment of the Matthean antitheses, the (alleged) deletion of the (supposed) opening line of the commonly held 'antitheses' is the proverbial 'line in the sand.' As long as Matthew 5:17 introduces the antitheses that follow there can be no misunderstanding that Jesus was not an antinomian spokesman and the gospel 'harmonizes' with the Law and the prophets.

In other words, the 'mutilated Luke' argument once again is demonstrated to be a late feature of the original text. How do we know this? Because the core argument of AM has to do with the antitheses - that is the commonly held juxtaposition of Jesus's words with the Law. Marcion's version of all that follows Matthew 5:17 differed from what now appears in Matthew in the same way as Clement of Alexandria preserves something closely related to but ultimately different from the Matthean antitheses. Nevertheless this original argument that the commonly held 'antitheses' aren't problematic for the Catholic faith was ultimately abandoned by a later editor (Irenaeus) who left the beginning (i.e. contra the antitheses) the middle and end (the demonstration that various commonly held gospel passages don't agree with Marcion's claims) but removed the central argument regarding the gospel antitheses. This argument was ultimately shelved and the antitheses entirely removed from the new creation of the Gospel of Luke.
But since both the place and the work of illumination according to the prophecy are compatible with Christ, we begin to discern that He is the subject of the prophecy, which shows that at the very outset of His ministry, He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them;for Marcion has erased the passage as an interpolation. It will, however, be vain for him to deny that Christ uttered in word what He forthwith did partially indeed [AM 4.7.4, 5]

"I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it." What business, therefore, had you to erase out of the Gospel that which was quite consistent in it?278 For you have confessed that, in his goodness, he did in act what you deny that he did in word. We have therefore good proof that He uttered the word, in the fact that He did the deed; and that you have rather expunged the Lord's word, than that our (evangelists) have inserted it. [AM 4.9.10]

This being the case, he makes a mistake in coming down to destroy the law, as if for the remedy of a diseased condition. because they who were living under it were "whole," and "not in want of a physician." [AM 4.11.1]

But, in as far as the defence of the prophets could not be consistent in the Christ of Marcion, who came to destroy them; in so far is it becoming to the Creator's Christ that He should stigmatize those who persecuted the prophets, for He in all things accomplished their predictions. [AM 4.15.1]

And even if He had the general right of entering the synagogue (like other Jews), yet the function of giving instruction was allowed only to a man who was extremely well known, and examined and tried, and for some time invested with the privilege after experience duly attested elsewhere. But "they were all astonished at His doctrine." Of course they were; "for, says (St. Luke), "His word was with power ----not because He taught in opposition to the law and the prophets. No doubt, His divine discourse gave forth both power and grace, building up rather than pulling down the substance of the law and the prophets. Otherwise, instead of "astonishment, they would feel horror. It would not be admiration, but aversion, prompt and sure, which they would bestow on one who was the destroyer of law and prophets, and the especial propounder as a natural consequence of a rival god; for he would have been unable to teach anything to the disparagement of the law and the prophets, and so far of the Creator also, without premising the doctrine of a different and rival divinity, Inasmuch, then, as the Scripture makes no other statement on the matter than that the simple force and power of His word produced astonishment, it more naturally shows that His teaching was in accordance with the Creator by not denying (that it was so), than that it was in opposition to the Creator, by not asserting (such a fact). And thus He will either have to be acknowledged as belonging to Him,180 in accordance with whom He taught; or else will have to be adjudged a deceiver since He taught in accordance with One whom He had come to oppose. In the same passage, "the spirit of an unclean devil" exclaims: "What have we to do with Thee, Thou Jesus? Art Thou come to destroy us? I know Thee who Thou art, the Holy One of God." I do not here raise the question whether this appellation was suitable to one who ought not to be called Christ, unless he were sent by the Creator. Elsewhere there has been already given a full consideration of His titles.[ibid]

Well now, Marcion, and all ye who are companions in misery, and associates in hatred with that heretic, what will you dare say to this? Did Christ rescind the forementioned commandments: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother? "Or did He both keep them, and then add what was wanting to them? This very precept, however, about giving to the poor, was very largely diffused through the pages of the law and the prophets. This vainglorious observer of the commandments was therefore convicted of holding money in much higher estimation (than charity). This verity of the gospel then stands unimpaired: "I am not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them." He also dissipated other doubts, when He declared that the name of God and of the Good belonged to one and the same being, at whose disposal were also the everlasting life and the treasure in heaven and Himself too----whose commandments He both maintained and augmented with His own supplementary precepts. He may likewise be discovered in the following passage of Micah, saying: "He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to be ready to follow the Lord thy God? " [AM 4.34.5 - 7]

This verity of the gospel then stands unimpaired: "I am not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them." He also dissipated other doubts, when He declared that the name of God and of the Good belonged to one and the same being, at whose disposal were also the everlasting life and the treasure in heaven and Himself too----whose commandments He both maintained and augmented with His own supplementary precepts [AM 4.36.6]

Since the beneficent Deity had premised that these things must needs come to pass, although so terrible and dreadful, as they had been predicted by the law and the prophets, therefore He did not destroy the law and the prophets, when He affirmed that what had been foretold therein must be certainly fulfilled. He further declares, "that heaven and earth shall not pass away till all things be fulfilled." What things, pray, are these? Are they the things which the Creator made? Then the elements will tractably endure the accomplishment of their Maker's dispensation. If, however, they emanate from your excellent god, I much doubt whether the heaven and earth will peaceably allow the completion of things which their Creator's enemy has determined! If the Creator quietly submits to this, then He is no "jealous God." But let heaven and earth pass away, since their Lord has so determined; only let His word remain for evermore! And so Isaiah predicted that it should.1578 Let the disciples also be warned, "lest their hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, and cares of this world; and so that day come upon them unawares, like a snare "1579 ----if indeed they should forget God amidst the abundance and occupation of the world. Like this will be found the admonition of Moses,----so that He who delivers from "the snare" of that day is none other than He who so long before addressed to men the same admonition1580 [19] Some places there were in Jerusalem where to teach; other places outside Jerusalem whither to retire1581 ----"in the day-time He was teaching in the temple; "just as He had foretold by Hosea: "In my house did they find me, and there did I speak with them."1582 "But at night He went out to the Mount of Olives." For thus had Zechariah pointed out: "And His feet shall stand in that day on the Mount of Olives."1583 Fit hours for an audience there also were. "Early in the morning"1584 must they resort to Him, who (having said by Isaiah, "The Lord giveth me the tongue of the learned") added, "He hath appointed me the morning, and hath also given me an ear to hear." Now if this is to destroy the prophets, what will it be to fulfil them? [AM 4.39.17,18]
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Antithesis (Clean thread)

Post by Secret Alias »

I think that's checkmate. That's a very persuasive argument for identifying the Marcionite 'antitheses' with the Matthean antitheses and likely to be the subject of my next article.
“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
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Antithesis (Clean thread)

Post by Joseph D. L. »

I know you have a hard time with this concept.
Stuart, you're really coming across as smug here. How can you criticize anyone for not accepting your own particular idea, belief, or theory, simply on the grounds that they have their own ideas, beliefs, and theories?

I know this is hard for you to accept, but your ideas are just as fringe and marginal as some of Huller's, myself, and nearly everyone who posts here. I know it's easy to confuse your own ideas for reality, but keep in mind that not everyone will be as accepting of them.

If the Pauline (or ur-Pauline) corpus wasn't a singular canon, written by the same writer, then what exactly was the motive for such epistles? Why was there suddenly this Cambrian explosion of similar styled texts? Indeed, what even were these texts for? Why did the Marcionites assume that they were written by a singular writer? Where did the notion of an Apostolikon come from? And we're still no closer to discovering who Paul was and what he actually wrote. If everything we have is as woefully late and--apparently--useless as you maintain, then how can you be sure of your own ideas?
Post Reply