Antithesis (Clean thread)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Antithesis (Clean thread)

Post by Stuart »

Since the last thread got out of hand (I'll take a partial mea culpa on that) we'll try again.

-- Note, I will address and refute Stephen Huller's assertions on AM in another thread, and point out why each of them is incorrect; as he was kind enough to lay out his reasoning in that other thread for why he believes AM is derived from a Greek source of Irenaeus. So please do not bring that separate topic up of source authorship in this thread, so we may focus on the content and form of the Antithesis itself

The Antithesis is an uncertain form, and may have contained multiple parts. The first part of it appears to have been a rather formulated set of verse comparisons from the OT and the NT (Marcionite) in short paraphrased form. This is not unlike the Gospel of Thomas. There may well have been another section of the document that included an dissertation (or Apology) into the separateness of the Jewish Tribal God from the High God, and of the fact that the Jewish Christ had not come. But this is difficult to ascertain because the sources all contain artificial dialogues and debates, which are overlaid with polemic points and modified to fit the presentation forms. So initially I will only address the twelve (12) secure antithesis bullets, and perhaps two (2) others that are probable.

I have followed the form of Dialogue Adamantius, as I believe this is closer to the form than the Gospel of Matthew, where by dialogue necessity the citations were changed to first person dialogue. The first 10 are simply quoted from Dialogue Adamantius, stripping away the artificial conversational and disputatious elements. The 11th and 12th are my attempts at plausible reconstructions. The 13th is the phrase that launched Terutullian's AM (Good and Bad Fruit) which I will handle in the second post.

So without further adieu Part I of the Antithesis -- The Pairs: (note, a commentary/footnote is in a box below, one for each Antithesis pair)
1) The Creator God commanded Moses when he was leaving the land of Egypt, “Be ready; gird your loins; put shoes on your feet; have your staffs in your hands and your knapsacks on you; carry away gold, silver and all the other things from the Egyptians.”
But our good Lord, when He was sending His disciples into the world, said, “Neither shoes on your feet, nor knapsack, nor two tunics, nor gold in your belts.”

2) The prophet of the God of Creation, when war came upon the people, went up to the top of the mountain and stretched out his hands to God so that he might destroy many in battle. Yet our Lord, because He is good, stretched out his hands, not to destroy, but to save men.

3) The Lord brought to view in the Law say, ‘You shall love him who loves you and you shall hate your enemy.”
But our Lord, because He is good, says “Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.”

4) The prophet of the God of Creation, so that he might destroy more of the enemy, stopped the sun from setting until he should finish slaying those who were fighting against his people.
But the Lord, because He is good, says, “Let not the sun go upon you in anger.”

5) It says in the Law, ‘Eye for Eye and tooth for tooth,’
but the Lord, because He is good, says in the Gospel, "If anyone should slap you on the cheek, turn the other one to him."

6) The prophet of the God of Creation told a bear to come out of a thicket and devour the children who met him,
but the good Lord says, "Let the children come to me, for such is the kingdom of heaven."

7) The Creator God did not know where Adam was, when he asks, "Where are you?"
Christ, however, knew even men's thoughts.

8) in the Law it says, "cloak for a cloak"
But the good Lord says, "If anyone should take your cloak, give him your tunic also"

9) The prophet of the god of Creation records, "My bow is bent, and my arrows are sharpened."
But the Apostle says, "Put on the armor of God, that you may be able to extinguish the fiery darts of the wicked one."

10) The God of Creation, after Isaac became partially blind, did not restore his sight,
but our Lord, because he is good, opened the eyes of many blind.

11) The God of Creation was known to Adam and his contemporaries – this clear from their Scriptures
But the Father of Christ is unknown, for our Lord says, “No one knows the Father, except the Son, neither does anyone know the son, except the Father.“

12) in the Law it says, "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce,"
But the good Lord says, "every one who divorces his wife, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Greek Text
1) Ὁ θεὸς τῆς γενέσεως ἐντέταλται Μωσεῖ ἐκβαίνοντι ἐκ γῆς αἰγύπτου λέγων· ἕτοιμοι γένεσθε, τὴν ὀσφὺν ἐξωσμένοι, τοὺς πόδας ὑποδεδεμένοι, τὰς ῥάβδους ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν ὑμῶν, τὰς πήρας ἔχοντες ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτούς· χρυσὸν καὶ ἄργυρον καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα ἀπενέγκασθε τῶν Αἰγυπτίων.
ὁ δὲ κύριος ἡμῶν ὁ ἀγαθός, ἀποστέλλων τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην, λέγει· μήτε ὑποδήματα ἐν τοῖς ποσὶν ὑμῶν, μήτε πήραν, μήτε δύο χιτῶνας, μήτε χαλκὸν ἐν ταῖς ζώνᾳις ὑμῶν.
2) Ὁ προφήτης τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς γενέσεως, πολέμου συστάντος πρὸς τὸν λαόν, ἀναβὰς ἐπὶ τὴν κορυφὴν τοῦ ὄρους, ἐξέτεινε τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν θεόν, ἵνα πολλοὺς τῷ πολέμῳ ἀνέλῃ· ὁ δὲ κύριος ἡμῶν, ἀγαθὸς ὤν, ἐξέτεινε τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ οὐχὶ τοῦ ἀνελεῖν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἀλλὰ τοῦ σῶσαι. τί οὖν ὅνοιον; ὁ μὲν διὰ τῆς ἐκτάσεως τῶν χειρῶν ἀναιρεῖ, ὁ δὲ σῴζεα.
3) Ὁ προφήτης τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς γενέσεως, πολέμου συστάντος πρὸς τὸν λαόν, ἀναβὰς ἐπὶ τὴν κορυφὴν τοῦ ὄρους, ἐξέτεινε τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν θεόν, ἵνα πολλοὺς τῷ πολέμῳ ἀνέλῃ· ὁ δὲ κύριος ἡμῶν, ἀγαθὸς ὤν, ἐξέτεινε τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ οὐχὶ τοῦ ἀνελεῖν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἀλλὰ τοῦ σῶσαι.
4) Ὁ προφήτης τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς γενέσεως, ἵνα πολεμῶν πλείονας ἀνέλῃ, ἔστησε τὸν ἥλιον τοῦ μὴ δῦσαι μέχρι συντελέσῃ ἀναιρῶν τοὺς πολεμοῦντας πρὸς τὸν λαόν· ὁ δὲ κύριος, ἀγαθὸς ὤν, λέγει· ὁ ἥλιος μὴ ἐπιδυέτω ἐπὶ τῷ παροπγισμῷ ὑμῶν.
5) Ἐν τῷ νόμῳ λέγει· ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ καὶ ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος, ὁ δὲ κύριος, ἀγαθὸς ὤν, λέγει ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ. ἐάν τίς σε ῥαπίσῃ εἰς τὴν σιαγόνα, παράθες αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ᾶλλην.
6) Ὁ προφήτης τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς γενέσεως ἐκ δρυμοῦ [Ἐλισσαῖος] ἄρκτῳ εἶπεν ἐξελθεῖν καὶ καταφαγεῖν τοὺς ἀπαντήσαντας αὐτῷ παῖδας· ὁ δὲ ἀγαθὸς κύριος· ἄφετε, φησί, τὰ παιδία ἔρχεσθαι πρός με· τῶν γὰρ τοιούτων ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐανῶν.
7) Ὁ δημιουργὸς οὐδὲ ᾔδει ποῦ ἐστιν ὁ Ἀδάμ, λέγων· ποῦ εἶ; ὁ δὲ Χριστὸς καὶ τοὺς διαλογισμοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ᾔδει.
8) Πῶς οὖν ἐν τῷ νόμῳ λέγει· ἱμάτιον ἀνθ᾽ ἱματίου, ὁ δὲ ἀγαθὸς κύριος λέγει· ἐάν τίς σου ἄρῃ τὸ ἱμάτιον, πρόσθες αὐτῷ καὶ τὸν χιτῶνα
9) Ὁ προφήτης τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς γενέσεως λέγει· τὰ τόξα μου ἐντεταμένα καὶ τὰ βέλη μου ἠκονημένα, ὁ δὲ ἀπόστολός φησιν· ἐνδύσασθε τὴν πανοπλίαν τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς τὸ δύνασθαι τὰ βέλη τοῦ πονηροῦ τὰ πεπυρωμένα σβέσαι.
10) Ὁ θεοῦ τῆς γενέσεως ὑποχυθέντα τὸν Ἰσαὰκ οὐκέτι ἐποίησε διαβλέψαι, ὁ δὲ κύριος ἡμῶν, ἀγαθὸς ὤν, πολλῶν τυφλῶν ἤνοιξεν ὀφθαλμούς.
11) ὁ δημιουργὸς ἐγνώσθη τῷ Ἀδὰμ καὶ τοῖς κατὰ καιρόν, ὡς ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς δηλοῦται· ὁ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ πατὴρ ἄγνωστός ἐστιν, ὡς ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν λέγει· οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱός, οὐδὲ τὸν υἱόν τισ γινώσκει εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ.
12) Πῶς οὖν ἐν τῷ νόμῳ λέγει· Ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, δότω αὐτῇ ἀποστάσιον.
ὁ δὲ ἀγαθὸς κύριος λέγει· Πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι.

Latin Text
1) Deus qui praedicatur in Genesi praecepit Moysi exeunti de Aegypto, dicens: Prati estote! lumbi uestri praecincti sint et pedes calceati, et uirgae sint in manibus et perae super dorsum, etaurum uel argentum atque omnia Aegyptiorum auferte monilia. Dominus autem noster, qui bonae naturae est, mittens discipulos suos in orbem terrarum, dicit: Neque calciamentum in pedibus uestris sit, neque pera, neque uirga, neque duas tunicas habeatis, neque aes in xonis uestris.
2) Propheta dei illius, qui refertur in lege, cum bellum populo illi esset illatum, ascendit super uerticem montis et extendit manus suas ad deum ut quamplurimi hostium prosternerentur in bello. Dominus autem noster, qui bonus est, extendit manus suas, non ut interimeret homines, sed ut saluaret. Quod ergo simile est, ubi alius extendit manus suas ad interitum, alius ad salutm?
3) Propheta dei illius, qui refertur in lege, cum bellum populo illi esset illatum, ascendit super uerticem montis et extendit manus suas ad deum ut quamplurimi hostium prosternerentur in bello. Dominus autem noster, qui bonus est, extendit manus suas, non ut interimeret homines, sed ut saluaret.
4) Propheta dei illius, qui refertur in lge, pro eo, ut plures interirent in bello, solem stare fecit ne occumberet usque quo ille trucidaret inimicos suos. Dominus autem, qui bonus est, dicit: Sol non occidat super iracundiam uestram.
5) In lege scriptum est: Oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente. Dominus autem, qui bonus est, dicit in euangelio: Si quis te percusserit in dexteram maimillam, praebe ei et alteram.
6) Propheta legis antiquae ursis praecepit exire de silva et comedere pueros qui ei occurrerunt. Bonus autem diminus dicit: Sinite pueros uenire ad me; talium est enim regnum coelorum.
7) Creator deus nescienat ubi esset Adam. Dicit enim: Adam, ubi es? Christus autem etiam cogitationes hominum nouerat.
8) in lege scriptum est auferri uestimentum pro uestimento, bonus autem dominus dicit: Si tibi quis aufert tunicam, da ei et pallium
9) Creator deus dicit: Areum meum extendam et sagittas meas consummabo in eos. Apostolus uero dicit: Onduite uos arma Dei, ut possitis iacula maligni ignita exstinguere.
10) Deus legis excaecato Issac non reddidit uisum. Dominus autem noster bonus multorum oculos aperuit non uidentium.
11) et alius creator, qui cum Adam locutus est uel cum caeteris quos refert scriptura, quibus et innotuit. Christi autem pater nulli cognitus est, sicut Christus pronuntiat, de se dicens: Nemo nouit Patrem nisi solus filius, enque filium quis nouit nisi pater.

Footnotes/Commentary
1) D.A. 1.10, Paraphrased LXX Exodus 12:11, 3:22, 11:2, 12:35 against Matthew 10:9, Luke 9:3, 10:4
2) D.A. 1.11, Exodus 17:8ff against apparently Luke 5:13, Matthew 8:3 and Mark 1:41, however only Mark clearly makes it Jesus who is stretching out his hands to heal the leper. Jesus explicitly tells the man with the withered hand to stretch his hands out in Luke 6:10, Mathew 12:13, Mark 3:5. It's seems probable that the stories originally portrayed Jesus as not stretching out his hands to heal. But we do see Jesus place his hands on people, as in Luke 13:13, Luke 4:40 -- although parallels do not have this, so it could be these two versions are later Lukan additions or adjustments displaying the same understanding as Mark 1:41. It appears Jesus was always passive or using words, such as Luke 8:44ff the bleeding woman Mark 5:27ff, Matthew 9:20 (Luke 22:51 is clearly a later addition); and in similar stories in Matthew 14:34/Mark 6:56. Notice that in Luke 4:39 Jesus rebukes the fever, but in Matthew 8:15/Mark 1:31 versions he touches her hand. We similar on the blind man in Luke 18:42/Mark 10:52 were Jesus simply tells the man his faith healed him, while Matthew 20:34 again has him touch to heal, Matthew 9:29 also has this touching (the touching of Mathew 17:17 transfiguration scene is not for healing ... well not literally). Mark 7:33-35, which expands upon the common source with Mathew also has this touching. All this suggests that this Antithesis pair is somewhat later than the Gospel, reflecting later beleifs about Jesus.
3) D.A. 1.12, also Matthew 5:43-44, set Leviticus 19:18 LXX with τὸν ἀγαπῶντά σε for τὸν πλησίον σου, (see Matthew 5:43) against Luke 6:27-28 (see Matthew 5:44) and //s Matthew 8:12, 22:13, 25:30, 41
Matthew 5:43-44 took this pair directly from the Antithesis, including the exact same paraphrases of Levitius and Luke as found in DA 1.12
4) D.A. 1.13, Joshua 10:12-14 against Ephesians 4:26
5) D.A. 1.15, Matthew 5:38-39 (which extends it) set Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21 LXX against Luke 6:29/Matthew 5:39
Note: Allowing for voice and variance (e.g., Western support σιαγόνα σου for δεξιὰν σιαγόνα which is rated uncertain) we are looking at Matthew having taken nearly verbatim this Antithesis pair, even including reading ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος against the LXX ὀδούς ἀντί ὀδούς (all three verse). The odds are long the source could have been anything else.
6) D.A. 1.16, see LXX 4 kings 2:24 against Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16
7) D.A. 1.17, Genesis 3:9 against Luke 6:8, 9:17 (very loose paraphrase)
8) D.A. 1.18 the exact source is confusing, Admanatius replies that this is similar to "tooth for a tooth" found in Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Pretty guesses Leviticus 6:11; 16:23-24 which is put against Luke 6:29, c.f. Matthew 5:40
Note: this is an example of where the Antithesis paraphrasing is so great that the source is anyone's guess. Possible it is a local midrash long lost
9) D.A. 1.19 Isaiah 5:28 combined with Deuteronomy 32:23 LXX against Ephesians 6:13, 16
10) D.A. 1.20 reads ὐποχυθέντα but otherwise refers to Genesis 27:1, set against several sight restorations, perhaps Luke 18:42 in mind.
Rufinus Latin may be corrupt, as he writes "(In) the Law" instead of the "God of Genesis";
11) D.A. 1.23, pretty much take you pick from OT passages, and from the NT a paraphrase of Luke 10:22 (also Matthew 11:27) reading ἔγνω instead of ἐπιγινώσκει. We see this reading specifically noted by Irenaeus in AH 4.6.1, pseudo Clement Homilies 18.4 Οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱός, ὡς οὐδὲ τὸν υἱόν τις οἶδεν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατὴρ καὶ οἷς ἂν βούληται ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψαι; and Recognitions 2.47 (Latin only).
12) Matthew 5:31-32 compares Deuteronomy 24:1-4 against Luke 16:18. Matthew attempts to Ameliorate the Marcionite position, see 1 Corinthians 7:10 (maybe 7:11 also), by allowing divorce still on the grounds of adultery, which basically is a way of saying the Mosaic Law still holds.

“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Secret Alias
Posts: 18709
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Antithesis (Clean thread)

Post by Secret Alias »

Does anyone ever say that any of the things you quote come from a Marcionite book called the Antitheses? No. You know that. As such there are three possibilities for these things said of Marcion and Marcionites:

1. they all come from a book called the Marcionite Antitheses (IMHO very unlikely)
2. they represent a mix of things from a book called the Marcionite Antitheses and things that Marcionites say and things heretics say generally
3. they represent a loose mix of things said by the heresies.

The idea that we can say that these things 'come from the Antitheses' is ridiculous. They come from a pool of things said by Jews and non-Jews about the existence of two gods. The origin of such 'antitheses' within the Pentateuch almost certainly started with Jews like Philo of Alexandria (i.e. those who thought there was a power of judgment and a power of mercy.

And where do you draw the line on 'possible source material' from the Antitheses? DeBuhn wants us to reach into Hegemonius:

Question 1: Do you think that Tertullian is citing from a Marcionite text or has he merely culled things Marcionites say or things heretics say? How do we know that Marcion said these things as 'antitheses' are similarly associated with Mani:
For, in truth, the man [Mani] shows himself to be a person of extraordinary force of character, both in speech and in action; and indeed his very aspect and attire also bear that out. But I shall here write down for your information some few points which I have been able to retain in my memory out of all the topics which have been expounded by him: for I know that even by these few you will have an idea of the rest ... This man then maintained that the law of Moses, to speak shortly, does not proceed from the good God, but from the prince of evil; and that it has no kinship with the new law of Christ, but is contrary and hostile to it, the one being the direct antagonist of the other. When I heard such a sentiment propounded, I repeated to the people that sentence of the Gospel in which our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself: I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. The man, however, averred that He did not utter this saying at all; for he held that when we find that He did abrogate that same law, we are bound to give heed, above all other considerations, to the thing which He actually did. Then he began to cite a great variety of passages from the law, and also many from the Gospel and from the Apostle Paul, which have the appearance of contradicting each other. All this he gave forth at the same time with perfect confidence, and without any hesitation or fear; so that I verily believe he has that serpent as his helper, who is ever our adversary. Well, he declared that there in the law God said, I make the rich man and the poor man; while here in the Gospel Jesus called the poor blessed, and added, that no man could be His disciple unless he gave up all that he had. Again, he maintained that there Moses took silver and gold from the Egyptians when the people fled out of Egypt; whereas Jesus delivered the precept that we should lust after nothing belonging to our neighbour. Then he affirmed that Moses had provided in the law, that an eye should be given in penalty for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; but that our Lord bade us offer the other cheek also to him who smote the one. He told us, too, that there Moses commanded the man to be punished and stoned who did any work on the Sabbath, and who failed to continue in all things that were written in the law, as in fact was done to that person who, yet being ignorant, had gathered a bundle of sticks on the Sabbath day; whereas Jesus cured a cripple on the Sabbath, and ordered him then also to take up his bed. And further, He did not restrain His disciples from plucking the ears of grain and rubbing them with their hands on the Sabbath day, which yet was a thing which it was unlawful to do on the Sabbaths. And why should I mention other instances? For with many different assertions of a similar nature these dogmas of his were propounded with the utmost energy and the most fervid zeal. Thus, too, on the authority of an apostle, he endeavoured to establish the position that the law of Moses is the law of death, and that the law of Jesus, on the contrary, is the law of life. For he based that assertion on the passage which runs thus: In which also may God make us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life. But if the ministration of death, engraven in letters on the stones, was made in glory, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away; how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more does the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excels. For if that which shall be done away is glorious, much more that which remains is glorious. And this passage, as you are also well aware, occurs in the second Epistle to the Corinthians. Besides, he added to this another passage out of the first epistle, on which he based his affirmation that the disciples of the Old Testament were earthly and natural; and in accordance with this, that flesh and blood could not possess the kingdom of God. He also maintained that Paul himself spoke in his own proper person when he said: If I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. Further, he averred that the same apostle made this statement most obviously on the subject of the resurrection of the flesh. when he also said that he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh, and that according to the letter the law has in it no advantage. And again he adduced the statement, that Abraham has glory, but not before God; and that by the law there comes only the knowledge of sin. And many other things did he introduce, with the view of detracting from the honour of the law, on the ground that the law itself is sin; by which statements the simpler people were somewhat influenced, as he continued to bring them forward; and in accordance with all this, he also made use of the affirmation, that the law and the prophets were until John. He declared, however, that John preached the true kingdom of heaven; for verily he held, that by the cutting off of his head it was signified that all who went before him, and who had precedence over him, were to be cut off, and that what was to come after him was alone to be maintained.
This passage appears in the Greek portion of the AA. But as DeBuhn notes:
Within the debate with Archelaus (at least in its Latin version), Mani restricts his criticism of the Old Testament to the citation of New Testament passages that seem to carry such a critique. He does not indulge in proposing specific antitheses between Old and New Testament passages. In the letter of Tryphon to Archelaus, Mani is reported to start with such antitheses, and then turn to a focus on New Testament passages critical of the Old Testament.
So it is possible that someone took a list of 'antitheses' - possibly a Marcionite one as DeBuhn intimates - and dropped it into the Acts of Archelaus.
But such an argument cuts both ways. The antitheses might well have been stock criticisms of Judaism dumped into accounts of the Marcionite tradition.

There are other examples of non-Marcionite 'antitheses.' As noted these undoubtedly began from Jewish sources. For instance the famous Marcionite criticism (which repeats over and over again in AM) that the Jewish god commanded the Israelites to take the gold of the Egyptians actually appears repeated in rabbinic sources. The point of course is that one of the Jewish gods did indeed command the Israelites to do this. He gave them arms and armor too. How did Philo reconcile this with Plato? He did by appealing to the existence of two gods. In other words, the 'antitheses' only become 'anti-Jewish' if you assume that the Jews were monotheists - which they weren't originally. So even if the Marcionites did indeed appeal to passages from the Pentateuch which demonstrate that the divine protagonist in the narrative wasn't the Almighty God, you shouldn't assume that this list wasn't Jewish or was specifically anti-Jewish or antinomian.
“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: 18709
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Antithesis (Clean thread)

Post by Secret Alias »

Some other notes.

(1) The Creator God commanded Moses when he was leaving the land of Egypt, “Be ready; gird your loins; put shoes on your feet; have your staffs in your hands and your knapsacks on you; carry away gold, silver and all the other things from the Egyptians.”
But our good Lord, when He was sending His disciples into the world, said, “Neither shoes on your feet, nor knapsack, nor two tunics, nor gold in your belts.” - you don't find it odd that the passage in question isn't a citation from the Pentateuch? Would Marcion really have been so sloppy to cite a loose inaccurate passage from the Books of Moses and juxtapose against it a verbatim passage from the gospel? Not sure such sloppiness allows for this to be verbatim citation from a book by Marcion. Quicker something heretics or Marcionites were heard to have said.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Thu Mar 08, 2018 9:15 pm, edited 2 times 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
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Antithesis (Clean thread)

Post by Stuart »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:25 pm Do you think that Tertullian is citing from a Marcionite text or has he merely culled things Marcionites say?
For a different thread. But the short answer, he does not seem to have a copy of the antithesis, as he did approached it very differently than the Gospel and Paul -- which he does have Greek copies ad hoc translated (those will not addressed in this thread) -- and does not march through the antithesis line by line as he somewhat does with the Gospel and Paul. His response is of a different character than those, and is focused on attempting to refute the claim that the Father of Jesus was not the tribal demigod of the Jews, and the claim that Jesus was unknown. He seems to know only a few of the pairs, and not necessarily very early ones -- some clearly added later--, but is familiar with some of the arguments they used from the antithesis. There seems to be more in common with T and the anti-Manichean elements of Acta Archelai and the pseudo-Clemntine Rec and Hom.

For the Antithesis, Terullian is a secondary source, supporting evidence, not a primary, a reversal of the role from the role of the works on the Gospel and Paul.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Secret Alias
Posts: 18709
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Antithesis (Clean thread)

Post by Secret Alias »

the same is true for (2)

2) The prophet of the God of Creation, when war came upon the people, went up to the top of the mountain and stretched out his hands to God so that he might destroy many in battle. Yet our Lord, because He is good, stretched out his hands, not to destroy, but to save men.

But the actual passage in Numbers does not speak about Moses destroying the Amalekites. He rather strengthens the Israelites:
As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning.
Do you think that Marcion would again be so sloppy so as to develop an argument which isn't supported by scripture? It also seems more likely that the Amalek argument in De Recta in Deum Fide seems to be a response to things said by Christians like Barnabas or Justin rather than strictly a literal interpretation of what is in the Pentateuch. For instance Justin and Barnabas argued that Moses spreading his arms was a type of Christ. De Recta Fide preserves an argument that Moses was not a type of Christ. But again the Marcionite reaction seems to be a reaction to things said by Justin and Barnabas rather than things in the Pentateuch.
“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: 18709
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Antithesis (Clean thread)

Post by Secret Alias »

3) The Lord brought to view in the Law say, ‘You shall love him who loves you and you shall hate your enemy.”
But our Lord, because He is good, says “Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.”

Again the same criticism as (1). This is not a citation of the Penateuch. I don't think this fits the MO of a man usually identified as the father of textual criticism. https://books.google.com/books?id=KI6Bu ... 9D&f=false Marcion presuming he had written a book against the Law would have done a better job of citing what is actually in the Pentateuch.
“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: 18709
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Antithesis (Clean thread)

Post by Secret Alias »

4. 4) The prophet of the God of Creation, so that he might destroy more of the enemy, stopped the sun from setting until he should finish slaying those who were fighting against his people.
But the Lord, because He is good, says, “Let not the sun go upon you in anger.”

This passage is not from the Pentateuch so it can't be considered to be antinomian. Again this seems to come from a dialogue with orthodox Christians arguing for Jesus = Joshua rather than anything Jewish. If Marcion wrote this (which I have no reason to believe he did) it proves that Marcionism developed as a reaction against the orthodox formulation of Jesus = Joshua. That is the context of this argument. It is a mid second century text at best.
“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: 18709
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Antithesis (Clean thread)

Post by Secret Alias »

5) It says in the Law, ‘Eye for Eye and tooth for tooth,’
but the Lord, because He is good, says in the Gospel, "If anyone should slap you on the cheek, turn the other one to him."

This is clearly an antithesis but an antithesis which appears in the Gospel of Matthew. I don't understand how you can explain why this Marcionite antithesis is preserved in Matthew and assume that the Marcionite gospel developed and is preserved in effect only in Luke. The Matthean 'anthitheses' were originally Marcionite antitheses and appeared 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: 18709
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Antithesis (Clean thread)

Post by Secret Alias »

6) The prophet of the God of Creation told a bear to come out of a thicket and devour the children who met him,
but the good Lord says, "Let the children come to me, for such is the kingdom of heaven."

2 Kings is not a part of the Law so it is not strictly speaking an 'antitheses' in the sense of Marcion's literary purpose in allegedly writing his book (in AM). I think these are very bad arguments for representing the contents of a book described at the opening of Book 4 as:
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
I am actually surprised that you would lay such emphasis on Adamantius for the contents of the Antitheses. I was expecting an argument from Book 2.
“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: 18709
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Antithesis (Clean thread)

Post by Secret Alias »

7) The Creator God did not know where Adam was, when he asks, "Where are you?"
Christ, however, knew even men's thoughts.

But doesn't Adamantius say that Jesus utters 'who has touched me?' I thought that was a good argument.
“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