Friedrich Schelling Dissertation de Marcione Paullinarum Epistolarum emendatore - No One Saw the Marcionite Canon

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12430
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Friedrich Schelling Dissertation de Marcione Paullinarum Epistolarum emendatore - No One Saw the Marcionite Canon

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:53 pm

Friedrich Schelling notes Tertullian “ the Fathers, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Epiphanus, never saw Marcion's copy and that Tertullian in particular, set down as Marcion's falsifications, all the apparently suspicious readings and glosses which he found in his own copy and in some places, merely conjectured what Marcion must have omitted in order to support his system.”

https://books.google.com/books/about/De ... cxAQAAIAAJ
“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: 12430
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Friedrich Schelling Dissertation de Marcione Paullinarum Epistolarum emendatore - No One Saw the Marcionite Canon

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Dec 08, 2019 4:29 pm

ihr Eigenthümlich aber beweist, wie der Aenderungen und Weglassungenim Ganzen wenige sind und wie die letzteren meist so motivirt waren, daß sie auch ' Ihr Eigenthümliche« istdaß sie die Klagen über Marcionitische Verfälschungen nicht von wirklichen Varianten oder wirklicher Mangelhaftigkeit des Marcionitischen Apostolicums (mit Löffler und Corrodi) ableitetsondern gleich Anfangs die Frage aufwirft, ob die alten Schriftsteller wirklich einen Marcionitischen Codex gesehen oder nicht, diese Frage aber von Irenaus, Tertullian, Epiphanius u.f.w, verneint und zuletzt die Vermutbung ausspricht, die Anklage gegen Marcion sey aus der unsicheren Marcion sey aus der unsicheren Sage von einem besonderen Codex des Marcion entstanden, der in Wirklichkeit nur ein von Marcion sür seine Schuler (ohne kritische Absichten) zusammengestellter Auszug aus den Briefen Pauli gewesen

I am not going through this old German typeset and correcting
Last edited by Secret Alias on Sun Dec 08, 2019 7:55 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

lsayre
Posts: 334
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Friedrich Schelling Dissertation de Marcione Paullinarum Epistolarum emendatore - No One Saw the Marcionite Canon

Post by lsayre » Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:32 pm

If no one ever saw the Marcionite texts, did such ever truly exist?

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12430
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Friedrich Schelling Dissertation de Marcione Paullinarum Epistolarum emendatore - No One Saw the Marcionite Canon

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Dec 08, 2019 6:11 pm

Fifty fifty.
“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: 12430
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Friedrich Schelling Dissertation de Marcione Paullinarum Epistolarum emendatore - No One Saw the Marcionite Canon

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Dec 08, 2019 6:22 pm

The problem is that the Church Fathers were always treated like family members. When your grandfather tells you something you believe it more than you do when some strange old man tells you something else. We not only 'trust' Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius we built our understanding of history around what they said.
“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: 12430
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Friedrich Schelling Dissertation de Marcione Paullinarum Epistolarum emendatore - No One Saw the Marcionite Canon

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Dec 08, 2019 6:40 pm

The problem with almost all our information about anything is hearsay evidence. Marcion stole the gospel of Luke. Most people don't believe that. But what do scholars do? They split the difference. 'Oh, let's say that Marcion didn't steal the gospel but just borrowed from Luke.' But why do we have to do that? Why does an appropriation - or even a relationship - of any kind have to be true. Why does even some of this reporting have to be true? The equivalent would be taking Mein Kampf and diluting some of its anti-Semitic statements must have a bit of truth. 'There are good people on both sides.' But why is it ok for the history of the church? Because scholars need to say something about the development of Christianity. If we admit how rotten and unreliable our core information really is there is nothing much left to say about anything.
“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: 12430
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Friedrich Schelling Dissertation de Marcione Paullinarum Epistolarum emendatore - No One Saw the Marcionite Canon

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Dec 08, 2019 6:55 pm

So Schelling asks - why should we believe Irenaeus? Why should we believe Tertullian? Why should we believe Epiphanius? Are these three independent witnesses for the Marcionite canon? No certainly not. So given the murkiness here there are only three possibilities:

1. Tertullian saw the canon and Epiphanius did not
2. Tertullian didn't see the canon but Epiphanius did
3. Neither of them saw the canon.

I think (3) is by far the most likely. (2) is problematic because Epiphanius clearly contradicts his own source material. (1) is problematic because of certain statements that Tertullian makes. But really why is (3) not the most likely possibility? Are the Church Fathers vile people? Yes they are. Never trust someone who vilifies another group for merely disagreeing with them.
“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: 12430
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Friedrich Schelling Dissertation de Marcione Paullinarum Epistolarum emendatore - No One Saw the Marcionite Canon

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Dec 10, 2019 7:01 am

First section of Schelling's thesis. Any help from anyone out there straightening out the translation. I am trying to hire someone at 10 cents a word to translate this for publication. I plan on republishing the translated text in a journal:

I

Paulli epistolas a Marcione corruptas fuisse, testes habemus Irenaeum maxime, Tertullianum, Epiphanium atque incertum Dialogi adversus Marcionitas auctorem; ad quos accedunt, qui minorem illis celebritatem nacti sunt rerum haereticarum scriptores, et qui passim de ea re conquesti sunt, Origenes , Hieronymus, Cyrillus, Hieros, Chrysostomus , alii. Sequemur autem antiquiorum maxime testium auctoritatem. De quorum fide si in ullam partem certi esse voluerimus, princeps existit questio: utrum revera codice Marcionitico usi sint, necne? cui quidem si satisfecerimus, hoc uno jam plurimum profecisse putandi erimus.

Ad Irenaeum quod attinet, nusquam ille saltem Marcionis Apostolikon, (ita enim codicem Paullinarum epistolarum ab eo concinnatum appellant) inspectum a se affirmat. Libros Valentinianorum se vidisse, congressum etiam esse cum quibusdam ejus sectae hominibus, statim ab initio libri memorat, nihil autem ejusmodi de Marcionitis. Singularem quidem adversus Marcionem librum moliri se dicit, in quo ex ipsius scriptis atque locis N. T., quos salvos atque integros reliquerit, opiniones Marcionis refutaturum se esse promittit, sed nullo quem vidi loco jam tum, cum haec scriberet, vidisse se Marcioniticum librum affirmat, neque unquam nomen, quod contraxerat, dissolutum ab eo scimus. Neque adeo satis certo statui potest, eum, quicquid de ea re seiret, ex antiquioribus libris Justini Martyris, quem ipse etiam adversus Marcionem allegat, aliorumque seriptorum hausisse. Accedit, quod nusquam ad exempla, quibus accusationem suam illustrare poterat, descendit, adeoque omnis prorsus ratio sublata est, qua visum ab eo Marcioniticum codicem aut omnino certo ei constitisse de corruptionibus, quas queritur, ulla concludendi probabilitate efficere possemus. Longe id vero aliter in Tertulliano, Epiphanio, reliquis, qui qualem Marcionitici codicis scientiam habuerint, eorum, quae de eo referunt, examine discemus.

Google English Translation

Marcion's edition of the Pauline letters have been tampered, those witnesses to Irenaeus, is most of all, by this, Tertullian, Epiphanius, the Dialogue against the Marcionites, and uncertainly; the author; to whom they approach, the one who is less of heretical things unto them, They have been given of the celebrity of the writers, and complained that they had of the matter to which here and there, Origen, Jerome, Cyril, and Hieras, Chrysostom, and others. We follow you, however, most of the witnesses shall be the authority of the ancients. But of their faith, for they be persuaded, if on any part of the hand we will be, a question of the leader comes into existence: whether it is really Marcionite codex was before them, or not? to whom, indeed, if satisfied, had already made most progress to be regarded as this is the one we shall be.

To Irenaeus, are to be determined, but he is nowhere to Marcion's Apostolikon at least, (for so they call it a code of Paullinia of the letters from him concinnatum) was viewed narrowly from the that he affirms himself. Valentinianorum the books they have seen it to be a meeting with some of his sect, at the beginning of the book mentions nothing about such Marcionites. An exemplary indeed, against Marcion, book, market themselves, he said, in which, according to his writings, and places, and NT, and whom He saves, and fresh men to the left, the opinions of Marcion 's resist the assumption that he has been promised, but none whom they saw in place already at the time when he wrote these things, he had seen someone Marcionitic the book he affirms, that neither at any time the name of the, which he had contracted over, that we know of him. Nor, indeed, am quite certain it may be prescribed, and let any explanation of the matter Seiree, of the more senior the books of Justin, Martyr, whom he avers that he, too, against Marcion, and of other youths on its brightness it. Add to this, that it is never to the examples, by which the prosecution was able to throw light on his own, he went down and, therefore, the whole of every trace it was lifted up by the whim of the place is sure that from him of the corruption of the Marcionitic, or even to a code, which is made, for drawing conclusions about the probability of any we could bring it. Far other way could it be in Tertullian, Epiphanius, and the other, those who have had the knowledge of what kind of Marcionitic of the Code of age, even those that happened on his report, an examination of history we learn.
“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: 12430
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Friedrich Schelling Dissertation de Marcione Paullinarum Epistolarum emendatore - No One Saw the Marcionite Canon

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Dec 10, 2019 7:46 am

The second section:
2

Ac primo quidem, quemnam in codice suo ordinem secutus sit Marcio, nonnisi fama se scire Epiphanius ipse fatetur. Is enim dudum notus esse poterat e Tertulliano, qui libro adversus Marcionem. quinto eumdem ordinem in refutando ex epistolis Paullinis haeretico secutus fuerat, quem Epiphanii recensio exhibet, nisi quod haec epistolium ad Philemonem epistolae ad Philippenses anteponit. Tertullianus autem nusquam Marcionis ordinem a se servatum affirmavit. Igitur aut sui codicis ordinem, aut, quod multo etiam probabilius est, quem Marcionis esse suspicaretur, secutus fuisse putandus est. Facile autem in hunc maxime ordinem incidere potuit, eum, ut ipse ait, principalem adversus Judaismum epistolam eam vellet Marcio, quae ad Galatas scripta est, adeoque ab hae ejus refutandi initium faciendum esset, reliquae autem magnitudinis rationem ordine, quo se invicem excipiunt, sequantur.

Numerum epistolarum quod attinet, epistolas ad Timotheum et Titum ab eo recusatas, narrat Tertullianus, et, cui res dudum ex illo innotuisse poterat, Epiphanius. Illum vero Marcionis ipsum codicem vidisse, epistolarum ab eo exclusarum notitia non evincit, cum hoc certe etiam in vulgus notum esse potuerit, quasnam epistolas receperit, quasnam excluserit haereticus. Quin ille omnem hanc notitiam conjecturae debere potuit, qua Marcionem haud potuisse recipere eas epistolas, quae pevòóvvuov yvóσιν oppugnarent, concludebat. Eam certe conjecturam sub ironia latere, qua librum quintum adversus Marcionem clausit, vix mihi tempero, quin pronunciem. ,,Soli huic, inquit, epistolae (loquitur autem de epistolio ad Philemonem) brevitas sua profuit, ut falsarias manus Marcionis evaderet. (Epistolium autem ad Philemonem in Apostolico Marcionis extitisse, multo minus ausim statuere, quam epistolas ad Tim. et Titum. Neque etiam de eo Tertullianus aliter, quam conjectura, pronuntiavit, quia scilicet nihil ab ejus brevitate metuendum haeretico fuisse crederet; hoc enim sibi velle Tertullianum, satis, opinor, clarum est *). Miror tamen, pergit Tertullianus, quum ad unum hominem factas litteras receperit, quid ad Timotheum duas et unam ad Titum de ecclesiastico statu compositas recusaverit“. Manifesta ironia est, quam dicendi figuram frequentissimam esse Tertulliano, omnes norunt. Nempe mirum prorsus esse dicit, recusasse Marcionem epistolas, ad ecclesiam universam pertinentes, cum epistolium ad unum hominem scriptum recipere non dubitasset, scilicet haec omnia, ut significaret, aliud quid causae subesse, cur has maxime epistolas recusaverit, cam nempe quam sine verborum ambagibus Clemens Alex, attulit, atque ex eo hauserunt recentiorum criticorum plerique”. Verum ea certe Tertulliani conjectura falsissima fuerat. Nam quod psvöóv. yvöouv nominat Apostolus, Marcionem certe a recipiendis istis epistolis absterrere nullo modo potuit, cum certe suam yvöouv haud psvöóvvuov crederet*, yvöoug autem, quam vituperat Apostolus, manifeste Judaica sit (1 Tim 1, 7. Titus 1, 10. sq.), quae legem Mosaicam non admitteret tantum, sed and sancte pie observatam vellet. Nam, quod multi jam doctissimorum doctissimorum hominum indigitarunt, repeti autem satis non potest, multo latius, ac plerique credunt, nomen illius philosophiae patuit, cum tota ista philosophandi ratio diversissimarum opinionum etiam natura sua patientissima esset; unde efficitur, mirum haud esse, ipsos etiam Mosaicae legis defensores Gnosticorum nomine comprehendi. Hanc ipsam autem judaicam yvGouv nemo Marcione vehementius oppugnavit. Igitur hanc certe ob causam epp. ad Tim. et Titum non rejecit. Quamcumque autem aliam excogitaveris, ex argumento epistolarum, Marcioni infesto, haustam', eluditur ipso Tertulliani testimonio, cui si fides est, locis illis, ipsi contrariis, eerte alia ratione, quam totarum epistolarum rejectione, mederi Marcio poterat. Sin aliam (quae quidem unice probabilis est) rationem excogitaveris, ideo exclusas fuisse illas epistolas, quod, ut ait Tertullianus, de ecclesiastico statu compositae essent, ideoque ad coetum ipsum, eui destinatus erat apostolicus ille codex haud pertimere viderentur Marcioni, id profecto multo magis valiturum credo de epistolio ad Philemonem, quod multo etiam pauciora, quae communis vtilitatis essent, continebat. Apparet igitur, quicquid de numero epistolarum a Marcione receptarum referat Tertullianus, non ex ipsa eodicis illius notitia profeetum esse. Namque aut admiserat epp. ad Tim. et Titum, quod negat Tertullianus, aut excluserat, certe nulla alia de causa, quam quae etiam epistolium ad Philemonem exclusisset, quod receptum tamen affirmat idem Tertullianus.

Google English Translation.

In the first rank, forces, and what it is that he wholly followed the order of Marcius, in the codex at his disposal, the only persons of the fame of Epiphanius, he himself confesses, that he knows this. He is well known for a long time to be able to Tertullian, who in a book against Marcion. had been followed by the order of the same one that is heretical the fifth in the, upbraiding them from the letters of Paullina, whom Epiphanius: the recounting of the exhibits, the Epistle to the Philippians, except it be that she show preference for these things, a note to Philemon. Tertullian was never Marcion had been preserved by the order stated. Then the Code or its order, or what is more likely, which is suspected of Marcion, thought to have been followed. It is easy, however, in the following order of to fall he could, that he was, as he himself says, the principal against the Judaism a letter her father would Martius, over which the Epistle to the Galatians was written, thus also from the latter his refuting the beginning would have to act, and the other of the greatness of the nature of the order, that follow each other except Him, are to follow .

As regards the number of the letter which he wrote letters to Timothy and Titus, is found by him, rejected, and he tells the story, Tertullian, and, from that in which a thing some time ago was able it to become known, St. Epiphanius. And he was on the very account-book of Marcion had seen, of the letters from him exclusarum though knowledge were not proved by the fact, having said this, but it certainly has been able to know, to make yourselves among the people, constantly turning over the letters they receive it constantly turning over him shut them out he is a heretic. In fact, the knowledge of conjectures may be that I ought to do all this, he could meet, from Marcion to have been able to receive them, not for letters, which are pevòóvvuov yvóσιν were attacking, he concludes in these terms. It is a certain irony on the side under the meaning of it, by which he shut the book, for the fifth time against Marcion, seemed to me hardly to control, but that, I declare. Only this one ,, you letter (talks concerning a letter to this Philemon) brevity profited as falsifying hands of Marcion lighter. (The epistle to Philemon is an apostolic Marcionis existed, much less venture to determine what letters Tim. Titus. Neither does the fact Tertullian, other than conjecture, he asserted, because nothing away from its brief worried that speed was believed to be an unwillingness Tertullian, was, I think, clear). I wonder, however, continues to Tertullian, when any one man receiving what two to Timothy and one to Titus concerning the ecclesiastical compound has refused. " Now the irony is more than a figure of recurring Tertullian that everybody knows. Of course, the surprise exactly no matter what object Marcion letters to church all relevant with the letter to one person had written no doubt that these things come to signify something else is there, why these particular letters refusing the cam is that no ambiguous words Clement Alex, she brought it, have drunk deeply of modern critic of most of them, and from him ". But it certainly had TERTULLIANI erroneous facts. For the fact that psvöóv. yvöouv call St Paul, Marcion, at least from receiving these letters repel you could never be sure when he yvöouv psvöóvvuov not believe it, but yvöoug than the Apostle, can clearly be derived (1 Tim 1: 7 Titus 1, 10 sq.) the Mosaic law, which he did not admit so much, and of the holy, but devoutly observed in that place she wanted to. For God has done already many of the most learned of the most learned of men, indigitarunt, it can be recovered, however, can not be sufficient, it is much more widely, and many people believe, the name of that philosophy has been made clear, by its very nature, too, with the greatest patience all that in all those opinions, it would be of very different nature of philosophizing; and its effect is, it was strange not to be, we can be comprehended by the name of the Gnostics, too, the defenders of the Mosaic Law. It is precisely this he laid siege to the Jewish yvGouv no one more deeply into Marcion. So at least for this reason app. Tim. and Titus, and hath not turned away. Now, no matter, however, no other plans, we can argue from of the letters, to Marcion, and marched in hostile, she drew for ', a mock, by the testimony of Tertullian himself; so if there is a belief of those places, they, to the contrary, criterion for any other reason, than the tidings brought of the letters of the rejection, Marcius, was able to find a cure. If not (which is entirely likely) the plans, so excluded were those letters, which, as Tertullian said, concerning the ecclesiastical composed, and therefore the company itself, whose destination was apostolic pad not afraid to seem Marcion, it is certainly much more I believe that moving from a letter to this Philemon is far too few for the common benefit would be contained. It appears, therefore, that whatever has reference to the number of letters were received from Marcion, Tertullian, of that the data are not collected from the entire codicis Strive to be. For either had stooped with tpp. Tim. and Titus, and that he denies that Tertullian, has excluded, or, at all events for no other reason, than those which come letter, to Philemon and been shut out, that what is received, however, Tertullian affirms the same.
“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: 12430
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Friedrich Schelling Dissertation de Marcione Paullinarum Epistolarum emendatore - No One Saw the Marcionite Canon

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:03 pm

I think I found my Latin translator.
“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