Why I Don't Believe the Church Fathers About Marcion

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11407
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Why I Don't Believe the Church Fathers About Marcion

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Dec 08, 2019 9:25 pm

Here is the state of affairs in point form
1. Irenaeus says the fourfold gospel is part of a perfect canon that has to be read together in order to know the truth
2. Irenaeus says the heretics were so-called because the 'chose' to ignore the whole of the scriptures and picked only a smaller part which they agreed with
3. Irenaeus says Marcion seized Luke and corrupted it according to his beliefs
4. Tertullian says Marcion stole Luke and corrupted it and cites from Luke against the Marcionites
5. Tertullian implies that Marcion had Acts before him but chose to ignore it
6. Tertullian says Marcion stole his collection of the Pauline letters we know from other sources was called 'the Apostolic' and cites Galatians-first collection of the Pauline letters against the Marcionites
7. Irenaeus and Tertullian designate Luke as an 'apostolic,' a subordinate figure to a full apostle
8. Epiphanius explicitly says the Marcionite canon was Galatians-first and says that he has that text in his possession
9. Tertullian never explicitly says that he is citing from the Marcionite canon.
10. Tertullian says that he will cite from the orthodox canon because that way it will be easy to show what the Marcionites corrupted
11. Irenaeus twice makes ambiguous statements which seem to dovetail with (10) for instance - "Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains" (3.9.11) and " Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all; and, curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these are alone authentic, which they have themselves thus shortened. In another work, however, I shall, God granting [me strength], refute them out of these which they still retain."
12. What is odd about Irenaeus's statement is that it echoes the line of attack in Tertullian's Against Marcion - "Let Marcion's eraser be ashamed of itself: except that it is superfluous for me to discuss the passages he has left out, since my case is stronger if he is shown wrong by those he has retained (5.4) "And how is it that this severe critic of the Galatians retains the rule of the law by premising that in three witnesses every word shall be established" (ibid) "That is Isaiah's: and what follows is from that same prophet's indenture: For who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor? Who hath offered a gift to him, and it shall be recompensed to him again ?g When you took away so much from the scriptures, why did you retain this, as though this too were not the Creator's? (5.14) and in the previous book "that gospel of Luke which we at this moment retain has stood firm since its earliest publication, whereas Marcion's is to most people not even known (4.5) "certainly that is why he has expunged all the things that oppose his view, that are in accord with the Creator, on the plea that they have been woven in by his partisans; but has retained those that accord with his opinion. These it is we shall call to account, with these we shall grapple, to see if they will favour my case, not his, to see if they will put a check on Marcion's pretensions. Then it will become clear that these things have been expunged by the same disease of heretical blindness by which the others have been retained." (4.6)
13. Most scholars see a connection between (11) and (12). However many of them merely say that Tertullian 'completed' the work that Irenaeus only promised to make. But we have no reason to believe that Irenaeus's didn't write that work. Surely he wrote lots of treatises that didn't survive. As such the easiest way to explain the similarity between (11) and (12) is that Irenaeus wrote that work and it was incorporated into Tertullian's Against Marcion.
14. If Tertullian borrowed from Irenaeus's lost work then we have to take a careful look at the formula again from (11). I will refute them out of the passages which they still retain. For most people this statement implies that Irenaeus had someway of determining what passages from Luke Marcion retained. As such we say 'it must have been the case' that Irenaeus had before him Marcion's canon. Otherwise he couldn't know if they retained them or not.
15. But Tertullian hardly says that Marcion erased anything from the orthodox canon and in most cases he refers to things from Matthew and Mark. So it would stand to reason by this logic that aside from the beginning of Luke and three or four other instances Marcion's gospel is exactly like Luke.
16. The difficulty here is that the list of things deleted in Tertullian and Epiphanius don't match. So in no way can we understand that Tertullian tells us or even knows all of the differences that exist between Luke and the gospel of Marcion. How then does Irenaeus and by implication Tertullian promise us even a rough approximation of 'those passages which Marcion still retains.' As Schelling suspects Tertullian must have simply gone through Luke and the Pauline Epistles and guessed or assumed which passages might have served Marcion's purposes.
17. It is worth noting that the idea that a group established their gospel by means of stealing another communities text was first established by Clement of Alexandria when he writes "Carpocrates, instructed by [demons] and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians." At the very least the idea that a community stole their gospel from the 'orthodox' is a common trope in the age. It is interesting to note that it is difficult to know whether or not Clement actually knows to what degree they altered the text of Secret Mark.
18. We must imagine that both Irenaeus and Tertullian approached the situation with regards to the Marcionite gospel and Luke in the same way. They simply assumed there must have been corruptions and so identified passages they may have corrupted or taken an interest in or - as in the case with Secret Mark - were responding to things Marcionites said or things people said the Marcionites declared about their gospel.
19. The perfect parallel is the many times Tertullian accuses Marcion of erasing things from Matthew and Mark. On the one hand, if the text of Against Marcion ultimately came from something Irenaeus wrote it would stand to reason that the argument develops from the notion that because Marcion only 'chose' (i.e. the etymological root of 'heresy') Luke at the expense of the others, he 'expunged' this or that saying from Matthew or Mark. If that is the case then we can see how a person making this sort of argument wouldn't have to had the Marcionite canon in his possession. 'Expunged' here is the equivalent to 'ignored' or 'had to ignore.'
20. Compare that Clement says about the first passage he cites from Secret Mark - "After these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him", and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found." So in this case Clement does not have the Carpocratian gospel in his possession. He is responding to someone telling him what the Carpocratians say about Secret Mark. He earlier accused the Carpocratians of tampering with the text but clearly has no idea what is in the Carpocratian gospel. So how can he say they stole the gospel or how can he say that they altered its contents? Church Fathers are unreliable.
21. Any time a Church Father says that a rival tradition 'stole' a text originally held by them it is unlikely the other tradition stole the text. Whenever a Church Father accused another tradition of tampering with a text it is unlikely that they had access to that text so it is unlikely they will be able to produce all of the differences that exist between their text and those of their opponents. The Samaritans had no idea what was in the Jewish Pentateuch and vice versa. The rabbinic references to the LXX are laughable. It is unlikely that anyone in antiquity would get a hold of a rival traditions scripture and spend the time to go through that text. It just never happens in antiquity. The ancients were content to ridicule their opponents and argue out of their own texts.
“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: 11407
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why I Don't Believe the Church Fathers About Marcion

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:46 pm

Examples that contemporary traditions argued against their opponents from their own canon of scriptures rather than that of their opponents:
22. When Christians argue against the Jews they argue from the LXX not the Hebrew text.
23. When Eznik argues against the Marcionites understanding of Jewish scripture he cites from the LXX even after saying the Marcionites prefer the Hebrew
24. For most of De Recta in Deum Fide the orthodox representative cites from his own canon when debating the Marcionite representative. There are two scriptures cited from the Marcionite Apostolikon.
24. In b Sanhedrin 90b we see a very similar debate at a very similar time (mid second century) about a very similar topic that early Christianity debated at that time - the resurrection of the dead. "It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: With this following matter, I refuted the books of the Samaritans, as they would say that there is no source for the resurrection of the dead from the Torah. I said to them: You falsified your torah and you accomplished nothing, as you say there is no source for the resurrection of the dead from the Torah, and the Torah states: “That soul shall be excised; his iniquity shall be upon him” (Numbers 15:31). You interpret the phrase “that soul shall be excised” to mean that a sinner will be punished with death in this world. If so, with regard to the phrase “his iniquity shall be upon him,” for when is that destined to be? Is it not for the World-to-Come, i.e., the world as it will exist after the resurrection of the dead? Apparently, there is a World-to-Come and there is an allusion to it in the Torah." The Samaritan Patriarch then is made to make an extraordinary reference to the Jewish Psalms which the Samaritans never used " a question. He said: I know that the dead will live, as it is written: “And may they blossom out of the city like grass of the earth” (Psalms 72:16). Just as grass grows, so too, the dead will come to life. But when they arise, will they arise naked or will they arise with their garments? Rabbi Meir said to him: It is derived a fortiori from wheat. If wheat, which is buried naked, meaning that the kernel is sown without the chaff, emerges with several garments of chaff, all the more so will the righteous, who are buried with their garments, arise with their garments." cf Pummmer https://books.google.com/books?id=5RVAC ... 22&f=false Kippenberg, Garizim, 141, citing Billerbeck and Strack, Kommentar, I.552. See W. Bacher, who in theory fixes rabbinic biographical chronology by the insertion, arguing (1) R. Meir could not
talk to Cleopatra and (2) elsewhere, R. Meir does have this same discussion with Samaritans. See W. Bacher, “Rabbi Meier and ‘Cleopatra’,” JQR 2 (1890): 188. Of course a Samaritan Patriarch would not cite from the Psalms. Sanhedrin 90b is an example of (a) the emptiness of accusations of textual emendation and (b) the misrepresentation of the position of 'heretics' in such accounts.
25. The debate between R Meir and the Samaritan Patriarch in Genesis Rabba "A Samaritan asked R. Meir: 'Is it possible that the upper water is suspended by [God's] word?' 'Yes he answered. 'Bring me a water-clock' he added. When he brought it, he placed a gold plate upon it, but the water did not stand still; then a silver plate, but the water did not stand still. But as soon as he placed his finger [upon the aperture], the water stood still. 'But you have put your finger there/ he [the Samaritan] objected. — 'If my finger stays the water, though I am but flesh and blood, how much more so the finger of the Holy One, blessed be He ! Hence the upper waters are suspended by [God's] word.' Said he [the Samaritan] to him: 'Is it possible that He of whom it is written, Do I not fill heaven and earth? (Jer. xxiii, 24) spoke to Moses from between the two staves of the Ark ? ' 'Bring me a large mirror said he. When he brought it he said to him, 'Look at your reflection/ and he saw it, large. 'Bring me a small mirror.' He brought it. 'See your reflection in it/ He saw it, small. 'If you, who are but flesh and blood/ said he, 'can change yourself at will, how much more so He at whose word the world came into existence! Thus when He so wishes, "Do I not fill heaven and earth?'\ while when He wishes, He speaks to Moses from between the staves of the Ark.' R. Ania b. Susay said: At times the world and its fullness cannot contain His glory, yet at times He speaks to man from between the hairs of his head, as it is written, Then the Lord answered Job out of the sa'arah — 'whirlwind' which means, from between the hairs (sa'aroth) of his head. Said he [the Samaritan] to him : ' Is it possible that The river of God is full of water (Ps. lxv, 10) since the six days of Creation and has not been diminished at all : it is incredible ! ' 3 ' Go in and bathe, and weigh yourself before you enter and after you have gone in,' replied he. He went and weighed himself, and his weight had not diminished at all. Said he to him: 'Now all that perspiration, did it not ooze from you?' 'Yes,' answered he. 'Then if your fountain [of perspiration] did not in any way diminish, though you are but a mere mortal, how much the more is this true of the fountain of the Holy One, blessed be He! Hence "The river of God is full of water" since the six days of Creation, and it has not diminished at all." Clearly Samaritans don't use Jeremiah and Psalms
“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: 11407
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why I Don't Believe the Church Fathers About Marcion

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:59 pm

The idea that Tertullian was so restrained that he took the time to argue from the canon of the heretics goes against everything about the self-centered-ness of ancient people. The rabbinic tradition is so narcissistic that it retells history as if everyone in antiquity was 'speaking' scripture:
26. In Sanhedrin 91 " The Sages taught in Megillat Ta’anit: On the twenty-fourth day in Nisan it is a joyous day, since the usurpers [dimusana’ei] were expelled from Judea and Jerusalem. When the people of Afrikiya came to judgment with the Jewish people before the emperor, Alexander of Macedon, they said to him: The land of Canaan is ours, as it is written: “This is the land that shall fall to you as an inheritance, the land of Canaan according to its borders” (Numbers 34:2). And the people of Afrikiya said, referring to themselves: Canaan is the forefather of these people. Geviha ben Pesisa said to the Sages: Give me permission and I will go and deliberate with them before Alexander of Macedon. If they will defeat me, say to them: You have defeated an ordinary person from among us, and until you overcome our Sages, it is no victory. And if I will defeat them, say to them: The Torah of Moses defeated you, and attribute no significance to me. The Sages gave him permission, and he went and deliberated with them. Geviha ben Pesisa said to them: From where are you citing proof that the land of Canaan is yours? They said to him: From the Torah. Geviha ben Pesisa said to them: I too will cite proof to you only from the Torah, as it is stated: “And he said: Cursed will be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brethren” (Genesis 9:25). And with regard to a slave who acquired property, the slave belongs to whom and the property belongs to whom? The slave and his property belong to the master. And moreover, it is several years now that you have not served us. Therefore, not only are you not entitled to the land, there are additional debts that must be repaid, as well as a return to enslavement. Alexander the king said to the people of Afrikiya: Provide Geviha ben Pesisa with a response to his claims. They said to Alexander: Give us time; give us three days to consider the matter. The emperor gave them the requested time and they examined the matter and did not find a response to the claims. Immediately, they fled and abandoned their fields when they were sown and their vineyards when they were planted. The Gemara adds: And since that year was a Sabbatical Year, with the accompanying restrictions on agricultural activity, this benefited the Jewish people, as they were able to consume the produce of those fields and vineyards. The Gemara relates: On another occasion, the people of Egypt came to judgment with the Jewish people before Alexander of Macedon. The Egyptian people said to Alexander: It says in the Torah: “And the Lord gave the people favor in the eyes of Egypt, and they lent them” (Exodus 12:36). Give us the silver and gold that you took from us; you claimed that you were borrowing it and you never returned it. Geviha ben Pesisa said to the Sages: Give me permission and I will go and deliberate with them before Alexander of Macedon. If they will defeat me, say to them: You have defeated an ordinary person from among us, and until you overcome our Sages, it is no victory. And if I will defeat them, say to them: The Torah of Moses, our teacher, defeated you, and attribute no significance to me. The Sages gave him permission, and he went and deliberated with them. Geviha ben Pesisa said to them: From where are you citing proof that you are entitled to the silver and gold? They said to him: From the Torah. Geviha ben Pesisa said to them: I too will cite proof to you only from the Torah, as it is stated: “And the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years” (Exodus 12:40), during which they were enslaved to Egypt, engaged in hard manual labor. Give us the wages for the work performed by the 600,000 men above the age of twenty (see Exodus 12:37) whom you enslaved in Egypt for four hundred and thirty years. Alexander of Macedon said to the people of Egypt: Provide Geviha ben Pesisa with a response to his claims. They said to him: Give us time; give us three days to consider the matter. The emperor gave them the requested time and they examined the matter and did not find a response to the claims. Immediately, they abandoned their fields when they were sown and their vineyards when they were planted, and fled. The Gemara adds: And that year was a Sabbatical Year. The Gemara relates: And on another occasion, the descendants of Ishmael and the descendants of Keturah came to judgment with the Jewish people before Alexander of Macedon. They said to the Jewish people before Alexander: The land of Canaan is both ours and yours, as it is written: “And these are the generations of Ishmael, son of Abraham, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s maidservant, bore unto Abraham” (Genesis 25:12), and it is written: “And these are the generations of Isaac, son of Abraham” (Genesis 25:19). Therefore, the land should be divided between Abraham’s heirs. Geviha ben Pesisa said to the Sages: Give me permission and I will go and deliberate with them before Alexander of Macedon. If they will defeat me, say to them: You have defeated an ordinary person from among us, and until you overcome our Sages, it is no victory. And if I will defeat them, say to them: The Torah of Moses, our teacher, defeated you, and attribute no significance to me. The Sages gave him permission, and he went and deliberated with them.
The point isn't just that this history is nonsense - it demonstrates just how self-centered ancient people were. The rabbis created a version of history where everyone - that is the whole world outside of the synagogue - was wholly devoted to scripture. Everyone in the world is 'talking in scripture' is concerned with Biblical passages to the level of the rabbis themselves. As such this demonstrates that it was entirely possible that Christians - Irenaeus or Tertullian - could have argued against the Marcionites from the orthodox canon.
“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: 11407
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why I Don't Believe the Church Fathers About Marcion

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Dec 08, 2019 11:05 pm

27. the example of Polycarp citing the Pastorals (which the Marcionites rejected) against the Marcionites: There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou recognize me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."
The text of Irenaeus was originally different than what is preserved in Against Marcion. As it stands It is implied that Titus 3:10's admonition was fulfilled by Polycarp's rebuff of Marcion. But the text of Titus 3:10 specifies a second chance and Polycarp is referenced as only giving Marcion one. We know from other works of Irenaeus that are preserved in Tertullian that the original material was preserved with out the " et alteram."
We need not dwell longer on this point, since it is the same Paul who also in another place, when writing to the Galatians, classes heresies among carnal sins, and who warns Titus3 that a man that is an heretic must be avoided after the first admonition, because he that is such has become perverted and sins, being self-condemned. [Prescription 6]
I MIGHT be bringing forward this objection from
a want of confidence, or from a wish to enter upon
the case in dispute in a different manner from the
heretics, were not a reason to be found at the outset
in that our Faith owes obedience to the Apostle
who forbids us to enter into questionings, or to
lend our ears to novel sayings, or to associate with
a heretic after one admonition 1—he does not say
after discussion. Indeed, he forbade discussion by
fixing on admonition as the reason for meeting a
heretic. And he mentions this one admonition,
because a heretic is not a Christian, and to prevent
his appearing worthy of being, like a Christian,2
censured once and again in the presence of two
or three witnesses; since he is to be censured for
the same reason that he is not to be disputed with
—because argumentative contests about the Scrip-
tures profit nothing, save of course to upset the
stomach or the brain.[ibid 16]
Clearly then Tertullian preserves the original text of Irenaeus that were altered by later standards of orthodoxy and vice versa. So Tertullian's text of Against Marcion has been corrected when dealing with Galatians 2:5 in Against Marcion 5 to make it seem to agree with our own but the main body of the text outside the inserted text makes clear the text says that he did submit to the authorities - like Irenaeus.
“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

davidmartin
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Why I Don't Believe the Church Fathers About Marcion

Post by davidmartin » Mon Dec 09, 2019 2:28 am

Dude, check this out..
Marcion got his teaching from 'Cerdo' so it's said

Cerdo is obviously not a proper name but a hit job title meaning vixen or weasel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerdo_(mythology))
It's obvious Cerdo is a female and probably relates to the gnostic Marcellina (From Latin Marcellina, feminine of Marcellinus, derived from Marcellus)
Another link to the name 'Marcion'

Whatever we know of as 'Marcion' is some distant relative maybe of this

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11407
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why I Don't Believe the Church Fathers About Marcion

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:28 am

My point was to note that while we would have the ability to write something from the perspective of another person or another tradition - what we might call 'cultural sensitivity' - I am not sure that ancient writers and especially not ancient religious writers had a natural capacity for. It reminds me of the manner in which white Americans portrayed black Americans in whiteface. They could never lose their perspective as 'whites' as to what blacks thought or felt. I honestly wonder whether it was drug use in the 1960s which changed this in American culture. My father used to call it (in his half-broken English 'sensitivity' or fingerspitzengefühl. That you try and empathize with another person and see things from their perspective. I think having lived in Hitler's Germany he understood the dangers of hubris.

When you see the Church Fathers attack without mercy the POV or the tradition of the Marcionites, when they lack any empathy or 'sensitivity' to make sense of why the Marcionites believe what they believe, why should we believe that when they claim to give us their reading of the New Testament? I mean that sincerely. If I have a friend who I know jumps on women and practically rapes them in bed, and that friend comes up to me and says 'hey I like your sister' could I - as a loyal brother looking out for my sister's best interests - say 'yeah I'll put a good word in for you'? No of course not. Why? How do I know that my friend is going to abuse my sister? I don''t have fortune telling ability. I can't claim to know the know the future. But by virtue of the fact that he seems to have no respect or empathy for women I can determine it would be a bad idea for my sister to date that boy.

In the same way, we can't know for certain that Tertullian isn't giving us a fair representation of what the Marcionites believe. But judging by the insensitive statements that he makes and the kinds of things Irenaeus - his source for much of Against Marcion - makes about Marcionites, it seems very unlikely that Against Marcion isn't a rape attempt against the Marcionite tradition.
“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: 11407
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why I Don't Believe the Church Fathers About Marcion

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:32 am

Cerdo is obviously not a proper name but a hit job title meaning vixen or weasel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerdo_(mythology)). There is a lot of overlap that I can see between the debates between pagan and Jewish fathers and early Christian writings. One of them is the stock character of the 'fox' which appears at the beginning, middle and end of Book 1 of Against Heresies and various 'fox parables' of R Meir. It appears to me at least that 'cerdo' could well have been another example of this early orthodox-rabbinic crossover:
OPINIONS: Rebbi Yochanan (end of 38b) says that Rebbi Meir taught three hundred parables involving foxes, and we have only three of them. These three parables are based on three verses: "Fathers will eat unripe grapes and the teeth of the sons will be blunted" Yechezkel (18:2); "Just balances, just weights, [a just Efah, and a just Hin, shall you have; I am Hash-m your G-d, Who brought you out of the land of Mitzrayim]" (Vayikra 19:36); "The righteous one is removed from trouble, and the wicked one comes in his place" (Mishlei 11:8).

What, though, are the three parables?

(a) RASHI explains that the three parables involve a fox who tricked a wolf. The fox told the wolf to enter the courtyard of a Jewish home and help the Jews prepare for Shabbos, and in return they would let him join them for the Shabbos meals. The wolf was persuaded and he entered the courtyard to help the Jews prepare for Shabbos. However, upon seeing the wolf, the Jews immediately beat him and chased him away with sticks. The wolf wanted to kill the fox, but the fox told the wolf, "They have nothing against you. Rather, they hit you because of what your father did. He once helped the Jews prepare a meal, but he ate all of the fine meat himself." When the wolf commented how it was unfair that he should be punished for the deeds of his father, the fox quoted the verse, "Fathers will eat unripe grapes and the teeth of the sons will be blunted," which means that sons must suffer for the sins of their fathers.

The fox then advised the wolf to come with him to a place that has lots of food to eat. The fox took him to a well. Extended across the top of the well was a wooden rod with two buckets attached to opposite ends of a rope that was wrapped around the wood. The fox jumped into one of the buckets and descended down into the well, as the other bucket rose to the top. The wolf asked the fox, "Why did you go into the well?"

The fox replied, "There is meat and cheese to eat," and he showed him in the water the reflection of the moon, telling him that it was actually a piece of cheese. "How can I come down?" asked the wolf. The fox told him to jump into the other bucket. The wolf followed the advice of the fox, and his heavy weight caused him to descend into the well while it caused the other bucket in which the fox was sitting to rise. At the top of the well, the fox jumped out of the bucket. "How can I get back up?" asked the wolf. The fox replied with the verse in Mishlei, "The righteous one is removed from trouble, and the wicked one comes in his place!" The fox added, "Does it not say, 'Just balances, just weights?'"

The MAHARSHA asks that according to Rashi, there are only two parables, and not three, but the Gemara mentions three parables.
“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
GakuseiDon
Posts: 843
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Why I Don't Believe the Church Fathers About Marcion

Post by GakuseiDon » Mon Dec 09, 2019 5:59 pm

Tertullian demolishes Marcion so thoroughly, that I can't believe that Tertullian was playing fair.
The idea that Tertullian was so restrained that he took the time to argue from the canon of the heretics goes against everything about the self-centered-ness of ancient people.
Perhaps put it down to human nature? I can't recall the number of times that people have misinterpreted my arguments, and then argued against that misinterpretation. And then simply continued to argue on those points, despite me pointing out that they are misinterpretations. On the other hand, I've done the same thing unwittingly. It's called Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence."
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11407
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why I Don't Believe the Church Fathers About Marcion

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Dec 09, 2019 7:31 pm

You bring up a good point. Could I really argue with a Samaritan from the Samaritan Pentateuch and really hope to win? Is it reasonable to suppose that I am so much smarter than everyone else that I could beat a tradition? Very unlikely. Thank you. Excellent observation.

I've always been the kind of person who thinks that everyone's life makes sense from their POV. I never claim to know better how to live someone else's life.
“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