Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by MrMacSon »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:48 pm You seem to be, possibly, interpreting me as saying that Origen is evidence that Marcion and Valentinus corrupted the gospels.
That is not what I was saying. I was saying that Origen is evidence of a concern among other Christians, in addition to Justin, about the texts used by Marcionites and Valentinians. Origen could have mentioned other sects or teachers, but he focuses on those of Marcion and Valentinus, substantiating the idea that in the second century those loomed largest as competitors to the likes of Justin (and that their texts competed with Justin's memoir-gospels).
  • I just saw this —
Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian.
as an account of Origen's knowledge; though it's fairly explicit, ie. "I know of no others...", as is —
But such an allegation is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with the Gospels.

Yet, it's almost certain the whole system was doing it, ie. altering and rewriting texts and tropes, etc., as the theology was evolving.

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:48 pm The connection between Origen's Lucian and Lucian of Samosata is uncertain to me. I just haven't found any better alternative. If so, though, Origen is playing very loose with his "those of" language. It's certainly odd to describe Peregrinus this way.
  • Yes, I appreciated that. But I have a feeling many of those who were commenting (eg. person A) were often aware of other commentators, and I'm interested in the idea that some (eg. person A) used other authors as entities or characters in their commentaries.

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:48 pm While an allegation here by Origen against "those of" Marcion and Valentinus doesn't clearly include those two specifically, I wouldn't lean too heavily on an interpretation of Origen where he's excluding them either. There's obviously a parallel between "those of" language (equivalent to our words "Marcionites" and "Valentinians") and "Christians," from Celsus.
  • I agree.

My main focus was on

"...certain of the Christian believers...have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections.

  • I think that is a pretty good support for the propositions of Markus Vinzent and Matthias Klinghardt that the canonical gospel authors (and others) 'corrupted' a pre-existing gospel (whether it was 'Marcion's' or not; and, if it was Marcion's, regardless of whether he wrote it or not)
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by hakeem »

MrMacSon wrote:

My main focus was on

"...certain of the Christian believers...have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections.

  • I think that is a pretty good support for the propositions of Markus Vinzent and Matthias Klinghardt that the canonical gospel authors (and others) 'corrupted' a pre-existing gospel (whether it was 'Marcion's' or not; and, if it was Marcion's, regardless of whether he wrote it or not)
It is extremely ironic and laughable that Origen would claim that it was the followers of Marcion, Valentinus and Lucian who corrupted the Gospels when the very same NT Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John used by Origen are themselves perfect examples of Christians writers corrupting their own Gospels.

There are four contradicting versions of the Gospels in the NT Canon in the hands of Origen yet he puts forward the BS that "I know of no others who have altered the Gospel".

Origen's "Against Celsus 2.27
I know of no others who have altered the Gospel....

What utter rubbish.
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by arnoldo »

hakeem wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:31 pm
MrMacSon wrote:

My main focus was on

"...certain of the Christian believers...have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections.

  • I think that is a pretty good support for the propositions of Markus Vinzent and Matthias Klinghardt that the canonical gospel authors (and others) 'corrupted' a pre-existing gospel (whether it was 'Marcion's' or not; and, if it was Marcion's, regardless of whether he wrote it or not)
It is extremely ironic and laughable that Origen would claim that it was the followers of Marcion, Valentinus and Lucian who corrupted the Gospels when the very same NT Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John used by Origen are themselves perfect examples of Christians writers corrupting their own Gospels.
Celus allegedly claims something similar.

[Celsus] accuses [Jesus] of having "invented his birth from a virgin," and upbraids Him with being "born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God."...
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/celsus2.html

hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by hakeem »

Celsus admitted there were discrepancies in the Gospels which is evidence that it was not the so-called heretics who altered the Gospels but Christian writers themselves.

Against Celsus 2.32
And now, in finding fault with our Lord's genealogy, there are certain points which occasion some difficulty even to Christians, and which, owing to the discrepancy between the genealogies, are advanced by some as arguments against their correctness, but which Celsus has not even mentioned. For Celsus, who is truly a braggart, and who professes to be acquainted with all matters relating to Christianity, does not know how to raise doubts in a skilful manner against the credibility of Scripture.

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by Peter Kirby »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 8:29 pm My main focus was on

"...certain of the Christian believers...have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections.

  • I think that is a pretty good support for the propositions of Markus Vinzent and Matthias Klinghardt that the canonical gospel authors (and others) 'corrupted' a pre-existing gospel (whether it was 'Marcion's' or not; and, if it was Marcion's, regardless of whether he wrote it or not)
Is it clear to you that Celsus is implying that the first gospel was not Matthew, or, Mark, or one of the other canonicals?

It's not clear to me. It's also not clear to me that Celsus has any opinion at all on which gospel came first. Celsus doesn't need to know which gospel came first to make the deductions he did. And Origen doesn't quote Celsus regarding which gospel came first. Celsus can figure out from the multiplicity of gospels and from their contradictions that they've been "corrupted" from their "original integrity." And Celsus regards, as Christian believers, all of those who use gospels, including Marcionites, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by Peter Kirby »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:18 am PS - The only explanation I have of the "Lucian" reference is that it refers to Peregrinus in Lucian of Samosata:
Or it could be Lucian, supposed to be a disciple of Marcion... which makes a little more sense.

Hippolytus has a mention of a Lucian:

(7.25)
And Marcion corroborated the tenet of this (heretic) in the work which he attempted to write, and which he styled Antitheses. And he was in the habit, (in this book,) of uttering whatever slanders suggested themselves to his mind against the Creator of the universe. In a similar manner likewise (acted) Lucian, the disciple of this (heretic).
Epiphanius mentions Lucianists in his book 43:
"For
he was a companion of Marcion’s,2
formed a society himself by detaching
it from Marcion, and founded his own sect. The Lucianists, as the ancient
ones were called, derived from him.
1,3 His doctrines are like Marcion’s in every way; but I have been told,
and my impression of him is, < that he has only the New Testament. I do
not know, however, whether he tampers with the Gospel like Marcion. >
For to tell the truth, as these people were ancient and were snuffed out in
short order, it has been diffi cult for me to track them down. The partial
knowledge of his doctrines that I have is this:
1,4 After supposedly establishing that the demiurge, judge and just
God is one God, but that the good God, likewise, is another and the evil
God is someone else, Lucian, like Marcion, also likes to cite certain texts
from the scripture of the prophets in support of his opinion. The ones I
mean are, “Vain is he that serveth the Lord,”3
and, “They withstood God
and were delivered.”4
1,5 Over and beyond the teaching5
of his master he rejects marriage
entirely and teaches celibacy not for celibacy’s sake, but to refuse assent
to the works of the demiurge. He teaches that people should refrain from
marriage in opposition to the prospering of the demiurge through procreation in the world—“From this matrimony,” he says, “prosperity accrues
to the demiurge through procreation in the world.”6
1,6 But he will be detected for what he is, and refuted by the opposition which I have already offered his master, since I have given his rebuttal
and refutation with many arguments: in what kinds of passages, and how
many of them, the Gospel agrees with the Old Testament; (7) how our Lord
himself acknowledges both that the making of the world is his very own
and that the creation is his Father’s—above all, to sum up, with a crowning
argument found in St. John, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by him, and
without him was not anything made that was made,”7
and the rest.
2,1 But he himself can certainly be refuted at once. For though he may
like to say that the bond of matrimony is refused for the sake of opposing
the things the demiurge has made and refusing assent to them so as not to
cooperate with the demiurge—thus keeping entirely away from the work
of the demiurge—how can his opinion be anything but irrational, easy
to detect, and refutable at once? (2) For observe, the tramp and charlatan
solicits the loan both of food and clothing, both drinkables and edibles,
from creation and the handiwork of the demiurge, and there is no way he
can avoid these things and make no use of them.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by Stuart »

Celsus merely is saying Christian scribes were adjusting the NT books in his day. These are likely minor changes like the non-Western interpolations to counter doecetic opinions. But they non the less point to less than stable and anything but closed texts in the late 2nd century.

If you share the radical view on dating, that is accept that the NT is largely a 2nd century construction, with perhaps some 3rd century bits here and there, then Celsus more or less confirms that dating opinion. He doesn't weigh in at all on the gospel order, nor do I think he cared.

Gospel order, besides the Marcionite debate, grew out of debate about how to bind together books in the NT, after there was a general destruction of the majority of manuscripts and new ones had to be written to replace all those lost in churches. (It is also when the Canon lists came into vogue.) This logically points to the aftermath of the Diocletian persecution, as that was the systematic one that closed churches and confiscated all the property the Romans could find,including scriptures which they burned. (This is not only lore, there are documents of Roman confiscations which have been found.) This era of concern about order is long after Celcus wrote, and even after the original Contra Celsus was written.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by MrMacSon »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:49 pm
MrMacSon wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 8:29 pm My main focus was on

"...certain of the Christian believers...have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections.

  • I think that is a pretty good support for the propositions of Markus Vinzent and Matthias Klinghardt that the canonical gospel authors[/size] (and others) 'corrupted' a pre-existing gospel (whether it was 'Marcion's' or not; and, if it was Marcion's, regardless of whether he wrote it or not)
Is it clear to you that Celsus is implying that the first gospel was not Matthew, or, Mark, or one of the other canonicals?

It's not clear to me. It's also not clear to me that Celsus has any opinion at all on which gospel came first.
No, it's not clear to me either.

Though I think "certain of the Christian believers...corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity .. " is significant - especially *its original integrity*. And the charge is that *Christian believers* did it, not heretics.

"to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree" is noteworthy, too, as is "so that they might be able to answer objections."

Beforehand, near the end of the preceding chapter, Contra Celsus II,26, Origen, in a more general sense, gives a dichotomy

Of a truth, therefore, they were not guilty of inventing untruths, but such were their real impressions, and they recorded them truly; or else they were guilty of falsifying the histories, and did not entertain these views ..

And the latter half of Contra Celsus II,27 is

But such an allegation is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with the Gospels. And as it is no ground of accusation against philosophy, that there exist Sophists, or Epicureans, or Peripatetics, or any others, whoever they may be, who hold false opinions; so neither is it against genuine Christianity that there are some who corrupt the Gospel histories, and who introduce heresies opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus.

It's possible the "threefold and fourfold" charge is an acknowledgement of the synoptic and canonical gospels while "and many-fold degree" is a reference to a number of other things, such as so-called gnostic texts, and apocryphal gospels such as the Gospel of Peter, Hebrews, etc.

Though the end of that noteworthy sentence - "and have remodelled it so that they might be able to answer objections" - has connotations of referring to orthodoxy and shoring up orthodoxy.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by Peter Kirby »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:43 amAnd the charge is that *Christian believers* did it, not heretics.
There is no such distiction in Celsus being made about Christian believers, over against "heretics." Again, to Celsus, they're all Christian believers. Celsus doesn't take a side and declare some of them heretics, others Christians. Celsus is aware of different schools of Christians, but he (unlike Irenaeus and unlike Origen) doesn't regard any one school as the correct one.

Celsus regards as Christians all those who believe Christ to be the Son of God:

Against Celsus, 1.26
And Celsus having promised to make us acquainted, in a subsequent part of his work, with the doctrines of Judaism, proceeds in the first place to speak of our Saviour as having been the leader of our generation, in so far as we are Christians, and says that a few years ago he began to teach this doctrine, being regarded by Christians as the Son of God.
In general, when talking about the opinions of any "heretical sect" (according to Origen), Celsus includes them among the Christians.

Against Celsus, 1.69
After this, Celsus, confusing together the Christian doctrine and the opinions of some heretical sect, and bringing them forward as charges that were applicable to all who believe in the divine word
Against Celsus, 3.12
In the next place, since he reproaches us with the existence of heresies [Origen's term} in Christianity as being a ground of accusation against it, saying that when Christians had greatly increased in numbers, they were divided and split up into factions, each individual desiring to have his own party; and further, that being thus separated through their numbers, they confute one another, still having, so to speak, one name in common [i.e. Christian], if indeed they still retain it. And this is the only thing which they are yet ashamed to abandon, while other matters are determined in different ways by the various sects.
Origen speculates that Celsus is aware of those sects that don't identify themselves as Christian, which would be the only ones that Celsus possibly excludes - not on the basis of their doctrine, but only because of their self-identification:

Against Celsus, 3.13
But it appears to me that Celsus has become acquainted with certain heresies which do not possess even the name of Jesus in common with us. Perhaps he had heard of the sects called Ophites and Cainites, or some others of a similar nature, which had departed in all points from the teaching of Jesus.
Celsus is aware of many doctrinal differences between Christians (not between Christians and "heretics").

Against Celsus, 4.2
"But that certain Christians and (all) Jews should maintain, the former that there has already descended, the latter that there will descend, upon the earth a certain God, or Son of a God, who will make the inhabitants of the earth righteous, is a most shameless assertion, and one the refutation of which does not need many words."
Against Celsus, 5.63
Moreover, he continues, these persons utter against one another dreadful blasphemies, saying all manner of things shameful to be spoken; nor will they yield in the slightest point for the sake of harmony, hating each other with a perfect hatred.
Against Celsus, 6.34-35
... and a power flowing from one Prunicos, a virgin and a living soul ... The adherents of Valentinus, moreover, in keeping with their system of error, give the name of Prunicos to a certain kind of wisdom, of which they would have the woman afflicted with the twelve years' issue of blood to be the symbol; so that Celsus, who confuses together all sorts of opinions — Greek, Barbarian, and Heretical — having heard of her, asserted that it was a power flowing forth from one Prunicos, a virgin. The living soul, again, is perhaps mysteriously referred by some of the followers of Valentinus to the being whom they term the psychic creator of the world; or perhaps, in contradistinction to a dead soul, the living soul is termed by some, not inelegantly, the soul of him who is saved.
Against Celsus, 6.38
Our noble (friend), moreover, not satisfied with the objections which he has drawn from the diagram, desires, in order to strengthen his accusations against us, who have nothing in common with it, to introduce certain other charges, which he adduces from the same (heretics), but yet as if they were from a different source. His words are: And that is not the least of their marvels, for there are between the upper circles — those that are above the heavens — certain inscriptions of which they give the interpretation, and among others two words especially, 'a greater and a less,' which they refer to Father and Son. Now, in the diagram referred to, we found the greater and the lesser circle, upon the diameter of which was inscribed Father and Son; and between the greater circle (in which the lesser was contained) and another composed of two circles — the outer one of which was yellow, and the inner blue — a barrier inscribed in the shape of a hatchet. And above it, a short circle, close to the greater of the two former, having the inscription Love; and lower down, one touching the same circle, with the word Life. And on the second circle, which was intertwined with and included two other circles, another figure, like a rhomboid, (entitled) The foresight of wisdom. And within their point of common section was The nature of wisdom. And above their point of common section was a circle, on which was inscribed Knowledge; and lower down another, on which was the inscription, Understanding. We have introduced these matters into our reply to Celsus, to show to our readers that we know better than he, and not by mere report, those things, even although we also disapprove of them. Moreover, if those who pride themselves upon such matters profess also a kind of magic and sorcery — which, in their opinion, is the summit of wisdom — we, on the other hand, make no affirmation about it, seeing we never have discovered anything of the kind. Let Celsus, however, who has been already often convicted of false witness and irrational accusations, see whether he is not guilty of falsehood in these also, or whether he has not extracted and introduced into his treatise, statements taken from the writings of those who are foreigners and strangers to our Christian faith.
Against Celsus, 6.51
And it is from misunderstanding, I think, some pestilent heresy which gave an erroneous interpretation to the words, Let there be light, as if they were the expression of a wish merely on the part of the Creator, that Celsus made the remark: The Creator did not borrow light from above, like those persons who kindle their lamps at those of their neighbours. Misunderstanding, moreover, another impious heresy, he has said: If, indeed, there did exist an accursed god opposed to the great God, who did this contrary to his approval, why did he lend him the light? So far are we from offering a defense of such puerilities, that we desire, on the contrary, distinctly to arraign the statements of these heretics as erroneous, and to undertake to refute, not those of their opinions with which we are unacquainted, as Celsus does, but those of which we have attained an accurate knowledge, derived in part from the statements of their own adherents, and partly from a careful perusal of their writings.
Against Celsus, 6.53
In the next place, mixing up together various heresies, and not observing that some statements are the utterances of one heretical sect, and others of a different one, he brings forward the objections which we raised against Marcion. And, probably, having heard them from some paltry and ignorant individuals, he assails the very arguments which combat them, but not in a way that shows much intelligence. Quoting then our arguments against Marcion, and not observing that it is against Marcion that he is speaking, he asks: Why does he send secretly, and destroy the works which he has created? Why does he secretly employ force, and persuasion, and deceit? Why does he allure those who, as you assert, have been condemned or accused by him, and carry them away like a slave-dealer? Why does he teach them to steal away from their Lord? Why to flee from their father? Why does he claim them for himself against the father's will? Why does he profess to be the father of strange children? To these questions he subjoins the following remark, as if by way of expressing his surprise: Venerable, indeed, is the god who desires to be the father of those sinners who are condemned by another (god), and of the needy, and, as themselves say, of the very offscourings (of men), and who is unable to capture and punish his messenger, who escaped from him!
Against Celsus, 8.15
Celsus goes on to say: That I may give a true representation of their faith, I will use their own words, as given in what is called A Heavenly Dialogue: 'If the Son is mightier than God, and the Son of man is Lord over Him, who else than the Son can be Lord over that God who is the ruler over all things? How comes it, that while so many go about the well, no one goes down into it? Why are you afraid when you have gone so far on the way? Answer: You are mistaken, for I lack neither courage nor weapons.' Is it not evident, then, that their views are precisely such as I have described them to be? They suppose that another God, who is above the heavens, is the Father of him whom with one accord they honour, that they may honour this Son of man alone, whom they exalt under the form and name of the great God, and whom they assert to be stronger than God, who rules the world, and that he rules over Him. And hence that maxim of theirs, 'It is impossible to serve two masters,' is maintained for the purpose of keeping up the party who are on the side of this Lord. Here, again, Celsus quotes opinions from some most obscure sect of heretics, and ascribes them to all Christians.
Against Celsus, 8.16
The remaining part of the extract given by Celsus seems to have been taken from some other form of heresy, and the whole jumbled together in strange confusion: How is it, that while so many go about the well, no one goes down into it? Why do you shrink with fear when you have gone so far on the way? Answer: You are mistaken, for I lack neither courage nor weapons. We who belong to the Church which takes its name from Christ, assert that none of these statements are true.
Justin, writing in Rome a few years before Celsus, admits that he calls those who teach a different doctrine by the names of different individuals, even though they call themselves Christians:

Dialogue 35
There are, therefore, and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things; and these are called by us after the name of the men from whom each doctrine and opinion had its origin. (For some in one way, others in another, teach to blaspheme the Maker of all things, and Christ, who was foretold by Him as coming, and the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, with whom we have nothing in common, since we know them to be atheists, impious, unrighteous, and sinful, and confessors of Jesus in name only, instead of worshippers of Him. Yet they style themselves Christians, just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites.) Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names; each called after the originator of the individual opinion, just as each one of those who consider themselves philosophers, as I said before, thinks he must bear the name of the philosophy which he follows, from the name of the father of the particular doctrine.
Justin Martyr also agrees that the Marcionites were called Christians:

1 Apology 26
And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them.
Post Reply