Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posteriority?

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Furthermore, if you disregard this level of evidence for the Marcionite text, you also probably lose passages like Luke 16.17, on which you have based certain arguments (http://historical-jesus.info/53.html). Tertullian does not clearly state he is quoting the Evangelion there, either. This is a game of finesse.

Lk 16:17 "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail." NKJV
gMarcion "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, ... than one tittle of my [Jesus] words to fail."
But in that case, that would be a rewording expected from gMarcion (against Jesus defending the Jewish Law), and not present in any ancient copies of gLuke.
Furthermore, as you already remarked, very awkward.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

I am aware of the problem. But there are some connections between Lk 1-2 and the rest: Lk 1:80 with Lk 3:2, and then, of course, "Zechariah" (not appearing in other gospels). I do not see why or where more should be expected.

Zechariah is a genuine connection. John being in the wilderness and like Elijah, however, is gossamer, since it may simply come from shared knowledge of Mark (or Matthew), or even of other sources, be they written or oral.

Actually, I think Lk 1-2 is likely to have been composed before the rest of gLuke, as a complement to gMark, and by the same person, in view of the strong feminism in both parts. Then Lk 1-2 was incorporated to Lk 3-24 soon after, when the author decided to write her own gospel.

Well, at least you appreciate the distinctness of chapters 1-2. That, at least, is something we have in common.

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

I am not following the logic. If it is a mistake to suggest that temperate or Mediterranean fruit trees produce fruit right before summer begins, why must it be Tertullian's mistake? He lived in a Mediterranean climate, too.

Bear in mind that D is far from the only Western textual witness to fruits. Dieter T. Roth writes on page 242 of his thesis: "The opening words in Harnack’s reconstruction follow the reading of D and d, though numerous other potential witnesses to the “Western” text, including OL manuscripts and Syriac witnesses, also explicitly state that 'fruit' is brought forth."

Tertullian, D, d, OL, Syriac, all of that point to a late introduction of "fruit" in Lk21:30 in some manuscripts (which does not make sense in view that most fruit trees produce their fruit well into the summer).
And then, gMark & gMatthew which, through internal & external evidence, I consider resolutely written in the 1st century, have no "and all the trees" and "fruit", but instead specify "leaves" for the fig tree. No mistake here.
Tertullian's mistake? Possibly, but we cannot be sure. Anyway the "fruit" in 21:30 is first known to us through Tertullian's writings (early third century) within "the picture presented in the parable". So he has to be a prime suspect.

Do you have other examples of Tertullianic paraphrases getting integrated into the texts he was citing? How often did that happen?

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

Furthermore, if you disregard this level of evidence for the Marcionite text, you also probably lose passages like Luke 16.17, on which you have based certain arguments (http://historical-jesus.info/53.html). Tertullian does not clearly state he is quoting the Evangelion there, either. This is a game of finesse.

Lk 16:17 "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail." NKJV
gMarcion "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, ... than one tittle of my [Jesus] words to fail."
But in that case, that would be a rewording expected from gMarcion (against Jesus defending the Jewish Law), and not present in any ancient copies of gLuke.
Furthermore, as you already remarked, very awkward.

Are you simply assuming that awkward = Marcionite?

In our other passage, a connection between Marcion and the Western text is not at all unexpected, either.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Are you simply assuming that awkward = Marcionite?

Awkward, in that instance, means an original text has been modified. That's additional evidence for "But in that case, that would be a rewording expected from gMarcion (against Jesus defending the Jewish Law), and not present in any ancient copies of gLuke."
The same goes for all (fruit) trees producing fruits when summer is approaching. More that awkward, wrong. Obviously "leaves" (as in gMark & gMatthew) has been replaced by "fruits".
And the fact Marcion worked from another gospel is obvious by 5:33, where a "John" appears from nowhere, as noticed by Tertullian. Here, that "John is not even identified as the Baptizer. He may be identified later as such, at 7:28, but that's very odd. The identification should happen the first time somebody is mentioned, not later.
No other gospel does that.

In our other passage, a connection between Marcion and the Western text is not at all unexpected, either.

Which other passage? I think it may be Lk 21:30-31. If it is, may I ask you if any manuscripts of the Western text have "men" instead of "you" in Lk 21:30.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Which other passage? I think it may be Lk 21:30-31. If it is, may I ask you if any manuscripts of the Western text have "men" instead of "you" in Lk 21:30.

Correct: Luke 21.30-31. And no, I do not think any manuscripts of Luke have "men". However, codex Bezae has the passive voice, "it is known", rather than "you know". I suppose that could derive either from an original "you know" or from an original "men know".

The same goes for all (fruit) trees producing fruits when summer is approaching. More than awkward, wrong. Obviously "leaves" (as in gMark & gMatthew) has been replaced by "fruits".

"Fruits", even if incorrect, is not at all awkward. Things can be wrong without being awkward. That is why I find your argument unpersuasive. If the originator of the tradition made a simple agricultural mistake in writing "fruits", then it would be perfectly natural for later editors or authors or users of that tradition to correct it to "leaves", just like later authors sometimes correct Mark's "king Herod" to the more accurate "tetrarch Herod" or Mark's "sea of Galilee" to the more accurate "lake of Galilee". Earlier tradents can commit simple scientific or historical infelicities, and later tradents can correct them; happens all the time.

My argument from the phrase so also you is exactly the opposite; there is nothing actually incorrect about it, since "you" can easily both know your fruit trees and know your signs of the oncoming apocalypse. That is not the issue. The issue is that there is something awkward in the way it is worded, something that implies it was originally worded differently (it certainly should have been worded differently), and Marcion happens to have the wording we might expect.

Your argument in the case of Luke 16.17 that "my words" is what we would expect of Marcion, and that therefore he must have made the change instead of Tertullian wording it that way, is perilous. If the question is whether Marcion has basically preserved his text or mutilated it (and that is certainly the question I am asking here), then one cannot, must not, simply assume that Marcion made the change because the wording is congenial to him; to do so is to assume your conclusion.

It does seem to me that Tertullian is quoting Marcion at this point, but then, it also seems that way to me in the case of the fruits and the "so also you". And I argued only from which variant appears to predate the other based on how tittles relate to writing. In short, "not one tittle of my words" does not sound like the kind of thing one comes up with on one's own, without any external pressure, but "not one tittle of the law" does; if we can come up with a reason for the change (and in this case we can), then we have an argument for directionality.

Similarly, "so also you" does not sound like the kind of thing one puts after "you" on one's own, freely composing, but it does sound like something one might put after "men" or "humans"; if we can come up with a reason for the change (and I have offered one on the model of Luke 12.56 = Matthew 16.3), then we have an argument for directionality.

Ben.

[powindah]

There is another problem: most fruit trees in temperate or mediterranean climate produce their fruits in the summer, not when the summer is approaching. It is then obvious that "fruit" was added later. "fruit" could not have been in any original gospel copied by Marcion, or "Luke". It looks "fruit" (in 21:30) appears first in Tertullian AM. BTW, gMark & gMatthew specify "leaves".

Cordially, Bernard

I think figs fruit twice each year, late spring/early summer on old growth, from flowers pollinated the previous year, then the main crop in late summer on new growth.


(my BBCodes are off, yet enabled in my control panel )

[Ben C. Smith]

(my BBCodes are off, yet enabled in my control panel )

I think new users have to post several times before their BBCodes work, for some reason. Welcome to the forum, by the way. And thanks for the sycotic observation.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Correct: Luke 21.30-31. And no, I do not think any manuscripts of Luke have "men". However, codex Bezae has the passive voice, "it is known", rather than "you know". I suppose that could derive either from an original "you know" or from an original "men know".

That shows for me "men" comes from Tertullian and no others. And if Tertullian had "men" in "the picture presented in the parable", he probably also originated "fruit" in it, inadvertently introducing something stupid (all fruit trees produce fruit when summer is approaching).
Of course, I cannot be certain about this, but that seems likely, in view that gospels which are early in my book (1st century) do not have "fruit" in that parable.
Something I just found, thanks to Peter's catena, that Tertulian wrote in 'The Resurrection of the Flesh' Ch. 22:
" For after He had declared that "Jerusalem was to be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles should be fulfilled [only in gLuke],"--meaning, of course, those which were to be chosen of God, and gathered in with the remnant of Israel--He then goes on to proclaim, against this world and dispensation (even as Joel had done, and Daniel, and all the prophets with one consent), that "there should be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars, distress of nations with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring, men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth." "For," says He, "the powers of heaven shall be shaken; and then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds, with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh." He spake of its "drawing nigh," not of its being present already; and of "those things beginning to come to pass," not of their having happened: because when they have come to pass, then our redemption shall be at hand, which is said to be approaching up to that time, raising and exciting our minds to what is then the proximate harvest of our hope. He immediately annexes a parable of this in "the trees which are tenderly sprouting into a flower-stalk, and then developing the flower, which is the precursor of the fruit." "So likewise ye," (He adds), "when ye shall see all these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of heaven is nigh at hand." ..."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ian16.html
Here, there are no doubts Tertullian "innovated" on Lk 21:30a.

My argument from the phrase so also you is exactly the opposite; there is nothing actually incorrect about it, since "you" can easily both know your fruit trees and know your signs of the oncoming apocalypse. That is not the issue. The issue is that there is something awkward in the way it is worded, something that implies it was originally worded differently (it certainly should have been worded differently), and Marcion happens to have the wording we might expect.

I think there is a problem. Yes ""you" can easily both know your fruit trees and know your signs of the oncoming apocalypse". But could it be the same "you"?
The "you" in 21:29 are the four disciples on the mount of Olives with Jesus (or "men" if you still think Tertullian quoted gMarcion here). Does not matter. Both would easily know about the fructification of fruit trees (of the trees getting new leaves).
But then, the "you" of "so also you" or "so, likewise, you", if it still means the four disciples, then that would imply this foursome would be believed still alive when the gospels were written, which would be quite a stretch for gLuke, gMatthew (written around 85-90, some say later), and even more so for gMarcion. That would mean that Jesus was a false prophet, because he predicted the apocalypse will happen before the disciples died.
How to explain that?
I think "Mark" had Jesus out of character by addressing Christians alive in 70-71 CE with "so also you", as he had Jesus doing the same (twice) earlier in the same mini-apocalypse discourse with "let the reader understand" and "now" instead of "then".
Furthermore the "you" in "so also you" is emphatic, which would not be expected, if the "you" refers to the same four disciples.
What about "Luke" & "Matthew". Either they, and their communities, still wanted to believe the foursome was still alive (as I said, a stretch), or they blindly copied gMark, that is without thinking of the implications.
As for Marcion, the only option I can see is he blindly copied gLuke.

Your argument in the case of Luke 16.17 that "my words" is what we would expect of Marcion, and that therefore he must have made the change instead of Tertullian wording it that way, is perilous. If the question is whether Marcion has basically preserved his text or mutilated it (and that is certainly the question I am asking here), then one cannot, must not, simply assume that Marcion made the change because the wording is congenial to him; to do so is to assume your conclusion.

Do you know of any ancient manuscripts which would have "my words" in Lk 16:17?
I do not think it is wrong to assume Marcion made changes in order to avoid text against his views. BTW, that verse is not only in gLuke but also in gMatthew (5:18), in both cases, with the tittle related to the Law (of Moses).
Tertullian had no reason to make a change here, but Marcion certainly had.
And you did say:
"Marcion apparently has "one tittle of my (Jesus') words", yet a "tittle" (Greek κεραία) is a written mark, a stroke or a serif on certain letters. Such a term makes far more sense when applied to the law, which had been written for centuries, than it does applied to Jesus' own (as yet unwritten) words while he is still speaking them. ..."

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

There is another problem: most fruit trees in temperate or mediterranean climate produce their fruits in the summer, not when the summer is approaching. It is then obvious that "fruit" was added later. "fruit" could not have been in any original gospel copied by Marcion, or "Luke". It looks "fruit" (in 21:30) appears first in Tertullian AM. BTW, gMark & gMatthew specify "leaves".

Cordially, Bernard

I think figs fruit twice each year, late spring/early summer on old growth, from flowers pollinated the previous year, then the main crop in late summer on new growth.

I knew it. That's why I wrote "most". And I was addressing gLuke which has "the fig tree, and all the trees".

Cordially, Bernard