Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posteriority?

[Ben C. Smith]

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).

So "men" does not appear in the manuscripts, and Tertullian must have introduced it. "Fruits" do appear in the manuscripts... and Tertullian must have introduced it.

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.

Good find, Bernard. Tertullian does indeed elaborate on Luke 21.30, and he does so by verbosely and strongly emphasizing a stage of growth long before fruit. This makes it less likely that he is responsible for introducing fruits.

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 you are dating traditions inside the gospels, not the gospels themselves. But that discussion is too complex and too far afield for this discussion. If this particular point ends up being your main reason for holding your current position, so be it. I will leave it for now.

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. ..."

Make no mistake; I still think that is a valid argument, and that Tertullian was quoting Marcion at Luke 16.17. My point here is and always was that Tertullian makes no more effort to signal his quotation of Marcion at 16.17 than he does at 21.30-31. They both look like quotes from Marcion.

And now that we know, thanks to your digging up On the Resurrection of the Flesh 22, that Tertullian himself thought of the sign of the fig tree as something that comes before the fruit, he is most likely quoting Marcion and not paraphrasing the fruit into the text on his own, which makes "men" more likely to be part of the quote, as well.

Ben.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

"and you also" started with gMark with "you" being the later Christians but the other "you" in 13:32 means the disciples with Jesus on the mount of olives. "Mark" got carried away and had Jesus addressing later Christians. This is not unique in gMark mini-apocalypse. Actually it is all over it, but most obvious in 13:14 ("let the reader understand") and "now" in 13:19. See http://historical-jesus.info/appd.html for details.

... and 13:37 - "What moreover to you I say, to all I say: Watch!"

[Ben C. Smith]

"and you also" started with gMark with "you" being the later Christians but the other "you" in 13:32 means the disciples with Jesus on the mount of olives. "Mark" got carried away and had Jesus addressing later Christians. This is not unique in gMark mini-apocalypse. Actually it is all over it, but most obvious in 13:14 ("let the reader understand") and "now" in 13:19. See http://historical-jesus.info/appd.html for details.

... and 13:37 - "What moreover to you I say, to all I say: Watch!"

Both 13.37 and "let the reader understand" are clearly marked. What Bernard needs is both (A) for a "you" in one verse to be different than and not overlapping with a "you" in the next verse, completely unmarked, and (B) for that change of "you" to be the cause for the awkwardness of "so you also".

Ben.

ETA: I also do not read "let the reader understand" as Jesus speaking; rather, it is a parenthetical aside, author to reader, just like "thus cleansing all foods" in 7.19 or "they feared the crowd" in 11.32.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

So "men" does not appear in the manuscripts, and Tertullian must have introduced it. "Fruits" do appear in the manuscripts... and Tertullian must have introduced it.

"Fruits" appears in some manuscripts, which are most likely late. Do we know the gospels were translated in Latin or Syriac before Tertullian's times? And the Bezae is rather oddball.

Good find, Bernard. Tertullian does indeed elaborate on Luke 21.30, and he does so by verbosely and strongly emphasizing a stage of growth long before fruit. This makes it less likely that he is responsible for introducing fruits.

Here Tertullian said what is sprouting/budding/putting forth is a flower-stalk ("the trees which are tenderly sprouting into a flower-stalk, and then developing the flower, which is the precursor of the fruit."), nor a fruit. That's quite different than "“See the fig tree and all the trees. When they are budding forth fruit, men know that the summer is nearing."
I think now that Tertullian, because of his explanation in 'On the Resurrection of the Flesh', considered the budding/putting forth in AM (when the summer is near) as the start of the process which eventually will produce fruit, but not the immediate production of the fruit.
I can see the reason for a change: the budding indicates that fruit & summer (two good things as the Kingdom of God is) is approaching. Furthermore, "fruit(s)" is often used in the NT as a metaphor for "good" Christian elects, generated from "good" preaching or "good" Christian community (a good tree).
It looks to me first what was budding were leaves (gMark), then a blank (gLuke, most ancient manuscripts and the earliest), then the blank was replaced in gLuke by "fruit" in some less ancient manuscripts.
Was Tertullian trying to explain in 'On the Resurrection of the Flesh' what he wrote in AM? Did Tertullian inadvertently propose filling up the blank in gMarcion with "fruit", in a rather abrupt and stupid way (most fruit trees do not sprout/put forth fruit before the summer)? I think it is probable.
Furthermore, if Tertullian was translating the Greek (I assume Marcion wrote in Greek), Tertullian might have been interpreting the blank as "fruit" and thought that "men" was more adequate that "you". Using Google Translate on the Latin of Tertullian, I saw some marked differences with the Greek translation of Lk 21:30-31, other than "fruit" & "men". Of course, Google Translate is a rather far from perfect, but I wonder: how close are the translation of Tertullian to the Greek original?
Also, I would be interested to know if some ancient manuscripts have 'fruit" replacing "leaves" in Mt 24:32 & Mk 13:28.
And from where did the NASB get "leaves" in Lk 21:30, according to your translation?

I think you are dating traditions inside the gospels, not the gospels themselves. But that discussion is too complex and too far afield for this discussion. If this particular point ends up being your main reason for holding your current position, so be it. I will leave it for now

I do not know what you are talking about. My dating of the composition of the Synoptics is not a secret (70-71 for gMark and around 85-90 for gLuke & gMatthew) and of course, I trust that gMarcion came about around 130, well after the Synoptics. I was saying, for gMarcion for example, it did not make any sense to imply the four disciples/fishermen (Peter, Andrew, John and James) were still alive in 130, when the Kingdom did not arrive yet. Of course, gMarcion was presented written well before that but an author would be foolish in suggesting around 130 that the four disciples will still be alive when the Kingdom come. That would make Jesus a false prophet, not what the author of the gospel would want to convey.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Kunigunde Kreuzerin,

... and 13:37 - "What moreover to you I say, to all I say: Watch!"

Yes, I forgot to mention that one. Thanks

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

And from where did the NASB get "leaves" in Lk 21:30, according to your translation?

The NASB puts leaves in italics, meaning that the translation has supplied it; the Greek simply has "put forth", with no object, much as we might wonder when our garden will "start producing", and what we mean is "start producing vegetables". I failed to pick up on the italics when I copied and pasted.

"Fruits" appears in some manuscripts, which are most likely late. Do we know the gospels were translated in Latin or Syriac before Tertullian's times?

Well, Augustine writes in On Christian Doctrine 2.11: “Translators from Hebrew into Greek can be numbered, but Latin translators by no means. For whenever, in the earliest years of the faith, a Greek manuscript came into the hands of anyone who happened to have a little skill in both languages, he made bold to translate it forthwith.”

Along more scholarly lines, Metzger and Ehrman have this to say on pages 100-101 of The Text of the NT: "In the opinion of most scholars today, the Gospels were first rendered into Latin during the last quarter of the second century in North Africa, where Carthage had become enamored of Roman culture. Not long afterward, translations were also made in Italy, Gaul, and elsewhere."

And the Bezae is rather oddball.

Bezae is a lot of fun, yes; but it has lots of Latin and Syriac support in the case of "fruits".

Here Tertullian said what is sprouting/budding/putting forth is a flower-stalk ("the trees which are tenderly sprouting into a flower-stalk, and then developing the flower, which is the precursor of the fruit."), nor a fruit. That's quite different than "“See the fig tree and all the trees. When they are budding forth fruit, men know that the summer is nearing."

Yes. Very different. All easily explained if the wordy paraphrase is Tertullianic elaboration, while the "fruits" are from the Marcionite text.

It looks to me first what was budding were leaves (gMark), then a blank (gLuke, most ancient manuscripts and the earliest), then the blank was replaced in gLuke by "fruit" in some less ancient manuscripts.

As well as in Marcion, in my view.

Was Tertullian trying to explain in 'On the Resurrection of the Flesh' what he wrote in AM? Did Tertullian inadvertently propose filling up the blank in gMarcion with "fruit", in a rather abrupt and stupid way (most fruit trees do not sprout/put forth fruit before the summer)? I think it is probable.

I think your explanations are becoming quite farfetched.

There is no grammatical blank in Luke, by the way; the verb is just used intransitively, much like in my example above of a garden producing.

Using Google Translate on the Latin of Tertullian, I saw some marked differences with the Greek translation of Lk 21:30-31, other than "fruit" & "men". Of course, Google Translate is a rather far from perfect, but I wonder: how close are the translation of Tertullian to the Greek original?

Bear in mind that Latin has no articles; I have italicized the Greek articles which cannot therefore be rendered in Latin, as well as two other words which we would not expect in the other language because of the construction. I have marked with a tilde ~ words that are in a different order. I have underlined words other than articles which are missing in the other language.

Aspice = ἴδετε [observe/look at]
ficum = τὴν συκῆν [the fig or fig tree]
et = καὶ [and]
arbores = ~τὰ δένδρα· [the trees]
omnes: = ~πάντα [all]
cum = ὅταν [when]
fructum = - [fruit]
protulerint, = προβάλωσιν [it puts forth]
- = ἤδη [already]
- = βλέποντες [seeing]
- = ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν [from yourselves]
intellegunt = γινώσκετε [you/they understand/know]
homines = - [men]
aestatem = ὅτι... τὸ θέρος [the summer]
- = ~ἤδη [already]
appropinquasse; = ~ἐγγὺς ἐστίν. [is near]
sic = οὕτως [so]
et = καὶ [also]
vos, = ὑμεῖς, [you]
cum = ὅταν [when]
videritis = ἴδητε [you see]
haec = ταῦτα [these things]
fieri, = γινόμενα, [happen]
scitote = γινώσκετε [know]
in proximo = ὅτι ἐγγύς [that near]
esse = ἐστιν [is]
regnum = ἡ βασιλεία [the kingdom]
dei. = τοῦ θεοῦ. [of God]

I am not sure what you will get out of such a comparison, though; where the wording is more exact, we will agree that Luke, Marcion, and Tertullian agree; and where the wording is less exact, I will attribute to Tertullian quoting Marcion while you may attribute it to Tertullian being inexact.

Also, I would be interested to know if some ancient manuscripts have 'fruit" replacing "leaves" in Mt 24:32 & Mk 13:28.

Bibleworks 9 does not show any.

I think you are dating traditions inside the gospels, not the gospels themselves. But that discussion is too complex and too far afield for this discussion. If this particular point ends up being your main reason for holding your current position, so be it. I will leave it for now

I do not know what you are talking about. My dating of the composition of the Synoptics is not a secret (70-71 for gMark and around 85-90 for gLuke & gMatthew) and of course, I trust that gMarcion came about around 130, well after the Synoptics.

You misunderstood; or I was unclear; or both. Again, however, this line of inquiry is too far afield for me at this time.

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

Also, I would be interested to know if some ancient manuscripts have 'fruit" replacing "leaves" in Mt 24:32 & Mk 13:28.

Bibleworks 9 does not show any.

Just checked Nestle-Aland, and no variants appear there, either.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

Thanks, Ben

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Here are two other possible indications of Marcionite priority over Luke; these rest on slender grounds, however, since they both depend on unattested material being absent from Marcion and not merely unmentioned by Tertullian and Epiphanius (and the other church fathers).

First, in Luke 4.23, Jesus is preaching in the synagogue at Nazara, and he imagines his listeners saying to him, "Physician, heal yourself! Whatever we heard was done at Capernaum, do here in your home town as well." Luke, however, has not yet narrated anything about Capernaum; this is its first mention. Awkward.

By contrast, both Matthew and Mark locate this preaching at Nazareth much later in their respective narratives (Matthew 13.53-58 = Mark 6.1-6a), well after Jesus has performed many miracles in Capernaum (Matthew 7.28-29; 8.5-17; Mark 1.21-38). Neither Matthew nor Mark, however, record anything like Luke 4.23, so the order in which Jesus does things at the two towns does not come into play anyway. Yet the order is an issue in Luke: did the same author (Luke or pseudo-Luke or whoever) both add the line hearkening back to miracles in Capernaum and also move the entire pericope back to before any miracles were performed in Capernaum?

The Marcionite gospel has Jesus appearing in Capernaum first and performing an exorcism there before moving on to Nazareth. Now, on the one hand, perhaps one exorcism is not enough to merit the saying in Luke 4.23, which actually uses the plural (ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν γενόμενα, as many things as we have heard were done). On the other hand, however, the particular line of Luke 4.23 which refers back to things done in Nazareth is not attested as either present in or absent from the Marcionite gospel. One wonders what the relationship of Matthew and Mark to Marcion might be in this case, since in Marcion the Nazareth trip seems to come very early, as in Luke, but not until after Capernaum, as in Matthew and Mark.

There is more. Luke 4.31 reads, "And he came down into Capernaum, a city of Galilee." The extra descriptor certainly makes it sound as if this is the first mention of Capernaum... but of course we already have that earlier mention in the dominical saying of Luke 4.23. In Mark 1.21, the Marcan parallel to Luke 4.31, it is the first mention of Capernaum in that gospel; yet Mark simply says, "And he went into Capernaum," with no further description (that happens with some frequency in Mark). The Marcionite parallel to Luke 4.31 is the first mention of Capernaum in that gospel, as well. In the ever intriguing codex Bezae (D), Luke 4.31 comes off even more like the first mention of Capernaum: "And he came down into Capernaum, a city of Galilee, near the sea, in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali. Compare Matthew 4.13: "And he left Nazareth and came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali." This, of course, is the first mention of Capernaum in Matthew, just like it sounds. (Notice that, in Matthew, Jesus actually hits Nazareth first, yet this visit is not described at all; after the temptation, Jesus comes into Galilee, specifically Nazareth, then leaves with no description of events at all and settles in Capernaum.)

There is more. Irenaeus writes in Against Heresies 4.23.1:

For this reason, too, did the Lord Himself read at Capernaum the prophecies of Isaiah: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me; to preach the Gospel to the poor hath He sent Me, to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and sight to the blind [Is. 61:1]." At the same time, showing that it was He Himself who had been foretold by Isaiah the prophet, He said to them: "This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears."

But these quotations come from Luke 4.18 and 4.21, from the visit to Nazareth, not to Capernaum.

Regardless of what we may think of the quote from Irenaeus, it seems clear that the Marcan and Matthean order of events (Capernaum first, then later Nazareth) is the more original, and that Luke has created an inconcinnity in both affirming it in 4.23 and altering it by moving the rejection at Nazareth forward in his gospel. Marcion, however, is closer in order on this point to Mark and Matthew than to Luke, showing no signs of the Lucan inconcinnity.

Second, Luke again suffers a bit of incongruity by having Simon Peter's mother-in-law healed in Luke 4.38-39, at Simon's house... before Simon has even been introduced to us, and certainly before his call to discipleship in Luke 5.1-11. Obviously Matthew and Mark can both claim priority in this case over Luke, since they relate the call before the healing, but it is possible that Marcion can, as well, because the healing of Simon's mother-in-law is not attested (either as present or as absent) for the Marcionite gospel; if it was absent, then Simon is introduced at his call to discipleship, just as in Mark and Matthew.

[Ben C. Smith]

Another possible indicator of Marcionite priority over Luke is the apparent anonymity of the former compared to the title of the latter. Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.2.3a:

Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert the very body.

As Mark Goodacre points out in his Dating Game series:

The more blatant signs, though, of the relative lateness of John and Thomas lie in their attempts at authorial self-representation. Where earlier Gospels like Mark and Matthew are anonymous and avoid attempting to project an authorial presence to lend authority to their work, the author of the Fourth Gospel makes claims to have been present, most notably in 19.35 and of course 21.24, “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and wrote them down (καὶ ὁ γράψας ταῦτα). We know that his testimony is true,” similar in style and literary function to the Incipit of Thomas, “These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.” .... There is a trajectory among these early Christian texts, from the absence of authorial self-representation in Mark and Matthew, to hints in Luke and Acts (with the first person found in Luke 1.1-4 as well as in the “we” passages in Acts), to the marked but nevertheless still unnamed authorial presence in John, to the explicit self-representation of Didymos Judas Thomas in its Gospel’s Incipit, a naming that also leads the reader to pay special attention to Thomas 13.

Perhaps Marcion had reasons for not giving his gospel a good apostolic title like the canonical four (and many others); but maybe it is more likely that his gospel hailed from the days before those titles gained currency; his gospel persisted in its anonymity while others were gaining attributions left and right.

SInce Marcion and Luke are interconnected in some special way, it also seems to me to be a bit of a coincidence that Luke, a purported companion to Paul, should be the choice of gospel text; if Marcion followed canonical Luke and chose Luke to mutilate rather than Matthew or Mark or John or whatnot, then it seems odd that it would have nothing to do with the name of Luke. Yet, if it did have something to do with the name of Luke, why not retain the name? Why strip the name off of it?

Again, maybe Marcion had his reasons. But, on the other hand, maybe the trajectory is simple: Marcion actually chose his gospel, some kind of anonymous proto-Luke simply because he was familiar with it, perhaps from Pontus. The Catholics took his gospel and turned it into canonical Luke precisely in order to counter Marcion. This trajectory follows the pattern outlined by Goodacre above (from anonymous to named) and also explains why the Marcionite gospel would be associated with a companion of Paul while still remaining anonymous: the anonymity came first, and the name of Luke was attached later.

(Bernard, I know you will not agree with any of the indicators I have posted recently, since they lean toward Marcionite priority; but do you know of any other examples for Marcionite posteriority? You have given 2 so far, I think, and I have added 1. But, if there are more, I would love to have them.)

Ben.