Markus Vinzent's Blog

Tuesday, 22 September 2015

What should cancer patients eat during Taxol (paclitaxel) chemotherapy?

Nothing spectacular for those who have experience with eating diets for cancer patients, but I think the following information summarises well the latest information on what to prefer and what to leave during Taxol (paclitaxel) chemotherapy in ovarian cancer:

Taxol (paclitaxel) is effective in improving breast cancer prognosis: numerous studies have found that it protects against breast cancer recurrence and death. Taxol and other taxanes can result in side effects such as hair loss, mouth sores, nausea, fatigue, low white blood cell count, neuropathy, muscle and joint pain, cognitive impairment (chemo brain) and serious infections. While obtaining relief from these side effects obviously is desirable, it is very important for breast cancer patients to avoid consuming foods or taking supplements that will lessen the cytotoxic impact of chemotherapy on cancer cells.
While various micronutrients found in fruits, vegetables and other foods have been shown to help protect against breast cancer development and metastasis, some of the same micronutrients might enable breast cancer cells to survive chemotherapy. Therefore, the strategy we recommend during chemotherapy and for the following month is to consume the foods recommended below, as well as those listed on the bland chemotherapy diet (also below), while limiting or avoiding the foods listed below that should not be consumed while on Taxol (as well as those on our avoid list). Please see also our web page on factors influencing Taxol's effectiveness.

Foods that enhance the effectiveness of Taxol

The following foods are very good sources of compounds that have been shown to increase the anti-cancer effects of Taxol:

Bell peppers
Black pepper
Bok choy, or Chinese cabbage
Brazil nuts
Brussels sprouts
Collard greens
Grape juice, purple
Grapes, red
Hot peppers
Olives and olive oil
Onions, yellow
Rice, brown
Salmon, wild
Turnips and turnip greens
Many women undergoing chemotherapy develop abnormally low iron levels, which must be treated. However, excess iron is also to be avoided during chemotherapy. Curcumin (found in turmeric) has been shown to be an iron chelator, a compound that removes iron from the body. Turmeric might also protect the brain from chemotherapy, thereby possibly reducing chemo brain.

Sour cherries, olive oil and vitamin D might relieve joint and muscle pain, although their effectiveness has not specifically been studied in the context of taxane chemotherapy. Brazil nut consumption should be limited to no more than one nut per day, on average, to avoid consuming excess selenium.

Please note that while salmon and the closely-related Arctic char are recommended for consumption during Taxol chemotherapy, recent research suggests that herring, sardines, anchovies, mackerel, lake trout and similar fish should not be consumed the day before through the day after a chemotherapy treatment. In addition, these fish should be consumed only in moderation during the remaining days of each cycle. Fish oil supplements should not be consumed by those undergoing chemotherapy.

Foods and other products that should not be used during Taxol chemotherapy:
The following foods and supplements have been found either to interfere with the effectiveness of Taxol or, in the case of raw shellfish, should not be consumed by those with impaired immunity:

Açaí berries
Caffeine, any source
Coffee, regular or decaf
Fish oil
Hormone replacement therapy, including bioidentical or natural hormones
Iron supplements (unless medically necessary)
Mint tea
Multivitamins & antioxidant supplements
Shellfish, raw
Acetyl-l-carnitine, which is sometimes used for the prevention of taxane-induced neuropathy, has been found actually to increase neuropathy.
Citrus flavonoid hesperidin could reduce effectiveness of cyclophosphamide

Hesperidin, a flavonoid found in oranges, tangerines, kumquats, lemons, limes and grapefruit, has the potential to interfere with chemotherapy regimens containing cyclophosphamide, such as TAC (taxotere, adriamycin and cyclophosphamide). Cyclophosphamide is an alkylating agent frequently used in combination with taxanes (Taxol, Taxotere) and/or anthracyclines (Adriamycin, epirubicin) to treat breast cancer. Hesperidin is found most abundantly in the peel, pith and membranous parts of oranges and other citrus fruits. Prepared food sources include orange tea, unfiltered orange juice, orange marmalade, and dishes that incorporate citrus peel such as Szechuan Orange Chicken.

Bland diet for use during Taxol chemotherapy

The list below features bland, as well as somewhat bitter-tasting foods, that do not promote cancer (when consumed in moderation). It is important not to drive up blood sugar and insulin levels with high carbohydrate/low fiber meals. Select as wide a variety of these foods as possible and consume any one of them in moderation in addition to the foods recommended above.

Almonds, skinless
Beans, white
Bread, whole grain
Chicken, organic
Coconut, raw
Green beans
Honey, minimally processed
Lettuce, iceberg
Melons, pale winter
Onions, Vidalia
Peaches, white
Turkey, organic
Vinegar, white
Yogurt, low-fat

Weight loss and weight gain during chemotherapy

Recent studies suggest that fasting around chemotherapy treatments could protect normal cells from the toxic effects of chemotherapy while sensitizing cancer cells to the treatment. However, more studies and human trials are required before it can be determined whether fasting during chemotherapy is safe and effective.

On the other hand, weight gain, which is common during chemotherapy, is known to be associated with less favourable prognosis and should be avoided.
Unfortunately no specific webpage exists so far for food and diet in ovarian cancer cases, so the occasional posts here may make a start of what has already been well developed in the field of breast cancer research:

On side-effects of chemotherapy, see the informative diagram and commentary of Healthline.

Thursday, 6 August 2015

Did the Valentinian Heracleon write a Commentary on Luke or on Marcion's Gospel?

As Tertullian himself indicates in De praescriptione 25,1 (ut diximus), he first refers to the earlier discussion of Marcion’s position of the ignorance of the Apostles to here move on to the Valentinian tenets, according to which the Apostles ‘were neither ignorant ... nor preached different doctrines’, ‘but committed some things openly to all, and others secretly to a few’. It is interesting to learn from Tertullian that such claims were based on the Pastoral Letters. Already Michael Baumgarten has brought together the evidence that the Valentinians made use of and quoted the Pastoral Letters,[1] and it is particularly interesting that it was precisely in Heracleon’s commentary not on Luke 12:9-11, as it has always been thought, but, as it will be shown, on Marcion’s Gospel where this ‘most distinguished of the school of Valentinus’[2] uses 2Tim. 2:13:
Heracleon, Fragment, in Clem. Alex., Strom. IV 9
Heracleon, Fragment, in Clem. Alex., Strom. IV 9 (trans. William Wilson, ANF, altered)
Τοῦτον ἐξηγούμενος τὸν τόπον Ἡρακλέων ὁ
τῆς Οὐαλεντίνου σχολῆς δοκιμώτατος
κατὰ λέξιν φησὶν
ὁμολογίαν εἶναι τὴν μὲν ἐν πίστει καὶ πολιτείᾳ, τὴν δὲ ἐν φωνῇ.
ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐν φωνῇ ὁμολογία καὶ
ἐπὶ τῶν ἐξουσιῶν γίνεται, ἣν μόνην, φησίν, ὁμολογίαν ἡγοῦνται εἶναι
οἱ πολλοὶ οὐχ ὑγιῶς,
δύνανται δὲ ταύτην τὴν ὁμολογίαν καὶ οἱ ὑποκριταὶ ὁμολογεῖν.
ἀλλ' οὐδ' εὑρεθήσεται οὗτος ὁ λόγος
καθολικῶς εἰρημένος· οὐ γὰρ πάντες οἱ σῳζόμενοι ὡμολόγησαν τὴν διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ὁμολογίαν καὶ ἐξῆλθον, ἐξ ὧν Ματθαῖος, Φίλιππος, Θωμᾶς, Λευῒς καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοί.
καὶ ἔστιν ἡ διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ὁμολογία οὐ καθολική, ἀλλὰ μερική.
καθολικὴ δὲ ἣν νῦν λέγει, ἡ
ἐν ἔργοις καὶ πράξεσι καταλλήλοις
τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν πίστεως.
ἕπεται δὲ ταύτῃ τῇ ὁμολογίᾳ καὶ ἡ
μερικὴ ἡ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐξουσιῶν, ἐὰν δέῃ καὶ
ὁ λόγος αἱρῇ.
ὁμολογήσει γὰρ οὗτος καὶ τῇ φωνῇ,
ὀρθῶς προομολογήσας πρότερον τῇ διαθέσει.
καὶ καλῶς ἐπὶ μὲν
τῶν ὁμολογούντων ἐν ἐμοὶ εἶπεν,
ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἀρνουμένων τὸ ἐμὲ προσέθηκεν.
οὗτοι γάρ, κἂν τῇ φωνῇ ὁμολογήσωσιν
αὐτόν, ἀρνοῦνται αὐτόν,
τῇ πράξει μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες.
μόνοι δ' ἐν αὐτῷ ὁμολογοῦσιν οἱ ἐν τῇ κατ' αὐτὸν πολιτείᾳ καὶ πράξει βιοῦντες, ἐν
οἷς καὶ αὐτὸς ὁμολογεῖ ἐνειλημμένος
αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐχόμενος ὑπὸ τούτων.
διόπερ ἀρνήσασθαι αὐτὸν οὐδέποτε δύνανται (2Tim. 2:13)·
ἀρνοῦνται δὲ αὐτὸν οἱ μὴ ὄντες ἐν αὐτῷ. οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν ὃς ἀρνήσηται ἐν ἐμοί, ἀλλ' ἐμέ·
οὐδεὶς γάρ ποτε ὢν ἐν αὐτῷ ἀρνεῖται αὐτόν.
τὸ δὲ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν σῳζομένων καὶ τῶν ἐθνικῶν δὲ ὁμοίως παρ' οἷς μὲν καὶ τῇ πολιτείᾳ, παρ' οἷς δὲ καὶ τῇ φωνῇ. διόπερ ἀρνήσασθαι αὐτὸν οὐδέποτε δύνανται· ἀρνοῦνται δὲ αὐτὸν οἱ μὴ ὄντες ἐν αὐτῷ.
Ταῦτα μὲν ὁ Ἡρακλέων·
In explanation of this passage, Heracleon, the most distinguished of the school of Valentinus, says expressly,
that there is a confession by faith and conduct, and one with the voice.
The confession that is made with the voice, and before the authorities, is what the most reckon the only confession.
Not soundly, though,
as also hypocrites can confess with this
But neither will this utterance be found to be spoken universally; for all the saved have confessed with the confession made by the voice, and departed. Of whom are Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi, and many others.
And confession by the lip is not universal,
but partial.
But that which He specifies now is universal, that which is by deeds and actions corresponding to faith in Him.
This confession is followed by that which is partial, that before the authorities, if necessary, and reason dictate.
For he will confess rightly with his voice who has first confessed by his disposition.
And he has well used, with regard to those who confess, the expression
in Me,
and applied to those who deny the expression
Me. For those, though they confess Him with the voice, yet deny Him, not confessing Him in their conduct.
But those alone confess in Him, who live in the confession and conduct according to Him, in which He also confesses, who is contained in them and held by them.
He never can deny Himself
(2Tim. 2:13).
And those deny Him who are not in Him. For He said not,
Whosoever shall deny in Me, but Me. For no one who is in Him will ever deny Him. And the expression before men applies both to the saved and the heathen similarly by conduct before the one, and by voice before the other. Wherefore they never can deny Him.
But those deny Him who are not in Him
So far Heracleon.

If we had no other fragment by Heracleon, from this one alone we could agree with Clement’s characterisation of him as a most distinguished teacher. What Heracleon is saying here is subtle and shows him as a highly sensitive interpreter far from any sophistery. He first distinguishes between two forms of confession (ὁμολογία), one by faith and conduct and one by voice. And he sees that in the pericope under discussion, there is mention of a confession before the authorities (12:11) which he sees as the one that ‘most reckon’ to be ‘the only confession’, apparently the way, this passage was either understood by other readers or by the author of the text itself. The plural (‘most’; οἱ πολλοί) points, however, towards readers. Heracleon sees two reasons why this is not the only and even not the most important confession, as he is going to develop further. The first reason he gives is that also ‘hypocrites’ can make such oral confessions. More importantly, however, is his second reason, namely that such oral confessions are not ‘universal’ ones, but ‘partial’ ones, making the distinction between οὐ καθολική, ἀλλὰ μερική. Interestingly amongst those who have made ‘partial’ confessions he counts important names of Apostles: Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi and adds ‘many others’. It is a partial confession only, because it is necessitated by a specific situation, or called for by authorities and follows the dictate of reason.
In contrast to this form of confession of the voice (or the lips), Heracleon develops what he means by the universal, the true confession which is ‘corresponding to faith in Him’ – and this is the first of the above defined confession, the one ‘by deeds and actions’. Yet, he also adds that the two forms of confession should not be entirely separated, but that the confession of the voice has to be preceeded by the one of ‘disposition’ or ‘action’ (τῇ διαθέσει; τῇ πράξει). He then gives a precise definition of the essential confession: It is confessing ‘in Him, who live in the confession and conduct according to Him, in which He also confesses, who is contained in them and held by them’.[1] It is a mutual being-in of the one who believes in Him and the Lord in whom the confessor believes and who is contained in the believer and held by the believer.
This immediacy between believer and the divine, Heracleon could not have found in Luke 12:9-11, as contrary to Marcion’s Gospel (as attested by Tertullian) the textus receptus of Luke places ‘the angels’ as mediators in between the believers and the Lord:
Mcn *12:8-9 (teste Tert., reconstr. M. Klinghardt)
Luke 12:8-9
Matth. 10:32-3
8Λέγω δὲ γὰρ ὑμῖν,
πᾶς ὃς ἂν ὁμολογήσῃ
ἐν ἐμοὶ
τῶν ἀνθρώπων,

ὁμολογήσω                ἐν αὐτῷ

τοῦ θεοῦ:

9 καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀρνησάμενός με
ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων

τοῦ θεοῦ.
8Λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν,
πᾶς ὃς ἂν ὁμολογήσῃ
ἐν ἐμοὶ
τῶν ἀνθρώπων,
ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
ὁμολογήσει                 ἐν αὐτῷ
τῶν ἀγγέλων
τοῦ θεοῦ:

9       δὲ ἀρνησάμενός με
ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων
τῶν ἀγγέλων
τοῦ θεοῦ.

Πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ὁμολογήσει
ἐν ἐμοὶ
τῶν ἀνθρώπων,

ὁμολογήσω κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ

τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν [τοῖς] οὐρανοῖς:
33ὅστις δ' ἂν ἀρνήσηταί με
ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων,
ἀρνήσομαι κἀγὼ αὐτὸν

τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν [τοῖς]

Tertullian clearly points out the immediacy between believer and Lord in Marcion’s Gospel: ‘For I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, I will confess him before God[1] and Epiphianis highlights precisely the difference between Marcion’s immediacy and Luke’s angelic mediation, when he notes that in Marcion’s Gospel we read that we read instead of Ὁμολογήσει ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ simply Ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ.[2] There is no mention of angels in Heracleon and angels as in Luke would have defied the idea of such mutual in-being between believer and the one the believer believes in. Moreover, Luke reads like an attempt to remove such intimacy, whereas Heracleon seems to read Marcion’s Gospel by also relying on 2Timothy to substantiate his view that such essential union makes it entirely impossible to be dissolved and, conversely, that people who do not live in such union by their very nature – and not only in given situations – are in denial of the Lord.
In our passage of De praescriptione, therefore, Tertullian, rightly moves from contradicting Marcion to an argument against those Valentinians whom he has branded to be disciples of Marcion before. It is not unlikely that the quotes from the Pastoral Letters (here 1 and 2Timothy) which he puts into the mouth of his opponents have indeed been used by his Valentinian opponents.

[1] Tert., Adv. Marc. IV 28,4: Dico enim vobis, omnis qui confitebitur in me coram hominibus, confitebor in illo coram deo.
[2] Epiph., Pan. Schol. 30: ἀντὶ τοῦ Ὁμολογήσει ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ Ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ λέγει.

[1] See also his spiritual interpretation of the ‘in Him’ in Orig., In Ioh. 15.

[1] M. Baumgarten, Die Aechtheit der Pastoralbriefe (1837), 38; this is also noted by E. Pagels, The Gnostic Paul (1975), 166 (although she erroneously Clem. Alex., Strom. 2.13 instead of 4.9).
[2] More on Heracleon see Tert., Adv. Val. 4,2; Iren., Adv. haer. II 4,1; Hipp., Ref. VI 24; 30; Origen, In Ioh. II 15.

Sunday, 28 June 2015

Marcion's two recensions of his Gospel

One of the most important insights of my Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels (2014) was the discovery that Marcion’s Gospel existed in two different versions, first as a pre-published, presumably stand-alone draft, and secondly as a published edition with the framing of the Antitheses and the 10 Pauline Letters. How did I derive to this conclusion? The key text in this respect is Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem IV 4,2 which, in a second step, I’d like to put into the broader frame of Tertullian’s discussion of Marcion’s Antitheses and his Gospel in Adversus Marcionem IV 1-5, so that we can follow Tertullian’s arguments. Here, first the crucial passage from Adversus Marcionem IV 4,2[1]:


Quam absurdum, ut, si nostrum antiquius probaverimus, Marcionis vero posterius, et nostrum ante videatur falsum quam habuerit de veritate materiam, et Marcionis ante credatur aemulationem a nostro expertum quam et editum; et postremo id verius existimetur quod est serius, post tot ac tanta iam opera atque documenta Christianae religionis saeculo edita, quae edi utique non potuissent sine evangelii veritate, id est ante evangelii veritatem.


I add the English translation of Ernest Evans of 1972 (Oxford):

How preposterous it would be that when we have proved ours the older, and that Marcion's has emerged later, ours should be taken to have been false before it had from the truth material <for falsehood to work on>, and Marcion's be believed to have suffered hostility from ours before it was even published: and in the end <how ridiculous> that that which is later should be reckoned more true, even after the publication to the world of all those great works and evidences of the Christian religion which surely could never have been produced except for the truth of the gospel—even before the gospel was true.

And the German translation of Karl Adam Heinrich Kellner (BKV, Köln, 1882):

Wenn wir erwiesen haben, dass unser Evangelium älter, das Marcionitische dagegen jünger sei, so wäre es höchst absurd, dass einerseits unser Evangelium schon als ein gefälschtes erscheinen sollte, bevor ein echtes ihm den Stoff dazu geliefert hatte, andererseits das Marcionitische durch das unsrige Widerspruch erfahren habe, bevor es herausgegeben war, und endlich drittens, dass das in höherem Grade als echt gelten soll, was spätern Ursprungs ist, nachdem bereits so viele wichtige Werke und Urkunden der christlichen Religion im Laufe der Zeit erschienen waren, die ohne ein echtes Evangelium, d. h. vor einem echten Evangelium, nicht hätten erscheinen können.

According to the New Testament scholars James Carleton Paget and Frederik Mulders, referring to the quoted passage, ‘the Latin clearly states that Marcion accused the “upholders of Judaism” of having falsified Luke, not of having falsified his own Gospel’.[2]

It seems that such reading is informed by Tertullian’s own interpretation of Marcion’s views, but it is incorrect, if one takes Marcion’s perspective, as given by Tertullian (whether or not historically correct). So, let us explore the passage in more detail:

Tertullian points out that he has ‘proved’ his Gospel to be the older, compared to the Gospel of Marcion, as ‘Marcion’s has emerged later’.[3] While Tertullian is certainly referring to Luke here, in reality in Adversus Marcionem he is mostly working with Matthew. Whichever is meant (we will later see, Tertullian, by using the singular ‘nostrum’ is aggregating here the four later canonical Gospels), Tertullian adds against Marcion that it would be ‘preposterous’ (Evans), or ‘absurd’ (Kellner) (absurdum) if his Gospel ‘should be taken to have been false’ (‘als ein gefälschtes erscheinen sollte’ = should look as if it were plagiarism). Up to this point, there is no mention made about ‘upholders of Judaism’ who have ‘falsified Luke’, but Marcion is being referred to as having claimed that Tertullian’s Gospel looked like a ‘false’ one, a plagiarising one (videatur falsum). The nature of that ‘falsity’ or ‘plagiarism’ is now being further detailed by Tertullian who is still relating Marcion’s argument: ante … quam habuerit de veritate materiam, rendered by Evans as ‘before it had from the truth material’ and by Kellner ‘bevor ein echtes ihm dazu den Stoff geliefert hätte’. This section has been overlooked by Carleton Paget and Mulders, as Marcion is supposed to claim here that a) his own Gospel he regarded as the true one (verum), while he saw the Gospel of Tertullian as the false one (falsum), and c) that the falsity was a form of plagiarism of Marcion’s, as the false Gospel had taken material (Evans) or the material (Kellner: ‘den Stoff’) from the true one. With Evans explanatory addition ‘for falsehood to work on’ is only the nature of the plagiarising redactor further detailed.

Now, the next claim of Marcion, referred to by Tertullian, is even further explicating the nature of this plagiarism: ‘Marcion’s [Gospel] be believed to have suffered hostility from ours’ (Kellner: ‘das Marcionitische[4] durch das unsrige Widerspruch erfahren habe’) (Marcionis ante credatur aemulationem a nostro expertum).

In whichever way one wants to translate ‘aemulatio’, be it by ‘hostility’ (Evans), ‘Widerspruch’ (Kellner), with Lewis and Short’s dictionary as ‘an assiduous striving to equal or excel another in any thing, emulation’, or with Cicero a ‘defective emulation which is similar to rivalry’,[5] it is clear that Marcion believed, the Gospel of Luke (and, as we will see from Tertullian’s report, also the other later canonical Gospels) to be a bad copy of his own, a copy from which is own true Gospel had suffered (Evans) or was even contradicted (Kellner).

As important as this information is the further detail of when such copying and suffering or contradicting took place. Tertullian adds in his report: ante … quam et editum, rendered by Evans as ‘before it was even published’, by Kellner as ‘bevor es herausgegeben war’, the subject of this sentence being ‘Marcionis [evangelium]’. And although Kellner misses to translate the ‘et’, both translators agree that according to Marcion (as reported by Tertullian), he had complained that the false Gospel of Tertullian had taken (Kellner: its) material from Marcion’s true one, even before Marcion had published his true Gospel.

And Tertullian is giving the ultimate point of Marcion’s claim, namely that this Gospel ‘should be reckoned more true, even after the publication to the world of all those great works and evidences of the Christian religion’ (Kellner: ‘dass das in höherem Grade als echt gelten soll, was spätern Ursprungs ist, nachdem bereits so viele wichtige Werke und Urkunden der christlichen Religion im Laufe der Zeit erschienen waren’): postremo id verius existimetur quod est serius, post tot ac tanta iam opera atque documenta Christianae religionis saeculo edita.

According to this third and ultimate point, Marcion is said to have made the – for Tertullian certainly highly absurd – claim that his Gospel was the true one, despite the fact that it was published lately (quod est serius) compared to the publication of those opera atque documenta of the Christian religion, by which he means the later canonical Gospels.

Having gone through this text, it is clear that according to Marcion’s view, his own, the true Gospel, stood at the beginning, on the basis of which the alteration was made, a bad copying of and a taking of material from his own Gospel. This plagiarism had taken place, even before he had published this text. And yet, he maintained that because of the plagiarised nature of the other works and documents, his own Gospel remained to be the true one, despite those others having been published before he himself did publish his own, as we know, by adding to it the Antitheses in which precisely he made those claims, as Tertullian in Adversus Marcionem IV 1-4 first comments on Marcion’s Antitheses. As a second defense of his Gospel, Marcion, only now also seems to have added the collection of 10 Pauline Letters to flag up the consistency between his Gospel and the Gospel of which Paul spoke in his writings.


[1] The interpretation of which in my Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels (2014) had been criticised by James Carleton Paget and Frederik Mulders. See James Carleton Paget, 'Marcion and the Resurrection: Some Thoughts on a Recent Book', Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35 (2012), 74-102 and Frederik Mulders, in his impressively well documented and carefully edited blog (
[2] J. Carleton Paget, ‘Marcion and the Resurrection: Some Thoughts on a Recent Book’ (2012), 94 n. 47, also quoted by Frederik Mulders in the before mentioned blog entry.
[3] The German translation of ‘Marcionis’ with ‘Marcionitische [Evangelium]’ is, of course, imprecise and already an interpretation, based on the assumption of the Gospel not being that of Marcion, but only of Marcionite use or character.
[4] On Kellner’s tendentious translation of Marcionis with ‘Marcionitische’, see the above note.

Saturday, 27 June 2015

Eckhart Sprüche - Eckhart Sayings

Viele im Internet geisternde Eckhart-Sprüche sind leider ohne Stellenangaben, und oftmals stammen sie auch nicht vom Meister (auch wenn sie bisweilen von ihm stammen könnten). Da ich immer wieder nach solchen Sprüchen gefragt werde, beginne ich hier gerne, solche Sprüche mit den entsprechenden Fundstellen bei Eckhart (falls möglich) aufzulisten

Many of the Eckhart sayings which can be found on the internet are given without bibliographical details, and quite often they do not derive from the pen of Eckhart, although they might reflect his thinking. As I am quite often asked to provide the reference, I am happy to start here a list of such sayings:

1.) „Wenn ein Mensch nie mehr zu tun hatte mit Gott, außer, dass er dankbar ist, dann ist es genug“
„Wäre das Wort ‚Danke‘ das einzige Gebet, das du je sprichst, so würde es genügen“!
"If the only prayer you ever say in your entire life is thank you, it will be enough."
Eckhart, Pr. 34 (DW II 169,1-2): „Hæte der mensche niht me ze tuonne mit gote, dan daz er dankbære ist, ez wære genuoc“.

Thursday, 25 June 2015

Eckhart's Latin Sermon XVI - English translation

As I am working on the relation between Eckhart and Pseudo-Chrysostom's Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, I had to translate Eckhart's Latin sermo XVI which is entirely based on this spurious, but extremely interesting Patristic work. As there is no available English translation, here follows the text with my own translation:

'Omnis qui irascitur fratri suo reus erit iudicio' Matth. 5.[1]

◊163◊ Chrysostomus super isto verbo: »si ira non fuerit, nec doctrina proficit nec iudicia stant nec crimina compescuntur. Iusta ergo ira mater est disciplinae«.  Unde littera Chrysostomi habet sic: 'qui irascitur fratri suo sine causa'. Et sequitur in Chrysostomo: »iracundia quae cum causa est nec est iracundia, sed iudicium. Iracundia enim proprie intelligitur commotio passionis. Qui autem cum causa irascitur, ira illius iam non ex passione est, sed ex causa, ideo iudicare dicitur, non irasci«. Hoc Chrysostomus, et consonat illud Psalmi:  'irascimini et nolite peccare'. Item Augustinus X De civitate dei: »Stoicis non placet passiones cadere in sapientem«. Peripatetici vero has »in sapientem <LW4:156> cadere« dicunt, »sed moderatas rationique subiectas«, sicut cum »ita praebetur misericordia, ut iustitia conservetur«. »In disciplina christiana non tamen quaeritur utrum pius animus irascatur« »aut tristetur, sed unde«. Hoc Augustinus.  Hieronymus autem super Matth. 5 dicit: »'qui irascitur fratri suo'. In quibusdam codicibus additur 'sine causa'. Ceterum in veris definita sententia est et ira penitus tollitur«. Si enim iubemur« »orare pro persequentibus, omnis irae occasio tollitur. Radendum est ergo 'sine causa', quia 'ira viri iustitiam dei non operatur'«. 

◊164◊ Rursus Augustinus libro Retractationum c. 18 sic ait: »illud dicimus intuendum quid sit irasci fratri suo, quoniam non fratri irascitur, qui peccato irascitur fratris; qui ergo fratri, non peccato irascitur, sine causa irascitur«.  Idem XIV De civitate dei: »irasci fratri, ut corrigatur, nullus sanae mentis reprehendit«. »Huiusmodi enim motus de amore boni et de sancta caritate venientes vitia dicenda non sunt, cum rectam rationem sequantur«. Hoc  Augustinus.  <LW4:157>

◊165◊ Adhuc Chrysostomus ubi supra: »quando homo irascitur et non vult facere quod ira compellit, caro eius irata est, animus autem eius non est iratus.  Ergo multi sunt quorum caro irascitur, anima autem non irascitur«. »Puto autem: non de iracundia carnis loquitur Christus, sed de spiritu« dicit, »nec enim est possibile, ut caro non turbetur, quia 'sapientia carnis inimica est in deum'«. Beda super Matth. 5: 'nisi abundaverit' etc. in omni concordat cum Chrysostomo, ut addatur 'sine causa'. Item Chrysostomus super Matth. 5 de 'mandatis istis minimis' dicit: »non irasci difficile est, quia naturaliter in hominibus iracundia est plantata dicente Iob: 'homo natus de muliere plenus iracundia'«. Littera est Chrisostomi. Hugo super regulam Augustini: »ne ira crescat in odium« dicit: »nulli irascenti ira sua videtur iniusta«.  'Reconciliari fratri tuo'. Quasi dicat: per hoc sit tibi frater. Quod si frater, omnia sua diligis et ipsis frueris ut fratris tui; omnia sua tua ut fratris.

Anyone who is angry with his brother will be subjected to judgement (Matth. 5:22)
◊163◊ Chrysostom [says] on this saying: ‘If there were no anger, no doctrine emerged, no judgement would stand, no crime could be prevented. Just anger, therefore, is the mother of order’. Therefore, the wording of Chrysostomus has it the following way: ‘Who is angry with his brother for no reason’ (Matth. 5:22). And it follows in Chrysostom: ‘Anger that exists for a reason is no anger, but judgement. Because anger is properly understood as motion of passion. Who, however, is angry for a reason, his anger does surely not derive from passion, but from reason, and, therefore, is called judging, not being angry’. So far Chrysostom who is consonant with that Psalm [4:5]: Be angry, but do not sin. Augustine, too [says] in book 10 of The City of God: ‘The Stoics do not agree that the passions befall a wise one’, while the Peripatetics say that they do ‘befall a wise one’, but that ‘they [the passions] are moderated by and subjected to the mind’, as, for example, when ‘one shows mercy in a way that justice is preserved’. ‘In Christian teaching, however, one does not ask whether or not a pious soul is angry or sad, but why’. So far Augustine. Jerome, then, says on Matth. 5: ‘Who is angry with his brother. In certain manuscripts, it is added “for no reason”. On the other side, in reliable ones, the final sentence excludes all inner anger’. If, then, we are asked ‘to pray for those who persecute, every occasion for anger is excluded. Hence, “for no reason” has to be rased off, because “the anger of man does not produce the justice of God”’ [James 1:20].
◊164◊ Augustine, again, in the book Retractations, ch. 18 says as follows: ‘We say it has to be taken into account, what it is that makes angry with one’s brother, because the one is not angry with a brother who is angry with the sin of the brother; who, therefore, is angry with a brother, not with the sin, is angry for no reason’. The same [states] in [book] XIV of The City of God, that ‘to be angry with a brother, in order to be corrected, will by no healthy mind be reprehended’. ‘In this way, namely, where motion derives from the love of the good and holy grace, it cannot be called a vice, as it follows the right reason’. So far Augustine.
◊165◊ Furthermore, Chrysostom [says], as further above: ‘When a human being is angry and does not want to do what anger compels him to do, his body is angered, his mind, however is not angered. There are, therefore, many whose body is angered, whereas the soul is not angered’. ‘I believe, however, Christ is not speaking about the anger of the body, but’ speaks ‘of that of the mind’, as it is not possible that the body is not touched, for the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God [Rom. 8:7]’. Bede on Matth. 5[:20] concords entirely with Chrysostom: ‘Unless [your rightesness] exceeds’, when he adds ‘for no reason’. In addition, Chrysostom says on Matth. 5[:19]: The least of these commandments: ‘It is difficult, not to become angry, because anger is naturally planted into human beings, as Job says: human beings, born from a mother, are full of anger [Job 14:1]’, so far Chrysostom literally. Hugh [of St. Victory] says about the rule of Augustine ‘that anger should not grow into hate’: ‘To nobody who is angry does his anger seem to be unjust’. Reconcile yourself with your brother [Matth. 5:24], as if he said: Hereby he may your brother. So that, if he is a brother, love all what is his and enjoy what is his as your brother's. All that is his is yours, as of a brother's.

[1] Eckhart, Sermo XVI nn. 163-5 (LW IV 155,1-157,13).