Here the updated version of this blog-post which takes already into account the discussion which was enriched by acute and valuable contributions by Stephan Huller to whom I am very grateful for his comments (as I am to the readers of the book manuscript 'Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Making of the New Testament'):
In the book on the left, Justin Martyr and His Worlds, ed. by Sara Parvis (a book which I highly recommend!), Oskar Skarsaune, one of the world's leading scholars on Justin and the Bible, indeed, provides a highly learned and extraordinarily informative article 'Justin and His Bible' (53-76). There is, however, one chapter where, in my view, one has to add or even correct his text, and it is on the important topic of 'Justin and the Gospels' (71-4). Skarsaune correctly mentions that Justin refers to the Gospels by 'two names', one which is obviously his preferred term, namely the 'Memoirs' and the other, the 'so-called Gospel'.
Now, while he made good suggestions in the previous chapters that Justin seems quite often to produce a text which is closer to Matthew than, for example, to Luke, he draws from this observation too quickly a conclusion in this chapter.
After having quoted Justin's 1Apol. 66.3 where Justin writes about the last supper, he does not indicate on which source Justin is relying here, so this question remains open:
'The Apostles in the Memoirs produced by them, which are called Gospels, have handed down what Jesus ordered them to do; that he took bread and, after giving thanks, said: "Do this in remembrance of me; this is my body". In like manner, he took also the chalice, gave thanks, and said: "This is my blood"; and to them only did he give it.'
Then, he adds 'two other passages', taken from Justin's Dialogue (10.2 and 100.1):
Dial. 10.2 (Trypho): 'But the precepts in your so-called Gospel are so marvellous and great that I don't think anyone could possibly keep them. For I took the trouble to consult them.'
Dial. 100.1: 'Not only in the blessing of Joseph and Judah have things been predicted in a mysterious manner of him, but also in the Gospel it is written that he said, "All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son; nor does anyone know the Son except the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal him"'.
Unfortunately, we do not know which Gospel Trypho was looking up where he found the marvellous and great precepts that nobody could possibly keep. In his older study The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr, Supplements to Novum Testamentum, 17 (Leiden, 1967), Arthur J. Bellinzoni had compared all the Sayings of Jesus as they appear in Justin's works and made it most likely that Justin used a harmonized version of the Gospels - which he also made likely from a comparison of this quote from Dial. 100.1 (p. 25-8).
From this second quote from Dial. 100.1, at least, we can derive which Gospel Justin is referring to. This is all the more important, as this is the only instance in which Justin uses the expression 'in the Gospel it is written' (in all other cases he refers more generally to the Memories). But in this very exemplary case - Skarsaune draws on the wrong source. He states in brackets: Matth. 11:27.
So, compare Justin, who just quoted:
"All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son; nor does anyone know the Son except the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal him"
With Matth. 11:27 we read, however:
"All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and those to whom the Son decides to reveal him".
Hence - Matthew has the opposit order from Justin.
Let us look at the only synoptic parallel that we have, Luke 10:22 - and we will see the same order as in Matthew:
"All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; or who the Father is except the Son, and those to whom the Son decides to reveal him".
And, yet, everybody, so far (as far as I have read), has overlooked the parallel which matches precisely the wording in the right order of Justin:
"All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son; nor does anyone know the Son except the Father, and those to whom the Son shall reveal him".
This is, what Tertullian reports that he has read in Marcion's Gospel (Adv. Marc. IV 25; see also ibid. II 27: 'the testimony of that gospel which you share with us, in which Christ says, No one knoweth the Father save the Son').
Here the comparison of the Greek texts:
Bellinzoni has already noticed that two significant deviations from both Matthew and Luke exist in Justin and 'indicate that Justin's source was not our synoptic gospels' (p. 26): the inversion of 'Father and Son' and the omission of 'decides' (βούληται). Both, however, these deviations are precisely what we find in Tertullian's quote of Marcion's Gospel. That it is not an oversight in Justin, Dial. 100.1 can be ascertained by two further quotes of the same Saying in the other work of Justin, Apol. 63.3 and 63.13 where the same verse is quoted with exactly these two prominent deviations from the canonical tradition. In addition, Bellinzoni lists a series of fathers (Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Pseudoclementine Homilies) that provide the same features. Hence he concludes that 'all knew and used a similar source for this saying of Jesus', 'some kind of documentary authority' (Leon E. Wright, Alterations of the Words of Jesus as Quoted in the Literature of the Second Century, Cambridge Mass., 1952, 63-4), but thinks that 'it is impossible to say whether this source was a variant text of Matthew or Luke or whether it was a text based on one of these gospels' (p. 28). Neither to him, nor to Skarsaune or anybody else did it occur that Marcion could have been this source, although the key is already given by Tertullian, and, as we will see below, confirmed and made certain by Irenaeus' discussion of Marcion's version versus that of Matthew and Luke. But before going that far, let us draw a first conclusion:
The only time (!) where Justin deploys the expression that 'in the Gospel it is written' - he produces a reading that is exactly that of Marcion, neither that of Matthew nor that of Luke. If this source is the written Gospel that he is referring to in his Dialogue (and, consequently, in his first Apology), we understand, why Justin is so sceptical with the name of this text - expressed in his expression 'so-called', the 'so-called Gospel(s)'. And we are less surprised why he makes Trypho talk about this so-called Gospel that it provides precepts, marvellous and great (see Marcion's opening of his Gospel), but which nobody could possibly keep because of their ascetic rigour.
This does not preclude that Justin did not have access to Matthew or Luke or any other Gospel or, as suggested by Bellinzoni and many other scholars, that in addition to Marcion's Gospel he used a harmonization of the canonical Gospels, on the contrary, it makes it most likely that he used such a harmonization which was primarily not yet based on the canonical Gospels, but on Marcion's written Gospel to which the counter-Marcionite Gospel's were added - precisely the kind of harmonization that people assume to be (re-?)worked (or created) by Justin's (and Marcion's) pupil Tatian in his Diatessaron. Via direct access (which is most likely having written books against Marcion) or via a harmonization (written by himself or by his pupil Tatian?) shows that he seems to have known about the content of Marcion's Gospel and probably even had access to it. It will be a task to check all his references to his Memoires whether there are further traces of him using Marcion's Gospel resp. a harmonization that was based on Marcion's Gospel.
Irenaeus is securing the validity of our hypothesis, based on Tertullian, as Irenaeus clearly reflects the discussion about the Marcionite reading of this verse and compares it with the version in Matthew and Luke. He introduces this Scriptural quote from Matthew and Luke, adds first the wording in which Marcionites quoted this text (AH IV 6.1) (!) (whether the introduction of the past time reading - nobody knew the Father - is the correct reading in Marcion needs another thought) and also adds the theological reasoning that Marcion based on this Jesus' saying:
'For the Lord, revealing Himself to His disciples, that He Himself is the Word, who imparts knowledge of the Father, and reproving the Jews, who imagined that they had [the knowledge of] God, while they nevertheless rejected His Word, through whom God is made known, declared (it follows the reading according to Matthew and Luke - against Marcion!), “No man knows the Son, but the Father; neither knows any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him].” Thus has Matthew set it
down, and Luke in like manner, and Mark the very same; for John omits this passage. They, however, who would be wiser than the apostles, write [the verse] in the following manner: “No man knew the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him];” and they explain it as if the true God were known to none prior to our Lord’s advent; and that God who was announced by the prophets, they allege not to be the Father of Christ. 2. But if Christ did then [only] begin to have existence when He came [into the world] as man, and [if] the Father did remember [only] in the times of Tiberius Cæsar to provide for [the wants of] men, and His Word was shown to have not always coexisted with His creatures; [it may be remarked that] neither then was it necessary that another God should be proclaimed, but [rather] that the reasons for so great carelessness and neglect on His part should be made the subject of investigation.'
We can take from this part that in restoring Marcion's Gospel, we certainly have to add Justin and Irenaeus as readers of Marcion's text which, of course, complicates the job, but also shows how important and influential his Gospel was. Moreover, in Irenaeus we can see that what we have got in Matthew and Luke are not simply variants, but theologically different versions to express a different theology - in my view only explicable, if they were directed against an explicit text such as the one by Marcion with obviously a not less explicit commentary and explanation given by Marcion's Antitheses of which Irenaeus seems to quote. That Justin, some decades prior to Irenaeus, does not yet compare Matthew and Luke with Marcion's 'so-called Gospel', yet that he only has as a 'written Gospel' that of Marcion or a harmonization, based on that Gospel of Marcion, shows that our thesis of the Gospel-production process is happening in these years when Marcion and Justin taught at Rome. A few years later, in Irenaeus, the synoptic Gospels do exist, and they are quoted as evidence against Marcion's Gospel, a Gospel that is used in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for the production of their Gospels, in Justin and Justin's (and Marcion's) pupil Tatian to form the basis of their harmonized version of Marcion and his followers, the Synoptics and John, and in Irenaeus and in Tertullian to then be compared with the Synoptics.
So far, the historical reconstruction - at least one element - which, of course, needs and will be tested by my synoptic commentary to Marcion's Gospel which is in the making.
In the book on the left, Justin Martyr and His Worlds, ed. by Sara Parvis (a book which I highly recommend!), Oskar Skarsaune, one of the world's leading scholars on Justin and the Bible, indeed, provides a highly learned and extraordinarily informative article 'Justin and His Bible' (53-76). There is, however, one chapter where, in my view, one has to add or even correct his text, and it is on the important topic of 'Justin and the Gospels' (71-4). Skarsaune correctly mentions that Justin refers to the Gospels by 'two names', one which is obviously his preferred term, namely the 'Memoirs' and the other, the 'so-called Gospel'.
Now, while he made good suggestions in the previous chapters that Justin seems quite often to produce a text which is closer to Matthew than, for example, to Luke, he draws from this observation too quickly a conclusion in this chapter.
After having quoted Justin's 1Apol. 66.3 where Justin writes about the last supper, he does not indicate on which source Justin is relying here, so this question remains open:
'The Apostles in the Memoirs produced by them, which are called Gospels, have handed down what Jesus ordered them to do; that he took bread and, after giving thanks, said: "Do this in remembrance of me; this is my body". In like manner, he took also the chalice, gave thanks, and said: "This is my blood"; and to them only did he give it.'
Then, he adds 'two other passages', taken from Justin's Dialogue (10.2 and 100.1):
Dial. 10.2 (Trypho): 'But the precepts in your so-called Gospel are so marvellous and great that I don't think anyone could possibly keep them. For I took the trouble to consult them.'
Dial. 100.1: 'Not only in the blessing of Joseph and Judah have things been predicted in a mysterious manner of him, but also in the Gospel it is written that he said, "All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son; nor does anyone know the Son except the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal him"'.
Unfortunately, we do not know which Gospel Trypho was looking up where he found the marvellous and great precepts that nobody could possibly keep. In his older study The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr, Supplements to Novum Testamentum, 17 (Leiden, 1967), Arthur J. Bellinzoni had compared all the Sayings of Jesus as they appear in Justin's works and made it most likely that Justin used a harmonized version of the Gospels - which he also made likely from a comparison of this quote from Dial. 100.1 (p. 25-8).
From this second quote from Dial. 100.1, at least, we can derive which Gospel Justin is referring to. This is all the more important, as this is the only instance in which Justin uses the expression 'in the Gospel it is written' (in all other cases he refers more generally to the Memories). But in this very exemplary case - Skarsaune draws on the wrong source. He states in brackets: Matth. 11:27.
So, compare Justin, who just quoted:
"All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son; nor does anyone know the Son except the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal him"
With Matth. 11:27 we read, however:
"All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and those to whom the Son decides to reveal him".
Hence - Matthew has the opposit order from Justin.
Let us look at the only synoptic parallel that we have, Luke 10:22 - and we will see the same order as in Matthew:
"All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; or who the Father is except the Son, and those to whom the Son decides to reveal him".
And, yet, everybody, so far (as far as I have read), has overlooked the parallel which matches precisely the wording in the right order of Justin:
"All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son; nor does anyone know the Son except the Father, and those to whom the Son shall reveal him".
This is, what Tertullian reports that he has read in Marcion's Gospel (Adv. Marc. IV 25; see also ibid. II 27: 'the testimony of that gospel which you share with us, in which Christ says, No one knoweth the Father save the Son').
Here the comparison of the Greek texts:
The Gospel | Justin, Dial. 100.1 | Justin, Apol. 63.3 | Justin, Apol. 63:13 | Matthew 11:27 | Luke 10:22 |
Pavnta moi paredovqh uJpo; tou` patrov~ , kai; oujdei;~ ginwvskei to;n patevra eij mh; oJ uiJov~, oujde; to;n uiJo;n eij mh; oJ pathvr, kai; oi|~ a]n oJ uiJo;~ ajpokaluvyh/. | Pavnta moi paredovqh uJpo; tou` patrov~, kai; oujdei;~ ginwvskei to;n patevra eij mh; oJ uiJov~, oujde; to;n uiJo;n eij mh; oJ pathvr, kai; oi|~ a]n oJ uiJo;~ ajpokaluvyh/. | oujdei;~ e[gnnw to;n patevra eij mh; oJ uiJov~, oujde; to;n uiJo;n eij mh; oJ pathvr, kai; oi|~ a]n ajpokaluvyh/ oJ uiJo;~. | oujdei;~ e[gnnw to;n patevra eij mh; oJ uiJov~, oujde; to;n uiJo;n eij mh; oJ pathvr, kai; oi|~ a]n oJ uiJo;~ ajpokaluvyh/. | Pavnta moi paredovqh uJpo; tou` patro;~ mou, kai; oujdei;~ ejpiginwvskei to;n {uiJo;n} eij mh; oJ {pathvr}, oujde; to;n {patevra} ti~ ejpiginwvskei eij mh; oJ {uiJo;~}, kai; w/| eja;n bouvlhtai oJ uiJo;~ ajpokaluvyai. | Pavnta moi paredovqh uJpo; tou` patrov~ mou, kai; oujdei;~ ginwvskei tiv~ ejstin oJ {uiJo;~} eij mh; oJ {pathvr}, kaiv ti~ ejstin oJ {path;r} eij mh; oJ {uiJo;~}, kai; w/| eja;n bouvlhtai oJ uiJo;~ ajpokaluvyai. |
Bellinzoni has already noticed that two significant deviations from both Matthew and Luke exist in Justin and 'indicate that Justin's source was not our synoptic gospels' (p. 26): the inversion of 'Father and Son' and the omission of 'decides' (βούληται). Both, however, these deviations are precisely what we find in Tertullian's quote of Marcion's Gospel. That it is not an oversight in Justin, Dial. 100.1 can be ascertained by two further quotes of the same Saying in the other work of Justin, Apol. 63.3 and 63.13 where the same verse is quoted with exactly these two prominent deviations from the canonical tradition. In addition, Bellinzoni lists a series of fathers (Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Pseudoclementine Homilies) that provide the same features. Hence he concludes that 'all knew and used a similar source for this saying of Jesus', 'some kind of documentary authority' (Leon E. Wright, Alterations of the Words of Jesus as Quoted in the Literature of the Second Century, Cambridge Mass., 1952, 63-4), but thinks that 'it is impossible to say whether this source was a variant text of Matthew or Luke or whether it was a text based on one of these gospels' (p. 28). Neither to him, nor to Skarsaune or anybody else did it occur that Marcion could have been this source, although the key is already given by Tertullian, and, as we will see below, confirmed and made certain by Irenaeus' discussion of Marcion's version versus that of Matthew and Luke. But before going that far, let us draw a first conclusion:
The only time (!) where Justin deploys the expression that 'in the Gospel it is written' - he produces a reading that is exactly that of Marcion, neither that of Matthew nor that of Luke. If this source is the written Gospel that he is referring to in his Dialogue (and, consequently, in his first Apology), we understand, why Justin is so sceptical with the name of this text - expressed in his expression 'so-called', the 'so-called Gospel(s)'. And we are less surprised why he makes Trypho talk about this so-called Gospel that it provides precepts, marvellous and great (see Marcion's opening of his Gospel), but which nobody could possibly keep because of their ascetic rigour.
This does not preclude that Justin did not have access to Matthew or Luke or any other Gospel or, as suggested by Bellinzoni and many other scholars, that in addition to Marcion's Gospel he used a harmonization of the canonical Gospels, on the contrary, it makes it most likely that he used such a harmonization which was primarily not yet based on the canonical Gospels, but on Marcion's written Gospel to which the counter-Marcionite Gospel's were added - precisely the kind of harmonization that people assume to be (re-?)worked (or created) by Justin's (and Marcion's) pupil Tatian in his Diatessaron. Via direct access (which is most likely having written books against Marcion) or via a harmonization (written by himself or by his pupil Tatian?) shows that he seems to have known about the content of Marcion's Gospel and probably even had access to it. It will be a task to check all his references to his Memoires whether there are further traces of him using Marcion's Gospel resp. a harmonization that was based on Marcion's Gospel.
Irenaeus is securing the validity of our hypothesis, based on Tertullian, as Irenaeus clearly reflects the discussion about the Marcionite reading of this verse and compares it with the version in Matthew and Luke. He introduces this Scriptural quote from Matthew and Luke, adds first the wording in which Marcionites quoted this text (AH IV 6.1) (!) (whether the introduction of the past time reading - nobody knew the Father - is the correct reading in Marcion needs another thought) and also adds the theological reasoning that Marcion based on this Jesus' saying:
'For the Lord, revealing Himself to His disciples, that He Himself is the Word, who imparts knowledge of the Father, and reproving the Jews, who imagined that they had [the knowledge of] God, while they nevertheless rejected His Word, through whom God is made known, declared (it follows the reading according to Matthew and Luke - against Marcion!), “No man knows the Son, but the Father; neither knows any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him].” Thus has Matthew set it
down, and Luke in like manner, and Mark the very same; for John omits this passage. They, however, who would be wiser than the apostles, write [the verse] in the following manner: “No man knew the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him];” and they explain it as if the true God were known to none prior to our Lord’s advent; and that God who was announced by the prophets, they allege not to be the Father of Christ. 2. But if Christ did then [only] begin to have existence when He came [into the world] as man, and [if] the Father did remember [only] in the times of Tiberius Cæsar to provide for [the wants of] men, and His Word was shown to have not always coexisted with His creatures; [it may be remarked that] neither then was it necessary that another God should be proclaimed, but [rather] that the reasons for so great carelessness and neglect on His part should be made the subject of investigation.'
We can take from this part that in restoring Marcion's Gospel, we certainly have to add Justin and Irenaeus as readers of Marcion's text which, of course, complicates the job, but also shows how important and influential his Gospel was. Moreover, in Irenaeus we can see that what we have got in Matthew and Luke are not simply variants, but theologically different versions to express a different theology - in my view only explicable, if they were directed against an explicit text such as the one by Marcion with obviously a not less explicit commentary and explanation given by Marcion's Antitheses of which Irenaeus seems to quote. That Justin, some decades prior to Irenaeus, does not yet compare Matthew and Luke with Marcion's 'so-called Gospel', yet that he only has as a 'written Gospel' that of Marcion or a harmonization, based on that Gospel of Marcion, shows that our thesis of the Gospel-production process is happening in these years when Marcion and Justin taught at Rome. A few years later, in Irenaeus, the synoptic Gospels do exist, and they are quoted as evidence against Marcion's Gospel, a Gospel that is used in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for the production of their Gospels, in Justin and Justin's (and Marcion's) pupil Tatian to form the basis of their harmonized version of Marcion and his followers, the Synoptics and John, and in Irenaeus and in Tertullian to then be compared with the Synoptics.
So far, the historical reconstruction - at least one element - which, of course, needs and will be tested by my synoptic commentary to Marcion's Gospel which is in the making.
Absolutely brilliant, sir. I can't tell you how many scholars are capable of just letting the evidence speak for itself. They are forever projecting the way things are supposed to be over what is. Have you noticed that Irenaeus thinks this saying appeared in contemporary copies of Mark "that is what Matthew wrote, and Luke also, and Mark in the same way" (AH 4.6.1) albeit in the form "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him]." Could the Marcionite reading have been the same as lost reference in Mark known to Irenaeus?
ReplyDeleteThe reading in the Arabic Diatessaron is the same as the canonical texts. Yet if we consult with Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron it is implied that the reading of his arch-rivals - the Marcionites - is the same as Justin's. Here is McCarthy's translation of the original:
The Son therefore is the thought of the Father. Consequently, whoever finds the tree rejoices in its fruit. For no one knows the Father except the Son. [This was] as though he wished to unite the knowledge of both of them, one to the other. He was recognized them as God because of his will, and he was recognized as Son because of his work. Those who blaspheme with regard to the Spirit say that it is written, No one knows the Father except the Son, and no one [knows] the Son, except the Father. Because of this, [they say] that [the Lord] made it known that the Spirit does not known [him]. But, when he said, No one knows what is in a human being, except the Spirit within him, so too that which is in God, [1 Cor 2.11] does this mean that the Son does not know [the Father]? [McCarthy p.173]
The Marcionites are the only sect whose readings are consisently referenced in the commentary.
Vielleicht finden Sie diese nützlich.
Thanks, Stephan, again - what important complementary evidence. Irenaeus clearly reflects the anti-Marcionite reading of this verse in Matthew and Luke, when he introduces the Scriptural quote, and adds the Marcionite interpretation plus the version in which Marcionites quoted it (AH IV 6.1) (whether the introduction of the past time reading - nobody knew the Father - is the correct reading in Marcion needs another thought):
ReplyDelete'For the Lord, revealing Himself to His disciples, that He Himself is the Word, who imparts knowledge of the Father, and reproving the Jews, who imagined that they had [the knowledge of] God, while they nevertheless rejected His Word, through whom God is made known, declared (it follows the reading according to Matthew and Luke - against Marcion!), “No man knows the Son, but the Father; neither knows any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him].” Thus has Matthew set it
down, and Luke in like manner, and Mark the very same; for John omits this passage. They, however, who would be wiser than the apostles, write [the verse] in the following manner: “No man knew the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him];” and they explain it as if the true God were known to none prior to our Lord’s advent; and that God who was announced by the prophets, they allege not to be the Father of Christ. 2. But if Christ did then [only] begin to have existence when He came [into the world] as man, and [if] the Father did remember [only] in the times of Tiberius Cæsar to provide for [the wants of] men, and His Word was shown to have not always coexisted with His creatures; [it may be remarked that] neither then was it necessary that another God should be proclaimed, but [rather] that the reasons for so great carelessness and neglect on His part should be made the subject of investigation.'
We can take from this part that in restoring Marcion's Gospel, we certainly have to add Justin and Irenaeus as readers of Marcion's text which, of course, complicates the job, but also shows how important and influential his Gospel was. Moreover, in Irenaeus we can see that what we have got in Matthew and Luke are not simply variants, but different versions to express a different theology - in my view only explicable, if they were directed against such an explicit text such as Marcion with obviously a not less explicit commentary and explanation by Marcion's Antitheses of which Irenaeus seems to quote.
Ephrem, of course, is another author that supports Marcion's reading.
ReplyDeleteI think Irenaeus is still a treasure trove of information related to Marcion. Completely under appreciated in the study of the Marcionite tradition. Too much emphasis is placed on Tertullian's testimony. A lot of the information in Irenaeus of course doesn't explicitly reference Marcion but one can piece together that Marcion is in Irenaeus's crosshairs.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting question that this raises is how Justin could have been so vehemently opposed to Marcion as Irenaeus claims IN THIS VERY SECTION if they used gospels with complementary readings as you point out in your post? I would argue this is the most eye opening part of the whole report:
In his book against Marcion, Justin does well say: "I would not have believed the Lord Himself, if He had announced any other than He who is our framer, maker, and nourisher. But because the only-begotten Son came to us from the one God, who both made this world and formed us, and contains and administers all things, summing up His own handiwork in Himself, my faith towards Him is steadfast, and my love to the Father immoveable, God bestowing both upon us." [AH 4.6.2]
This simply doesn't make any sense given what you have shown. One can argue I guess that Justin 'hated' Marcion despite their sharing common readings but this argument is senseless.
Irenaeus only picks out a few of the massive number of textual variants that exist between the Catholic and Marcionite gospels. Why would Irenaeus have brought Justin into a dispute over the proper textual reading of this saying if he knew that Justin shared the Marcionite reading??
This is what is so baffling about much of the Patristic evidence. Did Irenaeus know that Justin was the author of the Dialogue? At the very least it calls into question Irenaeus's reliability as a witness.
Casey had a very provocative article written years ago noting that much of Eznik's attack against Armenian Marcionites necessarily reflected their use of a Diatessaron. The unanswered (and perhaps unanswerable) questions are ultimately - what was Justin's real relationship with Marcion and the Marcionite Church? What was Tatian's relationship with the Marcionite Church? To what degree was Tatian a faithful student of Justin? Of course as we all know the evidence of the Church Fathers can't be merely taken at face value given that no one even mentions that Tatian had, used or wrote a Diatessaron until Eusebius!
There is so much we don't know. I am always surprised when people feel such certainty about Marcion. There is always something new under every rock.
Dear Stephan,
ReplyDeleteI can only agree entirely with your last paragraphs - yes we still know rather little about Marcion and the 2nd century. However, if I am not mistaken, your initial questions are based on the same anachronistic view that most scholars share of the second century, as if there was hatred and constant fight between these teachers. Of course, they sometimes fought and also wrote critical about each other - but where is the difference to today? And yet, we still read each others books, try to give them a fair review, engage with each others hypothesis, find some appealing, others less. When Justin wrote λόγοι κατὰ Μαρκίωνος he, like later Irenaeus and Tertullian, must have had a good understanding and knowledge of Marcion and, as shown above, of Marcion's Gospel. Apparently - if this does not overinterprets the one instance in Justin - where Justin refers to a written Gospel (and he only does so once in his extant work), he does so to the Gospel of Marcion. Why? Several answers are possible, but let me point to the one which seems - at this moment - the most likely one to me, which will also answer some of your questions.
Why is Irenaeus adding Justin's text of his 'Books against Marcion'? He must have known of Justin's quote of Marcion's Gospel in his Dial. 100,2 - as Irenaeus discusses the discrepancy between Marcion's Gospeltext and that of Matthew and Luke precisely with regards to Luke 10:22/Matth. 11:27. And he certainly wanted to make sure that Justin is not seen as a supporter and witness to Marcion's Gospel, hence, the added proof-text from Justin's Books against Marcion, where the impression is created as if Justin - like Irenaeus himself - is commenting on Marcion's reading:
"I would not have believed the Lord Himself, if He had announced any other than He who is our framer, maker, and nourisher. But because the only-begotten Son came to us from the one God, who both made this world and formed us, and contains and administers all things, summing up His own handiwork in Himself, my faith towards Him is steadfast, and my love to the Father immoveable, God bestowing both upon us." [AH 4.6.2]
Of course, a close reading reveals that there is no indication here that it is a comment on Marcion's Gospeltext (//Luke 10:22). And as Justin's Dialogue shows, Justin was indeed quoting the written Gospel in Marcion's form.
I think, it can make sense, if, for Justin, the only known written form of the Gospel (and we should not forget that the term 'Gospel', for Justin, was pejorative: 'so-called Gospel', and not yet associated with authoritative etc.) was that of Marcion. Justin obviously knew of attempts to alter this texts and qualified those as attempts as 'memories' of Apostles, so-called Gospel(s), but as his own books show, they had not yet gained his respect. This is only changing in and through Irenaeus.
So it is not so much a sharing of common readings, or even the reference to one Gospel which is astonishing - it just reflects a second century situation in which the synoptic gospels are not yet established. The only Gospel which had left its mark as 'the written (and published) Gospel' was that of Marcion, used as blueprint by some and discussed by other teachers. It will take some decades, until the mutual reliance and discussion between teachers and pupils (Marcion, Valentinus, Ptolemy, Justin, Tatian, Rhodos, Irenaeus etc.) will move to hatred and mutual exclusion. But shortly after the mid-second century, the situation looks quite different.
What do you say to the objection that Justin's gospel had a virgin birth narrative and Marcion's did not?
ReplyDeleteYour question carries the potential answer: Justin himself refers to `Gospels` in the plural, he knows of the Memories of the Apostles, of - as said - attempts to embrace, adopt and adapt Marcion`s Gospel, and he himself develops long passages of narratives and sayings (whereby the narratives are usually sourced from the Old Testament, NOT from any of the Gospels!) which are attempts of re-creating Marcion`s Gospel - so, what I am saying is:
ReplyDeleteEven Justin could not shield himself from Marcion`s influence and impact. The living voice of oral tradition is fading, writers and authors are the fashion of the day, and Justin himself reports straight after the passage from Marcion's Gospel that we discussed earlier, and reveals knowledge of various traditions:
'Accordingly He revealed to us all that we have perceived by His grace out of the Scriptures, so that we know Him to be the first-begotten of God, and to be before all creatures; likewise to be the Son of the patriarchs, since He assumed flesh by the Virgin of their family, and submitted to become a man without comeliness, dishonoured, and subject to suffering. Hence, also, among His words He said, when He was discoursing about His future sufferings: "The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the Pharisees and Scribes, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.' He said then that He was the Son of man, either because of His birth by the Virgin, who was, as I said, of the family of David and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham; or because Adam was the father both of Himself and of those who have been first enumerated from whom Mary derives her descent. For we know that the fathers of women are the fathers likewise of those children whom their daughters bear.'
Even clearer are ch. 23ff. of Justin's first Apology (in which he dissociates himself from Marcion - he is the only living opponent, mentioned in 1Apol.), where Justin wants to prove that the virgin birth narrative has been foretold by the Prophets - he wants to make a case for this narrative, but it only shows that this addition to the written Gospel (Marcion's) was, yet, less accepted than Marcion's Gospel itself. In none of the instances where Justin refers to the virgin birth or to any other text does he mention 'as it is written in the Gospel' - the only instance being Marcion's Gospel. But for readers today, after having been used for hundreds of years to the idea that these canonical stories are decades older than Marcion, it is difficult to resist the temptation in turning the evidence upside down. When Justin only literally quotes Marcion - then neither, because he favours this text, nor because he rejects it, simply because it is the accepted version - while the others are in the making, a process within which Justin is himself part of, as is his pupil Tatian who either at that time with Justin or later tries to make sense of what obviously made still little sense to his master Justin, namely to have an obviously brilliant text, born out of - what Justin regarded - as at least a partly misleading idea.
Sir, can you please explain me what happened with the image of Three women from the Crypt. Baptistery of Dura-Europos. 230 AD? It disappeared from the entire world wide web!!!
ReplyDeleteWill post it again, in short!
ReplyDeleteThanks yours Markus
Thanks/ Very interesting/ May be, this would have been useful for you:
ReplyDeletehttp://gnosticism.livejournal.com/64689.html