Solving the Synoptic Problem with Marcion?

It is commonly assumed that our three Synoptics, Mark, Matthew and Luke are literally related and that because of the many parallels between Matthew and Luke, these two – independently – are based on Mark, the oldest Gospel, and because of the parallels that Matthew and Luke share despite being independent of each other, they had also one further potential source, Quelle in German, or internationally abbreviated Q, of sayings of Christ, which is no longer extant.

On that basis, however, it is difficult to explain, how, both based on the same two foundations of Mark and Q, in which no birth-stories are present, the unrelated Matthew and Luke developed birth-stories of Jesus, indeed so very different from each other. Luke with his over 2000 words story agrees only in less than 20 words with the much shorter roughly 900 words account of Matthew in the following concise passage:

Luke 1:26-2:7	Luke 1:26-2:7	Matthew 1:18-2:11	Matthew 1:18-2:11
1:26 Ἐν δὲ τῷ μηνὶ τῷ ἕκτῳ ἀπεστάλη ὁ ἄγγελος Γαβριὴλ ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἧ ὄνομα Ναζαρὲθ, 1:27 πρὸς παρθένον ἐμνηστευμένην ἀνδρὶ ᾧ ὄνομα Ἰωσὴφ ἐξ οἴκου Δαυίδ, καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τῆς παρθένου Μαριάμ. … 1:30 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἄγγελος αὐτῇ· Μὴ φοβοῦ, Μαριάμ· εὗρες γὰρ χάριν παρὰ τῷ θεῷ· 1:31 καὶ ἰδοὺ, συλλήμψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν… 1:35 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἄγγελος εἶπεν αὐτῇ· Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ … 2:4 ἀνέβη δὲ καὶ Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἐκ πόλεως Ναζαρὲθ εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν εἰς πόλιν Δαυὶδ ἥτις καλεῖται Βηθλέεμ, διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς Δαυίδ, 2:5 ἀπογράψασθαι σὺν Μαριὰμ τῇ ἐμνηστευμένῃ αὐτῷ, οὔσῃ ἐγκύῳ. 2:6 ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἐκεῖ ἐπλήσθησαν αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ τεκεῖν αὐτήν, 2:7 καὶ ἔτεκεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον· καὶ ἐσπαργάνωσεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἀνέκλινεν αὐτὸν ἐν φάτνῃ, διότι οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τόπος ἐν τῷ καταλύματι.	1:26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, 1:27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, a descendant of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary... 1:30 So the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God! 1:31 Listen: You will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus... 1:35 The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you ... 2:4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family line of David. 2:5 He went to be registered with Mary, who was promised in marriage to him, and who was expecting a child. 2:6 While they were there, the time came for her to deliver her child. 2:7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in strips of cloth and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.	1:18 Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ γένεσις οὕτως ἦν. μνηστευθείσης τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τῷ Ἰωσήφ, πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτοὺς εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου. 1:19 Ἰωσὴφ δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς, δίκαιος ὢν καὶ μὴ θέλων αὐτὴν δειγματίσαι, ἐβουλήθη λάθρᾳ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτήν. 1:20 Ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος ἰδοὺ, ἄγγελος κυρίου κατ᾿ ὄναρ ἐφάνη αὐτῷ, λέγων· Ἰωσὴφ, υἱὸς Δαυίδ, μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαρίαν τὴν γυναῖκά σου, τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου· 1:21 τέξεται δὲ υἱὸν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν, αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν. … 1:25 καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν·… 2:2 λέγοντες· Ποῦ ἐστιν ὁ τεχθεὶς … 2:10 ἰδόντες δὲ τὸν ἀστέρα ἐχάρησαν χαρὰν μεγάλην σφόδρα. 2:11 καὶ ἐλθόντες εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν εἶδον τὸ παιδίον μετὰ Μαρίας	1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ happened this way. While his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 1:19 Because Joseph, her husband to be, was a righteous man, and because he did not want to disgrace her, he intended to divorce her privately. 1:20 When he had contemplated this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, because the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 1:21 She will give birth to a son and you will name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” 1:25 but did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son … 2:2 saying, “Where is the one who is born … 2:10 When they saw the star they shouted joyfully. 2:11 As they came into the house and saw the child with Mary ...

 

Without knowing any Greek, one can discover the minimal overlapping information. Information in parallel between Luke and Matthew is set in bold. And yet, even within this small fragments from the two varying birthstories, most of the text is entirely different. So far, scholars have referred the discrepancy between the two accounts to the lack of a common source, pointing to Mark’s lack of a birthstory, no birthstory was assumed to be in the saying’s source Q – and yet, we could also point to Marcion’s Gospel which, as we know, did not provide any birthstory.

When we look beyond the birthstories to the opening or re-openings of the Synoptics we notice the following textual scenario which does not differ much from the previous one with the addition that Mark has joined Matthew and Luke in providing the story of Jesus’ being baptized by John:

 

-	Luke 3.21-22.	Mark 1.9-11.	Matthew 3.13-17.
	21 Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ βαπτισθῆναι ἅπαντα τὸν λαὸν   καὶ Ἰησοῦ βαπτισθέντος καὶ προσευχομένου ἀνεῳχθῆναι τὸν οὐρανὸν 22 καὶ καταβῆναι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡς περιστερὰν ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν, καὶ φωνὴν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ γενέσθαι· Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός· ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα.	9 Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου. 10 καὶ εὐθὺς ἀναβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος εἶδεν σχιζομένους τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ὡς περιστερὰν καταβαῖνον εἰς αὐτόν· 11 καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν· Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός· ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα.	13 Τότε παραγίνεται ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰορδάνην πρὸς τὸν Ἰωάννην τοῦ βαπτισθῆναι ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ. 14 ὁ δὲ Ἰωάννης διεκώλυεν αὐτὸν λέγων· Ἐγὼ χρείαν ἔχω ὑπὸ σοῦ βαπτισθῆναι, καὶ σὺ ἔρχῃ πρός με; 15 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτόν· Ἄφες ἄρτι, οὕτως γὰρ πρέπον ἐστὶν ἡμῖν πληρῶσαι πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην. τότε ἀφίησιν αὐτόν. 16 βαπτισθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εὐθὺς ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος, καὶ ἰδοὺ, ἠνεῴχθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ οὐρανοί, καὶ εἶδεν τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ καταβαῖνον ὡσεὶ περιστερὰν καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν· 17 καὶ ἰδοὺ, φωνὴ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν λέγουσα· Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα.

 

Mark starts with Jesus being baptized by John. This is exactly where Matthew re-starts his Gospel, having jumped straight from Jesus’ birth and Herod to the beginning of Mark. This is a good indicator that Matthew indeed used Mark as his source. And it would discount Marcion’s Gospel as their source, as this one did not begin with Jesus being baptized by John, but with Jesus’ starting teaching in Galilee. Unfortunately we cannot take Q here either, as scholars are divided whether or not the sayings source started with the baptism narrative. With Q being a saying-source, there is also a dispute, to what extent it did display an overall narrative structure – a major difference to the one preserved sayings’ gospel, the Gospel of Thomas.[1] We have to move to Luke. Luke is the literally closest text to Marcion’s Gospel. And, indeed, Luke does not start like Mark, his potential source, or like Matthew with Jesus’ Baptism, but, like Marcion, with Jesus’ teaching in Galilee. If Luke were based on Mark – why did he choose a different opening which coincides with that of Marcion? Of course, Marcion could have simply followed Luke. When we look, however, further into details of what happens between Marcion, Luke, Mark and Matthew, we will discover a general rule which could be supported with a series of examples: very often where Marcion is missing, our three Synoptics are at variance, either entirely, or almost entirely as in the birth-stories, but as soon as we know of verses which are attested for Marcion, the Synoptics not only start getting closer, but they are often literally identical – following Marcion word by word, sometimes only with minimal, theological corrections. As soon, however, as Marcion’s texts end, our Synoptics begin to diverge again.

Let us look at a second example that immediately follows the previous one. After their diverse starts with the birthstories, Mark and Matthew (re-)opened with Jesus’ Baptism which is – only slightly later – also reported in Luke, but, as could be seen, with lots of textual variances. Then, however, follows the pericope of Jesus’ teaching – a passage with which Marcion’s Gospel sets in:

The Gospel 1:2-9; {3:27}	Luke 3:1-6; 4:16-37; {7:27}†	Mark 1:2-6; {1:21-8}; 6:1-6a	Matthew 3:1-6; {7:28b-9}; {11:10}; 13:53-8
1:2 Ἐν ἔτει δὲ πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος, ἡγεμονεύοντος Ποντίου Πιλάτου τῆς Ἰουδαίας, {(3:27) Ἰδοὺ, ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου ἔμπροσθέν σου.}[2] 1:3 katelqw;n oJ  jIhsou'" a[nwqen εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας ejfavnh καὶ  ἤρξατο διδάσκειν ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ,[3] 1:4 καὶ πάντες ἐθαύμαζον ἐπὶ τοῖς λόγοις τῆς χάριτος τοῖς ἐκπορευομένοις ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ. 1:5 καὶ ἔλεγον· <Οὐχὶ> υἱός <Ἰωσὴφ> ἐστιν οὗτος;[4] 1:6 Ἔα, τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ; ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς; οἶδά τίς εἶ, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ. 1:7 καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς[5] καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς· Πάντως ἐρεῖτέ μοι τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην· Ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν· {(27) καὶ πολλοὶ λεπροὶ ἦσαν ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ ἐπὶ Ἐλισαίου τοῦ προφήτου, καὶ οὐδεὶς αὐτῶν ἐκαθαρίσθη εἰ μὴ Ναιμὰν ὁ Σύρος.}[6] 1:8 καὶ ἀναστάντες ἐξέβαλον αὐτὸν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως, καὶ ἤγαγον αὐτὸν ἕως ὀφρύος τοῦ ὄρους ὥστε κατακρημνίσαι αὐτόν· 1:9 αὐτὸς δὲ διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν ἐπορεύετο.	3:1 Ἐν ἔτει δὲ πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος, ἡγεμονεύοντος Ποντίου Πιλάτου τῆς Ἰουδαίας, καὶ τετρααρχοῦντος τῆς Γαλιλαίας  Ἡρῴδου, Φιλίππου δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ τετρααρχοῦντος τῆς Ἰτουραίας καὶ Τραχωνίτιδος χώρας, καὶ Λυσανίου τῆς Ἀβιληνῆς τετρααρχοῦντος, 3:2 ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως JΑννα καὶ Καϊάφα,   {7:27 Ἰδοὺ, ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου ἔμπροσθέν σου.} ἐγένετο ῥῆμα θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν Ζαχαρίου υἱὸν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. 3:3 καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς πᾶσαν περίχωρον τοῦ Ἰορδάνου κηρύσσων βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. 3:4a ὡς γέγραπται ἐν βίβλῳ λόγων Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου· 3:4b φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ· Ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ. 3:5 πᾶσα φάραγξ πληρωθήσεται καὶ πᾶν ὄρος καὶ βουνὸς ταπεινωθήσεται, καὶ ἔσται τὰ σκολιὰ εἰς εὐθείαν καὶ αἱ τραχεῖαι εἰς ὁδοὺς λείας· 3:6 καὶ ὄψεται πᾶσα σὰρξ τὸ σωτήριον τοῦ θεοῦ.[7] 4:14 Καὶ ὑπέστρεψεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ πνεύματος εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν. καὶ φήμη ἐξῆλθεν καθ' ὅλης τῆς περιχώρου περὶ αὐτοῦ. 15καὶ αὐτὸς ἐδίδασκεν ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν, δοξαζόμενος ὑπὸ πάντων. 4:16 Καὶ  ἦλθεν εἰς Ναζαρά,   οὗ ἦν τεθραμμένος, καὶ εἰσῆλθεν κατὰ τὸ εἰωθὸς αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων εἰς τὴν συναγωγήν, καὶ ἀνέστη ἀναγνῶναι. 4:17 καὶ ἐπεδόθη αὐτῷ βιβλίον τοῦ προφήτου Ἠσαΐου, καὶ ἀναπτύξας τὸ βιβλίον εὗρεν τὸν τόπον οὗ ἦν γεγραμμένον· 4:18 Πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ᾿ ἐμέ, οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς, ἀπέσταλκέν με κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν, ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει, 4:19 κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν. 4:20 καὶ πτύξας τὸ βιβλίον ἀποδοὺς τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ ἐκάθισεν· καὶ πάντων οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ ἦσαν ἀτενίζοντες αὐτῷ. 4:21 ἤρξατο δὲ λέγειν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι, Σήμερον πεπλήρωται ἡ γραφὴ αὕτη ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν ὑμῶν. 4:22 καὶ πάντες ἐμαρτύρουν αὐτῷ[8] καὶ ἐθαύμαζον ἐπὶ τοῖς λόγοις τῆς χάριτος τοῖς ἐκπορευομένοις ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔλεγον· Οὐχὶ υἱός ἐστιν Ἰωσὴφ οὗτος; 4:23 καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς· Πάντως ἐρεῖτέ μοι τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην· Ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν· ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν γενόμενα εἰς τὴν Καφαρναοὺμ ποίησον καὶ ὧδε ἐν τῇ πατρίδι σου. 4:24 εἶπεν δέ, Ἀμὴν, λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐδεὶς προφήτης δεκτός ἐστιν ἐν τῇ πατρίδι αὐτοῦ. 4:25 ἐπ᾿ ἀληθείας δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, πολλαὶ χῆραι ἦσαν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἠλίου ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ, ὅτε ἐκλείσθη ὁ οὐρανὸς ἐπὶ ἔτη τρία καὶ μῆνας ἕξ, ὡς ἐγένετο λιμὸς μέγας ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν, 4:26 καὶ πρὸς οὐδεμίαν αὐτῶν ἐπέμφθη Ἠλίας εἰ μὴ εἰς Σάρεπτα τῆς Σιδωνίας πρὸς γυναῖκα χήραν. 4:27 καὶ πολλοὶ λεπροὶ ἦσαν ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ ἐπὶ Ἐλισαίου τοῦ προφήτου, καὶ οὐδεὶς αὐτῶν ἐκαθαρίσθη εἰ μὴ Ναιμὰν ὁ Σύρος. 4:28 καὶ ἐπλήσθησαν πάντες θυμοῦ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ ἀκούοντες ταῦτα, 4:29 καὶ ἀναστάντες ἐξέβαλον αὐτὸν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως, καὶ ἤγαγον αὐτὸν ἕως ὀφρύος τοῦ ὄρους ἐφ᾿ οὗ ἡ πόλις ᾠκοδόμητο αὐτῶν, ὥστε κατακρημνίσαι αὐτόν· 4:30 αὐτὸς δὲ διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν ἐπορεύετο. 4:31 Καὶ κατῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας. καὶ ἦν διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν: 4:32 καὶ ἐξεπλήσσοντο ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ ἦν ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ. 4:33 Καὶ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ ἦν ἄνθρωπος ἔχων πνεῦμα δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτου, καὶ ἀνέκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· 4:34 Ἔα, τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ; ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς; οἶδά σε τίς εἶ, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ. 4:35 καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων· Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ. καὶ ῥίψαν αὐτὸν τὸ δαιμόνιον εἰς τὸ μέσον ἐξῆλθεν ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ μηδὲν βλάψαν αὐτόν. 4:36 καὶ ἐγένετο θάμβος ἐπὶ πάντας, καὶ συνελάλουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους λέγοντες· Τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος, ὅτι ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ καὶ δυνάμει ἐπιτάσσει τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις πνεύμασιν, καὶ ἐξέρχονται; 4:37 καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο ἦχος περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς πάντα τόπον τῆς περιχώρου.} 4:23 καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς· Πάντως ἐρεῖτέ μοι τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην· Ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν· ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν γενόμενα εἰς τὴν Καφαρναοὺμ ποίησον καὶ ὧδε ἐν τῇ πατρίδι σου. 4:24 εἶπεν δέ, Ἀμὴν, λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐδεὶς προφήτης δεκτός ἐστιν ἐν τῇ πατρίδι αὐτοῦ. 4:25 ἐπ᾿ ἀληθείας δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, πολλαὶ χῆραι ἦσαν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἠλίου ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ, ὅτε ἐκλείσθη ὁ οὐρανὸς ἐπὶ ἔτη τρία καὶ μῆνας ἕξ, ὡς ἐγένετο λιμὸς μέγας ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν, 4:26 καὶ πρὸς οὐδεμίαν αὐτῶν ἐπέμφθη Ἠλίας εἰ μὴ εἰς Σάρεπτα τῆς Σιδωνίας πρὸς γυναῖκα χήραν. 27 καὶ πολλοὶ λεπροὶ ἦσαν ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ ἐπὶ Ἐλισαίου τοῦ προφήτου, καὶ οὐδεὶς αὐτῶν ἐκαθαρίσθη εἰ μὴ Ναιμὰν ὁ Σύρος. 4:28 καὶ ἐπλήσθησαν πάντες θυμοῦ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ ἀκούοντες ταῦτα, 4:29 καὶ ἀναστάντες ἐξέβαλον αὐτὸν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως, καὶ ἤγαγον αὐτὸν ἕως ὀφρύος τοῦ ὄρους ἐφ᾿ οὗ ἡ πόλις ᾠκοδόμητο αὐτῶν, ὥστε κατακρημνίσαι αὐτόν· 4:30 αὐτὸς δὲ διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν ἐπορεύετο.	1:2 Καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ, Ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου:   1:3 φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, Ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ 1:4 ἐγένετο Ἰωάννης [ὁ] βαπτίζων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ κηρύσσων βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.               1:5 Καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο πρὸς αὐτὸν πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα καὶ οἱ Ἱεροσολυμῖται πάντες, καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταμῷ ἐξομολογούμενοι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν. 1:6 Καὶ ἦν ὁ Ἰωάννης ἐνδεδυμένος τρίχας καμήλου καὶ ζώνην δερματίνην περὶ τὴν ὀσφὺν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐσθίων ἀκρίδας καὶ μέλι ἄγριον. 6:1 Καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκεῖθεν, καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς τὴν πατρίδα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀκολουθοῦσιν αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ.  6:2a καὶ γενομένου σαββάτου ἤρξατο διδάσκειν ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ· {1:21 Καὶ εἰσπορεύονται εἰς Καφαρναούμ. καὶ εὐθὺς τοῖς σάββασιν εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὴν συναγωγήν, ἐδίδασκεν. 1:22 καὶ ἐξεπλήσσοντο ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ, ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς.}  6:2b καὶ πολλοὶ ἀκούοντες ἐξεπλήσσοντο           6:2c λέγοντες· Πόθεν τούτῳ ταῦτα, καὶ τίς ἡ σοφία ἡ δοθεῖσα τούτῳ καὶ αἱ δυνάμεις τοιαῦται διὰ τῶν χειρῶν αὐτοῦ γινόμεναι; 6:3 οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τέκτων, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας καὶ ἀδελφὸς Ἰακώβου καὶ Ἰωσῆτος καὶ Ἰούδα καὶ Σίμωνος; καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν αἱ ἀδελφαὶ αὐτοῦ ὧδε πρὸς ἡμᾶς; καὶ ἐσκανδαλίζοντο ἐν αὐτῷ. {1:23 Καὶ εὐθὺς ἦν ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ αὐτῶν ἄνθρωπος ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ, καὶ ἀνέκραξεν 1:24 λέγων·                     Τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ; ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς; οἶδά σε τίς εἶ, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ. 1:25 καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων· Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ. 1:26 καὶ σπαράξαν αὐτὸν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἀκάθαρτον καὶ φωνῆσαν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἐξῆλθεν ἐξ αὐτοῦ. 1:27 καὶ ἐθαμβήθησαν ἅπαντες ὥστε συζητεῖν πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς λέγοντας· Τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; διδαχὴ καινὴ κατ᾿ ἐξουσίαν; καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις ἐπιτάσσει, καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ. 1:28 καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἡ ἀκοὴ αὐτοῦ εὐθὺς πανταχοῦ εἰς ὅλην τὴν περίχωρον τῆς Γαλιλαίας.}  4 καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς                      ὅτι, Οὐκ ἔστιν προφήτης ἄτιμος εἰ μὴ ἐν τῇ πατρίδι αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τοῖς συγγενεῦσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ                                               5 καὶ οὐκ ἐδύνατο ἐκεῖ ποιῆσαι οὐδεμίαν δύναμιν, εἰ μὴ ὀλίγοις ἀρρώστοις ἐπιθεὶς τὰς χεῖρας ἐθεράπευσεν· 6a καὶ ἐθαύμαζεν διὰ τὴν ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν.	3:1 Ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις       παραγίνεται Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτιστὴς κηρύσσων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τῆς Ἰουδαίας {11.10 Ἰδοὺ, ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου ἔμπροσθέν σου.} 3:2 λέγων, Μετανοεῖτε, ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. 3:3a οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ῥηθεὶς διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· 3:3b φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ· Ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ.   3:4 αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Ἰωάννης εἶχεν τὸ ἔνδυμα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τριχῶν καμήλου καὶ ζώνην δερματίνην περὶ τὴν ὀσφὺν αὐτοῦ, ἡ δὲ τροφὴ ἦν αὐτοῦ ἀκρίδες καὶ μέλι ἄγριον 3:5 τότε ἐξεπορεύετο πρὸς αὐτὸν Ἱεροσόλυμα καὶ πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία καὶ πᾶσα ἡ περίχωρος τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, 3:6 καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταμῷ ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐξομολογούμενοι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν. 13:53 Καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὰς παραβολὰς ταύτας, μετῆρεν ἐκεῖθεν. 13:54a καὶ ἐλθὼν εἰς τὴν πατρίδα αὐτοῦ  13:54b ἐδίδασκεν αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ αὐτῶν,                                           13:54c ὥστε ἐκπλήσσεσθαι αὐτοὺς {7:28b ἐξεπλήσσοντο οἱ ὄχλοι ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ· 7:29 ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν.} 13:54d καὶ λέγειν· Πόθεν τούτῳ ἡ σοφία αὕτη καὶ αἱ δυνάμεις; 13:55 οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός; οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ λέγεται Μαριὰμ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ Σίμων καὶ Ἰούδας; 13:56 καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαὶ αὐτοῦ οὐχὶ πᾶσαι πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰσιν; πόθεν οὖν τούτῳ ταῦτα πάντα; 13:57 καὶ ἐσκανδαλίζοντο ἐν αὐτῷ.                                                       ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· Οὐκ ἔστιν προφήτης ἄτιμος εἰ μὴ ἐν τῇ πατρίδι καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ. 13:58 καὶ οὐκ ἐποίησεν ἐκεῖ δυνάμεις πολλὰς διὰ τὴν ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν.

 

Again, even for readers who do not command the Greek language it will be quickly visible from the parallel colums that where Marcion’s Gospel comes into play, we can discover a noticeable change within the other three Synoptics.

While we cannot make much of the immediate opening, there are some parallels and differences for the initial verses: Mark first is entirely absent, Matthew has only the two first words Ἐν δὲ in common. But suddenly in Mark 1:2 we see that all three Synoptics are absolutely identically quoting the mixed citation of Ex. 23:20 and Mal. 3:1. This could be accident, and Marcion could have followed the same pattern of Luke and Matthew, if Mark were their source. However, where Marcion stops, the Synoptics end in their convergence and continue differently, before they pick up the next quote in Mark 1:3 from Isa. 40:3. Of course, that they also have this verse identically in common speaks for a literal literation where Marcion cannot be the source. After this quote, however, our three Synoptics continue with an extraordinary mixture of parallels and differences, and this remains true until they hit the next Marcion text, namely that Jesus ‘began teaching in the synagogue’. The curly underline indicates that where Marcion comes into play, the Synoptics converge. And, although they continue, where Marcion ends, they are again as diverse as before. Then, our Synoptics only come together, again, precisely were Marcion starts: ‘Is this not Joseph’s son’. Perhaps most visible is such convergence in Marcion’s Gospel 1:6. Whereas Luke, Mark and Matthew are showing parallels and variations before Marcion’s parallel text, Matthew now suddenly breaks off, while Luke and Mark are absolutely literally identical with the verse in Marcion. And only for the length of Marcion’s verse. Instantaneously after Marcion’s text ends, Luke and Mark become diverse again. Now, if Mark were the source for Luke, and Marcion was copying Luke, how could Luke’s and Mark’s and to some extent Matthew’s relation change so drastically? It all hints at Marcion being a key factor for the innersynoptic relation. We could look at many other parallels and would find the similar structure – to give but a few more examples: Jesus healing the sick at evening (Luke 4:40-1; Mark 1:32-4. 3:11b; Matth. 8:16-7) – The only elements which all three Synoptics have in common are those that are found in Marcion, namely that Jesus healt demons; very similar in the next pericope, the miraculous catch of fish (Luke 5:1-11; Mark 1:16-20; Matth. 4:18-22), which is recounted in two very different forms, one particular to Luke and another where Mark and Matthew are closer, albeit showing variations in every verse – yet what they all have literally in common is, what we read in Marcion, that Jesus exhorts them to become fisher of people and that they left everything (or in Mark and Matthew) their nets. In the periocope of the companion in misery and hatred (Luke 5:12-6; Mark 1:40-5; Matth. 8:1-4), Marcion can also explain here one of the minor agreements between Luke and Matthew, although were Marcion is attested, even Mark joins the party here and there. But precisely where Marcion’s text breaks off, there also Matthew ends, while from this moment Luke and Mark are barely any longer parallel.

---

[1] See M. Goodacre, The Case against Q (Harrisburg, 2002), 176-84.

[2] On this verse see below, but it is attested by several witnesses, though not at this early stage in the Gospel as in Mark.

[3] D.T. Roth, New Reconstruction (2009), 174 has already noticed that ‘Tertullian seems to reflect a text closer to that of Mark 1:21 (eijselqw;n eij~ th;n sunagwgh;n ejdivdasken) than Luke 4:31 (h\n didavskwn aujtou;~ ejn toi`~ savbbasin)’, although he also adds that ‘there is no evidence for the Markan reading in Luke 4:31 in the extant manuscript tradition’, I still think that we have to follow Tertullian here, especially as it is supported by Hippol., Philos. VII 31 and Ephrem., Diat. (129-30).

[4] The same wording in D.

[5] D.T. Roth, New Reconstruction (2009), 174: ‘According to IGNTP, the extant witnesses to the text are nearly uniform, and there is no difficulty in positing that Marcion’s text read ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς’.

[6] On this verse see below. It is well attested by Tertullian, Epiphanius ‘and possibly in Adam.’, so D.T. Roth, New Reconstruction (2009), 96, but both Tertullian and Epiphanius ‘attest its presence in Marcion’s Gospel in ther pericope of the cleansing of the ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19)’ (ibid. 172).

[7] Attested as absent verses through our witnesses that give us the opening of Marcion’s Gospel with Christ’s descent to Capharnaum.

[8] The following ἐμαρτύρουν αὐτῷ in Luke is Hapax.

Book of the 24 Philosophers

Liber viginti quattor philosophorum

 

< PROLOGUS>
Congregatis viginti quattuor philosophis, solum eis in quaestione remansit: quid est Deus? Qui communi consilio datis indutiis et tempore iterum conveniendi statuto, singuli de Deo proprias proponerent propositiones sub definitione, ut ex propriis definitionibus excerptum certum aliquid de Deo communi assensu statuerent.

I
DEUS EST MONAS MONADEM GIGNENS IN SE UNUM REFLECTENS ARDOREM.
Haec definitio data est secundum imaginationem primae causae, prout se numerose multiplicat in se, ut sit multiplicans acceptus sub unitate, multiplicatus sub binario, reflexus sub ternario. Sic quidem est in numeris: unaquaeque unitas proprium habet numerum, quia super diuersum ab aliis reflectitur.

II
DEUS EST SPHAERA INFINITA CUIUS CENTRUM EST UBIQUE, CIRCUMFERENTIA NUSQUAM.
Haec definitio data est per modum imaginandi ut continuum ipsam primam causam in vita sua. Terminus quidem suae extensionis est supra, ubi et extra terminans. Propter hoc ubique est centrum eius, nullam habens in anima dimensionem. Cum quaerit circumferentiam suae sphaericitatis, elevatam in infinitum dicet, quia quicquid est sine dimensione sicut creationis fuit initium est.

III
DEUS EST TOTUS IN QUOLIBET SUI.
Haec definitio data est secundum considerationem essentiae divinitatis in sua simplicitate. Cum non sit aliquid ipsi resistens, ipsa simul ubique tota ens, et etiam similiter super et extra, ubique non distrahitur defectu virtutis alicuius in ipsa deficientis, nec stat terminata virtute alieni dominantis.

IV
DEUS EST MENS ORATIONEM GENERANS, CONTINUATIONEM PERSEVERANS.
Haec definitio dicit vitam propriam secundum rationes diversas ipsius essentiae deitatis. Numerat enim se genitor gignendo; genitura vero verbificat se quia gignitur; adaequatur vero per modum continuationis <qui> se habet spirando.

V
DEUS EST QUO NIHIL MELIUS EXCOGITARI POTEST.
Haec definitio data est a fine. Unitas vero finis est et perfectio. Quod ergo sonat hoc, bonum est, et quanto magis, tanto magis bonum. Gaudium ergo veritatis omnis essentiae sua vita est, vita quidem omnis ab unitate, haec autem ab interiori indivisione. Quanto igitur magis unum, tanto magis vivit. Sua unitas summa est.

VI
DEUS EST CUIUS COMPARATIONE SUBSTANTIA EST ACCIDENS, ET ACCIDENS NIHIL
Haec definitio datur sub relatione. Subiectum quoque accidentis propria substantia est cum aliena. Quae aliena si recedit, perit accidens, id est proprietas agens. Relatione ergo ad primam causam omnis substantia accidens est, et accidens nihil, et substat nihil substantiae ut alienum. Substantia divina est ut substantia propria quae non fluit.

VII
DEUS EST PRINCIPIUM SINE PRINCIPIO, PROCESSUS SINE VARIATIONE, FINIS SINE FINE.
Haec definitio est secundum speciem data. Genitor vero primum capit ratione geniturae, sed non sic primo ut non prius. Genitus vero procedit generatione in finem, sed non recipit variationem natura medii. Intendit enim quod idem est finis vero nomine generantis et geniti, quia non est vita divina nisi unum medio tantum; sed non est finis ratione operis, ut quies et motus.

VIII
DEUS EST AMOR QUI PLUS HABITUS MAGIS LATET.
Haec definitio data est per effectum. In prima causa id a quo vita et est ipsum a quo vita tota. Igitur id ipsum est fons amoris in illo. Quod si rei creatae unitas generantis et geniti ad illam penitus se inclinat, revertendo per viam regressionis, tunc est id ipsum amor creaturae, prout ordinata est creatura ab ipso cui quanto magis te unificaveris, tanto exaltaberis et tanto elevabitur. Et hoc eius latere est.

IX
DEUS EST CUI SOLI PRAESENS EST QUICQUID CUIUS TEMPORIS EST.
Haec definitio est secundum formam. Totum quidem uno aspectu omnes partes videt, pars vero totum non videt, nisi diversis respectibus et successivis. Propter hoc deitas est successivorum totalitas. Unde intuitus eius unicus est, non consequenter factus.

X
DEUS EST CUIUS POSSE NON NUMERATUR, CUIUS ESSE NON CLAUDITUR, CUIUS BONITAS NON TERMINATUR.
Haec definitio patet per quartam et septimam. In posse creato, et primo inventus est numerus, secundum plura aut pauciora opera educentia possibile ad actum, quia, si sint infinita, impossibile dicitur. Eius enim quod fiet ab eo actu sunt infinita opera; unde subito operatur. Ubi vero est infinitus numerus ordinatus ad actum et invenitur resistens, non poterit evenire. Omne esse clausionem dicit finitatis alicuius. Unde a centro ad esse eius sunt operationes finitae. In divino esse non est sic, sed opera infinita a centro ad extimum et actum. Unde sua clausio infinita est et actu non impossibilis, nisi quia necesse existens. Unde sequitur quod etiam redeundo est interminata bonitas via securior ab esse in unitatem centri.

XI
DEUS EST SUPER ENS, NECESSE, SOLUS SIBI ABUNDANTER, SUFFICIENTER
Haec definitio formalis est, sed relata. Esse omne clausionem dicit. Superest igitur qui non clauditur. Et necesse quia malum non habet, quia non clauditur, sed infinita possibilitate. Nec sic distrahitur suum superesse quin redeat a se in se, et non totum indigenter, sed exuberanter.

XII
DEUS EST CUIUS VOLUNTAS DEIFICAE ET POTENTIAE ET SAPIENTIAE ADAEQUATUR.
Voluntas, scire et posse principia sunt actionis in creaturis. Non aequalia sunt quia voluntas est deformior quam scire et posse. Mihi quidem natura coartavit posse, correptio vero scire, sed remanet voluntas non coacta usque ad elongationem perpetuam.

XIII
DEUS EST SEMPITERNITAS AGENS IN SE, SINE DIVISIONE ET HABITU.
Agunt creata et acquirunt habitum. Agunt et deficiunt continuatione quia inveniunt resistens. Unde fatigatio scindit vim. Sic non est in creatore. Non transmutatur acquirendo habitum. Non indiget obumbratione ut quiescat fatigatus.

XIV
DEUS EST OPPOSITIO NIHIL MEDIATIONE ENTIS.
Haec definitio imaginari facit Deum esse sphaeram in cuius centro nihil incarceratur. Et est continue agens sphaera divina opus divinum quo detinet nihil in suo esse aeternaliter, a quo per exuberantiam suae bonitatis vocavit in esse rem quae est quasi circa centrum. Quae si ad esse actum attrahit, stabit sphaera, si ad esse possibile, redibit ad nihilum.

XV
DEUS EST VITA CUIUS VIA IN FORMAM EST VERITAS, IN UNITATEM BONITAS.
Est motus a medio et ad medium: primus dat esse, secundus dat vivere. In Deo primus motus est via generantis ad genitum cum esse; secundus, id est via conversa, est bonitas.

XVI
DEUS EST QUOD SOLUM VOCES NON SIGNIFICANT PROPTER EXCELLENTIAM, NEC MENTES INTELLIGUNT PROPTER DISSIMILITUDINEM.
Officium vocis est significare intellectus mentis, et non aliud. Anima non invenit in se speciem vel exemplar Dei, quia ipsa sunt penitus ipse, non secundum quod sit in rebus. Ergo dissimilis est ei secundum se totum, et non intellectus, igitur nec significatus.

XVII
DEUS EST INTELLECTUS SUI SOLUM, PRAEDICATIONEM NON RECIPIENS.
Non cognoscitur nodus per relationem nodi. Praedicatio in rebus est ut diversis rationibus explicetur quod unica includitur. Igitur cum in Deo non sint diversae rationes secundum prius et posterius, perficientes quid eius secundum magis et minus, non recipit praedicationem, sed se ipsum ipse intelligit quia ipsum ad ipsum generat.

XVIII
DEUS EST SPHAERA CUIUS TOT SUNT CIRCUMFERENTIAE QUOT PUNCTA.
Ista sequitur ex secunda, quia cum sit totus sine dimensione, et etiam dimensionis infinitae, non erit in sphaera suae essentiae extremum. Igitur non est in extremo punctus quin exterius sit circumferentia.

XIX
DEUS EST SEMPER MOVENS IMMOBILIS.
Immobilis dicitur Deus quia est secundum unam dispositionem semper, et hoc est esse in quiete. Movens semper est, quia vivens in se, tamen sine alteratione. Intelligit se intellectu simplici, et hoc est quod intellectus perficit intellectum, et intellectum est forma intelligentis.

XX
DEUS EST QUI SOLUS SUI INTELLECTU VIVIT.
Non vivit sicut corpora quae recipiunt aliena intra se ut convertant ea in sui naturam. Non vivit ut corpora supracaelestia quae a spiritibus habent motum, nec vivit ut intelligentiae, animae quae ab ipsius unitate sustentantur. Sed a se ipso et in se intelligendo vivit et est superessentialiter.

XXI
DEUS EST TENEBRA IN ANIMA POST OMNEM LUCEM RELICTA.
Species rerum apud animam, quae detegunt quod in ipsa est gratia cuius Deus quodammodo omnia, ipse illuminat animae. Sed post abiectionem omnium istarum formarum contemplatur divinitatem. Abnegando et removendo omnes rerum species ab ipsa, convertit se supra se et vult videre causam primam. Et obtenebratur intellectus animae, quia non est aptus ad illam lucem increatam. Unde cum ad se convertit, dicit: Hic mihi tenebrae sunt.

XXII
DEUS EST EX QUO EST QUICQUID EST NON PARTITIONE, PER QUEM EST NON VARIATIONE, IN QUO EST QUOD EST NON COMMIXTIONE.
Applicatione vero suae triformis essentiae ad nihil, iuxta illas res quae sunt ad esse producit, ut ex generante initium suae existentiae perciperent, per genitum in esse starent, in vivificatore permanerent. Sed sic ex generante – quod ipse non dividitur – aliquid de sua essentia eis adhaerentiam tribueret, nec species divina, rebus speciem dans per se, non per alium, se ipsam variaret, nec vivificator, ipsa in se colligens, commixtionem ex interceptione aut impuritatem contraheret.

XXIII
DEUS EST QUI SOLA IGNORANTIA MENTE COGNOSCITUR.
Haec definitio cognoscitur per vicesimam primam. Nihil cognoscitur ab anima nisi cuius speciem recipere potest et ad exemplar eius quod est in ipsa comparare. Nullius enim habet anima exemplar nisi illius quod per ipsam a prima causa fluxit in esse. Igitur eius quod est super ipsam non habebit cognitionem, igitur non primae causae. Sed cum omnem aliorum contemplata fuerit scientiam, extrahendo ipsam primam causam a rebus et supponendo oppositionem nihil, quantum poterit acquirere sic habebit cognitionem. Et hoc est vere ignorare, scilicet scire quid non est, et nesciendo quid est.

XXIV
DEUS EST LUX QUAE FRACTIONE NON CLARESCIT, TRANSIT, SED SOLA DEIFORMITAS IN RE.
Haec definitio est ad essentiam data. Lux creata sicut cadit super rem tenebrosam tantae tenebrositatis quod non sit potens lux illa purgare tenebrosum, propter sui vehementem possibilitatem, tunc frangitur lux in radiis, in maximo scilicet sui acuti, et pertransit in accidentia, essentialis cum ista fractio accidentia multiplicat. Et haec claritas est. Lux divina non invenit in rebus creatis tantam possibilitatem quae eam frangat in sui actione; unde omnia pertransit. Sed sola deiformitas in re, illa multiplicat et claritatem in re generat, in se nullam. Et hoc est quod dicit.

Nota. Alcuni cambiamenti sono stati proposti da P. Lucentini, Il Libro dei ventiquattro filosofi (Piccola Biblioteca Adelphi 429), Milano 1999. Sent. VII. Il testo sembra imporre l’espunzione del primo non, scritto forse per erronea anticipazione del non successivo: “sed [non] sic primo ut non prius”. Sent. XIV. E’ preferibile la lezione semper, attestata in alcuni manoscritti, in luogo di sphaera, che sembra introdurre una contraddizione: “stabit semper”. Del resto le abbreviazioni di semper e sphaera potevano essere molto simili. Sent. XXII. L’’integrazione di ut, assente nei manoscritti, è attestata da una citazione letterale in Bertoldo di Moosburg, Expositio super Elementationem theologicam Procli, prop. 126 A, cod. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 2192, f. 194va: “Sed sic ex generante, quod ipse non dividitur <ut> aliquid de sua essentia eis adhaerentiam tribueret”.

• * *

TOMMASO DI YORK, SAPIENTIALE I, 18
Per gentile concessione del “Corpus Christianorum” riproduciamo il commento di Tommaso di York, Sapientiale I, 18, alle prime tre sentenze del Liber viginti quattuor philosophorum. L’edizione critica è opera di F. Hudry, Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis, 143 A, Brepols, Turnhout 1997, pp. 86-96.
THOMAS EBORACENSIS SAPIENTIALE, I, 18
18m capitulum.
Cap. 18m. In ponendo viginti quattuor descriptiones Dei quae dicuntur esse viginti quattuor philosophorum et in exponendo eas, ex quibus nihilominus liquent eminentes proprietates eius.
Post haec ponam descriptiones viginti quattuor quas referuntur dixisse viginti quattuor philosophi, quas singulas singuli post inducias sibi datas in communi protulerunt, et exponam eas breviter. Quarum prima est haec.


1a. DEUS EST MONAS MONADEM GIGNENS ET IN SE SUUM REFLECTENS ARDOREM.
Nomen autem monadis Deo convenienter adaptatur, quia ipsa non est numerus sed fons et origo numerorum, initium finisque omnium nec principium aut finem sciens et propter hoc, sicut dixi, ad summum refertur Deum, prout dicit Macrobius libro I, cap. 7. Cum enim sit triplex unitas secundum Avencebrol libro IV, cap. 19, tum agens, tum patiens, simul agens et patiens, priori modo dicitur unitas, et propter hoc est unus non unitate numerali sed simplicitate impartibili, prout dicit Ieronimus Super principium Regum: Deus dicitur unus non numero sed quia nunquam mutatur, secundum quod dicit Scriptura: natura tua “autem idem ipse es” etc.
Ratio autem huius immutabilitatis est sua indivisibilitas. Nihil indivisibile numerabile, sicut dicit Augustinus De civitate Dei XI, cap. <10>. Unitas est indivisibilis et ideo praefertur omni numero sicut dicit Macrobius in eodem, sicut punctus omni divisioni prout dicit idem <Augustinus> De quantitate animae, igitur secundum quod habetur in Propositionibus ecclesiasticis: Dicitur unus ratione immutabilitatis, sicut iam dictum est.
Similiter ratione simplicitatis, quia in eo nullus numerus, nulla pluralitas secundum Boetium De Trinitate. Nam non est in eo pluralitas partium quae est in corporeis nec accidentalium proprietatum.
Dicitur etiam unus ratione exclusionis, quia non est quae est in corporeis nec diversorum effectuum ostendentium pluralitatem proprietatum in eo pluralitas substantiarum, quia non sunt plures dii.
Nihilominus dicitur unus ratione similitudinis, quia unitas a nullo descendit et omnis pluralitas ab unitate defluit, sicut manifestabitur in capitulo ‘De unitate’.
Et quia monas haec est forma, et forma omnino immaterialis – formae autem per se est suam speciem gignere –, ideo necessario monas monadem gignit, secundum quod dicit Macrobius in eodem quod monas primo genita est. Monadem autem genitam a monade immateriali impossibile est esse aliud a monade gignente quia, sicut dicit Averroes super VII Metaphysicae, cap. <8>, generans non generat aliquid nisi propter materiam, et iterum quia gignens et genitum sunt unum in forma, sicut dicit ibidem. Ubi forma est simplicissima et incommunicabilis secundum numerum, necesse est quod monas gignens et monas genita sit idem in forma. Haec est essentia purissima et simplicissima et aeque simplex genita sicut et gignens, quoniam a simplicissima forma non potest aliquid gigni per decisionem, sed tantummodo per totius naturae communicationem, adeo quod in nullo differat monas a monade, nisi quod haec sit generans et haec genita.
Amplius, quia forma quoddam divinum et optimum et appetibile est, sicut dicit Aristoteles I Physicorum, cap. 24, ideo necessario est ipsa per se amabilis tanquam per se delectabilis. Et propter hoc impossibile est monadem monadem gignere, in qua gignitione est omnimoda formae unitas et nulla in forma gignentis a genita diversitas, quin gignens diligat genitam monaden, et e converso quin genita diligat gignentem. Et hoc est quod dicit ille philosophus: et in se reflectit ardorem. Sicut in duobus purissimis speculis, si splendor unus incideret super alterum, ab altero item reflecteretur in se ipsum, et esset reflexio non tantum in splendore sed calore seu ardore, cuius nomine amor significatur.
Propter hoc dicit: Deus est monas monaden etc.


2a. DEUS EST SPHAERA INTELLIGIBILIS INFINITA CUIUS CENTRUM EST UBIQUE, CIRCUMFERENTIA NUSQUAM.
Haec est secunda propositionum quae, sicut prima data est per gignitivam sui in se multiplicationem, ita et haec per sui in se interminationem, nihilominus per ubitatis sui declarationem.
Nomen autem sphaerae convenienter adaptatur divinae essentiae, quia haec est figurarum completissima vel perfectissima, pulcherrima et optima et prima. Cum enim in figuris circulus praecipue dicatur has habere conditiones, nihilominus et sphaera, et numerosius.
Nam sphaera ex solidis constat, ex planis vero circulus aut orbis qui cyclus graece dicitur, secundum quod dicit Cicero De natura deorum II, cap. 21, et ideo idem decor numero seu perfectio, quae simpliciter est in circulo, numeratur in sphaera. Unde non inconvenienter primae perfectioni, quae quodammodo numeratur in persona sed non in esse, convenit. Perfectissima est quia, cum sphaera contineat figuram circularem, circulum autem est impossibile recipere augmentum aut diminutionem, secundum quod dicit Aristoteles V Metaphysicae, cap. 7, secundum expositionem Averrois, necessario est perfectissima et ideo convenit essentiae perfectissimae.
Ceterum in sphaera non est principium aut finis et ideo designat aeternitatem, sicut diadema apud Martianum. Unde dicitur quasi ‘duo demens’, principium scilicet et finem, et propter hoc convenit naturae aeternae quae est sine principio et fine, sicut ipse dicit in Ysaia: “Ante me non est formatus alius et post me non erit alter”. Sphaera enim est species in rotunditate formata cuius centrum est ex omnibus partibus conclusum, nec principium nec terminum habens, sicut dicit philosophus.
Ipsa autem est pulcherrima, secundum quod dicit Cicero in eodem libro et capitulo: Quid enim pulchrius ea figura quae sola omnes alias figuras complexa continet? Huius autem pulchritudinis causa est singularis sui aequalitas, sicut declarat Augustinus De quantitate animae. Ipsa est optima figurarum, quia secundum Ciceronem: Nihil asperitatis, nihil ostensionis habere potest, nihil incisum angulis, nihil anfractibus, nihil eminens, nihil lacunosum. Ipsa est prima figurarum quia una linea contenta, secundum quod dicit Aristoteles II Caelo et mundo, cap. 5 b, et Augustinus De quantitate animae, et propter hoc inter figuras specialius appropriatur ipsi Deo, cuius essentia perfectissima, pulcherrima et prima.
Quod autem dictus est sphaera intelligibilis, ad differentiam corporalis dictum est; quod INFINITA, ad differentiam intelligibilis sed creatae, unde in expressionem differentiae utriusque subiungit: CUIUS CENTRUM UBIQUE EST etc. Et exponitur sermo ille dupliciter, ut et circumferentia et centrum dicatur de creatore, centrum de creatura.
Igitur per CENTRUM potest intueri virtus Dei omnia penetrans et supportans, per CIRCUMFERENTIAM magnitudo eius omnia circumdans et transcendens, sicut loquitur de hoc Gregorius Moralia II, super illud Iob 1: “Egressus est Sathan a facie Domini” etc. Ipse ait: Manet intra omnia, ipse extra omnia, ipse supra omnia, ipse iuxta omnia, superior per potentiam, inferior per sustentationem, exterior per magnitudinem, interior per subtilitatem; sursum regens, deorsum continens, extra circumdans, interius penetrans. Nec alia ex parte superior, alia inferior, alia exterior, alia interior, sed unus idemque totus ubique praesidendo sustinens, sustinendo praesidens, circumdando penetrans, penetrando circumdans; unde superius praesidens, inde inferius sustinens, et unde exterius ambiens, inde interius replens. Sic igitur ipse CUIUS CENTRUM EST UBIQUE, omnia replens quia attingit ubique propter sui munditiam, sicut dicit unus de sapientibus; CIRCUMFERENTIA vero NUSQUAM, quia “lucem habitat inaccessibilem”, sicut dicit Paulus. Eius centrum est ubique quia “excelsior caelo, profundior est inferno, longior terra, latior mari”, sicut dicit Iob; circumferentia vero nusquam quia “Deum nemo vidit unquam”, sicut dicit Iohannes.
Igitur secundum hanc expositionem, per centrum ubique existens provisionis bonitas designatur quae “attingit a fine usque ad finem fortiter et disponit omnia suaviter”. Per circumferentiam quae nusquam est, eius immensitas significatur quae a nulla creatura comprehenditur, sicut dicit Ieremias: “Magnus est consilio et incomprehensibilis cogitatu”. Bonitas enim Dei provisiva, quantum ad intelligentiam creatam, est sicut centrum respectu eiusdem immensitatis quae est sicut circumferentia, quoniam illa aliquo modo percipitur, ista nullius aspectu intuetur; illa in hoc respectu est quasi infima, ista quasi summa; illa est intra omnia, haec est extra omnia, sicut supradictum est; illa omnia replet et sustinet, haec ambit et praesidet. Sicut etiam centri ad circumferentiam, sic non est citatae apprehensionis huius provisivae bonitatis ad illam immensitatem apprehensio.
De hiis nominibus, centro videlicet et circumferentia, quid et qualiter Deo adaptari possint, manifestum est a Dionysio Divinis nominibus, cap. 4 et 5. Ait enim in 5° exemplificans qualiter in Deo sint omnes creaturae sicut in centro lineae. In centro, inquit, omnes circuli lineae secundum unam unitionem coexistunt et omnes habet signum in se ipso lineas uniformiter unitas, et ad se invicem et ad unum principium a quo processerunt, et ipso quidem centro perfecte uniuntur. Parum autem ab ipso distantes, parum discernuntur, magis autem distantes, magis; et simpliciter in quantum centro sunt propinquiores, in tantum et ipsi et sibi invicem uniuntur, et in quantum ab ipso, in tantum a se invicem destiterunt etc. Quod ipse sit circumferentia, manifestat sermo eiusdem capitulo 4°: Ipse, inquit, est sicut principium et finis omnium, sicut circuitus existentium etc. Est igitur centrum etc.
Posset autem in hoc sermone declarari modus ubitatis Dei quoniam sic UBIQUE est quod NUSQUAM est. Ipsum autem esse ubique manifestat propositio Macrobii superius dicta: Deus est cuius templum est omne quod cernitur. Et iterum, quia sicut ubique est quod non tantum extra est, sed prope, nobiscum et intra nos est, sicut dicit Seneca Epistola 41 c, propterea est sicut centrum ubique: centrum enim intimum est in circulo. Verumtamen quia sic ubique est quod locale non est – sicut dicit Cicero De natura deorum I, cap. 18: Quod eius domicilium? quae sedes? quis locus? ubi habitat? quae causa eum loco moveat? Quasi diceret: nullus est ei locus – et ideo sic ubique est quod nusquam est.
Quomodo autem et quare dicatur esse UBIQUE, docet Avencebrol libro V, cap. 39: Ideo, inquit, dicitur creator sublimis et sanctus esse in omni, hoc est ubique, quia voluntas, quae est virtus eius, est infusa in omni et penetrans omne et nihil est sine ea, quoniam ex ea est esse omnium et constitutio eorum. Ipsa enim penetrat omnia sine motu et agit omnia sine tempore propter magnam suam fortitudinem. Et ut hoc facilius intelligas, ait: Imaginare actionem intelligentiae et animae in omni sine motu et sine tempore, et diffusionem luminis subito sine motu et tempore. Quia, sicut dicit ipse ibidem, cap. 38: Virtus divina diffusa est a summo usque ad imum, sicut est diffusio animae in corpore, et ipse est movens omnia et disponens omnia.
Si autem CENTRVM dicamus creaturam – nam sicut tempus collatum aeternitati reputatur momentum, sic creatura immensitati comparata reputatur punctum sive centrum, sicut dixit una Propositionum supradictarum – quod ipse continet omnem creaturam instar puncti, hoc igitur CENTRUM UBIQUE EST quia “pleni sunt caeli et terra gloria eius”, hoc est quod creatura quae manifestat gloriam eius vel quae facta est ad gloriam eius. CIRCUMFERENTIA vero immensitas eius est, sicut iam dictum est, quae omnibus circumfertur, omnia complectitur, et tamen NUSQUAM EST, secundum quod dicit Augustinus De Trinitate V, cap. 2: Sine situ praesens est, sine habitu omnia continens, sine loco ubique totus, sine tempore sempiternus.
Et hoc est: DEUS EST CUIUS CENTRUM EST UBIQUE, CIRCUMFERENTIA NUSQUAM.


3a. DEUS EST TOTUS IN QUOLIBET SUI.
Haec est tertia et data simul secundum considerationem divinae simplicitatis, nihilominus et veritatis, quid est sui in se et sui in altero.
Deus autem totus dicitur non propter partium diversitatem, sed propter integritatem secundum Ciceronem, prout exponit Augustinus Ad Dyoscorum epistola 38, l. Item propter perfectionem, quia totum et perfectum idem penitus aut secundum naturam proximi: cui enim nihil abest et cuius nihil est extra, hoc est totum et perfectum sicut dicit Aristoteles III Physicorum, cap. 9 a.
Totalitas etiam Dei dicitur plenitudo eius quae ab ipso solo comprehenditur, sicut dicit Augustinus Ad Paulinam epistola 48: Aliud est videre, aliud totum videndo comprehendere. Videtur quod utcumque praesens sentitur comprehenditur, cum nihil latet videntem et cuius fines circumspici possunt, et propter hoc Dei plenitudinem nullus comprehendit.
QUOLIBET autem quod Dei est exponi potest tripliciter. Primo quod omnia quae habere dicitur sua esse intelligantur, sicut verbi gratia potentia, sapientia, bonitas etc. Quia igitur est quod habet, sicut dicit una Propositionum supradictarum, propter hoc est TOTUS IN QUOLIBET. Nam sicut dicit Boetius De Trinitate, praedicamenta affirmativa de Deo facta sunt in eo coniuncte atque copulate, de creaturis vero sunt in eisdem divise, quia hoc est dictu: cum de creaturis praedicantur, non totum quod est is de quo praedicantur praedicant, quia multa alia de ipso praedicanda relinquunt, et causa est quia id de quo praedicantur simplex non est. De Deo vero quicquid praedicatur, ita de ipso praedicatur quod nihil praedicandum aliud relinquit, quia in simplici sunt id ipsum quae in eo sunt et quae de ipso praedicantur. Et propter hoc IN QUOLIBET SUI, id est in quolibet quod praedicatur de Deo quod et ipse habere dicitur, est ipse TOTUS.
Si vero per hoc quod dicitur QUODLIBET SUI intelligamus non partium aggregationem sed simplicissimam eiusdem perfectionem, tunc insinuatur quod ipse totus totaliter est in toto sui, id est in se ipso, hoc est nihil habet in quo non sit totus, sicut simplex in simplici et ut punctus in puncto, secundum quod dicit Aristoteles VI Physicorum, cap. 1 a. Quod si indivisibile tangit secundum totum, in se ipso tamen dicitur esse, quia non continetur eis quibus est praesens tanquam sine hiis esse non possit, sicut dicit Augustinus Ad Dardanum epistola 3; quasi siquidem antequam mundus fieret mansit in seipso, sicut dicit Augustinus Contra adversarium legis et prophetarum I. Non est autem sic in aliqua creatura quia, cum omnis creatura sit hoc et hoc et non hoc tantum, ipsa tota non est in quolibet hoc sui per se et singulariter, sed coniunctim et simul in hoc et in hoc.
Tertio modo exponitur ut si QUODLIBET Dei dicamus proprietates distinctivas penes differentiam originis, tunc ipse EST IN QUOLIBET SUI, quia in qualibet proprietate est tota deitas propter omnimodam divinitatis simplicitatem.
Quarto modo exponitur ut QUODLIBET Dei dicamus omnem creaturam. Quaelibet enim creatura est Dei, in qua dicitur totus esse secundum Augustinum Ad Dardanum: Quia non parti rerum partem suam praesentem praebet, et alteri parti alteram partem, aequales aequalibus, minori minorem, maiori maiorem, quia non solum universitati creaturae, verum etiam cuilibet parti eius totus pariter adest.

(translation will follow)

A riddle: Papias in Argumentum secundum Iohannem - or what does it say about John and Marcion?

Here is a riddle for everyone who wants to stretch her or his mind, language skills and observations.

For a very long time, Papias' Fragment 21 (in the J. Kürzinger-edition, one of the first projects in which I was involved as a very young student), has rarely attracted scholarship - I noticed that already when I drew up the annotated bibliography (spanning just Kürzinger's period of his publication and reception to the date of publication of this edition and translation, the latter two done by R.M. Hübner). But it is probably an important document, and it has something to say about Marcion.

The text derives from the "Incipit argumentum secundum Iohannem" of Vat. Reg. lat. 14 (Kürzinger, 124).

Now, for days recently, I have struggled again with this text, as given in our two recent editions, that of the mentioned Josef Kürzinger (a.o.), Papias von Hierapolis und die Evangelien des Neuen Testaments (Regensburg, 1983); and the other that appeared almost simultaneously, the one done by Körtner: Ulrich H.J. Körtner, Papias von Hierapolis, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 133 (Göttingen, 1983).

The text in both editions is almost identical (the more precise one in Kürzinger is given here):

Evangelium Iohannis manifestatum et datum est ecclesiis ab Iohanne adhuc in corpore constituto, sicut Papias nomine Hierapolitanus, discipulus Iohannis carus, in exotericis id est in extremis quinque libris retulit. Descripsit vero Evangelium dictante Iohanne recte.

Verum Martion hereticus, cum ab eo fuisset improbatus eo quod contraria sentiebat, abiectus est a Iohanne. Is vero scripta vel epistolas ad eum pertulerat a fratribus, qui in Ponto fuerunt.

The German translation of Hübner reads:

Das Evangelium des Johannes ist noch zu seinen Lebzeiten veröffentlicht und den Gemeinden übergeben worden, wie Papias (mit Namen Hierapolitaner), der vertraute Schüler des Johannes in seinen Ausführungen (?), nämlich in den letzten (?) fünf Büchern berichtet hat. Er schrieb das Evangelium nach dem Diktat des Johannes richtig nieder.

Der Häretiker Markion jedoch wurde, nachdem er von ihm wegen seiner gegensätzlichen Meinungen gerügt worden war, von Johannes abgesetzt. Dieser hatte Schriften oder Briefe zu ihm überbracht von den Brüdern, die in Pontus waren.

Körtner translates the same text as follows:

 

Das Johannesevangelium ist den Gemeinden von Johannes, als er noch am Leben war, offenbart und gegeben worden, wie Papias, genannt der Hierapolitaner, ein lieber Schüler des Johannes, in seinen exoterischen (exegetischen?), das heißt in den allerletzten (äußeren?) fünf Büchern berichtete hat. Er schrieb sogar das Evangelium nach dem Diktat des Johannes fehlerfrei auf. Indessen ist der Ketzer Marcion, der von ihm (= Papias?) verworfen wurde, weil er die Gegensätze wahrnahm, (auch) durch Johannes widerlegt worden. Er (= Marcion?) hat ihm (= Papias?) nämlich Schriften oder Briefe von den Brüdern mitgebracht, die in Pontus lebten.

Körtner remarked already (Ibid. 253, note 133), that it is unklear, "to whom to refer the last argument of the fragment", and it "remains extremely dubious why the [earlier] editors of the fragments of Papias left out the last sentences or, as in K. Bihlmeyer they were set in brackets. 'In the final sentence„He“ (Is) seemes to refer to Marcion as subject' (J.A. Kleist, ACW 6, p. 210, note 46). R. Annad, SJTh 9, 1956, S. 60 reads: '... VERUM. MARCION HERETICUS ... ABIECTUS EST: AB IOHANNE ...' The dark words 'ab eo' and 'ad eum', then in both cases mean Papias. On this more reluctant is W.R. Schoedel, The Apostolic Fathers V, S. 122.“

When we study this text, we notice that not only the end of it is dark. To date, the opening of the sentence with "descripsit vero" is unclear as well, because it is not obvious who the subject of this verb is. When we read the text, as printed (and as read in Pitra and the manuscript), one would need to take John as the subject, of whom it was said before that he had published and distributed his Gospel - but the text adds "dictante Iohanne" which excludes him from being the subject of "descripsit". If not John, do we have to take Papias as its subject? However, the previous sentence is given in passive form and Papias only appears in the subordinate clause, so that the descripsit-sentence is somehow unconnected. Even more so is what follows and introduces Marcion, the heretic. What has Marcion to do with the previous argument? And what has the writing down or the description to do with the fact that John rejects Marcion? And again, what in this context is the meaning of "contraria"?

To start with the easier, the latter task. It seems to me that in the context of Marcion "contraria" are not simply opposing views or ideas, but the "Antitheses" of Marcion that he put before his Gospel in the published version. If this were so, then John had read Marcion’s Antitheses together with his Gospel and, as a result of the former, rejected him (eo quod contraria sentiebat). If this were so – according to this text, of course – we might be able to solve the riddles of the first part. Already in the year, 1938 Robert Eisler suggested a slightly different interpunction.

 

Robert Eisler, The Enigma of the Fourth Gospel(London, 1938), 156:

Evangelium Iohannis manifestatum et datum
est ecclesiis ab Iohanne adhuc in corpore constituto
sicut Papias nomine hierapolitanus,
discipulus Iohannis carus
in exegeticis quinque libris retulit.
Descripsit vero evangelium, dictante Iohanne recte verum
Marcion hereticus. Cum ab eo fuisset improbatus, eo quod
contraria sentiebat, abiectus est ab Iohanne.
Is vero scripta vel epistolas ad eum
pertulerat a fratribus, qui in Ponto fuerunt.

Here my own translation:

The Gospel of John, even during his lifetime, was published and distributed to the churches, as Papias, called the Hierpolitan, the beloved disciple of John, has reported in his explications (?), namely the last (?) five books. But Marcion, the heretic, described/wrote down the/a Gospel, while John dictated correctly the true one. Since he [Marcion] has been disapproved by him [John], for him [John] having got to know the Antitheses of him [Marcion], John rebuked him. He [Marcion], indeed, had brought him writings or letters from the brethren who were in Pontus.

"Descripsit" is, unfortunately, an ambiguous term. It can mean "describe", and if so here, then Marcion described the Gospel (of John), if, however, it means "wrote down", then we would need to understand that Marcion wrote down a Gospel – there are several indications that the second variant seems the correct one here: Whereas in the case of the Gospel of John the specification is given, there is no such detailing for Marcion’s text (hence, it is not to be referred to John), while it is added that John "dictated correctly the true one [Gospel]". If one opts for the first variant, then Marcion had criticized the Gospel of John as he did the others of being plagiarisms (aemulationes), pointing apparently to Luke and Matthew. If we follow the second variant, then the text differentiates between the written down Gospel of Marcion and the true, correctly dictated one of John without telling us who, in fact, wrote it down. We only know that John himself had published and distributed it. Or shall one combine the two varants, as Eisler did who believed that Marcion was the scribe of John who wrote down what John dictated correctly, but then usshered his "contraria" which made John rebuke him. The latter version, however, seems to me to go beyond the text, as the writing down in itself is not negatively connotated in the text, only the voicing of the "contraria". That it seems to be about the opposition between the correctly dictated text of John, the true Gospel, and Marcion’s own Gospel, qualifying all others as untrue by the added Antitheses is indicated by the following clause, which underlines, again, that Marcion gave John writings or letters from the Brothers in Pontus, hence Marcion’s and Marcionite works. Whichever way one may read this Incipit, the text defends John who dictated, published and distributed his own Gospel as the true and correct one, while the Antitheses of Marcion and with these their author are being rejected. At the same time, supported by Papias, John’s product is highlighted as an authentic Gospel. The hint at the correct dictation may counter-argue Marcion’s accusation of plagiarism.
That we have to do, indeed, with information by Papias is supported by the way Papias describes the working of Mark and Matthew. In both cases, Papias is concerned with correctness and order, so with Mark, he criticizes him of incorrectly writing down, what Peter has preached, and with regards to Matthew he insists that Matthew had followed the right (corrected?) order. Papias endorses that John dictated correctly, but that Marcion in his Antitheses must have criticized him and challenged the truth of it.