The religion of spiritualism - a synoptic reading of the Transfiguration

If we include Marcion's Gospel into our synoptic reading - well-known stories like that of the transfiguration are suddenly seen in a new light, and we can easier explain how it came that a Christianity developed into a religion of spiritualism, certainly present in some circles of Judaism of the time (as is today), rather than being one of the many charismatic or social movements.

Marcion, as we are told by many ancient sources did not provide the birth and youth stories of Jesus, but in Marcion's Gospel Jesus came as an adult from above without further indication to his origin. Fom his start through to his resurrection Jesus remains the prophet and the angelic divine figure who only appears in human form, but in truth is the transcendent God who reveals himself. The entire Gospel, therefore, serves to show the antithesis of flesh and spirit and the impossibility for the flesh to grasp the spirit. One of the most typical narratives which highlights the middle-platonic spiritualism of this new cult is the story of the transfiguration of Christ.

Marcion’s Gospel		Luke 9:28-36
4:28 Now about eight days after these sayings, Jesus took with him Peter, John, and James, and went up the mountain.   4:29 As he was praying, the appearance of his face was altered, and his clothes became very bright, a brilliant white. 4:30 Then two men, Moses and Elijah, both talked to him                   4:33 in glory, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us make three shelters, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah” – not knowing what he was saying. 4:34 As he was saying this, a cloud came and overshadowed them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 4:35 Then a voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, my Beloved One. Listen to him!” 9:36 After the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. So they kept silent and told no one at that time anything of what they had seen.	4:28 <᾿Εγένετο δὲ μετὰ τοὺς λόγους τούτους ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι ὀκτὼ?> καὶ παραλαβὼν Πέτρον καὶ ᾿Ιωάννην καὶ ᾿Ιάκωβον ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος. 29 καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ προσεύχεσθαι αὐτὸν ἡ ἰδέα τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ ἠλλοιώθη καὶ ὁ ἱματισμὸς αὐτοῦ λευκὸς ἐξαστράπτων. 30 καὶ ἰδοὺ δύο ἄνδρες συνελάλουν αὐτῷ, ᾿Ηλίας καὶ Μωϋσῆς, 31/32 ἐν δόξῃ εἶπεν ὁ Πέτρος πρὸς τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν, ᾿Επιστάτα, καλόν ἐστιν ἡμᾶς ὧδε εἶναι, καὶ ποιήσωμεν ὧδε τρεῖς σκηνάς, μίαν σοὶ καὶ Μωϋσεῖ μίαν καὶ ᾿Ηλίᾳ μίαν, μὴ εἰδὼς ὃ λέγει. 34 ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος ἐγένετο νεϕέλη καὶ ἐπεσκίαζεν αὐτούς· ἐϕοβήθησαν δὲ ἐν τῷ εἰσελθεῖν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν νεϕέλην. 35 καὶ ϕωνὴ ἐκ τῆς νεϕέλης Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε. 36 καὶ ἐν τῷ γενέσθαι τὴν ϕωνὴν εὑρέθη ᾿Ιησοῦς μόνος. καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐσίγησαν καὶ οὐδενὶ ἀπήγγειλαν ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ὧν ἑώρακαν.	28Ἐγένετο δὲ μετὰ τοὺς λόγους τούτους ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι ὀκτὼ [καὶ] παραλαβὼν Πέτρον καὶ Ἰωάννην καὶ Ἰάκωβον ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος προσεύξασθαι. 29καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ προσεύχεσθαι αὐτὸν τὸ εἶδος τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ ἕτερον καὶ ὁ ἱματισμὸς αὐτοῦ λευκὸς ἐξαστράπτων. 30καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνδρες δύο συνελάλουν αὐτῷ, οἵτινες ἦσαν Μωϋσῆς καὶ Ἠλίας, 31οἳ ὀφθέντες ἐν δόξῃ ἔλεγον τὴν ἔξοδον αὐτοῦ ἣν ἤμελλεν πληροῦν ἐν Ἰερουσαλήμ. 32ὁ δὲ Πέτρος καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ ἦσαν βεβαρημένοι ὕπνῳ: διαγρηγορήσαντες δὲ εἶδον τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ καὶ τοὺς δύο ἄνδρας τοὺς συνεστῶτας αὐτῷ. 33καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ διαχωρίζεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἀπ' αὐτοῦ εἶπεν ὁ Πέτρος πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν, Ἐπιστάτα, καλόν ἐστιν ἡμᾶς ὧδε εἶναι, καὶ ποιήσωμεν σκηνὰς τρεῖς, μίαν σοὶ καὶ μίαν Μωϋσεῖ καὶ μίαν Ἠλίᾳ, μὴ εἰδὼς ὃ λέγει. 34ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος ἐγένετο νεφέλη καὶ ἐπεσκίαζεν αὐτούς: ἐφοβήθησαν δὲ ἐν τῷ εἰσελθεῖν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν νεφέλην. 35καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο ἐκ τῆς νεφέλης λέγουσα, Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἐκλελεγμένος, αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε. 36καὶ ἐν τῷ γενέσθαι τὴν φωνὴν εὑρέθη Ἰησοῦς μόνος. καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐσίγησαν καὶ οὐδενὶ ἀπήγγειλαν ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις οὐδὲν ὧν ἑώρακαν.	9:28 Now about eight days after these sayings, Jesus took with him Peter, John, and James, and went up the mountain to pray.   9:29 As he was praying, the appearance of his face was transformed, and his clothes became very bright, a brilliant white. 9:30 Then two men, Moses and Elijah, began talking with him. 9:31 They appeared in glorious splendor and spoke about his departure that he was about to carry out at Jerusalem. 9:32 Now Peter and those with him were quite sleepy, but as they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. 9:33 Then as the men were starting to leave, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us make three shelters, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah” – not knowing what he was saying. 9:34 As he was saying this, a cloud came and overshadowed them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 9:35 Then a voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, my Chosen One. Listen to him!” 9:36 After the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. So they kept silent and told no one at that time anything of what they had seen.

The contrast of Marcion’s original version to that of Luke highlights the different nature of their Gospels. For Marcion, the scene of the transformation not only follows immediately after the pericope that outlined the condition of following Jesus (‘who wants to save his soul will loose it, but who lost it because of me, will be saved’ and that ‘some will not taste death unless they have seen the Son of Man coming in his glory’), but also delivers its content – yet, with a similar outcome as with the previously discussed pericopes. Jesus takes the three mentioned followers, Peter, John and James up the mountain – and while he is praying, his appearance of his faces was altered and his clotes shine in white. Two men, Moses and Elijah – hence the lawgiver and a prophet – both talked to him. The glorious scene makes Peter also talk to Jesus and ask him to built three shelters, one for Jesus, one for Moses and one for Elijah – as if the Master could settle in glory with the lawgiver and the prophet. The narrator’s comment, however, is drastic and states about Peter’s suggestion: He was ‘not knowing what he was saying’. And if this was not enough, the narration carries on that even while Peter was saying this, ‘a cloud came and overshadowed’ Jesus’ followers, hence they were not only no knowing, but they also lost sight – and the only thing that was left was what they could hear. And ‘a voice came from the cloud, saying: « This is my Son, my Beloved One. Listen to him! »’ And, indeed, ‘Jesus was found alone’. In Marcion’s version, it becomes clear that Peter’s wish to bring Jesus together with the lawgiver and the prophet was radically denied by the heavenly voice which only pointed to the one and only Beloved, the voices’ ‘Son’. Neither to Mose nor to Elijah, hence neither to the law nor to the prophecies should Peter, John and James listen, but solely to the Son, Jesus who was found alone. Moreover, this address was not only directed to Peter (and the Zebedee sons), but also to Moses and Elijah – all of them were asked to listen to the Son. While in this non-transformed world there are shelters for all three, the spiritual world is only made for one – one that goes beyond physicality, beyond seeing, but where only the heavenly voice gives instructions – it is neither embedded in the law, nor in the prophecies, but solely in the beloved Son.

Luke who has picked up this story and follows it almost slaveshly, introduces, however, a few important small changes and with his redactional addition in the middle section turns the story upside down. First he adds in 9 :31 that not only did Jesus appear transformed with whom the two men, Moses and Elijah talked (in Marcion, as Tertullian rightly remarked, it is not said that Jesus talked to the two men !), but that also these two men ‘appeared in glorious splendor’ – and he gives the impression that the three men were in conversation with each other. Moreover, the content of this conversation which is filled in by Luke refers to Jesus’ departure ‘that he was to carry out at Jerusalem’ – stating exactly what Marcion rejected in his Antitheses pointing to the altered versions of his Gospel, namely that Mose and Elija, the law and the prophets foretold what would happen with Jesus. Luke also brings in Peter ‘and those with him’ who ‘were quite sleepy’, but then lets them be ‘fully awake’, and makes them even see Jesus’ glory with whom the two men stood together, before he mentions the two men’s departure. Marcion’s redactional remark, therefore, that Peter did not know what he was saying, becomes an entirely different spin. Peter is excused of having been quite sleepy and only slowly starts to know and recognize. He saw the three men in conversation, then they depart, and only now is Peter asking for the three shelters. Instead of the radical ignorance of Peter that Marcion had in mind, namely him not willing to recognize the difference between Jesus on the one side and Mose and Elijah on the other, in Luke Peter’s non-knowing becomes a clouded insight into the transformed nature of the three, of which Jesus is the ‘Chosen One’ which cannot have the same shelter together with the others, while the other two are not rejected, but clearly subordinated to the voices’ Son. Luke’s revision and redaction shows, how deeply he has adopted Marcion’s view of a spiritualized religion, while it also demonstrates, how he adapted the story to accomodate the Jewish past and heritage in moderating and smoothening Marcion’s antithetical position. If we looked into Mark and Matthew we would see that they like Luke were struggeling exactly with the same criticism of Peter (check out yourself).

If Marcion did not create himself the entire pericope with its outspoken marcionite content, what could have been pre-marcionite material? Was it the endorsement oracle of the voice from the cloud? The ending of the story that Peter and the Zebedees kept silent ‘at that time ... of what they had seen’ indicates that it might have been an oral tradition which Marcion had come across, as apparently at a later time Peter or the Zebedees were granted to have spoken about this experience.

Petrus Sabatier, Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones Antiquae

While I am working on the preparation of the Bible Index for the critical edition of the works of Meister Eckhart for the Kohlhammer edition (which will encompass both his Latin and his vernacular works), it still helps to consult the 18th century work by Petrus Sabatier, Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones Antiquae which is a treasure, as it compares the older Latin readings of Scriptures with the Vulgate text - although I have to add three caveats. When we talk about the Vulgate text, you will quickly discover that this is a scholarly constract (as so many others), and that what we call Vulgate is a broad church which shows a number of varying readings across what I suggest we better call a Vulgate tradition, or even better Vulgate traditions. This is similar to what scholars have termed the Vetus Latina which in itself is an even broader church.
Having bought a relatively inexpensive reprint of Sabater, I also make use of the online available books which, thanks Google, are fully accessible. It is a bit of internet search necessary to find the right links from which you can read the text online or can even download these volumes, so I thought, I give you the links here:
Petrus Sabatier, Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones Antiquae I (from Genesis to Iob).
Petrus Sabatier, Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones Antiquae II (from Psalms to Macchabees II).
Petrus Sabatier, Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones Antiquae III (NT and Apocrypha [III Esdas; IV Esdras] plus Indices).

In 2005, Hugh Houghton has published the revision of Sabatier's work which is undertaken by the Abtei Beuron, and was has been published so far can be found in his list here.
 

5th British Patristics Conference

Now that the deadline for abstract submission has passed - we have over 60 contributions accepted that range from earliest Christian writings down to the reception of Patristic literature in the Medieval period. King's College who is this year's host is pleased about the strong list of applications for the conference and - together with those who participate without giving papers - the conference will be almost 100 people strong. It shows that Patristic studies are thriving in the UK and beyond.

Invited speakers for our conferences are Professor Joan Taylor (King's College London) who is giving the opening lecture on "The Empress Helena and the Mystery of the 'True Cross'". The evening lecture will be given by Jörg Rüpke (Max-Weber-Kolleg, Erfurt University, Germany) who is going to speak about "Ancient Lived Religion and Patristics".

If you want to find out more about the conference, click here.

How to supplement content of texts for conservative reasons - a new review by Dr. H. H. Drake Williams III of my "Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity"

Jan Bremmer kindly drew my attention to the recent RBL review of my "Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity" - and it is programmatic that Howard Williams starts off his counter-argument ('should be questioned') by using assumptions ('Would it not be possible that a writer could build upon earlier statements, assuming the importance of what was previously written?')
Of course a lot of things are possible, if we start from right and even wrong assumptions, but I always feel that historians should start with the least assumptions possible. Hence before beginning with what we have to assume or what we have to infer or to correct or insert, instead, historians and theologians start with what they read in their texts, not what they don't read in them, what they don't want to read or what they cannot read in them. If our theories only work when we assume that authors meant or could have written, if they had been of the same mind set as their interpreter, we enter into circular arguments. The latter is the foundation still of much of New Testament scholarship. When, to follow this reviewer, 1 Clement builds on Paul's letters, I think, we should not infer from there that he is conveying Paul as Paul may have seen himself. This would be as if my reviewer would report in his counter-argument what I really wanted to say, quite the opposite, I'd like to state. I cannot follow therefore the argument that the fact of '1 Clem. 24.1, 4–5 dependent upon 1 Cor 15 ... would indicate that the author of 1 Clement built upon the conclusion from 1 Cor. 15 rather than obscuring or abandoning the importance of Christ’s resurrection'.On the question of the reception of the Gospels, I am surprised that the reviewer calls my statement ('recent scholarship on the reception of the later canonical Gospels and Acts up to Irenaeus (ca. 177/180 AD) shows that neither these texts, nor any of their
narratives (the miracles, for example), nor their authors, were ever quoted, acknowledged or referred to by any author prior to Marcion') controversial, pointing to the volume of Gregory and Tuckett of 2005. As you can see from the discussion of this volume in my new Marcion-book (pp. 224ff.), Gregory and Tuckett come to the same conclusion as that one stated in my Resurrection book, when Petersen in this book concludes that the empirical textual observations were devastating for the idea of a "standard" or "established" text of the New Testament in the first half of the second century and that the 'vast majority of passages in the Apostolic Fathers for which one can find likely parallels in the New Testament [and he stated earlier that these were relatively few] have deviations from our present, critically reconstructed New Testament text', and that such deviations were 'not minor ..., but major (a completely new context, a substantial interpolation or omission, a conflation of two entirely separate ideas and/or passages)'. And the result shows that my statement was correct - all these references refer to logia of the Lord, not to narratives.
Again, the further counter-argument deploys the dating of texts, although I stated that dating is not the issue, as the texts that the reviewer then mentions (with the exception of Papias) all refer to Pauline texts which only strengthens my thesis, as I claim that only within the Pauline tradition the Resurrection of Christ remained remembered.
The review is an interesting case how conservativism (a self-description of the author on his website who's purpose is of making Christian disciples) impacts on reading things into texts which historians will hardly find in them.