Thursday, November 20, 2014

74. the gospel of Marcion had Matthew 11:27

MEG. I will prove from the Scriptures that there is one God who is the Father of Christ, and another who is the Demiurge. The Demiurge was know to Adam and his contemporaries — this is made clear in the Scriptures. But the Father of Christ is unknown just as Christ Himself declared when he said of Him, "No one knew the Father except the Son neither does anyone know the son except the Father." [Matt 11:27 Pretty p. 53 he notes with this reading "He thus follows Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Origen and Eusebius. He also transposes the clauses with the textual authorities X, N, Irenaeus, Eusebius, and others"]
the formula (Luke x. 22) much more nearly resembling Matt. xi. 27, than the text of Marcion. Also ch. viii. 20, the studied omission of the words, " who is my mother ? " which Marcion had as well as Matt. xii. 48. Baur, Canon. Ev. pp. 410,507. [Robert Williams McKay the Study of the Rise and Progress of Christianity p. 109] In accordance with the above, the words recorded by Matthew 12,48, "Who is my mother ? and who are my brethren?" were, by Marcion, interpreted as meaning, I have no parents, " I was not born." — Tertull. Adv. Marc. 4, [Frederic Huidekuper Judaism at Rome p. 333]
The God whom Jesus called his Father was a God of love and mercy. Therefore, the Father revealed by Jesus could not be the God of the Old Testament. Marcion found proof of this in a saying of Jesus which survives in Matthew 11:27 and Luke 10:22, but which Marcion probably knew in the form: 'No one knew the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father and him to whom the Son chose to reveal (him)' (AH IV.6. 1). The Father, then, was not known before he was revealed by Jesus. As the God of the Old Testament had been known before Jesus, he could not be the Father of Jesus. [Dennis Minns Irenaeus p. 27] 
David Inglis - in Adv. Haer, IV 6, Irenaeus quotes the close parallel at Mt 11:27 and indicates that he knows v. 10:22, with both having the order that we currently see in Lk. Oddly, he also states that it was the same in Mk, although we have no ms evidence that this text was ever in Mk:: 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, "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]." Thus hath Matthew set it down, and Luke in like manner, and Mark the very same; for John omits this passage. However, Irenaeus then states that he also knows a variant having the order quoted by Tertullian: 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. Irenaeus does not state who “they” are, but he follows this with a reference to Christ appearing as man “in the times of Tiberius Cæsar,” which is possibly an oblique reference either to the opening words of Mcg, or an early version of Lk in which Lk 1-2 were not present. Given these quotes from Irenaeus and Justin, it is certain that Tertullian reported what he saw in Mcg, and, as he did not note this as a difference, it is also likely to be what he had in his copy of Lk, and so possibly this is “the gospel” that Justin was referring to. 

Email with comments or questions.

Stephan Huller's Observations by Stephan Huller
is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.