Saturday, August 3, 2013

The Antithesis and the relationship of Matthew 5:3-48 to Marcion
The Book of Kells: Matthew (c.800)
I left off my analysis of Matthew’s dependence upon the Antithesis, after showing a pair of blocks in Chapter 5 that matched wording from the Marcionite Antithesis. But now I will examine the entirety of the chapter and show verse by verse the dependence upon Marcion as source, explaining every phrase.

Matthew structure differs dramatically from the other Synoptic Gospels. Several years ago, back in the early 1990s, I spent a considerable amount of time trying to understand the Synoptic Gospels without a clue to the theology involved. Being an engineer by profession, I liked purely mechanical solutions, since at least in theory you could construct a model that explained the development. Of course this didn't get me anywhere because without a thorough understanding of the theological developments there was no way to distinguish between early and late material.

This situation is compounded in view by an atmosphere of sophomoric theories and silliness bred from ignorance of those in the field. I decided they were all nuts, and undisciplined, or rather unwilling to cross pollinate with higher critics and gain insights, and so were hopelessly locked in a useless battle pitting one flawed theory against another. Today however knowing Marcion's text and theological and historical events which shaped the New Testament, I now have the tools to break down Matthew's unique structure and explain in the context of known history, not fiction.

Matthew's structure is unique among the Synoptic Gospels. The sequences of stories, while on the micro level follows pattern of the others, is in the large picture scrambled. Even the so called Q document stories and sayings do not follow the sequence of Luke. The rather obvious conclusion is Matthew structured his gospel differently because his emphasis was other than telling a linear story. His blocks served another purpose. And the block that I am concerned with today is the Sermon on the Mount, which itself consists of three sections: the first in chapter 5 builds around Luke's blessings and sayings in 6:20-36, adding elements from elsewhere in Luke, commenting all the while on Marcion's antithesis as we will demonstrate; while chapter 6 is focused on piety, collecting a variety of sayings from Luke's central section; and chapter 7 is built upon the sayings of Luke 6:37-49 with a few sayings from the central section. My focus here is on the first section, chapter 5, and specifically how it was built on Marcion's antithesis.

The Synoptic Gospel Problem:

Here is my ten thousand foot view of the Synoptic problem, and how it is best explained. [1] First we really have four Synoptic Gospels, since Marcion (Gospel of the Lord) can be almost entirely reconstructed - none publicly available are critical scholarship quality, and I have only partially done so on a per need basis for my other work. The solution that works best to explain all the evidence is this

1. an ur-Gospel, let's call it "L" is written with the basic sequence
2. a variant ur-Gospel of an early "L" is written with additional material (e.g., 4000 loop), call it "M"
3. Marcion's Gospel is written using "L" as a backbone, stories and sayings from Marcion's camp are added
4. Matthew is written using "M" and Marcion's Gospel, and for chapter five Marcion's Antithesis as sources
5. Mark is written conflating "L" and "M"
6. Luke is written using Marcion's Gospel as a base, plus Matthew and other sources, replaces Marcion
7. Catholic additions here and there to to all three Synoptic Gospels into the 3rd century
note: Matthew and Luke also made extensive use of the LXX as a source

These are the dates that best fit:
1. ur-Gospel "L" no earlier than 120 CE, no later than 135 CE, has references to events early in 2nd century
2. ur-Gospel "M" no earlier than 140 CE, due to reference to Hadrian's statue in Aelia Capitolina
3. Gospel of the Lord likely dates 135-145 CE, it is after "L" and also after Law having ended in Judea
4. Matthew has to be after "M" and Gospel of the Lord, while Antoninus was Emporer, so 145-160 CE
5. Mark can be no earlier than M, so 145-175 CE, seems to have been known only after Matthew
6. Luke built on Marcion, Ebionite, and Matthew Gospels, before Irenaeus, so 165-175 CE
note: Mark is isolated from the rest of the Synoptic development, built on two ur-Gospels, nothing else.

The dating and order is based on internal dependence and first solid verification of the books. Irenaeus, probably writing around 185-190 CE, and Justin who probably wrote a few years before Irenaeus, probably 175-180 CE, are the only solid 2nd century witnesses. The dating of these men earlier and of others relies on unreliable and often fraudulent writings and unsupported speculation. I am sticking to more solid dates here.

Sources of Matthew Chapter 5:

The basic take away from the outline I give above is that Matthew and Mark have a common underlying ur-Gospel source which I call "M." So whenever I talk below about Matthew using Mark's reading I am actually referring to the lost source which underlies Matthew and Mark. 

When determining the order of dependence of any given verse or a group of them – and there are places where each of the Gospels that came down to us is more primitive than the others – the best approach is to use a concept from Textual Criticism which states that when you have multiple variants, as is the case in the Synoptic Gospel verses, the question to is which reading best explains the others. The most interesting application of this concept in Matthew's Sermon is the Salt saying. The saying occupies different locations in each of the synoptic gospels, so it's original placement is in doubt - Mark's placement seems right however, but that is another story. Going through the analysis will be instructive into how this concept works looking at the three accounts

Matthew 5:13
You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt becomes tasteless, how will it become salty again?
It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out for men to trample upon.  
Ὑμεῖς ἐστὲ τὸ ἅλας τῆς γῆς· ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας μωρανθῇ, ἐν τίνι ἁλισθήσεται; 
εἰς οὐδὲν ἰσχύει ἔτι εἰ μὴ βληθὲν ἔξω καταπατεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων.
Mark 9:50 [2]
Salt is good; but if the salt becomes unsalted, how will you season it? 
Have salt in yourself.
Καλὸν τὸ ἅλας· ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας ἄναλον γένηται, ἐν τίνι αὐτὸ ρτύσετε; 
ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἅλα.
Luke 14:34-35 [3]
Salt then is good; but if even salt becomes tasteless, how can it season? 
Neither for soil nor for manure is it suitable, they throw it out. 
Καλὸν οὖν τὸ ἅλας· ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τὸ ἅλας μωρανθῇ, ἐν τίνι ρτυθήσεται; 
οὔτε εἰς γῆν οὔτε εἰς κοπρίαν εὔθετόν ἐστιν, ἔξω βάλλουσιν αὐτό
The initial impression looking at the three versions is that Mark's version seems to be the most primitive, as it appears lacks any religious connotations, a folksy saying that could have been derived from any Mediterranean culture. The construction is also the simplest Καλὸν τὸ ἅλας that has poetic symmetric to τὸ ἅλας ἄναλον, and fits the punch line in keeping the salt theme, "have salt in yourself" ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἅλα, which is a way of saying, 'so be an interesting person.' The only Markan element is the addition of αὐτὸ, which changes the question from "how can it (the salt) season" to "how can you season with it?" This was probably added with the answering suggestion "have salt in yourself" in mind, personalizing the act of seasoning to that of the reader. But this is a misreading, as the original had the salt being the object not the reader. That αὐτὸ is also missing from the derived accounts that Luke and Matthew give suggest that it was not in the original saying.

Luke's version has several markers which show it was derivative from Mark's version. First the οὖν was added in context to the prior verses 14:27, 33 concerning bearing the cross, indicating the saying has been moved and adjusted for a commentary on those verses. Luke changes "becomes unsalted" ἄναλον γένηται to "tasteless" μωρανθῇ so to demonstrate that the salt has become worthless. This fits his analogy that those who cannot renounce all they have (verse 14:33) are not suitable for spreading and tending to the Christian movement, and thus, like the saying's conclusion, "neither is it suitable for soil nor manure," so "they throw it out" ἔξω βάλλουσιν αὐτό. The folksy saying has here been paraphrased a characteristic seen often in Marcion's Antithesisand the punch line dropped to keep the focus on the prior verses of 14:27, 33.

Matthew inherits "tasteless" μωρανθῇ from Luke's version. And he betrays this fact when he built upon Luke's concept of the salt being suitable for neither earth/soil nor manure/fertilizer, and no longer good for anything except being thrown out (ἔξω καταπατεῖσθαι) where men trample over (ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων). The development upon Luke's version is pretty obvious, deducing that while being no good for soil or fertilizer (obviously not, since it is salt), but could have use for roads since even useless salt won’t let weeds grow on a road.

Matthew also betrays his knowledge of Mark's version. The punch line in Mark, ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἅλα, has been transformed into that most iconic and colorful saying, "You are the salt of the earth" Ὑμεῖς ἐστὲ τὸ ἅλας τῆς γῆς. He has transformed the advice to not be boring, into the declaration that believers are the ones who season the world and provide it flavor. Further Matthew's concluding question, "how will it become salty again" ἐν τίνι ἁλισθήσεται, only makes sense with Mark's set up in view, "but if the salt becomes unsalty" ὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας ἄναλον γένηται, since Luke's version instead speaks of a loss of taste not of losing saltiness. Thus Matthew's version can best be explained as building upon Luke and Mark, while Luke is derivative of Mark only and missing the additional elements of Matthew. The original saying must have read as in Mark, only deleting αὐτὸ.

The construction in Matthew, which moved the punch line to the very start of the saying, transforming it into a declaration about a characteristic of being a true Christian, lets us know the iconic saying in verse 5:15, "You are the light of the world" Ὑμεῖς ἐστὲ τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου, is also a phrase invented by Matthew from identical form. [4] While I have my doubts about the origin οὐ δύναται πόλις κρυβῆναι ἐπάνω ὄρους κειμένη, the rest of verse 5:16 is derived from Luke 11:33-37, and 5:15 personalizes the Lamp saying in the same manner as the Salt saying in the prior verse.

A final note, the version Salt saying in Luke is not attested in Marcion, so the result of this analysis is instructive in confirming both its presence and location in Marcion are identical to the version we received in Luke.

On Seeing God, Matthew 5:8:

Among the expanded blessings of Matthew verse 5:8 as shown here
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
μακάριοι οἱ καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ, ὅτι αὐτοὶ τὸν θεὸν ὄψονται.
On the surface this seems a tame enough, but it elicited a considerable and strong reply from the Marcionites. In the pseudo-Clement Recognitions 3.29, Simon Magus takes objection to this blessing, as contradicting  Torah Law, specifically Exodus 33:20 [5]   
You (Peter) said now that God is visible to no one ... then (you say) those who are pure in heart shall see God; which statement is contrary to the law, for there it is written that God said, 'None shall see my face and live.'" 
This objection comes directly from the Antithesis, as Tertullian states in AM 2.27.4-5, which juxtaposes a paraphrase of Luke 10:22 (Matthew 11:27) against Exodus 33:22
With regard, however, to the Father, the very gospel which is common to us will testify that He was never visible, according to the word of Christ: "No man knows the Father, save the Son." For even in the Old Testament He had declared, "No man shall see me, and live." 
Ceterum patrem nemini visum etiam commune testabitur evangelium dicente Christo, Nemo cognovit patrem nisi filius. [6] Ipse enim et veteri testamento pronuntiarat, Deum nemo videbit et vivet.
What confirms that this objection was by Marcionites, and not just the much later Manicheans who Simon Magus is championing, becomes clear when we realize that the Marcionites also objected to Matthew 5:17, which we need  to examine first before resolving

Fulfill or Abolish the Law? Matthew 5:17:

Matthew 5:17 is a direct response to Marcion and his claim that Christ ended the Law (Romans 10:4), stating bluntly,
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the prophets; 
I did not come to abolish but to fulfill
Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας· 
οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι 
Like the declarations of "salt of the earth" and "light of the world" to introduce sayings in 5:14 and 5:15, this declaration announce Matthew 5:18, which itself was constructed from Luke 21:33 / Mark 13:27 / Matthew 24:35, (also Luke 16:17 in Marcionite from) by changing λόγοι μου to τοῦ νόμου not only to show that Christ fulfills the Law but also that the whole Torah Law will be in force, as informed in verse 5:19. This is a direct attack on the Marcionite position as Irenaeus relates in Omnium Haeresium Refutio1.27.2   
But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judea in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Caesar, was manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judea, abolishing the prophets and the law, and all the works of that God who made the world, whom also he calls Cosmocrator. 
Iesum autem ab eo Patre, qui est super mundi fabricatorem Deum, venientem in Iudaeam temporibus Pontii Pilati praesidis, qui fuit procurator Tiberii Caesaris, in hominis forma manifestatum his qui in Iudaea erant, dissolventem prophetas, et Legem, et omnia opera eius Dei qui mundum fecit, quem et Cosmocratorem dicit. 
And there was a considerable reaction to Matthew 5:17. Tertullian comments four times about the Marcionite objection to Matthew 5:17, in AM 4.9.10-15, 4.12.14, AM 4.36.6, and AM 5.14.14 below
"I came not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." The man, however, averred that He did not utter this saying at all; for he held that when we find that He did abrogate that same law, we are bound to give heed, above all other considerations, to the thing which He actually did. whether Christ did or did not say, "I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it?"  In vain has (our man of) Pontus labored to deny this statement.
Si vero evangelium Christi hoc praecepto adimpletur, Christi autem non est creatoris, quo iam contendimus? Dixerit Christus an non, Ego non veni legem dissolvere sed implere, frustra de ista sententia neganda Pontus laboravit.
And again by Hegemonius commenting on the Manichean's position in Acta Archelai 40

When I heard such a sentiment propounded, I repeated to the people that sentence of the Gospel in which our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself: “I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.” The man, however, averred that He did not utter this saying at all; for he held that when we find that He did abrogate that same law, 
Ego audiens dicebam ei sermonem euangelicum, quomodo dixit dominus noster Iesus Christus: Non veni solvere legem, sed ad inplere. Ille vero ait nequaquam eum hunc dixisse sermonem; cum enim ipsam inveniamus eum resolvisse legem  
This is repeated in DA 2.15 when Adamantius says of the Marcionite Marcus 
But why must we prolong the discussion? It is least clear that the Savior came to fulfill the Law; Marcus’ people assert that he came to destroy it. 
καὶ τί δεῖ μηκύνειν τὸν λόγον; φανερῶς γοῦν τοῦ σwτῆρος πληρῶσαι ἐλθόντος τὸν νόμον, οὗτοι καταλύειν φάσκοuσι. 
Sed qui necesse est sermonem nimiumdilatare singula replicando, cum manifestissime saluator non, ut isti dicunt, soluere legem uenit sed adimplere
These accounts leave no question that the Marcionites rejected the concept of Christ fulfilling Torah Law. And it appears that this objection even found its way into the Antithesis, [7] as Marcus replies in AD 2.15
The Judaizers wrote this, 
            I did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it.
But Christ did not speak this way. He says, 
            I did not come to fulfill the Law but to destroy it.
τοῦτο οἱ Ἰουδαϊσταὶ ἔργαψαν,
            τὸ οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι·
οὐκ οὕτως δὲ εἶπεν ὁ Χριστός, λέγει γάρ·
            οὐκ ἦλθον πληρῶσαι τὸν νόμον ἀλλὰ καταλῦσαι.
Hoc illi scripsurent qui iudaizabant, hoc est:
            Non veni solvere legem sed admiplere.
Christis autem non uta dixit, sed ita dicit:
            Non veni adimplere legem sed solvere.

The interaction between Matthew chapter 5 and the Marcionites has now been clearly established. The Marcionites were without doubt the target of the verses in Matthew, and they responded furiously, such that all the witnesses granted this position was not one on which the Marcionites would accept debate.

On Seeing God, returning to Matthew 5:8:

Another verse, Matthew 5:8 created quite a theological problem where Christians can see God –that is the Old Testament God of the Law– and yet not violate the Law of Moses, specifically Exodus 33:20, "no man shall see God and live." Irenaeus dances around the problem in Against All Heresies 4.20.5-12, [8] giving any manner of possibilities for seeing God such as visions. Irenaeus though makes it clear his response is directly to the Marcionite Antithesis as he states 4.20.5 citing Matthew 5:8 and Exodus 33:20, by splitting God into a visible part, and an invisible part (!)
The prophets, then, indicated beforehand that God should be seen by men; as the Lord also says, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."  But in respect to His greatness, and His wonderful glory, "no man shall see God and live," for the Father is incomprehensible; 
Praesignificabant igitur prophetae quoniam videbitur Deus ab hominibus; quemadmodum et Dominus ait: Beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt. Sed seeundum magnitudinem quidem ejus, et mirabilem gloriam, nemo videbit Deum, et vivit; incapabilis enim Pater.

Origen, in Contra Celsus, introduces the concept of seeing with your heart and not your eyes as means to get around the problem. [9] What is very clear is that while Tertullian simply sees the verse as an example of the Marcionites disagreeing with him about what the Lord did or did not say, but for Origen and Irenaeus this presented a major theological problem, requiring extensive argument to explain away the inconsistency, as they held the Old Testament as accurate on this point about seeing God, forcing them to defend an embarrassing position. 

However for the mid-3rd Century the Jewish Christian writer of the pseudo-Clement Recognitions had another way to answer the problem, in 3.21 by turning to Matthew 22:30, 
"God is seen by the mind, not by the body; by the spirit, not by the flesh.  Whence also angels, who are spirits, see God; and therefore men, as long as they are men, cannot see Him.  But after the resurrection of the dead, when they shall have been made like the angels"

This concept in Matthew 22:30 was carried directly into Ebionite thought (a hint perhaps about the Gospels origin), and can be seen as a development of the Pauline theology concerning resurrection of the dead on 1 Corinthians 15. It’s a bit convoluted, but presents a way of thinking about seeing God in a new eternal body, and the old mortal body has already perished. Not quite the way Irenaeus or Origen looked at it.

This declaration is not a mistake, if I am right that Mark's placement is correct for the Salt saying, as Matthew in the verse 18:10 which sits in its place [10] makes the exact same statement about seeing God, this time it's the "little ones" who do so, also including a warning for heretics thinking themselves better than followers of Matthew's position
See (that) you do not look down upon one of these little ones 
For I say to you that their angels in heavens 
continually see the face of my father, who is in the heavens. 
Ὁρᾶτε μὴ καταφρονήσητε ἑνὸς τῶν μικρῶν τούτων· 
λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτῶν ἐν οὐρανοῖς 
διὰ παντὸς βλέπουσι τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς.  

Matthew's statement in verse 18:10 has an additional implication for verse 5:8, that there are Christians who are not pure in heart (οἱ καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ): suggesting heretics, addressed in Matthew 8:11-2, will find no seat at the table of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven (καὶ ἀνακλιθήσονται μετὰ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν), and will be thrown out of that heaven into the outer darkness (οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας ἐκβληθήσονται εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον). The parallel to fate for heretics described in Jude 13 is striking, and likely derives from the same heavenly cosmology.
wandering stars for whom the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved for ever
ἀστέρες πλανῆται οἷς ὁ ζόφος τοῦ σκότους εἰς αἰῶνα τετήρηται.
The Blessings: 

Having demonstrated Matthew's sources (that is the ur-Gospel "M", Marcion's Gospel, and Marcion's antithesis) it is time to go back again and look at the first ten verses of the Sermon of the Mount, 5:3-12, and see how they are an expansion from the Beatitudes from the Marcionite Gospel, as in Luke 6:20-24.

Luke’s blessings can be divided into two parts, the three short blessings (6:20-21) and the longer one on persecution (6:22-23). The relationship of the first three blessing of Luke against Matthew 5:3-9 shows an expansion in each case. The first blessing in Luke 6:20 is simply "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God," which also starts Matthew, but with two significant changes.

The first is the kingdom is changed from God to heaven, which is more than just the literal depiction of the location of the kingdom in the skies. But this may not be a change made by Matthew. Although “the kingdom of God” is common in Luke and attested in several places in Marcion’s Gospel, [11] Tertullian gives two different readings, the first in AM 4.14:1 (Beati mendici ... quoniam illorum est regnum dei) with the kingdom of God, and the second reflecting a Caesarian text (mss. 1582, 118, 69, 157, 1424) reading the kingdom of heaven in AM 4.14.13 (Beati mendici, quoniam illorum est regnum caelorum). The question is which reading reflects Marcion? Perhaps his text of Marcion had the variant reading because he spends much of AM 4.14 trying to prove that the Jewish God reigns not only over the earth but also the heaven, before quoting in AM 4.14.13 the text of Marcion 6:20-21 against Isaiah 41:1, 3 for each blessing. This Marcionite position of Heaven being Christ’s and the earth the Jewish is explicitly stated in 4.14.8,
For even if you suppose the promises of the Creator were earthly, but Christ's are heavenly, 
Nam et si putas creatoris quidem terrenas promissiones fuisse, Christi vero caelestes,  
And Tertullian gives his response  
It is clear that the heavens belongs to no other God, even until now, as also has the earth 
bene quod caelum nullius alterius usque adhuc dei apparet nisi cuius et terra,
However we see in another example Tertullian in discussing the kingdom of God when reflective Luke 7:28 in AM 4.18.8 makes it clear that his point is the kingdom of God is the kingdom that John belongs to and is of the creator (qui maior Ioanne futurus sit in regno aeque creatoris), is the same as the kingdom of God (regno dei).

In Marcion the kingdom of God, as noted above, is well attested, and the kingdom of heaven never appears elsewhere. It is highly unlikely that a Caesarian variant appeared so quickly that Matthew made use of it, and yet the variant also survived a later revision by the Luke-Acts writer. The conclusion I have to draw is that Tertullian deliberately introduced the kingdom of heaven (regnum caelorum) because he was claiming, in exactly the same manner as Matthew’s author there is one heaven, and most important it is the only heaven, not the third heaven of Marcion’s God above the sky nor the second of the Creator’s heaven – a subtle but important distinction. The change is deliberate, held throughout Matthew, to signify heave is the creator’s.
The second change Matthew made was adding "poor in spirit" τῷ πνεύματι. This is a strange and failed transformation, meant to democratize access to heaven. In the original Luke/Marcion the statement is a turnabout in social status, sharing the sentiment of 1 Corinthians 1:27 "God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the strong things" (τὰ ἀσθενῆ τοῦ κόσμου εχελεχατο θεὸς ἵνα καταισχύνῃ τὰ ἰσχυρά) with the transformation to heavenly bodies from shamefulness to glory in mind, as depicted in 1 Corinthians 15:42-43, 47. In Matthew this train of thought was completely lost, where the poor elements of a human body become the rich elements in heaven. Instead Matthew attempted to speak in terms of the spirit, meaning to convey that heaven is not for those who seem to be something but for the ordinary parishioner, the one who has not any great works, and whose spirit is not as great as the apostles. The nonsense of it is that as written instead those without any strong faith can reach heaven, and that was probably not what Matthew intended.

Two additional small blessings are appended, those who mourn being comforted, and importantly the meek inheriting the earth. While the former is similar to Luke 6:21 “weep” to “laugh,” (μακάριοι ἐν οἱ ἐκείνῃ πεινῶντες τῇ νῦν, ὥρᾳ ὅτι ἐθεράπευσεν χορτασθήσεσθε) the latter shows a clear distinction from Marcionite thought, where unlike the statement in Colossians 3:2 in which believers must set their minds on heaven and not things on earth (τὰ ἄνω φρονεῖτε, μὴ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς) and makes clear the things of earth are not worth having, Matthew instead sets earth as a place worthy of the saintly in a viewpoint shared in the Jewish Christian frame of reference as shown in Revelation.

The second of the Luke/Marcion blessings, "Blessed are you that hunger now," was extended in Matthew 5:6 with, "and thirst for righteousness" (καὶ διψῶντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην) to make a point that zealotry for the Torah Law which is in focus (see Matthew 5:17ff above). And this thirst for righteousness finds a counter echo in the Marcionite text of Romans 9:31-32, 10:2-4, where righteousness is a foolish thing to seek after on its own, the trap of the Jewish Christians, but rather is obtained by faith. So again Matthew has transformed the Luke/Marcion turnabout of fortune to an itemized reward system, a delineated class structure for Christians.

Three additional small blessings were also added to Matthew’s list; the merciful who will gain mercy, the pure of heart who will see God, and the pacifists who will be called sons of God. The pure of heart we already discussed above, so we will give a quick look at the other two which brought no controversy. Unlike Luke 6:21 where there is a turn abound in fate, so that weeping from sorrow becomes laughter and happiness, and the hungry get sated, in Matthew we see payback in kind; the merciful (
οἱ ἐλεήμονες) get mercy (αὐτοὶ ἐλεηθήσονται). This lacks the profundity of the Luke's examples. What we have here is simply another category checked off, with good things for good people. We see the pacifists (οἱ εἰρηνοποιοί) are not named but "called," meaning invited, to be sons of God (υἱοὶ θεοῦ κληθήσονται). It is in the same sense that the Catholic version of Romans 1:1 where Paul is called to be an apostle (κλητὸς ἀπόστολος), signifying some selection, betraying a subtle theological shift from the Marcionite texts.

Finally Matthew 5:10-12 deals with persecution and is built directly upon Luke 6:22-23 in Marcionite form , [12] expanded and modified to fit Matthew's sensibilities. Working backwards, in 5:12 "as also their fathers did to the prophets" κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ γὰρ ἐποίουν τοῖς προφήταις οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν, was changed to a more generic "for so men persecuted the prophets" οὕτως γὰρ ἐδίωξαν τοὺς προφήτας  to remove the stigma Marcionites attached to Jews and thus Jewish Christians, who admire the Torah, as Matthew's objection was just as strong as the Marcionites was against the concept of Christ upholding the Law. When Luke's addition about being excluded is removed from the text of 6:22, there really is no other significant content differences between Matthew 5:11-12 and Luke 6:22-23, not withstanding the lack of attestation of rejoicing and gaining a reward in heaven in Marcion's account - it's simply indeterminable.

Matthew 5:10 has no parallel, it is a new construction. It presents a new category of persecution, those who are persecuted for righteousness, which in Matthew means upholding the Law, something Marcion's Paul in Galatians equates with Circumcision (a subject covered in depth in my blog on Paul and Hadrian) perhaps indicating a clash with the Roman authorities over the issue. But it could also simply be a second version of "blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness" in verse 5:6, who are also being given a place in heaven. What it indicates however, since righteousness is listed twice in the blessings, is the importance that zealotry for the Torah is for Matthew, as seen in verses 5:17-20.

The Pairs, Old and New:

We finally come to the main course. There are five counter points to Marcion in Matthew Chapter five, each consisting of an Old Testament paraphrase from the Antithesis with a new statement from Jesus that replaces or enhances it, with follow material to clarify the points. These counter points consist of verses 5:21-26, 5:27-32, 5:33-37, 5:38-42, and 5:43-48.

For Marcion the mission of the Antithesis is clearly and accurately stated by Tertullian in AM 4.6.1 
For it is certain that the whole aim at which he has strenuously labored even in the drawing up of his Antitheses, centers in this, that he may establish a diversity between the Old and the New Testaments, so that his own Christ may be separate from the Creator, as belonging to this other god, and as alien from the law and the prophets.  
Certe enim totum quod elaboravit etiam Antitheses prae struendo in hoc cogit, ut veteris et novi testamenti diversitatem constituat, proinde Christum suum a creatore separatum, ut dei alterius, ut alienum legis et prophetarum.
But as we shall see Matthew has very much the opposite in mind in his pairings, as he declared in 5:17 above, he aims to support the law and prophets.

'You Shall Not Kill' and the Method for Excommunication:

The first counter Antithesis point from verses 5:21-26 declares: 
You have heard it was said by the ancients, 'Do not kill,' and whoever kills, will be subject to judgment.
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment; 
Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, Οὐ φονεύσεις· ὃς δ' ἂν φονεύσῃ, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει. 
ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει·
The opening phrase "Do not Kill" Οὐ φονεύσεις is almost  from the Antithesis, with the wording adjusted to fit Matthew's needs. Reference to the Old Testament Scriptures  as  Ὁ προφήτης τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς γενέσεως of the Antithesis (see below) is adjusted to Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη, but in the first instance to show its higher stature as the first mention of the ten commandments τοῖς ἀρχαίοις was added. And in reply Jesus simply says γὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι since Matthew personalized instead of following the third person ὁ δὲ κύριος ἡμῶν, ἀγαθὸς ὢν, λέγει of Dialogue Adamantius. A formula is thus established for us to examine the content.
Marcion did  not opposes the Decalogue commands, as is clear from Romans 13:9 and Luke 18:20, rather he presented and juxtaposed the positive command "love your neighbor as yourself" from Leviticus 19:18 as summing up (ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται) or fulfilling (πεπλήρωται) in the Law, as shown in Luke 10:25, Romans 13:8, 10, and Galatians 5:14, and corresponding to the idea in Galatians 5:22-23 that there is no Law against doing good. The emphasis is thus shifted from fear of the bad to striving for the happiness of the good.
Unlike the juxtaposing of a liberating or reforming statement against the negative of the Old Testament, in order to show that Christ is fulfilling the Law, Matthew shows here a more strident interpretation. He states that even being angry - which we will see from the subsequent verses implies disobedience and strife - with church officials, that is your brother (τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ), [13] and also implies that the angry person here is also holding similar rank or recognized as such. So it is an ecclesiastical offense.

That explains the follow on decrees, which includes an unknown insult of Syriac or Aramaic origin "Raca" (Ῥακά) verse 5:22, which seems to imply an very serious ecclesiastical challenge like calling an official a hypocrite. Nothing less would be strong enough to merit the calling of a council "Sanhedrin" (συνεδρίῳ) of bishops, ministers, and maybe elders for a hearing; this simply isn't something you are going to do if some random idiot in the congregation calls another member a name. But it is revealing in another way. It is the first proscription and method for the excommunication of heretics, and it is specifically for causing strife. The case of simple name calling, like the term fool (Μωρέ) in the following verse, and notably not to a brother, corresponds to quarrels among the congregation,  where Matthew simply says you'll be judged, but doesn't call for a trial.

Verses 5:23-26 are more generalized. They are archeologically interesting in telling us about the early practices of Christians. The mention of gifts before the alter makes it clear this is not different than other Roman cults of the period, except that there probably wasn't a large temple available, so it would have looked like any local neighborhood place of worship, a simple interior room with some alter, probably with some decorations. The comments about settling with your opponent (ἀντιδίκῳ) as you travel (ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ) -that is metaphorically going through life not going from one physical location to another- to avoid getting tangled in the legal system is also a revealing statement; this indicates Christians had disputes which could land in the Roman courts with potentially unpredictable results. This looks like the first effort by the church to settle disputes in house, which eventually becomes a parallel legal system in the west.

'You Shall Not Commit Adultery':

Verses 5:27-28 follow the same "you have heard it said" formula for the Decalogue command against adultery as in verse 5:21 for murder, with Jesus presenting a more stringent rendering of the Torah Law, as opposed to the positive reform the Marcionite Antithesis presents. Verses 5:29-30, which are a doublets of 18:8-9 on offending eyes and hands, occasioned by the lust in your heart from looking at a woman, are a digression from the divorce theme which are not worth evaluating further, except it does confirm that Matthew was looking at chapter 18 making in constructing this chapter from where he grabbed the salt saying of verse 5:14 above.

The interesting thing about verses 5:31-32 is the introduction "it was said" (Ἐρρέθη δέ) with respect to a husband issuing a certificate of divorce (ἀποστάσιον) references Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (LXX βιβλίον ἀποστάσιον) which says divorce is allowed for "indecency." Here that indecency is defined as adultery. So Matthew has gone against Luke 16:18 and the Marcionite prohibition against divorce. The Marcionites saw divorce as creating adultery, but Matthew reverses that ruling and gives higher standing to the exception from the Law by placing it in the Sermon on the Mount at the start of Jesus' mission. (Note, this provision certainly made it easier for Roman Citizens and Freemen to accept Christianity, as it conformed better to Roman custom and law)

On Vows:

Unlike the two prior pairings this pairing on vows in Matthew 5:34-37 seems to actually be fully compatible with the Marcionite Antithesis. The saying "Do not break your vows, but you will repay the lord of your vows" (Οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις, ἀποδώσεις δὲ τῷ κυρίῳ τοὺς ὅρκους σου) is an inexact paraphrase of Deuteronomy 23:21 (see also Number 30:2) which is consistent with the character of the Antithesis. Matthew again uses ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις form indicating his source is not the LXX, which in Chapter 4 (4:4, 6, 7, 10) he used γέγραπται to introduce it. Further an Antithetical pair is in the picture when Jesus responds, "but I say to you do not swear at all" (ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὀμόσαι ὅλως) and instead  suggests doing something based on 2 Corinthians 1:20 in verse 5:37 "Let your word yes be yes and no be no"  (ἔστω δὲ λόγος ὑμῶν ναὶ ναί, οὒ οὔ). This I suggest is the probable original Antithesis wording.

Matthew, rather than inverting Marcion's Antithesis, instead inserts four "neither ... for that" (μήτε .. ὅτι) clauses, which outline his cosmological view, drawing from Isaiah 66:1 and Psalms 48.2 with Psalms 47:7 in view, in an attempt to one up Marcion in strictness and showing that the position of Jesus is backed by the Old Testament Prophets. This is similar to the approach that Tertullian takes in refuting the Marcionite claim of difference in Jesus' sayings and those of Tertullian's God whom the Marcionites call "Ὁ ἐν τῷ νόμῷ κύριος" to show they are derived from the same precepts and so also from the same God. 

We see how Matthew uses this (μήτε .. ὅτι) formula to one up Marcion by paraphrasing Scripture
μήτε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὅτι θρόνος ἐστὶν τοῦ θεοῦ·μήτε ἐν τῇ γῇ, ὅτι ὑποπόδιόν ἐστὶν τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ· μήτε εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα, ὅτι πόλις ἐστὶν τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλέως·Neither by heaven, for God's throne is there,nor by earth, for it is the footstool for his feet,nor by Jerusalem, for its is the city of the great king.
The heaven and earth are sayings drawn from the description in Isaiah 66:1 (οὕτως λέγει κύριος οὐρανός μοι θρόνος ἡ δὲ γῆ ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν μου), which describes God as a being in the heaven above the sky, who rests his feet on earth, the resting point understood as the Temple in Jerusalem. The last point is made clear by taking the Psalms 48:2 (LXX 47:3) of the city of the great king, except changing the Mount Sion  (ὄρη Σιωνto Jerusalem, The association of the great king with God is found in the preceding phrases of Psalm 47:7-8 (LXX 46:8-8) 
ὅτι βασιλεὺς πάσης τῆς γῆς ὁ θεόςἐβασίλευσεν ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ τὰ ἔθνη ὁ θεὸς κάθηται ἐπὶ θρόνου ἁγίου αὐτοῦ For the king of all the earth is God reigns over all nations God sits on his holy throne.
The association is clear, God is the great king spoken of here. And as it comes from the Prophets it is clear it is the Jewish God that Matthew invokes for the saying of Jesus. So one is not swear an oath on anything related to God. [14] That these lines are inserted into the formula is clear, as they come after we are told not to swear at all, rendering these additional restrictions pedantic overkill.

'Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth':

The "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" is the first of two verified Antithesis pairs found in Matthew, something which so astonished me when I discovered it that I wrote a quick blog post in March without much analysis.

We see Dialogue Adamantius 1.15 presents a paraphrase of Exodus 21:24 / Leviticus 24:20 / Deuteronomy 19:21 juxtaposed against a paraphrase of Luke 6:29 as shown here
It says in the Law, 'Eye for Eye and tooth for tooth,'
but the Lord, because He is good, says in the Gospel,
'If anyone should slap you on the cheek, turn the other one to him.'
Ἐν τῷ νόμῷ λέγει· ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ καὶ ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος,
ὁ δὲ κύριος, ἀγαθὸς ὤν, λέγει ἐν τῷ  εὐαγγελίῳ· 

ἐάν τίς σε ῥαπίσῃ εἰς τὴν σιαγόνα, παράθες αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἀλλην.
In lege scriptum est: Oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente.
Dominus autem, qui bonus est, dicit in euangelio

Si quis te percusserit in dexteram maimillam, praebe ei et alteram.
And Matthew 5:38-39 has the same
You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth.'
But I say to you not to oppose the evil one,
but whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him also the other;
Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη Ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ καὶ ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος.
ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν μὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρῷ·
ἀλλ' ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα, στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην·
Allowing for voice and variance (e.g., Western support σιαγόνα σου for δεξιὰν σιαγόνα which is rated uncertain) we are looking at Matthew having taken nearly verbatim this Antithesis pair, even including reading ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος against the LXX ὀδούς ἀντί ὀδούς (all three verse). The odds are long the source could have been anything else.

We have confirmation from Tertullian 2.18.1 that the Law of retaliation "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, stripe for stripe" (oculum pro oculo, dentera pro dente, et livorem pro livore) is part of the Antithesis in respect to the provision of taking vengeance. But he defends it by citing Deuteronomy 32:35 as used in Romans 12:19 to claim that it is restricted to God (Mihi defensam, et ego defendam, dicit dominus). He never addresses the turning of the cheek, which is not to say it wasn't before him, simply that he was defending the Old Testament with other Old Testament quotes.

The follow on verses 5:40-42 on also turning over your tunic and lending to those who ask, is Matthew's adaptation of Luke 6:29-30, indicating he is aware of the New Testament source of Antithesis pair. There is no difference with the Marcionite position on this issue.

'Hate Your Enemy':

Lastly we come to the smoking gun proving beyond any doubts that Matthew has been using Marcion's Antithesis. In Dialogue Adamantius 1.12, Megathius presents the Antithesis pair, paraphrasing Leviticus 19:18 LXX, which adds the phrase "and you shall hate your enemies"  (καὶ μισήσεις τὸν ἐχθρόν σου) which is not to be found in any manuscript or source.
The one who is Lord of the Law says,
      'You shall love him who loves you and you shall hate your enemy.'
But our Lord, because he is good, says
      'Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.'
 Ὁ ἐν τῷ νόμῷ κύριος λέγει·
      ἀγαπήσεὶς σεις τὸν ἀγαπῶντά σε, καὶ μισήσεις τὸν ἐχθρόν σου·
ὁ δὲ κύριος ἡμῶν, ἀγαθὸς ὤν, λέγει·
      ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν καὶ εὔχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωχόντων ὑμᾶς.
In lege deus dicit:
      Diliges diligentem te, et odio habebis inimicum tuum.
Noster autem bonus dominis dicit:
      Diligite inimicos uestros, et orate pro eis qui persecuntur uos.
And in Matthew 5:43-44 we not only see the same juxtaposing of a paraphrased Leviticus 19:18 with Luke 6:27-28, but allowing for voice and small variance, both the same wording of the Luke paraphrase and the same addition to Leviticus 19:18 about hating your enemy
You have heard that it was said,
     'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
But I say to you,
     'Love your enemies and pray for those persecuting you,'
Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη
      Ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου καὶ μισήσεις τὸν ἐχθρόν σου.
ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν,
      ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς.
This cannot be a coincidence. Either Marcion built his Antithesis upon Matthew, or Matthew built this chapter upon Marcion's Antithesis. The former was demonstrated impossible with the Salt saying, demonstrating that Matthew had knowledge and dependence upon Marcion's Gospel but Marcion has no knowledge of Matthew. (Note, the same cannot be said of Luke's Gospel.)

The remainder of the block, verses 5:45-48, again attack the Marcionite position, making clear the God of Jesus is the Jewish God. In 5:45 God is said to make the sun rise on good and evil, and rain on the righteous and unrighteous, a paraphrase of some unknown LXX verse(s), making clear he is the Lord of the world. The same opposed by Marcion's Paul in 2 Corinthians 4:4 (ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου) and Laodiceans 2:2 (τὸν ἄρχοντα τῆς εχουσιας τοῦ ἀέρος). This verse is demonstrated as a point of contention in the pseudo Clement Homilies 18.2 where Peter confirms it is the God of Creation and Simon responds that such a statement shows the Creator is inconsistent with himself, a Antithesis point
I then affirm that the man who bestows goods is good, just as I see the Framer of the world doing when he gives the sun to the good, and the rain to the just and unjust.” 
ἐγώ φημι ἀγαθὸν εἶναι τὸν παρεκτικόν, οἷον ὡς αὐτὸν ὁρῶ ποιοῦντα τὸν δημιουργόν, παρέχοντα τὸν ἥλιον ἀγαθοῖς καὶ κακοῖς καὶ τὸν ὑετὸν δικαίοις καὶ ἀδίκοις.
And Simon said:  “It is most unjust that he should give the same to the just and the unjust.”
καὶ ὁ Σίμων ἔφη· Τοῦτο ἀδικώτατον ὅτι τὰ αὐτὰ δικαίοις καὶ ἀδίκοις παρέχει.
Finally 5:48 closes the chapter declaring in the same super Torah fashion of verse 5:20, asking Christians to be perfect like their father in heaven. This one ups 1 Corinthians 4:6 and 11:1 where Paul asks followers to imitate him (as he also Christ), and seems to have inspired the Catholic editor to write in Ephesians 1:1 "Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children" (γίνεσθε οὖν μιμηταὶ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὡς τέκνα ἀγαπητά); a proposition that is beyond all in being strict and demanding.

The Antithesis:

Marcion's work known as the Antithesis (per 1 Timothy 6:20 ἀντιθέσεις) has not survived. However a number of the phrases in it have survived, in the form of the testimony of Terullian in Adversus Marcionem (c. 207-213 CE), in the statements of Marcus and Megathius in the first two books of Dialogue Adamantius (c.290 CE), as well as the anti-Manichean works known as the pseudo Clement Recognitions (only the Latin version of Rufinus survived, c. 390 CE) and Homilies from roughly the middle of the 4th century, and chapter 40 of Acta Archelai (4th century, Epiphanius reproduced sections of Acta Archelai in Panarion c. 375-76 CE). To that list of sources, I also propose that Matthew Chapter 5, also provides a testimony to the content of the Antithesis.

The exact form the book took is unknown, even of how the opposing verses were present. Matthew introduces the Old Testament first with "You have heard it said that" Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη (Matthew 5:21, 27, 33, 38, 43); Dialogue Adamantius also introduces the Old Testament first in the Antithetical pairs, but with the phrase "The prophet of the God of creation" Ὁ προφήτης τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς γενέσεως  (DA 1:10, 1:11, 1:13, 1:16, 1:19, 1:20).  Matthew then follows with Jesus' declaration "But I say to you that" ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι (Matthew 5:22, 28, 34, 39, 44); Dialogue Adamantius similarly gives his New Testament response with "but our lord who because he is good" ὁ δὲ κύριος ἡμῶν, ἀγαθὸς ὢν (DA 1:10, 1:11, 1:12, 1:13, 1:16, 1:20). The striking resemblance in form is further support that Matthew is responding specifically to the Antithesis in chapter 5. Matthew 5:34-37 at the very least provides reconstruction of an additional pair, while 5:21-26 and 5:27-32 offer hints there were a set of Decalogue Antithetical pairs although their reconstruction is at best problematic.

While the pairing of statements, juxtaposing the Old against the New, stand out, there are other structure in both chapter five of Matthew and in the Antithesis. We can see from Simon's dialogue about the creation of Man and the breathing of his spirit, that a considerable portion of the Antithesis was composed of a similar exegesis of the Old Testament.

What is clear is that Matthew chapter 5 is a new source, which if used carefully, can help us reconstruct the Marcionite Antithesis. As we have shown here at least one new exegetical pair has been identified, and the form of the pairs now has an additional source beyond Megethius statements in Dialogue Adamantius. We have also gained some insight into the source, time frame and purpose for Matthew Sermon on the Mount. Hopefully others will find this exercise useful.

Post-Script: Who is Mani?

Prophet Mani c.216-274 CE
It is both surprising and fortunate that the anti-Manichean works prove such a useful source for reproduction of the sayings. Mani was according to legend was born in Parthia (modern Iraq) in 216 CE when it was still part of the Parthian Empire, which became part of the Persian Sassanid Empire in 224 CE in which he grew up. Supposedly his father was Greek and an Eclesaite Christian. Mani supposedly had visions at age 12 and 24 from his heavenly twin telling him to leave his fathers sect and teach the true message of Christ. The founding of the Manichean religion is generally dated from this event in 238 CE, although more likely it was founded after his return from India in about 242 CE. This is an interesting religious development, and some of the themes, such as the true preaching, visions, and a final prophet, seem to have profoundly influenced Islam which erupted in the same region a few centuries later. We are fortunate that an Egyptian papyrus manuscript of his life was found, known as the Cologne Mani Codex. Mani is a reminder, much like the Eclesaites and Nestorians that not all Christian developments happened within the Roman Empire. It's a bit off topic, but we are fortunate Mani's followers found and used the Antithesis.

[1] I am not going to supply any evidence now, it is a rather complicated argument with dozens of examples. But I place merely for perspective, so I ask you to suspend judgement.
[2] Mark 9:50(b) "and be at peace with one another" (καὶ εἰρηνεύετε ἐν ἀλλήλοις) is not part of the saying. It fills the role of marking the end of a Jesus saying section begun in 9:39, as a segway follows.
[3] Luke 14:35(b) "Those having ears to her let them hear!" (Ὁ ἔχων ὦτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω) is not part of the saying, but rather added by Luke, post Marcion, to mark that Jesus' speech begun in 14:27 is concluded, and also to accentuate the focus on the saying being an interpretation of Luke 14:27 and 33.
[4] The RSV footnotes show Philippians 2:15 as a possible source for Matthew 5:14, but this verse is a Catholic interpolation into Paul, so it's the other way around εν οις φαινεσθε ως φωστηρες εν κοσμω was inspired by Matthew - note γενεας σκολιας και διεστραμμενης "wicked and perverse generation" is not a Marcionite idea, but it is consistent with later Catholic theology.
[5] Rufinus (d. 410 CE) translated the Clement Recognitions into Latin around 390 CE. The Recognitions and Homilies appear to have been written in Syria by Ebionite Christians in the 4th century to counter the Manichean movement. From the Hegemonius Acta Archelai XL we have confirmation that the Manicheans had contact with the Marcionites and made use of the Antithesis to attacking Orthodox Christianity its chief  rival in the Roman Empire. Simon Magus' comments in the pseudo Clement literature agrees in almost every point with Antithesis, providing us with a rich source along with Tertullian Adversus Marcionem and Hegemonius Acta Archelai XL. I have not been able to find a copy of the Recognitions in Latin, and have only the English translations to go by, so I cannot vouchsafe the content.
[6] Nemo cognovit patrem nisi filius attests the to Greek οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς. This paraphrase of Luke 10:22 is identical to Megethius quoting the Antithesis in DA 1.23 οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱός, οὐδτὸν υἱν τις γινσκει εἰ μὴ ὁ πατρ / Nemo nouit Patrem nisi solus filius, enque filium quis nouit nisi pater. The same substitution of ἔγνω for γινσκει is made by Simon Magus in Homilies 18.4 Οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱός, ὡς οὐδὲ τὸν υἱόν τις οἶδεν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατὴρ καὶ οἷς ἂν βούληται ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψαι confirming the pseudo Clementines are quoting from the Antithesis when Simon is speaking.(Also Regonitions 2.47)
[7] This is evidence that at least the Antithesis continued to be modified after Marcion, suggesting not all changes in the Marcionite text reported by the Heresiarch to what we have in our versions was done by Catholic editors, some may have come from Marcionite followers adjusting the challenges they faced.
[8] The entire fourth book of Irenaeus Against All Heresies appears to be dedicated to refuting Marcion and his followers points and theology.
[9] Origen Contra Celsus 6.4:
for He was seen not by their bodily eyes, but by the pure heart. 
For, according to the declaration of our Jesus, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” 
ὀφθεὶς αὐτῶν οὐ τοῖς τοῦ σώματος ὀφθαλμοῖς ἀλλὰ τῇ καθαρᾷ καρδίᾳ. Καὶ γὰρ κατὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἡμῶν "μακάριοι οἱ καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ, ὅτι αὐτοὶ τὸν θεὸν ὄψονται"
A protracted explanation of Origen’s view is given in 7.33-35

[10] The Salt saying in Mark 9:49-50 follows 9:42-27 parallel with Matthew 18:8-9 on sins of hand, eye and foot, which also parallels Matthew 5:29-30 here. Matthew’s movement of the Salt saying to chapter 5 was replaced in 18:10 clearly with the same thoughts of seeing God in heaven. It confirms Mark’s placement as the original.
[11] Six verses are clearly attested with the kingdom of God
   7:28 maior quidem omnibus natis mulierum: sed non ideo subiecto ei qui minor fuerit in regno dei (AM 4.18.8)
 11:20 Quodsi ego in digito dei expello daemonia, ergone appropinquavit in vos regnum dei? (AM 4.26.11)
 12:31 βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ (Epiphanius)
 13:18 Simile est regnum dei, inquit, grano sinapis, quod accepit homo et seminavit in horto suo. (AM 4.30.1)
 13:28 ὅτε πάντας τοὺς δικαίους ἴδητε ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὑμᾶς δὲ ἐκβαλλομένους  (Epiphanius)
           cum videbunt iustos introeuntes in regnum dei, se vero detineri foris. (AM 4.30.5)
 16:16 Didicit ergo usque ad Ioannis tempora, atque ita exinde processit annuntiare regnum dei, dicens,
           Lex et prophetae usque ad Ioannem, ex quo regnum dei annuntiatur. (AM 4.33.7)
           νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται ἕως Ἰωάνου, καὶ πᾶς εἰς αὐτὴν βιάζεται (Epiphanius) 
         Epiphanius is missing ἀπὸ τότε βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγελίζεται, contra Tertullian, but the verse makes no sense without it
Unfortunately there is no quotation of seven (7) other verses 8:1, 10, 11:2, 13:20, 14:15, 18:16, 17, so we cannot judge those. Zahn omits verse 22:18 from his reconstruction of Marcion, and Epiphanius likely correctly quotes 20:50-53 (Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ ὀνόματι Ἰωσὴφ, καθελὼν τὸ σῶμα ἐνετύλιξε, καὶ ἔθηκεν ἐν μνήματι λαξευτῷ) without any mention to the kingdom of God, which looks to be part of the Luke-Acts expansion.

[12] note, AM 4.14.14-17 indicates that Marcion lacked "and when they exclude you " καὶ ὅταν ἀφορίσωσιν ὑμᾶς, while AM 4.15.1 only attests the last phrase about persecution in 6:23, making the presence of reward uncertain
[13] The term brother is not generic to all Christians in the New Testament. It denotes one of some distinction and office. Apostles or bishops (ἐπισκόποις), deacons (διακόνοις), and elders (πρεσβυτέροις) qualified, while general members of the assembly did not. This is not terribly different than today, where cardinals, bishops, monks, and ministers refer to each other as brothers.
[14] I had incorrectly linked the phrase "Not by Jerusalem, for that is the city of the great King,"  to Aelia Capitolina, the city built by Hadrian as replacement for Jerusalem.  It was a product of trying too hard to place Matthew in the Antoninus era. So I ignored the obvious LXX reading. It is true that Caesar would have been the one great earthly king, but that does not fit Matthew's context of showing Marcion wrong. Bad misread on my part I apologize for pushing the idea (sgw 11/17/2014)

1 comment: