The Minimalist Approach to Marcion

Genndy Tartakovsky's Minimalist Samarai Jack

While I on and off toil away with part two, the Catholic Editor, of my three part analysis of who wrote Mark, I came in conversation with David Inglis and came up with a quick topic that needs to be addressed concerning my Interlinear reconstructions of the Marcionite text. My interlinear reconstructions seem to baffle traditionalists, because I follow a minimalist approach, but in a way that turns their world view upside down. Like Genndy Tartakowsky's fantastic cartoon, in an effort to tell the cleanest story, everything that is not required is cut away, and what is left is the purest of pure forms. And I am extremely conservative in my approach, because I do not accept any uncertain assumptions. As with the image of Jack and Aku, there may be many detail items missing, and yet no clearer picture of these characters can be had.

Another Apocalypse from the Kitos Era?

In my last article on changing the title description I tackled the mini-Apocalypse from Luke. My placement of of the after the Tumulto Iudaico was in part based on the phrase, "People will rise up against People, and Kingdom against Kingdom" (Ἐγερθήσεται ἔθνος ἐπ' ἔθνος καὶ βασιλεία ἐπὶ βασιλείαν). Unfortunately in my analysis I forgot one important potential and even possible source for the phrase, the document known as 4 Ezra (Greek Προφήτης Εσδρας or Αποκάλυψις Εσδρα) has much the same phrases found in 2 Ezra 13:31 - the English and surviving Latin (Vulgate) below,

And they shall plan to make war against one another,
city against city, place against place, people against people, and kingdom against kingdom
et in alisalio cogitabunt bellare,
civitates civitatem et locus locum et gens ad gentem et regnum adversus regnum

There is a problem, in that this document is considered, and for very good reasons to be dated from about 100 CE, some 15 years  too early to be aware of either the Parthian War or the Tumulto Iudaico. So what is going on here, have I missed something?

Changing the Blog Title Description to Post Kitos War

Every now and again in my studying the development of Christianity I stumble over some fact or event which over throws a good portion of the work I have done. It is extremely frustrating to face, but I like to think I am less pig headed and more scientific than most. I know certain so-called scholars will spend years attempting to belittle the evidence arrayed against their pet position, or end run it, rather than face the fact that much of their work is lost. For me, this happened in the mid-1990s and what I was doing was so off base I care not to even acknowledge it today. [1] But in the scientific model its all part of finding the truth. And so it is today that I conclude one of my blogs fundamental assumptions is wrong. Fortunately the impact is mostly to a couple charts and the description at the top of the page. Whatever else is simply a matter of adjusting a footnote here and a comment there, nothing to major.

Mystery of Mark, Part One Non-Priority

Mark, Echternach c. 690CE

Mark's non Priority:

The Gospel of Mark poses a difficult problem for me, as there is very little unique material in the book that can be ascribed to Mark. Only a baker’s dozen verses are unique to Mark, and beyond that only a small number of phrases and some individual words. And some of this unique material is most likely part of a later Catholic layer that all books of the New Testament seem to have.

When I look at the Synoptic Problem, the one Gospel which presents a problem is Mark. This may sound surprising, as the bulk of scholarship is focused on the so-called double tradition of Matthew and Luke, trying to explain their common which is in Mark, and thus have determined that Mark has priority. But this assumption is wrong, and leads you to some very bizarre conclusions. [1] The truth is something entirely different and quite surprising.

The Votes Are In! The Next Topic: Who Wrote Mark?

Now from your voting it seems pretty clear you want me to write about the Gospel of Mark, where it fits and who wrote it. This is the most difficult and involved project of the choices, but  I accept the challenge.

The Gospel of Mark poses a unique problem for me, as there is very little unique material in the book that can be ascribed to Mark. Only a baker’s dozen verses are unique to Mark, and beyond that only a small number of phrases and some individual words. And some of this unique material is most likely part of a later Catholic layer that all books of the New Testament seem to have. As I write this I do not have the answers, and I think this will be a journey of discovery for all of us. I'll try to get the first  of what will probably be a two or three part work up before the Labor Day weekend is up. No promises however.

Marcionite Philippians Interlinear and Notes

Chester Beatty p46 Philippians & Galatians

In the Marcionite Apostolikon Paul's Epistle to the Philippians is a rather minor book, less than half the size of the Catholic version in our bibles today. My reconstruction of Marcionite form, or rather Marcionite plus indeterminate verses, results in a mere 46 verses, and could have been much smaller, as 36 of these verses are not attested. I erred on the side of caution leaving in some questionable phrases and verse. The small size of Philippians suggests the the Marcionite Epistles were arraigned from largest to smallest, excepting Galatians which was the heralding letter giving the stamp of authority on the collection, much like the Catholic collection. But to arrive at that order, the Thessalonians have to be considered one letter, probably also the Corinthians.

Philippians is now the fifth book I have completed a reconstruction in Marcionite form. Although I have a much better handle on the specifics of the targets of the content and a better eye for the Catholic editor's themes and words, there were still several unique challenges faced in the reconstruction this book in Marcionite form. Unlike other books in Marcion's collection I have reviewed, Philippians has no additional attestation beyond Tertullian, and it is the last book that Tertullian looked at and may have skipped over more material than usual. Below I go over a  few interesting points.

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.

Marcion's Revelation: The Eclipse of 118 CE

Hadrian Denarius 125-128 CE  with Eclipse of 118 CE

On September 3rd 118 CE there was a full eclipse whose course went over the entire northern frontier of the Romans Empire giving the garrisons and the Barbarian tribes a spectacular sight. But it was only a partial eclipse that would have only dimmed the skies for awhile, and would not have darkened like night any of the cities of the empire, with one notable exception city on the shores of Pontus Euxinos (Black Sea). That city was Sinope, where it was almost full strength. The weather, if what was typical nineteen hundred years ago is much the same as today, then at mid afternoon it most likely would be about 74 F (23.3 C), almost cloudless and sunny, any fog long burned off, and likely a mild breeze coming off the Sea, as the eclipse occurred.

Paul, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Circumcision, Roman Law, Torah Law, Desolating Sacrilege (Revised 8-22-13)

Hadrian, Emperor 117-138 CE

When Hadrian became Caesar in 117 CE it was under controversial circumstances, Historia Augusta 1.4, a rather gossipy work [1], paints the issue of his adoption by Trajan as something of a deathbed scandal. But the machinations described surrounding his ascension to the throne are consistent with the more reliable account of Cassius Dio Historiae Romanae 69.1 [2], which describes the murky circumstances under which he became Emperor. When taken in conjunction with his immediate decisions on the throne to extricate the Empire from Parthia, to reorganize the legions of the east, secure defensible borders, and put down rebellions in recently conquered territories, it looks for all the world to have been something of a consensus move by the powerful in the Military and the government. They wanted to correct the dangerously unsustainable expansionist policies of Trajan that were overtaxing the Empire and had led to the a quagmire in Mesopotamia, an expensive and failing campaign despite the propaganda. Hadrian was the man to do that job.

Interpolations in the Witnesses, Tacitus Annals 15.44, Suetonius De Vita Caesarum 6.16.2

The impulse for pious fraud has been extremely strong in Christian history; and to be sure other religions most notably we also see it today also in Judaism and Islam. The modern virus affects mostly archeology, with every decade some falsified inscription or fabricated artifact surfacing which conveniently "proves" the ideology of today with respect the the origin of Christianity, or King David, or Islam.

Marcionite Galatians: The first is last

If Marcion wrote any of the Pauline Epistles - and I think he did - then none can be as wrenching as the last one written, the first one in the collection, Galatians. The situation is looking back on the separation and  foundation of his own churches. He is battling a resurgent Jewish Christian camp that has taken over at least one and likely more of the congregations he founded. Further there is a traitor among his trusted Apostles in Cephas, who has turned to the camp of the Jews. This Epistle is a plea to return to his leadership and theology.

The Marcionite version of Galatians has been reconstructed by Adolph Harnack first, then more recently by Daniel Mahar, and most completely by Dr. Herman Detering - whose version I consider by far the best. It is upon Dr. Detering's planting that I am watering in making my reconstruction. There are only a few places of difference, but they are significant, and involve the increased knowledge

Revlation of Xoroaster : Astrology in Christianity

When I began reviewing my prior work on the Marcionite Galatians Interlinear and it has become apparent that it is going to take me a bit longer to go through it and bring it up to publishing condition. It was supposed to be a simple adjustment with my findings from reconstructions to 1 & 2 Corinthians and Romans to the Gold Standard version of Galatians which Dr. Detering has published (Detering's Greek Galatians in Marcionite and Catholic Form) and his copious notes (Notes in English) explaining his decisions. This should have been simple enough, the content is mostly clear and almost identical. My plan is merely to comment on differences I have with Dr. Detering, and add a few additional sources (e.g., Galatians 1:9 from Hegemonius Acta Archelai Book XL), and some general observations. But there are some details of disagreement that require a more rigorous examination to resolve (verses 1:6-9,17, 4:10, 26 and Ephesians 1:21) which will take a few days to work out.

So to entertain you guys for a couple days, I thought I'd share with you a fantastic and wonderful youtube series by Michael Xoroaster on the Bible and other religious things. I was pigging out on his videos over the weekend as if it were the Netflix House of Cards, pure fresh popcorn. Xoroaster makes a very compelling case for the use of astrology

Valentinian Suprise: Marcionite 1 Corinthians updated

The reconstruction of the Marcionite 1 Corinthians continues to be a work in progress. My review of the material lead me to conclude that verses 3:12-15, 8:1-3, 8:7-13, and all of 10:22-30, 10:31-11:2 were all post Marcionite. Much of material in Chapter 7 is still unsettled in my book, due to the word ἠλεημένος 'mercy' in verse 7:25, which otherwise never occurs in Marcion's Paul; but I lack any systemic or reasoned method to justify its removal. So I may yet again revisit.

Valentinians Among the Congregation

In the process of analyzing 8:1-3 and 8:7-13 one thing I discovered was the editors apparent acknowledgement of heretics of a Gnostic sect as not only being present in the congregation, but accepted as fellow Christians and brothers. Below is my analysis, which shows the text hints strongly who the group which was reconciled was.

Marcionite 2 Corinthians Interlinear and Notes (updated 3/16)

I have released my reconstruction of 2 Corinthians in Marcionite form, and also the notes for the material I determined to be Catholic in origin and not part of Marcion's text. This letter reads dramatically different from the version in our bibles today, and is radically shorter and more focused as well. Despite the assurances of Harnack (Marcion and the Gospel of the Alien God, outlined on p 33) that Marcion made only a few changes to the Corinthian letters -an opinion also held by Knox- the truth is the letter was radically different from the Catholic, as were all the letters of Paul except Philemon. Our best and most thorough witness Tertullian testified to this fact in Adversus Marcionem 5.21.1 Soli huic epistulae brevitas sua profuit ut falsarias manus Marcionis evaderet. It is Tertullian whom this work shows was correct.

How Can We Explain the Gnostic Christians?

A Flight of Fancy: A Speculative Explanation for the Gnostics

The premise that I have been working on is that Christianity, at least as a distinct group with its own literature, came into being in the 2nd century, more or less concurrent or shortly after the Bar Kochba revolt in Judea and neighboring provinces. Before that Christianity is essentially prehistoric, we really know nothing. It is from that I posit my ten thousand foot overview of how the Heresies evolved.

The erstwhile church history that is the Acts of the Apostles is very dependent upon Josephus Antiquities (c. 94 AD) for characters and storylines, indicating a 2^nd century providence. The very reference to Hellenist (Greek) Ἑλληνιστάς in an internal Christian conflict with Hebrews (Jewish) Ἑβραίους in 6:1 (also 9:29, 11:20), but the term seems to fit the era of the known Roman Hellenist in Caesar Hadrian (117-138 AD) not that of the Tiberius or Claudius reigns; the source text of Josephus makes no mention to any Hellenist Jewish faction in Temple worship. So how are we to read the New Testament in order to understand the development of the Heterodox movements and more specifically how did the Gnostic come about?

Interpolations in the Witnesses, Josephus Antiquities

I used to play the same game that christian scholars like to play, called find the part of the story Josephus wrote, when examining the passages containing information about the early Christians and the famous stories that Josephus might have been aware of. But I don't play that game anymore, because I know the answer.

Interpolations in the Witnesses, Justin Apology 1.26

Nothing is more annoying than having to deal with the interpolations of witnesses from pious scribes. These interpolations are in fact dangerous land mines left for scholars when undetected. And worse they are, even when found, often left unmarked, dare I say for political reasons, because they can be convenient obstacles  for defending the modern orthodox opinion, helping against criticisms - its saves the main body of ecclesiastical scholars from having to think hard about underlying premises of the message. But for the scholar who isn't worried about the theological conventions, looking at the text scientifically to uncover and understand the strands and threads that make up the development of Christianity, it is nothing but a hindrance to the truth. 

My tipping point for me was not with the at least somewhat understood interpolations in Josephus, but with

Vocabulary of Luke and Marcion: Commentary on John Knox (1942)

One of the most important books that should have upended Synoptic Study, and yet largely ignored, is John Knox's Marcion and the New Testament (1942). Although the work is largely nothing more than a serious of comments on others work, especially Harnack, with Knox adding nothing more than his opinion of various positions from the sophistry of their words, there is however a unique and important section worth keeping.

For the Gospel of Luke and Marcion's Gospel, Knox has undertaken to to study the vocabulary and try to establish the relationship of Marcion's Gospel and the Gospel of Luke. He developed a table of verses to help illustrate that I provide a link to.

Chapter 4 Marcion's Gospel and the Gospel of Luke is a lot more interesting, when Knox actually gathers evidence and takes a critical eye - lacking in his analysis of the epistles - to the Gospel. In Part III he calls out Sanday's analysis which underpinned the opinions of Burkett and Plummer, as well as paralleled in some sense Harnack's, who held that Marcion's Gospel was not prior to Luke.

The meaning of Belial and its relationship to 2 Corinthains 6:14-7:1

In attempting to reconstruct 2 Corinthians in Marcionite form I came across the problems of the fragmented text, specifically verse 6:14 where the phrase τίς κοινωνία φωτὶ πρὸς σκότος is quoted without regard to placement in Dialogue Adamatius 2.20 and clearly alluded to in Adversus Marcionem 3.8.3. The problem concerns the phrases surrounding, especially the reference to Belial.

James Tabor devotes a page on his website to the Corinthians Correspondence [1] which emphasizes the concept of 2 Corinthians being composed from four distinct documents/letters and a free floating fragment. While I have disagreement with some the specifics, I do find agreement in the labeling of the segment from 6:14-7:1 as "floating" in the Catholic version handed down to us, as clearly 6:11-13 should be joined with 7:2-4. But the Tertullian and Dialogue Adamantius clearly show that at least portions of verses 6:14 and 7:1 were in Marcion's version of 2 Corinthians, while there is no attestation of the text surrounding this "floating" fragment. 

Marcionite Romans Interlinear (my 2009 version)

This is a quick post today. I put up my Romans Interlinear that I did back in 2009 under the section "My Papers" on the lower right. Or just click here. Unfortunately my notes are only inline (footnotes), as I did not do an extensive analysis of what the Catholic editor was attempting to do.

There are some differences between my reconstruction and that of Herman Detering. I incorporated the work of Winsome Munro, who did some excellent work identifying some Pastoral vocabulary and recognizing some underlying structures and forms, independent of any influence with Marcionite studies. My biggest disagreement with Dr. Detering's reconstruction has to do with the Marcionite openings, where I think he did not follow his usual rigor. Most instructive was John J. Calbeaux's work on the Ephesians 1:1 and its dependence on Romans 1:1. The other notable differences are my decision to exclude 14:7-9 which intrudes upon the theme of dining etiquette and generally social differences (Romans shows dependence on both Corinthians letters); and my removal of the entire ending (Romans 16:25-27) as simply having too many Catholic elements, and even if it started in the heretical camp in shorter form as Dr. Detering shows, its still secondary and would have been unique in the Marcionite Apostolikon - why would anyone bother for a middle of the collection book?

NEXT UP: At the moment I am working on a Marcionite 2 Corinthians Interlinear, which is about half done. It is proving considerably easier than 1 Corinthians because of the block nature of the inserts. I will also put up my Galatians Interlinear (also from about 2009 time frame) later this month. Looking further down the road, a complete analysis of Matthew's use of the Antithesis, with a general commentary on the Synoptic problem and what Quelle actually is.

The Post-Marcionite Creeds (aka “the pre-Pauline creeds”)

No fallacy is more glaring than the 'consensus of most scholars'[1] that pre-Pauline creedal material is present the New Testament. And by being pre-Pauline, which assumes Paul is more than a literary character, and in fact is a contemporary of Jesus, his blinding conversion separated by less than a decade from his mission, these creeds therefore appear to be incorruptible evidence, coming within only months (a few years at most) of the crucifixion, and so demonstrate first beliefs of Christianity, and arguably the surety of its historical roots. This evidence seems to have been enough that Bart Erhman declared Adoptionism was likely the first form of Christianity, a conclusion that derives directly from the very nature of these creeds.

There are so many problems with this position that it’s can be confusing which weak point to attack first.

Notes on 1 Corinthians and the Catholic editor

The Catholic Editor and other rambling thoughts

Introduction

The time and circumstances under which the Catholic editor appended 1 Corinthians differs markedly from those that the original Marcionite author wrote the book. This fact is more pronounced than any theological difference, although there are plenty of those. The concerns and adjustments the Catholic editor made reveal a much changed, larger, more diverse, and more mature church assembly he is addressing than the one the original author knew.

These differences are not those of a handful of years but generational. The church has become more formal, no longer ruled by a single strong leader; there are hints of a reconciliation with a substantial Marcionite like group and the one of the Catholic editor represents; the very membership of the congregation has changed in size, diversity, and nature; issues such as the marriage and divorce and interaction with non-Christians, even interfaith marriage and children resulting, has entered the picture.

Good Ideas for Criticism - #1 Fatigue

There have been several brilliant ideas which have come forth from various categories of New Testament, and really all literary forensic studies which should be more widely accepted, and more importantly used as measuring sticks to validate and invalidate - or at the least be used as tools to investigate - theories. Today I will throw out one of them.

The first idea I found brilliant is that of redactor fatigue. Mark Goodacre has used it extensively in his

F.C. Bukett on Marcion

In my effort to give readers of this blog more content I am adding links to useful sites. This one influenced my thinking a great deal, and made me look at the heretics of the 2nd and 3rd century as part of the Church and not truly outside, part and parcel with its development.

Here is a link I found with the excerpt from: F.C. Burkett, The Gospel History and its Transmission 

Burkett gave me a healthier view, which allowed me to realize that the model I was using to understand the Heretics and the Orthodox views on God were wrong. The first time I read the article was a bit of an eureka moment, when I realized that the ditheism of Marcion only differed in terminology from the orthodox, and the assignment of the properties of Justice as not belonging to the high God. The two sides really did come from a single place. But a small difference quickly grew into a massive fissure - but I digress. Anyway enjoy Burkett, hopefully you'll get as much out of reading him as I did some years ago.

Apostles and Bishops

Continuing on the issue of vocabulary, and focusing on the structure of the Church we see the relationship between Apostle and Bishop is a fundamental one in the organization of the early Church. It is a position that evolved from with the growth of the Church. This is important in understanding who Marcion was, and how the character Paul relates to his position, and how it was reinterpreted by later Catholic editors.  

Below is the excerpt from an article I wrote about the relationship of Paul and Marcion, which I am dealing with the offices of Bishop and Minister (Deacon).

Apostle and Bishop and Minister

When considering the issue of Marcion’s parallel relationship with the literary Paul, you have to begin with the terms used. We learn not unsurprisingly in Dialogue Adamantius 1.9 that Marcion was a bishop, when Megethius states “Marcion is my bishop” (ἐπισκοπός μου / episcopus meus). Not only is this acknowledged by the Catholic champion Adamantius in his reply, but also that a succession of Bishops after Marcion,

Vocabulary - Part 1 Church Membership

In the course of parsing 1 Corinthians to separate the material most likely added by the Orthodox editor(s), I became very aware of the usage of certain words which seemed to only occur in the Orthodox additions. Beyond that I started to recognize the double meanings of certain words used by the "original" Heterodox author(s).

There are different categories of members of the assembly (ἐκκλησίᾳ which is usually called church in our NT translations, except that the physical building is usually referred to as a συναγωγὴ 'Synagogue'), a few of which the early church that the heterodox authors were not concerned with include:

πρεσβυτέρων
   - elders
ἄπιστος
   - non believers
ἰδιῶται
   - "idiot" or "initiate" refers to a new or potential members, somebody who does not know church customs
κυβερνήσεις
   - rectors (literally ship pilot) who administer the daily affairs of church property
ἀντιλήμψεις
   - helpers or partakers

None of these roles are part of the church spoken of by Marcion's Paul. They are products of a later time,

Marcionite 1 Corinthians Interliner

This is a slightly updated version of the 1 Corinthians Interliner I gave to Dr. Detering for his site. Since that one was released I found it impossible to keep any reference to church attendees who were ἄπιστος or ἰδιῶται. These simply were not accepted in Marcion's time. But when the redactor wrote a generation or so later (25 years minimum I think), the congregation was larger and more complex, requiring new rules.

Here is the Interliner  for 1 Corinthians

and here are my notes on the Catholic Additions to 1 Corinthians

Interliner Color Key:
   Green = words attested in Marcion (by Tertullian, Adamantius, Epiphanius, et al)
   Blue = words that are different in Marcion than we see in the UBS
   Red = LXX quotes (the english only is highlighted red)

In the footnotes Red denotes Latin, and Blue denotes Greek

The Marcionite Openings: Romans

Last year I challenged Herman Detering on his reconstruction of Marcion's Romans, specifically his leaving in tact verses 1:1 and 1:7. My belief is the original simply read:

_1:1 Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, [1]      _1:7 πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν [ἐν Ῥώμῃ] τοῖς ἁγίοις, [2] 

     Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus                       to all   those saints ~ [in Rome]

     χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. [3]

     Grace to you and peace from God our father and Lord Jesus Christ

Matthew and the Antithesis

I have not been very good in updating this blog sight, but today I promise to be better.

One of the most puzzling features of Marcion's antithesis is its seeming use of Matthew. We can see this in Dialogue Adamantius as in these two cases where verses in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount appear to show up in the Antithesis arguments of Megathius, the Marcionite champion:

// The third antithesis found in Dialogue Adamantius 1.12 / 8.12d
Megethius: The Lord brought to view in the Law say, ‘You shall love him who loves you and you shall hate your enemy.” (Leviticus 19:18 LXX with τὸν ἀγαπῶντά σε for τὸν πλησίον σου, Matthew 5:43) But our Lord, because He is good, says “Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:44; see also Luke 6:27-28)

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.