Talk:Expounding of the Law

Question

I have a question:

Who coined the phrase "Antithesis of the Law" for this part of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount?

The phrase was originally used by Marcion, but in reference to how, he claimed, his Gospel of Marcion constrasted with the Old Testament.

Who applied the phrase to this part of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount?

I don't know. I'll look it up. Its commonly used by New Testament scholars apparantly. Clinkophonist 22:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcion never used the phrase "Antithesis of the Law," he used the title "Antithesis" for his treaty arguing that the OT Deity and NT Deity were two different beings, which he attempted to show by opposing the OT teachings about God to the NT teachings about Jesus (see Daniel Mahar's reconstruction of the Antithesis). Marcion's concern was mainly theological (in the strict sense of the term), not legal. Regarding the phrase "Antithesis of the Law" it has long been used by Christian scholars, "anti-" being taken from the Greek sense ("in place of"), or the old Latin ("surpassing"). The understanding being, "statements which supercede the Law," as in, going beyond the "letter" of the Law, to the "spirit" of the Law. --MonkeeSage 03:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like Supersessionism. Antithesis by the way is well defined, no need to invent new definitions.

New definitions are stipulated for words all the time. You really shouldn't ask the question if you don't want the answer. Many Christian scholars use the term antithesis (ἀντί [G473] + τίθημι [G5087]) to refer to this section of the sermon for the reason I stated; I'm also aware of some who see Jesus as setting forth the Rabbinic glosses (midrashim) on the Law and then correcting them (in which case antithesis would have the standard, non-technical meaning). And talk about inventing new definitions — recognizing Marcion's own intention amounts to suppressing it?! Marcionites is linked in the same paragraph you want to put Marcion in, so I'm not a very good "suppressor" am I? So long as it is verifiable, I have no problem including anything in the article, however it is not verifiable that Marcion started the discussion on Jesus' view of the Mosaic Law. --MonkeeSage 06:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just visited your link to Supersessionism, and I'm not sure what anything I wrote has to do with replacement theology. And even if it were replacement theology, what does that have to do with the matter about Marcion? That sounds like a violation of WP:NPA: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views." --MonkeeSage 06:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you write "supercede"? Are you aware Supersessionism is derived from supersede? As for antithesis: [1]

Strong's Antithesis G477

Right, "supercede;" statements which not only embrace the Law, but go beyond it. How that is replacement theology is beyond me. And even if it were, that has nothing to do with this topic and amounts to ad hominem. I'm aware of the lexical definition of antithesis; I said that it was a stipulated technical meaning as many scholars use it regarding Matt. 5. Others use it in its normal meaning but make the antithesis between Jesus and the Law-teachers not the Law itself. Still other use it to mean the form of the diatribe, not the content ("you have heard. . .but I say"). In any case, you asked why Christian scholars refer to that portion of the sermon that way, and I answered — I'm not arguing that antithesis is the best or most accurate word to use. --MonkeeSage 11:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcion

The reference to Marcion does not belong here. Just because one of the passages of the NT which Marcion altered in his program to systematically remove all reference to the OT from the NT because he thought that the OT Deity was incompatible with the NT Deity, happened to be located near the Antitheses and happened to mention "Law," does not mean that Macrion discussed the Antitheses or the Law in Matt. 5:22ff. He didn't. Therefore, I'm removing the stuff about Marcion again. --MonkeeSage 22:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. Marcion didn't use the gospel of Matthew at all, so it is unlikely that he would use passages from it unless they were also in his version of the Gospel of Luke. Clinkophonist 22:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Wace on Marcion[2]: "Indeed, he sometimes has even to alter the text, e.g. "I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil," into "I am not come to fulfil the law, but to destroy.""; From Epiphanius of Salamis' Panarion 42[3] "Luke 23:2 After "...perverting the nation" Marcion added "and destroying the law and the prophets""

Yes, Marcion thought that the religion and God of Jesus destroyed the religion and god of Moses. Aside from tossing out the entire Law with the rest of the OT, because he thought that an evil god revealed it (and not because of any discussion of the specifics of the Law) — what does Marcion have to do with the antitheses of Matt. 5? --MonkeeSage 06:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil"? Ring any bells? Does this help: "Indeed, he sometimes has even to alter the text, e.g. "I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil," into "I am not come to fulfil the law, but to destroy.""? But your claim is that when Marcion wrote "law" he actually meant "the religion and god of Moses"? And Luke 23:2 is about the "God of Jesus", not Jesus? Free clue: Marcion's Luke 23:2 is about JESUS, and Marcion claims that the accusation against Jesus was that he was destroying the law and the prophets. Understand? The claim is that Jesus was destroying the law and prophets, not fulfilling. On the contrary, Matt. 5 says Jesus did not come to destroy the law and prophets, but to fulfil. Marcion reversed it. Get it?

I understand fine — no need for condescension. Once more, "Just because one of the passages of the NT which Marcion altered in his program to systematically remove all reference to the OT from the NT because he thought that the OT Deity was incompatible with the NT Deity, happened to be located near the Antitheses and happened to mention "Law," does not mean that Macrion discussed the Antitheses or the Law in Matt. 5:22ff. He didn't." You are apparently trying to argue that Marcion was interested in discussing the Law qua Law and Jesus' interpretation, when really his only purpose was to do away with the Law on the grounds that it was revealed by an "alien" deity who was not the God of Jesus. Marcion never raised the issues of legalism and antinomianism; he bypassed the whole topic by religating the OT, including the Law, to the category of uninspired literature (or, at most, inspired by an inferior deity). Yes, he changed the text to say that Jesus would destroy the Law, but not because Marcion had discussed the Law and Jesus' views on it — because his idea of Jesus and a different NT God necessitated that view (He couldn't have Jesus affirming the OT Law, or else Jesus would be validating the OT god). --MonkeeSage 11:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce

A few of points about the Divorce Antithesis:

The "hates" in Mal. 2:16 is understood as an action on the part of the husband in the main text of several modern translations (ESV, HCSB). Cf. M. A. Shields, Syncretism and Divorce in Malachi 2,10-16, in ZAW, vol. 111 (1999), pp. 68-86. This is consistant with the LXX rendering, as well as Deu. 24:3. In any case, the Deu. passage is unequivocal. [This uncertainty makes it advisable to omit the reference to Mal 2:16.]

Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 don't actually condemn divorce, only remarriage. Verse 31 is not related to the topic of divorce at all (mabye a typo?).

1 Cor 7 is ambiguous — Paul doesn't say he is referring to Jesus, so he could very well be speaking of the Mosaic statutes. Also, it is not clear that he is invoking apostolic privilege, as he may be engaging in midrash, with his meaning being something akin to "the Lord didn't say this directly, but this is the nuanced meaning." I'm not pushing for the latter point, just voicing the possibility. [That Paul, in quoting "the Lord" as forbidding divorce, is referring to the Mosaic statutes, which do envisage divorce and remarriage, seems quite unlikely.]

"Koine Greek" is more accurate than "Greek language," even though the word may have existed in earlier forms, since the meanings are not always the same in each form, and the Matthew use is Koine. [Since πορνεία seems to have the same meaning (even if with different overtones) in classical Attic, Koine, modern Greek and, presumably, other forms of Greek, specifying "Koine" here seems as otiose as saying "seventeenth-century English", rather than "English", for an unambiguous English word.]

Isa. 57:3 uses μοιχῶν in the context of idol worship (cf. v. 5). Jer. 3:8 uses ἐμοιχᾶτο (cf. 5:7, 7:9, &c). Eze. 23:37 uses ἐμοιχῶντο (cf. v. 43, 45). And elsewhere through-out the prophets. Granted that in some of the these passages it is used metaphorically, picturing Israel as God's wife, but in others there is no mention of a marital relationship, only a covenant relationship. So πορνεία seems to emphasize the moral lewdness or unlawfulness of the act, while μοιχεία seems to emphasize the unfaithfulness of it to the marriage covenant. [Here πορνεία is in question.]

While γυνή may be used of "women" in general (just like ἀνήρ is used of "men" in general), it is a distinct word for "wife," as αρσην and θῆλυς are used for "male" and "female" when the meaning is general. [The primary meaning of γυνή is "woman", as is the primary meaning of Spanish "mujer". Μία γυνή means "a woman", as does "una mujer". Only when used in relation to a man (as "his γυνή") can it be taken to have the more specific meaning of "wife" ("su mujer"). Using Template:Polytonic to refer to a woman is doubtless no more respectful than to refer to a woman as "una hembra" in Spanish.]

Calling the "ironic" interpretation "abstruse" seems biased and ethnocentric. This type of reasoning was not at all abstruse to 1st century Jews in Palestine, it is a common midrashic technique. While this may not be the correct interpretation, and while it may seem strained to us, this type of "irony" was used very often in that period. [The paragraph should either have its abstruse relevance to the divorce question clarified or be removed.] --MonkeeSage 15:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With sincere gratitude to MonkeeSage. Lima 05:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lima. I agree with your comments above. --MonkeeSage 08:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lima: Firstly, I don't understand the argument about concubinage.

Every one who sends away his woman — except in the case of concubinage — makes her commit adultery.

This takes λόγου as "in the case of", which is entirely odd. Logos relates to a "reason" or "cause" or "ground", not an "instance" or a "case". Also, it seems like a simple truism, not any kind of iconoclastic teaching that would make people marvel, to say "if you're not married, just sleeping together, then you can't commit adultery [a sin which presupposes marriage]". And why would Jesus shift his focus to the unmarried concubines in the midst of talking about marriage and divorce? But if we take the usual meaning:

Every one who sends away his woman — except for the reason of concubinage — makes her commit adultery.

Then if a man is married, and their wife is acting as a concubine with another man, that is a form of adultery — and that brings back the "quaint" expression:

Every one who sends away his woman — except for the reason of [a type of adultery] — makes her commit adultery.

So I'm very curious who actually poses this strange argument. Can you please cite a source so I can review their argument and see if it makes any more sense than the presentation in the article?

Secondly, the article is incorrect that there is no "specific word" for wife — there is: γυνή. θῆλυς is the generic word for "female/woman", γυνή is the specific word for "woman/wife". It doesn't have to mean wife, but it can, and it is a subset of θῆλυς, making it specific (all γυνή are θῆλυς, but not all θῆλυς are γυνή). The article currently gives the impression that the Greeks (and Spansih) had/have no way of referring to a wife rather than just a female, which is not accurate. They had no asbolutely unique, completely specific word, but they did have a specific word as opposed to a general one. I'm unpacking my books tonight, so I'll check the BDAG entry later. » MonkeeSage « 23:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is BDAG, 2nd edt., 1979, p. 168:

γυνή, αικός, ἡ [. . .] 2. wife (Hom.+, Jos., Ant, 18, 148, C. Ap. 2, 201) Mt 5: 28, 31f. . .

» MonkeeSage « 10:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I was uploading the following, I met an edit conflict: MonkeeSage had, in the meantime, added the above. I don't think it alters materially what I wanted to say. (Excuse my ignorance: I do not know what BDAG means, though I suppose the first two letters stand for Bible Dictionary.) The following was written not many minutes ago. (I had to learn how to retrieve it.)

I am sorry that I seem to disagree with MonkeeSage, whom I admire. Let us start with Template:Polytonic, which - excuse the quibble - never means "woman". It is an adjective, not a noun, and so, if applied to a woman, would have to be put in the feminine form, θήλεια. Among the several English translations that Liddel and Scott gives, "woman" does not appear. (My own Liddell and Scott is in another country, but the Perseus site is available to me here.) To underline the distinction between θήλεια and γυνή, I notice that Liddel and Scott gives a quotation of the phrase "Template:Polytonic" (literally, "female women") along with phrases like "Template:Polytonic" (literally female horses, i.e. mares). Yes, I know that several English translations of the Bible use "woman" as a translation of θήλεια in Rom 1:26-27, apparently thinking that, in that context of sexual intercourse, "female" would be somehow indecent. But even there the word, in itself, means "female" and is only applied to women. So too, the word "γυνή", in itself, means "woman". While Template:Polytonic will in nearly every context be translated as "my wife", for a Greek γυνή is exactly the same word and does not need analysis into different shades of meaning. The same happens in English: "brother-in-law" would be translated into modern Greek by no less than three different words: γαμπρός (husband of one's sister), κουνιάδος (brother of one's spouse), and μπατζανάκης (husband of the sister of one's wife). But an English speaker does not normally think of distinctions in the meaning of "brother-in-law" that would show up in translation into another language. In the same way, an ancient Greek would not be conscious of possible distinctions of meaning in the word γυνή that would show up only in a translation into another language. For a Spanish speaker, mujer has exactly the same meaning in the phrase "una mujer" and "mi mujer", though an English translation would distinguish between "a woman" and "my wife"; if asked to translate "my wife", a Spanish speaker would almost certainly say "mi esposa", rather than "mi mujer", in order to keep the English wife/woman distinction that does not exist for mujer. I can think of no word in ancient Greek that corresponds specifically to the English word "wife" (which, as you probably know, originally just meant "woman", as German "Weib" still normally does). If an ancient Greek wished to express the specific idea of the English word "wife", he would doubtless, for lack of a specific single word, have to say something like "my lawful γυνή". Modern Greek has the word "σύζυγος" (spouse), but, as you know, that word once had a much broader meaning (cf. Phil 4:3).

The wording of the article is totally misunderstood if it is thought to give the impression that ancient Greeks and Spanish speakers had/have no way of referring to a wife rather than just a female (i.e. a θήλεια or an hembra, words that do not appear in the article).

I have left "except for the reason of concubinage" for last, because I see no difficulty in it. It refers not to what MonkeeSage interprets as the to my mind somewhat curious concept of "concubinage by the wife" ("abandonment"?), but to the situation of the man and the woman themselves living in concubinage rather than marriage ("a relationship between the couple that is not that of a valid marriage", as I tried to express the meaning). It was because he had been living in concubinage, not in marriage that Augustine of Hippo, "for the reason of concubinage", decided to put away the woman he had been living with for years before his conversion. You would certainly call her, in Greek, Template:Polytonic, without implying anything precise about the character of their relationship; and you could then translate this phrase as "his mistress", or "his concubine", or, most literally, "his woman", but you could not translate is as "his wife" - I should have thought of this example when speaking, above, of the meaning of the word "γυνή".

This interpretation of πορνεία is perhaps that of all Catholic Scripture scholars, and of some others too. One Biblical commentary that I have to hand, in CD-ROM form, is the Jerome Bible Commentary. It gives exactly this interpretation. Indeed, the article itself indicates that this is a common interpretation, since the article enlarges on various reasons why a man-and-woman relationship would be classified as concubinage rather than a true marriage.

In view of MonkeeSage's comments, I have tried to express more clearly what is meant by concubinage in this context. Perhaps MonkeeSage himself can improve on it.

Lima 10:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article's title is an incorrect POV

This article is poorly named. As the introduction correctly notes, it a) states clearly in the text itself that it is NOT intended as an antithesis or negation of the Law; and b) none of the specific teachings are strictly speaking 'antitheses' or negations of the comparable laws. "Antithesis of the Law" may allegedly be a phrase used by Marcion, but why should the Marcionist pov be officially endorsed by wikipedia? Please explain. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Expounding of the Law is npov and more accurate. However, "Antithesis of the Law" is a phrase used in certain Christian circles. It would be nice if someone could figure out who was the first to coin this phrase for this section of Matthew, and then add that information to the article.209.78.16.73 17:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly who coined the term, but I think I recall seeing it as early as Jerome or Augustine, but I could be mistaken about that. Some current authors who have used the term: Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (3rd ed.), 91-97; John Murray, Principles of Conduct, 160-178; Ned B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ, 196-209. To my knowledge Marcion never used the term "Antithesis" in any connection to the sermon on the mount, or the Law, nor did he ever discuss the issue. I don't really have a problem with the title change, though. I'm adding a redirect for Antithesis of the Law so linked pages don't break. --MonkeeSage 17:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NM, it already redirects. --MonkeeSage 17:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tertullian on Marcion

[4]

"Marcion's special and principal work is the separation of the law and the gospel; and his disciples will not deny that in this point they have their very best pretext for initiating and confirming themselves in his heresy. These are Marcion's Antitheses, or contradictory propositions, which aim at committing the gospel to a variance with the law, in order that from the diversity of the two documents which contain them, they may contend for a diversity of gods also. Since, therefore, it is this very opposition between the law and the gospel which has suggested that the God of the gospel is different from the God of the law, it is clear that, before the said separation, that god could not have been known who became known from the argument of the separation itself."

"MARCION, JUSTIFYING HIS ANTITHESIS BETWEEN THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL BY THE CONTENTION OF ST. PAUL WITH ST. PETER, SHOWN TO HAVE MISTAKEN ST. PAUL'S POSITION AND ARGUMENT. MARCION'S DOCTRINE CONFUTED OUT OF ST. PAUL'S TEACHING, WHICH AGREES WHOLLY WITH THE CREATOR'S DECREES."

True, Tertullian referred to "law and gospel," but taking his remarks in context, it is clear that his focus is broader than "the Mosaic Law and Jesus' teachings," encompassing the whole corpus of the Old and New Testaments (Cf. Against Marcion, Bk. 4[5]). For example:

Now if it was with the view of preaching a new god that he was eager to abrogate the law of the old God, how is it that he prescribes no rule about the new god, but solely about the old law, if it be not because faith in the Creator was still to continue, and His law alone was to come to an end? . . . And, indeed, if another god were preached by Paul, there could be no doubt about the law, whether it were to be kept or not, because of course it would not belong to the new lord, the enemy of the law. The very newness and difference of the god would take away not only all question about the old and alien law, but even all mention of it. (idem., Bk. 1, §21[6]).

This is confirmed by Irenaeus in his Against Heresies, Bk. 1, §27.1-2[7]:

Cerdo was one who took his system from the followers of Simon, and came to live at Rome in the time of Hyginus, who held the ninth place in the episcopal succession from the apostles downwards. He taught that the God proclaimed by the law and the prophets was not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Marcion of Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine. In so doing, he advanced the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as God by the law and the prophets, declaring Him to be the author of evils, to take delight in war, to be infirm of purpose, and even to be contrary to Himself.

Harnack says in his History of Dogma, vol. 1, ch. 5, p. 269[8]:

Completely carried away with the novelty, uniqueness and grandeur of the Pauline Gospel of the grace of God in Christ, Marcion felt that all other conceptions of the Gospel, and especially its union with the Old Testament religion, was opposed to, and a backsliding from, the truth. He accordingly supposed that it was necessary to make the sharp antitheses of Paul, law and gospel, wrath and grace, works and faith, flesh and spirit, sin and righteousness, death and life, that is the Pauline criticism of the Old Testament religion, the foundation of his religious views, and to refer them to two principles, the righteous and wrathful god of the Old Testament, who is at the same time identical with the creator of the world, and the God of the Gospel, quite unknown before Christ, who is only love and mercy. This Paulinism in its religious strength, but without dialectic, without the Jewish Christian view of history, and detached from the soil of the Old Testament, was to him the true Christianity. Marcion, like Paul, felt that the religious value of a statutory law with commandments and ceremonies, was very different from that of a uniform law of love. Accordingly, he had a capacity for appreciating the Pauline idea of faith; it is to him reliance on the unmerited grace of God which is revealed in Christ. But Marcion shewed himself to be a Greek influenced by the religious spirit of the time, by changing the ethical contrast of the good and legal into the contrast between the infinitely exalted spiritual and the sensible which is subject to the law of nature, by despairing of the triumph of good in the world and, consequently, correcting the traditional faith that the world and history belong to God, by an empirical view of the world and the course of events in it, a view to which he was no doubt also led by the severity of the early Christian estimate of the world.

Also, the Marcionite intention is specified, not as being to discern the specific relationship between the Mosaic Law and the teaching of Jesus, but to establish a contradiction in theology between the two testaments:

These are Marcion's Antitheses, or contradictory propositions, which aim at committing the gospel to a variance with the law, in order that from the diversity of the two documents which contain them, they may contend for a diversity of gods also. (Tertullian, idem., Bk. 1, §19[9]).

Harnack again, idem., p. 271[10]:

[Marcion] recognised [the Old Testament] as the revelation of the creator of the world and the god of the Jews, but placed it, just on that account, in sharpest contrast to the Gospel. He demonstrated the contradictions between the Old Testament and the Gospel in a voluminous work (the ἀνσιθἑσεις). In the god of the former book he saw a being whose character was stern justice, and therefore anger, contentiousness and unmercifulness.

So I am still opposed to any statement implying that Marcion was concerned with the specific interaction between the Law and Jesus' teaching. Marcion was concerned with the general concepts, but not their specifics, and only insofar as they served to show two different gods. --MonkeeSage 08:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No original research, What Wikipedia is not

This statement currently in the article needs to be referenced or deleted as original research:

"While Marcion never explicitly discussed ... the relationship of the Mosaic Law and the teaching of Jesus"

As it now stands, the sentence is internally antithetical. "Marcion never explicitly discussed ... the relationship of the Mosaic Law and the teaching of Jesus" yet "we can be fairly certain that he would have extended the "antithesis" (contradiction) he posited between the Old and New Testaments to encompass these issues as well." The obvious conclusion is that therefore Marcion did discuss the relationship, whether or not it was an "extension" is irrelevent.209.78.17.144 18:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...no, it's not internally antithetical. It's an inference from greater to lesser: Marcion believed that the whole OT was opposed to the whole NT (the parts he accepted as authentic), therefore Marcion probably believed that specific parts of the OT were opposed to specific parts of the NT. But the inference is only probable, not necessary, as Marcion may not have seen conflict at every particular point. But as there is no evidence that Marcion explicitly discussed the relationship of the Mosaic Law and the teaching of Jesus, that was my attempt at a concession to the Marcion POV-pushers who keep trying to revise history and have Marcion discussing subjects he never did. --MonkeeSage 23:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ps. It is also a misuse of Tertullian to include a translator's heading as if it were part of Tertullians text! --MonkeeSage 23:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcion believed that *some* parts of the Gospel (as presented by Paul and Marcion's Gospel) were opposed (antithetical) to *some* parts of the Jewish Bible. For example, Marcion didn't object to "thou shalt not murder", etc. Marcion didn't object to all law, he was not an anarchist, but he proposed that some of the teachings of the Gospel of Jesus were antithetical to some of the teachings of the Jewish Bible. As for your claim that some of the text is a translator's heading, that may or may not be correct, even if it is the translator's commentary, it is still a Wikipedia:Reliable sources rather than original research.63.201.26.122 01:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is false: "But as there is no evidence that Marcion explicitly discussed the relationship of the Mosaic Law and the teaching of Jesus". Here is one of many such evidence: "These are Marcion's Antitheses, or contradictory propositions, which aim at committing the gospel to a variance with the law". Gospel is the teachings of Jesus, that's how Paul used the word. Law is obviously the Mosaic Law. Variance is a relationship. 63.201.26.122 02:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, we don't know what parts of the Law Marcion would have accepted or rejected, except the parts he used in his Antithesis to try to show that a different god was responsible for the OT than the God responsible for the NT.

Secondly, it is utterly misleading to quote a translator's chapter summary as if it were the text, or might be the text. The published Latin version has no such headings[11], nor does a scholarly modern English translation[12]. The ANF series gives summary headings to chapters in all of the works it translates, and in most cases a summary of the whole work at the outset of the translation — that doesn't make these pedagogical summaries part of the actual text!

Thirdly, as shown above in Tertullian himself and in Irenaeus (cf. Harnack), Tertullian is not speaking strictly of the Mosaic Law and the teaching of Jesus, but using "law and gospel" as metonyms for the OT and NT in toto. The ANF translator, Peter Holmes, agrees on this point as well: "If Marcionism is in the letter obsolete, there is its spirit still left in the church, which in more ways than one develops its ancient characteristics. What these were, the reader will soon discover in this volume; but reference may be made even here, in passing, to that prominent aim of the heresy which gave Tertullian his opportunity of proving the essential coherence of the Old and the New Testaments, and of exhibiting both his great knowledge of the details of Holy Scripture, and his fine intelligence of the progressive nature of God's revelation as a whole. This constitutes the charm of the present volume [Against Marcion], which might almost be designated a Treatise on the Connection between the Jewish and the Christian Scriptures."[13]

Wrong. "OT" and "NT" as designations did not exist in Marcion's time. "Law and Prophets" was the common name of the Jewish Bible, "Gospel" was the common name for the teachings of Jesus. "Old Testament" and "New Testament" are terms invented by Tertullian.

You're splitting hairs. --MonkeeSage 10:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forthly, the Tertullian quote doesn't add anything to the section, and is misleading without context, amounting to an attempt to bolster the POV and original research that Marcion addressed the Mosaic Law and Jesus' teachings specifically, when the sources all say that he was not interested in anything but proving that the OT revealed one god and Jesus revealed another. Harnack (see above) said: "[Marcion] demonstrated the contradictions between the Old Testament and the Gospel in a voluminous work (the ἀνσιθἑσεις). In the god of the former book he saw a being whose character was stern justice, and therefore anger, contentiousness and unmercifulness."

--MonkeeSage 06:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously that is your own original research.

Well, Harnack says it (see context)...and I'm not Harnack... --MonkeeSage 10:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're also hoist with your own petard regarding Marcion's antinomianism. "I am not come to fulfil the law, but to destroy" doesn't make any qualification about "destroy some of the law, but not all" — you need to show that he accepted some parts of the law if you want to claim that in the article. I agree however that there were Jewish antinomians before Marcion, so I qualified the statement with "Christian." --MonkeeSage 06:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever. Your games bore me. Obviously there were Christian antinomians before Marcion also. Have fun distorting wikipedia. You'll no doubt fool some people. 63.201.24.97 07:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that Marcion was a precursor, not the only one. Cerdo, whom Marcion allegedly drew from, is another that I'm aware of. You have been assuming bad faith through-out our discussions on this page, though I'm not sure know why. You claim that I'm distoring Wikipedia, trying to fool people — what do you think I have to gain? You claim I'm presenting original research, but I'm only saying what the commentators on Marcion have said — is your interpretation of Tertullian attributable? Mine is (e.g., Harnack, Holmes). To hold the article to the standard of verifiability, as I have been doing, is not to push a POV. --MonkeeSage 10:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim: "While Marcion never explicitly discussed this section of Matthew, or the relationship of the Mosaic Law and the teaching of Jesus, it is probable that he would have extended the "antithesis" (contradiction) he posited between the entire Old and New Testaments to encompass these issues as well."

Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1.19[14]: "The separation of Law and Gospel is the primary and principal exploit of Marcion. His disciples cannot deny this, which stands at the head of their document, that document by which they are inducted, into and confirmed in this heresy. For such are Marcion's Antitheses, or Contrary Oppositions, which are designed to show the conflict and disagreement of the Gospel and the Law, so that from the diversity of principles between those two documents they may argue further for a diversity of gods."

I have not deleted your claim from the article, though I requested it be referenced, which you have failed to do. You have been deleting the quote of Tertullian.64.169.3.213 18:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking me to prove the negative. The onus probandi is on you to demonstrate that "Marcion did explicitly discuss this section of Matthew, or the relationship of the Mosaic Law and the teaching of Jesus." You tried to do this by citing Tertullian, but from the context of Tertullian, Irenaeus' comments about Marcion, Harnack's evaluation, and the Holmes' preface to Tertullian, your proof has been demonstrated to be false. Your interpretation of Tetrullian is not verified; so just by including the citation without any context except the context of the article as a whole, you're pushing your POV and OR. I'll be happy to remove the bit about Marcion if you wish, I only included it because you seemed to want Marcion included in the article regardless of relevance. --MonkeeSage 19:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]