Adversus Marcionem: Written Before the Canonical Gospels
The Marcionite Mispunctuation: 2 Corinthians 4:4
The verse in question, 2 Corinthians 4:4, is traditionally translated as:
"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."
Irenaeus' Interpretation: Irenaeus, in his work Against Heresies, argued against the Marcionite interpretation which suggested a dualistic understanding of gods. He contended that the phrase should be read with a pause:
"In whom God; [pause] hath blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this world."
Irenaeus claimed that this reading supports the view that there is only one God, the creator, who has blinded the minds of unbelievers due to their lack of faith.
Tertullian's Adaptation: Tertullian, following Irenaeus, reinforced this interpretation in his own work Adversus Marcionem. He suggested that Marcion's interpretation, which made the "god of this world" a separate deity, was a deliberate mispunctuation. Tertullian's argument relied heavily on Irenaeus’ work, indicating that he did not possess an independent copy of Marcion’s gospel but was rather reiterating Irenaeus' points.
Luke 20:34 and the Marcionite Context
The verse Luke 20:34 traditionally reads:
"The children of this world marry and are given in marriage."
Marcionite Interpretation: Marcionites supposedly interpreted this to mean that only those belonging to the god of this world (i.e., the Creator) engage in marriage, while those who follow the higher god abstain.
Tertullian’s Refutation: Tertullian argued that the Marcionites misinterpreted Jesus' words by suggesting that there are two separate deities governing different worlds. He claimed that the correct understanding, which aligns with the broader context of Luke, shows that Jesus was addressing the practices of this world without implying the existence of another deity.
The Role of Irenaeus
Irenaeus' Influence: The crux of the argument hinges on the fact that Tertullian's critiques are not independent but derived from Irenaeus. Irenaeus’ writings, especially in Against Heresies, laid the foundation for later refutations of Marcionism. He was meticulous in his attempt to demonstrate how Marcion and his followers had corrupted the scriptures through misinterpretation and mispunctuation.
Implications: The reliance on Irenaeus by Tertullian indicates that the latter did not have direct access to Marcion's gospel. Instead, Tertullian's arguments were constructed based on Irenaeus’ expositions. This dependency raises questions about the veracity of Tertullian's claims and the extent to which he understood Marcion’s teachings firsthand.
Scholarly Perspectives
Modern scholarship often critiques the early Church Fathers for their polemical approaches. Scholars like Evans and Roth have pointed out the methodological flaws and rhetorical strategies used by figures like Tertullian and Irenaeus. They argue that much of what we know about Marcion's gospel and theology comes through the lens of his opponents, who had their own theological agendas.
Conclusion
The debate over the Marcionite mispunctuation of 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Luke 20:34 reveals much about the early Christian theological battles. The arguments presented by Irenaeus and echoed by Tertullian illustrate a concerted effort to maintain orthodoxy against perceived heresies. However, the reliance on second-hand interpretations calls into question the direct knowledge these Church Fathers had of Marcion’s actual texts. Understanding these dynamics helps us appreciate the complexities of early Christian scriptural interpretation and the formation of orthodoxy.
Comments
Post a Comment