Marcionites: Early Christianity was not monolithic

Citation
, XML
Authors

Abstract

The early Christianity was not monolithic but had many beliefs and gospels. The group that may be closest to the teachings of Jesus, as Islam understands them may have been Ebionites.

To best understand the Ebionites we should contrast them with the Marcionites, as these two groups make the two poles of the spectrum of early Christians.

St. Paul teachings were a departure from the teachings of Judaism and Jesus himself. So, contradiction and conflict was inevitable. This gave rise to Marcion and the Marcionites that were fairly wide spread until 4th and 5th centuries. It took a long theological and political struggle before some sort of harmony could be achieved between Paul on the one hand and Judaism and Jesus, may peace be on him on the other. This harmony would then come to be called orthodox Christianity.

The theologicl pressure from both these groups will influence the thoughts and religion of the proto-orthodox group that later came to represent the Orthodox Christianity.

The chief nemesis of Marcion was Tertullian.

EBIONITES MARCIONITES
One God Two gods
Embrace Jewish Law Reject Jewish Law
Jesus: man not god Jesus: god not man
Paul: arch heretic Paul: true apostle
Main Gospel: Mathew Main Gospel: Luke
 
The table above summarizes the two groups.  I have a separate knol about Ebionites.  Ebionites’ gospel was the gospel of Mathew that can be considered to be the most Jewish of the 4 canonical gospels and Marcionites gospel was Luke that is the most gentile of the 4 gospels.  However, the New Testament, as we know it did not exist in the early history of Ebionites and Marcionites.  It may be that Marcion made the first canon by collecting Luke and some letters of Paul and that may have forced the concept to be followed by the proto-orthodox group that later came to represent orthodoxy.  The word orthodoxy is derived from Greek words implying the true belief and now has come to represent the connotation of originality. 
 
According to Encyclopedia Britannica: 
The basis of Marcionite theology was that there were two cosmic gods. A vain and angry creator god who demanded and ruthlessly exacted justice had created the material world of which man, body and soul, was a part—a striking departure from the usual Gnostic thesis that only man’s body is part of creation, that his soul is a spark from the true but unknown superior God, and that the world creator is a demonic power. The other god, according to Marcion, was completely ineffable and bore no intrinsic relation to the created universe at all. Out of sheer goodness, he had sent his son Jesus Christ to save man from the material world and bring him to a new home. One of Marcion’s favourite texts with respect to Christ’s mission was Letter of Paul to the Galatians 3:13: “Christ redeemed us.” Christ’s sacrifice was not in any sense a vicarious atonement for human sin but rather a legalistic act that cancelled the claim of the creator God upon men. In contrast to the typical Gnostic claim to a special revelatory gnosis, Marcion and his followers emphasized faith in the effect of Christ’s act. They practiced stern asceticism to restrict contact with the creator’s world while looking forward to eventual salvation in the realm of the extra-worldly God. They admitted women to the priesthood and bishopric. The Marcionites were considered the most dangerous of the Gnostics by the established church. When Polycarp met Marcion at Rome he is said to have identified Marcion as “the firstborn of Satan.”
 
Marcion is perhaps best known for his treatment of Scripture. Though he rejected the Old Testament as the work of the creator God, he did not deny its efficacy for those who did not believe in Christ. He rejected attempts to harmonize Jewish biblical traditions with Christian ones as impossible. He accepted as authentic all of the Pauline Letters and the Gospel According to Luke (after he had expurgated them of Judaizing elements). His treatment of Christian literature was significant, for it forced the early church to fix an approved canon of theologically acceptable texts out of the mass of available but unorganized material.[1]
The fact that Polycarp called Marcion the first born of Satan had little to do with theology for Marcion’s theology was much closer to that of the proto-orthodox group, but more with politics and power play.  Marcion was also right in the sense that a reasonable harmony between some of the dogma of New Testament and teachings of Old Testament cannot be achieved.  Sometimes Marcionites are represented as a Gnostic sect but it is easier to conceptualize and understand them as a separate and independent group of early Christianity that had tremendous influence on what became to be orthodox Christianity eventually.
 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia — My highlights and comments are in red:

Marcionism is an Early Christian dualist belief system that originates in the teachings of Marcion of Sinope at Rome around the year 144[1], see also Christianity in the 2nd century. Marcion believed Jesus Christ was the savior sent by God and Paul of Tarsus was his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and Yahweh. Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament. This belief was in some ways similar to Gnostic Christian theology, notably, both are dualistic.

Marcionism, similar to Gnosticism, depicted the Hebrew God of the Old Testament as a tyrant or demiurge, see also God as the Devil. Marcion was labeled as gnostic by Eusebius.[2] Marcion’s canon consisted of eleven books: A gospel consisting of ten chapters from the Gospel of Luke edited by Marcion (the current canonical Gospel of Luke has 24 chapters); and ten of Paul’s epistles. All other epistles and gospels of the 27 book New Testament canon were rejected.[3] Paul’s epistles enjoy a prominent position in the Marcionite canon, since Paul is credited with correctly transmitting the universality of Jesus’ message. Other authors’ epistles were rejected since they seemed to suggest that Jesus had simply come to found a new sect within broader Judaism. Religious tribalism of this sort seemed to echo Yahwehism, and was thus regarded as a corruption of the Heavenly Father’s teaching.

Marcionism was denounced by its opponents as heresy, and written against, notably by Tertullian, in a five-book treatise Adversus Marcionem, written about 208. However, the strictures against Marcionism predate the authority, claimed by the First Council of Nicaea in 325, to declare what is heretical against the Church. Marcion’s writings are lost, though they were widely read and numerous manuscripts must have existed. Even so, many scholars (including Henry Wace) claim it is possible to reconstruct and deduce a large part of ancient Marcionism through what later critics, especially Tertullian, said concerning Marcion.

Contents

[hide]

[edit] History

Main article: Marcion of Sinope

According to Tertullian and other writers of the mainstream Church, the movement known as Marcionism began with the teachings and excommunication of Marcion from the Church of Rome around 144. Marcion was reportedly a wealthy shipowner, the son of a bishop of Sinope of Pontus, Asia Minor. He arrived in Rome circa 140, soon after Bar Kokhba’s revolt. That revolution, along with other Jewish-Roman wars (the Great Jewish Revolt and the Kitos War), provides some of the historical context of the founding of Marcionism. Marcion was excommunicated from the Roman Church because he was threatening to make schisms in the church.[4]

Marcion used his personal wealth, (particularly a donation returned to him by the Church of Rome after he was excommunicated), to fund an ecclesiastical organization. Marcionism continued in the West for 300 years, although Marcionistic ideas persisted much longer.[5]

The organization continued in the East for some centuries later, particularly outside the Byzantine Empire in areas which later would be dominated by Manichaeism.

[edit] Teachings

Marcion declared that Christianity was distinct from and in opposition to Judaism, see also Anti-Judaism. He rejected the entire Hebrew Bible, and declared that the God of the Hebrew Bible was a lesser demiurge, who had created the earth, but was (de facto) the source of evil.

The premise of Marcionism is that many of the teachings of Christ are incompatible with the actions of Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament. Focusing on the Pauline traditions of the Gospel, Marcion felt that all other conceptions of the Gospel, and especially any association with the Old Testament religion, was opposed to, and a backsliding from, the truth. He further regarded the arguments of Paul regarding law and gospel, wrath and grace, works and faith, flesh and spirit, sin and righteousness, death and life, as the essence of religious truth. He ascribed these aspects and characteristics as 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 a second God of the Gospel, quite unknown before Christ, who is only love and mercy.[6]

Marcionites held maltheistic views of the god of the Hebrew Bible (known to some Gnostics as Yaltabaoth), that he was inconsistent, jealous, wrathful and genocidal, and that the material world he created was defective, a place of suffering; the god who made such a world is a bungling or malicious demiurge.

In the god of the [Old Testament] he saw a being whose character was stern justice, and therefore anger, contentiousness and unmercifulness. The law which rules nature and man appeared to him to accord with the characteristics of this god and the kind of law revealed by him, and therefore it seemed credible to him that this god is the creator and lord of the world (κοσμοκράτωρ[English transliteration: kosmokrator/cosmocrator]). As the law which governs the world is inflexible and yet, on the other hand, full of contradictions, just and again brutal, and as the law of the Old Testament exhibits the same features, so the god of creation was to Marcion a being who united in himself the whole gradations of attributes from justice to malevolence, from obstinacy to inconsistency.”[7]

In Marcionite belief, Christ was not a Jewish Messiah, but a spiritual entity that was sent by the Monad to reveal the truth about existence, and thus allowing humanity to escape the earthly trap of the demiurge. Marcion called God, the Stranger God, or the Alien God, in some translations, as this deity had not had any previous interactions with the world, and was wholly unknown. See also the Unknown God of Hellenism.

In various popular sources, Marcion is often reckoned among the Gnostics, but as the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed.) puts it, “it is clear that he would have had little sympathy with their mythological speculations” (p. 1034). In 1911 Henry Wace stated:

A modern divine would turn away from the dreams of Valentinianism in silent contempt; but he could not refuse to discuss the question raised by Marcion, whether there is such opposition between different parts of what he regards as the word of God, that all cannot come from the same author.

A primary difference between Marcionites and Gnostics was that the Gnostics based their theology on secret wisdom (as, for example, Valentinius who claimed to receive the secret wisdom from Theudas who received it direct from Paul) of which they claimed to be in possession, whereas Marcion based his theology on the contents of the Letters of Paul and the recorded sayings of Jesus — in other words, an argument from scripture, with Marcion defining what was and was not scripture. Also, the Christology of the Marcionites is thought to have been primarily Docetic, denying the human nature of Christ. This may have been due to the unwillingness of Marcionites to believe that Jesus was the son of both God the Father and the demiurge. Classical Gnosticism, by contrast, held that Jesus was the son of both, even having a natural human father; that he was both the Messiah of Judaism and the world Savior.[citation needed] Scholars of Early Christianity disagree on whether to classify Marcion as a Gnostic: Adolf Von Harnack does not classify Marcion as a Gnostic[8], whereas G. R. S. Mead does.[citation needed] Von Harnack argued that Marcion was not a Gnostic in the strict sense because Marcion rejected elaborate creation myths, and did not claim to have special revelation or secret knowledge. Mead claimed Marcionism makes certain points of contact with Gnosticism in its view that the creator of the material world is not the true deity, rejection of materialism and affirmation of a transcedent, purely good spiritual realm in opposition to the evil physical realm, the belief Jesus was sent by the “True” God to save humanity, the central role of Jesus in revealing the requirements of salvation, the belief Paul had a special place in the transmission of this “wisdom”, and its docetism. According to the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article on Marcion:

It was no mere school for the learned, disclosed no mysteries for the privileged, but sought to lay the foundation of the Christian community on the pure gospel, the authentic institutes of Christ. The pure gospel, however, Marcion found to be everywhere more or less corrupted and mutilated in the Christian circles of his time. His undertaking thus resolved itself into a reformation of Christendom. This reformation was to deliver Christendom from false Jewish doctrines by restoring the Pauline conception of the gospel, Paul being, according to Marcion, the only apostle who had rightly understood the new message of salvation as delivered by Christ. In Marcion’s own view, therefore, the founding of his church—to which he was first driven by opposition—amounts to a reformation of Christendom through a return to the gospel of Christ and to Paul; nothing was to be accepted beyond that. This of itself shows that it is a mistake to reckon Marcion among the Gnostics. A dualist he certainly was, but he was not a Gnostic.

Marcionism shows the influence of Hellenistic philosophy on Christianity, and presents a moral critique of the Old Testament from the standpoint of Platonism. According to Harnack, the sect may have led other Christians to introduce a formal statement of beliefs into their liturgy (see Creed) and to formulate a canon of authoritative Scripture of their own, thus eventually producing the current canon of the New Testament.

As for the main question, however, whether he knew of, or assumes the existence of, a written New Testament of the Church in any sense whatever, in this case an affirmatory answer is most improbable, because if this were so he would have been compelled to make a direct attack upon the New Testament of the Church, and if such an attack had been made we should have heard of it from Tertullian. Marcion, on the contrary, treats the Catholic Church as one that ‘follows the Testament of the Creator-God,’ and directs the full force of his attack against this Testament and against the falsification of the Gospel and of the Pauline Epistles. His polemic would necessarily have been much less simple if he had been opposed to a Church which, by possessing a New Testament side by side with the Old Testament, had ipso facto placed the latter under the shelter of the former. In fact Marcion’s position towards the Catholic Church is intelligible, in the full force of its simplicity, only under the supposition that the Church had not yet in her hand any ‘litera scripta Novi Testamenti.’[9]

Marcion is believed to have imposed a severe morality on his followers, some of whom suffered in the persecutions. In particular, he refused to re-admit those who recanted their faith under Roman persecution, see also Lapsi (Christian). Others of his followers, such as Apelles, created their own sects with variant teachings.

Marcionite canon

Tertullian claimed Marcion was the first to separate the New Testament from the Old Testament.[10] Marcion is said to have gathered scriptures from Jewish tradition, and juxtaposed these against the sayings and teachings of Jesus in a work entitled the Antithesis.[11] Besides the Antithesis, the Testament of the Marcionites was also composed of a Gospel of Christ which was Marcion’s version of Luke, and that the Marcionites attributed to Paul, that was different in a number of ways from the version that is now regarded as canonical.[12] It seems to have lacked all prophecies of Christ’s coming, as well as the Infancy account, the baptism, and the verses were more terse in general. It also included ten of the Pauline Epistles (but not the Pastoral Epistles or the Epistle to the Hebrews, and, according to the Muratonian canon, included a Marcionite Paul’s epistle to the Alexandrians and an epistle to the Laodiceans)[13] In bringing together these texts, Marcion redacted what is perhaps the first New Testament canon on record, which he called the Gospel and the Apostolikon, which reflects his belief the writings reflect the apostle Paul and Jesus.

The Prologues to the Pauline Epistles (which are not a part of the text, but short introductory sentences as one might find in modern study Bibles [3]), found in several older Latin codices, are now widely believed to have been written by Marcion or one of his followers. Harnack notes [4]:

We have indeed long known that Marcionite readings found their way into the ecclesiastical text of the Pauline Epistles, but now for seven years we have known that Churches actually accepted the Marcionite prefaces to the Pauline Epistles! De Bruyne has made one of the finest discoveries of later days in proving that those prefaces, which we read first in Codex Fuldensis and then in numbers of later manuscripts, are Marcionite, and that the Churches had not noticed the cloven hoof.

Conversely, several early Latin codices contain Anti-Marcionite prologues to the Gospels.

Reaction to Marcion by early Christians

According to a remark by Origen (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 15.3), Marcion “prohibited allegorical interpretations of the scripture”. Tertullian disputed this in his treatise against Marcion, as did Henry Wace:

The story proceeds to say that he asked the Roman presbyters to explain the texts, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit,” and “No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment,” texts from which he himself deduced that works in which evil is to be found could not proceed from the good God, and that the Christian dispensation could have nothing in common with the Jewish. Rejecting the explanation offered him by the presbyters, he broke off the interview with a threat to make a schism in their church.[14]

Tertullian, along with Epiphanius of Salamis, also charged that Marcion set aside the gospels of Matthew, Mark and John, and used Luke alone.[15] Tertullian cited Luke 6:43-45 (a good tree does not produce bad fruit)[16] and Luke 5:36-38 (nobody tears a piece from a new garment to patch an old garment or puts new wine in old wineskins),[17] in theorizing that Marcion set about to recover the authentic teachings of Jesus. Irenaeus claimed,

[Marcion’s] salvation will be the attainment only of those souls which had learned his doctrine; while the body, as having been taken from the earth, is incapable of sharing in salvation.[18]

Tertullian also attacked this view in De Carne Christi.

Hippolytus reported that Marcion’s phantasmal (and Docetist) Christ was “revealed as a man, though not a man”, and did not really die on the cross.[19] However, Ernest Evans, in editing this work, observes:

This may not have been Marcion’s own belief. It was certainly that of Hermogenes (cf. Tertullian, Adversus Hermogenem) and probably other gnostics and Marcionites, who held that the intractability of this matter explains the world’s many imperfections.

Recent scholarship

In Lost Christianities, Bart Ehrman contrasts the Marcionites with the Ebionites as polar ends of a spectrum with regard to the Old Testament.[20] Ehrman acknowledges many of Marcion’s ideas are very close to what is known today as “Gnosticism”, especially its rejection of the Jewish God, the Old Testament, and the material world, and his elevation of Paul as the primary apostle. In the PBS documentary, From Jesus to Christ, narrated by Elaine Pagels, Ehrman, Karen King, and other secular New Testament scholars, Marcion’s role in the formation of the New Testament canon is discussed as pivotal, and the first to explicitly state it. There were early Christian groups, such as the Ebionites, that did not accept Paul as part of their canon.

Robert M. Price, a New Testament scholar at Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary, considers the Pauline canon problem[21]: how, when, and who collected Paul’s epistles to the various churches as a single collection of epistles. The evidence that the early church fathers, such as Clement, knew of the Pauline epistles is unclear. Price investigates several historical scenarios and comes to the conclusion and identifies Marcion as the first person known in recorded history to collect Paul’s writings to various churches together as a canon, the Pauline epistles. Robert Price summarizes,

But the first collector of the Pauline Epistles had been Marcion. No one else we know of would be a good candidate, certainly not the essentially fictive Luke, Timothy, and Onesimus. And Marcion, as Burkitt and Bauer show, fills the bill perfectly.[22]

If this is correct, then Marcion’s role in the formation and development of Christianity is pivotal.

[edit] Marcionism in Modern history

Historic Marcionism, and the church Marcion himself established, appeared to die out around the fifth century, although similarities between Marcionism and Paulicianism, a later heresy in the same geographical area, indicate that Marcionist ideas may have survived and even contributed to heresies in Bulgaria and France. Whether or not that is the case, Marcion’s influence and criticism of the Old Testament are discussed to this very day. Marcionism is discussed in recent textbooks on early Christianity, such as Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman. Marcion claimed to find problems in the Old Testament; problems which many modern thinkers cite today (see Criticism of the Bible and Biblical law in Christianity), especially its alleged approval of atrocities and genocide.

Many atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists agree with Marcion’s examples of Bible atrocities, and cite the same passages of the Old Testament to discredit Christianity and Judaism.[23] Most Christians agree with Marcion that the Old Testament’s alleged approval of genocide and murder are inappropriate models to follow today.[citation needed] Some Christian scholars, such as Gleason Archer and Norman Geisler, have dedicated much of their time to the attempt to resolve these perceived difficulties, while others have argued that just punishments (divine or human), even capital punishments, are not genocide or murder because murder and genocide are unjustified by definition (see Christian Reconstructionism).

On the other hand, because of the rejection of the Old Testament which originates in the Jewish Bible, the Marcionites have been believed by some Christians to be anti-Jewish. Indeed, the word Marcionism has sometimes been used in modern times to refer to anti-Jewish tendencies in Christian churches, especially when such tendencies have been thought to be surviving residues of ancient Marcionism.

For some, the alleged problems of the Old Testament, and the appeal of Jesus are such that they identify themselves as modern day Marcionites, and follow his solution in keeping the New Testament as sacred scripture, and rejecting the Old Testament canon and practices. A term sometimes used for these groups is “New Testament Only Christians”. Carroll R. Bierbower is a pastor of a church he says is Marcionite in theology and practice.[24] The Cathar movement, historically and in modern times, reject the Old Testament for the reasons Marcion enunciated. It remains unclear whether the 11th century Cathar movement is in continuation of earlier Gnostic and Marcion streams, or represents an independent re-invention. John Lindell, a former Methodist and Unitarian Universalist pastor, advocates Christian deism, which does not include the Old Testament as part of its theology.[25]

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ (115 years and 6 months from the Crucifixion, according to Tertullian‘s reckoning in Adversus Marcionem, xv)
  2. ^ “Marcion was the most earnest, the most practical, and the most dangerous among the Gnostics, full of energy and zeal for reforming, but restless rough and eccentric. He has a remote connection with modern questions of biblical criticism and the canon. He anticipated a rationalistic opposition to the Old Testament and to the Pastoral Epistles, but in a very arbitrary and unscrupulous way. He could see only superficial differences in the Bible, not the deeper harmony. He rejected the heathen mythology of the other Gnostics, and adhered to Christianity as the only true religion; he was less speculative, and gave a higher place to faith. But he was utterly destitute of historical sense, and put Christianity into a radical conflict with all previous revelations of God; as if God had neglected the world for thousands of years until he suddenly appeared in Christ. He represents an extreme anti-Jewish and pseudo-Pauline tendency, and a magical supranaturalism, which, in fanatical zeal for a pure primitive Christianity, nullifies all history, and turns the gospel into an abrupt, unnatural, phantomlike appearance. Marcion was the son of a bishop of Sinope in Pontus, and gave in his first fervor his property to the church, but was excommunicated by his own father, probably on account of his heretical opinions and contempt of authority..86 He betook himself, about the middle of the second century, to Rome (140–155), which originated none of the Gnostic systems, but attracted them all. There he joined the Syrian Gnostic, Cerdo.” History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 100-325. Marcion and his School by PHILIP SCHAFF [1]
  3. ^ Eusebius’ Church History
  4. ^ Mead 1931, pp.241-249
  5. ^ Berdyaev Online Library
  6. ^ Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma, vol. 1, ch. 5, p. 269
  7. ^ Harnack, idem., p.271
  8. ^ Article on Adolf Von Harnack
  9. ^ Harnack, Origin of the New Testament, appendix 6, pp. 222-23
  10. ^ McDonald & Sanders, editors, The Canon Debate, 2002, chapter 18 by Everett Ferguson, page 310, quoting Tertullian’s De praescriptione haereticorum 30: “Since Marcion separated the New Testament from the Old, he is necessarily subsequent to that which he separated, inasmuch as it was only in his power to separate what was previously united. Having been united previous to its separation, the fact of its subsequent separation proves the subsequence also of the man who effected the separation.” Page 308, note 61 adds: “[Wolfram] Kinzig suggests that it was Marcion who usually called his Bible testamentum [Latin for testament].”
  11. ^ Gnostic Society Library presentation of Marcion’s Antithesis
  12. ^ Center for Marcionite Research presentation of The Gospel of Marcion
  13. ^ Mead 1931.
  14. ^ Wace’s article on Marcion
  15. ^ From the perspectives of Tertullian and Epiphanius (when the four gospels had largely canonical status, perhaps in reaction to the challenge created by Marcion), it appeared that Marcion rejected the non-Lukan gospels, however, in Marcion’s time, it may be that the only gospel he was familiar with from Pontus was the gospel that would later be called Luke. It is also possible that Marcion’s gospel was actually modified by his critics to became the gospel we know today as Luke, rather than the story from his critics that he changed a canonical gospel to get his version. For example, compare Luke 5:39 to 5:36-38, did Marcion delete 5:39 from his Gospel or was it added later to counteract a Marcionist interpretation of 5:36-38? One must keep in mind that we only know of Marcion through his critics and they considered him a major threat to the form of Christianity that they knew. John Knox (the modern writer, not to be confused with John Knox the Protestant Reformer) in Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of the Canon (ISBN 0-404-16183-9) was the first to propose that Marcion’s Gospel may have preceded Luke’s Gospel and Acts.[2]
  16. ^ Tertullian “Against Marcion” 1.2
  17. ^ Tertullian “Against Marcion” 4.11.9
  18. ^ Against Heresies, 1.27.3
  19. ^ Tertullian Adversus Marcionem (“Against Marcion”), translated and edited by Ernest Evans
  20. ^ Interview with Bart Ehrman about Lost Christianities
  21. ^ The Evolution of the Pauline Canon by Robert Price
  22. ^ Price
  23. ^ Biblical Atrocities, compiled by Donald Morgan
  24. ^ The Antithesis, by Dr. Carroll R. Bierbower.
  25. ^ The Human Jesus and Christian Deism

[edit] References

  • Baker, David L., Two Testaments, One Bible (second edn; Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1991): pp. 35, 48-52.
  • Legge, Francis, Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity, From 330 B.C. to 330 A.D. (1914), reprinted in two volumes bound as one, University Books New York, 1964. LC Catalog 64-24125.

[edit] External links