Tertullian Says Marcion Had Access to All Four Gospels But 'Beat Up' Only Luke

[Secret Alias]

But there is a difference between what I am doing and what these scholars are doing. They treat the Patristic testimony as if it faithful to history. Tertullian says X and X is a snapshot of history. I think rather Tertullian is stringing together a story, an alibi, a myth, a lie as it were that at best avoids any obvious discrepancy with known or knowable truth. Who knows if the church of John really went back to John. It probably only went back to Polycarp/Peregrinus who acted as a representative of John. A story existed about Mark's relationship with Peter but notice - no statement about the Markan church. I think the simplest solution is to equate the Markan church with the Marcionite church (owing to a similarity of names among other reasons) and the Johannine Church with Polycarp - and that's it.

[MrMacSon]

But there is a difference between what I am doing and what these scholars are doing. They treat the Patristic testimony as if it faithful to history.

Yep, Roger that.

Tertullian says X and X is a snapshot of history. I think rather Tertullian is stringing together a story, an alibi, a myth, a lie as it were that at best avoids any obvious discrepancy with known or knowable truth.

Yep. Tertuallian and Irenaeus were key gate-keepers.

Who knows if the church of John really went back to John. It probably only went back to Polycarp/Peregrinus who acted as a representative of John. A story existed about Mark's relationship with Peter but notice - no statement about the Markan church. I think the simplest solution is to equate the Markan church with the Marcionite church (owing to a similarity of names among other reasons) and the Johannine Church with Polycarp - and that's it.

It could well be. I'm pretty sure that Markus Vinzent thinks the gospel of Mark was written in the Marcion[ite] community (and he thinks the canonical gospels were quickly developed in relation to each other; Klinghardt has a more definite schema of development of pre-canonical gospels)

[MrMacSon]

The Table of Contents of Tertullian's Preface to Marcion's Gospel, 2016, by Markus Vinzent, may give some clues as to/for some sections of Adv Marcion to focus on -

Part One: The likeable sinner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Tertullian’s prefaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11
On the Prescription of Heretics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
The Synopsis of On the Prescription of Heretics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Text and commentary of On the Prescription of Heretics . . . . . . . . . . 36
On the Flesh of Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
On the Resurrection of the Flesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Part Two: Tertullian and Marcion’s Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

Marcion's Gospel research – a new hype . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
Marcion’s two recensions of his Gospel according to Tertullian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
Synopsis of Tertullian, Against Marcion IV 1-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264


Part Three: Tertullian, Against Marcion IV 1: His response to Marcion’s Antitheses . . . . ........................ 267

Section IV 1,1: Preface to the criticism or provocation of Marcion’s Gospel (‘evangelium eius provocamus’) (Adv. Marc. IV 1,1) - 267
Section IV 1,2: Preface to Marcion’s Antitheses, Tertullian’s ‘antitheses adversus Marcionem’ (Adv. Marc. IV 1,2) - 276
Section IV 1,3-6a: The unity of the old and the new dispensation (Adv. Marc. IV 1,3-6a) - 277
Section IV 1,6b-11: Prophetic proofs (Adv. Marc. IV 1,6b-11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282


Part Four: Tertullian, Against Marcion IV 2-6: Preface to Marcion’s Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

Synopsis of Tertullian’s Against Marcion IV 2-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
Section IV 2,1: Introductory remarks (outset, structure) (Adv. Marc. IV 2,1) .. . . . . . . . . 294
Section IV 2,2: The Apostles John & Matthew, & the Apostolic men Luke & Mark as authors (Adv. Marc. IV 2,2) - 304
Section IV 2,3: Marcion’s no-name Gospel, although clearly (scilicet suo*) (Adv. Marc. IV 2,3) . . . 305
Section IV 2,4: Marcion’s ‘apparent’ choice of Luke (Adv. Marc. IV 2,4) . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 307
Section IV 2,5: Paul’s Gospel (Adv. Marc. IV 2,5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
Section IV 3,1-5: Marcion’s criticism of John, Matthew, Luke and Mark (Adv. Marc. IV 3,1-5) . . . . 312
Section IV 4,1-5,1a: Which text has priority: Luke or Marcion’s Gospel? The rhetorical funis contentionis (Adv. Marc. IV 4,1-5,1a) - 319
Section IV 5,1b-5,5a: The ecclesial authority of Luke, John, Matthew and Mark (Adv. Marc. IV 5,1b-5,5a) - 335
Section IV 5,5b-6,3: Marcion’s corrections (Adv. Marc. IV 5,5b-6,3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
Section IV 6,4: Final prefatory remarks (Adv. Marc. IV 6,4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .345
Section IV 43,9: Postscript on Marcion’s Gospel (Adv. Marc. IV 43,9). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346

http://www.peeters-leuven.be/toc/9789042933200.pdf

* 'his wit'

[Secret Alias]

For me at least the first question should be - what exactly is Against Marcion Book 4 saying about the history of the Church up until that point.

Writing from somewhere 'near Rome' (so it can't be Tertullian in Carthage) he emphasizes the Johannine Church which up until that point seems to have maintained it's Johannine identity. There isn't yet a Roman headquarters to everything. There is mention of the standard story of Peter and Mark in Rome. But the Johannine Church exists as something different and Marcion's rejection of the Johannine corpus is defining for his movement. It is what distinguishes the Marcionite churches from the 'true Church' (= the Johannine churches).

When Polycarp celebrated the Passover (Easter) differently it has to be based on his Johannine gospel. That means the Roman opposition to him must have been 'caused' by their synoptic gospel and undoubtedly (given the context of this history developed in Against Marcion) based on a Markan gospel.

In the Greek speaking world there seems to have been John versus Mark, Asia versus Rome. Matthew is alleged to be a Greek copy of a Hebrew/Aramaic gospel. Luke was written late (admitted in Luke 1:1 - 4) but in a way that redefines the John versus Mark debate we see in all our sources. Note also that the Roman episcopal list in Irenaeus has the effect of shutting out Mark. How could Mark have written the gospel for the Roman community but not have been a bishop? This is unbelievable.

I think Marcion versus Luke deflects things from the original Mark versus John dynamic. Note how the Gospel of John (supposedly written by John) doesn't even know that John was at the Transfiguration among other notable stories. It's designed not to conflict with Mark (Mark being another way of saying the synoptic tradition as all the other gospels are neo-Mark gospels).

[Ben C. Smith]

I think Marcion versus Luke deflects things from the original Mark versus John dynamic. Note how the Gospel of John (supposedly written by John) doesn't even know that John was at the Transfiguration among other notable stories. It's designed not to conflict with Mark (Mark being another way of saying the synoptic tradition as all the other gospels are neo-Mark gospels).

I agree with much of what you wrote, and I have harped on the whole synoptics-versus-John issue many times before, but I disagree somewhat with the highlighted statement above. I think that John does deliberately contradict Mark, leaving markers like John 3.24.

[Secret Alias]

Sorry. Maybe I should reconsider that statement. I meant to say that I have always suspected that synoptic material has been removed from John so as to avoid conflict with Mark. I wonder whether the Epistle to the Apostles used a/the (proto) Gospel of John.

[Charles Wilson]

I think that John does deliberately contradict Mark, leaving markers like John 3.24.

To say nothing of the Crucifixion Day Motif, the Lamb-of-God, "The Last Supper" (The Eucharist) and all the rest.
It's easy to say that John was written after Mark in a manner that offers "correction/contradiction" to the story that Mark presents but it appears to go deeper than that. Jay Raskin alerted us to the possibility that with the "Spices and Stone" sections, both Mark and John wrote directly from a common Source. The very odd part of this is that, if this is True, then John is correcting/contradicting Mark, not to REFUTE Mark but to illuminate the story of the savior/god.

There may be "Something about Mary" but there must have been something about Mark that triggered the Matthew/Luke responses and an entirely different story found in John.

CW

[Secret Alias]

Yes but let me say that if you look at the Epistle of the Apostles you have a much graver difficulty - a gospel with seemingly unlimited synoptic gospel stories arranged in a completely wrong order. Hill describes it as 'an Asian tract from the time of Polycarp' https://muse.jhu.edu/article/10017/pdf which is to say it is Johannine. Schmidt views it similarly and describes it as being written in Asia Minor c. 160 CE. In the letter itself it describes a gospel written by the twelve against John's old nemesis Cerinthos with John as the pre-eminent disciple "We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Batholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches of the east and the west, of the north and the south, the declaring and imparting unto you that which concerneth our Lord Jesus Christ: we do write according as we have seen and heard and touched him, after that he was risen from the dead: and how that he revealed unto us things mighty and wonderful and true." Certainly "seen and heard and touched him" is a clear echo of 1 John 1:1. The gospel which is described in order in EA is begins with the Johannine gospel prologue but appears as a jumbled synoptic 'harmony' (for lack of a better terminology - 'super' gospel is preferred IMHO). Here's that order:

we do write according as we have seen and heard and touched him, (1 John 1:1) after that he was risen from the dead: and how that he revealed unto us things mighty and wonderful and true.

... In God, the Lord, the Son of God, do we believe, that he is the word become flesh (John 1:14) that of Mary the holy virgin he took a body, begotten of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 1:20), not of the will of the flesh, but by the will of God (John 1:13): that he was wrapped in swaddling clothes in Bethlehem and made manifest (Luke 2:12), and grew up and came to ripe age, when also we beheld it.

4 This did our Lord Jesus Christ, who was sent by Joseph and Mary his mother to be taught. [And] when he that taught him said unto him: Say Alpha: then answered he and said: Tell thou me first what is Beta (probably: Tell thou me first what is <Alpha and then will I tell thee what is> Beta. Cf. the Marcosian story quoted by Irenaeus (see above, Gospel of Thomas, p. 15). The story is in our texts of the Gospel of Thomas, and all the Infancy Gospels). This thing which then came to pass is to true and of verity.

5 Thereafter was there a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and they bade him with his mother and his brethren, and he changed water into wine. He raised the dead, he caused the lame to walk: him whose hand was withered he caused to stretch it out, and the woman which had suffered an issue of blood twelve years touched the hem of his garment and was healed in the same hour. And when we marvelled at the miracle which was done, he said: Who touched me? Then said we: Lord, the press of men hath touched thee. But he answered and said unto us: I perceive that a virtue is gone out of me. Straightway that woman came before him, and answered and said unto him: Lord, I touched thee. And he answered and said unto her: Go, thy faith hath made thee whole. Thereafter he made the deaf to hear and the blind to see; out of them that were possessed he cast out the unclean spirits, and cleansed the lepers. The spirit which dwelt in a man, whereof the name was Legion, cried out against Jesus, saying: Before the time of our destruction is come, thou art come to drive us out. But the Lord Jesus rebuked him, saying: Go out of this man and do him no hurt. And he entered into the swine and drowned them in the water and they were choked.

Thereafter he did walk upon the sea, and the winds blew, and he cried out against them (rebuked them), and the waves of the sea were made calm. And when we his disciples had no money, we asked him: What shall we do because of the tax-gatherer? And he answered and told us: Let one of you cast an hook into the deep, and take out a fish, and he shall find therein a penny: that give unto the tax-gatherer for me and you. And thereafter when we had no bread, but only five loaves and two fishes, he commanded the people to sit them down, and the number of them was five thousand, besides children and women. We did set pieces of bread before them, and they ate and were filled, and there remained over, and we filled twelve baskets full of the fragments, asking one another and saying: What mean these five loaves? They are the symbol of our faith in the Lord of the Christians (in the great christendom), even in the Father, the Lord Almighty, and in Jesus Christ our redeemer, in the Holy Ghost the comforter, in the holy church, and in the remission of sins.

6 These things did our Lord and Saviour reveal unto us and teach us. And we do even as he, that ye may become partakers in the grace of our Lord and in our ministry and our giving of thanks (glory), and think upon life eternal. Be ye steadfast and waver not in the knowledge and confidence of our Lord Jesus Christ, and he will have mercy on you and save you everlastingly, world without end.

If we revisit the Alogoi debates in Epiphanius there are still glimpses of a debate which assumes a 'John' gospel which is synoptic like. This was part of the motivation to develop the gospel(s) away from a series of competing 'super-gospels' and instead four 'elements' each of which contain bits and pieces of the whole 'true' gospel narrative. I can't possibly claim to know how this all took place but it is the only explanation which makes sense in light of the curious testimony of sources like Against Marcion 4.

[Ben C. Smith]

Yes but let me say that if you look at the Epistle of the Apostles you have a much graver difficulty - a gospel with seemingly unlimited synoptic gospel stories arranged in a completely wrong order. Hill describes it as 'an Asian tract from the time of Polycarp' https://muse.jhu.edu/article/10017/pdf which is to say it is Johannine. Schmidt views it similarly and describes it as being written in Asia Minor c. 160 CE. In the letter itself it describes a gospel written by the twelve against John's old nemesis Cerinthos with John as the pre-eminent disciple "We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Batholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches of the east and the west, of the north and the south, the declaring and imparting unto you that which concerneth our Lord Jesus Christ: we do write according as we have seen and heard and touched him, after that he was risen from the dead: and how that he revealed unto us things mighty and wonderful and true." Certainly "seen and heard and touched him" is a clear echo of 1 John 1:1. The gospel which is described in order in EA is begins with the Johannine gospel prologue but appears as a jumbled synoptic 'harmony' (for lack of a better terminology - 'super' gospel is preferred IMHO).

I am imagining a Johannine editor looking at all this synoptic content and thinking to himself, "Enough of these pithy sayings and terse miracle stories! We need to cut most of this material to make room for longwinded, highhanded, rhetorically obtuse dominical speeches!"

[Secret Alias]

Could be. Or it could be Celsus-like ridicule as to various proto-gospel narratives which all placed the stories in different times relative to one another. I think that's the issue. Celsus was like a cannonball to early Christianity. I think as long as you are a subterranean phenomenon no one looks closely at your faults - like Michael Avenatti. When you raise to prominence then the scrutiny begins and then a reactionary 'correction' process takes over. Celsus's threefold fourfold correction may imply that the process was underway by the time he published his work. But that doesn't mean that his 'career' as critic of Christianity began with a True Word. He could well have debate Christians, took an active interest in their books long before.