Tertullian Accepts Paul had a Written Gospel, Matthew (!)

[drg55]

If Paul had a Gospel, why doesn't he quote from it? The Gospel surely is a finished thing later than Paul. It incorporates many sources some of which circulated to Paul. I made a Gospel of Paul from available references http://tinyurl.com/kjgjxc4 It is very light on the ground about the earthly Jesus. As I mention in the commentary the early Church was big on personal revelation and public prophesy until doctrine was set in concrete and it became heresy instead. Paul was big on revelation, but Maccoby (The Mythmaker) proves that he lied about his Jewish background

Ehrman says that Jesus was an Apocalyptic prophet. That seems to stack up. I wonder the extent to which the Parables - which are all written in a format - are genuine or an addition? And the ethical teachings which I regard as the best parts of Christianity - Did Jesus actually say this or was it added in? How do they stack up with the Apocalyptic prophet (which apologies to those who might think otherwise) I regard as slightly nutty. The intrigues between the Pharisees and the Sadducees seem to represent the politics of the destruction of Jerusalem or post destruction, typical of other Biblical Books set in the past but representing events in a different time eg Daniel.

Was Jesus the man we think he was. Was it the legend that was added in, including Gnostic ideas of his eternal nature, together with the personal saviour or protector God?

I agree with TedM that 200 years after the event is not a good standpoint for accuracy especially with the communications of the time. There were however many more Christian texts than we have, such as the Gospel of the Nazarenes and also the Gospel of the Hebrews which we only have through quotations.

[Stephan Huller]

As I said drg55 the only argument that seems to hold water with respect to why we should believe that Paul DIDN'T have a written gospel is that he doesn't seem to quote from it. I forget where I posted that - but I also hinted in that post that there is an obvious solution to that difficulty. I'd like to start working our way towards that (and for the sake of TedM I can say now that it has little to do with Marcion at least on the surface).

Let's start with the points that you raised. The one which stands out is that because the Church Fathers wrote a century after the gospels were in circulation (let's at least follow the assumptions of modern scholarship instead of the Church Fathers with respect to a 70 CE testimony for the first canonical text) that should eliminate the value of what they preserve.

As you cite Ehrman and at least implicitly reference a few others if - as you suggest - they too should ignore the testimony of the Church Fathers you might have a good argument. But the facts are that even the best modern scholars spend a great deal of time utilizing Patristic sources. If we eliminate the testimony of the Church Fathers for instance then there can be no objection to Marcion's gospel and since Marcion antedates Irenaeus and any substantive source for the contents of the canonical gospels (2 Clement and Justin don't use our texts) then Marcion immediately 'wins' by default.

So TedM and people like him who want to maintain the superiority and originality of the canonical set can't advocate the elimination of the Church Fathers. The only reason that we limit our discussion to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (at least historically) is that the Church Fathers the very sources the two of you now reject, rejected Marcion's gospel.

As such the two of you have to decide between one or two courses to follow in the next segment of the debate. Either on the one hand, you say that the testimony of the Patristic preferences should be abandoned in which case - almost by default - the understanding that Paul had a written gospel immediately emerges as the earliest known understanding of the New Testament canon or on the other hand, you agree to allow the testimony of Patristic sources into the debate and acknowledge that they have at least some inherent value in determining the status of canonicity, how the gospel was first used and by whom.

Once we establish that decision it will be a lot easier for me to proceed to explain what options we have for explaining why Paul does not seem to cite from the canonical gospels.

[outhouse]

But the facts are that even the best modern scholars spend a great deal of time utilizing Patristic sources.


.

Yes. But critically examined.

And they are not making unsubstantiated statements with little plausibility to Paul, unless backed by other sources. And in this case, it does not exist.


While investigating like this may turn over imaginative possibilities, your going to have a hard time ever bringing these late details into the realm of even slight plausibility.


In a time of being the farthest removed from anything resembling orthodox belief, and rapidly evolving theology, we only have slight guesses with no plausibility as to what kind of written material existed before Paul.

Luke and Matthew are reflections of later Hellenist, and have nothing to do with a snapshot of Pauls theology. The only people that believe this are the same church fathers that falsely attributed disciple/apostle names to the unknown authors work. This right here ruins any credibility in the path you have chosen, as we know they are running down a rhetorical road.

[Stephan Huller]

I don't know WTF you just said. Something about having to use Patristic sources 'critically examined' but that's a subjective term. Even apologists think they 'know' what a Church Father 'really meant.' My point was a reaction to those who periodically bring forward the objection that the Church Fathers 'lived so far' from the time of Jesus and the apostles. My counterargument is that we can only know the literary material - the gospel(s). If these were written after 70 CE why is Justin Martyr and company, even Irenaeus and those who reused Justin et al (Tertullian) why are they so problematic as sources. I don't have a problem using third and fourth century authorities on the ground they probably had large libraries (Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius) filled with much earlier material which is no longer available to us.

Again, to restate the original point you can't on the one hand embrace the gospels that were handpicked by second century Church Fathers but somehow argue that 'the Church Fathers' can't be trusted. What's the parable from Jesus - love the fruit but hate the tree?

[Stephan Huller]

And remember, against the imbeciles who 'don't trust' Tertullian. Even if Tertullian had an 'ulterior motive' in claiming that Paul knew Matthew, isn't it interesting to figure out what that might have been? More interesting than conversing with many of the dolts at this forum. I would trade five years of my life to raise even Tertullian from the dead to learn what life was like in third century Carthage and the Empire at large. How can someone be so dense not to see the value in that? (aside from seeing value in me losing five years of my life).

[Stephan Huller]

So now that I have eaten and spent time with family let's start again with drg55's question - what is the reason Paul does not seem to cite specific gospel passages? The answer that TedM and drg55 and in fact most of scholarship has come up with is that the reason is simple - Paul did not know the written gospel. The references to 'the gospel' and 'my gospel' and the 'gospel of Christ' happen to sound like references to a written gospel but really we are dealing with an oral preaching.

Has anyone thought of an alternative explanation or is that answer so perfect that nothing more is required?

I wonder if there is something in this passage from Clement of Alexandria that is worth considering:

Benevolence is the wishing of good things to another for his sake. For He needs nothing; and the beneficence and benignity which flow from the Lord terminate in us, being divine benevolence, and benevolence resulting in beneficence. And if to Abraham on his believing it was counted for righteousness; and if we are the seed of Abraham, then we must also believe through heating. For we are Israelites, who are convinced not by signs, but by hearing. Wherefore it is said, "Rejoice, O barren, that barest not; break forth and cry, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than of her who hath an husband." "Thou hast lived for the fence of the people, thy children were blessed in the tents of their fathers." And if the same mansions are promised by prophecy to us and to the patriarchs, the God of both the covenants is shown to be one.

Accordingly it is added more clearly, "Thou hast inherited the covenant of Israel," speaking to those called from among the nations that were once barren, being formerly destitute of this husband, who is the Word, -- desolate formerly, -- of the bridegroom. "Now the just shall live by faith," which is according to the covenant and the commandments; since these, which are two in name and time, given in accordance with the [divine] economy -- being in power one -- the old and the new, are dispensed through the Son by one God. As the apostle also says in the Epistle to the Romans, "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith," teaching the one salvation which from prophecy to the Gospel is perfected by one and the same Lord. "This charge," he says, "I commit to thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war the good warfare; holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck," because they defiled by unbelief the conscience that comes from God. Accordingly, faith may not, any more, with reason, be disparaged in an offhand way, as simple and vulgar, appertaining to anybody. [Strom 2.29.4 (STAEHLIN O., FRUECHTEL L., 3e éd., GCS 52 (1960) pour les livres 1-6 ; STAEHLIN O., FRUECHTEL L., TREU U., 2e éd., GCS 17 (1970), 3-102 pour les livres 7-8. p.128, l.29) BP1]

Let's try to understand this passage by taking a careful look at what is understood as being 'deposited' in the letter - viz. the gospel.

There are three of these sorts of passages in the letters to Timothy:

This charge (παραγγελίαν), I commit to you my child Timothy [1 Tim 1:18]

O Timothy guard (φύλαξον) the deposit (παραθήκην) [1 Tim 6:20]

The good deposit (παραθήκην) guard (φύλαξον) [2 Timothy 1:14]

Marcheselli-casale writes, “The term 'deposit-paratheke' was used by paul so as to indicate the gospel that must be kept without alterations until the return of christ” (Marcheselli-casale, Le Lettere Pastorali, 679). Likewise, Mounce states, “παραθήκην, 'deposit,' is the gospel . . . Its emphatic position before the verb φὐλαξον, 'guard' (on which, see v. 12) and its description as καλήν, 'good' (see 1 Tim 1:8), roughly paralleling ὑγιαινόντων λόγων, 'healthy words,' firmly separate it from the opponents' teachings” (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 494). Similarly, Towner maintains, “ “Paratheke is closely associated with euangelion in 2 Tim 1.6–14. The emphasis in this term is more on the preservation and accurate transmission to succeeding generations of 'the gospel' that was entrusted to Paul. In terms of content, paratheke may be generally described as euangelion, but greater precision is probably implied” (Towner, Goal of Our Instruction, 123). http://books.google.com/books?id=wVINBQ ... 22&f=false

But what does 'guard' (φύλαξον) mean here? The Syriac is ܢܛܪ natar but the original Aramaic or even Hebrew concept was clearly נָצַר the root of the word 'Christian' IMO. The understanding is pretty much the same as shamar but there is an added meaning which is worth considering - not just to guard but to keep something secret.

I. [נָצַר] verb watch, guard, keep (Late Hebrew id., observe; Assyrian naƒâru, watch over, protect; Old Aramaic נצר protect Lzb325 Cook83; Palmyrene in proper name Vog150, 4 Cook124; Aramaic נְמַר, (compare Wetzst in DeJob (2) on Job 27:18); Arabic look at, consider, examine (, overseer is Aramaic loan-word Frä138); Sabean להנצרהמו to aid them HalRev. Sém. iv (1896), 71; Ethiopic spectare, intueri, etc., Di701; — compare also נטר); —
Qal Perfect3masculine singular suffix נְצָרָ֫תַם Psalm 119:129; 1singular נָצָ֑רְתִּי Psalm 119:22; Psalm 119:56; Psalm 119:100; 3masculine plural נָָֽצְרוּ Proverbs 22:12; Imperfect יִצִּר Proverbs 3:1; suffix יִצְּרֶ֫נְהוּ Ges§ 58, 4 R.) Deuteronomy 32:10; feminine suffix תִּנְצְרֶ֑כָּה Proverbs 2:11 (Ges§ 58, 4 R.); 1 singular אֶצֹּר Psalm 119:69; אֶצְּרָה Psalm 119:34; Psalm 119:115; אֶצֹּ֑רָה Psalm 119:145; suffix אֶצָּרְךָ Isaiah 42:6; Isaiah 49:8 (Ges Bö Ew and others from יצר); אֶצֳּרֶ֑נָּה Isaiah 27:3; 3masculine plural יִצְּרוּ Proverbs 20:28; יִנְצֹ֑רוּ Deuteronomy 33:9 (on forms see Ges§ 66, 2, R. I) + 15 t. Imperfect; Imperative נְצֹר Psalm 34:14 3t.; נִצְּרָה Psalm 141:3 (dagesh forte dirimens Ges§ 20, 2 b); suffix נִצְּרֶ֑ה Proverbs 4:13; Infinitive absolute נָצוֺר Nahum 2:2; construct נְצֹר Proverbs 2:8; Participle נוֺצֵר Proverbs 28:7; נֹצֵר Exodus 34:7 7t.; suffix נֹצְרָהּ Isaiah 27:3; plural נוֺצְרִים 2 Kings 17:9; 2 Kings 18:8, etc.; passive נָצוּר Ezekiel 6:12; plural נְצוּרִים Isaiah 65:4 (ᵐ5 ἐν τοις σπηλαίοις, בַּמְּערוֺת); construct נְצוּרֵי (Kt נְצִירֵי only here) Isaiah 49:6; feminine נְצוּרָה Isaiah 1:8 (Di reads נְצוֺרָה Niph`al Participle √ צוּר); construct נְצֻרַת Proverbs 7:10; plural נְצֻרוֺת Isaiah 48:6 (Che reads בְּצֻרוֺת).

1 Watch, guard, keep, a vineyard Job 27:18 (compare Wetzst in DeJob (2) on the passage), Isaiah 27:3 (twice in verse), fig-tree Proverbs 27:18, fortification Nahum 2:2; נֹצְרִים watchmen Jeremiah 31:6; ׳מִגְדַּל נ tower of watchmen 2 Kings 17:9; 2 Kings 18:8; in ethical sense of men, guarding the mouth Proverbs 13:3, the way Proverbs 16:17 לֵב Proverbs 4:23; the tongue מֵרַע Psalm 34:14; with על, over the door of the lips Psalm 141:3; of God נֹצֵר הָאָדָם Job 7:20 (thou) watcher of men (iron.).

2 Guard from dangers, preserve, with accusative, subject God or his attributes Deuteronomy 32:10; Psalm 25:21; Psalm 31:24; Psalm 40:12; Psalm 61:8; Isaiah 26:3; Isaiah 42:6; Isaiah 49:8; Proverbs 2:8; Proverbs 20:28; Proverbs 22:12; נֹצֵר נֶפֶשׁ Proverbs 24:12; with accusative and מן from which Psalm 12:8; Psalm 32:7; Psalm 64:2; Psalm 140:2; Psalm 140:5. In Wisdom Literature subject is abstract: חבמה Proverbs 4:6; תבונה Proverbs 2:11; צדקה Proverbs 13:6; נְצוּרֵי ישׂראל Isaiah 49:6 preserved of Israel.

3 Guard with fidelity, keep, observe: of ׳י, נֹצֵר חֶסֶד לאלפים Exodus 34:7 (J); elsewhere of man observing the covenant Deuteronomy 33:9 (poem) Psalm 25:10, the divine law Psalm 78:7; Psalm 105:45; Psalm 119:2; Psalm 119:22; Psalm 119:33; Psalm 119:34; Psalm 119:56; Psalm 119:69; Psalm 119:100; Psalm 119:115; Psalm 119:129; Psalm 119:145; commands of parents Psalm 60:20; Psalm 28:7; and discipline of Wisdom Proverbs 3:1,21; Proverbs 4:13; Proverbs 5:2.

4 Guard, keep secret, dubious: נְצֻרוֺת secret things Isaiah 48:6; נְצוּרִים secret places Isaiah 65:4 (see forms above); נְצֻרַת לֵב secret, wily minded Proverbs 7:10 (of harlot, so RVm close, i.e. secretive).

5 Kept close, blockaded, dubious: הַנָּצוּר the blockaded (so Ew Hi Co Toy; but Ke Bth Kau preserved; Hi Co Bth Toy strike out והנשׁאר) Ezekiel 6:12; עִיר נְצוּרָה blockaded city Isaiah 1:8 (see form above); נֹצְרִים blockaders Jeremiah 4:16 (but ᵐ5 συστροφαι = צררים i.e. foes).

נְצוּרִים see I נצר

[Stephan Huller]

So let's try and to put up a rival hypothesis as to why Paul may not cite directly from his gospel:

I AM not good man enough, or rather I am not bad man enough, to pit Apostle against Apostle. But since these most perverse persons thrust forward that rebuke for the purpose of throwing suspicion upon the earlier teaching, I will reply, as it were, for Peter, that Paul himself said that he was made all things to all men to the Jews a Jew, and to non-Jews a non-Jew in order to gain all. And so in certain times, persons and cases they would blame actions which they themselves yet might equally perform in other times, persons and cases. Thus, for instance, Peter might likewise have blamed Paul because, while forbidding circumcision, he himself had circumcised Timothy. Away with those who judge Apostles. Well is it that Peter is made equal to Paul in his martyrdom.

But although Paul was caught up as far as the third heaven, and when brought into paradise heard certain things there, yet these revelations cannot be thought to be such as would render him more qualified to teach another doctrine, since their very nature was such that they could not be communicated to any human being. But if that
unknown revelation did leak out and become known to some one, and if any heresy affirms that it is a follower of that revelation, then either Paul is guilty of having betrayed his secret, or some one else must be shewn to have been subsequently caught up into paradise to whom permission was given to speak out what Paul was not allowed to
whisper. [the same objection is raised against Marcion in Eznik i.e. that he claims to know the secret things told to Paul that can't be spoken by anyone]

But here is, as we have said, the same madness, in their allowing indeed that the apostles were ignorant of nothing, and preached not any (gospels) which contradicted one another, but at the same time insisting that they did not reveal all to all men, for that they proclaimed some openly and to all the world, whilst they disclosed others (only) in secret and to a few, because Paul addressed even this expression to Timothy: "O Timothy, guard that which is entrusted to thee;" and again: "That good thing which was committed unto thee keep." What is this deposit? Is it so secret as to be supposed to characterize a new doctrine? ... what is (this) commandment and what is (this) charge? From the preceding and the succeeding contexts, it will be manifest that there is no mysterious hint darkly suggested in this expression about (some) far-fetched doctrine, but that a warning is rather given against receiving any other (doctrine) than that which Timothy had heard from himself, as I take it publicly: "Before many witnesses" is his phrase.

Now, if they refuse to allow that the church is meant by these "many witnesses," it matters nothing, since nothing could have been secret which was produced "before many witnesses." Nor, again, must the circumstance of his having wished him to "commit these things to faithful men, who should be able to teach others also," be construed into a proof of there being some secret gospel (id quoque ad argumentum occulti alicuius euangelii interpretandum est). For, when he says "these things," he refers to the things of which he is writing at the moment. In reference, however, to occult subjects, he would have called them, as being absent, those things, not these things, to one who had a joint knowledge of them with himself.

BUT nevertheless, it may be said, it was natural for the Apostle, when he committed to any one the administration of the Gospel, which was to be ministered neither indiscriminately nor rashly, to add the injunction in accordance with the Lord's saying that "a pearl should not be cast before swine nor that which is holy to the dogs." The Lord spake openly without any indication of some hidden mystery. Himself had commanded that what they had heard in darkness and in secret they were to preach in light and on the housetops Himself had prefigured in a parable that they were not to keep even one pound, that is, one word of His, fruitless in a hidden place. Himself used to teach that a lamp is not wont to be thrust away under a measure, but placed on a lampstand that it may give light to all that are in the house.

These instructions the Apostles either neglected or by no means understood if they failed to fulfil them, and concealed any portion of the light, that is, of the Word of GOD and mystery of Christ. I am fully assured they had no fear of any one, neither of the violence of the Jews nor of the Gentiles : how much more, then, would these men preach freely in the Church who were not silent in synagogues and public places! Nay, they could have converted neither Jews nor Gentiles unless they had set forth in order what they wished them to believe! Much less would they have kept back anything from Churches already believing to commit it to a few other persons privately!

And even if they used to discuss some things in their private circles (so to speak), yet it is incredible that these things would be of such a nature as to introduce another Rule of Faith, different from and contrary to that which they were setting forth openly to all; so that they should be speaking of one GOD in the Church and of another in their
private houses; and describing one substance of Christ in public and another in private; and proclaiming one hope of the resurrection before all and another before the few; at the time when they themselves were beseeching in their own Epistles that all would speak one and the same thing, and that there should be no divisions and dissensions in the Church, because they themselves, whether it were Paul or others, were preaching the same thing. Moreover they remembered, "Let your speech be Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for what is more than this is of evil" 1 : words spoken to prevent them from treating the Gospel in different ways.

IF, then, it is incredible either that the Apostles were ignorant of the full scope of their message, or that they did not publish to all the whole plan of the Rule of Faith, let us see whether, perchance, whilst the Apostles indeed preached simply and fully, the Churches through their own fault received it otherwise than as the Apostles used to set it forth. All these incitements to hesitancy you will find thrust forward by heretics.

They hold up instances of Churches reproved by the Apostle. "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you ?" and "Ye were running so well : who hath hindered you ?" 3 and at the very beginning of his letter, "I wonder that ye have been
thus so soon removed from Him Who called you in grace to another Gospel." 4 Likewise the words written to the Corinthians because they were still "carnal," and had to be fed on milk, not yet being able to take meat; who thought they knew something when not yet did they know anything as they ought to know it.

Now when they instance these reproved Churches let them be sure that they were corrected. Moreover, let them recognize those Churches for whose "faith and knowledge and manner of life" the Apostle "rejoices and gives thanks to GOD.1 : Churches which to-day unite with those reproved ones in the privileges of the selfsame instruction. [Tertullian Prescript, 24 - 27]

So on the one hand there is the standard explanation that Paul doesn't explicitly cite from a written gospel because he had none and then there is the explanation which comes from the heretics who said that he was responsible for adding to Peter's written gospel after ascending up to the third heaven - viz. Paul wrote a 'secret gospel' which couldn't be cited because it was 'secret' or contained a 'mystery' which couldn't be revealed. Both are viable suggestions. It is difficult to prove either way whether Paul refrains from citing from his text because it is a 'mystery' or 'secret' gospel or because such a text never actually existed. There are however two plausible suggestions.

[TedM]

the 'secret' writings is a great psychological ploy and nothing else, most likely.

[Stephan Huller]

Really? Again the certainty is simply amazing. You consistently respond by effectively declaring 'if it contradicts what I've been told by people living almost two thousand years after the events in question, it MUST BE untrue.' So what's the point of investigating? Indeed you DON'T investigate what the Church Fathers say for that very reason - i.e. you want to believe there is a 'firm foundation' for 'what the apostles believed' and what those who followed the apostles believed, when in reality there is no such certainty. I hope you are at least developing a sense of this in our ongoing investigation.

I am not so sure that we can say with any degree of certainty that 'according to Luke' is even the gospel of Paul. That's what the Church Fathers say. The Church Fathers also repeatedly emphasize that Paul taught his doctrine openly (hence the emphasis on his 'preaching' i.e. you can't secretly 'preach'). But that the heretics thought that Paul had a secret gospel and was referring to that in statements like those cited above - that can't be doubted also.

[Stephan Huller]

Now the next natural question which develops from Tertullian's statements about Paul and 'his gospel' (as well as that which belonged to the Jerusalem Church) has to do with Greek suffix forms and specifically -ικός (-ικόν) https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/-%CE%B ... F%8C%CF%82 suffix and the -ίων suffix.