... in agreement with those who have returned to the view that Tertullian used a Greek copy
of Marcion’s Apostolikon,
14 I have defended the view that Tertullian also had a Greek copy
and not a Latin translation of Marcion’s Gospel when writing
Adversus Marcionem.
15
In that article, I have argued that in considering this issue it is important not only to consider
the differences in the Latin terms found in the attested texts for Marcion’s Gospel and the citation of
those same texts elsewhere in Tertullian’s corpus, but also the similiarities.
16
Both these similarities and differences must then be compared to readings in extant Old Latin witnesses.
On the one hand, the agreement of Latin terminology between Marcion’s Gospel and
Tertullian’s text against the attested readings in Old Latin witnesses becomes an
argument against Tertullian working from a Latin copy of Marcion’s Gospel, and, on
the other hand, differences in the terminology between Marcion’s Gospel and
Tertullian’s text, where neither reading is attested in the extant witnesses, may also
confirm that the variation is due to Tertullian’s own translations rather than his
working from a Latin copy of Marcion’s Gospel. An examination of the 87 Greek
terms rendered in verses attested both for Marcion’s Gospel and elsewhere in
Tertullian’s corpus reveals that Marcion’s Gospel and Tertullian’s text agree in their
Latin renderings on 51 occasions, or 59% of the time. Of these 51 agreements, in
about one-third of them the agreement is in renderings that are completely unique or
rather uncommon in the extant Latin textual tradition for that verse. In addition,
when Marcion’s Gospel and Tertullian’s text disagree, 69% of the time one of their
respective renderings is not found within, or only at the periphery of, the surviving
Old Latin textual tradition.
It is surely simpler to explain these phenomena through the view that Tertullian himself
is largely responsible for the Latin of Marcion’s text as he translated it ad hoc
from the Greek than to persist in Harnack’s view that Tertullian had a Latin translation
of Marcion’s Gospel when he wrote
Adversus Marcionem.
17
Undoubtedly, the view that Tertullian is translating from the Greek,
rather than copying from a Latin Vorlage, will lead one to view his testimony to
Marcion’s Gospel somewhat differently than Harnack.
18
Dieter T. Roth (2009)
Towards a New Reconstruction of the Text of Marcion’s Gospel:
14 Though Harnack’s position found significant support in the twentieth century, several
scholars have now questioned and challenged his view. See, for example,
- Hermann Josef Frede, ed., Epistulae ad Ephesios (VL 24/1; Freiburg: Herder, 1962–1964), 30*
and Epistulae ad Philippenses et ad Colossenses (VL 24/2; Freiburg: Herder, 1966–1971), 9;
- Bonifatius Fischer, “Das Neue Testament in lateinischer Sprache: Der gegenwärtige Stand seiner
Erforschung und seine Bedeutung für die griechische Textgeschichte,”
in Die alten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare:
Der gegenwärtige Stand ihrer Erforschung und ihre Bedeutung für die griechische Textgeschichte
(ed. K. Aland; ANTF 5; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972), 10–11, 26n73, and 31n88;
- Clabeaux, A Lost Edition, 49–57; and
- Schmid, Marcion und sein Apostolos, 40–59.
15
See Dieter T. Roth, (2009) “Did Tertullian Possess a Greek Copy or Latin Translation of Marcion’s Gospel?,”
16 This point was also made by Schmid,
Marcion und sein Apostolos, 46.
17 For the full argument the interested reader is referred to the article referenced in n. 15.
18 See also the observations by Schmid,
Marcion und sein Apostolos, 40 and 40n31.
