The Marcionite Gospel Beginning Did Not Mention '15th year'

[Secret Alias]

AD. When did he descend to save humankind?
MK. As it says in the Gospel: in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, at the time of Pilate
AD. He descended in the six thousandth year after the Creator God had fashioned man ... [De Recta in Deum Fide https://books.google.com/books?id=KI6Bu ... MQ6AEIIzAA]

[davidbrainerd]

I don't think this is conclusive as to whether it mentioned the 15th or not. But if it didn't, then what?

[MrMacSon]

AD = Adamantius. MK = Marcus, a Marcionite (from p. 79, titled 'Second Part')

[Stuart]

Trolling again Mr. Huller?

Epiphanius Panarion 42.11.5
And at the beginning of the Gospel he (Marcion) says that, "In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar"
καὶ ἀρχὴν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἔταξε ταύτην <<ἐν τῷ πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ ἔτει Τιβερίου Καίσαρος>>

Tertullian Adversus Marcionem 4.7.1
"In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius" he (Marcion) has him "come down to the Galilean city of Capernaum,"
Anno quintodecimo principatus Tiberiani proponit eum descendisse in civitatem Galilaeae Capharnaum,


Dialogue Adamantius does not contradict this. It is a brief paraphrase. There is no need to say the 15th year.

You are most duplicitous in your arguments against Marcionite priority. Attempting to dismiss reports of text on the grounds that the accompanying commentary misunderstands the text. The fundamental fallacy of that argument is obvious to all but yourself. A witness does not need to comprehend the meaning and theology of the text, merely attest to it. But like any witness, they are bound to make some errors in that transmission, or even make changes, both accidental, and deliberate. But that is the scholar's job, to work with that uncertainty and use other sources and methods to validate or reject readings.

The above is an example of an attempt to take incomplete evidence, out of context, and not cross check it. It is deceitful because you are fully aware of the other primary sources which are regarded as more reliable. Whatever. I will not argue or debate with you. I am done with this thread. Bye (and take your lithium)

[Secret Alias]

Thanks for the hit and run. We've gone over this many times before so I will try it yet another way. But let me start with the familiar. Epiphanius does not have the Marcionite canon in front of him. Epiphanius has instead cobbled together a pamphlet at the behest of two Syrian monks (the same monks who request many of his works) where he attempts to show expertise in a matter that he likely had little expertise - i.e. the contents of the Marcionite canon. How did he manage to get the appearance of expertise? His cobbled together pamphlet was the result of going through many treatises on Marcion (the same treatise which were used throughout the section in the Panarion) which included Irenaeus, the source for Tertullian's Against Marcion.

So instead of Epiphanius and Tertullian representing two sources for the opening line of the Marcionite gospel they in essence represent one attestation retold a second time. Irenaeus has a habit in his works of combating the heresies from his own canon - i.e. the orthodox scriptures. This is why your citation of Tertullian's work is so misleading. You fail to acknowledge that a variant 'deum' (to eum in the cited text) is known. Clearly then the proper translation of the material is:

eum descendisse in civitatem Galilaeae Capharnaum

he came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum

Evans insertion of 'Marcion' makes it seem as Irenaeus (or later Tertullian) is actually citing something Marcion said (Holmes by contrast has an addition of his own in brackets to show the reader that the Latin in no way confirms Marcion in the original material).

In other words, it merely asserts - not making clear whether or not this is a Marcionite assertion or one that echoes the standard orthodox understanding. The fact that Evans translated the text this way has no bearing on the question of whether or not this actually a Marcionite tradition, or whether or not the Marcionite gospel agreed with the orthodox text. How on earth you lower the value of an explicit citation in De Recta in Deum Fide as a paraphrase and assume that Tertullian's vagueness as a citation is again only testimony to your low intellect.

It is absolutely reckless to simply assume that every assertion that Irenaeus or Tertullian makes is in fact a reflection of Marcionite belief. Of course you and other don't do this with every assertion in the text. You somehow 'divine' which statements are true or false without ever presenting an objective yardstick for how you determined what to believe (i.e. no apparatus is ever presented to help us guide the 'divination technique' employed to determine truth or falsity).

Rather than take every statement in Tertullian which refers to the contents of the gospel or apostle as reflections of the Marcionite gospel or apostle (because it is self-evident that Against Marcion does cite the orthodox canon against Marcion in various places) or to use 'agreements' between Tertullian and Epiphanius's citations as proof of the actual state of the Marcionite canon (because they more often than not disagree with one another rather than agree) I simply say we should rather (a) basically ignore Epiphanius because of his unreliability and only look at explicit confirmations (or claims) of things written in Marcion's canon. This is a much smaller list of citations. But this is a far more reliable way of going about things.

You can't just dismiss De Recta in Deum Fide simply because it gets in the way of slavish devotion to the combined witness of Tertullian and Epiphanius. Epiphanius is an outright liar who plagiarized from Hegesippus to develop his account of the Carpocratians without ever acknowledging he was using a secondary source. Against Marcion Book Four especially as Criddle acknowledges wasn't developed from a comparison with Luke at all but one which used a gospel harmony. Your over-simplistic view of the situation with respect to Marcion only betrays the simplicity of your intellect. This is why you can't go beyond 'accepting' where Tertullian and Epiphanius agree (an agreement which clearly results from the latter incorporating the original source for the former in his little pamphlet).

It is simply reckless to ignore an explicit statement in De Recta in Deum Fide merely because it 'gets in the way' of what you assume is a citation of the Marcionite text in Tertullian.

[davidbrainerd]

Epiphanius does not have the Marcionite canon in front of him.

Whether he does or doesn't, and whether Tertullian does or doesn't is not so certain, but that Origen does not while writing the fictional dialogue in question is absolutely certain. And if it were a real dialogue, its a certainty the disputants are not looking at any text while debating in such a quick style that allows the Catholic opponents to constantly interrupt the Marcionite.

Evans insertion of 'Marcion' makes it seem as Irenaeus (or later Tertullian) is actually citing something Marcion said (Holmes by contrast has an addition of his own in brackets to show the reader that the Latin in no way confirms Marcion in the original material).

This is a reading comprehension problem on your part.

Anno quintodecimo principatus Tiberiani
proponit eum
descendisse in civitatem Galilaeae Capharnaum,

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius
(he proposes)
He come down to the Galilean city of Capernaum,


Luke doesn't propose that Jesus descended at that time. Luke proposes that John begins baptizing at thst time. So Marcion's proposition is the one under discussion.

It is simply reckless to ignore an explicit statement in De Recta in Deum Fide merely because it 'gets in the way' of what you assume is a citation of the Marcionite text in Tertullian.

When Origen has his character ask the Marcionite "when did he descend?" it is merely so he can argue that the Marcionite puts the descent under the wrong Emperor, Tiberius rather than Augustus, so Origen's answer he puts in the Marcionite's mouth in this fiction is not interested in the exact year, only which emperor, which is why the 15th is not mentioned. Simple as that.

Yet, despite the fact that you're completely wrong, I'm still curious why you think the exact year in Tiberius' reign even matters.

[Secret Alias]

Origen does not while writing the fictional dialogue in question is absolutely certain

Really? 'Certainty' in the humanities. As certain as 1 + 1 = 2? So where is De Recta in Deum Fide getting its information?

[Secret Alias]

Anno quintodecimo principatus Tiberiani
proponit eum
descendisse in civitatem Galilaeae Capharnaum,

But what's he proposing? The 15th year or the descent from heaven?

[Secret Alias]

When Origen has his character ask the Marcionite

Why are you so certain that Origen = Adamantius?

[Secret Alias]

And rather than continuing to counterattack let me try to explain my main point again. There is a relationship between De Recta in Deum Fide and Against Marcion. I've pointed out the parallels before. This is another clear parallel where I would argue De Recta in Deum Fide has the more original material that makes its way into Tertullian's third century translation. De Recta in Deum Fide has:

AD. When did he descend to save humankind?
MK. As it says in the Gospel: in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, at the time of Pilate
AD. He descended in the six thousandth year after the Creator God had fashioned man.

Tertullian has:

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius he proposes he came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum, of course meaning from the heaven of the Creator, to which he had previously descended from his own.

If you come round to seeing that the references to Luke in Adv Marc are secondary (given the repeated references to Marcion cut things that only appear in Matthew pointing - as Criddle does here - to the original use of a gospel harmony) then Against Marcion 7.1 is clearly a reshaping of the reading in De Recta in Deum Fide closer to Luke. Mark here is absolutely explicit about the citation from his gospel. Surely a Marcionite must be allowed to have a better and more accurate knowledge of Marcionite scripture than an orthodox.

As such when the original text of Adversus Marcionem (a running commentary on the gospel harmony used likely by the circle of Justin) made reference to the descent of Jesus it - like all the preceding and subsequent passages was transformed into an allusion to Luke's reading as opposed to the shared reading with Marcion.