Argument of Tertullian against gMarcion

[Bernard Muller]

When Marcion complains that apostles are suspected (for their prevarication and dissimulation) of having even depraved the gospel, he thereby accuses Christ, by accusing those whom Christ chose. If, then, the apostles, who are censured simply for inconsistency of walk, composed the [Marcionite?] Gospel in a pure form, but false apostles interpolated their true record [in order to compose the other gospels?]; and if our own copies have been made from these, where will that genuine text of the apostle's writings be found which has not suffered adulteration? [Tertullian thought the Marcionite gospel should show at the core of the other gospels?] Which was it that enlightened Paul, and through him Luke? It is either completely blotted out, as if by some deluge--being obliterated by the inundation of falsifiers--in which case even Marcion does not possess the true Gospel; or else, is that very edition which Marcion alone possesses the true one, that is, of the apostles? AM IV, III

It looks to me that Tertullian had Marcion to say Jesus' disciples composed gMarcion. And Paul found that gospel:

... that Gospel which St. Paul found in existence, to which he yielded his belief, and with which he so earnestly wished his own to agree, that he actually on that account went up to Jerusalem to know and consult the apostles, "lest he should run, or had been running in vain;" in other words, that the faith which he had learned, and the gospel which he was preaching, might be in accordance with theirs. Then, at last, having conferred with the (primitive) authors, and having agreed with them touching the rule of faith, they joined their hands in fellowship, and divided their labours thenceforth in the office of preaching the gospel, so that they were to go to the Jews, and St. Paul to the Jews and the Gentiles. AM, IV, II

However, for Tertullian, and according to Marcion, other apostles (the false ones) interpolated it (in order to compose the other gospels, such as gLuke, gMatthew & gJohn). But if it is the case, these other gospels should look like gMarcion plus interpolations.
That's certainly can be argued for gLuke, but not for the others. And Tertullian emphasized the latter point ("completely blotted out" ... "obliterated")

Unfortunately, we don't know for certain if Tertullian knew what Marcion complained about or said, because the twosome did not live in the same generation. But if Tertullian knew, that would be from oral tradition (only one intermediary would be necessary, being young in the times of Marcion and old in the times of Tertullian). Otherwise that would only be a literary device by Tertullian in order to make points against gMarcion.

But the argument has some merit: If gMarcion was the first gospel, then the others should look drawn from it.
That may be the case for gLuke, but not for the others. As a matter of fact, it is gMark which seems to have been the one which other gospels drew from.

Well, but Marcion, finding the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (wherein he rebukes even apostles) for "not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel," as well as accuses certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of Christ), labours very hard to destroy the character of those Gospels which are published as genuine and under the name of apostles

And it looks here that Marcion knew about these other gospels.

Any comments?

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

.
But the argument has some merit: If gMarcion was the first gospel, then the others should look drawn from it.
That may be the case for gLuke, but not for the others. As a matter of fact, it is gMark which seems to have been the one which other gospels drew from.

I would like to doubt about that, obviously.

Mark has a lot of anti-disciples episodes, rather absent in proto-Luke. Why should Marcion ignore these episodes in the his presumed mutilation of Mark (or of Luke for that matter) when they would be so useful to his polemic?

Give me a reason why Marcion didn't have the view of the blind of Betshaida of "men as walking trees".

[Secret Alias]

Bernard I know that you like firm and final opinions on everything. I get it. But you understand that in life this isn't always possible. Of course anyone is free to have firm and final opinions. We live in a mostly free society. But the reliability of these firm and final opinions are dependent on the quality of your evidence. You should strive to build your opinions on as good, solid evidence as possible. The more you slip, slide away from reliable evidence, the less reliable your opinions.

So let's start with your section here. Actually let's start with the first words of your English translation:

When Marcion complains that apostles are suspected ...

The original Latin:

Si apostolos praevaricationis et simulationis suspectos Marcion haberi queritur usque ad evangelii depravationem

which Evans translates in the conditional tense:

If Marcion's complaint is that the apostles are held suspect of dissimulation or pretence, even to the debasing of the gospel, he is now accusing Christ, by thus accusing those whom Christ has chosen

Do you see where I am going with this? There's no foundation here on which you can build your self-fulfilling logical inferences.

[Secret Alias]

I am just telling man you got to stop doing this. It is a mental condition you have trying to bring certainty through any means possible even where certainty isn't possible:

sī

if, supposing that
Sī versūs hōrum duōrum poetārum neglegētis, magnā parte litterārum carēbitis.
If you neglect the verses of these two poets, you will miss a great part of literature.

[Secret Alias]

The whole fucking section is a string of conditional phrase for fuck sake:

If Marcion's complaint is that the apostles are held suspect of dissimulation or pretence, even to the debasing of the gospel, he is now accusing Christ, by thus accusing those whom Christ has chosen. If however the gospel which the apostles compared with Paul's was beyond reproach, and they were rebuked only for inconsistency of conduct, and yet false apostles have falsified the truth of their gospels, and from them our copies are derived, what can have become of that genuine apostles' document which has suffered from adulterators—that document which gave light to Paul, and from him to Luke? Or if it has been completely destroyed, so wiped out by a flood of falsifiers as though by some deluge, then not even Marcion has a true one. Or if that is to be the true one, if that is the apostles', which Marcion alone possesses, then how is it that that which is not of the apostles, but is ascribed to Luke, is in agreement with ours? Or if that which Marcion has in use is not at once to be attributed to Luke because it does agree with ours—though they allege ours is falsified in respect of its title—then it does belong to the apostles. And in that case ours too, which is in agreement with that other, no less belongs to the apostles, even if it too is falsified in its title.

Don't you see it? There's nothing to any of this but the next step is to ask WHY DOESN'T TERTULLIAN HAVE ANY REAL INFORMATION? The answer is he doesn't know what the fuck is talking about. He's just an apologist building apologetic arguments on top of apologetic arguments from Irenaeus. There's no smoke, no fire, no nothing. This work is not the results of a 'scientist' who is 'seeking after the truth.' This is just an apologetic work whose entire purpose is to attack, malign, humiliate with little or no actual information at the bottom of it.

[Secret Alias]

You Bernard ARE THE SINGLE WORST PERSON to investigate Marcion. Because all you want is certainty, all you want is another notch on your build, another framed picture in your restaurant with a photo of a famous person with their autographs. It doesn't work like that with Marcion. Ghosts don't take pictures very well. There's nothing there. There is no certainty possible with a ghost-like Marcion, bishop as is now of a ghost-like church, with a ghost-like canon. Do you believe in ghosts? Well, Marcion and his church and his canon are ghosts. Do what you want, but don't expect certainty from ghosts and ghost-storytellers like Tertullian.

[Bernard Muller]

The Latin word "si" can be translated by "when", according to Google translate for "when". But I acknowledge now it is most likely in a conditional sense such as "if".
However, I said it was not certain that Tertullian knew that Marcion complained about and I added: "Otherwise that would only be a literary device by Tertullian in order to make points against gMarcion".
And my main argument was, and still is: "But the argument has some merit: If gMarcion was the first gospel, then the others should look drawn from it.
That may be the case for gLuke, but not for the others. As a matter of fact, it is gMark which seems to have been the one which other gospels drew from."

Cordially, Bernard

[Secret Alias]

In order to have a first and second you have to have a 'thing' - a noun - an actual object. In this case what is it you are proposing is 'first'? The gospel of Marcion. Is that a thing at all? How is it a 'thing'? What is it's 'thingness'? What actuality is there to this 'gospel of Marcion'?

Let me ask you a question - what is the difference between the actuality of a gospel of Marcion and a gospel of, let's say, Seneca? If you look carefully the entire 'weight' of this 'thing' called 'the gospel of Marcion' is the fact that about eight or so Church Fathers claim that it existed. But of these eight who actually claims to have seen it and held it in his hands? I bet the only one you can muster as proof of its existence is Epiphanius. But Epiphanius is lying and Epiphanius is demonstrated to have lied about a great number of things including manuscripts of heretics. So again how can there be a 'first' and 'second' if you can't even demonstrate 'thingness' or 'actuality' of the thing you are trying to rank first or second.

[Secret Alias]

Much has been written about the phoenix, the bird that dies and resurrects in fire. Even the Church Fathers take for granted the existence of this species of bird. So the Church Fathers also mention the gospel of Marcion. These men had little critical sense and wholly accepted the existence of things merely based on hearsay evidence. As with the existence of Jesus, I am not saying the 'gospel of Marcion' did or didn't exist. I am asking you to think about the epistemological limits of what we know about this 'thing.'

[MrMacSon]

.. And Paul 'found' that gospel [?] -

... that Gospel which St. Paul found in existence, to which he yielded his belief¹, and with which he so earnestly wished his own to agree, that he actually on that account went up to Jerusalem to know and consult the apostles, "lest he should run, or had been running in vain;" in other words, that the faith which he had learned, and the gospel which he was preaching, might be in accordance with theirs. Then, at last, having conferred with the (primitive) authors, and having agreed with them touching the rule of faith, they joined their hands in fellowship, and divided their labours thenceforth in the office of preaching the gospel, so that they were to go to the Jews, and St. Paul to the Jews and the Gentiles. AM, IV, II

However, for Tertullian, and according to Marcion, other apostles (the false ones) interpolated it (in order to compose the other gospels, such as gLuke, gMatthew & gJohn). But if it is the case, these other gospels should look like gMarcion plus interpolations^x.

^x not necessarily; see the beginning of that chapter 2 of Adv Marc IV below -

¹ is part of a passage which has greater meaning -

Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process. Luke, however, was not an apostle, but only an apostolic man; not a master, but a disciple, and so inferior to a master— at least as far subsequent to him as the apostle whom he followed (and that, no doubt, was Paul ) was subsequent to the others; so that, had Marcion even published his Gospel in the name of St. Paul himself, the single authority of the document, destitute of all support from preceding authorities, would not be a sufficient basis for our faith. There would be still wanted that Gospel which St. Paul found in existence, to which he yielded his belief, and with which he so earnestly wished his own to agree, that he actually on that account went up to Jerusalem to know and consult the apostles, 'lest he should run, or had been running in vain' in other words, that the faith which he had learned, and the gospel which he was preaching, might be in accordance with theirs ...

• (a) "had Marcion even published his Gospel in the name of St. Paul himself, the single authority of the document, destitute of all support from preceding authorities, would not be a sufficient basis for our faith" ... then
  
  (b) "There would be still wanted that Gospel^z which St. Paul found in existence, to which he yielded his belief, and with which he so earnestly wished his own to agree ..."
  
  • ^z it doesn't specify which 'gospel' [perhaps it was just a theological concept]
  (c) that he actually on that account went up to Jerusalem to know and consult the apostles, lest he should run, or had been running in vain
  
  (d) in other words, that the faith which he had learned, and the gospel which he was preaching, might be in accordance with theirs.
  
  (e) Then, at last, having conferred with the (primitive) authors, and having agreed with them touching the rule of faith, they joined their hands in fellowship, and divided their labours thenceforth in the office of preaching the gospel, so that
  
  • they were to go to the Jews, and
  • St. Paul to the Jews and the Gentiles.

---

The start of Adv Marc IV, 2 -

You have now our answer to the Antitheses compendiously indicated by us. I pass on to give a proof of the Gospel — not, to be sure, of Jewry, but of Pontus— having become meanwhile adulterated; and this shall indicate the order by which we proceed.

Then Tertullian seems to give credence primarily to John and Matthew, who "first instil faith into us"; and then Luke and Mark. But he does not name texts for them (did Tertullian [here] seed the names for the canonical gospels (the three synoptics and gJohn) ?? -

We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel.

Since, however, there are apostolic men also, they are yet not alone, but appear with apostles and after apostles; because the preaching of disciples might be open to the suspicion of an affectation of glory, if there did not accompany it the authority of the masters, which means that of Christ, for it was that which made the apostles their masters. Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; while of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards.

Tertullian does then refer to "their narratives" -

These all start with the same principles of the faith, so far as relates to the one only God the Creator and His Christ, how that He was born of the Virgin, and came to fulfil the law and the prophets. Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of their narratives, provided that there be agreement in the essential matter of the faith, in which there is disagreement with Marcion.

Then Tertullian starts to put the boot into Marcion -

Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert the very body. And here I might now make a stand, and contend that a work ought not to be recognised, which holds not its head erect, which exhibits no consistency, which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just profession of its author. But we prefer to join issue on every point; nor shall we leave unnoticed what may fairly be understood to be on our side. Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process.