Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:32 pm
What I gain from this situation - which is very, very murky indeed - whatever the 'antitheses of Marcion' are they are drawn from 'the gospel' but the same passages from which Marcion drew his antitheses can also brings forward 'orthodox antitheses' against Marcion which Tertullian is now putting forth for the reader. But the situation is unusual because - here at least - one can imagine a common gospel and the antitheses being arguments which Marcion promulgated from that gospel. Yes there are sections where it appears that Luke and Marcion are two different gospels but it is my conclusion that the present work is layered as the incipit of Book One acknowledges.
I cannot help but see from this unbelievable level of complexity that in a previous version of Adversus Marcionem there was one more or less commonly held gospel from which Marcion's antitheses were drawn. Yes there might have been a Marcion erased this or that. But this older text acknowledges Marcion's erasure of things found now only in Matthew. From memory the most frequent accusation of erasure deals with things from Matthew not things now found in Luke. At the very least the accusation of erasure from Matthew is indistinguishable from that made about Luke. 'The gospel' is a gospel which - at least initially - is one part Matthew, one part Luke (from our perspective).
Marcion's antithesis is supposed to be this -
http://gnosis.org/library/marcion/antithes.htm
Though I wonder if those passages in the column under 'The Good God revealed by Christ' really were already cite-able from the synoptic books, or if Marcion knew those books (particularly as he never refers to them, and in light of the work of Vinzent, BeDuhn, and Klinghardt, etc).
The start of chapter one of book iV of Adv Marc says -
Every opinion and the whole scheme of the impious and sacrilegious Marcion we now bring to the test of that very Gospel which, by his process of interpolation, he has made his own. To encourage a belief of this Gospel he has actually devised for it a sort of dower, in a work composed of contrary statements set in opposition, thence entitled Antitheses, and compiled with a view to such a severance of the law from the gospel as should divide the Deity into two, nay, diverse, gods— one for each Instrument, or Testament as it is more usual to call it; that by such means he might also patronize belief in the Gospel according to the Antitheses.
These, however, I would have attacked in special combat, hand to hand; that is to say, I would have encountered singly the several devices of the Pontic heretic, if it were not much more convenient to refute them in and with that very gospel to which they contribute their support.
but then Tertullian wimps out and simply says -
Although it is so easy to meet them at once with a peremptory demurrer, yet, in order that I may both make them admissible in argument, and account them valid expressions of opinion, and even contend that they make for our side, that so there may be all the redder shame for the blindness of their author, we have now drawn out some antitheses of our own in opposition to Marcion.
Tertullian then just cites a lot of Isaiah.