Another Argument that Against Marcion Existed in a Period Before the Gospel of Luke Was Published

[Secret Alias]

May a man rather not have fathers and sisters (living), or even no relatives at all? But there is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ. Such a method of testing the point had therefore no consistency whatever in it and they "who were standing without" were really "His mother and His brethren." [AM 4.19]

Saturninus governor of Syria 10 - 6 BCE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Sentius_Saturninus. Luke's Quirinius is ten years after this. If this were in any other book - other than a text purporting to be a commentary on Luke essentially - this discrepancy might be minor. But the author who wrote these words clearly was making up the existence of a census in order to prove that Jesus was a historical person before he had any knowledge of Luke. There are many other example of this. But here it is clearly an example of Luke being inspired by the arguments behind Against Marcion.

Incidentally a gospel with one year or ministry for a 30 year old Jesus = 20 CE for the crucifixion - the date preferred by Schwartz, Mason, Charlesworth and many other based on numerous sources.

[Ben C. Smith]

This is a good point. I have wondered about Tertullian's mention of Saturninus in this context before.

Are there other observations similar to this one? Instances of Tertullian contradicting Luke and Acts in so blatant a fashion as to suggest his (or his tradent's) ignorance of them? I know you have your examples of items deleted by Marcion from Matthew as support for the overall contention. What other kinds of evidence are there? And do you have an idea of the overall shape of the source being employed by Tertullian (for example, a list of which sections in particular you think are drawn from the source)?

[Ben C. Smith]

As for a crucifixion date in circa 20, this is what Eusebius has to say about certain groups:

History of the Church 1.9.2-3: 2 Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently given currency to acts against our Savior is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators. 3 For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.

The seventh year of Tiberius' reign would be about 21.

[Secret Alias]

Yes that's the big one. Schwartz lists other circumstantial inferences (from Josephus and others).

[Secret Alias]

Are there other observations similar to this one?

There are times where Tertullian's use of scripture dovetails with things the synoptics add to the gospel narrative. But IMHO Tertullian doesn't necessarily cite that information being present in his gospel. He seems instead to cite the Jewish scriptural reference in the context of the passage as a means of arguing on behalf of the gospel being inspired or predicted by the Law and prophets - or even to argue that the 'NEW' (= the gospel) being compatible with the 'OLD.' Take Tertullian's pattern in his discussion of Zacchaeus:

No, for there remained still in the ears of all of them that blind man's cry, Have mercy upon me, Jesus thou son of David,a and all the people were giving praises to God—not Marcion's god, but David's. For in fact Zacchaeus, though a foreigner,1 yet perhaps had breathed in some knowledge
of the scriptures by converse with Jews, or, what is more, without knowing about Isaiah, had fulfilled his instructions. Break thy bread, he says, to the hungry, and bring into thy house them that have no covering—and this he was even then doing when he brought the Lord into his house and gave him to eat.

His argument is clearly that Zacchaeus's actions were supported or predicted by a prophet. Now notice what he says about the disciples gathering wheat on the Sabbath:

The other considerations regarding the sabbath I set out as follows. If Christ did subvert the sabbath, he acted after the Creator's example: for at the siege of the city of Jericho the carrying of the ark of the covenant round the walls for eight days, including the sabbath, by the Creator's express command, broke the sabbath by working—or so those people think who have the same opinion also of Christ, being unaware that neither did Christ break the sabbath nor did the Creator, as I shall shortly show. Even so, the sabbath was on that occasion broken by Joshua so that this too might be taken as referring to Christ. Even if it was through hatred that he made an attack on the Jews' most solemn day because <as Marcion alleges> he was not the Jews' Christ, even by this hatred of the sabbath he, the Creator's Christ, acknowledged the Creator, following up his cry made by the mouth of Isaiah: Your new moons and sabbaths my soul hateth.a Now in whatever sense this was spoken we know that in circumstances of this kind a sharp reproof has to be put in action against a sharp provocation. Next I shall argue the case in reference to the actual subject in which Christ's rule of conduct has been thought to destroy the sabbath. The disciples had been hungry: on that very day they had plucked the ears of corn and rubbed them in their hands: by preparing food they had made a breach in the holy day. Christ holds them guiltless, and so becomes guilty of infringing the sabbath: the pharisees are his accusers. Marcion takes exception to the heads of the controversy —if I may play about a bit with the truth of my Lord—written document and intention (Marcion captat status controlversiae ut aliquid ludam cum mei Domini veritate, scripti et voluntatis). A plausible answer is based upon the Creator's written document and on Christ's intention (De scriptura enim sumitur creatoris et de Christi voluntate color), as by the precedent of (quasi de exemplo) David who on the sabbath day entered into the templeb and prepared food by boldly breaking up the loaves of the shewbread.4 For he too remembered that even from the beginning, since the sabbath day was first instituted, this privilege was granted to it—I mean exemption from fasting. For when the Creator forbade the gathering of two days' supply of manna, he allowed it only on the day before the sabbath, so that by having food prepared the day before he might make immune from fasting the holy day of the sabbath that followed. Well it is then that our Lord followed the same purpose in destroying the sabbath —if that is what they want it called (Bene igitur quod et causam eandem secutus est dominus in sabbati si ita volunt dici, destructione)

I know that the synoptics have Jesus make reference to this same David story in our version of the gospels but Tertullian's use of the material IS NOT a reference to the presence of the story in the synoptics. Rather he seems to be discussing a Marcionite use of the bare reference of the disciples plucking wheat on the Sabbath in an 'ur-gospel' AND HE ADDS the example of David from his own imagination. He never once says or infers or implies that Jesus or the gospel made the connection with David which important to note.

[Secret Alias]

Another way is to look at this passage in reverse:

1. the Marcionites referred to the passage in support of Jesus's 'destruction of the Sabbath' according to their terminology
2. could the Marcionites have used this passage in support of Jesus's 'destruction of the Sabbath' if it had explicit reference to the David in the temple narrative?
3. so the whole business about David in the temple wasn't in Marcion's gospel - but was it in the author's gospel? I don't think so. It's one of many arguments on behalf of the 'parallels in scripture' or 'compatibility between the Old and New' which is the real thesis of the document not necessarily an anti-Marcionite position.

[Secret Alias]

What I would suggest best explains the evidence is:

pre-150 CE
The ur-gospel - a pre-existent gospel tradition (not necessarily 'a gospel' but 'gospels' and not necessarily 'Marcionite' but a text type common to the author and the Marcionites)

150 CE
A commentary likely written by Justin on the gospel employing Jewish scripture to explain the text away from those who argue for the distinctiveness or separateness of the gospel when compared with the Jewish scriptures

post-150 CE
the synoptic gospels (developed as the 'pre-existent gospel' + 'the individual scriptural arguments' of Justin')

[MrMacSon]

May a man rather not have fathers and sisters (living), or even no relatives at all? But there is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ. Such a method of testing the point had therefore no consistency whatever in it and they "who were standing without" were really "His mother and His brethren." [AM 4.19]

... the author who wrote these words clearly was making up the existence of a census in order to prove that Jesus was a historical person before he had any knowledge of Luke. There are many other example of this. But here it is clearly an example of Luke being inspired by the arguments behind Against Marcion.

I think this is a good indication that key 'Patristic Fathers' such as Tertullian were helping to refine what eventually became the NT, rather than reflecting on it.

[Peter Kirby]

May a man rather not have fathers and sisters (living), or even no relatives at all? But there is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ. Such a method of testing the point had therefore no consistency whatever in it and they "who were standing without" were really "His mother and His brethren." [AM 4.19]

Saturninus governor of Syria 10 - 6 BCE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Sentius_Saturninus. Luke's Quirinius is ten years after this. If this were in any other book - other than a text purporting to be a commentary on Luke essentially - this discrepancy might be minor. But the author who wrote these words clearly was making up the existence of a census in order to prove that Jesus was a historical person before he had any knowledge of Luke. There are many other example of this. But here it is clearly an example of Luke being inspired by the arguments behind Against Marcion.

Incidentally a gospel with one year or ministry for a 30 year old Jesus = 20 CE for the crucifixion - the date preferred by Schwartz, Mason, Charlesworth and many other based on numerous sources.

The idea that Luke could have used not only the 'Marcionite' Gospel but also a commentary on it (... a critical one) is very interesting. The idea that Tertullian didn't totally understand his source gets further evidence from the point made above. This goes along with the "strange" passages in which the text is being compared to the Gospel of Matthew. Fascinating that the Against Marcion ur-text might have predated Luke, and then Luke might have corrected Marcion, and then the legend arose that Marcion's text was a mutilation of Luke... a legend encrusted over the earlier Against Marcion, which knew nothing about the Gospel of Luke.

There may be some loose ends here, but I believe this kind of work should be published, if it hasn't already been.

[MrMacSon]

Fascinating that the 'Against Marcion ur-text' might have predated Luke, and then Luke might have corrected Marcion, and then the legend arose that Marcion's text was a mutilation of Luke... a legend encrusted over the earlier Against Marcion, which knew nothing about the Gospel of Luke.

Wow. I hadn't thought it could have been that complicated.

There may be some loose ends here, but I believe this kind of work should be published, if it hasn't already been.

It'd be good if it hasn't.

The idea that Luke could have used not only the 'Marcionite' Gospel but also a commentary on it (... a critical one) is very interesting.

Which would put Luke -or that aspect of Luke- being written in ~200 AD/CE

The idea that Tertullian didn't totally understand his source gets further evidence from the point made above.

to clarify fully: Luke being inspired by arguments behind/in Against Marcion?

This goes along with the "strange" passages in which the text is being compared to the Gospel of Matthew.

Which is?