Tertullian Says Marcion Had Access to All Four Gospels But 'Beat Up' Only Luke

[Secret Alias]

If we look carefully Tertullian does not exactly say that Marcion made a false copy of Luke. He says instead (and curiously) that Marcion knew and had access to all the

Nam ex iis commentatoribus quos habemus Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem caederet.

For out of those authors whom we possess, Marcion is seen to have chosen Luke as the one to mutilate [Evans]

Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process [Holmes]

I think 'mutilate' is an incorrect translation. It would be better to translate:

For out of those authors whom we possess, Marcion is seen to have chosen Luke as the one to assault (or 'beat up')

Verres, inflamed with wickedness and rage, came into the forum; his eyes were burning, and cruelty was emanating from his whole face. Having come into the forum, he suddenly ordered that in the middle of the forum Gavius be stripped and bound and beaten. When that miserable man [Gavius] began to shout that he was a Roman citizen, and began to name the Roman knight Lucius Raecius as a witness, then that man [Verres] said that he had been sent by Sertorius into Sicily.

Then he ordered the slaves to strip the man, bind him and beat him. When that man had ordered this, the slaves did it, and it happened that in the middle of the forum of Messana a Roman citizen was beaten with sticks, judges, and no other shout was heard from that miserable man except "I am a Roman citizen." Having used these words, did he persuade Verres, by whom he was being so harshly beaten, to spare him or not to beat him? No, judges! For it happened that not only was he beaten, but even a cross (a cross, I say!) was prepared for that miserable man. Verres dared to put on a cross a man who was saying that he was a Roman citizen.

Verres, scelere et furore inflammatus, in forum venit; ardebant oculi, toto ex ore crudelitas eminebat. in forum ingressus, repente imperat ut Gavius medio in foro nudetur et deligetur et caedatur. cum ille miser se civem Romanum esse clamaret, et Lucium Raecium equitem Romanum cognitorem nominaret, tum iste eum a Sertorio in Siciliam missum esse dicit.

deinde imperat servis ut hominem nudent, deligent, caedant. quae cum iste imperavisset, servi ita fecere, et accidit ut medio in foro Messanae virgis caederetur civis Romanus, iudices, et nulla alia vox illius miseri audiretur nisi haec - 'civis Romanus sum.' quibus verbis usu, persuasitne Gavius Verri, a quo tam atrociter caedebatur, ut sibi parceret neue caederet? minime, iudices! is enim perfecit ut non modo caederetur, sed etiam crux (crux! inquam) illi misero compararetur. In crucem ausus est Verres hominem agere qui se civem Romanum esse dicebat.

In other words, Marcion had all four gospels in front of him when making his gospel but 'beat up' the text of Luke. Could this provide a new way to interpret Book 4? Marcion made a gospel harmony with mostly accurate citations of the other three but with Marcion 'mauling' the Luke references?

Indeed later in the same work (Book 4) caedo has this same meaning - beat up:

Quem alium intellegam caedentem servos paucis aut multis plagis, et prout commisit illis ita et exigentem ab eis, quam retributorem deum? Cui me docet obsequi nisi remuneratori?

Whom else than the God of retribution can I understand by Him who shall "beat His servants with stripes," either "few or many," and shall exact from them what He had committed to them? Whom is it suitable for me to obey, but Him who remune [4.29.11]

Here Luke 12:47, 48 has δαρήσεται which derives from δέρω http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... %3Dde%2Frw The word translated here as “beat” properly means to flay or to take off the skin; hence to beat or to whip so that the skin in many places is taken off.

The argument that the text of Luke in Against Marcion was a harmony was advocated most recently by Dieter T. Roth, 'Matthean Texts and Tertullian's Accusations in Adversus Marcionem', JTS 59 (2008), 580–97 saying that Tertullian is not claiming (mistakenly) that Marcion has eliminated such verses from Luke, but that he has omitted what was in the 'true gospel.' https://www.jstor.org/stable/23971061?s ... b_contents

Roth's abstract:

the best explanation for his (Tertullian's) accusations is that he viewed the four gospels as comprising 'the Gospel', and therefore that his (Tertullian's) accusations in Adversus Marcionem were motivated by Marcion having rejected the Gospel of Matthew.

I don't think that quite gets it right (as Lieu also notes). It is more that both Marcion used a harmony and the author the four gospels (Irenaeus) and that Marcion's harmony 'beats up' the portions that correspond back to Luke in the canon alleged to be the primary tetrad behind all the 'harmonies.'

[perseusomega9]

BeDuhn doesn't cited which passage from Tertullius but he quotes him " If that gospel which among us is ascribed to Luke...is the same (gospel) that Markion accuses in his Antitheses", Be Duhn's point beingMarkion did not name Luke in his work and Tertullius is forced to hypothesize

BeDuhn pg 69

[Ben C. Smith]

BeDuhn doesn't cited which passage from Tertullius but he quotes him " If that gospel which among us is ascribed to Luke...is the same (gospel) that Markion accuses in his Antitheses", Be Duhn's point beingMarkion did not name Luke in his work and Tertullius is forced to hypothesize

BeDuhn pg 69

This is the passage being referred to, I believe:

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.4.4: 4 Certe Antitheses non modo fatentur Marcionis, sed et praeferunt. Ex his mihi probatio sufficit. Si enim id evangelium quod Lucae refertur penes nos (viderimus an et penes Marcionem) ipsum est quod Marcion per Antitheses suas arguit ut interpolatum a protectoribus Iudaismi ad concorporationem legis et prophetarum, qua etiam Christum inde confingerent, utique non potuisset arguere nisi quod invenerat. / 4 They, at any rate, receive his Antitheses; and more than that, they make ostentatious use of them. Proof out of these is enough for me. For if the Gospel, said to be Luke's which is current amongst us (we shall see whether it be also current with Marcion), is the very one which, as Marcion argues in his Antitheses, was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism, for the purpose of such a conglomeration with it of the law and the prophets as should enable them out of it to fashion their Christ, surely he could not have so argued about it, unless he had found it (in such a form).

[Secret Alias]

But the question for me always has been - to what degree was the fourfold gospel (i.e. one gospel made of four) a mystical development of the interest in the tetrad among the followers of Mark. It is too convenient the way scholars speak of four gospels. This wasn't the belief of Irenaeus or at least the statement in Irenaeus which might have been attributable to another source and incorporated into Against Heresies. The gospel in four is a direct counterpart to the trinity and the Jewish idea of two powers in heaven. In each case there are multiple things which are taken as one thing. So two powers one of mercy and judgement but which are at once one (even the two cherubim in the holy of holies). Similarly the three gods which are one criticized by Jews and Muslims in the Medieval period and so too the four which one gospel. The way I take the statement in Against Marcion is that Marcion assaulted or brutally rejected Luke. Caedo can't be taken to mean 'cut out' or 'cut up' because passages from Matthew are said to have been 'cut out' but Marcion didn't 'beat up' Matthew. His (alleged) treatment of Luke is special. But again this has to be contextualized in the bizarre 'tetrad' understanding of the gospels. It is possible I guess that a slightly different tetrad existed in antiquity as we see from Irenaeus's statement that Matthew 11:27 was also found in Mark. In this way Marcion's 'assault' on Luke would include the antitheses found in Matthew 5:17f were originally only found in Luke and Marcion's treatment and 'abuse' of this passage in particular formed the backbone of the argument of ur-Against Marcion 4. As such a proto-tetrad gospel existed in the late second century which was altered again at the dawn of the third century perhaps for greater ecumenism (because such resistance existed to Irenaeus's invention). But the core arguments of Against Marcion 4 are irreconcilable:

1. Marcion's (gospel's) antitheses were altered to suit his theology of two powers (i.e. his gospel's version of Matthew 5:17f)
2. Marcion beat up Luke and so let's examine the true Luke (our Luke) to see what the gospel (not just the gospel of Luke) really says (which is the treatise that follows)

Remember also that the original treatise which made the argument started at the end of Book 2 and Book 3 represents a deliberate attempt of Tertullian to interrupt the flow of that argument out of 'the antitheses are a Marcionite corruption.' Book 3 is an repurposing of Against the Jews superficially altered to conform to an attack on Marcion. Evans repeated notes the hand of the final editor in his translation. Book 3 was inserted between the start of the 'antitheses' argument and the Luke section in order to obscure the seeming illogical and irreconcilable nature of (1) and (2) above.

[Secret Alias]

The biggest arguments in favor of my interpretation is that it isn't just that Tertullian makes REPEATED EXPLICIT reference to Marcion cutting things out from the 'true gospel' which now only appear in Matthew - it is that this repeated reference is Matthew 5:17 which is the start of the 'antitheses.' All explanations of this repeated reference to Marcion's removal of Matthew 5:17 necessarily assume a variant text of Luke (i.e. they attempt to reconcile both Tertullian's interest in Luke and Tertullian's perplexing statement about Matthew 5:17). My interpretation actually solves all three 'cornerstones' to Against Marcion which seem anomalous with a conventional text of Luke at the heart of his argument - i.e. Tertullian ambiguous statements about 'the antitheses' which attempt to distinguish between the Law of the god of the Torah and Christ's gospel, Tertullian's interest in Luke and Tertullian's perplexing statement about Matthew 5:17. The way I explain what anomalies remain (i.e. after assuming that 'the antitheses' reference a Marcionite variant of the Sermon on the Mount beginning at 5:17 and preceding through to the following antitheses viz. 'the Law says ... but I say ...' common also to Clement of Alexandria's Stromata) is noting that Evans and others all acknowledge the statement in the preface to Against Marcion Book One and subsequent allusions 'in the same hand' as noting that there were three versions of the texts the last one involving a strange repurposing of Against the Jews against the Marcionites (something that comes up again and again in Book 4 and 5 i.e. the Marcionites are like or are Jews) to interrupt the natural flow from the end of Book 2 to the beginning of Book 4 and their mutual references to 'the (corrupt) antitheses' of Marcion's gospel. The third version of Against Marcion was an adaptation of an already repurposed text (in rewrite #2 in Greek now lost). The point is that each other repurposed not only sections of text but over the course of time the very terminology of the ur-text so that 'the antitheses' as a concept became more broad and ultimately less meaningful (or at least less faithful to the original author).

[Secret Alias]

Lastly I will contend that what makes all other attempts to explain the anomalies in Against Marcion regarding the four pillars of the text namely:

1. our text is at least the third rewrite of a lost original text written obviously in Greek not Latin
2. Tertullian's focus on Luke to refute Marcion in Against Marcion
3. his apparent contradictory or 'antithetical' focus on Matthew 5:17 as the crux of this Marcionite 'falsification' effort (when Matthew 5:17 is not a part of Luke)
4. his ambiguous reference to 'the antitheses' used by Marcion to show that the Law and gospel are antithetical

is that these scholars almost to a man (there are no women in this subset) also want to reconstruct the Marcionite canon. Lieu does not share in this male hubris. But this hubris is what cause all men to go off the rails and embrace what I describe as a bad solution to the problem. It reminds me of my mistake in business with my day job - I will be offered work and have to decide whether to take the job or not take the job based on an estimation of whether I can actually profit from the undertaking. Because I am compulsive by nature I inevitably take every job given to me often losing money on many projects because I haven't made a sober assessment of whether or not it's worth carrying out the project.

This is the same thing with all previous interpretations of the four pillars just described. Instead of soberly admitting that four pillars necessarily lead to a situation where the gospel of Marcion is unknowable and hence impossible to reconstruct the male scholars in their hubris arrange a solution to the four pillars which allows for the glimmer of hope that Marcion's gospel might be a version of canonical Luke. Yet when you look at the evidence (1) is a giant warning sign and (3) is a flashing red signal that Marcion's gospel can't be canonical Luke. The OP only emphasizes that more given that Luke isn't actually said to be 'cut up' but beaten up or killed - in short brutally assaulted like Jesus before his crucifixion. But Marcion - in the very context of that assault - also knows the other canonical gospels and doesn't brutalize them. This situation is the proper perspective to reconcile (1) (2) (3) and (4) and lead to the assumption of a harmony gospel (along with other evidence) and a unique perspective for the final editor of Against Marcion where the 'gospel in four' was assumed to act like the Marcosian Tetrad viz. a mystical literary quartet which stood behind all 'mixed' gospels in the world including that of the original author of Against Marcion.

[Secret Alias]

The other mistake I make in my day job is that I spend too much time at this forum.

[perseusomega9]

My working hypothesis, which involves no actual work whatsoever, is canonical GMark(ion) is a reworking of The Evangelion.

[Secret Alias]

That's suggested by the Philosophumena. The difficult of course is figuring out how that can be true with the Luke-based argument in Tertullian

[perseusomega9]

Why do people say Mar(s)ion instead of Mar(k)ion?