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

[Charles Wilson]

Pontus isn't a piss pot in a corn field anymore. What happened? In a hundred years-ish, this area has become important beyond its roots.

Important beyond its roots? Pontus used to be its own kingdom, the most notorious king of which (Mithridates VI, the Poison King) once gave Rome a run for her money.

Yep. Mebbe my question was too hazy. I might reformulate. Thank you, Ben.
As for Mithridates?

Revelation 10: 8 - 10 (RSV):

[8] Then the voice which I had heard from heaven spoke to me again, saying, "Go, take the scroll which is open in the hand of the angel who is standing on the sea and on the land."
[9] So I went to the angel and told him to give me the little scroll; and he said to me, "Take it and eat; it will be bitter to your stomach, but sweet as honey in your mouth."
[10] And I took the little scroll from the hand of the angel and ate it; it was sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it my stomach was made bitter.

There's a long story here but I believe it goes back to Mithridates through Pompey whose troops suffered a defeat at the hands of Mithridates. Poison.

I guess what I am thinking here is that Vespasian hears of "...an outbreak on the Pontus". He sends some "seasoned troops" and secures the area through Bribery and Treachery. Pontus? How the mighty art fallen. Yes, the Empire was threatened by Mithridates. Now, a smaller auxilliary force can build boats, bribe the King and gut Anicetus after a sea battle. Marcion should have known of this. A few short years later Pontus is important again. Is Maricon a threat to Roman sensibilities? No. The religious threat can be and will be absorbed. Something appears ("to me..." ) to have been left out from the Roman Interregnum on through the creation of Christianity.

Y/N/M? Ben, I yield to superior sensibilities. Thank you.

CW

[Secret Alias]

Getting back to the OP for a moment (and what I said earlier) - here's what Book 4 says:

Marcion had access to all four gospels (i.e. 'our' canon) but only beat up/assaulted Luke

Fine. Let's leave it at that. Yet what is so curious is that the only living community that is explicitly mentioned is the Johannine gospel. The Apocalypse is used to 'tease out' the meaning of Luke too and Marcion 'denied' John (very Alogoi like) so he didn't understand the real meaning of the gospel. So at the very least there is a level of complexity which isn't appreciated in all the various studies of Marcion. Harnack notices that Irenaeus seems to imply that Marcion knew the Prologue of John. The Marcionite Mark is familiar with various passages from 1 John. There is a tradition noted and reconstructed by Eisler that Marcion acted as John's secretary. As well as Marcionites believing that Paul was the Paraclete (from Hegemonius and Origen). There are clearly Marcionite sounding passages in John so Turmel.

Yet in spite of all these references Marcion's denial of John is always connected with the Apocalypse. The same thing is in evidence with respect to the Alogoi. It is said that they denied John's gospel. But most of the evidence seems to focus on their denial of the Apocalypse. Indeed when you go into the second century there is a pronounced difference among authors as to the degree to which the Apocalypse dominates their exegesis. Resistance to the Apocalypse continues to simmer into the mid third century with Dionysius of Alexandria (another Markan center) identify it is as a pseudepigraphon. Who wrote it? Cerinthus which explains the conflict described in Irenaeus at the bathhouse.

Getting back to Marcion he says that Lazarus is in Gehenna or Hades I forget which. Tertullian denies this. But how? By means of the Apocalypse. The Marcionites would have said - screw your Apocalypse. The orthodox (and Tertullian) say 'you deny John.' But note the tradition that the Apocalypse was written by Cerinthus. Why is the Marcionite denial of the Jewish tradition any different? The Samaritans deny all the books except the Pentateuch. They say God doesn't speak through them. Surely some Jew said sometime the Samaritans deny our god.

[Secret Alias]

The bottom line is that since:

1. Polycarp is the face of the Johannine tradition and
2. Polycarp is such a piece of shit (based on the acknowledged parallels between Polycarp/Peregrinus/Ignatius)
then
3. I can't believe the veracity of anything related to John in Asia Minor

Surely the whole of ancient Christianity might be just as merdique or even more merdant but I like the Markan quiet, the Marcionite textual resolve. There is something truthful bubbling beneath the surface. I give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Charles Wilson]

Surely some Jew said sometime the Samaritans deny our god.

Through the Dust-Ups surrounding, esp. the Temple at Gerizim?

[Secret Alias]

Well I mean often times saying that is like claiming someone is 'unpatriotic' for rejecting an unjust war. Look at our political process. No one speaks honestly about the issues. They determine the most effective strategy for winning.

[Charles Wilson]

No one speaks honestly about the issues. They determine the most effective strategy for winning.

You are correct. However, "..the most effective strategy for winning" may come with strings attached. There was a strategy AVAILABLE to defeat North Viet Nam and it would have worked if "the world" could have accepted a parking lot that automatically lit up at night where N VN used to be. We're now finding out that Johnson sent an emissary with $Cash$ to Bribe Ho. Johnson really thought it would work, the idiot. There are Strategies and there are strategies.

Your work on Matthew may be appropriate now. You certainly know more about Tertullian than I ever will. It is certainly a puzzle: Tertullian may have known about all 4 Gospels but why beat up on Luke? Why beat up on Mark?

If the authorship of John comes from an area some distance from Mark, the fight should have been more substantial in what we have left, esp. if Mark and John wrote from a common Source. It doesn't make sense. It's as if Acts is written late to cover the tracks. 'N maybe it was.

Thanx SA,

CW

[MrMacSon]

Imagine you are trying to make sense of Christianity at the end of the second century ... When you look at Patristic evidence from the period (or a little later but which - I believe - come from a rewriting or loose translation from Greek into Latin) you get this strangely consistent reference to:

1. a conflict between Rome and Asia Minor in the age of Victor
2. a controversy about the dating of Passover/Easter
3. the Montanist controversy
4. the Alogoi controversy

To be certain Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Tertullian are still producing 'Against Marcion' treatises but I see a commonality behind all of these writers and more importantly the Marcionite controversy seems to go back to the circle of Justin. Again treatises were repurposed by the aforemented 'HIT (Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Tertullian)' axis.

The rest of your post is good too, but this overall discussion raises a few interesting points -

a. haerēsis simply meant "school of thought". Irenaeus's use of the term "the Gnostic heresy" (Adv. Haer. 1.11.1), represents the use of terms that likely had been used in a neutral sense and turning them into pejoratives individually and collectively.

b. ironically, an arch anti-heretic, Tertullian, subsequently joined what is essentially a heretic sect, the Montanists.

[MrMacSon]

a. haerēsis simply meant "school of thought"

Etymology
The term heresy, from Greek αἵρεσις, originally meant "choice" or "thing chosen",[6] but it came to mean the "party or school of a man's choice"[7] and also referred to that process whereby a young person would examine various philosophies to determine how to live.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy#Etymology

6. Cross, F.L.; Livingstone, E.A., eds. (1974). "Heresy". The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Bruce, F.F. The Spreading Flame, Exeter: Paternoster 1964, p. 249

[Secret Alias]

But the idea of heresy or sect has nothing to do with the discussion. But if it was I would frame it like this. There weren't multitudes of heresies the way that Irenaeus frames the discussion. The IDEA that heresies were spread like tares across the face of the earth because of the Devil strangely justified the multiplication of the gospel(s). You see this in Irenaeus saying basically that for the Ebionites there was Matthew, for this unnamed adoptionist heresy there was Mark, the Marcionites Luke and the Valentinians John. In a word where there was just Rome and Asia Minor you can't justify four gospels.

[MrMacSon]

In a word where there was just Rome and Asia Minor you can't justify four gospels.

Sure.

But the idea of heresy or sect has nothing to do with the discussion.

Sure. My point was there were then different sects of schools of thought

• (some of which were later re-framed to sideline them, even though they were also used as to shore up the notion of a 'firm tradition')