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

[MrMacSon]

Jason Beduhn and Matthias Klinghardt both presently propose that 'Marcion's Gospel' preceded both Marcion and Luke and was, in fact, the earliest Gospel written.

....

BeDuhn also thinks that the Two-Source hypothesis may be correct, once Luke is replaced in the equation with the Marcionite Gospel and the reconstruction of Q proceeds along these new lines.

These two statements are in tension; both cannot be true. Either the Two-Source theory is true (with Marcion replacing Luke as suggested) or Marcion is the earliest gospel written; not both. (The Two-Source theory hypothesizes that Mark came first and that both Matthew and Luke copied from him and from Q; in the reworked version you describe, Mark would still come first, with Matthew and Marcion copying from him and from Q.)

Here's Dieter Roth's commentary on Beduhn's hypothesis [eta: details below] -
.

Roth on Beduhn 1.png (443.55 KiB) Viewed 9467 times

Dieter T Roth, 'Marcion's Gospel and the Synoptic Problem in Recent Scholarship', Chapter 14 in Gospel Interpretation and the Q-Hypothesis; Mogens Müller & Heike Omerzu eds. Bloomsbury Publishing, 5 Apr. 2018

.

[Ben C. Smith]

Jason Beduhn and Matthias Klinghardt both presently propose that 'Marcion's Gospel' preceded both Marcion and Luke and was, in fact, the earliest Gospel written.

....

BeDuhn also thinks that the Two-Source hypothesis may be correct, once Luke is replaced in the equation with the Marcionite Gospel and the reconstruction of Q proceeds along these new lines.

These two statements are in tension; both cannot be true. Either the Two-Source theory is true (with Marcion replacing Luke as suggested) or Marcion is the earliest gospel written; not both. (The Two-Source theory hypothesizes that Mark came first and that both Matthew and Luke copied from him and from Q; in the reworked version you describe, Mark would still come first, with Matthew and Marcion copying from him and from Q.)

Here's dieter Roth's commentary on Beduhn's hypothesis

Thanks. So BeDuhn does not actually address how early the Evangelion is; he simply has the Evangelion replacing Luke in the Two-Source theory.

[MrMacSon]

Thanks. So BeDuhn does not actually address how early the Evangelion is; he simply has the Evangelion replacing Luke in the Two-Source theory.

It looks like it. And I think what BeDuhn proposes aligns with what Matthias Klinghardt is suggesting ie. there was a proto-gospel that probably preceded Marcion though they still seem to refer to it as 'Marcion's Gospel' (and Klinghardt calls it or has called it Mcn). Vinzent thinks Marcion wrote the first gospel, but all three seem to propose that it's likely Marcion produced a 2nd edition of his version.

btw, that page above was from Dieter T Roth, 'Marcion's Gospel and the Synoptic Problem in Recent Scholarship', Chapter 14 in Gospel Interpretation and the Q-Hypothesis; Mogens Müller & Heike Omerzu eds. Bloomsbury Publishing, 5 Apr. 2018 (and I have added those details to that post^^)

[Secret Alias]

Let's return to the original problem by looking what is said in Book 4 at a critical juncture:

Let us consider what milk it was that Paul gave the Corinthians to drink, by the line of what rule the Galatians were again made to walk straight,b what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, and the Ephesians are given to read, what words are spoken also by our near neighbours the Romans, to whom Peter and Paul left as legacy the gospel, sealed moreover with their own blood. We have also churches which are nurselings of John's: for although Marcion disallows his Apocalypse, yet the succession of their bishops, when traced back to its origin, will be found to rest in John as originator. In the same way also the legitimacy of the other churches is to be tested. So I affirm that among them— and I am not now speaking only of apostolic churches, but of all those which are in alliance with them in the fellowship of the mystery—that gospel of Luke which we at this moment retain has stood firm since its earliest publication, whereas Marcion's is to most people not even known, and by those to whom it is known is also by the same reason condemned. Admittedly that gospel too has its churches; but they are its own, of late arrival and spurious: if you search out their ancestry you are more likely to find it apostatic than apostolic, having for founder either Marcion or someone from Marcion's hive. Even wasps make combs, and Marcionites make churches. That same authority of the apostolic churches will stand as witness also for the other gospels, which no less <than Luke's> we possess by their agency and according to their text—I mean John's and Matthew's, though that which Mark produced is stated to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was. Luke's narrative also they usually attribute to Paul. It is permissible for the works which disciples published to be regarded as belonging to their masters. And so concerning these also Marcion must be called to account, how it is that he has passed them over, and preferred to take his stand upon Luke's, as though these too, no less than Luke's, have not been in the churches since the beginning—indeed it is to be supposed that they have even greater claim to have been since the beginning, since they were earlier, as written by apostles, and established along with the churches. Otherwise, if the apostles published nothing, how can it have come about that their disciples published things instead, when they could not even have existed as disciples apart from some instruction by their masters? So then, since it is evident that these too existed in the churches, how is it that Marcion has not laid hands on them as well, either to correct if falsified, or to acknowledge if correct? For it is conceivable that any who were engaged in corrupting one gospel might have taken even greater interest in the corruption of gospels whose authenticity they knew had wider acceptance—false apostles for this very reason, that it was apostles they would be counterfeiting by this forgery. The more then Marcion might have corrected things which would have needed correction if they had been corrupt, the more he has in fact certified that those have not been corrupted which he has not thought it necessary to correct. So he did correct the one he thought was corrupt. Yet even this he had no right to correct: because it was not corrupt. For if the apostolic gospels have come down to us in their integrity, while the gospel of Luke, in the form in which we have it, is in such agreement with the standard of those others that it is retained in the churches along with them, it is at once evident that Luke's also came down in integrity until Marcion's act of sacrilege. In fact it was only when Marcion laid hands upon it, that it became different from the apostolic gospels, and in opposition to them. So I should recommend his disciples either to convert those others, late though it be, into the shape of their own, so that they may have the appearance of being in agreement with apostolic gospels—for they are every day reshaping this of theirs, as they are every day brought to account by us—or else to take shame of their master, who stands convicted on both accounts, while at one time he bypasses the truth of the gospel through bad conscience, and at another time overturns it through effrontery.

Let's start with my assumptions:

1. 'our near neighbo(u)rs' implies to me that the text was written somewhere in Italy
2. the only church community the author seems to know is the one associated with John - presumably in Asia Minor
3. since he mentions Paul's letters to various communities but not the continued existence of these communities with Paul as their head, and passes over but does not get into the lineage of Peter's church at Rome but only John's AND he speaks of 'apostolic' churches and those aligned with them and the Marcionites the apostolic churches must be Johannine. There are no other communities referenced.

Luke's gospel is not specifically connected with any living communities. Mark has Rome. There are Johannine communities in Asia. Matthew is identified elsewhere as Hebrew in nature. But he simply says that Paul wrote to the various communities but had no gospel and at some point later Luke wrote the gospel Paul refers to as 'my gospel.' But it is worth noting that there is no explicit connection between Luke and any living communities. If anything the Marcionite churches - spurious though he claims them to be - are the logical 'stop gap' between communities written to by Paul and a gospel.

He speaks instead of Marcion falsely creating communities with a falsified gospel of Luke but also hints that Marcion stole Luke from a community that celebrated or worshiped with all four gospels. This adds a lot of complexity to the picture. Mark's gospel is compactly described as being 'Roman.' John the evangelist has many communities in Asia and - elsewhere - Matthew is the evangelist to the Hebrews. But Luke is secondary or 'apostolic' in a way that assumes a secondary nature. That John, Matthew and Mark (likely in that order) naturally grew in 'sole gospel' communities and then Luke was made available in a four gospel community. A lot of time must have transpired. It can't have been 70 + 1 years (or whatever date was assumed for Mark).

Marcion 'disallows' the Apocalypse works in a similar manner. He had access to John's gospel and his apocalypse but disavowed them. Is there some connection then between the Marcionites and the Alogoi? This is clearly our first allusion to someone rejecting the Johannine Corpus not just the gospel. Notice how Mark's gospel is specifically Roman. Polycarp is clearly the ultimate source of the 'Johannine tradition' and the 'Johannine churches' being referenced. He went to Rome and had a dispute of some sort. Later we hear from Epiphanius that Roman mistrust of the Johannine corpus lingered into the third century. It's not hard to clear the smoke and see a Roman versus Asia Minor conflict as the beating heart.

[Charles Wilson]

...that gospel of Luke which we at this moment retain has stood firm since its earliest publication, whereas Marcion's is to most people not even known, and by those to whom it is known is also by the same reason condemned...

Thank you for this, SA.

Since its earliest publication...
So much is contained in that one phrase.

[MrMacSon]

...that gospel of Luke which we at this moment retain has stood firm since its earliest publication, whereas Marcion's is to most people not even known, and by those to whom it is known is also by the same reason condemned...

Thank you for this, SA.

Since its earliest publication... So much is contained in that one phrase.

It is, but is it accurate? or is it an incorrect perception of Tertuallian's? or intended to create a perception?

Shelly Matthews has proposed that there was a pre-Marcion 'çore Luke'; that canonical Luke is a second century redaction of it characterised by additions primarily at the beginning and end of 'core Luke'; and that Marcionite circles are likely to have used 'core Luke' and expanded it according to their teaching -

Matthews S, 'Does Dating Luke-Acts into the Second Century Affect the Q Hypothesis?', chapter 13 in Gospel Interpretation and the Q-Hypothesis (Mogens Müller & Heike Omerzu eds. Bloomsbury Publishing, 5 Apr. 2018; pp. 245-65.

[MrMacSon]

Let's return to the original problem by looking what is said in Book 4 at a critical juncture:

what words are spoken also by our near neighbours the Romans, to whom Peter and Paul left as legacy the gospel, sealed moreover with their own blood.

1. 'our near neighbo(u)rs' implies to me that the text was written somewhere in Italy

Perhaps. It could mean Romans in general, or perhaps Roman troops nearby.

It's not clear whether or how the words spoken by those Roman neighbo(u)rs relate to the 'gospel legacy' left by Peter and Paul. Are the words spoken by these Romans from the gospel? or is there an allusion to them using it?

Let us consider what milk it was that Paul gave the Corinthians to drink, by the line of what rule the Galatians were again made to walk straight,b what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, and the Ephesians are given to read, what words are spoken also by our near neighbours the Romans, to whom Peter and Paul left as legacy the gospel, sealed moreover with their own blood.

3 ... he mentions Paul's letters to various communities but not the continued existence of these communities with Paul as their head

That's a good point. There's an indication there of doctrine being given to communities for the first time eg. "what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, and the Ephesians are given to read", and even "what milk it was that Paul gave the Corinthians to drink".

"the line of what rule the Galatians were again made to walk straight" suggests they had heard it before, but what might "what words are spoken also by our near neighbours the Romans" mean?


There seems to be a bit going on here -

We have also churches which are nurselings of John's: for although Marcion disallows his Apocalypse, yet the succession of their bishops, when traced back to its origin, will be found to rest in John as originator. In the same way also the legitimacy of the other churches is to be tested. So I affirm that among them— and I am not now speaking only of apostolic churches, but of all those which are in alliance with them in the fellowship of the mystery—that gospel of Luke which we at this moment retain has stood firm since its earliest publication ..

1. John's nursling churches
2. Marcion
3. 'the other churches' - 'apostolic churches'
4. 'those which are in alliance with them in the fellowship of the mystery'
5. 'that gospel of Luke which we at this moment retain has stood firm'

[MrMacSon]

whereas Marcion's is to most people not even known, and by those to whom it is known is also by the same reason condemned. Admittedly that gospel too has its churches; but they are its own, of late arrival and spurious: if you search out their ancestry you are more likely to find it apostatic than apostolic, having for founder either Marcion or someone from Marcion's hive. Even wasps make combs, and Marcionites make churches. That same authority of the apostolic churches will stand as witness also for the other gospels, which no less than Luke's we possess by their agency and according to their text—I mean John's and Matthew's, though that which Mark produced is stated to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was. Luke's narrative also they usually attribute to Paul. It is permissible for the works which disciples published to be regarded as belonging to their masters. And so concerning these also Marcion must be called to account, how it is that he has passed them over, and preferred to take his stand upon Luke's, as though these too, no less than Luke's, have not been in the churches since the beginning—indeed it is to be supposed that they have even greater claim to have been since the beginning, since they were earlier, as written by apostles, and established along with the churches. Otherwise, if the apostles published nothing, how can it have come about that their disciples published things instead, when they could not even have existed as disciples apart from some instruction by their masters? So then, since it is evident that these too existed in the churches, how is it that Marcion has not laid hands on them as well, either to correct if falsified, or to acknowledge if correct? For it is conceivable that any who were engaged in corrupting one gospel might have taken even greater interest in the corruption of gospels whose authenticity they knew had wider acceptance—false apostles for this very reason, that it was apostles they would be counterfeiting by this forgery. The more then Marcion might have corrected things which would have needed correction if they had been corrupt, the more he has in fact certified that those have not been corrupted which he has not thought it necessary to correct. So he did correct the one he thought was corrupt. Yet even this he had no right to correct: because it was not corrupt. For if the apostolic gospels have come down to us in their integrity, while the gospel of Luke, in the form in which we have it, is in such agreement with the standard of those others that it is retained in the churches along with them, it is at once evident that Luke's also came down in integrity until Marcion's act of sacrilege. In fact it was only when Marcion laid hands upon it, that it became different from the apostolic gospels, and in opposition to them. So I should recommend his disciples either to convert those others, late though it be, into the shape of their own, so that they may have the appearance of being in agreement with apostolic gospels—for they are every day reshaping this of theirs, as they are every day brought to account by us—or else to take shame of their master, who stands convicted on both accounts, while at one time he bypasses the truth of the gospel through bad conscience, and at another time overturns it through effrontery.

Luke's narrative being attributed to Paul is interesting, as is the following comment about it being permissible for "works which disciples published to be regarded as belonging to their masters".


I separated and re-ordered SA's comments in thinking about them, and re-present them here in that order, b/c they make interesting points -

John the evangelist has many communities in Asia ...

Polycarp is clearly the ultimate source of the 'Johannine tradition' and the 'Johannine churches' being referenced. He went to Rome and had a dispute of some sort.

Marcion 'disallows' the Apocalypse works in a similar manner. He had access to John's gospel and his apocalypse but disavowed them. Is there some connection then between the Marcionites and the Alogoi? This is clearly our first allusion to someone rejecting the Johannine Corpus, not just the gospel.

Later we hear from Epiphanius that Roman mistrust of the Johannine corpus lingered into the third century.



Mark's gospel is compactly described as being 'Roman.'

It's not hard to clear the smoke and see a Roman versus Asia Minor conflict as the beating heart.


That John, Matthew and Mark (likely in that order) naturally grew in 'sole gospel' communities

elsewhere Matthew is the evangelist to the Hebrews.


Luke is secondary or 'apostolic' in a way that assumes a secondary nature.

Luke's gospel is not specifically connected with any living communities ... it is worth noting that there is no explicit connection between Luke and any living communities.

Luke was made available in a four gospel community.1

He speaks...of Marcion falsely creating communities with a falsified gospel of Luke but also hints that Marcion stole Luke from a community that celebrated or worshipped with all four gospels. This adds a lot of complexity to the picture.


If anything the Marcionite churches - spurious though he claims them to be - are the logical 'stop gap' between communities written to by Paul and a gospel.
.

1 aligns with what Klinghardt is saying ie. Luke was last

It is possible that Tertullian does not know the full story of how the gospels came about and is just trying to create a false narrative of Luke's and the other gospels pre-existence before Marcion by sidelining Marcion

[DCHindley]

Well, it seems that I now have in my possession *absolute proof* that Luke was beat up by Marcion!

This photo was smuggled to me by one of my extraterrestrial time-traveling friends, who are often mentioned by me when I am about to mock something, but here is the amazing photo.

Snapshot_20160914.JPG (40.06 KiB) Viewed 8303 times

Eat it and weep, deniers! The subject above is named "Luke," and he told *them* that while traveling the Black Sea along with his friends Matt, Mark and John in the mid 1st century CE, he had been accosted by rabid Marcionites! Because he had not rubbed the clothes packed in his sea trunk with frankincense before debarking on his trip, Mr. "Luke" had been keel-hauled under Marcion's flagship, called Dioscuri, in order to wash off his B.O.. I was told, and I believe, that it was the exact same ship on which Paul sailed the Mediterranean Sea in the book of Acts.

As to its genuineness, the clothing and recuperative health aides are exactly spot-on for late 1st or early 2nd century CE Pontus, if one were to ask me!

They telepathically communicated that they used a Spectra System SE w/Quintic Lens F10/125mm Instant Film Camera they picked up from a retail store near my own house before the film was discontinued by Polaroid Corp in 2008. The reason that it looks like it was shot through the tiny camera of a laptop computer is because of the distortions caused by beaming the image from the past to the present through a singularity (wormhole to the non-stellar types who lurk here).

So, proof is in the pudding. I will not be contradicted or gainsaid!

DCH <where's my tinfoil hat?>

[Charles Wilson]

...that gospel of Luke which we at this moment retain has stood firm since its earliest publication, whereas Marcion's is to most people not even known, and by those to whom it is known is also by the same reason condemned...

Since its earliest publication... So much is contained in that one phrase.

Nice analysis, per usual, MrMacSon. I hope I can get through most of this tonight. If not, maybe later.

1. This entire first sentence appears rock solid until you look at the Intentionality and meaning. Then, it doesn't look so solid. Let's see why:
Marcion is to be discredited while the Goo-Goos are "Jes' reporting the Facts, Ma'am."

Note: The ground upon which I make my assertions is the ground I have always stood on here, that the NT is built on a Story of the Mishmarot Priesthood. The Romans dismembered this Story and rewrote it into a story that follows a savior/god sympathetic to the Romans. Continuing...

Unless you are a True Believer here, it should be OK to see that both sides of Marcion vs The Church are in the bidness of manufacturing truth, although the Marcionites are curiously not fighting very hard. Does Tertullian et al truly believe that "their" writings go back to the Disciples and then to Jesus? He says so. What then, are we to make of:

that gospel of Luke which we at this moment retain has stood firm since its earliest publication

Assuming that "stood firm" means that Luke hasn't been changed since their side published it, was Luke changed before it was published? Beyond that, what does it mean to "get published?" Similar to the very first completed Book of Mark, the Break at 16: 8 could only have happened to the very first-and-only Book of Mark - The Scribes would copy what they were given and it makes no sense to have the Straw Boss holler at the Scribes to ALL tear their copies at the same place.

2. What of Luke? It is presented as "Published" and it was the same in the later copies as the first copies. But...so what? It is the word "Published" that makes the exercise meaningful. Luke could have been composed mere days earlier in a Stream of Consciousness Haze and rewritten under orders from the Chief of the Court Copyists to be published after the Dreaded Redactors got hold of it. Worked with John...

Tertullian is giving away is Cosmopolitan POV. Where HE comes from (The Big City), HIS works are *published*. The hicks in Corn-Mash Still Country must not even have a Copier, much less a Copyist. Are those who know AND condemn Marcion's texts perhaps Romans?

"Of course these people would condemn Marcion, they're my bosses!"

Tertullian is too smug by half. This gives the impression that the War against Marcion was an attempt to re-direct a movement to Roman Control.

3.

Shelley Matthews has proposed that there was a pre-Marcion 'çore Luke'; that canonical Luke is a second century redaction of it characterised by additions primarily at the beginning and end of 'core Luke'; and that Marcionite circles are likely to have used 'core Luke' and expanded it according to their teaching

This view is correct. However, as I have stated before, "From the fact the "Jesus" Stories" were written from Source Stories, it does not follow that the Source Stories were about "Jesus"".

Thnx, MrMac.
More later,

CW