Philippians 2 = the Marcionite Creed

[Secret Alias]

But seeing that you yourselves have already stated your belief that a god has dwelt in human shape and in all the rest of what belongs to man's estate, you will assuredly not demand any further persuasion that God has in fact made himself conformable to human condition, but are confuted by virtue of your own creed (sed de vestra fide revincimini). For if a god—I mean that more lofty one—did with such great humility so lay low the high estate of his majesty as to make it subject to death, even the death of a cross, why should you not agree that to our God also some few pettinesses were not inappropriate, being in any case less intolerable than the revilings, the scaffolds, and the sepulchres of the Jews? [Against Marcion 2.27]

[lsayre]

Why does Tertullian address Marcion as if he is still alive and listening to Tertullian? Would not Marcion (if there ever was one) have been long gone by the time of Tertullian?

[Secret Alias]

It depends how far back the ur-text goes. There is repeated mention in the work that this is the third version of the text. The third version was written in Latin. A previous version was clearly written in Greek. Criddle and I have surmised that the gospel of the treatise is a gospel harmony and the material in Book Four at least was written by Justin. Justin and Marcion were contemporaries or at least this is widely reported and Justin similarly speaks of Marcion as if he were still alive.

[Secret Alias]

It's also worth noting that Against Heresies has a similar history. There is an Against All Heresies written in Latin and attributed to Tertullian and then an Against Heresies written by Irenaeus in Greek (and Latin) which goes back to a Syntagma Against Heresies written by Justin but now lost. What is very interesting to me at least is that Tertullian uses material from a text originally written 'Against the Jews' which came from Justin to fill out book 3 of Against Marcion (read what it says at the beginning of Book Three it's explicit about the new book being created in the third attempt). Why did Tertullian take material by Justin to create this chapter? Could it be that as a Montanist he was communing with the Spirit that also resided in Justin and thus had 'authority' for the undertaking? I think so. Also if Tertullian was 'communing with Justin' to write the third revision Irenaeus seems like an uncanny ringer for the 'apostate' mentioned in the intro of Book One who is alleged to have corrupted Justin's original work:

Nothing I have previously written against Marcion is any longer my concern. I am embarking upon a new work to replace an old one. My first edition, too hurriedly produced, I afterwards withdrew, substituting a fuller treatment. This also, before enough copies had been made, was stolen from me by a person, at that time a Christian but afterwards an apostate, who chanced to have copied out some extracts very incorrectly, and shewed them to a group of people. Hence the need for correction. The opportunity provided by this revision has moved me to make some additions. Thus this written work, a third succeeding a second, and instead of third from now on the first, needs to begin by reporting the demise of the work it supersedes, so that no one may be perplexed if in one place or another he comes across varying forms of it.

The only other apostate that we know of in early Christianity is Origen's teacher Ammonius. He also had a strange relationship with the fourfold gospel.

[Ben C. Smith]

Also if Tertullian was 'communing with Justin' to write the third revision Irenaeus seems like an uncanny ringer for the 'apostate' mentioned in the intro of Book One who is alleged to have corrupted Justin's original work....

Then the nice reference to Irenaeus in Against the Valentinians 5.1 would not be by Tertullian, right?

[Secret Alias]

And the reference to Irenaeus as one of Tertullian's four teachers. Yes that's a problem.

[Secret Alias]

What I am left wondering whether Ammonius - whom we know to be an apostate - was the figure and that subsequently identified as 'Irenaeus' owing to the well attested knowledge of his apostasy.

[andrewcriddle]

What I am left wondering whether Ammonius - whom we know to be an apostate - was the figure and that subsequently identified as 'Irenaeus' owing to the well attested knowledge of his apostasy.

I'm not sure that we genuinely know that Ammonius was an apostate.
Eusebius claims that Porphyry mistakenly claims that Ammonius was an apostate, but that is IMO rather dubious evidence.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

Well sometimes that's all we get. And besides the alternative is much more confusing. Two Ammoniuses, two Origens.