Marcion denies that the our 4 gospels preceded the his gospel

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 6523
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Marcion denies that the our 4 gospels preceded the his gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:17 am

Here is the confession escaped from Tertullian. Marcion being expelled from the Church in 144 CE, he continued to preach his doctrine, and he did not ignore the gospels that opposed the his Evangelion. Of course, he denied them, and Tertullian gives us the reason: they were (for Marcion) false gospels, placed by fraud under the name of apostles or people of apostolic times ("sub apostolorum nomine aduntur vel etiam apostolicorum", Againt Marcion 4:3).

So we have as evidence:
  • silence about the Gospels before Justin.
  • explicit denial by Marcion that the our gospels were written before the his gospel.
In any other field of history, this is equivalent to prove that the gospels were written around the Marcion's time.

Why should this be an exception only in the case of the gospels?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 833
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Marcion denies that the our 4 gospels preceded the his gospel

Post by arnoldo » Sun Oct 13, 2019 11:24 am

FWIW,
The Latin phrase "Sub apostolorum nomine aduntur et etiam apostolicorum" (Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem , IV, 3) thus removed from the context loses its meaning also because it is cited incorrectly (see "aduntur" instead of "eduntur »). The whole passage is as follows: «Sed enim Marcion nactus epistolam Pauli ad Galatas, etiam ipsos apostolos suggillantis ut non recto pede incedentes ad veritatem evangelii, simul et accusantis pseudoapostolos quosdam pervertentes evangelium Christi, conititur ad destruendum statum eorum evangeliorum quae propria et sub apostolorum nomine eduntur, vel etiam apostolicorum , ut scilicet fidem, quam illis adimit, his conferat («But here, meeting the Epistle to the Galatians where Paul reproaches the same apostles, criticizing them for not walking upright according to the truth of the Gospel, that is, where he accuses at the same time some false apostles of perverting the gospel of Christ, well Marcion commits himself with all his strength to destroy the status of their gospels which are properly those of the apostles or apostolic figures published under their names: his purpose he was, it is certain, to confer on his gospel the credit which he took from them ")" (IV, 3,2). For an intelligent, punctual and competent commentary read E. N ORELLI, "The function of Paul in the thought of Marcion", Rivista Biblica 34 (1986), pp. 554ss. Marcione simply exploits the episode of the antiochene incident recounted in Gal 2 between Paul and Cefa and broadens it by understanding it as a controversy between Paul and the three columns of Jerusalem, Kefa, James and John, representatives of the false apostles and responsible for false announcements.


Giuseppe
Posts: 6523
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion denies that the our 4 gospels preceded the his gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:59 pm

Your point is totally 100% apologetics.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 833
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Marcion denies that the our 4 gospels preceded the his gospel

Post by arnoldo » Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:22 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:17 am
Here is the confession escaped from Tertullian. Marcion being expelled from the Church in 144 CE, he continued to preach his doctrine, and he did not ignore the gospels that opposed the his Evangelion. Of course, he denied them, and Tertullian gives us the reason: they were (for Marcion) false gospels, placed by fraud under the name of apostles or people of apostolic times ("sub apostolorum nomine aduntur vel etiam apostolicorum", Againt Marcion 4:3).

So we have as evidence: <snip>
Whether Marcion wrote in latin or greek is another variable to consider.
... in agreement with those who have returned to the view that Tertullian used a Greek copy
of Marcion’s Apostolikon,14 I have defended the view that Tertullian also had a Greek copy
and not a Latin translation of Marcion’s Gospel when writing Adversus Marcionem.15

In that article, I have argued that in considering this issue it is important not only to consider
the differences in the Latin terms found in the attested texts for Marcion’s Gospel and the citation of
those same texts elsewhere in Tertullian’s corpus, but also the similiarities.16

Both these similarities and differences must then be compared to readings in extant Old Latin witnesses.

On the one hand, the agreement of Latin terminology between Marcion’s Gospel and
Tertullian’s text against the attested readings in Old Latin witnesses becomes an
argument against Tertullian working from a Latin copy of Marcion’s Gospel, and, on
the other hand, differences in the terminology between Marcion’s Gospel and
Tertullian’s text, where neither reading is attested in the extant witnesses, may also
confirm that the variation is due to Tertullian’s own translations rather than his
working from a Latin copy of Marcion’s Gospel. An examination of the 87 Greek
terms rendered in verses attested both for Marcion’s Gospel and elsewhere in
Tertullian’s corpus reveals that Marcion’s Gospel and Tertullian’s text agree in their
Latin renderings on 51 occasions, or 59% of the time. Of these 51 agreements, in
about one-third of them the agreement is in renderings that are completely unique or
rather uncommon in the extant Latin textual tradition for that verse. In addition,
when Marcion’s Gospel and Tertullian’s text disagree, 69% of the time one of their
respective renderings is not found within, or only at the periphery of, the surviving
Old Latin textual tradition.

It is surely simpler to explain these phenomena through the view that Tertullian himself
is largely responsible for the Latin of Marcion’s text as he translated it ad hoc
from the Greek than to persist in Harnack’s view that Tertullian had a Latin translation
of Marcion’s Gospel when he wrote Adversus Marcionem.17
Undoubtedly, the view that Tertullian is translating from the Greek,
rather than copying from a Latin Vorlage, will lead one to view his testimony to
Marcion’s Gospel somewhat differently than Harnack.18

Dieter T. Roth (2009) Towards a New Reconstruction of the Text of Marcion’s Gospel:

History of Research, Sources, Methodology, and the Testimony of Tertullian pp. 42-3.

A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Ph.D. in New Testament and Christian Origins, The University of Edinburgh

https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/ ... sequence=1

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... =10#p38365

Post Reply