Contextualizing Our Information About Marcion from the Church Fathers

[Secret Alias]

SA, Tertullian seems to say Marcion is purely docetic

I am less interested in Marcion's doctrine than the concept of Marcion's gospel or the gospel Tertullian used to condemn Marcion. I guess I should have spelled that out more clearly in the title but there are only so many characters. My question is again:

1. Tertullian says that Marcion erased what must have been large number of passages from Luke

but

2. not only does Tertullian NOT cite these erasures but he sets up a most weird argument that he will disprove the antitheses from what's left of Luke (i.e. that portion Marcion didn't excised).

When you look at the start of the gospel he doesn't mention ANY passages being erased that aren't in Matthew or Mark. Like he never says - Marcion erased the beginning of Luke even though its plain that relative to canonical Luke the citations only start at Luke 3:1. He doesn't say Marcion erased the introduction of John the Baptist and then later in Against Marcion 4 he says that John comes late in the Marcionite gospel but again in chapter 3 of Luke he doesn't say 'Marcion erased all the stuff about John the Baptist and the baptism' which is what you would expect if Tertullian were doing an apples and oranges comparison of Luke and Marcion's gospel. Instead he only references things from Matthew and sometimes Mark which should be in Marcion's gospel but aren't. But that only makes sense if (a) Tertullian is arguing from a gospel harmony or (b) he is taking over Irenaeus's argument about the fourfoldness of the 'ideal gospel.'

At the very least we have to simply accept Tertullian's claim to know the portion of Luke left over from Marcion's erasures. Why should we believe that if he can't come up with a list of examples or a line by line comparison? Why isn't Schelling right when he says none of the Church Fathers saw the Marcionite gospel?

I guess the main question is - if Tertullian is just trying to disprove Marcion's antitheses (as he says he is) why do you need to know what the difference between Luke and Marcion's erasures when you already say that the real original gospel is Luke.

[Secret Alias]

1. 7.1 Luke 3.1 T doesn't mention M erasing anything before 3.1. No mention of erasing
2. 7.2 non-Lukan passage which references Jesus appeared (ἐφάνη) somewhere. T acknowledges the word appears in the gospel. Not in Luke
3. 7.3 T denies the Marcionite gospel portrait of a heavenly descent and references Mt 4:14 - 15
4. 7.4 T accuses M of erasing Mt 5:17.
5. 7.5 T says "[s]ee how he enters into the synagogue" Luke doesn't have Jesus enter the synagogue. T is following Mark 1.21 "They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law." The whole section is rooted in Mark but transitions to Luke.
6. 7.5 T speaks of "from heaven straight to the synagogue. As the adage runs: "The business on which we are come, do at once."" which seems to outline the M gospel.
7. 7.6 T accuses M of erasing more from Matthew - Mt 15:24, 26
8. 7.7 The material which preceded Luke 3:1 is referenced (And yet how could He have been admitted into the synagogue----one so abruptly appearing, so unknown; one, of whom no one had as yet been apprised of His tribe, His nation, His family, and lastly, His enrolment in the census of Augustus----that most faithful witness of the Lord's nativity, kept in the archives of Rome).

THIS IS THE POINT THE NARRATIVE BEGINS THE ADAPTATION TOWARD LUKE AWAY FROM THE DIATESSARON-TYPE GOSPEL

the transition occurs from non-Luke to Luke at this point. Remember Luke 4.14 - 30 is about the Nazareth synagogue. But if you follow the logic of Against Marcion 4 Jesus comes "from heaven straight to the synagogue" - that is Capernaum.

9. 7.7 Against Marcion is originally quoting Mark but it transitions to Luke "even if there were unlimited access to the synagogue, there was no permission to teach, except for one excellently well known, and tried, and approved, and already either for this occasion or by commendation from elsewhere invested with that function. 'But they were all astonished at his doctrine.' Quite so. Because, it says, his word was with power, not because his teaching was directed against the law and the prophets."
10. 7.8 Notice that throughout the section T is asking his readership to decide which reading of the commonly held gospel makes more sense. "It follows that he must either be acknowledged to belong to him in accordance with whom his teaching was given, or else judged a turn-coat if his teaching was in accordance with him whom he had come to oppose. On the same occasion the spirit of the demon cries out, What have we to do with thee, Jesus? Thou art come to destroy us. I know who thou art, the Holy One of God. Here I shall not discuss whether even this appellation was at all appropriate to one who had no right even to the name of Christ unless he belonged to the Creator."
11. 7.8 Against Marcion leaves the Diatessaron-gospel to become a commentary on Luke. In the Diatessaron-gospel (Baarda Flying Jesus) the crowd attacks Jesus after the speech in the synagogue and in their attempt to push him over the precipice and instead go over the edge themselves when they pass through his body or he flies away. Notice what Against Marcion says next "Otherwise they would not have been astonished but horrified; would not have marvelled at, but immediately shrunk from, a destroyer of the law and the prophets—and above all else the preacher of a different god, because he could not have given teaching contrary to the law and the prophets, and, by that token, contrary to the Creator, without some previous profession of belief in an alien and hostile deity. As then the scripture gives no indication of this kind, but only that the power and authority of his speech were a matter of wonder, it more readily indicates that his teaching was in accordance with the Creator, since it does not deny that, than that it was opposed to the Creator, since it has not said so."
12. 7.9 "I have fully discussed his titles in another place." It is important to note that this discussion appears in Book Three III. 12; Christ, III. 15; Jesus, III. 16. Book Three begins being rooted in the same synagogue scene we are dealing with in Book Four. "Proper order required that father
should tell of son's existence before son told of father's, and father bear witness to son before son bore witness to father. Secondly, besides this matter of sonship, he was an emissary. The sender's acknowledgement ought to have come first, in commendation of the one who was sent. No one who comes by another's authority lays claim to it for himself, on his own bare statement, but looks for his credentials to the authority itself, headed by the style and title of the person who grants the authority ... There was no need, you say, for such an ordering of events, seeing that he would immediately by the evidence of miracles prove himself in actual fact both son and emissary, and the Christ of God. My answer will be that this form of proof by itself could never have provided satisfactory testimony to him, and in fact he himself subsequently discounted it. (III:2, 3)
13. 7.11 "For he began by asking, What have we to do with thee, Jesus?, not as though addressing a stranger, but as one whose concern the Creator's spirits are. For his words were not, What hast thou to do with us?, but, What have we to do with thee?, in sorrow for himself and in regret at his own case: and as he now sees what this is he adds, Thou art come to destroy us. To that extent he had recognized Jesus as the Son of the judge, the avenger, and <if I may say so> the severe God, not of that perfectly good god who knows nothing of destruction and punishment.
14. 7.13 "With what purpose have I begun with this episode? To show you that Jesus was acknowledged by the demon, and affirmed by
himself, to belong to none other than the Creator. But still, you object, Jesus rebuked him. Of course he did: he was an embarrassment: even in that acknowledgement he was impertinent, and submissive in the wrong way, giving the impression that it would be the sum total of Christ's glory to have come for the destruction of demons and not rather for the salvation of men: for it was he who would have his disciples rejoice not because the spirits were subject to them but because of their election to salvation." It is curious that T should ask - why did I start with this narrative? The common assumption is that it is because the Marcionite gospel begins here. But clearly that can't be the reason. It must have been because he thinks it helps his argument

[Secret Alias]

I want to spend some time on these surprising words which appear near the end of the first chapter which deals the gospel material left over by the author's alleged subtraction of Marcion's deletions from Luke:

With what purpose have I begun with this episode? To show you that Jesus was acknowledged by the demon, and affirmed by
himself, to belong to none other than the Creator.

Quorsum hunc locum praemisimus? Ut Iesum et a daemone non alium doceamus agnitum et a semetipso non alium confirmatum quam creatoris.

Now for what purpose have we adduced his passage first? In order to show that Jesus was neither acknowledged by the evil spirit, nor affirmed by Himself, to be any other than the Creator's. [4.7.13]

The standard way of approaching Against Marcion of course is to assume - idiotically - that the reason Tertullian deals with this passage first is that it is the first narrative in the Marcionite gospel. Clearly this is not the case otherwise the author here wouldn't feel the need to justify "with what purpose have I begun with this episode?" If it was the first episode in Marcion's gospel then clearly he wouldn't have felt the need to justify it. Our assumptions are very dangerous obstacles of truth. Consider the implications of this passage on why Galatians is treated first in Book Five. We have assumed that it is because Marcion's canon was so arranged. Yet here we see quite clearly that this is not the first passage in Marcion's gospel. He has tackled this first because it is a good passage to illustrate his main point that Jesus's father is the Creator.

prae-mitto , mīsi, missum, 3, v. a.,
I.to send forward or before, to despatch in advance.

By asking this question it almost begs the follow up question - well what passage would have been a more natural place to start Against Marcion's investigation?

[Secret Alias]

I also find the use of the nomen sacrum (cited as 'Jesus' throughout) very curious:

But still, you object, IC rebuked him. Of course he did: he was an embarrassment: even in that acknowledgement he was impertinent, and submissive in the wrong way, giving the impression that it would be the sum total of Christ's glory to have come for the destruction of demons and not rather for the salvation of men: for it was he who would have his disciples rejoice not because the spirits were subject to them but because of their election to salvation. Else why did he rebuke him? If because he was wholly a liar, then he himself was neither Jesus nor in any sense holy: if because he was partly a liar, in having rightly thought him to be IC and the Holy One of God, but to belong to the Creator, it was most unjust of him to rebuke one who took the view which he knew he must take, and did not entertain the idea which he did not know he needed to entertain, that he was a different IC, and the holy one of a different god. But if his rebuke has no more likely ground than the interpretation we put upon it, in that case the demon told no lie, and was not rebuked for lying: for IC was IC himself, and the demon had no means of affording recognition to any besides him: and IC gave assurance of being that one whom the devil had recognized, seeing that his rebuke to the demon was not on account of a lie.

If the nomen sacrum is read as 'Jesus' it would imply that the demon knew about a pre-existent 'Jesus' who existed from before Creation. If the nomen sacrum = 'man' as I have suggested elsewhere it is an expression of the demons being present at the creation of Adam after the heavenly image:

"And a voice came forth from the exalted aeon-heaven: 'The Man exists and the son of Man.' And the chief archon, Yaltabaoth, heard (it) and thought that the voice had come from his mother. And he did not know from where it came. And he taught them, the holy and perfect Mother-Father, the complete foreknowledge, the image of the invisible one who is the Father of the all (and) through whom everything came into being, the first Man. For he revealed his likeness in a human form.

"And the whole aeon of the chief archon trembled, and the foundations of the abyss shook. And of the waters which are above matter, the underside was illuminated by the appearance of his image which had been revealed. And when all the authorities and the chief archon looked, they saw the whole region of the underside which was illuminated. And through the light they saw the form of the image in the water.

"And he said to the authorities which attend him, 'Come, let us create a man according to the image of God and according to our likeness, that his image may become a light for us.' And they created by means of their respective powers in correspondence with the characteristics which were given. And each authority supplied a characteristic in the form of the image which he had seen in its natural (form). He created a being according to the likeness of the first, perfect Man. And they said, 'Let us call him Adam, that his name may become a power of light for us.'

"And the powers began: the first one, goodness, created a bone-soul; and the second, foreknowledge, created a sinew-soul; the third, divinity, created a flesh-soul; and the fourth, the lordship, created a marrow-soul; the fifth, kingdom created a blood-soul; the sixth, envy, created a skin-soul; the seventh, understanding, created a hair-soul. And the multitude of the angels attended him and they received from the powers the seven substances of the natural (form) in order to create the proportions of the limbs and the proportion of the rump and the proper working together of each of the parts.

[Secret Alias]

The next line in Against Marcion is the beginning of the next chapter 4.8.1:

According to the prophecy, the Creator's Christ was to be called a Nazarene. For that reason, and on his account, the Jews call us by that very name, Nazarenes. For we are also those of whom it is written, The Nazarenes were made whiter than snow, having previously of course been darkened with the stains of sin, and blackened with the darkness of ignorance. But to Christ the appellation of Nazarene was to apply because of his hiding-place in infancy, for which he went down to Nazareth, to escape from Archelaus, the son of Herod. My reason for not leaving this out is that Marcion's Christ ought by rights to have forsworn all association even with the places frequented by the Creator's Christ, since he had all those towns of Judaea, which were not in the same way conveyed over to the Creator's Christ by the prophets. But Christ has to be the Christ of the prophets, wherever it is that he is found to accord with the prophets. Even at Nazareth there is no indication that his preaching was of anything new, though for all that, by reason of one single proverb, we are told that he was cast out.

This citation makes absolutely no sense as it stands now and especially if we presume that Tertullian has been citing from the Marcionite canon during the synagogue narrative. So why does he now declare that "the Creator's Christ was to be called a Nazarene"? Clearly it is because of Luke 4:23 where the demon calls him Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ. This is the only explanation. Now in the previous chapter it is plain that the text Tertullian cites from and approves of the gospel read:

What have we to do with thee, Jesus? Thou art come to destroy us. I know who thou art, the Holy One of God.

In other words, no 'Nazarene.' This is usually understood to be the Marcionite text. Yet the fact that 'Nazarene' is dealt with here debunks that notion. Clearly the Marcionite text had 'Nazarene' and Tertullian's did not. Notice that the etymology given is originally that it is from נצר = to guard, hide "But to Christ the appellation of Nazarene was to apply because of his hiding-place in infancy ... to escape from Archelaus, the son of Herod." Nazareth was a later addition to the text. Clearly the Marcionites read 'IC Ναζαρηνέ' to mean either 'hidden Jesus' or as I would have it 'hidden Man' - i.e. the first man the angels only saw for a glimpse before making Adam (hence his recognition by the demon in this scene). There is no 'Nazareth' reference in this section of the gospel. But now we see clearly that for the main body of the text the author is citing from his version of Luke with all Marcionite additions removed.

[Secret Alias]

The reference here at 4.7:15:

Even at Nazareth there is no indication that his preaching was of anything new, though for all that, by reason of one single proverb, we are told that he was cast out.

is to the section in Luke 4:22 - 23:

All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked. Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’”

which indeed occurs in Nazareth. But we can clearly see however that in the original pre-Lukan version of Against Marcion this passage was part of the synagogue narrative we have been dealing with. Tertullian says that this synagogue event happened in Capernaum, but notice Ephrem says it was Bethsaida:

But in order that Marcion's lie be refuted, it said after this, He entered the synagogue as was his custom, on the Sabbath day. What was the custom of him who had come just now? He had come to Galilee, and had begun to teach, not outside of the synagogue, but within it, he [came] to talk to them about their God. Otherwise it would have been in order for him to proclaim to them outside of their synagogue. He therefore entered Bethsaida among the Jews. It does not indicate that they said anything to him other than, Physician, heal yourself. They seized him and brought him to the side of the mountain. It is not likely that the word [he] had spoken to them was leading them to anger. For, if he had been speaking to them concerning the Creator, and [if] this was why they had given the response, They seized him that they might cast him down, why then did it not record in other places that it was like this too? That the people of the town hated him, there is this testimony: A prophet is not accepted in his home town. [Ephrem Commentary 23]

This is the actual context of the original narrative. The reference Tertullian makes to the proverb being said in the earlier part of Luke in Nazareth is plainly refuted and the structure of the material in Against Marcion supports that Luke 4:23 occurs as part of a continuous narrative at the original synagogue.

[Secret Alias]

I just figured out how to write this as an academic paper. Thank you forum.

[Secret Alias]

The next section deals with the 'Flying Jesus' narrative. This is what remains:

Here, as I for the first time observe that hands were laid upon him, I am called upon to say something definite about his corporal substance; that he who admitted of contact, contact even full of violence, in being seized and captured and dragged even to the brow of the hill, cannot be thought of as a phantasm. It is true that he slipped away through the midst of them, but this was when he had experienced their violence, and had afterwards been let go: for, as often happens, the crowd gave way, or was even broken up: there is no question of its being deceived by invisibility, for this, if it had been such, would never have submitted to contact at all.

Touch or be touched nothing but body may,

is a worthy sentence even of this world's philosophy. In fine, he did himself before long touch others, and by laying his hands upon them—hands evidently meant to be felt—conveyed the benefits of healing, benefits no less true, no less free from pretence, than the hands by which they were conveyed.

Luke 4:28 - 30 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. They got up, drove him out (ἐξέβαλον αὐτὸν ἔξω) of the town, and took him (ἤγαγον αὐτὸν) to the brow of the hill (ὀφρύος τοῦ ὄρους) on which the town was built, in order to throw him off (κατακρημνίσαι αὐτόν). But he walked right through the crowd (διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν) and went on his way (ἐπορεύετο).

Faustus Book 26 "We also read that, after at one point having been thrown over the edge of a cliff by the Jews, he walked off unscathed.2 If, therefore, although he was thrown from a high mountain, he did not die because he did not want to, why could he not have died when he did want to?

Ephrem's remarks include: “When they cast Him down from the hill, He flew in the air” (Carm. Nisib. 35.16); “He walked in the midst of the sea, and flew and circled in the air" (Carm. Nisib. 43.22); and “they cast Him downwards from above, downwards. But... through their midst He was found to pass by . . . by his rapidly moving to the height. He rapidly moved upward in the air” (Sermo de Domino Nostro 21). These all reference the Rejection at Nazareth (Luke 4.16–30), which concludes not with Jesus being thrown from the hill, but with his mysteriously “passing through the midst of them." But the citations in Aphrahat and Ephrem indicated that their text said Jesus was thrown from the hill, and flew away. Did the Diatessaron contain this remarkable variant? Baarda's investigation showed that it did, for the reading also turned up in a Western Diatessaronic witness, Jacob van Maerlant's Rijmbijbel (lines 23440–23448: “ons Heren spronc ... [en] nederghinc": "our Lord jumped . . . [and] went down/descended"); and in the mouth of the Manichaean Faustus in Augustine's Contra Faustum 26.2 (". . . de supercilio montis iactatus . . . inlaesus abieriC; "thrown down from the height of the abierit”; “thrown down from the height of the mountain . . . he went away unharmed." “Remarkably enough,” notes Baarda, “Augustin in his refutation does not mention the fact that Faustus used an argument for which [there] was no support in the canonical Gospels. We cannot, therefore, exclude the possibility that Augustin knew this very tradition from his Manichaean past.” On the basis of about twenty texts—all of which are related to the Diatessaronic tradition—Baarda reconstructs the Diatessaron's reading as follows:

Luke 4.29: ... they stood up and they led Him out [from] the town and brought Him by the side of the hill [on which their town was built,] in order to cast Him down [When?] they cast Him down from the height into the depth [and?]he did not falland was not hurt/harmed... through their midst He passed [and?] He flew [in the air?] and He descended [from above] to Kapharnaum”; Tjitze Baarda, “'The Flying Jesus]

[Secret Alias]

The original text being commented on here is the Diatessaron gospel not Luke

He entered the synagogue as was his custom, on the Sabbath day ... and had begun to teach ... he entered Bethsaida among the Jews. It does not indicate that they said anything to him other than, Physician, heal yourself. ... they stood up and they led Him out [from] the town and brought Him by the side of the hill [on which their town was built,] in order to cast Him down [When?] they cast Him down from the height into the depth [and?]he did not falland was not hurt/harmed... through their midst He passed [and?] He flew [in the air?] and He descended [from above] to Kapharnaum”; Tjitze Baarda, “'The Flying Jesus."

1. Against Marcion 4.7.1 Luke 3.1 T doesn't mention M erasing the material before Luke 3.1 - which is odd because you'd figure erasing material is bad.
2. Against Marcion 4.7.2 T references a non-Lukan passage which says Jesus appeared (ἐφάνη) somewhere. T doesn't say M forged the reference but rather acknowledges the word appears in the gospel and denies M's interpretation of what it means i.e. that Jesus was a phantom.
3. Against Marcion 4.7.3 T argues against the Marcionite gospel understanding of a heavenly descent and references Mt 4:14 - 15 as if it was in the gospel. Not a reference to erasure but to a gospel which contains portions of Matthew.
4. Against Marcion 4.7.4 T accuses M of erasing Mt 5:17.
5. Against Marcion 4.7.5 T says "[s]ee how he enters into the synagogue." Luke mention Jesus entering the synagogue. T is following Mark 1.21 "They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law." The whole section is rooted in Mark but transitions to Luke.
6. Against Marcion 4.7.5 T speaks of "from heaven straight to the synagogue. As the adage runs: 'The business on which we are come, do at once.'" which represents a criticism of M's gospel repeated throughout Book 3 and 4.
7. Against Marcion 4.7.6 T accuses M of erasing Mt 15:24, 26
8. Against Marcion 4.7.7 T references alludes to M erasing material from before Luke 3:1 - in this case the census (Luke 2:1 - 5)
9 Against Marcion 4.7.7 T references one synagogue narrative which seems to blend together Luke 4.14 - 30 (Nazareth) and Luke 4.31 - 37 (Capernaum). Ephrem's Diatessaron also arguably has the same blending.
10. Against Marcion 4.7.7 T references the Capernaum synagogue narrative - " 'But they were all astonished at his doctrine.' Quite so. Because, it says, his word was with power, not because his teaching was directed against the law and the prophets."
11. Against Marcion 4.7.8 T references his own gospel - not the Marcionite gospel - when he cites "on the same occasion the spirit of the demon cries out, What have we to do with thee, Jesus? Thou art come to destroy us. I know who thou art, the Holy One of God. Here I shall not discuss whether even this appellation was at all appropriate to one who had no right even to the name of Christ unless he belonged to the Creator." It's his own gospel because of (17 below)
12. Against Marcion 4.7.9, 10 "Here I shall not discuss whether even this appellation was at all appropriate to one who had no right even to the name of Christ unless he belonged to the Creator. I have fully discussed his titles in another place. At present I require to know how the demon knew that he had this name." It is important to note that this discussion appears in Book Three III. 12; Christ, III. 15; Jesus, III. 16. Book Three begins being rooted in the same synagogue scene we are dealing with in Book Four. "Proper order required that father should tell of son's existence before son told of father's, and father bear witness to son before son bore witness to father ... There was no need, you say, for such an ordering of events, seeing that he would immediately by the evidence of miracles prove himself in actual fact both son and emissary, and the Christ of God." (III:2, 3)
13. Against Marcion 4.7.11 "For he began by asking, What have we to do with thee, Jesus? not as though addressing a stranger, but as one whose concern the Creator's spirits are. For his words were not, What hast thou to do with us?, but, What have we to do with thee?, in sorrow for himself and in regret at his own case: and as he now sees what this is he adds, Thou art come to destroy us."
14. Against Marcion 4.7.13 T says "[w]ith what purpose have I begun with this episode? To show you that Jesus was acknowledged by the demon, and affirmed by himself, to belong to none other than the Creator." Clearly implies that T is quoting from his own gospel because this is clearly not the beginning of Luke.
15. Against Marcion 4.7.13 T says "But still, you object, Jesus rebuked him." Luke 4.35
16. Against Marcion 4.7.15 T says "the Holy One of God" Luke 4.34. He back tracks as part of his effort to contextualize the rebuking
17. Against Marcion 4.8.1 T says "According to the prophecy, the Creator's Christ was to be called a Nazarene." Luke 4.34 ibid. But remember he earlier cited the material with no reference to 'Nazarene.' The reference is 'ghettoized' at the beginning of a new chapter perhaps by a later editor.
18. Against Marcion 4.8.2 T in the course of discussing "Nazarene" makes reference to the infancy narratives "But to Christ the appellation of Nazarene was to apply because of his hiding-place in infancy, for which he went down to Nazareth, to escape from Archelaus, the son of Herod."
19. Against Marcion 4.8.3 T references Luke 4:23 and explicitly confirms that the proverb was referenced at Nazareth. But the context is clearly the Diatessaron gospel of Ephrem where there only one synagogue narrative - "even at Nazareth there is no indication that his preaching was of anything new, though for all that, by reason of one single proverb, we are told that he was cast out."
20. Against Marcion 4.8.5 T makes clear that the Marcionites shared a gospel with Ephrem where Jesus demonstrates his shape-changing ability "Here, as I for the first time observe that hands were laid upon him, I am called upon to say something definite about his corporal substance; that he who admitted of contact, contact even full of violence, in being seized and captured and dragged even to the brow of the hill, cannot be thought of as a phantasm. It is true that he slipped away through the midst of them, but this was when he had experienced their violence, and had afterwards been let go: for, as often happens, the crowd gave way, or was even broken up: there is no question of its being deceived by invisibility, for this, if it had been such, would never have submitted to contact at all."
21. Against Marcion 4.38.1 "well aware that men were going to fall headlong, he himself put them on the edge of a precipice
22. Against Marcion 4.8.4 Tertullian contrasts the passing through the crowd on top of the mountain with laying of hands at the bottom "In fine, he
did himself before long touch others, and by laying his hands upon them—hands evidently meant to be felt—conveyed the benefits of healing, benefits no less true, no less free from pretence, than the hands by which they were conveyed."
23. Against Marcion 4.8.5 T references Luke 4.40, 41 "Moreover even to deliver from demons is a healing of sickness. And so the wicked spirits, as if following the precedent of the previous instance, bore witness to him as they went out, by crying aloud, Thou art the Son of God. Which God, let it even here be evident. 'But they were rebuked, and ordered to be silent.' Quite so" T passes over 4.38, 39 as well as 4.41 b "they knew he was the Christ."
24. Against Marcion 4.8.9 T references Luke 4.42 "He goes forth into a desert place."
25. Against Marcion 4.8.10 T references Luke 4.43 "When the multitudes detained him he said, I must proclaim the kingdom of God to other cities
also."

Baarda Flying Jesus concluding words:

A second consideration is that Tatian may have been acquainted with the recension of the Lukan text produced by Marcion.' From several sources we know we know that Marcion omitted the first two chapters of Luke and some of the material of Lk 3-4. In his edition of Luke's Gospel he had arranged the material in such a way that the wording of its begin- ning was thus, 'In the fifteenth year of (the government of) Caesar. Tiberius...(Lk 3:1). If Tatian had knowledge of Marcion's Gospel and used it besides the ordinary text of Luke, this opening text may have influenced his wording of Lk 4:30f. Once having accepted the reading 'He flew', he could easily combine it with Marcion's reading that Jesus descended 'from above' (? 5.3.6) to Kapharnaum. if that were so it is clear that we have to adopt these wods 'from above' as part of Tatian's text. p. 336

Of course the idea that the flying Jesus gospel was the original and our 'historical' gospel is never even considered to be true. Without that possibility though, Marcion can't get a fair shake.