Stuart wrote: ↑
Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:49 am
How do you account for the vocabulary differences between the attested text of the Marcionite versions by Tertullian, Epiphanius and Adamantius and that of the Catholic text, especially the so-called Lukan special words, which are missing in those attested texts?
Is it just an amazing coincidence?
Please, again, I do not consider the supposed Tertullian's Against Marcion" to be credible. The writing itself claims there are multiple versions in circulation and some full of mistakes. Which version is circulation??
Now, look at Tertullian's Against Marcion book 4.
Tertullian's "Against Marcion"4.2
Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert the very body.
And here I might now make a stand, and contend that a work ought not to be recognised, which holds not its head erect, which exhibits no consistency, which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just profession of its author.
But we prefer to join issue on every point; nor shall we leave unnoticed what may fairly be understood to be on our side. Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process.
Luke, however, was not an apostle, but only an apostolic man; not a master, but a disciple, and so inferior to a master — at least as far subsequent to him as the apostle whom he followed (and that, no doubt, was Paul ) was subsequent to the others..
Tertullian claimed a writing should not be recognised if it has no author ascribed but immediately invents or presents bogus information of a character called Luke as an author of a Gospel.
Since the claims about the authorship of NT books and date of authorship in Tertullian's "Against Marcion" are bogus I cannot accept the present Tertullian's "Against Marcion" as a credible representaion of Marcion's teaching.
In addition, even Christian writers supposedly living after Tertullian appear to have no knowledge at all of his 5 books " Against Marcion" even though they seem to be aware of other writings.
Based on my research, the main purpose of Tertullian's "Against Marcion" was to put out the propaganda that gLuke and the so-called Pauline Epistles were already composed and known by Marcion when in fact they were not.
Origen's "Against Celsus" confirms that gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the so-called Pauline Epistles were not yet written up to the time of Celsus' "True Discourse".