But here is the point. If Marcion's gospel has Jesus "descend" immediately below and then "fly up" after "passing through" the crowd the question of Jesus's supernatural nature would have been settled. Notice that Tertullian only deals with the "descent" (by comparing it Romulus) and the "passing through" BUT NOT the second "flying" after the crowd attempts to push him over the precipice and then plunges into chasm.
Why does Tertullian do this? Well let's deal with simple topography. He says Jesus "descended" to Capernaum and then heals the demon in the synagogue and then this:
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,b 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.c 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. 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.d 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.
Now this is the paradox. In Luke of course the order is (a) Nazareth and then (b) Capernaum because of the last incident it would appear that the ordering is reversed. But it has to be noted that the bit about the "Nazarene" which starts chapter 8 is only tenuously associated with Nazareth. It fits much better as a carry over of the Capernaum synagogue narrative where "What do You have to do with us, Jesus—Nazarene?" is referenced but never discussed in chapter 7. I will argue, as I always argue, that Against Marcion wasn't just a commentary on the Marcionite gospel as Luke but actually the arguments from this treatise went into the development of Luke. Namely that the name "Nazarene" had to be explained. So what we see in what follows is an attempt to make "Nazarene" mean "of Nazareth" so the arguments from Matthew:
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.c 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.
Remember at the beginning of Against Marcion we are told that the text has been rewritten THREE TIMES. So in the third rewrite - our present text - we have Irenaeus/Tertullian arguing from Luke or at least a proto-Luke that not only does "Nazarene" mean "of Nazareth" but that the narrative continues from Capernaum to Nazareth and that it is "just convenient" now that the proverb PROVING THAT JESUS WAS FROM NAZARETH FOLLOWS:
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.
Are the "Marcionists" really claiming here that because Tertullian "cites" the material which have (a) Jesus born in Nazareth and (b) he and his parents "well known" to the people there that BY THIS METHODOLOGY ALL OF WHAT IS CITED IS IN THE MARCIONITE GOSPEL? This is fucking stupid. It is obvious, as I have shown, that the discussion of "Nazareth" popped up because of "Nazarene" in the previous narrative. But let's also note that it serves the purpose of making it ludicrous to suppose that Jesus was a supernatural being because everyone "knows him" Nazareth. That was Irenaeus's masterstroke. Jesus is "of Nazareth" because of the "Nazarene" reference in the synagogue but by placing the passing through and flying narrative in Nazareth the town where everyone knows him JESUS CAN'T BE A SUPERNATURAL BEING. Here is what immediately follows again:
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.
And the material from Luke which I say was developed from Against Marcion's transformation of "Nazareth" from "Nazarene":
22 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.
23 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.’”
24 “Truly I tell you,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown. 25 I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. 26 Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. 27 And there were many in Israel with leprosy[g] in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”
28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. 30 But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.
