Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 2:07 am
... Marcion knew
ipso facto also the
Evangelion + the
Apostolikon + the
Antitheses.
How do you know that a Marcionite Evangelion and Apostolikon were distinct and separate texts from the Marcionite opus the
Antitheses?
BeDuhn makes this admission (highlighting mine) ----
Although few have questioned that Tertullian had direct access to the Evangelion and Apostolikon, we cannot be absolutely sure. A couple of features of his discussion invite caution. First, he frequently comments on Marcion’s interpretation and application of a particular verse, as if he is looking at Marcion’s Antitheses and drawing scriptural quotations from it, rather than directly from the Evangelion and Apostolikon. Second, Tertullian’s selective quotations from the Apostolikon possess a kind of running logic, as one quoted verse follows upon another in what has the appearance of a connected argument; yet that argument is not Tertullian’s. Rather, by selectively skipping over intervening material, a cogent Marcionite reading of Paul comes sharply into focus, which Tertullian does his best to disarticulate and refute. This impression is subjective, of course, and may be an illusion. But if Tertullian relied completely on the quotations of scripture in Marcion’s Antitheses, and did not have direct access to the Evangelion and Apostolikon , any comment he makes about passages missing from these texts would be suspect, the result of mere supposition on his part based on Marcion’s failure to quote them. (BeDuhn, The First New Testament, p. 35-36)
It is possible that the so-called Evangelion and Apostolikon, as reconstructed, are actually reconstructions of the respective portions of the
Antitheses in which the Marcionites cited passages from narrative "Gospel" sources and from Paul's letters, and that the passages in the
Antitheses were interspersed with running Marcionite commentary. Is that not possible?