Thank You Stephen Goranson

[Secret Alias]

I think hanging around this forum (and getting up all this week at 3 - 4 am in the morning) has helped me crystalize a paper I was working on. I had written a paper on the use of a gospel in Tertullian's Against Marcion Book Four, the one taken by scholars to be "the gospel of Marcion." The idea that came to me this morning was sort of like, what is the fake gospel? Or, what is more fake, what is more certain to be fake, I guess is the right way to put it - the Secret Gospel of Mark or Tertullian's alleged use of the actual Gospel of Marcion. I think it's the latter. Let's suppose that Morton Smith could conceivably have done all the things Goranson crusades on behalf of him doing. Fine. But at least the text says the author has access to the "secret gospel of Mark." I am not at all convinced that Tertullian is actually saying that he has a Marcionite gospel in front of him. He is saying, like Irenaeus before him, that Luke is the gospel of Marcion and that's what he's using to develop his commentary throughout chapters 7 to 43. In other words, no Marcionite gospel. But scholars have always acted "as if" there is a Marcionite gospel lurking in these pages and develop endless nonsense in favor of this claim. Even though the author never says "I have an actual Marcionite gospel" and "I have an actual Marcionite collection of Paul's letters."

What's the moral of the story? Productivity is the Achilles heel of scholarship. It reminds me of some cultures attitude towards sex. It's not that they need to be particularly attracted to the person in question. It can be a male or a female person in the end. They just want to be productive. Sort of an amoral attitude toward fecundity. Fecundity for its own sake. The making of books without end. That's scholarship.

[GakuseiDon]

In Book 5, Tertullian writes:

Fie on Marcion's sponge! But indeed it is superfluous to dwell on what he has erased, when he may be more effectually confuted from that which he has retained.

This is in regards to Marcion's collection of the letters of Paul. That Tertullian claims to know what Marcion erased and retained suggests he has a copy of those letters. I don't see why he shouldn't have had a copy of Marcion's Gospel. Is there anything in Tertullian that suggests he didn't?

From what I've seen, Marcion's Gospel is pretty much orthodox. Remove the line about descending into Capernaum (and perhaps not even that), what is left that is of concern to the proto-orthodox? Read the reconstructions for yourself -- the lack of Old Testament references aside, what Second Century proto-orthodox Christian would have a problem with its content?

I may be missing something, but the Jesus in Marcion's Gospel is just a guy interacting with other guys. He's not described in docetic terms at all, at least while alive. He walks around with his disciples, eats with them, has a chat with people, gets crucified, then comes back. People have visions of Jesus, and some are concerned in Marcion's Gospel because they think the returned Jesus might be a phantom! Quite ironic, if the reconstruction is true.

My question is: what is there in Marcion's Gospel that Tertullian needs to address?

[GakuseiDon]

One thing to note about the Gospels:

Take out the prologue from gJohn, and Jesus is just a guy walking around with a mother and brethren.

Take out the first bit of gLuke, and Jesus is just a guy walking around with a mother and brethren.

Take out the first bit of gMatthew, and Jesus is just a guy walking around with a mother and brethren.

In gMark, Jesus is just a guy walking around with a mother and brethren.

Take out the first bit of Marcion, and Jesus is just a guy walking around with (apparently) a mother and brethren.

[mlinssen]

My question is: what is there in Marcion's Gospel that Tertullian needs to address?

The blatantly obvious and evident entire and utter lack of any and all Judaisation, and resurrection - and the only purpose and goal of the FF is to only pretend to refute "Marcion", namely the gospel of Chrestianity, so that they can attest that those two items, invented and cooked up by Christianity for the very first time ever, are in there

It is all a lie, a hoax, pretend. But one can read between their lines and catch them, as Klinghardt has done - but there's much more to be done

[GakuseiDon]

My question is: what is there in Marcion's Gospel that Tertullian needs to address?

The blatantly obvious and evident entire and utter lack of any and all Judaisation

Tertullian does criticise Marcion's Gospel in that it has the blind man calling Jesus "the son of David". If Jesus is not the son of the Demiurge (he argues) how can that be?

But the lack of Old Testament references doesn't make it inconsistent with orthodoxy. Read any construction that you like, there is no difference in the Jesus being portrayed in words and deeds other than the intro section. That Jesus would be at home in any of the canonical Gospels.

, and resurrection

The crucifixion, body buried in tomb, resurrection, appearing to people who thought that he was a phantom rather than a real man -- that's all there. No difference to the canonical Gospels from an orthodoxy perspective AFAICS.

Perhaps that's a suggestion that those things aren't based off the Old Testament? If Marcion's Gospel is primary, it's an argument that the basic story of Jesus wasn't created from the Old Testament.

- and the only purpose and goal of the FF is to only pretend to refute "Marcion", namely the gospel of Chrestianity, so that they can attest that those two items, invented and cooked up by Christianity for the very first time ever, are in there

It is all a lie, a hoax, pretend. But one can read between their lines and catch them, as Klinghardt has done - but there's much more to be done

Calling one side in a debate liars and hoaxers certainly simplifies the process of analysis! I don't think Tertullian is lying about Marcion. Fudging things, yes. Outright creation of a position, no. What is missing is Marcion's side of the argument. He may well have had good reasons for Jesus being called "Son of David" that was consistent with his docetic views. In fact, I'm sure Marcion would have done so.

[mlinssen]

My question is: what is there in Marcion's Gospel that Tertullian needs to address?

The blatantly obvious and evident entire and utter lack of any and all Judaisation

Tertullian does criticise Marcion's Gospel in that it has the blind man calling Jesus "the son of David". If Jesus is not the son of the Demiurge (he argues) how can that be?

But the lack of Old Testament references doesn't make it inconsistent with orthodoxy. Read any construction that you like, there is no difference in the Jesus being portrayed in words and deeds other than the intro section. That Jesus would be at home in any of the canonical Gospels.

, and resurrection

The crucifixion, body buried in tomb, resurrection, appearing to people who thought that he was a phantom rather than a real man -- that's all there. No difference to the canonical Gospels from an orthodoxy perspective AFAICS.

Perhaps that's a suggestion that those things aren't based off the Old Testament? If Marcion's Gospel is primary, it's an argument that the basic story of Jesus wasn't created from the Old Testament.

- and the only purpose and goal of the FF is to only pretend to refute "Marcion", namely the gospel of Chrestianity, so that they can attest that those two items, invented and cooked up by Christianity for the very first time ever, are in there

It is all a lie, a hoax, pretend. But one can read between their lines and catch them, as Klinghardt has done - but there's much more to be done

Calling one side in a debate liars and hoaxers certainly simplifies the process of analysis! I don't think Tertullian is lying about Marcion. Fudging things, yes. Outright creation of a position, no. What is missing is Marcion's side of the argument. He may well have had good reasons for Jesus being called "Son of David" that was consistent with his docetic views. In fact, I'm sure Marcion would have done so.

The other side got annihilated, remember? There's nothing left of them

You don't understand what's in front of you: centuries of refutations against Marcion, as if one series of books weren't enough.
Which is correct, of course. Christianity needed to keep repeating the lies about *Ev being Judaic, having a resurrection, and so on. Who do you think their audience and readers were, Chrestians?
Their very own sheeple of course. Hey and they still attract them apparently!

[Giuseppe]

The discussion about who comes before, in absolute terms, between Chrestianity and Christianity, seems stupid to me.

• Chrestianity could come first, but the Earliest Gospel could be judaic.

• Christianity could come first, but the Earliest Gospel could be fabricated by Marcion.

Imagine what would happen if only the Book of Mormon will survive to the next destruction of the world. Scholars will talk about Joseph Smith as the real founder of Christianity. Where is the fun?


I would like only to read next Vinzent's commentary on the Evangelion, in order to secure if really a proto-Luke could have been written by an anti-demiurgist.

If it is a possibility, even only as possibility, then it is as much probable as any other.