Markan Marcion: A Contrarian Synopsis

[Peter Kirby]

I'm kind of liking SA's idea that Tertullian was working from a lost work of Irenaeus. It seems like what Tertullian does could be explained as him using the work of Irenaeus and filling in gaps from the orthodox scriptures.

Then let's recap what each of us is saying. Here is SA:

There are three layers to Against Heresies [Against Marcion -PK] and the further (i.e. most original) layer compared Marcion's gospel to a gospel harmony (which is exactly what we see in Ephrem's Commentary) on a gospel harmony.

Justin didn't use the Pauline letters. The first substantial orthodox interest in Paul is shown by Irenaeus. Take a guess who is the earliest person associated with a Galatians-first Pauline canon? Answer: Irenaeus. He is so referenced by Anastasius of Sinai.

Irenaeus also says he will demonstrate Marcion's error in his Against Marcion (now lost) by arguing from the portions Luke he still retains. That's how Against Marcion looks to me.

As such I identify the three layers of Against Marcion mentioned at the beginning of Book One as:

Justin (edition 1)
Irenaeus (edition 2)
Tertullian (edition 3)

So there are several parts to these claims:

(1) Tertullian's Against Marcion was based on Irenaeus when it comes to Paul.
(2) Tertullian's Against Marcion was based on Irenaeus in some places when it compares to Luke.
(3) Tertullian's Against Marcion in its oldest layer is based on Justin when it compares to not-Luke (a gospel harmony).
(4) Tertullian's Against Marcion, in its reference to three editions, is talking about Justin and Irenaeus.

These are in descending order of probability or plausibility. I have no problem agreeing to (1) although I'm not sure if I can prove it. I'm just not sure about (2), especially because so many different people are known to have written against Marcion, but it is possible to explore. I disagree with (3) because I think the author regarded the not-Luke text as scripture, and I think Justin did not. (4) is just implausible. Given that I don't accept the idea that that Against Marcion refers to an earlier two editions by Justin and Irenaeus, I explain Tertullian's references to comparison to not-Luke by way of unmediated access to a different, non-Irenaeus source that compared the Gospel to not-Luke.

SA's idea is very specific and also implausible in its details. It's difficult to know who exactly wrote the lost works on which Tertullian now depends. While I have recognized and repeatedly referred to the idea that Tertullian was using an earlier Greek Against Marcion text when writing about the Gospel and comparing it to not-Luke (always a text in Matthew), I attach less importance to speculating about who wrote that text.

So consider two points that count against making these very specific claims. (1) Many people wrote against Marcion before Tertullian, and these texts are all lost, so it's almost impossible to pin down which text was being used, other than perhaps to eliminate a few suspects. (2) Tertullian wrote all three editions of his Latin Against Marcion, so Tertullian wasn't reworking a (different person's) second edition that had embedded references from a (third person's) first edition.

Look at all these different authors who wrote against Marcion before Tertullian:

Our friend Markus Vinzent acknowledges Irenaeus completed the work too:

No other teacher in the history of the Church until Martin Luther than Marcion received already during his lifetime and still after his death a comparable literary response.53 Here follows a list of these responses in the order of their appearance during the second century only:

– Justin Martyr (Rom), To Marcion (πρὸς Μαρκίωνα σύνταγμα) (before 151);54
– An unknown Asian Presbyter of Rome;.
– Dionysius of Corinth, Letter to Nicomedia (ca. 171);55
– Philippus of Gortyna (Crete), Against Marcion (κατὰ Μαρκίωνος λόγος) (ca. 171/2);56
– Theophilus of Antioch, Against Marcion (κατὰ Μαρκίωνος λόγος) (ca. 169–183);57
– Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Marcion (κατὰ Μαρκίωνος λόγος) (before 177);58
– Rhodo (Rom), To (or) On Marcion’s School (πρὸς τὴν Μαρκίωνος αἵρεσιν) (180–192);59
– Modestus, Against Marcion (κατὰ Μαρκίωνος λόγος);60
– Bardesanes of Syria, On Marcion’s dialogues (πρὸς τοὺς κατὰ Μαρκίωνα … διαλόγους σύγγραμμα);61
– Hippolytus of Rome, To Marcion (πρὸς Μαρκίωνα).62

As this impressive list shows, many of the theologians of the second century of standing engaged with Marcion.

---

⁵³ See Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (Oxford 1993: 22011), 216: “No other heretic evoked such vitriol or, interestingly enough, proved so instrumental for counter-developments within orthodoxy.”
⁵⁴ See Euseb., Hist. eccl. 4.18.9. Interestingly, and guided by his view of Justin’s position with regards to Marcion, in: ib. 4.11.8 he alters the title to κατὰ Μαρκίωνος σύγγραμμα.
⁵⁵ See ib., 4.23.4.
⁵⁶ See ib., 4.25.
⁵⁷ See ib., 4.24.
⁵⁸ See ib., 4.25; 5.8.9.
⁵⁹ Ib., 5.13.
⁶⁰ See ib., 4.25.
⁶¹ See ib., 4.30.1.
⁶² See ib., 4.22.1

https://www.academia.edu/31939279/Marci ... ristianity

Wow! Eusebius gives the game away

Re

54 See Euseb., Hist. eccl. 4.18.9. Interestingly, and guided by his view of Justin’s position with regards to Marcion, in: ib. 4.11.8 he alters the title to κατὰ Μαρκίωνος σύγγραμμα.

Euseb., Hist. eccl. 4.18.9:

And the discourses of the man were thought so worthy of study even by the ancients, that Irenæus quotes his words: for instance, in the fourth book of his work 'Against Heresies,' where he writes as follows: "And Justin well says in his work against Marcion, that he would not have believed the Lord himself if he had preached another God besides the Creator"; and again in the fifth book of the same work he [Irenaeus] says: "And Justin well said that before the coming of the Lord, Satan never dared to blaspheme God, because he did not yet know his condemnation."

and Euseb., Hist. eccl. 4.11.8-11:

8. But Justin was especially prominent in those days. In the guise of a philosopher he preached the divine word, and contended for the faith in his writings. He wrote also a work against Marcion, in which he states that the latter was alive at the time he wrote.

9. He speaks as follows: "And there is a certain Marcion of Pontus, who is even now still teaching his followers to think that there is some other God greater than the Creator. And by the aid of the demons he has persuaded many of every race of men to utter blasphemy, and to deny that the maker of this universe is the father of Christ, and to confess that some other, greater than he, was the creator. And all who followed them are, as we have said, called Christians, just as the name of philosophy is given to philosophers, although they may have no doctrines in common."

10. To this he adds: "And we have also written a work against all the heresies that have existed, which we will give you if you wish to read it."

11. But this same Justin contended most successfully against the Greeks, and addressed discourses containing an Apology for our faith to the Emperor Antoninus, called Pius, and to the Roman senate. For he lived at Rome. But who and whence he was he shows in his Apology in the following words [Chapter 12: the first sentence of Justin's 1st Apology.].

---

Re ⁵⁵ ib., 4.23.4:

And there is extant another epistle of his [Dionysius of Corinth] addressed to the Nicomedians, in which he attacks the heresy of Marcion, and stands fast by the canon of the truth. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm

---

Re ⁵⁶ ib., 4.25:

Philipa who, as we learn from the words of Dionysius,a was bishop of the parish of Gortyna, likewise wrote a most elaborate work against Marcion, as did also Irenæus and Modestus. The last named has exposed the error of the man more clearly than the rest to the view of all. There are a number of others also whose works are still presented by a great many of the brethren. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm

^a 4.23.5:

Writing also to the church that is in Gortyna, together with the other parishes in Crete, he commends their bishop Philip, because of the many acts of fortitude which are testified to as performed by the church under him, and he warns them to be on their guard against the aberrations of the heretics. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm

---

Re ⁵⁷ ib., 4.24:

2. And as the heretics, no less then than at other times, were like tares, destroying the pure harvest of apostolic teaching, the pastors of the churches everywhere hastened to restrain them as wild beasts from the fold of Christ, at one time by admonitions and exhortations to the brethren, at another time by contending more openly against them in oral discussions and refutations, and again by correcting their opinions with most accurate proofs in written works.

3. And that Theophilus also, with the others, contended against them, is manifest from a certain discourse of no common merit written by him against Marcion. This work too, with the others of which we have spoken, has been preserved to the present day.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm
.

---

Re ⁵⁸ ib., 4.25 [see just above]; 5.8.9:

5.8.9:

And he refers to Justin the Martyr, and to Ignatius, using testimonies also from their writings. Moreover, he promises to refute Marcion from his own writings, in a special work. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm

[hr[/hr]


Re ⁵⁹ Ib., 5.13.

1. At this time Rhodo, a native of Asia, who had been instructed, as he himself states, by Tatian, with whom we have already become acquainted, having written several books, published among the rest one against the heresy of Marcion. He says that this heresy was divided in his time into various opinions; and while describing those who occasioned the division, he refutes accurately the falsehoods devised by each of them.

2. But hear what he writes:

Therefore also they disagree among themselves, maintaining an inconsistent opinion. For Apelles, one of the herd, priding himself on his manner of life and his age, acknowledges one principle, but says that the prophecies are from an opposing spirit, being led to this view by the responses of a maiden by name Philumene, who was possessed by a demon.

3. But others, among whom are Potitus and Basilicus, hold to two principles, as does the mariner Marcion himself.

4. These following the wolf of Pontus, and, like him, unable to fathom the division of things, became reckless, and without giving any proof asserted two principles. Others, again, drifting into a worse error, consider that there are not only two, but three natures. Of these, Syneros is the leader and chief, as those who defend his teaching say.

5. The same author writes that he engaged in conversation with Apelles. He speaks as follows:

For the old man Apelles, when conversing with us, was refuted in many things which he spoke falsely; whence also he said that it was not at all necessary to examine one's doctrine, but that each one should continue to hold what he believed. For he asserted that those who trusted in the Crucified would be saved, if only they were found doing good works. But as we have said before, his opinion concerning God was the most obscure of all. For he spoke of one principle, as also our doctrine does.

6. Then, after stating fully his own opinion, he adds:

When I said to him, Tell me how you know this or how can you assert that there is one principle, he replied that the prophecies refuted themselves, because they have said nothing true; for they are inconsistent, and false, and self-contradictory. But how there is one principle he said that he did not know, but that he was thus persuaded.

7. As I then adjured him to speak the truth, he swore that he did so when he said that he did not know how there is one unbegotten God, but that he believed it. Thereupon I laughed and reproved him because, though calling himself a teacher, he knew not how to confirm what he taught.

8. In the same work, addressing Callistio, the same writer acknowledges that he had been instructed at Rome by Tatian. And he says that a book of Problems had been prepared by Tatian, in which he promised to explain the obscure and hidden parts of the divine Scriptures. Rhodo himself promises to give in a work of his own solutions of Tatian's problems. There is also extant a Commentary of his on the Hexæmeron.

9. But this Apelles wrote many things, in an impious manner, of the law of Moses, blaspheming the divine words in many of his works, being, as it seemed, very zealous for their refutation and overthrow.

So much concerning these.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm
.

And consider this as a better explanation of the different editions of Tertullian's Against Marcion:

Nothing I have previously written against Marcion is any longer my concern. I am embarking upon a new work to replace an old one. My first edition, too hurriedly produced, I afterwards withdrew, substituting a fuller treatment. This also, before enough copies had been made, was stolen from me by a brother, at that time a Christian but afterwards an apostate, who chanced to have copied out some extracts very incorrectly, and shewed them to a group of people. Hence the need for correction. The opportunity provided by this revision has moved me to make some additions. Thus this written work, a third succeeding a second, and instead of third from now on the first, needs to begin by reporting the demise of the work it supersedes, so that no one may be perplexed if in one place or another he comes across varying forms of it.

This tells us four things:

(1) the second edition was "a fuller treatment"
(2) someone made extracts from the second edition
(3) the third edition "made some additions"
(4) Tertullian expects that someone may come across various forms of it

None of this admits of any natural reading that does not have Tertullian as author of all three editions.

At the end of book one, we have this:

So much concerning Marcion's god. Our postulate that deity necessarily implies unity, as well as the limitations of Marcion's god's character, prove him entirely non-existent. The continuation of my treatise as a whole follows closely upon this fact. So then if anyone thinks I have accomplished too little, let him wait for what is kept in reserve until its proper time, as well as for my discussion of those scriptures which Marcion makes uses.

At the start of book two, we have this notice:

The fortunes of this work have been described in the preface to Book I. The opportunity of revision gives me this further advantage, that in the discussion of two gods, in opposition to Marcion, I am now able to assign to each of them a separate book with its distinctive heading: for so does the subject-matter naturally divide.

This refers to the preface, so it belongs to the third edition. As such, it was the third edition that divided Books I and II. So the conclusion to Book I also belongs to the third edition, meaning that the reference to delaying "discussion of those scriptures which Marcion makes uses" belongs to the third edition.

What other notices can we find of deferring discussion? In book 3, we have:

Certainly when he himself described himself as the Son of man, this was a claim to have been born. For the moment—so that I may defer all these matters until I come to assess the evidence of the gospel—

Since I have thought it well that Marcion's own gospel should be brought under discussion, I shall defer until then my treatment of various aspects of his teaching and miracles, as for the matter then in hand.

These references are to taking up a treatment of the gospel, which (unlike "those scriptures") doesn't also refer to Paul.

The conclusion of the second book says this:

To sum up: I shall by means of these antitheses recognize in Christ my own jealous God. He did in the beginning by his own right, by a hostility which was rational and therefore good, provide beforehand for the maturity and fuller ripeness of the things which were his. His antitheses are in conformity with his own world: for it is composed and regulated by elements contrary to each other, yet in perfect proportion. Therefore, most thoughtless Marcion, you ought rather to have shown that there is one god of light and another of darkness: after that you would have found it easier to persuade us that there is one god of kindness and another of severity. In any case, the antithesis, or opposition, will belong to that God in whose world it is to be found.

The references to summing up and the claim to have written the true antitheses suggest that this is an earlier conclusion.

The conclusion of the fourth book says this:

I have, I think, fulfilled my promise. I have set before you Jesus as the Christ of the prophets in his doctrines, his judgements, his affections, his feelings, his miracles, his sufferings, as also in his resurrection, none other than the Christ of the Creator. And so again, when sending forth his apostles to preach to all the nations, he fulfilled the psalm by his instruction that their sound must go out into all the world and their words unto the ends of the earth. I am sorry for you, Marcion: your labour has been in vain. Even in your gospel Christ Jesus is mine.

There's some finality in the rhetoric suggesting it could have been an earlier conclusion to the work.

The conclusion of the fifth book says this:

Take note, examiner, that the matters discussed in the previous part of this treatise I have now proved from the apostle's writings, and have completed such parts as were reserved for the present work. So then you are not to think superfluous the repetition by which I have confirmed my original intention, nor are you to doubt the legitimacy of the delay from which I have at length rescued these subjects. If your examination covers the whole work, you will censure neither superfluity in the present nor lack of conviction in the past.

The references to "now," "the present work," "the present," and "the past" marks out the fifth book on the apostle as an addition.

So I'm now led to this hypothesis:

First Edition: in one book, presents the material that would become books I and II
Second Edition: added books III and IV (where III refers in anticipation to IV), other edits
Third Edition: added prologue, split books I and II, added ending to I and intro to II, added book V, other edits

This would also help explain the fact that book IV retains so many muddled indications comparing Marcion's Gospel to Matthew, given that Irenaeus regarded Marcion's Gospel as a version of Luke. The explanation is that, in book IV, Tertullian was relying on some other Against Marcion besides the one written by Irenaeus. When it came time to write Book V, only then would Tertullian have been familiar with the Against Marcion from Irenaeus, with its attempt to discuss the "scriptures" that Marcion uses, including Paul.

And consider this as indicating that Tertullian was working from at least one source that is neither Justin nor Irenaeus:

In favor of Justin: nothing really. Justin does not show clear knowledge of canonical Matthew. Justin does show knowledge and use of various texts, with none of the later concern for that which is apocryphal. Justin knows of narratives that disagree with Matthew, using them with no concern. Justin does not regard these texts as scripture, thus making it difficult to imagine him being overly concerned with their exact text. Justin instead focuses on the traditional scriptures. This method of proof is seen in the Dialogue and influences Tertullian's first revision of the Latin Against Marcion, which consists of two books, our 1 and 3. Justin's stamp is on book 3, although it has itself received revisions in Tertullian's second and third versions.

In favor of Theophilus of Antioch: everything. Theophilus quotes solely from Matthew as "the Gospel." Theophilus includes John among the "writings," as in the "prophets and the writings," in addition to the Law. Theophilus doesn't quote from Mark (which must have existed, if Markan priority over Matthew is true) or Luke. Theophilus wrote a well-regarded work in Greek "Against Marcion," as referenced by Eusebius. The location of Antioch is consistent with use of Matthew (thought to be written there), docetic ideas (Serapion his predecessor and the Gospel of Peter), and Marcionite thought (given the examples it in the Syrian east).

In favor of Irenaeus of Lyons: precious little. The hypothesis requires an earlier stage of thought for Irenaeus never witnessed in his writings. Irenaeus is of the opinion that Marcion used Luke (not Matthew). Irenaeus proposes a fourfold Gospel. Irenaeus quotes from Matthew most often but Luke second most and nearly as much. All the criticism that applies (mutatis mutandis) to condemn Luke as well as gMarcion would be daft from the view of a fourfold Gospel. Irenaeus himself seems busier with Valentinians.

So I am thinking that Theophilus would necessarily compare the Gospel of Marcion to Matthew, since he regards Matthew as "the Gospel" and wrote "Against Marcion." This much is evident. The other candidates are not evident, and from what is known of those authors, such an approach did not fit their authorial aims.

And this:

And this shows once more that Tertullian is not comparing canonical Luke with a copy of the Gospel used by Marcionites. Given that the comparison is inconsistent with Tertullian's stated aims but consistent with the aims of an earlier Greek Against Marcion that may have regarded Matthew (or possibly - it must be admitted - a text like a harmony that has the same wording as Matthew) as the yardstick for comparison with this Gospel, this is likely inherited from such a source like the ones we know Justin and Theophilus wrote.

This reference from Tertullian in Against Marcion, Book 4 to a gospel simply as scriptum is interesting. This reference is in the context of a claim most likely inherited from a source, specifically an earlier Greek Against Marcion, whether Justin or Theophilus. The equivalent Greek word is "scripture" or "writing" (γραφή), something we never find Justin using with reference to a gospel (as recently explored with reference to Cosgrove's 1982 article "Justin Martyr and the Emerging Christian Canon"). We do find this word repeatedly in Theophilus, especially in his book 3 of To Autolycus, where he set out to refute those "considering them to be recent and novel, the writings among us" (παρ' ἡμῖν γραφάς). In the previous book, Theophilus quoted from the prologue of John (attributing it to John), and, in this book, he quotes words from Matthew as "the Gospel" and "voice of the Gospel." Most significantly, he yokes together "the prophets and the gospels" as both inspired by the one Spirit of God as the law also is: "Moreover, concerning the righteousness which the law enjoined, confirmatory utterances are found both with the prophets and in the Gospels, because they all spoke inspired by one Spirit of God." We can conclude that Theophilus would have regarded both gospels of John and Matthew as "scripture" (γραφή), translated scriptum in Latin. This tends to indicate the likelihood that the Greek Against Marcion upon which Tertullian depended was the well-regarded one written by Theophilus of Antioch. This Greek Against Marcion from Theophilus was known both to Eusebius (Church History 4.24.3) and Jerome (Lives of Illustrious Men 25).

With reference to this article from Cosgrove, to the effect that Justin didn't regard the gospel(s) as scripture: viewtopic.php?p=155746#p155746

It is certainly true that:

It seems like what Tertullian does could be explained as him using [a lost work] and filling in gaps from the orthodox scriptures.

As I've shown at length in this thread. And possibly multiple lost works. At least one of them not being Irenaeus.

But that doesn't make SA's idea correct, if you understand everything he's saying.

[Secret Alias]

But with the essential thing:

1. Irenaeus argued by focusing on the parts of Luke that Marcion retained.
2. with this (entirely subjective) methodology he didn't need to have the Marcionite canon in front of him.
3. if Tertullian copied this text by Irenaeus and didn't emphasize sufficiently (1) (or set it within the usual orthodox "drowning" of ideas and information so that the original methodology was obscured) he could be mistaken to have had the Marcionite canon in front of him
4. if Epiphanius employed this text by Irenaeus and carelessly employed (1) he could used it to misrepresent (or lie about) having the Marcionite canon

Scholars in their interest to publish SOMETHING to further their careers could act as if Tertullian and Epiphanius were eyewitnesses to the Marcionite canon so that their agreements were based on something other than copying Irenaeus.

Eusebius implies there were better sources for Marcion than Irenaeus.

[Peter Kirby]

My next post is a long one that goes through Roth's "attestations" and reconsiders them from the view that Tertullian was working through Luke.

Anyone could do this for themselves with these sources online:

Here again is Roth's thesis (pg. 47): https://era.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1 ... sequence=1

And here is the Evans translation of book 4 of Against Marcion: https://www.tertullian.org/articles/eva ... k4_eng.htm

And here's the Latin, which has the full versification: https://www.tertullian.org/articles/eva ... 9book4.htm

But, yes, it is a slog.

[Secret Alias]

I am already starting another approach - how often does Epiphanius appear to agree with Tertullian. One thing I've noticed the majority of "variant readings" are Western. Also it should be noted. Tertullian RARELY identifies a variant Marcionite reading as a unique Marcionite reading. From memory after accusing Marcion of being this corrupted of Luke there are very few actual accusations of corruption. When a variant text is given its never clear where this is Marcion's reading or the author's.

[Peter Kirby]

Yes, I will also be referring to Klinghardt's apparatus: https://marcionbible.tu-dresden.de/marcionvariants.html

As well as David Salter Williams in "Reconsidering Marcion's Gospel," with its look at parallel readings.

This will be when I arrive next at Epiphanius.

[Secret Alias]

The number of Western readings is problematic for the "Marcionite gospel" hypothesis. Marcion couldn't have believed that Jesus was a phantasm based on an "ordinary" gospel text with a change here or there.

[Peter Kirby]

I said I had enough of working through Tertullian for now, but I wanted to share this one (pg. 359).

But next, that pronouncement of the Creator to the people, With the ear ye shall hear, and shall not hear [Isaiah 6:9], has frequently given Christ occasion to insist, He that hath ears, let him hear—not as though through opposition Christ was giving back the hearing which the Creator had taken away from them, but because rebuke had to be followed by exhortation. First, With the ear ye shall hear and shall not hear: afterwards, He that hath ears, let him hear. Those who had ears were themselves responsible for their not hearing: though he was showing them that ears of the heart are necessary, and it was with these that the Creator had said that they would not hear. And so through Christ he adds, Take heed how ye hear, and do not hear, because they heard with the ear and not with the heart. If you attach its proper meaning to this admonition, according to the mind of him who was exhorting them to hear, even when he said Take heed how ye hear, he was issuing a threat to those who were not prepared to hear. Look how your god is making a threat—so very kind that he neither judges nor is angry. My point is proved by the sentence next following: To him that hath, shall be given: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he thinketh he hath. [Ei qui habet dabitur, ab eo autem. qui non habet etiam quod habere se putat auferetur ei.]

What can be in mind? Luke 8:8 is the occasion on which Tertullian inserts these remarks.

Mark	Luke	Matthew
4.12 so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven." ... 4.23 "If any man has ears to hear, let him hear." 4.24 And he said to them, "Take heed what you hear; the measure you give will be the measure you get, and still more will be given you. 4.25 For to him who has will more be given; and from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away."	8.8 As he said this, he called out, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." 8.9 And when his disciples asked him what this parable meant, 8.10 he said, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but for others they are in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand." ... 8.18 "Take heed then how you hear; for to him who has will more be given, and from him who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away."	13.9 "He who has ears, let him hear." 13.10 Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" 13.11 And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 13.12 For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away." 13.13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

The form "thinks he has" (habere se putat) is Luke, not Mark or Matthew. Skipping over "he will have abundance" is closer to Mark or Luke. The wording "With the ear ye shall hear and shall not hear" is closer to Matthew ("hearing they do not hear") than it is to Luke or Mark.

The variant "Take heed how ye hear, and do not hear" is not in any of the three. It may be from the Gospel.

There is a sequence in the argument that Tertullian uses:

(1) First, "With the ear ye shall hear and shall not hear"
(2) Afterwards, "He that hath ears, let him hear"
(3) He adds, "Take heed how ye hear, and do not hear"
(4) Next following, "To him that hath, shall be given: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he thinketh he hath"

This sequence is Mark 4:12, Mark 4:23, Mark 4:24, Mark 4:25. One could argue that the first element in this sequence wasn't said to be in the Gospel, only in Isaiah, but the remaining three elements still show the connection. Only Mark has all three elements in quick succession. So we have some degree of confirmation for a literary relationship specifically with Mark.

Edited to add: we will encounter more certain confirmation of this when we arrive at Epiphanius.

[Peter Kirby]

So far I've been going through Against Marcion, Book 4 and looking for references to material that might come from sources, given that I consider that Tertullian has been working primarily from Luke. Now I'd like to go in the other direction: from the references that Roth considers to be attested in Luke, I will look at the parallel passage in Against Marcion, Book 4 and look to see whether it's attested in the Gospel, not just Luke. The main value of this exercise is completeness: I could easily have missed things in my first reading.

Here again is Roth's thesis (pg. 47): https://era.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1 ... sequence=1

And here is the Evans translation of book 4 of Against Marcion: https://www.tertullian.org/articles/eva ... k4_eng.htm

And here's the Latin, which has the full versification: https://www.tertullian.org/articles/eva ... 9book4.htm

The first column is verse number in Luke, the second in Tertullian, the third page number in Evans, the fourth my comment.

Luke	Tertullian	Evans	Comment
3:1	Marc. 4.7.1	275	Unique opening: "in the fifteenth year of the principate of Tiberius"
4:16	Marc. 4.8.2	285	Unclear. Episode attested but Nazareth uncertain
4:23	Marc. 4.8.2	285	Luke does inherit a reference to Capernaum here
4:27	Marc. 4.9.6, 4.35.6	291, 461	Antithesis: "Christ was in some sense different, as though he were in this respect superior," "the matter of number will be no indication of a difference of gods" (healing ten lepers)
4:29-30	Marc. 4.8.2-3	285	Marcionite argument: "It is true that he slipped away through the midst of them"
4:31	Marc. 4.7.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7	275, 277, 279	Unique opening: "came down into Capernaum, a city of Galilee"
4:32	Marc. 4.7.7, 8	279	Marcionite argument: "because his teaching was directed against the law and the prophets"
4:34	Marc. 4.7.9, 10, 12	281	Marcionite argument: "as though addressing a stranger"
4:35	Marc. 4.7.13	283	Marcionite argument: "you object, Jesus rebuked him"
4:40-41	Marc. 4.8.4-5	285	Marcionite argument: "But they were rebuked, and ordered to be silent. Quite so: ..."
4:42-43	Marc. 3.24, 4.8.9-10	253, 289	Unclear. Marcionite argument: "You however argue for another Christ, even from the fact that he tells of a new kingdom." (possibly)
5:2, 5:9-11	Marc. 4.9.1-2	289	Unclear
5:12-13	Marc. 4.9.2-3	289	Marcionite argument: "he argues with unusual insistence in the presence of one whom he calls a kind of suntalaipwron, 'companion in misery', and summisoumenon, 'companion in hatred', regarding the cleansing of the leper"
5.14b	Marc. 4.9.9-10, 4.35.8	291, 461	Unclear. Absent: "But why did he give no such order to the original leper?"
5:17-26	Marc. 4.10.1, 13, 14	297, 301	Unclear
5:27	Marc. 4.11.1	305	Marcionite argument: "The publican chosen by our Lord for a disciple is brought into the argument by Marcion with the suggestion that because he was outside the law and regarded by the Jews as unclean, he must have been chosen by one hostile to the law."
5:30-31	Marc. 4.11.1-2	305	Unclear
5:33-35	Marc. 4.11.5-6	305	Unclear: is this Tertullian or a source? "From what direction does John make his appearance? Christ unexpected: John also unexpected."
5:36-37	Marc. 4.11.9, 10	309	Marcionite argument: "You are in error also about that pronouncement of our Lord in which he is seen to make a distinction between new things and old." (twice the order is wine, garment)
6:1-4	Marc. 4.12.1, 5	311, 313	Marcionite argument: "this objection either ... it was through hatred that he made an attack on the Jews' most solemn day because <as Marcion alleges> he was not the Jews' Christ"
6:5	Marc. 4.12.11; 16.5	315	Marcionite argument: "He called himself Lord of the sabbath, because ... he did not, as its Lord, wholly destroy it"
6:6-7, 9	Marc. 4.12.9, 11, 14	317	Unclear
6:12-14	Marc. 4.13.1, 4, 6	319	Unclear
6:16	Marc. 2.28.2	165	Unclear
6:17	Marc. 4.13.7	321	Unclear
6:20-22	Marc. 4.14.1, 9, 11, 13, 14	323, 325, 327	Unclear
6:23	Marc. 4.15.1	329	Marcionite argument: "But, you say, he was not necessarily acting in defence of the prophets if it was his intention to insist on the iniquity of the Jews in not treating with kindness even their own prophets."
6:24-26	Marc. 4.15.3, 9, 13, 15	331	Marcionite argument: "There are others indeed who admit the word involves cursing, but will have it that Christ uttered the word Woe not as proceeding strictly from his own judgement, but because the word woe comes from the Creator, and he wished to set before them the Creator's severity, and so give greater commendation to his own tolerance previously in the beatitudes."
6:27-29	Marc. 4.16.1, 2, 6	337, 339	Antithesis: "Admittedly Christ teaches a new degree of forbearance, when he puts restraint on that retaliation for injury which the Creator permitted by demanding an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth [Mt 5:38]: for he on the contrary orders us rather to offer the other cheek [Mt 5:39], and in addition to the coat to let go of the cloak also [Mt 5:40]."
6:30a	Marc. 4.16.8	343	Antithesis: "argue that the Creator ordered gifts to be given to the brethren [Dt 33:16?], but that Christ said they must be given to all who ask, so that this is something new and different"
6:31	Marc. 4.16.13, 16	345	Unclear. Marcionites may think of it as a summary, as in Matthew 7:12: "And so Marcion's god, now that he has recently been revealed, if indeed revealed, has not been in a position, in respect of this precept which we are considering, to publish a summary so concise and obscure and even yet of hidden meaning..."
6:34a	Marc. 4.17.1	347	Unclear
6:35b	Marc. 4.17.5, 6	349	Matthean omission and Marcionite argument: "Well done, Marcion. Cleverly enough have you deprived him of rain and sunshine, [Mt 5:44] that he might not be taken for the Creator. Yet who is this kind one, who has never been heard of until now?"
6:36	Marc. 4.17.8	349	Unclear
6:37	Marc. 4.17.9	349	Unclear
6:38	Marc. 4.17.9	349	Unclear
6:39-40	Marc. 4.17.12	351	Marcionite argument: "more appropriate to interpret of these persons the things which Christ has made into an allegory referring to men, than to interpret them of two gods, as Marcion's offence puts it"
6:41-42	Marc. 4.17.12	351	Unclear
6:43	Marc. 4.17.12	351	Unclear
6:45	Marc. 4.17.12	351	Unclear
6:46	Marc. 4.17.13, 14	351	Unclear. Marcionite argument: "Shall it be one who had never been so called, because never until now revealed?" (possibly)
7:2	Marc. 4.18.1	353	Unclear
7:9	Marc. 4.18.1	353	Unclear. Marcionite argument: "But, <you object> why might he not have used for an illustration faith in a different god?" (possibly)
7:12, 14-16	Marc. 4.18.2	353	Unclear. Marcionite argument: "He also raised to life the widow's dead son. Not a novel piece of evidence." (possibly)
7:18	Marc. 4.18.4	355	Unclear
7:19	Marc. 4.18.5, 6, 7	355	Marcionite argument: "because he was hoping for, or thinking of, a different Christ"
7:20	Marc. 4.18.6	355	Unclear
7:22	Marc. 4.18.6	355	Marcionite argument: "But John is offended when he hears of Christ's miracles—because, <you suggest>, he belongs to the other <god>."
7:23	Marc. 4.18.8	355	Marcionite argument: "But John is offended..."
7:24, 26	Marc. 4.18.7, 8	357	Unclear
7:27	Marc. 4.18.4, 7, 8	357	Unclear
7:28	Marc. 4.18.8	357	Marcionite argument: "there is a kingdom of one of the gods in which every least person is greater than John, and a John of another god who is greater than all born of women"
7:37-38	Marc. 4.18.9	357	Unclear
7:47-48, 50	Marc. 4.18.9	357	Unclear
8:2-3	Marc. 4.19.1	359	Unclear
8:4	Marc. 4.19.2	359	Unclear
8:8	Marc. 4.19.2	359	Marcionite argument: "through opposition Christ was giving back the hearing which the Creator had taken away from them ... If you attach its proper meaning to this admonition [which you do not]" (Mark 4:23-25)
8:16-17	Marc. 4.19.5	359	Unclear
8:18	Marc. 4.19.3, 4	359	Marcionite argument: "through opposition Christ was giving back the hearing..." (Mark 4:23-25)
8:20	Marc. 4.19.7	361	Marcionite argument: "He himself, they say, affirms that he has not been born when he says, Who is my mother and who are my brethren?" (Mk 3:33 // Mt 12:48) and "our adversaries' usual answer is, What then if the message was brought with the purpose of tempting him?"
8:21	Marc. 4.19.6, 10, 11	361	Marcionite argument: "transferring those titles of relationship to others, whom he should judge more closely related to him by their faith ... from denial of those close relations"
8:22	Marc. 4.20.2, 3	365	Unclear
8:23-24	Marc. 4.20.3	365	Unclear
8:25	Marc. 4.20.1	365	Unclear. Marcionite argument: "Now who is this, that commands even the winds and the sea? Some new ruler, perhaps, and impropriator of the elements which have belonged to that Creator who is now subdued and dispossessed?" (possibly)
8:27	Marc. 4.20.4	367	Unclear
8:28	Marc. 4.20.5	367	Unclear. Marcionite argument: "But of which god did the legion testify that Jesus is the son?" (possibly)
8:30	Marc. 4.20.4	367	Unclear
8:31	Marc. 4.20.6	367	Unclear
8:32	Marc. 4.20.7	367	Unclear
8:43	Marc. 4.20.8		Marcionite argument: "But this too, <you object>, as an opponent of the law: because the law sets a barrier against contact with a woman with an issue of blood, for that very reason he was intent not merely to permit her touching of him but even to grant her healing. Here is a god, kind not by his own nature but through opposition to another."
8:44-46	Marc. 4.20.8, 13	367, 369	Marcionite argument: "But this too, <you object>, as an opponent of the law..."
8:48	Marc. 4.20.9	369	Unclear

Those are the first eight chapters of Luke. I will continue here another day.

[Secret Alias]

I would find it also useful to distinguish the times T says "oh my god, here's something corrupted by Marcion." I don't think there's many of them. Most involve Matthew.

Also. So there are a lot of "Western readings," allusions to Matthew, Mark etc. Sounds like a harmonized gospel.

Their approach is to assume every citation is a gospel citation from Marcion unless explicitly stated otherwise. This is preposterous. If you go back to Irenaeus in Against Heresies he will often cite the gospel and Paul against the Marcionites and it doesn't at all appear as if he is being careful to walk to the back of his library to find an alleged copy of the Marcionite gospel in his possession. He's citing his own gospel (often Matthew) and his own Paul against Marcion just like all the other Church Fathers. This idea that "laboratory conditions" were kept by the Church Fathers is farcical. But it has to be true to make their idiotic assumptions hold up. Sacrifice truth for a "projekt."

[Peter Kirby]

I continue to go through the references that Roth considers to be attested according to their verse in Luke, looking at the parallel passage in Against Marcion, Book 4 and trying to see whether it's attested in the Gospel, not just Luke. This is being considered in accordance with a general methodology that Tertullian is clearly talking about the Gospel only when there is some indication in favor of sources, whether Marcionite or some earlier anti-Marcionite text. This is because his own presentation is based on Luke, into which he transposed various arguments he found.

I've noticed that a side effect of this methodology is that this could also be taken as a set of fairly comprehensive notes on Marcionite interpretation of the Gospel as referenced by Tertullian.

Luke	Tertullian	Evans	Comment
9:2	Marc. 4.21.1	371	Unclear
9:3	Marc. 4.21.1	371	Matthean omission: "the labourer is worthy of his hire? [Mt 10:10] Let Marcion delete such matters"
9:5	Marc. 4.21.1	371	Unclear
9:7-8	Marc. 4.21.2	371	Unclear
9:12-14	Marc. 4.21.3	371	Unclear
9:17	Marc. 4.21.4	371	Unclear
9:20	Marc. 4.21.6	373	Marcionite argument: "Quite so, you say: because that supposition was incorrect, and he did not wish a lie to be spread abroad."
9:21	Marc. 4.21.6	373	Marcionite argument: "... and he did not wish a lie to be spread abroad."
9:22	Marc. 4.21.7	373	Unclear
9:24	Marc. 4.21.9, 10	375	Marcionite argument: "Where is that newness you speak of in a doctrine of which these are ancient instances?"
9:26a	Marc. 4.21.10, 12	375	Unclear
9:28	Marc. 4.22.1, 7	377	Unclear
9:29	Marc. 4.22.13	383	Unclear
9:30	Marc. 4.22.1, 2, 3, 12	383	Matthean/Markan omission: "Marcion has refused to have him shown conversing with the Lord"
9:31a	Marc. 4.22.12	383	Unclear
9:32-33	Marc. 4.22.4, 16	385	Marcionite argument: "How 'not knowing'? Was it by a mere mistake?"
9:34	Marc. 4.22.7, 13	383	Unclear
9:35	Marc. 4.22.1, 8, 10, 12	377	Marcionite argument: "This you suggest was the intended meaning of that voice from heaven, This is my beloved Son, hear him [Mk 9:7]—that is, not Moses and Elijah any longer."
9:41	Marc. 4.23.1, 2	385	Unclear
9:46-48	Marc. 4.23.4	387	Antithesis: "But see, <you say>, Christ loves the little ones, and teaches that all who ever wish to be the greater, need to be as they [Mt 18:4]; whereas the Creator sent bears against some boys, to avenge Elisha the prophet for mockery he had suffered from them. A fairly reckless antithesis..."
9:54-55	Marc. 4.23.7, 4.29.13	389, 431	Antithesis: "The Creator, at Elijah's demand, brings down a plague of fire upon that false prophet. I take note of a judge's sternness: and on the contrary of Christ's gentleness when reproving the disciples as they call for the same punishment upon that village of the Samaritans. Let the heretic also take note that this gentleness of Christ is promised by that same stern Judge..." and "It is your Christ who cries out, I am come to send fire on the earth. [Lk 12:49] It is your supremely good one, that lord who has no hell, he who shortly before had restrained his disciples from calling down fire upon an inhospitable village, whereas my <God> burned up Sodom and Gomorra with a cloud of fire..."
9:57-58	Marc. 4.23.9	389	Unclear
9:59	Marc. 4.23.10	389	Unclear
9:60	Marc. 4.23.10	389	Unclear
9:61-62	Marc. 4.23.11	389	Unclear
10:1	Marc. 4.24.1, 2	391	Unclear
10:4	Marc. 4.24.2, 3	391	Unclear
10:5	Marc. 4.24.4	391	Unclear
10:7-11	Marc. 4.24.5-7	393	Unclear
10:16	Marc. 4.24.8	395	Unclear
10:19	Marc. 4.24.9, 12	395	Unclear
10:21	Marc. 4.25.1, 3	397	Marcionite argument: "by Marcion's god they have been hidden and revealed ... it is Marcion's god who has laid open those things which formerly were kept hidden by the Creator ... you object, this was for his undoing, so as to bring them to light"
10:22	Marc. 4.25.7, 10	399, 401	Marcionite argument: "And thus it was an unknown god whom Christ preached ... objecting that the Creator was known to all men"
10:23-24	Marc. 4.25.12	403	Unclear
10:25	Marc. 4.25.15, 18	403, 405	Unclear (see Luke 18:18)
10:27	Marc. 4.25.15	403	Unclear
11:1	Marc. 4.26.1	405	Marcionite argument: "because, as you will have it, he thought a different god must needs be prayed to in different terms"
11:2	Marc. 4.26.3, 4	407	Unclear
11:3	Marc. 4.26.4	407	Unclear
11:4	Marc. 4.26.4	407	Unclear
11:5	Marc. 4.26.8	409	Unclear
11:7	Marc. 4.26.8	409	Unclear
11:8	Marc. 4.26.9	411	Unclear
11:9	Marc. 4.26.5, 6	409	Marcionite argument: "What is there I have lost on the ground of that other god, that of him I should seek it and find it? If you say wisdom and prudence ... If you say salvation, and life ..."
11:11-13	Marc. 4.26.10	411	Unclear
11:14-15	Marc. 4.26.11	411	Unclear
11:18-20	Marc. 4.26.11	411	Unclear
11:21-22	Marc. 4.26.12	413	Marcionite argument: "with his parable of the strong man armed, whom another stronger than he overcame ... indicating that ... the Creator had been suppressed by some other god"
11:27	Marc. 4.26.13	413	Unclear
11:28	Marc. 4.26.13	413	Unclear
11:29	Marc. 4.27.1	413	Unclear
11:33	Marc. 4.27.1	413	Unclear
11:37-40	Marc. 4.27.2, 6	413, 415	Marcionite argument: "he prefers mercy ... to a man's washing ... that other god ... commanded mercy"
11:41	Marc. 4.27.3, 6	415, 417	Marcionite argument: "they were under criticism ... as regards the God <they thought they served> ..."
11:42	Marc. 4.27.4, 6	415, 417	Marcionite argument: "passing over vocation and the love of God. Which God's vocation and love? ... an affection for a new god lately arrived"
11:43	Marc. 4.27.5	417	Unclear
11:46	Marc. 4.27.6	417	Marcionite argument: "he is ... criticizing the burdens of the law, as one who denounces it" and "But, you object, all this he brought up against them with intent to put the Creator in a bad light, as being stern, and such that upon those at fault against him the woe would come."
11:47	Marc. 4.27.8	417	Unclear
11:48	Marc. 4.27.8	417	Unclear
11:52	Marc. 4.27.9; 28.2	417, 419	Unclear
12:1	Marc. 4.28.1	419	Unclear
12:2-3	Marc. 4.28.2	419	Marcionite argument: "by this he indicates the revealing and making known of a god previously unknown and kept hidden"
12:4-5	Marc. 4.28.3, 4	421	Unclear
12:8	Marc. 4.28.4	421	Unclear
12:9	Marc. 4.28.4	421	Unclear
12:10	Marc. 4.28.6	421	Unclear
12:11-12	Marc. 4.28.8	423	Unclear. Marcionite argument: "your new doctrines of your new Christ" (possibly)
12:13-14	Marc. 4.28.9, 10	423	Antithesis: "Look again how evidently the example of Moses is the opposite of Christ's. When two brethren quarrel, Moses without being asked steps between them and rebukes him that does the wrong: Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow?, and is rejected by him: Who made thee a master or a judge over us? [Ex 2:14] But when Christ was asked by a certain man to compose the strife between himself and his brother over the division of the inheritance, he refused his assistance, even in so honest a cause. In that case my Moses is better than your Christ, for he is concerned about peace between brethren, and takes action against wrongdoing: whereas the Christ of your supremely good god, who is not a judge, asks, Who has set me as a judge over you?"
12:16	Marc. 4.28.11	425	Unclear
12:19-20	Marc. 4.28.11	425	Unclear
12:22-23	Marc. 4.29.1	425	Unclear
12:24	Marc. 4.21.1, 4.29.1	371, 425	Absent: "Who could have given this command, but he who feeds the ravens and clothes the flowers of the field ... Let Marcion delete such matters, so long as their meaning is preserved."
12:27-28	Marc. 4.21.1, 4.29.1, 3	371, 425	Absent: "... and clothes the flowers of the field ... Let Marcion delete such matters ..."
12:30	Marc. 4.29.3	425	Unclear
12:31	Marc. 4.29.5	427	Unclear
12:35-37	Marc. 4.29.6	427	Unclear
12:39	Marc. 4.29.7	429	Unclear
12:40	Marc. 4.29.7, 8	429	Unclear. Marcionite argument: "If however it is the Creator's Christ he refers to here under the name of Son of man, so as to suggest that he is that thief the time of whose coming we know not" (possibly)
12:41	Marc. 4.29.9	429	Unclear
12:42-45	Marc. 4.29.9	429	Unclear
12:46	Marc. 4.29.9, 10, 11	431	Marcionite argument: "he here affirms that he too is a judge—much as the heretic dislikes it. For they try to mitigate the meaning here, when it is proved to apply to Marcion's god, as though it were an act of peacefulness and gentleness merely to set him on one side and appoint his portion with the unbelievers, as one who has not been called to account but merely returned to his own position."
12:47-48	Marc. 4.29.11	431	Unclear
12:49a	Marc. 4.29.12, 13	431	Unclear. Marcionite argument: "if it is a figure of speech" (possibly). Source material shorter than Luke or out of order? "It is your Christ who cries out, I am come to send fire on the earth. [Lk 12:49] It is your supremely good one, that lord who has no hell, he who shortly before [Lk 9:54] had restrained his disciples from calling down fire upon an inhospitable village" (possibly)
12:51	Marc. 4.29.14	433	Matthean alteration: "Suppose ye that I am come to send peace on earth? I tell you, Nay: but division. The book says, A sword: but Marcion corrects it"
12:53	Marc. 4.29.14	433	Marcionite argument: "this battle between close relations ... of Marcion's Christ"
12:56	Marc. 4.29.15	433	Unclear
12:57	Marc. 4.29.15, 16	433	Unclear
12:58	Marc. 4.29.16	433	Unclear
12:59	Marc. 4.29.16	433	Marcionite argument: "that judge who sends men to prison, and does not bring them out until they have paid the last farthing, these people explain in the person of the Creator, for disparagement sake"

This is all pretty time-consuming to go through and really double check. I'll consider the rest in posts of four chapters at a time.