Covering all topics of history and the interpretation of texts, posts here should conform to the norms of academic discussion: respectful and with a tight focus on the subject matter.
The treatise that Epiphanius incorporated begins as follows:
11,1 Whoever cares to understand the phony inventions of the deceiver
Marcion thoroughly and perceive the false contrivances of this victim (of
the devil), should not hesitate to read this compilation. (2) I hasten to present
the material from his own Gospel which is contradictory to his villainous
tampering, so that those who are willing to read the work may have this
as a training-ground in acuity, for the refutation of the strange doctrines
of his invention.
11,3 For the (Marcionite) canon of Luke is revelatory of < their form
of the Gospel >: mutilated as it is, without beginning, middle or end, it
looks like a cloak full of moth holes.
11,4 At the very beginning he excised everything Luke had originally
composed—his “inasmuch as many have taken in hand,” and so forth, and
the material about Elizabeth and the angel’s announcement to Mary the
Virgin; about John and Zacharias and the birth at Bethlehem; the genealogy
and the story of the baptism. (5). All this he cut out and turned his back
on, and made this the beginning of the Gospel, “In the fifteenth year of
Tiberius Caesar,” and so on.
11,6 He starts from there then and yet, again, does not go on in order.
He falsifies some things, as I said, he adds others helter-skelter, not going
straight on but disingenuously wandering all over the material. Thus:
Notice that Epiphanius previously wrote that he was "arranging the points in order, and numbering each saying one, two, three (and so on)."
Unlike Tertullian, Epiphanius is fully aware that the Gospel used by Marcionites is not in order.
Epiphanius describes it saying that it "does not go on in order," that it adds things "helter-skelter," and that it is "not going straight on but disingenuously wandering all over the material."
Epiphanius therefore needs to undertake "arranging the points in order" because the Marcionite gospel is not in order.
Altogether, the correct interpretation of Tertullian's method and the explicit statements of Epiphanius put the lie to the idea that the gospel used by Marcion was essentially in the order of Luke, with no more than some fifteen verses in disarray. The gospel used by Marcionites had a different order. So the reconstructions of the devotees of Against Marcion, book 4, are false.
Actually Tertullian makes reference to the lack of order in Marcion's gospel in Books 3 and 4. I think it's a carry over from Papias. Papias is the source of all Matthew was first claims even though strangely Papias never said that Matthew was first. The wonderfully unreliable world of the Church Fathers.
It's not what someone ACTUALLY SAID but what someone else THOUGHT he said, wanted him to say etc.
Andrew S. Jacobs, in "Epiphanius' Library," pages 133 to 152 in From Roman to early Christian Cyprus : studies in religion and archaeology
edited by Laura Nasrallah, AnneMarie Luijendijk, and Charalambos Bakirtzis.
Tübingen : Mohr Siebeck, [2020]
accepts that Epiphanius had the works of Marcion.
Papias (as I interpret him) Mark was first but Matthew was arranged according to the dominical logoi (which Carlson rightly identifies as the Old Testament prophecies)
Irenaeus (as Watson rightly interprets him) misrepresented Papias https://books.google.com/books?id=23NyC ... 9D&f=false
Tertullian (as I interpret him) copied out Irenaeus's Against Marcion
Epiphanius (as I interpret him) had Irenaeus's Against Marcion as a source when dictating to his secretary about the Marcionite gospel (the bit about having Marcion's gospel in front of him and that section likely comes from Irenaeus).
The reason Tertullian and Epiphanius make reference to Marcion's gospel not being well ordered or correctly order or suffering from a lack of order because of his cutting out Old Testament references is because of Irenaeus's falsification of Papias's original testimony.
Irenaeus not Monet was the original "impressionist."
Tertullian (Irenaeus's) first reference to Marcion's gospel lacking proper order (Book Three):
Now for my first line of attack. I suggest that he had no right
to come so unexpectedly. For two reasons. First because he too
was the son of his own god.1 Proper order required that father
should tell of son's existence before son told of father's, and father
bear witness to son before son bore witness to father. Secondly,
besides this matter of sonship, he was an emissary. The sender's
acknowledgement ought to have come first, in commendation
2. 1 Elsewhere, e.g. at I. 11. 8, it is implied that Marcion's superior god came
down in person as Christ.
III.3 ADVERSUS MARCIONEM 173
of the one who was sent. No one who comes by another's authority
lays claim to it for himself, on his own bare statement, but looks
for his credentials to the authority itself, headed by the style and
title of the person who grants the authority. Moreover none can
be recognized as a son unless a father has given him that name,
nor can any be accepted as messenger unless he has been nomi-
nated by some person whose commission he holds. The naming
and the nomination would certainly have been on record if there
had been a father, or one to grant a commission. Anything that
diverges from the rule is bound to be suspect: and the primary
rule of all is that which does not permit son to vouch for father,
or agent for principal, or Christ for god. As that from which
a thing originates came first in the ordaining of it, so it comes
first in men's knowledge of it. Here you have a son unexpected,
an agent unexpected, a Christ unexpected. But I suggest that
with God nothing is unexpected, because with God nothing
exists unordained. If then it was ordained beforehand, why was
it not also announced beforehand, so that the announcement
might prove it ordained, and the ordaining prove it divine? And
surely there is another reason why so great a work, one taken in
hand for man's salvation, could not have been unexpected—
that it was to become effective through faith. It had to be believed,
or remain ineffective. And so it required preparatory work in
order to be credible—preparatory work built upon foundations
of previous intention and prior announcement. Only by being
built up in this order could faith with good cause be imposed
upon man by God, and shown towards God by man—a faith
which, since there was knowledge, might be required to believe
because belief was a possibility, and in fact had learned to believe
by virtue of that previous announcement.
3. There was no need, you say, for such an ordering of events,
seeing that he would immediately by the evidence of miracles
prove himself in actual fact both son and emissary, and the Christ
of God.
Second reference to Marcion's gospel lacking proper ordering (Book Three)
And besides, even if other evidences were found in your
Christ, new ones I mean, we should find it easier to believe that
even the new ones belonged to the same <God> as did the old
ones, and not to a god who possesses none but new things, such
as have not been submitted to the test of that antiquity which
gives faith its victory. So his coming would need to have been
indicated by previous announcements of his own to build up
credibility for him, as well as by miracles, especially as he was
going to present himself as an opponent of the Creator's Christ,
himself furnished with his own particular signs and prophecies.
Only so could his rivalry of Christ be made clearly evident by all
possible forms of difference. Yet how could a god never previously
prophesied of, prophesy beforehand of any Christ of his? This
it is then that demands that no credence be given either to your
god or to your Christ: a god had no right to remain unknown,
and a Christ did require to obtain recognition by virtue of a
god's commendation.
4. Your god was too proud, I suppose, to copy our God's ordering
of events, since he disapproved of him and thought he would soon
be shown wrong. Himself a newcomer, he decided to come in
novel fashion, the son before the father's acknowledgement, the
emissary before his principal's warrant. In this way he would
become the inventor of a faith most unnatural, in which belief
in Christ's coming would precede any knowledge of his existence.
It occurs to me here to discuss this further question, why he did
not let (the Creator's) Christ come first.
Tertullian (Irenaeus's) third reference to Marcion's gospel lacking proper order (Book Three):
Yes, you say, it was the
Christ of the other god who was brought to the cross, by the
Creator's powers and principalities which were hostile to him.
I reply that he is shown as being avenged by the Creator, And
wicked men are given for his burying-place, those who affirmed that
it had been robbed, and rich men for his death,k those who had paid
money to Judas for his betrayal, and money to the soldiers for
false witness that the dead body had been stolen away. It follows
that, either these things did not happen to the Jews because of
him—but on this you are confuted by the agreement of the sense
of the scriptures with the course of events and the order of the
times—or, if they did happen because of him, it is impossible for
the Creator to have avenged any Christ but his own, since he
would by preference have rewarded Judas if it had been an
opponent of their Lord whom the Jews had put to death. Cer-
tainly, if the Creator's Christ has not yet come, the Christ on
whose account it is prophesied that they are to suffer these things,
it follows that when he does come they will suffer them. But
where by that time will there be a daughter of Sion to be made
desolate? Even today she is not. Where the cities to be burned
with fire? They are already in ruinous heaps. Where the disper-
sion of that nation? It is already in exile. Give back to Judaea its
polity, that the Creator's Christ may find it so: only so can you
claim that he who has come is a different Christ.
Tertullian (Irenaeus's) Fourth reference to Marcion's gospel not being well ordered:
Did not then due order de-
mand that it should first be explained how he came down from
his own heaven into the Creator's? For why should I not pass
censure on such matters as do not satisfy the claims of orderly
narrative, <but let it> always tail off in falsehood? So let us ask
once for all a question I have already discussed elsewhere,2
whether, while coming down through the Creator's territory and
in opposition to him, he could have expected the Creator to let
him in, and allow him to pass on from thence into the earth, which
no less is the Creator's. Next however, admitting that he came
down, I demand to know the rest of the order of that descent.
Another possible reference:
Atque adeo confiteor alium ordinem decucurrisse in veteri dispositione apud creatorem, alium in nova apud Christum.
Another possible reference:
You have there my short and sharp answer to the Antitheses. I pass on next to show how his gospel—certainly not Judaic but Pontic—is in places adulterated: and this shall form the basis of my order of approach. I lay it down to begin with that the documents of the gospel have the apostles for their authors, and that this task of promulgating the gospel was imposed upon them by our Lord himself.
Tertullian's (Irenaeus's) Fifth reference to Marcion's gospel lacking the proper order:
From what direction does John make his appearance?
Christ unexpected: John also unexpected. With Marcion all
things are like that: with the Creator they have their own com-
pact order. The rest about John later, since it is best to answer
each separate point as it arises. At present I shall make it my
purpose to show both that John is in accord with Christ and
Christ in accord with John, the Creator's Christ with the Creator's
prophet, that so the heretic may be put to shame at having to no
advantage made John's work of no advantage. For if John's work
had been utterly without effect when, as Isaiah says, he cried
aloud in the wilderness as preparer of the ways of the Lord by
the demanding and commending of repentance, and if he had
not along with the others baptized Christ himself, no one could
have challenged Christ's disciples for eating and drinking, or
referred them to the example of John's disciples who were assi-
dous in fasting and prayer: because if any opposition had stood
between Christ and John, and between the followers of each,
there could have been no demand for imitation, and the force
of the challenge would have been lost.
Tertullian's (Irenaeus's) Sixth reference to Marcion's gospel lacking the proper order of "Matthew/the orthodox gospel flavor of the month (Luke)"
You cannot deny that he brings to Sion and
Jerusalem good tidings of peace and of all good things, nor that
he goes up into the mountain and there spends all night in prayer,
and in effect is heard by his Father. Open then the prophets, and
you will find it all set in order there. Get thee up, says Isaiah, into
the high mountain, O thou that bringest good tidings to Sion, lift up thy
voice with strength, thou that bringest good tidings to Jerusalem.a Even
now with strength were they astonished at his doctrine: for he
taught them as one that had power.b And again: Therefore my
people shall know my name at that day—what name, unless it be
Christ's?—because it is I myself who speak:c because it was he him-
self who was then speaking in the prophets, the Word, the Son
of the Creator. I am here, while the time is, upon the mountains, as one
that bringeth good tidings of the hearing of peace, as bringing good tidings
of good things.d Also Nahum, one of the twelve, For behold, swift
upon the mountain are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings of peace:e
But concerning the voice of prayer all night to the Father, the
psalm manifestly speaks: O my God, I will cry throughout the day,
and thou wilt hear, and at night, and it shall not be to me for vanity.f And
in another place a psalm speaks of the same place and voice:
With my voice I cried unto the Lord, and he heard me from his holy moun-
tain.g So you have his name made present, you have the action
of one who brings good tidings, you have his place on the moun-
tain, and the time at night, and the sound of the voice, and the
Father hearing him: you have the Christ of the prophets. But
why did he choose twelve apostles, and not some other number?
Nay but even from this I could find that my Christ is indicated,
one foretold not only by the voices of the prophets but also by
the evidences of facts. I find figurative indications of this number
in the Creator's scriptures, the twelve springs at Elim, the twelve
jewels on Aaron's priestly garment, and the twelve stones chosen
by Joshua out of Jordan and laid up in the ark of the covenant.h
For this was a previous indication that apostles to that number
would like fountains and rivers irrigate the world of the gentiles
which had formerly been dried up and deserted of knowledge—
as he also says in Isaiah, I will place rivers in a waterless landi—and
would like jewels shed light upon the holy vesture of the church,
that vesture which Christ the Father's high priest has put on,
and would be firm in the faith like stones which the true Joshua
IV.14 ADVERSUS MARCIONEM 321
has chosen out of the baptism of Jordan and received into the
holy place of his own covenant. Has Marcion's Christ anything
that justifies his retention of that number? It cannot be thought
that a thing was done by him without special meaning, which
can be seen to have been done by my Christ with special mean-
ing. The fact itself must belong to the one with whom is found
the preparation for the fact. Also he changes Simon's name to
Peter, because the Creator too had altered the names of Abraham
and Sarah and Auses, calling this last one Joshua [Jesus], adding
syllables to the other two. Also why Peter? If because of force-
fulness of faith, there were many firm and solid materials to lend
a name of their own. Or was it because Christ is both rock and
stone? For we do indeed find it written that he is set for a stone
of stumbling and a rock of offence.j I leave out the rest. And so
he made a point of passing on to the dearest of his disciples a
name specially connected with the types of himself, a closer name,
I imagine, than one drawn from other types than his. There
come together from Tyre and Sidon, and from other countries, a
multitude even from over the sea. This the psalm had in mind:
And behold, the Philistines and Tyre and the people of the Morians, these
have been there: Mother Sion, a man will say, and he became man in her—
because God as man was born—and he hath builded her by the will
of the Fatherk—that you may know that the reason why the gentiles
then came together to him was that God as Man had been born
and was to build up the church by the Father's will, even from
among the Philistines. So also Isaiah, Lo, these do come from far,
and these come from the north and from the sea, and others from the land
of the Persians.l Of these he says again, Lift up thine eyes round about
and see, all these are gathered together.m And of the same a little later,
when she sees the unknown and the strangers: And thou shall say
to thine heart, Who hath begotten me these? and who hath brought me up
these? and these, tell me, where have they been?n Must not this be the
Christ of the prophets? So who can the Christ of the Marcionites
be? If perversity is to their mind, the Christ who was not of the
prophets.
Tertullian's (Irenaeus's) Seventh Hold Over from Papias's understanding of Marcion's gospel lacking proper order:
Lastly,
you could find, if you were to read what goes before, that the
times of the promise are in agreement: Be strong, ye weak hands and
ye feeble knees: . . . then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and the
ears of the deaf shall hearken: then shall the lame man leap as an hart,
and the tongue of the dumb shall be clear.j So when he had told of
benefits of healing, then it was that he put scorpions and serpents
under subjection to his saints: and this was he who had first
received from his Father this authority so as to grant it also to
others, and now made it manifest in the order the prophecy had
foretold.
Tertullian's (Irenaeus's) Eighth Hold Over from Papias's understanding of what was wrong with the order of the Marcionite gospel:
As however even to this moment you prove nothing of the
kind, take it from me that what he asked for was a form of prayer
to that Creator to whom also John's disciples addressed their
prayers. But seeing that John too had introduced a kind of new
order of prayer, for this reason Christ's disciple had good reason
to assume that he must make this request of him, so that they
too might in their own Master's own appointed way make their
prayer to God—not a different god, but in a different manner.
It is worth noting that Papias's interest in 'order' have a different sense in anti-Marcionite treatises - i.e. dispensation:
And indeed I do allow that one order did run its course in the old dispensation under the Creator,10 and that another is on its way in the new under Christ.
Atque adeo confiteor alium ordinem decucurrisse in veteri dispositione apud creatorem, alium in nova apud Christum.
and again:
You have now our answer to the Antitheses compendiously indicated by us. I pass on to give a proof of the Gospel38 ----not, to be sure, of Jewry, but of Pontus----having become meanwhile39 adulterated; and this shall indicate the order by which we proceed.
Habes nunc ad Antitheses expeditam a nobis responsionem. Transeo nunc ad evangelii, sane non Iudaici sed Pontici, interim adulterati demonstrationem, praestructuram ordinem quem aggredimur. [2.1]
The incorrect 'ordering' of Marcion's gospel is a sign of forgery:
In short, when Marcion laid hands on it, it then became diverse and hostile to the Gospels of the apostles. [7] I will therefore advise his followers, that they either change these Gospels, however late to do so, into a conformity with their own, whereby they may seem to be in agreement with the apostolic writings (for they are daily retouching their work, as daily they are convicted by us); or else that they blush for their master, who stands self-condemned134 either way----when once135 he hands on the truth of the gospel conscience smitten, or again136 subverts it by shameless tampering. Such are the summary arguments which we use, when we take up arms137 against heretics for the faith138 of the gospel, maintaining both that order of periods, which rules that a late date is the mark of forgers,139 and that authority of churches140 which lends support to the tradition of the apostles; because truth must needs precede the forgery, and proceed straight from those by whom it has been handed on.
Denique ubi manus illi Marcion intulit, tunc diversum et aemulum factum est apostolicis. [7] Igitur dabo consilium discipulis eius, ut aut et illa convertant, licet sero, ad formam sui, quo cum apostolicis convenire videantur (nam et cotidie reformant illud, prout a nobis cotidie revincuntur), aut erubescant de magistro utrobique traducto, cum evangelii veritatem nunc ex conscientia tramittit, nunc ex impudentia evertit. His fere compendiis utimur, cum de evangelii fide adversus haereticos expedimur, defendentibus et temporum ordinem posteritati falsariorum praescribentem, et auctoritatem ecclesiarum traditioni apostolorum patrocinantem, quia veritas falsum praecedat necesse est, et ab eis procedat a quibus tradita est. [5.6, 7]
The 'order' of his descent is problematic too. The synoptics of course have a dove come down but Marcion's gospel has Jesus himself descend:
In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius155 (for such is Marcion's proposition) he "came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum," of course meaning from the heaven of the Creator, to which he had previously descended from his own. What then had been his order for him to be described as first descending from his own heaven to the Creator's? For why should I abstain from censuring those parts of the statement which do not satisfy the requirement of an ordinary narrative, but always end in a falsehood? To be sure, our censure has been once for all expressed in the question, which we have already157 suggested: Whether, when descending through the Creator's domain, and indeed in hostility to him, he could possibly have been admitted by him, and by him been transmitted to the earth, which was equally his territory? [2] Now, however, I want also to know the remainder of his order down, assuming that he came down. For we must not be too nice in inquiring158 whether it is supposed that he was seen in any place. To come into view159 indicates160 a sudden unexpected glance, which for a moment fixed161 the eye upon the object that passed before the view, without staying. But when it happens that a descent has been effected, it is apparent, and comes under the notice of the eyes.162 Moreover, it takes account of fact, and thus obliges one to examine in what condition with what preparation,163 with how much violence or moderation, and further, at what time of the day or night, the descent was made; who, again, saw the descent, who reported it, who seriously avouched the fact, which certainly was not easy to be believed, even after the asseveration.
Ecquid2 ergo ordinis fuerat ut prius de suo caelo in creatoris descendens describeretur? Cur enim non et ista reprehendam quae non implent fidem ordinariae narrationis, deficientis in mendacio semper? Plane semel dicta sint per quae iam alibi retractavimus an descendens per creatorem, et quidem adversus ipsum, potuerit ab eo admitti et inde tramitti in terram aeque ipsius. [2] Nunc autem et reliquum ordinem descensionis expostulo, tenens descendisse illum. Viderit enim sicubi appamisse positum est. Apparere subitum ex inopinato sapit conspectum, qui semel impegerit oculos in id quod sine mora apparuit. Descendisse autem dum fit, videtur et subit3 oculos. De facto etiam ordinem facit, atque ita cogit exigere, quali habitu, quali suggestu, quonam impetu vel temperamento, etiam quo in tempore diei noctisve descenderit: praeterea quis viderit descendentem, quis retulerit, quis asseveraverit rem utique nec asseveranti facile credendam. [7.1,2]
Tertullian makes reference to the improper 'order' in the Marcionite gospel with respect to healing of the leper:
On the same principle occurs all the rest. So far as renouncing all human glory went, He forbade the man to publish abroad the cure; but so far as the honour of the law was concerned, He requested that the usual course should be followed: "Go, show thyself to the priest, and present the offering which Moses commanded."261 For the figurative signs of the law in its types He still would have observed, because of their prophetic import.
Secundum haec cetera quoque occurrunt. Quantum enim ad gloriae humanae aversionem pertinebat, vetuit eum divulgare, quantum autem ad tutelam legis, iussit ordinem impleri: Vade, ostende te sacerdoti, et offer mvmus quod praecepit Moyses ... [9.9]
The reference again to the improper 'order' in the Marcionite gospel with respect to John:
Unde autem et Ioannes venit in medium? Subito Christus, subito et Ioannes. Sic sunt omnia apud Marcionem, quae suum et plenum habent ordinem apud creatorem. Sed de Ioanne cetera alibi. Ad praesentes enim quosque articulos respondendum est. Nunc illud tuebor, ut demonstrem et Ioannem Christo et Christum Ioanni convenire, utique prophetae creatoris, qua Christum creatoris, atque ita erubescat haereticus, Ioannis ordinem frustra frustratus.
The author implores Marcion to learn 'the proper order of the prophets' which is missing from his gospel:
Certe evangelizat Sion et Hierusalem pacem et bona omnia, certe ascendit in montem et illic pernoctat in oratione et utique auditur a patre. Evolve igitur prophetas, et ordinem totum recognosce.
Surely to Sion He brings good tidings, and to Jerusalem peace and all blessings; He goes up into a mountain, and there spends a night in prayer,423 and He is indeed heard by the Father. Accordingly turn over the prophets, and learn therefrom His entire course.424 "Into the high mountain," says Isaiah, "get Thee up, who bringest good tidings to Sion; lift up Thy voice with strength, who bringest good tidings to Jerusalem." [13.1]
The allusion to the improper 'ordering' of Marcion's gospel appears almost always at the head of each section. So in the next chapter:
Venio nunc ad ordinarias sententias eius, per quas proprietatem doctrinae suae inducit, ad edictum, ut ita dixerim, Christi: Beati mendici (sic enim exigit interpretatio vocabuli quod in Graeco est), quoniam illorum est regnum dei.
I now come to those ordinary precepts of His, by means of which He adapts the peculiarity454 of His doctrine to what I may call His official proclamation as the Christ.455 "Blessed are the needy" (for no less than this is required for interpreting the word in the Greek,456 "because theirs is the kingdom of heaven."457 Now this very fact, that He begins with beatitudes, is characteristic of the Creator, who used no other voice than that of blessing either in the first fiat or the final dedication of the universe: for "my heart," says He, "hath indited a very good word." [14.1]
Later the author complains that the Marcionite emphasis of love of the stranger is out of proper order:
For what man will be able to bestow the love (which proceeds from knowledge of character,591 upon strangers? Since, however, the second step592 in charity is towards strangers, while the first is towards one's neighbours, the second step will belong to him to whom the first also belongs, more fitly than the second will belong to him who owned no first.593 Accordingly, the Creator, when following the course of nature, taught in the first instance kindness to neighbours,594 intending afterwards to enjoin it towards strangers; and when following the method of His dispensation, He limited charity first to the Jews, but afterwards extended it to the whole race of mankind. [16.11]
The menstrual flow of the sinful woman was wrongly interpreted by the Marcionites as being out of order:
She therefore, not without reason,765 interpreted for herself the law, as meaning that such things as are susceptible of defilement become defiled, but not so God, whom she knew for certain to be in Christ. But she recollected this also, that what came under the prohibition of the law766 was that ordinary and usual issue of blood which proceeds from natural functions every month, and in childbirth, not that which was the result of disordered health. Her case, however, was one of long abounding767 ill health, for which she knew that the succour of God's mercy was needed, and not the natural relief of time. [20.12]
The example of David provides the proper 'order' of Christ:
If you also turn to the fourth book, you will discover all this conduct790 of Christ [ordinem Christi] pursued by that man of God, who ordered ten791 barley loaves which had been given him to be distributed among the people; and when his servitor, after contrasting the large number of the persons with the small supply of the food, answered, "What, shall I set this before a hundred men? "he said again, "Give them, and they shall eat: for thus saith the Lord, They shall eat, and shall leave thereof, according to the word of the Lord."792 O Christ, even in Thy novelties Thou art old! [21.2]
He speaks of Christ of the fourfold gospel reflecting the order of the Creator:
But if he was in error here because of his previous erroneous opinion,857 then you may be sure that up to that very day no new divinity had been revealed by Christ, and that Peter had so far made no mistake, because hitherto Christ had revealed nothing of the kind; and that Christ accordingly was not to be regarded as belonging to any other than the Creator, whose entire dispensation858 he, in fact, here described
Quodsi ideo et hic erravit quia et supra, ergo certus es in illum diem quoque nullam novam divinitatem a Christo revelatam, et usque adhuc non errasse Petrum, Christo usque adhuc nihil eiusmodi revelante, et tamdiu non alterius deputandum Christum quam creatoris, cuius omnem et hic ordinem expressit. [22.6]
The true gospel is 'orderly' because it accepts apparently the 'order of prophecy.'
Lastly, you may discover the suitable times of the promise, if you read what precedes the passage: "Be strong, ye weak hands and ye feeble knees: then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear; then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall be articulate."981 When, therefore, He proclaimed the benefits of His cures, then also did He put the scorpions and the serpents under the feet of His saints----even He who had first received this power from the Father, in order to bestow it upon others and then manifested it forth conformably to the order of prophecy [et secundum ordinem praedicationis exhibuit]
When his disciples ask him how to pray the issue of 'order' is brought up again and the Marcionite emphasis on a 'new order':
If, however, he had already learned this, prove it. If you find nowhere any proof, let me tell you1048 that it was to the Creator that he asked for instruction in prayer, to whom John's disciples also used to pray. But, inasmuch as John had introduced some new order of prayer, this disciple had not improperly presumed to think that he ought also to ask of Christ whether they too must not (according to some special rule of their Master) pray, not indeed to another god, but in another manner. [Sed quia et Ioannes novum aliquem ordinem orationis induxerat, ideo hoc et a Christo discipulus eius expostulandum non immerito praesumpserat, ut et illi de proprio magistri sui instituto non alium, sed aliter, deum orarent]
and again a few sentences later:
Who shall suffer us not to be led into temptation? He before whom the tempter will never be able to tremble; or He who from the beginning has beforehand condemned1059 the angel tempter? If any one, with such an order [hoc ordine] invokes another god and not the Creator, he does not pray; he only blasphemes.
Again Marcion's lack of reference to the Old Testament marks the gospel as being improperly ordered:
(Now, I ask, ) after going through all this course of the Creator's order and prophecies, what there is in it which can possibly be assigned to him who has done all his work at one hasty stroke,1273 and possesses neither the Creator's order nor His dispensation in harmony with the parable? Or, again in what will consist his first invitation,1275 and what his admonition1276 at the second stage? Some at first would surely decline; others afterwards must have accepted."1277 But now he comes to invite both parties promiscuously out of the city,1278 out of the hedges,1279 contrary to the drift1280 of the parable.
Quid ex hoc ordine secundum dispositionem et praedicationes creatoris recensendo competere potest illi, cuius nec ordinem habet nec dispositionem ad parabolae conspirationem qui totum opus semel fecit? Aut quae erit prima vocatio eius, et quae secundo actu admonitio? Ante debent alii excusare, postea alii convenisse. Nunc autem pariter utramque partem invitare venit, de civitate, de sepibus, adversus speculum parabolae.
The point here is since we don't now know in what way Mark 'was not in the correct order' - couldn't it have been in the way Marcion's gospel was repeatedly said to be 'out of order' - i.e. out of order with the old testament?
I'm looking for evidence that Tertullian was aware of the text of the gospel of Marcionites being in the wrong order. By way of explaining what I mean here, I can say something about these quotes. I'm looking for explicit awareness regarding textual sequences.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 3:26 pm
Proper order required that father
should tell of son's existence before son told of father's, and father
bear witness to son before son bore witness to father.
Not what I'm looking for.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 3:26 pmAnd so it required preparatory work in
order to be credible—preparatory work built upon foundations
of previous intention and prior announcement. Only by being
built up in this order could faith with good cause be imposed
upon man by God, and shown towards God by man—a faith
which, since there was knowledge, might be required to believe
because belief was a possibility, and in fact had learned to believe
by virtue of that previous announcement.
3. There was no need, you say, for such an ordering of events,
seeing that he would immediately by the evidence of miracles
prove himself in actual fact both son and emissary, and the Christ
of God.
Not what I'm looking for.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 3:26 pmYet how could a god never previously
prophesied of, prophesy beforehand of any Christ of his? This
it is then that demands that no credence be given either to your
god or to your Christ: a god had no right to remain unknown,
and a Christ did require to obtain recognition by virtue of a
god's commendation.
4. Your god was too proud, I suppose, to copy our God's ordering
of events, since he disapproved of him and thought he would soon
be shown wrong.
Not what I'm looking for.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 3:26 pmDid not then due order de-
mand that it should first be explained how he came down from
his own heaven into the Creator's? For why should I not pass
censure on such matters as do not satisfy the claims of orderly
narrative, <but let it> always tail off in falsehood? So let us ask
once for all a question I have already discussed elsewhere,2
whether, while coming down through the Creator's territory and
in opposition to him, he could have expected the Creator to let
him in, and allow him to pass on from thence into the earth, which
no less is the Creator's. Next however, admitting that he came
down, I demand to know the rest of the order of that descent.
This is at least about the gospel, but it's still not what I'm looking for. I'd call this an accusation of being unspecific.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 3:26 pmFrom what direction does John make his appearance?
Christ unexpected: John also unexpected. With Marcion all
things are like that: with the Creator they have their own com-
pact order.
This is the closest thing, but it arises from the alleged omission of earlier material (on John). Still not what I'm looking for, which is some awareness of the differences of textual sequence between Luke and the gospel used by Marcion.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 3:26 pmYou cannot deny that he brings to Sion and
Jerusalem good tidings of peace and of all good things, nor that
he goes up into the mountain and there spends all night in prayer,
and in effect is heard by his Father. Open then the prophets, and
you will find it all set in order there.
There is the word "order" that can be found in a search, but (again) this is not what I'm looking for.
You do succeed in explaining what Tertullian actually meant in his repeated references to order. In so doing, you provide further evidence of my contention that Tertullian wasn't aware of differences in textual sequence, which would have been a natural addition to his other claims if he knew about these differences.
This indicates that Tertullian was not explicitly aware of the differences of textual sequence in the gospel used by Marcionites:
Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:17 pm
A bit more of an interpretation here, but Tertullian doesn't say that he understands why he's taking Luke "out of order" (pg 283):
With what purpose have I begun with this episode? To show you that Jesus was acknowledged by the demon, and affirmed by himself, to belong to none other than the Creator.
Tertullian neglects to point out that gMarcion "reversed" the order of these episodes. This suggests an explanation according to which (a) the more correct gMarcion order came to Tertullian somehow but (b) Tertullian was unaware that this was because it was the gMarcion order. After offering some feint for why he is taking Luke out of order, Tertullian reverts to Luke's order, as if refusing to allow further lapses of order to occur, for which he would find no explanation.
You write:
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 3:26 pmThe point here is since we don't now know in what way Mark 'was not in the correct order' - couldn't it have been in the way Marcion's gospel was repeatedly said to be 'out of order' - i.e. out of order with the old testament?
That can be offered as an interpretation of the quote from Papias.
Right now I've been looking at this quote from Epiphanius:
11,6 He starts from there then and yet, again, does not go on in order.
He falsifies some things, as I said, he adds others helter-skelter, not going
straight on but disingenuously wandering all over the material. Thus:
Notice that Epiphanius previously wrote that he was "arranging the points in order, and numbering each saying one, two, three (and so on)."
Epiphanius describes it saying that it "does not go on in order," that it adds things "helter-skelter," and that it is "not going straight on but disingenuously wandering all over the material."
Epiphanius therefore needs to undertake "arranging the points in order" because the Marcionite gospel is not in order.
Epiphanius is aware of different textual sequences that he had encountered, which required rearranging.
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 3:12 pm
Andrew S. Jacobs, in "Epiphanius' Library," pages 133 to 152 in From Roman to early Christian Cyprus : studies in religion and archaeology
edited by Laura Nasrallah, AnneMarie Luijendijk, and Charalambos Bakirtzis.
Tübingen : Mohr Siebeck, [2020]
accepts that Epiphanius had the works of Marcion.
I think people over estimate the originality of Patristic writing. It was mostly all recycled over and over again. That's why the synoptics (obvious forgeries) were no big deal. Epiphanius was just more of an outright liar than Tertullian.
