$50 to Anyone Who Finds an Explicit Confirmation From Tertullian That He Had in His Possession the Marcionite Canon

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

$50 to Anyone Who Finds an Explicit Confirmation From Tertullian That He Had in His Possession the Marcionite Canon

Post by Secret Alias »

And was not carrying out what Irenaeus promised i.e. to attack Marcion from Luke (i.e. from the passages of the original source of Marcion's gospel and the material he retained from that text). I am looking for not merely an inference or knowledge of what the Marcionite gospel said which could come through a discussion with a Marcionite (read or experienced first hand) but a confirmation like what we read in Epiphanius:
I am also going to append the treatise which I had written against him before, a your instance, brothers, hastening to compose this one. (2) Some years ago, to fi nd what falsehood this Marcion had invented and what his silly teaching was, I took up his very books which he had < mutilated >, his so-called Gospel and Apostolic Canon. From these two books I made a series of < extracts > and selections of the material which would serve to refute him, and I wrote a sort of outline for a treatise, arranging the points in order, and numbering each saying one, two, three (and so on). (3) And in this way I went through all of the passages in which it is apparent that, foolishly, he still retains against himself these leftover sayings of the Savior and the apostle. 10,4 For some of them had been falsely entered by himself, in an altered form and unlike the authentic copy of the Gospel and the meaning of the apostolic canon ... 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.

= booklet with list of 118 extracts follows from the gospel and apostle follows (or attached to Panarion in its second or third rewrite) =

This is my < treatise >, prefaced in the foregoing selections from the scripture which is still preserved in Marcion’s own canon.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: $50 to Anyone Who Finds an Explicit Confirmation From Tertullian That He Had in His Possession the Marcionite Canon

Post by Peter Kirby »

This passage has sometimes been read that way, particularly the underlined references:

Every sentence, indeed the whole structure, arising from Marcion's impiety and profanity, I now challenge in terms of that gospel which he has by manipulation made his own. Besides that, to work up credence for it he has contrived a sort of dowry, a work entitled Antitheses because of its juxtaposition of opposites, a work strained into making such a division between the Law and the Gospel as thereby to make two separate gods, opposite to each other, one belonging to one instrument (or, as it is more usual to say, testament), one to the other, and thus lend its patronage to faith in another gospel, that according to the Antitheses. Now I might have demolished those antitheses by a specially directed hand-to-hand attack, taking each of the statements of the man of Pontus one by one, except that it was much more convenient to refute them both in and along with that gospel which they serve: although it is perfectly easy to take action against them by counter-claim, even accepting them as admissible, accounting them valid, and alleging that they support my argument, that so they may be put to shame for the blindness of their author, having now become my antitheses against Marcion.

I'm not even sure that the underlined parts refer to "the Marcionite gospel."

Keep in mind that "that gospel which he has by manipulation made his own" could be dealing in a little irony. Tertullian doesn't believe that Marcion has any rightful claim to manipulate and make a gospel his own. So perhaps that gospel is just Luke.

And then the other reference, "that gospel which they serve." Again, irony. Tertullian wants to show that the Marcionites still serve his gospel by showing that their readings depend on Tertullian's text. So the Marcionites, unwittingly, are yoked to Luke.

It still wouldn't really prove anything if these references were to a Marcionite gospel instead, but it's remarkable if they just meant Luke because that would mean that Tertullian is being even more transparent than I thought about just going through Luke.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: $50 to Anyone Who Finds an Explicit Confirmation From Tertullian That He Had in His Possession the Marcionite Canon

Post by Secret Alias »

But does it say " I have it" and "I am using it" the way Epiphanius's statement does? For me it's just as much an accusation that Luke is his real gospel, an opening to initiate a "getting to know or disprove Marcion through Luke." I've always been surprised by the balls to think that someone could prove the prophets "really agree" with Marcion's gospel. That would mean Marcion was mentally retarded. He could only falsify Luke so much with a failed effort to distance it from Judaism doing a half hearted or half assed falsification.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: $50 to Anyone Who Finds an Explicit Confirmation From Tertullian That He Had in His Possession the Marcionite Canon

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:08 am But does it say " I have it" and "I am using it" the way Epiphanius's statement does?
Nope.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: $50 to Anyone Who Finds an Explicit Confirmation From Tertullian That He Had in His Possession the Marcionite Canon

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:08 am For me it's just as much an accusation that Luke is his real gospel, an opening to initiate a "getting to know or disprove Marcion through Luke."
That's what I said.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: $50 to Anyone Who Finds an Explicit Confirmation From Tertullian That He Had in His Possession the Marcionite Canon

Post by Secret Alias »

I know. I'm agreeing. I just wonder am I stupid. Is there this "other way" of interpreting the evidence. I don't think so.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: $50 to Anyone Who Finds an Explicit Confirmation From Tertullian That He Had in His Possession the Marcionite Canon

Post by Peter Kirby »

There is this footnote in Roth's thesis, pg. 63:

Prior to Hahn it was occasionally questioned whether Tertullian actually had Marcion’s text in hand; however, Hahn effectively refuted the notion and convincingly demonstrated that Tertullian was, as he claimed, refuting Marcion from “the heretic’s” own Gospel (see Hahn, Evangelium Marcions, 91–94). To my knowledge no persuasive challenge to this view arose in any of the subsequent eras of debate on Marcion’s Gospel.

Hahn wrote in 1832. Thanks to the Internet Archive, we can try to read the demonstration that ended all such inquiry.

[pg. 92]
"Therefore, if anyone thinks that we have done less (through the refutation of Marcion's assumption of the existence of two gods, one good and one just, based on a priori reasons), let him hope that it is reserved for his own time, just as the examination of the scriptures themselves that Marcion uses." And this examination can be found in Books IV and V against Marcion, and he prepares himself for it in those very words in IV, 1, which we have just mentioned.

In Chapter 2, he says again: "Now I turn to the truly Judaic gospel (referring to the Gospel of the Catholic Church, as adulterated by Judaizers), but also the Pontic one (referring to the one that the Pontic Marcion had), demonstrating its adulteration in the meantime."

He repeats the same thing, before even discussing Marcion's Gospel itself, in Chapter 6, very definitively: "But now let us proceed to the next step, namely, the actual Gospel of Marcion, challenging it as we have declared, and also proving its adulteration. For certainly, in everything he has labored for, even in constructing the Antitheses, he aims to establish the diversity between the Old and New Testaments, thereby separating his Christ from the Creator, as belonging to another God, as alien to the law and the prophets. Certainly, for this reason, he annuls any conflicting opinions, which would be in agreement with the Creator as if woven by his supporters, while preserving those opinions that suit his own perspective. Let us agree on these matters, let us embrace them if they are more aligned with us, if they strike at the presumption of Marcion." Then it will be clear that the same heretical blindness has been eradicated by the same flaw. Thus, the intention and form of our treatise will be in accordance with this condition, which arises from both.

[pg. 93]
He establishes that Marcion considers another Christ, who was revealed in the times of Tiberius by a once-unknown God for the salvation of all nations; and another Christ who is destined by the creating God for the restoration of the Jewish state, to come at some point in the future. Within these distinctions, there is a great and complete difference, as great as that between the just and the good, between the law and the gospel, between Judaism and Christianity. Hence, our prescription, which we aim to establish, is that nothing should be held in common between Christ of another God and the Creator. However, regarding the Creator, it must be declared whether He administered His arrangements, fulfilled His prophecies, assisted His laws, represented His promises, restored His virtues, reformed His judgments, expressed His morals and properties. I ask you, dear reader, to remember this pact and prescription everywhere, and to begin recognizing it (from Marcion's Gospel, which Tertullian now presents verse by verse and in parts), either Marcion's Christ or the Creator." As he speaks and earnestly impresses upon the reader, his purpose is not only to refute Marcion from his own Gospel but specifically to show that even in it, Christ does not appear as the Son of an unknown God but as the Son of the God who long ago promised Him through His prophets. Tertullian remained faithful to this approach; in the middle of the investigation, in Chapter 34, page 525, he reminds again: "But as far as you need to be refuted on what you have received, so I will address you 'et rel.' And at the end of the entire investigation, in Chapter 43 extr., he emphasizes once again, leaving no room for uncertainty: "This Gospel, which he..." (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 17, page 251).

[pg. 94]
Tertullian’s statement, which he attributes to Marcion, is also worth mentioning as it reflects his mocking tone: "I admire you, Marcion, for your efforts. For Christ Jesus in my Gospel is indeed the Son of the Creator." Tertullian had already addressed Marcion's Apostolicon in the fourth book, intending to refute him based on its content. In the fifth book against Marcion, he specifically refers to it again to refute him, as mentioned in chapter 3, page 378, where he writes, "And this I have done by approving the law of the Creator, which supports the poor and needy, just as is demonstrated in your Gospel." This can be compared to the beginning of chapter 1, page 372, where he prepares to present evidence from the texts Marcion accepts and says, "Therefore, we have undertaken this task so that from here on, we will prove ourselves, using no other material apart from that which has been circulated by the Apostle, as we have demonstrated from Christ himself, primarily from the letters of Paul, even those that have been mutilated in number and form by the followers of the heretical Gospel (which he had previously examined). Marcion will have to prejudge this accordingly."

Similarly, in another later work, De carne Christi (On the Flesh of Christ), in chapter 7 (Volume III, page 359, Semler edition), Tertullian says, "But whenever the nativity is contested by those who reject it as prejudiced in favor of the truth of Christ's flesh, denying that God Himself willed to be born, which He Himself said, 'Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?' (Luke 8:20, 21; Mark 3:31-35). Let Apelles also hear what response we have given to Marcion in that little book where we have set forth the Gospel of Marcion."

[pg. 95]
Namely, in Against Marcion, Book IV, page 260 (*).

Here, Tertullian clearly states that he intends to refute Marcion not from the Gospel of Luke but from his own Gospel. He assures that he has done so and continues to do so. Therefore, those who claim that Tertullian did not read Marcion's writing at all or read it very carelessly must either not have read it themselves or it is incomprehensible how they could say, in his Early Investigations [Kritische Untersuchungen], pages 7, 6, and 40, "'Closer examination and information about the text of Marcion's Gospel can be found in Tertullian.' Tertullian does not provide more detailed investigation or information about Marcion's Gospel. He seems to always repeat in general terms that Marcion corrupted his Gospel." And yet, he writes independently, both in words and substance, supported by numerous and specific details, something that the aforementioned scholars did not do. Does this mean he is merely repeating? "It seems obvious that Tertullian never had a Marcionite Gospel before his eyes during his work. Surely, following the example of Epiphanius, he would have mentioned and indicated the various differences between the two Gospels." (Must different writers treat the same subject in the same way?) "Tertullian may have only had access to Marcion's Antithesis and some other writings of the Marcionites, and he polemicized against them based on those." Then he notes that in the previously mentioned passage, chapter 6, Tertullian "only speaks about Marcion's incorrect teaching, which does not correspond to his own Gospel, which he (Tertullian) considered to be different from that of Luke (yes, but adulterated!). However, immediately afterward, Tertullian actually proceeds to examine and demonstrate (from chapter 7 to the end) that Marcion's teaching does not align with this Gospel, or in other words, he refutes Marcion using our Luke." If that were the case, he would have done what he did not intend to do, and he would have done it quite poorly. It is clear from this that Grass [Gratz] did not understand Tertullian's IV, 1-6 and from chapter 7 f.

[pg. 96]
As Tertullian goes through the Marcionite text with the intention of refuting the heretic based on his assumed Gospel, he does not always point out every deviation, falsification, or omission. Often, he simply quotes the corrupted or altered Marcionite text without explicitly mentioning the changes. However, it usually happens that Epiphanius, in his comments, specifically notes that Marcion altered and distorted the text of the Gospel, just as we read in Tertullian. An undeniable testimony at the end. [It seems] Grass did not read it attentively and compare it with Epiphanius, otherwise it would have become clear to him that Tertullian used Marcion's own Gospel, as he clearly states in the passages mentioned above, going through it verse by verse with its falsifications and peculiarities in order to refute him. Indeed, it is extremely laborious to read Tertullian, always in careful comparison with Epiphanius and other comments on Marcion's text in our Luke! Due to this misunderstanding, the entire work by Grass, which contains many valuable observations about Epiphanius, has taken a skewed direction and contains several incorrect critical side remarks, such as on page 44: "We assume that Tertullian refuted only the Marcionite system based on his Latin (?) Luke; thereby, one can at least learn how Tertullian read his Luke." Therefore, "if, in some cases, Tertullian's reading coincides with Marcion's against our now accepted version, it provides clear evidence that Marcion's reading is a corrupted version of Luke and our revised version is correct." Without any basis!

[pg. 97]
Furthermore, there is more evidence that Tertullian had Marcion's text in front of him and refuted the opponent as he had intended. For example, in Luke 4:34, Tertullian quotes, "What have we to do with you, Jesus? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God," without noting that Marcion omitted "Nazarene" and had to omit it since his Jesus had no mother or place of birth on Earth. (See p. 201 and IV, 6, p. 395, where the same passage is quoted from Marcion's Gospel without "Nazarene.") In Luke 10:21, Tertullian cites, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children," without indicating the necessary omission according to Marcion's system, namely, the words "wrap and xal syns," which Epiphanius explicitly mentions (see p. 313B and 329B). In Luke 11:29, Tertullian from verse 29 to verse 32, without mentioning that this passage contrary to the Marcionite system has been omitted, while Epiphanius states that in Book 29, only "onuelov ou dodnostai aury" remained and the rest was cut out (reginénomTai). Similarly, Tertullian shares Marcionite reading in Luke 11:42, "You should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former," which, since the good God does not judge, could not have been included (see sections 3 and 2 on Rom. 11:35), without mentioning this falsification, which Epiphanius highlights (see schol. 26, p. 313D, ell. 332B). Likewise, the passages that were offensive to Marcion in verses 49 and 51 are mentioned by Tertullian only as being cut out, as noted by Epiphanius on page 313, schol. 28, ell. p. 535. In the portion of Tertullian's text provided, Luke 12:6 and 12:19 are also missing without any specific indication, which corresponds to Marcion's Gospel.

[pg. 98]
That they were missing, on the other hand, Epiphanius mentions explicitly on pages 314 and 333. But also in verse 7, as Tertullian points out, it had to be missing from Marcion's Gospel. According to Marcion's system, only the souls of humans were taken by the divine God, not the spirits, nor even the bodies of humans. See below, chapter 21, verse 18. Tertullian cites from Marcion's Codex (instead of 'coram angelis Dei') without noting any change 'coram Deo.' And that Marcion removed the words 'Twn dzyékos' can be seen in Epiphanius, book 1, verse 1. Among these examples, one can also compare with the passages in the Gospel: 15:1-9, 28, 29, 50; 35; 15:11-32; 16:17; 17:5-10. And then, between verse 14 and 15, there is a gap that corresponds to 4:27, 18:31-34, 19:29-48, 20:9-18, 37, 38, 21:21, 22 (perhaps also 22 and 24), 22:3, 16, 50, 35-37, 49-51, 23:43, and 24:25.

However, he cannot refrain from occasionally noticing some distortions and omissions, even though this is not his purpose, which troubled him deeply when he consulted or vividly remembered Tert's Luke. See below, Luke 9:30, Tertullian's remarks in book IV, 22, page 278. Regarding 10:25, it is mentioned in Tertullian's book IV, 95, pages 292-94: 'In the Gospel of the truth of the law, the teacher of the Lord approached, saying, 'What should I do to inherit eternal life?"

[pg. 99]
In the Gospel only the mention of eternal life, as the teacher seems to refer to that "life": 'to have attained what is promised in the law by the Creator, long-lasting.' Luke 23:34 was missing according to Tertullian.

In book IV, 42, page 363, the other half is missing because it contains the fulfillment of a prophecy (Psalm 21:19). Tertullian writes, 'Indeed, the soldiers divided His garment, perhaps part of it was given, but Marcion removed it, disregarding the prophecy of the Psalm.' Furthermore, in going through the letters of Paul accepted by Marcion in the same book of his writing, Tertullian mentions several times (V:10, 16, 18, 19) the explicit distortions or omissions. See above, section 9, regarding 1 Corinthians 15:45, 1 Thessalonians 1:8, Laodiceans 3:9, 2 Colossians 1:15, 17. Also, see Tertullian, book I, chapter 17, page 453, and following, regarding Laodiceans 2:14, where Tertullian cites the text: 'And He Himself is our peace, who made both one (Jews and Gentiles). And He broke down the middle wall of separation in His flesh.' But Marcion removed 'in His flesh' so that He would give flesh to the enmity, as if it were a fleshly vice, not rivaling Christ.'

Rarely, probably only once, Tertullian was led astray, possibly by his memory, as he did not always follow his own version of Luke and compared it with the Marcionite version he presented to us. Therefore, he mistook readings in Matthew as original readings in Luke, for example, in book IV, 29, page 313, regarding Luke 12:51: "'Do you think that I have come to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.' 'A sword' is indeed written. But Marcion corrected it, saying that it is not a sword but rather a separation that is needed."

[pg. 100]
The original reading of Luke is preserved in dia pe propòr beya; Matthew 10:34 retains xapav.

4) He goes through Marcion's Gospel from the beginning to the end, quoting most of it, usually in the same order as our Luke and verse by verse, except when there is a deviation in Marcion's Gospel or, very rarely, when the course of his refutations against Marcion gave him reason to anticipate a later passage or make up for an earlier one. However, since Tertullian's intention is always to refute the opponent from his own Gospel, taking into account the changes made in favor of the system, he often presents knowledge of the text from the Catholic Gospel before disputing against Marcion on its basis. Therefore, it is necessary to read Tertullian's mentioned counter-writing very carefully, paying attention to words, context, and purpose, and comparing it with the Gospel of Luke to determine whether a section of this Gospel is present in Marcion's.

Arneth, in section VII, page 8, notes here Luke 23:53, but certainly not rightfully so (according to the state of the text). With more justification, three passages from Matthew can be attributed to this, in which Tertullian claims that Marcion removed them from the Gospel. These passages are Matthew 5:17 (according to Tertullian IV, 7, 9, extr. 12, cll. V, 14, page 440) and 45 (Tert. II, 17, IV, 17, page 251, cll. 36, page 339) and 15:24 (according to Tert. IV, 7, page 199). However, see these passages in section 6 below.

See also Dr. Paulus in his aforementioned work, page 17, against Eichhorn.

[pg. 101]
Whether it stood in the Gospel or not, the basis for recognizing it through refutations is that, usually, Tertullian refutes Marcion not infrequently, often only through individual words or even just hinting at the content. The entire work of Tertullian provides evidence for this, which will be further elaborated upon in my presentation of the Marcionite Gospel below. Only a few examples, without further selection, may suffice to confirm and elucidate what has been said:

Luke 6:36. Tertullian, in book IV, 17, page 251, does not entirely conform to our canonical Greek text when quoting from Marcion's Gospel: "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful." However, the text in Marcion's Gospel is not different from that in our Luke, and Tertullian, in his divergence, proves that he immediately indicates the latter words as being directed against Marcion: "If another (good God) has now commanded mercy because He Himself is merciful, why was He not merciful to me (down to Tiberius' time, when he first revealed himself) for such a long time?" As seen, Tertullian did not precisely translate the above omission as "He is merciful, He is yours" instead of "your Father is merciful," as was noted and corrected by Tertullian himself. However, Tertullian made a mistake in this regard. Even more evident and instructive are his words in which he quotes the following verses 37-45 and uses them to counter Marcion: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you, a good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you in return. I suppose these words resonate with a retribution based on merits. From whom, then, do they come?"

Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: $50 to Anyone Who Finds an Explicit Confirmation From Tertullian That He Had in His Possession the Marcionite Canon

Post by Secret Alias »

"just as the examination of the scriptures themselves that Marcion uses" ie Luke

"and also proving its adulteration" from Luke.

"the actual Gospel of Marcion, challenging it as we have declared, and also proving its adulteration." from Luke

"constructing the Antitheses" not the same as a gospel.

"and to begin recognizing it" ie Luke which Marcion stole and corrupted for "either Marcion's Christ or the Creator" assumes that Marcion did such a bad job falsifying Luke that the Creator can still be seen or comprehended from it along with his prophesies.

"But as far as you need to be refuted on what you have received" clearly and only Luke. This is such a disingenuous interpretation if it is proposed "the Gospel of Marcion" is meant here

I am always suspicious when someone doesn't cite the whole passage in this case the conclusion of Book 4. Clearly Tertullian means the canonical gospel of Luke which the heretic "picked" as his own as the apostles are mentioned at the beginning
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,d 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.e I am sorry for you, Marcion: your labour has been in vain. Even in your gospel (ie Luke altered by Marcion and now examined from the portions of Luke he retains) Christ Jesus is mine.
"just as is demonstrated in your Gospel." Ie Luke (in passages already dealt with in Book 4)

"Therefore, we have undertaken this task so that from here on, we will prove ourselves, using no other material apart from that which has been circulated by the Apostle, as we have demonstrated from Christ himself, primarily from the letters of Paul, even those that have been mutilated in number and form by the followers of the heretical Gospel (which he had previously examined). Marcion will have to prejudge this accordingly." But Book 5 is verbatim from Irenaeus's disprove Marcion from the portion of Paul he retains argument. Not a doubt.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: $50 to Anyone Who Finds an Explicit Confirmation From Tertullian That He Had in His Possession the Marcionite Canon

Post by Secret Alias »

I don't see the argument here. The argument in Against Marcion Book Four is very similar to what Irenaeus outlines in Against Heresies (in Book 5 it is absolutely explicitly the same). The methodology and style is consistent with both books. Tertullian is saying:

1. there was an apostolic canon which predated Marcion
2. Marcion knew all four gospels but "chose" (the root word of heresy) Luke and the Pauline letters
3. there is an argument also that Marcion stumbled upon Galatians took especial interest in it and wrongly concluded that Paul had a written gospel submitted it to the Jerusalem Church and they falsified a "Judaized" gospel from that text.

This is generally agreed upon. But the real bone of contention is whether Tertullian actually had a canonical New Testament of Marcion and used that as the basis for his text. What I don't like about Hahn's approach is that on some level it has to be acknowledged there is some ambiguity. By saying that Marcion's gospel was Luke you necessarily leave yourself open to ambiguity. By saying that Marcion knew four gospel's and only chose Luke it makes it even more difficult to know what Tertullian is saying sometimes. For instance in Book 2.16:
And yet, if you were to accept the gospel in its true form, you would learn to whom applies this judgement of God who turns the fathers' sins back upon their children, namely to those who were, at a tune then future, going of their own will to call down this judgement upon themselves, His blood be on our heads and on our children's.
This not only suggests that Matthew was the real subject of Marcion's condemnation it hearkens back to Irenaeus's repeated statement of Marcion only accepting the gospel "in part" i.e. only Luke. It really doesn't make sense to bring up Matthew in a debate about whether Marcion's gospel or Luke is original or whether Marcion stole Luke and falsified it. Clearly "choosing" Luke is presupposed whenever someone speaks about Marcion only partially or incompletely retaining the gospel. So too the thirty or forty references to Marcion wishing to get rid of things which only appear in Matthew such as what follows:
Yet the facts show him sending rain upon good and evil, and making his sun to rise upon just and unjust:a of which that other god makes no sort of provision. For although Marcion has presumed to erase from the gospel this testimony of Christ to the Creator, yet the whole world is inscribed with it, and every man's conscience reads it there.
This is not an isolated reference to this passage or this section of Matthew. The supposition again is that by Marcion turning his back on Matthew (because of his assumptions about what Galatians tells us about Paul and the Jerusalem Church) he is silencing the complete gospel.

But Hahn also ignores statements like this from Book Two:
That the Father has become visible to no man is the testimony of that gospel which you share with us, in which Christ says, No one knoweth the Father save the Son.
So clearly in the lead up to Book Four it is everywhere supposed that Marcion (a) knew the four gospels but (b) only chose Luke. This makes it less likely that Tertullian's argument is that much different from what Irenaeus says he will write, namely an argument from Luke and the portions he retains of Luke against Marcion followed by a book detailing how Paul was orthodox from the portions of Paul's letters Marcion retained from his theft.

This notion that Marcion's gospel was stolen from the orthodox follows in Book Three:
Observe the measure of his age while you look for the meaning of the prophecy: what is more, give back to the gospel of the truth the things of which you, a late-comer, have deprived it, and the prophecy as soon becomes intelligible as it is reported fulfilled.
This certain sounds again like the Marcionite gospel was indistinguishable from an orthodox gospel, it is "cut" Luke but clearly Luke nevertheless. After discussing Jesus's descent from Jesse in Matthew "yet was accounted of the stem of Jesse, being descended from it through Mary" - Against Marcion switches gears and writes:
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. Here however in general terms I shall complete the course I have entered upon, explaining meanwhile that Christ is announced by Isaiah as one who preaches: for he says, Who is there among you who feareth God, and will hear the voice of his Son?g and as a healer, for he says, He himself hath taken away our weaknesses and borne <our> wearinesses.
This is clearly a passage from Book Four which only makes sense as a commentary on Luke rather than the gospel of Marcion. It takes real obtuseness to interpret the following words from Book Three as pertaining to the gospel of Marcion not Luke:
For so God has revealed it, even in the gospel which you accept, when he says that bread is his body
Similarly, given the context of Book Three the first sentence in Book Four can only mean Luke:
I now challenge in terms of that gospel which he has by manipulation made his own
Similarly at the start of chapter two the context is that the Marcionite gospel is one of four which the apostles as a collective preached:
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.
Hard to understand this sentence as saying that Marcion's gospel isn't a adulterated version of an orthodox text. And then on and on we go:
So then meanwhile, as concerns the gospel of Luke, seeing that the use of it shared between us and Marcion becomes an arbiter of the truth, our version of it is to such an extent older than Marcion that Marcion himself once believed it ... If that gospel which among us is ascribed to Luke—we shall see <later> whether it is <accepted by> Marcion
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: $50 to Anyone Who Finds an Explicit Confirmation From Tertullian That He Had in His Possession the Marcionite Canon

Post by Secret Alias »

Hahn wrote in 1832
Other things "settled" in 1832

January–March
Edit
January 6 – Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison founds the New-England Anti-Slavery Society.
January 13 – The Christmas Rebellion of slaves is brought to an end in Jamaica, after the island's white planters organize militias and the British Army sends companies of the 84th regiment to enforce martial law. More than 300 of the slave rebels will be publicly hanged for their part in the destruction.[1]
February 6 – The Swan River Colony is renamed Western Australia.[2][3]
February 9 – The Florida Legislative Council grants a city charter for Jacksonville, Florida.
February 12
Ecuador annexes the Galápagos Islands.
A cholera epidemic in London claims at least 3,000 lives; the contagion spreads to France and North America later this year.
February 28 – Charles Darwin and the crew of HMS Beagle arrive at South America for the first time.[4]
March 24 – In Hiram, Ohio, a group of men beat, tar and feather Mormon leader Joseph Smith.
April–June
Edit
April 6 – The Black Hawk War begins in the United States.
May 7 – The Treaty of London creates an independent Kingdom of Greece. Otto of Wittelsbach, Prince of Bavaria, is chosen King; thus begins the history of modern Greece.
May 10 – The Egyptians, aided by Maronites, seize Acre from the Ottoman Empire after a 7-month siege.
May 11 – Greece is recognized as a sovereign nation; the Treaty of Constantinople ends the Greek War of Independence in July.
May 16 – Juan Godoy discovers the rich silver outcrops of Chañarcillo sparking the Chilean silver rush.[5][6]
May 30
The Hambacher Fest, a demonstration for civil liberties and national unity in Germany, ends with no result.
The Rideau Canal in eastern Ontario (Canada) is opened.
June 5–6 – The June Rebellion in France, anti-monarchist riots led chiefly by students, breaks out in Paris.
June 7 – The Reform Act becomes law in the United Kingdom, expanding the franchise.
June 9 – The Strasburg Rail Road is incorporated by the Pennsylvania State Legislature, making it the oldest continuously operating railroad in the Western Hemisphere.
July–September
Edit
July 1 – Global conglomerate Jardine Matheson is founded in Canton (modern day Guangzhou) in Qing dynasty China by Scottish merchants.[7]
July 2 – André-Michel Guerry presents his Essay on moral statistics of France to the French Academy of Sciences, a significant step in the founding of empirical social science.
July 4 – Durham University is founded in the north of England by an act of Parliament given royal assent by King William IV.
July 9 – The Commissioner of Indian Affairs post is created within the United States Department of War.
July 10 – The United States Survey of the Coast is revived within the Department of the Treasury.
August 2 – The Bad Axe Massacre ends the last major Native American rebellion east of the Mississippi in the United States.
August 7 – William Howley, Archbishop of Canterbury, has his coach attacked by an angry mob on his first official visit to Canterbury because of his opposition to the Reform Act in the United Kingdom.
August 27 – Black Hawk (Sauk leader) surrenders to the United States authorities, ending the Black Hawk War.
September 22 – Qasim al-Ahmad is appointed as the new Ottoman Governor (mutasallim) of Jerusalem (Kudüs), after Sultan Mahmud II dismisses Muhammad Said Agha.[8]
October–December
Edit
October 4 – Prince Otto of Bavaria, the second oldest son of King Ludwig I, is selected by Europe's major powers to become Othon, the first King of Greece, after the Hellenic nation's reacquisition of independence.[9]
October 20 – Principal Chief Levi Colbert (Itawamba Mingo) and other leaders of the Chickasaw Nation of American Indians sign the Treaty of Pontotoc Creek with the United States, ceding their remaining 9,400 square miles of land to the U.S., in return for a promise that they will receive all proceeds of sales of the land by the federal government to private owners, along with expenses for relocation and food and supplies for one year. The area ceded includes the entire northern one-sixth of the state of Mississippi.[10]
November 21 – Wabash College, a small, private, liberal arts college for men, is founded.
November 24 – Nullification Crisis: The U.S. state of South Carolina passes the Ordinance of Nullification, challenging the power of the U.S. federal government, by declaring that it will not enforce national tariffs signed into law in 1828 and 1832.
December 3 – 1832 United States presidential election: Andrew Jackson is re-elected president.
December 4 – Siege of Antwerp: The last remaining Dutch stronghold, Antwerp Citadel, comes under French attack in the aftermath of the Belgian Revolution.
December 10 – U.S. President Andrew Jackson responds to the Nullification Crisis by threatening to send the U.S. Army and Navy into South Carolina if it does not comply.[11]
December 21 – Battle of Konya: The Egyptians defeat the main Ottoman army in central Anatolia.
December 23 – The Siege of Antwerp ends with the Dutch garrison losing the citadel.
December 28 – John C. Calhoun becomes the first Vice President of the United States to resign.
Date unknown
Edit
George Catlin starts to live among the Sioux in the Dakota Territory.
The first Baedeker guidebook, Voyage du Rhin de Mayence à Cologne, is published in Koblenz.
Publication begins (posthumously) of Carl von Clausewitz's Vom Kriege ("On War").
The City of Buffalo in New York is incorporated.
The Cumberland and Oxford Canal connects the largest lakes of southern Maine with the seaport of Portland, Maine.[12]
Global watch brand Longines is founded in Switzerland.[13]
The first commutator DC electric motor, capable of turning machinery, is demonstrated by William Sturgeon in London.
Births
Post Reply