Marcion and a gospel harmony.

[Ben C. Smith]

I am hoping that someone who can communicate with clarity and conciseness will be able to respond to this post. I have heard on this forum at least twenty times now that both Stephan Huller and Andrew Criddle agree that Tertullian is basing his specific attack on Against Marcion, not on the Marcionite gospel itself as compared to Tertullian's copy of Luke, but rather on a Justinian/Irenaean attack on Marcion which compared his text to a gospel harmony.

I have read many (not all) of the threads and posts in which this claim is made, and have found it exceedingly difficult to figure out what the evidence is that leads to this conclusion. Some of it I think I have: those instances in which Tertullian accuses Marcion of excising things from Luke which are actually found in Matthew, for example. I am still investigating those. But what are the other evidences, specifically? I think Ephrem's commentary on the Diatessaron may come into play here, but I am not sure how yet. And what else?

Any sincere help that can be offered will be most welcome.

Ben.

PS: Does the position that the original Against Marcion was using a gospel harmony require Stephan Huller's view that the first gospel was a supergospel (which we would view as a harmony, like the Diatessaron) which was cut up to create the four canonical gospels? Or is there a different way to accept the harmony route without that specific hypothesis (which I find extremely difficult to get on board with)?

[andrewcriddle]

........................................
PS: Does the position that the original Against Marcion was using a gospel harmony require Stephan Huller's view that the first gospel was a supergospel (which we would view as a harmony, like the Diatessaron) which was cut up to create the four canonical gospels? Or is there a different way to accept the harmony route without that specific hypothesis (which I find extremely difficult to get on board with)?

My thread was here My suggestion was

One explanation is that book IV of Against Marcion is partly based on Justin Martyr's lost work against Marcion.
Justin appears to have used a harmony of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew Mark and Luke but not John) in preference to the separate gospels. If Justin was criticizing Marcion's gospel he would have naturally compared it to this harmony.
Irenaeus used the separate gospels and realized that Marcion's gospel is a version of Luke in the sense that it lacks material in canonical Luke but has little or no material not found in canonical Luke. Tertullian follows Irenaeus in regarding Marcion's gospel as a version of Luke, but he may have taken over material from Justin without realizing that some of Julian's criticisms become invalid once one regards Marcion's gospel as a version of canonical Luke rather than as a form of synoptic harmony.

i.e. it does not involve the idea that the first gospel was a supergospel (which I find improbable) merely that Justin habitually used a synoptic harmony rather than separate gospels.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

Quick answer. No the primacy of the 'super gospel' theory is not necessary (do you think Andrew would go that far?). All you need to see is that chapter 1 of Book 4 has one plan for the work (i.e. that it will be directed against Marcion's interpretation according to the 'Antitheses') and that chapter 2 - 6 have something else (Marcion adulterated Luke). T promises that he's going to demonstrate all the 'adulterations' that Marcion made to the gospel but does not follow through (for the most part T just keeps citing the gospel and takes it back to the argument of chapter 1 i.e. a choice between interpreting the gospel according to the Antitheses or the Pentateuch). Indeed if the argument of the main body of the work can be summed up it would be that the gospel is best explained by the Law and Prophets. The same sort of argument emerges in Clement of Alexandria's writing (i.e. a 'harmony' between the Old and New) probably because he too was influenced by Justin/Tatian.

But to answer your question - no there is no proper link or necessary connection between a 'super gospel primacy' and the debate in Adversus Marcionem 4. Really what we have is Justin or someone in his tradition disputing the interpretation of the gospel according to the Antitheses. In its place he makes the case that the gospel should be interpreted according to the Law (and Prophets?). Nevertheless underlying both the Marcionite 'gospel according to the Antitheses) and Justin's 'gospel according to the Law (and Prophets)' is the idea that Justin and Marcion shared more or less the same gospel which took the shape of a gospel harmony.

One can argue that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or even just Mark existed independent of the debate or discussion between Justin and Marcion. No need to buy into the supergospel theory.

[Ben C. Smith]

........................................
PS: Does the position that the original Against Marcion was using a gospel harmony require Stephan Huller's view that the first gospel was a supergospel (which we would view as a harmony, like the Diatessaron) which was cut up to create the four canonical gospels? Or is there a different way to accept the harmony route without that specific hypothesis (which I find extremely difficult to get on board with)?

My thread was here My suggestion was

One explanation is that book IV of Against Marcion is partly based on Justin Martyr's lost work against Marcion.
Justin appears to have used a harmony of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew Mark and Luke but not John) in preference to the separate gospels. If Justin was criticizing Marcion's gospel he would have naturally compared it to this harmony.
Irenaeus used the separate gospels and realized that Marcion's gospel is a version of Luke in the sense that it lacks material in canonical Luke but has little or no material not found in canonical Luke. Tertullian follows Irenaeus in regarding Marcion's gospel as a version of Luke, but he may have taken over material from Justin without realizing that some of Julian's criticisms become invalid once one regards Marcion's gospel as a version of canonical Luke rather than as a form of synoptic harmony.

i.e. it does not involve the idea that the first gospel was a supergospel (which I find improbable) merely that Justin habitually used a synoptic harmony rather than separate gospels.

Thanks, Andrew. So it is the material from Matthew that is the main reason for the hypothesis in the first place?

ETA: Also, do you think that Tertullian actually had and at least sometimes used the Marcionite gospel and epistles in Against Marcion 4 and 5? Or do you think that he relied on Justin's work completely?

[Ben C. Smith]

Quick answer. No the primacy of the 'super gospel' theory is not necessary (do you think Andrew would go that far?). All you need to see is that chapter 1 of Book 4 has one plan for the work (i.e. that it will be directed against Marcion's interpretation according to the 'Antitheses') and that chapter 2 - 6 have something else (Marcion adulterated Luke).

Thank you. The trouble I see with this is simple: I read your posts on the other thread about this, and I simply disagree with your reading of Tertullian on these points. The disagreement is thoroughgoing. I am sorry, but that is simply the case right now for me.

Nevertheless underlying both the Marcionite 'gospel according to the Antitheses) and Justin's 'gospel according to the Law (and Prophets)' is the idea that Justin and Marcion shared more or less the same gospel which took the shape of a gospel harmony.

Okay, thanks for this.

One can argue that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or even just Mark existed independent of the debate or discussion between Justin and Marcion. No need to buy into the supergospel theory.

And for this.

[Secret Alias]

The disagreement is thoroughgoing. I am sorry, but that is simply the case right now for me

Cool. But allow me one last chance to recast the argument which unfortunately is as scattered as my 'experiments' with the text. You don't have to respond. What prompts most of us to re-evaluate the tradition understanding is Tertullian's odd statements about things cut out from Marcion's gospel which only appear in Matthew. This seems to contradict the statements about Marcion cutting things from Luke in chapters 2 - 6. But as you see with Eichhorn there is more than that. The material in chapters 7 - 42 don't really fit the promise for what chapters 2 - 6 tell us is going to follow. We are left scratching our heads a little and wondering if Tertullian implicitly is offering up to us a line by line 'study' of the Marcionite gospel. We have to scratch our heads because he doesn't explicitly tell us as he goes through the material 'this is Marcion's gospel.' The table is set (by the discussion in chapters 2 - 6), the order of things in the gospel narrative clearly follows Luke - the odd thing that keeps nagging in the back of the mind of anyone who has actually read Book Four from beginning to end is (a) why the claims about things cut from the gospel of Marcion which aren't from Luke and (b) why doesn't the purported examination of Marcion's gospel read like a guy who has the gospel of Marcion in front of him. For lack of a better word it just doesn't 'feel right.' It doesn't seem like the kind of work you'd write if you were trying to prove that Marcion adulterated Luke. Subjective yes but that's just the way it is.

For all his faults Epiphanius makes his possession of the Marcionite gospel explicit. He makes explicit that what follows are supposedly textual variants from Marcion's gospel which he compiled from an analysis of the actual text. Epiphanius tells us what he is doing and the text of the pamphlet attached to the Panarion is arranged in a way that follows from that initial claim. In Adversus Marcionem 4 chapters 2 - 6 Tertullian makes the same claim explicit (that Marcion falsified Luke) and the promise is made that Tertullian is going to show the reader all of Marcion's falsifications. The problem is that he doesn't deliver. What follows in chapter 7 - 42 does not read like a list of adulterations that Marcion made to the gospel of Luke. Rather you can see - once you distinguish between the two plans for the book (i.e. between chapters 1 and chapters 2 - 6) that the main body of the work follows from the promise in chapter 1. It isn't really focused on adulterations that Marcion made to the gospel of Luke in the way that Epiphanius is. In chapter 1 the author says that Marcion promotes a 'gospel according to the Antitheses' and that the Antitheses and the Law (and the Prophets) are juxtaposed as two instruments of the two gods of Marcion. Accordingly Chapters 7 - 42 are centrally focused on how the gospel should be interpreted. Yet the nagging question is this the right approach - even a reasonable approach - to prove that Marcion adulterated the gospel, the point made from chapter 2 - 6? I don't think so.

And so we are left asking ourselves why is the text arranged in such an obtuse manner - i.e. with two plans (one interpretative, the other essentially and properly to do with textual criticism) and why is the former addressed throughout the work and the latter basically drops out of sight. The simple answer is - I don't think the author had access to the actual gospel of Marcion and in the end, because he only wanted to argue for orthodoxy against Marcion it was enough to construct a text which argued on behalf of the right way to interpret the gospel against Marcion. He wasn't a scholar after all, he wasn't a truth seeking examiner. So repurposing Justin was enough to suit his ultimate purpose.

[davidbrainerd]

I am hoping that someone who can communicate with clarity and conciseness will be able to respond to this post. I have heard on this forum at least twenty times now that both Stephan Huller and Andrew Criddle agree that Tertullian is basing his specific attack on Against Marcion, not on the Marcionite gospel itself as compared to Tertullian's copy of Luke, but rather on a Justinian/Irenaean attack on Marcion which compared his text to a gospel harmony.

They are mistaken. Huller has fallen prey to the same laziness he keeps accusing everyone else of. Because AM 4.7 containing the following:

Marcion must even expunge from the Gospel, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel; "(Matt 15:24) and, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs," (Matt 15:26) ---in order, forsooth, that Christ may not appear to be an Israelite.

he lazily half-asleep concludes Marcion's gospel is a harmony.

But is Tertullian at the story of the Syro-Phonecian woman yet?????? No. He's just barely started on Luke 3:1!!!!! These are introductory remarks about Marcion rejecting the other synoptics, not comments showing his gospel to be a harmony.

Edit: or maybe Huller literally thinks Tertullian had a gospel harmony where Matthew 15:24 and 26 occurred BEFORE Jesus began his ministry? Maybe while he was still in heaven, or while in the manger?

[andrewcriddle]

Thanks, Andrew. So it is the material from Matthew that is the main reason for the hypothesis in the first place?

ETA: Also, do you think that Tertullian actually had and at least sometimes used the Marcionite gospel and epistles in Against Marcion 4 and 5? Or do you think that he relied on Justin's work completely?

Yes the basis for my suggestion is that Marcion is criticised for lacking material which is present in canonical Matthew but not in canonical Luke.

IMO the material about Marcion's use of Paul does not go back to Justin. Justin does not appear to have made much use of Paul's epistles. Therefore I must hold that Tertullian had and used the Marcionite epistles in Against Marcion. I think that Tertullian had direct access to the Marcionite gospel (if he had access to the epistles one would expect access to the gospel), but I am less sure about this.

Andrew Criddle

[Bernard Muller]

Irenaeus used the separate gospels and realized that Marcion's gospel is a version of Luke in the sense that it lacks material in canonical Luke but has little or no material not found in canonical Luke.

(bolding mine)
So, it is so, Marcion's gospel seemed to Irenaeus a truncated version of gLuke. I agree with that.

It isn't really focused on adulterations that Marcion made to the gospel of Luke in the way that Epiphanius is.

But Epiphanius does not say that:

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. (5) But others were exactly like both the Gospel
and Apostle, unchanged by Marcion but capable of completely demolish-
ing him.

Yes the basis for my suggestion is that Marcion is criticized for lacking material which is present in canonical Matthew but not in canonical Luke.

Absolutely! Tertullian stated that his gospel was actually the four canonical gospels. He accused Marcion, who must have known about the three other gospels other than gLuke, not to have included in his gospel verses (mostly from gMatthew) which go against Marcion's doctrines: not only gMarcion is not a complete gLuke, but also not the complete Tertullian's four parts gospel. So Tertullian accused Marcion to have expurgated/erased verses from other gospels (but mostly gMatthew).

Cordially, Bernard

[davidbrainerd]

IMO the material about Marcion's use of Paul does not go back to Justin. Justin does not appear to have made much use of Paul's epistles. Therefore I must hold that Tertullian had and used the Marcionite epistles in Against Marcion. I think that Tertullian had direct access to the Marcionite gospel (if he had access to the epistles one would expect access to the gospel), but I am less sure about this.

Andrew Criddle

It explains Justin's non-use of Paul in his extant works: Paul was so closely associated with Marcionism that orthodox figures like Justin rejected Paul at this time.

Btw, when SA suggests that this material goes back to Justin, he's referring to a supposedly lost work of Justin against Marcion. It can be imagined that the reason such a work is lost is because Justin outright attacked Paul as a false apostle. For instance the playful "Who is Paul? Where'd you get this guy? What makes you think he's an apostle? He's not listed in the gospels as an apostle!" schtick at the beginning of Tert's 5th book of Adversus Marcionem might have been Justin's serious position (i.e. Paul is invalid) and Tertullian may be presenting Justin's position only to modernize it with his whole "I'm just being facitious" approach. That Tertullian would get so close to the edge of declaring Paul a false apostle if not reworking an earlier source hostile to Paul is a bit shocking after all.

But contrary to Huller, this still makes Tertullisn somewhat trustworthy for reconstructing Marcion's gospel and Paulina. Even if Tertullian never saw a Marcionite canon and Tert is only reworking a work in which Justin did mention a few things while actually looking at one, some things in Tert will be accurate. Where I distrust Tert is where he tries to suggest Marcion's material included so much orthodox material, because this is only a rhetorical device to accuse him of inconsistency. Reconstruct Marcion's material with Tert; then remove more material based on Marcion's theology, and I think you'll be close to Marcion's text, closer thsn following Tert slavishly.