The Smoking Gun of Irenaeus's Against Marcion as the Text Beneath Both Tertullian and Epiphanius?

[Peter Kirby]

Actually Eusebius DOES SAY Irenaeus completed his work Against Marcion. From Book 4:

Philip who, as we learn from the words of Dionysius, was bishop of the parish of Gortyna, likewise wrote a most elaborate work Against Marcion, as did also Irenæus and Modestus. 4.24 https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm

Case closed I think.

So it is.

[Peter Kirby]

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

This tells us four things:

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

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

At the end of book one, we have this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The conclusion of the second book says this:

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

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

The conclusion of the fourth book says this:

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

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

The conclusion of the fifth book says this:

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

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

So I'm now led to this hypothesis:

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

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

[MrMacSon]

Our friend Markus Vinzent acknowledges Irenaeus completed the work too:

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

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

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

---

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

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

Wow! Eusebius gives the game away

Re

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

Euseb., Hist. eccl. 4.18.9:

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Re ⁵⁵ ib., 4.23.4:

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

---

Re ⁵⁶ ib., 4.25:

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

^a 4.23.5:

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

---

Re ⁵⁷ ib., 4.24:

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

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

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

---

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

5.8.9:

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

[hr[/hr]


Re ⁵⁹ Ib., 5.13.

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

2. But hear what he writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So much concerning these.

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

[Secret Alias]

Peter, it might be useful to compare Tertullian's use of Irenaeus in Against the Valentinians. Does he uses "I" with material which is obviously not his? Also Against Hermogenes (Theophilus) or Against the Jews and the parallel sections of Book Three (Justin).

[Secret Alias]

The use of "I" in Against the Valentinians (a work obviously plagiarized from Irenaeus):

chapter 2 "As for me, I would prefer to be convicted of the better fault if I have to make a choice; it is better to have a lesser intelligence than an evil one; better to err than to deceive. Furthermore, the face of God is seen by those seeking in innocence--as the Wisdom of Solomon, not of Valentinus, teaches. Infants as well bore witness to Christ by their blood; can I call those who cried "crucify him!" children?

chapter 4 "I affirm that we know quite well their origins and we also know why we call them Valentinians even though they seem not to be; for they have left their founder's path.

chapter 5 I hope no one will say (because of this limitation) that I have invented this material for the occasion. No indeed, many men who were renowned for their holiness and their leadership, who were not only our predecessors but also contemporaries of those very heresiarchs, have exposed and refuted them in learned volumes. I refer to Justin, philosopher and martyr, Miltiades, that churchly sage, Irenaeus, an eager discoverer of all doctrines, and our own Proculus, the living exemplar of a chaste old age and of Christian eloquence. In their footsteps I might hope to follow in all works of faith, just as I do in this work.

chapter 6 Therefore, here is this book in which I have set out a mere expose of their arcana. Now, so that no one may be stupefied by the strange, forced, arcane, and ambiguous names herein, I will first show how I plan to use them: for some of the names, a translation from the Greek does not bring out the appropriate force of the name; for others, the gender of the word in the two languages does not match; finally, we are more used to the citation of others untranslated. As a result I shall usually write the names in Greek with the meaning in the margin. Moreover, I will not omit the Greek form when I use the Latin name. I will note it over the line so that it will be a sign that this is an abstraction used as a personal name; otherwise there would be ambiguity since some of the "names" are used in other senses. Since I have put off for the future the full weight of my attack, attempting for the moment merely a recitation of their doctrines, this will not be an assault with a death-blow, since their dis-graceful teachings deserve to be beaten black and blue. Con- sider this then, reader, as a feint before the battle. I will show where I plan to hit them, but I will not carry through. Also, if you must laugh in places, do so; it will suit the subject. Much of this should be refuted with laughter so that it will not be awarded serious consideration. Silly ideas often meet with ridicule. It is suitable even for truth to laugh because it is happy, to mock its enemies because it is safe. Be careful, however, not to laugh where it is inappropriate to do so. Otherwise where it is appropriate, you should laugh. Finally, after this introduction I will begin.

chapter 7 In the same way they say he existed before anything else. I declare that this is indeed true, but I criticise them in nothing more than in this, the fact that the one they say existed before anything else they dis- cover to be subsequent to everything else, indeed subsequent to things not of his own making.

chapter 8 I will enter the names of the ten I mentioned: Bythios (Profound) and Mixis (Mixture), Ageratos (Unaging) and Henosis (Union) ...

There are about sixty more examples

[Secret Alias]

So if we suppose that Irenaeus DID complete his Against Marcion promised in Against Heresies the parallels between Tertullian's efforts to embrace Irenaeus's methodology and Epiphanius's methodology demonstrate that each of these later Church Fathers not only copied Irenaeus's methodology but that Book Four and Five of Adversus Marcionem and at least some of Epiphanius's πραγματείαν were literally copied out from Irenaeus's lost κατὰ Μαρκίωνος. How do we know this? Well to start out with, if either Tertullian or Epiphanius actually had the canon of Marcion why would they be following anything written in Irenaeus? You'd have the source of your desire in your hands so to speak, and wouldn't need a "substitute" or imitation as we see in the case of Zion Williamson:

https://www.tmz.com/2023/06/07/zion-wil ... irlfriend/

So given the fact that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (or in the case of Zion one in the bush is worth several in the hand) it stands to reason that IF Tertullian or Epiphanius can be demonstrated to have used Irenaeus THEN it follows they did not actually have the Marcionite canon in front of them. Irenaeus's methodology - "but Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains" and more explicitly:

Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all; and, curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these are alone authentic, which they have themselves thus shortened. In another work, however, I shall, God granting [me strength], refute them out of these which they still retain. (4.12.12)

Tertullian's methodology spelled out in Against Marcion 4.6

It is certain, also, that with this view he has erased everything that was contrary to his own opinion and made for the Creator, as if it had been interpolated by His advocates, whilst everything which agreed with his own opinion he has retained. The latter statements we shall strictly examine and if they shall turn out rather for our side, and shatter the assumption of Marcion, we shall embrace them. It will then become evident, that in retaining them he has shown no less of the defect of blindness, which characterizes heresy, than he displayed when he erased all the former class of subjects.

Epiphanius's methodology:

From the very canon that he retains, of the Gospel and the Pauline Epistles, I can show with God’s help that Marcion is a fraud and in error, and can refute him very effectively. (6) For he will be refuted from the very works which he acknowledges without dispute. From the very remnants of the Gospel and Epistles which he still has, it will be demonstrated to the wise that Christ is not foreign to the Old Testament, and hence that the prophets are not foreign to the Lord’s advent (43.9.5)

[Secret Alias]

In short (a) Irenaeus's arguments were a disguised argument for identifying Luke as Marcion's ur-text and (b) Tertullian and Epiphanius's efforts were unconscious (Tertullian) and conscious (Epiphanius) misrepresentations and misunderstandings of (a).

[rgprice]

Let's also acknowledge that it seems apparent that none of the apologists up through the 5th and 6th centuries truly had a good critical understanding of the differences between the various Gospels. The fact that these apologists didn't recognize that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke were "synoptic", i.e. all borrowed from each other and had parallel passages that indicated they were not actually independently written, is hugely significant.

What kind of stock can we put in the analysis of figures who didn't even recognize that Matthew, Mark and Luke all share content?

How can Irenaeus or Tertullian recognize that Marcion is derived from "Luke", if they don't even recognize that Luke and Matthew both appear to have been derived from Mark? How can they recognize what is what? Why would they know that Marcion comes form Luke as opposed to Mark if they don't really even recognize what is distinctly Lukan to begin with?

[Secret Alias]

I think Origen did.

[Secret Alias]

I think, as with Lawlor's hypothesis regarding Epiphanius's use of Hegesippus, the part where Epiphanius "picks up" Irenaeus's Against Marcion is here:

9,1 But I shall come to his writings, or rather, to his tamperings. This man has only Luke as a Gospel, mutilated at the beginning because of the Savior’s conception and his incarnation.32 (2) But this person who harmed himself < rather > than the Gospel did not cut just the beginning off. He also cut off many words of the truth both at the end and in the middle, and he has added other things besides, beyond what had been written. And
he uses only this (Gospel) canon, the Gospel according to Luke. 9,3 He also possesses ten Epistles of the holy apostle, the only ones he uses, but not all that is written in them. He deletes some parts of them, and has altered certain sections. He uses these two volumes (of the Bible) but has composed other treatises himself for the persons he has deceived.

9,4 Here are what he calls Epistles: 1. Galatians. 2. Corinthians. 3. Second Corinthians. 4. Romans. 5. Thessalonians. 6. Second Thessalonians. 7. Ephesians. 8. Colossians. 9. Philemon. 10. Philippians. He also has parts of the so-called Epistle to the Laodiceans.

9,5 From the very canon that he retains, of the Gospel and the Pauline Epistles, I can show with God’s help that Marcion is a fraud and in error, and can refute him very effectively. (6) For he will be refuted from the very works which he acknowledges without dispute.33 From the very remnants
of the Gospel and Epistles which he still has, it will be demonstrated to the wise that Christ is not foreign to the Old Testament, and hence that the prophets are not foreign to the Lord’s advent—(7) < and > that the apostle preaches the resurrection of the fl esh and terms the prophets righteous, and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob among the recipients of salvation—and that all the teachings of God’s holy church are saving, holy, and fi rmly founded by God on faith, knowledge, hope and doctrine.

The order of the Epistle of Paul in Book 5 is ALMOST exactly the same as Tertullian(except for the inversion of Philemon for Philippians):

Galatians (ch 2)
1 Corinthians (ch 5)
2 Corinthians (ch 9)
Romans (ch 13)
1 Thessalonians (ch 15)
2 Thessalonians (ch 16)
Ephesians (ch 17)
Colossians (ch 19)
Philemon (ch 20)
Philippians (ch 21)

It is worth noting that nothing is said about Philemon of note in Tertullian:

To this epistle alone did its brevity avail to protect it against the falsifying hands of Marcion. I wonder, however, when he received (into his Apostolicon) this letter which was written but to one man, that he rejected the two epistles to Timothy and the one to Titus, which all treat of ecclesiastical discipline. His aim, was, I suppose, to carry out his interpolating process even to the number of (St. Paul's) epistles. [2] And now, reader,932 I beg you to remember that we have here adduced proofs out of the apostle, in support of the subjects which we previously933 had to handle, and that we have now brought to a close934 the topics which we deferred to this (portion of our) work. (This favour I request of you, ) that you may not think that any repetition here has been superfluous, for we have only fulfilled our former engagement to you; nor look with suspicion on any postponement there, where we merely set forth the essential points (of the argument).935 If you carefully examine the entire work, you will acquit us of either having been redundant here, or diffident there, in your own honest judgment.

Similarly nothing is said of Philemon in Epiphanius so Epiphanius may have just inserted it somewhere. Perhaps in Irenaeus there was no mention at all of Philemon.

10,1 I am also going to append the treatise which I had written against
him before, a your instance, brothers, hastening to compose this one.