Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 8:18 pm Why because of this?

the descent from above is a thing only Marcion could day.

mlinssen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 2:23 pm There is nothing more Thomasine than hidden things, his text starts with the very word -

we have to distinguish between secrecy about the meaning of the good news (a more or less magical language about presumed "truths" etc) and secrecy about the deity of Jesus.

In Thomas and Marcion and proto-John there is surely the first kind of secrecy (all the religious "truths" are irrational therefore secret) but surely, absolutely not the second kind of secrecy, since the Son of Father is descended even in the recent times, "in the open light of the History", and there is no mystery about his being a DIVINE being walking on the earth.

In Mark Jesus is seriously embarrassed about his divine status and tries to hide it (the so-called "Messianic Secret"). The reason of the embarrassment of his own deity is that the open proclamation of his divine status (= the real meaning of the Parable of Lamp) is seen as an explicit attack to the Jewish monotheism (as it was designed to be from the beginning in Marcion et Thomas and proto-John).

This is why in Mark the Son of Father (= parodied as Barabbas) is rejected, while the "so-called" Christ deserves the glory of the cross. And even then not alone but with two thieves.

What's the difference in Latin grammar?

Nam et ipse mundum institutum esse ab illis dicit; Christum ex semine Ioseph natum proponit, hominem illum tantummodo sine diuinitate contendens, ipsam quoque legem ab angelis datam perhibens, Iudaeorum deum non dominum, sed angelum promens

And

Anno quintodecimo principatus Tiberiani proponit

The subject is Luke not Marcion. Tertullian is consistently citing what Luke "puts forward" not Marcion. Propono consistently introduces things said in the gospel.

Anno quintodecimo principatus Tiberiani proponit eum descendisse in civitatem Galilaeae Capharnaum

In the fifteenth year of the principate of Tiberius (Luke/it) declares. God descended into the city of Capernaum in Galilee. From the Creator's heaven, of course, into which he had first come down out of his own. Did not then due order demand 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?

Clearly the "orderly narrative" is a reference to Lk 1:1f. No one is claiming this is in Marcion's gospel?

Perhaps my point wasn't clear enough in my last midnight posting. Let's summarize or paraphrase Tertullian's argument.

1. Tertullian begins his study of the contents of Luke by paraphrasing Luke 3.1 "Anno quintodecimo principatus Tiberiani proponit"
2. In the previous chapter (and chapters) he's laid down the gauntlet that (a) Marcion knew the canonical four gospels (b) chose Luke for his falsification and that (c) he's going to go through Luke to demonstrate that Marcion's additions don't make sense
3. Throughout Book Four propono is used to say "[what the gospel of Luke] puts forward."
4. The context of the opening lines (4.7) have to mean "[what the gospel of Luke] puts forward" because the rest of the paragraph won't make sense otherwise:

In the fifteenth year of the principate of Tiberius (it/he) declares. God descended into the city of Capernaum in Galilee. From the Creator's heaven, of course, into which he had first come down out of his own. Did not then due order demand 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?

Clearly Tertullian says in chapters 1 - 6 and confirms here that he is dealing with a gospel that begins with 1.1 - 4 "Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us ... it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed" and goes on to "[n]ow in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar." If you think that he is citing Marcion's gospel with "Anno quintodecimo principatus Tiberiani proponit" then you have to accept that the Marcionite gospel also has "ordinare narrationem" (Lk 1.3) in it as well.

Again if this isn't clear enough Lk 1.3 in Latin "ordinare narrationem." Tertullian in 4.7.1 "Cur enim non et ista reprehendam quae non implent fidem ordinariae narrationis, deficientis in mendacio semper?" Similarly in 4.6 - a chapter earlier - he writes "Sed alium iam hinc inimus gradum, ipsum, ut professi sumus, evangelium Marcionis provocantes, sic quoque probaturi adulteratum" translated by Holmes as "But we now advance a step further on, and challenge (as we promised to do) the very Gospel of Marcion, with the intention of thus proving that it has been adulterated" but which I think can be equally well rendered:

But now we enter another step, challenging the gospel of Marcion, as we have professed, so that it will also be proved to be adulterated.

He's going to prove it is adulterated by citing Luke first and then what is added by Marcion (in this case that Marcion says Jesus flew down from heaven). It's so simple I can't believe that so much ink has been wasted on this topic. BTW the previous "step" is in chapter 2:

Denique nobis fidem ex apostolis Ioannes et Matthaeus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instaurant, isdem regulis exorsi, quantum ad unicum deum attinet creatorem et Christum eius, natum ex virgine, supplementum legis et prophetarum. Viderit enim si narrationum dispositio variavit, dummodo de capite fidei conveniat, de quo cum Marcione non convenit. Contra Marcion evangelio, scilicet suo, nullum adscribit auctorem, quasi non licuerit illi titulum quoque affingere, cui nefas non fuit ipsum corpus evertere. Et possem hic iam gradum figere, non agnoscendum contendens opus quod non erigat frontem, quod nullam constantiam praeferat, nullam fidem repromittat de plenitudine tituli et professione debita auctoris. Sed per omnia congredi malumus, nec dissimulamus quod ex nostro intellegi potest. Nam ex iis commentatoribus quos habemus Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem caederet.

In short, from among the apostles the faith is introduced to us by John and by Matthew, while from among apostolic men Luke and Mark give it renewal, <all of them> beginning with the same rules <of belief>, as far as relates to the one only God, the Creator, and to his Christ, born of a virgin, the fulfilment of the law and the prophets. It matters not that the arrangement of their narratives varies, so long as there is agreement on the essentials of the faith—and on these they show no agreement with Marcion. Marcion, on the other hand, attaches to his gospel no author's name,—as though he to whom it was no crime to overturn the whole body, might not assume permission to invent a title for it as well. At this point I
might have made a step here, arguing that no recognition is due to a work which cannot lift up its head, which makes no show of courage, which gives no promise of credibility by having a fully descriptive title and the requisite indication of the author's name. But I prefer to join issue on all points, nor am I leaving unmentioned anything that can be taken as being in my favour. For out of those authors whom we possess, Marcion is seen to have chosen Luke as the one to mutilate

His point is to show that Marcion corrupted Luke. According to Tertullian Luke is the original gospel. He is not "bringing forward" Marcion's gospel but Luke's. It is utterly obvious. The "step" here is Marcion adding things to Luke's gospel. Note:

Certe nihil interest quomodo firmaverit legem, sive qua bonus, sive qua supervacuus, sive qua patiens, sive qua inconstans, dum te, Marcion, de gradu pellam.

Certainly it makes no difference how he established the law, whether good, or superfluous, or patient, or unstable, so long as I banish you, Marcion, from the step. (4.9)

Do observe that Tertullian puts John first and then Matthew. And Luke first and then Mark.
Tertullian often confuses sources, but what are you saying here? Everyone who has tried to reconstruct Marcion but reading the Patristics agrees that they fail to advance their claim of Marcion having corrupted Luke

I am saying Against Marcion is the first commentary on Luke. It's no different than Origen's Commentary on John.

Evangelist puts forward (proponit) X
Heretic (for Origen it's Heracleon for Tertullian Marcion) infers or adds Y
Church Father disproves Y by demonstrating that X has to be in keeping with Biblical truths the Evangelist "certainly" adhered to.

The point is Against Marcion is the first Commentary on Luke. Scholarship on Marcion has been dense.

Let's look at things another way. Clement says:

And to prove that this is true, it is written in the Gospel by Luke as follows (ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τῷ κατὰ Λουκᾶν γέγραπται οὕτως): And in the fifteenth year, in the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias. And again in the same book: And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old, and so on. And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: He has sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.

When we turn to Latin-Greek dictionaries propono is one of the accepted ways of translating γράφω https://books.google.com/books?id=-m5iA ... 22&f=false Latin is a denser language than Greek. The structure of the passage is:

1. Luke puts forward X (Anno quintodecimo principatus Tiberiani Lk 3:1)
2. Marcion infers Y (deum descendisse in civitatem Galilaeae Capharnaum)
3. Y can be discounted because Luke is an "orderly account" (Cur enim non et ista reprehendam quae non implent fidem ordinariae narrationis, deficientis in mendacio semper?)

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:22 am I am saying Against Marcion is the first commentary on Luke. It's no different than Origen's Commentary on John.

Evangelist puts forward (proponit) X
Heretic (for Origen it's Heracleon for Tertullian Marcion) infers or adds Y
Church Father disproves Y by demonstrating that X has to be in keeping with Biblical truths the Evangelist "certainly" adhered to.

The point is Against Marcion is the first Commentary on Luke. Scholarship on Marcion has been dense.

If your are claiming that Marcion redacted Luke instead of vice versa, and base that on one single Latin word, I'll happily leave you to it

More of Luke "putting forth":

4.11 The publican chosen by our Lord for a disciple is brought into the argument by Marcion with the suggestion that because he was outside the law and regarded by the Jews as unclean, he must have been chosen by one hostile to the law. It has escaped his notice even concerning Peter, a man under the law, who was for all that not only chosen but received commendation for having knowledge granted him by the Father. He had nowhere, <it appears>, seen it written that Christ is proclaimed as the light and hope and expectation of the gentiles (a prophetic passage cited similarly back in 4.7). Yet <Christ> expressed approval of Jews more than others when he said that the whole have no need of a physician, but those that are sick: for if by those in ill health he meant them to understand those heathen men and publicans of whom he was making his choice, this was an assurance that those Jews who he said had no need of a physician, were in good health. If that is so, his coming down to destroy the law was ill-conceived, if his purpose was the remedy of that ill-health, when those who were living in the law were in good health, and had no need of a physician. What can have been the use of his setting out the parable of the physician and not acting on it (Holmes "How, moreover, does it happen that he proposed the similitude of a physician" Quale est autem ut similitudinem medici proposuerit, nec impleverit)? For just as no one brings a physician to people in health, neither does he bring one to people so alien as man is from Marcion's god, when that man has his own author and protector, and from him for preference that physician who is Christ. This the parable predetermines, that the physician is more likely to be provided by him to whom the sick persons belong.

What do we think Tertullian meant here with propono? It is not Marcion "putting forth" but Luke. It is Jesus in Luke's gospel which was corrupted by Marcion "put forward" the parable and Tertullian cites Marcion's antinomian interpretation (= Y) which disproved by Luke again.