Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 10:17 am When it comes to the scholarly use of Adversus Marcionem, it’s important to acknowledge that we can't be certain Tertullian is giving us any reliable information about the Marcionite gospel. Any claims of "reconstructing" the gospel should come with an asterisk. It's entirely possible that Tertullian is simply adapting Irenaeus's original argument from Luke against Marcion, rather than providing any firsthand insight into the actual Marcionite text.

I believe I have asked this before yet never gotten a reply: what exactly is your position? Is Tertullian merely using his own text of Luke (or Irenaeus’ text as it appears in his work om Marcion, assuming that he even wrote such a work and that Tertullian was using it)
to refute Marcion? If so, how do you read those sections where Tertullian points out vast omissions in the text he is using (e.g. Romans 9-11) ?

Will there be a TL;DR?

I believe I have asked this before yet never gotten a reply: what exactly is your position? Is Tertullian merely using his own text of Luke (or Irenaeus’ text as it appears in his work om Marcion, assuming that he even wrote such a work and that Tertullian was using it)
to refute Marcion?

Do I think Tertullian actually knew all the things he reports about the Valentinian sect in Adversus Valentinianos? Honestly, no. It's one of those cases where partisanship allows people to pass off secondhand information as if it’s their own. By aligning himself with a particular view, Tertullian signals his membership in the theological “club.” This is how I see Irenaeus introducing the fourfold gospel—whether Tertullian knew if it was an accurate representation of the apostolic gospels or not, he subscribed to it.

Similarly, as a supporter of the four-in-one gospel, Tertullian felt compelled to denounce older traditions like those of the Marcionites. Now, whether there was an actual historical figure named “Marcion” or whether the name refers to Marcia or Marcellina is another discussion. The point is, the Marcionites didn’t accept the fourfold gospel and argued the entire orthodox New Testament was a forgery. That needed a rebuttal, and Tertullian’s main tool here was Adversus Marcionem.

If we take Epiphanius’s interpretation of Adversus Marcionem seriously (and I think Epiphanius had Irenaeus’s text as a source), a few things need to line up for it to hold water:

1. Why doesn’t Tertullian make a big deal about supposed omissions in Luke’s gospel? For instance, why is he so casual about the gospel starting in Capernaum? If my house were burglarized, it would seem odd if I casually walked in, opened a beer, and only called the police the next day. You’d think the biggest case against Marcion would be that he chopped off four chapters of Luke’s gospel, yet Tertullian barely mentions it. There’s no detailed inventory of missing parts, no in-depth comparisons with the original. Instead, we’re left with almost no mention of missing words, sentences, or chapters throughout Book Four. How do we explain that if Tertullian had a copy of Marcion’s so-called “butchered” gospel?

The natural response is that the Marcionite gospel was similar to Luke’s. Maybe the Church Fathers exaggerated the differences, and there weren’t as many as they claimed. But if that’s the case, hysterical exaggerators aren’t the best witnesses. Plus, when other sources like De Recta in Deum Fide discuss the Marcionite gospel, they report a lot of textual differences. If we dismiss De Recta because it doesn’t match Tertullian’s account, what do we do with Epiphanius, who also doesn’t align with Tertullian? It all points to the Church Fathers being unreliable in their reporting.

At the heart of this unreliability is their willingness to repeat what others said uncritically, often adding their own spin or rewriting large portions. When I look at the preface to Adversus Marcionem, it seems obvious that Tertullian rewrote a version of the text that came from another church writer—possibly an “apostate” like Irenaeus. Could Irenaeus have been seen as an apostate for betraying the New Prophecy movement? I think that’s plausible.

Finally, why does Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem follow Irenaeus’s plan so closely, with its section-by-section refutation of Marcion using the parts of Luke that Marcion supposedly “retained”? It feels more like an adaptation of Irenaeus’s treatise rather than an original work. The fact that Adversus Valentinianos is essentially a word-for-word copy with Tertullian’s own ad-libs further supports this idea.

Evidently, Marcionite churches still existed during Tertullian's time, so it might not have been hard to obtain a copy of Marcion's canon.

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 6:11 am Evidently, Marcionite churches still existed during Tertullian's time, so it might not have been hard to obtain a copy of Marcion's canon.

Not only that. It would be absurd by Tertullian a propaganda against an enemy of which any trace was lost by the his time. Tertullian is in real conflict with Marcionism.

An author who could have all the rights and the chronological position to eclipse entirely Marcion (until to betray his real message) was more probably Epiphanius.

If so, how do you read those sections where Tertullian points out vast omissions in the text he is using (e.g. Romans 9-11)

This is how a lot of "Marcion studies" tend to work. Tertullian mentions a missing section of text between Romans 8:11 and 10:2. The fact that Epiphanius doesn't mention anything from this section is often taken as "confirmation" of this. Similarly, Origen reports that Marcion's text of Romans ends at 14:23, which seems to align with Tertullian's last citation at 14:10. Many scholars treat this as an "outline" of the Marcionite text of Romans and run with it.

But there's a problem.

Has anyone really looked at Origen's take on this supposed "abrupt ending" of Romans? It's tied to his treatment of Paul's phrase "my gospel." We also know that the Marcionites interpreted "my gospel" to mean Paul wrote a gospel himself, based on Origen and other Church Fathers.

Now, let’s revisit Tertullian’s statement about a large gap: Salio et hic amplissimum abruptum intercisae scripturae ("I skip here a vast break in the interrupted text"). If we take this literally, Tertullian is saying Marcion removed everything between 8:11 and 10:2. But this doesn't make sense. The reference to Israel in Romans 10:2 suggests that parts of chapter 9 must have been present. So what’s Tertullian really saying? He’s likely skipping over an argument from Irenaeus’s original treatise and attributing a general expunging to Marcion.

Similarly, Origen probably didn’t have a Marcionite version of Romans in front of him. He might have noticed the discussion in Romans seemed to trail off around chapter 14, leading him to assume that some copies of Romans ended there. Epiphanius did something similar when he saw a different order of Paul’s letters in Irenaeus’s Adversus Marcionem—Galatians, Corinthians, etc.—and assumed this was Marcion’s order. But when Epiphanius actually lists Marcion’s collection of Pauline letters, it follows a different order: Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians. He tried to reconcile this with Irenaeus by making each reference match Adversus Marcionem.

How do we know that Adversus Marcionem follows Irenaeus’s order rather than Marcion’s? First, Ephraim witnesses this order in the so-called Palutian tradition, which brought the orthodox tradition to Osroene around Irenaeus’s time. Ephraim’s order of Paul’s letters begins with Galatians. More importantly, Anastasius of Sinai cites a lost work of Irenaeus that lists the orthodox order of Paul’s letters starting with Galatians. This suggests that Irenaeus attacked the Marcionite use of Paul’s letters in the same way he critiqued the Gospel of Luke—using his own "orthodox" canon and pointing out what he claimed Marcion "retained." But the order he used was clearly his own, and this New Testament canon was brought to Osroene by Palut and remained orthodox there for centuries.

Evidently, Marcionite churches still existed during Tertullian's time, so it might not have been hard to obtain a copy of Marcion's canon.

With you, Stephen, 'could have' always turns into 'definitely happened' when you have animosity towards the person involved. Could of is meaningless in this case.

Tertullian is in real conflict with Marcionism.

Where exactly was this "Marcionism"? The Roman Church today shares some features with Marcionite practices, but does that mean celibate Roman priests who use unleavened communion wafers are "proof" that Marcion existed or that they were Marcionite? Anyone can be accused of belonging to a tradition once that tradition is labeled as heretical. It's unclear if there were ever any "Marcionite" churches within the Roman Empire itself at the time Tertullian was writing —maybe in Syria or the East, but they were unsanctioned and clandestine, so it's hard to say for sure.

Tertullian also copied Theophilus's Against Hermogenes, basically suggesting that Hermogenes lived for another fifty years and somehow traveled from Antioch (where Theophilus wrote) to Carthage (where Tertullian wrote). That's highly unlikely. It's just another example of Tertullian copying previous generations of Christian writers without much concern for accuracy or truth.

I strongly suspect that "Marcion" was a term used originally to reference the high profile tradition associated with Marcia the Christian concubine of Commodus. Just a suspicion based on various identifications of Marcion as a woman. Why does this matter? Where did the name "Luke" come from associated with the Marcionites by Irenaeus. Origen identifies the Lucius in Romans with the evangelist Luke (Comm. Rom. 10.39). Lucius is mentioned four lines before the "my gospel" reference which Marcionites took to be proof that Paul wrote the original gospel. The full name of Commodus was Lucius Aurelius Commodus (later adding the title Antoninus). I think that's where the story about "the gospel of Luke" originated. Something like that.

Marcionism was likely the term originally used to describe the disgraced Roman tradition associated with Marcia the Christian concubine of Commodus. The Marcionites had a gospel of Paul which began with Mark 1:1. In order to distinguish this "false" Roman tradition with the true Roman tradition a "gospel of Lucius/Luke" was invented to embody the presence of an authority higher than "Marcion" from whom she/he originally rebelled. The Gospel of Luke was not known/did not exist before the death of Commodus.

Another ignored point. Gospel references in De Recta in Deum Fide:

Matthew:
Matthew 3:9
Matthew 5:17
Matthew 5:28
Matthew 5:29
Matthew 5:39
Matthew 5:40
Matthew 5:43
Matthew 5:44
Matthew 6:24
Matthew 7:2
Matthew 7:9
Matthew 7:11
Matthew 7:15
Matthew 7:16
Matthew 7:18
Matthew 7:23
Matthew 8:12
Matthew 8:20
Matthew 8:29
Matthew 9:16
Matthew 9:17
Matthew 9:22
Matthew 10:2
Matthew 10:3
Matthew 10:4
Matthew 10:5
Matthew 10:9
Matthew 10:10
Matthew 10:13
Matthew 10:33
Matthew 10:34
Matthew 11:2
Matthew 11:3
Matthew 11:5
Matthew 11:6
Matthew 11:10
Matthew 11:27
Matthew 12:29
Matthew 12:33
Matthew 13:31
Matthew 13:33
Matthew 13:47
Matthew 14:19
Matthew 15:19
Matthew 16:13
Matthew 16:16
Matthew 18:6
Matthew 18:7
Matthew 18:12
Matthew 18:13
Matthew 19:14
Matthew 19:17
Matthew 19:21
Matthew 21:7
Matthew 21:10
Matthew 22:13
Matthew 22:42
Matthew 22:45
Matthew 23:13
Matthew 24:27
Matthew 25:30
Matthew 26:24
Matthew 26:26
Matthew 26:27
Matthew 26:28
Matthew 26:47
Matthew 26:50
Matthew 27:24
Mark:
Mark 1:21
Mark 8:31
Luke:
Luke 1:35
Luke 3:1
Luke 5:22
Luke 6:8
Luke 6:45
Luke 8:30
Luke 8:45
Luke 8:46
Luke 9:1
Luke 9:2
Luke 9:6
Luke 9:20
Luke 10:1
Luke 10:18
Luke 12:46
Luke 12:47
Luke 12:48
Luke 12:49
Luke 15:4
Luke 15:6
Luke 16:19
Luke 16:23
Luke 16:25
Luke 16:26
Luke 16:31
Luke 18:18
Luke 18:22
Luke 18:27
Luke 18:35
Luke 18:38
Luke 18:40
Luke 18:41
Luke 18:42
Luke 18:43
Luke 23:8
Luke 23:12
Luke 23:46
Luke 23:50
Luke 23:52
Luke 23:53
Luke 24:25
Luke 24:26
Luke 24:38
Luke 24:39
John:
John 1:3
John 1:14
John 1:17
John 1:29
John 3:13
John 5:31
John 7:42
John 8:34
John 10:18
John 11:34
John 11:39
John 11:44
John 12:14
John 13:34
John 14:6
John 14:26
John 15:19
John 15:26
John 16:5
John 17:23
John 19:34
John 20:27

Matthew: 66 references
Mark: 2 references
Luke: 42 references
John: 22 references

Like I got nothing better to do:

Matthew:

Matthew 3:9 (p.60, l.3 -
Matthew 5:17 (p.88, l.30) BP2 (p.88, l.31 - <) BP2 (p.94, l.1) BP2
Matthew 5:28 (p.88, l.14) BP2
Matthew 5:29 (p.114, l.1 - <) BP2
Matthew 5:39 (p.32, l.5 - (p.32, l.11 - E) BP2 (p.88, l.19 - <) BP2
Matthew 5:40 (p.38, l.2 - (p.38, l.8 -
Matthew 5:43 (p.26, l.18 - < >) BP2
Matthew 5:44 (p.26, l.20 - <) BP2 (p.28, l.15 - E) BP2 (p.30, l.28 - (p.32, l.1 - E) BP2 (p.88, l.26
Matthew 6:24 (p.56, l.11 - (p.56, l.20 - (p.58, l.4 - E) BP2
Matthew 7:2 (p.32, l.17 - (p.66, l.32 -
Matthew 7:9 (p.110, l.2 -
Matthew 7:11 (p.110, l.2 -
Matthew 7:15 (p.58, l.18) BP2
Matthew 7:16 (p.58, l.18) BP2
Matthew 7:18 (p.56, l.14 - (p.58, l.11 - (p.60, l.5 - E) BP2
Matthew 7:23 (p.28, l.10 - <) BP2 (p.28, l.18 - <) BP2 (p.44, l.15 - (p.44, l.30 -
Matthew 8:12 (p.28, l.26 - < >) BP2 (p.30, l.29 - < >) BP2 (p.32, l.1 - >) BP2 (p.112, l.19 - < >) BP2 (p.112, l.26 - < >) BP2
Matthew 8:20 (p.14, l.9 - P) BP2 (p.14, l.14 - P) BP2 (p.82, l.33 - P) BP2
Matthew 8:29 (p.34, l.20 - <) BP2
Matthew 9:16 (p.90, l.8 - <) BP2 (p.90, l.24) BP2
Matthew 9:17 (p.90, l.5 - <) BP2
Matthew 9:22 (p.36, l.5 -
Matthew 10:2 (p.8, l.30 - P) BP2 (p.8, l.33 - P) BP2 (p.10, l.10 - P) BP2 (p.80, l.30 - E) BP2 (p.82, l.10 - P) BP2
Matthew 10:3 (p.8, l.30 - P) BP2 (p.82, l.10 - P) BP2
Matthew 10:4 (p.8, l.33 - P) BP2 (p.10, l.10 - P) BP2
Matthew 10:5 (p.10, l.13 - E) BP2 (p.22, l.6 - E) BP2
Matthew 10:9 (p.22, l.7 - (p.22, l.12 - E) BP2 (p.22, l.22 - E) BP2
Matthew 10:10 (p.22, l.7 - (p.22, l.12 - E) BP2 (p.22, l.22 - E) BP2
Matthew 10:13 (p.24, l.2 - E) BP2
Matthew 10:33 (p.32, l.20 - <) BP2 (p.66, l.33 - <) BP2
Matthew 10:34 (p.66, l.35 - < )) BP2
Matthew 11:2 (p.50, l.12 - <) BP2 (p.52, l.1) BP2
Matthew 11:3 (p.50, l.12 - <) BP2 (p.50, l.16 - <) BP2
Matthew 11:5 (p.40, l.2 - P) BP2 (p.52, l.5 -
Matthew 11:6 (p.52, l.5 -
Matthew 11:10 (p.98, l.11 -
Matthew 11:27 (p.44, l.1 - (p.44, l.14 - (p.44, l.22 - (p.44, l.29 -
Matthew 12:29 (p.124, l.2 - (p.124, l.7 - E) BP2
Matthew 12:33 (p.108, l.12 - E) BP2 (p.110, l.9 - E) BP2
Matthew 13:31 (p.110, l.10 -
Matthew 13:33 (p.110, l.10 -
Matthew 13:47 (p.110, l.10 - <) BP2
Matthew 14:19 (p.108, l.24 -
Matthew 15:19 (p.58, l.23 - <) BP2
Matthew 16:13 (p.84, l.1 -
Matthew 16:16 (p.84, l.1 -
Matthew 18:6 (p.34, l.5 - <) BP2
Matthew 18:7 (p.88, l.4 - <) BP2
Matthew 18:12 (p.167, l.24 - >) BP2
Matthew 18:13 (p.167, l.24 - >) BP2
Matthew 19:14 (p.32, l.26 -
Matthew 19:17 (p.2, l.18 -
Matthew 19:21 (p.88, l.22 -
Matthew 21:7 (p.48, l.21 - E) BP2
Matthew 21:10 (p.48, l.21 - E) BP2
Matthew 22:13 (p.198, l.31 - <) BP2 (p.200, l.13 - <) BP2
Matthew 22:42 (p.28, l.26 - < /) BP2 (p.32, l.1 - /) BP2
Matthew 22:45 (p.198, l.31 - <) BP2 (p.200, l.13 - <) BP2
Matthew 23:13 (p.68, l.2 -
Matthew 24:27 (p.50, l.1 - <) BP2
Matthew 25:30 (p.30, l.29 - < /) BP2 (p.112, l.19 - < /) BP2 (p.112, l.26 - < /) BP2
Matthew 26:24 (p.34, l.4 -
Matthew 26:26 (p.108, l.25 - E) BP2 (p.184, l.16 - E) BP2
Matthew 26:27 (p.108, l.25 - E) BP2
Matthew 26:28 (p.184, l.16 - E) BP2
Matthew 26:47 (p.174, l.26 - E) BP2
Matthew 26:50 (p.174, l.26 - E) BP2
Matthew 27:24 (p.174, l.26) BP2

Total number of specific references from Matthew is 91.

Might help to contextualize these references.