Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Deconstructing Marcion if you wanna go a little more high brow with it.

Me highbrow? I also thought there was a double entendre. Against Marcion Studies and the generic Against Marcion studies. I'm open to any suggestions. Hard enough to get this complete. 30 years in the making with no chance of a profit.

Someone else will probably have a better suggestion
but
Deconstructing _Against Marcion_ Studies?
Yep, there was a double entender, but also a less-helpful ambiguity.

Against Former _Against Marcion_ Studies
?

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 9:48 pm

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 5:06 amWhat you seem to be giving insufficient credit to is how extremely conservative (by your own standards of open mindedness on these options) prior scholarship has been in terms of giving high credence to Tertullian's Against Marcion book 4 and all its details, including its order, based on the assumption that it is a first hand report being produced in close tandem with a reading of Marcion's gospel set out before him.

With these kinds of considerations, it could be the difference of moving from a default position of Tertullian's accuracy (which is what most scholarship takes for granted) to giving no credence to Tertullian regarding order and accepting Tertullian's statements only when there is more explicit or implicit indication that Marcionites used a reading (which is an approach that I tried to follow).

I see. You're right, I wasn't aware of the prior scholarship reliance on Tertullian with regard to the order of Marcion's Gospel. I appreciate the explanation, Peter.

For comparison: Roth found 292 attestations to Marcion's text in Against Marcion (his methodology required him only to find something mentioned at all in book 4), but I found only 82 attestations to Marcion's text in Against Marcion (as I required better indication that it was a reading used by Marcionites).

viewtopic.php?p=157410#p157410

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 11:42 am Me highbrow? I also thought there was a double entendre. Against Marcion Studies and the generic Against Marcion studies. I'm open to any suggestions. Hard enough to get this complete. 30 years in the making with no chance of a profit.

I rather like the double entendre in this title: Irenaeus Against Marcion.

Or
Against _Against Marcion_ Interpretations.
Maybe have your people call my people.
They could do lunch, maybe.

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 11:57 am Deconstructing _Against Marcion_ Studies?

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 11:59 am Against Former _Against Marcion_ Studies

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 12:14 pm Against _Against Marcion_ Interpretations.

See also: "no, no, don't call it Mission: Impossible, call it The Mission That Will Be Very Hard But Eventually Completed, that would be more accurate."

Sorry watching the Seahawks. Another argument?

The borrowing by Tertullian from Irenaeus, particularly in Adversus Marcionem, can be considered fairly obvious when comparing the specific arguments and phraseology both authors use, particularly when dealing with themes like the nature of God, Mammon, and the impossibility of serving two masters. While Tertullian doesn’t explicitly credit Irenaeus, many of his arguments closely parallel Irenaeus’s earlier work, making it clear that he was either directly influenced by Irenaeus or was drawing on similar theological traditions.

Key Parallels and Direct Comparisons:

Mammon is Not a God but Wealth:

Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3.8.3:

"For He says, 'He that commits sin is the slave of sin.' Inasmuch, then, as He terms those 'the slaves of sin' who serve sin, but does not certainly call sin itself God, thus also He terms those who serve Mammon 'the slaves of Mammon,' not calling Mammon God."
Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 4.33:

"For he says, 'Ye cannot serve God and Mammon,' meaning not that Mammon is a god, but that Mammon is the emblem of riches, which is incompatible with serving God."

Direct Borrowing: Both Irenaeus and Tertullian make a similar argument: that Mammon is not a god, but represents wealth. They both emphasize that serving Mammon (wealth) is a form of spiritual slavery, but Mammon should not be confused with a deity. Tertullian’s phrasing is extremely similar to Irenaeus’s, suggesting he is borrowing from or at least heavily influenced by Irenaeus's interpretation.

The Two Masters Argument:

Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3.8.3:

"He does not call Mammon Lord when He says, 'Ye cannot serve two masters;' but He teaches His disciples who serve God, not to be subject to Mammon, nor to be ruled by it."

Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 4.33:

"Christ had declared with the utmost clearness, 'Ye cannot serve two masters'—that is, God and Mammon."
Direct Borrowing: Both Irenaeus and Tertullian highlight the impossibility of serving two masters, and both reference Jesus’s teaching on this matter in Matthew 6:24. The phraseology is strikingly similar, with both emphasizing that Mammon is not a "master" or Lord, but simply a symbol of material wealth, which distracts from serving God.

The Strong Man Argument:

Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3.8.2:

"The Lord showed Himself under every aspect and truly to be the strong man, saying that one can in no other way 'spoil the goods of a strong man, if he do not first bind the strong man himself, and then he will spoil his house.'"

Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 4.24:

"For who is that strong man? He who else but the devil, mighty in his wickedness, whom all men bind by themselves and spoil his house, unless they have been bound by him already?"

Direct Borrowing: The argument about the "strong man" being bound is similar in both authors. Both are explaining Christ’s parable from Matthew 12:29 in a similar theological context—arguing against heretical interpretations, particularly the Gnostic/Marcionite tendency to downplay the devil’s power. The wording and the structure of the argument are similar, indicating that Tertullian could have drawn from Irenaeus’s discussion.

The Singular God and Opposition to Marcion’s Dualism:

Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3.6.4:

"This calumny, then, of these men, having been quashed, it is clearly proved that neither the prophets nor the apostles did ever name another God, or call [him] Lord, except the true and only God."

Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 1.2:

"This will prove that no other God was announced by Christ, save the Creator. He is the God of the law and the prophets."

Direct Borrowing: Both authors are making exactly the same theological point—that Christ never introduced another God aside from the Creator, whom both the law and the prophets spoke of. Both are arguing directly against Marcion’s dualistic conception of two gods, one of the Old Testament (the Creator) and one of the New Testament (the higher, good god).

Conclusion:

There is substantial evidence that Tertullian borrowed directly from Irenaeus in Adversus Marcionem. The theological arguments, phraseology, and structuring of key refutations—particularly those relating to Mammon, the strong man, and the oneness of God—all bear strong similarities. Tertullian's use of these arguments against Marcion's dualism mirrors Irenaeus’s earlier rebuttals in Adversus Haereses, making it likely that Tertullian was influenced by Irenaeus’s writings or perhaps even had access to Irenaeus’s lost Adversus Marcionem.

I am indebted to Secret Alias ​​for providing this detailed analysis showing a specific stage of development of
Anti-Marcionist Propaganda.

The best title has already been used by Judith Lieu who in her book Making of a Heretic best reflects the specific development of this propaganda over a longer period of time.
Biblical scholars only think that they are conducting studies on Marcion. They are not. They are conducting studies of propaganda. Nothing more.