Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 11:10 amWho?

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 12:49 pm There is this footnote in Roth's thesis, pg. 63:

Prior to Hahn it was occasionally questioned whether Tertullian actually had Marcion’s text in hand; however, Hahn effectively refuted the notion and convincingly demonstrated that Tertullian was, as he claimed, refuting Marcion from “the heretic’s” own Gospel (see Hahn, Evangelium Marcions, 91–94). To my knowledge no persuasive challenge to this view arose in any of the subsequent eras of debate on Marcion’s Gospel.

Hahn wrote in 1832. Thanks to the Internet Archive, we can try to read the demonstration that ended all such inquiry.

[pg. 92]
"Therefore, if anyone thinks that we have done less (through the refutation of Marcion's assumption of the existence of two gods, one good and one just, based on a priori reasons), let him hope that it is reserved for his own time, just as the examination of the scriptures themselves that Marcion uses." And this examination can be found in Books IV and V against Marcion, and he prepares himself for it in those very words in IV, 1, which we have just mentioned.

In Chapter 2, he says again: "Now I turn to the truly Judaic gospel (referring to the Gospel of the Catholic Church, as adulterated by Judaizers), but also the Pontic one (referring to the one that the Pontic Marcion had), demonstrating its adulteration in the meantime."

He repeats the same thing, before even discussing Marcion's Gospel itself, in Chapter 6, very definitively: "But now let us proceed to the next step, namely, the actual Gospel of Marcion, challenging it as we have declared, and also proving its adulteration. For certainly, in everything he has labored for, even in constructing the Antitheses, he aims to establish the diversity between the Old and New Testaments, thereby separating his Christ from the Creator, as belonging to another God, as alien to the law and the prophets. Certainly, for this reason, he annuls any conflicting opinions, which would be in agreement with the Creator as if woven by his supporters, while preserving those opinions that suit his own perspective. Let us agree on these matters, let us embrace them if they are more aligned with us, if they strike at the presumption of Marcion." Then it will be clear that the same heretical blindness has been eradicated by the same flaw. Thus, the intention and form of our treatise will be in accordance with this condition, which arises from both.

[pg. 93]
He establishes that Marcion considers another Christ, who was revealed in the times of Tiberius by a once-unknown God for the salvation of all nations; and another Christ who is destined by the creating God for the restoration of the Jewish state, to come at some point in the future. Within these distinctions, there is a great and complete difference, as great as that between the just and the good, between the law and the gospel, between Judaism and Christianity. Hence, our prescription, which we aim to establish, is that nothing should be held in common between Christ of another God and the Creator. However, regarding the Creator, it must be declared whether He administered His arrangements, fulfilled His prophecies, assisted His laws, represented His promises, restored His virtues, reformed His judgments, expressed His morals and properties. I ask you, dear reader, to remember this pact and prescription everywhere, and to begin recognizing it (from Marcion's Gospel, which Tertullian now presents verse by verse and in parts), either Marcion's Christ or the Creator." As he speaks and earnestly impresses upon the reader, his purpose is not only to refute Marcion from his own Gospel but specifically to show that even in it, Christ does not appear as the Son of an unknown God but as the Son of the God who long ago promised Him through His prophets. Tertullian remained faithful to this approach; in the middle of the investigation, in Chapter 34, page 525, he reminds again: "But as far as you need to be refuted on what you have received, so I will address you 'et rel.' And at the end of the entire investigation, in Chapter 43 extr., he emphasizes once again, leaving no room for uncertainty: "This Gospel, which he..." (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 17, page 251).

[pg. 94]
Tertullian’s statement, which he attributes to Marcion, is also worth mentioning as it reflects his mocking tone: "I admire you, Marcion, for your efforts. For Christ Jesus in my Gospel is indeed the Son of the Creator." Tertullian had already addressed Marcion's Apostolicon in the fourth book, intending to refute him based on its content. In the fifth book against Marcion, he specifically refers to it again to refute him, as mentioned in chapter 3, page 378, where he writes, "And this I have done by approving the law of the Creator, which supports the poor and needy, just as is demonstrated in your Gospel." This can be compared to the beginning of chapter 1, page 372, where he prepares to present evidence from the texts Marcion accepts and says, "Therefore, we have undertaken this task so that from here on, we will prove ourselves, using no other material apart from that which has been circulated by the Apostle, as we have demonstrated from Christ himself, primarily from the letters of Paul, even those that have been mutilated in number and form by the followers of the heretical Gospel (which he had previously examined). Marcion will have to prejudge this accordingly."

Similarly, in another later work, De carne Christi (On the Flesh of Christ), in chapter 7 (Volume III, page 359, Semler edition), Tertullian says, "But whenever the nativity is contested by those who reject it as prejudiced in favor of the truth of Christ's flesh, denying that God Himself willed to be born, which He Himself said, 'Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?' (Luke 8:20, 21; Mark 3:31-35). Let Apelles also hear what response we have given to Marcion in that little book where we have set forth the Gospel of Marcion."

[pg. 95]
Namely, in Against Marcion, Book IV, page 260 (*).

Here, Tertullian clearly states that he intends to refute Marcion not from the Gospel of Luke but from his own Gospel. He assures that he has done so and continues to do so. Therefore, those who claim that Tertullian did not read Marcion's writing at all or read it very carelessly must either not have read it themselves or it is incomprehensible how they could say, in his Early Investigations [Kritische Untersuchungen], pages 7, 6, and 40, "'Closer examination and information about the text of Marcion's Gospel can be found in Tertullian.' Tertullian does not provide more detailed investigation or information about Marcion's Gospel. He seems to always repeat in general terms that Marcion corrupted his Gospel." And yet, he writes independently, both in words and substance, supported by numerous and specific details, something that the aforementioned scholars did not do. Does this mean he is merely repeating? "It seems obvious that Tertullian never had a Marcionite Gospel before his eyes during his work. Surely, following the example of Epiphanius, he would have mentioned and indicated the various differences between the two Gospels." (Must different writers treat the same subject in the same way?) "Tertullian may have only had access to Marcion's Antithesis and some other writings of the Marcionites, and he polemicized against them based on those." Then he notes that in the previously mentioned passage, chapter 6, Tertullian "only speaks about Marcion's incorrect teaching, which does not correspond to his own Gospel, which he (Tertullian) considered to be different from that of Luke (yes, but adulterated!). However, immediately afterward, Tertullian actually proceeds to examine and demonstrate (from chapter 7 to the end) that Marcion's teaching does not align with this Gospel, or in other words, he refutes Marcion using our Luke." If that were the case, he would have done what he did not intend to do, and he would have done it quite poorly. It is clear from this that Grass [Gratz] did not understand Tertullian's IV, 1-6 and from chapter 7 f.

[pg. 96]
As Tertullian goes through the Marcionite text with the intention of refuting the heretic based on his assumed Gospel, he does not always point out every deviation, falsification, or omission. Often, he simply quotes the corrupted or altered Marcionite text without explicitly mentioning the changes. However, it usually happens that Epiphanius, in his comments, specifically notes that Marcion altered and distorted the text of the Gospel, just as we read in Tertullian. An undeniable testimony at the end. [It seems] Grass did not read it attentively and compare it with Epiphanius, otherwise it would have become clear to him that Tertullian used Marcion's own Gospel, as he clearly states in the passages mentioned above, going through it verse by verse with its falsifications and peculiarities in order to refute him. Indeed, it is extremely laborious to read Tertullian, always in careful comparison with Epiphanius and other comments on Marcion's text in our Luke! Due to this misunderstanding, the entire work by Grass, which contains many valuable observations about Epiphanius, has taken a skewed direction and contains several incorrect critical side remarks, such as on page 44: "We assume that Tertullian refuted only the Marcionite system based on his Latin (?) Luke; thereby, one can at least learn how Tertullian read his Luke." Therefore, "if, in some cases, Tertullian's reading coincides with Marcion's against our now accepted version, it provides clear evidence that Marcion's reading is a corrupted version of Luke and our revised version is correct." Without any basis!

[pg. 97]
Furthermore, there is more evidence that Tertullian had Marcion's text in front of him and refuted the opponent as he had intended. For example, in Luke 4:34, Tertullian quotes, "What have we to do with you, Jesus? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God," without noting that Marcion omitted "Nazarene" and had to omit it since his Jesus had no mother or place of birth on Earth. (See p. 201 and IV, 6, p. 395, where the same passage is quoted from Marcion's Gospel without "Nazarene.") In Luke 10:21, Tertullian cites, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children," without indicating the necessary omission according to Marcion's system, namely, the words "wrap and xal syns," which Epiphanius explicitly mentions (see p. 313B and 329B). In Luke 11:29, Tertullian from verse 29 to verse 32, without mentioning that this passage contrary to the Marcionite system has been omitted, while Epiphanius states that in Book 29, only "onuelov ou dodnostai aury" remained and the rest was cut out (reginénomTai). Similarly, Tertullian shares Marcionite reading in Luke 11:42, "You should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former," which, since the good God does not judge, could not have been included (see sections 3 and 2 on Rom. 11:35), without mentioning this falsification, which Epiphanius highlights (see schol. 26, p. 313D, ell. 332B). Likewise, the passages that were offensive to Marcion in verses 49 and 51 are mentioned by Tertullian only as being cut out, as noted by Epiphanius on page 313, schol. 28, ell. p. 535. In the portion of Tertullian's text provided, Luke 12:6 and 12:19 are also missing without any specific indication, which corresponds to Marcion's Gospel.

[pg. 98]
That they were missing, on the other hand, Epiphanius mentions explicitly on pages 314 and 333. But also in verse 7, as Tertullian points out, it had to be missing from Marcion's Gospel. According to Marcion's system, only the souls of humans were taken by the divine God, not the spirits, nor even the bodies of humans. See below, chapter 21, verse 18. Tertullian cites from Marcion's Codex (instead of 'coram angelis Dei') without noting any change 'coram Deo.' And that Marcion removed the words 'Twn dzyékos' can be seen in Epiphanius, book 1, verse 1. Among these examples, one can also compare with the passages in the Gospel: 15:1-9, 28, 29, 50; 35; 15:11-32; 16:17; 17:5-10. And then, between verse 14 and 15, there is a gap that corresponds to 4:27, 18:31-34, 19:29-48, 20:9-18, 37, 38, 21:21, 22 (perhaps also 22 and 24), 22:3, 16, 50, 35-37, 49-51, 23:43, and 24:25.

However, he cannot refrain from occasionally noticing some distortions and omissions, even though this is not his purpose, which troubled him deeply when he consulted or vividly remembered Tert's Luke. See below, Luke 9:30, Tertullian's remarks in book IV, 22, page 278. Regarding 10:25, it is mentioned in Tertullian's book IV, 95, pages 292-94: 'In the Gospel of the truth of the law, the teacher of the Lord approached, saying, 'What should I do to inherit eternal life?"

[pg. 99]
In the Gospel only the mention of eternal life, as the teacher seems to refer to that "life": 'to have attained what is promised in the law by the Creator, long-lasting.' Luke 23:34 was missing according to Tertullian.

In book IV, 42, page 363, the other half is missing because it contains the fulfillment of a prophecy (Psalm 21:19). Tertullian writes, 'Indeed, the soldiers divided His garment, perhaps part of it was given, but Marcion removed it, disregarding the prophecy of the Psalm.' Furthermore, in going through the letters of Paul accepted by Marcion in the same book of his writing, Tertullian mentions several times (V:10, 16, 18, 19) the explicit distortions or omissions. See above, section 9, regarding 1 Corinthians 15:45, 1 Thessalonians 1:8, Laodiceans 3:9, 2 Colossians 1:15, 17. Also, see Tertullian, book I, chapter 17, page 453, and following, regarding Laodiceans 2:14, where Tertullian cites the text: 'And He Himself is our peace, who made both one (Jews and Gentiles). And He broke down the middle wall of separation in His flesh.' But Marcion removed 'in His flesh' so that He would give flesh to the enmity, as if it were a fleshly vice, not rivaling Christ.'

Rarely, probably only once, Tertullian was led astray, possibly by his memory, as he did not always follow his own version of Luke and compared it with the Marcionite version he presented to us. Therefore, he mistook readings in Matthew as original readings in Luke, for example, in book IV, 29, page 313, regarding Luke 12:51: "'Do you think that I have come to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.' 'A sword' is indeed written. But Marcion corrected it, saying that it is not a sword but rather a separation that is needed."

[pg. 100]
The original reading of Luke is preserved in dia pe propòr beya; Matthew 10:34 retains xapav.

4) He goes through Marcion's Gospel from the beginning to the end, quoting most of it, usually in the same order as our Luke and verse by verse, except when there is a deviation in Marcion's Gospel or, very rarely, when the course of his refutations against Marcion gave him reason to anticipate a later passage or make up for an earlier one. However, since Tertullian's intention is always to refute the opponent from his own Gospel, taking into account the changes made in favor of the system, he often presents knowledge of the text from the Catholic Gospel before disputing against Marcion on its basis. Therefore, it is necessary to read Tertullian's mentioned counter-writing very carefully, paying attention to words, context, and purpose, and comparing it with the Gospel of Luke to determine whether a section of this Gospel is present in Marcion's.

Arneth, in section VII, page 8, notes here Luke 23:53, but certainly not rightfully so (according to the state of the text). With more justification, three passages from Matthew can be attributed to this, in which Tertullian claims that Marcion removed them from the Gospel. These passages are Matthew 5:17 (according to Tertullian IV, 7, 9, extr. 12, cll. V, 14, page 440) and 45 (Tert. II, 17, IV, 17, page 251, cll. 36, page 339) and 15:24 (according to Tert. IV, 7, page 199). However, see these passages in section 6 below.

See also Dr. Paulus in his aforementioned work, page 17, against Eichhorn.

[pg. 101]
Whether it stood in the Gospel or not, the basis for recognizing it through refutations is that, usually, Tertullian refutes Marcion not infrequently, often only through individual words or even just hinting at the content. The entire work of Tertullian provides evidence for this, which will be further elaborated upon in my presentation of the Marcionite Gospel below. Only a few examples, without further selection, may suffice to confirm and elucidate what has been said:

Luke 6:36. Tertullian, in book IV, 17, page 251, does not entirely conform to our canonical Greek text when quoting from Marcion's Gospel: "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful." However, the text in Marcion's Gospel is not different from that in our Luke, and Tertullian, in his divergence, proves that he immediately indicates the latter words as being directed against Marcion: "If another (good God) has now commanded mercy because He Himself is merciful, why was He not merciful to me (down to Tiberius' time, when he first revealed himself) for such a long time?" As seen, Tertullian did not precisely translate the above omission as "He is merciful, He is yours" instead of "your Father is merciful," as was noted and corrected by Tertullian himself. However, Tertullian made a mistake in this regard. Even more evident and instructive are his words in which he quotes the following verses 37-45 and uses them to counter Marcion: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you, a good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you in return. I suppose these words resonate with a retribution based on merits. From whom, then, do they come?"

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 12:49 pm
There is this footnote in Roth's thesis, pg. 63:

Prior to Hahn it was occasionally questioned whether Tertullian actually had Marcion’s text in hand; however, Hahn effectively refuted the notion and convincingly demonstrated that Tertullian was, as he claimed, refuting Marcion from “the heretic’s” own Gospel (see Hahn, Evangelium Marcions, 91–94). To my knowledge no persuasive challenge to this view arose in any of the subsequent eras of debate on Marcion’s Gospel.

• That's noteworthy