Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Secret Alias wrote:

but both are still agreeing on what they found in Marcion

Really? Does T ever say the Bezae variant is in Marcion? Not really

Well, that is true too. I guess it seems to me that Tertullian is arguing against Marcion using this phrase, so it makes more sense to be using Marcion's text (especially as Epiphanius specifically lists this as something in the text), but I admit that this is just my sense of argumentative propriety, which the fathers did not always reflect. But it is still a better situation than, say, if Epiphanius had listed this as a Marcionite variant while Tertullian gave the other variant without comment.

True. I was moved a long time ago by examining Irenaeus's use of scripture against Marcion in Adv Haer. There is almost no correlation between whether a passage is in Marcion (or presumed to be in Marcion) and whether Irenaeus uses the passage against Marcion. If Irenaeus's Against Marcion influenced Tertullian's Against Marcion then that whole "common sense" approach to arguments like that related to Luke 5:14 go out the window. Irenaeus acted like I do at this forum, babbling away making arguments that don't always have any rooting in his opponents point of view.

Irenaeus is an odd read. No one else like him in all of world literature

Picked one at random Adv Haer 4:13

"For," He remarks, "it has been said to them of old time, Do not commit adultery. But I say unto you, That every one who hath looked upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."(3) And again: "It has been said, Thou shalt not kill. But I say unto you, Every one who is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment."(4) And, "It hath been said, Thou shalt not forswear thyself. But I say unto you, Swear not at all; but let your conversation be, Yea, yea, and Nay, nay."(5) And other statements of a like nature. For all these do not contain or imply an opposition to and an overturning of the [precepts] of the past, as Marcion's followers do strenuously maintain; but [they exhibit] a fulfilling and an extension of them, as He does Himself declare: "Unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

What does a scholar of Marcion do with that or this:

John, however, does himself put this matter beyond all controversy on our part, when he says, "He was in this world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own [things], and His own [people] received Him not."(8) But according to Marcion, and those like him, neither was the world made by Him (3.11.2)

And there are dozens more where Irenaeus and Tertullian cite passages from Paul and the canonical gospels which simply were not found anywhere but the orthodox canon. Irenaeus wasn't "fair" he wasn't a scholar in the modern sense - he just wanted to beat his opponents into submission

Secret Alias wrote:Irenaeus wasn't "fair" he wasn't a scholar in the modern sense - he just wanted to beat his opponents into submission

True. But Tertullian at least claims to be refuting Marcion from his own text. This gives a lot of scholars at least a bit of hope that Marcion's text might be reflected in Tertullian's. (I know you have a complex view of the origins of Against Marcion; nevertheless, the claim is there, whereas it is absent in Irenaeus, IIRC.)

True, I have what you call a "complex view" of the origins of AM, but the text demands such an understanding. Let's gloss over the fact that the preface to AM introduces itself as a complex creation, ie that the author wrote something a long time ago, it was stolen and an "apostate" added things to the original text only for the original author to reclaim the work and "correct" the errors added by the second hand - and that most people acknowledge that the same person did not compose all 5 works (Book 2 is usually ascribed to Theophilus, Book 3 to a common source with Against the Jews). Let's just focus on Book 4 for a moment.

Let's gloss over Williams's point about T repeatedly having concerns about M removing things from Luke that are only found in Matthew (another situation which demands some sort of "complexity") or the fact as you note that T and E most of the time don't see the same sort of text. The facts are that T says quite explicitly that M has a grandiose understanding of what amounts to being a supernatural Jesus wholly different from the Jesus of Nazareth which manifests itself from our canonical text(s).

In other words whether it is T or E very few significant textual differences are brought up by either man. It mostly comes down to minor changes and yet M has a wholly different understanding of who and what Jesus is. Could such minor differences have allowed for such a different Jesus or perhaps better put - could a marginally differentiated text have given an adequate defence for a supernatural Jesus? Of course not and this is where Baarda's flying Jesus tradition is so useful. The Diatessaron remarkably provides support for the kind of Jesus that M and other heretics were fighting for.

To this end we have to take a second look at the kinds of arguments and concessions, acknowledgements T and E are making both in their examination of the gospel and the apostle and we have to acknowledge some sort of complexity and sophistication in their argumentation. They are not simply holding up the best text of the gospel to support the kinds of ideas they found abhorrent and which might challenge the beliefs of those daring to read such a dangerous text. They weren't allowing themselves to "assist" the spread of heresy. T especially (likely taking over arguments originally written by I in Greek) was arguing from Luke against M, bypassing entirely the issue of the authenticity of the heretical gospel used by M.

It is modern scholarship which gives the benefit of the doubt to T, allowing for the fact he might have been "fair" or fairer than he ever claims to be in the narrative itself.

Secret Alias wrote:Let's gloss over Williams's point about T repeatedly having concerns about M removing things from Luke that are only found in Matthew (another situation which demands some sort of "complexity")....

That fact does demand some sort of complexity, but it is not clear to me exactly where the complexity ought to lie: with the Marcionite gospel or with Tertullian himself (and/or his sources).

If I bring you a batch of cupcakes, out of the kindness of my heart, and then reassure you that these cupcakes contain no pork intestine, that is not evidence that the cupcakes do contain pork intestine; to the contrary, they probably do not. But it is evidence that I have weird notions about what cupcakes are supposed to contain.

Likewise, if Tertullian tells us that the Marcionite gospel cut out something from Luke that we find only in Matthew, that is not evidence that the Marcionite gospel (in any form) contained that text. But it is evidence that Tertullian (or somebody) has weird ideas about what Luke is supposed to contain. And I can imagine several scenarios to explain this:

1. Tertullian (or one of his sources) was working from memory, accidentally ascribing to Luke what he actually would have found only in Matthew, had he bothered to look it up.
2. Tertullian was reworking a source which originally compared the Marcionite gospel to Matthew, or to two or more different gospels, or to a gospel harmony, and did not always make the corrections he should have.
3. Tertullian (or one of his sources) actually possessed a copy of Luke which contained stuff that we now find only in Matthew, probably due to the harmonization process that we find all over the gospel records, but his version of Luke has been lost to history.

Perhaps different instances of the phenomenon are actually attributable to different cases.

Notice that, even if Marcion reworked a gospel which contained both Lucan and Matthean special material, sometimes removing Matthean stuff as well as Lucan stuff, either #2 or #3 above should also be true, since the only way to tell that Marcion removed something Matthean is to know, or guess, that he was working with Matthean material in the first place. Tertullian himself seems to think that Marcion was working with Lucan material, so he himself is unlikely to have stated, of his own accord, that he removed Matthean material unless #1 above is true; if #2 or #3 is true, then of course that is not Tertullian speaking of his own accord.

Some clues in AM that T was simply using his Gospel (let's call it Luke for simplicity sake). First, T acknowledges he doesn't have in his possession the kind of gospel M claims to be the true gospel:

Now Luke was not an apostle but an apostolic man, not a master but a disciple, in any case less than his master, and assuredly even more of lesser account as
being the follower of a later apostle, Paul, to be sure: so that even if Marcion had introduced his gospel under the name of Paul in person, that one single document would not be adequate for our faith, if destitute of the support of his predecessors. For we should demand the production of that gospel also which Paul found <in existence>, that to which he gave his assent, that with which shortly afterwards he was anxious that his own should agree (AM 4.2)

But notice thst whenever T tries to link M to Luke conditional terms like "if" are used. Surely if T actually had the holy texts of the M tradition he'd have better knowledge, there wouldn't be so many "ifs."

The effort to connect M to orthodox tradition is done in a wholly unscientific manner. History is seen wholly from the orthodox perspective. No time is spent understanding "what the M tradition believed/why they believed it/how they supported their arguments." Instead each antiheretical text begins with wholly unscientific starting points. The Church began exactly as Acts describes it. The M tradition denies this history. But it is no great matter (!). The M tradition is forcibly connected to "the truth."

Yet every step along the way T not only ignores what M said or believed substituting a string of "ifs" in the place of actual research and reporting:

It is another matter if in Marcion's opinion the Christian religion, with its sacred content, begins with the discipleship of Luke (ibid 4.3)

Not even among your men of Pontus, if I mistake not, have you been able to realize that the world is constructed out of the diversities of substances in mutual hostility. (4.1)

Indeed a never-ending string of ifs:

and on this ground Marcion strives hard to overthrow the credit of those gospels which are the apostles' own and are published under their names, or even the names of apostolic men, with the intention no doubt of conferring on his own gospel the repute which he takes away from those others. And yet, even if there is censure of Peter and John and James ... and besides, if false apostles also had crept in, their character too is indicated ... if they [the false apostles] had been in any error on the subject of God the Creator, or of his Christ ... If Marcion's complaint is that the apostles are held suspect of dissimulation or pretence, even to the debasing of the gospel ... If however the gospel which the apostles compared with Paul's was beyond reproach, and they were rebuked only for inconsistency of conduct, and yet false apostles have falsified the truth of their gospels, and from them our copies are derived, what can have become of that genuine apostles' document which has suffered from adulterators—that document which gave light to Paul, and from him to Luke? Or if it has been completely destroyed, so wiped out by a flood of falsifiers as though by some deluge, then not even Marcion has a true one. Or if that is to be the true one, if that is the apostles', which Marcion alone possesses, then how is it that that which is not of the apostles, but is ascribed to Luke, is in agreement with ours? Or if that which Marcion
has in use is not at once to be attributed to Luke because it does agree with ours—though they allege ours is falsified in respect of its title—then it does belong to the apostles. And in that case ours too, which is in agreement with that other, no less belongs to the apostles, even if it too is falsified in its title. (4.3)

This last section of ifs culminates with the understanding that M's is Luke. Nowhere does T say that M and his followers accepted this proposition. In fact he acknowledges the opposite.

But notice how T pushes toward the acceptability of using Luke directly against M (ie that there is no need to go line by line through M's corrupt version of Luke). In the next section we read:

So then meanwhile, as concerns the gospel of Luke, seeing that the use of it shared between us and Marcion becomes an arbiter of the truth, our version of it is to such an extent older than Marcion that Marcion himself once believed it ... What now, if the Marcionites are going to deny that his faith at first was with us—even against the evidence of his own letter? What if they refuse to acknowledge that letter? Certainly Marcion's own Antitheses not only admit this, but even make a show of it. Proof taken from them is good enough for me. If that gospel which among us is ascribed to Luke—we shall see <later> whether it is <accepted by> Marcion—if that is the same that Marcion by his Antitheses accuses of having been falsified by the upholders of Judaism with a view to its being so combined in one body with the law and the prophets that they might also pretend that Christ had that origin, evidently he could only have brought accusation against something he had found there already. No one passes censure on things afterwards to be, when he does not know they are afterwards to be. Correction does not come before fault. As corrector apparently of a gospel which from the times of Tiberius to those of Antoninus had suffered subversion, Marcion comes to light, first and alone, after Christ had waited for him all that time, repenting of having been in a hurry to send forth apostles without Marcion to protect them. And yet heresy, which is always in this manner correcting the gospels, and so corrupting them, is the effect of human temerity, not of divine authority: for even if Marcion were a disciple, he is not above his master: and if Marcion were an apostle, Whether it were I, says Paul, or they, so we preach:a and if Marcion were a prophet, even the spirits of the prophets have to be subject to the prophets,b for they are not prophets of subversion but of peace: even if Marcion were an angel, he is more likely to be called anathema than gospel-maker, seeing he has preached a different gospel.c And so, by making these corrections, he assures us of two things—that ours came first, for he is correcting what he has found there already, and that that other came later which he has put together out of his corrections of ours, and so made into a new thing of his own.

So after spending so much time laying the groundwork for Luke being the original text of the M gospel forged in recent times - are we really to believe that T just shifted gears and argued from the late and recently corrupted gospel text of M against M? Odd that he never says he is using M's gospel against M.

At this point we have reached the end of chapter 4. The commentary on Luke begins in chapter 7. The question that now lies before us is to figure out whether there is any evidence that T is actually using what has now been established/confirmed as a recently corrupted version of Luke against M (ie the gospel of M) or as I would argue, after establishing that the gospel of M is a recently corrupted version of Luke T goes on to compare the canonical "orthodox" text of Luke against M. Let's see whether the last two remaining preliminary chapters can determine who/which understanding is correct.