Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

.
Adv Marc IV, start of chapter 1 -


^y is this one of the first uses of the word 'Testament' ??

Then Tertullian seems to give credence primarily to John and Matthew, who "first instil faith into us"; and then Luke and Mark. But he does not name texts for them (did Tertullian [here] seed the names for the canonical gospels (the three synoptics and gJohn) ?? -

That was done earlier by Irenaeus.

Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process. Luke, however, was not an apostle, but only an apostolic man; not a master, but a disciple, and so inferior to a master— at least as far subsequent to him as the apostle whom he followed (and that, no doubt, was Paul ) was subsequent to the others; so that, had Marcion even published his Gospel in the name of St. Paul himself, the single authority of the document, destitute of all support from preceding authorities, would not be a sufficient basis for our faith. There would be still wanted that Gospel which St. Paul found in existence, to which he yielded his belief, and with which he so earnestly wished his own to agree, that he actually on that account went up to Jerusalem to know and consult the apostles, 'lest he should run, or had been running in vain' in other words, that the faith which he had learned, and the gospel which he was preaching, might be in accordance with theirs ...

(bolding is mine)
(a) "had Marcion even published his Gospel in the name of St. Paul himself, the single authority of the document, destitute of all support from preceding authorities, would not be a sufficient basis for our faith" ... then

(b) "There would be still wanted that Gospel which St. Paul found in existence, to which he yielded his belief, and with which he so earnestly wished his own to agree ..."

it doesn't specify which 'gospel' [perhaps it was just a theological concept]

No, "the gospel which St. Paul found in existence" is the same as Marcion's published gospel, which is described by Tertullian as a mutilated gLuke.
The text is very clear on this matter.

Cordially, Bernard

Again you go off on tangents with lesser minds. The real question is - what did Tertullian really know? How intimate was he with Marcion and his gospel? If you can't demonstrate that he actually knew Marcion, knew his writings or had his canon how do you really know anything about Marcion, his writings or his canon?

For example, the methodology of the work is downright bizarre. It goes something like this. There is this thing called 'the Antitheses' apparently. No one has ever quite figured out what this is. Against Marcion brings them up but right at the beginning of Book Four Tertullian makes a bizarre announcement:

Now I might have demolished those antitheses by a specially directed hand-to-hand attack, taking each of the statements of the man of Pontus one by one, except that it was much more convenient to refute them both in and along with that gospel which they serve [Evans]

These, however, I would have attacked in special combat, hand to hand; that is to say, I would have encountered singly the several devices of the Pontic heretic, if it were not much more convenient to refute them in and with that very gospel to which they contribute their support [Holmes]

Sed et istas proprio congressu cominus, id est per singulas iniectiones Pontici, cecidissem, si non multo opportunius in ipso et cum ipso evangelio cui procurant retunderentur

So let's recap. Even though these 'Antitheses' exist. Tertullian isn't going to address them directly but instead go after the gospel to which they give support. But why? Why not just produce the Antitheses?

Indeed the question has to be raised - is there even an Antitheses? What's the evidence for it? What are the Antitheses? No one knows. But now Tertullian is off to combat the gospel - what gospel? From whence comes the gospel? The gospel of Marcion? It's so confusing.

Book Four is introduced as an indirect assault against the 'Antitheses of Marcion' by way of 'the gospel itself' which it supports. Now presumably that's 'Marcion's gospel' that the Antitheses gives support, presumably that's what Tertullian means. But what a strange thing to throw in at the start of the discussion (note http://www.persee.fr/doc/rscir_0035-221 ... _45_4_2627). Yet the Antitheses are for the most part dropped or treated only superficially thereafter. How is that to be explained?

So Book Four is Tertullian saying "I could have attacked his antitheses one by one but it would be easier if I just attacked his antitheses by way of the gospel." But notice how casual Tertullian's employment of the concept of 'antitheses' are. In the very next line:

Although it is so easy to meet them at once with a peremptory demurrer, yet, in order that I may both make them admissible in argument, and account them valid expressions of opinion, and even contend that they make for our side, that so there may be all the redder shame for the blindness of their author, we have now drawn out some antitheses of our own in opposition to Marcion. [Holmes]

quamquam tam facile est praescriptive occurrere, et quidem ut accepto eas faciam, ut rato habeam, ut nobiscum facere dicam, quo magis de caecitate auctoris sui erubescant, nostrae iam antitheses adversus Marcionem.

What I gain from this situation - which is very, very murky indeed - whatever the 'antitheses of Marcion' are they are drawn from 'the gospel' but the same passages from which Marcion drew his antitheses can also brings forward 'orthodox antitheses' against Marcion which Tertullian is now putting forth for the reader. But the situation is unusual because - here at least - one can imagine a common gospel and the antitheses being arguments which Marcion promulgated from that gospel. Yes there are sections where it appears that Luke and Marcion are two different gospels but it is my conclusion that the present work is layered as the incipit of Book One acknowledges.

I cannot help but see from this unbelievable level of complexity that in a previous version of Adversus Marcionem there was one more or less commonly held gospel from which Marcion's antitheses were drawn. Yes there might have been a Marcion erased this or that. But this older text acknowledges Marcion's erasure of things found now only in Matthew. From memory the most frequent accusation of erasure deals with things from Matthew not things now found in Luke. At the very least the accusation of erasure from Matthew is indistinguishable from that made about Luke. 'The gospel' is a gospel which - at least initially - is one part Matthew, one part Luke (from our perspective).

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:44 pm

Then Tertullian seems to give credence primarily to John and Matthew, who "first instil faith into us"; and then Luke and Mark. But he does not name texts for them (did Tertullian [here] seed the names for the canonical gospels (the three synoptics and gJohn) ?? -

That was done earlier by Irenaeus.

Tertullian makes no previous reference to Irenaeus in Adv Marc.

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:44 pm
No, "the gospel which St. Paul found in existence" is the same as Marcion's published gospel, which is described by Tertullian as a mutilated gLuke. The text is very clear on this matter.

Cordially, Bernard

I strongly disagree.

"There would be still wanted that Gospel which St. Paul found in existence" seems to be a reference to what Marcion wanted.

Previously it says

• had Marcion even published his Gospel in the name of St. Paul himself, the single authority of the document, destitute of all support from preceding authorities, would not be a sufficient basis for our faith

and, before that -

• ... the apostle whom he [Macion] followed (and that, no doubt, was Paul) ["a master"; whom Luke was inferior to]

Adv Marc IV, 2 -

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:32 pm
What I gain from this situation - which is very, very murky indeed - whatever the 'antitheses of Marcion' are they are drawn from 'the gospel' but the same passages from which Marcion drew his antitheses can also brings forward 'orthodox antitheses' against Marcion which Tertullian is now putting forth for the reader. But the situation is unusual because - here at least - one can imagine a common gospel and the antitheses being arguments which Marcion promulgated from that gospel. Yes there are sections where it appears that Luke and Marcion are two different gospels but it is my conclusion that the present work is layered as the incipit of Book One acknowledges.

I cannot help but see from this unbelievable level of complexity that in a previous version of Adversus Marcionem there was one more or less commonly held gospel from which Marcion's antitheses were drawn. Yes there might have been a Marcion erased this or that. But this older text acknowledges Marcion's erasure of things found now only in Matthew. From memory the most frequent accusation of erasure deals with things from Matthew not things now found in Luke. At the very least the accusation of erasure from Matthew is indistinguishable from that made about Luke. 'The gospel' is a gospel which - at least initially - is one part Matthew, one part Luke (from our perspective).

Marcion's antithesis is supposed to be this - http://gnosis.org/library/marcion/antithes.htm

Though I wonder if those passages in the column under 'The Good God revealed by Christ' really were already cite-able from the synoptic books, or if Marcion knew those books (particularly as he never refers to them, and in light of the work of Vinzent, BeDuhn, and Klinghardt, etc).


The start of chapter one of book iV of Adv Marc says -


but then Tertullian wimps out and simply says -


Tertullian then just cites a lot of Isaiah.

So that was Tertullian's first 'if' - from chapter 1. Chapter 2 of Book 4 has another series of 'ifs' to consider:

You have now our answer to the Antitheses compendiously indicated by us. I pass on to give a proof of the Gospel ----not, to be sure, of Jewry, but of Pontus----having become meanwhile adulterated; and this shall indicate the order by which we proceed. We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament41 has apostles for its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel. If there are apostolic [Si et apostolicos] they are yet not alone, but appear with apostles and after apostles; because the preaching of disciples might be open to the suspicion of an affectation of glory, if there did not accompany it [si non adsistat] the authority of the masters, which means that of Christ, for it was that which made the apostles their masters.

You see Bernard if you don't pay attention and THINK ABOUT what you are reading this passage won't make much sense to you. The Marcionites called their canon 'the apostolikon' (= the apostolic). Tertullian here is not stating a fact but drawing what we might call a rhetorical inference - very common tactic in antiquity which is meaningless as far as information. He's just trying to 'catch' the Marcionites in an apparent difficulty that their 'apostolic' canon necessarily antedated the apostles. These sorts of goofy arguments built around phrases beginning with 'si' have no historical value for understanding Marcion other than in fact we see a re-enforcement that the entire canon including the gospel was called 'the apostolikon' (= belonging to the apostle).

Marcion's antithesis is supposed to be this - http://gnosis.org/library/marcion/antithes.htm

Yeah and men with small hands are supposed to have small penises. File this under, whatever.

I agree with Secret Alias. Note -

... the apostle whom he [Marcion] followed (and that, no doubt, was Paul) was subsequent to the others;

... had Marcion even published his Gospel in the name of St. Paul himself, the single authority of the document, destitute of all support from preceding authorities, would not be a sufficient basis for our faith. There would be still wanted that Gospel which St. Paul found in existence, to which he yielded his belief, and with which he so earnestly wished his own to agree ...