Argument of Tertullian against gMarcion

[MrMacSon]

The question is why would you construct a thesis in such a curious man
ner. The bottom line is:

1. Tertullian offers no solid biographical details about Marcion
2. Tertullian does not reveal or systematically go through the contents of a published text called the Antitheses
3. Tertullian does not reveal or systematically go through the contents of the Marcionite gospel
4. Tertullian offers no concrete eyewitness testimony about the Marcionite religion

So we have to ask - of what value is his testimony? I am struck by the fact that eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth century scholarship joins in Tertullian's Marcion-bashing as if Marcion and his religion is visible in Adversus Marcionem.

... Word has gotten out that 'Marcion' has gotten out of favor with the alpha dog in the pack and various lower ranked dogs are lining up to have a go at him.

The point is that over time we lose sight of the actual situation ...

But how do you explain Tertullian saying Marcion's gospel is a truncated gLuke ...

Tertullian could not be so stupid into characterizing gMarcion as a mutilated gLuke (as did Irenaeus) ..

It's all a re-writing of history. To side-line Marcion to try to shore up the notion there had been a concurrent orthodox canon, when there probably wasn't.

[DCHindley]

Is anyone here familiar with the so-called Jefferson Bible?

He, being a Deist, was not a traditional Christian. Jesus Christ, in his estimation, was a religious reformer who improved the ethical state of Judaism, which despite being "deist" (monotheistic), was simply not of the same plane as that of the Greco-Roman philosophers.

By going through the NT gospels he selected the words of, and pericopes about, Jesus, which in his own estimation were believable and not fabulous, Jefferson created a running narrative:

http://uuhouston.org/files/The_Jefferson_Bible.pdf

Many editions out there have Jesus' own words in Red letters much like was common with editions of the KJV (AV).

It seems that this could be an analogue to Marcion's story of the message Jesus Christ, spokesman for the unknown God. Marcion, in a similar manner, scoured through a collection of the letters of Paul and the Gospels, especially Luke, which he felt was Paul's "own" gospel (not necessarily one he created, but expressed the same credo about Jesus as Paul followed), and identified things that he felt were the teaching of the Unknown God. That he also identified opposing passages which were antithetical to these key teachings meant that he was aware that the message about Jesus and his teaching was not being transmitted pure and needed purging. He went to the highest authorities within the Christianity of his day (those at Rome) to convince them of his theory, but unsuccessfully.

Jefferson did not create a critical study corresponding to Marcion's Antitheses, but Jefferson, a cultured man, surely had his reasons for selecting the passages he had for his Bible. Jefferson, however, did not want to generally publish his "bible" on account of the controversy and hostility from traditionalists it might give rise to, and he had other official duties for the United States of America that he felt were more important at the moment. Marcion felt that he was duty bound to advance his theory, and this is where they differ. I wonder what Jefferson thought of the other parts of the gospels that spun the fabulous tale of Jesus as a divine redeemer? We may never get more than a few hints.

DCH

[MrMacSon]

... Marcion, in a similar manner, scoured through a collection of the letters of Paul and the Gospels, especially Luke, which he felt was Paul's "own" gospel (not necessarily one he created, but expressed the same credo about Jesus as Paul followed), and identified things that he felt were the teaching of the Unknown God. That he also identified opposing passages which were antithetical to these key teachings meant that he was aware that the message about Jesus and his teaching was not being transmitted pure and needed purging. He went to the highest authorities within the Christianity of his day (those at Rome) to convince them of his theory, but unsuccessfully.

Marcion may not have scoured Luke, so I'd say

Marcion, in a similar manner, scoured through a collection of the letters of Paul and Gospels, one or some of which he felt was Paul's "own" gospel (not necessarily one he created, but expressed the same credo about Jesus as Paul followed), and identified things that he felt were the teaching of the Unknown God.

[Secret Alias]

But how do you explain Tertullian saying Marcion's gospel is a truncated gLuke, and in the same book, would infer there is a lot of gMatthew stuff in the same gospel? That does nor make sense

Compare large sections of Adversus Marcionem Book 3 and Against the Jews. Both 'by Tertullian.' The same material is reused in two different directions. Against the Valentinians is Tertullian repurposing Irenaeus. Against Hermogenes is a repurposed treatise of the same name by Theophilus. As such it cannot be argued that Tertullian ALWAYS wrote from his own imagination. There is no purpose to claiming that because it is patently untrue. At least on some occasions he repurposed works by other authors especially works written against the heresies.

The question you have to ask yourself is on what authority could Tertullian have written 5 books against Marcion? I don't want to rehash arguments already developed by Criddle and I in previous threads, Book 4 is a repurposed commentary on a harmony gospel.

But if you ask - does it seem likely that Tertullian had such a breadth and depth of knowledge about Marcion that he wrote five books against Marcion purely from notes and raw data from his personal experience the answer is certainly no. Book Three is an explicit recycling of something that has absolutely nothing to do with Marcion into the third of five books against Marcion. As such when you start to look at the anomalies in Book Two and Book Four it becomes highly probable that they too were books written by someone else with the strong possibility too that they written by someone else having nothing originally to do with Marcion as in the case of Book Three.

In short then, the information provided is suspect if not terribly reliable. You can't base firm conclusions about Marcion on Tertullian as there is no evidence he is writing from personal experience from actual 'live data.' As in the case with Book Three he took other peoples writings - and something other peoples writings which had nothing to do with Marcion (in that case an attack Against the Jews) and turned arguments written against the Jews into 'things related to Marcion.'

If someone repurposes a history of 17th century Japan into a forged 'personal journey through 17th century India' I am not sure you would find much in the way of reliable information or useful information about 17th century India.

[Charles Wilson]

So, who did it, SA?
Your knowledge of Iranaeus and Tertullian et. al. finds someone collecting massive amounts of verbiage and redirecting it against Marcion, who already has "Existence Problems". Your scholarship is worthy.

Who did it?

[Secret Alias]

You know what it is like. Chinese whispers (is that now a politically incorrect term?). It starts with something. A little snowball. Then it rolls around on the ground and it gets a little bigger but with added leaves and twigs and dirt. Pretty soon it turns to mush. There is enough similarities between what is said about Marcion and the rest of these guys that you get a feeling it is based on something. On the other side of the ledger there is something odd about the use of scripture in the gospel and the Pauline letters - just the sheer volume in places especially in the latter - and the pattern of adding scriptural references to Patristic writings (Ignatius) that you think there is something to the reporting about the Marcionite complaint that the orthodox tampered with scripture. But to make definitive statements about the Marcionite canon, the orthodox canon the way scholars tend to do is simply reckless.

[hakeem]

Based on existing Christian writings "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian must be or most likely is a forgery or false attribution.

When one examines Christian writings supposedly written hundreds of years after the mid 3rd century none of them mention "Against Marcion" by Tertullian.

"Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian is very voluminous consisting of 5 books yet no-one even quotes a sentence in later writings when arguing against Marcion.

Examine Church History attributed to Eusebius alleged to have been written in the 4th century.

There is nothing about Tertullian's Against Marcion" however there is mention of at least 9 persons who wrote against the heretics and Marcion.

Justin ---Church History 4.11.8
Quadratus---Church History 4.23.4
Theophilus ---Church History 4.24.3
Irenaeus--- Church History 4.25
Philip---Church History 4.25
Modestus---Church History 4.25
Bardesanes---Church History 5.13.1
Rhodo---Church History 5.13.1
Hippolytus---Church History 6.22.2.

Now examine De Viris Illustribus supposedly written by Jerome at the end of the 4th century, again there is no mention of "Against Marcion by Tertullian however at least 8 other persons are named who wrote against heretics and Marcion.

Justin ---De Viris Illustribus 23
Theophilus ---De Viris Illustribus 25
Irenaeus---De Viris Illustribus 35
Philip---De Viris Illustribus 30
Modestus---De Viris Illustribus 32
Bardesanes---De Viris Illustribus 33
Rhodo---De Viris Illustribus 37
Hippolytus---De Viris Illustribus 61

"Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian was not yet fabricated up to at least the end of the 4th century.

"Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian is a forgery or false attribution.

[Bernard Muller]

Now examine De Viris Illustribus supposedly written by Jerome at the end of the 4th century, again there is no mention of "Against Marcion by Tertullian however at least 8 other persons are named who wrote against heretics and Marcion.

Justin ---De Viris Illustribus 23
Theophilus ---De Viris Illustribus 25
Irenaeus---De Viris Illustribus 35
Philip---De Viris Illustribus 30
Modestus---De Viris Illustribus 32
Bardesanes---De Viris Illustribus 33
Rhodo---De Viris Illustribus 37
Hippolytus---De Viris Illustribus 61

"Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian was not yet fabricated up to at least the end of the 4th century.

"Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian is a forgery or false attribution.

Notice what I bolded. Jerome only named what Tertullian wrote against the (catholic) church.

[b]Tertullian[/b] the presbyter, now regarded as chief of the Latin writers after Victor and Apollonius, was from the city of Carthage in the province of Africa, and was the son of a proconsul or Centurion, a man of keen and vigorous character, he flourished chiefly in the reign of the emperor Severus and Antoninus Caracalla and wrote many volumes which we pass by because they are well known to most. I myself have seen a certain Paul an old man of Concordia, a town of Italy, who, while he himself was a very young man had been secretary to the blessed Cyprian who was already advanced in age. He said that he himself had seen how Cyprian was accustomed never to pass a day without reading Tertullian, and that he frequently said to him, "Give me the master," meaning by this, Tertullian. He was presbyter of the church until middle life, afterwards driven by the envy and abuse of the clergy of the Roman church, he lapsed to the doctrine of Montanus, and mentions the new prophecy in many of his books.

He composed, moreover, directly against the church, volumes: On modesty, On persecution, On fasts, On monogamy, six books On ecstasy, and a seventh which he wrote Against Apollonius. He is said to have lived to a decrepit old age, and to have composed many small works, which are not extant.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Examine Church History attributed to Eusebius alleged to have been written in the 4th century.

There is nothing about Tertullian's Against Marcion" however there is mention of at least 9 persons who wrote against the heretics and Marcion.

Justin ---Church History 4.11.8
Quadratus---Church History 4.23.4
Theophilus ---Church History 4.24.3
Irenaeus--- Church History 4.25
Philip---Church History 4.25
Modestus---Church History 4.25
Bardesanes---Church History 5.13.1
Rhodo---Church History 5.13.1
Hippolytus---Church History 6.22.2.

Eusebius did not say much about Tertullian. He just quoted him only on historical details and named only one work, his Apology:

9. Tertullian also has mentioned Domitian in the following words: "Domitian also, who possessed a share of Nero's cruelty, attempted once to do the same thing that the latter did. But because he had, I suppose, some intelligence, he very soon ceased, and even recalled those whom he had banished." (HC, 3.20)

3. We have taken our account from the Latin Apology of Tertullian which we mentioned above. The translation runs as follows: And indeed we have found that search for us has been forbidden. For when Plinius Secundus, the governor of a province, had condemned certain Christians and deprived them of their dignity, he was confounded by the multitude, and was uncertain what further course to pursue. He therefore communicated with Trajan the emperor, informing him that, aside from their unwillingness to sacrifice, he had found no impiety in them.
4. And he reported this also, that the Christians arose early in the morning and sang hymns unto Christ as a God, and for the purpose of preserving their discipline forbade murder, adultery, avarice, robbery, and the like. In reply to this Trajan wrote that the race of Christians should not be sought after, but when found should be punished. Such were the events which took place at that time. (HC, 3.33)

5. Tertullian is a trustworthy witness of these things. In the Apology for the Faith, which he addressed to the Roman Senate, and which work we have already mentioned, he confirms the history with greater and stronger proofs.
6. He writes that there are still extant letters of the most intelligent Emperor Marcus in which he testifies that his army, being on the point of perishing with thirst in Germany, was saved by the prayers of the Christians. And he says also that this emperor threatened death to those who brought accusation against us.
7. He adds further:
"What kind of laws are those which impious, unjust, and cruel persons use against us alone? Which Vespasian, though he had conquered the Jews, did not regard; which Trajan partially annulled, forbidding Christians to be sought after; which neither Adrian, though inquisitive in all matters, nor he who was called Pius sanctioned." But let any one treat these things as he chooses; we must pass on to what followed. (HC, 5.5)

The reason why Eusebius treated Tertullian that way is probably because he became a "heretic".

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

... Jerome only named what Tertullian wrote against the (catholic) church.

Tertullian the presbyter, now regarded as chief of the Latin writers after Victor and Apollonius¹, was from the city of Carthage in the province of Africa ... He was presbyter of the church until middle life, afterwards driven by the envy and abuse of the clergy of the Roman church, he "lapsed' to the doctrine of Montanus, and mentions the new prophecy in many of his books.

He composed, moreover, directly against the church, volumes: On Modesty, On Persecution, On Fasts, On Monogamy, six books On Ecstasy, and a seventh [added] which he wrote Against Apollonius¹. He is said to have lived to a decrepit old age, and to have composed many small works, which are not extant.

From Halton, Thomas P., 'Saint Jerome': On Illustrious Men (Fathers of the Church, vol. 100), Catholic University of America Press (1999), pp.74-6

Tertullian becoming a Montanist is hardly ever raised. Was he ever an early 'orthodox Christian'?


¹ Apollonius*,

• "who is believed to have been bishop of Ephesus, and to have lived about the year 192."

• who is said to have written a work 'exposing' the conduct and practices of a Christian sect called Cataphryges, aka the Montanists -
  

  Montanism
  
  was labelled a heresy due to ... belief in new prophetic revelations. It was a prophetic movement that called for a reliance on the spontaneity of the Holy Spirit and a more conservative personal ethic. Parallels have been drawn between Montanism and modern-day movements such as Pentecostalism and the charismatic movement.[1]
  
  It originated in Phrygia, a province of Asia Minor, and flourished throughout the region, leading to the movement being referred to elsewhere as "Cataphrygian" (meaning it was "from Phrygia") or simply as "Phrygian".[2] It spread rapidly to other regions in the Roman Empire ... It persisted in some isolated places into the 6th century.
  .

* There are two wikipedia entries for Apollonius of Ephesus -

• Apollonius (bishop of Ephesus) (a brief entry)
  
  Apollonius of Ephesus, a fuller entry -
  
  • "He was thoroughly acquainted with the Christian history of Ephesus and the doings of the Phrygian Montanists. The unknown author of Praedestinatus says he was a Bishop of Ephesus.[1] However, the lack of support from other Christian writers makes this testimony doubtful. He undertook the defense of the Church against Montanus, and followed in the footsteps of Zoticus of Comanus, Julian of Apamaea, Sotas of Anchialus, and Apollinaris of Hierapolis.
    
    "His work is cited by Eusebius,[2] and is praised by St. Jerome,[3] but has been lost, and not even its title is known ..."
    
    
    ie. another supposedly 'highly-regarded' entity all we know about is via Eusebius
  
  ____________________________________________
  
  There were a number of other people named Apollonius
  
  • Apollonius (martyr)
    
    • a Christian of ancient Rome who was executed in the 2nd century, during the reign of the Roman emperor Commodus. He is said to have been a Roman senator. At his trial he mounted a defense of Christianity in the Roman senate, which was afterwards translated into Greek and inserted by church historian Eusebius in his history of the Christian martyrs, but is now lost. Nikephoros I of Constantinople confuses this Apollonius with Apollonius, 'bishop of Ephesus'.
  • Apollonius of Chalcedon, an ancient Greek Stoic[1] who taught philosophy. He was invited by the Roman emperor Antoninus Pius to come to Rome, for the purpose of instructing his adoptive sons Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus in philosophy.[2][3][4][5] Aurelius, within his Meditations, writes of Apollonius favourably.[6]
  • Apollonius, a Platonic philosopher of ancient Syria who lived about the time of the Roman emperor Hadrian —that is, the late 1st and early 2nd century— and is known to have inserted into his works an oracle which promised to Hadrian the government of the Roman world [Spartianus, Augustan History, "Hadrian" 2]
  • Apollonius of Tyana, early to mid 1st century AD
  As an aside, apparently "The number of persons of the name of Apollonius, who were natives of Egypt, is so great that unless some other distinguishing epithet is added, it is impossible to say who they were." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Egypt