stephan huller

Well I don't know if they are necessarily contradictory. In one he says attributes the corruption to Marcion in the other he is referencing Apelles and the like. I agree that it is cryptic and might point to something beneath the surface but I can't see how this disproves the existence of either Origen or Tertullian.

stephan huller

Here's the original Greek of your passage:

Μεταχαράξαντας δὲ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἄλλους οὐκ οἶδα, ἢ τοὺς ἀπὸ Μαρκίωνος, καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ Οὐαλεντίνου, οἶμαι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ Λουκὶάνου.

There's nothing unusual about this nor does it become problematic when compared to his statement that Marcion corrupted the gospel elsewhere. Μαρκίωνος is an identification of affiliation to a collective. Μαρκίωνος - i.e. 'those of Marcion' are a group which includes Marcion, just as in America we would say 'Palinites' which would include Sarah Palin or 'Reaganite' which would include Ronald Reagan.

Here's an example from a website:

What Makes A Reaganite?

Posted by DJ Drummond

Published: February 1, 2008 - 12:46 PM
The greatest President in the last century, if you are a Conservative, is Ronald Reagan. Because of this, every Republican wanna-be compares himself to the Gipper, and every Republican who wants to be President claims to be a Reagan Republican. The range of candidates making such claims is so broad, that frankly some of them have to be lying to make that claim. The trouble, of course, is that any of the posers would be quick to assure you that his opponent is the liar, while he is the real deal. So, rather than get into a prolonged ad hominem shootout, I think the better course for us would be to discuss the qualities of a true Reagan Republican.

Ronald Reagan made his mark even as he took office, when news broke that Iranian terrorists had released American hostages taken in 1979 when they overran the U.S. Embassy in Teheran. While the terrorists had meant for the gesture to be a sign of contempt against the Carter Administration, the public generally took it as a sign that Iran was far more worried about a Reagan White House than his predecessor, and that Reagan stood for a strong America. That image was his first legacy, and it still stands. Any Republican who would claim the Reagan mantle, must first be strong on the Military and resolute on National Security.

Reagan is also famous for Free Trade. Trade was an effective weapon against Communism, a force which Gorbachev could neither deny nor defeat. It was also Reagan's trump card for unifying the West and guaranteeing the preeminence of America in her alliances and associations. Reagan was the driving force behind NAFTA, and he was a constant advocate of a world without tarifffs or trade barriers. As much as Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan created and developed the concept of Globalization as we know it. Any Republican who would claim Reagan's blessing, must also be a thorough champion of Free Trade.

Reagan also stood for Free Speech. Reagan not only encouraged and energized the rhetorical forces of Conservatism, but he also listened and responded to Liberal arguments, either debunking false claims or building respect by accepting valid claims. Reagan properly recognized the 'Fairness Doctrine' for the Orwellian lie it was, and worked to dismantle it. Reagan knew and taught that free expression of ideas, concepts, debate was the best and surest means to creating open societies and truly republican democracies. Any Republican who would claim to be like Reagan, must support freedom for expressing opinion, especially in politics.

Reagan also stood for the United States Constitution. It was his constant desire for judges to obey the provisions, and the limits, of the Constitution and to limit government intrusion into the lives and freedom of American citizens to those boundaries explicitly defined in the Constitution. Any Republican who would claim to carry forward Reagan's legacy, must support constructionist judges and justices.

Those are my first thoughts on what it means to be a Reaganite.

Clearly this person uses the term 'Reaganite' in a positive way and when identifying what it means to be a 'Reaganite' he includes Ronald Reagan in that subset, which is presumably what Origen is doing when he speaks of the Μαρκίωνος. He is saying that Marcion, Apelles and any other Marcionite have corrupted gospels.

Sorry, but there is no way around this.

aa5874

I did not claim that "Origen" or "Tertullian" did not exist.

Look at the OP.

"Origen" destroys "Tertullian"

Now, when "Against Marcion" is examined you will notice that "Tertullian" admitted that it was an anonymous writing that he had attributed to Marcion.

There was NO NAME on the document.

"Against Marcion 4.2 Who really wrote the anonymous Gospel to which "NO author was ascribed"
even according to "Tertullian"?

Now, "Tertullian" appeared not to know who wrote ALL the Pauline writings, when they were written, and the profession of the authors. And "Tertullian" appeared not to know who wrote any of the Gospels including gLuke, when they were written and the profession of the authors.

"Against Marcion" by "Tertullian" is not credible. The Gospel he ascribed to Marcion was actually ANONYMOUS.

stephan huller

But there are also a number of times that Tertullian speaks of 'the gospel of Marcion.' He also accuses Marcion of forging Luke.

The problem is that the text has been rewritten a number of times and different arguments have been developed on top of one another.

aa5874

But "Tertullian" got into problems with the Gospels with respect to authorship, dating and chronology.

"Against Marcion" 4.2 "Tertullian" doesn't know what he is talking about. He is guessing or fabricating stuff.

stephan huller

When you say he was making stuff up, maybe the world was just reconciling a number of different traditions. I don't mean that we have to accept the choices that Irenaeus gives us - i.e. Matthew was connected with the 'Ebionites' and Mark with Peter etc. I just mean that Tertullian's lumping together of John and Matthew isn't without precedent. Look at what I found this week in a Old Coptic New Testament MS:

"He (Matthew) wrote it (the gospel) in the Hebrew language in Palestine and preached it in Jerusalem and (the) Indies after the Ascension of our Lord and Savior seven years, and John the son of Zebedee translated it in the City of Tongues, chapters 426, in common 350, apart (peculiar) 46."

The Epistle of the Apostles has an order with John first in the list of apostles:

We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches of the east and the west, of the north and the south declaring and imparting unto you that which concerneth our Lord Jesus Christ: we do write according as we have seen and heard and touched him, after that he was risen from the dead: and how that he revealed unto us things mighty and wonderful and true. [Epistle Apostles 2]

But the content of the gospel which follows mixes synoptic and Johannine material:

This know we: that our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ is God the Son of God, who was sent of God the Lord of the whole world, the maker and creator of it, who is named by all names and high above all powers, Lord of lords, King of kings, Ruler of rulers, the heavenly one, that sitteth above the cherubim and seraphim at the right hand of the throne of the Father: who by his word made the heavens, and formed the earth and that which is in it, and set bounds to the sea that it should not pass: the deeps also and fountains,that they should spring forth and flow over the earth: the day and the night, the sun and the moon, did he establish, and the stars in the heaven: that did separate the light from the darkness: that called forth hell, and in the twinkling of an eye ordained the rain of the winter, the snow (cloud), the hail, and the ice, and the days in their several seasons: that maketh the earth to quake and again establisheth it: that created man in his own image, after his likeness, and by the fathers of old and the prophets is it declared (or, and spake in parables with the fathers of old and the prophets in verity), of whom the apostles preached, and whom the disciples did touch. In God, the Lord, the Son of God, do we believe, that he is the word become flesh: that of Mary the holy virgin he took a body, begotten of the Holy Ghost, not of the will (lust) of the flesh, but by the will of God: that he was wrapped in swaddling clothes in Bethlehem and made manifest, and grew up and came to ripe age, when also we beheld it.

This did our Lord Jesus Christ, who was sent by Joseph and Mary his mother to be taught. [And] when he that taught him said unto him: Say Alpha: then answered he and said: Tell thou me first what is Beta (probably: Tell thou me first what is Beta. Cf. the Marcosian story quoted by Irenaeus (see above, Gospel of Thomas)- The story is in our texts of the Gospel of Thomas, and runs through all the Infancy Gospels). This thing which then came to pass Is true and of verity.

Thereafter was there a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and they bade him with his mother and his brethren, and he changed water into wine. He raised the dead, he caused the lame to walk: him whose hand was withered he caused to stretch it out, and the woman which had suffered an issue of blood twelve years touched the hem of his garment and was healed in the same hour. And when we marvelled at the miracle which was done, he said: Who touched me? Then said we: Lord, the press of men hath touched thee. But he answered and said unto us: I perceive that a virtue is gone out of me. Straightway that woman came before him, and answered and said unto him: Lord, I touched thee. And he answered and said unto her: Go, thy faith hath made thee whole. Thereafter he made the deaf to hear and the blind to see; out of them that were possessed he cast out the unclean spirits, and cleansed the lepers. The spirit which dwelt in a man, whereof the name was Legion, cried out against Jesus, saying: Before the time of our destruction is come, thou art come to drive us out. But the Lord Jesus rebuked him, saying: Go out of this man and do him no hurt. And he entered into the swine and drowned them in the water and they were choked.

Thereafter he did walk upon the sea, and the winds blew, and he cried out against them (rebuked them), and the waves of the sea were made calm. And when we his disciples had no money, we asked him: What shall we do because of the tax-gatherer? And he answered and told us: Let one of you cast an hook into the deep, and take out a fish, and he shall find therein a penny: that give unto the tax-gatherer for me and you. And thereafter when we had no bread, but only five loaves and two fishes, he commanded the people to sit them down, and the number of them was five thousand, besides children and women. We did set pieces of bread before them, and they ate and were filled, and there remained over, and we filled twelve baskets full of the fragments, asking one another and saying: What mean these five loaves? They are the symbol of our faith in the Lord of the Christians (in the great christendom), even in the Father, the Lord Almighty, and in Jesus Christ our redeemer, in the Holy Ghost the comforter, in the holy church, and in the remission of sins.

These things did our Lord and Saviour reveal unto us and teach us. And we do even as he, that ye may become partakers in the grace of our Lord and in our ministry and our giving of thanks (glory), and think upon life eternal. Be ye steadfast and waver not in the knowledge and confidence of our Lord Jesus Christ, and he will have mercy on you and save you everlastingly, world without end.

The Epistle is giving us the order of narratives in a rival Egyptian gospel attributed to John but which looks more like a Diatessaron (although the order is different). I think the gospel of Marcion looked like as well as Tatian's gospel.

The point is that even Irenaeus's order in Book III is wrong. Matthew is discussed first, then Luke, then Mark and then John.

Yes, they were 'making this stuff up as they went along' but that doesn't mean that there weren't older single gospel traditions before all of this 'reconciling' took place.

Always remember that the Syrian Church had a single gospel - the Diatessaron with a very different order to the Apostolikon (Galatians first etc). The history of the church is very complicated. That doesn't mean it was made up.

aa5874

Well, I am of the view that its complexity is a sign that it was made up. There are too many blatant contradictions and fiction found in the Church writings about Jesus.

One would expect that Jesus believers of antiquity who claimed to believe in a God/man Jesus, the TRUTH and the Life, would have been HONEST and truthful about their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ but what has been found is a PACK of LIES and Deception.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are a compilation of fiction and fraud so much so that even the Church writers or the Church itself cannot account for the actual authors and date of authorship of the Pauline writings up to today.

stephan huller

Ok Acts in my opinion is garbage. But it is garbage because we have the Marcionites saying it is garbage. That means there Christians of the earliest period who had a different understanding of history. That doesn't mean you will always have witnesses to prove that something is garbage. It just makes the argument more convincing and less subjective.

aa5874

What source of antiquity shows that Marcion claimed Acts of the Apostles was garbage? How could Marcion have said such garbage when it is most likely that Marcion died before the GARBAGE called Acts of the Apostles was written?

But, in any event, the conversion story of Saul/Paul in Acts of the Apostles is GARBAGE. And, the claims by "Paul" that he persecuted Jesus believers and stayed with a fictitious character called Peter for fifteen days are also GARBAGE.

Saul/Paul or the Pauline writers are associated with GARBAGE.

And we know who needed the garbage called Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings for their HISTORY.

By some miracle, the 4th century Church found a corroborative source for "Paul".

Guess who was a WITNESS to "PAUL", traveled ALL over the Roman Empire with him and preached with him?

The author of the Garbage called Acts of the Apostles.

What garbage!!!

stephan huller

The idea that the Marcionites did not accept Acts and the Pastoral Epistles is well established in the earliest Church Fathers. It is implicit in Irenaeus's attack against those who don't accept Paul as an apostle, who don't accept Luke and the Acts of the Apostle (various chapters in Book III). The idea appears in Tertullian Against Marcion and IS EXPLICIT in the Dialogues of Adamantius.

The word 'garbage' is not used. That's an Americanism. The term in the Dialogues is 'deceitful codex' I believe.