ph2ter

Please, tone down your excitement.
I don't believe in every word which was written by the apologists. They had interest to pervert the real meaning of the party which they were attacking.
For the balanced opinion you must have evidence from both sides participating in the conflict. We only have one side and it is enigma to me how you have managed to reach such high level of certainty.

aa5874

I WON'T tone down until you understand that I ONLY deal with EVIDENCE not your personal convictions.


I am not really interested in what you believe or do not believe, or your convictions, I can ONLY show the written evidence.

Again, if you read the written evidence of antiquity you will see that EVEN so-called apologists CONTRADICTED one another.

I have showed you that Hippolytus in "Refutation of ALL Heresies", Justin Martyr in "First Apology", and Origen in "Against Celsus" CONTRADICTED "Tertullian" in "Against Marcion" even though all are supposed to be apologetic sources.

In effect, we have "hostile witnesses" who are giving different sides of the story.

stephan huller

aa,

So what? The Sadducees and the Pharisees were both Jewish groups and undoubtedly agreed on many things with one another. They had disagreements. Why do you always take this line of reasoning? Tertullian's source in Against Marcion was undoubtedly a Syrian writer who used a Diatessaron and whose Apostolikon began with the Letter to the Galatians (like Ephrem the Syrian). Tertullian was just the translator or perhaps the final editor.

What's your point?

Chili

But it is not about Christ but about being a Christ.

stephan huller

No I think it was about being χρηστὸς but that's another thread ...

aa5874

UNDOUBTEDLY you have NO CREDIBLE HISTORICAL SOURCE for your claims about "Tertullian".

In "Against Marcion" "Tertullian" UNDOUBTEDLY claim the writing he attributed to Marcion had NO AUTHOR ascribed.

"Against Marcion" 4 You line of reasoning is DOUBTFUL.

Please show where "Tertullian" UNDOUBTEDLY used a SYRIAN SOURCE.

stephan huller

The reason the Marcionite gospel is said to have had no (human) author or 'Christ' as its author (cf. Adamantius Dialogues) is because - as Origen intimates - Mark 1.1 appeared at the beginning of their narrative (i.e. 'the gospel of Christ').

I don't know what to say about the original author of Against Marcion being a Syrian who used a Diatessaron other than to say:

a) various reports make clear that the Marcionites used some kind of gospel that had material found in all four of our canonical gospels (not just Luke)
b) the introduction of Against Marcion (1.1) makes clear there were more than one authors
c) Against Marcion Book 3 is a retread of Against the Jews which is in turn some older text translated into Latin
d) as William notes there are a number of times where - what we must presume to be the original author - cries that Marcion has taken things out of 'his gospel' which were never in Luke in the first place. The only way the argument makes sense is if the original author was using a Diatessaron.

This actually gets confirmed if we look at the order that Tertullian ends up tackling the letters of the Apostolikon - i.e. Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, etc

Very few people know this but this is the order of the Syrian canon used by Ephrem who also used a Diatessaron.

http://books.google.com/books?id=MS4...atians&f=false

It was Danny Mahar who actually pointed this out to me years ago and I think he's right. Epiphanius just lazily followed Tertullian or another Syriac source and just assumed that the odd order was reflective of Marcion rather than the source (there a number of times in Against Marcion where the actual order of the Marcionite canon reveals itself and it began with 1 Corinthians as the Muratorian canon).

Book Four and Five of Tertullian's Against Marcion have been borrowed and developed from a second century anti-Marcionite work WHICH TAKES FOR GRANTED THE OLD SYRIAC CANON. In other words, Tertullian's source used a Diatessaron in Book Four and a canon which went Galatians, Corinthians, Romans etc. and then Epiphanius WRONGLY assumed that the unique canonical ordering of the epistles in Tertullian's treatise (or his even his source) reflected the Marcionite canon rather than that of the original source (who he assumed to be 'orthodox' and thus had a canon that went Romans, Corinthians etc.).

There can be no doubt that Tertullian's source used a Diatessaron. There are just too many times where he says that something is missing from 'his gospel' that is not in Luke. If someone used a Diatessaron isn't it probable that they used the Old Syriac canon too (the Diatessaron was used as the only gospel text in Syria until the fifth century).

Scholars over look the fact that the Marcionite canon WAS NOT the same as that of Ephrem and the Old Syriac. Ephrem accepted 3 Corinthians. The Marcionites had 'to the Laodiceans' and 'to the Alexandrians.' You can't simply transpose one tradition onto the other.

Also I think that the Marcionite tradition began with the text called 'to the Corinthians' in our canon BUT WAS NAMED 'to the Alexandrians' in the Marcionite tradition. As such the reason why 'to the Corinthians' is first in the canons WEST of Syria in the early period was all western traditions were developments from the Marcionite tradition was based out of Alexandria.

I think it makes intuitive sense that an Alexandrian tradition would place 'to the Alexandrians' first in their canon for the same reasons that the later Roman tradition eventually placed 'to the Romans' first in their canon. Self-interest and self-promotion is to be expected (and encouraged) in the world.

The fact the Muratorian canon testifies that the Romans once had 'to the Corinthians' first makes explicit they 'borrowed' or 'appropriated' (I would say 'stole') their canon from the Alexandrians but that is another story ...

aa5874

You have only ASSUMED "Tertullian's" source was the Diatessaron and in your assumption you have INHERENTLY made "Tertullian" to be NOT credible.

You are in effect claiming that "Tertullian" had the Diatessaron and FALSELY claim he used gLuke or that "Tertullian" had an ANONYMOUS writing similar to the Diatessaron and SIMPLY called it gLuke, or that "Tertullian" was NOT really familiar with gLuke or the Diatessaron.

In any event, once you argue that "Tertullian" used the Diatessaron INSTEAD of gLuke, you are arguing that "Tertullian" lacks credibilty.

stephan huller

I didn't just 'assume' that the Diatessaron was the gospel being used by Tertullian's original source. Many people have puzzled over the question. I just happened to have solved the problem by noticing the parallels with regards to Ephrem's Apostolikon and that of Tertullian's source. The argument about the Diatessaron was already floating around in my head (especially with Armenian reports about a 'Marcionite Diatessaron'). The pattern with respect to the Apostolikon confirmed my intitial suspicion.

There are other arguments too. The language in certain parts of Tertullian's argument - i.e. his referencing 'my gospel' (in the singular) versus 'Marcion's gospel' etc.

With regards to Tertullian's lack of credibility - who cares? He has SOME credibility. More credibility that you or me. He wrote a book on Marcion and Marcionitism (or borrowed material from lost earlier sources).

That makes him invaluable.

Tertullian is like if you were stuck on the moon with a not so great looking 200 pound woman with no hope of every getting rescued. If you want to make ki-tomba, Tertullian is Jessica Alba.

ph2ter

Nothing, however, in Pontus is so barbarous and sad as the fact that Marcion was born there, fouler than any Scythian, more roving than the waggon-life of the Sarmatian, more inhuman than the Massagete, more audacious than an Amazon, darker than the cloud, (of Pontus) colder than its winter, more brittle than its ice, more deceitful than the Ister, more craggy than Caucasus. Nay more, the true Prometheus, Almighty God, is mangled by Marcion's blasphemies. Marcion is more savage than even the beasts of that barbarous region. For what beaver was ever a greater emasculator than he who has abolished the nuptial bond? What Pontic mouse ever had such gnawing powers as he who has gnawed the Gospels to pieces? Verily, O Euxine, you have produced a monster more credible to philosophers than to Christians.(Against Marcion by Tertullian)

The first chapter of Against Marcion by Tertullian gave me idea to think. Some connection between Paul and Markion is maybe indicated by their involvement with the lands close to the Euxine Sea. The most remarkable letter of Paul deals with the Galatians and for Marcion is said to be from Sinope. In that area and in that period from the inscriptions is known that there lived the communities of Jews. They attracted considerable body of Gentile 'God worshipers' and proselytes. Those 'God worshipers' or Theosebes as they were called, attended the Jewish prayer houses together with the Jews but they were not circumcised. Jahve was called by them 'Theos Hypsistos' - the God Most High. Although such title is not exclusively used by the Jews and does not always denote the Jewish God, this is the title which the Jews used for their God when living in that area. The people which worshiped Theos Hypsistos were organized in associations which were called thiasoi or synodoi. A monument dedicated to "god Most High" (Theos Hypsistos) at Sinope in Pontus refers to "the praying brothers" (hoi adelphoi euxamenoi; Doublet 1889). At Tanais northeast of the Black Sea existed association referring to itself as "the adopted brothers worshiping god Most High" (isopoietoi adelphoi sebomenoi theon hypsiston 212.-240 CE).
Similar sort of brother language is attested also in Paul's letters. In Egypt also was usual to address association members in such a familial way (for example in a papyrus from Oxyrhyncus a man makes an oath pertaining to initiation into mysteries making mention of both the leader of the group "father Sarapion" and his fellow initiates, "the (mystical) brothers" (mystiko]us adelphous)
When Paul speaks of his congregations his language resembles the language and practice of such cult associations (thiasoi): gathering, eating, praying, including initiation cermonies into secret mysteries.

So, I think that it is attractive to speculate that Paul/Mark could be originally a Jew from Pontus, Sinope. Is this possible?
Marcion going to Rome from Sinope, staying there with Peter some time, conflict with Peter in Rome and then going to Alexandria?