aa5874

But, it was you who INITIALLY claimed that Marcion called Acts garbage.

Again, "Tertullian" is a most unreliable source for Marcion since it is WELL ESTABLISHED that he provided bogus or erroneous information about the dating, chronology, and authorship of the Gospels and the Pauline writings.

And again the document that "Tertullian" claimed was written by Marcion was ACTUALLY anonymous.

Justin Martyr was probably the EARLIEST Church writer to mention Marcion and did not even write about Acts of the Apostles, Luke, Saul/Paul, the Pauline writings or any writers of any Gospels called Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

On the other hand, Irenaeus was probably the first to claim Marcion rejected the Pauline Epistles and Luke but Irenaeus provided bogus and erroneous information about the Gospels and the Pauluine writings with respect to dating, authorship and chronology.

Irenaeus is not credible.

stephan huller

I didn't put garbage in quotes when I associated with description with the Marcionites. It was my description of what they said about the text.

Irenaeus cannot be thrown out the door like a five dollar whore. His testimony has greater weight to the study of early Christianity than anything you or I or even the most erudite modern scholar could possibly bring to the table.

That's why we have to come to terms with what he is saying, why he is saying and to whom he is directing it.

We don't have to agree with him but we have to understand him.

aa5874

What are you really saying?

stephan huller

What is this? I am saying that Acts is garbage and the Marcionites agreed with me as we can see by their frequent attacks against the references to Acts in texts like the Dialogues like Adamantius.

And this post is over because I disproved your main point that Origen disagrees with Tertullian.

You should thank me because now you can devote yourself to workable hypotheses.

darstec

What makes you think that Irenaeus was not a figment of Eusebius' imagination, or rather the words attributed to him, except perhaps for faith?

There is no evidence he existed. We have nothing directly attributed to him except what others said he wrote.

For that reason most of the early Christian patrons can be thrown out the door like a five dollar whore.

stephan huller

Well let's start at the beginning. There are these writings attributed to Irenaeus. Five books full of them. Scholars like to pretend that Irenaeus wrote the five book series one after the other stretching basically over the reign of Commodus. Even one of my favorite scholar Robert McQueen Grant holds this view.

But this doesn't make sense for a number of reasons. Tertullian translates a work which he called Against the Valentinians which clearly came from what must have been a source for the compiled work called 'Five Books Against All Heresies' or the Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called.

It's Saturday so I have to spend time with my family but let me begin to make a quick point.

There isn't a scholar who has ever studied this material who has ever doubted for a minute that Tertullian's Against the Valentinians was developed from Book One of Irenaeus Refutation and Destruction of Knowledge Falsely So Called. But few of them ever delve to deeply into the disagreements between the two versions of the text that have come down to us.

The point of this first discussion is to note that Tertullian clearly understands that something preceded what now stands as the first chapter in Irenaeus' book. Indeed Tertullian's version of the work has six chapters ahead of these words.

It is also worth noting that MOST of the material which follows in Irenaeus is retained by Tertullian, but there are notable differences in order - and most importantly - the OBVIOUS editorial addition in chapters eight, nine and ten are NOT present in Tertullian's text. The borrowing from Irenaeus in Tertullian has been outlined by Riley (thanks to Roger Pearse) as follows:

CHAPTER VII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.1.1
CHAPTER VIII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.1.2-3
CHAPTER IX -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.2.1-2
CHAPTER X -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.2.3-4
CHAPTER XI -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.2.5-6
CHAPTER XII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.2.6
CHAPTER XIII -- Begins with material from Iren. 1.3.1 and continues with Iren.1.4.1.
CHAPTER XIV -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.4.1
CHAPTER XV -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.4.2-4 (LOOSELY)
CHAPTER XVI -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.4.5
CHAPTER XVII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.4.5- 1.5.1
CHAPTER XIX -- FROM IRENAEUS 1. 5. 1
CHAPTER XX -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.5.2
CHAPTER XXI -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.5.3-4
CHAPTER XXII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.5.4
CHAPTER XXIII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.5.4
CHAPTER XXIV -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.5.5
CHAPTER XXV -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.5.6
CHAPTER XXVI -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.6.1
CHAPTER XXVII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.7.2
CHAPTER XXVIII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.7.3-4
CHAPTER XXIX -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.7.5 AND 1.7.3
CHAPTER XXX -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.6.2-4
CHAPTER XXXI -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.7.1
CHAPTER XXXII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.7.1 AND 1.7.5
CHAPTER XXXIII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.12.1
CHAPTER XXXIV -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.11.5
CHAPTER XXXV -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.11.5 (VERY CLOSELY)
CHAPTER XXXVI -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.12.3
CHAPTER XXXVII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.11.3
CHAPTER XXXVIII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.11.1
CHAPTER XXXIX -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.12.3

I can't stress how important this work of figuring out what the shape of Irenaeus' original text looked like BEFORE it was transformed in third century Rome. I think Tertullian was using an older version of the material and didn't even know the title, 'Five Books Against All Heresies.'

Photius alludes to 'lectures' which were preserved from Irenaeus which have questionable orthodoxy in Photius's mind. My theory is that since

(a) all scholars think Justin's Syntagma was added to Irenaeus's work
(b) since Tertullian cites from an anti-Valentinian treatise or 'lecture' written by Irenaeus WHICH ISN'T connected to the report about the Marcosians which follows in Against the Heresies chapter 13, Hippolytus's Book Six (I forget the chapter)
and
(c) because even Epiphanius uses a different version of Irenaeus still which attributes some of what is now attributed to the Marcosians to the followers of Heracleon

we have to begin to see that what we have that survives as 'Five Books of Irenaeus Against All Heresies' is really a polished and refined version of a series of lectures or treatises written by a mysterious late second century figure identified in Catholic sources as 'Irenaeus' (I grant the possibility that this could have been a name adopted later to someone of questionable character or orthodoxy).

The core material seems to come from an earlier period than Eusebius. Irenaeus often presents mythopoeic constructs such as 'redemption' (see Schaff). I don't want to get too deeply into this right now but the basic point is that what we have is a reworking of older material written by a man whose original beliefs weren't as 'orthodox' as they appear now.

The original material that Tertullian knew was rearranged in the final redaction of Five Books Against the Heresies.

Chapters 8, 9 and 10 of book one (all supposedly dealing with the Valentinians) were unknown to Tertullian. That means according to my mind that the third century editors added their own material as well as stuff originally attributed to the Marcosians to the Valentinians (the Marcosians because the opinions agree with Clement of Alexandria and he has been demonstrated by Schaff and others to consistently cite Marcosian material)

All of this means that this material is older than the editors who rearranged it. It wasn't 'invented' ex nihilo. Neither was Josephus or any of the early Church Fathers (even Ignatius has an authentic core preserved in the Syriac).

Got to go. Hope that helps.

mountainman

YES ..... it does seem that way.

This is not exactly the case of Origen destroying Tertullian
but rather the case of Tertullian slowly self-destructing ....

aa5874

I don't know what you are saying. You have disproved nothing.

"Against Celsus" 2.27
"Against Marcion" 4.2 "Origen" has destroyed "Tertullian".

stephan huller

Mountainman

Do you see what I am trying to show everyone. It's not a matter of simply rejecting the witnesses. It's approaching them critically and seeing that - for instance - the 'real Tertullian' is not allowed to speak as a Montanist against Marcion. We never hear them face off. Instead we have a layered text which

(a) begins as a series of works against Marcion (probably including a text by Justin or someone in his tradition - Rhodo?)
(b) Tertullian translates that original text into Latin and adds his own stuff AS A MONTANIST
(c) then there is an orthodox rewrite of that text after Tertullian died

The point is this isn't just 'my opinion.' Read the opening words of Against Marcion. Most of this acknowledged.

aa5874

"Tertullian" was a Montanist? Was it not the Church that claimed "Tertullian" was a Montanist?

The Church claimed the Pauline writings were written by one single character and that gMatthew was written before the death of Philo. And virtually everything they wrote about their own Lord and Saviour was fiction.

The Church records of their own have virtually ZERO credibility.