aa5874

It has been drawn to my attention that up to the writing of Church History in the 4th century that no Church writer ever attributed any writing "Against Marcion" to Tertullian.

"Against Marcion" consist of FIVE books and is by far the most voluminous of those attributed to Tertullian and the author even claimed that he wrote two versions of "Against Marcion" and that there was another version published by fraudulent means but full of mistakes.

Another book "Prescription Against the Heresies" also attributed to Tertullian contains information about Marcion but again is NOT mentioned by Eusebius in Church History.

When we Examine Church History, there are many persons, at LEAST 10, who supposedly wrote "Against Marcion" but Tertullian is NOT listed.

1. Church History 4.18.9--Justin Martyr wrote Against Marcion.

2. Church History 4.23.4--Dionysius wrote Against Marcion.

3. Church History 4.24.3--Theophilus wrote Against Marcion.

4. Church History 4.25----Philip wrote Against Marcion.

5. Church History 4.25----Modestus wrote Against Marcion.

6. Church History 4.25----Irenaeus wrote Against Marcion.

7. Church History 4.30----Bardesanes wrote Against Marcion.

8. Church History 5.13.1--Rhodo wrote Against Marcion.

9. Church History 5.17----Miltaides wrote Against Marcion.

10. Church History 6.22----Hippolytus wrote Against Marcion.

Eusebius mentioned 10 writers who wrote AGAINST Marcion and did NOT name Tertullian.

However, Eusebius mentioned Tertullian FIVE times in Church History and every time he ONLY attributed "Apology" to Tertullian.

1. Church History 2.2.4--An Apology is attributed to Tertullian.

2. Church History 2.25.5--Passages from Tertullian's Apology are mentioned.

3. Church History 3.20.9--Passages from Tertullian's Apology are mentioned.

4. Church History 3.33.3--An Apology is attributed to Tertullian.

5. Church History 5.5.5---An Apology is attributed to Tertullian.

Incredibly, although we have 5 books "Against Marcion" and "Prescription Against the Heretics" attributed to Tertullian where Marcion is mentioned over 300 times COMBINED and it is claimed that Marcion's "Antithesis" is Critiqued sometimes word by word and line by line in great detail Eusebius still did NOT mention this LARGE work against Marcion.

It would appear that "Against Marcion" and "Prescription Against the Heretics" attributed to Tertullian was UNKNOWN to Eusebius when he wrote Church History.

stephan huller

Tertullian's Five Book Against Marcion is a Latin translation (and reworking) of earlier anti-Marcionite treatises. Harnack, Grant (http://www.jstor.org/pss/1582702) and Qusipel all argued that Book Two derives from Theophilus's lost treatise. Book Three is obviously copied from the same source as Tertullian's Against the Jews, likely one of the treatises written by Justin against Marcion (cf. Photius Biblio.). Lastly Book Four and especially Book Five show clear signs to have been written by Irenaeus - in the case of Book Five from an original text written by Justin (see the long section in the middle of the work that has nothing to do with Marcion and instead makes reference to the same mistake Justin does in Dialogue with regard to Abraham being uncircumcized when he met Melchizedek). Tertullian does this time and again. Against the Valentinians is a copy of the source behind Book One of Against the Heresies. Against Hermogenes is clearly a copy of Theophilus's lost text. The list goes on and on.

aa5874

Now, when we examine writings attributed to Jerome about 70 years AFTER Church History again we have a similar list and Tertullian is NOT included as one who wrote Against Marcion or Against Heresies.

Examine De Viris Illustribus attributed to Jerome

De Viris Illustribus 23--Irenaeus wrote "Against Heresies"

De Viris Illustribus 23--Justin wrote Against Marcion

De Viris Illustribus 25--Theophilus wrote Against Marcion.

De Viris Illustribus 30--Philip wrote Against Marcion

De Viris Illustribus 32--Modestus wrote Against Marcion.

De Viris Illustribus 33--Bardesanes wrote Against Marcion

De Viris Illustribus 37--Rhodo wrote Against Marcion.

De Viris Illustribus 61--Hippolytus wrote Against Marcion

So, virtually for the ENTIRE 4th century from Eusebius to Jerome there is NO mention that Tertullian wrote 5 books Against Marcion and NO mention that he wrote the Prescription Against the Heretics.

In De Viris Illustribus, Tertullian is mentioned many times and he was described as a "Chief Latin Writer."

De Viris Illustribus 53 In the same chapter, it is claimed Tertullian, the Chief of Latin Writers, wrote On Modesty, On Fasts, On Monogamy, On Persecution, On Ecstasy and Against Apollonius.

It is Clear that up to the END of the 4TH century that it was UNKNOWN that Tertullian wrote 5 books Against Marcion and a book called Prescription Against the Heretics.

It would appear "Against Marcion" is NOT from the 2nd century at all.

"Against Marcion" appears to have been written AFTER the End of the 4TH century, at least AFTER De Viris Illustribus attributed to Jerome.

Duvduv

How likely is it that Tertullian even existed or at least wasthis apologist with this name?
For that matter what is the likelihood that any of these named individuals actually existed?
Who can say that Irenaeus existed? In fact one could say there is greater reason to believe Paul existed than did a guy named Irenaeus!

aa5874

Actually, the evidence suggests that Paul was completely fabricated. It would appear Ireneaus and Tertullian probably existed but most likely, wholly or in part, did NOT write many of the books atrributed to them.

It is clear to me that the Pauline writings as found written are a Pack of Lies with the intention to DECEIVE. The Pauline writings are based on a Fictitious event, the post-resurrection sighting of Jesus.

Not even the authors of the Gospels, Not even the LATE author of gJohn, claimed OVER 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus.

The Earliest Gospel in the Canon stated that even the visitors to the Empty Tomb told NO-ONE that Jesus was resurrected because they were AFRAID. See Mark 16.8

Duvduv

aa5874: Yes, as you know I have said that it entirely implausible that Irenaeus in Rome was writing about 4 gospels and epistles only 30-40 years after Justin supposedly wrote to the Emperor not mentioning anything about Paul, epistles or identified gospels.

Yet, assuming ALL epistles were "inauthentic," including those of people like Ignatius, WHAT prompted anyone to attach greater significance to anything written in some epistle by "Paul" like Galatians than to the writings of anyone else, to the point of even writing a book like Acts about this particular guy?

And since the epistles really are quite different in substance and tone from each other (Galatians and Corinthians MAY have been written by one person, but not by the author of Romans or Hebrews), WHO would have premeditatedly written a set of letters so well that any reader would naturally ASSUME they were all written by the same guy back in the FIRST century? Especially given the fact that the epistles as a whole reflect DIFFERENT religious ideas from those of the gospels?!

Roger Pearse

Perhaps so, although it's an argument from silence, remember.

But what tends to be forgotten here is the language issue. Tertullian wrote in Latin (mostly; his Greek works are lost anyway). Eusebius displays no knowledge of that language. The anti-Marcionite works that you list were all composed in Greek. His quotations from Tertullian's Apologeticum are not from the Latin, but rather indicate that a bad Greek translation existed.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Duvduv

Yes, but WHAT made "Paul" and the epistles written by "him" more significant than any others, making this non-person the pre-eminent figure in Christian history and apologetics even while there is a variety of theology???
Heck, even the "Creeds" of Nicaea, Antioch and Constantinople don't refer to the salvation of the believer through the indwelling of the Christ that is discussed in the epistles that were part of their own 4th century manufactured scheme........

aa5874

Roger, you are using an argument from SILENCE. Where is that "bad Greek translation"? You have NOTHING but your imagination.

Roger, you are really wasting my time.

You claim arguments from silence are not reliable yet you DEPEND upon SILENCE, your imagination, for your arguments.

Please, produce the "bad Greek translations" that you IMAGINED did exist.

And NOW, when passages from "Apology" is examined and compared with Church History they do NOT indicate at all that the author of Church History had a bad Greek translation.




Roger, it is quite illogical to claim that a bad Greek translated existed when there are NO such indications.

By the way, the disciples were NOT called Christians during the time of Tiberius based on the VERY NT.

Jesus did NOT start any new religion under the name of Christ in the EARLIEST Jesus story of gMark.

And people were FIRST called Christians DURING the time of CLAUDIUS, at least 3 years AFTER the death of Tiberius.

See Acts 11.25. Did Eusebius and Tertullian have bad Greek translations of Acts 11.25 and gmark 8?

Roger Pearse

Sorry you feel like that. I shan't waste your time further.

All the best,

Roger Pearse