stephan huller

Maybe you shouldn't do this if your life counts on the information. But most of us here aren't believers. Our lives don't depend on the accuracy of the gospel narrative or the Church tradition. While it may be difficult to know with any degree of certainty what the truth is about early Christianity, the fact that we can demonstrate that information about 'Marcion' and the Marcionites is suspect it raises questions about the reliability of our knowledge on other subjects from these same sources. Moreover, it is fun to test the limits of knowledge.

stephan huller

Getting back to the discussion. If this is the first statement that Tertullian gives us about the gospel - and presumably the beginning of the gospel:

As noted earlier it isn't entirely clear where the Catholic gospel stops and the Marcionite gospel begins. Tertullian does this quite frequently. And I think it stems from his reliance on Irenaeus as a source. Irenaeus's tactic against the heresies (and especially the Marcionites) is to (a) argue from the Catholic texts to argue for the falseness of the heretical opinion and (b) to make the consistent case that the Law and the prophets should not be separated from the gospel. We shall see both these tactics repeatedly demonstrated.

stephan huller

The next statement in Tertullian is something very specific which apparently comes from his text of Luke (and he presumes was shared with the Marcionite gospel):

Let's see now if we can find the word 'appear' in the narrative in Luke. Here is what I see in the appropriate section in Luke:

I don't see the word 'appear' in the Vulgate nor in the Greek. An interesting dilemma - one of many confronting the real student of Marcion. Perhaps what Tertullian says later will help clarify matters:

and again:

While the exact Latin word does not appear here it is interesting to possibly connect Jesus's 'appearance' at the synagogue in Capernaum. It is also important to note that Tertullian has just finished telling us that the Marcionite gospel 'cut' the census narrative and the virgin birth. Notice though that Tertullian continues to speak as if these scenes are 'really' there. In other words, he is citing from his own gospel and arguing against the Marcionite text (= what is said in Tertullian is never an accurate guide for what is in the Marcionite text)

stephan huller

No I think I solved the mystery of where Tertullian is getting the word 'appeared.' Indeed I am certain it is correct. The Diatessaron reads:

You couldn't see this if you were looking only at the English translation of the canonical gospels for Matthew reads:

The Vulgate reads for the emboldened text "et sedentibus in regione umbræ mortis, lux orta est eis." But Tertullian doesn't cite from the Vulgate. The original Hebrew of Isaiah 9:2 reads ṣalmaweṯ (dark) owr (the light) nagah (will shine) ‘alehem (and). The LXX φῶς λάμψει ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς.

As a side remark it is hard not to get the sense that 2 Corinthians is referring to this verse - "Light shall shine out of darkness" (σκότους φῶς λάμψει ὃς ἔλαμψεν). So too John chapter 1 makes an allusion too.

As far as I can see the Diatessaron seems to have a unique reading here. I will have to pass this on to my friend Tjitze Baarda. This is one of many proofs which point to Tertullian's source using the Diatessaron. As we shall see ...

Bernard Muller

To maryhelena,
The Epistula Apostolorum, which can be dated no later than 156 (that is the time of Justin Martyr) does mention Paul with some details which appear only in 'Acts of Apostles'.
Of course, despite the rather arbitrary late dating from the List, '1 Clement', 'Colossians', 'Acts of Apostles', 'Ephesians', '2 Thessalonians', '1 Timothy', '2 Timothy', 'Titus', '2 Peter', Ignatian 'to the Ephesians' are dated before 150 by most critical scholars. All the aforementioned texts mentioned Paul. Except for 'Acts', these texts are either pseudo Pauline epistles or mentioned Paul wrote letter(s).
I studied the dating of '1 Clement' here.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller

to aa,
According to your methodology (a Christian text was first written at the time of the earliest known manuscript containing part of that text), are you going to revise your conclusions?
You have work to do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Dating_the_New_Testament_manus cripts

Cordially, Bernard

aa5874

Tertullian's "Against Marcion" could NOT have been reliant upon Irenaeus.

It is claimed that Jesus was Crucified at about the age of 50 years when Claudius was Emperor by Irenaeus.

It is clear that Irenaeus had NO idea when Paul Preached Christ Crucified.

If as Irenaeus claimed Jesus was CRUCIFIED under Claudius at about 50 YEARS OF AGE after being about 30 years in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius then Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters MUST be historically bogus.

Jesus would have been crucified c 49 CE.

Peter and Paul PREACHED Christ Crucified since 37-41 CE in Acts and the Pauline letters

Effectively if Against Heresies 2.22 is historically accurate the statements in Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letter in the very same Against Heresies are a Pack of Fiction.

In Against Heresies 3 Irenaeus claimed Clement of Rome was the THIRD Bishop AFTER the Apostles but Tertullian REJECTED it and claimed the RECORDS of the Church of Rome show that Clement was the 1st Bishop AFTER Peter.

If Clement was the First Bishop of Rome as Tertullian claimed then Against Heresies is a Pack of Lies.

Against Heresies is just NOT credible and MUST have been manipulated. "Against Heresies" is a Massive Forgery and is even contradicted by Apologetic sources.

Our present "Against Heresies" was NOT known until Irenaeus was dead.

"Against Heresies" was PLANTED in the Hands of Irenaeus.

stephan huller

Before we go back to Tertullian to see clearly that he is citing the equivalent of Matthew 4:16 it is important that we gain some context for the Diatessaron reading. While the Didascalia cites Isaiah 9:1 - 2 initially, it seems to also know the variant reading:

aa5874

Your claim that the Epistula Apostolorum can be dated NO later than 156 is utterly illogical and unsubstantianted.

We have NO manuscripts of the Epistula Apostolorum dated to the 2nd century and NO data in the Epistula Apostolorum that could NOT have been written or inserted after 156.

In fact, the earliest Manuscript of the Epistula Apostolorum is dated to the Late 4th-5th century.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apostolorum.html

Please, please!!! We cannot accept your PRESUMPTIONS AS EVIDENCE ANY LONGER. Those days are over.

stephan huller

So it is that when we go back to Tertullian Against Marcion it is absolutely certain that Tertullian is NOT citing from the Marcionite gospel but some strange variant gospel - like none we have before us - which went from 'the fifteenth year of Tiberius' immediately to Matthew 4:15 - 16 as we read:

Now we know from Ephrem that the Marcionite gospel instead of 'Nazareth' had 'Bethsaida' (cf. Luke 4:14 - 30). Matthew 4:15 - 16 summarizes the same journey from Nazareth to Capernaum:

While assuming a stop in Nazareth, the actual details of this visit are only found in Luke strangely:

Now Tertullian makes it clear throughout that Marcionites understood Jesus to be a supernatural divinity that just popped down from heaven. As such Luke's consistent emphasis that Jesus was 'at home' with 'people he knew' and knew him at Nazareth is a deliberate addition. Yet another example of an attempt to present Jesus as a human being.