aa5874

Please, Just produce the "bad Greek translation" to prove that you are NOT making an argument from Silence.

Examine the FACTS.

"Church History" 3 "Apology" 5 Your claim that a "bad Greek translation" existed is an argument from BLATANT SILENCE or Total Imagination since it is NOT indicated in the Written Statements in "Church History" and "Apology".

PhilosopherJay

Good points in this thread. The lack of mention of this important work, Tertullian's "Against Marcion" in both Eusebius and Jerome makes it source very problematical.
There does seem to be evidence as Stephan Huller indicated that it was cobbled together from other works, but by whom and when and why is still a problem.
It is possible as Roger Pearse pointed out that we have a Latin work unknown to Eusebius (and Jerome) or only known somehow through a bad anonymous Greek translation.
Being uncertain about the date and authorship of this work raises all kinds of questions and possibilities.

Warmly

Jay Raskin

stephan huller

But the question of when the final version was established is less important than the fact the original material is consistently dated to the latter half of the second century. For some reason Patristic writers were practically falling over one another to write “Against Marcion” texts in this early period. Perhaps the only interesting question to ask about Tertullian is why were such works still important in the third century (they can't be dated to the fourth century because by then Mani became the heretical obsession).

aa5874

But, the fact that writings attributed to Apologetic sources do NOT mention any of the FIVE books of Tertullian "Against Marcion" is ONLY part of the problem.

Apologetics Sources also Contradict "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian.

1. Justin Martyr Contradicts "Against Marcion" when he claimed Marcion preached ANOTHER God and another Son, NOT Jesus the Son of the God of the Jews predicted in Hebrew Scripture.

2. In "Refutation Against all Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus it is claimed Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings but those of Empedocles.

3. In "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen it is claimed that it was the Followers of Marcion that manipulated the Gospels.

4. In writings attributed to Ephrain in the 3 books "Against Marcion" there is NO mention that Marcion used the Pauline writings.

It is extremely significant that Apologetic sources which Contradict Tertullian AGREE with each other.

"First Apology" LVIII Ephraim “Against Marcion” 3Ephraim “Against Marcion” 3 So for about 200 years from the mid 2nd century to the mid 4th century, Tertullian's "Against Marcion" is UNKNOWN and Contradicted.

Tertullian's "Against Marcion" may have been written AFTER Ephraim's Prose in the 4th century.

stephan huller

This is actually interesting because I was just reading Origen Contra Celsum and I can see that everyone one of these ideas has been lifted from the pages of that book. Curious. Is Justin reacting to the True Word? I think so. The only difficulty is that it is difficult to prove that Celsus actually named 'Marcion' in that treatise. If we set a date of 152 - 153 as the date that something was written by Justin (there are clearly later additions in the text) that would push Celsus's True Word's publication date to before that time. I actually think that the date of publication of the True Word is closer to 147 CE through indirect evidence. Celsus mentions the Marcellinians and the Harpocratians (as two different sects). The original text of Hegesippus's Hypomnemata did not include a reference to Marcellina the Carpocratian (someone fused the two references in Celsus) but then a later editor (Irenaeus?) added a mention of Marcellina to the end with some sort of reference that Hegesippus continued to hang around Rome for some time.

What can we make of this? Not only did Irenaeus want Hegesippus to provide 'additional information' or to clarify whatever Celsus wrote about the Christians he met at Rome but more importantly he was prompted to do this because Hegesippus never mentioned any of these details in the first place. The two must have written at the same time, been present in Rome at the same time otherwise it wouldn't have 'made sense' to think that Hegesippus could have seen Marcellina. The internal reference to 147 CE as the original date for the Hypomnemata is determinable through two methods I think from the surviving evidence (Clement and Epiphanius). With regards to the date for the True Word as Cook notes there is nothing whatsoever in the text to date the material other than the fact that he lived during the reign of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius (d. 161 CE). Cook brings forward the fact that the scholiast on Lucian of Samosata (independently) supports Origen's identification.

Cook makes clear there is no way to firmly date the work but picks 160 CE as being as good a guess as any. I think we have to push that date back at least ten years because (1) the fresh references to the reign of Hadrian throughout i.e. frequent Antinous references, the fact the Jews revolted recently and were banned from setting foot in their homeland etc.

The important thing to keep in mind is that it is unlikely that Celsus mentioned Marcion by name nor the Marcionites. Origen only says that Celsus 'had the Marcionites in mind' throughout the text and then Justin seems to make those passages which Origen determines make reference to the Marcionites are actually about Marcion. In other words, here is yet another near contemporary Christian writer who likely wrote a letter which made absolutely no reference to the Marcionites whatsoever and then a later editor determined it should take on more of the charges head on. I think Irenaeus figured that Justin was writing to Antoninus Pius because of the charges in the True Word. This must have been seen by Irenaeus as being a historical 'fact.' Yet the difficulty with that reality is that this could also imply that Celsus's attacks were actually directed against Justin's Church or hit against things Justin believed in (why else would he respond to the charges - sort of like when your wife thinks something is true because you get more hostile)?

To make it clear that Celsus's charges were viewed by Justin as 'misundertandings' Irenaeus adds the reference to Marcion and Simon and says 'you really meant these guys not us' ...

aa5874

It is generally claimed that Justin wrote Before Celsus who wrote BEFORE Origen.

Justin is reacting to wanton persecution of Christians and wrote to the Emperor and people of Rome and Origen is reacting to Celsus "True Discourse".

Duvduv

Besides the issue of Tertullian we have to wonder about these other named writers who were so important to Christianity that no one bothered to save their writings and only get mentioned by Eusebius or Jerome, who relied on Eusebius.
Modestus was considered the greatest by Eusebius who as usual doesn't bother to bring citations. Even the claim that Justin wrote against the bogeyman Marcion is based on one claim without even a single citation.
So much for all types of writings against the bogeyman from the second century sources .....

Isn't it strange how so-called epistles were meticulously preserved anonymously somewhere but extensive books could not be preserved?!

Duvduv

I also still think that the name Paulus as the author of letters of varied ideology was originally not intended as a personal name but as a descriptive pseudonym "the Small One" used by more than one personof a non-gospelist sect. Indeed, so much of the literature well into the 4th century shows no interest in the worldly teachings and life of the Gospel Christ at all.

aa5874

Please name some of the "literature well into the 4th century" which "shows no interest in the wordly teachings of Jesus Christ of the NT.

Duvduv

On the contrary, which literature did care about such information? The Pauline epistles? The creeds? The letters of Arius? Or of Alexander? The Clementines? The Ignatians?
Who reminded and discussed about the Baptist or the Sermon on the Mount?
Who goes into detail about the parables? Do the so-called early apologists? Who talk about the lives of the so-called apostles? Heck, even Acts doesn't. Acts doesn't even suggest that Paul had the slightest awe and reverence for those who he believed saw the Christ and talked to him.

And it goes without saying that no one cares about salvation through faith and the indwelling of the Christ in the believer and vice versa.