Tertullian On the Marcionite 'Heavenly Gospel' (Against Marcion Book 4:Chapters 4 and 6)

I have I think confirmed throughout detailed examination of Tertullian's original material what we uncovered in the Dialogues of Adamantius - namely that the Marcionite gospel likely began with Mark 1:1 - viz. 'the gospel of Christ' or some such variation - which was taken to prove that the text was written by Christ or came as a heavenly revelation.

Now let us move on to connect the gospel - i.e. the 'heavenly revelation' given to Mark - with the 'heavenly Torah' (i.e. the ten utterances) given to Moses.

We already suggested that the Marcionite position 'against the Law and prophets' might well have been in keeping with the interpretation of the 'heavenly Torah' that rabbinic authorities said was the original one in Israel - namely that only these ten were divinely inspired, the other six hundred and three came from the human authority of Moses.

We pick up where we left off in Tertullian's Against Marcion Book 4. In the last post we noted that Tertullian tries to twist the Marcionite emphasis of a 'heavenly gospel' into proof that they were 'hiding something' about the origins of their text. Now in chapter four Tertullian puts forward stark dichotomy:

I say that my (gospel) is true Marcion makes that claim for his. I say that Marcion's is falsified: Marcion says the same of mine. Who shall decide between us? Only such a reckoning of dates, as will assume that authority belongs to that which is found to be older, and will prejudge as corrupt that which is convicted of having come later.

Of course Tertullian makes the claim that his gospel of Luke came before the Marcionite 'heavenly gospel' which was without human author. He claims to have a letter in which Marcion claims to have once believed in the Catholic faith. I don't know what to make of such a claim as this 'original letter' isn't even cited.

Yet pay careful attention to the words with are used to describe Marcion's objection to the 'Law and the prophets.' We hear Tertullian write:

If that gospel which among us is ascribed to Luke — we shall see whether it is Marcion — if that is the same that Marcion by his Antitheses accuses of having been falsified by the upholders of Judaism with a view to its being so combined in one body with the law and the prophets that they might also pretend that Christ had that origin.

The Latin reads:

Si enim id evangelium quod Lucae refertur penes nos (viderimus an et penes Marcionem) ipsum est quod Marcion per Antitheses suas arguit ut interpolatum a protectoribus Iudaismi ad concorporationem legis et prophetarum, qua etiam Christum inde confingerent

Tertullian goes on to say:

No one passes censure on things afterwards to be, when he does not know they are afterwards to be. Correction does not come before fault. As corrector apparently of a gospel which from the times of Tiberius to those of Antoninus had suffered subversion, Marcion comes to light, first and alone, after [Jesus] had waited for him all that time, repenting of having been in a hurry to send forth apostles without Marcion to protect them.

And yet heresy, which is always in this manner correcting the gospels, and so corrupting them, is the effect of human temerity, not of divine authority: for even if Marcion were a disciple, he is not above his master: and if Marcion were an apostle, Whether it were I, says Paul, or they, so we preach: and if Marcion were a prophet, even the spirits of the prophets have to be subject to the prophets, for they are not (prophets) of subversion but of peace: even if Marcion were an
angel, he is more likely to be called anathema than gospel-maker, seeing he has preached a different gospel. And so, by making these corrections, he assures us of two things—that ours came first, for he is correcting what he has found there already, and that that other came later which he has put together out of his corrections of ours, and so made into a new thing of his own.

I see this as an echo of an original understanding of Mark (Marcion) as the one whom Jesus hailed as the messiah but that's another story.

Let's just focus on the parallels between those described in the rabbinic tradition as holding that only the ten utterances (Ten Commandments) came from heaven, the other 603 coming only from the authority of Moses and the Marcionites.

The Marcionites clearly hold that their gospel alone was 'heavenly.' Notice the words Tertullian uses in the quote just cited:

(Marcion's) heresy ... is the effect of human temerity, not of divine authority

Tertullian here is attacking the Marcionite claim that there text alone is a 'heavenly Torah.' Notice how the Marcionites are identified as attacking the gospels based on mere human authorities. They says that the 'heavenly gospel' was:

falsified by the upholders of Judaism with a view to its being so combined in one body with the Law and the Prophets

I don't want to go into the details of how Jewish mystical writers interpreted the Sinaitic revelation to Moses but it is one of two revelations to the community of Israel. The idea that this revelation was from a lower power is well established within the literature and would explain the Marcionite position.

Notice what Tertullian acknowledges about the Marcionite positon in other statements in his writings:

They (the Marcionites) allege that in separating the Law and the Gospel Marcion did not so much invent a new rule as refurbish a rule previously debased. [AM 1:20]

Tertullian objects to the Marcionite position saying that "he (Paul) himself
shows clearly that that adulteration of the gospel was not concerned with diversion of the faith towards another god and another Christ (i.e. other than Jesus), but with adherence to the regulations of the law." [AM 1:21]

In Against Marcion 3 Tertullian states clearly that the goal of Marcionites was not to convert Gentiles to Christianity but - strangely - to turn Jewish proselytes away from the "commandments of Moses":

Refuted however on the vocation of the gentiles, you now turn back to proselytes. You ask who they are from among the gentiles, that are passing over to the Creator, when those specifically mentioned by the prophet are proselytes, of a different condition, separate, by themselves: Behold, Isaiah says, proselytes by me shall come near unto thee,a showing that even proselytes were to come to God through Christ ... Proselytes however, whom you interpolate into the prophecy concerning the gentiles, do not as a rule hope in Christ's name, but in Moses' law, from which their instruction comes ... [and] so that here too you may learn that the Christ who was promised was not one powerful in war, but a bringer of peace ... Take notice even now of the inception and progress of (his) vocation to the gentiles, who since the last days are coming to God the Creator, that it was not (addressed) to proselytes, whose promotion (dates) rather from the earliest days. [AM 3:21 - 22]

We have all been stuck in a pattern of ONLY thinking of Christianity as being based on a mission to the Gentiles. What on earth could the Marcionite mission to the proselytes to Judaism have involved? Why emphasize a 'heavenly gospel' to them? How did this justify the 'abolition of the Law and prophets'?

I think my readers are getting the idea.

The idea that the Marcionites were only upholding an original position (see above) which argued that only the ten utterances were from heaven was the appeal to proselytes. Look at Tertullian's discussion of Jesus' statement regarding divorce:

When he [Jesus] forbids divorce ... must he not rather have defended than abolished Moses' regulation? But now, let us suppose that this Christ is yours, giving opposite teaching to Moses ... his teaching is not in opposition to Moses, for he in some form retains his regulation — I do not yet say he confirms it. If however you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ, how comes it that you yourself make separation between married people? For you neither allow the conjunction of male and female, nor do you admit to the sacrament of baptism and the eucharist persons married elsewhere, unless they have made conspiracy between themselves against the fruit of matrimony ... You to your shame refuse to join together those whom your own Christ has joined. To your shame you put them asunder without that just cause for which your Christ also would have them put asunder. It is my next duty to show you also from what source the Lord derived this judgement, and for what purpose he intended it. So it will become more fully evident that he had no intention of suppressing Moses' ruling by this sudden introduction of the subject of divorce.

Notice that Tertullian does not say that 'Marcion' is against 'God's commandments' or the 'commandments issued by the Creator' as some might have expected. Instead there is a consistent identification of these laws as deriving their origins solely from the authority of the man Moses. Indeed at one point he even goes so far as to say that Moses actually had greater authority than the angelic power - the Creator - whom he spoke on behalf of. Nevertheless 'the Law' would clearly be understood by the Marcionites as deriving from the authority of the man Moses.

Tertullian says of the anger of the Lord against Israel for making the Golden Calf:

On that other occasion also God made himself little even in the midst of his fierce anger, when in his wrath against the people because of the consecration of the (golden) calf he demanded of his servant Moses, Let me alone, and I will wax hot in wrath and destroy them, and I will make thee into a great nation. On this you are in the habit of insisting that Moses was a better person than his own God — deprecating, yes and even forbidding, his wrath [AM 2:26]

Can my readership begin to see the justification that Marcionitism was developed out of a position that the ten utterances came from the God Most High and the rest of the 603 commandments were developed solely on the authority of Moses?